Monday, May 18, 2009

The Truth Behind the New Atheism: A Refutation


ATTENTION: I have written a final edition that supersedes all other previous editions. Please view this new edition of the review to see my latest research and updated arguments. Thank you! The new review can be found HERE.

If you've been brought here from David Marshall's blog I strongly urge you to visit the forementioned link. Not only have my arguments been improved but the entire review has been rewritten, and in the Conclusion I link to my reply to Marshall's so-called rebuttal. I'd also like to note that as Marshall requested this post has not been deleted. I simply moved it down the page so people would be more compelled to click the link and read the final version because the edition below is obsolete.

However, if you'd like to forgo reading the entire review and would just like to read my devastating response to Marshall's attempted rebuttal click HERE.

Thanks.

21 comments:

  1. "All so called "evidences" of god are nothing more than "god of the gaps" arguments and are not actually evidences for anything."

    Here is the problem with the "god of the gaps" concept: If there is a gap unexplained by science, then apparently god cannot exist because science is the only method able to define evidence. This is simply rediculous. Science is certainly not the only measure of evidence.
    "Evidence" is commonly understood as anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. The scientific method is very affective but limited in providing evidence. But History offers evidence in the same way as historical documents can be scientifically investigated. Collection of testimony is another demonstration to the truth of an assertion. Prophecies of the past becoming fulfilled before our very eyes is a demonstration to an asserted truth. Science is not limited to atheistic views anyway, science... is science, and is genuinely used to explain the world around us. Instead some scientists have strayed from the integrity of their professions and use it to battle god or even support god.... who obviously cannot be applied to the scientific method directly just as the big bang THEORY cannot as well.



    "Trust is not synonymous with knowledge"

    This is obviously true or thier wouldn't be two seperate words with two seperate definitions. I can clearly understand this "one of many" descriptions of faith that marshall presents. You even agree that you may trust in what someone is telling you. But then you go on to say that a video or "some other hard evidence" (which is personally judged) is good enough to provide a "knowing the truth" mentality. Athiests in my view, project their beliefs supported by "hard evidence" as something they are only able to define. "Hard evidence" is individually judged and only united to the others who judge it "hard" as well.
    Evolution, is or has "hard evidence" or "overwhelming" evidence according to your given example. They very well could be hard or overwhelming, but contributed to what idea? There are so many ideas of how evolution maybe false, maybe true, maybe fit in intelligent design, maybe fit in the big bang... or what have you. Evolution does not prove hard that there is no god when you view from other opposing angles of the theory. As Dawkins would say it.. this is "cherry picking". If the evidence was hard or overwhelming, how is it that the subject is still disputed and studied upon?

    ReplyDelete
  2. anyway...

    This is my opinion and reason about a fine line between trusting and knowing which can also apply to science. Knowing requires trust no matter what the evidence. If an experiment is done that is known to have a specific result, it is trusted that the result will be the same. If a ball is thrown into the air, it is trusted to come back down. Its not just knowing that it will come back down, but our trust(or faith) in a law that the ball must come down, is the confirmation of the knowledge that it will.

    You cannot "know" without first trusting in what you know. This is always true unless you are omniscient because KNOWING ALL THERE IS TO KNOW requires no more questions. Since i am able to ask the question-- "does gravity have other laws in it such a transition stage to maturity?"-- The law of gravity would not be accurate unless that question is answered. Yeah... may sound rediculous, but its true. If we don't know that answer... doesn't it require trust to believe that the current law is the truth?
    So, is science through asking questions? absolutely not! I don't know how many times i have heard about studies that contradict other studies and end up multiplying questions. If you do the math on the progress of science, id say knowing all there is to know would take an impossible amount of time and more importantly be too complex for the united knowledge of the world.

    So here is my point... Unless you are able to answer every single question that could ever get asked you can only trust in your knowledge.

    (lets ask another question like " what is the complete and EXACT explanation of the unconcious formation of the universe in all mechanics of detail?.. one piece of evidence i would want would include a 100% accurate timeline graph of this formation in the simplest terms time can be measured..... ok, i'll accept a second by second timeline. I hope there will be enough trees.")

    - sounds a little overboard doesn't it? However, if this one question was answered, would it be possible for even this to end the age of questioning? think about it.

    I truely feel sorry for those who waste their life and time on answering a question like that or rather, trying to explain the unknown using our continuous extreme limited knowledge. Yet a creator, according to athiests, is ignorant to believe or delusional. !!REALLY!!? - what about the belief that science can answer the unknown without omniscient knowledge?

    Any attempted answer right now from science about the unknown, is nothing more than ideas backed up by evidences that are used in trusting those ideas.

    So answer me this. What makes the claim to the existence of god any different from a claim to an unexistent god? Whether he exists or not is unknown, it takes faith to believe in one or the other based upon evidence (or demonstrations of an asserted truth).
    Yeah..... you can't see god physically, but you also can't physically see little billy picking his nose this very moment in the olive garden resteraunt in Davenport Iowa sitting at table 4. You also can't see the big bang explosion as it supposedly happened.

    don't get me wrong, i appreciate science, but once atheists attempt to use science to disprove god, i can only laugh at their confidence that science only supports the nonexistence of god and in no way can science support a creator.

    Of course this is the case when the only focus of atheists is in any BELIEF other than the possablity of a creator?

    so is trust not synonymous with knowledge? literally yes... but in a comprehensive understanding, they are dependent on one another without an omniscient quality of a human being.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is one more comment i would like to add about the defining of "hard evidence" by athiests.

    I understand that experiments can be used and should be used by anyone to confirm any stated conclusion of a scientist. But is it possible for all experiments to be conducted? Many experiments cost thousands, millions, or even billions of dollars.

    I seriously would suggest at this point that you refresh your mind and clear your thoughts before you read on. What i'm about to write is more important of truth than any other factor.

    I'm talking about the qualifications of lies and deceptions. Every form of belief falls victim to distortion or deception. Science is no exception when beliefs are formed out of it... whether big bang, evolution, or creation.

    Lies and deceptions are absolutely worth a book load of importance... but i just want to show how ungenuine science (science that claims any paticualr view of origion) is capable of decieving or delusion like any other belief.

    Science has always been used to observe, deliver hypothesis, require experimentation, establish conclusions, and possibly provide theories and laws. Simple science can easily be home tested.. but what about the bigger projects and goals of science? They clearly involve large amounts of financial assistance which almost always come from governments.

    In this country of the United States, much power is granted to its government (alot of it snagged unconstitionally in my opinion). Our government has displayed so much secrecy and classified information from the very people they work for, that it is very difficult to trust in them. This is assumed by the ones who never stop asking questions.

    If you ask the right questions, and can't get the answers to those questions you can be assured to agree that the government is untrustworthy.

    The logical purpose for secrecy is to hide something... and our government has been notorious for doing it by the ones who still value the constition.

    There are so many reasons this is important to know >>>trust me if you will<<<< . Can any government be trusted when it hides its activities and intentions from its citizens?

    Research and investigate government hands in the cookie jars of science, education, moral values, freedom of any kind, health, finances, and did i mention science?.... you name it.

    If you do an explicit, sincere, and critical investigation of government control especially in this country (which is the last remaining stronghold of true freedom) you should be able to conclude that they are capable of deception.

    Do you think science is giving honest results when they are government owned? (And yes, representatives of science are owned if government is funding them).......... well, lets think about this for a moment.

    The results of science activities can only be "hard evidence" if they are witnessable to any individual.
    Here is where athiests BELIEVE that they do not require faith, and always point at christians as being delusional in theirs:

    ReplyDelete
  4. defined "Hard" and claims to hard evidence of no god, is not hard evidence or evidence at all if any individual is unable to experiment that evidence. Anyone can experiment the law of gravity.. but a multi million dollar experiment can only be tested by the ones paying for them. Since most of these expensive science projects are government funded, by what means could you trust what you hear, what you read, or even what you see on a video with an orginization keeping so much information away from its little ant hill.


    Yeah... thats right.... VIDEO. If you don't think videos can be manipulated, give hollywood a call. Government has the resources and power to achieve such deceptions for whatever purposes they desire, including driving god out of the scenes of possabilities. The purpose of science was to explain the world around us, not to explain the unexplainable.

    I can only say that all the above is a possability as well... but based upon the evidence of government secrecy, existing examples of such government intrusion of truth, past governments who attempt to rid god in the human mind and heart, prophecies in the bible of such, and leaks that illuminate the uncertainty of government intentions to name a few.

    i could go on and on about all sorts of possabilities... I'm sad to suggest though, that no evidence will ever be good enough to show an athiest that a non existent god requires just as much faith as believing in a god. Evidence, and one's own opinion of how solid it is, will never be enough to reveal the absolute truth of our very existence for as long as lies exist in this world.

    I'm certainly not claiming that i know god exists. I have had wonderful and very revealing spiritual experiences that have contributed to making perfect sense of my having good reason for objective trust that i see credible. Of course my personal spiritual experience, feelings of coming to others with love, and limited gathering of knowledge can only serve as a testimony for others. Is it overwhelming evidence? Nope, but it certainly conributes to anyone who desires to collect all forms of evidence of any belief.



    I want to sum up that faith, trust, hope, knowledge, understanding, wisdom, evidence, conclusion, experiments, logic, and reason are all important and existing human attributes to narrowing truth. Not a single of these attributes or even all of them will ever bring about omniscient human beings. Its universally understood that we are mortal, helpless, and despite being the most unique creatures on the planet, we are puny and limited in so many ways compared to the possability of a god.
    If those who choose not to believe there is a god, why is it so important to spread this belief? whatever the reasons i'm sure they can be just as much refuted as the spreading of christianity.

    Well... This is my first comment on the first few paragraphs. I hope they are approved for visiability and open for discussion. Gots a long way to go i need some shut eye.

    I've read the book, loved it, but suggest to anyone who reads it that they still continue to question. Questions lead to knowledge... but remember that knowledge of man does not lead to the absolute truth of the existence or non existence of god.








    -------FAITH--------

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the comments Mr./Ms. Anonymous,

    I'm always happy to have feedback on my reviews and you were civil, unlike the author of this book, which I greatly appreciate. I'll reply to your comments in bold.

    "Here is the problem with the "god of the gaps" concept: If there is a gap unexplained by science, then apparently god cannot exist because science is the only method able to define evidence. This is simply rediculous. Science is certainly not the only measure of evidence.
    "Evidence" is commonly understood as anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. The scientific method is very affective but limited in providing evidence. But History offers evidence in the same way as historical documents can be scientifically investigated. Collection of testimony is another demonstration to the truth of an assertion. Prophecies of the past becoming fulfilled before our very eyes is a demonstration to an asserted truth. Science is not limited to atheistic views anyway, science... is science, and is genuinely used to explain the world around us. Instead some scientists have strayed from the integrity of their professions and use it to battle god or even support god.... who obviously cannot be applied to the scientific method directly just as the big bang THEORY cannot as well."

    It's not ridiculous to say that because there is no evidence of a god, he most likely does not exist. Because the god of the three biggest theisms believe in a personal god science should be able to detect such a thing. If the known laws of nature all of a sudden were suspended then that could be evidence of such a being, but so far, that hasn't happened. For example, many studies testing the effectiveness of prayer have not turned up any results that would indicate prayer does anything, which is another blow against the christian god. And, sorry to break it to you, but the bible contains no fulfilled prophesies
    . The big bang has much evidence for it.

    As far as science not being the only way to find truth, I would disagree for the most part. Not everything needs to be scientifically tested but if one wants to get to the bottom of something, like the existence of god, science has a pretty good track record of fact finding.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "This is obviously true or thier wouldn't be two seperate words with two seperate definitions. I can clearly understand this "one of many" descriptions of faith that marshall presents. You even agree that you may trust in what someone is telling you. But then you go on to say that a video or "some other hard evidence" (which is personally judged) is good enough to provide a "knowing the truth" mentality. Athiests in my view, project their beliefs supported by "hard evidence" as something they are only able to define. "Hard evidence" is individually judged and only united to the others who judge it "hard" as well. Evolution, is or has "hard evidence" or "overwhelming" evidence according to your given example. They very well could be hard or overwhelming, but contributed to what idea? There are so many ideas of how evolution maybe false, maybe true, maybe fit in intelligent design, maybe fit in the big bang... or what have you. Evolution does not prove hard that there is no god when you view from other opposing angles of the theory. As Dawkins would say it.. this is "cherry picking". If the evidence was hard or overwhelming, how is it that the subject is still disputed and studied upon?"

    Yes, I say that "I may trust that someone is telling me the truth, but I might not actually know they are." By this, I meant to illustrate how Marshall's definition undermines his argument. He claims that faith is evidence based, but just having trust in something is not necessarily evidence based, and the trust might be wrongfully placed if not confirmed, by a video as the example I gave. And to quickly answer your final comment, I'm not sure how hard it would be to tamper with a video of someone's testimony, but I'm sure an expert could test it and determine if the video was legitimate. Yes, evolution may be false, but after over 100 years there's yet to be any evidence against it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "anyway...

    This is my opinion and reason about a fine line between trusting and knowing which can also apply to science. Knowing requires trust no matter what the evidence. If an experiment is done that is known to have a specific result, it is trusted that the result will be the same. If a ball is thrown into the air, it is trusted to come back down. Its not just knowing that it will come back down, but our trust(or faith) in a law that the ball must come down, is the confirmation of the knowledge that it will.

    You cannot "know" without first trusting in what you know. This is always true unless you are omniscient because KNOWING ALL THERE IS TO KNOW requires no more questions. Since i am able to ask the question-- "does gravity have other laws in it such a transition stage to maturity?"-- The law of gravity would not be accurate unless that question is answered. Yeah... may sound rediculous, but its true. If we don't know that answer... doesn't it require trust to believe that the current law is the truth?
    So, is science through asking questions? absolutely not! I don't know how many times i have heard about studies that contradict other studies and end up multiplying questions. If you do the math on the progress of science, id say knowing all there is to know would take an impossible amount of time and more importantly be too complex for the united knowledge of the world.

    So here is my point... Unless you are able to answer every single question that could ever get asked you can only trust in your knowledge.

    (lets ask another question like " what is the complete and EXACT explanation of the unconcious formation of the universe in all mechanics of detail?.. one piece of evidence i would want would include a 100% accurate timeline graph of this formation in the simplest terms time can be measured..... ok, i'll accept a second by second timeline. I hope there will be enough trees.")

    - sounds a little overboard doesn't it? However, if this one question was answered, would it be possible for even this to end the age of questioning? think about it.

    I truely feel sorry for those who waste their life and time on answering a question like that or rather, trying to explain the unknown using our continuous extreme limited knowledge. Yet a creator, according to athiests, is ignorant to believe or delusional. !!REALLY!!? - what about the belief that science can answer the unknown without omniscient knowledge?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Any attempted answer right now from science about the unknown, is nothing more than ideas backed up by evidences that are used in trusting those ideas.

    So answer me this. What makes the claim to the existence of god any different from a claim to an unexistent god? Whether he exists or not is unknown, it takes faith to believe in one or the other based upon evidence (or demonstrations of an asserted truth).
    Yeah..... you can't see god physically, but you also can't physically see little billy picking his nose this very moment in the olive garden resteraunt in Davenport Iowa sitting at table 4. You also can't see the big bang explosion as it supposedly happened.

    don't get me wrong, i appreciate science, but once atheists attempt to use science to disprove god, i can only laugh at their confidence that science only supports the nonexistence of god and in no way can science support a creator.

    Of course this is the case when the only focus of atheists is in any BELIEF other than the possablity of a creator?

    so is trust not synonymous with knowledge? literally yes... but in a comprehensive understanding, they are dependent on one another without an omniscient quality of a human being."

    I don't follow most of what you said there, but science can prove a creator, as I said above, if prayer was found to be answered, etc. Many scientists argue that science doesn't show god exists because that's what the evidence shows us at this point. As far as "trusting" a scientific experiment, that's not really trust. From experience, we know what will happen because we know about the law of gravity, as in your example. And science gives us knowledge which helps us figure out more pieces of the puzzle. One such example is the one I used in the above review with the transitional fossil Tiktaalik roseae. If this was simply trust, or blind faith, scientists wouldn't be as good at predicting things as they do.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "There is one more comment i would like to add about the defining of "hard evidence" by athiests.

    I understand that experiments can be used and should be used by anyone to confirm any stated conclusion of a scientist. But is it possible for all experiments to be conducted? Many experiments cost thousands, millions, or even billions of dollars.

    I seriously would suggest at this point that you refresh your mind and clear your thoughts before you read on. What i'm about to write is more important of truth than any other factor.

    I'm talking about the qualifications of lies and deceptions. Every form of belief falls victim to distortion or deception. Science is no exception when beliefs are formed out of it... whether big bang, evolution, or creation.

    Lies and deceptions are absolutely worth a book load of importance... but i just want to show how ungenuine science (science that claims any paticualr view of origion) is capable of decieving or delusion like any other belief.

    Science has always been used to observe, deliver hypothesis, require experimentation, establish conclusions, and possibly provide theories and laws. Simple science can easily be home tested.. but what about the bigger projects and goals of science? They clearly involve large amounts of financial assistance which almost always come from governments.

    In this country of the United States, much power is granted to its government (alot of it snagged unconstitionally in my opinion). Our government has displayed so much secrecy and classified information from the very people they work for, that it is very difficult to trust in them. This is assumed by the ones who never stop asking questions.

    If you ask the right questions, and can't get the answers to those questions you can be assured to agree that the government is untrustworthy.

    The logical purpose for secrecy is to hide something... and our government has been notorious for doing it by the ones who still value the constition.

    There are so many reasons this is important to know >>>trust me if you will<<<< . Can any government be trusted when it hides its activities and intentions from its citizens?

    Research and investigate government hands in the cookie jars of science, education, moral values, freedom of any kind, health, finances, and did i mention science?.... you name it.

    If you do an explicit, sincere, and critical investigation of government control especially in this country (which is the last remaining stronghold of true freedom) you should be able to conclude that they are capable of deception.

    Do you think science is giving honest results when they are government owned? (And yes, representatives of science are owned if government is funding them).......... well, lets think about this for a moment.

    The results of science activities can only be "hard evidence" if they are witnessable to any individual.
    Here is where athiests BELIEVE that they do not require faith, and always point at christians as being delusional in theirs:"

    Interesting...the grants that the government gives research facilities, as far as I know, hasn't been to get a predetermined outcome, but if there were, other scientists could do their own test to make sure the original test was not falsified in any way. Besides, the government has larger things to do than bribe scientists. Like murder people and further restrict all of our natural rights.

    ReplyDelete
  10. - Finally, scientific explanations and religious explanations of phenomena are both alike in explaining the unknown. They require faith. Even though science explains phenomena on a materialistic sense, and religous explanations are more on a spiritual sense, they both are still unable to reveal the truth of our existence. Niether science nor religion are ever able to know this truth without knowing all there is to know. Science can logically make sense of our world, but some use this logic strictly to show god does not exist. Religion makes sense of our world on a spiritual sense (and a logical sense as well) and many use this spirituallity stritctly to show god does exist. However, both of these attempts to reveal the truth about a god will never be able to do so, for god broke off direct relationship with man for rebelling (sinning) against him. By no means of our own, will we ever be able to establish direct contact with god. God establishes such at his own free will. Christians should acknowledge this as well. Scientific evidence can be used to assist in faith in the beauty of creation and intelligent design, and can also be used to show the contrary... but in no way can this concept show the absolute truth without filling in the gaps.

    I find it interesting that you assert science as should having the capability in detecting god. It does. It certainly can't reveal god, but it can detect the possability. Think about energy. What is the source of power to intelligently organize cells to create structures. I say intelligently because cells have specific laws to obey in order to achieve their structures. So how does energy understand its exact will to direct cells in obeying thier laws? This may not be the best question i could ask, but this is one example of detecting a god. Perhaps god directs energy. Maybe god is the energy of such activities. Its a possability isn't it? You can't see god with your eyes on such activities, but look at it this way... You can either see intelligent, orderly, and obeying formations of cells supporting the idea of intelligent design, or you can decide to see the same thing supporting evidence of evolution which happens to be extremely successful at achieving design. Design of evolution seems to be apart of laws formed by the big bang. how did that happen by random chance too? The laws can't be eternal if the Universe had a beginning. The existence of evolution seems to be formed by random chance, or something out of nothing..... this is the one logic atheists never seem to accept concerning the big bang theory.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The concept of "god of the gaps" is rediculous to me for these reasons:
    - People who utilize this concept logically.....more or less admit that what is not yet known can only support the belief that "no god" is still valid. But how do these gaps support any other belief (like evolution or big bang) to be evidence for "no god" if in fact these gaps are unknown? The only solution that these gaps provide is that the truth is still unknown (concerning our existence). The gaps do not prove there is or isn't a god. The gaps suggest that all that is known today, requires application of faith to ideas and beliefs of what the gaps may possibly contain. It is easy to say that god only exists in the gaps and are good cause for no evidence of intelligent design. Can anyone tell me how this doesn't apply to unconcious design?
    The only reason some people believe that "no god" is more reasonable or evident is because they box themselves in what is known and confirmed through our physical senses.
    - This idea proclaims science to a belief. That belief being "no god", is a faith based stance on truth because science does not have enough answers to claim there is no god. Science will favor the big bang theory over a creator on the premise of explanation which would be in accordance with our own dimensions. This also obviously suggests that god gets to decide when and how he wants to reveal himself directly to us, if in fact he exists outside of our dimensions. Point being, science can be applied to fit in any form of ideas in the gaps and until the gaps are filled----- not strictly to the ideas that there is no god. Thus, any proof that comes from science is available to support any kind of belief including the possability of intelligent design.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Testing the effectiveness of prayers...... Before i refute your example, i would like to mention that i do not agree with Christians who shout out prayers in the streets for all to hear. I always pray alone and mostly for others to god in the faith that he may be listening to me. I always expect an answer. In times of personal crises including a near death experience of a drug, i prayed sincerely and deeply for survival and endurance of something out of my hands. The answer of a will.... is always yes or no. This is clearly the purpose of free will. For science to study free will, is a waste of money. The truth of God's will is extremely a poor example of deciding if he is real or not. Results for the effectiveness of prayer has a massive load of variables to be worth considering as evidence. This study can be compared to a survey of what people believe. The result of either does not serve as "good" evidence that there is or is no god. In addition, although it does not matter in regards to god's existence, there have been positive results as well of such studies. But these studies obviously will not reveal the absolute truth about an existing god. I also highly doubt that a solid positive result would satisfy an athiest.
    As far as fullfilled prophecies, I will make sure that we come back to this subject for it is very important to understand. To understand fullfilled prophecies, the bible and its authenticity must first be understood. At this point i would also like to share my belief, that to expand knowledge, you must look at opposing views of your own and others.

    finally, science having a good track record of fact finding is not exactly true. One reason is that it generally attempts to exlude god, and claims other ideas of our existence without having filling in the gaps. It uses the facts it finds unfairly to attribute the knowledge to specific beliefs which is not true science. The purpose of science is to explain our world, but somehow in addition to that, it directs the facts to specific beliefs in how we came to be. History, prophecies, testimonies, or any other fact finders are used in the exact same ways.
    A second reason is that science explores a world that is recieved through our physical senses. Again, god cannot be seen directly by our physical senses... so how does even science ever expect to know if god does or doesn't exist outside our physical realm? You can gather all the evidence in our physical limitations to support the no existence of god but will not reveal the truth of his existence. It is understood that god cannot be contained. If this is true, how extent are our limitations of seeing god? Science may be advanced, but it is also limited to the physical realm. We know energy itself has no physics in it, we can only see its transfer in physics. If energy exists, why is it not possible that other existences (out of our physical senses) do not exist. Science seems to be the best refuge for an athiest because science is unaccountable to the unknown. However, it seems to be accountable for what is known, yet takes an official position on the unknown (such as the big bang).

    And third, science cannot directly observe, experiment, or conclude the exact details of the past. The origion of life is not directly observable (just as god is not directly observable) and so whatever science presents in regards to our origion must require faith.

    ReplyDelete
  13. YOU SAID:
    Yes, I say that "I may trust that someone is telling me the truth, but I might not actually know they are." By this, I meant to illustrate how Marshall's definition undermines his argument. He claims that faith is evidence based, but just having trust in something is not necessarily evidence based, and the trust might be wrongfully placed if not confirmed, by a video as the example I gave. And to quickly answer your final comment, I'm not sure how hard it would be to tamper with a video of someone's testimony, but I'm sure an expert could test it and determine if the video was legitimate. Yes, evolution may be false, but after over 100 years there's yet to be any evidence against it.

    MY REPLY:



    Im sure what he means is that evidence enforces trust if it is indeed credible enough to an individual. Trust in anything is evidence based. For an athiest, science bases the trust in the non-belief of intelligent design. Christians use a variety of evidences to uphold their trust in god. An example would be that i believe science illuminates the idea of intelligent design, history supports the contemporary claims in the authenticity of the bible, christ, and god's involvement in mankind. Of course i have other sources of evidence but these two illustrate the contrast of how you and i view credibility.

    Lets give this video we talk about as an example of credibility. As for me.... I would want to know the background and beliefs of the ones who produce a video. What exactly does the video prove. In what ways could the video be manipulated. What is the background and beliefs of the "expert" video tester and who does he work for. More importantly i would want to research how videos can be manipulated. The more questions asked and answered, the more faith will stabalize in the evidences' credibility. Does it sound rediculous for questioning such "hard" evidence? The more questions, the more accurate evidence can be judged as "hard".

    By no means am i boasting about my following response to the last sentence of your comment, i'm not here to condescend on someone's belief.
    But in the last sentence you expressed an exact example of Marshalls definition of faith. "Evolution MAY be false" indicates that you require trust that is evidence based. And as for supposedly there being no evidence against evolution, i will only give just one for now..... from a very interesting source:

    “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 323.

    Can you find any other refutations against the theory of evolution? You bet.

    ReplyDelete
  14. YOU POSTED:

    I don't follow most of what you said there, but science can prove a creator, as I said above, if prayer was found to be answered, etc. Many scientists argue that science doesn't show god exists because that's what the evidence shows us at this point. As far as "trusting" a scientific experiment, that's not really trust. From experience, we know what will happen because we know about the law of gravity, as in your example. And science gives us knowledge which helps us figure out more pieces of the puzzle. One such example is the one I used in the above review with the transitional fossil Tiktaalik roseae. If this was simply trust, or blind faith, scientists wouldn't be as good at predicting things as they do.

    MY REPLY:

    I apologize if i do not deliver clearly. I write late at night and sometimes do not get the message out as clear as id like.

    Science or any other form of (evidence providing) sources cannot prove the existence or non existence of god. All forms of evidence can only support beliefs or there would be no need for evidence. Science cannot study the will of god. God's will determines the effectiveness of prayer and so studying it would not provide any concluding results.
    Scientists who argue about the existence of god suggest that at this point evidence does not show. What does the argument mean by "show". If they mean physically seeing god, then yes they are correct, but if this is in regards to the effectiveness of prayer, a scientific positive result will still not physically reveal god. Me as a christian have always needed to utilize an evidence-based trust that he does exist because nothing shows the physical existent god. God is out of reach of our physical senses in which science applys to as well... however the evidence of his unseen existence is available to us. This may be why the differences of Marshall's and Dawkin's view of faith are not the same.

    I want to clarify what i mean by using the word "TRUSTING". This is in regards to experiments that are used in supporting an idea or a theory about our very existence. But i think we are at a checkmate in our personal meanings of trust and knowing. You say we know what will happen because we know about the law of gravity,

    but i say we trust what will happen because we believe the law of gravity as a law that cannot be broken. This is simply because laws have always been known to be broken and know matter how unlikely, it still doesn not deny the possabilities.

    ReplyDelete
  15. YOU POSTED:

    Interesting...the grants that the government gives research facilities, as far as I know, hasn't been to get a predetermined outcome, but if there were, other scientists could do their own test to make sure the original test was not falsified in any way. Besides, the government has larger things to do than bribe scientists. Like murder people and further restrict all of our natural rights.

    MY REPLY:

    I don't usually talk politics. Even though i truely believe most forms of government have been playing the leading role in eliminating christianity, I mainly just wanted to demonstrate that any evidence of any kind should never be simply accepted. "Hard" evidence is judged personally and should not be easily convincing from so called experts.

    I think far too many people treat experts as irrefutable sources before any personal investigation is (if ever) conducted.

    If a study is announced in mainstream media, it is widely accepted without personal confirmation. Often a report will be given that the study comes from an "expert". ok, so that must mean that there is no need to look into it for myself since an expert did the study. Many people that i know, will mention a study but know nothing about it except for the "offical statements". If you believe in propaganda, you should consider the possability that studies we hear about or even read about may not be true or at least accurate. Ask the right questions and if the answers themselves are questionable, or unanswerable, then inconsistency should help judge what is "hard". I have seen far too many inconsistencies in scientific studies.

    I think the government is much more in control of leading scientific studies than most think. Our government has access to every connection you could possibly think of... and if they want to manipulate the system they certainly have the power to do it with classified capabilities without any opposition.

    I'm sure most athiests rejoice with the ongoing attempt to seperate religion and state. But what if those in power have intent to censor the voice of christianity? Its happend before and is very successful in secrecy.

    I appreciate and respect your responses and views. Thank you for approving my comments and thank you for your time and attention to them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dear Arizona Atheist:

    I read this review and thought it was well argued. I just came from David Marshall's blog where his new atheism book has come out in Spanish. I left a few comments asking if he'd look at your review and he got very rude with me. He said:

    Tommy: There's nothing "baffling" about it. I've written books rebutting the Jesus Seminar, Elaine Pagels & allies, and the New Atheists. It's not worth taking the time to rebut someone who hasn't proven that they can offer a serious argument, has some following, or is at least emotionally mature. It's certainly not my "work" to respond to every internet critic who comes down the pike, regardless of how they carry themselves.

    I've never lied about Ken, or anyone else. Why should I respond to such stupidity? Ken is not an important person in my life. And what he tells you about "who started it" is not only juvenile, it is untrue. (Aside from recognizing his immaturity.) Early in the conversation (but after he had stupidly trashed my book in several places), I even offered to take him out for a beer next time I was speaking in Arizona.

    One last point. I'm a skilled and knowledgeable writer. I know my craft, have had unique life experiences, and have done a great deal of research in most of the subjects I write on. People who know books, or who are mature scholars, whatever their views, almost always recognize the quality of my books. I similarly credit books written by people I disagree with. It is, therefore, hard for me to take someone seriously who gives one of my books one star on Amazon: this is itself a sign of fanaticism. (Along with the "liar, liar," multiple postings, etc.) What good does it do to argue with fanatics?

    Ken is Arizona Atheist, is Gifted Writer, is I forget what else.

    I came back to your website and found your post from your review about David Marshall's dishonesty and I brought that up to him in my reply. When you said how David lied about you and was very meanspirited I wasn't sure who to believe but after seeing it myself and how he lies about you and talks about you I completely see that your telling the truth. I'm sorry about the things he says about you. It really is unfair.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Tom,

    Thanks for the comment and thanks for the compliment. I’m glad you enjoyed the review.

    I see Marshall is up to his old tricks again with his smear campaigns against me with trying to discredit me by mentioning the few times I changed my Amazon.com handle and the many attempts at trying to get him to debate me and the handful of posts on Amazon pointing out his dishonesty and his bad arguments. It’s funny how he complains about multiple screen names since he goes by three that I know of: David Marshall, Ma Dixiong, and christthetao. I’ve seen him post with these at Debunking Christianity and Richard Carrier’s blog.

    I’m glad you read my long post exposing Marshall and that you’re not taken in by his bullshit. It’s nice to know that all my work in collecting all that evidence against him didn’t go to waste. I looked in on the conversation and saw Marshall’s reply to you about how you’re just repeating accusations “second hand” with no evidence. That’s funny that Marshall’s asking for evidence. Usually in discussions he ignores evidence in favor of his nonsense. But you rightly pointed him in the right direction. The evidence is there with screenshots on my blog and showcases his insults and dishonesty if he ever wants to dispute it. Of course, I doubt he will. The evidence is overwhelming and I believe he scrolled through that post a month or so ago because he quoted me from it at Debunking Christianity so he must have seen at least some of the damning evidence against him.

    Looking at the comment you copied makes my head spin. You see how egotistical and out of touch with reality he is?! The only people who look favorably upon his books are friends of his and people who already share his delusional beliefs.

    I also find it hilarious how he claims how much “research” he does for his books. I exposed that above in my review and Hector Avalos exposed this bullshit at Debunking Christianity. Avalos’ post eviscerates Marshall and I love it! Maybe I’ll copy it to my blog.

    Finally, I don’t understand his gripe about giving one-star reviews. Who cares? I give all sorts of books various ratings based mostly upon how well written they are and how well they’re argued. Marshall’s book failed in both categories! The number of factual errors Marshall made in his book is a lot. I’ve never counted but I’m sure it’s pretty numerous. Just look at how many errors Marshall made in just that single section that consisted of only five pages!!! Just think how many errors there are when you take the whole book into consideration. I’d also like to point out that I don’t just give one-star reviews to all books I disagree with. I actually gave The Irrational Atheist two stars because despite the numerous factual errors, him taking the New Atheists out of context, etc. Vox did make a few good points and despite the foul language was decently written and easily understood, unlike Marshall’s book.

    Well, I think I’ve vented enough and my point is clear. Every single thing Marshall said is a distortion of the truth, is an outright lie, and he isn’t even worthy of the title of scholar. Hack is more like it. And I think he’s a petty asshole for disliking me simply because I gave his book one star! Talk about immaturity!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ken: It would hard to know where to begin correcting all your errors, and I'm glad that's not my job.

    On the comment immediately above, let me just point out that it's rather misleading to say,

    "The only people who look favorably at his books are friends of his and people who already share his delusional beliefs."

    In fact, no one has given a bad review to any of my books who didn't have some hard-core ideological reasons for doing so. And some very hard-core atheists, who happen to be well-educated, have given Truth Behind the New Atheism fairly high marks.

    Most of the negative reviews, by contrast, were motivated by personal hostility as well as ideological opposition, including five or six from one person. Most of the positive reviews, however, came from total strangers.

    But I stopped over here to let you know I've finally posted a rebuttal of your attack on The Truth Behind the New Atheism:

    http://christthetao.blogspot.com/

    It's only a rebuttal of the first half of the first chapter. But frankly, I think that will be more than enough. I don't plan to come back here soon. If you post over there, please do keep to the point. Thanks.

    David

    ReplyDelete
  19. David,

    I’m sorry, but I wouldn't call that a "rebuttal" to my response to the chapter because you ignored at least half of my arguments. Not to mention most of the review itself. In addition your response fails to put even a tiny dint in my arguments. I’m happy you finally responded (took long enough) but to be quite honest your “rebuttal” (and I’m being very kind even using this word) failed horribly. I hope someone else does respond because then maybe I’d actually get a decent challenge.

    I’m sorry to have to burst your bubble but the reason people gave your book low ratings is because it’s very poorly argued, and not very well written. Not because of any grudge. Those, like Richard Field, who were nice enough to rate it better obviously did so out of kindness, but even his opinion is essentially the same as mine about your book and your other critics. Most of the people who’ve read your book have the same beliefs as you, or do not fact-check what you say, so naturally they will believe (quite wrongly) that you’ve made a strong case.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon.
    Obat Gondok
    Cara Konsumsi Ace Maxs Yang Benar
    Obat Gondok Herbal
    Obat Gondok Tradisional
    http://obatgondok.infosehatalami.com/

    ReplyDelete
  21. very interesting article bro , nice article
    http://acemaxs44.com/
    http://acemaxs44.com/obat-tradisional-diabetes/
    http://acemaxs44.com/obat-tradisional-asam-urat/
    http://obatgondok.infosehatalami.com/
    http://acemaxscare.com/
    http://acemaxscare.com/obat-herbal-leukimia/
    http://acemaxscare.com/obat-herbal-wasir/
    http://acemaxscare.com/obat-herbal-gagal-ginjal/
    http://obatdiabetes.toko-gumilar.com/
    http://obatdiabetes.toko-gumilar.com/obat-penyakit-stroke/
    http://obatdiabetes.toko-gumilar.com/obat-penyakit-tbc/
    http://obatdiabetes.toko-gumilar.com/obat-penyakit-wasir/
    http://obatdiabetes.toko-gumilar.com/obat-penyakit-tipes/

    ReplyDelete

This blog is no longer active and is not accepting any new comments. Thanks.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.