Saturday, November 28, 2009

@GospelToday "Fixes" His Lies by Just Rewording It.

No comments:
He says he changed his blog to better reflect my stance, however it still says I have "faith" in abiogenesis and I never had a personal relationship with Jesus. It's a sad day when an atheist has to tell you how to be a better Christian:

Friday, November 27, 2009

@GospelToday Bears False Witness; Sinner!

I was leaving @GospelToday alone because I gave up trying to reason with someone who was clearly unreasonable. He lives in a very black and white dichotomy world where something is either 100% absolute truth or it is completely false and a lie. There are no shades of grey, ever. I was doing a damn good job until tonight when he did something that disproves what all Christians pride themselves on having over atheists, a strict obligation not to bear false witness.

Now I have no idea why he bothered to try and restart the shit storm again. I has said nothing to him. There were creationist Christians who asked me to stop debating him because they thought he was a horrible spokesperson for their viewpoint. Kind of like if I was to debate Ann Coulter on the tenants of Christian conservatism over someone with a little more brains, like say, Karl Rove. I gave up and gave in to their requests and left him alone. So why he decides to start it up again is beyond me.

He posts this blog entry then tweets me a link. I will post a link here but I know his intellectual dishonesty will prevent him from posting a link here. In it he says that I claim to be an ex-christian but that can't be true because I never had a personal relationship with Jesus. Which is a lie. I have told him on many occasions that I did believe to have a personal relationship with Jesus. I was active at my church, I lead prayers, I offered myself for baptism, all of it. It wasn't until I had questions no one at the church could answer that I decided to find the truth on my own by reading the Bible cover to cover. This is what lead me to understand that my personal relationship with Jesus was just something I manifested myself. Much like Hindus see and hear Lord Krishna in the flesh, how Scientologists can see Body Thetans, how other religions and tribes all claim to see Gods and incantations of spirits that defy the Christian doctrine. From then I became a deist and later an atheist.

He would really like to believe that no one can realize his imaginary friend was anything but the real Jesus and called me a liar, which is why I call him an asshole, then propagates this lie that I never had a personal relationship with Jesus and therefore not a true christian. This is the logical fallacy known as "No True Scotsman" where a broad statement can be made about a group of people and when someone provides examples of people in the group with out said attribute it's usually retorted with "Well, they are not TRUE christians." Yea, whatever. Real christians can and do leave their silly bronze age believes and myths for reason, believe it or not.

I think this is his line of thinking across all platforms. Don't believe what is most probable, believe in whatever sounds better. It sounds better to know there's a God making sure you're ok and then reward to with eternal bliss then knowing there isn't in his opinion, so he justs goes with that and defends it to all lengths. Much like he doesn't like the idea of "real" or "true" Christians to leave, so he refuses to believe it. Same with cosmology, chemistry, and biology.

He claims I have "faith" in abiogenesis. This is probably the biggest lie in the whole blog. He knows I don't accept abiogenesis as a fact. I have stated this clearly on many occasions. I have stated it seems to be the best viable hypothesis at the moment but there still a lot of research to be done before we can accept it as a scientific theory. Do I have faith in any form of science? Fuck no! If I did, that would be very unscientific of me. In science we don't try to prove what we want to be true. We try to find explanations that are falsifiable to understand our world and try to test to see if it is false. If a new idea came about that overturns the theory of evolution and provides clear, articulate, and demonstrable evidence for it, I would be more than willing to accept it. This is not the case for creationist logic.

Creationism doesn't have arguments for, just arguments against evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang. No creationists ever try to get their papers showing evidence FOR intelligent design. Why? How do you scientificly prove a clam that "a miracle occurred." The whole of intelligent design can be completly dismantled by a single cartoon.

Try to disprove evolution, the big bang or abiogenesis all you want. Even if you did have a valid point that all scientists accept, it will never lend a shred of credence to intelligent design or creationism.

However, he points out that it is evolution (it's not) by saying that in the 60's and 70's, it was called "chemical evolution." Well you know, it doesn't matter what they called it in the 60's and 70's because we have learned a lot in the last 4-5 decades about science and a lot of old ideas have been proven wrong and favored ideas that seem to work. The ideas of today regarding abiogenesis will probably be thrown out for better ideas as we get closer to an understanding of what happens of pre-life earth. Science doesn't nor ever does claim to have all the information regarding everything, science is the quest to get there. Creationism asserts it is right, and scoffs at evidence against. He doesn't even have a 5th grade understanding of what sicence is or does. Instead he insults it and demeans it, then uses the very products of it's evils (computers and the internet) to disprove it to me. What a dick!

So just a few quick points on his claims about abiogenesis. because i'm not going to defend an idea I have little stock in to show he doesn't even understand it AT ALL.

1. Says that a CO2 dense atmosphere would not allow organic compounds to form. Unfortunately organic compounds already existed in space long before life. Meteors are rich in organic compounds which is one of the ideas of the origins of organic compounds on earth.

2. Darwin never tried to prove or explain the origin of life, only the origin of species. hence the title. His 19th century speculation plays no role in a scientific pursuit of completely different realm of science.

3. Naturalism is very plausible, even in the face of your denialism. If the current explanation of abiogenesis is incorrect "magic made done it" is not an explanation for anything. It's just a don't ask placeholder for it.

If you want to live in a mindset the propelled the dark ages and destroyed progress, fine. Do it on your own time and place. Don't propel everyone in it with you as well, we're all still enjoying the renaissance. Also don't call me a liar when clearly the only liar in this room is you.

So say what you want about my non-belief in god and my accepting of good scientific ideas, I don't have to lie to explain them to you like you have to lie to prove me wrong.

On a further note, I always have comments enabled and only delete trolling and spam. You don't like discussion and is the epitome of creationist think. Talk over everyone and don't allow them to rebut.