Recently while I was googling, a BlogSpot showed up in the search that caught my eye. The post was entitled "Just a day in the life of debating an atheist." by Seeker of Truth. I shrugged, my curiosity getting the better of me, and I clicked on it. What I saw made me want to hit myself over the head with a keyboard.
The summary is this. The theist claimed that atheists only believe in what they can see, and that indeed anything that cannot be seen, or proven with the scientific method should not be believed in, or should be outright denied as being even a possibility. He claims that atheists must hold to the belief that the scientific method is perfect, and that since it is not, seeing is believing is incorrect.
This is the biggest bunch of bologna I've seen in the past month.
Look, I, like many other atheists I know, trust the scientific method as being the best tool possible from discerning truth from fiction. It's the best way we have, and it's a good way of gathering evidence for a given proposition.
However to think that I believe "If the scientific method can't prove it, it ain't there," is completely asinine and rediculous.
Let me clarify something before I continue, or this might confuse some people. Atheism, as I define it, is simply a lack of belief in gods. This covers all levels of atheism. And before I get the objection, "But rocks fall into that category!" Yes, I know they do, and I don't care, because it doesn't matter.
A lack of belief means that I in no way have to deny the possibility of ANYTHING, even God, to be an atheist. I just have to remain unconvinced of the truth of the claim.
Got that cleared up? Alright, now to tackle this attacker of innocent strawmen.
The post goes on to say that because the scientific method cannot be applied to a historical event, that makes it imperfect.
I'm not sure how dumb an argument can get. This person doesn't even realize that the scientific method can indeed be applied to historical events, by gathering verifiable empirical evidence that the event happened. The man gave an example of his brother twitching his nose after finishing a bowl of rice, though he never saw it happening. Using this example he says, I can't use the scientific method to see if that happened. So should I deny it did?"
Firstly, YES YOU CAN, secondly, did your brother make the CLAIM that he twitched his nose after finishing his rice? If not, what exactly are you denying? And if so, are you not aware that that counts as a credible witness to an all too natural and possible event? How about this: Has he had a habit of twitching his nose after finishing a bowl of rice? That is evidence that can be gathered to determine the probability of him twitching his nose.
Ok, after telling this story he brings up another atheist strawman, I'll just summarize it, "But that's dumb, using that logic I can just say the flying spaghetti monster exists until you prove he doesn't!"
He then tackles this strawman sloppily, lazily, and dumbly, by saying, "Irrelevant, the brother still twitched his nose."
Let me just say, that that was extremely poor, and I hope if this was a real conversation, both men would be ashamed of what they said.
As if thrown in specifically to piss atheists off, I'll copy paste the response his strawman atheist gave to his "Ah hah, but that's irrelevant" bullshit.
"
Atheist: Hmmmm, quite a point. I'm stubborn though. I still cling to my belief that anything not proven by science does not exist. Note that I didn't say "may not exist". There's a difference. It's just safer, in a way to just stick to the belief that only physical evidence is reality.
"
Firstly, does not that first line just piss you right the hell off? "Quite a point." No, it really wasn't. "I'm stubborn though." You're an idiot. "I still cling to my belief that anything not proven by science does not exist." WHO THINKS LIKE THAT? I don't know a SINGLE atheist that holds that belief, not a SINGLE one.
He then goes on to say, "Ah hah! But there are three types of realities! You only accept one, the physical. The three are physical, mental, and spiritual."
Firstly, I think we can all agree no atheist doubts that they have thoughts, and the Cogito is a logical proof that thoughts necessarily exist, so good job screwing up your "Science and logic can't prove everything!" argument before it takes off.
Next, he goes on to explain what a spiritual reality is. I’ll quote him, because I don't like making strawmen.
"
Spiritual reality can be defined as a supernatural event that does have physical evidence or credible witnesses, but cannot be explained by science or reasoning.
"
...Holy shit, seriously?
Let me let you all in on a little secret. If something has physical evidence, or credible witnesses? Guess what you're doing by gathering all that data. USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Oh, and you know what he used as an example for a Supernatural Event? The Fatima Miracle.
For those that don't know, this is the 'miracle' claimed back in 1917 where a gathering of people watched the sun because 3 shepard children said "At high noon, the Virgin Mary will appear in a field." somewhere within Fatima. While people waited for that to happen, some claimed to have seen the sun come towards the earth in a zig zag pattern, that the sun was strangely duller than usual, and others claimed to have seen apparitions of Jesus and Mary and Joseph blessing people.
That's right, the thing disavowed by the Catholic Church, and many scientists brushing off as anything from retinal distortions caused from...oh I dunno, staring at the friggen sun, to people simply seeing a parhelion, is used as an example of a supernatural event.
Here's the fact to know about this miracle claim. Not only were there believers and skeptics alike present, who didn't see anything, but this miracle is disavowed by some believers, it is highly debated amongst researchers and scientists, and at this point, can quite easily be brushed off as a simple illusory effect.
Oh! Oh! See what I'm doing here? Applying the scientific method to a historical event!
Yes, I know, we still don't really know what the "miracle" was, but there is indeed not NEAR enough evidence to conclude it was truly a miracle.
He then keeps going arguing about the existence of mental reality, which he seems to think atheists have a problem with. And I suppose to a point I do, I don't call mental reality, a mental reality, I just call them thoughts.
And then we descend into another blatant strawman attack that just pissed me off worse than the last. Again, let me quote him.
"
Theist: The scientific method is an effective way to search for truth, yes, we theists do believe in that.
What we disagree with is the atheist belief that the scientific method is the "only" way to verify existence of something or someone. It is not. It is only one way to get the truth.
Atheists make it an absolute rule that only science can give the truth.
"
NO WE DON'T. That's so fractally wrong it's mind bogglingly stupid. We do NOT believe that the scientific method is the "only" way to verify existence of something. I PERSONALLY believe it's the BEST way, and it is, unless you have one better.
And no, we don't make it a friggen rule that only science can give truth. This strawman is making my brain hurt with the stupid.
And he closes with the coin in a box argument, and claims it's a popular theistic argument that works, when it doesn't.
The coin in a box argument is essentially "I put a coin in a box, and put it under a cave. Say I go to a scientist and ask him 'Do you believe there's a coin under a cave or not?'"
The trick here is that he made an extremely unlikely occurrence happen, and then said that the scientist, having not been given the chance to investigate, must answer if he believes the coin's under a cave or not.
If we're being intellectually honest here, you should know that the scientist would be fully right to say, "No, I don't believe there's a coin under a cave."
It doesn't matter if that's not correct, it's the correct answer, if one wants to be intellectually honest. The theist raises his fists in the air in victory and goes, "Ha ha! But there IS a coin under the cave! You're wrong!"
My answer: So? If I was given all the data, I could discern there is indeed a coin under the cave. If I was allowed time to investigate, I could indeed discern there's a coin under the cave. What this is, is an argument for faith. "Believe the coin's in the cave, despite having no reason to believe so, because it's the right answer."
Sorry, but no, that doesn't cut it, and never will.
