A conversation with an atheist

This took place on Wednesday, in #apologetics. I removed lines that described some channel activities, not connected with the conversation. It would be funny, if... Well, see for yourself, how sily atheism really is.

03[18:47] * mikew has joined #apologetics
[18:50] [mikew]why do you believe in a fully debunked myth?
[18:51] [Wiser]lol...deep in thought
[18:51] [Wiser]me too.
[18:51] [BK__]mikew, why do you ask leading questions?
[18:51] [MrPeabody]debunked myth?
[18:51] [BK__]mikew has just committed the fallacy of the complex question
[18:51] [BK__]sort of like saying "do you still beat your wife?
[18:52] [Wiser]is wondering what the discussion..is...or was...
[18:52] [mikew]well your religion is exactly the same as other pagan religions that we both agree as myths.
[18:52] [BK__]Mike must first demonstrate that said "myth" has been debunked prior to asking the question
[18:52] [BK__]"exactly the same" ... well, it cannot be *exactly* the same, now can it?
[18:53] [Wiser]mikew if i might offer a point here...you're assuming someone thinks something is a myth..when in fact they may not.
[18:53] [blueDL]mikew: you an atheist?
[18:53] [mikew]http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ shows how your religion was stolen from pagan mythology.
[18:53] [mikew]yes
[18:53] [BK__]what is my religion, Mike?
[18:53] [blueDL]why do you hold to a belief system that has been completely debunked?
[18:53] [mikew]xianity
[18:53] [BK__]specifically, what kind?
[18:53] [mikew]atheism is a lack of a belif in a sky daddy so it cant be debunked
[18:53] [BK__]in other words, I have a specific set of beliefs ... do you know what they are, Mike?
[18:54] [MrPeabody]Psalm 10:4 The wicked, in the pride of his countenance, saith, He will not require it. All his thoughts are, There is no God.
[18:55] [blueDL]mikew: sure it can. All you have to do is show that the presuppositional bases of your belief system is stealing from the very belief system you claim to be debunking.
[18:55] [mikew]im guessing you are an xian so you believe a sky daddy made the world in 7 days (despite evidence to the contrary) and then turned into a person to die on a cosss
[18:55] [Wiser]just wondering here..how someone with "no belief" feels they can teach someone...a new belief?....from what?
[18:55] [blueDL]btw, 'sky daddy' is offensive. Please desist.
[18:55] [BK__]blue, are Van Tillian? :)
[18:55] [Wiser]if you havent got it in the first place..how can you share?
[18:55] [mikew]atheism is based on evidence and so we dont have beliefs, just facts
[18:55] [blueDL]mikew: do you believe that?
[18:56] [Bilbofett]hey mikew, I have a lack of belief in you, so I guess no one can debunk that. I guess you don't exist :)
[18:56] [mikew]I know
[18:56] [BK__]mikew, I have a lot of beliefs and you haven't answered the question
[18:56] [blueDL]mikew: how do you know?
[18:56] [mikew](i dont have beliefs)
[18:56] [Bilbofett]do you believe that?
[18:56] [Wiser]lol...evidence of what..?
[18:56] [Wiser]creative force?
[18:56] [mikew]well i dont know exaclt becos christians argue about what they believe
[18:56] [Wiser]universal power?
[18:56] [BK__]as do non-Christians, mike
[18:57] [MrPeabody]Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; There is none that doeth good.
[18:57] [BK__]so my point is this - how could you point me to a link that debunks my belief system, when you don't even know the details of that belief system
[18:57] [mikew]but we argue because were freethinkers and think for ourselves whereas you argue because you were brainwashed differently
[18:57] [BK__]demonstrate that to be the case, mike
[18:57] [Wiser]lol....somehow mike, your arguments lack conviction
[18:58] [mikew]i dont have to demonstarte anything. have you heard of russels teapot?
[18:58] [BK__]you made an assertion, mile
[18:58] [BK__]mike
[18:58] [Bilbofett]mikew I grew up as a non-christian and was one longer than I've been a christian. I changed my mind. You haven't. Which one of us has a closed mind?
[18:58] [BK__]you have burden of proof
[18:58] [Wiser]you call yourself free, yet you assume beliefs of others..
[18:58] [Wiser]when in fact you have no clue what they believe or don't believe...
[18:58] [mikew]john loftus grew up as a christian and he changed his mind
[18:58] [Wiser]how is that fact, but rather assertions..
[18:58] [mikew]and bart erhman did
[18:58] [blueDL]mikew: CS Lewis grew up as an atheist and changed his mind. What's your point?
[18:59] [Bilbofett]mikew the bible teaches that true christians never leave and are christians for life. Bart and John were not real christians.
[18:59] [Wiser]what of Saul/Paul
[18:59] [mikew]but atheists change their mind becos os evidence
[19:00] [BK__]which ones, Mike?
[19:00] [mikew]did paul exist or was he made up by the early church?
[19:00] [BK__]which atheists change their mind because of evidence?
[19:00] [Wiser]why would anyone "make up" a persecutor ?
06[19:00] * blueDL is waiting for an original thought/argument.
[19:00] [mikew]john loftus. he realised that the universe was to big for a god and bart erhman becuase he found that the bible is not the same as the origional
[19:01] [blueDL]mikew: how does Ehrman know that? He doesn't have the original.
[19:01] [BK__]*ding* !
[19:01] [mikew]that bart erhmans point
[19:02] [blueDL]so, to make a claim about something unseen... isn't that faith?
[19:02] [BK__]mike, which atheists change their minds because of evidence? All of them? Some of them? One of them?
[19:02] [mikew]most of them. it is a proven fact that atheists are more intelligent than those who believe in god
03[19:03] * Tur8inFan has joined #apologetics
[19:03] [BK__]how do you know "most of them" change their mind based on evidence? (and the IQ of atheists on the whole is irrelevant to the truth of Christianity)
[19:03] [mikew]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-%27less-likely-to-believe-in-God%27.html
[19:03] [BK__]irrelevant, mike
[19:04] [blueDL]mikew: that doesn't say that atheists are more intelligent.
[19:04] [mikew]when you go on an xian site it is all about the holy spirit however when you go on an atheist one it is all about science, logic and reason
[19:05] [BK__]demonstrably false, Mike
[19:05] [mikew]rubbish
[19:05] [BK__]just visit aomin.org (among many others)
[19:05] [Dominus]Eh not all atheists are scientists.
[19:05] [BK__]"rubbish" is not a rebuttal
[19:05] [mikew]no but most scientists are atheists. have you read the god delusion?
[19:05] [Dominus]There are plenty of irrational atheists :)
[19:06] [BK__]again, irrelevant, mike
[19:06] [blueDL]mikew: yes. It's tripe and easily refutable. What's your point? That Dawkins, a scientist, is an atheist? We know that.
[19:06] [mikew]irrelevant = i dont like it because it is true and inconvienient for you
[19:06] [BK__]no, irrelevant = not relevant to whether Christianity is true
[19:07] [BK__]look up "appeal to authority" on one of your atheist web sites, mike
[19:08] [mikew]i bet if is said the world was flat youd all appeal to authority then.
[19:08] [BK__]try me
[19:08] [BK__]and the point remains, your argument thus far has been largely an appeal to authority
[19:09] [BK__]thus it has been fallacious in nature
[19:09] [mikew]the world is flat (i know it isnt but lets pretend for arguments sake, youd then say 'oh, no scientists says that')
[19:09] [BK__]I don't agree that the world is flat
[19:09] [BK__]what makes you say it is flat (for the sake of argument)?
[19:09] [mikew]that appealinhg to your own authority
[19:09] [BK__]no, it isn't appealing to anything yet
[19:10] [BK__]it is a simply statement of belief
[19:10] [mikew]no. a belief is something in the face of evidence. the world is round is a fact
[19:10] [@bluewurx]mikew: BK's point is that so far you haven't given us any facts, but rather used bad argumentation to try to make your point.
[19:10] [mikew]o.k what about the fact that the bible is full of contradictions.
[19:11] [BK__]beliefs aren't "in the face" of evidence necessarily - you can believe something that is true, or believe something that is not true
[19:11] [BK__]so is the earth still flat, Mike?
[19:11] [mikew]richard dawkins says christian belif is blinf faith
[19:11] [BK__]CS Lewis says it isn't
[19:11] [@bluewurx]mikew: what about the fact that every contradiction you can bring up has been well refuted?
[19:12] [mikew]no, because in the real world you can appeal to authority
[19:12] [@bluewurx]Dawkins says a lot of things. Again, appeal to authority.
[19:12] [@bluewurx]mikew: is your whole argument then that you are an atheist because Dawkins told you to be one?
[19:12] [BK__]sure, you *can* appeal, but it is fallacious to do so
[19:12] [MrPeabody]Psalm 19:1-3 The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, And night unto night showeth knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language; Their voice is not heard.
[19:12] [mikew]you appeal to the bible, isnt that an appeal to authority?
[19:12] [Dominus]mikew: why do you see Dawinks as your God?
[19:12] [Dominus]Dawkins, even.
[19:13] [Dominus]You seem to be very religious about it,.
[19:13] [BK__]no, mike ... not in the same sense as you are appealing to Dawkins
06[19:13] * @bluewurx nods at BK__
[19:13] [mikew]he is intelligent, one of the top scientists in the world and shreds your belifs to bits
[19:13] [Dominus]But you're not... so how can you tell he's not deceiving you?
[19:13] [BK__]mike, is Dawkins ever wrong?
[19:14] [mikew]he did once write an article saying adultery is ok which i disagreed with but these are rare events
02[19:14] * @Micah has quit IRC (Ping timeout for Micah[12.53.234.66])
[19:14] [BK__]so it is possible that an appeal to Dawkins would be a bad idea, right?
[19:14] [BK__]'cause he can be wrong
[19:14] [Dominus]If we have to believe Dawkins, humans are nothing but hungry sex machines.
[19:15] [mikew]well your god can be wrong (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) but you appeal to him/her
[19:15] [@bluewurx]mikew: perhaps you can give us some supportable facts for your atheism? So far, all you've done is give us ad hominemns and appeals to authority. Any 1st-year debate student could see that you are losing the argument.
[19:15] [BK__]again, is it possible that an appeal to Dawkins is a bad idea, since he can be wrong?
[19:16] [mikew]but then where do you get your information from as nobody is perfect
[19:16] [BK__]how do you know that nobody is perfect?
[19:16] [mikew]tell mr someone who is prefect
[19:17] [BK__]so is it possible that someone is perfect, 'cause you just said that nobody is perfect
[19:17] [mikew]well if there is then ive never met them. you certainly arent perfect
[19:18] [BK__]That's correct ... I am not perfect, nor are you, nor is Dawkins. So once again, an appeal to Dawkins isn't really the way to go, is it?
[19:19] [mikew]well dawkins has good argumets. when you think about it were all atheists when it comes to allah, buddah, the bogie under the sea. ive just gone one god further
[19:19] [BK__]but Dawkins could make a mistake in his arguments, no?
[19:19] [BK__]so an appeal to Dawkins isn't really a good idea if one wants to be *certain* of something, right?
[19:19] [Dominus]BK__: well, to be fair, what you're doing is an ad hominem.
[19:19] [mikew]so couldd you and dawkins has a better track record for being right
[19:20] [BK__]I am trying to get mike to see that an appeal to authority is fallacious, Dominus
[19:20] [Dominus]This discussion is going nowhere unless someone starts citing Dawkins, either proving or disproving his statements.
[19:20] [Dominus]BK__: yes, using another fallacy :)
[19:20] [BK__]I am not cutting down Dawkins - just stating that he is not perfect, and therefore not a source of inerrancy
[19:21] [mikew]neither is the bibe. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ shows thousands of errors in it
[19:21] [BK__]and no, we actually don't need to cite Dawkins at all
[19:21] [Dominus]If you don't mind running around in circles for a while, I guess you don't :)
[19:21] [BK__]Mike, there has to be something above and beyond appealing to scientists or websites, would you not agree? In other words, the truth or falsity of a claim must be evaluated on its own
[19:22] [mikew]thats what i do as i think for myself
[19:22] [BK__]yet you referred to Dawkins a lot, mike ;)
[19:23] [mikew]because he is a great source of information and vey intelligent and scientific
[19:23] [BK__]so, with that said, do you have anything you want to argue yourself, without referring to websites or scientists?
[19:23] [BK__]since you think for yourself, and all that ;)
02[19:24] * Algoberry has quit IRC (Ping timeout for Algoberry[m235e36d0.tmodns.net])
[19:24] [mikew]all my information comes from websites. why are there so many errors in the bible. If the bible was the word of god then websites like http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ wouldnt exist.
[19:25] [@bluewurx]mikew: the fool says in his heart there is no God. There will *always* be sites like that one.
[19:25] [BK__]but we aren't arguing against a website - we are arguing with *you*, Mike. And your conclusion about this website not existing if the Bible is the word of God does not logically follow.
[19:27] [mikew]O.K would you believe a book with zombies, dionosaurs, dragons, sea monsters and extra-terrestrails in?
[19:27] [BK__]that depends on specifically what the book said - whether it gave me a reason to believe in these things, etc.
[19:27] [BK__]how about you?
[19:28] [mikew]i wouldnt but all of them can be found in the bible http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Monsters_in_the_Bible
[19:28] [BK__]why wouldn't you?
[19:28] [mikew]because those things are silly
07[19:28] [@annafk]mikew, how old are you?
[19:28] [BK__]is that a statement of fact, or just an opinion?
[19:28] [mikew]none of your busuiness
[19:29] [mikew]it is a fact that all of those things are in the bible, that website i linked to cites chapter and verse for each one
07[19:29] [@annafk]could you please answer, anyway?
[19:30] [mikew]why?
07[19:30] [@annafk]because I would like to know
[19:30] [BK__]I am even looking at the website, mike, so I couldn't tell whether or not what it says is correct - I just want to know why *you* wouldn't believe a book that said they are real, if that book happened to present reasons to believe they were? In other words, what is it that leads you to believe something is either true or not?
[19:31] [BK__]sorry ... I am *not* looking at the website, is what I meant to say :)
[19:31] [mikew]bury your head in the sand and not look at my sources
[19:31] [Dominus]mikew: do you believe in the dodo?
07[19:31] [@annafk]we know your sources
[19:32] [BK__]I don't have the time to read all your sources, mike. That's why I want you to present your own argument, rather than pointing to someone else's.
07[19:32] [@annafk]do you really think that you are coming here with anything new?
[19:32] [Dominus]Here's your chance, mikew. Just cite something from that website.
[19:32] [Dominus]Then back it up reasonably.
[19:32] [mikew]yes
03[19:32] * Looking up mikew user info...
[19:33] [@bluewurx]mikew: how do you know those Web sites are correct?
[19:33] [mikew] Beast With Seven Heads Take all the horror scripts from hollywood, put them in a blender and you have the Book of Revelation. It contains some pretty radical monsters such as this 10-horned, 7-headed beast: - Revelation 17:3: So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. Extra-Terrestrials 1 Peter 2:11:"Dear friend
[19:35] [BK__]what is the point, mike?
07[19:35] [@annafk]so... ?
[19:35] [Dominus]"The dodo (Raphus cucullatus) was a flightless bird endemic to the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius. Related to pigeons and doves, it stood about a metre tall, weighing about 20 kilograms, living on fruit and nesting on the ground."
[19:35] [mikew]if there were 7 headed monsters and extra terrestrails wandering around when the bible was written why arent there today?
[19:35] [BK__]hey, it's a quote war! :)
[19:36] [Dominus]mikew: if there were dodos wandering around in the 16th century, why aren't there today?
[19:36] [@bluewurx]mikew: your quote cut off. YOu can only have so many characters per line. You cut off at 'Dear friend'
[19:36] [mikew]it said "I urge you, as aliens and strangers to this world."
[19:36] [@bluewurx]oh, brother.
[19:37] [BK__]what do you think the word "alien" means there, mike?
[19:37] [mikew]well freethoughtpedia says extraterretrial
03[19:37] * DrOakafk has joined #apologetics
03[19:37] * CStar sets mode: +o DrOakafk
[19:37] [BK__]so that's what you think it means?
[19:37] [@bluewurx]mikew: what do you think it is?
[19:37] [@bluewurx]did the author think it meant extraterrestrial?
[19:37] [mikew]freethoughtpedias explanation sounds good to me
[19:38] [BK__]because it is freethoughtpedia's explanation, or for some other reason?
07[19:38] [@annafk]there we have the depth of atheism as presented by teens
[19:38] [@bluewurx]mikew: my wife has an resident alien card. Is she an extraterrestrial?
[19:38] [mikew]well it makes sense, alien is often used to mean extraterrestrial
[19:39] [BK__]it *can* mean that, but why do you think it *must* mean that in this context?
[19:39] [mikew]and it appears that pile wrote the artcile by looking at the history and he is the guy incharge of freethoughtpedia
[19:39] [@bluewurx]mikew: answer my question please.
07[19:40] [@annafk]mikew, you no longer need to tell me your age
[19:40] [mikew]you seem to go along the lines of 'if it might be true the we will assume the bible is true'
07[19:40] [@annafk]it shows
[19:40] [@bluewurx]mikew: answer my question please.
[19:41] [BK__]mike, why do you think it *must* mean that?
[19:41] [mikew]99% of the time alien is sued to mean extraterrestrial. I am not alone in thinking this as freethoughtpedia backs me up
[19:42] [@bluewurx]99% of the time? Is that a fact?
07[19:42] -]Ops #apologetics: this is fun 4,1[Ops Only[
[19:42] [mikew]sort of
[19:42] [BK__]have you considered looking at what the word means in the original language?
[19:42] [@bluewurx] 1. gen. Belonging to another person, place, or family; strange, foreign, not of one's own.
[19:42] [BK__]there are resources to help you do that
[19:42] [@bluewurx] 2. a. esp. Of a foreign nation and allegiance.
[19:42] [mikew]im sure the person who wrote the article on freethoughtpedia did that
[19:42] [@bluewurx]mikew: stop me when we get to the right definition for you....
[19:42] [BK__]thanks, blue
[19:43] [@bluewurx] 3. a. Foreign in nature or character; belonging to something else; of foreign or other origin.
[19:43] [BK__]I don't think he did, Mike
[19:43] [@bluewurx] 4. Of a nature or character differing from (of obs.), far removed from, inconsistent with.
[19:43] [BK__]But there is one way to find out, right?
[19:43] [@bluewurx] 5. Of a nature repugnant, adverse or opposed to.
[19:43] [mikew]what a cop out...o well, some people use the word to mean this.
[19:43] [@bluewurx]btw, I'm quoting the OED, which is considered *the* pre-eminent dictionary of the English language.
[19:43] [BK__]Mike, the original Greek word is "pä'-roi-kos"
03[19:44] * annLittle has joined #apologetics
[19:44] [BK__]http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3941&t=kjv
[19:44] [BK__]this is the actual word used in 1 Pet 2:11
[19:45] [mikew]this is just a typical christian response. lets put it like this, freethoughtpedia is written by atheists whereas you are biased and trying to fudge it so that it fits your beliefs
[19:45] [@bluewurx]mikew: I think we have just shown you how fallacious that 'extraterrestrial' argument is. When you first encountered it, did you ask what the opposing view was?
[19:45] [BK__]I wish this were a "typical" Christian response, actually. But no, this is a response that includes looking at the original language the verse was written in.
07[19:46] [@annafk]obviously Peter meant StarTrek characters :)
[19:46] [@bluewurx]we're all just Klingons!
[19:46] [mikew]You obviously dont know what yo are talking about and i have wiped the floor with you
[19:46] [mikew]bye
02[19:47] * mikew has quit IRC (CGI:IRC)