Sunday, October 30, 2011

From PZ's Place: Sara Mallory, on Why I Am An Atheist:

I grew up in a nominally Christian home. My parents took us to a United church for a few years when I was very young. Every Sunday we were expected to put money in an envelope as a donation. I like to think that my parents stopped going to church because of the constant requirement for donations. After we stopped attending church we never really discussed religion. I never questioned it, I never knew there were other religions, and I never knew atheism was an option. I live in Canada and we don’t wear our religion on our sleeves for the most part, so I was never exposed to anything outside of that early childhood experience in church. I went to a Catholic highschool, mainly because it was close to my house and the uniform made dressing on a daily basis easy for me. I always felt silly attending the monthly masses and saying the lord’s prayer. It was like wearing an uncomfortable pair of pants. I felt awkward and ridiculous.


Enter the internet. This was back in the day when blogs were scarce and websites were hosted on geocities. It was through the internet that I discovered paganism. I thought this was the coolest religion ever. Everything about it appealed to me, the connection with nature, the “magic”, and all of the accessories. I bought lots of books (which I still own if anyone wants to buy them off me!), printed off lots of spells from websites, and bought various knickknacks. But yet again I felt awkward and ridiculous performing the various rites. I was so disappointed, I tried and tried for years to make it all work. I thought believing in something was the default position. Everyone (or so I thought) believed in something. Why couldn’t I?

Enter the internet yet again. Surprisingly I still believed that something was wrong with me up until quite recently. In my late 20s I joined a website called Ravelry. This website is mainly about knitting, but has forums for pretty much every topic. It was on this website that first encountered truly scary religious people. I was shocked at what some people believed. How could people be so hateful? But it was also through this website that I met the people that debated with these scary religious people, and it was through them that I discovered the Atheist and Agnostic Crafters group. For the first time in my life I discovered that it was OK to not be religious. You can imagine the relief I felt to discover I wasn’t abnormal.

So, for me, it was never about the science. I’ve always loved science and it never occurred to me that religion and science were related in anyway. It was simply discovering that it is OK to not be religious, and then take the next step from there to Atheism. It’s been a wonderful experience for me. I have gained an even greater fascination and appreciation of how wonderful the universe is.
Sara Mallory
United States

Never having had any reason to rationally consider the possible existence of a first cause for the universe, Mallory needs no corresponding logical argument for rejecting it. All she needs is permission to stop feeling bad about not believing in something, and that’s what Atheism means to her: rejection of "believing". She might be startled to discover that Atheism is a belief, specifically that there is no first cause.

32 comments:

Unknown said...

"Atheism is a belief, specifically that there is no first cause"

If I showed you a sealed jar containing hundreds of jelly beans and asked you whether you believed it contained an odd number, you would be justified in saying "no", since you can't count them at a glance. I could not infer from your statement that you believe the opposite claim, i.e. that the number of jelly beans is even.

Similarly, atheists do not believe that any gods exist. You cannot logically infer from this that they claim no gods exist. Atheists simply reject claims that gods exist, usually because those claims have not met their burden of proof.

Stan said...

Wizard,
False. Your analogy is flawed in three ways: first, there is a known statistical probability of 0.5 that the number is odd, the same as for even. To say "no" is not justified; saying "I do not know" is justified.

Second, there is no possible disciplined deduction which can show a greater or lesser probability than 0.5. There are no logical arguments to be had one way or the other, nor can any justifiable deductive knowledge be derived, so no rational conversation can result.

There is a third failure, too. Comparing a physical, testable situation with a situation which exists beyond the limiting horizons of physical testability is a Category Error.

However, theist arguments are testable, under Reductio Ad Absurdum.

So your argument fails to address the Atheist conundrum.

No Atheist has ever countered all arguments for the existence of a creating agent for the universe. And every Atheist knows that he has not done so.

The reason for your argument is an attempt to excuse Atheists, specifically yourself, from having to address and refute actual arguments. It's the same intellectual failure that Dawkins makes when he refuses to debate certain logicians.

Stan said...

Finally, the Atheist "Burden of proof" inexorably devolves to the requirement for physical evidence. That also is a Category Error, in that evidence for a non-physical entity cannot be found by restricting the investigation to a physical existence.

Further, Atheist Philosophical Materialism is internally non-coherent because it makes an existential claim which it cannot prove under its own premise: it cannot be proven physically that there is no non-physical existence. Thus the standard Atheist burden of proof is irrational under its own standards... unless logic itself is rejected.

Unknown said...

@Stan: You missed the point of the jelly bean analogy. It had nothing to do with probability.

Stan said...

Then go ahead and explain it in some different way. You made a claim about "justification" which was not justified, at least in your text.

Further, you make these assertions:

1. "...atheists do not believe that any gods exist."

They happily claim that no gods exist, a positive claim about existence.

2. "You cannot logically infer from this that they claim no gods exist."

See the left sidebar for an instance of specific refutation of both 1 and 2.

3. "Atheists simply reject claims that gods exist, usually because those claims have not met their burden of proof."

If theist claims were actually held by Atheists to specific specifications which constituted a "proof" burden, then surely the Atheists would provide such an analysis, complete with specifications and the specific failures. That would be a satisfactory burden of rebuttal, which would be subject to an analysis in its own right. But they do not do that, probably because they cannot logically support Philosophical Materialism (their necessary presupposition).

In fact, they reject the entire concept of burden of rebuttal, and retain the right for themselves to reject without giving any reason for the rejection. Having no reason for rejection is indiscernable from irrationality. At a minimum it is intellectual malpractice and dishonesty.

Unknown said...

You still fail to understand.

Non-acceptance of a claim does not imply acceptance of its opposite.

If the prosecution in a criminal case does not present sufficient evidence that the accused committed the crime, the jurors should vote "not guilty". That does not imply that they believe the accused to be innocent. It simply means that they do not accept the claim that the accused is guilty based on the evidence presented.

Atheists do not accept the claim that any gods exist. That does not imply that they accept the claim that no gods exist.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Present sufficient evidence for the existence of a god, and I will reconsider your claim. You have the burden of proof, not I.

"If theist claims were actually held by Atheists to specific specifications which constituted a "proof" burden, then surely the Atheists would provide such an analysis, complete with specifications and the specific failures."

Have you never heard of counter-apologetics? Visit Iron Chariots or RationalWiki.

"But they do not do that, probably because they cannot logically support Philosophical Materialism (their necessary presupposition)."

Sorry, but philosophical naturalism isn't a requirement of atheism. Most Buddhists are atheists who believe in immaterial spirits.

I do not accept the claim that anything supernatural exists. If you wish me to accept it, you need to justify it. You again have the burden of proof.

Unknown said...

You still do not understand. Non-acceptance of a claim does not imply acceptance of the opposite claim.

If the prosecution in a criminal case fails to provide sufficient evidence that the accused committed the crime, the jurors should vote "not guilty". This does not imply that they believe the accused to be innocent. It simply means that they do not accept the prosecution's claim that the accused is guilty, based on the evidence presented.

Atheists do not accept theists' claims that gods exist, often because the evidence presented is insufficient. That does not necessarily imply that they accept the claim that no gods exist.

The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, not on those who reject it. If you want me to accept a claim about the existence of a god, you have the burden of proof.

"If theist claims were actually held by Atheists to specific specifications which constituted a "proof" burden, then surely the Atheists would provide such an analysis, complete with specifications and the specific failures. That would be a satisfactory burden of rebuttal, which would be subject to an analysis in its own right."

Have you never heard of counter-apologetics? Visit Iron Chariots, RationalWiki, or TalkOrigins to see rebuttals of theist arguments.

Also, atheists have no "burden of rebuttal". If I were to claim that flowers bloom because invisible, intangible fairies sprinkle pixie dust on them, you would have no "burden of rebuttal" to reject the claim, despite it being more plausible than many claims theists make.

"But they do not do that, probably because they cannot logically support Philosophical Materialism (their necessary presupposition)."

Sorry, but philosophical materialism isn't a requirement of atheism. Most Buddhists believe in immaterial spirits, but not gods.

I do not accept any claim that anything supernatural exists. If you want me to accept such a claim, you must justify it. Again you have the burden of proof because you are making the positive claim.

Your false accusation of dishonesty, which stems from your own lack of understanding, is not appreciated. It is also ironic, considering that I am an atheist because I have the intellectual integrity to reject unsubstantiated claims.

Stan said...

Wizard Suth says,
”Atheists do not accept the claim that any gods exist. That does not imply that they accept the claim that no gods exist.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Present sufficient evidence for the existence of a god, and I will reconsider your claim. You have the burden of proof, not I.”


You have failed to check the left sidebar, where an Atheist clearly says that there is no god. That is an Atheist truth claim, made by A. L Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, representing a LOT of Atheists. You are attempting to make universal claims which apply to, and characterize, all Atheists as a class. You cannot do that, and your claim has demonstrably failed.

"If theist claims were actually held by Atheists to specific specifications which constituted a "proof" burden, then surely the Atheists would provide such an analysis, complete with specifications and the specific failures."

Have you never heard of counter-apologetics? Visit Iron Chariots or RationalWiki.


You cannot provide your specific conditions of proof here? Why not?

"But they do not do that, probably because they cannot logically support Philosophical Materialism (their necessary presupposition)."

Sorry, but philosophical naturalism isn't a requirement of atheism. Most Buddhists are atheists who believe in immaterial spirits.

I do not accept the claim that anything supernatural exists. If you wish me to accept it, you need to justify it. You again have the burden of proof.”


I have no need for you to accept anything. What I do here is to demonstrate the logic failures of Atheist truth statements. (As I have done just above). You cannot prove, for example, that human intent is a physical object or one of the four forces of nature or a form of energy, photonic, electronic, or otherwise.

You attempt to circumvent any intellectual responsibility for your belief by claiming (a) no disbelief along with no belief (a state of stasis of institutionalized ignorance; and (b) no responsibility for making the conditions of proof available for either discussion or to be met.

So your belief resembles both a condition of surreptition and an intense, possibly radical skepticism which is likely based in logical positivism (which, among other things, refuses belief in things not mass/energy). All obvious candidates for things which are not mass/energy are not analytically deduced for possible or probable comprehension, but are put in a class called skeptical entities. That class, Skeptical Entities, has no visible conditions for examination which can be met in order to explain the entities.

And that tends toward Radical Skepticism which provides us with the actual ultimate truth: you cannot prove that you are not a brain in a vat which is stimulated to apprehend what appears to be reality but is not. That, for the skeptic, is the only actual truth: unknowability is Truth. It is your burden of proof to prove that you are not… a brain in a vat.

Also, since you have deferred your responsibility for defining the conditions of proof which are acceptable to you, it becomes clear that you have none yourself which you wish to provide, and thus are a believer rather than engaging in any rational truth pursuit of any sort or level. It is highly irrational to claim that a debater has not met his burden of proof, and yet not provide the rules of proof he must meet. It is even more irrational to reject an argument without specific reasons and reasoning for the why the argument fails.

Stan said...

"Your false accusation of dishonesty, which stems from your own lack of understanding, is not appreciated. It is also ironic, considering that I am an atheist because I have the intellectual integrity to reject unsubstantiated claims."

I have given specific refutations of your claim (for all Atheists), and the reasons that your deflection of intellectual responsibility to provide reasons and reasoning fails the conditions of intellectual rigor; deflection is a rhetorical tactic used to hide from responsible intellectual behaviors. That is what you are doing, until and unless you choose to provide arguments which defend your rejections.

Unknown said...

Sorry about the double post. I didn't notice that comments were moderated before appearing, so I thought that it simply failed to upload, and rewrote it. Please feel free to delete the earlier version.

It's clear that you are only interested in attacking straw men. I've tried to explain to you that your pet definition of atheism is too restrictive, yet you continue to insist on attacking it instead of many atheists' true position. You even use an over-generalization of someone else's statement to accuse me of overgeneralizing. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

I'm not going to copy the entire contents of a counter-apologetics wiki here. I also have no need to, since I have no burden of proof. Not believing in something for which there is insufficient evidence is the default position.

You seem to have trouble with the idea that someone can reject a claim without accepting an opposing claim. Let me put it another way. I don't believe in gods the same way that most people don't believe in leprechauns, bigfoot, unicorns, gremlins, the Loch Ness Monster, fairies, or UFOs visiting Earth. The evidence presented in support of these claims is insufficient to justify belief.

If you can identify a class of phenomena for which there are "no visible conditions for examination" (i.e. that are unfalsifiable), how can it be reasonable to believe that any of them are real? I could invent thousands of unfalsifiable claims. Would you be obliged to accept all of them simply because you couldn't disprove any of them?

If you think skepticism is a bad thing, please allow me to make you a special time-limited offer of a fine set of express toll bridges at quite reasonable prices, all located within convenient distance of the island of Manhattan. We'll see how long it takes for you to request evidence in support of my claims.

It's true that I have no solution to the problem of hard solipsism, apart from provisionally accepting as real what I perceive as reality for purely pragmatic reasons. Please present a better solution, if you can.

"You cannot prove, for example, that human intent is a physical object or one of the four forces of nature"

Actually I believe that mental states such as intent are products of the electrical and chemical activity of neurons within brains, hence of the electromagnetic force acting on physical objects. It's a much simpler model that supposing that the brain is a kind of relay with a mystical connection to an immaterial entity. Besides, most theists believe that animals do not have souls; why should humans require souls to think and act if other animals do not?

Your attempts to shift the burden of proof are not going to work. I am under no obligation to defend my rejection of your claims so long as you are unable to adequately support those claims.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
-- Christopher Hitchens

Stan said...

Wizard Suth says:
”It's clear that you are only interested in attacking straw men. I've tried to explain to you that your pet definition of atheism is too restrictive, yet you continue to insist on attacking it instead of many atheists' true position. You even use an over-generalization of someone else's statement to accuse me of overgeneralizing. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.”

I make two points; first, you cannot legitimately make universal statements about Atheism which exclude other Atheists. Second, you intentionally present a case of intellectual avoidance by claiming that you can get away with making a positive claim (the existence of “insufficient evidence”) without having any intellectual responsibility to show your reasons or reasoning (responsibility: burden of rebuttal).

You persist despite the fallacies pointed out to you. That indicates that you are not interested in anything other than your own ideology (which you have shown on your other commenting elsewhere today). It is very likely that you hold the same ideology as other Atheists: there is no god; but you hide behind your denial of intellectual responsibility.

”I'm not going to copy the entire contents of a counter-apologetics wiki here. I also have no need to, since I have no burden of proof. Not believing in something for which there is insufficient evidence is the default position.

You have just made another positive claim (in bold above) without either any reason or reasoning for having made it, much less for believing it in the absence of evidence to support it. It is nothing but a false intellectual dodge, a rhetorical tactic which you picked up somewhere that you think makes you immune. There is no magic rhetorical cloak which protects you from defending your worldview; that you think there is makes you more vulnerable than you imagine yourself ever to be. It demonstrates your willingness to defend your denialism - denying of any willingness to defend your actual worldview. That is perfectly non-coherent.

”You seem to have trouble with the idea that someone can reject a claim without accepting an opposing claim. Let me put it another way. I don't believe in gods the same way that most people don't believe in leprechauns, bigfoot, unicorns, gremlins, the Loch Ness Monster, fairies, or UFOs visiting Earth. The evidence presented in support of these claims is insufficient to justify belief.”

This is false to the point of absurdity. You attempt the standard Atheist false tactic of trying to trivialize argument R by appearing to make it equivalent to arguments G,H,Q and B, and failing by False Analogy Fallacy, rather than to make positive counter arguments regarding the actual issue, based in rational disciplined logical constructs concerning the actual arguments from your adversary.

You are merely defending your presumptive rhetorical escape hatch, and nothing more.

”If you can identify a class of phenomena for which there are "no visible conditions for examination" (i.e. that are unfalsifiable), how can it be reasonable to believe that any of them are real? I could invent thousands of unfalsifiable claims. Would you be obliged to accept all of them simply because you couldn't disprove any of them?”

You have already done this exact thing in your other comment today, by making unfalsifiable statements as if they are truth claims. What you are doing is purposefully falsely conflating deductive conclusions which pass logic tests with trivial, unrelated absurdities you make out to be equivalent, by your say so. The reason you do this is to avoid having to face the actual argument head-on. You are acting in full support of intellectual cowardice.

Stan said...

”If you think skepticism is a bad thing, please allow me to make you a special time-limited offer of a fine set of express toll bridges at quite reasonable prices, all located within convenient distance of the island of Manhattan. We'll see how long it takes for you to request evidence in support of my claims.”

Skepticism is not a generator of knowledge when it is asserted without accompanying reasons and reasoning. Skepticism for skepticism's sake is merely obstructionist. Your example does not reflect your own behavior, because you assert skepticism without any evaluation of evidence, and are proud of that. Your example is intended as a denigration but actually serves to point to your own failure.

Your arrogant presumption of self-elitism (expressed as the above denigrations) is falsified by your inability to summon the courage to actually address contrary claims, rather than to declare them “insufficient” without any need to say why they are insufficient. I, at least, tell you exactly why your claims are insufficient. You cannot do likewise, indicating that you actually cannot deal with contrary claims on an intellectual basis. So you dodge, and you ignore your logic failures.

”It's true that I have no solution to the problem of hard solipsism, apart from provisionally accepting as real what I perceive as reality for purely pragmatic reasons. Please present a better solution, if you can.”

Either you accept disciplined aristotelian deductive logic as a path to true statements, or you do not. It appears that you do not.

It's clear that you are only interested in attacking straw men.”

Here you make a claim with no actual designation of the action about which the claim is made. False.

” I've tried to explain to you that your pet definition of atheism is too restrictive, yet you continue to insist on attacking it instead of many atheists' true position. You even use an over-generalization of someone else's statement to accuse me of overgeneralizing. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.”

No, that is incorrect. My claim is that you are not being honest about your actual beliefs and the evidence is that you are hiding and running from having to explain any reasons or reasoning for your positive claims: that is a clear indication of intellectual malfeasance, which, if you persist in it, indicates a fear of discovery of your true position.

Stan said...

"You cannot prove, for example, that human intent is a physical object or one of the four forces of nature"

Actually I believe that mental states such as intent are products of the electrical and chemical activity of neurons within brains, hence of the electromagnetic force acting on physical objects."


That is an unsupported and unsupportable blind belief, unsupported empirically, and which is logically absurd unless ideology is asserted first as a necessary premise. If neurons plus chemicals are the necessary and sufficient requirement to produce such, then they would do so after death, all by themselves, since they remain in place after death as do the laws of physics; but they do not produce anything after death. What has been removed at death is life, not the laws of physics, nor the physical constructs of the brain.

There is no logical connection between the four forces and any emergent sentience, either deterministically or epiphenomenally. I.e., there is no disciplined deduction which is based on the laws of physics which predicts sentience and/or intellect. Without a lot of prior ideology and fictional storytelling as premises, that is.

That you “believe” it indicates a willingness to place support in your ideology of Philosophical Materialism without having any actual content from physics theories. That's an approach which is demonstrably internally non-coherent, and empty of intellectual content.

For example, if intelligence is deterministic, then all putative deductions are actually predetermined by the prior positions of fields and ions; thus no deduction is rational, it is merely deterministic. Decisive deductions cannot occur if thought is controlled by external prior physical initial conditions, rather than the characteristics of the argument being made. The ideology of deterministic physical naturalistic thought is a self-contradiction.

From an empirical standpoint, merely adding electric fields to ionic movement does not produce intellect. If it did, then chem labs would produce it all the time.

It's a much simpler model that supposing that the brain is a kind of relay with a mystical connection to an immaterial entity.

Simplicity is not the primary determinant of truth value. Einstein said, “a theory should be a simple as possible, but no simpler”. He said that as his more complex theory defeated a simpler, incorrect theory.

” Besides, most theists believe that animals do not have souls; why should humans require souls to think and act if other animals do not?”

No one here said that souls exist or are required. Straw Man.

”Your attempts to shift the burden of proof are not going to work. I am under no obligation to defend my rejection of your claims so long as you are unable to adequately support those claims.”

It is absurd to contend that a claim is inadequately supported without saying why, and then claiming no responsibility to say why. Your denial is without intellectual content and is an empty statement.

”That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
-- Christopher Hitchens


This is a perfect example of internal non-coherence. If the statement is true, then it may be disregarded because it is asserted without any evidence. It contradicts itself in one easy sentence. Yet Atheists who wish to be viewed as logic- and evidence-based use this quote frequently, completely oblivious to the glaring defects in both logic and evidence. QED

Unknown said...

You clearly have no knowledge of neuroscience. I suggest you learn the topic before you decide to blithely dismiss its findings.

As for the Hitchens quote, there are numerous examples of phenomena that people believed had a supernatural explanation that later turned out to have a natural one, e.g. lightning, thunder, day and night, disease, etc. Rejecting claims that are presented without evidence is demonstrably beneficial if you are interested in discerning reality from fantasy.

As I posted on a separate thread, if all you're going to do is dismiss all evidence that doesn't fit your preconceptions, and reject all scientific theories that happen to disagree with them, there is no point in further discussion with you. Your mind is closed.

Stan said...

Suth says,
"You clearly have no knowledge of neuroscience. I suggest you learn the topic before you decide to blithely dismiss its findings."

If you have a correction, then make it; clearly you do not, so you make the sort of general attack statement, above, without any cause other than bitterness... certainly not any rational cause.

"As for the Hitchens quote, there are numerous examples of phenomena that people believed had a supernatural explanation that later turned out to have a natural one, e.g. lightning, thunder, day and night, disease, etc. Rejecting claims that are presented without evidence is demonstrably beneficial if you are interested in discerning reality from fantasy."

False. What is rational is to actually look at the evidence which is available, which you do not, and to discern its validity or non-validity, and having discerned, then sharing your analysis with anyone who asks.

You, on the other hand, merely declare that "there is no evidence" and then to declare that you have no need to discuss the matter, since you have no intellectual responsibility to support your claim. Your claim of "no evidence" fits the Hitchens claim as well, since you provide no evidence to support your claim (and you can't, because there is evidence and there are substantial arguments, contra your false claim).

So your claim, made without evidence, is dismissed under the Hitchens diktat.

Phoenix said...

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
-- Christopher Hitchens


No he didn't.Wizard has not once quoted a principle of logic,yet he claim logic as a worldview. Instead he quotes an Atheist principle which is self-refuting.

Wizard,no matter how many times the Hitchen's Razor is evoked,it will never be considered a principle of logic.It's paradoxical and cannot be taken seriously by its own standard.It's equivalent to the Liar paradox.

Xellos said...

"Rejecting claims that are presented without evidence is demonstrably beneficial if you are interested in discerning reality from fantasy."

You present this claim without valid evidence (the thing with supernatural explanations isn't valid evidence, since no explanation isn't any more beneficial than an incorrect one - it can even be detrimental by halting thinking processes). Therefore, I dismiss it. See what I did there?

Phoenix said...

You present this claim without valid evidence (the thing with supernatural explanations isn't valid evidence, since no explanation isn't any more beneficial than an incorrect one - it can even be detrimental by halting thinking processes). Therefore, I dismiss it. See what I did there?

Xellos,not all claims need physical evidence in order to have truth value.It's sufficient that the argument is logically valid (ie structurally).Nor are the premises required to be 100% true,since proving absolute truth is impossible.But what is required is that the premises are plausibly more true than its negation.
Hitchen's Razor demands evidence then falls short of its own demand.That's why the "principle" is a failure.Your little parody shows you are unable to recognize errors in your fellow Atheist's arguments.This proves you are dogmatically and not rationally attached to your position.

Stan said...

Hm. I interpreted Xellos' comment to be making a similar point, regarding the failure of Hitchens' statement.

The thing about evidence which is non-falsifiable using physics - i.e. "non-physical" evidence, is this: it cannot be claimed not to exist because it does. But it is rejected erroneously because material techniques, which are voluntarily accepted by physical science due to the physical limitations of experimental verification, are erroneously claimed to be the only source of knowledge. This error is common in Atheists, who are unaware that the intellectual world has moved beyond logical positivism and ideological Scientism.

Even when their outdated and rejected notions of knowledge theory are pointed out, they continue in their self-deception because it is necessary for their weak-kneed worldviews, which cannot withstand valid knowledge theory.

This is the reason that I generally insist that Atheists provide evidence that fits their own logical positivist, Scientismist requirements which they place on others. They cannot, under any circumstance, use their own evidentiary requirements to support even agnosticism, much less Atheism.

And that is why some of today's Atheists resort to the "no burden of rebuttal" fallacy - specifically to avoid acknowledging that they have no proof, materially or logically, which supports their worldview. That avoidance necessarily entails the assertion of an irrational position in order to avoid the embarrassment of failure to produce a rational evidentiary case for their belief system.

This type of Atheist will maintain the (very transparent) deception at all cost, regardless of the illumination of the logical failure of their non-coherent assertion. It is a tactic of rhetoric, not an argument of logic.

The full dependence upon rhetoric rather than logic demonstrates categorically that the Atheist doing so does it out of emotional neediness, and not rationality or desire to find truth.

Stan said...

Here is an example of how it looks:
"Similarly, atheists do not believe that any gods exist. You cannot logically infer from this that they claim no gods exist. Atheists simply reject claims that gods exist, usually because those claims have not met their burden of proof."

Here there are three assertions: "Atheists" (all inclusive) reject god(s)' existence. And, "Atheists" (all inclusive) have burdens of proof. Finally, "Atheists" claim that their burdens of proof have not been met. This is taken to mean that "Atheists" (all inclusive) have no beliefs regarding god(s), and due to having having "no beliefs", those beliefs cannot be challenged.

What can be challenged is this list:
1. To what specifications (burden) are the "claims" being subjected?
2. Which of the specifications have the "claims" failed, and why?

and further points:
3. It is not your belief which must be examined first; your intellectual process is being examined.
4. The underlying Atheist belief will be examined after the Atheist intellectual process is examined.

Schopenhauer has written a definitive exploration of rhetorical tricks, come of which I will quote here:

XV. If you have advanced a paradoxical proposition and find difficulty in proving it, you may submit for your opponent's acceptance or rejection some true propositions, the truth of which, however, is not quite palpable, as though you you wished to draw your proof from it. Should he reject it because he suspects a trick, you can obtain your triumph by showing how absurd he is... For this an extreme degree of impudence is required; but experience shows cases of it, and there are people who practise it by instinct."


In the recent case, the paradox is Hitchens' contention; the counter offer of a "true" proposition to support "truth" of the paradox is this: "If you think skepticism is a bad thing, please allow me to make you a special time-limited offer of a fine set of express toll bridges " That statement has nothing to do with the paradox contained within Hitchens' contention, and is the second proposition Schopenhauer described just above. Schopenhauer's description of the rhetorical "trick" hits exactly on the money.

Stan said...

Now, let's dig a little into the original position.

"Similarly, atheists do not believe that any gods exist.

OK.

"You cannot logically infer from this that they claim no gods exist."

No inference was taken; objective proof to the contrary was given in the form of a statement from a member of the FFRF. This proves that Atheists, at least one but certainly more, do claim that no gods exist. So the intent of the assertion being made, that "Atheists do not claim that no gods exist" is patently FALSE, by virtue of physical evidence to the contrary.

"Atheists simply reject claims that gods exist"

Yes they do reject.

"...usually because those claims have not met their burden of proof.""

Here is the assertion of the existence of burden of proof for rebuttal and its use by "Atheists", "usually".

IF Atheists reject AND rejection is based on Burdens of Proof, THEN the criterion for rebuttal is: the specification of the burden of proof asserted by Atheists has not been met.

However, if the specification is not produced, and the specific failure is not produced, THEN there is no REASON to believe that a failure has occurred.

IF no actual failure is produced, along with the specification which covered the failure, THEN There is no evidence of a failure.

Rhetoric claiming "failure" without evidence of that failure is a logical and existential absurdity.


Stan said...

Further, declining to acknowledge one's own logically absurd assertion, and sticking by it in the face of it's having been called out - is highly irrational.

Phoenix said...

Interesting.I suspect that many prominent Atheists borrowed Schopenhauer's deceptive techniques.There are just too many similarities to simply dismiss it as coincidence.

Also Stan,on a different note.I've recently come across what seems to be the most plausible Physicalist explanation for consciousness,its efficacy and the mind's intentionality.Perhaps you are already familiar with it.It's known as "The self-model theory of subjectivity (SMT)"

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Self_models

What are your thoughts on it?

Phoenix said...

That's interesting.So it's Schopenhauer who has provided the Atheist with his deceptive tactics.I have to admit,there are Atheists who are really good at sophistical assumptions.That's why I love reading what the current best arguments are that support Materialism.I have just recently stumbled onto the self model theory.Apparently it explains consciousness,its efficacy and intentionality all within a purely material framework and its supposedly supported by empirical evidence.It is considered having the best explantory power that also refutes dualism's best supporting arguments.Are you faimiliar with this model Stan?If so,what is your take on it?

Stan said...

Thanks for the link, I'll look into it.

Stan said...

Yow. Metzinger's book is $90 used, and $91 new on Amazon. That'll have to wait... if ever. I'll trudge through wiki's description, tho.

Stan said...

A very initial take:
Look at this statement:
"If the predicates describing the relevant, locally supervening phenomenal properties and those referring to the neurofunctional properties determining them are nomologically coextensive, a reductive identification of the PSM is possible. The PSM would then be simply identical to the NCSC. "

This appears to say, "If X and Y are the assumed to be same thing, then X and Y are equal". And X is reducible to Y.

This article is chock-a-block with unproven and likely unprovable assumptions. Maybe I will list them (given sufficient time).

Xellos said...

"Xellos,not all claims need physical evidence in order to have truth value. Nor are the premises required to be 100% true,since proving absolute truth is impossible."

Wherever did I say anything about physical evidence? And which premises was I requiring to be 100% true? (These are actual questions.) You're misinterpreting my comment in a weird way...

Stan's correct, I'm making a similar point as him - that Hitchens's razor (I'm aware that it's incoherent, but even without considering that) can be used to counter Wizard Suth's claim, making his logic incoherent.

"[...] unable to recognize errors in your fellow Atheist's arguments."
>fellow Atheist
>implying

I am not an Atheist. I am a Christian.

Phoenix said...

Sorry for the double post yesterday,as I thought my first post was lost.

Stan
It seems theories like the Self-model and Complexity theories usually demonstrate all the correlations between the brain,nervous system and consciousness.This is done empirically of course.What Atheists seem to do is to bombard us with all these correlations just hoping that it will eventually imply causation.However,it does seem to me that they have the upperhand because as I understand,one can eventually prove causation with a counterfactual example.Such as,"if the brain does not generate consciousness then the latter should be demonstrated to exist without the former"
IMO,the only way to counter this counterfactual conditional is to delve into areas that are a bit too controversial for philosophy and science.And that is,the evidence from NDEs,since they demonstrate that it is possible for consciousness to exist independently from the brain/body.

Phoenix said...

Xellos

My apologies,I did misread your post.That's partly because you quoted Stan before replying.

Stan said...

Phoenix,
This all seems to tie in with another evolution article I'm writing. I hope to get it written by late tomorrow, but it could take longer. I need to take next week off from the blog almost completely, I'm way behind on other stuff.

Stan

Anonymous said...

Yeah, Xellos was quoting Wizard Suth, not Stan.

As for your next evolution article, I can't wait to read it, Stan.