AnnaAgainstAtheists, Dawkins, and God

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

Here's the video that Anna has most recently decided to troll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ&yt

Twice, in this video, and once in one other video, in the space of 18
hours, Anna claimed that Dawkins's asking of a questioner, "why don't
you believe in Zeus," et al., is illogical.

Anna first posted her comments sometime yesterday. Through the normal
course of discussion in a video comment section, her comments scrolled
back and were no longer seen on the front page, so Anna reposted them,
thinly disguised as a response to another user. Since Anna has
effectively banned me from posting on her channel page and has
deliberately avoided my responses, I figured that would be that. But
she did return to the comment section, disguising her responses to me
as responses to the channel operator. Anna posted this:

ComedyJesus
A logical error from Dawkins
___

Zeus was the god of the sky and thunder
Apollo was the god of light and the sun.
Shiva was the god of destruction. And so on.
But God has a logically different status from these because God is not
the god of any such worship but the term God stands not for a person
but for a description equivalent to the one and only god. And that is
why Dawkins and obtuse fanatical atheists are wrong, God bless them.

And this:

To further clarify my last post, unlike cultural divinities, God is
NOT the god of such-and-such a cult, the term "God" is NOT a proper
name, and the logical underlying structure of the term "God" is
equivalent to "the one and only god". Even atheists should be able to
recognise the identity of "God" with "the one and only god". And may
God bless and enlighten and open the eyes of those atheists whose
narrowmindedness prevents them from seeing this.

Anna also couldn't help repeating another oft-refuted argument that
she's made:

Dawkins: "Hitler was a Roman Catholic"
___

Dawkins is stooping really low here because only a pervert or an idiot
could construe Hitler's life as a Christian one, or Hitler as
following the moral teachings of Christ. That is just too ridiculous
for words. The real and documented influence on Hitler was Darwinian
evolution as can be clearly seen by reading chaper 11 of Mein Kampf 
(Nation and Race) alongside the 5th edition of Origin of Species.
EVOLUTIONISM REMAINS A DANGEROUS PHILOSOPHY.

I had already refuted these arguments. Still, since she elected to
repeat them, I elected to post a more comprehensive (but still overly-
simplified) refutation, which appears below:

I do enjoy your masking replies to me in responses to others, Anna. We
know that you can' t possibly ignore my comments because you know that
they expose you.

Now, as to the argument that you are making and that I have already
refuted, again, repeating the same bad and logically fallacious
argument does not make that argument better.

Dawkins is not saying that Zeus, Apollo, or Shiva are the same "gods"
or even the same kinds of "gods" as the God in which you believe.

When asked why he doesn't believe in God, he replies in part by asking
why the questioner does not believe in Zeus or other gods (Zeus was,
of course, the head of his pantheon just as your "God" is the head of
*your* pantheon, but that's another discussion that you'll avoid).

When Dawkins asks the question, he is looking for an answer that he,
oddly, gets only sometimes, and that is that the person doesn't
believe in those gods because there is no evidence for them. There is
no presumption to "equate" those gods with "God" except on that basis.
The argument is not a theological argument or one of "my God's better
than your gods." It's a question of evidence and the logical
construction of argument.

There is no "logical" difference in the "status" of the Abrahamic
"God" in which you believe and the gods of other cultures. The term,
"God," when denoted by an upper-case "G," in any case, is a proper
noun, and refers to the "God" that is believed in by you and your
fellow believers. That's just one reason your argument is not only
flawed, but disingenuous.

We must also consider the context of the discussion under way.
O'Reilly clearly is referencing the Catholic "God" in which he
believes. Again, there is no consideration for the "status" of this or
that god so much as a contextual understanding that it is fair to ask
why one should believe in *any* presumably superior, supernatural
being when there is simply no evidence for any of them.

Part of your silly and disingenuous argument also presumes that we
must look at the "God" in which you believe as different from those
believed in by this or that "cult," using your words - which are
certain to be perjorative. No one wants to be considered to be part of
a cult, after all, so your use of rhetoric is just that - rhetoric.
When your argument takes things for granted that we are not required
to accept, the argument will fail, logically.

Atheists do not recognize that "God" is "the only and only god." There
is no effective difference, logically, between "God" or any other
supernatural figure whose existence is claimed but not evidenced.

And, again, in the context of the discussion, the word "God" *is* a
proper name. It is the name most people in the western world use to
refer to a specific god.

Once again, the superficial nature of your thinking and your arguments
are your undoing.

Now...on the issue of Hitler's Catholicism and your claims about
Darwin and evolution, which have been refuted before:

When Dawkins makes a reference to Hitler's Catholicism, Anna, he is
making an historical reference that is easily supported. This is not
necessarily to equate Hitler's entire life as a "Christian one,"
though even that invokes the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Hitler was a
Catholic, and spoke and wrote much of it during his life.

With respect to Hitler, chapter 11 of Mein Kampf, and evolution, I
have challenged you, several times, to debate and discuss that very
thing. You refused.

It is simply your tactic, Anna, to repeat your claims, while making no
attempt to support them.

You've never read Mein Kampf. Of that I am sure.

You've never read Darwin's Origin of Species. I am likewise sure of
that.

Still, you were offered a venue in which to provide detailed
explanations for examination and, again, you refused.

If you are not confident enough to explain, why should we listen?

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

In response to another user, Anna repeated previous accusations
against me rather than support or defend her arguments:

ShinyHappyVloggyPPL
I wouldn't know how to respond to such poor arguments.
___

Easy. Just do what CAFoster58, his sockpuppets and other fanatical
atheists do by spamiciding all comments that prove you wrong and make
you look like an idiot, and by repeating your delusions of having
refuted arguments in the past when you actually haven't, all part of
the ATHEIST DELUSION.

My response:

Another tantrum, Anna? How unflattering.

So you would repeat your accusation of sock-puppetry on my part.

Where is your evidence, Anna? How many sock puppets do I have? Who are
they?

Let me save the readers a lot of time, Anna. Your sock puppet
accusations are tossed about because you cannot refute what I have
posted, so you choose to try to divert attention from the actual
argument, in hopes that those reading will not see how silly your
arguments truly are.

Anna, I have already answered your charges, here:

tinyurl . com / cewy5s

You have never replied.

You have never provided evidence.

You *have* lied

Your claims, Anna, are taken directly from the claims made by another
YouTube religious person who uses the channel name, TurnerDiaries, and
likewise has created a number or proven sock puppets.

His intent was to harass Pat Condell, viewers of his videos, and
readers of his comment sections.

He was exposed by NascentAtheist, and I came along later. Because
NascentAtheist and I were allied,
TurnerDiaries claimed that *we* were sock puppets.

He never provided any evidence, either.

His was clearly a juvenile response to being caught, Anna.

Like him, you cannot refute my rebuttals to you, Anna, so you seek to
engage in ad hominem and personal attack. You can't help it. Your
arguments are bad, your character is suspect, and your maturity is
clearly limited.

Now, Anna, exactly how did you prove me wrong? I took your argument,
exposed its flaws in great detail, and all you could do was repeat the
argument.

So I provided more detail, exposing your errors and logical
fallacies.

How, exactly, have you proven that I am wrong?

You can't do that by fiat or declaration, Anna. You can only do that
with evidence.

Unlike you, I can be shown to be wrong - if I am wrong.

As to "spamiciding," Anna, I'm not sure what that means, though I
suspect that it can mean one of two things, depending on the context.

The first is that people have been marking your comments as spam. If
this happens enough, the commets disappear, which you find quite
distressing.

The second is the posting of detailed refutation that, many times,
pushes your comments off the first page, which you also find
distressing.

To the first, I have said many times that not only do I not rate posts
nor mark them as "spam," I discourage the practice.

To the second, I have also explained, many times, that the YouTube
commenting mechanisms makes multiple posts necessary, sometimes, when
responding to the sort of nonsense that you post. You see, Anna,
instead of just making assertions, as you do, I *explain*.

You never do that.

As for the "ATHEIST DELUSION," Anna, I'll ask again how it could be
that I explain my position with logic and evidence while exposing the
lack of evidence to your arguments and their fallacious nature, all
while exposing you as delusional for believing in creatures you cannot
evidence and for making poor arguments to defend that belief.

Who is more delusional, Anna?

Again, the full refutation may be found here:

tinyurl . com / a9utkw

Remove the spaces to view.

[StevoDog21]

I had to laugh when I saw the featured article today in Wikipedia on
the Hindu god Vithoba, who it explains is generally considered to be a
'manifestation' of the Hindu god Vishnu, or his 'avatar' Krishna, but
who is "sometimes associated with the god Shiva, the Buddha, or both"!
The fact is, our modern associations of names of gods, like the Roman
pantheon with their alleged Greek counterparts, and the things they
were supposedly the gods of, was far less clear-cut to ancient peoples
than our recent subjective notions would indicate. Pantheons of gods
arose from different regions being brought under unified effective
control, through conquest, assimilation, alliance, etc. and gods of
previously different peoples were mingled, merged, co-opted, and
corresponded in a fairly contrived manner, leading to all kinds of
repetition, duplication, contradiction, and incongruity in their
attributes and family relationships. Gods rose to dominance in these
pantheons with the success of their followers here on earth, and
various mythology was added on to show how and why these sons and
successors of previously chief gods were now in superior position.
This happened in the religious mythology of all peoples of the ancient
world, and the ancestors of the various Hebrew tribes were no
exception. The origin of the god Yahweh is hidden in the darkness of
prehistory, and the Kenite hypothesis has lost credibility in recent
years, but he was most likely originally conceived of being a storm
god of a mountain, and it is certain that he was not regarded as the
only god by his original worshippers; there are hints and clues of
this in the Hebrew Tanakh. Plus you can read the religious texts of
other Hebrew tribes like the Moabites with their god Chemosh, later
morphed into a composite deity Chemosh-Astarte, and see how eerily it
sounds like the Old Testament in so many ways that they obviously came
from a common tradition.
The Hebrew tribes that became the Israelites, and their descendents
the Jews, may be able to claim that they are monotheists, and I don't
know enough about Muslims to judge, but in my opinion there is no
possibility whatsoever for the Christians to make any such claim.
American Protestants, (and Anglicans too), like to talk about how the
Roman Catholics are really polytheists with their 'worship' of the
Virgin Mary, but completely ignore the fact that the idiotic notion of
the 'Trinity' is and always has been an invented mythological device
to disguise the fact that all the other Christians are every bit as
polytheistic as the pagan Greeks and Romans or Babylonians or
Assyrians or Hindus.
So, for this and the reasons elucidated by CAFoster, I agree with him
that there is no rational basis for the assertion made by Anna that
"God has a logically different status", and that she and the other
obtuse fanatical Christians are wrong.