The Tedious, Tweeting Atheist

xc: @JoWalker1223

@thefreedomguy

You wrote:

@TomUsher Saying something doesn't exist isn't a proposition you total moron. Santa doesn't exist, is that one too idiot?! hehee; @TomUsher ahahahah, I don't have to disprove, if you have a proposition, the onus is on you to provide proof. I set forth NO proposition.

You have made the claim that the statement "God doesn't exist" is not a proposition. You called me pejoratives ("total moron" and "idiot") for saying you are wrong and also said that my simply stating you're wrong is tantamount to my saying "neener neener." It is difficult, if not impossible, to penetrate such thickheadedness; but perhaps you'll comprehend if it is spelled out to you as if you are a six-year-old. I won't be holding my breath.

In the simplest terms, a proposition in logic equals a subject affirmed or denied by a predicate. Pay attention, anti-genius. God (subject) doesn't (denial) exist (predicate). That shows, contrary to your emphatic denial, that you did set forth a proposition. You have supplied zero proof for your proposition, but you demand proof from people with faith in God, who does not yield test results at anyone's command, even Jesus's. God isn't testable in the way you are demanding. Jesus didn't do it, and neither will I.

There is nothing illogical in my statement. You are very poor at logical thinking and expression. Develop some humility. Your arrogance is glaring.

Now, do you admit it when you have been wrong? Do you apologize for negative name-calling under such circumstances?

If you wish to converse with mature and intelligent people and to gain valuable insights, work on being mature and intelligent.

As for your equally childish and incorrect use of the concept of ad hominem, you cited an authority. That authority also uses sources/authorities all of which and in circular fashion claim that "appeals to authority" (aka, "arguments from authority") are illogical (logically fallacious).

God shows to whom God wants when God wants. When the antichrists asked Jesus for a sign, he told them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas." (Matthew 12:39)

You may rail all you want at that and/or claim that Jesus never even lived – that he is a fictional character; but you have no less proof of Jesus's existence than that for Socrates and many, many other people most atheists believe (take on faith) existed.

More directly to the false notion that appealing to personal considerations is illogical, in courts of law, the testimonies of proven perjurers are impeached on their faces. They are not to be trusted because they are proven liars. This only scratches the surface of the logic that the concept that appealing to personal considerations is illogical is illogical itself.

That an ad hominem is a logical fallacy in all cases and in all manners is mere opinion and false. It is a very immature mind that tosses out "that's an ad hominem attack" without deeper consideration.

It is true that a liar may be telling the truth in a given circumstance, but it is not illogical, per se, to consider and weight for a lack of veracity – for a pattern of lying or even ever having told a lie when so much is riding upon the testimony and when the liar is unrepentant and unatoning, etc.

Christians believe and trust Jesus for good reason. We believe that we know that the truth is that the best there is, is being Jesus, who we also believe is at one with God and what we call the Holy Spirit, as Jesus defined them both.

It is your choice, some would say your destiny, to not believe; but you cannot prove or disprove God or many of the things in which you believe and don't believe.

A colorblind man doesn't see red. Red does not show to that one. That one is lacking what is required at the moment to see red. Is that an ad hominem attack upon the colorblind man, or is it just stating truth?

You take exception to my premises. My conclusions do though follow logically from my premises. If you were brighter, willing, and interested enough, we could pursue the logic to its final conclusion where all the premises and conclusions are perfect and result in the perfection that is God. That you are not is not any different than the case of the colorblind. It does though speak to your personality and character whether you like it or not.

Your last tweet was that you are "not moving forward with you [Tom] until YOU [Tom] prove your invisible friend exists with sense evidence, no more stupid games."

I didn't start this. You mentioned me first and even started following me on Twitter. The only reason there isn't proof for you is for the reasons I've given. On a certain level, I couldn't care less whether or not you move on this subject.

I don't have to prove anything to you. In addition, I find irrelevant and insignificant what you think is or isn't sane.

You are not a spiritual person. From my perspective, that's your lack.

You don't know where you are, where you came from, what you are, who you are, how long you've been, where you're going, or anything else except in relative terms the end result of which in Christian terms is death. You can be all puffed up with what you think you know, but you're very poor at epistemology.

God will reveal God to you where and when and how God wants. If you continue being as arrogant and antichrist as you are, you will not be glad at the effect of the sum total of your feelings, thoughts, words, and deeds. You will suffer regret beyond your present ability to imagine.

I base that upon Jesus's statements. I trust that he was and remains correct. I do that based upon the whole of his words and deeds that were and remain the best I've ever heard, certainly far superior to anything I've heard coming from you.

If you think you are smarter, more knowledgeable, and more logical than Jesus was and/or is, that's your problem. I distance myself from you, which is part of the whole process of separation that I will be glad to see totally fulfilled. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. I don't wish that on anyone, and exactly who is responsible for it all is a highly debated aspect in the circle of those who claim Christianity; but I do believe it for good reason.

Don't be so ignorant as to call it a mere ad hominem logical fallacy that there will be the resurrection of the just who will rule the New Earth and New Heaven where the iniquitous (who include those who refuse God, God's credit) will be separated out.

So, if you don't want to continue, that's no skin off my nose. If you want to continue being illogical and simply railing against those things you don't know and refuse to learn about, it is no skin off my nose. You'll be separated out of your own doing – your own merit and lack thereof. So be it. You won't be able to say you weren't warned.

If you don't like my response, so what?

Jesus cared enough that he went to the cross. He also knew to be resolved to ultimate cause and effect. He reconciled those things. So have I.

If this is all too deep and abstract for you, that's just the way it is. If you don't want it to be that way, change. If you can't, ....

Tweets from @thefreedomguy:

@TomUsher If only that made sense... you cannot prove a delusion, that is illogical.

@TomUsher You wouldn't play the games if you could prove your invisible friend existed. Right to the point, no games needed.

@TomUsher More games... I know there is not god in the same way I know there aren't leprechauns. Easy to prove me wrong if you KNOW...

@TomUsher Reason and empirical evidence will win you a prize.

@TomUsher I think I'll be the judge of that based on reason and evidence rather then advise from someone with an imaginary friend.

@TomUsher Funny, rather then prove (since you cannot) you play the same old games. Condescending me doesn't make your sky ghost real.

@TomUsher It's just an OLD and boring game the insane play with the rational.

@TomUsher ahahahah, I don't have to disprove, if you have a proposition, the onus is on you to provide proof. I set forth NO proposition.

@TomUsher Faith in your invisible friend doesn't mean it exists, it means you are insane. I gave up invisible friends when I was 5.

@TomUsher Saying something doesn't exist isn't a proposition you total moron. Santa doesn't exist, is that one too idiot?! hehee

@TomUsher I guess this is what I get trying to reason with the insane...

@TomUsher Again, if you had ANY empirical evidence you won't play all these logical fallacies and games, you would PROVE.

@tomusher More games instead of proving... I always wonder if crazy people KNOW they are insane. Can you answer that for my followers?

@TomUsher You are the one that proposes your invisible friend is real. We both know it's not, but it's up to you to prove...

@TomUsher if you don't, you are just an insane person with an invisible friend to those of us who live in reality.

@TomUsher You keep trying to suck me into your game, but you could give it a rest and prove your little invisible friend exists.

@TomUsher Then prove he does. It's that simple. I accept reason backed by sensual evidence.

@TomUsher It's also insane and cowardly to say it's my fault I cannot see your invisible friend. That is an ad hominem logical fallacy.

@TomUsher Based on the definition of an ad hominem logical fallacy, duh. Go read what it is and then see that you did it.

@TomUsher You realize saying "You're wrong" isn't an argument. You might as well say neener neener you're a silly head. It means nothing

@TomUsher Look, in the end I know it silly to try to be rational with an irrational person, but it interests me how the insane think.

@TomUsher Thankfully, science doesn't get to say ridiculous things like YOU DON'T KNOW, simply YOU'RE WRONG, he can be invisible, so neener.

@TomUsher I have to hope you don't have access to children to spread your insanity to, that would be child abuse at the deepest level.

@JoWalker1223 @TomUsher If you have an invisible friend and you are an adult, you are insane. That is not just my opinion.

@TomUsher Well this is rich, I ask you for proof, I get nothing but games, you ask an I need to hop to it? Okay...

@TomUsher ultimatefreedomquest.com/fallacy-friday... or look at wikipedia.

@TomUsher You said not seeing god it MY fault, so rather then prove your proposition is true you attack me as 'unworthy. That's ad hominem

@TomUsher Now, I'm not moving forward with you until YOU prove your invisible friend exists with sense evidence, no more stupid games.

Update:

@thefreedomguy (xc: @JoWalker @DavidGBoo) You wrote: "@TomUsher Makes no difference if I was right or wrong on the point of a proposition, it's just your way of diverting attention away" and "@TomUsher Saying someone is wrong about a totally separate point is also so is wrong about your point is also a logical fallacy."

I proved to you that you didn't understand the very basics, but you turn around and say it doesn't matter and that my doing so is also illogical. Look, you still don't understand plenty about even the basics. You are not qualified to tell me what is or isn't logical. You have an ego problem.

Beginning with the basics is never a logical fallacy. Complex logical thought is not built upon a non-existent grasp of the fundamentals. You think you can blow off the basics while telling me I'm illogical concerning logical trains of thought that you couldn't follow right now if your life were to depend upon it, which in a higher reality, it actually does.

I can't prove to you that George Washington was the President of the United States. So what? You believe he was. You believe it because you trust the chain of information. Well, you don't trust the chain of information concerning Jesus. That's your issue. It's not my problem.

I believe the Gospel writers didn't make up stories — that the Gospels are not fictional accounts. I've also had personal experiences that have convinced me God interacts in my life with me. If you don't believe that, go ahead. Go your way. I'll go mine.

You really should learn how to admit that you've been wrong and to apologize though. You won't like hearing it, but it will bring you closer to God; however, I'm not saying you will see God before it's too late in this age and the next.

Lastly, what difference does it make whether or not you say you consider yourself an atheist. You're an atheist by my definition. You do not believe there is God. You have said there is no God. In my book, that means you're an atheist.

If you were able to build upon the fundamentals and not get lost along the way, the argumentation would lead to the inevitable conclusion that is God.

Anyway, Jesus teaches his followers to shake the dust. I'm under no obligation to continue trying to penetrate your darkness. Perhaps something in the back and forth will resonate with you and you'll see the light or maybe something someone else says will do it. If so, great. If not, I won't be seeing you in Heaven.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.