Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 89789

Appealing to authority is only fallacious when that to which one appeals has no legitimate authority. Everyone--include Bill Nye--everyone appeals to authority. Nye, and atheists like him, appeals to creation and his own fallible mind. I appeal to the Creator and His infallible Word.

And the fight is over before it begins.

With the above in mind, I will not offer up any pieces of evidence to refute Nye's claims against God and creationism. Everyone looks at the same evidence. The issue is not one of evidence, but rather one of worldview. The atheistic evolutionist interprets the evidence for the glory of self and to perpetrate a sinful denial of God. The Christian interprets the evidence for the glory of God. It's that simple.

Oh, I will slap him around a bit for some of the social truth claims he makes based entirely on conjecture. But I won't argue with him regarding the existence of God the Creator. To do so, to present evidences for the existence of God is, on some level, to assert that God needs to be proven. It is to give legitimacy to the blasphemous notion that God can be put on trial--that convicted criminals (sinners) have the right to cross examine the Judge.

I believe to entertain and engage unbelievers on this level not only fuels and encourages the unbelievers' sinfulness, but it is also a blasphemous exchange on the part of God's proponent. That's right. To allow an unbeliever to put God on trial by participating in such a kangaroo court, even as a well-intentioned and loving defense attorney, is to participate in the unbeliever's blasphemy. And by aiding and abetting such blasphemy, the Christian takes part in the blasphemy and is, therefore, guilty of the same.

In God's Courtroom there is no right against self-incrimination. There is no protection of presumed innocence. There is no right to present an affirmative defense. There is no legal right to object to the Judge's findings and rulings. There can be no motion to have the Judge recuse Himself from the case. In fact, in God's Courtroom there are no trials. There are only days of sentencing.

Tony Miano , Cross Encounters 85 Comments [9/27/2012 3:30:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 54
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3 4
Indicible

So, in essence, you will not even try to reason with unbelievers, you will simply pout in your corner, like the weird kid everyone shuns.
Fine by me.

9/27/2012 3:47:21 AM

Filin De Blanc

"In God's Courtroom there is no right against self-incrimination. There is no protection of presumed innocence. There is no right to present an affirmative defense. There is no legal right to object to the Judge's findings and rulings. There can be no motion to have the Judge recuse Himself from the case. In fact, in God's Courtroom there are no trials. There are only days of sentencing."

So God runs a mock court like the ones Stalin used to have his enemies go before? Is that really the image you want to be presenting?

9/27/2012 3:49:44 AM

Canadia

In that case, God sounds like an even bigger prick than you; but not by much.

9/27/2012 3:50:49 AM

Titania

Good thing "god's courtroom" doesn't exist.

9/27/2012 3:53:43 AM

Prager

"I will not offer up any pieces of evidence to refute Nye's claims against God and creationism."

Because you can't!

Also, is he appealing to authority to justify his appeal to authority?

9/27/2012 4:23:30 AM

David B.

"Everyone--include Bill Nye--everyone appeals to authority. Nye, and atheists like him, appeals to creation and his own fallible mind. I appeal to the Creator and His infallible Word. And the fight is over before it begins."

Yes, because Bill Nye actually exists.

And if you think appeals to imaginary authorities have value, I must remind you that GOG (the God over God) and MAGOG (the multitude above God over God) disagree that your god's word is infallible and insist that the universe operates by strict, impersonal and natural laws. And being higher beings than God, my appeal to authority trumps yours and the fight is over before it begins.

Oh, and don't bother arguing that there is no higher being than God, or that they don't have any authority since I just made them up. GOG and MAGOG say otherwise.

9/27/2012 4:26:59 AM

Leighton Buzzard

'I could totally beat him, but I won't, because I'm right anyway.'

Colour me unconvinced.

9/27/2012 4:39:10 AM

dionysus

Appealing to authority is only fallacious when that to which one appeals has no legitimate authority

So an imaginary god is right the fuck out then.

Everyone--include Bill Nye--everyone appeals to authority. Nye, and atheists like him, appeals to creation and his own fallible mind

You clearly haven't ever done any science. When your mind tells you one thing and the evidence says something entirely different, you follow the evidence.

Everyone looks at the same evidence. The issue is not one of evidence, but rather one of worldview.




Because THAT'S intellectually honest.

Oh, I will slap him around a bit

Kind of easy to slap someone around on the internet. Why don't you try to "slap him around" in person? I'd love a viral video of Bill Nye mercilessly eviscerating a creationist.

But I won't argue with him regarding the existence of God the Creator. To do so, to present evidences for the existence of God is, on some level, to assert that God needs to be proven. It is to give legitimacy to the blasphemous notion that God can be put on trial

So you can't prove God? Okay, then you have absolutely no reason to expect anyone to believe your garbage. Sorry, but your side lost centuries ago. Science works, bitches. Faith fails.

To allow an unbeliever to put God on trial by participating in such a kangaroo court, even as a well-intentioned and loving defense attorney, is to participate in the unbeliever's blasphemy. And by aiding and abetting such blasphemy, the Christian takes part in the blasphemy and is, therefore, guilty of the same.

So your supposedly just God (who can read our thoughts, by the way) will punish someone for blasphemy even if blasphemy was not their intention? And you worship a God who will punish you the same for an accident as he will for intentional sins? Then you'd better brush up on the 613 laws of the Old Testament along with all of Jesus' commands and calculate every single action, thought, and word in your life to conform with every single law in the Bible. You don't want to end up in hell by accidentally saying or doing the wrong thing.

In God's Courtroom there is no right against self-incrimination. There is no protection of presumed innocence. There is no right to present an affirmative defense. There is no legal right to object to the Judge's findings and rulings. There can be no motion to have the Judge recuse Himself from the case. In fact, in God's Courtroom there are no trials. There are only days of sentencing.

So God is a dictator. Which I actually agree with. If you read the Bible, God definitely acts like a dictator. Including his propensity for killing people and ordering people killed.

9/27/2012 5:01:21 AM

anevilmeme

"The fight is over before it begins."

Yep, we have the fossils we win.

9/27/2012 5:09:13 AM

Doubting Thomas

In fact, in God's Courtroom there are no trials. There are only days of sentencing.

Now who is it that has the kangaroo court?

9/27/2012 5:10:52 AM

Dyz

Russels Teapot.

9/27/2012 5:15:07 AM

WWWWolf

> In fact, in God's Courtroom there are no trials. There are only days of sentencing.

When fallible ordinary humans manage to set up trials that are demonstrably fairer and more just than what your alleged all-loving God can do, you know your religious views are bullshit.

9/27/2012 5:17:28 AM

whatever

"To do so, to present evidences for the existence of God is, on some level, to assert that God needs to be proven."

Well, if you want to promote your religion, that would certainly be an advantage, wouldn't it?

"Oh, I will slap him around a bit for some of the social truth claims he makes based entirely on conjecture."

Oh the irony. You really want one of us to slap you round a bit? OK, fine with me. I believe there's a queue forming now of willing slappers... and not the kind you probably prefer.

9/27/2012 5:21:38 AM

Anon-e-moose

Wow, that's some kinda revenge fantasy you have there, just because you & your fundie ilk are losing all the arguments, and people these days are no longer thinking the way you do; which deity ceased to exist and made you Lord God Almighty, Tony Miano?:



X3

9/27/2012 5:38:26 AM

Mister Spak

"And the fight is over before it begins. "

But not in the way you mean.

"The issue is not one of evidence, but rather one of worldview."

Exactly. Creationists assume their religion is true. Facts that disagree with their religion are wrong. Scientists assume facts are true. Creation myths that disagree with the facts are wrong.

9/27/2012 5:51:03 AM

Dr.Shrinker

"Appealing to authority is only fallacious when that to which one appeals has no legitimate authority."

- No, appealing to authority is fallacious when there is no argument aside from, "This authority said it, I believe it, that settles it." You then go on to make this error in the next few paragraphs. You then back it up your error with another error: a threat based on folklore.

The trustworthiness of an authority comes not from a degree or title, but from the evidence they produce. In science, evidence is rigorously examined, questioned, tested and re-tested before it is considered legitimate. Your screed essentially admits that there is no equivalent process in creationism.

That is why creationism is not science. That is why creationism produces nothing.

9/27/2012 5:55:59 AM

farpadokly

Special pleading.
What they're drawing conclusions from is not authority, but evidence. The thing about empirical evidence is that it's not based on authority, it's available to everyone, coming as it does ultimately from the senses.
I can read, in a science book, that Saturn has rings, but I can also see with my own eyes, and I have seen, that this is true. All scientific fact is theoretically accessible to the senses in this way, even if not directly, ie, I can't apprehend radiation directly with the senses but I use the senses to apprehend the functioning of instrumentation which can.
So the conflict here is really a conflict between empiricism on the one hand and the authority of a text on the other. Luckily, that issue was settled centuries ago, in the early modern era.
The atheist has the right to dismiss your theological notions with exactly the same blasé arrogance with which you dismiss the necessity of proof. Because I can't prove the existence of an entity by denying that proof is required, nor can I by just asserting that it exists, nor can I by asserting that the entity is a special case whose existence is somehow self-evident.

9/27/2012 5:59:07 AM

SpukiKitty

"It is to give legitimacy to the blasphemous notion that God can be put on trial--that convicted criminals (sinners) have the right to cross examine the Judge."

Because Fundie-Yahweh isn't the judge...he's a minor Canaanite god perverted into a prudish, dogmatic, demiurgic weirdo for a strictly momotheistic tradition.

IMHO, my Mother Goddess/Father God - Dea/Deo, Thea/Theo, Ishvari/Ishvara, Yin/Yang, Sophia/Logos, Ennoia/Bythos, Asherah/Yahweh, etc. can put the smackdown on your Pseudo-Yahweh ANYDAY! They were around FIRST! *NYAH*
(Keep in mind, all deities are cosmic metaphors, not literal beings, thank you)


"In God's Courtroom there is no right against self-incrimination. There is no protection of presumed innocence. There is no right to present an affirmative defense. There is no legal right to object to the Judge's findings and rulings. There can be no motion to have the Judge recuse Himself from the case. In fact, in God's Courtroom there are no trials. There are only days of sentencing."

Your Abrahamic Faux-Yahweh also sounds like Joseph Stalin. WHY WOULD ANY SANE PERSON WANT TO WORSHIP THAT? Has it ever occurred to you fundies that one of the main reasons folks "curse god" or reject "fundamentalism" (including ancient Israel & their constant so-called 'backsliding' in the Bible) is because your deity is a murderous, fascist, psychopathic, nutball & big-time killjoy? The ancient Israelites, in their so-called "idolatry" were merely following their faith the way it was meant to be followed, not the Abrahamic heresy!

9/27/2012 6:32:25 AM

fmitchell

Ironically, the first sentence is correct. The second sentence is sort of correct, in that an individual scientist can't replicate every experiment from the beginning of history forward; of necessity, scientists and presenters must rely on previous work, and the authority of those who claim they've done it. (Which is why peer review is so important, and fraud typically ends careers.)

The rest of it, as others have noted, descends into circular logic, the "worldview not evidence" dodge, and sheer revenge fantasy. Seriously, how does Tony Miano KNOW that he has the Creator's words? That those words are "infallible", or even partially true? That his own fallible mind interprets them correctly? Talk about self-glorification ...

9/27/2012 6:41:32 AM

John

In God's Courtroom there is no right against self-incrimination. There is no protection of presumed innocence. There is no right to present an affirmative defense. There is no legal right to object to the Judge's findings and rulings.

To quote creationists, were you there?

9/27/2012 6:48:51 AM

JohnTheAtheist

So to be clear Tony, it is the christian god that exists, correct? Because my guess is that many muslims would say that they don't need to prove Allah either and therefore he exists.

You are obviously an intelligent and articulate man, how can you be so fucking stupid?

9/27/2012 6:51:22 AM

Dr. Razark

But appealing to an authority that doesn't exist gets you nowhere. First, you must prove the authority exists, then show that it has the authority, then show the authority is relevant, only then can you appeal to it.

9/27/2012 7:19:09 AM

Veras_the_Brujah

It's so hard to argue the existence of God with people when they insist that God's existence is a premise rather than a conclusion.

God exists therefore God exists.

9/27/2012 7:25:30 AM

Arctic Knight

In short: "I have no evidence for the existence of god, so I will not present any evidence bust will stand here and claim I am right and you are wrong regardless of how stupid it makes me look."

9/27/2012 8:18:19 AM

Flah

This reminds me of that episode of Futurama where Leela gets a flashback to her martial arts training.

"Since you insist, you will have the honour of fighting me. But, since you are a woman, you have already lost. Care for a rematch? Very well. Ooh! You've lost again!"

9/27/2012 8:21:17 AM
1 2 3 4