How did they know I was a Dandy Warhols fan??

These are the comments from my post I just didn't get it.

Anonymous_1 said...

Godless hippy,

The light wouldn't go out if you were reading the Good Book for once. God would keep it on becuase (sic) he loves you and wants you to be saved.

A-Man said...

Hah! Godless hippy. That's awesome. I can't even tell if anonymous is being sarcastic or serious.

If he/she is actually serious, I have a question...
In the history of electricity and churches, has there ever been a light globe go out in a church or other Christian establishment? Or in fact, at the house of anonymous? Because, if any light globes have ever been replaced even once, then by your logic, God doesn't love you or the patrons of the churches either...

Anonymous_1 said...

Dear A-man,

There is a circle in Hell set aside for people who ask rhetorical questions. They sit next to the sarastics (sic), those who make puns, and those who blind their hearts and minds to the truth by using tricks of language.

Of course lightbulbs eventually go pop. They are man's inventions, not God's creations.

If God wants a person to read the Good News, He will intervene in the world as necessary. That is proved a thousand times in the Old and New Testament. I suggest you educate yourself.

But if you "scientists" want to do the world a service, why don't you get yourself to a church one time, with a pencil and pad, and observe there if a lightbulb blows and observe whether anyone at the time was reading a Bible.

Instead you use poor logic to make the nasty minded joke that if a lightbuld goes out then God has foresaken (sic) his believers. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are a callow youth and do not know what you say.

Anonymous_2 said...

"Proved a thousand times in the Old and New Testament"?

Anonymous, you accuse A-man of poor logic and then base your argument on the assumption that something is in a book, so it must be true? Where is the tangible evidence? This post is about science and proof, which you have provided none of.

I wonder; if Harry Potter was written 2000 years ago, would we take that to be fact also?

This discussion is a good example of the difference between dogma, in particular religious dogma, and science. The dogmatist makes the statement "I am right", while the scientist asks the question, "Am I right?".

So how do we know who is right? Who makes the better argument? Who is using reason and who is using logical fallacies?

Let's start. The burden of proof is always on the claimant.
Evidence has to be provided by the person making the statement or hypothesis. Also, and this is crucial, the hypothesis has to be a non-negative statement. For example, "God exists" is a valid hypothesis whereas "God does not exist" is not. Let's replace the word god with "A teapot in orbit around Jupiter" or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster". Now it is impossible to rule out these two. However, there is just no evidence to suppose these things exist. Also, does the existence or non-existence of the teapot affect our understanding of nature? If not, then we can invoke Occam's Razor and disregard the hypothesis that the teapot exists in its said location.

Now A-Man is just after some evidence that anonymous_1's god exists. It's not up to him to prove that god doesn't exist, it's up to anonymous_1 to prove he/she/it does. What makes good evidence? As anonymous_2 says quite rightly, just because something is written down does not make it true.

So let's have a look at anonymous_1 evidence:
God loves us. Firstly, you have to prove god exists. You can't assume something you want to prove. Next.

That is proved a thousand times in the Old and New Testament. Give me chapter and verse of these instances. Oh, and make sure you specify which book you want to use. Have you read the works that your book has been translated from? Do you agree with its translation? Do you have it in its original tongue? Why do you think that these texts are factual or represent actual people? One assumption made here is that I haven't read the said texts and researched their origins. Doing so was one rationale that led me to the conclusion that there is no possible reason for such a being. In fact, I would even put it that these texts actually provide arguments against god's existence.

But if you "scientists" want to do the world a service, why don't you get yourself to a church one time, with a pencil and pad, and observe there if a lightbulb blows and observe whether anyone at the time was reading a Bible. (I'll just neglect the assumption that I haven't been to church. For 15 years I went to church, ah, and I can't help writing this pun, religiously.) An experiment we can perform. To make this a watertight experiment, the claimant must agree that if a lightbulb blows whilst someone is reading a bible then their god doesn't exist. They must be happy with the experimental conditions. No escape clauses. Then we can have someone continuously reading the bible with lightbulbs on all around.

The rest of the comments are just ad hominem attacks. It is the refuge of those that just can't provide any credible evidence.

Until such time as conclusive evidence can be given, I shall remain a "godless hippy".

(By the way, the day I gave up believing in the invisible being was the most liberating experience of my life so far. It wasn't easy. The entire process took a long time.)