I was raised Roman catholic by my mother, my father was not religious. I was christened and confirmed into the church, I was even an altar boy. My mother would drag me to church for an hour every Sunday, I would spend half an hour in Sunday school and another half an hour pretending to be somewhere else whilst I listened to a priest drone on at length about subjects I, as a child had no interest in.
My mother always said that if I prayed hard enough God would grant my wishes, so naturally as I child I did just that, I prayed, I knelt in church thinking to myself and hoping that God would hear me. I realised that there was no difference between praying and thinking; that was all I was doing, closing my eyes and thinking really hard, hoping that God would magic me up the complete set of action figures for Thundercats or Visionaries plus a number of other cartoons I was interested in. Suffice to say, I never came home from church and found them awaiting me on the kitchen table.
Then came a fateful day, I was around 6 or 7 when I was bothering mum about something and she told me to go outside, enjoy the nice summer day, pick a dandelion and pull off the petals one at a time whilst making a wish for whatever I was bothering her for. Like a child I did just that, I went outside, found myself a plant and proceeded to pick the petals one at a time whilst wishing for action figures. Only whilst I was doing this I realised how bloody stupid I must look, it hit me full in the face that what I was doing was never going to get me the things I wanted, that making a wish is simply thinking to yourself exactly the same as praying to God is, that if God didn’t bring me my Lion-O figurine then what chance did I have of getting one from a flower? I realised that day that thinking about something doesn’t make it happen, that really, really wanting something doesn’t make it come true.
I slowly grew up and discovered a great interest in science, a simple experiment in physics class with a stream of water and a charged acetate rod showed me more wonder and amazement at the world than 12 years of church ever did. I found more answers in biology, chemistry and physics than all the religion I had ever been exposed to. I realised that every assertion needs evidence and that you don’t have evidence for what you believe then I don’t have to take you seriously, I could quite happily turn around and tell you you’re full of shit.
Today I no longer believe in ghosts, ghouls, goblins or gods. I follow evidence where ever it may lead and don’t shy away from hard conclusions because it offends my sensibilities, I no longer require belief in anything to simply be who and what I am, but I do require evidence and reason for the things I think. Exposure to religion from the earliest age possible merely taught me what bullshit smelled like; science taught me to make a bullshit detector which after 30 years is now incredibly finely tuned.
David Wragg
England
Wragg’s points are as follows:
1. Praying to get stuff doesn’t work.Again, if you add the phrase, “…therefore there is no God”, to the end of each assertion, it shows the logic, or lack thereof, for rejecting the existence of a proposed first cause.
2. Science answers questions better.
3. ”…every assertion needs evidence and that you don’t have evidence for what you believe then I don’t have to take you seriously, I could quite happily turn around and tell you you’re full of shit.”
4. ”I follow evidence where ever it may lead and don’t shy away from hard conclusions because it offends my sensibilities.”
5. ”I do require evidence and reason for the things I think.”
6. He has “a bullshit detector which after 30 years is now incredibly finely tuned.”
First he asserts the Candy Machine theory of prayer; then he like science answers better (not recognizing that the questions are different for science). Neither of these is a serious argument. The remaining four assertions are merely claims to rationality under the Philosophical Materialist canopy. Let’s take these specific claims, and then apply them to himself:
”…you don’t have evidence for what you believe then I don’t have to take you seriously…”What, one is correct to wonder, is Wragg’s evidence for there being no non-material existence? Wragg offers no evidence, merely claim after claim that evidence is essential. Where, Mr. Wragg, is your evidence?
”… I follow evidence where ever it may lead.”
”I do require evidence and reason for the things I think.”
I think it would be more honest if PZ asked for “evidence that supports your Atheism”. As it is, Atheists merely claim evidence and their apparent worship of it. But somehow they never cough it up.
Of course, that is just a pipe dream. Atheists have no evidence for their beliefs; their attachment to evidence is for the other guy; the other guy needs to have evidence, but not the Atheist. They are really upset at the justified application of their own terms to themselves, because it is obvious to them that they cannot comply, due to the fallacious nature of the terms. Still, despite the fallacy, they continue to require those terms from the other guy.
In this case, what are we to think of a Bullshit Detector which is devised under a fallacious worldview and ungrounded logic?
34 comments:
People making the positive assertion have the burden of proof.
If I said I had a baseball in my hand, you would be justified in not believing it until I showed you.
If I said I had a baseball in my hand and just said "I must have because you can't prove I don't", you would rightly call me out on my tortured logic.
"...you can't prove I don't" is the Argument from ignorance, which cuts both ways. But first, your analogy is a material analogy and thus doesn't apply to non-material situations, does it? Analogies always fail, some sooner than others; if they did not fail, they would be tautologies.
The argument from ignorance also provides this fallacy:
"I don't see it, so it cannot exist".
To rephrase a common saying:
"Lack of material evidence of non-material existence is NOT material evidence for non-material non-existence."
You need better reasons for your disbelief.
"People making the positive assertion
have the burden of proof"
As I understand it, atheists are making a positive assertion. Before the atheist denies God, he positively asserts the materialist dogma. Naturally, he finds no "evidence" for God and concludes that theism is irrational.
"The first lesson of traditional metaphysics is that the rational or logical, on the one hand, and the empirical or physical, on the other, are not the same. The rationalism of a frog living at the bottom of a well is to deny the existence of mountains: this is logic of a kind, perhaps, but it has nothing to do with reality."
- Frithjof Schuon
Stan, you must believe in an almost infinite number of contradictory things because you need strong reasons to disbelieve anything.
And "Candy Machine theory of prayer" is what the Bible teaches in parts. "Ask and it shall be given unto you", etc. Don't blame David if if doesn't work.
Chris, we are justified in believing the material world exists. So far there is no justification for believing in the supernatural or magical. It seems likely that these things are just imaginary.
And Frithjof Schuon? You couldn't have picked a better person to quote. The anti-modern "all religions are true" nonsense he spouted was based on the same illogic I see from Stan.
Time for breakfast.
Does anyone seriously think the possibility of the supernatural existing compares to the possibility of the natural existing? The possibity of the natural existing is about one hundred percent. But the supernatural? Materialist have the upperhand because the natural exists.
SloMo said,
Stan, you must believe in an almost infinite number of contradictory things because you need strong reasons to disbelieve anything.”
It’s not a question of “believing” of course. It’s a question of accepting probabilities. Atheists seem to think that believing means blind faith without reason to believe; it’s a concept that seems to be embedded in Atheist thought. Atheists can be pointed to similar unprovable principles which underlie their own thought, such as the First Principles. First Principles are accepted and used without proof: Cause and Effect is presumed to work despite Hume’s clear “proof” that there is no reason to believe that it exists. Science goes on despite Hume. So does law. Probabilities are accepted every day. Absolute certainty does not even exist in a world that changes from moment to moment. So rejecting probable concepts because they are not certain is an Atheist discrimination tool which is not rationally motivated, it is ideologically motivated.
There is no reason to consider faeries or leprechauns or unicorns, etc, because they have no effect on anyone’s view of issues such as the value of human life. They do not impact worldviews. They do not factor into social contracts.
The issue of whether an agent caused the universe with intent and purpose is a different sort of issue. If it were not, then Atheists wouldn’t care about it any more than they care about faeries, etc. The issue of a creating agent, one with intent and purpose, is hazardous to Atheists in terms of their presumed, self-annointed, self-authority; if they are not the greatest intellect in the universe, then they lose their freedom to make up ethics and to reject absolutes as fundaments of logic, etc. And that is why Atheists attack with ridicule.
” And "Candy Machine theory of prayer" is what the Bible teaches in parts. "Ask and it shall be given unto you", etc. Don't blame David if if doesn't work.”
When bible verses are removed from context and used as bumper sticker wisdom they lose their contextual meaning. In this case Matt 7:7 even reverses meanings under the self-focus of Atheist interpretation. The context is a speech being given to a large group of people. It contains prior statements which contextualize 7:7, such as these statements:
Matt 6:8: Be ye not therefore like unto them [ heathen ]: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask him.
Matt 6:9: After this manner therefore pray ye….
[snip]
Matt 6:10 …thy will be done….
Meaning in context: If you seek the things of God, within the will of God, they will be given you. Games, toys and candy don’t qualify.
(continued)
(continued)
” Chris, we are justified in believing the material world exists. So far there is no justification for believing in the supernatural or magical. It seems likely that these things are just imaginary.”
This is a demonstration of skepticism which is calibrated to a certain objective. With a slight modification of the calibration of skepticism we can demonstrate that the material world is an illusion caused by the technicians (demons in Descartes' language) who are feeding data into our brain which is in a vat. Proof that that is not the case? Impossible to provide. So since we cannot prove that our experience is actually real or “reality”, then we cannot prove that our sensory experience proves that “reality exists”.
But Atheists don’t have need of the full calibration of skepticism, so, despite the limitations of sensory inputs, they accept material reality as somehow “justified”. Then they set the calibration to demand material proof of a non-material first cause, which is an internally contradictory demand, and based on that, declare the concept not justified.
Skepticism is merely an attack on knowledge. All knowledge is contingent, based on probabilities, especially scientific knowledge. Skeptical Atheists accept that. But they reject arguments for probable existences which science cannot measure as not justified. Not justified how? By science? By touch and feel? Or by logic? The justification is never logic; it is material justification, by touch and feel and science. Always the Category Error, over and over.
Your argument:
We demand material justification: therefore only the material exists.
Why do we demand material justification? Because only the material exists.
Circular. Invalid argument. Logical justification of “material justification” is denied.
Now, when you charge “illogic” you appear not to have a case unless you refute the propositions being made. Your comment is merely a dig without evidence to back it up.
RK,
Please see the two comments just above, thanks.
"If I said I had a baseball in my hand and just said "I must have because you can't prove I don't", you would rightly call me out on my tortured logic."
"But first, your analogy is a material analogy and thus doesn't apply to non-material situations, does it?"
Oh, I think you misunderstood Stan. A reasonable mistake I'm sure. Correct me if I'm wrong Nats, but were you not referring to a non-material baseball?
"As I understand it, atheists are making a positive assertion. Before the atheist denies God, he positively asserts the materialist dogma. Naturally, he finds no "evidence" for God and concludes that theism is irrational."
You are misunderstanding it. I believe the typical process is more like
"religion doesn't make sense",
"there doesn't seem to be a valid reason to accept any sort of theism",
"science does work",
"no substantiated claims of the supernatural exist",
"maybe the material world is all that exists".
"wow, this is actually internally consistent and provides tangible results. This theory seems to be holding up, I'll accept that until someone can demonstrate otherwise."
I'm sure it varies dramatically, but this is a story I have heard multiple times.
"The issue of whether an agent caused the universe with intent and purpose is a different sort of issue. If it were not, then Atheists wouldn’t care about it any more than they care about faeries, etc."
What a joke. You know damn well why it is different. People want to pass laws based upon the belief in faeries. People believe others are condemned to hell for not believing in faeries. People cockblock science because it might hurt the faeries precious feelings.
"And that is why Atheists attack with ridicule."
Hm, yeah that's possible I suppose. The other option is that maybe it's ridiculous.
The natural world does, indeed, exist. But that's very different from the claim that it's all that exists. Methodological naturalism makes perfect sense. It is a voluntary decision to "squint" one's eyes with the purpose of the prediction and/or control of nature.
But, is it reasonable for experimental science to be applied in the assessment of metaphysical questions?
A pack of dogs get together. Rex says, "I believe in mathematics."
A sophisticated experiment is developed. The most advanced "sniff" devices fail to register any evidence. Cheech , the leader of the the a-mathematics faction claims victory with the smug dig, "I don't accept the orbiting alpo can!"
As far as the magic goes, it is the materialist who wears the wizards cap. He still has the problem of "explaining" the pulling of the rabbit out of an empty hat!
Aiy, yai, yai...
These atheist folk are like the mirror image of their fundamentalist flat Earth counterparts.
Truth, (whatever it is), is what it is , regardless of whether we "know" it.
Are higher orders of reality as ridiculous as Jotunn suggests? The vast majority of humanity, past and present, including some pretty sharp minds and some pretty profound souls, have believed as such.
I can't see it! It doesn't exist!
Have a nice day! If you're trying to put nature to the rack, that's perfectly reasonable.
But if your objective is not simply domination, but the deepest and most complete understanding of the human condition and the nature of reality- a truly agnostic orientation may, perhaps, result in a more sympathetic attitude to a non-temporal perspective.
Jotunn,
Changing the baseball argument merely makes it a reductionist straw man analog, created to simulate a comparison, one which turns out to be False Association Fallacy: a known false premise, compared to a rational, coherent proposition.
Now. Let’s look at these:
1. "religion doesn't make sense",
Anti-ecclesiasticism, no bearing on first cause.
2. "there doesn't seem to be a valid reason to accept any sort of theism",
Opinion, likely based on ignorance of reasons.
3. "science does work",
Yes, it does, in its self-limited realm of voluntary materialism. But not outside that realm.
4. "no substantiated claims of the supernatural exist",
Presumably “natural claims” of the supernatural… Category Error. Or possibly meaning that miracles such as Lourdes must be materially substantiated: Materialist Fallacy. Or possibly meaning that certain evidence such as Lourdes is overtly ignored in support of the Atheist ideology.
5. "maybe the material world is all that exists".
Argument from Ignorance Fallacy: "Whatever I can't see, doesn't exist".
6. "wow, this is actually internally consistent and provides tangible results. This theory seems to be holding up, I'll accept that until someone can demonstrate otherwise."
False concept of internal consistency: Philosophical Materialism is internally contradictory: it requires material proof for claims, yet it cannot prove its main belief: that no non-material existence is possible. Since its own belief is not supported to its own standards, it is non-coherent, and Philosophical Materialists cannot claim coherence for their worldview. And Scientism is a subset of Materialism and subject to the same fallacy.
” ‘"The issue of whether an agent caused the universe with intent and purpose is a different sort of issue. If it were not, then Atheists wouldn’t care about it any more than they care about faeries, etc.’
What a joke. You know damn well why it is different. People want to pass laws based upon the belief in faeries. People believe others are condemned to hell for not believing in faeries. People cockblock science because it might hurt the faeries precious feelings.”
My statement is not contradictory to your protestation, it is in agreement. Atheists fear theism, unlike faeries, etc. Atheists are without any attached ethics or standards of behavior save those which they make up themselves individually. They do not want to relinquish any of their ungrounded “freethinking” to any absolutes. And “cockblocking” science is cock and bull: the only science which is absolute to Atheists is evolution, and that “science” is without empirical substance, which is the exact charge Atheists make against non-Atheists. And under evolution is the devaluation of humans due to their perceived accidental occurrence and lack of inherent value– resulting in eugenics as in abortion, which is racially focused at least in the USA. The Atheist lack of ethics is demonstrated in their insistence on enforcing no ethical limits on science. hence charges of "cockblocking" when ethical limits are placed.
”"And that is why Atheists attack with ridicule."
Hm, yeah that's possible I suppose. The other option is that maybe it's ridiculous.”
Then make a coherent argument which cannot be refuted in your defense. A ridiculous position should be easily defeated using the Atheist's claimed superior possession of logic. Yet that never seems to happen.
And answer the questions posed above.
"The issue of a creating agent, one with intent and purpose, is hazardous to Atheists in terms of their presumed, self-annointed, self-authority; if they are not the greatest intellect in the universe, then they lose their freedom to make up ethics and to reject absolutes as fundaments of logic, etc. And that is why Atheists attack with ridicule."
As an agnostic atheist, I acknowledge that we're both not the greatest intellects in the universe and there are others that have authority over us and others that impose ethics on both of us so your point is untrue.
Your argument:
We demand material justification: therefore only the material exists.
Why do we demand material justification? Because only the material exists.
Circular. Invalid argument. Logical justification of “material justification” is denied.
You're losing the argument if you have to continually lie about the other person's position.
Chris said...
The natural world does, indeed, exist. But that's very different from the claim that it's all that exists.
I was speaking of probabilities.
Probabilities that the natural world exists is 100%.
Probability that the supernatural world exists is unknown.
The materialist believes the natural world exists. This you do not dispute.
The believer in the supernatural believes the natural world exists and the supernatural world exists.
Thus according to probability the materialist is ahead of the supernaturalist.
The vast majority of humanity, past and present, including some pretty sharp minds and some pretty profound souls, have believed as such.
So? If the majority believed the world flat, it would not change the shape of the world.
Stan, you'll have to explain what you find some magical about Lourdes.
Chris,
Mathematics provides testable, replicatable, observable results. If that was the case for theism, you would have an argument for sure.
But it doesn't. So you don't.
Stan,
Your entire position on atheism is a giant strawman. One that has been pointed out and explained several times in the past few days.
Anti-ecclesiasticism, no bearing on first cause.
Non-sequitor. The statement was regarding the truth claims of religions. A First Cause does not enter into it except in the most general way.
Opinion, likely based on ignorance of reasons.
And continued ignorance until you present a reason, which you refuse to do. Because no compelling reason exists. Note that a tremendous amount of bullshit reasons exist.
Presumably “natural claims” of the supernatural… Category Error. Or possibly meaning that miracles such as Lourdes must be materially substantiated: Materialist Fallacy. Or possibly meaning that certain evidence such as Lourdes is overtly ignored in support of the Atheist ideology.
Essentially: "Nyah nyah you can't prove me wrong." Strong case you got here. Prove that Sufi holy men are not clairvoyant. Prove that an immaterial pipe smoking rabbit doesn't control the world.
Argument from Ignorance Fallacy: "Whatever I can't see, doesn't exist".
This is just stupid. I accept the validity of many things I cannot see. Strawman.
Philosophical Materialism is internally contradictory: it requires material proof for claims, yet it cannot prove its main belief: that no non-material existence is possible.
And here is the core of your argument. Argument from Ignorance. You can't prove its not real, so it is!
A ridiculous position should be easily defeated using the Atheist's claimed superior possession of logic.
It is a ridiculous position to assert that because a thing cannot be demonstrated to not exist, that such a thing exists. Logic'd.
This is the core of your argument, all other details are extraneous. But lets address a few, shall we?
Atheists are without any attached ethics or standards of behavior save those which they make up themselves individually.
Demonstrably bullshit. Secular nations have the highest standard of living and the least amount of crime. Pure prejudice.
And “cockblocking” science is cock and bull: the only science which is absolute to Atheists is evolution, and that “science” is without empirical substance, which is the exact charge Atheists make against non-Atheists.
Your YEC post above is an excellent example. YEC does not just reflect on evolution/biology, but on physics, geology, chemistry and zoology (and likely several more).
Everything from heliocentricism to stem cell research, people insist that their bed time stories are valid means for ignoring facts or redirecting advances in our collective knowledge.
And under evolution is the devaluation of humans due to their perceived accidental occurrence and lack of inherent value– resulting in eugenics as in abortion, which is racially focused at least in the USA.
Devalued? It is absolutely fucking AMAZING that we are here at all. We are the success story of our planet, probably our solar system and maybe even our entire galaxy. Almost every atom in our bodies came from the death of a star! You are the result of an unbroken lineage of BILLIONS of years! Billions! That! Is! AMAZING! You are awesome BECAUSE of evolution. Well, not you in particular, but humans and life in general.
And answer the questions posed above.
I don't know to what you are referring. The only question I can find is "Proof that that is not the case?". Which I have addressed several times. Again, the answer is that is an intellectually vacuous position to hold.
RK said,
”As an agnostic atheist, I acknowledge that we're both not the greatest intellects in the universe and there are others that have authority over us and others that impose ethics on both of us so your point is untrue.”
Interesting. Where does that ultimate moral authority lie, then? Who is so impeccably moral, in your opinion, that they have the authority to dictate morals to all other humans? Why does your opinion, or theirs, supercede any other mortal’s opinion?
”You're losing the argument if you have to continually lie about the other person's position.”
Your charge is without basis, unless you provide proof of the charge. The facts are that Atheists reject non-material existence, and therefore are de facto Philosophical Materialists (few Atheists have ever denied this). Philosophical Materialism requires material evidence if one is to believe a thing. None of this is a lie.
”The believer in the supernatural believes the natural world exists and the supernatural world exists.
Thus according to probability the materialist is ahead of the supernaturalist.”
According to that logic, the Radical Skeptic is ahead of everyone else; that metric is not of value in selecting a worldview. Here is the flipside of materialism: it is non-coherent, rendering the insistence of its ideology in one’s worldview also non-coherent.
”So? If the majority believed the world flat, it would not change the shape of the world.”
Yes, and by the same token, if all scientists declared the world flat, it would not change the shape of the world. Materialism and scientism are not coherent reflections of the most important issues that face humans. They suffice only in the limited spheres of replicable experimentation on repeating causal situations that fit into laboratory situations. If that is the limit of knowledge production, then it eliminates logic, rational thought, mathematics, art, human irrational reactions in emotional stress, and even the fabricated teleology of materialists who claim that science is a moral imperative, and nature is “beautiful”.
”Stan, you'll have to explain what you find some magical about Lourdes.”
No, actually I don’t. The web is full of information concerning the proposition of a miracle at Lourdes. My proposition is not that it is magical, in your derogatory terminology. My proposition is that Atheists cannot disprove the premise that there was a non-material occurrence at Lourdes, per the claims made regarding the miracle. While they might deny it or make nebulous claims of non-compelling, they do so instead of firm reasons provided in refutation.
Jotunn said,
”Stan,
Your entire position on atheism is a giant strawman. One that has been pointed out and explained several times in the past few days.”
Hmm. That argument is not compelling…
And in fact it is false, since it is only addressing actual components of Atheism, none of which are made up, or false, or intended to derail an argument. The positions taken here are head-on assessments of actual Atheist and Philosophical Materialist positions. So, no, it is not a strawman. That charge is without basis in fact.
” Anti-ecclesiasticism, no bearing on first cause.
Non-sequitor. The statement was regarding the truth claims of religions. A First Cause does not enter into it except in the most general way.”
Truth claims of religions are in fact ecclesiasticism. Your claim (and spelling) are incorrect.
” Opinion, likely based on ignorance of reasons.
And continued ignorance until you present a reason, which you refuse to do. Because no compelling reason exists. Note that a tremendous amount of bullshit reasons exist.”
Certainly there are incorrect reasons; to reject based on that is a False Association Fallacy. It is not up to me to provide you with any reasons; my intent here is to analyze your reasons for rejection.
” Presumably “natural claims” of the supernatural… Category Error. Or possibly meaning that miracles such as Lourdes must be materially substantiated: Materialist Fallacy. Or possibly meaning that certain evidence such as Lourdes is overtly ignored in support of the Atheist ideology.
Essentially: "Nyah nyah you can't prove me wrong." Strong case you got here. Prove that Sufi holy men are not clairvoyant. Prove that an immaterial pipe smoking rabbit doesn't control the world.”
Ridicule, and Fallacy of False Association yet again. You claim either knowledge of a non-material existence, or non-knowledge of a non-material existence so your position is either false or ignorant, you choose which. Or prove me to be false with structured logic. And address Lourdes.
” Argument from Ignorance Fallacy: "Whatever I can't see, doesn't exist".
This is just stupid. I accept the validity of many things I cannot see. Strawman.
I didn’t address all your beliefs, just one, and that one is an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. That you accept other invisible beliefs has no bearing on this one: that assertion is a False Association Fallacy.
”'Philosophical Materialism is internally contradictory: it requires material proof for claims, yet it cannot prove its main belief: that no non-material existence is possible.'
And here is the core of your argument. Argument from Ignorance. You can't prove its not real, so it is!”
My proposition makes no claims other than concerning Atheist proposals and claims. Your accusation is a Tu Quoque Fallacy, based on claims not being made. You have in no way invalidated the statement above.
(continued)
What's a "False Association Fallacy"? Is that the opposite of an association fallacy? And if it is, how?
Are you talking about "guilt by association"?
Fallacy of False Association is the same as Fallacy of Guilt by Association.
I was using an incorrect term, I was thinking of Fallacy of Association, where it is a false association.
I'll use the correct term in the future, thanks for the correction.
Prove that Sufi holy men are not clairvoyant.
With that Red Herring you have hit rock bottom.
Atheists and Atheism are the claimants for being evidence based. This discussion is about that claim.
It looks like an analogy, not a red herring.
Jotunn is speaking about the burden of proof.
Exactly.
I find it fascinating how easy it is for one theist to dismiss the claims of another theist via ridicule, but claim it is up to non-believers to justify non-belief of their own personal faith.
I think the analogy is pretty obvious to almost everyone.
@Jotunn
To do so I'd have to bring a good medium with me to your place of residence :P
Please do your claims with a bit more of honesty.
If you want text based evidence, then I think your claim is invalidated here:
sacred sciences website.
Kind Regards.
Jotunn says,
”I find it fascinating how easy it is for one theist to dismiss the claims of another theist via ridicule…
Fallacy of Hasty Generalization regarding theists and ridicule.
”… but claim it is up to non-believers to justify non-belief of their own personal faith.”
“Non-belief” is a false reductionist deception of what is actually an overt, positive rejection. Given an assertion, one either accepts it, rejects it, requests more information for a decision, or ignores it. Atheists reject. Asserting “non-belief” while fighting against the assertion is irrational. However, it is a necessary dodge to avoid confronting the inability to materially prove that Atheism is valid and true, using the evidentiary conditions that Atheists demand for others.
So the “non-belief” ruse is essential to the Special Pleading that Atheists use in order to be relieved of their own evidentiary demands when applied to themselves.
Fallacy of Hasty Generalization?
I wasn't speaking of generalities, but of this specific instance.
Provide evidence, using the standards you claim atheists hold, that the rejection of Sufi clairvoyance is valid and true.
Or are you just going to ridicule and ignore it?
Jotunn,
Here is what you said:
”I find it fascinating how easy it is for one theist to dismiss the claims of another theist via ridicule…
That statement is:
Fallacy of Hasty Generalization regarding theists and ridicule. It makes no mention of Sufi's or Buddhists or anything else. It was a stand alone comment.
But regarding your failure to refute using material evidence, while requiring us to do so regarding Sufis, that once again clearly demonstrates that you cannot do it, and you cannot even discuss it straight on, you must assert a Tu Quoque. You still are requiring of us your own false evidentiary requirements, as your demand shows.
Regarding the Tu Quoque, it is not only a fallacy, but it is based on a false assumption, which is that I have a need to refute Sufism. I do not. I do not go to Sufism sites and make claims which I cannot back up. That seems to be an Atheist characteristic. And theism does not require that Sufism be false; only Atheism requires that. Your demand is yet another Category Error.
Here are the facts: Atheism is based on the claim that there is no non-physical existence. They claim also that their beliefs are evidence-based. But they demonstrate continually that they cannot provide material evidentiary proof of their own beliefs.
Their refutations are in the form of fallacies such as the Tu Quoque, etc., or ridicule, but never, ever in the form of material evidence in support of their beliefs... again, never, ever.
SloMo,
"It looks like an analogy, not a red herring.
Jotunn is speaking about the burden of proof. "
But I can accept the proposition with no affect on Theism. It is Atheism which demands that the proposition be false. So your argument is with a Sufi, since there is no affect on theism whether the proposition be true or false. Since I don't claim it to be false, I have no burden to prove it so.
And once again, your challenge to the Sufi claim requires evidence if you are to claim a refutation. So: present your material evidence which refutes the Sufi claim.
I don't care one way or the other. So feel free to prove it true or false, either way suits me. But at least stick to your own evidentiary requirements, OK?
"But I can accept the proposition with no affect on Theism."
So you accept Allah as the one true god? No ... I think the Sufi claim very much affects your theism.
"So you accept Allah as the one true god? No ... I think the Sufi claim very much affects your theism. "
Moved the old goal posts didn't you? Your question was not about Allah, it was about Sufi clairvoyance. Whether or not Sufis are clairvoyant is not an issue for theism. In fact, theism does not specify which human interpretation is valid.
Stan,
The typical claim of Jotunn is just not sustainable because:
1)I'm sure he did just shallowly browsed what is sufism and has no idea at least in theory how are some of the sufis' mystical practices.
2)He is asking proof on us in a way he's not able to corroborate (Tu Quoque).
3)The interpretations of Sufism are worthless unless you get to study and understand the implicate meaning they have, which actually is implicitly very similar as with almost any other mystic traditions and practices. It's interesting to see how many Atheists (being Old or New, but specially the New ones) confuse exoteric practices with esoteric practices.
Theism in general accepts most of the known mystical traditions and practices as valid because even if you choose only one "school of thought" from there, it is still demonstrable that mystics/occultists discuss similar experiences which may resemble the same conclusions.
I'm not saying mystics/occultists are know-it-alls, but they have the skill that makes these kind of truths to be sustainable, but at the same time so difficult to explicitly understand.
Jotunn,
The idea of all sufis not being clairvoyants is simply out of the question. Sufis (most of then if not all) who may reach the knowledge of the divine are also clairvoyants, to do clairvoyance you have to do "astral projections" and other mystical/occult practices.
Again, you confuse exoteric practices from esoteric practices. Please be honest and keep your initial claim.
Here I think I made false you hypotheses:
"Prove that Sufi holy men are not clairvoyant."
If you can bring here evidence that all Sufis are not clairvoyant and/or want to corroborate a more reductionistic view of it, please try not to do it in the way as the reductio ad absurdum nature of you claim.
Kind Regards
If Sufis are clairvoyant, and proclaim Allah to be god, I would say that is a strong indication that they are on to something.
Leaving it very much a matter for your theism, which I assume is at odds with Islam.
If you still take issue with this train of thought, I'm sure I can find a supernatural claim more obviously affecting your theism.
Did you want to try proving that the prophet Muhammed did not fly around the world on a winged horse? Or prove he did not hear the voice of an angel whilst meditating in a cave?
Or perhaps you would rather disprove the claims of Buddhism? Care to provide evidence of the non-existence of reincarnation?
"Given an assertion, one either accepts it, rejects it, requests more information for a decision, or ignores it."
Which will you pick?
I pick for you to either provide the hard evidence for your beliefs, or get off the horse. Refute the claims made, as they are made, or just fold up and leave. You are wasting my time with Tu Quoques and fallacies which I show you constantly and which you continually ignore while bringing in more and more fallacies.
You cannot prove your beliefs. Therefore that explains your behavior, which is to phony up the conversation with sidetracks and errors and fallacies. Your position is a religious adherence to unprovable ideology, and your logic is that of a cult member.
But this is about to draw to a close, unless you provide evidence that refutes the propositions that have been made, clarified for your understanding, and then remade.
Your time here is up. Do it or admit that you can't. But no more falseness.
Jotunn,
"If Sufis are clairvoyant, and proclaim Allah to be god, I would say that is a strong indication that they are on to something."
"Did you want to try proving that the prophet Muhammed did not fly around the world on a winged horse? Or prove he did not hear the voice of an angel whilst meditating in a cave?"
Over and over again, I'll tell you, you keep confusing exoteric practices with esoteric practices, for example: Angel Magick with Indian sidi's Magick. These traditions are different approaches, but is the projection of the mind what is needed to accomplish you acquisition of knowledge. I really don't focus my attention anymore, about an exoteric name for God (with all the respect all these names deserve, I apologize if I unintentionally sound harsh), but what I do care is that the knowledge of the divine is a possibility and what does that mystical/occult experience means, when this pressence is reached upon.
What's that "something" you think "they" or "we" are up to? I see your curiousness. Well, I'll leave it to you to find out if you wish.
Research, gain knowledge, then decide: do or don't do, that self-assigned homework of yours:
"I'm sure I can find a supernatural claim more obviously affecting your theism."
Think about that claim you just made, again. Supernatualism is not the opposite of theism, those a-priori assertions are making more harm than good to you.
Assume anything else as you wish, I'm not at odds with Islam, but I know some Sufis too. Nonetheless, clairvoyance is not a practice restricted to them, what seems to be more "restricted" to the genersl public, are their mystic traditions, like with any other esoteric approach being judeo-christian, or semitic, or hinduist or buddhist, or taoist, etc, etc...
What I won't show here, is what path did I choose as a mystical and/or occult, tradition.
"Or perhaps you would rather disprove the claims of Buddhism? Care to provide evidence of the non-existence of reincarnation?"
Why do you pursuit a material-only evidence for the non-existance of reincarnation? are these questions just for the sake of puzzling people around? I'm afraid that will make you miss the whole picture.
Some "unarmed" religious people commit the same mistake as you do: discriminating people because of religious creed. Like it or not, you're holding a religious attitude for your Atheism, a non-properly evaluated adherence.
The most basic (but not fulfilled) purpose of mysticism/occultism is really simple: to make understand that violent religious discrimination does not make sense. Once you "Understood" that, you may keep your path to the knowledge of the divine.
Re-Quoting: ""Given an assertion, one either accepts it, rejects it, requests more information for a decision, or ignores it."".
Accepting, Rejecting, Ignoring, Requesting more Information, etc etc...
Yeah, but better have good foundations of the reasons you use to corroborate your decisions... trowing accusations in mid air just makes you more harm than good.
Kind Regards.
Post a Comment