Wow! Louie Savva is an idiot! I never really realized before exactly how dumb he actually is. First, he makes an argument from proclamation, based on the impossibility of being able to quantify unknown quantities: “There is no god.” God as an extant being is an unknown quantity – we have no empirical data which argues either for, or against. Therefore, Savva is either claiming himself omniscient, or claiming he has the paradoxical ability to quantify unknowns – either way he’s delusional, irrational, and/or stupid.
Then, he tersely, and with strong conviction, proclaims that he finds something someone said to be offensive, then proceeds to insult and offend a huge population of people with a sweeping generalization, and then claims he doesn’t care about offending them. (So why should anyone care about offending Savva then? Especially since he’s just adequately demonstrated a staggering degree of complete irrationality. And, if he doesn’t think anybody should care, then what was the point of bringing it up?!?!?!)
THEN, he tries to add weight to his original proclamation by making an appeal to authority – a logical fallacy. And, as if that on its own isn’t bad enough, it’s an appeal to a FALSE authority to boot! He offers, as a backing to his claim: “Most scientists say outright there is no god, there is no afterlife…” Firstly, if he knew anything about science, he’d know that consensus opinion doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in science – whether its consensus among scientists, or anyone else. If EVERY scientist in the world was of the opinion that the sky was red, the sky WOULD STILL BE BLUE! That’s why appeals to authority are logical fallacies – consensus opinion is entirely useless in forming a conclusion – no matter what group the consensus is held by.
Secondly, it’s even an appeal to a FALSE authority! Because, scientists aren’t authorities regarding the likelihood of the existence of God, or any sort of continuation of awareness after physical death. How much time does the average scientist spend throughout their academic and professional careers looking at empirical data arguing whether god exists, or if there’s an afterlife or not? How much time do they spend engaged in rigorous, scientific experimentation of such? If a geologist says “There is no God” it carries just as much weight as if your plumber says it. Any scientist who does state such is stating OPINION based on a subjective belief. They are not offering expert testimony. If a scientist says “God doesn’t exist!” he is making the claim in the same capacity a religious person makes the claim “God does exist!” He’s not making the claim based on scientific finding. However, Savva doesn’t seem to be intelligent enough to either recognize this fact, or if he does, doesn’t seem able to recognize the significance of it.
And, lastly, Savva seems horribly confused even regarding HIS OWN OPINIONS! He says: “Look, if you want to believe there’s an afterlife, that’s fine. It’s childish and it’s infantile…” So, what? Savva thinks “it’s fine” for adults not suffering from some unfortunate mental disorder to believe in childish and infantile things? I certainly don’t think that. I happen to think that if an adult believes in childish and infantile things, then their brain is likely either malfunctioning in some way, or they’re just not very smart – and neither of those things are “fine” at all. Obviously Savva doesn’t feel this way at all, otherwise… why exactly is he getting so hot under the collar about it? He either doesn’t actually believe that it’s childish and infantile, or he believes it’s perfectly fine to believe in childish and infantile things. Which is it Louie? If it’s the former, then you’re a liar, and if it’s the latter, then you’re stupid. So, which?
Make no mistake – I have very, very, very little doubt that Acorah is anything but an outright fraud. But, at least he seems to possess some modicum of common sense. He might be immoral, but he’s not stupid. Louie Savva, on the other hand, has just demonstrated that he’s just an out-and-out moron – wholly irrational, and possibly delusional. And, of course, that’s just really sad. If I ever found myself intellectually bested by the likes of Derek Acorah, I think I’d probably just put a bullet in my head and be done with it all.
And, people, get ready for this: Savva’s currently working on a PhD! Can you believe that? How does a person obviously as dim and unscientific as this have any hope of ever actually getting a PhD? Have PhD degrees actually become entirely meaningless and pointless? Well… apparently Savva believes this to be the case, because he thinks “Everything is pointless.” Which also means that he believes all of his own opinions to be pointless as well. So, if he’s arguing them, he’s doing so with full realization and acceptance that he’s pointlessly arguing opinions that are in themselves admittedly pointless. But, he expects us to pay attention to his opinions, which he himself admits are pointless!?!?! Wow! Yeah! That’s one government certified, grade-“A” genius right there! THAT’s a man you should be listening to! …yeah, right.
Think about what Savva is saying in context with his own beliefs when he expresses his opinions in that video. He’s saying: “I have an opinion on something, but I admit that this opinion of mine is entirely pointless. Nevertheless, I believe my opinion, which is without any point, is actually true — although even if it is true, the fact that it’s true is pointless. I also believe that it’s pointless for you to share my pointless opinion which is also pointless for me to even have in the first place. But, here’s my opinion, pointless as it may be: It’s childish and infantile to believe in a god and an afterlife. Now, you should believe me… even though it’s pointless to do so. Nevertheless, I’m right”
And then, I challenge you to direct me to a bigger idiot, anywhere! He’s actually saying “My opinion is pointless, and it’s pointless for you to believe it… but, you should!” This man’s brain DOES NOT FUNCTION! End of story!
20 Comments
Louie Savva ‘studied parapsychology’ under Chris French.
This is rather like two people who have spent their academic careers ‘studying paleontology’ being avowed Creationists….
If most of the human population died out and there was only one man left, who grew up without any education or indoctrination of any kind, would there still be a god/God?
If more people believed in Dragons and it was taught by parents and teachers a like, would more people believe in Dragons, resulting in their existence?
Because I raise such questions, do I fit the bill of a heathen, atheist non-believer Derek?
@Casper, why should he have to prove it?
Because you raise those questions? Absolutely not. And, I really don’t understand why you might make the assumption that such would be my position.
I have absolutely nothing against Atheists in general, or any sort of non-believer, whatsoever. What I have a problem with are Atheists that display, in abundance, the traits of both stupidity and arrogance. Smart and arrogant Atheists are tolerable. Stupid and humble Atheists are tolerable. Smart and humble Atheists are a pleasure. Stupid and arrogant Atheists, however, are detestable. Unfortunately, it just so happens that, according to my own observations and experience, a very sizable portion (if it isn’t, in fact, the majority) of the very vocal, and especially the very truculent, Atheists out there happen to be of this later cast.
You’re free to ask any questions you wish to ask, and to hold any opinions you wish to hold. I assure you that I would be the first to champion your right to do so. You’re not, however, free to be free from my criticisms if I find your opinions to be worthy and deserving of my criticism. And, if you display both stupidity and arrogance in the voicing of your opinions in my presence, you’ll very likely irk me into doing my best to expose your stupidity. If you don’t like that, tough.
Hi everyone. Just watched this interview with Derek and Louie. Theres a difference between someone who ‘comes out’ about their beliefs and someone who either tries to force someone to believe and someone who clearly buries their head in the sand.
First and foremost, im not against anyone belief, thats their own business. But when it comes tv everything is more over dramatized.
In my opinion, Derek does let his imagination run away withhim. As far Louie is concerned, he is in a minority whermost tend to refuse to believe out of fear or deep-rooted Psychology which advises the individual to question ‘everything’. The truth is when one’s own belief is brought into question, like in this interview, the very essence of freedom of religious thought and ideas are diminished by psychology.
A challenge to this silly little boy who studied for five minutes and now clearly feels he knows everything about everything and who also clearly feels that anyone else with a different belief system or opinion to his is how inferior to him. PROVE IT!!!!!! If you are 100% sure god does not exist then provide 100% unquestionable and concrete evidence of that fact!
Religion may not be able to provide proof that god exists and I don’t believe it attempts to . . . it’s called having faith much as you have faith in your opinion . . . where is the proof you are right? You base your opinion on belief . . . what you believe to be right but where is your proof that your belief is fact?
I’m no religious nut . . . but as much as you may discredit religious leaders who have no proof to back up their belief . . . I would like to discredit you for your lack of proof to support your “faith” in your own opinion!
Reality check little man . . . whatever you think you are or how clever you think you are you can no more prove god doesn’t exist than I can prove right now he does! Grow up fool and go back to school!Your arrogance only highlights your ignorance.
Hey, Cake, be careful with your wild exaggerations. Thousands of tons of junk orbit the earth. There is almost certainly a pressurised coffee pot in the International Space Station ISS. And likely similar tea making facilities, modified for space travel, orbiting the earth right now. Your tea pot analogy has blown up in your face.
Even Richard Dawkins admits Evolution has installed spiritual religious practices like prayer and meditation,into our brain hardware predisposing us to religious practices. Proven by brain scans. Dr Newberg. Evolution has never produced an atheistic tribe, society, or city state, since human history began.Meaning Evolution wants us to think about God. And YOU certainly do, dear Cake !. Writing about him all the time. Your religious devotions are admirable.Think you can escape the religious intentions of Evolution? LOL. Atheists think more about God than theists. Wonder why ? Because its an inescapable religious tendency.LOL
@MrToby9999
Last time I checked, YOU are the one making the claim. “God exists” is NOT the ‘neutral’ position, “God does not exist” is, just as it would be if you replaced ‘God’ with anything else. If I insist there is a flying teapot orbiting the earth, would it be your responsibility to prove I am wrong? No.
Great questions aside, here’s a practical gauge. So far from Phd material, i think he is unemployable. Would you employ Louis Savva in your family business? Put him in charge of cash? Customer relations?, In a room full of women ? Personell officer ? Would you trust him on a forklift?
Working with other men-likely to start fights and be a safety hazard? Yet “Skeptic” Chris French employed him as a scientist… duh…..
Anyone claiming that there is no God must offer evidence to support their claim. It’s as simple as that. The same goes for claims relating to the non existence of paranormal phenomena. The burden of proof falls on the claimant. I didn’t hear Louie Savva offer any evidence to support his claims. The idea that science has settled these issues is completely false. It has done no such thing.
These pseudoskeptics are simply headkickers crudely posing as scientists for as long as they can hold any interlocutor’s attention. Their target is not really the paranormal, or religions or God, its YOU. They want to trash and destroy everything precious to YOU. Which includes your fondness for mysteries, pondering and solving them. Joining the dots. Which skeps just can’t do. That’s why they know virtually nothing about the subjects at hand. They all have learning disabilities and are fearful of mystery, rebounding from it, and full of rage. Their target is YOU. And your despised contentedness, while happily coexisting with mystery. Which is anathema to them. Everything they say can be summed up with the simple phrase “Everyone is deluded except the pseudoskeptic” They are all driven, deep down, by self loathing and feel unworthy of existence. Thus their desire for extinguishment. Evolution and materialism promise permanent death. Anything but this grief-filled life, that they continually protest, and insist can’t be real. Their one wish is to headkick whatever people hold dear, to do any listener, injury. Its basically a self harm tendency being so gross, it harms others.
If you beleive in God, why not Unicorns or Xenu?
There is equal eveidence for all of them: none.
Anonymous: Your statement is false. There is evidence for each of the things you mention. The evidence for each exists in varying quantities and degrees of reliability and significance. A rational, intelligent person realizes that certitude regarding anything is ubiquitously illusive – therefore, all conclusions are provisional based on as close as one may come to an unbiased weighing of the evidence that is available. The “there is no evidence for the existence of a God” / “Faith is belief without evidence” is a fallacious regurgitation often spouted by combative Atheists. It’s hogwash. What they actually mean is: There is no proof. But, using the word “proof” opens up a significant flaw in their argument which can exploited by an opponent – so they disingenuously substitute the word “evidence” and hope that their opponent isn’t savvy enough to notice.
I feel that the available evidence which argues in favor of the existence of unicorns and Xenu is not sufficient for me to draw a such a provisional conclusion in the positive – although, in absolute terms, I reserve my judgment regarding both. Whereas, when it comes to the existence of a god – in so much as “a god” being described as an intelligent force who’s willful intent was in some way responsible for the creation of the observable universe – the available evidence is sufficient for me to draw such a provisional conclusion that such is more likely true than false. Now, you may not feel the available evidence is significant enough – but to say there is simply no evidence is an outright fallacy. My guess is: You’ve simply heard other Atheists – perhaps ones that you respect for some reason – say the same thing, and you’ve merely regurgitated it here in psittacine fashion.
Thanks for posting this, Derek. Louie Savva is a horrible little man. Whether you believe in god or not, or like Derek Acorah or not, the way this man behaved was childish and infantile. What a pathetic little man, Savva is…
Good comments from Matt and Keith, too.
Louie Savva speaks the truth.
You people are cock heads. Louie is a legend and so is Dawkins. Have you ever heard of evidence?
you most likely need a god to make you nice people or to keep you feeling safe
your need more than god if i get my hands on you.
anyone got something bad to say about Louie come say to me I’m in Brighton
Hi Derek,
Just read this, and it’s nice to see that someone else loathes this horrible little man as much as myself. His Acorah rant clearly showed a man who was both defensive and offensive with his opinions, something that to me clearly demonstrates an individual who is deeply unsure of their own beliefs. I cannot believe this man gets any respect whatsoever, or that his pathetic rhetoric holds any ground, but unfortunately, to many, it does. Kudos on the smoking blog, too, I now realise that sensible people DO exist on the internet, they’re just a bit thin on the ground.
Hi Derek,
I only recently watched Louie’s interview. I wasn’t impressed with his tirade in the least, the same way I am not impressed by anyone who feels the need to completely exaggerate their opinions when they know they have an audience. Around here, we call that “Little Man Syndrome”. A person’s belief is not necessarily a fact. Any rational person knows this. It’s really hard to suffer a person who thinks that because they speak the loudest, that they win the argument. I hate giving this a lot of attention because, clearly, that was Louie’s objective.
The main reason that prompted me to write was you anyway, not Louie Savva. I only wanted to say that there are sooooo many people on the Internet who like to rant but very few have held my interest until you. It’s very refreshing to find someone who has a legitimate argument, well written and thought through and can actually punctuate above a third grade level. Thank you for not sleeping through high school English!
By the way…I tend to agree with your argument. Well stated.
What are my religious beliefs Debbie?
…Yeah, I didn’t think you’d know.
Well, well… engaged in radical assumption, sweeping generalizations, a complete lack of any semblance of rationality – while projecting an attitude that implies that you hold a monopoly on it, and a shameful lack of understanding of your own belief system… Hmmm… I’ve got it! You must be an atheist! You certainly fit the common bill.
How embarrassing for you.
What an idiot YOU are! I do not like to call myself an atheist…as Sam Harris says, Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world;it is simply an admission of the obvious.In fact”atheism” is a term that shouldnt even exist. No-one ever needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer” or a “non-alchemist”…Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.
Anyway..read his book…along with Dawkins. Thank goodness some people, like Louie, are prepared to speak up. I even like the fact that he doesnt tolerate nonsense…have you ever tried talking to someone who belongs to a religion? Looke at Ted Haggard…he is the scariest man…but this evangelical priest…is in the news for drugs and homosexuality…he confessed, by the way, in case you believe in him too.
Question everything…even your motives for believing,,you owe it to yourself!!
Hi,
Refreshing to meet someone who’s not taken in by Louie’s awful rhetoric. I’m actually an old acquintance of his, who gets a little tired of his rudeness and inability to appreciate anyone else’s point of view.
His crusade against parapsychology is also conducted in a grossly unfair way, given how decent the community was to him. It not his critcism I hate; its his manner and the assumption that the world’s divided into rational people (i.e. him) and irrational (everyone not as extreme as him)
Thanks,
Matt.