Someone posted the following statement by Matt Slick on my Facebook fan page, “Since atheism cannot be proven, and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible.”
From the get go, someone decided to take the low road and jump directly into a logical fallacy.
Charlie Reid wrote:
That’s rich coming from the intellectually dishonest Matt Slick who’s ministry is based on a teenage delusion.
I, as True Freethinker, replied:
Friend, your comment is a textbook classic example of the logical fallacy know as ad hominem.
True Freethinker, afraid not mate, Slick is a charlatan and his dishonesty is being exposed every Sunday on the BTWN show, which is why he is stopping doing them. I presume as you cannot disprove Santa Claus, he exists? Claiming you are a freethinker is the height of intellectual dishonesty, unless you have proof for your sky daddy?
I suggest you watch his interaction with Chaswold about a year ago where he was forced into the intellectually dishonest position of claiming “i know because i know,” any idea what textbook fallacy that is?
Afraid so mate, your initial comment was an ad hominem: attacking the person whilst leaving the argument un-replied to. The fact that you are attempting to clean it up is another issue.
Okay now, unless he has stated that he is stopping making BTWN appearances because his charlatanry and dishonesty is being exposed then I would imagine that you are attempting to play mind reader as to his motivations for doing so.
But let us come to specific issues:
1) Why is any of this an issue for you?
2) You are holding Matt and myself to standards logic, truth and ethics but upon what basis?
3) What would be considered proof of that which you term “sky daddy”?
4) Just how is me claiming to be a freethinker the height of intellectual dishonesty (hint, please ensure that you check various definitions and not a dogmatheistic one)?
5) As for disprove Santa Claus: been there, done that:
Before I reply to your list can you address his core belief, “I know because I know.” Shall i presume you cannot justify Slicks nonsensical assertion? Perhaps you can explain ‘Since atheism cannot be proven’ do you understand what an atheist is?
I would have to hear/read how and why he stated “I know because I know,” in what context, etc. There are at least two sects/denominations of Atheism and so whether or not “atheism cannot be proven” or can be depends on the definition.
True Freethinker he claimed to be in the presence of god as a 17 year old, when asked how he could tell it was god he has repeatedly claimed “i know because i know.” Without all the semantics atheism is merely the rejection of all the god claims, a bit like asantaism, apixism or aunicornism. Not believing a claim cannot be disproven theists shift the burden of proof because there’s no tangible evidence for a god hence “i know because i know.”
I see you’re posting more nonsense without addressing my comments, you are just another fundie nutcase trying to push your nonsensical hate filled religion on people and should be banned from Facebook.
Friend, as anyone can see we have interacted and I replied to you. Yet, for some odd reason you continue committing logical fallacies, have decided to abscond from engaging in reasoned discourse, are expressing hatred via childish taunting, are generalizing, are expressing theo-phobia, are condemning without a premise and are in favor of censorship. How tragically sad—please reconsider.
True Freethinker the only thing that’s sad my persecuted fundie ‘friend’ is your delusion of being a true free thinker whilst rambling incoherently like a confused child. Like Slick you obviously don’t understand logic, atheism, phobias nor what a fallacy is so, for the third time, please stop shifting the goalposts and address my point, do you think believing something without evidence, “i know because i know” is a reasonable position to hold?
By the way your Santa Claus(e) article is filled with assertions and fallacies without actually disproving Santa. Perhaps you don’t understand what evidence is.
“To consider various issues from a Judæo-Christian worldview.” And you call yourself a true free thinker, if it wasn’t so sad it would be laughable.
Well, merely asserting that I have stated something inaccurately is not demonstrating that such is the case.
Now, taking your word for it: Matt stated “I know because I know” within the context of being in the presence of God as a 17 year old.
Well, much of what all us believe we believe without evidence if for no other reason that evidence and the verification thereof is actually virtually an infinite regress. For example, I believe in Z based on Y and Y based on X and X based on W, etc. This also pertains to the evidence I would need as to why I can trust my cognitive abilities, etc.
This is why if I asked why you believe in a tremendous number of things without evidence you would have to say as much: we simply cannot verify everything before we believe it for various reasons including that you would have to verify the very methodology whereby you claim to employ so as to verify in the first place and on it goes.
Also, different people have different subjective standards of what counts as evidence: for example, Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins admitted that there is some evidence for God’s existence but not enough according to their subjective standards.
I would imagine that Matt was saying that au fond, he cannot verify it according to whatever your subjective standards are, but that he personally knows because he knows.
Now, I will presume so correct me if I am wrong: it is likely that you believe (without evidence of course) that nothing caused nothing to explode for no reason and made everything without meaning. Add a very long series of happy accidents and here we are to talk about it. Your thoughts are interpretations of bio-sensory neural reactions occurring within haphazardly evolved brain of a temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organism, sitting atop a spinning rock, orbiting and average star in the backwaters of a temporarily and accidentally existing universe.
Thus, the questions become why is it a concern of yours to hold others to standards of logic, truth and ethics?
And he decided to reply no more.
Yet, in this meanwhile, Neil Yoder wrote (and yes, it is quoted as it was posted):
QUOTE: “Disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God.”
>> OK – C’mon – let’s use a little logical sense here.^^ 😉
……Soundly refuting or “disproving” evidences for God provides a COMPELLING CASE for there being no God.
This completely discounts CARM’s hoity-toit claim of “Intellectual Indefensibility”
..an INTELLECTUAL DEFENSE provides the basis for disproving certain evidences.
CARM [Matt Slick’s site] is merely tilting the playing field a bit – DISHONESTLY, I might add. 😉
QUOTE: “Since atheism cannot be proven”.
>>NONSENSE. Fuzzy, Vague statement. An atheist can “prove” his belief in atheism by stating his belief and providing arguments to support it. :p
…once again – let’s use a little logical sense here…
One might as well conversely claim “SINCE THEISM CANNOT BE PROVEN”
or even>> “SINCE DEISM CANNOT BE COMPLETELY PROVEN”.
Hello friend, long time no well, nothing. Hope you had a nice Christmas. Now, you seem to imply that there is something wont with the statement “Disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God.” And yet, you actually reinforce that statement by writing, “Soundly refuting or ‘disproving’ evidences for God provides a COMPELLING CASE for there being no God.” Since “a COMPELLING CASE for there being no God” is not the same as to “prove there is no God” then you agree that “Disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God.”
^^It’s a matter of degree. A COMPELLING CASE, provides a point-by point process, that if continued LIKELY, eventually result in a sound proof of the nonexistence of a God. Essentially *proving a negative* beyond a reasonable doubt
Let’s not be in such a hurry for *Instant Gratification* 😉
A COMPELLING CASE can also provide a point-by-point process eventually resulting in the positive hypothesis of the existence of a Supernatural Deity person!! 😀 >>I say “HYPOTHESIS” since a *PHYSICAL positive, functioning, real-time proof* of a Supernatural Deity person has never been achieved.
However, localized dis-proof of given sets of theological arguments, producing a “NO GOD” result have been achieved many times. 😉
Of course, all of that it based on the subjective interpretations of bio-sensory neural reaction occurring with the brain—a brain that haphazardly evolved to survival—of an accidentally and temporarily existing bio-organism (aka you) sitting atop a spinning rock, orbiting around an average star in the backwaters of a an accidentally and temporarily existing universe. So, why it relevant to subject the God question to scrutiny?
In the meanwhile, Crystal Evans wrote:
What if you choose not to believe?
Neil Yoder replied:
Crystal, being a woman^^ – do not be surprised if Rabbi PseudoJesus [one of his pet-names for me] treats you with the utmost scorn and utter contempt!!! (y)
Crystal, choose not to believe what?
Neil Yoder That is a generic assertion, a jumping to conclusions without showing your argument’s work, please read this: http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/find-it-fast-fast-facts-bible-misogynistic
heh-heh….Patriarchal Judaic Culture, dear friend. I would NEVER-EVER accuse a poor little Bible of assaulting or hating on women. On the other hand I wouldn’t be surprised if large numbers of women would consider the Bible to be a pretty boring date, though 😉
^^ HER: “Gosh, you sure don’t ‘SAY’ much, do you…!!” 😮
Well, Crystal never replied and I could not bring myself to reply to Neil especially since the article to which I pointed him debunked his assertions.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
–>Continue reading →