Atheist Revolution:
”Remember, this was written in 1954 long before anybody was talking about "new atheism." And yet, Lewis was not afraid to call the abolition of religion. I cannot remember the last time I actually caught myself exclaiming "hell yeah" while reading a book, but Lewis' manifesto did indeed have that effect.Joseph Lewis:
”I'll end with my favorite sentence in the book, one with which I wholeheartedly agree” (see the last quote from Lewis, below).
”Do you know that the religionists opposed the use of anesthesia on the ground that God sent pain as a punishment for sin, and it was considered the greatest of sacrileges to use it—just think of it, a sin to relieve man of his misery! What a monstrous perversion!”A charge made against “religionists” as if it were a belief of all religions. A charge without specificity, made as a blanket condemnation.
Lewis:
”It is because of the Biblical curse on man's search for knowledge, which has so paralyzed his mind during the past ages, and its detrimental effect upon progress, that makes the Bible the most wicked, the most detestable, the most pernicious, and the most obnoxious book ever published. It has been a curse to the human race.”The Bible enjoins Christians to seek only the Truth, and to question all premises that are made, in order not to be fooled by human lies and “philosophy” over the facts of what happened. (If philosophy were “fact”, it would be science, not philosophy).
Lewis:
”As long as man loves a phantom in the sky more than he loves his fellow man, there will never be peace upon this earth; so long as man worships a Tyrant as the "Fatherhood of God," there will never be a "Brotherhood of Man."”
Exactly so, except that the qualifier is not necessary. It should read, “There will never be a ‘Brotherhood of Man’”. Brotherhood of Man is capitalized properly because it is a godless religion, based on irrational and unprovable tenets as well as distortions which are demonstrated in the hate rant presented here. The abolition of all religion in order to establish this universal godless religion is the objective. As Atheist Revolution says, “hell yeah”. Tolerance? None visible here.
33 comments:
There is never be a brotherhood of man because we of Christ can never be brothers of those of Satan like atheists, jews, muslims etc.
Hey Chuck, guess what? Jesus was a Jew!
So basically this yet another case of some Atheist going "Whaah! Some religious person somewhere said something I don't like!"
Who are these Atheists talking to when they spout this stuff? Themselves? Each other?
Do they really expect anyone else to take them seriously?
So basically this post is yet another case of some Christian person going "Whaah! Some atheist person somewhere said something I don't like!"
Who are these Christians talking to when they spout this stuff? Themselves? Each other?
Do they really expect anyone else to take them seriously?
Atheist juveniles frequently show up on this blog for a short time. They are known by their inability to even mock in a reasonable fashion. Usually they just disappear all of a sudden after their stint at trying to play with serious adults becomes boring due to not understanding the conversation, and to being ignored by the adults. Mocking is the standard fare for junior high school males who are still hormone impaired. Most will grow out of it. Some do not.
This is the certain fate of the backwards-name juvenile. Not able to understand? Then mock for awhile. Then disappear.
Quite a few Atheists claim to have arrived at their Atheistic conclusion during their prepubescent years, finding such arguments as "who made god" to be "intellectually" satisfying (and corresponding with their age of rebellion to all authority, including the authority of reason); they do not seem to grow intellectually beyond that point.
It's best to ignore them, because arguments using reason do not faze them in any manner resembling intellect.
Stan,
Quite a few Atheists claim to have arrived at their Atheistic conclusion during their prepubescent years, finding such arguments as "who made god"
Read Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian. Scroll down to "The First-cause Argument". Read and shudder. :)
I'm gonna get all argument from authority on ya'all but when the one of the founders of analytic philosophy thinks the first cause argument is a waste of time and that it is advanced "due to poverty of our imagination" then there might be something to it. Just sayin'
Check this out Stosh.
A Tale of Two Religions
Link: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45618
I'm not the other Russell, but Bertrand's understanding of First Cause is clearly incorrect. He's pulling a straw man.
"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause."
Look, he's conflated material existence with God, a being that stands outside our universe. It's shoddy, shoddy reasoning, no matter who does it.
"There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. "
Riiiight. Shame about the Big Bang, isn't it?
From Wikipedia : "Russell claimed that beginning at age 15, he spent considerable time thinking about the validity of Christian religious dogma, and by 18 had decided to discard the last of it."
Yup, Stan clearly has no idea what he's talking about.
Russell #1,
Argument from authority is fine and dandy, but when that authority creates a crystal clear straw man, then it's still a straw man. Familiarity with the cosmological arguments will show you that not a single one of them ever says anything so stupid as "everything has a cause."
So the real question then becomes: why did a sharp-minded analytical philosopher straw man the cosmological argument?
why did a sharp-minded analytical philosopher straw man the cosmological argument?
because the cosmological argument was differently expressed in the 1920's?
because the cosmological argument was differently expressed in the 1920's?
It wasn't.
Last year, David Bourget and David Chalmers have released the results of the largest survey of professional philosophers ever conducted. Some interesting results:
72.8% atheism
14.6% theism
49.8% naturalism
25.8% non-naturalism (but not necessarily supernaturalism)
http://philpapers.org/surveys/
Why is atheism so much higher amongst philosophers than amongst the general population?
Why is atheism so much higher amongst philosophers than amongst the general population?
I think the results would be even higher if philosophers had a greater understanding of cosmology.
I think a better question is why are almost all cosmologists atheists?
Anon,
Why is atheism so much higher amongst philosophers than amongst the general population?
"Philosophy" is a big field, and there are sub disciplines. It amazes me how an expert in one field of philosophy will be a seeming ignoramus in other fields of philosophy. If you want to do appeal to authority (a perfectly legitimate pursuit IF one appeals to experts in the relevant field), then look at the experts on the topic of philosophy of religion instead:
Accept: theism (63.8%)
Accept: atheism (19.1%)
Lean toward: theism (8.5%)
Agnostic/undecided (4.2%)
Reject both (4.2%)
Nats,
I think the results would be even higher if philosophers had a greater understanding of cosmology.
I think a better question is why are almost all cosmologists atheists?
Because for the most part they seem completely and hopelessly ignorant of the cosmological arguments. Almost all of them are stuck on the kalam cosmological argument: that the universe had a beginning, and thus had a cause. Thus, if they can provide a naturalistic explanation for the beginning of the universe, then voila! Kalam is defeated and thus God does not exist!
If they were actually aware of the existence of other cosmological arguments, none of which have anything to do with the beginning of the universe, they might not be as confident as they are now.
Beliefs of philosophers:
25.8% (non-naturalism)
What would be some examples of non-natural but not supernatural beliefs?
Commenter Russell writes, of Bertrand Russell's statement “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.”: Look, he's conflated material existence with God, a being that stands outside our universe. It's shoddy, shoddy reasoning, no matter who does it.
No, “material” existence doesn’t enter into it; “everything” here simply means everything: If God does not have a cause, then not everything has a cause.
Thus the first cause argument rejects its own premise, attempting to argue: everything that exists has a cause, therefore one thing exists that did not have a cause.
To avoid this internal contradiction by stating, “Everything, except for God, has a cause” begs the question. Assuming the existence of God as an exception to a rule, in an argument to prove God’s existence, is a circular argument.
Kalam tries to handwave around this fallacy with the formulation “everything that begins to exist has a cause”, but would have the set of things that did not begin to exist contain only one member: God. Which brings us back to “everything, except God, has a cause”.
In any case, quantum mechanics offers counterexamples to this seemingly false premise, discovering that empty space is teeming with particle-antiparticle pairs popping to existence, with no discernable cause, and usually instantaneously annihilating each other.
The argument “Who Made God” is not a sufficient argument to defeat anything, least of all the Kalam argument, which doesn’t posit an infinite regress. Even if there were an infinite regress, it wouldn’t defeat the argument that there is at least one God. But the issue doesn’t stop there. When venturing outside of space-time, cause and effect take on non-temporal characteristics which allow us to ask if the first cause existed, but not prior causes, because there is no "prior" without time to define it.
The use of quantum mechanics in a philosophical argument is a dead give-away that the argument cannot stand on its own logic. Quantum Mechanics is an embryonic science which will likely turn on its own head without notice. But even with what is known and posited, the standard quibble based on QM is false, and that is that something is created from nothing when particles and anti-particles pop into existence in space. Space is posited not to be empty but to be filled with a quantum field, a field which causes and allows the creation of opposing particles. They are not posited to be created from nothing, and such a use of Quantum Mechanics demonstrates a superficial level of knowledge of QM.
In fact, all knowledge of QM is superficial, merely at differing levels of superficiality.
I should have noted that when one says that "everything" has a cause includes God, that claim ignores that God would not be a "thing".
Miriam Webster Dictionary, New Edition, 2004:
thing \'thin\ n 1 : a matter of concern
2 pl state of affairs
3 Event
4 Deed; act
5 a distinct entity :object
6 an inanimate object distinguished from a living being
7 - 11 n/a.
That’s disingenuous sophistry, Stan. You know full well what “everything” means there is not “everything inanimate”. Who do you think you’re fooling?
You are the one who rode in here with the dictionary definitions... which you misread.
Now you don't want to use the dictionary definition, you want your own definition. That's fine. Make up all your own stuff to suit yourself.
I don't care one whit about Kalam or any other rational attempts to prove or disprove the existence of God. That's not how God is found.
I'm here to display to the world how the Atheist mind works. You're display is appreciated.
Webster's Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd Ed, 1979:
ev'er-y-thing, n. 1. every thing; all things; all; as, everything in human life is interesting.
2. all things pertinent.
3. that which is the greatest value or importance, as , a good reputation is everything to a woman.
And following your reasoning above, to you, “everything in human life is interesting” means “all inanimate objects in human life are interesting”, right? :)
You are slipping further away...
The statement, “everything in human life is interesting” is not a definition, it is an example of the use of the word in a sentence. There is no reason to think that the opinion stated in the example sentence is part of the definition.
Oh wait... you were joking, right? Maybe I should check your other comments for jokes...
If you honestly thought I was treating “everything in human life is interesting” as a definition of “everything”, you should have realized that makes no sense.
Yes, that was a joke. To clear up any confusion: My joke was mocking your definition of “everything” by applying it in the context of your dictionary entry’s sample sentence.
Much of your input here makes no sense, so a non-sense statement isn't differentiable, at least until the smiley face. For example, you can't mock me by misusing a sample sentence, that makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes, I can, even if you didn’t understand that I just did is the same thing you did with Bertrand Russell’s sentence.
Now I get it. You think that a Tu Quoque is mockery, even if the Tu Quoque is nonsensical. My, My.
No, when I take your argument and lead it to a silly conclusion, it’s not a “tu quoque”, it’s a “reductio ad absurdum”. A “tu quoque” is a “two wrongs make a right” rationalization. You should learn what these terms mean before you toss them around.
Actually Tu Quoque is better known as "you too, therefore I'm clear", a subset of "two wrongs make a right", which is exactly what you did, of course, only using a false example.
From the Fallacy Files:
"Exposition:
Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge."
The interpretation that Tu Quoque is "two wrongs make a right" is incorrect because it is limited to "if you are wrong, then that makes my wrong a right", which is different from me making two wrongs myself.
And Reductio Ad Absurdum is a logic technique which requires a logical reduction to the limit of the actual argument by negation of a premise. Not false creation of silly stuff: that is Straw Man.
Your arrogance gets in the way of your superficial knowledge and allows it to show through.
And your argument still is not with me, it is with the dictionary; remember you are the one who came in fully charged up with misunderstood dictionary definitions. So attacking me with a perversion of a dictionary sample sentence merely demonstrates your own level of abilities, and doesn't succeed as mockery. Sorry.
But feel free to keep trying, I know that there is a general attitude among Atheists that, given they have no rational argument to make, mockery is the weapon of choice. Mockery seduces the immature and hopefully locks them into a worldview before they can actually start to analyze it.
Which is why the New Atheists are revered by so many of the immature "free thinkers", and rejected by so many actual philosophers who are serious Atheists and Materialists.
Yes, that’s exactly what a “tu quoque” is. If that were what I had done, I would be saying, “if you can misinterpret ‘everything‘, then it’s okay for me to misinterpret ‘everything’.” But clearly, I don’t think misinterpreting “everything” is okay; I’m ridiculing the practice. Thus, what I did is not a “tu quoque”.
Instead, I, like you, took a sentence with ‘everything‘ meaning “all things”, and interpreted it as if it meant “all inanimate things”. Thus I made an implicit rational argument against your assertion that “everything” can only apply to objects, while making fun of it at the same time.
Pity the humor seems to have been lost on you. But jokes usually are less funny when you need them explained to you.
You incorrectly declare that “reductio ad absurdum” requires proof by contradiction. Though reductio ad absurdums often involve proof by contradiction, they are not a requirement. For example, Carl Sagan did a reduction ad absurdum when he observed that if “The opposite of every great idea is another great idea.” were a great idea, then “It is not true that the opposite of every great idea is another great idea.” is also a great idea. That was not a proof by contradiction, but it was a reductio ad absurdum.
I hope this clears up your misunderstandings.
Returning to a more interesting subject,
“But even with what is known and posited, the standard quibble based on QM is false, and that is that something is created from nothing when particles and anti-particles pop into existence in space.”
The quibble in this case was not with “something cannot come from nothing”, but rather “every effect has a cause”. How do we know that every effect has a cause?
Post a Comment