Monday, July 11, 2011

Atheists and Unicorns, NOT An Emotional Appeal--A Rebuttal of JW Wartick's Argument

Recently, I successfully rebutted the Christian blogger, JW Wartick's claim that the unicorn argument is merely an appeal to emotion--which it is not. I demonstrated that there is as much historicity for unicorns (Actually, there is more, as the Greeks, the Chinese, and even the bible mention unicorns!) as there is for his god. In the course of my rebuttal, Wartick offered the cosmological argument against the unicorn, which I showed that if we accepted his argument, that it would be a proof that Jesus is not divine! It was at that point that he refused to post my last two comments, even though they did not violate his TOS.

This is a clear illustration of how disingenuous and dishonest "Christians" can be. It is no surprise however, as their doctrine tells them they are "born sinners" and can't help themselves from lying, cheating, stealing, raping, killing, etc. It's their "nature" after all--according to their religion. (I disagree however, as we can choose to do right or wrong, or in this case, to be a legitimate scholar.)   Here is a brief excerpt to entice you to read the entire conversation:

In the course of our discussion, Wartick asked: Show me manuscript evidence that states that Brahman transcends the world and is not the world itself, etc, etc.

Which I did. I showed him the passage which states that Krisha, as stated in the Bhagavad Gita, is the “infallible one” (18:73), and is perfect.

Wartick then made the statement that: The cosmological argument (of the Leibnizian variety) could only support a necessarily existent deity. Anyone who does any kind of research about gods of the past would know many would not be ontologically necessary (they could be killed, for example).

I countered with the following: The other gods I mentioned (Dionysus, Quetzalcoatl, Krishna) died and were resurrected. According to the bible and Christianity, Jesus DIED on the cross. Either he was dead or he was NOT dead. If Jesus could be killed, then according to what you wrote, he could not be a god. If he could not be killed, and he did not die on the cross, then his pretend "death" would have been meaningless.

Please go here to read the argument with only the comments made by myself and Wartick, or go to Wartick's blog and read it in its entirety. I have posted my last comment that he did not post below:

"I gather that you know that I set your argument out correctly and showed how ridiculous your claims are, which is why you did not post my last response, which I have repeated below. You want your readers to think that you are correct, instead of just "manning up" and admitting your mistake. Your intellectual dishonesty is pathetic. If you want to redeem yourself, post this, and answer to it. Your best answer would be to admit that you made a mistake. At any rate, I will be writing a post related to our conversation (yes, I take pictures of everything--even the things I write that you do not post out of fear--and for no other reason!) I am making reference to your claim about the cosmological argument and your claim that if someone dies, they cannot be god. 

 Here is my last posting, that you refused to post.--Post it if you dare....;)
"The other gods I mentioned (Dionysus, Quetzalcoatl, Krishna) died and were resurrected. According to the bible and Christianity, Jesus DIED on the cross. Either he was dead or he was NOT dead. If Jesus could be killed, then according to what you wrote, he could not be a god. If he could not be killed, and he did not die on the cross, then his pretend "death" would have been meaningless. If you do not think that Jesus' death meant his nonexistence, what makes you think the death of Krishna, Dionysus and Quetzalcoatl means their nonexistence?--oh yes, that's right, your religious prejudice.

I won't repeat my pragmatic position again, but nothing I said undermines experiences, and what you said about experiences applies to Hindus who experienced Krishna, Greeks who experienced Dionysus, and Mexicans who experienced Quetzalcoatl.

You cannot just "dismiss" arguments. You must show that they are invalid, not sound, provide a counter argument, or show that they are weak (in the case of inductive arguments) You have failed on all accounts. Your "mere assertions" do not change the fact that your arguments hold no water.

You cannot just "ignore" arguments and hope they disappear like magic. You have not shown any logical errors in my arguments, and my dilemma arguments cannot be used against everything. It can be used to do what it was intended to do--to show the strength of the unicorn argument, and shows that you cannot provide any more proof for the Christian god, than the Greeks can for Dionysus, and the Hindus for Krisha, and many other gods. It cannot be used against the claim that Obama is the president of the United States right now--see how easily your claim is refuted. I didn't just dismiss your argument, I provided you with a legitimate counter argument.

According to Fu Hsi, in the Bamboo Annals, unicorns are not rhinoceroses, and they rule from heaven, and they never use their horn for evil, and they bring good to humans.

My dilemma argument does not undermine all beliefs--just the ones implied by your arguments, which I have already refuted. It does not for instance, undermine the fact that Obama is the president of the United States right now.

Lastly, your emotional appeal to your readers is neither here nor there. I say to all--reread the above arguments carefully. If you do not understand logic and argumentation, please read and study an Intro to Logic text. Take each argument and set them out on paper and go over the pros and cons.

It ought to be clear to you that Wartick's claim that the unicorn argument provides no reason, and is just an emotional appeal, was refuted. This is why over the past post, he has stayed away from the conclusion he drew in his original unicorn argument. He has not mentioned it in his postings against me in quite some time. That is because he knows his argument has been refuted, and that is why he keeps trying to put forth weak red herrings, and stays away from his original conclusion. I have argued successfully and I provided a plausible reason, and similarly showed that the unicorn argument is a good correlation to the argument for god’s existence. The strength of the unicorn correlation is to remind Christians that there is as much evidence for their god, as there is for unicorns, and that their lofty claims of “knowing” god exists, has no foundation or support. Likewise, the fact that there are competing gods and goddesses and hypotheses and interpretations, is again to illustrate to the Christians, that they can offer no more proof for Yahweh, than a unicornist can for unicorns, or the Greeks can for Zeus, or the Hindus can for Brahman, etc. "

Addendum:  I sent Wartick a note telling him I wrote this post, and below is the photo of that comment:
Comment to JW Wartick


Anonymous said...

hi, i was reading your argument with mr j.w.warthog and noticed he cut you off while you were clearly kicking his arse! so he has started a new thread on his site and i commented i thought u beat him! this led to him starting an argument with me. im no expert on this subject but can see all the flaws in his argument a mile off. he seems like quite a skilled debater but no one can defend the indefensible, and hes now not posted my last comment and so i call that a win for me! lol. i guess you could call him a christian apologist who needs to apologise for bein a pussy! keep up the good work

A is for Atheist said...


You must be Ben! I read the post, and made a few comments on my own which backed up what you said. Wartick asked you for ONE reference, and I gave him a reference to "The Bible Unearthed"--a text written by a Jewish archeologist that proves there is no archeological evidence for the events depicted in the bible. He did not post my comments either.

I took photos of the comments I made to Wartick that he did not post, so I still have them, and will be posting them along with your first comment and his reply on my blog, Conversations with Christians, and it will be titled "Atheists and Unicorns, NOT An Emotional Appeal--A Rebuttal of JW Wartick's Argument - Part 2". If you still have your other comments, submit them for review and submission.

Wartick has proven that he is disingenuous, and dishonest, and cannot even "man up" to an argument when he has clearly been defeated. As a scholar, if I make a mistake, or someone shows me that my argument is invalid, or by counter argument, that my argument is unsound, and I cannot find an argument or explanation that is better, I will immediately change my views on the subject--This is how real scholars do things. It is a shame that Wartick's ego won't allow him to follow the scholarly, academic road.

Anonymous said...

hi cathy yeah im ben. mr wartdick wanted to argue with me about archaeological evidence for the bible, of which no doubt there is some,but i didnt see the point really considering whatever there is does nothing to prove his slavemaster, racist, misogynist, homophobic, moody bastard god (who loves us)! or at least nothing more than any evidence there is for the unicorn! think i prefer the unicorn anyway. sounds like a nice god, not using his horn for evil! the only reason i accessed his site in the first place was because i have recently got interested in this whole atheism/religion question. and i was looking for a christian apologist website to see if anyone could show me some reason to rebuff the ideas ive started to form in my mind about how all religion is basically bullshit! it seems to me that by his behaviour, first to you, and then to an amateur like me he just proved to me what i already thought i knew! shame really, cos im always open to new ideas, and dont mind arguing and being found wrong, cos thats how u learn! all the best

Anonymous said...

Hi, I am an atheist concerning the supernatural gods of all religions, but I am quite open to the possibilities they might exist unicorns and super-beings (which would appear to us as gods) somewhere in the multiverse.

This has to do with infinity: according to cosmic inflation and string theory, there exist an infinite number of universe.

According to the chaotic movement of matter, each materially possible event is going to happen due to the sample size.

This is why many scientists accept the existence of Boltmann's brains in some unknown places of the multiverse, that is brain popping out of existence through the chaotic motion of matter, and capable of being aware of their environment.

Likewise, Brian Green argue in his last book that due to infinity, there is going to be lot of worlds with earths completely identical to ours and copies of ourselves with some variations.

Owing to those facts, it is quite possible that there exists worlds with unicorns having evolved or even popped out of existence, super-beings like Zeus and Thor and other beings completely transcending our ability to comprehend them.

This is why I find the unicorn analogy against theism somewhat misguided, since we can not reasonably exclude their existence.

Against theism, I prefer the following arguments:

1) biological systems present strong evidence of having been very poorly designed

2) the human mind is completely dependent on the brain and gets damaged if the brain gets damaged

3) there exists no free will, human are completely determined by the laws of physic

There is also one major point where I differ from most atheist: I believe objective morality is an illusion.

Our moral intuitions are nothing more than gut feelings hardwired by evolution, and now that we know their true nature, we have no reason to take them seriously and act according to them.

This is why I don't like the moralistic criticism of theism, since I believe moral realism is wrong.

Post a Comment