The Atheist's astounding ignorance of the scientific method and its limitations shines through this proclamation. The basis in Philosophical Materialism is probably not even realized in such a transparently shallow statement of belief. The ignorance, or at least ignoring, of the commonly understood requirement for the Burden of Rebuttal is apparent.
The most direct answer to this proclamation is this:
1. Prove the validity of the Principle of Materialism using the scientific method.
2. Prove the validity of the scientific method using the scientific method.
3. Prove that material testing of the scientific method can validate non-material questions.
4. Disprove the validity and use of non-material deductive logic using the scientific method.
5. Disprove the need for the non-material Burden of Rebuttal using the scientific method.
6. If science can't disprove God, then why would it be able to prove God? Learn what Falsifiability means to empirical knowledge. Read your own proclamations for internal non-coherency.
7. At least read about the things you proclaim as truth before making the proclamation. In this case, read Popper. Then read about the responsibilities of the parties in debates. Then explain why you do not have a burden to support your rejections with the scientific method, including data showing that there is no First Cause (for example).
18 comments:
This is perfect example of Orwellian Speech.
Theory aside, and sadly, Atheism is becoming more and more sectarian and a bunch of cults per se, it is easy to observe. I hope not too many atheists get absorbed themselves with such claptrap.
Not every closed membership group is a sect or a cult, but this is demonstrably not the case.
I have yet to see an "heterodox atheist".
Kind Regards.
`Burden of Rebuttal' (why all the `crazy caps'?) is a high-school debate term and not a tool of rational thinking.
Stan, you are mentally ill. `Burden of Rebuttal' time. Prove that you are not.
Klein,
Nice try. Rational debate requires disciplined logical assessment from both sides. If an argument is rejected by one side, then disciplined logic or evidence must be given by that side showing (a) the actual reasons for having rejected the argument, and (b) supporting their own position. Atheists cannot do that, and don't even try. Hence the Atheists' attempts to deflect responsibility away from themselves to provide any sort of rational position.
The "high school" argument which Atheists like to try out is transparently false for this reason: if it applies to rationality in debates in high school, then it also applies in collegiate debates and to any and every debate which is defined as rational. The attempt to belittle the rational aspect of the debate decorates the Atheist penchant for dodging all logic when "defending" their position (actually, their void). Atheists are taking more and more irrational positions in attempting to deflect the attention from the fact that they have no rational case to support their position, either logically or evidentially.
Let's rephrase it this way: if the Atheist wishes to avoid the pain of providing detailed, disciplined, logic for supporting his position, then his position cannot be held to be rational: he is attempting to deflect the conversation away from his own empty void.
Virtually every Atheist statement is either a rationalization or a dodge of intellectual responsibility. These are markers of irrationality having been adopted as a worldview and a scaffold for future behaviors. Persistent attachment to irrationality is a feature of insanity, and is demonstrably endemic in Atheism, which claims both logic and evidence, yet has neither to show for defense of its position.
Klein, you have merely blustered, and have made no case to support Atheism. Feel free to try again, this time with actual logic and/or evidence.
As an agnostic, I have to say, the same way atheists can't prove there is no God, Stan can not prove he is not mentally ill.
The "high school" argument which Atheists like to try out is transparently false for this reason: if it applies to rationality in debates in high school, then it also applies in collegiate debates and to any and every debate which is defined as rational.
High-school style debates aren't about truth and rational thinking. They are about using rhetoric to score more points than the opposition.
Try refuting Klien's mental illness proposition for an illustration of how irrational your burden of rebuttal is.
"Virtually every Atheist statement is either a rationalization or a dodge of intellectual responsibility."
That has certainly been my experience. Either that, or they simply acknowledge their preference for atheism and march along. So be it. But don't call it 'science' or mock anyone else for being illogical again.
Welcome back Stan!
I would add that, when an atheist defines atheism as "lack of belief in God", then theism can be defined accordingly as "lack of belief in Darwinism". Fact is that even the likes of Dawkins had to admit that nature appears like designed. So the first premise is agreed upon. What remains is proving the second. And here atheists define themselves in terms of the "lack of belief" in the answer they wish was not true (I.e., God) and thereby imply a godless answer as the default science. So theists here can equally say they lack belief in Darwinism and shift the burden onto them convincing theists of Darwinism, while God is the default and most obvious answer.
Rational debate requires disciplined logical assessment from both sides
That's nice. Mission statements aren't rational debate; they're mission statements.
The burden of proving the existence of gods lies with the one who claims it as fact.
It's not rocket science
"That's nice. Mission statements aren't rational debate; they're mission statements."
And yet Atheists seem not to comprehend the mission here.
"The burden of proving the existence of gods lies with the one who claims it as fact."
The burden of proving otherwise lies with the one who rejects the proposition.
This fundamental position is the rational death knell for Atheism because in denying their own need to participate in rational discussions they throw the high beams on their deceptions and fallacy dances. You're right: it certainly isn't rocket science - it is merely Atheist denialism of their own intellectual responsibility, as they resort to the VOID which is at the heart of Atheism.
They cannot disprove the simplest of Theist deductions, so they choose to run away. Their best answer is "I am not convinced", as they step into the VOID.
Wtan wrote to me: And yet Atheists seem not to comprehend the mission here.
Stan, the image you posted: that's a mission statement. Demanding standards for rational debate from a mission statement is silly.
Bundaberg, 31:
You are proving the point, which is that Atheists cannot prove their beliefs. Theist is not a materialist thing, available for empirical testing. Thus Atheists have no proof that Theism is empirically false.
And Atheists consistently run away from producing any actual deductive logic to support their lack of knowledge, by tossing over their shoulders argument's such as the Burden of Proof dodge, which is merely Atheistic intellectual cowardice.
As someone above says, it is not rocket science:
First, rocket science is purely materialist, argues both sides of any evidence with the intent of identifying a conclusion which is compatible with ALL evidence, not just the opinions of certain enthusiasts.
Second, rocket science does not take positions on non-material issues, because rocket science is an intellectual discipline, not an emotional attachment to an intellectual VOID and the freedom of no knowledge whatsoever, as is Atheism.
Third, rocket science does not take moral positions; neither does Atheism because it is a VOID; however AtheistS do make moral declarations which they have made up.
Whateverman says,
"Stan, the image you posted: that's a mission statement. Demanding standards for rational debate from a mission statement is silly."
The phrase, "I am an Atheist because...." is the beginning of an argument for the [conclusion: Atheism]. In this case the argument is,
Atheism is true "...because of one simple fact: THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON RELIGION."
Restated more cleanly,
Proposition 1:
IF [THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON RELIGION" is a (simple) fact],
THEN [Atheism is true].
And it follows with this further attempt to appear deductive:
Proposition 2:
"IF [you propose the existence of something],
THEN [you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence]."
This is false due to its incompleteness which fails to properly separate categories. It should state:
Proposition 2:
"IF [you propose the existence of something MATERIAL],
THEN [you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence]."
The original statement which was actually made included at least one false category, that of non-material existence, which is (a) not material and (b)not subject to material investigation. This completely eliminates the scientific method as a proper method for determining any type of non-material existence. So the deductive-looking statement is false. It is also false because it is internally contradictory, not grounded, and without evidence for any possible truth value it might have had (there is none).
Now, it should be obvious that both an argument for the [conclusion: Atheism] has been made, and a deductive-appearing "reason" for accepting that argument.
And it should also be obvious that both the argument and the deductive-appearing reason are false.
Now, the argument that there is no argument being made and therefore no logic required of the "position statement" is obviously false, as well.
Further, the idea that the Atheist position requires no logic is a bizarre claim, as is the claim that Atheists have a "mission", which is to dodge any burden of logic for their own position.
There is never any need to look very far into something said by an Atheist before finding the complete non-coherence which is at the base of the Atheist VOID. The VOID is boundless and can hold a great many non-coherences.
Atheism is true "...because of one simple fact: THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON RELIGION."
That's your argument, not the argument of the mission statement you posted.
That mission statement explains why the atheist who wrote it is an atheist; it is not an attempt to justify atheism as "true".
Hmmm...
" Klein said...
Stan, you are mentally ill. `Burden of Rebuttal' time. Prove that you are not."
and then there's
"31 said
Try refuting Klien's mental illness proposition for an illustration of how irrational your burden of rebuttal is."
Neither of you have provided one shred of evidence for the statement 'Stan is mentally ill'. None. You simply threw it out there and demanded a rebuttal.
But no one can rebut a statement that has no supporting facts. There's no substance to the statement and thus, nothing to rebut.
That you have no support for the statement is, apparently, not the point - if Stan can't or won't provide a rebuttal to what is, essentially, Nothing, he has 'failed' and you have 'won'.
Pure sophistry. And you probably didn't even realize you were doing it. Stan, do you see what I meant when I mentioned that chase through the high school cafeteria?
It's their most common tactic - throw some meaningless crap out there and while you waste valuable time refuting with it, they keep on throwing crap out. It doesn't cost them anything in time or money or intelligence - it's Nothing, or very nearly so, and is intended to delude the foolish and the self-deluded.
And while you are in the corner sorting through their crap, they are in front of our children, filling their heads with silly Consequentialist signs and slogans.
It's politics and ego, going with whatever works. Logic and reason have nothing to do with any of it. Who can shout the loudest? The longest? In front of the biggest audience? Telling them things they want to hear? The person who can, is the 'winner'.
That the winner is, in the end, a loser forever is apparently of no importance.
Whateverman said,
"That mission statement explains why the atheist who wrote it is an atheist; it is not an attempt to justify atheism as "true". "
So the Atheist doesn't think that Atheism is true, justified, valid, right on the money, etc? He is setting up a mission statement which illuminates his worldview basis, and he doesn't think it is true?
This is the weakest of arguments and not worth a second's further time.
The Klein statement is not a deductive argument, it is a character assassination posed as an analogy. It fails immediately upon inspection: (a)there is no IF/THEN deduction. (b) While professional assessments of sanity are required before conclusions of insanity are made, no such assessments were made. (c) My Burden of Rebuttal is materially available in the form of a professional sanity assessment should I care to respond by spending my cash in response to their false analogy.
The difference is that Atheists refuse to accept the intellectual responsibility for providing what they promise: logic and evidence. This is intellectual fraud.
Their attempt at analogy here merely shows that they know that they cannot provide either logic or evidence for their position, so rather than admit their guaranteed failure, they attempt to continue the fraud via Tu Quoque analogies.
All analogies fail at some point; their analogy fails at the get-go because it mixes terms in a Black and White Fallacy failure. Where their challenging analogy regarding my sanity refers to supporting evidence in the material domain, the actual Atheist challenge refers to providing supporting evidence from the non-material domain about which they make claims (of non-existence).
All told, three fallacies: False analogy; Tu Quoque; Black and White. Those are coupled with intellectual fraud as described above.
Why do Atheists persist in fallacies and fraud while maintaining their elitist claims of sole possession of logic and evidence?
Perhaps they will let us know.
Hmm. Six months down the pike and they have not let us know.
Post a Comment