Evangelical moron thinks he has an argument

First, if you make it the whole way through this video, you’re made of tougher stuff than I am. I started tuning out as soon as this idiot started to ask whether or not this “Dawkinist” had ever challenged her assumption that theories require falsification and experimentation in order to be proven to be true. This is the same guy, by the way, that goes on to claim that his notion that Jesus is a God is itself a theory. No, it certainly isn’t. It’s a stupid belief predicated on a fantasy novel written by ignorant sheep fuckers.

I feel as though blond girl here did her best to defend against his stupid wordplay, but in the end, her debating skills failed her. Of course, the video is edited by this dufus, so we’ll never know if she had a few zingers in there. In the future, here are some arguments that work wonders against this kind of pathetic claim:

a) A scientific theory is not a guess. It’s a model meant to explain a phenomenon of nature. The model is only an approximation of reality, but so long as it conforms with observation, we can assume that it is correct.
b) A question can be grammatically correct and still be meaningless. What is the color of sadness?
c) The notion that Jesus is a God is not a theory, for it presents no facts, no evidence to support it, and does not make any predictions. Any evidence to prove that he wasn’t a God (like his shocking ignorance about the causes of illnesses) is usually ignored.
d) If a religious person wants me to question my assumptions, I have no problem doing so, as long as they are willing to do the same (which never fucking happens). In the end, atheists make the fewest assumptions of all (simply that there is insufficient evidence for a God).
e) The theory that things need to be proven in order to be true is constantly being tested. Every time a particle accelerator turns on, every time someone puts something in a beaker, this theory is being put to the test.

Can you guys think up any of your own? Trust me, it makes you feel better after listening to this jackass for 9 minutes.

Comments (7)

  • avatar

    Sterling Knight

    It would only make me feel better if I could say it to this guy’s smug face.

  • avatar

    Eddie

    The part that irritate me is that they bounce between scientific fields in the manner of a few sentences, and then declare victory because the ‘evil-utionist’ wasn’t able to answer questions about physics or sociology. I guess a corollary to your point b) would be:

    b2) Just because you can ask the question, doesn’t mean you can understand the answer (eg: ‘why is there something instead of nothing’, ‘why does the banana fit perfectly in your hand’, or what the dufus was getting at ‘where do morals come from’).

  • avatar

    Doug McCool

    I HATE that question “What would be hard evidence (of God)?”. It’s the same as “What would it take to convince you?”. I don’t think anyone could really answer it. If we knew what we needed, we’d probably already have it, in this case.

  • avatar

    Owen Russell

    Oh my lord I made it the entire way through and my brain almost exploded. I cannot believe how calm that woman stayed while trying to explain to this man the fundamental nature of science. I think when he started to badger her about how she knows the basis of reproducible results based upon a contingency of specific constants I would have answered very sharply:

    “Do you know that the scientific method is? If not I can explain it to you.”

  • avatar

    Wiola

    I just found this web-site. Good stuff. I have so often heard and read “he/she is a good Christian”. That’s B.S. to me. I mean, you are not a better person only because you believe in God and Christ.

    I have never heard “he/she is a good atheist” anywhere! I googled “good atheist” and found this page. Brilliant.

    I will bookmark this page. I love your Bible Stories. Epic!

  • avatar

    Tom C

    I love the fake discussion between a “christian” and an “atheist” in the description field. I had no idea that my “belief” that only things that can be tested can be true was, in fact, false because the claim itself can’t be falsified.

    The video itself, I couldn’t make it through- I got a couple minutes in and couldn’t take it any longer. When you approach a hypotheses with your mind already made up, you’re proving why we NEED science! We make our minds up based on what the results show, not show results that prove our decision.

  • avatar

    BlueIndependent

    I’ll just address the title of this video, since I think that alone is worthy of some commentary: “Encountering a Dawkinist”. There is a stamp of outright conservatism here that needs attention. You know you are dealing with a conservative any time they start suffixing everything with “-ist”. It’s a window into their worldview. If the person he’s interviewing happens to agree with RD, they’re a “Dawkinist” (this is the first time I’ve ever heard this usage), or a “Darwinist”, and whatever well-known name can be whipped out and stamped on the interviewee’s head so that the interviewer can, from that point forward, always think of the interviewee in that frame. It also shows how theist thinking essentially boils down to the notion of warring camps, and that argument is merely a tool to convince people to your side, not to show them through evidence that you’re logical, correct, just, ethical, or whatever.

    The second question this guy asks is so richly deserving of a guns-blazing assault on his assumptions: What has science done for you that Christianity hasn’t/couldn’t? Allow you to record this video for one thing, but how about directly and indirectly provide you, the interviewer, with pretty much everything you use on a daily basis whether you’re a scientist or not. But I guess he’d just say “Oh, there’s good science and bad science, and obviously, puny atheist, my god is OK with everything that just happens to work out in his favor!”

    The line he tries to take with “testing the assumption” that evidence needs to be gathered from reproducible experiments, is itself something that needs to be tested, is such a blatant attempt at sleight of hand. How do you test that? Live your life, man. Why do you trust people? How do you think anything in life gets done? Of course testing and retesting and gathering evidence is the best way, and he’s apparently not man enough to admit he does it himself. But this guy acts like he never uses such things in his own life. Either he is galactically non-observant, or he’s a supreme liar.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top