RB Debunks Me: I Am A Straw Man It Seems...

Reason Being addresses the multitude of fallacies he finds in my post. Let's start with morality:

”He fails to address the main argument. This is telling because the statement by Pribble is not the main point of his post, but rather is one of the central debates between theists and atheists. Theists posit that without god there can be no morality.”

And this was addressed at length, but I will do it yet again since RB skips the argument and goes to the conclusion which he dismisses:

” Stan writes, “In the end, Pribble is completely unable to come up with the correct answer: Distrusting Atheists is a natural and logical consequence of the choice Atheists have made.” Stan, if you are going to make such a bold statement, you need to provide some proof for why that is the “correct answer”. I think (and please correct me if I am wrong Stan) that he would argue that is what he does in the rest of his post. I believe that it fails to do so—see Cephus’ post above for more on that.”

Really? That’s all you have? You “believe that it fails”? No pointers to errors, no discussion, just “you believe”? And then a pointer to cephus which actually points to the argument on this blog with no mention of cephus.

That is weak tea.

The next actual point which he makes is this:

” Stan, the former 40 year atheist then writes, “Atheism is dangerous. It claims logic and evidence for itself, but it cannot prove its own position with either logic or evidence”. Where to begin…Even if Stan is correct, which he is not, his statement would not make atheism dangerous.”

And that thought stops right there. Atheism is dangerous because it operates outside of logical processes and it is open to any belief no matter how irrational. The moral void adds considerably to the danger element. Atheism removes any stable foundation from supporting the worldview which Atheists build for themselves. Atheists seem to think that this is a plus, giving them the freedom to think up their own morality and their own version of reality. And it does give that freedom, which is entirely different from the subjection to principles, which are never absolute in their minds. And it erodes any dedication they might have had to disciplined logical principles. Atheism is dangerous because it excuses the Atheist from known, disciplined logical processes.

” Second, Atheism claims one thing and one thing only: a lack of belief in deities. It does NOT claim logic and evidence and for anything.”

Both of those sentences are false. First, Atheism is the rejection of theories of deity. Denying that is now a popular pastime amongst the internet Atheisti, and they are oblivious to how dishonest that makes them appear. The Reductio Ad Absurdum contrary is that Atheists do, in fact, reject deity theories. What is more reasonable to believe, that the Atheist does not reject deity theories, or that the Atheist does reject deity theories? While Atheists might have convinced themselves of the former, the latter is self-evidently the case. This is a demonstration of the inherent danger of the voids of Atheism: believing their own fabrications.

Here’s a test. As an Atheist, do you accept theist theories? It’s that simple. No, you reject them.

Second, Atheists who are dominant in the Atheist culture do, loudly, claim logic and evidence for their position. This is a new trend in Atheist denialism, claiming that Atheism is not actually claiming logic or evidence for itself. Talk with Dawkins about that.

” It does NOT claim logic and evidence and for anything. Not all atheists are logical and not all atheists are interested in proving their beliefs. The same can be said for theists. To make a blanket statement of this nature is silly and is another straw man argument.”

I submit that this is a distinction without a difference, a nit picked bald. The fact is that those who write about Atheism, those who do think about it, have always until now claimed logic and evidence as the key to the choice of Atheism as the rational choice. Now they deny it, apparently implying that Atheism is no longer the rational choice. If Atheism is not logic and evidence based, then what is it based on? Pure rebellionism? Ignorance of Theist arguments? Just don’t care?

If Atheism has no cause, and it is a void, then why is it so passionately defended?

” Third, if Stan means that logic and evidence cannot definitively prove that deities do not exist he would be correct”

Thank you.

”His implying that atheists do not recognize that is another second straw man argument.”

Absolutely false to the point that I must call Bullshit yet again. Atheists constantly and in this very series of conversations demand that Theists produce “objective” evidence, because Atheists are evidence-based. And that is specifically called “logical”, despite the Scientism and Category Errors which are pointed out, and pointedly ignored.

” I have met very few atheists who are “true atheists”—i.e. say they can prove deities do not exist. Most atheists are agnostic in some sense. This is common knowledge among atheists—see the Dawkins scale.”

And I submit that Dawkins et al are dishonest in this regard. Dawkins, especially, shows that he is not the least bit in doubt or agnostic in his vitriolic attacks. This is yet another escape hatch which Atheists think lets them off the hook for their Atheist system of voids. Dawkins, last I heard, claimed a 6 out of 7 probability of no God. That’s roughly a 14.4% probability of God? Then he absolutely berates anyone who is not Atheist, wishing to eradicate them from society. No. Dawkins is not the least agnostic; his behavior belies his words.

The new definition of True Atheist" is a Red Herring, because it is intended to derail any idea that there is an Atheist belief bewteen this definition and agnosticism, which is false. Atheists (not agnostics) believe without proof that there is no deity. So this entire statement is predicted on this Red Herring.

” However, to most theists, and I assume most of Stan’s readers this is a knockout blow. In reality it is the same old tired argument that shows little thought and a profound lack of knowledge on atheism. If it is nothing more than a semantic argument that he is after, this conversation is a waste of all of our time.”

This is a cursory dismissal based on the illicit redefining of Atheism to protect it from its obvious obligation: to provide logic and evidence in support of the denial of Theist arguments. Either give us a demonstration of your logic and evidence for your case, or yes, you are wasting our time.

I will repeat this:

Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.

All Atheist attention these days is focused on denying that obligation, by denying that they have rejected any Atheist theories. That is intellectual dishonesty, and it is an admission that they have no defense for their own theory.

” Stan then writes, “Materialism which is demonstrably false, being unable to prove its own tenets under its own evidentiary theory, rendering it non-coherent and irrational.” He offers nothing to back up this claim. Cephus does a great job debunking this, as does Victor Stenger in his latest book.”

This is so simple that it’s difficult to believe that I have to spell it out:

Philosophical Materialism claims that there is no existence which is not material and therefore that all knowledge derives from material investigation.

Philosophical Materialism cannot demonstrate the truth of that claim using material investigation.

The concept of Philosophical Materialism cannot be accepted as knowledge under the claims of Philosophical Materialism.

Therefore, Philosophical Materialism is internally non-coherent: false.

Next,

” Stan closes this paragraph writing, “Atheist reasoning is post hoc rationalization, and never syllogistic deduction: so it is demonstrably irrational.” This is another incorrect statement. First off, syllogistic deduction is not the only form of a valid argument, but rather one of many. To imply that is a prerequisite for rationality is incorrect.”

If an argument of any type fails when placed into a syllogistic format, it fails logic. Thus, if rationality entails valid logic, then the argument which fails logic also fails to be rational.

” Second, the idea that atheists employ post hoc rationalization is another straw man argument in semantics. By definition, one could argue that all knowledge can be seen as post hoc unless we are predicting the future. It is important to point out that much of modern physics and cosmology can do just that—without the need for a deity in the equation. In that sense not all atheist reasoning can be considered post hoc. I do not think that is what Stan means, but semantics are important in this argument.”

Of course that’s not what Stan means. Stan means the entire phrase which he used: post hoc rationalization, which refers to selecting the conclusion first, then trying to find premises to poke into the argument for support of the conclusion after the fact. Semantics do seem to be a problem for this Atheist, I can see why he objects.

” Perhaps what he means is that atheists look at the data after the fact and conclude that deities do not exist, further that this post hoc rationalization is irrational. That is another false statement. I am not a scientist. I have not done anything in a lab since high school (20 years ago). My knowledge of science can be said to be entirely post hoc. I have looked at the data and drawn conclusions that a deity most likely does not exist. This is not irrational.”

It most certainly is a Category Error to look at any data produced by science and draw conclusions about non-material existence. If logic errors don’t lead to irrationality, then the Atheist void system is working.

” The scientists who conducted these experiments and studies all had hypotheses. Some were proven, some were not. Those that were proven were not done so post hoc (unless Stan defines the term as used in my previous example). Those experiments are quite valid. To look at the data and the conclusions from those experiments and conclude that it is highly unlikely that a deity exists is not irrational at all.”

Show us an experiment that hypothesizes that God does not exist, and then deduces an experiment to generate data that shows that to be the case. You cannot do that, but let’s say that you did do that: scientific data is always contingent and never absolute. So in terms of a philosophically valid conclusion, you can’t get one from Science (that’s an aspect of Scientism).

But in reality, there is no chance that material data tells us anything other than information about the specific material subject being tested. Inference beyond that is extrapolation which must be justified some other way, such as with incorrigible logic. You, however, merely make the extropolation and stop there, good with that.

” Stan’s next argument is that, “Atheism has no attached moral theory; Atheists get to make up their own morals du jour, tailored to match their own behaviors”. This is another straw man argument designed to get theists all giddy with delight. As stated earlier, atheism means only a lack of beliefs in a deity. PERIOD. It need not have an attached morality. As someone who claims to have been an atheist, Stan should know this. Straw Man.”

Here you have admitted to what I said: Atheism has no attached morality. Then you call it a Straw Man. No, it is an actual claim, directed at the heart of Atheist morality. Atheists get to make up their own morals or choose the made up morals of another Atheist. Either way, their morals are made up and chosen to fit themselves.

The continuing claim that as an Atheist I should know that Atheists are the way that the accuser claims them to be is little more than an Ad Hominem. It is because I was an Atheist that I see through this kind of B.S., and I understand the convolutions in their thinking. The following is an example of that sort of convolution:

” Second, atheists do not make up their own morality to suit their own behavior. That statement is so errant it almost is not worth commenting on. The only comment I wish to make is that once again this shows a tremendous lack of knowledge this time on morality. Most atheists identify with some other belief system, for example secular humanism. A source and system of morals will be in place, though they may vary depending on the belief system. Stan’s entire argument is not only an incorrect, it is also grossly misinformed.”

And yes, they get to make stuff up if they want to, or they can take on stuff that other people made up, like Secular Humanism, or Virtue Ethics, or stick with the default, Consequentialism. All that stuff is made up stuff. Just… made up. I say time and again, for Atheists, morals are defined away and reductionism leaves them with any system they find compatible with their behaviors. So they either make it up, or they choose a prefab. It's chosen to fit their own proclivities. The paragraph above demonstrates that he agrees with me, but claims that I am grossly misinformed. The convolution is glaring.

” Stan goes on to write, “Trust requires that a fixed moral system exist and that behaviors match the moral theory, not the other way around”. We again see some blatant errors of education. The idea of a fixed moral system is false. See Cephus above for more on that. Nowhere does a fixed moral system exist. Morality is constantly in flux.”

This can be nothing other than willful misunderstanding. The point is not about whether a fixed moral system exists. The point is that trust can only be garnered by comparing a man’s deeds to his claimed beliefs, his behaviors to his moral system. Yes, fixed moral systems do exist, and Atheists rail against them constantly. But in claiming to be an Atheist, there is no fixed standard against which to judge the trustworthiness of that person.

So this commenter ignores all that and tries to defend a non-fixed morality, when that is already a given, at least for Atheists.

” Morality is constantly in flux. In the U.S. alone there are too many grey areas to name—let alone what happens when we open that up to the rest of the world. I, and many others, theists and atheists alike, support homosexuality as moral. Should I not trust someone at all who differs in opinion than I on this one matter? Should I assume that person is immoral or amoral? There are no fixed moral systems and trust is clearly not reliant on them.”

More justification for eliminativism on morals. There are no fixed moral systems, except the one we dislike and dismiss. And yes, trust is clearly reliant on comparing actions to claims.

” For the sake of argument, let us grant the existence of fixed moral systems to Stan. Clearly he would have to agree that there is more than one fixed moral system in the world today.”

Holy smoke. Now there are lots of them. OK. I’ll buy that.

” Let us suppose that Christians have one and Muslims another. Because these two groups do not share the same system, would they be forced to not trust each other? Stan’s argument in that one sentence and thus the whole paragraph is once again incorrect.”

Absolutely false. FALSE. Christians have the twelve (yes, 10+2) Commandments, Islam has imams who vary in their moral pronouncements and two claims to moral authority, Sunni and Shia. There is no comparison because, like Atheist morality, Islamic morality is variable (although not wide open as is Atheist morality). This attempt at analogy fails.

” His last paragraph is more or less a summation of his previous points. There is one thing to note. Stan claims that he is not using a theist bias. While it is true, he does not use the word god or religion in his entire piece it is quite clear from where he is coming from. As Cephus points out, he does not need to use the words to make his bias known.”

I am coming from the side of logic, and it is clear that you identify that as religious. Interesting, a sort of Freudian slip, I suggest. Who is Cephus anyway?

” The sense that I get from reading Stan’s work is that he likes to use sophisticated vocabulary, but does not back up his claims. His own arguments, as they are written by him, would apply to any argument a theist would make—he fails his own tests. Stan is also very interested in semantics. This is nothing more than a straw man…he seems to be willing to tilt at vocabulary rather than address the real argument. At best, this response illustrates confusion about atheism, at worst it is hypocritical. I happen to think it is both.”

Interestingly, none of the claims regarding the Category Error underlying Atheism, or the other logical fallacies of Atheism are addressed. These apparently are regarded as “vocabulary” issues, not worth discussing apparently, and/or Straw Men (still the only fallacy type name that Atheists seem to know, even though they misuse it consistently). The general final paragraph here is Ad Hominem, and entirely to be expected, as the writer attempts to dismiss the arguments made and not addressed as trivial.

In fact, the last paragraph seems phoned in, a cut & paste denial used on all of his argument summaries: "doesn't understand us; doesn't understand Atheism; doesn't address the actual argument (What? I made the arguments which are not being addressed: logic errors); semantics; vocabulary; hypocrisy". Looks like boiler plate to me.

And again, not addressing what argument? The only argument the Atheist of today makes is that he has no argument! He has no beliefs regarding theism. He has no moral beliefs. It's all a big void. He's actually not even an Atheist, he is an agnostic. That is their argument, and I have addressed it. The charge is false, blatantly so.

Also no matter what I say about Athiesm and its troubles with logic, even when the Atheist agrees with me, he claims that I just don’t understand Atheism. Why, he is an Atheist and knows some more Atheists, and Atheism includes all sorts. It's totally inconsistent. So no one can make a criticism of something which has no defining characteristics. Therefore anything anyone says about Atheism is just semantics or vocabulary or Straw Men or something. It can't have content because Atheism has no content.

Well yes it does include all sorts. And it is inconsistent. There is nothing consistent about Atheists. No content there. That is their point. And it is also my point: lack of consistency and content in morality and thinking processes is commonplace amongst Atheists. It is why Atheism is dangerous, because it allows moral wandering all over the place and it absolutely kills disciplined thinking processes because that requires submission to defining characteristics. And that would require content.