July 4, 2020

Eviscerating Atheopathic Objections Again

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In previous years, I had a stalker who was a gold mine for bigotry and logical fallacies. Since he was repetitious and desperate for attention, I decided to instead utilize the abundant resources on teh interwebs. This next furious atheist is another clinquant example of what atheism does to the mind.


An unusual post that starts in the middle of a series of posts, but you will catch on. This angry atheists attempts to respond but only makes things worse.
Background image credit before modification:
Supposed dark matter ring in galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17
Hubblesite (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
This article is going to be a bit tricky to write, but I reckon that I can skip some material and let you catch on, plus give you relevant links. Let me start with some background. This troll Page shares material from Christians and biblical creationists for the purposes of ridicule. I have never seen a cogent argument from her or from her adoring fans. Lots of mockery, straw man arguments, the genetic fallacy, and other typical fare from atheopaths. Also, when she is caught in a lie, she doubles down on it.

To narrow our focus for this examination, I wrote a post titled "Dark Matter Does Not Occupy the Universe", which was shared to The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook. She shared it (naturally refusing to actually engage with the content) and made a number of risible assertions. I followed up with a "Note" that dealt with the ridicule.

Now we come to where she decided to slap leather with me, and this where I returned fire. My original comments will be in green and hers will be in a color that can be called brown. My new comments will be in black. You savvy that, pilgrim? Good. (Dr. Jason Lisle has used this technique.) Also, note that when people want to have intelligent debates, formal or otherwise, they need to know and accurately represent what their opponents actually believe and teach. She does neither.





I just love it when creationtwits think they've "eviscerated" me. Let's tear apart this crap you obviously spent so much time to put together:

//Take a look at this example from an anonymous atheopath (Curtis said it’s someone named Lori)//

My name isn't "Lori". Nor am I a female. So you're 0 for 2. Great start!

She had been called Lori several times before and never objected, and also never denied being female before. Also, since she has been caught lying before, I lack belief that she is being truthful now. (Let's see if anyone catches my own fallacious arguments in that first sentence.) Also, she ignored my remark about being anonymous, a fact which is undisputable.

//whose biggest fan ridicules under a fake name//

Obvious reference to El Bastiano who has never gone by a "fake name" as he's explained a number of times. So, a lie.

It is not a lie, and there has been no evidence given to support the "lie" accusation. By the way, how does anyone know that this character has "never" gone by a fake name? The possibility that I was mistaken was not considered. However, "El Bastiano" now posts under a completely different name now that has no resemblance to the former name. Looks like the accusation of "liar" is itself false.

Let's continue...

//She doesn’t even have the courage to read the things she assumes are wrong or lies//

Again, I'm not a "she". And yes, I won't read crap from creationist sources when it comes to matters of science. Why is it that you can never cite legitimate scientific sources when you make scientific claims? Hmmmmm???

Doubling down on the genetic fallacy. First, rejecting creationist sources and using prejudicial conjecture as well as straw man arguments. Second, "legitimate scientific sources". We have been through this. Apparently, "legitimate" means "atheistic naturalism that supports my presuppositions". This is supported by the refusal to honestly examine any creationist material, whether from someone like me or numerous creation scientists. Mayhaps these people will actually learn what we say? This is one of those people who essentially says that there are no creation scientists. Why? Like the old bumper sticker, "If it ain't country, it ain't music". Well...


I said:

//Scientists know that dark matter exists because they can calculate the amount of mass and it doesn't account for the amount of gravity.//

This is a fact. Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4x6N0uAkTQ

Oh, well if he says it, then everyone who disagrees must be wrong. Especially if it's on YouTube or Wikipedia! Except that this is the appeal to authority fallacy. While Dr. Tyson (who was not under discussion before) is a celebrity popularizer of naturalism, including stellar and biological evolution, he is not the final arbiter of scientific truth. He may change his mind, what then?

She (my accuser) lied by omission because the Note from which she cherry-picked remarks (as well as the original post that brought on this gunfight) had secular scientists who admit that there is no evidence for dark matter. There are other statements in the Note that she ignored as well. Helps to confirm the bias and make her look good to her fan club, don'tcha know.

You respond:

/No, that’s a talking point (an erroneous one at that) based on presuppositions of the Big Bang. //

No, it's not a "talking point", so that's a lie. And it also has nothing to do with "presuppositions of the Big Bang". Scientists don't "presuppose" anything that hasn't been demonstrated to be true. "Presupposing" is what creationists do.

Now she's getting angry and this is like dealing with a schoolgirl who had her big striped lollipop taken away by her third grade teacher. Reminds me of that other stalker who constantly exclaimed, "You're a liar!" Contradiction is not refutation, and the Big Bang is not only a matter of faith that is believed despite the evidence (plenty more about that here), but it is unrecognizable from when it was first postulated.

//For that matter, evidence for the Big Bang is so poor//

Source to back up this ******** claim?

She can see the above link to links, as well as the posts she shared to her Page for the sake of ridicule.

I wrote:

//So they know something is out there.//

You respond:

//Of course, by limiting other possible explanations and seeking to confirm a bias, evidence can be tortured so much, it will confess to anything.//

And what other "possible explanations" are there? Nothing else has ever been demonstrated. Whaddya got here? And "confirmation bias" is the exclusive domain of creationists. They always ignore evidence that doesn't conform to what they want to believe and embrace anything that hints at those beliefs. Noah's Ark, anyone?

She is a village atheopath, not a scientist. And not even honest, since she refuses to examine the material she mocks! Like the old Resurrection lie, "The disciples stole Jesus' body while we were sleeping" (someone cannot know what happened while asleep), how can anyone seriously claim that no other possible explanations have been demonstrated? It does not take much effort to discover that confirmation bias is not "the exclusive domain of creationists". It is common with evolutionists, geologists, politicians, and anyone else. 

Consider: "They always ignore evidence that doesn't conform to what they want to believe and embrace anything that hints at those beliefs." Easy accusation to make, but it is prejudicial conjecture and deflection; this same accusation as been successfully demonstrated by creationists against naturalists for many years. The "Noah's Ark" line has nothing to do with the rest of this, and is simply a non sequitur.

//People like this should know that God exists because the evidence is all around them.//

Pathetic. The world makes complete sense if there is no loving god watching over us. The world makes absolutely NO SENSE if there is a loving god watching over us. And again, the claim that "evidence is all around us" without actually pointing out what that evidence is. Rainbows? Puppy dogs? Sunsets? Give me a break.

Straw man argument again (rainbows, puppy dogs, and so on were not mentioned) as well as prejudicial conjecture and misotheistic bigotry. "The world makes absolutely NO SENSE if there is a loving god watching over us." What empirical method did she use to reach that emotionally-based conclusion? Yes, the evidence is all around. If she does not appreciate beauty and things that bring happiness, she should consider that she has life, a body designed by the Master Engineer to keep her alive this long, a world in a perfect position in space, and so much more. What an ingrate!

I wrote:

//They just haven't yet figured out exactly what it is.//

You respond:

//Similar to Darwinian Evolution of the Gaps, wishful thinking and hoping that maybe perhaps possibly scientists think that some day, evidence will be found//

No "wishful thinking" here. That's what you do. And there is no such thing as "evolution of the gaps". You're thinking of "God of the gaps". And I have no doubt you hope scientists don't find any evidence because that would remove one of the few refuges you have left for you to to shoehorn your god into.

Yes, it is indeed wishful thinking and Evolution of the Gaps (or Science of the Gaps, if you will). Not only Darwin, but evolutionists through the years have freely admitted that they do not have evidence to support their views, but believe things anyway. George Wald and others have explicitly stated that they believe things that are impossible to science.

The other statements are more prejudical conjecture and a bigoted tantrum. Seems to me that her epistemology is fundamentally flawed.

//that ain’t science, girlfriend, that’s blind faith.//

No, "blind faith" is exactly what you have. Because aren't you proud to say you have faith?

Back to the "I know you are, but what am I?"-style approach. The blind faith has already been discussed.

//We’re “knuckleheads” for denying something that scientists admit has no evidence other than something that is occasionally inferred?//

They DO have evidence! They can calculate the mass that's out there and the amount of gravity! They don't match up! So SOMETHING is missing! They just don't know what yet! Just like how they knew there was a Higgs Boson particle before they actually discovered it. This isn't mumbo jumbo and making guesses. Try to keep up here.

Don't stamp your foot at me, missy! Comparing the over-hyped Higgs Boson particle to dark matter is a bit of a reach, and also a distraction from the faith-based pronouncements of evolutionists. Try to keep up here.

And I love how you bring Bible quotes into a discussion on science. Hard to argue when you have evidence like that on your side.

The Bible was not being presented as scientific evidence. She presupposes atheism and denies God, but also pretends on that Page that there is nothing true in the Bible. That is absurd even on the surface, but her epistemology demands rescuing devices — even if they are simple assertions and contradictions.

Taking it further, atheism is irrational and incoherent. It lacks the necessary preconditions of intelligibility that are found in the biblical worldview — beginning with creation. There is no evidence for atheism, but only metaphysical machinations. There has never been any archaeological or historical claim in the Bible that has been refuted by actual evidence. Nor have other matters about science, but atheistic presuppositions require interpreting observable evidence against God's Word; can't allow a theist to be right about anything, now, can we?

So much for being "eviscerated"!

Oops, I did it again. Kindly gather your entrails as you exit. But go ahead and leave your presuppositions and epistemology in the trash. I know it's too much to ask, but you need to stop unrighteously suppressing the truth about the God that you know exists. From there, humble yourself and repent. You need to make Jesus Christ your salvation. The alternative is pure Hell.

This is the most time I have spent on this hatetheist and I intend to avoid such fireworks and probable time wasting in the future. Perhaps others will learn from this. By the way, here is an annotated screenshot of the diatribe.



0 comments:

Subscribe in a reader