Here are some points that might be getting lost in the shimmering heat of Atheist wit and riposte:
1. This blog is about Atheism, and whether it is a rational position and can be defended using disciplined logical processes and/or empirical experimental data. This blog is not about Theism, although Atheist concepts of basic Theist positions must be corrected from time to time. So this blog is focused and asymmetrical.
2. Atheism has consequences. For example, Atheists cannot generate trust based on the Atheist Moral Code which doesn’t exist. If one knows only that a person is an Atheist, a lack of trust in that person is a rational position to take, even for other Atheists.
Atheists recoil in horror at this consequence, and declare it to be hate speech; but they present no contrary position which they can defend.
There are other consequences such as the common denial of absolutes, which eliminates any truth value for Atheist positions. This includes the elimination, a la Nietzsche, of good and evil, except as redefined by the individual Atheist. In general, evil is thought not to actually exist, except by the Theist God, which the Atheists presume the personal moral authority to judge.
Also eliminated along with absolutes is the submission to disciplined, logical deductive rules for argumentation. Submission to anything other than self becomes anathema, unless one could get arrested for it, and in that case Atheists see themselves as "good". Refusal to submit to overarching rules of logic results in (again Nietzschean) anti-rationalism. So rationalization becomes dominant, along with personal attacks and ridicule.
3. Because Atheism is only about rejection and rejectionism, it presents no positive characteristics in and of itself. (Total freedom from absolutes is not a positive characteristic). In fact, the commonly held list of beneficial character traits is frequently held as religious bias, and also too hard for some people and therefore discriminatory.
4. A rejection of a proposition requires a reason for rejecting that proposition; if there is no reason given, or if giving a reason is refused, then that rejection is seen as capricious opinion without a rational basis, and therefore is dogmatic faith based only on ornery rejectionism and nothing more.
5. Atheists who wish to defend their rejection of the Theist proposition are invited to make their case by engaging in the logic of their reasons for rejecting the proposition, and/or presenting the empirical data which they use to make their rejection decisive.
6. Attacking the writers who comment and post here is not an argument; it is a childish, petulant, logical fallacy.
7. Ridicule is not an argument.
8. I frequently view Nietzsche as perhaps the only honest Atheist. He declared his rejections and then he acknowledged the consequences of those rejections. Modern Atheists wish to avoid even claiming their rejectionism, much less admitting that there are any consequences. Compared to Neitzsche, that denial is intellectual cowardice and is totally trivial.
9. Atheist arguments which are based on their assessment of the morality of any proposition, person or deity is to be immediately rejected. This is based on the obvious lack of a moral position which inheres in Atheism as a basis for making moral judgments. Further, Atheists have no moral authority to make moral decisions for any human other than for themselves. And most absurdly, to make moral declarations on an existing deity is the highest possible folly; to make moral declarations on a non-existent, fictional deity is merely literary criticism done without literary knowledge and on a faux moral basis.
These are some of the main points, and there are probably more. I should update this, adding as time progresses. I’ll try to remember to do that.
Addendum:
Added point 9.
15 comments:
Stan--
You're doing an excellent job in your most recent set of posts.
It is an observable fact that atheists in general (and especially in your blog comments) simply do not offer a rational case of any kind for their faith. This is evidenced by the lack of:
1. Clearly stated definitions.
2. Clearly stated major premises.
3. Clearly stated minor premises.
4. Correct deductive logical connections between 1, 2, and 3.
5. Demonstrated conclusions via 1, 2, 3, and 4.
To evade all of this, they will make the claim that they have no burden of proof, since the theist is the one claiming existence of things for which there is no evidence.
In making this claim, they are implicitly asserting the following logic (and those who make assertions, whether implicit or explicit, have the burden of demonstration):
1. If the non-physical creator and upholder of all physical being existed (God), we would be able to find evidence of his existence demonstrable via physical investigation using the scientific method.
2. We have no such evidence.
3. Therefore there is no reason to suppose that God exists.
There are a few problems with this logic, which is probably why an atheist will never clearly state it.
Premise 1 is flawed for the same reason as saying "If movie cameras or directors existed, we'd see them in the movie we are watching", or, "If source code and processors existed, we'd see them in the immersive video game we are playing". There is no reason to expect to find that which upholds among the things upheld.
Premise 2 is irrelevant given the falsehood of premise 1.
Premise 3 assumes that the only possible valid evidence for God would have to be scientific. The truth of this assumption is nowhere argued for and deductively demonstrated.
The following is also logically asserted when the atheist says that theists have offered no evidence.
1. Philosophical arguments cannot count as evidence.
or:
2. Philosophical arguments can count as evidence, but theistic arguments fail.
Premise 1 fails due to self-referential incoherence, since it would take a philosophical argument to establish its truth.
Premise 2 might be true, but could only be demonstrable by making reference to specific theistic arguments while specifically addressing the terms, definitions, and logic actually employed in the arguments. I have yet to see an atheist doing so, at least on this blog, because nowhere do I find the following terms logically referred to: existence, essence, act, potency, conditionedness, non-conditionedness, temporally ordered conditions, essentially ordered conditions. These are the terms and concepts used in the strongest theistic arguments. In order to assert that the theistic arguments fail to the degree that they count as "no evidence", the burden is entirely on the atheist to provide a logical demonstration of such. There is no burden on Stan, me, or anyone else to lay out these arguments, since we aren't making the assertion that they are valid. Rather it is the atheist who is most definitely making the assertion that they are invalid. For all I know, the arguments are, in fact, invalid. I take no position on this. The atheist certainly does.
(to be continued)
Hey Stan, can you define god for me?
I wouldn't want to reject something out of hand.
What is it you think atheists are rejecting?
(continued)
Finally, an observation which impinges on the folly of scientism. I'll often find an atheist asserting that science has established that the soul does not exist because scientific experiments have shown that matter governs mind. Their statements (implicit or explicit) could be summed up by "We have designed and built equipment and conducted experiments and published results which demonstrate that reasoning and will are caused by physical processes in the brain, hence it is always and everywhere the case that matter affects mind, and not the other way around."
They never seem to notice that the scientific method itself presupposes that mind affects matter.
If mind cannot affect matter, then the very concepts of "designing and building equipment", "conducting experiments", and "publishing results", are rendered completely incoherent.
We start with the assumption that we actually have the mind-governing-matter ability to carry out all of these operations in order to even do science. That mind affects matter is primary data that must be acknowledged and assumed by science, not something that must come begging to be validated by science. If science concludes otherwise, then so much the worse for "science".
"What is it you think atheists are rejecting?"
That's absurd. It's up to you, the Atheist. Either you claim no knowledge of Theist claims or you reject Theist claims as you understand them.
Which is it?
No knowledge of Theist claims? Supremely unlikely.
Reject Theist claims as you understand them: this is highly likely.
So what Theist claims do you have an understanding of, which you reject?
Matteo,
Thanks!
Stan
""What is it you think atheists are rejecting?"
That's absurd. It's up to you, the Atheist. "
It's up to me to tell you, what I think, you think atheists are rejecting?
How about you just answer the question.
What is god? Define it for me.
"It's up to me to tell you, what I think, you think atheists are rejecting?"
There is no point in addressing what I think; the point is exactly this: what are you rejecting?
If you have not rejecting anything, why do you call yourself an Atheist (assuming that you do call yourself an Atheist)?
If you are rejecting something, what is it and why?
You cannot use dodges to avoid this, even though that is the standard Atheist technique when the going gets too rough to handle.
"How about you just answer the question.
What is god? Define it for me."
No more dodges. Address your rejection.
Audience, pay close attention here! This trick has never been successfully completed before!
"godless" will now place god into a box, and then by using sheer logic, make both god AND the box disappear!
Prepare to be dazzled and amazed!
godless! You're on!
Hahaah I'M DODGING? YOU ARE HILARIOUS!
There is no point in addressing what I think; the point is exactly this: what are you rejecting?
There are thousands of definitions of what "god" is. You want me to provide one so you can deride it as a straw man. I'm not playing this game anymore.
You tell me what god means. If it doesn't matter what you think, then maybe you should stop typing.
"I'm not playing this game anymore.
You tell me what god means. If it doesn't matter what you think, then maybe you should stop typing."
That's it huh? You reject something but you don't know what it is unless I tell you. Looks like you won't be making any actual refutations, so I'm calling it a day.
I'll be back on tomorrow if you change your mind and want to make a refutation.
SHOWS OFF FOLKS... No refutation today. But no refunds, you get what you pay for... Please don't crowd the exits: Atheists first!
You reject something but you don't know what it is unless I tell you.
A thing can't be rejected until the idea of it is first put up. Godless isn't being unreasonable by getting YOU to be clear about your beliefs, which would then allow him to answer whether he rejects those beliefs (and establish that he's an atheist).
Atheists, at a minimum, reject theist claims about the nature and existence of God(s).
In contradiction to your second point, this has few consequences, if any. Atheists have value and moral systems independent of atheism.
Whateverman,
godless claims to be Atheist, not a-stanist.
He has rejected something. But he doesn't want to say what it is that he has rejected.
If he, or you, cannot articulate your beliefs, or worse still, refuse to articulate your beliefs, then you are at a minimum intellectual frauds and dissemblers.
If you are Atheists then you have rejected something regarding Theism, and you owe a reason for your rejection.
It is interesting that you show up for the exact reason of supporting godless's refusal to articulate his reasons. Stonewall, that's the ticket.
This blog is devoted to analyzing the propositions of Atheism. It is becoming clear that Atheists know that their propositions are hollow, and that they must not be allowed into the light of day.
Whateverman says,
"In contradiction to your second point, this has few consequences, if any. Atheists have value and moral systems independent of atheism.
First: They do? All Atheists? You know this how?
Second: So what? It is Atheism which allows them total latitude to choose anything which is tailored to, and satisfies their personal emotional needs. That is a corruption of the concept of morals; it is merely a personal, volatile, malleable personal ethic which is subject to change on a moment's notice, depending upon the need. There is no reason to trust this.
Third: If a person claims only to be an Atheist without betraying any other ethic, then no one can know if he actually has restrictions which he places on his own behaviors.
If he claims an ethic against which his behavior can be measured, then he is no longer merely an Atheist.
Moreover, there appears to be no fabricated "ethic" which restricts personal behaviors and builds character. The humanist, Virtue Ethic, etc define top down behaviors to be expected of others - expectations of the elites for the masses. The Consequentialist ethic is actually a statement of tactic, in which every and any action toward an objective is "moral".
Other ethics want to define what is "good" or "happy" for the poor benighted masses who are too stupid to be Atheist elites.
Fourth: No human, including Atheists, have the moral authority to declare a universal morality. So what they call "moral" is in fact, not morality. It is an attempt to declare their proclivities as necessary for everyone.
Fifth: The Atheist emphasis on "empathy" applies to the masses, for whom it is declare essential; Atheists clearly do not need to practice empathy in order to claim it.
They do? All Atheists?
Yes
You know this how?
Common sense. Take the worst mass-murdering atheist in history, and then find out if he/she had friends. If he/she did (and it's common sense to assume so), then he had a value system that allowed him to form bonds with people, and have those same people reciprocate.
More generally, just because a system of thought doesn't contain standards for behavior doesn't imply adherents have no standards for behavior.
It's not rocket science, Stan.
"They do? All Atheists?
Yes"
There is at least one documented exception: Jeffry Dahmer. Not ALL Atheists have restrictions on their own behavior.
And having emotional bonds with other people does not constitute a value system, where one has principles for his own behaviors.
It's odd to hear an Atheist claim common sense; most if not all Atheist philosophers deny any value whatsoever to common sense. For starters, the appeal to common sense is actually an appeal to personal opinion, unless the common sense tenet is demonstrably the actual sense of the majority of common understandings.
"More generally, just because a system of thought doesn't contain standards for behavior doesn't imply adherents have no standards for behavior.
In discussing the properties of the system it is clear that it has no standards for behavior. That is the discussion at hand: Atheism provides no moral guidance whatsoever. Your point is outside of the conversation, but it does illuminate the consequence of Atheism: all behavior systems which can be added to Atheism are based on the personal moral authority of the individual, and are personally compatible with the needs of the individual; there is no reason to expect an Atheist to restrict his behavior based on being an Atheist, and likely not based on being a Humanist or Virtue Ethicist or Consequentialist.
There is every reason to expect that Atheists have no real principles which actually restrict their behavior short of the practical consequences of getting caught.
Post a Comment