Wednesday, April 04, 2007

In which we breathlessly await Dan Marvin's "scientific proof of God without any verses and such"!

That genius Dan Marvin just keeps getting better and better. He has now thrown down the gauntlet. He says he's finally got it, the "straight science" to prove God's existence irrefutably once and for all. Here's his brave boast. Behold!

Let’s start with a clean slate and a new blog to present a case for a creator. I challenge all of you against my evidence. Do you accept this challenge? I will prove my position in a whole radical new way do you accept my challenge?

Why yes, Dan, we do. Bring it. We will evaluate your "radical" "evidence" on its merits and on its merits alone. I will ignore the fact that in the past you have said that belief in God requires a "faith" that runs "contrary to human logic," which contradicts the position you are taking now. I will even refrain from calling you names this time. By now your foolishness is sufficiently well-established that it no longer merits comment. No point in belaboring the obvious.

Dan is so confident he's got the goods that his conditions are that if we cannot refute his "radical" "evidence" we will have to reounce our atheism and cancel the Atheist Experience television show. As I am not a member of the show's crew any more, I am not in a position to agree to those terms. But I will say, as I always have done, that if I had proof positive of the existence of a deity — at least of the same caliber that I have for the existence of anything else I know to exist — that I will cease to be an atheist.

Dan has also said that if he loses this challenge, he will go away and never come back. Given Dan's well-documented history of dishonesty and inability to understand, let alone accept, past refutations of his claims, I suspect he will not be honest and admit he's been pwned this time either. But no matter. I control the horizontal and vertical here, so I intend to hold Dan to his admittedly worthless word. When he presents his evidence, and if it is refuted (see how generous I'm being), I will expect him to stay true to his word and go away. If he refuses to do so, I will ban him.

I know in the past, I have said I don't do banning. But this is an unusual case. Dan has been a nuisance here for nearly two months. He hasn't won a single point or presented a single fact in all that time, and yet every time he comes back, he does so with renewed vigor and wholly undeserved confidence. There's a pathology here that it would take a mental health professional to evaluate most accurately. My options are easier.

While I won't be sorry to see Dan go, I admit his idiocy has been a major source of entertainment here, and a good traffic booster as well. (Who doesn't like to rubberneck a major wreck on the highway?) But he's now well past his sell-by date and is starting to stink up the place. Most of his latest, blustery comments — in which he flatters himself for doing things he's never done, like offer good arguments...oh, excuse me, "augments" — are clearly written for an audience composed of Dan Marvin, who seems to find playground bravado impressive. We don't. We prefer facts. If you've got 'em, let us have 'em, Dan. If you don't, one way or another, you will be gone.

Addendum: So Dan's response is that his challenge was an April Fool's joke. Makes an entirely Dan Marvinish kind of sense that he posted it on April 3rd, then.

I have tremendous faith that God will deliver some of you from these lies that are being pushed here at this blog and I hope I showed some of you the animosity and anger with some of these people that goes along with not having God in your life.

Uh, actually, Dan, our animosity and anger came from having to deal with your pathological lying, immaturity, refusal to take responsibility for yourself, and lack of integrity. That you still are thinking this way shows your personal moral compass is beyond repair.

So long, Dan. I'd tell you not to waste your time reading what the ID crowd is claiming about the bacterial flagellum and "irreducible complexity," but there's no point, I know.


  1. I’ll be sorry to see him go. I’m still smiling about that “Acts of God” insurance thing.

    I’m not so sure it’ll be that easy though. Maybe we just didn’t know where to look. I’ve never been to prison, but people are finding Jesus in there all the time. Maybe similarly science has recently found God hanging out on one of Saturn’s moons. Have YOU even been to Saturn’s moons? I think you guys could be in for the fight of your lives.

    I’m not counting Dan out yet. I’m ready to believe!

    And even if not, he’s so adorable!! Can’t we keep him? We’ll feed him and bathe him and walk him everyday! Pleeeeease!?

  2. And even if not, he’s so adorable!! Can’t we keep him? We’ll feed him and bathe him and walk him everyday! Pleeeeease!?

    Remember, a christian is for life, not just for christmas. Don't forget to clean the litter tray.

  3. Yeah... I guess everyone else is getting tired of cleaning up after him. But come on! He said that naming a building after someone proves they existed. How can you not love this guy?

  4. Hay all,

    I admit I had fun exploring these subjects. Since Martin (and others) was getting so abusive in the discussions I decided to not post anymore comments. So I played a little prank as an April fool’s joke. Knowing my audience I could not do it on April first because I would have been just brushed off by the skeptics as a joke so I chose April 3rd instead, and it worked! Good job Stew, for pointing it out even though you used God’s name in vain to do it.

    This new blog post here proves that Martin took a bite of my hook and is gullible to believe anything. And if a little old guy like me can fool Martin what makes you think that most of you are not being fooled by these people. People deceive people but God is who he said he is. Oh yea Martin …


    Since most of this discussions were on how God views atheists as fools I thought it to be appropriate. I have tremendous faith that God will deliver some of you from these lies that are being pushed here at this blog and I hope I showed some of you the animosity and anger with some of these people that goes along with not having God in your life.

    I would like to clear the slate on some things. I wanted to thank people like Tracie and Stephen who really made me sharpen my pencil and I have renewed (if that were possible) enthusiasm for God. I have researched God and found new things out and I am very grateful to God to have you guys in my life for a time. I want all of you to really consider what you are doing here and make sure that you understand that God is giving you a free gift and you are rejecting it to believe in people instead of God. But it isn’t the end do you research like we all have and then repent and trust in Jesus (before you die) and you will have everlasting life in heaven.

    You have all helped me research further what I believe and I am now studying all sorts of thing about God. It is a tremendous amount of reading and it is interesting. Things such as, Bacterial flagellum, Irreducible complexity, The Origin of Information,
    How DNA transcends material medium (analogy of morning newspaper, the ink and paper (the medium) is there but who placed the information to be printed and how letters are arranged?). To me it is interesting things to read about for the rest of the year.

    Before this, I combined science together under the blanket of just science. I was like, Yea yea yea God created us and science proves it. Nope science doesn’t prove it because historical science is different the operational science (that finds the cure that makes things better for us right now on earth) that is operational its operative it can be tested its verifiable and provable. Historical science is NOT, and so atheists, you have a faith belief, and Christians so do we. We don’t want to base our augment on science anymore then the atheist do because they can’t do it and neither can we because the past is not testable.
    Now all kinds of stuff that points toward a young earth in my impression no doubt about it that God made the place just look outside your window. But THAT is not what is going to convert the human heart. As Stephen pointed out it is the word and the working of the Holy Spirit because it is a miracle of conversion, that’s why we simply preach the word even when they say they don’t believe it. God is holy and just and always does what is right. We will know the why’s after but not before. The tree of knowledge made us sin but the tree of life (the cross) saved us from the punishment for that sin.

    No hard feelings? I wish the best for all of you,


  5. Finally! The end is in sight (or "site" if I was Dan).

    Did you notice how he spelled hypocrisy the other day? Hipocracy or something like that...

    He built a multi-million dollar company MY ASS!

  6. So posted a challenge as an April Fool's joke on April 3rd?

    Sigh. Whatever. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

  7. First April Fools is on the FIRST of April not the third. So your challenge wasn't a joke. On any other day it is simply a lie. No surprise there. Dan is an established LIAR and FOOL.

    Things such as, Bacterial flagellum, Irreducible complexity, The Origin of Information,
    How DNA transcends material medium (analogy of morning newspaper, the ink and paper (the medium) is there but who placed the information to be printed and how letters are arranged?).

    What does anti-evolution garbage have to do with god(s) or proving god(s)?

    Don't answer Dan. The question is rhetorical. The answer is nothing, obviously.

    More yada yada yada in the next paragraph...


    I hope your last post was worth it.

  8. It crossed my mind to call you on an April fools (is that a noun?) but I was under the impression that you were under the impression that ALL lies were a sin. So you got me, I’m man enough to admit that.

    So since you were lying, er… “kidding” I guess there really is no scientific proof huh? That’s kind of crushing to be honest. I feel like I was right on the edge, ready take that final step and be transformed. But now I just feel deceived and mislead. I’m not sure “No hard feelings?” is going to fix that.

    But if you admittedly believe on faith then I have no real problem with you. You’re well within your rights to believe as you wish. But then so are we. Just try not to be so confused when your gut feeling isn’t so convincing to others.

    I personally have not indulged in name calling because it seemed counterproductive and I really wanted to hear what you had to say. But now that it’s all over, I just want you to know… you’re a jackass.

  9. It always seems to happen this way.

    I intended to send an email to a friend of mine with a reasonably stupid joke on April 2nd and put APRIL FOOLS at the bottom. The joke of course being that I would be pretending to be someone so stupid that they were trying to make an April Fool's day joke after April Fool's day.

    I didn't do that though. I decided that the joke was too stupid.

    Then Dan makes a "challenge" and when pretty much everyone here calls his bluff he claims that his "challenge" was just an April Fools day joke. His "challenge" that he made on April 3rd. Two days after April Fool's Day. An April Fool's day joke.

    I just don't have the words for this. When you make up a make believe idiotic character, you don't expect to actually meet them in real life.

  10. “This new blog post here proves that Martin took a bite of my hook and is gullible to believe anything.”

    Dan: I have a magic talking frog in my pocket. Do you believe me?

    Martin: Uh, no.

    Dan: What! Why not? I’m telling you this as a fact and you don’t believe me. What an idiot. What if I show it to you, will you trust me then?

    Martin: Yeah, sure.

    Dan pulls his fist out of his pocket with a flourish and opens it to reveal… nothing.

    Dan: Hahaha!! You believed me! I can’t believe you fell for that! You’re so stupid!

    This is the kind of behavior I expect of homeless people loitering at gas stations, not an upstanding clear thinking street preacher. Oh wait… scratch that.

  11. Well, dang.

    I was so looking forward to watching God vanish in a puff of logic!

    Maybe old Dan really has made some progress in realizing he didn't prove sh**t to us and we didn't change his mind because we just can't reconcile BS with FACT. One can certainly hope.

    Say, speaking of God vanishing, if y'all want a great, thoughtful and funny read about this very concept, try:

    "Towing Jehovah," by James Morrow.

    The story about what happens after Jehovah becomes flesh and then dies is a real hoot but the final chapters that tell WHY he did made me think in an entirely different way about the whole question of why mankind needs the god concept.

    At first I was furious at how the protagonists of the story acted once they had that knowledge, but after long, careful consideration I came to believe Morrow was 100% correct. Even more so after reading Dan's posts.

    One is reminded of the great Jack: "You can't HANDLE the truth!"

    Peace, all.

  12. Aw, I actually found the ongoing debate interesting...

  13. Repulsive religion, repulsive circular logic, repulsive duplicity, repulsive fantasies, yep Dan's is a typical apologist.
    I am angry at the waste of time the cultural pollution these people bring to the human race. It is not a lack of god but, your religious infestion in my daily life.
    Good riddance, fuck you and fuck the god you rode in on.

  14. >the past is not testable.

    However, god is supposedly still in the present, so he should be testable.

    >it is a miracle of conversion

    I'm not expecting to get a response to my last post about this. And at this point, I can't say I'd really value one. Converting sinners into people who still sin can only be the work of a supernatural god?

    It's probably for the best. I can't say that I believe anything I would get would be any more convincing than what has come before. And I mean that as directed really more toward me than Dan; if I were not so caring, I'd have given up on anything like a reasonable response ages ago.

    Dan is just so much like I used to be, that I guess I couldn't help hoping for him. But everyone has to find their own path. Years ago, I can't flatter myself that I would have been any more ready than Dan to see reason.

  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

  16. Knowing my audience I could not do it on April first because I would have been just brushed off by the skeptics as a joke so I chose April 3rd instead, and it worked!

    After April 1st, it's just a practical joke. Why not wait until October? Wouldn't that be the ULTIMATE April fools gag?

    While you're plotting your incredibly crafty "October fools"'s one final point:

    This new blog post here proves that Martin took a bite of my hook and is gullible to believe anything.

    No, it demonstrates that, of the two of you, Martin is the only honest participant in the discussion. It demonstrates that he's willing to give you many chances to finally do what you should have been expected to do on day 1 - support your claims with something beyond "for the Bible tells me so". It demonstrates that you don't take the issue seriously. It demonstrates that you're unwilling to exercise your brain. It demonstrates that you are willing to lie to make a point. It demonstrates that Martin is graciously optimistic in hoping that someone who has repeatedly failed to pass a Turing test might actually do so...

    It also demonstrates that there is a strong chance that Christianity not only poisons your rational mind, but it may affect your sense of humor as well.

  17. Dan has proved one thing. I present the following from

    American Heritage Dictionary
    - cre·tin (krēt'n)
    n. A person afflicted with cretinism.
    Slang An idiot.

    [French crétin, from French dialectal, deformed and mentally retarded person found in certain Alpine valleys, from Vulgar Latin *christiānus, Christian, human being, poor fellow, from Latin Chrīstiānus, Christian; see Christian.]

  18. To just add something to the point Matt made. At first I thought it wasn't worth posting, because Dan had left(?). But in reality, since this is a public comment area, it may be worthwhile to have it put down "for the record."

    It is common for believers to not understand that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required to support the claim. We have to point this out so often that it is sometimes difficult to recall if we've said it or not in a particular discussion with a particular believer. I'm not going to go back and search to see if anyone posted this to Dan, but I think it's highly likely someone did.

    Just for those who may be lurking and not familiar with this idea, here's how it works:

    If I tell you I had lunch today at a local restaurant, you're likely to not doubt me--not because you're gullible and believe whatever anyone says--but because the claim is so un-extraordinary, and carries no consequences, that believing it is not a risk. I could be lying--but if I am, so what? Obviously, ordinary claims are generally going to be believed, because people don't have the time in their lives to investigate every claim everyone makes to them throughout the day. So, we lean toward only wanting evidence of claims that are outside of the ordinary--such as "there are supernatural beings."

    Accepting that "Tracie had lunch and McDonald's" is far different than accepting "Tracie had lunch on the Moon." If I claimed the latter--even if I was a reputedly honest person--who in their right mind would believe me? Even people who consider me credible might start checking for pupil dialation at that point, right?

    So, Dan's point to his joke--that Martin can be fooled--really is not a proper analogy to the question at hand: "Is there a god, and what does it take to make a person believe that?"

    Dan's claim that he'd found scientic proof of god may sound extraordinary, but it's really not:

    1. The claim that there is solid scientific evidence of god is extraordinary. However, Martin did not believe such evidence existed.

    2. Marting merely believed Dan believed it. And since Dan had offered evidence of believing nearly any apologetic available in support of god (no matter how far-fetched or unconvincing), Martin's acceptance that Dan had found one more apologetic that he now also accepted as convincing was not extraordinary in the least.

    Basically, Dan succeeded in getting Martin to believe the equivalent of the idea that "he'd had lunch at McDonald's." That's not a great feat; nor particularly clever. Nearly nyone could do as much with anyone else on the planet.

    But Dan's point that people can be fooled is a good thing for all of us to keep in mind. It shows that if someone makes claims, it's not wise to accept them as a default--as Matt Pointed out several times.

    Some people claim there is a god. Every time they approach atheists, the dialogue is nearly preordained:

    1. They offer all the same canned apologetics Dan did.

    2. They will even offer conflicting apologetics--they don't care--they're just desparate to be "right." And they nearly never offer indepedent beliefs--when they say "I believe..." That phrase is nearly always followed by (a) a Bible quote or paraphrase; (b) a popular apologetic that I seriously doubt the believer has formulated and come to on his own (as he's calling it "his" belief); or (c)an unsupported claim of knowledge.

    3. The atheist points out the problem with the logic or the incorrectness of the claim.

    4. The atheist responds that the atheist (a) hates god, (b) isn't being reasonable (accepting whatever the believer says without question); or (c) the believer is in denial because (1) he's in Satan's grasp or (2) he loves his wicked lifestyle so much he'll deny god to keep fooling himself that there's no eternal consequence for whatever wickedness the atheist is supposedly up to(?).

    5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 about 50 times.

    6. The believer ultimately says there is no such proof of his god as requested (direct manifestation); and that one simply has to have faith and accept the very weak and unconvincing apologetics offered thus far, or said atheist is destined for eternal Hell fire.

    7. The believer leaves with something that is so often the punchline that it is a stereotype by now (but one that seems justified based on the nearly "without exception" use of it by believers: "The choice is yours, you have to have faith; I can't "prove" my god to you; I hope one day you see enough reason to believe; I will pray for you."

    What we don't ever see is any offered explanation for why the "proof" we asked for (a direct manifestation of a currently "existent" item) isn't something the believer sees as necesary to sustain his belief. We never get any response indicating that the believer has actually absorbed that he is accepting the premise of god without verification and based upon arguments that failed to hold up logically or practically.

    And this cycle repeats with every believer. Each one thinking we've never heard apolgetics before; and nearly all of them totally ignorant of what atheists believe (or don't believe)--and hurling incorrect Xian-bred and maintained misconceptions about the atheist stance and belief system.

    I am nearly convinced that all fundamentalists think that one needs to take an "I believe in Evolution" oath before adopting an atheist label. I also think all fundies think that atheists "know" there is no god. Oddly, the fundies "know" there is a god--and the atheists "believe" there is no god.

    I have yet to meet the fundie who doesn't at some point in the process above, offer a clear statement that: "I know there is a god!" or "I am sure there is a god!" But they offer the apologetic that nobody can say there IS no god, because "that person is claiming they know everything." No more than the person who says, "I know there are no fairies." Does that person claim to know everything as well?

    I think that's all I wanted to express. Just another spin on the ever revolving Merry Go Round of apologetics--that keeps moving, but goes nowhere.

  19. In #4 Above, I meant to start that out that "The believer responds."


    Creationists admit it: "We refuse to learn!"

    OK I admit it you atheist refuse to learn. I had to break my silence a little to ask why you all haven’t commented on my last post about the compelling evidence of a Creator:

    ”Things such as, Bacterial flagellum, Irreducible complexity, The Origin of Information

    How DNA transcends material medium (analogy of morning newspaper, the ink and paper (the medium) is there but who placed the information to be printed and how letters are arranged.”
    No one even addressed it although I played a pseudo joke.

    I am appalled how you all are treating Emanuel Goldstein and I see you are using the same tired methods used with me on him. You just bash, bash, bash, until they leave. It shows how very unproductive your show and blogs are. Matt, calling someone a liar without proof is very destructive behavior it is the same reason why I stopped talking with all of you. Besides it is you all who are following the prince of lies. Your actions (comments) are unacceptable and unproductive and unnecessary. If you all really want the truth I have something to offer.

    I have a book for you all to read Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. You can either get the book or here is a clip from the DVD. I am here to help with the truth. The evidence is compelling if you have an open mind and are truly searching for truth. I am afraid though that this is not the case. I really would like to hear Tracie’s view of the book since you all follow her like sheep.

    For Him,

  21. >Creationists admit it: "We refuse to learn!"

    ”OK I admit it you atheist refuse to learn.”

    Willfully twisting words? Dan, I’m surprised at you. I thought you promised you were done and had said all you could say?

    “No one even addressed it although I played a pseudo joke.”


    I don’t know much about your proposed evidence but if it were exceptionally compelling and not just the tired argument from ignorance/incredulity of irreducible complexity then the furthest you could get me is “I don’t know how it got there” which is no closer to “therefore Jesus was the son of God, sent to save us all”. If that is indeed the best argument (better than the bible? *) then I’ll have to get around to reading it but I’ve got a pretty long to-read list.

    “You just bash, bash, bash…”

    Do I?

    “I really would like to hear Tracie’s view of the book since you all follow her like sheep.”

    I’d like that too, Dan. Tracie’s one smart cookie. But saying that we follow her like sheep is not only bashing in and of itself** but contradicts your accusation that all we do is bash.

    I doubt you’ll be able to reply to me here as you’ve kind of lost the privilege but if you could just tell Jesus to drop me a line with your responses I’m sure it’d be within his power. Thanks in advance.


    *Which I’ve read several times. Yes, even with the open heart of a believer.

    **Actually, I may be jumping to the conclusion that you meant it as a negative when on a moments reflection I’ve realized that you may have been paying us a complement as you seem to value following like sheep as a virtue. If so I apologize and thank you for the kind words, but you are mistaken. Unless you also consider paying attention during class to be following like sheep. I’m trying to consider all your possible meanings here, Dan.


PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.