The Atheist Experience Show Pre-Show #759 and #760

Quote:

---

Troy,
I just realized who you are – the logical fallacy vending machine! If you think you “won” the last time you were on, then you are a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome. The hosts didn’t need more time to dismiss your arguments, but if you want to try again, have at it.

“The burden is on you because you take the position as an atheist that "God does not exist." I don't need to prove God exists, but you need to supply evidence for your claim God does not exist.“

All that’s necessary to be an atheist is to disbelieve your claim that a god exists. I don’t have to go on to make the claim that gods don’t. If you are claiming that some god exists, and especially if you claim that a particular god exists, you *do* have to provide evidence for that claim. This is Logic 101, and if you don’t understand this, you’re going to have a very difficult time.

When you call - *if* you call - you should first decide if you’re arguing a philosophical point or for a specific god. If it’s a specific god, start by defining which god you are claiming exists. Then you should be prepared to offer evidence to support your assertion that this god exists. Most of us on The Atheist Experience are former Christians, so we’ve already investigated and rejected scripture as evidence for your god’s existence. If that’s all you have, well, you’re going to have a difficult time indeed.

The show broadcasts live from Austin, TX, so it should have been a trivial matter for you to figure out that the correct time zone is CST.

Jen

---

You are a classice example of logical fallacy vending machine don't you know? The host didn't need more time to dismiss my argument because eternity is not enough time to do so.

That's a logical fallacy to say, "All that's necessary to be an atheist is to disbelieve your claim that god exists" because you supply no evidence for your claim that God does not exist. That's like someone saying, "All that's necessary to believe the earth is flat is to disbelieve someone who says it revolves around the sun." Funny. Dumb! Retarded.

First you must come to the table honestly and admit you have no evidence to believe God does not exist, become an agnostic, then we can procede accordingly by examining the 5 points I gave why God exists and who God is. It's very elementary dear Watson.

It is also illogical to claim you are are former Christian, because a Christian is definied as being "once-saved-always-saved," therefore, you are being dishonest. You would have to admit you were never a Christian to begin with.

Once we establish that that position of atheism is false and that you are agnostic, we can go on to examine the proof for the existence of the uncreated Creator and who the uncreator Creator is by the proof supplied in the 66 books of the Bible since this is the proof text.

In summary the correct logical order and approach:

1) Come to the table honestly, accept atheism is false and admit you are agnostic because you have no evidence for your claim the uncreated Creator doesn't exist. That might hurt your show's ratings though eh? Ah, for the love of money is the root of all evil!

2) Observe the 5 points of proof for God and who God is (further details will be provided since we isolated why Islam and Hinduism are false, leaving only Christianity to observe the evidence if it is true).

3) If you can't overturn the evidence for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles then you should give your life to Christ. Otherwise, whether you want to admit it or not, you are admitting yourself to the great insane asylum in the dimension God created called Hell.

As soon as you break away from this logical order and approach, I will steer you right back on it when we talk on your show.

So get ready!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jen

Well, I guess we’ll start by explaining some very basic definitions to you, Troy. You don’t seem to understand what a an atheist is, what an agnostic is, or what a logical fallacy is.
I have a feeling your call may end up being one of our classics.

Jen

---

I am glad you can't show me I am mistaken what an atheist is, an agnostic is, or a logical fallacy is. If you can't then you must be mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martin Wagner

We don't need two days to deal with your points, because the points you raise are what we in the adult world refer to as "P.R.A.T.T." arguments: Previously Refuted A Thousand Times. We have had professional apologists on the air, and even they would tell you, you're not even operating at Apologetics 101 level. You have not gotten beyond the basics in your attempt to defend your faith, and yet you think your knife will win you the gunfight. It's cute, but I am pretty sure that apologists who have a lot more real-world experience in debating would want to sit you down for a little fatherly chat.

So, to review. The burden of proof rests upon the person claiming the existence of the thing in question. To insist on the opposite is committing the shifting the burden fallacy. If Farmer Brown tell me he was abducted by aliens, it's not my job to prove to him it didn't happen, it's his job to prove to me it did.

Atheism is nothing but the rejection of theistic claims. If a theist defines his god in logically impossible ways (for instance, possessing the attributes of omniscience and omnipotence), then it is possible to say that that is a god that does not exist. But this is not necessary to justify atheism.

Bible quotes do not prove Biblical claims. That is what's known as a tautology.

So no, it doesn't look like you've learned anything. But if you must insist on fighting outside of your weight class, go right ahead. You might find self-flattery won't do much for you when you're actually in the ring.

MW

---

Who says you need two days? I won the case in less than 5 minutes last time? I'm calling you again to put you on the spot again to expose you. Never in all of history have you refuted any of these points. If you did you could reproduce it here and now! I am using the same arguments scholars use; you have not been able to show otherwise. What I am presenting to you are the basics, foundational truths for us all.

Of course, I have gotten beyond that in my relationship with Christ and infilling of the Holy Spirit to walk daily bearing my own cross selflessly. It takes a lifetime to overcome the flesh whereas sin is immediate forgiveness by the spilling of His precious blood. We C

Christians put down knives and guns. We use logic and appeal to one's conscience. Remember, I am using th same evidence William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas us, and other scholars. Of course Craig is wrong on the point about a person being able to lose salvation once saved which is a subject he avoids as much as possible. But Gary Habermas and Mike Licona and other scholars are in complete agreement on OSAS.

The burden of the proof remains on the person who makes a claim about something. I am not making any claim at the outset of our discussion except that I am not making any claim. But you are making a claim that God does not exist so where is the evidence? To avoid dealing with this is shifting the burden when it belongs on you. Great lawyers in history agree such as Simon Greeneaf the burden is clearly on you. Using your own logic you are wrong. Observe: "If Farmer Brown tells me his position is God does not exist, it's not my job to prove to him it He does exist, it's his job to prove to me his position God does not exist is correct." Otherwise, he should take the position he is not sure which makes him agnostic.

You said "Atheism is nothing but the rejection of theistic claims"; in other words, you are saying God does not exist since theism is the belief in God. Where's the evidence the uncreated Creator does not exist? I am waiting. Your mistaken assumptions it is logically impossible for God to be omniscient and omnipotent bears no weight on the discussion because you can't show it. The fact that you use such an argument which itself is proven false shows you are not working on all cylinders.

Bible quotes are simply presenting the argument the Bible gives. That's not tautological anymore than repeating the evidence someone else gives who is alive today.

To sum up, you haven't learned anything. You are making the same logical errors. I admit I am not in your weight class, you are a bit on the heavy side, lol. I think you are projecting your own "self-flattery" whereas I will try to be Christlike.

Praise the Lord!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martin Wagner

Yep, you're not any smarter than you were before.

This will a fun call. :-D

Martin

---

You're definitely not smarter. Your grammar is horrible.

You seem like you are shaking in your boots. I can feel it. It's palpable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martin Wagner

Actually, you didn't, and the video attests to that. You got stuck in a whirlpool of fallacies and refused to swim out no matter how much we explained them to you. So go ahead and think you won the argument if you like, as long as you're aware that self-delusion isn't exactly something that helps you in your apologetics arsenal.

I refuted several of them in the very last reply I sent to you, just now, actually. The bulk of them have been long refuted by others, years before both of us were ever born. You are not bringing anything new to the table, and you simply lack sufficient experience in apologetics, as well as the necessary cognitive tools for learning new things, to grasp this. As I said, over 15 years on the air we have spoken to a wide array of ministers, pastors and apologists who do this for a living, and even though they're wrong, they are at least working at a level of intellectual sophistication you simply couldn't reach with a crane right now. And they would tell you this.

Every single argument you have attempted to present has either been a pure logical fallacy, or has been rooted in a failure to understand basic definitions and concepts. It's further obvious that you haven't done even a rudimentary study of what logical fallacies are (hint: start with Google) to know when you're making them and why you shouldn't. This is why, when we point out your fallacies to you, you react with emotion rather than with a better and improved argument. You're like a guy trying to build a house who doesn't realize he needs to start with a foundation, and gets pissed when actual carpenters tell him he's doing it wrong.

It's become very clear that you're just riding on your ego, and aren't actually very good at defending a position once you've asserted it. Once your points are refuted, instead of presenting a superior rebuttal, you simply go on to mock the refutation and launch a tirade of self-flattery. This may work on the playground, but not in the real world. I think, more than anything, you have a lot of growing up to do. I seem to recall telling you that last time.

Not without sympathy,
Martin

---

The video (#675) attests to the fact your arguments are faulty. To think otherwise is totally delusional. There is nothing you sent me that refutes these points. If there was you could reproduce it here and now. That's funny how you keep claiming there is some refutation but you never supply it. This shows you are not operating with full deck. I haven't seen any Christian scholars that disagree with me, nor have you presented any that do. It would be nice if you at least tried to back up something you said. It gets boring otherwise. You're even more boring than last time.

Speaking of foundations, there is no foundation on solid rock when you claim God does not exist, yet you have no evidence for your claim. You might as well say dogs can fly which you don't provide any evidence for either. You could say there are no square circles or there are no married bachelors, because you can prove that, but due to mindlessness you think you don't need to prove your assertion God does not exist. It's funny. It's clear you don't want to start from a proper foundation because self is at the center of all you do. Once you set the groundwork to believe something that you have no evidence for, what is to stop you from believing any other lie without evidence? Perhaps you will behind the next genocide of people because you don't need to justify your beliefs or actions. Whereas I come to the table with no assumptions.

My sympathies go out to you, for you know not what you do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXkc7ToYsTI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John I.

What I find amusing is that you're arrogant enough to think that you can present a valid argument for the existence of a god (something that nobody in history has ever been able to do), and yet you're not smart enough to find the multiple places on our website (which you said you read) that say what day, time and timezone the show is on.--
John I.
AETV crew

---

The proof for God has been with all of human history (see the points provided in the opening post). What false humility even arrogant to say otherwise even though the proof is right there before you just as the Bible says so you are without excuse.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1.20). Simply by observing nature that is your basic proof.

I was smart enough since I found the time on your site. But I assure you, finding the time of your broadcast (obviously, you are not very good at marketing) was far more difficult than the proof for God. How easy the proof for God is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martin Wagner

See? This is you. You just repeat our criticisms back to us (having apparently missed the stage in your personal development where "same to you and more of it" constituted a badass comeback), and ignore our refutations by claiming we never make any. In short, you're a child: dishonest, immature, and officially a waste of time.
Bye now

Martin

---

Your "same to you and more of it" seems like a "same to you" argument. You like doublestandards. You certainly try to make refutations like in your show but none that stand the test of time you are able to repeat here and now. You're immature, simply someone going to Hell as you wish. C.S. Lewis said you lock yourself in Hell from the inside. I couldn't agree more. I would not wish upon my worse enemy where you are going. You're a bad guy.

Looking forward to calling you tomorrow, because when I expose you I believe it will help others watching the show. Study up on those 5 points. Be ready when I come. Obviously, if you avoid the call, it shows your true colors, because you have not addressed these points today and if you don't do it on the show then you are avoiding. Evasion is the name of your game!

You are not a waste of time to me, because I don't want you to go to Hell. You are a child of God made in His image, and He values your permanently existing spirit and soul. He does not want you to eternally separate yourself from Him, but He does give you the choice, because He doesn't force His love on anyone. If you don't have the choice to go to Hell then free will is not truly free.

Calling tomorrow at 3:30 pm MDT. Don't chicken out!

Let's recall the 5 points:

1. What evidence is there for believing God does not exist? If you have none then why believe something without evidence? Atheism is the word traditionally to describe someone who believes God does not exist. There are no square circles and no married bachelors. Bachelors are single so they are not married and circles have no edges. So where's the evidence, additionally, for the negative position of stating and believing there is no God?

2. How can something come from that which does not exist? for that which does not exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist. Energy must come from a source.

3. How can infinite regress be true, for if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now? And you would never have existed because an eternity would still be going on never to reach this point. We observe an exponential progression of conscience in mankind so mankind would not still be sinning to the extent we still do.

4. There is no evidence nature spontaneously erupted to create the simplest replicating living organism so why believe that? We can't recreate it. Furthermore, a mind is needed to create a mind, emotion, volition, conscience, self-consciousness, God-consciousness.

5. Since God can't have a conscience less than our own then He can't be impersonal or inaccessible. There are only three God-views in the world that extend themselves to being accessible throughout the globe which are Christianity, Islam and Hinduism that make up around 90% of all beliefs. Islam is false because it has no evidence six centuries later Jesus never died on the cross. Hinduism is false because if reincarnation was true there would be more people on the planet than there is now. Common sense tells us you ain't coming back as a chicken if you are a sinner, and Brahma is amoral which is below the morality of mankind.

Pre-show to Atheist Experience Show #759 or #760

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZm-T5D1A0w&list=PL1677F740D2266D89&index=6&am p;feature=pl pp_video