Response to Lovin Johnson

As the title implies... this is a response to Lovin Johnson.


Lovin: “ Marco on the other hand suffers from a psychological spiritual phenomenon called disconfirmation bias”

I have asked you to provide evidence for your claims over and over and over and over and over again and you have failed every single time and now I am the one who is close minded? I wouldn’t ask you for evidence in the first place if I wasn’t open minded. You have not met your burden of proof Lovin, do not try to change this one on me.

Stop avoiding the issue, you are very good at going on tangents and talking about how your argument is valid (even without evidence) and I just refuse to concede the points you make. I have asked you to provide peer reviewed research papers supporting yout claims and you have not supported anything of the sort. I have asked for evidence and all you seem to provide is more logical fallacies, and you also attempt to make the lack of evidence my problem. Somehow.

Not believing in something (atheism) until evidence is presented IS THE DEFAULT POSITION when it comes to just about everything. If someone told you that you could become an immortal being as long as you got some of your ribs surgically removed and gave yourself a blow-job you wouldnt believe it right away and uncritically would you? You wouldn't necessarily reject the argument and say that it isnt true but you would hold your judgements and I really doubt you are that gullible. Atheism is a faith like bald is a hair color and not playing baseball is a sport.

If it is that easy to convince you of things and if you really believe the things you claim to believe with absolutely no evidence (lack of evidence from the opposing side is not evidence for your claims) then i have a lot of things I want to sell to you man. I have a closet full of stuff I want to sell to you. I have dozens of DVD cases with magical fairies inside them and if you believe that they exist and if you pray to them while you stick a dildo up your ass.... you will be teleported to a different dimension where horny women run around naked. I am a generous person and I will sell this to you for just 400 dollars. Just make sure you do not open the case because if you do, the magical fairies will vanish and it wont work. Oh and if you follow the instructions and nothing happens... you are not doing it right.

You put forth your opinions as authoritative but you fail to do this without adequate grounds. Where are you getting your information? It may be easier to understand where you are coming from if you actually link us to VALID sources. I don’t care what you think about the way in which brains work I WANT TO SEE THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT. I won’t take your word for it. Science is reliable, and I know from experience that you are not. You keep saying your concept of god is a scientific one, and so far I have no reason to believe that that assertion is nothing more than a distraction from the actual point.

Consciousness depends on the mind. And a mind cannot be without a brain to support it. I guess we could (and we actually might) be able to make artificial intelligence at one point but those systems would still have a “brain” of some sort. But both depend on the physical aspects of the mind (or the hardware). If I hit someone in the head really hard, or I surgically remove a part of their brains their personalities will change, and maybe

Lovin: “An atheist would be arrogant to claim that he knows all the concepts of god out there and has adequately tested them” “Any absolute conclusions are obstacles to the progressive nature of science”

I agree with that, I have never said anything against that. However no scientists out there will come to the conclusions you have reached with the “evidence” you have provided. Just because my explanation does not disprove or refute your explanation DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM validates yours. That’s a fallacy, and it goes against the scientific method.

Evolution is not right because creationism or wrong (or vice-versa). Things are “true” when evidence is presented for them and they stand on their own merits. You seem to think that if I am unable to disprove what you say (which I never understand because your English sucks balls) that therefore you made a point and somehow proved your claims. You are wrong as anybody can be. This false dichotomy of yours is the same false dichotomy used by creationists who think that if they can poke holes in the theory of evolution their “hypothesis” is validated.

Lovin: "the way to prove me wrong is to be able to do so, which otherwise is the strongest of theories"

The truth is that if you make an assertion, the burden of proof rests on you, and I bear absolutely no obligation to disprove what you say. I dont have to prove you wrong!!! You are the one that has to make the case. I do not reject your claims because I have a "preconceived notion" that they are false, I reject them because you have not followed a reasonable, structured argument to defend them. I reject just about everything that has not been demonstrated to be true by some standard and it is nothing personal against you. Your arguments have not been proven to be true, and while that doesnt mean they are necessarily false, it DOES mean that belief in any of those arguments as true is IRRATIONAL IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE.

You are illiterate when it comes to the scientific method and logic in general. If you knew shit about those two you wouldnt believe for a second that I have to disprove your theory or that if your theory is not disproved therefore it is true.

Lovin: "`I will write notes to explain wehy you are worng`` is arrogantly assuming you know everything."

I HAVE NEVER AND WILL NEVER CLAIM TO KNOW THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH ABOUT ANYTHING. And when I say you are wrong, and explain why you are wrong I am not saying I am right. I am simply explaining why I think you are wrong and I sure as hell believe I have supported my claim. You are wrong because you are asking me to prove you wrong, which is unscientific. You are wrong because you have created a false dichotomy based on an unsound and invalid premise. NONE of those things even remotely resemble the claim you say I make... I can tell you you are wrong ALL DAY, that doesnt mean I am right.

Lovin: "the reason why most people nowadays become atheist is to validate themselves and has nothing to do with truth..."

that is true. I know a lot of atheists that are atheists for the wrong reasons and I have said this before; the dumbest, stupidest people I have encountered are atheists. Not because they dont care about the truth though, simply because they replace with religion with some other kind of dogma or superstition.

You have something in your head that keeps telling you that your """hypothesis""" is valid as long as it is not disproved. YOU ARE WRONG. You have to do the work here genius.... You are the one that has to validate your statement. Since you said your definition of god was scientific I suggest you actually present the work done by scientists, maybe their scientific peer reviewed papers? I know science is not infallible or all knowing but IT IS the single most reliable method we have for discerning what is true and what is false. So...


Make your case.

Present the science behind it.

Stop going on tangents.