Reply to Mariotinni
7 August 2007 by The Uncredible Hallq
Cross posted at The Uncredible Hallq)
Claude Mariottini has replied to my criticism of him–sort of. While the reply is addressed to me, most of it ignores what I actually wrote, with the exception of one patently false statement:
Hallquist already begins with the false assumption that the Iliad and the Bible are identical in purpose and message. They are not! The intent and message of the two books are completely different. The only similarity between both books is that they are literary works of individuals who lived hundreds of years ago.
Here go similarities two and three:
2) They both report the actions of superhuman beings which we don’t observe acting in cthe modern world as they are alleged to have acted in ancient times.
3) They both present heroes doing things which, in the modern world, would get them hauled before a war crimes tribunal.
The entire rest of the post is a generic rant against atheists. Mariottini presents three points which are supposed to be a problem for atheism:
1. The Test of History. Judaism and Christianity claim a historical basis for their faith. Judaism says there is a God because of the work of God in the history of ancient Israel. Christianity says there is a God because of the existence of a historical Jesus. Atheism does not have any historical claim to prove that there is no God. Atheists only have their own statement that says there is no God. Since atheists do not have history on their side, they deny the historicity of events in Judaism and Christianity.
Was this intended as a rebuttal to the charge that there is a lack of evidence for the truth of Christianity? My guess is no. Read as arguments, the reasoning is vacuous, so bad that I think the most charitable reading is that Mariottini was intending to make baseless assertions. Consider the Judaism half of the statement: whether God worked in the history of Israel is precisely one of the points in dispute, so read as an argument, he’s committing the fallacy of begging the question. On the Christianity half, there’s no reason to jump from the claim that Jesus was a historical figure to the claim that God exists, so it’s a blatant non sequitur. Might Mariottini be taking the position that a claim can become reasonable simply because people say it’s true (Judaism says… Christianity says…)? I can only wonder.
2. The Test of Witnesses. Judaism and Christianity believe there is a God because they believe the words of witnesses who saw God at work. The people in Israel claimed they heard the voice of God. Christianity claims that after the resurrection, Jesus “appeared to more than five hundred people at the same time” (1 Corinthians 15:6). It is possible to say that these people were delusional or that they were unreliable witnesses but atheism does not have one witness who was there to say that there was no God. Since atheism does not have one single witness who has seen the evidence that there is no God, they reject the reliability of the biblical witnesses and deny the validity of their testimony.
The talk of witnesses implies Mariottini maybe does care about evidence after all. Notice that even here, though the statement is phrased in terms of what Christians claim, not what’s objectively correct. In any case, the witnesses he refers to aren’t witnesses in the usual sense of people who’s testimony you have, they’re the subject of a second hand report that isn’t even so good as second hand reports go. Paul doesn’t name his witnesses, say when or where the event happened, or even say where he got his information from. Contrary to what many apologists (Mariottini included, it would appear from the comments) would like to believe, irresponsible, poorly-checked claims get made all the time, so we cannot just assume Paul was telling the truth based on so little information. It’s also clear that groups of people can fall under collective delusions (I’ve previously listed some examples here).
The complaint about lack of a witness to prove their is no God is one of those things that sounds good until you think about it for a moment. There are probably a few hundred people in the world willing to claim they’ve had personal contact with extraterrestrials. I’ve read things written by such people. I suspect that in Mariotinni’s sense of the phrase, there are no witnesses to prove extraterrestrials have never visited Earth. Does this mean the UFO nuts are actually the reasonable ones? No. There are other explanations for why people would claim extraterrestrial contact, and the evidence really isn’t as good as we’d expect if ETs were really visiting earth. As Carl Sagan once said, with so many people allegedly being abducted, why haven’t the neighbors noticed? The situation is similar with Christianity: there are other explanations, and there’s nowhere near the kind of evidence a god could give us if he were really intent on revealing himself.
3. The Test of Written Records. Judaism and Christianity claim that God exists because they have ancient written records that report the work of God in their history. Atheism has no written records that can prove that God does not exist, therefore they deny the claims of the written records of Judaism and Christianity.
Now we’re back to baseless assertion territory. All kinds of extraordinary claims have been committed to paper. The mere existence of the writings is no reason at all to think the claims are true. This paragraph suggests to me that the apparent concern for evidence under (2) was a fluke, an illusion.
He makes a big deal of the claim that atheists cannot prove that there is no God, and cites Dawkins in support of this point. If “proof” is taken in the sense of logically demonstrative proof, Dawkins is right. However, as Dawkins points out in the very passage of his book that Mariotinni cites, there are lots of things which we justly regard as improbable in spite of the lack of logically demonstrative disproof (and, I would add, there are lots of things we regard as nearly certain in spite of the lack of logically demonstrative proof). Mariotinni’s response to this point is to simply pretend Dawkins never made it.
Though I never said anything about the problem of evil in my original post, a paragraph is devoted to it. There’s one weird aspect of it that’s worth highlighting: all he says about proposed theodicies is that atheists don’t accept them, as if that’s the end of the debate. To simply whine that “I made this claim, and people who disagree with me didn’t accept it” shows a sort of contempt for rational discourse, a refusal to recognize it’s worth trying to carefully assess the validity of claims.
It’s worth reading the comments thread, since Scott nails how silly the “culture of denial” business is:
That said, Atheism is not a even religion or philosophy but merely a position held with regard a particular truth claim: God exists. That position accepted, atheists can hold world views informed by skepticism, humanism or even mysticism. I assume that you yourself are an denier of the claims of Buddhism. Welcome to the Fellowship of Deniers.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Finally, in the comments Mariottini repeatedly says things like:
The primary intent of my post was to declare that atheists and Christians will never agree on several issues because they begin their discussion of the Bible with different presuppositions. Christians approach the Bible from the perspective of faith; atheists deny the possibility of faith.
Again, this smacks of a contempt for rational discourse. He’s totally uninterested in asking whether an assumption is correct. I’m also curious by what he means by “faith.” If he means the popular conception of believing things without evidence, the statement may be true, but it is not exactly a good commentary on his side. If group of scientists A did their best to figure out what theory was best supported by the evidence, and group B made a commitment to believing their pet theory independently of evidence, it might be true that they would never agree, but this would hardly be damaging to group A.
As with the last post in this exchange, I find myself moving further into the Hector Avalos camp.
Tags: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Hector Avalos, mythology
7 August 2007, on 7:50 pm
This particular “it is written” argument always leaves me shaking my head in disbelief. I cannot imagine how one could fail to grasp that it amounts to this:
Jesus alleges that God exists.
Jesus’ followers allege that he is the son of God.
Therefore, God exists because they wrote it down.
Nice try. Now put that in the First Person and see who believes it!
Perhaps Mr. Mariotinni would like to address the fact that he fails to prove his assertion that written assertions of the non-existence of god have never existed. There have been a lot of book burnings, heretic burnings, and stonings throughout history. Can he prove that the evidence was always non-existent?
7 August 2007, on 8:32 pm
Just one question: is that one account of 500 witnesses? Or 500 witness’ accounts of one event? How can he prove that the one of 500 wasn’t exaggerating or even lying about what the others had seen? Or not seen? Or saw differently, but changed their story? And without gate receipts, how can he be sure it was 500? More? Less?
Okay, maybe I should have said “one quibble” instead of “one question”.
I call bullshit on Mariottini. He’s reaching!
7 August 2007, on 9:32 pm
Gosh, it must be fun to be Mariottini.
Can I play?
“Jesus loves me, this I know, because the Bible tells me so.”
Atheists haven’t made up a rhyme about how Jesus feels about me, therefore Jesus is God. And he loves me.
eener-neener.
7 August 2007, on 9:35 pm
That was supposed to be “neener-neener”
7 August 2007, on 9:46 pm
Regarding the more than 500 witnesses claim, last month on vacation in Hong Kong, in addition to finding a Bible in the dresser drawer of my hotel room, I was also surprised to find the Book of Mormon.
In the introduction, there is a Testimony of Eight Witnesses who testify that “Joseph Smith… has shown us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engraving thereon, all of which has the appearance of an ancient work, and of curious workmanship…”
The statement of the eight witnesses concludes with “And we lie not, God bearing witness to it.”
Now, these are eight people who I am pretty sure have left some documentary evidence of their existence, swearing by God that the golden tablets are real. So how is it that Christians believe the Bible that more than 500 people saw the risen Christ, when we don’t know who these 500 people were, but do not believe the sworn testimony of eight people known to have lived in the United States during the first half of the 19th century?
7 August 2007, on 9:51 pm
Speaking of deeply held delusional beliefs, when I used to work in the Federal Court on Long Island, New York, there was a pro se plaintiff named Norman Rabin who was suing the United States government. He claimed that the CIA was using satellites to beam signals into his brain, “multiple satellites assault” as he called it.
I use his real name here because it is a matter of public record. You can google Norman Rabin and satellite and you will find references to him. This is a man who fervently believes something that is happening to him is real even though it is so ridiculous. Why should Biblical claims of seeing a resurrected Jesus be more believable than the claims of Norman Rabin?
7 August 2007, on 10:59 pm
Just a suggestion, Hallq…
Have Mariottini (and any of youse guys who haven’t seen it?) check out:
“The God Who Wasn’t There” Video!
Yeah…it’s not the greatest, but Brian Flemming (of Blasphemy Challenge fame?) manages to dissect and ‘expose’ a lot of the unquestioned historical bullshit assumptions we ex-Xtian atheists are all familiar with.
The Video’s on Google in 4 parts + a Flemming interview with the administrator of the Fundie School where Flemming himself was indoctrinated as a kid. It’s a rather ‘curious’ film, indeed! Check it out?:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=The+God+Who+Wasn‘t+There
7 August 2007, on 11:12 pm
Oh…and for a sort of “tasty dessert” to that suggestion…how ’bout Pat Condell’s Blasphemy Challenge video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8PCecgWKeI&mode=related&search=
8 August 2007, on 1:32 am
Does he not realize that he is attempting to count the trees while still inside the forest? Maybe he reads the bible with rose colored glasses? What part of the concept that one cannot see the whole picture if they are in it does this guy not get?
Simple, if you have faith that the bible is true then you are less critical of what it actually says. Therefore, your reading is flawed. Duh!!! A two-thirds blind monkey with Tourettes Syndrome, one testicle and a passion for Cilantro could figure this simple concept out. Yet a “Doctor” does not seem able to. How sad.
8 August 2007, on 1:43 am
Chaoswes: are you, by any chance, making a case for blinding, half-castrating and force-feeding cilantro to Mariottini? Because if you are, I’d like to be your nurse-assistant. I’ll even pay for the
pleasureopportunity.8 August 2007, on 1:52 am
I’m all for keeping the option open.
Alas no, I’m using that fine specimen of monkeyhood as an example of someone who is, shall we say, one step up on the evolutionary ladder then Mariottini.
8 August 2007, on 5:37 am
Haha, Mariottini. Go,cilantro wanting monkey that has Tourettes’s Syndrome. It is real sad that they want to take everything out of context just to justify their point. So, Mariottini, go get a secular education.
8 August 2007, on 6:12 am
“Since atheism does not have one single witness who has seen the evidence that there is no God, they reject the reliability of the biblical witnesses and deny the validity of their testimony.”
Let’s say that there were witness that could show that the biblical witnesses were unreliable. How is that evidence that there is no God? Lol.
“Christians approach the Bible from the perspective of faith; atheists deny the possibility of faith.”
What do they need to approach the Bible for? That’s the best they got?
The Test of Blah Blah Blah…
8 August 2007, on 3:13 pm
What’s sad is that he apparantly has no standards of evidence, and seems to teach that there is no such thing as the burden or proof on one who makes a claim, but there is a burden of disproof on those who might dispute said claim. Shades of George Nouri! Apparantly textural analysis and critical scholarship is foreign to him, and he teaches Old and New Testament Studies! What a tool.
I saw a post he made on the dating of the Exodus (he seems to assume that it actually happened). I’m afraid to look for any posts on Noah’s Ark and the Tower of Babel. Maybe this guy worked with Ron Wyatt?
8 August 2007, on 4:33 pm
“Since atheism does not have one single witness who has seen the evidence that there is no God …”
I recognize the words, but I can’t for the life of me make any sense of this.
8 August 2007, on 5:37 pm
Old Viking, that makes two of us. It does not make any sense at all.
8 August 2007, on 6:44 pm
Hey badger, who’s George Nouri?
8 August 2007, on 8:35 pm
AUM: just the understudy and pale facsimile of the original proprietor of CrackpotCentral – Art Bell.
Listening to him is as mind-corrupting as a priest or pastor. Crop circles? Face on Mars? Alien abductions? Remote-viewing? Shadow-people? If that’s your bag, go for it! If not, I advise you light up a joint instead…
8 August 2007, on 8:53 pm
Oh, I actually have a subscription to his show, but I’m really close to canceling it because he has so many ID people on it makes me want to throw up. That, and most of the time his topics don’t interest me at all.
Otherwise, it’s an okay show. It’s a great way to kill 4 hours.
I like listening to it because it’s fun to think what the world would actually be like if it was true. Plus I can use some of the topics in my stories.
His last name is actually spelt Noory.
8 August 2007, on 9:35 pm
And the rest of it doesn’t?? Something aint right, dude.
A ball-peen hammer slammed repeatedly into the forehead is cheaper, more effective, and longer-lasting.
9 August 2007, on 1:55 am
I honestly have no need to defend my interests to anyone.
Besides, it gives me something to do until my atheist, comic book, pro wrestling, and news podcasts/radio shows come on.
9 August 2007, on 5:40 am
I’m sorry, but… “atheism does not have one single witness who has seen the evidence that there is no God.” So, like, that would be witnesses that haven’t actually seen God? Aren’t there millions of those?
Or perhaps we need evidence from an all-seeing, all-knowing being able to see through time and space, who can testify absolutely that there is no God. Now where would we get one of those…?
9 August 2007, on 9:13 am
No you don’t, but don’t expect us not to knock on you for supporting Art Bell crap, or pro “wrestling”. *rolleyes*
9 August 2007, on 3:13 pm
No time for a long comment, but the first argument from M …I can’t believe he even bothered. Gee, then Zeus is around too, for the same reasons M cites. Zeus was very active in the history of the ancient Greeks. And then there’s Vishnu. Anyway, M’s first argument needs no further rebuttal.
9 August 2007, on 7:27 pm
“Christianity claims that after the resurrection, Jesus “appeared to more than five hundred people at the same time” (1 Corinthians 15:6).
Operant word here, “claims”. Imagining for a moment that this actually took place and wasn’t just more self-serving bullshit, just who was it that told these 500 people what they were looking at? I’m guessing there wasn’t more than 12 among them that would know Jesus from a sack of turnips. I’d put the quotation marks around “Jesus”, not the blather that follows. Another thing: if you or I walk into a room full of people, do we “appear to” them? Cut the “peek-a-boo” crap. You make us sick.
Last, about the book of Mormon, or any other similar life experience: if someone feels the need to tack on, “and we’re not lying” to their story, they probably are.
10 August 2007, on 5:41 am
I’m trying to reduce Mariottini’s mind-rending argument to the fewest possible words. There is no evidence against something for which no evidence exists. Therefore, that for which no evidence exists exists.
Okay…
11 August 2007, on 1:17 pm
Glen, well done! At least, I think that is succinctly accurate – I have no patience with idiots like Mario Teeny-dick. To read them gives me a headache. And the bottom-line is ALWAYS the same: Bullshit dressed up in silk.
And the silk still smells like bullshit…
I wish it was an indictable crime to lie about invisible beings. Although, when I think about it, things are slightly better now: in earlier times, the lying church made saints out of the liars. Mario Teeny will never be sainted.