an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Wow! Aren’t I the Lucky One?

Yet another blog post dedicated to me on a believer’s site! What’s this, the 5th? 6th? 10th? Must be doing something right if I’m getting under their skin so much! The latest is from Chris Bolt who, in this comment on his newly created που στω blog, got a bit mixed up over whether I believed in his god or not.

This screenshot is from that comment, and shows Chris replying to my statement that I was once a believer –

Oh, come on Chris! Which is it? You and your other presubullishitting chums insist that all atheists DO believe in your god, but ‘deny that belief in unrighteousness’, but here you are committing the classic ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy and claiming that I was never a believer!

In his latest post, he attempts to clarify –

So, you did believe in God, you still believe in God, you will always believe in God in the sense that God exists

So now I DO believe! Great! Sadly he’s dead wrong again. I DON’T believe in his god, and I never will, because his god doesn’t exist.

Chris continues at length, until he reaches this – 

I did not claim that you would need to be omniscient in order to know that my God does not exist. 

…which doesn’t seem to match what he said previously –

“First, you cannot know this unless you are omniscient, and you’re not.”

OOPS! But Chris hasn’t finished, and tries to illustrate his point that he’d never said I would need to be omniscient to know his god didn’t exist by going into detail about the fact that the only way I could know for sure that his god doesn’t exist would be by being omniscient……yeah, that’s what I thought. Read, and weep –

I did not claim that you would need to be omniscient in order to know that my God does not exist. You need to go back and read more carefully and seek to do justice to what it is I actually claimed in your responses. In order for you to make the claim that you did that there is no evidence for the existence of God, you would need to be omniscient. Why? Because the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God is a universal negative. Have you personally investigated every shred of possible evidence for the existence of God? Are you familiar with all of the arguments and evidences that have been offered throughout history? What about those that have not been recorded? Are you familiar with all of the arguments and evidences that ever will be offered in the future? How about after your death? The point here is just that you do not know everything, you are not omniscient, and there may be some evidence that is inaccessible to you, you have overlooked, or you are mistaken about. The only guarantee that this is not the case is if you are omniscient, but you clearly are not, and even if you were, would be God. Thankfully, that is not the case.

Clear? Good! Apparently the way you prove you didn’t say something is to say it again, and then explain it at length – an interesting technique Chris, but one which I feel I will not be employing. I did like the subtle insult at the end though, very Jesus like.

He goes on and on, including a diversion to chastise me for not knowing who someone who posted anonymously and signed merely as ‘BK’ was. Shit, what a mistake! He didn’t point out that it was THAT BK!! Fuck!! I’ll ask forgiveness next time I buy a burger from one of his minions.

You can read Chris’s lengthy whine by clicking here, I cannot guarantee that you’ll be converted instantly to a presubullshitter though.

Single Post Navigation

38 thoughts on “Wow! Aren’t I the Lucky One?

  1. "Yet another blog post dedicated to me on a believer's site! What's this, the 5th? 6th? 10th? Must be doing something right if I'm getting under their skin so much!"Hmmm, what does that say about the 14 posts dedicated to me on YOUR site alone! 🙂 (Not to mention the ones dedicated to the TAG that didn't mention me :-)Why do you keep doing this to yourself? 😀

  2. This post has been removed by the author.

  3. Chris, do you not understand that I'm not remotely interested in your rather muddled opinion?"It's not the No True Scotsman fallacy when you do not understand the definition of a term by the way, but nice try."I think YOU need to look it up, because to claim that I was never a believer because I'm no longer one (even though you also say that I never didn't believe!) is pretty much the definition of 'No True Scotsman'.Nice try, thanks.Sye, how's that nervous breakdown going?

  4. 'Sye, how's that nervous breakdown going?"That's hilarious Alex. Just listen back to the podcasts to hear, out of all of us, who sounded like they were about to have a seizure 😀

  5. I see, 'not well' – I hope you get the help you need. Got enough in the savings account to cover a good shrink? Or are you going to need to get a local church to give you a 'generous love offering'?

  6. This post has been removed by the author.

  7. "Then stay off my blog."With pleasure, just as soon as you remove the posts that either mention me, or are directly addressed to me….that'll be ALL the posts then. Better get deleting!"No, because the *definition* of a believer in Christian theology excludes the possibility of ceasing to be one."…and you did it again! Brilliant!

  8. This post has been removed by the author.

  9. This post has been removed by the author.

  10. "So just to be clear, you're cool with the talking serpent in Genesis right? "No, snakes don't talk!" No True Scotsman."Fuck me! We're through the looking glass now, people!!

  11. Going to remove those posts then? And then you can stop commenting here as well – after all, it's YOU who said 'stay off my blog'!

  12. Bolt:     I don't know about Alex. But, if you show me a real, live talking snake, I will revise my assessment that snakes don't talk. I will not decide that something that looks remarkably like a snake must not really be a snake if it talks.     The reality is that many christians "leave the fold." And then people like you lie and say they were never christian to begin with and you start quoting your bible. The reason that passage was put in there was to lie. The writer knew that christians left. He wanted to make cure that no remaining "sheep" listened to them and had their spell broken as well.

  13. Not that it will help, but allow me to explain this to you Pvblivs. As Christians, the ultimate authority of our reasoning is God and His Word. There are things that on the surface, granted, don't appear to make sense. Why do Christians believe them, because God, and not our autonomous reason, is our authority.Now, as non-Christians, obviously God is not the ultimate authority of their reasoning.It is impossible to go from God being the ultimate authority of one's reasoning to the position that He is not. When there are areas that Christians have difficulty with, we are to "lean not on our own understanding, but in all our ways acknowledge God, and He will make our paths straight" (From Proverbs 3:5,6)If one reasons out of Christianity, then it is clear that God was never the ultimate authority of their reasoning, and they were never Christians at all, just as it says in 1 John 2:19.Now, no doubt you will rant and rave, insult, and quote-mine, but please tell me, how does one go from the position that God is the ultimate authority of one's reasoning to the position that He is not?

  14. "Not that it will help, but allow me to explain this to you Pvblivs. As Christians, the ultimate authority of our reasoning is God and His Word. There are things that on the surface, granted, don't appear to make sense. Why do Christians believe them, because God, and not our autonomous reason, is our authority."Hang on a moment, Sye. Isn't the Bible the inerrant word of your god? Are you able to ask your god directly when parts of it aren't clear? If not then your ultimate authority is the Bible, a book riddled with error and laughable bullshit."It is impossible to go from God being the ultimate authority of one's reasoning to the position that He is not."As a very large majority of Christians don't buy this presubullshit, you assertion is just that – an assertion, and makes your following point nothing but a strawman.

  15. And, in case you missed what Chris said, he DIDN'T say I wasn't a Christian, he said I'd never believed – which I was amused by considering he, and others like him, claim that I DO believe in his god, but 'deny that belief in unrighteousness'.Really, you lot need to try and work out what you actually believe other people think. Perhaps you should have a chart? You could keep it on your computer, next to your 'TAG Debate' flowchart.

  16. Hmmm, looks like you 'missed' the question. Allow me to repost:"How does one go from the position that God is the ultimate authority of one's reasoning to the position that He is not?"Resume dodging.

  17. I answered that, I said that the majority of Christians don't consider that to be their position.

  18. You see, Sye, most Christians see their god as the Ultimate authority of the Law, of what's right and wrong, but they hold their ability to reason as their own. It's only Bahnsen fanboys who get wrapped up in this 'ultimate authority of one's reasoning' horse crap.

  19. "I answered that, I said that the majority of Christians don't consider that to be their position."Erm, how is that an answer to the question?"How does one go from the position that God is the ultimate authority of one's reasoning to the position that He is not?Resume dodging.

  20. "How does one go from the position that God is the ultimate authority of one's reasoning to the position that He is not?"Ummmm, perhaps by finally realizing its not really true after all….JoE

  21. Hmm, was going through an old Fundamentally flawed podcast, where at the 40:40 mark I ask:“What is the ultimate authority of the Christian, is it their own reasoning, or is it the Word of God?”Then some dude calling himself Alex Botten answers: “It’s the Word of God.”Know him there Alex? 😀

  22. It is the word of their god, but only insomuch as being obedient to his supposed commandments. This does NOT apply to them surrendering their ability to fucking REASON. Jesus Sye, your constant 'I know what everyone else thinks and believes' schtick is getting very very old.

  23. "How does one go from the position that God is the ultimate authority of one's reasoning to the position that He is not?"Ok, I'll answer AGAIN, see if you like this answer better (and JoE has already pretty much covered this). The means by which a believer goes from accepting a god as an ultimate authority, to realising that one's reasoning is more authoritative is (are you ready?) BY STOPPING BELIEVING IN THE GOD WHO SUPPLIES THAT AUTHORITY!Once one has realised that no gods exist, that the whole thing is a lie, there is no longer any need to see the non-existent god as an authority. I'd have thought you'd have been able to figure this out, Sye.

  24. "It is the word of their god, but only insomuch as being obedient to his supposed commandments"Hmm, that's not what that Alex Botten guy said. He said that the Word of God was the ultimate authority and NOT the person's own ability to reason. Unless of course only obedience to the commandments requires reason???"BY STOPPING BELIEVING IN THE GOD WHO SUPPLIES THAT AUTHORITY!"Is there a reason for "STOPPING BELIEVING" or is it "without reason" (i.e "irrational)? If there is a REASON, how does one go from God being the authority of that reason to Him not being the authority?

  25. Looks like it's a good thing that I also posted my comment elsewhere.

  26. Sye TenB:As Christians, the ultimate authority of our reasoning is God and His Word. There are things that on the surface, granted, don't appear to make sense. Why do Christians believe them, because God, and not our autonomous reason, is our authority.There's a problem: Why is it that xians can't get their dogma straight then?For example: Do babies go to hell?Dusman says yes.1. Yes, babies can be sent to Hell since they are conceived in Adam (Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Rom. 5:19). I could care less whether you think such is hogwash or not, for such is God.Others say no.Adult men and women have no excuse, for they know better (Rom. 1:19-20), but babies can not accept what they do not know, and therefore can not be held responsible.Jesus always accepts children and He indicates that in the New Testament several times. This was even found in the Old Testament when God refused to let the disobedient Israelites enter the Promised Land due to their unbelief. He does not, however, hold the children responsible for what the parents have done….. etc. Just read on, more verses are given.Read through each link. Both sites have bible quotes to back them up! How is it that different people, devoted to and using your god as the source of their reasoning, etc, can get their wires crossed? Is it that this holy book is ambiguous, and contradictory? Is the "holy spirit" not communicating with one (or both) groups of people?How is such an inconsistent "justification" for a worldview valid?

  27. "Looks like it's a good thing that I also posted my comment elsewhere. "Has a comment been eaten? Sorry if it has, I don't see anything stuck in the spam filters. Sorry that I've not checked sooner, I've been recording a podcast with the infamous VenomFangX

  28. "I've been recording a podcast with the infamous VenomFangX"Good thing you got a break from all this presupp nonsense 😉

  29. "how does one go from God being the authority of that reason to Him not being the authority?"By ceasing to believe in him, which happens when you realise that no gods have ever existed. How many times do I have to answer this?

  30. "By ceasing to believe in him, which happens when you realise that no gods have ever existed. How many times do I have to answer this?"How 'bout you try answering the actual question? Is there a reason for "STOPPING BELIEVING" or is it "without reason" (i.e "irrational)? If there is a REASON, how does one go from God being the authority of that reason to Him not being the authority?

  31. Alex:Has a comment been eaten?My comment wasn't eaten on this site, I was referring to CL Bolt's site.He had posted on JC's site, saying that he had something to think over. I replied, as is seen in the first link in this comment, and the last one on my last comment

  32. Ah, yes. Chris's new blog has already nailed its colours to the mast re: ignoring certain comments.

  33. "Ah, yes. Chris's new blog has already nailed its colours to the mast re: ignoring certain comments."And anyone that would delete comments from a blog has got to be a moron who is trying to hide something right? 😉

  34. Funny you should say that, Sye: Remember this thread?Just read back one or so pages and onwards a page or two to get the full context of this.

  35. Ok, the pages before that page I linked to don't mention Sye deleting comments on Hovind's blog; just read the page I linked to and some of the ones after it then.

  36. This post has been removed by the author.

  37. Bolt you posed a question on your blog for JC to think about: I decided to tell you what I thought about it, and yes, it was on topic. To say that it wasn't is a lie on your part.You are outright lying when you say that it wasn't. I suspect that you just didn't want any potential readers to have access to the information that I gave in my measely three links! You make it sound like my comments are nothing but links or something. At least JC is more honest than you so my comment is preserved on his site for others to read and judge.Your question opened the door to my "atheist preaching". You made a false ad-hom attack on Alex in particular and, I suspect, on atheists in general, on your site. I provided a link and a quote which showed you that your attack was unjustified.You, on the other hand, provided no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim about Alex. Remember what it was? It was your statement Alex just chooses to reject said evidence, not because he is an intellectually apt fellow, but because of his sin..So am I to assume that straightening out a xian falsehoold about atheists counts as "atheist preaching"? You must really find that strawman of atheists (ie. they don't believe because they like being sinful) useful eh?You don't like being caught out when you lie about the motives of those who don't agree with you? Tough.You people are the ones who always claim to have the "objective basis for morality". Act like it.Here: If you don't want anyone to ever correct you when you say something inaccurate about atheists (especially when it's an attack on a particular person!) here's what you do: Close your blog off to comments altogether.

  38. I'm most amused to see that Chris is STILL very confused over on his blog. Poor chaps needs a holiday or something.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: