tasmlab Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 http://tomwoods.com/blog/no-youre-not-a-dummy-for-believing-in-god/ I like Tom typically. He and Stef have been interviewed on the same show. He talks about how some atheists are fine to look over his belief as something we can ignore and roll our eyes at. To which I was like "yup." I listened to it, and I can't recommend that anyone else should. It's a pretty insane rant that he insists is on irrefutable logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 He thinks the Flying Spaghettii Monster is a serious criticism of the existence of a deity. It's more of a parody on organized religion. You are not a dummy for believing in the FSM! Woods says that god is outside time and space, so his own arguments are self-detonating. If god is outside time and space, then the white bearded and robed guy from the big book must not be god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaylorPRSer Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 he just repackaged cause and effect. I felt insulted by his conclusion that because there has to be a cause for existence, atheists much think that everything magically appeared. i do not think that, and i don't pretend to know how the universe originated, it's pretty clear, based on this, that he doesn't either and we can still safely say that it wasn't a logically impossible being that we've only read about in works of fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaylorPRSer Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 he just repackaged cause and effect and implied that atheists must think everything magically appeared. we of course, do not think that, and do not pretend to know the origins of the universe. it's clear that he doesn't know either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray H. Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 He eliminates the FSM as a god, because God is unchanging. Anything that flies, he contends, is in the process of change and, since God is unchanging, cannot be God. But he doesn't appear to realize that this logic eliminates the meddling god of the Christian faith, as well. The god that Woods is actually arguing for would be unknowable in any way, shape or form. It would make no contact with humans, since "making contact" would constitute change from a state where no contact was being made. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tasmlab Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 Even if one were to concede to every one of his points: - How does this link to what is in scripture? It runs against it (dude is a Catholic) - Per Ray H's note, he would be powerless - A consciousness doesn't have to be assigned to it. - No moral content has to be assigned to it. The real question is "Why is he trying so hard?" or, for that matter, why does Acquanus? (SP) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Thomas Aquinas was a priest and theologian of 13th century Italy, so I believe he had some self-interest in talking about god. Since this was before the Protestant Reformation, both Woods and Aquinas are Catholics. (Technically, Aquinas was a Dominican priest.) This probably explains why Woods prefers citing Aquinas to explain theology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelafina Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 How can anyone know if God exists or not? When an atheist claims that God doesn't exist, I would ask that person: how can you know for sure that something doesn't exist? You can't use logic to conclude that something doesn't exist. You can only use guesses and assumptions and state that "God probably doesn't exist", or "my best guess is that God doesn't exist", or you can even say "theists need to prove their claims". If I asked you: Does a triangular-shaped iPhone exist? You would respond, "I don't think Apple make triangular iPhones" and you might even bet me that it doesn't exist -- but you cannot say "I am sure that it doesn't exist" because that would be illogical. The same rule applies to atheism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts