Theist PWND on Gamefaqs

Note: This is an older post that was sitting in my drafts.

Theist PWND on Gamefaqs.

In a discussion on the inclusion of JFK in the upcoming Call of Duty game (something I knew/know nothing about, since I don't follow the games, but this discussion was being had by others and I chimed in) the following ridiculous, frustrating, saddening, angering exchange (more like an ownage session) (with someone I have never spoken to online prior to this) was had:

Having a Relationship with God

WARNING! EXTREME

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, you have a relationship with god, do you?

How fortuitous! There's this omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, eternal being which has the power to create entire universes and all of the life within them, and this being has decided to bestow upon you, one lowly human out of around 7 billion lowly humans, the very distinctive honour of having an ongoing relationship with him/her/it.

So, having made the decision, for seemingly no reason at all, to grant you this honour, this being enters your heart, hunkers down in one of your aortic valves, and remains there until the day you die, guiding you, helping you, being your spiritual guide, your confidante, your friend. And then, upon your death, this being grants you the even bigger honour of living with him/her/it for eternity in his/her/its eternal amusement park.

And all the while, there are others, just like you, who do NOT receive such gifts. They languish on the earth in spiritual limbo, so to speak, struggling with the inability to really establish a strong faith and maintain it, and for this, they are sent to the eternal torture chamber upon their earthly demise. While you munch on greasy burgers and candied apples, they get hot oil poured down their gullet. While you ride the Tilt-A-Whirl, your hair streaming around your face as your cries of joy reverberate off of the high backed seat, their screams of anguish go unheeded as the hot pokers are jabbed into their eyeballs while their lower bodies are submerged into pools of red hot magma.

And this prompts me to ask:  

What did you do differently?

Why are you granted this special privilege? What makes you so special?

Why is it that some people's lives are saved by this being while others perish?


Why is it that some rappers careers' are helped by this being, while others are left to their own devices?


Why is it that some sports teams are helped by this being, while others are left to fend for themselves?


Why is it that some people are seemingly designed to be skeptical and incredulous when it comes to metaphysical claims, yet others are not only made to be credulous and not skeptical, but also granted that aforementioned special relationship?


What makes some people so important?

Here's a question for you: Are some people actually extra special and the deserving recipients of both a personal relationship with the creator of the entire universe and access to his/her/its eternal amusement park, or are they just people with incredible hubris, who don't even realize how incredibly narcissistic and self centered this claim really sounds? I mean, imagine, claiming that you're so special, so chosen, that the creator of the world is going to bestow upon you a relationship and eternal life. Wow.

Wow indeed.

Personally, I vote for incredible hubris. I think religion plays right into this reward schema without triggering the realization within these people that what they are claiming reeks of literally incredible hubris. Think about it: So many people die and go to hell, never knowing god.....but not you! Oh no, you get a personal relationship and eternal salvation. You have the corrrect theology, the correct god, and the relationship to seal the deal of eternal bliss, amidst a sea of torment. How fortuitous.

How fortuitous indeed.

You Have Proof of Your God's Existence? Okay, Let's Hear It.

Believe in a god? Have proof of said god's existence? I'd like to hear it.

Anyone who happens to be reading this and think they have proof of the existence of their god of choice, let me have it. 

However, if I may, before you reveal it, I'd like to set 3 rules.

1) Arguments from incredulity are fallacious and I will not accept them.  For example, saying "Look at the world around you. sIt's too "perfect." It had to be created, therefore, there's obviously a God." This is a logical fallacy. Just because you cannot fathom any other explanation does not mean there isn't one. All you are really saying is "I don't know and I am inserting "god." There are MANY other possible explanations. Some more plausible than others. So please refrain from using this as "proof." I will not accept it.

2) These also are not valid and will not be accepted as "proof:"

-You can't prove there's not a god!

-Without god, people have no reason to be moral.

The first one is just stupid burden shifting (and still not proof anyways) and the scond one is just a bare assertion fallacy (and wrong) (and still not proof).

3) For people who believe in the "one true god....." whatever proof you do have, ask yourself, could that same proof not be utilized by someone else who believes in a different god? If so, how can it be valid for you and not them? Which means......by your logic, their god must exist as well. For example, if you say "God speaks to me" and this is your proof, fine. However, if someone who believes in one of the 3799 other propsed gods says that as well, would that not be proof that their god also exists?

Okay, so if you think you have proof of god's existence and it does not consist of one of the above disqualified lines of reasoning, please do share it! Keep in mind, however, that this is for people who say they actually have proof, not for those who say it's based on faith.

9 Reasons Why We Don't Believe in Religion

Here are a collection of 9 reasons to help the religious understand why we don't buy into their belief systems. This is neither all encompassing nor to be taken as some finalized mission statement. I wouldn't consider this the most compelling list I could write, but it hits a fair number of things and does a few of them decently.

Atheism is a Religion? and The Burden of Proof UPDATED

This blog will address 2 claims I see made with respect to atheism:

1) Atheism is (or has become) a religion.

2) It takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does a theist (ie, to not believe in a god requires evidence) aka The burden of proof argument, or the ''You can't prove god doesn't exist'' argument.

These of course aren't posited by all (probably not even most) believers, but they do come up often enough in online (and other) discourse.

However, before I get to the two main points, I would just like to operationally define atheism. It's actually quite simple, as atheism is not a worldvidew; it has no edicts, dogma, or tenets. It is literally and simply the lack of a belief in god(s).

Theism=belief in god(s) (deities)

Add the prefix 'a', which denotes lacking, or being without, to it, and you get:

A-theism, or atheism, the lack of a belief in god(s) (deities)

And that's it.

We can talk about agnosticism (which is not a 3rd option, but that's for another day), antitheism, secular humanism, stron atheism (aka there is no god) aka gnostic atheism, etc etc but do not let these ideas become red herrings in discussion. No matter what the Ray Comforts or the Pat Robertsons of the world tell you, that right there is atheism, and any and all beliefs in addition to this are extraneous (not that they cannot be built upon/from it, they can be, and are). All I have in common with other atheists is my atheism. After that, our ideologies will differ as will anybody else's. I might meet an atheist tomorrow who is socially conservative and thinks religion is a positive influence (aka my total opposite), etc.

Anyways, now that we have that under wraps, let's get to the two claims, shall we?

Claim #1: Atheism is a Religion

Point me to:

1) our church

2) our tenets

3) any atheist pageantry

4) where I pay my tithes

Claim #2: ''You can't prove god doesn't exist'' argument

The burden of proof is on the claimant. Not believing claims is not a claim. The burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist. The ONLY atheists who must shoulder that burden are the gnostic (aka I know there is no god) atheists. The 99% of us that are rational don't claim knowledge. We lack the belief.

Saying I believe no gods exist is a statement that follows from my examination, and subsequent rejection of, the ''evidence'' for the existence of a god(s). I am not making a positive claim; I do NOT have the burden of proof. How would an atheist prove such a negative?

Russell's Teapot exemplifies this nicely:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. -Bertrand Russell, 1952 (unpublished article for Illustrated magazine)

Another way of looking at it is to ask yourself if you believe in the Loch Ness monster, and then ask yourself if it's up to you to prove it doesn't exist, or up to the people claiming it does to prove it. Remember, the lack of evidence is evidence. Not proof, mind you, not definitive, but certainly evidence.

Theists and atheists are not on equal ground. Saying ''I believe god exists'' is NOT equal to saying ''I believe no gods exist'' in terms of the burden of proof. I believe no gods exist because I have not been convinced otherwise. If no one had proposed a god, you would never say I have to prove this position. Now, because gods have been proposed, we're on equal ground?

No way. As soon as these gods were proposed, the burden of proof was on the ones making said propositions. If they fail to prove this claim is true, the person who continues to disbelieve is not suddenly required to provide evidence to show that this unbelief is justified.

This is why, in court, the crown has to prove the defendant is guilty. The defendant is NOT required to prove their innocence, and neither is the jury. The burden is on those making the claim. Until the person was brought up on charges, they were presumed innocent. As soon as the gulty claim was made, the burden of proof was created, and it rests on those making the claim. If this burden is not met (aka reasonable doubt) the propsoal is rejected aka disbelieved, without any further burden on the disbelievers.

This is allegorical to the atheists. Until a god is posited, I'm an atheist. Once a theist comes by and makes their case, the burden is on them. If, at the end of their presentation, I say ''I find the evidence lacking, I do not believe you,'' they don't get to say ''but you didn't PROVE that he doesn't exist!'' That job is theirs.

Theirs and theirs alone.

Unless of course I retort with "I know there is no god!" In that case, I say, good luck, pal ;)