First let’s get a feel for what Presuppositionalist Apologetics is. The following example is from carm.org:
”Allen: I am an atheist and evolutionist. Prove to me there is a God.Let’s break here, because this is the point where the presuppositionalists go idealist on us. The following exchange almost never occurs with Atheists, and when it does, in my experience, it is usually done dishonestly on the part of the Atheist. A person who is “open” is not an Atheist, he is a seeker.
Paul: I do not think I can do that, because of your presuppositions.
Allen: Why not?
Paul: Because your presuppositions will not allow you to examine without bias the evidence that I present to you for God's existence.
Allen: That is because there is no evidence for God's existence.
Paul: See? There you go. You just confirmed what I was stating.
Allen: How so?
Paul: Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God. If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect. If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria. If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies. So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it. It is limited.
Allen: It is not limited.
Paul: Yes it is. Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of His existence. Don't you see? If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.
Allen: I see your point, but I am open to being persuaded, if you can.Where this goes awry is right here: “...I am open”...; this implies that the Atheist will accept logical argumentation, and will examine his own presuppositions using actual rational techniques.
Paul: Then, I must ask you, what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence? I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.
This will not occur. Here’s why:
Atheists do not have presuppositions that are vulnerable to logic. Atheist presuppositions are emotional.
The considerable emotional benefits which a vulnerable person derives from Atheism are virtually impregnable to disciplined, grounded logic. When a person revels in the “freedom” that accompanies the denial of authority, he becomes a virtual king, over whom no one and nothing presides, and that includes not just the rejection of absolute authority but the rejection of all absolutes including the axioms of rational thought.
Thus there is no behavior or thought process which is “irrational” under the ideology of Atheism. For example, the Atheist cannot be proven “wrong” because he will claim not to have taken a position and so cannot be disproved. Or he will claim that there is “no evidence” just after having been handed evidence. Or he will claim no burden of rebuttal because the demand is “irrational” or “absurd” that he provide support for his worldview. No demonstration of the actual fallacies which the Atheist uses will convince him of his erroneous thought process.
Atheism is rebellion; the rejection is an emotional reaction which has positive emotional effects for an emotionally needy individual. Some examples: There is no longer any responsibility to anyone, especially if one is a juvenile, which is when Atheism is usually adopted. There is no longer any moral responsibility; there is no longer any grounded logic or perception of irrationality in one’s behavior or thought about which to be concerned; most of all, there is elitism which is gained merely by association and gained so easily merely by saying “ain’t no god”. And significantly there is victimhood, cherished and nurtured and defining one’s relationship with society. Between the freedom, the elitism and the cherished, defining victimhood, Atheism provides a set of strong emotional props for the fragile ego. Their value is not in their rationality, so any charge of irrationality is without effect. Their value is in their emotional support for an emotionally weak and emotionally demanding existence.
That is why Atheists do not seek logical answers: they seek continuous validation for their emotional demands, and that, for some, involves trying to destroy all challenges so that validation is not jeopardized. Watch the Atheist performance, as he denies all rational approaches and ignores his own fallacies. He merely wants to win, and nothing more. Quite often the argument which starts reasonably will turn into abject reactionary rejectionism and finally into to derogation and ridicule from the Atheist, as he abandons logic in favor of any attack that might preserve his emotional needs.
For that reason, I don’t subscribe to Presuppositionalism, other than to agree that the Atheist presuppositional content is absolutely not rational. But it also is not open in the slightest, and has no use for either logic or rational thinking despite claiming to be the possessor of those traits. Atheists are not truth seekers (for them there is no truth, thus there is no reason to seek it - so they just declare it). They are extreme dogmatists, closed and irrational and emotionally attached to their ideology and fighting to preserve personal validation regardless of the tactic required. So I deal with Atheist presuppositions, but I have no delusions of being able to sway them, as the idealized conversation above shows. I do it because others need to see the irrationality involved in all Atheist thought, and I do it because I can.
47 comments:
Hey Stan, remember the Brain Greene book you recommended me?
Well, I watched this video he presented and I just wanted to know your opinion on it: http://www.ted.com/talks/brian_greene_why_is_our_universe_fine_tuned_for_life.html?awesm=on.ted.com_Greene&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=on.ted.com-static&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_content=awesm-publisher
Well done, Stan! I've had this exact exchange on multiple occasions. The irony is, they typically offer nothing (and feel as though they do not need to!) as an apologetic for THEIR position.
Well I gotta say this is utter nonsense.
The vast majority of atheists in the America's were raised as theists. People are frequently indoctrinated as theists, ergo theism is oft presupposed.
Theism is often rejected as a juvenile as this is when the brain is formed enough to act independent to the will of authority.
Once you start thinking for yourself theism becomes a rather absurd, and superfluous, concept.
The claim that moral responsibility is abandoned is pure slander and can be demonstrated via pointing out the standard of living, education, health and happiness are all correlated with the most irreligious of nations (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands). Also the minuscule representation of American atheists in prison proportionate to the population at large.
"He merely wants to win, and nothing more."
Actually, I would LOVE to lose. I love being proven wrong. I LOVE changing my mind. I LOVE saying "holy shit - you are right! And now I am too now, because I agree with you! TIL!"
Quite honestly, this post seems an emotional attack by someone who cannot defend his proposition reasonably, and so instead stoops to name calling.
Your logic fails (or doesn't even reasonably conclude with something recognizable as a deity.)
Your evidence is non-existent (or on the other side of the ocean).
And yet somehow pointing this out is "abject reactionary rejectionism" and an "abandonment of logic".
Puh-lease. Your emotional argument is noted and (in addition to pointing out how wrong it is) is justly derogated and ridiculed.
Jeremy,
"I would LOVE to lose"
You have lost. You have never offered a single cogent response to any of the theistic arguments I've presented.
A person who is “open” is not an Atheist, he is a seeker.
If that seeker lacks belief in a god then that seeker is an atheist. If that seeker believes in a gods then that seeker is a theist.
The considerable emotional benefits which a vulnerable person derives from Atheism are virtually impregnable to disciplined, grounded logic.
The emotional benefits of most brands of theism is probably greater. When I was a theist I felt like I had a all-powerful father who loved me and looked after my interests. I felt this father would punish disbelievers and allow me to live in paradise with my deceased relatives. Is this vastly less logical and more emotional?
"Grounded" logic? If you are talking about presuppositionalism then your logic is grounded in itself and is circular.
When a person revels in the “freedom” that accompanies the denial of authority, he becomes a virtual king, over whom no one and nothing presides,
I live in a society of laws with actual authorities above me not to mention a literal monarch...
For example, the Atheist cannot be proven “wrong” because he will claim not to have taken a position and so cannot be disproved.
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. If you want to convince an atheist then simply prove a god exists.
Or he will claim that there is “no evidence” just after having been handed evidence.
When has anyone provided any evidence of gods?
Or he will claim no burden of rebuttal because the demand is “irrational” or “absurd” that he provide support for his worldview.
"Burden of rebuttal"? True until proven false may be a fine standard for secondary school (high school) debates but that standard is reversed in debates in tertiary (college) debating. Reality isn't a high-school debate or a court of law.
Atheism is rebellion; the rejection is an emotional reaction which has positive emotional effects for an emotionally needy individual.
How do you know this is a fact? And if you don't know this is a fact, why are you stating it as if it were so? Is it what you feel? Or do you think everything you feel is true is true until it has been proved otherwise?
There is no longer any responsibility to anyone, especially if one is a juvenile, which is when Atheism is usually adopted.
Really? I feel responsibility to my wife, my children, my family, my workmates, my country, even that human race. In fact, I feel MORE responsibility as an agnostic atheist then when I felt God was in control and would "wipe every tear".
And juvenile? The International Bible Society say that 85 percent of all Christians make "their commitment to Jesus between the ages of 4 and 14". I doubt they make their commitment because of logic.
Atheists are not truth seekers (for them there is no truth, thus there is no reason to seek it - so they just declare it).
There is no truth? Propositions can be true. But "truth" is a concept, there is no such "thing" as "a truth" only statements that conform with reality and so have the value of true.
You have lost. You have never offered a single cogent response to any of the theistic arguments I've presented.
Oh zing.
I did, once again, give you two points which both completely counter your argument.
You didn't respond, except once again to declare you've never met an atheist that actually understands the argument.
A sound rebuttal in any formal debate I'm sure. /sarcasm
Have you perhaps considered the possibility you've been talking absolute nonsense this entire time?
How about this? I've never met an AGNOSTIC who properly understands Aquinas Ways. They simply allow for too much equivocation, resist firm definitions, and simply delight in the idea that because they are "open" that all others are "closed."
YOU are not a theist.
Therefore YOU don't find the arguments convincing.
Therefore YOUR argument is unconvincing by YOUR standards.
http://xkcd.com/774/
Sound familiar?
Martin, if your arguments made sense, if they were convincing, if they reflected reality, I (and every other atheist) would look at them and say "Wow .. I guess the god of western monotheism MUST exist."
But your arguments are BAD. They wouldn't convince ANYONE who doesn't already PRESUPPOSE western monotheism.
So excuse me if I'm not about to toss out my mind just so I can change it to be "right".
”Theism is often rejected as a juvenile as this is when the brain is formed enough to act independent to the will of authority.
Once you start thinking for yourself theism becomes a rather absurd, and superfluous, concept.”
Once again you have made up “facts” which are false. The frontal cortex (the logical, rational part of the brain) is the last part of the brain to mature, and it is not complete until the age of 25. The brain goes into a frenzy of wiring and unwiring and rewiring through this period. At the age of 15, the focus is on independence from authority, and not just parental authority: all authority save the tyranny of the peer group which is also focused on rejecting authority. Unfortunately the 15 year old has insufficient experience and common sense (which exacerbates the lack of Frontal Cortex development) to survive in actual independence, and many who gain actual independence at that age reap tragic results, demonstrating the quality of their judgmental abilities at that age.
Quote from this article at Harvardmagazine.com (read the whole thing):
”Human and animal studies, Jensen and Urion note, have shown that the brain grows and changes continually in young people—and that it is only about 80 percent developed in adolescents. The largest part, the cortex, is divided into lobes that mature from back to front. The last section to connect is the frontal lobe, responsible for cognitive processes such as reasoning, planning, and judgment. Normally this mental merger is not completed until somewhere between ages 25 and 30—much later than these two neurologists were taught in medical school.”
This is why I have repeatedly suggested that ALL worldviews be subjected to honest analysis in full adulthood. Otherwise you are stuck with a juvenile understanding.
”The claim that moral responsibility is abandoned is pure slander and can be demonstrated via pointing out the standard of living, education, health and happiness are all correlated with the most irreligious of nations (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands). Also the minuscule representation of American atheists in prison proportionate to the population at large.”
Any morals which an Atheist claims for himself are not originated from Atheism (which has no morals attached to it, only rejection of moral authority), but are co-opted from some other ideology, including the desire to stay out of prison, which is purely pragmatic and not a moral code.
Correlating morals with functional materialist results is a false equivalence. Morals are principles which help you decide what to do when no one is watching (among other things). As for prison populations, the Atheists are converted to Muslim in prison in high numbers.
(more below)
eternal,
I don't see a point in your comment.
From "jeremy" above:
”Actually, I would LOVE to lose. I love being proven wrong. I LOVE changing my mind. I LOVE saying "holy shit - you are right! And now I am too now, because I agree with you! TIL!"”
This is absolute Bullshit. You give every fallacy and diversionary technique in defense of an indefensible position. You reject logic by denying it, not disproving it. It is so blatant that it cannot be missed by anyone but you. Here is an example of your dissembly:
” Quite honestly, this post seems an emotional attack by someone who cannot defend his proposition reasonably, and so instead stoops to name calling.
Your logic fails (or doesn't even reasonably conclude with something recognizable as a deity.)
Your evidence is non-existent (or on the other side of the ocean).”
All empty accusations and avoidances, without actual reasons for not providing argument or evidence.
”And yet somehow pointing this out is "abject reactionary rejectionism" and an "abandonment of logic".
Puh-lease. Your emotional argument is noted and (in addition to pointing out how wrong it is) is justly derogated and ridiculed.”
You have nothing more to contribute than this logic-free and point-free squirming under attack do you?
You will not be providing any logic or empirical evidence in support of your claims, will you?
You will not be demonstrating any failures of deduction under the actual principles of logic, will you?
You mimic the actual objections I make to your lack of rational response, as if you understand it and can make it into a counter argument: but you cannot understand or defeat the objections to your lack of rational response, can you? Mimicry, while supposedly flattering, is not proper logic: it is irrational.
You are very close to the end of your term here. If you choose to provide some actual logic in your defense, then do it.
If you can provide empirical, experimental, replicable and replicated, falsifiable and not falsified, peer reviewed, scientific, hard data in defense of your position, then do it.
There is no point in any of your other blather. So don't bother with more denials. Either put up or shut up. Make actual arguments or you will be shut off. Your remaining time here is very short.
Once again you have made up “facts” which are false.
I didn't say the brain was fully formed. I said it was formed enough to think independently of parental controls.
Who is "point-squirming" now?
If it makes any difference, I didn't accept that I was an atheist until after I was 25. In adolescence I was a "seeker". I explored all faiths. Atheism simply makes more sense than the claims of any faith.
"Any morals which an Atheist claims for himself are not originated from Atheism (which has no morals attached to it, only rejection of moral authority), but are co-opted from some other ideology, including the desire to stay out of prison, which is purely pragmatic and not a moral code."
Right, like today I will be against child molestation and for equality for woman. Even if no one is looking. I'll probably stick with that tomorrow too.
Correlating morals with functional materialist results is a false equivalence.
How so? People act better to each other produces a happier society. Non-theistic societies are demonstrably happier.
You are rejecting this by saying how people treat each other has no bearing on the material results?
As for prison populations, the Atheists are converted to Muslim in prison in high numbers.
Source, please?
So .. your argument is that they are arrested as atheists, but convert to Muslims thus skewing the numbers of atheists in prison?
...
Okay that sounds like utter nonsense but I will happily change my mind when presented with sufficient evidence.
All empty accusations and avoidances, without actual reasons for not providing argument or evidence.
..
You will not be demonstrating any failures of deduction under the actual principles of logic, will you?
Excuse me? You think your argument reasonably concludes with deism? That it does not I think clearly demonstrates your failure of deduction and your disregard for any logical principals.
I've pointed this failure out multiple times and your response has been to retort that I abandon and denigrate logic. Which is complete bullshit.
Your argument is bad and you can't defend it, so you avoid addressing the issue by projecting your failing onto the other.
The empirical evidence is in your post. The failed logic is there for everyone to see. I've pointed out that you are using a fallacy of equivocation. Non-physical is not equivalent to deism. This is a logical response.
Your failure to address it merely reinforces what utter nonsense your argument is.
Jeremy,
The argument I presented has three premises:
1. Some things are changing
2. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else
3. An essentially ordered concurrent chaing cannot be infinitely long
So to rebut, you would need to show the negation of one of those:
1. Nothing is changing
2. Some things can change themselves
3. An essentially ordered concurrent chain can be infinitely long
Let's see if you addressed those premises anywhere:
I did, once again, give you two points which both completely counter your argument.
Nope.
You didn't respond, except once again to declare you've never met an atheist that actually understands the argument.
Nothing here.
A sound rebuttal in any formal debate I'm sure. /sarcasm
Nada.
Have you perhaps considered the possibility you've been talking absolute nonsense this entire time?
Negatorie.
How about this? I've never met an AGNOSTIC who properly understands Aquinas Ways. They simply allow for too much equivocation, resist firm definitions, and simply delight in the idea that because they are "open" that all others are "closed."
All fascinating facts I'm sure, but irrelevant to the argument's soundness.
YOU are not a theist. Therefore YOU don't find the arguments convincing. Therefore YOUR argument is unconvincing by YOUR standards.
Again, fascinating facts for a different topic, but none address the argument in question.
http://xkcd.com/774/
Nothing here.
Martin, if your arguments made sense, if they were convincing, if they reflected reality, I (and every other atheist) would look at them and say "Wow .. I guess the god of western monotheism MUST exist."
Nothing here either.
But your arguments are BAD. They wouldn't convince ANYONE who doesn't already PRESUPPOSE western monotheism.
Again, failure to address the argument.
So excuse me if I'm not about to toss out my mind just so I can change it to be "right".
Nothing.
So it looks like you've wated a lot of time talking about things other than the argument. If the argument were so bad, you would just say which premise is false. All the emotional diatribes you are spitting out are failures to do so, and so you are thinking with your heart instead of your brain.
Try again.
”I didn't say the brain was fully formed. I said it was formed enough to think independently of parental controls.”
By which you meant that the choice of an adolescent is valid. And now you are denying the consequence of your own position.
”Atheism simply makes more sense than the claims of any faith.”
By which you imply logically, but have shown no logic in defense of your position. You make unsupported assertions, only, ever.
”Right, like today I will be against child molestation and for equality for woman. Even if no one is looking. I'll probably stick with that tomorrow too.”
Neither of which is in any way a tenet of Atheism, nor related to Atheism.
”Correlating morals with functional materialist results is a false equivalence.
How so? People act better to each other produces a happier society. Non-theistic societies are demonstrably happier.
Happiness is a false metric because it is indirect and is assumed as a result of the cause you desire for it. Since morality relates to behaviors, it is those behaviors which must be measured. Happiness might be caused by the complete genocide of certain subpopulations; it might have any number of causes entirely unrelated to morality. Liberals think that happiness comes from making everyone exactly equal, regardless of what the individual wants.
”You are rejecting this by saying how people treat each other has no bearing on the material results?”
No. I am rejecting it because it is a Jump to Cause Fallacy which has no basis in fact other than a false statistical correlation. Ask people in China, how happy they are. Ask those in Myanmar. Ask those in North Korea. You believe exactly what you want to believe and you demonstrate that at every comment.
Re: 1997 Federal Bureau of Prisons Data.
There are multiple versions of what is purported to be data from the FBOP. It appears that it cannot be verified, yet Atheists quote the data as if it were real. Here is a competing set of 1997 FBOP data, one which seems to me to be more in line with reality:
Catholic 29,267 31.432%
Protestant 26,162 28.097%
None/Atheist/Unknown 18,537 19.908%
Muslim 5,435 5.837%
American Indian 2,408 2.586%
Nation of Islam 1,734 1.862%
Rastafarian 1,485 1.595%
Jewish 1,325 1.423%
Church of Christ 1,303 1.399%
Pentecostal 1,093 1.174%
Moorish 1,066 1.145%
Buddhist 882 0.947%
Jehovah's Witnesses 665 0.714%
Adventist 621 0.667%
Eastern Orthodox 375 0.403%
Latter-day Saints 298 0.320%
Scientology 190 0.204%
Hindu 119 0.128%
Santeria 117 0.126%
Sikh 14 0.015%
Baha'i 9 0.010%
ISKCON 7 0.008%
-------------------- ------ --------
Total 93,112 100.000%
Recent prison conversions into Islam are estimated to be quite high, but I can’t find the data which would pin it down. So I retract my statement concerning conversions to Islam (until I find the data to support it) and it appears to be a non-issue in light of the above data which shows that non-belief / Atheism is not 0.2% as Atheists want us to believe.
However, since the source of all the 1997 FBOP data is non-confirmed, then both the Atheist assertion concerning prison populations of Atheists as well as any counter assertions have no grounding in believable data. At a minimum, the Atheist assertions are not to be considered believable without believable source data.
”You will not be demonstrating any failures of deduction under the actual principles of logic, will you?
Excuse me? You think your argument reasonably concludes with deism? That it does not I think clearly demonstrates your failure of deduction and your disregard for any logical principals.”
It is very destructive to a dead horse to continue beating it well beyond its demise. If you make the claim that a deity is not an agent, you are going beyond any rational boundaries.
”I've pointed this failure out multiple times and your response has been to retort that I abandon and denigrate logic. Which is complete bullshit.
Your argument is bad and you can't defend it, so you avoid addressing the issue by projecting your failing onto the other.”
Last call. Your attitude of denial is beyond any rational contribution here. You are repeating non-charges, made without evidence or logic, and which are merely denials, not refutations or disproofs.
Since you have nothing of logical or evidentiary value to present as support for your case, and since you make noises of denialism as your flavor of refutation but fail to demonstrate any defects of deduction or empirical grounding, you are a detraction to this blog and your presence here is without value. You have been given ample time and opportunity to use actual logic and empirical evidentiary support for your claims and you do not, ever, do that. Your comments are a waste of time.
You will not be allowed to comment further on this blog.
eternal says,
the point was that atheists don't have the kind of presuppositions mentionned in the text....
There is just one presupposition in the text. The rest are tactics commonly used by Atheists, based on that one supposition.
at least i dont so if you kind find one group of a set that does not show a particular characteristic of that set then you cannot say that all memebers of the set have that characteristic.”
I suspect that you have the one presupposition which is mentioned in the text.
”so if all atheists have the presuppositions mentionned in the text.... i am a black swan!!”
You have misread the text.
”(but i think most are like me, not like what you wrote as an example)”
I also suspect that I have had discussions with more Atheists than you have; that is unprovable and unproductive, as is your assumption that everyone is just like you.
”"Your remaining time here is very short."
This is actually the second time Jeremy has been banned.
”oh oh.... what will be jeremy`s number on your ban list?
when am i getting my own threat? don`t tell me my non-sense is actually less banning material than jeremy`s attempt to discuss!?!?!
;-) ;) ;)”
Jeremy was not attempting to discuss, he was attempting to prove that his own ideology is correct by using non-logic and evidentiary avoidance, while attempting to avoid actual logic and evidence. That is the only consistent thing about Jeremy’s comments. He was given weeks to learn logic and to produce hard empirical evidence, but he preferred constant denial and avoidance. He was actually given too much time, which he wasted.
So far, you have not had time to stick in the denialist and avoidance mode. So the answer is that the timing is up to you.
No response to my comment?
If Stan truly believes in a burden of rebuttal then I find this lack of response very interesting indeed!
A Klein says,
”’A person who is “open” is not an Atheist, he is a seeker.
If that seeker lacks belief in a god then that seeker is an atheist. If that seeker believes in a gods then that seeker is a theist.”
Hmmm. Lacking belief = non-believer; Atheist = positive assertion of a belief. A seeker would not make a positive assertion.
” The considerable emotional benefits which a vulnerable person derives from Atheism are virtually impregnable to disciplined, grounded logic.
The emotional benefits of most brands of theism is probably greater. When I was a theist I felt like I had a all-powerful father who loved me and looked after my interests. I felt this father would punish disbelievers and allow me to live in paradise with my deceased relatives. Is this vastly less logical and more emotional?”
It is not theism which is being analyzed here on this blog. A Tu Quoque Fallacy, as is given here, does not defeat the argument because it does not address it. The charge against Atheism is not ameliorated by comparing it to other things, including personal experiences. The charge must be addressed full head on.
”"Grounded" logic? If you are talking about presuppositionalism then your logic is grounded in itself and is circular.”
Unless you can back up this charge it seems to be without merit. Presuppositions are arguable and analyzable just as is any argument. If you mean that deliberately presupposing a deity, then I agree; but presuppositionalism also includes analyzing other a priori presuppositions which deny and block access to axiom-based logic.
”When a person revels in the “freedom” that accompanies the denial of authority, he becomes a virtual king, over whom no one and nothing presides,
I live in a society of laws with actual authorities above me not to mention a literal monarch...”
And yet as an Atheist you are at liberty to define your own morals, theory of evidence, and worldview. Your mind is your own, unless you relinquish it.
”For example, the Atheist cannot be proven “wrong” because he will claim not to have taken a position and so cannot be disproved.
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. If you want to convince an atheist then simply prove a god exists.”
And here you prove the point exactly; you deny that you deny the existence of a deity. If a person hears the proposition he can either accept it or deny it or ignore it. Atheists do not ignore it; they deny it, and they do so as a positive assertion of fact.
The dodge that Atheism is a “lack of belief” doesn’t pass any test of logic: Atheists deny that there exists any deity. Then they deny that they deny it.
”Or he will claim that there is “no evidence” just after having been handed evidence.
When has anyone provided any evidence of gods?
Atheists claim to have a worldview based on logic and evidence; they have neither logic for disproof nor empirical evidence to show that their belief is true or valid: their claim ofbeing based on logic and evidence is false.
Moreover, the comment above is a Tu Quoque Fallacy which is a diversionary attempt to avoid answering the issue head on.
And finally, when given material, physical evidence to disprove, Atheists dissemble. For example, you are invited to provide material empirical, experimental, replicable and replicated, falsifiable and not falsified, peer reviewed scientific evidence refuting that the “miracle at Lourdes” did not occur as claimed.
”Or he will claim no burden of rebuttal because the demand is “irrational” or “absurd” that he provide support for his worldview.
"Burden of rebuttal"? True until proven false may be a fine standard for secondary school (high school) debates but that standard is reversed in debates in tertiary (college) debating. Reality isn't a high-school debate or a court of law.”
Burden of Rebuttal is not "true until proven false", it is a demand that counter arguments be made using the same criteria as the intial argument.
Nor is it "false until proven false", which is the Atheist contention. The Burden of Rebuttal demands that a real reason be given when declaring an assertion to be false; that reason is subject to the same standards which apply to the original assertion. The original assertion must be proved false, not merely asserted to be false for general principles of distaste.
”Atheism is rebellion; the rejection is an emotional reaction which has positive emotional effects for an emotionally needy individual.
How do you know this is a fact? And if you don't know this is a fact, why are you stating it as if it were so? Is it what you feel? Or do you think everything you feel is true is true until it has been proved otherwise? “
Atheist rebellion frequently accompanies juvenile rebellion; juvenile rebellion against authority is well documented, and Atheist rebellion follows it closely. One of the most frequent reasons given in the PZ Meyers “Why I am an Atheist” letters refers to “freedom” and release from onerous authority.
”There is no longer any responsibility to anyone, especially if one is a juvenile, which is when Atheism is usually adopted.”
”Really? I feel responsibility to my wife, my children, my family, my workmates, my country, even that human race. In fact, I feel MORE responsibility as an agnostic atheist then when I felt God was in control and would "wipe every tear".”
What you feel is not a part of Atheism in any manner; Atheism gives no one any responsibility, it merely frees them from all authority, including any and all absolutes. Atheists are given no guidance under Atheism because there are no Atheist morals attached. So Atheists who want morals get them somewhere else, frequently by creating their own as they go.
”And juvenile? The International Bible Society say that 85 percent of all Christians make "their commitment to Jesus between the ages of 4 and 14". I doubt they make their commitment because of logic.”
And that is the reason that I suggest that all who want a valid worldview fully examine their worldviews using the principles of logic and rational thought when they are fully adult and open to what they find.
Atheists are not truth seekers (for them there is no truth, thus there is no reason to seek it - so they just declare it).
There is no truth? Propositions can be true. But "truth" is a concept, there is no such "thing" as "a truth" only statements that conform with reality and so have the value of true.”
Propositions can only be valid, not true. Only a proposition which conforms to the First Principles and is non-circular, non-infinite-regressive, and which has both a grounded set of verified premises and a valid format can be considered valid.
The Atheist position that there is no deity cannot pass these criteria, yet they declare their assertion to be true while first refusing to provide evidence for their assertion, and then arbitrarily refusing all attacks on their position regardless of the validity of the argument being made or the evidence provided. That process is demonstrated here on this blog almost daily.
“Reality” is a general term which carries Materialist baggage connoting “material” only existence. The conformity theory of truth (proposition conforms to “reality) is thus subject to bias which is not justified. Plus, under the Atheist system of situational asymmetrical skepticism not even any “existence” whatsoever can be justified, meaning that there is absolutely no truth in the Atheist system.
Without truth there is no falseness. The lack of falseness in Atheism means that nothing is either false or wrong. Hence, truth occurs when an Atheist so declares. And that is why Atheists are not trusted by the Other: there is no way for an Atheist to supply a trustworthy position for others to believe in.
So in your opinion a Satanist is more trustworthy than an atheist?
I don't know what Satanists claim or how they behave; I don't know how intellectually honest they are; I don't know if they deny what they believe. So I am unable to answer your question.
(To the self identified atheist) If atheism really means "without a belief in God/s", it seems rather peculiar that we don't find Buddhists, Vedantists, Taoists, New Agers, Christian gnostics etc on this blog arguing for their "lack of belief."
If you asked a Nagarjuna or a Plotinus, "Are you an atheist?", the answer would probably be, "It all depends."
On what do you think?
Eternal,
I'm glad you're having great time, especially in the game of schooling the uninformed. I hope that I have what it takes to partake in your knowledge.
Hypothetical.
When you say that my Buddhist, Taoist, and Vendantist friends may, or may not, be an atheist- how would we find out?
I suppose we would ask. If we asked our Buddhist guy, "Do you lack a belief in God/s?" and he answered, "What do you mean by God/s?"
What would be the correct response to safeguard the proper use of the label "atheist"?
Eternal says,
”first, there is no 'if', atheism really means "without a belief in God/s"”
False. This dodge appears to work but it fails at the level of empirical credibility: Atheist do have a god belief: they positively believe that there is no god. So the definitional gerrymandering fails the observation of actual Atheists in their behavior and declarations.
” as an atheist, i don`t have such belief. i don`t have a pet god that i believe in, nor do i have a vilain god that i actively reject. the reason to be on this blog is to clarify such misconceptions, and of course entertain myself because it's just a party in here all the time!!”
Then you are more appropriately termed a non-Theist or non-Deist.
By choosing not to declare a rejection you appear to want us to believe that you have no reasons for your non-belief, that your worldview is held in a rational and empirical void. That would be irrational of course. And since Atheism is always and forever a claim of the possession of logic and evidence, then you can’t legitimately claim to be an Atheist, and the definition given above is either false, or woefully inadequate to the task of describing Atheism as it really is. Thus, as you claim it, it is a either a purposeful subterfuge or a serious misunderstanding on your part regarding your own declared worldview.
Eternal says,
”- theists believe (1) to be true
- atheists (well at least ETERNAL the SUPER atheist) believe (1) to be false for... certain gods.”
Sorry. You don’t get to choose which god to disbelieve and which to believe and still be an Atheist.
You go to great lengths to assert your own definitions which you feel the authority to enforce on others due to what? You are an Atheist so you speak for them all? But of course you are not actually an Atheist, you are a non-Theist, misunderstanding Atheism from the ground up despite claiming the ultimate knowledge. And now you claim not even to be a non-Theist except in some unspecified instances. So in actuality you are not able to speak for any Atheist.
So you want to argue definitions and change them around to suit your needs of the moment. For a non-theist, that is a very Atheist avoidance tactic. So is your arrogance. Your insults are very Atheist, even if your beliefs are not.
Know what?
You also are a time waster.
Eternal,
I really do want to understand the atheist view better. Atheism means lacking a belief in God/s. Fine.
This label is mysterious unless it is clear what God/s entails.
What are the bare minimum bullet points that constitute what atheists lack a belief of?
A concrete example would be helpful. For example, let's bring back our Buddhist friend. He might or might not be an atheist. How would you find out?
”the difference is that for me, allllll the god claims I HAVE HEARD OF are false. but i don't have one that's more interesting than another, not one that's the cause of my atheism per se.”
Now you have made a positive assertion concerning “god claims”; you must have reasons and/or evidence for your position.
” you are correct here also, i don't pretend to speak for all atheists. i am telling you that YOUR simply view of what atheism means is wrong... sometimes. because sometimes you are right. your description of atheists work some times, but at other times in just fail miserably and prefer to just bash atheists as the irrational whole that they are. you're tooo cynical dude!!”
The assessment of what constitutes Atheism is given above; it is time for you to present logical refutations rather than your string of opinions.
” reading this quote, after my clarifications, should make you realize for yourself why it was off the mark, completely.
however, that's something you never do though. thats why i find you so funny stan. you have this problem of never, ever, re-reading something you wrote after being corrected written before.”
Actually, your constant stream of opinions in the absence of any logical reason for them doesn’t constitute “correction”, it represents the typical Atheist squirming type of antirational thinking. There is no logic or empirical data to be considered as “correction”, only your changeable positions. You seem to make the claim that Atheism is just whatever someone wants it to be whenever he wants it to be, rather than the obvious denialist worldview which it is. You have locked down the conversation in your attempt to avoid the real issue, which is your actual proof for your position. You throw out all these definitional issues rather than to present any logic or empirical data for having rejected any and all concepts of deity. In other words, you are skating all around the actual issue in typical Atheist avoidance dances so as not to engage, but to waste lots of time doing it.
” but you have been doing that for what, 4 years now? so who's making you lose your time stan, me or yourself? who said he was stopping to write on this blog only to never really leave it?
perhaps i should do the first move. i will stop commenting.”
Adios.
” have fun debunking some of my true beliefs on your other posts!!!
TAKE CARE STAN! HAVE FUN! STOP BEING SO ANGRY AT ATHEISTS! WE LOVE YOU!”
It’s true, but only in the limit: specific Atheists are quite annoying, because they refuse to engage in rational conversation and prefer to dance in all directions in order to avoid it. In your case, the constant arrogant condescension certainly grates, especially when you never ever get beyond the stalling process of arguing your new, sliding definitions rather than to progress to providing logic or evidence for your rejectionism. Enduring condescension in the absence of rational conversation does waste my time. Sometimes I get to discuss things with rational people; that makes this worthwhile.
Stan said:
And finally, when given material, physical evidence to disprove, Atheists dissemble. For example, you are invited to provide material empirical, experimental, replicable and replicated, falsifiable and not falsified, peer reviewed scientific evidence refuting that the “miracle at Lourdes” did not occur as claimed.
Again you put forward the "miracle at Lourdes" without specifying what you mean. Referring to the miracle in the singular, and the use of the words "occur as claimed" suggest that you're referring to the story of the lost girl, the divine apparition and the events leading to discovery of the spring. If this is the case, you have a very unusual definition of "material, physical evidence". All that's presented is a story, which is neither material nor physical. The existence of the spring itself provides no evidence whatsoever for the truth of events in the story. I could create a frivolous example of an origin story for something else to prove this point, but I don't think it's necessary.
If this is not the case, please elaborate what miracle you want atheists to investigate. Personally, I'm not prepared to go away and spend time looking into trying to scientifically refute particular healings, for example, if your response when presented with any evidence I might find is going to be: "Well that's not the miracle I was referring to. My point was about the impossibility of empirically falsifying the girl's claims" or somesuch.
Mike
Stan said:
And finally, when given material, physical evidence to disprove, Atheists dissemble. For example, you are invited to provide material empirical, experimental, replicable and replicated, falsifiable and not falsified, peer reviewed scientific evidence refuting that the “miracle at Lourdes” did not occur as claimed.
Again you put forward the "miracle at Lourdes" without specifying what you mean. Referring to the miracle in the singular, and the use of the words "occur as claimed" suggest that you're referring to the story of the lost girl, the divine apparition and the events leading to discovery of the spring. If this is the case, you have a very unusual definition of "material, physical evidence". All that's presented is a story, which is neither material nor physical. The existence of the spring itself provides no evidence whatsoever for the truth of events in the story. I could create a frivolous example of an origin story for something else to prove this point, but I don't think it's necessary.
If this is not the case, please elaborate what miracle you want atheists to investigate. Personally, I'm not prepared to go away and spend time looking into trying to scientifically refute particular healings, for example, if your response when presented with any evidence I might find is going to be: "Well that's not the miracle I was referring to. My point was about the impossibility of empirically falsifying the girl's claims" or somesuch.
Mike
Mike3838,
The Lourdes claim is not mine, and what I think about it does not matter in the least. The claim is sufficiently documented on the web; apparently you know a little about it, since you are already attempting to discredit it by deprecation rather than by presenting contrary evidence.
Yes, it is not possible to disprove any of it using AtheoMaterialist evidentiary principles, including the circumstances of the occurence of the material remnant, which is the spring. So Atheists are in no way in possession of knowledge under their own evidentiary requirements that the spring didn't occur exactly as documented, not documented by the girl, but by educated observers of the girl's actions, and the spring's origin.
Atheists object to providing material evidence, but always demand such from Theists. The consistent Special Pleading Fallacy from Atheists is demonstrated in this exercise.
It seems it was prescient of me to have sought clarification of your point before spending time getting bogged down in any medical research, as it looks like I've cut straight to what your response would have been had I done that.
I think you misunderstand me though, perhaps because I wasn't clear with my original point, which was that you have several times held Lourdes up as an example of a theist claim with material and physical evidence, your (presumably) best example of something within the realms of materialist thinking that is nevertheless unexplainable by the physical laws you insist the atheist reveres. You claimed at one point that the material evidence was there to be seen for anyone willing to make the journey. You've used Lourdes several times to try and prove one of your points, so it seems silly to say that what you think about it doesn't matter in the least.
My point was that this is plainly not the case - an origin story (no matter who wrote it down) is not in any way material or physically verifiable. The Lourdes origin claim is not a special case within the set of theist claims, as you seem to be saying (by virtue of the alleged material remnant evidence), any more than "Genesis is true because the world exists" Genesis" or "The Ark is a true story because rainbows exist" are valid arguments.
"My point was that this is plainly not the case - an origin story (no matter who wrote it down) is not in any way material or physically verifiable. "
Precisely my point. You can use all sorts of artifice to deny it happened at all, or how it happened, or the competence of the observers, etc. but you cannot provide proof with any degree of certitude that it did not happen exactly as stated. Repeat: there is no certitude attached to your denials. So in an environment of “evidence-based” knowledge, there is no reason to accept your unsupported opinion.
"The Lourdes origin claim is not a special case within the set of theist claims, as you seem to be saying (by virtue of the alleged material remnant evidence), ..."
Of course it is: it occurred in a modern nation, with many literate, educated observers who documented the events; denial is not disproof, it is just denial. What is needed here is material proof, not just denialist assertions that you need not provide it. That is the Special Pleading that accompanies all Atheist rejoinders and non-arguments.
"…any more than "Genesis is true because the world exists" Genesis" or "The Ark is a true story because rainbows exist" are valid arguments."
You cannot disprove it merely by disparaging it and making false comparisons. It is false to claim that “X is false because Y and Z are false”. You must prove X is false based on its own claims and evidence, by providing your own claims and evidence which, with certainty, disprove the claims and evidence provided for X. You have not indicated that you have even looked into the phenomenon, since your disparagement involves none of the particulars, but is intended - obviously - to discount any possible veracity a priori and without a shred of evidence to support your position.
Hence, just like all previous "evidence-based" attackers of this event, you do not choose to even understand the event; rather you look for ways to smear it without having to provide any actual empirical investigation (which you admit, above, could not defeat the claim).
So empiricism is a failure regarding providing any knowledge of the event? Of course it is: empiricism is a voluntarily materialist endeavor, which is limited in its scope to replicable material events. And this decorates the abject truncation of Atheist knowledge, a truncation by ideology rather than by evidence or logic.
You are providing the standard Atheist – Voidist excuses for not providing any support for your position other than your personal disparagement. That is insufficient.
"Repeat: there is no certitude attached to your denials. So in an environment of “evidence-based” knowledge, there is no reason to accept your unsupported opinion."
I made a comment on another post that "non-existent until proven extant" is how everyone (including you) go about their daily lives with regards to *everything else* except religion/gods, but you seem to think a different rule applies here. You have a multitude of "unsupported opinions" right now, an infinite number in fact, and it's perfectly rational to refrain from going out to seek support for them unless you experience something or information is presented to you that suggests they might not be correct.
That begs the question of what information you have presented that suggests that the null hypothesis of "there is no X", which is the usual starting point for proving existance of things, should be rejected for X = "god".
To my knowledge, you've laid out your argument in your post here, so I'll attempt to tackle that in a second. I apologise for bringing it to this thread, but I suppose it fits here since that's where we're having this conversation.
Firstly though, even if an atheist were to accept your deist argument, it comes down to a life choice for that atheist, and essentially your argument provides no impetus for an atheist to modify the way they go about their life. There's certainly no reason to sign up to one of the various contradictory religions, all of which still have no rational basis and no logical arguments in their favour. So while atheism by itself doesn't provide a moral framework of absolute truth, neither does your deism - both have to look elsewhere to find their values.
On to your argument:
"This is an attempt at an intellectual dodge, a deception which ignores the burden of proof for their actual claim that there is no deity."
Nope. It's perfectly rational and consistant with the way everybody makes decisions every day. If evidence for X hasn't been shown to me, then why should I behave as though X exists? If the best argument for existence is based on numerous currently unprovable assumptions about the initial state of the universe, why should I behave as though X exists? Especially when, even allowing for a second that the argument might be 100% valid, the impact of its truth on my life would be zero (unless you care to extend your argument to Heaven or Hell?)
Cont...
... Cont
Part 1. Given that the universe started from some existence which was prior to the existence of mass / energy, the universe itself started as a non-physical entity
This one has already been argued over relentlessly and I'm not going to pick apart the whole sub-argument here. There are other questions to raise.
Part 2. The initiation of the existence of the universe was not random; was not self-initiated, was not spontaneous.
Justification for all three of these statements is given as "We do not observe universes randomly/spontaneously/self startingly popping into existence" and "We have actual evidence of only one universe, occurring just once".
Even if universes were popping up all over the place all the time, I see no reason (although apparently you do) to expect that we would be able to detect them from within our own universe. You've made three *massive* generalisations about "universes" here based on observation of just one. And you don't see a problem with that? For me this step introduces astronomical levels of uncertainty that undermine the rational acceptability of the argument. If I was to present one observation of an event and draw a conclusion about all instances of that event, how rationally acceptable would you say that conclusion would be, in general?
That'll do for now, I need to be somewhere but I look forward to reading your response later.
Mike
”That begs the question of what information you have presented that suggests that the null hypothesis of "there is no X", which is the usual starting point for proving existance of things, should be rejected for X = "god".”
That is the point of the argument, to present that information in a step by step fashion. The supposed null hypothesis is a truth statement which cannot itself be verified, and presents no reason for its belief or use as a truth qualifier, as I will discuss below.
The null hypothesis asks by implication:
1. What can be known.
2. What can be known with reasonable certainty.
3. What can be known with total certainty.
The usual tactic taken by Skeptics is to lure the opponent into declaring #1 or #2, then placing the #3 demand as a switch-up. The #3 implication is Radical Skepticism, which is internally non-coherent, since it cannot be known with total certainty that total certainty exists; therefore the certainty of the null hypothesis itself and its implications is not knowable with certainty, certainly not with total certainty. If the null hypothesis is uncertain, then its value is only in its perception to some individuals, which is of no value to logical deduction.
The hypothesis-deduction which you are analyzing takes the position of #2, which asserts that there is reasonable rational cause to accept certain propositions, especially when their contraries fail.
”Justification for all three of these statements is given as "We do not observe universes randomly/spontaneously/self startingly popping into existence" and "We have actual evidence of only one universe, occurring just once".
Even if universes were popping up all over the place all the time, I see no reason (although apparently you do) to expect that we would be able to detect them from within our own universe. You've made three *massive* generalisations about "universes" here based on observation of just one. And you don't see a problem with that? For me this step introduces astronomical levels of uncertainty that undermine the rational acceptability of the argument. If I was to present one observation of an event and draw a conclusion about all instances of that event, how rationally acceptable would you say that conclusion would be, in general?”
(more below)
The null hypothesis, used in the interpretation you give above: skeptical denial demanding evidence, favors one universe. The existence of other universes is non-falsifiable, and is therefore a non-empirical, metaphysical extrapolation; i.e. it is an hypothesis–deduction which is made without any empirical evidentiary support, a metaphysical deduction made in support of another metaphysical premise.
The physical argument against spontaneous universes is that in order to prevent them from popping up all the time and everywhere there must be an internal limiting function which prevents total spontaneity, therefore the universe(s) have an a priori element, which in turn means that they do not spring from nothing.
A logical argument against spontaneous multiverses is the Inductive Fallacy. Your argument, that the existence of one thing means that there are more like it… is an extrapolation without evidence, an example of the infamous Failure of Induction. If fact you argue this yourself, although inadvertently it appears.
Another logical argument against spontaneous multiverses is the Reductio Ad Absurdum consideration of the contrary to the assertion, “there are multiple universes”. The contrary to this assertion is that “there are not multiple universes”. Here we enter into your conundrum: while the contrary matches our knowledge base better than the original claim, you might feel it necessary to respond that it cannot be neglected as a possibility despite failing the logic. This places you squarely in the position of rejecting logic, and asserting a metaphysic in support of another metaphysic. But you reject that in advance by asserting the null hypothesis, above, wherein certainty to some unstated degree is required.
Repeating the final part of your statement:
”For me this step introduces astronomical levels of uncertainty that undermine the rational acceptability of the argument. If I was to present one observation of an event and draw a conclusion about all instances of that event, how rationally acceptable would you say that conclusion would be, in general?”
For example, claiming that there must be other universes, based on there being exactly one known observation of a universe? I give it no credence, especially as a falsifier of the proposal. The reasons are twofold. First, as you say, there is no reason to extrapolate based on one instance (inductive Fallacy). Second, multiple universes in no way falsify the proposal being made.
So the issue of multiple universes, which commonly arises, is trivial to the issue at hand.
However, it is reasonable to develop hypotheses based on physical issues that are resolved with some degree of probability, and to deduce propositions from that base which also have some degree of physical probability.
You're just projecting your own closed-minded way of thinking onto us. YOU are the one who doesn't believe in logic. YOU are the one who still believes something you were told when you were 5. We question everything. We are all about logic. We think assumptions are bad and anything anyone thinks is unquestionable is evil, therefore presuppositions are intelectual poison. You think everyone makes assumptions before they start thinking and then never ever questions them.
You are so stupid, i don't think you can even theoretically imagine someone thinking. Questioning your own belief hurts your brain doesn't it?
De Ha,
You prove nothing with this sort of troll-tripe. Making claims with such braggadocio is without any intellectual content: i.e., empty.
Sorry. Either contribute something concrete, or go away, OK?
Not Allowed?? Now you are God, right? Except: still no content.
Post a Comment