“In the study, the no-faith segment was defined as anyone who openly identified themselves as an atheist, an agnostic, or who specifically said they have "no faith." In total, this group represents a surprisingly small slice of the adult population, about one out of every 11 Americans (9%). However, in a nation of more than 220 million adults, that comprises roughly 20 million people.Got that? 5,000,000 adults claim Atheism and “staunchly reject the existence of such a being [God].
Interestingly, only about five million adults unequivocally use the label "atheist" and, when asked to describe the nature of God, staunchly reject the existence of such a being. In other words, most of those who align with the no-faith viewpoint harbor doubts as to the existence or nature of a supreme deity but do not express outright rejection of God.”
I think that it is obvious that the “no god theories” version of Atheism is false. Empirically false.
“One of the outcomes of this profile - and one of the least favorable points of comparison for atheist and agnostic adults - is the paltry amount of money they donate to charitable causes. The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults..”The idea that Atheists are the empathetic part of society is false.
“Many of the most ardent critics of Christianity claim that compassion and generosity do not hinge on faith; yet those who divorce themselves from spiritual commitment are significantly less likely to help others.”Much of what Atheists claim about themselves is false. When data shows up, that’s what it shows.
It is already obvious that they are not logic and evidence based. Now it is shown that they really do reject God, and that they are not particularly empathetic, but are pikers.
74 comments:
Christians admit to being overweight with greater frequency (26% of no-faith, compared with 41% of active-faith)
Yeah well Christians are fat.
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/religionandgenerosity/
“The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns.”
"When they looked into how much compassion motivated participants to be charitable in such ways as giving money or food to a homeless person, non-believers and those who rated low in religiosity came out ahead: “These findings indicate that although compassion is associated with pro-sociality among both less religious and more religious individuals, this relationship is particularly robust for less religious individuals,” the study found."
Har! To the tune of $200 a year. And one in five gives nothing. Zip. That's real empathy. And the Atheists don't go out much to help, but they do crow about giving their bodies to science when they are done with them.
"Yeah well Christians are fat.
And Atheists are stressed out.
Here's more from Berkeley:
"
Compassion is defined in the study as an emotion felt when people see the suffering of others which then motivates them to help, often at a personal risk or cost.
While the study examined the link between religion, compassion and generosity, it did not directly examine the reasons for why highly religious people are less compelled by compassion to help others. However, researchers hypothesize that deeply religious people may be more strongly guided by a sense of moral obligation than their more non-religious counterparts."
If Atheists had this emotion, "compassion", it is to the tune of $16.17 per month. Which is a pretty weak emotion. Not much help to the orphans in Africa. Especially if half of it goes to the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Whoa. Typo. I underrepresented the Atheist empathy. It should have read $16.67. That would buy the orphans four latte's per month.
Point being that whatever atheists do give, it appears to be motivated by compassion.
Whereas when theists give, its so they can look like the big man in church.
I'm just saying you are wrong, and pointing to the evidence which supports it.
I should clarify.
I personally think MANY theists generously donate their time and wealth out of generosity and compassion.
I'm just providing the study for contrast, and as evidence for atheists being motivated by empathy.
And also how theists are fat.
"Point being that whatever atheists do give, it appears to be motivated by compassion.
Whereas when theists give, its so they can look like the big man in church."
So in other words, theists give because they are self disciplined and act according to principle.
Atheists fail to give because they only act according to flighty sentiment.
Thanks for clarifying.
"look like the big man in church."
Your own study reference from Berkeley said that Theists give out of morality, while Atheists give out of emotion.
Your statement is bigoted. Maximally.
Atheist motivation by empathy is noise level or below. one in five is absolutely not motivated by anything.
Your statement is bigoted. Maximally.
For someone who has a blog dedicated to denigrating people with a certain theological position, you sure are quick to play the martyr card.
I thought you people were supposed to be jolly.
“The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns.”
And that's basically what the study says....
And you dodged the relevant point to unjustly call me a bigot.
What kind of logic do you call that?
Atheist motivation by empathy is noise level or below. one in five is absolutely not motivated by anything.
One in five atheists are dicks? Is that what your saying?
Sure I'll agree to that.
What do you think the rate of theist dicks:nice people is?
Maybe 1 in 5?
So in other words, theists give because they are self disciplined and act according to principle.
Atheists fail to give because they only act according to flighty sentiment.
If "flighty sentiment" is "compassion and generosity" and "Self disciplined and according to principle" is "doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns", then yes you are representing the study accurately.
I attack the thought processes, not the people. You attacked the people.
"One in five atheists are dicks?"
Reductionist, juvenile insults.
"If "flighty sentiment" is "compassion and generosity" and "Self disciplined and according to principle" is "doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns", then yes you are representing the study accurately."
Then you admit that the extent of "compassion and generosity" at $16.67 per month is representative of Atheism and its concerns for the plights of other peoples?
And you admit that self-discipline and principle are of no matter to Atheism and its concerns for the plights of other peoples?
Even from a purely Consequentialist viewpoint, which works better for the plights of other peoples?
I guess that we are done here.
I stand by my statement. Your reductionist insults are bigoted.
What are the good properties of atheists?
"What are the good properties of atheists?"
Since the word "good" is relative for Atheism, then all properties can be considered good, tautologically. That's why the claim "good without god" can be made with a straight face.
What do you like best about atheists?
"Got that? 5,000,000 adults claim Atheism and “staunchly reject the existence of such a being [God]."
This implies that I, an atheist, would "staunchly" reject God even if he materialized before me. That's not going to happen, but if it did I would have nothing to worry about. After all, if he is God, then it was his decision that I be an atheist.
"Since the word "good" is relative for Atheism, then all properties can be considered good, tautologically."
And maybe atheists want to think about what good MEANS, instead of looking to prefabricated ideas about it. You know, the stuff philosophers have been arguing about for centuries.
That's why people turn away from religious indoctrination and the hypocrisy that is in organized religion. They want to be able to think for themselves, not taught WHAT to think. The fact remains that people will have diverse ideas about "good vs. evil," with various shades in-between. It doesn't pander to absolute truth claims.
Asking questions like,"What is truth? What is good? Why is murder wrong? Is there an objective reality beyond the everyday senses?" does not rely on dogma but on conscience.
Absolute truth claims are the first criteria in Kimball's book "When Religion Becomes Evil," by the way.
Atheists are not good and have no good properties. This is not a bigot statement because it is a fact that we know that there is not one good person.
"And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."
So no person is good but atheists are attacking the one Good thing that exists that is the God of the Bible. So there is proof that theyare worse people.
Anonymous, come out from behind the skirts of anonymity and choose a moniker.
"They want to be able to think for themselves, not taught WHAT to think. The fact remains that people will have diverse ideas about "good vs. evil," with various shades in-between. It doesn't pander to absolute truth claims.
Asking questions like,"What is truth? What is good? Why is murder wrong? Is there an objective reality beyond the everyday senses?" does not rely on dogma but on conscience."
Which is why Atheism is dangerous; accepting no higher moral authority than one's own opinion is the reason that Atheists cannot be trusted, even by other Atheists.
No Atheist has any moral authority to decide what is moral. What Atheists want to do, is to do anything they want and then justify it with their typical post hoc rationalization.
Morality exists no more for Atheists because the word has no meaning; it now means every behavior: any and every behavior can be justified under some rationalization. It's been done - to death.
And under the determinism which accompanies Atheism, there exists no consciousness and no conscience: the brain does it incognito, and then informs the conscious mind which is just along for the ride.
Claiming conscience is bogus under Atheism.
"Bah, you can't handle the argument so you cry about my language."
Bigotry is what is: language. Your argument is specious and trivial and false.
raleighpursuit,
"This implies that I, an atheist, would "staunchly" reject God even if he materialized before me. That's not going to happen, but if it did I would have nothing to worry about. After all, if he is God, then it was his decision that I be an atheist."
If "he is God", then free will exists, and you made the decision.
Only under Atheism does free will not exist - by definition, not actuality.
"Lex said...
What do you like best about atheists?"
Why do you ask such a bizarre question?
Lex,
I can see what you're doing.
In case you haven't noticed - this is a hate site. It's not about discussing atheists. It's about spreading hate.
Asking questions like "What are the good properties of atheists?" and "What do you like best about atheists?" are like walking into the office of the KKK and asking about the good qualities of black people. As far as people like Stan and Storm are concerned there is nothing good about atheists.
It is quite common for the atheo-left to jump to the charge of "Hate" when they cannot get their way in an argument or other situation.
It is the same species of charge as "racist" when a policy of the Administration is challenged, and is intended as a shut-down Ad Hominem, in the same sense as racial and gender and sexual slurs are intended.
This site is here to analyze Atheism and Atheist propositions, Skeptical denials, and logical issues. If discovering that Atheism is irrational is an action of Hate under the Atheists definition, there is little that can be done about that.
As far as characteristics specific to Atheists which are admirable, that is impossible to answer because Atheism has no characteristics other than rejectionism. If a person is an Atheist and has other characteristics adopted outside of Atheism we have something to discuss, but only if those extra characteristics are specified. A person defined only as Atheist has only rejectionism without refutation as a characteristic to consider.
If there are admirable characteristics regarding Atheism then I'm sure you'll present them here: feel free. The attempt has been made to present Atheists as empathetic, yet the degree of empathy is demonstrably miniscule. But surely there are other things to consider, so recommend some.
Here is your chance, just make sure that it is purely Atheism which generates these characteristics, and not something extraneous to it.
Which is why Atheism is dangerous; accepting no higher moral authority than one's own opinion is the reason that Atheists cannot be trusted, even by other Atheists.
Ah you see that is why theists are dangerous. Because they accept the authority of religion.
You can never know what they will select from their holy books.
Forgive they neighbour? or murder he who works on the Sabbath. Maybe both.
Theists morals are as capricious as any humans. The problem is that they reject any moral authority (and the responsibility that comes with it) to determine for themselves what are proper morals.
Morality has no meanings for theists. God's will is equal to morality. This is an abandonment of morality, and a suspension of the will to think critically and compassionately. Not to mention how awfully quiet god has been lately.
Since theists have no personal moral authority, and thus no personal moral accountability, they are capable of anything and cannot be trusted.
Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions. Blaise Pascal
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion. Steven Weinberg
This is entirely Tu Quoque, the most simplistic of erroneous argument fallacies: it is the child's "you too!"
There is no claim being made here on this blog (nor anywhere, most likely) that Theists adhere perfectly to Theism. So this childish attack is against a position not taken, and is a Straw Man Fallacy, filled with false allegations mixed with a few true.
The intent of this attack made here is not to argue any point head on, it is an attempt to smear and derail the conversation from the subject at hand which is this:
Atheism is analyzed using the same criteria that Atheists think they use on theism. However, it is eminently demonstrable that Atheism cannot defend itself or make any substantive attack using actual disciplined logic. Nor do Atheists possess a single shred of material evidence to support Atheism.
As a secondary point, Atheism rejects moral theories, including features which are criteria for character traits such as honesty, integrity, etc. It is considered more important to reject the basis for rational thought and then "think for oneself", than to subject oneself to submission to known disciplines for logic and rational assessment.
"Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions. Blaise Pascal"
Pascal, who died in 1662, had not taken into account the French Revolution, the Leninists, the Maoists, and the other passionate Atheist mass murderers of the 20th century.
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion. Steven Weinberg"
Is it not obvious that Weinburg leaves open the question of what is "good", since Atheism has no definition for that? Further, Weinburg has no excuse for not acknowledging the Atheist atrocities that filled the 20th century with blood... unless he acknowledges that Atheism attracts only the bad people he has claimed. So this is a blatant logic failure.
These bumper sticker soundbites don't reflect any particular truth which is justifiable in any rational manner.
This is entirely Tu Quoque, the most simplistic of erroneous argument fallacies: it is the child's "you too!"
No shit!
You don't want logic or debate, you want emotional denigration. I'm doing exactly what you are doing.
It is a YOU TOO! See, you do recognize that your previous post "is an attempt to smear and derail the conversation from the subject at hand".
Which if you look at your title thread, the thesis is:
"The idea that Atheists are the empathetic part of society is false."
Yet, as you noted, there is plenty of truth in there.
OF COURSE the VAST MAJORITY of theists don't act or think this way. Just like the VAST MAJORITY of atheists don't think; well there is no god, I may as well rape these women and eat their spines.
I think Texas Ranger summarized your position succinctly. So perfectly I can't tell if his opinion is his own, or a parody of yours.
Texas Ranger has parodied my position, which is that Atheism is what is on the grill, not Atheists. There is a difference between saying that Atheism is dangerous, and saying that Atheists are dangerous. I have made that perfectly clear and Atheists don't want to hear that. In fact, you specifically are intent on claiming that I want emotional denigration, yet is you who have called names and said "too bad you don't like that".
When Henson uses denotative definitions, you declare that to be nit picking and you denigrate the concept of deduction which you apparently have no understanding of. You have made no attempt to comprehend the distinction between the two. Instead you invoke Appeal to Public Opinion, which you really don't know if it supports your opinion of definition/deduction, yet you represent it as if you do have that knowledge. And you refuse to acknowledge that it doesn't matter what public opinion is in the light of actual logic.
You are entirely unprepared for a mature conversation, merely claiming against all evidence presented (and not refuted, only denigrated) that Henson is not doing what he obviously is doing. And making that claim a truth statement based not on any knowledge of logic, but merely on your idea of what "seems right to you".
Because you are not familiar with logic you turn to accusations of emotionalism, rather than to address the logic issues presented to you. Merely repeating over and over that it seems like a definition to you has exactly no weight, but you escalate your points with false equivalency in Tu Quoque.
You not only appear not familiar with logical discussions, you appear ignorant of the discipline of logic itself. If that were not so, you would have addressed the issue of denotative definitions vs. deduction in a calm and straightforward, logic based propositional manner. Instead you escalate to accusations.
You have failed to make your point and have instead demonstrated the complete lack of logic available to refute the claim which you dislike.
You have been challenged to provide a logical refutation, but you have not attempted such. Unless you do so, there seems to be no reason to continue discussing this with you.
I used the blog's search function to find statements made by Stan about atheists.
Some are quotes:
Example: "There is no possible way to encounter Atheists without suspicion" is from December last year.
Some are part quotes:
Example: "Atheists are dangerous" is from Stan's statement "This is just one more reason why Atheists are dangerous".
Some are paraphrases.
Example: "Atheism is on the decline." is a summary of several posts about demographics.
I looked hard for any positive comments because I didn't want my post to appear slanted but I found none. In fact, I found statements saying if atheists had morals then they must have stolen them and are therefore thieves.
I hope that atheists don't judge all Christians based on Stan.
Oh I don't. I know plenty of reasonable theists and have never met someone as oblivious as stan insists on being.
So now we have unannotated and context free quotes as accusations.
The subject of Atheists not being trusted is not my issue, it was a poll. There are rational reasons why Atheists are not trusted; I gave those and as far as I remember they remain undisputed except for charges of bigotry and hypocrisy.
I have given the challenge to use this forum to display all the positive characteristics that anyone can think of, regarding Atheism, so long as it is just Atheism and not some other extraneous addition to Atheism.
So far Atheists here have not provided any reason or reasoning to believe that Atheism is a rational theory based on logic and/or material evidence. So their entire defense now is to claim that I hate Atheists and that this is a hate site.
There is no doubt that Atheists hate this site, that is obvious and to be expected. The criticism leveled against Atheism here cannot be refuted and is therefore called "hate"... the losers last resort.
Atheists should actually feel free to present their logical and evidentiary case in their defense and to present all the reasons that Atheism is good, after defining "good", of course.
So go for it. Present an actual case for Atheism. Why should an Atheist be trusted merely by knowing he is an Atheist? What is the logical case for Atheism? What is the material evidence which supports Atheism? How do you know Atheism is true?
"I hope that atheists don't judge all Christians based on Stan. "
Being without a moral base for judgment standards, the Atheist has only opinions; so it can't really matter much how the Atheist judges Christians.
Now, go ahead and elaborate on all the good characteristics of the basic Atheist, after defining the Atheist meaning of "good".
"as accusations."
I love how quoting you is now an accusation. You are the greatest.
"There is no doubt that Atheists hate this site, that is obvious and to be expected."
I'm an atheist-agnostic and I fucking LOVE this site. It's a good example of asymmetric skepticism. You know that theism can't stand up to scrutiny so discussion of it must be avoided at all costs. No matter how ridiculous it makes you seem. You often make arguments from the reverse of what a rational person would! You got your burden of proof reversed. It's awesome that you'd have the balls to "correct" people's logic when you have no qualifications and you hardly know what you're talking about. I loved it when you told that guy that if the flaws in the Cosmological Argument were so obvious why hadn't a philosopher pointed it out before. It's like - Whoosh - two hundred years of philosophy going right over your head!
I've been reading your site for more than a year and it's great to wake up in the morning and see you correcting scientists from all fields. Climate scientists are wrong - Stan was an engineer so he's right. Neuroscientists are wrong but you were an engineer so you know better. Telling some student studying language that a certain personality type doesn't exist because you looked it up (in the wrong book). It goes on and on.
I love it how you are always right and atheists are always wrong. Even if they are right about something they are still wrong. It must be terrifying to live inside your head. I'm privileged just to glimpse into it.
I don't want you to change. It's a great way to start my day. I don't care if you ban me. I'll still be watching this site. I need my daily dose of crazy. It makes the outside world seem sane.
I've never said this to a man before but I love you.
One of the big attractions of this blogspot is the intersting people that frequent it and the many many colorful expressions that one encounters here. I LOVE all of you. Stan's syle is certainly over the top, but that's why people like coming here.
But, when all is said and done, this site is about atheism. You may think Stan wrong, or angry, or just plain wacky, but the bottom line is that I haven't heard anyone at all make a positive case for atheism. No one. Not a single person among the legions of scientismatics that appear here have made a convincing argument that naturalism is true. Period.
I know.
"We haven't figured it out yet."
Just one more grant might do it, eh?
"I love how quoting you is now an accusation. You are the greatest."
Here we go
"You don't want logic or debate, you want emotional denigration"
Godless
"Lex,
I can see what you're doing.
In case you haven't noticed - this is a hate site. It's not about discussing atheists. It's about spreading hate."
Watcher
Atheists make these accusations because they cannot address the actual challenges which atheism faces. They interpret this challenge as hate, at least they present it that way for public consumption. The charge of hate is a tacit admission of failure to assemble an actual defense, logically and/or evidetially, for their belief system. And then they deny that they are making accusations at all.
In fact, I think I will address this issue in a full post, rather than buried in a comment thread.
”I'm an atheist-agnostic and I fucking LOVE this site. It's a good example of asymmetric skepticism.”
It is obviously asymmetrical from the title of the blog; but you apparently don’t understand what skepticism actually means.
”You know that theism can't stand up to scrutiny so discussion of it must be avoided at all costs. No matter how ridiculous it makes you seem.”
The site is focused on Atheism. If you cannot defend it, then that demonstrates the weakness of Atheism.
”You often make arguments from the reverse of what a rational person would!”
You are invited to make the arguments which you consider rational from the Atheist point of view, and then we can compare them to actual syllogistic, grounded, deductive argumentation.
”You got your burden of proof reversed.”
When a proposition is rejected, there is an obligation to give reasons for that rejection; otherwise it is only an irrational opinion with no basis for being believed by anyone but the faithful followers.
” It's awesome that you'd have the balls to "correct" people's logic when you have no qualifications and you hardly know what you're talking about.”
You have no idea what my qualifications are. This is an attack on the person, not on the person’s arguments. If you can defeat any of the arguments then do so. Otherwise, you are merely complaining in opinions which are unsubstantiated.
” I loved it when you told that guy that if the flaws in the Cosmological Argument were so obvious why hadn't a philosopher pointed it out before. It's like - Whoosh - two hundred years of philosophy going right over your head!”
That was not the observation: apparently you missed that. He claimed the argument to be circular. It is not circular, and that is patently obvious.
”I've been reading your site for more than a year and it's great to wake up in the morning and see you correcting scientists from all fields.”
Yes, some science is being placed onto the media as dogmatic truth when it is not. The known rules of empirical science are being violated more and more commonly. Objecting to that is seen as problematic only when the science has an ideological component.
” Climate scientists are wrong - Stan was an engineer so he's right. “
Climate science is not incorrigible truth as it is presented by certain activist-“scientists”. But objecting to that is problematic for those who wish for the ideology to be considered “settled”.
”Neuroscientists are wrong but you were an engineer so you know better.”
Neuroscientists are not wrong: Metaphysical extrapolations from neuroscience are unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable under Popper’s demarcation. Ideologists don’t like this restriction.
”Telling some student studying language that a certain personality type doesn't exist because you looked it up (in the wrong book). It goes on and on.”
You’ll have to be more specific. This doesn’t ring a bell.
(continued)
”I love it how you are always right and atheists are always wrong.
Atheists have every opportunity to make actual syllogistic, grounded, coherent arguments, and to argue them here. I wish they would. What they actually do more commonly, is to start an argument circularly or assert some other obvious logic error, and then refuse to budge from that. The rules for valid, coherent arguments are not mine. They are known, and they are available to everyone who can read and wants to know. Atheists do not pursue that. Apparently ever.
”Even if they are right about something they are still wrong”
Baseless charge. Demonstrate it or forget it.
” It must be terrifying to live inside your head.”
I truly believe that Atheists fear actual linear logic, as prescribed by the rules of deduction and argumentation. I think that this comment confirms that. What has been presented here has no semblance of a rational, logic based defense of Atheism. What has been presented is an attack on the site and an attack on the person, with only oblique mentions of subject matter and no defense of any subject.
” I'm privileged just to glimpse into it.
I don't want you to change. It's a great way to start my day. I don't care if you ban me. I'll still be watching this site. I need my daily dose of crazy. It makes the outside world seem sane. “
In nearly five years and well over 100,000 page views, only 6 people have been banned. Usually Atheists just scream a while and then head for the bushes when they cannot defend their faith-based religious views. People who have been banned were banned for being obstructionist. Your comments fit into the scream category, since they contain no attempt to justify Atheism either logically, or with empirical evidence.
"I've never said this to a man before but I love you."
Just keep your hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road, OK?
Not a single person among the legions of scientismatics that appear here have made a convincing argument that naturalism is true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism#Arguments_for_metaphysical_naturalism
no other methods have produced any consistent conclusions about the substance or causes of anything, much less anything supernatural.
That's why naturalism is the best explanation.
Why should an Atheist be trusted merely by knowing he is an Atheist?
You shouldn't. Trust should be earned by experience, not granted based on a proclaimed theological position. Duh.
Just like you shouldn't trust theists just because they are theists.
I mean, saying you are a theist says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about your morality as a person.
Just like saying you are an atheist...
Stan, honestly. If you want to insist on clear logic and reasonable argumentation, you should revise your tone.
If you don't want name calling, maybe you shouldn't end your title thread by calling an entire group of people pikers, hm?
Fatso.
”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism#Arguments_for_metaphysical_naturalism
no other methods have produced any consistent conclusions about the substance or causes of anything, much less anything supernatural.
That's why naturalism is the best explanation. “
Naturalism is the position that non-physical existence explicitly doesn’t exist. It presumes that non-physical entities would be shown to exist using physical techniques of observation, which is internally contradictory and therefore non-coherent. By declaring “substance or causes of anything”, the materialist dogma is asserted in order to eliminate a priori an existence type which cannot be tested for, and therefore is declared not to exist. This is the Category Error of Naturalism/Philosophical Materialism.
”Why should an Atheist be trusted merely by knowing he is an Atheist?
You shouldn't. Trust should be earned by experience, not granted based on a proclaimed theological position. Duh.”
Experience of what? (the use of “Duh” indicates a junior high school mentality at work here; this is not a comic book). The experience needed is to compare observed behaviors with claimed moral philosophy; the mere Atheist has no moral philosophy endowed by Atheism, so no comparison is possible.
Just like you shouldn't trust theists just because they are theists.
I mean, saying you are a theist says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about your morality as a person.
Just like saying you are an atheist...”
There is vast and obvious difference. Atheists as Atheists have no moral code; Theists do have, so comparison is possible for Theists but not for Atheists. For an Atheist, any behavior whatsoever is compatible with no-moral-code. For a Theist any deviation is immediately detectable.
Even though I repeat this over and over, Atheists don't want this to be true. So they fight the obvious, and they can't help but lose. According to (some) Atheists, 90% of the population must be deluded by thinking this way. So the answer is to attack them as "deluded", rather than to accept the rationality.
”Stan, honestly. If you want to insist on clear logic and reasonable argumentation, you should revise your tone.”
You require me to subject myself to you? I don’t think so. If you have any logic, you have failed to provide it so far. That’s because of my tone? I don’t think so. You are running very low on excuses for not providing logic for the Atheist position. What will it be after "tone"?
”If you don't want name calling, maybe you shouldn't end your title thread by calling an entire group of people pikers, hm?”
You are right, that was pejorative. I should have called the group “faux empathists”, or something similar but more closely descriptive to the actuality. No that is still pejorative I suppose. How about the “$16.67/month empaths”? That is factual, descriptive, and supported by the data. So it should serve as a category name, yes?
” Fatso.”
And there is the logic you claim you want to engage in.
So come on. Give us your logic and/or empirical data for rejection of the existence of a non-material agent.
Just Do It.
No more equivocation. No more excuses. No more accusations. Be the bigger man; ignore my tone and produce some logic.
Just Do It.
Do It.
No you are making a Category Error. We are only talking about concepts that provide answers or methods for obtaining such.
You are saying that is not the purpose of the "non-physical entities" which makes them completely irrelevant for the practical purposes of providing answers.
Experience of what?
Of the individual in question. Duh.
Atheists as Atheists have no moral code; Theists do have, so comparison is possible for Theists but not for Atheists. For an Atheist, any behavior whatsoever is compatible with no-moral-code. For a Theist any deviation is immediately detectable.
Theist moral codes are as varied as any. As you say, perhaps 90% of people are theistic. You are implying that over 6 billion people follow the same moral code. Demonstrable nonsense.
You require me to subject myself to you? I don’t think so. If you have any logic, you have failed to provide it so far. That’s because of my tone? I don’t think so.
Ah, no. I said if you don't want name calling on your site, you shouldn't instigate it.
Turn and turn about.
Do unto others.
Shit like that.
Hey, maybe that's a good basis for a moral code?
Reciprocal altruism?
So it should serve as a category name, yes?
Except the thesis of your topic was that atheists lack compassion. I sourced a legitimate study that said atheists are specifically motivated by compassion.
Then you shift the goal posts to complain about the quantity of their compassion.
Sorry bud, you lose.
So come on. Give us your logic and/or empirical data for rejection of the existence of a non-material agent.
I did, but you insist you don't have a definition of god. So I don't even know what we are talking about anymore.
Sorry. Is a "non-material agent" your definition of god? What happened to Jesus?
” Fatso.”
Shrug. I have empirical evidence to support that theists are overweight as a group. Maybe you should get some exercise. OR y'know, be the bigger man and take it for the obvious playful ribbing it was intended to be.
Just Do It.
Do It.
I did. Go back to the relevant thread and respond to my points.
”No you are making a Category Error. We are only talking about concepts that provide answers or methods for obtaining such.
You are saying that is not the purpose of the "non-physical entities" which makes them completely irrelevant for the practical purposes of providing answers.”
And you are still referencing physical-only answers. It is quite obvious that the existence of a non-physical entity cannot be addressed with physical testing. That is clearly a Category Error. There is at least one question requiring an answer which cannot be addressed by physical testing: “Is there a non-physical existence?”
I don’t understand your counter charge of Category Error.
"Experience of what?
Of the individual in question. Duh.
Atheists as Atheists have no moral code; Theists do have, so comparison is possible for Theists but not for Atheists. For an Atheist, any behavior whatsoever is compatible with no-moral-code. For a Theist any deviation is immediately detectable.
'Theist moral codes are as varied as any. As you say, perhaps 90% of people are theistic. You are implying that over 6 billion people follow the same moral code. Demonstrable nonsense.'"
You are ignoring the premise, and asserting non-pertinent information. So long as a Theist has a moral code, regardless of what it is, he can be measured against that code. Atheists have no moral code and cannot be measured against something which does not exist.
”You require me to subject myself to you? I don’t think so. If you have any logic, you have failed to provide it so far. That’s because of my tone? I don’t think so.
Ah, no. I said if you don't want name calling on your site, you shouldn't instigate it. “
You are right. I'll try to use specific descriptions rather than vernacular, no matter how accurate the vernacular might be.
”Turn and turn about.
Do unto others.
Shit like that.
Hey, maybe that's a good basis for a moral code?
Reciprocal altruism?
So it should serve as a category name, yes?
Except the thesis of your topic was that atheists lack compassion. I sourced a legitimate study that said atheists are specifically motivated by compassion.”
Yes. I agree. Motivated by empathy, to the tune of $16.67/month. That is the measure of their empathy. Check the data.
”Then you shift the goal posts to complain about the quantity of their compassion.
Sorry bud, you lose.”
Yes I agree again; Atheists are motivated by empathy (to the tune of $16.67 per month). That's the data.
”So come on. Give us your logic and/or empirical data for rejection of the existence of a non-material agent.
I did, but you insist you don't have a definition of god. So I don't even know what we are talking about anymore.”
Sorriest excuse ever. Where did you defend your rejection of “the existence of a non-material agent”?
Point to it please. We’ll discuss it.
”Sorry. Is a "non-material agent" your definition of god? What happened to Jesus?”
Basic Theism. Look it up. Better still, give your concept of the Theist proposition, and then refute that. Go for it.
”” Fatso.”
Shrug. I have empirical evidence to support that theists are overweight as a group. Maybe you should get some exercise. OR y'know, be the bigger man and take it for the obvious playful ribbing it was intended to be.”
Actually 59% are not overweight. Your claim of empirical evidence for the group is misguided. But don’t forget about the high stress levels provided by Atheism.
And: Kindly stay out of my ribs.
Back to the logical support for Atheism: Just Do It.
Do It.
”I did. Go back to the relevant thread and respond to my points.”
Point to it; don’t just imply that it is back there somewhere. I actually doubt that you made a case which was not discussed at the time. So make it here. The challenge is clear.
It is quite obvious that the existence of a non-physical entity cannot be addressed with physical testing.
It is quite obvious that the claim that a non-physical entity exists provides no answers or methods for obtaining such.
Thus it fails, especially in comparison to naturalism, the assumption of which has led to a vast amount of knowledge gained.
Does that make sense to you? Theism and naturalism (or religion and science) are both methods of understanding the world.
One provides practical answers. The other offers untestable claims. Agreed?
Yes I agree again
You agree that you committed a logical fallacy and that atheists are indeed motivated by compassion.
Awesome. You just want to drive how how petty you find the amount. That's cool. You should certainly mock people's charitable efforts as being below your standards. I'm sure you follow the theistic moral code of giving all your wealth away. That's why we are communicating via scratched in the dirt.
Basic Theism. Look it up. Better still, give your concept of the Theist proposition, and then refute that.
Oh, so now "basic theism" is your definition for god? You want me to present my concept of that so you can say I am making a straw man? Yeah I'll get right on that.
Or how about you man up and give me a proper definition.
I know you won't because it destroys your objection to the Dossier of Reason.
And I responded last to the two previous threads. It's not like it's buried way back there.
”One provides practical answers. The other offers untestable claims. Agreed?”
Absolutely not. Testability is not restricted to empirical attempts to falsify. Rational testability is valid and actually precedes empiricism because it is logic based, and logic precedes empirical pursuit.
”You agree that you committed a logical fallacy and that atheists are indeed motivated by compassion.”
False, I agree that the study found that an significant number of Atheists are insignificantly motivated but when they are it is by compassion.
”Awesome. You just want to drive how how petty you find the amount. That's cool. You should certainly mock people's charitable efforts as being below your standards. I'm sure you follow the theistic moral code of giving all your wealth away. That's why we are communicating via scratched in the dirt.”
If you find $16.67 per month a significant amount of empathy, then that’s just fine. I think you’ll not convince many that your argument is worth making, and is actually rather silly. But sure, Atheists, when motivated, are motivated by $16.67 worth of compassion.
”Basic Theism. Look it up. Better still, give your concept of the Theist proposition, and then refute that.
Oh, so now "basic theism" is your definition for god? You want me to present my concept of that so you can say I am making a straw man? Yeah I'll get right on that.
Or how about you man up and give me a proper definition.
I know you won't because it destroys your objection to the Dossier of Reason.
And I responded last to the two previous threads. It's not like it's buried way back there.”
So we are stalled by your refusal to place your argument here. It is patently obvious that you have no argument or that you would make it. You stall by not making an argument for what you reject. You have been given a basic view of a creating deity, but you will not use it: Stall.
You have stalled out. You have nothing. You are dead in the water.
Because empathy can only be measured in dollars.
godless,
"Or how about you man up and give me a proper definition.
I know you won't because it destroys your objection to the Dossier of Reason."
First than all, I've given you an actually simple, bogged down version of standard definition of Classical Theism, you seem to Ignore it hands down.
Again, The definition of Theism given in DoR is not a definition which is given as the WHOLE SET of defintions of Theism, so that definition DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR EVERY THEIST.
Martin gave you the link to review the main concept of the Aquinas' cosmological argument,
you did not address it.
I gave you the link of a basic definition of Classical Theism,
you did not address it either, instead, you keep quoting it as if that concept would be irrelevant for you, just for you, without further explanation.
As you may have noticed, this blog is not about theism, and when I presented a relatively short text as case for it in a now buried down comment thread,
I knew aforehand that a case for theism is out of the scope of this blog, and I've mentioned that warning more than once, just to outline the definitions that lead to the concept of Classical Theism or the concept Theistic Personalism, even when is true that I did not mention the latter.
I also acknowledge that not every possible aspect between theory and practice of the theistic arguments are directly adressable by logic, but at least many arguments for Classical Theism and its variants and/or derivations like Pantheism and Panentheism can be analyzed by the use of modal logic.
Also, how some of the components of the concept of classical theism are, mutually-exclusive from the variable, derivative concept of pantheism, and compatible with the concept of panentheism, but the main premise of timelessness, simplicity, sovereginty and the essencially, -it is, not only in ecclesiological terms- impersonal nature is what makes possible to lump those concepts into the same set, not because of the definition posited in DoR.
In fact, the denifion posited in DoR is more similar to the definition of Theistic Personalism, and it is to be addressed further in the article, as a superset of the concepts of theism, but not as a subset, and that renders the whole article moot. It is a clear sign of the author's (Daniel Henson) evasive position of the knowledge, or lack thereof the latter, of the basics of Theosophy.
At the same time, the concepts of practicing the ways of understanding why is a concept of theism tenable, even if are not physically measurable, are not mutually-exclusive from the main defintion of classical theism, so if in theory somebody adheres to a exclusivistic view of theism, is it logically tenable to practice it from a pluralistic point of view.
Is it such a pain for you to research something basic so you may try to refute it?
Kind regars.
agotoco says,
"Because empathy can only be measured in dollars. "
Au contraire! It is also measured in action: read the article:
"They [Atheists] are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%), to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as "active in the community" (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%).
Atheists are not that which they represent themselves to be.
Yonose.
Sorry if you felt ignored. All I requested was a definition of god, which you provided.
The DoR follows from that premise.
The definition of Theism given in DoR is not a definition which is given as the WHOLE SET of defintions of Theism, so that definition DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR EVERY THEIST.
I think it does actually. It says that the theist defines god .. I believe that covers every theist.
You are correct in noting that there are a near infinite definition of what theism entails. I believe there are something like 30 000 denomination of Christianity alone?
That is why I specifically request what it is Stan believes so that we can address it, rather than be accused (again) of creating a straw man.
Martin gave you the link to review the main concept of the Aquinas' cosmological argument,
And again, a theist has provided a definition of god, reinforcing the premise in the DoR.
Is it such a pain for you to research something basic so you may try to refute it?
One thing that seems to keep coming up is that near every theist views theism differently. The last thing I want to hear over and over again is "well, that's not what I believe.
Cheers.
"They [Atheists] are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%), to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as "active in the community" (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%).
So atheists score a few percentile points lower than theists on a study and that means they are totally lacking empathy. Because there are 41 atheists and 61 theists in a soup kitchen, atheists are without charity?
This is also comparing "active-faith Americans." It doesn't reflect other nations, it doesn't reflect non-active theists.
I can point to a study that says that atheists score 2-6 IQ points higher than theists. Does this mean theists misrepresent themselves as being intelligent? Does this mean theists are completely absent cognitive faculties?
Or am I just twisting a study to suit my paradigm.
The answer, surely, is obvious.
godless,
You are correct in noting that there are a near infinite definition of what theism entails. I believe there are something like 30 000 denomination of Christianity alone?
Denominationalism is not a measure of different Theism. That's just another excuse. You have been given the concept at least three times and you ignore it.
So Since you deny all concepts, then give us your denial of the 30,000 erroneous denominations you have counted up. Go ahead. At least do something other than whine about why you can't articulate your beliefs.
You do have one belief:
" I think it does actually. It says that the theist defines god .. I believe that covers every theist."
Prove it. Prove this little tiny belief.
"One thing that seems to keep coming up is that near every theist views theism differently. The last thing I want to hear over and over again is "well, that's not what I believe."
godless, that is just pitiful.
Prove that there is no god of the Bible. That is well documented. Prove it. Do something besides whine.
" So atheists score a few percentile points lower than theists on a study and that means they are totally lacking empathy. Because there are 41 atheists and 61 theists in a soup kitchen, atheists are without charity?"
It's merely a counter to Atheists crowing about how superior they are in every aspect. About how immoral Christians are. About how empathic Atheists are. How Good Without God they are, when they have no definition for good. Claims Atheists make which are not supported by actual data. That's all.
"This is also comparing "active-faith Americans." It doesn't reflect other nations, it doesn't reflect non-active theists."
YOu're reaching for straws in the middle of a maelstrom. The data actually galls you a little, yes?
" I can point to a study that says that atheists score 2-6 IQ points higher than theists. Does this mean theists misrepresent themselves as being intelligent? Does this mean theists are completely absent cognitive faculties?"
That was one case of Atheists screaming "superior", HAR HAR HAR for months after it was released. It's only trivial if it is data against Atheists, otherwise it is Truth on a flagpole.
If Atheists don't like the polling data game, they shouldn't play it.
Now present your case for rejecting the God of the Bible, and why that God cannot possibly exist. Or for rejecting the 30,000 denominations you claim.
start soon, you have a lot of work to do.
godless,
"
Sorry if you felt ignored. All I requested was a definition of god, which you provided.
The DoR follows from that premise.
The definition of Theism given in DoR is not a definition which is given as the WHOLE SET of defintions of Theism, so that definition DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR EVERY THEIST.
I think it does actually. It says that the theist defines god .. I believe that covers every theist.
You are correct in noting that there are a near infinite definition of what theism entails. I believe there are something like 30 000 denomination of Christianity alone?
That is why I specifically request what it is Stan believes so that we can address it, rather than be accused (again) of creating a straw man.
Martin gave you the link to review the main concept of the Aquinas' cosmological argument,
And again, a theist has provided a definition of god, reinforcing the premise in the DoR.
Is it such a pain for you to research something basic so you may try to refute it?
One thing that seems to keep coming up is that near every theist views theism differently. The last thing I want to hear over and over again is "well, that's not what I believe.
Cheers."
So it's interesting actually how yourself agree with a definition which you think, in your opinion does define Theism. Again, that is your opinion, and you may hold the right to be opinionated all the time you want to, but that's still away from the facts.
If you like to do some hasty and easy associations like many New Atheists do, that's fine with me, you know, ecclesiology is mostly irrationally criticized by Secular Humanist Organizations, and most of its fervent proponents seem to not understand what the purpose of hermeneutics is about, just like any other religious fundamentalist.
I not saying Atheists are to be offended, but the problem with many of them, is the unwilliness and stubborness to understand the basics of what they do try to criticize, is just hitting new boundaries.
So, what you believe or I believe is NOT the concern here, the concern is, if you understand the basic concepts of theism, but apparently that's not the case.
So, to make at least a case, do your homework.
Kind Regards.
Now present your case for rejecting the God of the Bible, and why that God cannot possibly exist.
You are jumping way ahead. We'll get there though!
I'm providing an argument as to why atheism/naturalism/materialism/skepticism/etc is the most reasonable theological position, and why there is no compelling reason to believe in any gods.
The original point:
I. The theist defines a god. He defines his nature, his character, his actions and concerns.
You cannot possibly deny you have defined god as "the God of the Bible". The "Judeo-Christian God"? Yahweh? Jesus, the Holy Spirit, angels, devils, etc, etc, etc?
Your original objection is completely illegitimate.
Are we moving to II., or are you going to whine about how god is a deduction some more?
Now present your case for rejecting the God of the Bible, and why that God cannot possibly exist
The Problem of Theism (Why the Judeo-Christian God is demonstrably false, as expounded on in subsequent points )is on page 7 if you want to read ahead.
***
Just to take issue with some extraneous points:
Denominationalism is not a measure of different Theism.
That's EXACTLY what denominationalism is.
"Denominationalism is the division of one religion into separate groups, sects, schools of thought or denominations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denominationalism
Each of those denominations has a slightly different view of god and theism...
It says that the theist defines god .. I believe that covers every theist."
Prove it. Prove this little tiny belief.
You are a theist. You just defined god. So has every other theist who has bothered to respond.
It's merely a counter to Atheists crowing about how superior they are in every aspect
Ah, so you are are making a straw man. Gotcha.
when they have no definition for good.
Oh we have a definition. We just keep it hidden in the unholy atheist text. aka the dictionary.
"Good is a broad concept but it typically deals with an association with life, charity, continuity, happiness, love,prosperity and justice."
YOu're reaching for straws in the middle of a maelstrom. The data actually galls you a little, yes?
Hardly. If it said "active Swedish atheists" and compared them to non-church going theists and found the opposite result, you wouldn't take issue with that? I think you might.
Either way I hardly think it negates that MANY atheists regularly perform charitable efforts.
If Atheists don't like the polling data game, they shouldn't play it.
If you don't like the description your study provides, you shouldn't use it as a source.
”I. The theist defines a god. He defines his nature, his character, his actions and concerns.
You cannot possibly deny you have defined god as "the God of the Bible". The "Judeo-Christian God"? Yahweh? Jesus, the Holy Spirit, angels, devils, etc, etc, etc?
Your original objection is completely illegitimate.”
This is absolutely false; it fails the definition of definition; it fails the understanding of the apprehension of metaphysics; it assigns a denotative definitional action which does not exist in Theism; it defines Theist assertions as definitions: all these are false, failures to understand what a definition is and an attempt to assert by implication that Theism is falsely created rather than rationally understood.
The charge of illegitimacy is based on “how it feels” and has no logical basis, no evidentiary support, and is without any basis in any fact whatsoever.
Otherwise, go right ahead.
”The Problem of Theism (Why the Judeo-Christian God is demonstrably false, as expounded on in subsequent points )is on page 7 if you want to read ahead.”
Oh, I see, you have no case of your own, you are just going to parrot Henson’s paper.
Again, you have nothing. You cannot defeat the arguments against your argument. You cannot prove, without doubt, that there is no deity. You must first start with the premise that the Theist case is fabricated, and the only argument you have in support of that is that it “feels” like it is fabricated, therefore it is fabricated.
We seem to have here the prototypical Atheist approach to the subject of Theism: first Theism is defined as a fabrication so that it can be shown to be a fabrication. This is asserted as if it were an unassailable axiom of incorrigible truth, yet it fails all the characteristics of axioms, their determination and their testing.
There is no defense for this Atheist position other than that the description Theists provide of the deity (understood through other methods) “seems” like a definition – which is taken as a denotative creation of a concept.
The resistance to accepting any possibility other than that Theists denote and create their god indicates that the concept is essential as axiomatic and for the resulting circular argument. Because that is essential, then no other actual rational, logically coherent argument exists.
”Denominationalism is not a measure of different Theism.
That's EXACTLY what denominationalism is.
"Denominationalism is the division of one religion into separate groups, sects, schools of thought or denominations."
Denominations do not reject the basic concepts of Theism, they disagree on the consequences of theistic deductions which show up in sub-beliefs. You have corrupted the meaning of “denomination”. There is no difference in the view of the existence of a creating agent, and the definition you provide does not show any different.
Grasping desperately at smaller and smaller straws.
”It says that the theist defines god .. I believe that covers every theist."
Prove it. Prove this little tiny belief.
You are a theist. You just defined god. So has every other theist who has bothered to respond.”
That is just absurd. (a) You claim that any discussion of god is a definition: absurd. (b) You claim to know what every Theist does: absurd. You are diving deep into absurdity as thought, which is rendering your writings here irrational and logically abnormal.
”It's merely a counter to Atheists crowing about how superior they are in every aspect
Ah, so you are are making a straw man. Gotcha.”
Look up Straw Man. You don’t know what you are talking about, but you keep on talking anyway.
”when they have no definition for good.
Oh we have a definition. We just keep it hidden in the unholy atheist text. aka the dictionary.”
If you had any clue whatsoever about that which Atheist philosophers discuss constantly, you would not be making such statements.
You should at least find out what the Atheist “thinkers” are saying before you go out charging around as if you are the final repository of Atheist wisdom. You do not even understand Atheism and yet you pretend to understand all Theists and their thought processes.
”Hardly. If it said "active Swedish atheists" and compared them to non-church going theists and found the opposite result, you wouldn't take issue with that? I think you might.”
But of course it doesn’t say that.
”Either way I hardly think it negates that MANY atheists regularly perform charitable efforts.”
No argument there, with the caveat that “many” is numeric and in percentages it would be “not many”; but that was not the point was it? The entire point is the claim that Atheists are motivated by their incredible empathy. Well, a few are (emphasis on the “few”, due to the relationship to Theist numbers).
”If you don't like the description your study provides, you shouldn't use it as a source.”
That makes no sense: you are the one who doesn’t like what the study says:
”Atheists are motivated by empathy to the tune of $16.67 / month, and not so likely to help anyone else as are Theists.”
Again, you are diving ever more consistently into false and irrational statements which you apparently consider to be arguments. You do not understand disciplined logic, and you do not understand the more thoughtful philosophical positions on Atheism, yet you pretend to know what every Theist does in apprehending the god you reject. You must define Theism in your own specific false manner in order to have any semblance of a case, however false, against it. But a case against a false creation (that’s the definition of a Straw Man, btw) is merely the pursuit of nothing of value. You are persistent in that pursuit and it can be assumed that you have nothing else to present than that failed argument process.
(a) You claim that any discussion of god is a definition: absurd.
No. Any discussion of god REQUIRES a definition of what god is. Your refusal to acknowledge this goes beyond the absurd. Dogmatic and ideologically close minded.
(b) You claim to know what every Theist does: absurd
Where can you possibly have even misinterpreted what I said to reach this conclusion. No, more pissing into the wind I think.
Oh, I see, you have no case of your own, you are just going to parrot Henson’s paper.
Oh I see, you can't discuss the argument rationally so you are going to bash me for not writing it myself. Solid logic bud. More piss.
Hey Marvin, you have no case for god of your own, you are just parroting Aquinas.
Your objections are pathetic, Stan. You really are just pissing into the wind because you don't want to engage in a rational discussion.
No one is defining theism as a fabrication. No one is pretending to know what every theist thinks.
Okay? I'd love to actually clear up your massive amounts of misunderstandings. But I can't pretend your ignorance is unintentional anymore.
So I'm just going to leave this debate to the judgement of the audience.
If you want to sack up and face the overwhelming conclusion that you do indeed possess within your confused little skull an idea of what god is - aka a definition (like every other theist here has happily provided), you just let me know.
I'll just leave you with this.
def·i·ni·tion/ˌdefəˈniSHən/
Noun:
1. A statement of the exact meaning of a word, esp. in a dictionary.
2. An exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something.
When you address the concept of denotative definitions (which you ignore repetitively) vs. deductions (which you ridicule) then and only then can you make charges of ignorance.
You refuse to even acknowledge the argument against denotation. The definition you give is incomplete. I have given you the complete concepts surrounding the act of defining: you refuse to address it. It "seems" like definition, therefore it is according to you.
You refuse to produce your own reason for rejecting Theist claims and becoming an Atheist.
"If you want to sack up and face the overwhelming conclusion that you do indeed possess within your confused little skull an idea of what god is - aka a definition (like every other theist here has happily provided), you just let me know."
I have given you the basic requirement at least four times now. I guess I'll do it in bold so that you cannot avoid it any longer:
This is the deduced concept:
there exists a non-physical agent with the ability to create a universe and to interface/interact with it
I'll say it twice so that you can't ignore it any longer:
there exists a non-physical agent with the ability to create a universe and to interface/interact with it
This is the fifth and sixth time this has been said.
NOW:
DISPROVE IT. SHOW THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE AND YOUR PERSONAL REASON(S) FOR REJECTING IT. GIVE US DATA AS ANY RESPECTABLE NATURALIST/MATERIALIST WOULD DEMAND.
And because it apparently is necessary, I'll repeat that too:
DISPROVE IT. SHOW THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE AND YOUR PERSONAL REASON(S) FOR REJECTING IT. GIVE US DATA AS ANY RESPECTABLE NATURALIST/MATERIALIST WOULD DEMAND.
Quit your avoidance dancing and just do it. Or admit that you cannot.
godless,
I'll simplfy this even more for you. Here is the argument against god, placed into a legitimate syllogistic format:
P1: IF [ X is the case], THEN [There is no god];
P2: [ X is in fact the case];
C: THEREFORE: [There is no god].
As an Atheist, it is impossible not to accept this syllogism, because it is the Atheist position.
But unless X is fully explained and supported as a rational, coherent, and irrefutable claim, then there is no reason to accept Atheism as a rational position.
So it is up to the Atheist to provide the details of X, and to show that they are irrefutable logically.
I think I'll make this a post alse.
Stan. Your "deduced concept" describes your concept of what god is. I've addressed this multiple times.
This fulfills the initial premise as outlined in the DoR.
Oh, and when I say "it seems" like a definition, what I mean is "surely only a fool would protest that this is not a definition."
Quit your avoidance dancing and just do it. Or admit that you cannot.
The argument has been presented. You are the one who is dancing around with your bullshit objections, twisting of claims and introduction of irrelevant points.
I'm providing an argument as to why atheism/naturalism/materialism/skepticism/etc is the most reasonable theological position, and why there is no compelling reason to believe in any gods.
This is my position. Don't twist my words and try and get me to prove a negative. THAT is a bullshit debate tactic. Why don't you go reread that elementary logic textbook you keep talking about.
But unless god is fully explained and supported as a rational, coherent, and irrefutable claim, then there is no reason to accept theism as a rational position.
FTFY. Oh you think that's unfair? Then don't be a hypocrite and demand it from your opposition.
”Stan. Your "deduced concept" describes your concept of what god is. I've addressed this multiple times.
This fulfills the initial premise as outlined in the DoR.
Oh, and when I say "it seems" like a definition, what I mean is "surely only a fool would protest that this is not a definition."”
Then you still refuse to address the concept of denotation vs deduction as refutation for your claim, and instead you assert that you must be correct because only fools would disagree. Ad Hominem Fallacy. Failure.
Your argument is rejected. Either address denotation vs deduction or admit that it destroys your argument, and that’s why you refuse.
” The argument has been presented. You are the one who is dancing around with your bullshit objections, twisting of claims and introduction of irrelevant points.”
You have presented exactly no reasons for your personal Atheism. If you cannot articulate your own reasons for rejecting a/the deity as described, then you have failed.
” This is my position. Don't twist my words and try and get me to prove a negative. THAT is a bullshit debate tactic. Why don't you go reread that elementary logic textbook you keep talking about.”
P1: IF [proving a negative is the Atheist argument], THEN [it should be defended];
P2: [It is], and,
C: THEREFORE: [it should be].
” But unless god is fully explained and supported as a rational, coherent, and irrefutable claim, then there is no reason to accept theism as a rational position.
FTFY. Oh you think that's unfair? Then don't be a hypocrite and demand it from your opposition. “
Once again, slowly: this… is … about … Atheism. You want to change the subject, and the reason is obvious: you can’t defend your own belief system. You have been given a description of a basic Theist concept, and you defer to a demonstrably false argument elsewhere, rather than give an argument yourself. You are being consistently evasive, and the reason is obvious:
Even when handed the argument structure and the consequent, you can’t defend the antecedent. That is what this blog is all about: Atheist intransigence in the face of disciplined logical processes.
It’s apparent that we are done here. You will not be presenting your own case, or you would have.
Once again. Slowly.
"God of the Bible" is a definition of god. It is distinct from other interpretations of what god entails.
The bible defines god's nature, his character, his actions and concerns. EXACTLY AS THE PREMISE OUTLINES.
"a non-physical agent with the ability to create a universe and to interface/interact with it" constitutes a definition of god. Just one with a lot more wiggle room for your inevitable pathetic protestations.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/god
A definition that is completely analogous to the dictionary DEFINITION.
You have within your head a concept of god.
Why do you insist that you do not?
Or fuck it. I'll rephrase the premise.
I. The theist DEDUCES a god. He DEDUCES his nature, his character, his actions and concerns.
Whatcha got now? Do you not DEDUCE god?
Oh, and it's not an Ad Hom. I addressed the argument AND implied you were a fool.
An Ad Hom is when I call you a fool INSTEAD of addressing your argument. You fail. Go read your logic book again.
Stop rewriting my argument for me. Stop whining about the source. Either address the argument presented or concede you cannot.
"Whatcha got now? Do you not DEDUCE god?"
Yes, and that conclusion has been described for you to refute.
"Stop rewriting my argument for me."
OK then actually write it yourself. You have made no argument, so I thought I'd give you a clue as to what it would look like if you did make one.
"Stop whining about the source."
Have not done that. Have pointed out the logical error in Henson's very first premise, which is used in subsequent arguments rendering them erroneous. That is not whining; it is refutation (that's what one looks like, btw).
"Either address the argument presented or concede you cannot."
Silly Tu Quoque, and false. There is no point to continue in an argument which is refuted at the first premise.
The argument has been addressed: the argument fails, for the reasons given.
You still have given no argument regarding your personal reasons for rejecting whatever you rejected, making you an Atheist.
That is intellectual laziness, or obstructionism, or protecting something which does not exist. Pick one.
There is no progress being made here at all. It is a waste of my time.
godless,
Wow, I mean, Stan gave a you clear definition of a God, which is akin to Panentheism.
Would you bother to investigate what Panentheism is?
Would you bother to know why a theory, any theory, is not to be taken in a denotative context only? because it loses its objectivity!!
You wonder how these kind of eliminitavisms work form a philosophical context?
In short, provide no new knowledge, or eliminate the ones "it doesn't need", it is akin to an extremist skeptical stance.
What are you barely trying to attack, and notably without knowledge on the subject is theosophy.
You insist in an anti-theosophical, anti-theistic-personalism stance, by backing up Daniel Henson's DoR and conflating the whole concept with the whole set of definitions of Theism, but without giving an adequeate reason whatsoever.
Why don't you bother to look for the differences between theology and theosophy?
Instead of complaining about unfairness, please address the arguments in hand.
At first, you comment that every theist has a totally different concept of a god, then you say that almost every, then you mention that when people debate about god, that a definition is required.
For starters, instead of demanding what is the definition of God that fits your opinions, why don't you look at the given definitions in this thread once more? I mean, more than one person gave you a definition, incluiding me, more. than. once. Nonetheless, the whole World Wide Web is open to you to go and make some simple consult, even some Wikipedia articles might give sometimes a menial clue, which may be corroborated or refuted by looking into complete bibliographical sources.
Why don't you start from one of those given definitions? because it is possible to know what are the specific points would you reject from each sub-sets of characteristics, don't you think? it is rather a hasty, not rational move, to resort to give a God Psycho-social characteristics only, because it would not affect the whole set of the main concepts of theism!!
Kind Regards.
I. The theist DEDUCES a god. He DEDUCES his nature, his character, his actions and concerns.
Premise I. has been sustained. Oh look, progress.
II. The theist rejects thousands of other deductions of god without considering most of them.
Again, this "seems" obvious. Did you have any objections? Maybe another 60 post thread of irrelevancies?
See, the problem here is that none of the original premises match actual Thiesm: they are misunderstandings being made into arguments. To make it accurate it would have to change the meaning:
II. Theism considers there to be a single deity which is necessary and sufficient for the creation of the universe; other lesser gods are trivial whether they exist or not; some might exist but not as the creator; others might exist as the creator (the Hopi god) and be the same deity. To say they are rejected is inaccurate: they are passively ignored as trivial compared to the single necessary and sufficient non-physical agent.
Where is your own argument? What is the cause of your personal Atheism? Can you not defend it?
I should mention that the entire concept of "predisposition" has nothing to do with the fact regarding the existence of said deity; it is an attempt to imply that theism is a cultural construct - only - and that discredits it. That is a Poisoning of the Well attempt to discredit Theist concepts by associating them with thoughtless adherence to cultural influence.
In other words, if culture drives the entire thought processes of those in the culture, then nothing thought in that culture has any value as analytical thought.
Now if you protest that it is merely a tendency, then there is no purpose to putting it into a proof.
It should be obvious that proving that analytical thought is universally eradicated by cultural influence is necessary before this premise has any effect on the existence of facts. And when that is asserted, it will be internally contradictory, since the charge will apply to the assertion itself.
Can you see how this tack is destined to fail?
Moving quickly to III:
The fact that many Theists reject other Theist propositions has no bearing on the question of fact: prove there is no non-physical agent capable of creating a universe and meddling in it.
Now moving to the punch line: IV:
"The theist’s choices in defining god are very likely determined by culture, accident of birth, and childhood indoctrination.
This is the exact point where the denotative definition comes into fruition: there is no chance of logical deduction in this phraseology because it is presupposed that the Theist made up the deity under the conventions of his culture. This is a prejudice of the Atheist, not a universal fact belonging a proof.
So this is prejudicial, not a universal fact worthy of consideration. In terms of a proof premise it is false because it is not universally true and it is prejudicial rather than leading to a true conclusion.
IV. The Loftus "Outsider Test": basically says (a) if you can't convince everyone, then (b) you are delusional.
There is no reason for this to be accepted as truth; there is no proof of its validity and it is an empty assertion.
Moreover, this has no bearing on the ability to support the rejection of a non-material agent etc.
Are you ready to move on to Scientism as the disproof of Deism? I'm really looking forward to his "knowledge" fallacy.
Let me know when you are ready.
godless,
Just to make clear what is going on here:
You are avoiding making your case.
You are asserting a case which you obviously have not critically evalutated yourself, because even Atheist philosophers reject the primitive cases being put forth
You apparently believe that any ol' argument is a stop gap, preventing you from having to think for yourself, analyze your thoughts, put them down for review.
You are in the dogmatic pursuit of anything - anything - which protects Atheism from attack. And which protects your own worldview from actual analysis. And which doesn't actually care about whether it is valid or true, characteristics which are not pertinent to the reasons you hold your worldview.
Wow, I mean, Stan gave a you clear definition of a God, which is akin to Panentheism.
Ya man. I know what pantheism is. Sexed up atheism. "The universe is god." Well, I accept the existence of the universe...
But it doesn't matter what the definition IS, all that matter is he provides one. Which he does .. and then insists that he doesn't. What massive doublethink.
I mean, more than one person gave you a definition, incluiding me, more. than. once.
YES. I've pointed this out multiple times. EVERY THEIST has volunteered a definition. And that is all the initial premise said. YOU THE THEIST DEFINE GOD.
Ok? It doesn't matter what the definition of theism is. The premise has NO bearing on the substance of the definition, only the SOURCE.
To say they are rejected is inaccurate: they are passively ignored as trivial compared to the single necessary and sufficient non-physical agent.
REVISED
II. The theist trivializes and passively ignores thousands of other deductions of god without considering most of them.
You agree with III?
III. There are billions of people who reject the theist’s particular definition of god, who have as little regard for the theists definition of god as he does for their definition of god(s).
Good.
IV. The theist’s choices in defining god are very likely determined by culture, accident of birth, and childhood indoctrination.
A. This is evidenced by localized religions, such as salt lake city's Mormons, the bible belt's protestant Christians, India's polytheist Hindu's, Ireland's Catholics etc.
B. Children are not religious, they are only the children of religious people. They do not have the mental faculty, life experience, or knowledge to contrast with what they are being told is true of the world. Consider as an example the children in the Westboro Baptist Church who stand with signs at protests saying that “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” Do those children arrive to those conclusions based on considerate thought or life experience?
You seem to want to dispute this. The evidence "seems" against you however. Instead of jumping to your assumed conclusion, either address the argument given or admit you cannot refute it.
In terms of a proof premise it is false because it is not universally true and it is prejudicial rather than leading to a true conclusion.
.. it says "very likely". Your objection that it is not a universal is irrelevant.
Concede or dispute the previous premises? Once you have done that we will move to IV, which you already misrepresent.
godless,
He said panentheism, not pantheism. sheesh.
”Ok? It doesn't matter what the definition of theism is. The premise has NO bearing on the substance of the definition, only the SOURCE”
By which you apparently mean that your demand for definitions was spurious, you just wanted to prove a point which has no bearing on substance whatsoever, so you have been beating a dead horse just to be ornery and obstructionist. This appears to be an admission that the intent was to use denotative definition as the actual meaning in the first premise.
Henson cops to that, see today's post.
The entire first section of Henson's paper has no value in refuting the fact of the existence of a non-physical agent, etc. I reject the entire section based on its non-applicability in providing material data which refutes the existence in question. I base this rejection also on the upcoming appeal to the belief in Scientism in Henson's paper, which is addressed in today’s post.
” You seem to want to dispute this. The evidence "seems" against you however. Instead of jumping to your assumed conclusion, either address the argument given or admit you cannot refute it.”
Regardless of its validity, the argument is spurious and has no bearing on the fact of the existence of a deity; it is a Guilt By Association Fallacy attempting to claim that some false beliefs allow the rejection of all such positions as false beliefs, and is rejected on that basis, and is rejected on the basis that it does not address the actual issue with factual refutation but rather is merely prejudicial. It is not universally true and admits that, so it cannot be a truth statement of any kind, especially regarding the actual subject, which is the fact of the existence of a deity. Being an attempt to derail that discussion, it is also a Red Herring Fallacy.
” Concede or dispute the previous premises?”
They are refuted as irrelevant and fallacious as stated. Rejected for cause stated, which is more than Atheists do.
You've agree with the stated premises so far.
I. The theist DEDUCES a god. He DEDUCES his nature, his character, his actions and concerns.
CONCEDED
II. The theist trivializes and passively ignores thousands of other deductions of god without considering most of them.
CONCEDED
III. There are billions of people who reject the theist’s particular DEDUCTION of god, who have as little regard for the theists DEDUCTION of god as he does for their DEDUCTION of god(s).
CONCEDED
IV. The theist’s choices in DEDUCING god are very likely determined by culture, accident of birth, and childhood indoctrination.
A. This is evidenced by localized religions, such as salt lake city's Mormons, the bible belt's protestant Christians, India's polytheist Hindu's, Ireland's Catholics etc.
B. Children are not religious, they are only the children of religious people. They do not have the mental faculty, life experience, or knowledge to contrast with what they are being told is true of the world. Consider as an example the children in the Westboro Baptist Church who stand with signs at protests saying that “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” Do those children arrive to those conclusions based on considerate thought or life experience?
You might think it is irrelevant, but you just don't understand the argument. It is entirely relevant. I think you are just trying to derail the conversation.
Frankly, I don't think you even care what is true. But that is irrelevant. Either point out why the premise IV is wrong, or concede and we'll move to V.
Apparently you failed to read my position, one comment above; I will repeat it here:
"Regardless of its validity, the argument is spurious and has no bearing on the fact of the existence of a deity; it is a Guilt By Association Fallacy attempting to claim that some false beliefs allow the rejection of all such positions as false beliefs, and is rejected on that basis, and is rejected on the basis that it does not address the actual issue with factual refutation but rather is merely prejudicial. It is not universally true and admits that, so it cannot be a truth statement of any kind, especially regarding the actual subject, which is the fact of the existence of a deity. Being an attempt to derail that discussion, it is also a Red Herring Fallacy.
” Concede or dispute the previous premises?”
They are refuted as irrelevant and fallacious as stated. Rejected for cause stated, which is more than Atheists do. "
The existence of false beliefs does not in any way mean that all Theist positions are false. The argument has no possible force. It is rejected.
The existence of false beliefs does not in any way mean that all Theist positions are false.
No, but as we have agreed "The theist trivializes and passively ignores thousands of other deductions of god without considering most of them."
I'm going to conclude you do not understand the point being made then.
That's fine, it will be apparent why it is relevant shortly.
You say "regardless of it's validity", which heavily implies you think the premise is valid.
Do you concede the premise is valid?
No, I don't agree that it is a premise. It has nothing to do with the existence of God or gods. It is about humans and only humans.
You do not understand the point being made then.
You say "regardless of it's validity", which heavily implies you think the premise is valid.
You are not giving any rational or logical reasons why the premise is false... Just nope nope irrelevant.
You don't think that the specific DEDUCTION of god varying from culture to culture has anything to do with the existence of god? It is directly related to V. The Outsider Test of Faith. I think you are just stonewalling.
godless,
Please check two things:
1) What is religious exclusivism
2) What is religious pluralism
to check
3) What's the difference between both.
The Outsider Test of Faith is still not an argument for addressing the premise, because there's a bad or incomplete definition of theism being done in DoR.
So to be told again:
That premise tries to redefine theism as a lesser set than it actually has been defined, so that renders the main premise false, and the rest of the possible conclusions, at least for the first part of the document, do not hold water.
In this particular case, DoR is a document which could make any materialist eliminativist happy.
Kind Regards.
Yonose,
Can you quote for me where he defines theism?
Because the closest thing I can see is a theist is someone who "deduces" god.
Theism is, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
It is the theist that specifies which deity he believes in. It is the theist who preaches the gods wishes.
That is what the DoR says. So honestly, I have no idea in what you are grounding your objection.
That premise tries to redefine theism as a lesser set than it actually has been defined,
But the premise DOESN'T define theism. It defines A Theist as someone who believes in a god... which is what you all are!!
Seriously, I feel like I'm explaining why water is wet. Sorry if that comes off as condescending but it's like you are not even reading the damn thing.
In this particular case, DoR is a document which could make any materialist eliminativist happy.
In a sense of course. Because very quickly it is agreed that we are only debating two concepts, your theism, and my rejection of it. We both agree that the millions of other interpretations of theism range from misguided to nonsensical.
The Outsider Test of Faith is still not an argument for addressing the premise, because there's a bad or incomplete definition of theism being done in DoR.
Right, this is why I feel like you are not reading it. The initial premise is that the definition of what the theist believes, is defined/deduces/communicated via the theist. The Outsider Test is to see if you really have good reasons to believe such.
I'm not hearing any good reasons. Or any reasons.
B. If you believe the "evidence" would have convinced you to convert to Christianity, that means one of two things:
1. You believe you have solid, objective and falsifiable evidence that can be examined through the eyes of a Muslim and still be self-evident. Why then don't more Muslim's convert or consider the Christian religion as a serious alternative to Islam? Where is this evidence and why doesn't it seem to convince people who aren't born into Christianity by accident of birth? What is it that personally convinces you that a god exists? If this were discredited, would you still believe it? If so your belief is not based on reason or evidence.
godless,
"B. If you believe the "evidence" would have convinced you to convert to Christianity, that means one of two things:
1. You believe you have solid, objective and falsifiable evidence that can be examined through the eyes of a Muslim and still be self-evident. Why then don't more Muslim's convert or consider the Christian religion as a serious alternative to Islam? Where is this evidence and why doesn't it seem to convince people who aren't born into Christianity by accident of birth? What is it that personally convinces you that a god exists? If this were discredited, would you still believe it? If so your belief is not based on reason or evidence"
This entire section was discussed above: you did not refute the objections to it; you still use it anyway. And you have admitted that your "belief is not based on reason or evidence", so what exactly is your beef? It is OK to believe your crap without reason or evidence, and then to criticise others anyway?
That is hypocrisy.
Post a Comment