Thursday, August 6, 2009

Michael Shoesmith is an Idiot

Or plays a very convincing one - it's hard to tell sometimes. It reminds me of Poe's Law - this definition from the Urban Dictionary:

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

In other words, No matter how bizarre, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.

Michael Shoesmith has sent a number of letters to the editors and has even added comments to this blog. I haven't really paid attention to what he has had to say because it is the exact same rhetoric that every other deluded apologetic uses when making their irrational and basis claims.

However, I recently (only minutes ago) approved a comment of his (he's commenting on an old post so it requires moderation) in which he claims that atheism is a religion (just as the saying goes, then bald is a hair colour) and that the 5 doctrines of atheism are: Cannibalism, Elitism, Defeatism, Liberalism, and Naturalism.

Time and time again, we hear religidiots claim "atheism is a religion" which is an odd argument to make. Are they saying "Atheism is bad bad bad because it is a religion" and then suggesting that because of that, we should not be atheists and join their religion? Or is it "Atheism is no better than christianity because it is a religion too"? Either way, the logic doesn't follow.

Atheism does not tell a person what to think - it is the lack of beliefs and lacks any tenets that must be followed. Atheists prefer thinking over believing, evaluating over accepting and reason over dogma - nothing more and nothing less.

To suggest that atheists are defeatists doesn't follow either. Many people who claim to be atheists would argue that we won't settle for not knowing something and that things that we do not know today may be known in the future. A "believer" in most religions would be accepting of "defeat" in not knowing the answers - simply accepting bronze-aged writings of common man as the most we may ever know.

Atheists are elitists? Is that house of Michael's constructed completely of glass and do I see a rock in his hand? To simply work from the definition of elite, who is more "elite" than someone who claims to "know" (and never backs it up!)? Who is more "elite" than a group that pushes/supports/requires indoctrination and unquestioned beliefs? Definitely not most atheists. To use the definition of "elitist", however, you are left with wondering if Michael has ever looked the word up. What is more elitist than the Catholic church (or any church group for that matter)? I'd venture to say, with almost certainty, nothing.

Many people don't understand the "cannibalism" reference so I thought I'd explain what is often meant by this comment from religious whackjobs (a group that Michael Shoesmith is obviously a card carrying member of) - as people who accept that evolution is a fact and a theory (evolution happens and there are theories to explain it), they obviously accept that we are related to all living plants and animals on this planet. Because of this, eating plants and animals is "cannibalistic" - yes, that is what they claim. And since we are well aware of the relations and willingly eat our "ancestors", it follows that we have no limits. It is, apparently, a well known fact (as in "it is a fact that a 600 year old man built a boat that housed two (or seven) of every living creature on earth", type of fact) that atheists eat their brothers and sisters. (Let's never mind the fact that evolution does explain that there are SPECIES and cannibalism relates to one's own species.)

Liberalism. It may be true that more atheists subscribe to the idea of liberalism but it is far from a "doctrine" (atheism is not a religion - there are no creeds, tenets or doctrines) that is followed. I would suggest that I am liberal (not a Liberal) but I do not hold steadfastly to any ideas to which I have not sufficiently researched.

I suspect that Michael included "naturalism" because all "isms" are bad (?). But I would suspect the vast majority of atheists would, by definition, fall in this group. There is insufficient evidence to ever need to resort to supernatural explanations. Atheists, by definition, don't follow gods or religion, they don't believe in revealed works and, without evidence, won't believe in (or resort to) "supernatural" explanations.

Michael Shoesmith - your comments and arguments may work in the echo chamber that is christianity but they fail miserably with any person who uses reason and thought as an approach to such claims. As in your belief in sky fairies and your adherence to a sexist and oppressive religion, just because you think it or say it does not make it true. Atheism is not a religion (and if it was (and it definitely isn't), what kind of argument are you trying to make?), the bible is full of inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions and there is no evidence to support belief in a deity.

Oh, and for people looking for giggles and definite evidence to support the title of this post, check out The Internet Pastor - Michael Shoesmith! (I'm not kidding - when you see his site, you'll understand why I'm reminded of Poe's Law)


NathanColquhoun said...

Hey Skeptic.

I find you both (Michael Shoesmith and yourself) to be both extremists of "religions" that I don't adhere to whatsoever.

It is obvious as to why Michael Shoesmith falls into this category, but I don't think you understand why you do or why I would consider you following a religion.

Let me give you an example.

Let's say you and I are arguing for the historical existence of Christ. There is proof for both sides of the debate, and when the debate is over, we still land on different sides. You believe that Jesus did not even exist as a person, let alone God who died and was resurrected, and I believe it. You have chosen to align your beliefs with the side of non-belief even there is plenty of sufficient evidence that he did in fact exist, and I choose to align my beliefs with the side of belief, even though there is plenty of arguments against it. In the end you and I both make a decision based on the evidence before us. Both of us are using some faith, some experience, some logic and some science to make our decision. That to me proves that you and I are no different. Now onto why I think you are more like christian fundamentalist than me.

It seems (by proof of almost every post on this blog) that your religion is very strongly based on opposing people who don't believe the same thing as you. Almost every post has a smart ass comment ripping into someone who doesn't follow your religions rules. Almost every post is dissecting and arguing against what someone else said that you don't agree with. Call it what you will, but whatever it is, it is very close to the reasons why I couldn't deal with fundamentalist Christianity.

It was fueled by what it wasn't rather than what it was. It was fueled by an elitist attitude of I'm right and you are wrong, so it sucks to be you. It was fueled by a selfishness rather than a selflessness. To me this is religion. Religion is a system that creates rituals that makes us feel better from day to day. Your religion is just fueled of the mistakes of other religions. Your rituals are based on arguing, skepticism and atheist doctrine. You are just on the other side of the line, but you are just as much of a fundamentalist as the people you can't stand.

P.S. Does the Internet pastor dude live in Sarnia?

Still waiting to grab a coffee with you sometime.


sarniaskeptic said...

Nathan - atheism is not a religion. And, as Paul says (I, as a math major made the same mistake), it's evidence, not proof that we're looking for.

I don't think there is much evidence to support the historical divine christ and I'd be curious to know what evidence it is that you have to support such a belief.

(I'll also create a post with questions that I think a believer has to answer - at least to themselves if not to me. I'd be curious to see your answers and how you came to them.)

My point about Michael Shoesmith and him being an idiot is simple - he wrongly claims that I am religious by saying that atheism is a religion. He may claim that he is not an idiot but I think I laid out, unlike what he did, a strong case for considering him to be such.

As for my "attitude" in the posts, you're right and I'm proud of it. I think that absurd claims need to be justly mocked. As you can see, I don't mince many words in doing so, either.

I will admit when I am wrong, I will present what I believe is sufficient evidence to justify my claim and I expect others to do the same. When the same claims (that have been absolutely demolished) are used (parrotted, really), it becomes clear that reason and evidence isn't important to some people. Those people ask to be mocked.

I am a "fundamentalist" in so far as I do think that the truth is important and a person who is perpetuating myths and lies needs to be held accountable for such. I don't believe in the "live and let live" idea when it comes to the inanity that is religion as it relates to public policy, public education and the rights of others.

Nathan, I have admired your willingness to question certain aspects of the church and the religion that you adhere to. I don't admire that you see the need for churches and religions to continue to exist. I also do not share in your feeling that another church was even necessary in Sarnia.

I believe you actually do some thinking for yourself but I question the need for the same stories to be told over and over and defended over and over every Sunday (or more often) in churches - especially if they're true stories.

Science is a valid (if not THE valid) way of determining provisional truths. The bible, koran and other writings have done nothing to further our attempts at reducing suffering, providing equal rights and increasing the standards of living. They have, for the most part, done exactly the opposite. I am not suggesting that we take away hope but I do think that we should stop pushing false hope (ultimate lies) to people.

If you don't think that what I have to say is true, I'm open to additional evidence but if you have nothing to offer to a conversation but the inane babble that other creatards offer (and I'm referring to Michael Shoesmith not you as I think you have much to contribute), I'll be sure to let you know in my own loving way.

Thanks for the post and coffee (hot chocolate for me) won't be far off.

corunnaskeptic said...

Faith can do crazy things to people like Michael Shoesmith. It can make them reject reality outright, which is why it is dangerous.

People like Shoesmith can claim all day what atheism IS, but as you said, you can't make bald a hair colour; it is the absence of hair.

People who try to infer the ethics, politics, attitudes etc. about people who claim to be atheists are simply deluding themselves. Atheists only share one thing in common: they don't find the purported evidence for the existence of supernatural beings to be valid.

Whenever a religious person tries to claim what my ethics or politics is simply because I happen to be an atheist, I tell them the same thing: One is defined not by what they DON'T believe in but by what they DO believe in.

Anonymous said...

Nathan, there is absolutely zero evidence in your jesus christ ever existing. The bible is not evidence. It is a bunch of stories written by sheep herders and copied from other religions of other eras - watch the zeitgeist movies or "the god that wasn't there" movie for more complete explanation.

Nathan, you are delusional because you believe in religion. There is absolutely zero evidence that there has ever been any gawd(s).

Atheism is NOT a religion.

I do belong to the church of the flying spaghetti monster though and you cannot prove his noodliness doesn't exist - hey, just like your belief in invisible sky fairies.

Get real people.


NathanColquhoun said...

Hi RAmen, thanks for responding.

You and I will disagree with that pretty much. Tons of the history that we know is written by biased people groups who have re-written stories to share their views on there lives. Just because that's who wrote it down does not all of sudden make it false. (Critical Reasoning 101, just because the wrong people are saying it, doesn't make it not true, even if it makes it unlikely.) It just makes it biased. Absolutely 0 evidence? C'mon, and you call me delusional? Not only do you have the largest movement known to man coming from Jesus Christ, you have historians from outside the movement who have written about the historical Jesus such as Phlegon, Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, Thallus...just to name a few.

While I'm not saying this is 100% solid proof that there was a fact a Jesus of Nazareth, you can't say with confidence that there is 0 proof. I will give it to you that my proof isn't rock solid, but heck, whose is? We are talking about a man from 2000 years much proof can we hope for? However, even if you interview a mass of people after a hockey game about the highlights of the game, you will get different styles of answers, maybe even different answers and opinions on the game. This doesn't mean the game didn't happen. It looks that you are pretty delusional yourself if you can't consider all these options as see it as evidence, even if you try to disprove it all after.

corunnaskeptic said...

Hi Nathan,
I'm able to be convinced that a man named Jesus lived at one time but the only problem is that the only info we have on him is from the gospels, and that Jesus is a supernatural Jesus. I reject the supernatural because there is no such thing as that so I have to reject the idea of this historical Jesus.

Sure, some radical Jew named Jesus lived, but was he the son of God? No. There is absolutely no proof for this because there is absolutely no proof for a God. Zero, zilch. Reason is our only means of acquiring knowledge, not faith.

Anonymous said...

Thankyou Corunnaskeptic.

The gospels are just made up and the most convenient ones selected. They are a work of fiction and if you just watch those films I quoted, Nathan, you may be awakened! Your jesus is totally made up of past pagan saviors all of which you don't believe in and we just go further and not believe in yours!

BTW, RAmen is not my name or handle. It is the FSM version of your amen!

Get real people!


sarniaskeptic said...

Nathan, you should really consider Bart Ehrman's books (note that he did not lose his faith because he found out the truth about the new testament, etc. - he lost it because of "God's Problem") - Jesus Interrupted, Misquoting Jesus and God's Problem.

There really isn't any evidence outside of the bible for Jesus' existence and no uncontested evidence. Most historians agree that the "messiah" reference was likely a later addition to the writings of Josephus.

As for others, this has been widely addressed (over and over again) and it bothers me that you suggest such as "evidence" for the claim regarding the historicity of Jesus Christ.

History isn't a science but they have some valid ways of determining what has happened or what was likely to have happened based on writings, etc. The strongest evidence to support a historical christ is the not-so-complimentary views espoused of Jesus in the bible. Items/ideas contrary to what Christians would likely have wanted to put forth provide reason to believe that this person may have existed.

I fully support the reasoning behind that suggestion but I am amazed that such an important figure that performed such miracles would not be referenced by other writers of the time.

Again, the burden of proof isn't on us. And, aside from all that, how much of your faith really rides on the idea of a historical jesus? Is that a hill that your faith would "die" on?

NathanColquhoun said...

I'm familiar with Bart Ehrman's arguments. From my understanding his approach is more taking down fundamentalist arguments of their theologies surrounding the scriptures and the pedestal that they put it up on. So he shows flaws, inconsistent and improbably examples throughout the NT to show that the stories could have been made up to support their ideologies.

The Bible, as you know I'm sure, can't be viewed as one book. You say there is no evidence of Jesus' existence outside of the Bible but the Bible consists of different books, with different authors all discovered or written at different times. Just because the church later decided to canonize all these books into the Bible doesn't mean that the entire lump of gospels and letters should be lumped to your lowest common denominator.

I wouldn't be too amazed that such an important figure wasn't written by others. Messiah's were a dime a dozen, they had no internet or youtube for word to get around, Jesus spent most of his time it seemed with his own Jewish kind. Even for the Jews he went to, he was seen as just another failed Messiah. From a strictly historical perspective (especially if you don't believe in the resurrection), why the world would anyone want to write about some dude walking around healing people and then dying at the hand of the Romans?

The historical Jesus is part of my are many other of my beliefs. The resurrection is central to my faith, without it we could throw out the entire New Testament and the entire Christian religion. But it seems like we won't get far in our conversation if you don't even believe there was a guy named Jesus that was real.

corunnaskeptic said...

Let's say that we all agree that there was a guy named Jesus. Now, as you said, the resurrection is central to your faith.

I ask a simple question: Why would/do you believe in the resurrection?

P.S. Do you also believe in the virgin birth? Do you believe that Jesus defied the natural laws of science and performed the miracles his followers claim?

Mike Shoesmith said...

Shoesmith Here.
This entire article is one giant adhominem attack against me as well as one giant "ditto" from the Atheistic talking points circulating around the world in the church of Atheism.
You claim to follow reason and logic and also claim to follow the philosophy of naturalism and yet logic is transcendental which makes you a walking oxymoron.
Atheism is a religion as defined by the dictionary (1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God). In order to have such a doctrine one must either be religious about said belief or else have been everywhere in the universe and beyond at all times past, present and future simultaneously which is impossible and which makes Atheism two things: A religion and a logical fallacy; the same one that says there are no such things as black swans.

Your attack of me here shows desparation on your part. You are clearly out of league here. Be well.

P.S. Please read "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel

Anonymous said...

Faith is blind and all you theists are blind and delusional. There is no gawd(s) or your jesus savior. There is absolutely no evidence they ever existed. Burden of proof is up to you delusional people and not us atheists because we cannot prove something does not exist. It is up to you to prove it exists and NO, the bible is not proof!

So what have you got? Nothing!

Get real people. Stop believing in invisible sky fairies.

Michael, you are really stupid and delusional because you believe religion. Atheism is NOT a religion. Get it through you thick skull and little used for yourself brain!


sarniaskeptic said...

I HAVE read the Case for Christ and if that's the best you can do, well, ummmm, that is the best you can do and it is horrible. I suggest you, too, read it. I've read a bunch of Lee Strobel's crap (if there was a category for that in a bookstore, it'd be there).

Lee does have some credentials - he claims to have been an atheist and he acts like he's searching for the truth. He does a more terrible job than the wonderful Ben Stein did in the movie expelled. (Having been an atheist is not a credential, by the way. Everyone is born an atheist!)

As for an ad hominem attack - yes, yes and no. I am pointing out a personality (trait? I think more of a complete personality in your case) that is ignorant and confidently spews nonsense. Your points are invalid (if I haven't addressed any of your points, please restate them - I bet you're used to rehashing the same tired argument so it shouldn't be a stretch). Continuing to push the same lies, falsities and inanity is what entitles you to the tag "idiot".

I'm not desperate, I'm far from it. Science and reason are advancing - demolishing your beliefs, disproving your articles of faith and proving more of your arguments to be false. If there is any desperation, it is on your part.

I'm not going to suggest you read any books - you obviously don't care to. I would suggest, however, that you consider thinking for yourself. Look at the evidence (don't ignore it) and I'm sure you'll realize things aren't as you apologetics claim it to be.

Just so we know where you stand, Michael, a few simple questions.

How old is the earth?
Was there a worldwide flood? (In the last 6000 years?)
Did humans coexist with dinosaurs?

Was Jesus an historical person?
Was he born of a virgin?

Are we related to all living organisms? (If not, which ones are we not related to?)

What parts of the bible are literal? Which aren't?
Were any of the books/writings of the new testament written by eye witnesses? (Which ones?)

Michael Shoesmith said...

Anonymity is the shield of the cowardly.

If you're going to call someone "stupid" you should at least try to get the spelling correct in your letter. That way you yourself don't come across as the illiterate one.

Here is the primary definition from for atheism...

"1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God"

That is a positive assertion of a negative belief. The burden of "proof" is on the one making the positive assertion. So, if you can't prove it then I suggest re-labeling yourself as an agnostic instead of an atheist.

Atheism is clearly (at least to the unindoctrinated) a religion.

sarniaskeptic said...

Sorry Nathan, I missed your post.

I believe there was a Jesus - I actually hung out with one in Mexico. He was a funny guy and, boy, could he drink!

Bart Ehrman doesn't make arguments in Jesus Interrupted or Misquoting Jesus (and he supports your belief in an historical Jesus!). God's Problem, however, is different from the others in that he does argue that the answers to the question of "Why is there suffering?" found in the bible are less than satisfying. Friends of mine who are believers and have read it claim it reaffirms their beliefs. Being a thinker, I would suggest that the book would be a pleasant and interesting read for you.

I'm pretty confident that from your response, you haven't read Bart's books.

sarniaskeptic said...

Michael, Michael, Michael - if you "Christians" were more "Christlike", atheists would have no reason to be anonymous.

As for the religion part - if we were to grant you that atheism is a religion (it isn't), what have you achieved? The ability to classify "us" in a horrible group just as you are? Logic, sir, logic.

I am an atheist to the extent that a person can be an atheist. On the Richard Dawkins scale of "There is definitely a god" to "There is definitely no god", I would be a very high 6 (out of 7) but I won't be bothered with claiming agnosticism because I am almost certain that there is no god. (I would be willing, given the evidence - of which I could name a great number of things - to change my mind!) You, I suspect, are certain there is a god (am I wrong?).

There are two definitions on for atheism, the second is "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings". It's quite possible that the first definition is there because of the control and influence that Christianity has on many institutions. Either way, lack of belief in a supreme being is a logically sound and reason backed position to take and I'm proud that I've seen the light.

Michael Shoesmith said...

Sarnia Sceptic-

I just read your comment and I assure you that you are sounding a little desparate.

Logic is transcendental. You may wish to look up the word in your dictionary. In other words it doesn't grow on trees. It applies to everyone and everything regardless of the person's ability, or in your case lack of ability, to understand it. Logic is all the evidence anyone needs in order to comprehend that the philosophy of naturalism is self defeating simply by the ability of the person to explain what it is logically. In order to properly defend Atheism you cannot use logic because by doing so you are borrowing from the theistic wordlview.

As for the Bible, you are incapable of understanding it at all because it is a love letter from God to his children and that's what you get for reading other people's mail. It is the "word" of God and not the "words" of God. I will not debate the Bible with you as you are completely unarmed.

By the way, I have written and published five books; three of which are Bible studies.

If you click on my name you will go to one of my many youtube channels called "Educating The Atheists" where I offer teaching tutorials about Atheism.

sarniaskeptic said...

Michael, I have read the bible and I've read it many times. I spent many years trying to gain/regain faith. I tried my darndest to reconcile my "beliefs" with what we know to be true. I was brought up in a religious household, was indoctrinated - I was baptized, took first communion, was confirmed and I served in the church. I have hosted bible studies and participated in a number of them.

I was a christian because of my chance birth - and likely for no other reason. You, too, were born in the right place for you to find "the one true faith" (of which there are hundreds that claim such).

You are probably (statistically) worshipping the wrong god (though none likely exist, so you're safe - and simply just wasting your time and delaying progress for others) and you, with no support, wrongly attribute evolved skills and traits to him/her.

You speak with absolute certainty against things which we know to be true and that makes you look silly. Your videos are laughable as all your points have been completely disassembled and debunked (or they're nonsense).

We ARE related to all living organisms, we do share common ancestors with apes, dogs, cats, bananas, trees, fish and birds. The evidence supports that statement and until you have a theory that speaks to all the evidence, you are just showing yourself to be either ignorant or willfully deceitful.

Michael Shoesmith said...

I grew up in the Roman Catholic School system (St. Margarets). My family was generally Pagan. I eventually embraced the religion of Atheism and followed its precepts until I was 27. At that point I had a dramatic conversion experience into a relationship with God.
True Christianity is not a religion. You had a religion growing up; not a relationship. I have spent close to twenty thousand hours studying the Bible and I can honestly say that one of the conclusions I have come to is that God hates all religion... including Atheism.

By the way, your hostility toward me and your belittling comments are indicators of your retreat away from the God identity inside of you; that part of you that still resembles the image of God. The ability to rationally analyze logic is a trait that is borrowed from the theistic world view and directly refutes the philosophy of naturalism.
You still haven't addressed this point and you likely have no answer because you are unable to come up with any valid refutation.

If you click on my name this time it will take you to my main youtube channel where I further explain the concept of Christianity not being a religion.

By the way, stop being a Dawkins dittohead. He is a deluded fool. He has admitted that there is evidence for a designer but we should ignore the evidence because it is just an illusion given off by the "process of evolution" and if there ever was a "designer" it would have to be the result of directed panspermia.

Michael Shoesmith said...

And by the way, we share 99% of our dna with apes and 30% of our dna with bananas. This does nothing more than confirm the Genesis account that we, like the animals, are made up out of dirt. Not the same dirt mind you; but dirt none the less. If you've read the Bible you should know that the dna similarities only serve to prove a commonality of source building material and in no way shows evidence for the myth of pan-species evolution by natural selection... which the species barrier proves to be ridiculous.
God made the species after their own kind... and so they remain.

Anonymous said...

FUCK, Michael is really delusional! 20,000 hours is 8 hours a day for 6.8 years - WHAT a fucken waste of time. You are the fool!

Why don't you answer sarniaskeptic's question?

How old is the earth?
Was there a worldwide flood? (In the last 6000 years?)
Did humans coexist with dinosaurs?

Was Jesus an historical person?
Was he born of a virgin?

Are we related to all living organisms? (If not, which ones are we not related to?)

What parts of the bible are literal? Which aren't?
Were any of the books/writings of the new testament written by eye witnesses? (Which ones?)

Did you have a brain injury or something at the age of 27? Did you drill a hole into your skull?

Dawkins never admitted that there is evidence for a designer.

People like you make us become militant atheists. You are fucken NUTS.


corunnaskeptic said...

You really don't know what you're talking about when saying that logic is transcendental and borrowed from the theistic worldview. Faith belongs to the theists, logic and reason does not.

You cannot use logic to rationalize the supernatural.

You live in a fantasy world, and let me guess, you abused drugs or alcohol in your youth..perhaps even experimented with gay sex, and then found Jesus. Is this correct?

NathanColquhoun said...

Frig, I was going to leave a comment....but the conversation between you guys is really not going anywhere.

Best line ever...

"As for the Bible, you are incapable of understanding it at all because it is a love letter from God to his children and that's what you get for reading other people's mail."

Hahahahahahaha......dear Lord.

Skeptic, if you want to continue this maybe you and I could do a blog series back and forth or something together for fun, or chat over e-mail...don't really feel like the conversation style that is taking place here with some of your readers and shoesmith.

sarniaskeptic said...

Nathan... I'm game.

It's difficult to really reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into. Michael Shoesmith is nothing more than an expert at mental gymnastics (okay, he's more than that, he is an idiot, too).

His statements/claims are based on the presupposition that a "god" exists. To take that position negates all theories/hypothesis - that's not how it works. One must first provide evidence/support for that position.

We share DNA with bananas so that is evidence to support the Genesis account (which genesis account, by the way?)? Really? If that was the ONLY piece of evidence that supported an "old" earth (what about evolution and the millions of other pieces that have been discovered), it'd be a decent argument.

ALL evidence matters in science - if your theory doesn't explain it all, it isn't even a theory (it isn't even a good "hunch").

NathanColquhoun said...

Sounds good, why don't we wait a few weeks, I'm pretty swamped right now, but if you have any good ideas or topics, we can go wherever.

In terms of Shoesmith, it's unfortunate that there are people out there that are unwilling to learn and grow in their philosophy and understanding of the world and God. His statements aren't just based on the fact that God exists but on the fact that the God of the Christian Bible exists, the Bible is his inerrant word and that every word in it is a literal meaning to however Shoesmith interprets it. With all those presuppositions, it makes most conversations with people like him useless, they go nowhere and people just get angry and start saying dumb things (very similiar to RAmen (anonymous) comments on your site too, just from the other side).

So we can start from the beginning if you want, no presuppositions, and see where we end up :)

Anonymous said...

gawds do not exist. You are totally wrong saying it is a fact that gawd exists!

Nathan, you too are delusional. I am a realist and live without a gawd! I am doing fine without any.

I do not say dumb things! I am most likely much more intelligent than you Nathan. I know I am not delusional!

Get Real People!


Michael Shoesmith said...

Logic is transcendental. Using it is borrowing from the theistic/deistic worldview and as suspected no one has been able to refute this point and have only responded with attacks against me personally.

Either give up atheism or give up logic. You cannot have it both ways.

sarniaskeptic said...

Michael, Michael, Michael,

You fail to grasp the most important part of the argument - you can not start with the belief in a sky fairy, you have to PROVE that first.

Your usage of the term "worldview" is interesting and telling. There aren't different "worldviews", there is evidence, facts and truths - none of which come from mythology. Science continues to discover more about our world and, as it does, "believers" participate in mental gymnastics to make their book fit the science (or blatantly toss out the science). Why has the bible not provided such "insight" prior to a scientific discovery.

On to transcendence - there is NOTHING (other than you) that suggests that logic is transcendent. You are the one making that positive proposition, back it up with some support.