The 30-Second God Debate…


a

From CEPHUS

I’ve mentioned before that I favor a 30-second debate format for any and all debates between atheists and theists.  I think that so many debates are an utter waste of time because they never actually establish anything. Take an article written over on Hausdorff’s blog, and for the record, this is being written the same day that article was released, showing just how far ahead I’m writing. Now I admit to not watching the particular debate referenced in his article. I tried but it was exactly the same as a dozen other debates I’ve seen in just the past couple of months alone and they are all pretty much identical. The problem with each and every one of these debates is that nobody ever actually expects the theist to demonstrate that their claims about their god are factually true.

I treat every other woo claim exactly the same. Bigfoot? Trot me out a body. Aliens? Same thing. Ghosts? Prove they are real. Telepathy? Read my mind under controlled conditions and get it 100% correct. NDEs? Let’s see you read that sign on top of the cabinet with perfect recall. Why should God get any special treatment? If theists want to talk about God, the first thing they need to do is prove God is real. If they cannot do so, then why should I take the existence of God any more seriously than I take the existence of leprechauns or unicorns? This is something that needs to be pointed out to all religious apologists everywhere, there’s no more free lunch when it comes to debating their religious beliefs. Put up or shut up. The gauntlet is thrown down.

Of course, the second you say this, they get upset and call you intolerant and unreasonable, but why is this unreasonable?  Because they can’t do it? Why not? Failure to back up claims with evidence is exactly why we shouldn’t take those claims seriously. That’s how every rational endeavor humanity engages in works, why is religion the exception?

They can’t really claim that God magically exists outside of any rational ability to evaluate because they, themselves, have simply invented that quality. Look over the history of Christianity, God used to be easily verifiable, but as science and reason grew, theists realized that they were dangerously close to being found out and kept stuffing God into smaller and smaller holes until they finally just declared that God is undetectable. Why? Because that’s what they needed to do in order to keep from having their fraud discovered. It’s no different from some psychic trying to win the James Randi Foundation prize by saying that his psychic powers are inherently unable to be studied. Sorry. Doesn’t work that way. Next!

I do not accept that God is an unchallengeable given. I do not accept that God is inherently impossible to objectively evaluate. If that’s the scam then it deserves to be tossed onto the trash heap of con artistry, it is a sham, a hoax, the ultimate deception in a long, long line of religious rackets. You don’t get to declare that your beliefs are both correct and that they cannot be challenged.  What’s to stop me from inventing a god out of whole cloth, like Bobo the Tree God, who can magically avoid any test you can conceivably give to him, yet is all powerful and all knowing and in control of the universe? How is that any different than what Christians or Muslims do today, other than the fact that I know I’m spinning a bullshit yarn and they buy into theirs hook, line and sinker?

So, no more. No more word salad. No more undemonstrated claims. No more blind faith. No more free lunch. Put up or shut up. That’s my new position when it comes to religion.
~~

9 Comments

WOW !! I Love this approach. God? Fine, prove it 100% No can do?
then get in line with the tooth fairy.

PUT up or shut up…No facts = no god. simple.

“anything you can put into a nutshell belongs there” — trad.

on the other hand, to prove God, does it suffice to prove a pre-existing order (something existing before humans thought they invented it)?
Something you can do in thirty seconds is to explore the radius’ relation to a circle. The radius goes into the circumference exactly six times. It is called the hexagon. It is a perfect fit, and perfectly orderly. Would you call that evidence for intelligence or coincidence? The same goes for all the perfect polygons (3-sides, 4-sides, 5-sides, and their subsequent truncations). It is called sacred geometry because it goes back to creation, possibly before [– aka Classical Geometry, cf. Plato.] It is a system of a perfect non-humanly invented pre-existing order at the root of creation in the body of any circle. Does this pre-existing order infer a pre-existing intelligence? If so, God.
see Robert Lawlor’s Sacred Geometry — a masterpiece intro that is now available online for free.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themeasuringsystemofthegods.com%2FRobert%2520Lawlor%2520-%2520Sacred%2520Geometry.pdf&ei=wI-bUqz2MKKeiAL8oYDIBg&usg=AFQjCNHHyFzIAd1n1szIR5ifcXm5_vmh_g&sig2=F0g1qrT5m_sYJh6Zf0ZRCA

total dumbshit quote screw-up.
there’s plenty of “things” that can be put into a nutshell.

“any philosophy that can be put into a nutshell belongs there.”

Frankly, Tomly and Jerrish, I am just embarrassed by everyone involved in the God thing, no matter what their position. Sometimes a “debate” goes on, and on, and on….because both sides are wrong. This a recurrent problem, one of the serious discontents of civilization, where willingly charge off the edge of reality chasing imagined fantasies. Proving that someone’s belief is not factually correct becomes silly when there is no possibility of accessing the facts. That someone is shown to be wrong says nothing about what is correct, especially when the issue involves an out of control urge to fill the voids of reality with fantasy in pursuit of comfort. At my most arrogant, and some of you know how seriously arrogant that can be, I would not consider myself competent to judge things that are totally beyond my rational grasp, of any persons rational grasp. People then sometimes say, “Oh, you are an agnostic.” No. I am a complex ape with a rudimentary capacity for symbolic logic that can lure me off the edge into absurdity if I let it. This is not the creature to go to get the lowdown on whatever may exist beyond his horizons. Like I said, just a feeling of bemused embarrassment, like one might feel encountering one’s child playing with condoms found in the nightstand. “Look Daddy. Baloons!” What do you say about that?

ybera

Reading towards the end of your blog, I got a ‘brilliant’ idea. Why not write an “Atheists Creed?” When I was a Catholic we had to learn ‘The Apostles’ Creed.’ “I believe in The Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth…etc.” It seems like there ought to be a universal atheist’s creed, “I don’t accept that God is…”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,559 other followers