That evidence is a single question on algebra.
The lesson might be, although claimed not to be, that theists are easily fooled, i.e. not all that bright. Atheists, the lesson might be, although claimed not to be, get it right because they are bright enough to analyze things.
Fun fact:
Analysis involves searching for and isolating all possible reasons, factors and evidence which substantiate an hypothesis, while also enumerating all possible reasons, factors and evidence which might disprove the hypothesis, and then providing unquestionable refutation for all possible challenges to the hypothesis, before making any declarations about the results or quality of the hypothesis. To be called science, it must be a controlled experiment, replicated successfully, falsifiable and not falsified, objectively peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal. For human trials there must be control groups and double blinds and other objectivity-preserving cautions taken, including all of the myriad possible complicating issues being successfully normalized. Causation must be demonstrated rather than correlation.Serendipitously, Atheists have charged FORWARD (thanks Barack) into the closet, denying that they even have an hypothesis to substantiate. This is in response to the request that they provide analytical evidence for their position of rejecting either the existence of a non-physical agent, or rejecting the hypothesis cum deduction indicating that hypothesis to be rationally acceptable. The dash for the closet is a better indicator of the rational, analytical powers of Atheists than the answer to a single algebra question, because it is a specific response by a specific group to a specific issue which provides differentiation of the actual issue, whereas algebra is not an issue in either religion or Atheism, much less a differentiator.
Since Atheism has abandoned its claim to logic and evidence as the basis for its worldview, it seems odd to claim that non-religionists are more analytical, unless of course that means being mentally totally material-oriented and with limited or no mental capacities otherwise. The idea that knowledge stops at math/science is a limitation which directs focus away from rational principles, which works like this: Materialism is all there is because: shut up.
Since Atheism has abandoned its claim to logic and evidence as the basis for its worldview
ReplyDeletebut atheism is NOOOOOOOT a worldview!
Of course it is; it is the basis for the hallmark arrogance and superiority which Atheists project, while having no case to make in their own defense.
ReplyDeleteAtheism is the root of their "freedom" which allows them the flexibility to make up all their own stuff as they go along, including the a-rules of morality, the a-rules of rational thought, and the a-rules of refuation responsibility - all just made up stuff as the need arises.
Atheism is the root of the idea that there is no objective truth, that humans are accidents of evolution so have only that value and no more, and that Atheists have the capability to derive a morality for the other, benighted masses.
Atheism and Consequentialism are hand in hand companions, because everything an Atheist does and thinks is based on the perceived consequence for that individual and things he cares about. There is no other motivation, including Value Ethics, which is merely another version of Consequentialist thinking. This eliminates right and wrong in the same fashion that Nietzsche eliminated it in his journey to Anti-Rationalism, irrationalism and insanity.
So in the end, Atheism is the foundation for the Atheist Anti-Rational, logic and evidence free worldview.
But under Consequentialism, one can call himself whatever is convenient, so Atheists claim logic and evidence, and then run away when pressed to provide it.
That's the Atheist worldview, and it's consequential behavior.
I think theists are so used to pretending their entire world-view stems from their belief in a god that when they find people who don't believe they reason that their entire world-view must stem from their disbelief.
ReplyDeleteI think Atheists don't realize how self-oriented and myopic their own worldviews are, and that they are based on the freedom of a value-free belief system, one that they create for themselves out of nothing. Only Atheism allows this; not theism. So Atheism is the key difference.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that Atheists talk as if they have a worldview based on something other than the void which is Atheism, but they do not provide any insight to its origin, its truth value, or the process of determining its truth value.
No Atheist which has commented on this blog has ever revealed the underlying grounding upon which his worldview is built, and what the axiomatic basis for that foundation might be, or the rational, logical justification for it... much less any material evidence.
The only thing Atheists seem to care to discuss is the evil that is theism, that they are rational and evidence based, and that they have no Burden to demonstrate any logic or evidence for their belief system or worldview. Which is why, when pushed for rational justification using logic or evidence they inevitably devolve into name-calling and dissembly.
Now they demand that we accept the argument that theism is wrong because they merely choose not to believe anything about it, an amazingly irrational position, a choice made with no reason whatsoever. And of course they need not disprove anything about theism or provide any cogent defense because, well, just because. If an Atheist says he has no burden to provide rational discourse, then he doesn't feel burdened to do so, and he doesn't.
I can't wait for a real Atheist ideologist to say that on-stage during a debate.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteWell, I see our atheist human fellows, as the whole set of atheism may be called, have different interpretations, loosely differentiated, about what atheism actually may be.
FR,
Look at DayLight Atheism, the title crearly states atheism as a positive worldview, so I hope it makes you analyze it further.
Theism is pretty much defined as a worldview. So:
1) [Theism is defined as a worldview]
2) [Atheism is the denial of theism]
IF 1) AND 2) are TRUE, then Atheism IS a worldview too, because Atheism denies the thesis of the existance of a greater reality than the material one(the existance of gods).
Atheism has a worldview, when directly denying the thesis of another worldview.
IF 1) is FALSE, sequentially, implies that 2) is not a worldview.
IF 1) AND 2) are FALSE, then it is not possible to give an adequate conlusion about what Atheism is, regarding its typical definition. 2) does not follow 1) if both are false.
So, to define why Atheism is not a worldview, you would have to give a good argument, about why theism is not a worldview, that is, following the definitions, and not only from an etymological point of view.
Kind Regards.
No Atheist which has commented on this blog has ever revealed the underlying grounding upon which his worldview is built, and what the axiomatic basis for that foundation might be, or the rational, logical justification for it... much less any material evidence.
ReplyDeleteThat could be because they do not have one - their "worldview" consists simply of a collection of ideas they have picked up uncritically during the course of their lives, and do not really take the trouble to think about.
Or.. they got a worldview alright, but there's a reason they don't want to expose their real agenda.
So I'll expose it: they are Communists. Attacking "religion" (ie Christianity) is part of furthering their real cause - global secularist totalitarianism.
But that's only really a minority of 'em - most are just angry young people reacting against something they dislike about a particular organized religion. Insofar as they have a creed, its simply Self-Worship.
Atheism is CERTAINLY a worldview. But, perhaps you define worldview differently?
ReplyDeleteI've been under the impression it's the pair of glasses you see the universe with. That's about as simple as I can put it. And everyone - everyone, wears a pair. Whatever your governing life philosophy is, is your worldview.
Very simple.
Its a good point: define worldview.
ReplyDeleteI'll start with this:
A worldview is a set of presuppositions based on a set of axioms, which determine how one sees and reacts to his stimuli.
regarding worldviews...
ReplyDeletei agree with both what morgan and stan wrote.
however, i still think that atheism is not a worldview precisely because of the definitions you gave.
from morgan's definition, atheism is not a worldview because there is never an occasion when looking at the universe starts with 'because i don't believe in god, i see this'
again, from morgan's definition, atheism is also not a governing philosophy. there is no logical path from 'because i don't believe in god' and 'i do this'.
from stan's definition, atheism is still not a worldview because it does not offer a set of axioms; it does not inform a person on how to react to certain stimuli.
starting with things like 'reality is real', the laws of logic work, science offers good explanations for the natural things we see, psychology explains a lot of human behaviors, etc... are not dependent on atheism and can yield a worldview that you would label as 'atheistic' because it does not include a belief in a god. but the same basis can also yield a worldview that includes a god.
stan for example does not start with 'god exists' for his worldview, while others do. in both cases, the belief in god happens to be present in the set of beliefs, but the basis was not the same.
Eternal,
ReplyDeleteI have a question. Can one be an atheist and not be a philosophical materialist?
eternal,
ReplyDeleteI knew you would want to argue definitions; its what Atheists do, rather than argue issues.
"from stan's definition, atheism is still not a worldview because it does not offer a set of axioms; it does not inform a person on how to react to certain stimuli."
Exactly right except that you have described the base for your: worldview. You have no base, no axioms. You make up "whatever" stuff that is congenial to you (or you co-opt it from another Atheist who made it up) to fill the void: so your worldview is just a bunch of whatever. That is the Atheist worldview: random whatever, based on no axioms.
And that is why you argue the way you do: no logic, just a bunch of whatever.
Saying that "reality is real" is saying nothing at all. No one would say that "reality is not real". What you have done is to bastardize the meaning of "reality" to fit your own "whatever". You will never admit it, because it serves as your intellectual limit, which you are here trying to convince us as being rational. It is not.
Listing physical sciences has no meaning either. It is not Atheist, it is voluntarily materialist. There is no connection between science and Atheism regardless of the Atheist claim otherwise.
Investigating the material world has no meaning regarding non-physical entities; they cannot be investigated and are non-falsifiable, and therefore empiricism cannot prove them either true or false. So invoking sciences has no value in this discussion. Science cannot address the issue of god; so if you are using science as your base for non-physical understanding, you have a false base.
I don't understand your last statement.
"No one would say that "reality is not real"."
ReplyDeleteThis is literally what a bunch of philosophers known in English as the Voidists do believe.
I doubt that, but it is possible.
ReplyDeleteThey might say that what seems material and extant is actually an illusion. That is different than saying that "reality is not real", which is a violation of a tautology, as in "a dog is not a dog" or "a chair is not a chair". In other words, the defining term itself is false.
That sort of non-coherence, taken as an axiomatic principle, denies any ability of logic, and therefore cannot be logical itself: it is a paradox, an internally self-contradictory statement which cannot be true, because if it is true, then it is false as a consequence. So to accept such a thing is AntiRational.
That is not to say that AntiRationality does not exist, because it does, in the form of Philosophical Materialism and Atheism, the siamese twin philosophies which are what I have called Voidist due to being based on no objective axiomatic foundation.
Only Atheism allows this; not theism.
ReplyDeleteTheism? Have you examined every possible god and god-belief? If not how can you possibly know? This is not a rational position to take.
If reality wasn't real why would violating tautology be wrong?
ReplyDelete(Love all the extra capital letters you use, by the way. Makes everything seem more authoritative.)
Theism posits one creating entity; that's the only one that needs to be considered. It is not rational to pursue lesser entities in considering the characteristics of the one.
ReplyDeleteIf reality is not real, then neither are you, and the question is moot. If you are considering the question, then you most likely are real (except under Radical Skepticism) and so the issue of not being real is false and inconsequential/trivial.
So it looks like this:
either
(a) reality is not real, and so there is no issue to discuss because neither of us is real anyway;
or,
(b) reality is real, and the Principle of Tautology violation sticks as an irrational position;
or,
(c) under Radical Skepticism, the dogma, it cannot be known if you are real, if reality is real, or if there is such a thing as a definition or tautology, much less if there is such a thing as logic, rationality, or any significance to violating them;
or,
(d) under Asymmetrical Skepticism, the dogma, only things I propose are subject to not being knowable, whereas everything you know is known with absolute unquestionable certainty.
You may pick one or more as your needs dictate.
Is is true that the more reasonable a person is, the more virtuous and ethical s/he will be?
ReplyDeleteTheism posits one creating entity; that's the only one that needs to be considered.
ReplyDeleteYou're thing of monotheism.
And there are many types of monotheism worshiping many different gods. It seems like whenever you say "theism" you mean "the monotheistic religion I subscribe to".
It is unnecessary to posit more than one. If you need labels, then you may choose whatever you think works for you. I actually think that uni-deism more accurately describes the hypothesis-deduction which is being made here. But what it is called is of no consequence to its proposed truth value. And it seems likely that you are attempting to attach your own version of established ecclesiastic religion(s) to it; it would be better to deal with it as it is, without externals being attached to it by implication.
ReplyDelete