So I will make it simpler. This third challenge is for Atheists merely to reveal their Theory of Knowledge.
This is a three part issue:
1. Do you have a theory of what information or data constitutes actual knowledge, and if so what is it and how do you justify it?
2. Do you have a Theory of Truth, if so what is it and how do you justify it?
3. What sort of knowledge-based evidence do you look for which either validates or invalidates Atheism?
This should be easy for logic and evidence-based Atheists to answer.
33 comments:
Atheism makes no claims about any of the questions you're asking, but I'll do my best to answer them best on my own training in information science.
1) Knowledge is generally considered to be the synthesis of information, which itself is the synthesis of data.
2) Not really. Something is true if it can be objectively verified.
3) Atheism is a reasonable conclusion based on the lack of evidence for the existence of any gods. Compelling evidence for the existence of gods would invalid atheism, but thus far, no one has provided any.
How would you answer these questions yourself?
Sigh. How to say this...
First, you're opinionated and arrogant. By itself, that's not an issue; I'm just as opinionated and arrogant as you are.
Second, and there's no better way of putting it, you're a lightweight. Again, by itself, that's not an issue; no one can be well-informed about more than a few fields out of the thousands that humans study in depth.
The issue, though, is when you combine the two. If you're opinionated about a field you're poorly-informed about, there are two effects. First, you look foolish: you're arguing points on which a lot of considered thought has already been published. Second, your opinionated-ness discourages people from helping you to further your education.
These faults are painfully apparent in your recent posts. There's a ton of ethical and epistemological philosophy from atheist and non-religious perspectives, literature that you appear to be completely unaware of.
I'm not saying you have to agree with all of this literature, but if you want to discuss these topics with people with differing viewpoints, you might want to learn what these different viewpoints actually are, and what reasonably intelligent and well-informed people have written on these topics.
You're certainly under no obligation to do anything. Within reasonable limits, what you write on your own blog is no one's business but your own. However, unless you step up your game considerably, you cannot expect any real interaction.
Perhaps Larry will educate us.
Larry,
Thanks for stopping by to wipe your nose on me here. But it is still dripping with condescension, and yes arrogance is your forte’, I agree.
Sigh. Where to start. Your comment is empty except for calling me names. I’m immune to that, plenty of built up scar tissue from dealing daily with Atheists who have nothing else to say, who drop by to call me names in order to feel superior (I suppose is the reason). You give no information, only deprecation. You think I should address…. What? You don’t say. Fine: empty.
People trying to educate me? Really? Not just call me lightweight (and scores of other names) and give no other actual information? To call any principled logic “stupid”? To refuse to defend their rejectionism with logic or empirical data? I hardly think so.
No, I think that Atheists are cocooned into ever-tightening constrictions of made up concoctions which they want considered as Truth, when they first deny there is Truth; when they make intuitive proclamations after first denying any value to intuition; when they write books with their name on them declaring that they personally have no agency to think up anything - they only receive it from the deterministic brain into their faux consciousness. And especially when they try to define what is “good” for everybody.
Hey, it's all relative, right? No principles involved which have any actual authority. Just mental masturbation, which was the pejorative fav of last year.
Really. If you have something with actual value to say, then make your case with empirical facts, using the rules of Philosophical Materialism. Then we might have something to discuss. Otherwise…
Hey, you educator-wanna-bes out there: Tell us what your actual personal Moral Theories are: educate us all. Tell us what your actual Evidentiary Theories are: educate us all. Tell us something other than that we are ignorant lightweights: that's just empty talk without actual content.
<shrugs&rt; I see you already know all the answers; you obviously don't need me. You are entitled to whatever opinion you happen to have about atheists; we are not particularly concerned with earning your good opinion.
If Larry's right, then why should anyone bother? What would be the point of answering questions you can find answers to yourself?
Seriously, why do you want people to spend the time?
David, the point of inquiring about an Atheist's Theory of Knowledge is to determine if said atheist is in a reasonable position to decide what constitutes "compelling" evidence given his or her ToK. If a given atheist's ToK is incoherent, his rejection of theism can itself be rejected as irrational and illogical. This sort of analysis is what Stan attempts to provide in his blog.
Larry,
There's a ton of ethical and epistemological philosophy from atheist and non-religious perspectives, literature that you appear to be completely unaware of.
If you'd actually inspected the blog, you'd find Stan has evaluated many arguments from atheist perspectives, it appears he finds them lacking in logic and thus not terribly compelling. Perhaps you can do better?
You must not have read my comment. I'm an atheist, and I believe in truth. Not sure why you capitalized it, though.
Larry,
Your extreme condescencion is merely exemplary of the elitist jerkism that infects many Atheists.
As if I care about your goodwill?? You actually think that I wish to curry your favor?
If you actually had something positive to suggest you would have done so.
Commenters,
I haven't the time to respond to each of you immediately, but I will try to get to you by the end of the day...
Thanks for your patience.
Stan
Compelling evidence is evidence that convinces someone of something. The lack of compelling evidence (or indeed any evidence whatsoever) for the existence of gods makes atheism as a rational conclusion.
David Allen,
Sorry to have delayed the response to your comments.
Atheism makes no claims about any of the questions you're asking, but I'll do my best to answer them best on my own training in information science.
1) Knowledge is generally considered to be the synthesis of information, which itself is the synthesis of data.
2) Not really. Something is true if it can be objectively verified.
3) Atheism is a reasonable conclusion based on the lack of evidence for the existence of any gods. Compelling evidence for the existence of gods would invalid atheism, but thus far, no one has provided any.
How would you answer these questions yourself? “
Thanks for these answers
” Compelling evidence is evidence that convinces someone of something. The lack of compelling evidence (or indeed any evidence whatsoever) for the existence of gods makes atheism as a rational conclusion. “
OK, thank you.
I’d hoped that many of the Atheists that view this challenge would contribute their personal viewpoints. I’m interested in learning how Atheists today reach their conclusions.
Then you said,
” Stan's criticism of Larry is ironic (even is Larry is being a jerk). To suggest that no religious people are elitist jerks is a joke. “
That is a Tu Quoque, and does not address Larry and his personal characteristics of interpersonal interaction, and the commonality of those with many people with similar philosophies, which was the subject at hand. No one suggested that no religious people are similarly flawed. However, those characteristics seem to be very common amongst the Atheists which haunt the internet. This blog’s past comments attest to that.
I did not intend to discredit your position (a requirement of the tu quoque. However, your pointing out this tendency in atheists (which you just did again) implies that it is absent in religious people. If all people possess this characteristic, there is no reason to mention it in the context of atheists.
David Allen says,
"I did not intend to discredit your position (a requirement of the tu quoque"
Tu Quoque, via Fallacy Files:
Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.
"However, your pointing out this tendency in atheists (which you just did again) implies that it is absent in religious people."
It implies nothing of the sort. If you make such an inference, it is not based on any charge made.
"If all people possess this characteristic, there is no reason to mention it in the context of atheists."
No one said all people; read for meaning: "many Atheists".
Your comment is both false and trivial.
Exactly. If you meant Christians as well as atheists, you'd have said that.
I do not discuss Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintos, Taoists, Mormons, or any other group: this blog is about Atheism and Atheists. If you are offended by what I did not say, that is an aberration of your own making. You are free to leave at any time.
If you want to make an actual rational case for something, then produce it. Otherwise you are pissing up a tree that is not even there.
David,
Let's get this out in the open. If you want to fabricate a reason to call me a hypocrite, then be a man and do it. You want to accuse me of not accounting for the jerks in my own people, who you assume are the Christians you want attacked. But here's your problem: you have no idea who my actual people are, and I can guarantee that. So your presumption is a prejudice, a bias you want to project.
Now. Go ahead, man up and make your accusation. Let's see how it stands up under scrutiny of your own prejudice.
Keep in mind that you exactly nothing about me, my belief system if any, who my people actually are, or how I might actually feel about the Christians you want attacked. So you just might be better off slinking into a Christian site to make your (not too) veiled inferences.
OK?
Maybe if people who consider themselves as true Atheists like Larry and David, would give a reason which refutes the metaphysical definiton of Classical Theism or similar, or least acknowledge that, from a scientific standpoint, it is not possible to observe anything which may be considered as non-material, and falling into scientism is one of the strongest temptations.
For example, what Feynmann himself called as "Cargo cult Science", is for the reason of the use of scientific rigidity where it is possible to be addressed, for which I agree.
The proplem with Feynmann himself, is that he fell into that very same mistake, by giving analogies of his own opinions about the nature of the parapsychology studies, and just ignoring the way experiments are designed. Nowdays, the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics has changed too much and most of Feynmann's experiments are outdated.
Even for Integrated Circuit Design, the most used theories are Quantum Mechanics and Classical Electrodynamics. I said Quantum Mechanics, because the Spintroincs theory, which is successfully used, comes from there.
The Stablishment of Physics is also something to cringe about (and here you may understand a bit about Feynmann's biased position, which happens so commony in scientific research), because ideas out of mainstream are just hands-down rejected. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is what gave Quantum Mechanics some problems (no religious bias about Feynmann and Heisenberg, as the latter was Catholic), and made harder the experimental design for Quantum Mechanics, because of his opinion against Schrödinger's theories, and so on. Quantum ElectroDynamics is also affected. If there's something I've learned from one close relative who is a physicist, is that in the mainstream world of physics, there's a lot of work to do, and decided to be an engineer instead, for fear at losing my life's work. Physics, from a theoretical view, leaves still something to be desired.
What I'm trying to say, is that science may only address efects which are to be materially observable, so the problem with parapsychology is that it address the possible efects which are present, from non-material entities, so to preserve scientific rigidity in the experiments, still the non-material is not observable, but the possible material effects are, and should be accountable as positive evidence for the existence of a non-material agent or agents.
So frankly, dismissing parapsychological just because "i don't believe in the way they design experiments" or "i don't believe in it" is not enough reason to mention what is "pesudoscience" or not.
If it stands by the method, and the experiments are designed to be addressed for what is worth, then it is not pseudoscience, and for parapsychology, free energy, and the theory behind homeopathy, yes, they are also science, because at least in some of their experimental design, there is replicable, falsifiable and not falsified, evidence. For example:
1)In parapsychology, Random Event Generators, and how the patterns of the white noise change when something important would happen, or when people focuses their attention by meditating with them.
2)for Free Energy, just look for Tesla's theories, not youtube videos and then crying "pseudoscience".
3)Look for the experimental results, it's not his fault that people, like James Randi, for political reasons, who didn't know about his expertise, did what unfortunately scientific stablishments tend to do these days.
I'll continue below.
So, from the comment above…
Crying pseudoscience because it fits anyone, is just an opinion. the use of the ideology of scientism may become anti-scientific because of these assertions.
As true Atheists as you are, you should acknowledge those consequences, and make a good use of your library of factoids, instead of memorizing them in fashion, while at the same time misunderstanding or purposely twisting about the concepts of theories which are not posited as scientific.
Now, from the metaphysical standpoint, it is not enough of ridiculing and mocking people just because of "What I or you believe", it is about understanding what is the reach of the assertions made, by accepting being an atheist, and what is the reason posited, as an antithesis which is used to refute the arguments posited for theistic theories. The logic behind classical theism may be axiomatically addressable if you wish, just leave political affiliations aside, as it is not for such interest.
As true Atheists as you are, how would you refute, and not from a ecclesiological standpoint only, and not from an anti-Christian or anti-(put popular religion here) memetic, the existence of a greater, impersonal, non-material reality, which transcends time and space, with immanence and simplicity?
Kind Regards.
As true Atheists as you are, how would you refute, and not from a ecclesiological standpoint only, and not from an anti-Christian or anti-(put popular religion here) memetic, the existence of a greater, impersonal, non-material reality, which transcends time and space, with immanence and simplicity?
From an epistemological point of view, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.
Har!
Hitchen's ill-fated non sequitur still lives.
The second comment, Hitchens', is non-coherent, because it cannot prove itself, using its very own conditions. A classic Epimenides Paradox, and a complete logical failure.
So the assertion of the second comment also applies to the first comment, which cannot be proven using the conditions of the second comment. The first comment also fails, because it is not a law of nature, nor a principle of logic; it is an unquantifiable opinion (that of Sagan) suitable only for bumper stickers on college campuses on freshman Porsches.
The final quote was that of Laplace addressing Napoleon, claiming quite rationally that material and rational investigations do not require God: the failed principle of Materialism is blindly presumed by those who quote this. But the quote is actually false: Laplace was referring to Newton's thought that God had to interfere in the universe to keep it running. Laplace said that God's interference was not necessary - not that God was not necessary.
Major fail.
But Stan, if you agreed to those quotes, as per reciprocal altruism, then they would be magically right. However, if you agreed to them and then chose to disagree with them, and therefore break the contract, then you would be an a-hole.
Wow Stan you manage to cram an impressive amount of ridicule into that response. I applaud your literary talents.
Shall I respond as creatively? Or would I be banned for prejudice, childlike taunts and other subjective judgments?
Re: Epimenides Paradox
Interesting charge. I object because there are innumerable claims made with no evidence which have been exposed as false. Thus the phrase "That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." is backed by considerable statistical evidence.
That seems a rather large gap in your objection.
As you said the first must be accepted for the same rational consideration.
The claim that you had toast this morning for breakfast requires little evidence. The claim that the toast was prepared by Martians orbiting your tractor would warrant significant more evidence to accept.
There are innumerable extraordinary claims that we accept because of the weight of the evidence. Atomic Theory, Relativity, Evolution (which I know you don't believe in but I do BECAUSE of the extraordinary weight of evidence) and a thousand thousand other claims which to our common senses would appear impossible.
Accepted for the extraordinary amount of evidence to their claim.
Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.
It doesn't matter what Laplace meant. What I mean is that the addition of a greater, impersonal, non-material reality, which transcends time and space, with immanence and simplicity this hypothesis to the grand unifying theory of the universe adds absolutely no understanding of the realities involved. It doesn't explain anything.
It is a grand, ultimate, claim and is backed by zero objective evidence.
Did you here they actually observed the reflection of a Dark Matter filament this week?
Look Stan, you can quote logical principles, but if the logic doesn't reflect the observable reality, which do you think is misdirected?
I'm not going to say major fail, cause that's just rude. But really.
godless said....
Wow Stan (I think you meant Fred, who knows, its relative) you manage to cram an impressive amount of ridicule into that response. I applaud your literary talents.
Shall I respond as creatively?
What are you talking about? In a relative frame work those are praise, fairness, mature conversation and other objective doubts.
Or would i be banned?
Who knows what the relative whim of the moment is? But then again in a relative framework( gotta like this oxymoron) you can rest assured that being banned is identical to being here.
godless says,
”Re: Epimenides Paradox
Interesting charge. I object because there are innumerable claims made with no evidence which have been exposed as false. Thus the phrase "That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." is backed by considerable statistical evidence.
That seems a rather large gap in your objection.”
Show me an example of a claim that has been shown false with no evidence to prove its falseness. Your claim can be dismissed under the Hitchens rule, otherwise
Then show evidence that the universal claim made by Hitchens is both logically valid and universally applicable without exception. Otherwise, your claim can be dismissed under the Hitchens rule. So can Hitchens’.
”As you said the first must be accepted for the same rational consideration.
The claim that you had toast this morning for breakfast requires little evidence. The claim that the toast was prepared by Martians orbiting your tractor would warrant significant more evidence to accept.”
Someone, you I think, claimed to be an alien and required me to prove otherwise. The point being that proving a negative is rather difficult since it requires a LOT of evidence, which annoyed you. Now you want to claim that any claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, which would include your claim of being an alien. You can’t pick and choose which principles sometimes apply and sometimes don’t… Wait, that is exactly your position, isn’t it: it is all relative to what you want to be true so you accept whichever principle you think supports your current position.
”There are innumerable extraordinary claims that we accept because of the weight of the evidence.”
If there is weighty evidence, then they are not extraordinary claims, are they??
(continued)
” Atomic Theory, Relativity, Evolution (which I know you don't believe in but I do BECAUSE of the extraordinary weight of evidence) and a thousand thousand other claims which to our common senses would appear impossible.”
What you are talking about is contingent science, yes? Science which makes no claims beyond what evidence actually shows. A scientist who hypothesizes is not making a claim, he is in the process of proposing an experiment to produce data. But a scientist who makes the claim that “evolution is true” is making an unsubstantiated claim; if he said, “there is considerable extrapolated and inferential data which suggests evolution”, then he is an actual objective scientist pointing to the limits of actual knowledge.
”Accepted for the extraordinary amount of evidence to their claim.”
If you said “provisionally accepted pending falsification which could happen with further experimentation, technology advances, revolutionary new contrary theories, etc.” then you would be correct.
”Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.
It doesn't matter what Laplace meant. “
Really? Really?? You quote Laplace, and then it doesn’t matter what Laplace meant? Oh I forgot; it is all relativism here, right?
”What I mean is that the addition of a greater, impersonal, non-material reality, which transcends time and space, with immanence and simplicity this hypothesis to the grand unifying theory of the universe adds absolutely no understanding of the realities involved. It doesn't explain anything.”
First, if that is what you mean then why didn’t you say that instead of quoting Laplace, who you say doesn’t matter anyway?
Second, that is not the posit being made by basic theism, anyway.
”It is a grand, ultimate, claim and is backed by zero objective evidence.”
And of course by adding the “objective” materialist condition to the evidentiary requirement, you again commit the ubiquitous Category Error. You intentionally restrict your own thoughts to the internally contradictory ideology, and so you cannot rationally discuss anything outside of that ideology.
”Did you here they actually observed the reflection of a Dark Matter filament this week?”
Link?
”Look Stan, you can quote logical principles, but if the logic doesn't reflect the observable reality, which do you think is misdirected?”
Examples of that astonishing charge are required. (claims without evidence can be dismissed…etc). If you wish to discredit disciplined logic, you are attacking a gorilla much larger than yourself or science, either one. Without disciplined inductive and deductive logic, science does not exist. Science is predicated on logic.
”I'm not going to say major fail, cause that's just rude. But really.”
Yes, it is also false in this instance.
Show me an example of a claim that has been shown false with no evidence to prove its falseness
Your joking? This is not at all what the statement means.
If you make a claim, with no evidence, I am free to dismiss that claim. The basis for this are the enumerable false claims made which have been proven wrong upon the discovery of evidence. Thus there is EVIDENCE to support the assertion. Thus it cannot be dismissed without evidence and is not internally contradicted.
If you said “provisionally accepted pending falsification which could happen with further experimentation, technology advances, revolutionary new contrary theories, etc.” then you would be correct.
Riight. Thanks for clarifying. But it seems incredibly unlikely that a new data set will arise which will conclude that splitting an atomic does not unleash an incredible amount of energy. Wouldn't you say?
Really? Really?? You quote Laplace, and then it doesn’t matter what Laplace meant? Oh I forgot; it is all relativism here, right?
Of course it matters, I misspoke.
What I meant was it doesn't matter what he was specifically referring to. What matters is that he is dismissing the god hypothesis in reference to his theory of planetary movements for the same reason I am dismissing the god hypothesis as an explanation for any feature of observable reality. That is why I quoted him.
Second, that is not the posit being made by basic theism, anyway.
That is EXACTLY the posit being made. Refer to yonose's post.
And of course by adding the “objective” materialist condition to the evidentiary requirement, you again commit the ubiquitous Category Error.
By objective I mean evidence that people of any faith would accept.
Link?
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/5765/scientists-shine-light-dark-matter
Examples of that astonishing charge are required. (claims without evidence can be dismissed…etc). If you wish to discredit disciplined logic
No. You don't get to dismiss a principle and then use it to suit you. That's called being a hypocrit.
You've never seen misapplied logic? That's all I am suggesting is the case here. Specifically I am asking if observation countered your logical syllogism, which would you dismiss as not accurately representing reality?
And yes, the theories I listed are extraordinary. They are not ordinary. There are not a part of our everyday experiences, like eating toast for breakfast. Extraordinary.
Someone, you I think, claimed to be an alien and required me to prove otherwise. The point being that proving a negative is rather difficult since it requires a LOT of evidence, which annoyed you.
I didn't make this claim, but I agree with your logic. That's why it's dishonest to expect atheists to prove the non-existence of your particular ever elusive god. The quantity of evidence required isn't annoying, it is logically and physically impossible.
Now you want to claim that any claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, which would include your claim of being an alien.
Right. This hasn't changed. You are free to dismiss my ridiculous claim, and by the same principle I reject your claim that a god (whatever definition you are using today) exists.
So yeah, factually wrong on all points.
”Show me an example of a claim that has been shown false with no evidence to prove its falseness
Your joking? This is not at all what the statement means.
If you make a claim, with no evidence, I am free to dismiss that claim. The basis for this are the enumerable false claims made which have been proven wrong upon the discovery of evidence. Thus there is EVIDENCE to support the assertion. Thus it cannot be dismissed without evidence and is not internally contradicted.”
Your view is entirely one-sided, and perpendicular. First, what about claims that are ultimately proven to be valid? Hitchens dismisses those claims under Radical Skepticism only. Second, Hitchens was referring to claims that are made without any hope of material validation: religious claims. But his claim has no material basis, because no one can prove materially the validity of his claim, regarding non-material claims. He has asserted Philosophical Materialism.
” If you said “provisionally accepted pending falsification which could happen with further experimentation, technology advances, revolutionary new contrary theories, etc.” then you would be correct.
Riight. Thanks for clarifying. But it seems incredibly unlikely that a new data set will arise which will conclude that splitting an atomic does not unleash an incredible amount of energy. Wouldn't you say?”
Yes, the symptom is firm; the model for what actually exists will likely change.
” What I meant was it doesn't matter what he was specifically referring to. What matters is that he is dismissing the god hypothesis in reference to his theory of planetary movements for the same reason I am dismissing the god hypothesis as an explanation for any feature of observable reality. That is why I quoted him.”
OK. Then you must have an explanation for the unparsimonious existence vs non-existence question: why is there anything?
” Second, that is not the posit being made by basic theism, anyway.
That is EXACTLY the posit being made. Refer to yonose's post.”
Bullshit, again. The necessary and sufficient conditions have been given to you time and time and time again for you to refute. You ignore or ridicule them, but never attempt a refutation.
” And of course by adding the “objective” materialist condition to the evidentiary requirement, you again commit the ubiquitous Category Error.
By objective I mean evidence that people of any faith would accept.”
Even Radical Skeptics? Then you surely have conditions on what type of evidence would convince all people, and I suspect that it would be specifically material in nature. Your answer dodged the question.
” You've never seen misapplied logic? That's all I am suggesting is the case here. Specifically I am asking if observation countered your logical syllogism, which would you dismiss as not accurately representing reality?”
That’s not what you said. Here is what you said:
” ”Look Stan, you can quote logical principles, but if the logic doesn't reflect the observable reality, which do you think is misdirected?”
That’s like saying what if I see something both exist and not exist; it would be a radically devastation of rational thinking: if the (new discovery of a previously unknown) differential between disciplined logic and repeatable experimental observation is demonstrable to everyone, then logic no longer has meaning, and inductive/deductive science collapses, including the science which refutes the logic; science would refute the basis for believing science.
The likelihood of that happening is too low to even consider.
But I actually think that is not what you are referring to. I think you are referring to incorrect logic vs. correct observation, “misapplied logic”. If logic is misapplied, then it is demonstrable under the disciplined scrutiny of the logic. But of course in the case of the deductive logic presented here for Theism, no one even attempts to analyze the logic. They merely dismiss it out of ideological necessity, not logical necessity.
” I didn't make this claim, but I agree with your logic. That's why it's dishonest to expect atheists to prove the non-existence of your particular ever elusive god. The quantity of evidence required isn't annoying, it is logically and physically impossible.”
Yes. And that is just the physical evidence in support of Atheism. But Atheists always adhere to that demand of the same “logically and physically impossible” evidence from Theists, despite the Category Error involved. Then they create aphorisms which they apply to Theism but not ever to Atheism: Special Pleading.
” Now you want to claim that any claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, which would include your claim of being an alien.
Right. This hasn't changed. You are free to dismiss my ridiculous claim, and by the same principle I reject your claim that a god (whatever definition you are using today) exists.”
And Theists are free to reject your claim, based on its lack of material evidence and inability to refute the deductive positive case against Atheism, rendering Atheism an ideology without either logical or material objective support. In fact, Theists at least have logic on their side; Atheists have only unsupported rejection on their side.
I'll go a step further. Not only can you not prove a non-existence, you cannot deduce a non-existence.
Give it a try.
. First, what about claims that are ultimately proven to be valid?
How are they proven valid? With evidence. Give me examples of extraordinary claim made with zero supporting evidence that was eventually proven valid.
But his claim has no material basis, because no one can prove materially the validity of his claim, regarding non-material claims.
Yes you can. I've said at least twice now. You can rack up all the unsupported claims made which have been validated, and rack up all the unsupported claims made which have never been validated, and deduce a probability of the likely truth of future unsupported claims.
Bullshit, again.
Look Stan. Read the damn post I responded to.
This is (one reason) why theism is incoherent. No two theists can agree on what theism, or a deity, even is.
This is always way theism is so tenacious and impossible to disprove. You provide evidence or reason on one theists interpretation and a billion others chime in "well that's not MY god".
Even though both your an yonose's descriptions sound like an identical load of hogwash, you can't even agree what your hogwash is supposed to be.
If the people that supposedly believe this bullshit can't agree, and there is no supporting evidence, why the fuck should anyone ever take you seriously.
But Atheists always adhere to that demand of the same “logically and physically impossible” evidence from Theists, despite the Category Error involved.
Absolute bullshit. If the claims of theism are true, you should be able to demonstrate such.
Theists frequently make tangible claims on the nature of reality. There is no Category Error requesting evidence of such extraordinary claims.
And if you don't make tangible claims on the nature of reality? Who cares? Your claim is then meaningless. Literally immaterial.
Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.
Not only can you not prove a non-existence, you cannot deduce a non-existence.
Right. Which is why your insistence on placing a burden of evidence on atheists is dishonest.
You can't ever prove a negative. Certainly not something with such a flimsy immaterial description such as theism.
But it is just because theism is such a flimsy, immaterial, undefinable, extraordinary, evidence-less, etc etc etc BULLSHIT claim, that it is dismissed.
”Yes you can. I've said at least twice now. You can rack up all the unsupported claims made which have been validated, and rack up all the unsupported claims made which have never been validated, and deduce a probability of the likely truth of future unsupported claims.”
Interesting. Where is the link to this fascinating calculation? Where is the data? How many claims have been included in this data? Or is this just more bullshit, with no actual calculations, only a fairy tale to cover up for a Jump To Conclusion?
Without data for evidence, this can be dismissed – without evidence.
”Look Stan. Read the damn post I responded to.
This is (one reason) why theism is incoherent. No two theists can agree on what theism, or a deity, even is.
This is always way theism is so tenacious and impossible to disprove. You provide evidence or reason on one theists interpretation and a billion others chime in "well that's not MY god".”
Godless, brace yourself: I am going to wake you up by yelling at you. You have reverted in a knee-jerk fashion to your old, failed arguments. Time to wake up, bro.
We’ve been through this too many times now. SHOW ME the theists who deny the basic theism syllogism. Provide EVIDENCE of their denial of that deduction. You are making claims without evidence, which can be dismissed without evidence!!
”Even though both your an yonose's descriptions sound like an identical load of hogwash, you can't even agree what your hogwash is supposed to be.
If the people that supposedly believe this bullshit can't agree, and there is no supporting evidence, why the fuck should anyone ever take you seriously.”
The actual question du jour is why should anyone not dismiss your rejections, when you have not proven that theists will reject the basis for Basic theism, the necessary and sufficient conditions which even you do not refute after being provided with them time and time and time again. Your argument is not against Basic Theism - which you are now actively avoiding: ACTIVELY AVOIDING. You want to argue ecclesiasticism as if that were the actual basis for Theism, so that you can AVOID ARGUING AGAINST THE ACTUAL COMMON BASIS FOR THEISM. You are making excuses, not arguments.
We have been through this dozens of times. You want to change the subject, to claim that other stuff is the basis which is necessary and sufficient and which you can piss on as if to disprove Basic Theism. You can certainly piss on it. You cannot disprove BASIC THEISM by arguing against the WRONG topics. (You can't disprove it PERIOD, which is why you make such deviant excuses not to engage it)
” But Atheists always adhere to that demand of the same “logically and physically impossible” evidence from Theists, despite the Category Error involved.
Absolute bullshit. If the claims of theism are true, you should be able to demonstrate such”
PROVE THAT TO BE TRUE FOR BASIC THEISM. PROVE IT. PROVE It!! I’m really getting tired of you coughing up the same old failed Materialist arguments which are demonstrated false over and over and over, and you ignoring that rather than even attempting to refute it - and then you come back with the same false argument as before. So PROVE YOUR CLAIM once and for all, and along the way REFUTE THE ACTUAL BASIC THEIST CLAIM WHICH IS GIVEN TO YOU.
You can’t avoid it by claiming that it is not really the basis for Theism, unless you provide ACTUAL EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM JUST EXACTLY AS HITCHENS AND YOU INSIST THAT YOU MUST DO!!
(continued)
”Theists frequently make tangible claims on the nature of reality. There is no Category Error requesting evidence of such extraordinary claims.
And if you don't make tangible claims on the nature of reality? Who cares? Your claim is then meaningless. Literally immaterial.”
Aside from the issue that your complaint is not relevant to the ACTUAL BASIS FOR THEISM, you have been given claims of tangible evidence to refute – the claims made at Lourdes, 150 years ago – and you have not and cannot refute those EITHER.
You have two things to refute before you can even begin to present SUBSTANTIATION for your claims made above WITH NO EVIDENCE.
1. Refute the necessary and sufficient conditions for Theism using disciplined deductive logic.
2. Refute the claims of tangible evidence at Lourdes, using empirical science in its fullest objective capacity.
Do you wish for me to repeat these issues? You have been challenged with this numerous times and yet make the silly claims above as if you have never considered the direct, demonstrable falseness of your claims.
OK I will repeat these issues:
1. Refute the necessary and sufficient conditions for Theism using disciplined deductive logic.
2. Refute the claims of tangible evidence at Lourdes, using empirical science in its fullest objective capacity.
”Not only can you not prove a non-existence, you cannot deduce a non-existence.
Right. Which is why your insistence on placing a burden of evidence on atheists is dishonest.”
It is made in order to illuminate the exact demand made by Atheists on Theists, and which you made just above: your demand is intellectually dishonest and your complaint is Special Pleading for poor Atheists, who can’t prove their own claims.
Here is the kicker:
”You can't ever prove a negative. Certainly not something with such a flimsy immaterial description such as theism”
First you say that Theism must have material components (and I say, here: refute Lourdes);
Here you say that non-material existence is flimsy and can’t be proven. ( I say: then you admit that demanding such evidence is a rational failure under Philosophical Materialism, that failed philosophy, and that Atheism, being without logic or evidnece is flimsy and can't be proven).
Most importantly, proving a negative is absolutely and definitely possible if only material existence is considered as you wish: I can prove that you are not now present in this room. So if Materialism is your only source of knowledge, then you can prove negatives of material things, IFF you do not make ridiculous, universal claims. Atheism is a ridiculous, universal claim. And it is without material evidence and can be rejected on that count alone.
”But it is just because theism is such a flimsy, immaterial, undefinable, extraordinary, evidence-less, etc etc etc BULLSHIT claim, that it is dismissed.”
You are radically asleep, hoot. Both logical and physical evidence has been given to you many, many times; you do not refute it, but you do claim it does not exist. Other than that you avoid it like the plague, in fear of what would happen to your ideology, I suppose. Claiming that there is no evidence is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence, and the evidence given to you proves that your claim of no evidence is wrong.
This is getting boring, repetitively going through your persistent failures to engage with actual arguments. Kindly at least engage the arguments being made, OK? One last time, if you cannot do the following, you and your Atheism have failed:
1. Refute the necessary and sufficient conditions for Theism using disciplined deductive logic.
2. Refute the claims of tangible evidence at Lourdes, using empirical science in its fullest objective capacity.
Post a Comment