The following principle of Atheism I call the First Principle of Atheism, because it is unarguable true and the remainder of Atheist behaviors and principles are subsidiary to it. The remaining principles might not be numerically identifiable in the sense that this one is, and they will have names instead.
Today's principle of Atheism:
FIRST PRINCIPLE OF ATHEISM:
Atheism is a VOID, intellectually and morally.
This seems hardly arguable given that many Atheists declare the relief of total freedom that Atheism has given them - freedom from onerous absolutes, rules and authority (1). This VOID or hole is created solely by rejection, commonly of the nature of rebellion, and commonly is adopted in juvenile years of poor intellectual and cortex development coupled with raging hormones and personal emotional turmoil.
After the VOID is adopted, Atheists find themselves totally free to create their own truths to backfill the hole. In essence, the Atheist is enabled to fill the hole totally with himself, and his own personal desires. So Atheism is completely self-focused and narcissistic. This is not to say that all narcissists are Atheist, nor that all Atheists meet the clinical definitions of narcissism. But the first principle of Atheism opens the pathway to narcissism and many take that path.
Intellectually, the Atheist is free to claim logic as a basis for his worldview and simultaneously refuse to provide that logic in a disciplined deductive argument. This indicates an inherent non-coherent irrationality (2) which is traceable to the initial First Principle of Atheism. The Atheist, however, considers his own thought process to be the ultimate in logic, even superceding long established disciplined deductive processes going clear back to Aristotle. Thus the Atheist's self image is that he is the superior intellect, far superior to those who use established disciplined deductive processes.
Morally, the Atheist is free to design his own morals, which will be compatible with the inclinations and personal proclivities of the individual Atheist. Since his moral system is compatible with his behaviors and desires, then the Atheist is "moral" by tautology: he cannot fail. In addition, the Atheist can change his moral basis at any time, without a moment's notice. So the Atheist considers himself totally moral, well beyond the morality of the Other.
Psychologically, the Atheist VOID allows the Atheist to consider himself superior in all the ways that matter. He is so superior that he can become a savior for the poor benighted masses, whether they want it or not, need it or not. Narcissism reigns.
In addition, contrary information jeapardizing the messiah status cannot be tolerated, and if it cannot be destroyed using the Atheist's proprietary logic, then it must be ridiculed, to demonstrate its inferiority. If ridicule of the information is not sufficient to defeat it, then the next tier is attacking the opponent directly, using faux moral and/or personal attacks.
NEXT: The Weaponized Anti-morality Principle.
Notes:
(1) Unless that authority can materially punish them.
(2) When viewed from the perspective of traditional disciplined deductive logic, based on form structure and first principles.
51 comments:
This a great parody of the extent to which Fundamentalist Christians need to twist logic into pretzels to portray non-belief in man made deities as a "religion." Comedy gold!
That seems clear enough. They can maintain two mutually exclusive ideas at the same time, despite the inherent contradiction, because they jump from one to the other whenever it's convenient or necessary to maintain their worldview. Either idea can be denied, then affirmed ten minutes later if the need is there.
Have I got that right?
Their tools of choice *appear* to be logic and reason. But they consistently violate 'conventional' logic with irrational statements that are so, because they say they are so.
Their actual tools of choice are emotional in nature - ridicule, personal attacks, and flat out denial. They cycle between these techniques,. leaving folks frustrated over, essentially, Nothing. The Nothing of the VOID.
Good so far?
Finally, this all appears to be driven by ego. The claim to intellectual and moral superiority, the denial that there is anything or Anyone outside of themselves to which they might owe allegiance, obediance or even existence... that's self-worship.
So... if you can't beat them verbally and you can't knock their teeth down their throat, what's left? It sounds like they get to do whatever they want, as long as no 'controlling legal authority' catches them at it. In fact, sometimes it seems to me like their goal is to *become* the 'controlling legal authority'.
bj edwards demonstrates how Atheists use ridicule rather than to refute. He makes no attempt to suggest anything other than that the hated fundamentalist Christian cannot possibly understand the elite Atheist. There is no contrary suggestion or logic being given, only ridicule.
Ridicule is an Atheist principle which will be addressed in an upcoming post. It is used because they have nothing else to offer, yet they must attack somehow.
Steven,
Yes. So far, so good and there's more to come.
Stan, if you want to see another example of what you're talking about go to the Unequally Yoked blog.
Post called Darren the Humanist Explains it All to You
I read BJ's comment again. It reminds me of that cafeteria chase analogy again. He doesn't bother actually refuting your statements
[The skinny Goth kid who's been taunting you at school flicks a piece of pie into your face. You jump up to confront him. He could actually stand his ground, face you and maybe fight you - perhaps to lose].
Instead, BJ merely makes a snide comment of his own - it doesn't have to make sense, or be backed by anything more than 'because I said so' - and tosses it on the blog.
[The skinny kid chooses to run away, and pulls chairs into your way as you chase him through the school cafeteria. While it's not much of an energy investment for him, *you* have to spend prodigious effort to jump over or around the chairs if you want to catch him. Even if you do, there's no guarantee you'll catch him. He has slowed you down too much.]
The similarity? Neither will ever actually confront you like a man, using reason like an adult. They want to take their cheap shots and run. They act as though they are proving something to the world but they are actually shoring themselves up.
They are still kids. Their existence as children in adult bodies precludes accountability and depends utterly on support by others (usually the tolerant society they spend so much time trying to undermine).
I recall CS Lewis rejected materialism because following it meant, eventually, undermining reason itself (by claiming that rational mind is just an unintended byproduct of aimless evolution) and thus, anything we might think up (including Materialism) was an inevitable product of our bodies - like gas or sweat. You could call it a lot of things, but True was never one of them.
But if your statements are true about Atheism, 'Truth' is whatever they say it is, whenever they want to, and can change willy-nilly. They *claim* reason, but like all their statements, it's true only because *they* say so - no supporting evidence. Demanding supporting evidence is just falling right into that merry chase through the cafeteria.
If they didn't fancy themselves a political force, I would do what I've always done with them - ignored them. Their philosophy boils down to self-worship and, in the end, it's corrupting. I just let 'em rot. If they are indeed smarter than me (and many are), that will soon change (Lance Armstrong is a perfect example).
No wonder they hate and reject all authority. No wonder they are determined to destroy any objective standard whatever. Like some (not all) kids, they hate anything that says 'No'. No matter what the reason. That this eternal rejection will destroy *them* in the end is almost beside the point - the point being *they did it their way*. No matter they take down civilization with them, they will do *what they will*.
Like a lot of very young children, and spoiled ones, at that.
Ah, the battle cry of the ego. Its struggle to dominate all other Selves never ends - but some (atheists) throw in the towel very early in the game.
Stan, do you think atheists try to convert others? Or do they just try to justify their illogical convictions, while speaking to others?
Also, would you consider atheists sociopaths?
Lol XD. I never realized just how committed atheists are.
Anonymous,
Welcome, and please choose a moniker. I can't know which "anonymous" I'm speaking to, thanks.
It is apparent that self-justification is very important to the Atheist, who seems highly likely to be a narcissist, possibly with Aspberger's, and other issues in the mix. So it is likely that the Atheist wants recognition that he is right in every way. Some obviously do want conversions, such as Dawkins who created Atheist summer camps for kids.
My psychologist friend says that narcissism is virtually untreatable because the narcissist doesn't recognize that he has a problem and claims that everyone else has the problem, not him: he is perfect just as he is. This fits with the Atheist inability to admit to logic errors in their arguments.
Sociopathy has been removed from the DSM and is now delegated to a collection of sub-issues.
"Sociopathy"? It's amusing that a guy who hasn't proven he's not mentally ill is taking it upon himself to teach others about mental illness. It was called "sociopathy" in the 1950's. It's been "antisocial personality disorder" for decades.
When are you going to get your "professional sanity assessment"?
Klein,
Do you have something logical to contribute? Or are you merely engaging in chigger type irritations?
Your analogy is false as has been demonstrated, and you have not refuted that. However, your obstinant adherance to it demonstrates the Atheist necessity of clinging to fallacies in the face of logic-based refutations.
There is no index reference in DSM-IV for sociopathy; however, the Mayo Clinic refers to sociopathy as a severe form of antisocial personality disorder, an aggravated or exaggerated subset, not the entire set.
The analyses which I gave come from a friend, a PhD in psychology, licensed in two states, with whom I have discussed Atheists and Atheism.
@Klein: aaaannd another chair gets pulled in front of Stan. Funny, it looks just like the last one.
Funny, isn't it, how they just make up some goofy accusation and when you decline to participate in their nonsense, they act as though they'd proven something. Danged if you do, danged if you don't.
So you've never actually met an atheist then?
Anonymous,
Shed your cowardice and choose a moniker... unless you are a drive-by troll, which is most likely.
You have made an ignorant accusation, one which contributes only to the affirmation of your inabitlity to make a rational, logical argument.
If you cannot make a decent argument, then you should go back to the Atheist sites which accommodate such things.
I don't think my accusation is ignorant at all because by the sound of your blog post here it sounds like you've never met an atheist before. You can feel free to prove me wrong. Otherwise you can keep writing stupid posts about people you have obviously never really spoken to and have gotten to know. You sound ignorant of people who are different from yourself.
This blog contains over five years of conversations containing thousands of comments and conversations with Atheists, which you are free to read. You, like many Atheists, seem to think that you represent all Atheists. I suspect that you lead a sheltered existence yourself, giving you a compromised viewpoint based on your self-perception which you want to extend to all Atheists.
You are making the exact Atheist fallacious dialectic which comes from the Atheist intellectual VOID: you make charges which are unaccompanied by evidence. If you want to make rational argumentation, then provide evidence of the total benign demeanor of all Atheists. When you do so, it will be considered, and contrary evidence will be provided.
The actual fact here is that you want criticism of Atheists and Atheism to stop; your only case is a charge against me, not a charge against the case I make. That is Ad Hominem and irrational.
Make an actual case; use evidence and disciplined deductive logic. Otherwise you have nothing to contribute.
Your funny as hell man do you understand how insane you sound?
The evidence is right in what your saying your too stupid to realize it.
I'm fully well aware that I don't represent all atheist. You on the other hand seem to want to lump all atheist into some kind of black and white way of thinking and dehumanize them. Which is a really disgusting thing to do.
I'm not here to try and change you cause personally I don't really care what you think. I'm just trying to point out that your and idiot.
By the way atheist isn't capitalized moron. It's an adjective and not a proper noun so you don't capitalize it.
Atheism is a position on religious issues, and is a religion of negation in its own right; it should be capitalized just like Islam, etc. regardless of what Atheists claim.
"Atheist" is not merely an adjective, it is also a noun. And it is spelled you're, when you mean the contraction. But this says it all in your statement:
"your and idiot."
You will not be commenting here in the future, since you do not think or argue at the level required.
Atheism is not a religion, it is a philosophical viewpoint, so therefore it should not be capitalized.
Atheism is the Cult of Self, developed in the Atheist VOID, the rejection of all absolutes which allows the Atheist the freedom of anarchical thinking and beliefs. Having rejected truth, the Atheist exists in an environment of narcissistic self-anointed elitism, believing that this has endowed him with superior intellect and morality. The Atheist intellect is self-developed and in no way resembles the logical intellect of the Atheist’s inferiors who subject themselves to the external rules of disciplined deductive logic and rational thought. The Atheist morality is self-developed around the Atheist’s personal proclivities for behavior and is therefore a set of descriptions of his behaviors; this renders the Atheist tautologically “moral” without any effort at all, and gives the benefit of being changeable at a moment’s notice to fit any changes to his behavior which he wishes to make. Thus the Atheist's intellectual process and morality are both transient and ungrounded, rendering them irrational and without actual moral principles.
Atheism, the Cult of Self, has all the characteristics of religion, including blind belief in premises which the Atheist cannot prove: material existence is all there is; there is no creating agency with an intellect. Atheists believe they are the only ones with truth, yet they do not believe that there is truth. Hence, Atheism – the Cult of Self – is internally self-contradictory and irrational.
And Atheism is not a philosophy, it is purely denialist, rejectionist, radical skepticism at the beginning; this enables the entry into the intellectual and moral Atheist VOID, and the anarchic intellectual and moral freedom which Atheists cherish.
"Atheism is the Cult of Self,"
No it's not.
You give too much power to this word atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God, or Gods. That's all it is.
"developed in the Atheist VOID, the rejection of all absolutes which allows the Atheist the freedom of anarchical thinking and beliefs."
There's nothing wrong with rejecting absolutes since nothing is in black and white. If this is how the atheist thinks then it makes the atheist more sympathetic to both sides instead of claiming everything that is different from them is evil.
" Having rejected truth,"
What truth?
"the Atheist exists in an environment of narcissistic self-anointed elitism, believing that this has endowed him with superior intellect and morality."
Morality is subjective, what is good for one culture may seem bad or strange to another. No one morality is superior to another.
"The Atheist intellect is self-developed and in no way resembles the logical intellect of the Atheist’s inferiors who subject themselves to the external rules of disciplined deductive logic and rational thought."
Who are the atheist's inferiors? There are smart and stupid atheists out there just like there are smart and stupid theists.
"The Atheist morality is self-developed around the Atheist’s personal proclivities for behavior and is therefore a set of descriptions of his behaviors; this renders the Atheist tautologically “moral” without any effort at all, and gives the benefit of being changeable at a moment’s notice to fit any changes to his behavior which he wishes to make. Thus the Atheist's intellectual process and morality are both transient and ungrounded, rendering them irrational and without actual moral principles."
That's a pretty nice Strawman you set up there *clap clap clap* Come back to me when you've actually talked to an atheist about their morals.
"Atheism, the Cult of Self, has all the characteristics of religion, including blind belief in premises which the Atheist cannot prove: material existence is all there is; there is no creating agency with an intellect."
Once again you give this word atheism too much power. It is just the lack of belief in a God. It is not a religion because there is not belief in it. There are no religious tenants to follow or religious rituals. It is a way of thinking. Just like theism is a way of thinking. There are atheistic religions such as Jainism, and Buddhism which follow certain tenants and traditions but don't believe in a God. Atheism is just the lack of a belief in a God.
"Atheists believe they are the only ones with truth, yet they do not believe that there is truth. Hence, Atheism – the Cult of Self – is internally self-contradictory and irrational."
I seem to recall the theists as the ones who claim they have the truth? The atheist claims to not know what the truth is that is why they search for rational ways to explain it instead of taking something on blind belief. What is the truth?
" And Atheism is not a philosophy, it is purely denialist, rejectionist, radical skepticism at the beginning; this enables the entry into the intellectual and moral Atheist VOID, and the anarchic intellectual and moral freedom which Atheists cherish."
Well I can see you've already made up your mind on what you think an atheist is so there is no reasoning with you, since you can't reason with someone who doesn't see reason.
“No it's not.
You give too much power to this word atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God, or Gods. That's all it is.
You, then, are denying the actual, observable, necessary consequences of Atheism, in exchange for a fundamentalist position. Atheism not only is not a “lack of belief”, it is a firm position which is taken without any evidence of any sort in its defense. It is a conclusion without premises, without grounding in anything valid or true, and as such it generates consequences for its blind belief.
” There's nothing wrong with rejecting absolutes since nothing is in black and white. If this is how the atheist thinks then it makes the atheist more sympathetic to both sides instead of claiming everything that is different from them is evil.”
The claim “nothing is black and white” is self-refuting, in the form “it is true that there is no truth”.
Sympathetic? Then you are isolated from the Atheists who are dominating the internet, filing lawsuits intended to bankrupt small organizations, and demanding an entirely Atheist (euphemistically, “secular”) government (without truth or principles). Read Dawkins’ latest tweets, or any of PZ Meyers attacks. Follow FFRC and its attacks on small governments. Read Hitchens on how religion poisons everything. There is too much to list for you.
And you are agreeing that you have no absolute grounding for yourself. This is the basis upon which Atheists are not trusted: they have no fixed principles for their behaviors, much less for their beliefs. Further, without grounding, Atheist logic is predicated in either circularity or infinite regress, since there are no absolute first principles for grounding rationality, and no absolute discipline for deductive determinations.
” What truth?”
Once again confirming the conclusion which was made. There is no truth after the VOID of Atheism has been accessed, and the freedom from all constraint has produced the joyful freedom of anarchic thought and morality.
” Morality is subjective, what is good for one culture may seem bad or strange to another. No one morality is superior to another.”
This is a conclusion without premises; it is a consequence of rejecting absolutes and accepting ungrounded, sliding thinking. It is useful to the Atheist in generating his own personal, uncritical personal morality. Morality cannot be generated by rejecting morality. Subjective morality is part of the Cult of Self: it defines behavior to suit the self, while declaring itself to be moral in every situation.
(continued)
(from above)
” Who are the atheist's inferiors? There are smart and stupid atheists out there just like there are smart and stupid theists.”
Elitism is not a function of intelligence; it is an emotional mindset which is generated within the Atheist community, especially within the isolation of academia, but also on the internet. It is a part of the common Atheist worldview.
” That's a pretty nice Strawman you set up there *clap clap clap* Come back to me when you've actually talked to an atheist about their morals.”
And here you veer into false charges of logical defect without any defense of your charge, and you then attack your opponent by making false assumptions. Ridicule such as this is done without any attempt at refuting the argument being made, and is typical of Atheist deviational rhetoric when running away from an issue. Atheists are by default relativist and consequentialist, then creating their own morality. You have shown no different here.
” Once again you give this word atheism too much power. It is just the lack of belief in a God. It is not a religion because there is not belief in it. There are no religious tenants to follow or religious rituals. It is a way of thinking. Just like theism is a way of thinking. There are atheistic religions such as Jainism, and Buddhism which follow certain tenants and traditions but don't believe in a God. Atheism is just the lack of a belief in a God.”
Your position is false: Atheism is a firm, positive belief that there is no God or gods; your position is commonly put forth as an attempt to avoid having to defend the denial of theist claims with actual arguments and/or empirical evidence. The consequences of Atheism are consequences of a conscious religious denialist decision, which is a decision without premises, and is therefore irrational and without any rational defense. It is based in blind belief, no evidence required or produced.
BTW, Buddha was helped in his original quest by a Hindu god.
(continued)
(from above)
” "Atheists believe they are the only ones with truth, yet they do not believe that there is truth. Hence, Atheism – the Cult of Self – is internally self-contradictory and irrational."
I seem to recall the theists as the ones who claim they have the truth? The atheist claims to not know what the truth is that is why they search for rational ways to explain it instead of taking something on blind belief. What is the truth?”
Because Atheists are default Philosophical Materialists, Atheists demand physical, material proof from theists, but non-coherently cannot provide any such evidence in support of their own positions. And Atheists reject all theist deductive arguments without using actual deductive logic themselves, yet while claiming to be rational. Rather they are emotional denialists, without evidence either logical or material. So Atheists engage in blind belief of a proposition which they cannot support, using any type of knowledge generation.
By denying a priori that there might be some valid propositions which truthfully represent all reality, not just physical, material existence, Atheists poison the well for themselves in the process. And by denying that logic has any value in the pursuit of what might be true, the Atheist guarantees that all discourse just is and has no truth value, at least in his worldview. The denial of truth entails the denial of truth value, which in turn enables all statements to have the same value: none. This applies directly to logic as well as language, and to morality as well as ontology.
” Well I can see you've already made up your mind on what you think an atheist is so there is no reasoning with you, since you can't reason with someone who doesn't see reason.”
Atheist reasoning is without truth value, a point which you make several times. If you wish to make reasoning part of your conversation, then produce a disciplined deductive statement which you can defend in a grounded fashion. If you cannot do that, then reasoning is not the reason you are here.
You know for someone claiming that you have the moral high ground and claiming that atheist are hate filled moralless creatures. It seems like you're the one with all the hate.
You're whole blog is set up on this atheist strawman you've built up personally yourself. You turn this fictional atheist into some sort of un-human creature and then beat it down by labeling it with absolute charges against it. When in reality no one person is the same so you can't label them with absolutes. I haven't seen you look at anything objectively on this site, instead all I see is hate filled rants against this fictional atheist. Wouldn't it just be easier for you to just write "I hate atheists? I don't have a reason for doing so but I hate them." At least you would be honest in that statement.
”You know for someone claiming that you have the moral high ground and claiming that atheist are hate filled moralless creatures. It seems like you're the one with all the hate.”
Your failure to refute anything I have said is duly noted. You have not and cannot deny your own claims (a)not to believe in truth, (b) not to believe in absolutes, and (c) to believe that morals are relative, none with any authority. I have not claimed any moral position for myself, so your claim that I have the moral high ground is fatuous and beside the point. The point is Atheist morality and Atheist intellectual processes. If you wish to make a positive claim regarding Atheist morality and intellectual processes, then make it. But claiming “hate” is an Ad Hominem Abusive, cheap dialectic of the emotion.
”You're whole blog is set up on this atheist strawman you've built up personally yourself. You turn this fictional atheist into some sort of un-human creature and then beat it down by labeling it with absolute charges against it. When in reality no one person is the same so you can't label them with absolutes.”
You have provided no evidence to the contrary. Atheism starts with a VOID of both truth and absolutes; from there it goes to relativistic morality. This you said yourself. There is no strawman except in your form of intellectual processing which is outside the standard rules of deduction. If there is no truth, then there is no possible fallacy either.
” I haven't seen you look at anything objectively on this site, instead all I see is hate filled rants against this fictional atheist.”
There is no question that you cannot refute the concepts which you claim for yourself: no truth, no absolutes, relativist morality. So what you claim as hate is actually just a deduction made using your own claims. The claim of hate is so common amongst AtheoLeftists that it is trite to the point of being meaningless. Making any claim which the Atheist and Atheist Leftist find to be an annoying, revealing truth about their morality and their intellectual process is called “hate”, because that pejorative is the only argument they can make. They cannot refute their own claims, but they can attack the person who reveals their illogic.
”Wouldn't it just be easier for you to just write "I hate atheists? I don't have a reason for doing so but I hate them." At least you would be honest in that statement.”
Still not an argument; still not rational; still just emotional accusations in the absence of rational arguments.
Choose a moniker. I won’t continue with anyone hiding behind the skirts of anonymous.
Everything that I need as proof is seen in your writing. I'm telling you you are coming across as someone who feels superior to an atheist and has to talk down about them. That's how I'm interpreting it. You also assume since I am arguing with you that I am an atheist as well.
The evidence that it is an atheist strawman is because what you describe an atheist as being is just simply not true because nobody is like that. Plus you provide no proof behind these claims you make and they come across as pure observation of someone that you are observing from afar.
I never said there are no truths you said that. When I said there were no absolutes it means there is no good side or bad side. That doesn't mean things aren't true. Just because there are no good sides or bad sides doesn't mean the atheist can't view what is right or wrong. Hot is hot and cold is cold but what is hot for some may not be as hot for others. Morality is brought about through culture, family, and upbringing. We all base our morals off of what we learn in life's experiences. That's why people have different moral values from others.
I really don't see what having a moniker has to do with anything.
But I'm done arguing with you anyway I'm pretty sure, not 100 percent sure but pretty sure you're going to ignore what I say and repeat everything about this atheist strawman you've created. I'm going to go back to reality. You can stay here and hate this strawman.
”The evidence that it is an atheist strawman is because what you describe an atheist as being is just simply not true because nobody is like that.”
You are making a universal statement which you both cannot prove to be the case, and which is easily refuted by reading what Atheists have written in this blog as well as in the general literature. There is plenty of opportunity right here in these pages, collected over half a decade, for you to find out how Atheists behave and think.
”Plus you provide no proof behind these claims you make and they come across as pure observation of someone that you are observing from afar.”
If I were to personalize these observations I doubt that you would like it any better. Your objections are emotionally based, and have no refutations attached to them so far.
”I never said there are no truths you said that.”
That’s correct; you said “what truth?”, which is the same thing. Now you wish to deny your own position, as you see it failing in front of you.
” When I said there were no absolutes it means there is no good side or bad side.”
Yes, no good and no bad; i.e. consequentialist / relativist by default.
”That doesn't mean things aren't true.”
Of course not, I never said otherwise; to conflate good/bad with truth is to conflate ethics/morality with epistemology.
”Just because there are no good sides or bad sides doesn't mean the atheist can't view what is right or wrong.”
This is logically absurd: good = right; bad=wrong… unless you have chosen the typical atheist path of changing the definitions.
” Hot is hot and cold is cold but what is hot for some may not be as hot for others.”’
A concise statement of pure moral relativism; an acceptance of moral deviations for the sake of nothing specific.
”Morality is brought about through culture, family, and upbringing. We all base our morals off of what we learn in life's experiences. That's why people have different moral values from others.”
And therefore you have no actual moral values which are fixed principles, because of this relativism? That fits perfectly. Especially your use of further universal statements for “all people”, a universal which you cannot possibly prove or even know, and which is demonstrably false. And it demonstrates an ignorance of religious values and their influence on the thoughts and behaviors of adherents.
”I really don't see what having a moniker has to do with anything.”
It is pure common courtesy to identify yourself so that we know who we are talking with; otherwise there could be several anonymouses, confusing the conversation.
”But I'm done arguing with you anyway I'm pretty sure, not 100 percent sure but pretty sure you're going to ignore what I say and repeat everything about this atheist strawman you've created. I'm going to go back to reality. You can stay here and hate this strawman.”
You have said nothing which contradicts the characteristics of Atheism that I have observed and written about. In fact, you have agreed that you don’t accept absolutes, but you do accept truth (a non-coherence / internal contradiction – unless your truth is not absolute, in which case it is not actually truth), and you have agreed that all morals are relative (neither black nor white), not being based on anything absolute and thereby not describable with a set of fixed, universal principles. All this is in agreement with the case which I have made.
You have provided more arguments that this actually is the case, not that it is not the case. But for you it is hate that these things are brought to light.
You have confirmed my description of Atheism and Atheist thought quite adequately.
If you wish to change your mind and provide a refutation to any of the above, feel free to provide such evidence as you have.
Can Truth be a summation of contradictions and paradoxes? Could the immaterial which, for all we know might belie logic, be the summation of conflicting Truths?
P.S. Found this blog tonight while googling the words "Dawkins" and "fraud" and I must say, it's wonderful, this blog is exactly what I was looking for, thank you.
P.P.S. Let me know if my question isn't clear, I will try to ask it in another way.
Joe Robby Terin,
Hello, and welcome.
"Can Truth be a summation of contradictions and paradoxes?"
Not if we are attached to the discipline of deductive analysis; a proposition which is not based on premises which are 100% true and is valid in structure, and passes tests for coherence, etc is false.
"Could the immaterial which, for all we know might belie logic, be the summation of conflicting Truths?"
Conflicting truths is not a concept which is coherent to humans; but who can say what exists in other dimensions or outside of any dimensions whatsoever? Not me.
Thanks very much for the reply, Stan.
As far as you're concerned, would you say that logic is part and parcel of (ultimate) Truth? Or are you more inclined to believe that logic is more accurately described as a handy tool for discovering such Truth?
Or would you say something else entirely?
Hmm.
I think I would say that we find ourselves in a universe which is organized in a manner which is compatible with our ability of comprehension, and that we are able to organize our rational understanding in a manner that is compatible with the organization of the universe. So long as both remain mutually compatible, we are able to discern things about the universe which are valid. And that validates the thought process in return.
We cannot extend our concepts of universal validity beyond our own physical universe, at least backwards in time beyond its (mass/energy, space/time) creation.
However, we can deduce that the compatibility of our own mental processes with the organization of the universe is not likely to have developed purely from the components of the universe itself, organized to comprehend itself.
Even our mathematics demonstrates that via Godel's theorems.
There are remaining deductions which I choose not to pursue here, since this forum concerns Atheism, not theist deductions. But you can take it from there, or start over as you prefer.
Duly noted. I think you're doing Truth-seekers a great service with this blog, Stan. Thank you very much for all the time you've put into it.
Most atheists declare atheism gives them freedom from rules and authority, without a need to consider morals, ethics, and many laws. In effect within their mind is a dark void where little or nothing exists, often without reason, inspiration or rational logic, denying anything they choose to take exception to. Their minds are populated with memorized inane and absurd arguments and illogical rationalizations justifying their poor choice, not observations or realizations relational to the content of dreams. Atheists usually offer limited acceptance of knowledge, especially in areas unfamiliar to them or offer quotes from other fools and disbelievers as proof to support illogical or incorrect assumptions.
Many claim they are secular. That is often true, however anyone who does not attend a place of worship is secular. Within that group are a very large numbers of believers who may oppose or are offended by the illogical or idolatrous spirituality of religion and opinions its clergy offer, rather than inspired direction. (At least 10 biblical prophecies equate clergy with Satan, the primary reason being that they have led their flocks away from the inspiration of the Living Word, dreams and visions, however most clergy blithely ignore or deny those passages infer them. I know, 3 of my family are clergy. They thought being righteous was all that was required, and that Jesus could somehow reach from the grave to absolve them, without learning that Jesus taught the use of dreams and visions, sometimes for health purposes.)
In that God is all of what we can see and everything that moves we cannot see it is impossible not to 'see' God. As for participation in our lives, God is there many times a day providing our dreams and visions (Numbers 12:6). That content often is ignored, or has little or no meaning to us until we look at the parabolic shifts and plays on words within the words describing our dream, after recording the experience in words (at which point prophetic or moral guidance within it becomes the Word of God). Atheists are unfamiliar with the content and value of their dreams as most are in fact either too lazy or undisciplined to pay attention, or too ignorant to understand the spectrum of knowledge and inspiration dreams have provided humanity from the beginning of our development (however that also applies to the religious who have been misled or misdirected by clergy. Religion is the politics of a system of belief, clergy often wraps itself in to make all sorts of irrelevant or outrageous claims, not the belief in the Creator or the communication to us from that Source. Prayers ask for an answer, dreams or visions may provide the answer.) To get the most useful meaning dream content needs to be interpreted then reasoned as to what the analogies and metaphors are conveying, often far from what the images seemed to convey.
Much work has gone into finding patterns of functionality within dreams by psychologists and related professions. Most of that work is not very useful as the majority of people seeking such answers have been infected by approaches to dream understanding that range from inadequate to diametrically opposed to their actual meaning or suffer from related opinions.
The moral and ethical guidance our dreams provide is directly relational to our individual or societal wellbeing and relationships. Religion has created morals and principles from examples in scriptures, only some are valid. Laws also have been created on materials written by important prophets in history. Unfortunately, two major prophets on whose words laws were created, lied or provided fraudulent information. Clergy, unfamiliar with the use of dreams and visions, swallowed their lies whole. However bad their guidance was, society has gradually evolved (largely without religion) to be more ethical and as good leaders build rights-based guidelines.
Atheists, not being inspired by their dreams, become a true threat to humanity with the dubious values they claim should be. They never consider the vast amounts of great value based on the guidance of dreams. In other words atheists must not be permitted to contribute to the values of society otherwise there is a clear risk of harming it. The majority of the faithful are little better than atheists in this, inasmuch exceedingly few bother to heed their dreams. (Yet if the dreams of everyone were recorded daily, and prophetic dreams only appeared as little as 1 in 1000, we would have 25,000 new Bibles a day of prophetic content to digest... and would see a lot of correlation between them, and the message not limited to any religion or ethnicity.)
Where atheists and other non-believers have influenced the progress of humanity are many horror shows, often short on valuing lives (massacres, murders, torture, eugenics, late term abortions, meds which are dangerous, low integrity permitting pollution, making of biological weapons, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear bombs etc). Atheists cannot participate in the Mandate of Heaven, the Creator's guidance to leaders, without harming society with their godless opinions, ones based on dubious morals and ethics that in believers are at least theoretically supported by the morality of dreams and visions. To put an atheist in a position of leadership, or as an educator/ authority, or as a social engineer invites harm to humanity. They have no way of evaluating their assumptions, ethics, or morality and correcting it. (Religion is almost as bad because so few clergy heed their dreams and visions, and even fewer teach how, however for believers the groundwork exists and it does not take long to fill in what is missing. In other words believers ARE superior to atheists.)
So the Creator has stated in prophecies that non-believers will never gain eternal life, meaning that when the gene splice to recreate extreme longevity (LongLifeProject) comes shortly it will only be available to believers. Atheists and other non-believers will die out. It won’t break my heart to see them perish for not believing in the Living Word as they have done much harm.
LongLifeProject,
Sorry, a quick search reveals your God of Dreams site, which looks to me to be entirely bogus, first relying on connecting select pieces of divergent religions, and then making the unsustainable claim that accumulated dreams are actually prophesies. That claim seems to be entirely without merit, if one depends on more than mere assertions.
So the suspicion is strong that "LongLifeProject" and "God of Dreams" are both either cults or cons. In fact, it is necessary to buy a book in order to participate, so this might be just a shill tactic to sell something to us gullibles. So it is likely that they are cons.
Sorry, I'm not biting.
Take care with your disbelief and suspicion Stan. Reality may be slow to boot you, but it will come as a whack when you least expect it.
Here's some actual reality:
The religions which are claimed to be complementary are in fact mutually exclusive. Allah cannot be mistaken of Yahweh, and none of the 300,000,000 personal gods of the Hindus, including Ganesh, cannot be mistaken for Allah.
There is no rational content to your position, although there is a pretense of rationality which is not justifiable.
If a single dream is a delusion, then an accumulation of dreams is nothing more than an accumulation of delusions. It's not unlike speaking in tongues: gibberish cannot be "interpreted" by anyone at all, much less someone not fluent in "gibberish".
I can only assume that this is a comedic blog. No rational person could ever get atheism wrong to this extent.
Hilarious!
Simon,
I assume that you can enlighten us with your personal vision of what Atheism consists, then?
Or are you merely another Atheist snarker depositing hints of knowledge which you do not actually have?
So far you have merely demonstrated that the Atheist VOID is quite a large hole.
Stan: "I think I would say that we find ourselves in a universe which is organized in a manner which is compatible with our ability of comprehension, and that we are able to organize our rational understanding in a manner that is compatible with the organization of the universe. So long as both remain mutually compatible, we are able to discern things about the universe which are valid. And that validates the thought process in return."
Right. Our minds are pretty well adapted to understanding this universe, or at least those aspects of it we encounter frequently. We call its less-familiar aspects "counter-intuitive".
Stan: "We cannot extend our concepts of universal validity beyond our own physical universe, at least backwards in time beyond its (mass/energy, space/time) creation."
Right, we can't know things we can't observe or deduce. Sound beliefs require evidence to support them. I would have used the word "beginning" instead of "creation", since the latter term is loaded with an unsupported claim.
Stan: "However, we can deduce that the compatibility of our own mental processes with the organization of the universe is not likely to have developed purely from the components of the universe itself, organized to comprehend itself."
Wrong. That's not a deduction, it's an argument from ignorance. You do not have (or refuse to accept) a natural explanation of how thinking beings arose, so you assume it was due to something supernatural. This assumption is both unjustified and unnecessary.
Even a primitive nervous system (such as that of a jellyfish) can give an animal a significant survival advantage. A more complex nervous system, one that can produce a model of the environment, can give a greater advantage by making the animal more adaptable to different situations. Over time, animals tend to evolve more complex nervous systems provided that the benefit they gain from it outweighs the associated cost (e.g. needing more food). It was a major turning point in our evolution when our ancestors started breaking open animal bones to eat the marrow.
There's plenty of evidence that populations of animals change over time, that they have larger brains than their remote ancestors, and that animals with larger brains (for their size) tend to be more intelligent. Do you have any support for the idea of intelligence coming from something supernatural?
Simon: "I can only assume that this is a comedic blog. No rational person could ever get atheism wrong to this extent."
No, I think Stan's serious. He seems to think you need to justify the rejection of a claim even if that claim is unsubstantiated or unfalsifiable. I've offered to sell him a fine collection of New York toll bridges at a reasonable price, but I haven't heard back yet. Perhaps I should throw in the Yankees to sweeten the deal.
Stan:
You're trying to disprove a position that makes no positive claims. Atheism is the non-acceptance of a claim that one or more gods exist. That's it. It has no content to disprove. It doesn't imply philosophical materialism, nihilism, solipsism, skepticism, narcissism, or acceptance of any scientific theory.
”Stan: "However, we can deduce that the compatibility of our own mental processes with the organization of the universe is not likely to have developed purely from the components of the universe itself, organized to comprehend itself."
Wrong. That's not a deduction, it's an argument from ignorance. You do not have (or refuse to accept) a natural explanation of how thinking beings arose, so you assume it was due to something supernatural. This assumption is both unjustified and unnecessary.”
There is no natural “explanation” for rational thought, other than Just So Stories which are fictions created to support an ideology: Philosophical Materialism. Those are the true arguments from ignorance.
An actual deduction goes to strong inference based on observation: Intelligence comes from pre-existing living intelligence – only, in our experience. Nowhere in the non-life material world is intelligence observed to arise from natural minerals plus “deep time”.
If intelligence is expected to arise naturally in the material realm, then there would be other intelligent, non-living material entities, as well as living. The idea is clearly absurd, failing Reductio Ad Absurdum quite handily.
Thus, It is not enough to claim “natural”; it must also be “living” and “natural”, with the focus on living as a subset of natural.
Thus the origin of life must be taken into account when attempting to locate the origin of intelligence. (Evolutionists typically shun addressing first life, because it is too improbable even given the Just So Stories available)
Now. What fundamental elements or constituents of the universe are posited to form intellect within life? Mass? Energy? The weak force? The strong force? Gravity? Electromagnetism? All working together? How does entropy fit in? Or is intellect merely a highly improbable accident, so declared because there is no possible combination of laws of physics which could create it? Why is "accident" a rational presumption for the source of intellect?
IF there are no laws of physics which singly or in combination can be used to predict intelligence formation (without the addition of fictions), THEN intelligence cannot be rationally claimed to have arisen naturally, without prior intelligent input.
”Even a primitive nervous system (such as that of a jellyfish) can give an animal a significant survival advantage. A more complex nervous system, one that can produce a model of the environment, can give a greater advantage by making the animal more adaptable to different situations. Over time, animals tend to evolve more complex nervous systems provided that the benefit they gain from it outweighs the associated cost (e.g. needing more food). It was a major turning point in our evolution when our ancestors started breaking open animal bones to eat the marrow.”
These are weak inferences which are extrapolations without any material, empirical objective validation even possible – i.e., pure conjecture without hope of refutation or validation (unfalsifiable story telling). Yet these are stated as positive truths. They are not truths, they are pure conjecture without any means of validation: unfalsifiable, and therefore not knowledge.
”There's plenty of evidence that populations of animals change over time, that they have larger brains than their remote ancestors, and that animals with larger brains (for their size) tend to be more intelligent. Do you have any support for the idea of intelligence coming from something supernatural?”
This is exptrapolatory weak inference; do you have laws of physics to support your assertions that intellect came from material origins? Which laws of physics drives intellect in modern humans? Can you derive an intellectual process from the forces of physics without inserting fictions?
I don’t assert supernatural; all I have to do is to show that you cannot prove your stories to be fact. And to demonstrate that the adherence to stories is an indicator of a need for a particular ideology to be the case, since it is embedded in the premises.
”Simon: "I can only assume that this is a comedic blog. No rational person could ever get atheism wrong to this extent."
No, I think Stan's serious. He seems to think you need to justify the rejection of a claim even if that claim is unsubstantiated or unfalsifiable. I've offered to sell him a fine collection of New York toll bridges at a reasonable price, but I haven't heard back yet. Perhaps I should throw in the Yankees to sweeten the deal.”
This sort of arrogant elitism does not serve you well; what you need is to show the combination of natural forces known to physics which produces intellect. Until you can do that, all you have is loose conjecture in the form of stories extrapolated from incomplete information based on found data; the found data is merely that certain animal remains have survived in fossil form and are found in certain geologic layers. There are no actual facts, other than that. If you claim that there are, then show the actual data – not conjecture or story telling.
”Stan:
You're trying to disprove a position that makes no positive claims. Atheism is the non-acceptance of a claim that one or more gods exist. That's it. It has no content to disprove. It doesn't imply philosophical materialism, nihilism, solipsism, skepticism, narcissism, or acceptance of any scientific theory. “
And you are making two errors: first making a universal positive claim for all Atheists which is demonstrably false; second, the intellectual failure to provide reasons and reasoning for rejecting theist claims (which some Atheists do in order not to have to defend their position in a rational debate).
It is simple to disprove Atheist claims, because like yours above, they are based on personal desire and ideology, not on any demonstrable fact or disciplined deduction.
If all you plan to do is reject the definition of atheism as provided by atheists, reject any evidence that doesn't fit your preconceptions, and reject the best scientific theories as "just-so stories", I see no point in having any further discussion with you. You are clearly not open-minded enough to consider other points of view.
Religion is founded on a collection of just-so stories. What I don't understand is why people can't see that, when they dismiss the myths of all religions but their own on that exact basis.
Religion is not being discussed here; Atheist claims and Atheism in general is the topic. You in particular have made no claim of any substance other than that you have no belief and have no need to prove your worldview. Actual science produces cause/effect data, which is confirmable with the replication of experiments. If that is not done, then the "science" is not empirical, it is mere opinion without hope of validation: nonfalsifiable and therefore an ideology. That is the case whether you like it or not.
And you haven't been having a discussion, you have been avoiding taking any firm position on anything except that you don't have to provide any reason or reasoning for rejecting an argument. And that has been demonstrated to be irrational, several times, several ways. So it's no wonder you don't want to hang around, and that's fine, too.
Wizard Suth said:There's plenty of evidence that populations of animals change over time, that they have larger brains than their remote ancestors,and that animals with larger brains (for their size) tend to be more intelligent
There is no conclusive evidence proving that the larger the brain in relation to the body size the more intelligent the species.Yes,there exists some correlations but there are also a few inconsistencies.For example,the shrew (a mouse-like creature) has a higher brain-to-body mass ratio than any other creature including humans.According to your theory,the shrew should have more than twice the intelligence of humans.Thus,this simple counter-example refutes your argument.
Do you have any support for the idea of intelligence coming from something supernatural?
The theist is merely making a negative claim,ie.The mind is not physical.It is the Atheist who is making the positive claim that the mind is physical.Therefore by Atheist standards,the burden of proof is on the Atheist making the positive claim.So what evidence can you conjure up proving the mind and it's creation/output such as thoughts and beliefs are physical?
In response to Wizard Suth. We are talking about atheism not about any particular religion. There is no more evidence denying the existence of God then there is affirming it. What scientific theories state there is no God? It seems that you like to use buzzwords like "open-minded," I don't see how you or most atheists are being open-minded? People dismiss the myths of all other religions just like you dismissed all of them, but the difference is, they found one theistic worldview which they find reasonable evidence to believe in.
Only a fool can believe all religions are true, they teach such contradictory things. I think its more rational to say all religions are not true then say all religions are true, so atleast you got a leg up on the pluralists who sacrifice truth in the name of agreement. You have to rationally examine them and come to your own conclusions not outright deny the possibility of divine revelation without any basis or examination. That is what is called close-minded.
De Ha,
do you have anything of substance to contribute, such as proving that Atheism is empirically valid and True? It seems doubtful that you are up to such contributions, based on your comment.
Post a Comment