Atheist fails to justify demanding evidence of God

ath 4.jpg

On my Facebook page, I posted Atheist’s reply to claim that Atheist worldview fails before it even begins.


On my Facebook page, I posted Atheist’s reply to claim that Atheist worldview fails before it even begins.

Ironically, a discussion I had with an Atheist about it on that FB page proved just that which the title states.

Charlie Reid commented, “Show me some then. Remember the bible isn’t actual evidence it’s an uncorroborated book.”

Of course, that was moving the goalpost from the outset since the article was about that which the title implies.
Now, there are a few directions one could go in terms of replying and many Christians would, essentially, bow down to the Atheist and start listing how the Bible is corroborated. Of course, this would just lead the Atheist to have the easy work of well, doing no work but just sitting there going, “Nope, doesn’t count, not good enough, next,” etc.
This is why it is important to begin at the beginning to see if they have any premise upon which to demand and condemn at all.

Thus I, who post on FB as “True Freethinker,” replied, “As usual, you are beginning with a conclusion. Before demanding evidence, you need to justify your demand for it. I realize that logic is not an imperative in your worldview but if you want to have any hope of interacting at any level of coherence you will have to learn to work your way to conclusions and not merely jump to them.”
Part of the familiarity in the manner I wrote to him is because we have been down such roads before—several times.

Charlie Reid replies, “so you haven’t gotten any evidence for your god then.”
Note how the is doubling up on moving the goalpost.

I replied, “You are jumping to conclusions, again. I realize that your worldview has you thinking that you are just a temporarily and accidentally existing reactionary animal but I mine does not so I am going to ask that you thinking in a systematic manner whereby you first justify your demand for evidence.”

Charlie Reid, “Not jumping to conclusions, over the years you have failed to provide any evidence for your extraordinary claim.
In the past you’ve claimed the discovery of Sodom and Gomorrah, Noah’s ark, chariots on the red seabed and even though a consensus of scholars conclude Abraham, Moses and probably Jesus never even existed your indoctrination will not allow this information to infiltrate your heavily guarded faith.
Because you have an old book of fairy tales which you confusingly think provides an epistemology for your irrational, incoherent, bigotry you dishonestly claim to know my worldview in an attempt to deflect from the fact there is not a shred of evidence to support your sky daddy.
What I think is an actual miracle is you sell books when you have difficulty writing a coherent sentence, I suppose a christians expectancy for literacy is less than a baby eating, immoral heathen like myself.
Any time you’re ready to provide evidence i’m ready to receive it, in the meantime i’ll be waiting laughing at you from the sidelines.
Any evidence for your particular sky daddy would be great.
Come on man, you claim atheists deliberately deny there’s evidence for your sky daddy, what’s your evidence?”

True Freethinker, “You are jumping to conclusions, again. I realize that your worldview has you thinking that you are just a temporarily and accidentally existing reactionary animal but I mine does not so I am going to ask that you thinking in a systematic manner whereby you first justify your demand for evidence.”
I decided to post that again since he decided to ignore the issue at hand—again.

Charlie Reid, “ok as we both know you cannot provide any evidence merely copy and paste a semi coherent statement to deflect from your inability to justify your god claim. What conclusion do you think i’m jumping to? Do you think the reactions in your brain are different from mine because you have an old book? If so please explain the neurological differences. Where did i demand evidence? You claimed atheists deny evidence and i’m simply asking for it.”

Note how at this point, it is tempting to move away from his fundamental problems and instead play his game. However, it is all the more important to keep focused since he has not even taken step number one at this point.

True Freethinker, “You have a gift for saturating succinct statements with many fallacies. As noted, time and again, you are jumping to a conclusion by beginning with a demand for evidence without a premise. Thus, again ‘Before demanding evidence, you need to justify your demand for it.’”

Charlie Reid, “lets take this nice and easy, one step at a time. What conclusion do you think i’m jumping to?”

True Freethinker, “The conclusion that you have a right to demand evidence.”

Charlie Reid, “Why do you believe your god exists?”

Note that this is also a very, very common tactic: he is asking virtually the same question as a means whereby to keep ignoring the issue.

True Freethinker, “Please follow the bouncing ball of this discussion. You are the one who believes that you are a temporary and accidentally existing ape and you have to temerity to demand answers: on what premise.
You merely moved the goal post due to your inability to reply to the issue at hand. Let me put it in words you would understand due to your evolutionary indoctrination: according to your worldview I believe in God because it provides me an survival advantage and so you literal have no right to say anything about and especially not against it and if you do, you are attempting to damage my ability to survive.
So, you began with a conclusion. Before demanding evidence or asking me why I believe in God you need to justify your demand. I realize that logic is not an imperative in your worldview but if you want to have any hope of interacting at any level of coherence you will have to learn to work your way to conclusions and not merely jump to them.”

And as in all Charlie related cases, this ended it as he failed to reply and thus, failed to engage.
This is not only always the same with Charlie but with all Atheists: they begin with a conclusion, I ask them to argue their way to their conclusions, they dance around, call me names, and then just go away to do it to another person who will not call them on it.

For some related info, see my books (on which I am offering a money saving deal):
Pop-Atheist Bible Expositors featuring Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dan Barker and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Reasons for Being an Atheist: A Comprehensive Guide

ath 4.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.