Stormpooper Returns! The Saga Continues

In a discussion about the historicity of the Adam and Eve myth, a Christian pain in the ass who loves to belittle atheists, decided to respond to my line of reasoning (in blue, with commentary in purple).

The quote he made which I was originally responding to was this gem:

So, the Genesis account is mythology and fiction because of naturalistic, uniformitarian presuppositions. Therefore, miracles do not occur.
Rather presumptuous and arrogant, don't you think?

" What are you trying to say, exactly?"

Did I type too fast for you to understand?

[Notice I was asking for clarification, which he then avoids by offering a sarcastic dodge. This makes me think he either can't answer the question or is a major dick who refuses to. If not both.]

"That miracles occur or that all of Genesis is historically true?"


" Those are actually separate claims."


[Obviously, introducing on off topic tangent is one tactic that theists like him use to kill the discussion by making it impossible for the atheist to address multiple arguments all at once. Usually they claim the atheist is changing the topic when they try to be courteous and follow the tangents. However, the fact that he wasn't actually aware that he was introducing a separate topic tells us a lot right there. If he was aware, then he did not provide any reason as to why introduced a separate topic or what its significance was. I am tempted to think it was the prior over the latter, in this case.]

"If you read Genesis, you would know it was a myth."

There ya go, there's that smug atheist superiority and the false dilemma. With an insult, no less. YES, I have read Genesis. Yes, I believe it.

[Actually, in the original context of the exchange I had given numerous quotes by the expert mythologist Joseph Campbell which showed why and how it is a myth. In other words, I supported my claim. What exactly is insulting about that, I have no clue. How it is a false dilemma, I don't follow, probably because he never clarifies. Although, I don't see exactly how it depicts a false dilemma or what that dilemma would be about exactly.]

"If you assumed it [Genesis/Adam and Eve] happened historically, then the burden is on you to find historical evidence for it."

I'll leave that to historians and archaeologists. As a matter of fact, YOU have just been asserting that it is NOT true, so the burden of proof is on YOU. None of that "shift the burden of proof" nonsense.

[After I had just finished giving him various quotes by historians and archaeologists, including a well cited essay on the very subject of whether or not there was any historicity to be found behind the myth, it seems rather dense to then shirk the burden of proof by claiming it's not his burden and that I am *merely asserting as if the assertions weren't warrented. That's a cop out.]

"Unable to do so..."

Arbitrary assertions based on your atheistic presuppositions and ignorance of history and archaeology.

[Really, we begin to see how muddled his reasoning really is. In fact, I cringe to even call it reasoning. It seems we have the opposite problem. His inability to reason causes him to fly off the handle, and instead of grappling with the criticism, he starts throwing out unfounded accusations and daisy-chaining detractors such as "arbitrary," "assertions," "presuppositions," "ignorance." Using these he can convince himself that we haven't adequately met the burden of proof, and on top of it all, to add insult to injury, implies we are incapable of doing so. But the only one who seems convinced of it is himself. Anybody else would balk and roll their eyes at his impossible to believe level of thick headedness.]

"It would be arrogant to continue to assume it was history absent any evidence to support such a theory."

You are building on your arbitrary assertions with more arbitrary assertions.

[I supplied numerous sourced quotes and links in our discussion. If he neglected to follow any, and it seems all, of them, that is not the same as being arbitrary or making baseless assertions. Notice his repeat of words like arbitrary and assertions.]

"All I have done is observe that it has all the features of a myth, shared by similar myths, and have backed up my claim with the words of real historians to specialize in ancient myth."

One misotheist quoting other atheists. Big deal. Your appeal to authority is noted and catalogued with all of your other logical fallacies.

[Now he acknowledges that I have valid citations, but then dismisses them as a mere appeal to authority. This contradicts his prior claim that I am making "arbitrary assertions." Additionally, it would only be an appeal to authority if I wrongly assumed that the authority I cited was the only viable authority. But I nowhere make that claim. Also, having supplied a well sourced essay with numerous authorities means I am making an appeal to the consensus of professionals, not the claims of one soul authority. He is not only mistaken, but shows that he doesn't even grasp the basic concepts he accuses others of being guilty of. Finally, last but not least of all, a misotheist is a person who hates God. Obviously, the rational minded person pauses to reflect, how on earth can a person who doesn't believe in God, let alone acknowledge any gods' existence, hate something which doesn't exist? Explain that one.]

Kind of hard to take you seriously.


Often times people complain that Atheists are impatient with those of faith. It's probably because we have to deal with Fideists like this. If you had to put up with these people all of the time, wouldn't you feel that atheists are, perhaps, some of the most patient and tollerant people on the planet?


Popular posts from this blog

The Imperfect and Immoral Teachings of Jesus Christ

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic