ATHEIST INTELLECTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES
IF Atheists believe their position is based on logic and/or evidence, and is therefore rational,
THEN they should be compelled to provide the logic or evidence which supports their belief;
ELSE they are not what they claim to be.
ATHEIST DEFINITION AND REDEFINITION
Many Atheists now claim “not to have any god theories”, a claim which is intended to help themselves avoid having to support their own position: they know they cannot. They are, however, subject to the following:
IF creating entity theories exist, THEN either a person has heard of creating entity theories, or has not.If a person claims to be ignorant of theories of a creating entity, then he is merely asserting ignorance. And for an individual to assert ignorance of something of which he obviously is not ignorant is intentional deception, a deception which is transparent to everyone who encounters it.
IF a person has not heard of creating entity theories, THEN he likely has no such theories himself. (this is ignorance, not Atheism).
IF a person has heard of God/creating entity theories, THEN one of the following applies:
(a) He forgets them or ignores them; (recurrent ignorance)
(b) He rejects them; (Atheism)
(c) He requires more information; (Agnosticism)
(d) He accepts one of them; (Deist)
An Atheist is defined here as someone who rejects God/creating entity theories. Redefinition is seen to be transparently dishonest and an attempt to avoid intellectual responsibility for defending the Atheist worldview using actual logic and/or material empirical evidence.
TRUST
Such intentional deception, especially such a transparently dishonest deflection of the person's intellectual responsibility to support his belief system with logic and/or evidence, reflects directly and immediately on that person's ability to generate trust for himself, especially in terms of honest intellectual discovery and honest intellectual discourse. And that reflects on the person’s overall honesty, too.
Under the VOID of Atheism, there are no absolutes. There is no Truth and therefore there are no lies. IF there is no Truth and there are no lies, THEN all Atheist statements are on an equal footing, first having no truth value, and second, deception having the same moral value as accurate representation.
Coupled with the relativist personal morality of each Atheist (a morality which cannot be known with any certainty by anyone else), the conflation of deception with accurate representation renders the Atheist untrustworthy, by virtue of his worldview alone.
Certainly any person can engender trust by generating a history of trustworthy behaviors, where a person's actual behaviors are compared with his professed moral beliefs. However, an Atheist has no guaranteed consistent (coherent) moral system other than that which he generates by himself for himself, a system which can be changed on a whim, a system which might well include deception as equal to accurate representation. Hence the Atheist’s behaviors cannot be compared to his moral system, and no trust can be generated.
EMOTIONAL ATTACKS
Because Atheism is not based on Truth values, and has neither logic nor evidence in its support, it is an emotional position, not a rational position. Being an emotional position, Atheism is defended with emotional statements including moral accusations and personal attacks, rather than with logic or evidence.
When challenged to provide rational support (again, logic and evidence) for his worldview, modern Atheists tend to dive immediately into deception (e.g. "we have no god theories") rather than produce intellectually honest, disciplined deductive support for their rejectionism. When pushed beyond that, emotional attacks begin, including faux moralizing and attacks on the challenger rather than the challenger's statements.
The VOID
Atheism is freedom. Freedom from everything intellectually and emotionally. When there are no absolutes, then nothing is absolutely True or valid. This is the Atheist VOID. The Atheist is perfectly free to select any position upon which to build his worldview. He is free from, and unencumbered by, external concepts of truth and falseness, right and wrong, moral and immoral, logic and fallacy. In short, the Atheist frees himself in order to indulge himself with himself. The Atheist is free to create a personal morality which is easy on himself and is compatible with his emotional bent and personal proclivities. He then is very "moral"; tautologically so since his "morality" merely describes how he already behaves.
Because Atheism is usually adopted well before the maturation of the frontal cortex is complete, the freedom of the VOID generally results in juvenile theories and behaviors becoming entrenched and cherished even into full adulthood (frontal cortex maturation is not complete in some until the age of 28).
The freedom of the VOID also enables the freedom from disciplined logic, an external control which encumbers Atheist thinking. The most common Atheist thought process appears to be rationalization, where evidence is sought which supports a preselected conclusion, and contrary information is ignored or rejected without rational reason.
Discussion with an Atheist involves an individual who cherishes his freedom of the VOID and will defend it with whatever tactic he thinks might be effective. He is not restricted by any convention external to himself such as disciplined deductive logic, nor will he recognize any actual evidence presented which is inconvenient to his position of VOIDist freedom.
The EMOTIONAL DEPENDENCY
Atheism seems be an analogical correlate to other dependencies in these tendencies:
1. Free use of deception and ignoring rational positions during the defense of the addiction;THE CHALLENGE
2. Rationalization of justification for the addiction;
3. Emotional aggression toward those who threaten the addiction;
4. Seeking the support and company of fellow addicts;
5. Halting of emotional development until the termination of the addiction;
6. Feeling of great need for the addiction and release when enabled by the addiction;
7. Fear of loss of self, caused by loss of the addiction;
8. Generates further issues such as codependency (victim/savior);
9. Colors relationships with others who don’t share the addiction;
10. Results in an abnormally intense focus on the self, and a weakened empathy.
Should an Atheist have a deductive argument, grounded, properly formatted and validly stated, or has a set of empirical evidence which contradicts any of the above, then that should be presented and we will discuss it.
Otherwise, in the case of emotional responses, moral objections or personal attacks, such comments will not be posted.
40 comments:
Also, see my post on this.
Many Atheists now claim “not to have any god theories”,
Can you provide a source for this quote? A Google search results in
a) This blog
b) A copy-paste of this blog.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%E2%80%9Cnot+to+have+any+god+theories%E2%80%9D
As far as I am aware, no atheist claims to have no god theory. The position is that they have no belief in a god.
Of course this has been spelled out to Stan multiple times. Brick walls and all that.
a·the·ism
/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun
The theory or belief that God does not exist.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=atheism+definition
Since this entire post appears to be based on an unsubstantiated straw man argument, I see no reason in going any further.
It does seem ironic that the accusation is that atheists are deceptive.
IF theism is the belief in god or gods
THEN they should be able to provide supporting evidence for this position.
ELSE atheism is the logical position to assume.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=theism+definition
AGAIN. The BEST arguments presented (on this blog, and perhaps ever) consist wholly of Martin's Prime Mover (an exercise in equivocation) and Stan's "You can't Prove Lourdes isn't a Miracle".
If anyone honestly believes either "evidence" set enough to conclude that a being which meets the definition of a theistic deity exists, then I will accept our perspectives are likely irreconcilable.
If anyone is interested in a quite exhaustive atheistic perspective on various theistic claims, I recommend this website.
http://whynogod.wordpress.com/
godless,
Explain please exactly which word is being equivocated on in the Prime Mover argument.
godless,
Unless I have the wrong arguments at hand, it is the first cause that is based on equivocation(s), while the prime mover is based on false assumptions (example, that things only move when moved, that the mover has to be something else, and that the natural state of things is rest).
Maybe you have both arguments mixed up. Or else, you have different versions. After all, Christians tend to mix and match, and the arguments date at least to Augustine ... right?
Photosyn,
Perhaps you would care to be specific in your charges of equivocation(s) and false arguments.
For example, the idea that something can move without a cause for its motion violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and suggests that you have a perpetual motion machine up your sleeve. Care to demonstrate your evidence for that assertion? An emprical demonstration would be awesome, of course, and necessary in order to be evidence-based. And remember that hypotheticals are useless unless properly constructed deductions are provided which are sound and grounded in first principles.
Or is it more of a case of producing the solipsism necessary to maintain the delusion of integrity in the desired narrative?
Please continue, we are interested.
photosynthesis,
>the prime mover is based on false assumptions (example, that things only move when moved...
By "assumption" you of course mean "many pages of detailed argumentation to support the premise". Because that's what Aquinas does in the Summa Contra Gentiles.
You are my brain but ten times smarter.
...it was just a few weeks ago that I had a fleeting thought that the philosophy of the 20th century (I'm a philosophy major) is not REALLY philosophy, arguing from basic principles or necessary truths ... rather it's merely a bunch of men and women trying to justify to themselves their own behaviours and immorality, after having rejected the Christian morality around them.
Existentialists annoy me THE MOST. Reading their work is like reading a well written diary.
I'm glad I stumbled upon your blog!
Avey,
Welcome, and feel free to stick around and contribute as you wish...
Stan
I feel that this post is completely and 100% factual...if you replace (a)theist) (atheist is an adjective, not a noun...no reason to capitalize), with Christian.
Interesting, but absurd: Christianity is not a VOID. Atheism is the renunciation of absolutes in favor of inserting one's own self and ego into the VOID as the basis of all intellectual and emotional processing.
The fact that you Tu Quoque rather than refute is also interesting.
FYI, I capitalize Atheism because it is a religous-based movement with social and political agendas which focus on other religions, and posits the necessity of their destruction in favor of the Atheist/secular religion.
No, atheism has nothing to do with “renunciation of absolutes”. And atheism is not a religion either, obviously. Atheist is simply nonbelief in deities.
“Until someone claims to see Christopher Hitchens' face in a tree stump, idiots must stop claiming that atheism is a religion. There's one little difference: Religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, and atheism is — precisely not that. Got it? Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.” — Bill Maher
Robin,
Regardless of quotes from the encyclicals of Pope Mahr, absolutes - if they exist - require an absolute source for their existence. That's why Atheist philosphers reject absolutes: the existence of absolutes predicates a deity. So the rejection of a deity absolutely requires the rejection of absolutes as a corollary. (The internal non-coherence should be obvious).
Atheism, as I have explained to you in the past, has necessary and unavoidable consequences, of which rejection of absolutes is a primary example.
Atheism positively addresses religious issues without a shred of positive supporting evidence and without a shred of positive deductive disciplined argumentation; therefore, it is a blind belief regarding religious issues, and is religiously addressed as a religous Truth, which it cannot prove, but which is a firm belief... a blind belief.
Atheism is not a non-belief, as the lightweight internet Atheists wish to claim, it involves positive rejection of theist claims, always without reason or reasoning, empirical evidence or disciplined deduction. Rejection is a positive opinion, not a lack of opinion. The claim of lack of opinion is transparently false, and is due to attempting to avoid giving actual evidence or deductive reasoning in defense of the Atheist religious position. In other words, it is a transparently fraudulent dodge to avoid intellectual responsibility.
“absolutes - if they exist - require an absolute source for their existence”
This type of argument has at its root a sort of anthropomorphization of nature. That is to say you are assuming that laws of nature or laws of logic require a sort of law-giver which enforces their existence.
Sometimes things simply are, because they can be no other way. For example, the laws of thermodynamics are about as absolute as you can get in science, and they exist because nature breaks down if the fundamental laws concerning entropy, conservation, etc. are different. So in this sense, the laws are absolute because they cannot exist differently, not because they rely on mindful assignment.
“That's why Atheist philosphers reject absolutes: the existence of absolutes predicates a deity”
Prove that "god" logically follows from natural or logical absolutes. You can't because nothing about the laws of nature or laws of logic lead into gods or deities. Therefore, when you say absolutes require a deity you are merely asserting a position as fact, when it is a non-sequitur.
To see what I mean, replace "deity" in your statement with "pumpkin" or "time machine" or "quasar." They are equally valid substitutes because deity means nothing to the argument, and so a substitute need not contribute anything to the logic.
“Atheism, as I have explained to you in the past, has necessary and unavoidable consequences, of which rejection of absolutes is a primary example”
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Until god is proven to exist, which is where the burden of proof lies, the logical default position is atheism. Just like, whenever someone asserts something to you, the logical position is to not believe them, until they prove it to you.
What this has to do with absolutes is neither here nor there. Absolutes have nothing to do with gods.
“Atheism positively addresses religious issues without a shred of positive supporting evidence and without a shred of positive deductive disciplined argumentation”
Religious... issues? You are confusing atheists who have personal beliefs with atheism, which is a lack of belief in gods.
Theists like yourself have a hard time seeing the assertions they make because religious is itself based in dogma. Dogma is unquestioned belief in a conclusion. To acknowledge the positive claims you make, is to invite conscious doubt upon them. Therefore, you create a blind spot to the claims you make, and imagine that the people who don't believe those claims are guilty of what you are doing, because you assume that belief is the only state of mind.
“Atheism is not a non-belief, as the lightweight internet Atheists wish to claim, it involves positive rejection of theist claims”
Not all of us are indoctrinated. Not all of us live lives based on dogma. You make this fundamental error in reasoning because you cannot maintain belief in your religion unless it is unquestioned. Your faith is by design not introspective of its own workings.
That is why you perceive atheists as self-deluding, lightweights, etc. You insist upon thinking of atheists as "theists without god" because that's all you can understand.
“Rejection is a positive opinion, not a lack of opinion”
Not believing in something is as simple as that. It isn't a complicated mental process, neither does it imply active denial. You're trying to create a very weak semantic definition of belief, because you desperately need to equate both atheism and theism as systems of belief, when they are not the same in this respect. You need this false equivalence because you can't understand what it's like to not believe, but also because it gives you a way to argue that atheists have a burden of proof.
Aveskde said,
” “absolutes - if they exist - require an absolute source for their existence”
This type of argument has at its root a sort of anthropomorphization of nature. That is to say you are assuming that laws of nature or laws of logic require a sort of law-giver which enforces their existence.
Sometimes things simply are, because they can be no other way. For example, the laws of thermodynamics are about as absolute as you can get in science, and they exist because nature breaks down if the fundamental laws concerning entropy, conservation, etc. are different. So in this sense, the laws are absolute because they cannot exist differently, not because they rely on mindful assignment.”
The prior materialist argument, to which all pre-red shift scientists adhered, was a constant universe, which to them “just is”. Science is rarely satisfied with the idea that, “sometimes things simply are”, unless those things are untouchable by scientific thought and methodology: hence the inherent limitations of physical investigation on the complete realm of knowledge.
Your position is better stated thus: “laws are seemingly absolute – within our universe and within the boundary of empirical non-falsification – because that is how our universe operates; however, the reason that our universe must operate on these laws, and the reason that our universe came into being out of a pre-existence that is not defined by these laws, is unknowable by invoking these laws.”
” “That's why Atheist philosphers reject absolutes: the existence of absolutes predicates a deity”
Prove that "god" logically follows from natural or logical absolutes. You can't because nothing about the laws of nature or laws of logic lead into gods or deities. Therefore, when you say absolutes require a deity you are merely asserting a position as fact, when it is a non-sequitur.”
The challenge is for the Atheist to prove the questions given him: that there are reasons for the existence of the universe beyond “it just is”; and that the universe did not arise in a previous environment which in any succumbs to empirical investigation - investigation which is futile in DISproving the existence of non-physical agency; and to prove deductively that it is impossible to deduce a creating agent which caused the universe to form mass/energy and space/time out of none of those things. The deduction has been given you – it is up to you to disprove it using disciplined logical principles of deduction.
” To see what I mean, replace "deity" in your statement with "pumpkin" or "time machine" or "quasar." They are equally valid substitutes because deity means nothing to the argument, and so a substitute need not contribute anything to the logic.”
You are right here. Atheists want to argue against old men with white beards, when that is not what theists mean when it comes to the most basic, fundamental posit: the Atheist is challenged to prove, either with unfalsified empirical material evidence in his defense, or with incorrigible, disciplined logic in his defense, that there can be no agent responsible for the bringing of the universe into material existence.
Feel free to do so.
(continued)
(from above)
” Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Until god is proven to exist, which is where the burden of proof lies, the logical default position is atheism. Just like, whenever someone asserts something to you, the logical position is to not believe them, until they prove it to you.”
Absolutely false. Atheism is the rejection without accompanying logic or evidence of the basic posits of theism: it is blind belief, and therefore a fundamentalist religious position.
” What this has to do with absolutes is neither here nor there. Absolutes have nothing to do with gods.”
Not an argument; merely an unsupported assertion.
” “Atheism positively addresses religious issues without a shred of positive supporting evidence and without a shred of positive deductive disciplined argumentation”
Religious... issues? You are confusing atheists who have personal beliefs with atheism, which is a lack of belief in gods.”
You have just demonstrated the new standard for Atheism: do not present any incorrigible deductive argument in your defense; do not present any non-falsifiable, conclusive, unfalsified and peer-reviewed empirical data in your defense. What you do is deny any responsibility, either intellectually or scientifically for defending your blind faith.
(continued)
(from above)
You have just demonstrated the new standard for Atheism: do not present any incorrigible deductive argument in your defense; do not present any non-falsifiable, conclusive, unfalsified and peer-reviewed empirical data in your defense. What you do is deny any responsibility, either intellectually or scientifically for defending your blind faith.
” Theists like yourself have a hard time seeing the assertions they make because religious is itself based in dogma. Dogma is unquestioned belief in a conclusion. To acknowledge the positive claims you make, is to invite conscious doubt upon them. Therefore, you create a blind spot to the claims you make, and imagine that the people who don't believe those claims are guilty of what you are doing, because you assume that belief is the only state of mind.”
You are waaay off in the weeds. You have been given a logical deductive analysis, not dogma. Your pre-suppositions are showing. Further, you have asserted the new, Atheist dogma: that you have no responsibility for demonstrating logic or data for your belief system. In other words, the unquestioning and unanswering which is going on here is by yourself: give some answers to the questions you have been given.
You have made the blind accusation of “blind spot” without any support for your assertion: where in the deduction is there a “blind spot”? Since you make the charge, either support it with specifics (along with your disciplined deductive refutation attempt), or retract it.
Further, if you cannot refute the posit using incorrigible logic, then you will wither accept the conclusion, or you will reject it with the benefit of any rational support for your Atheism; thus the “faith” you disparage is on your side, not on the side of logic or rationality.
” That is why you perceive atheists as self-deluding, lightweights, etc. You insist upon thinking of atheists as "theists without god" because that's all you can understand.”
I have given you no reason to claim that I think that Atheists are “theists without god”. Quite the contrary, Atheists create themselves when they enter the Atheist VOID of having rejected without cause; this mindset gives them the self-endowed intellectual and moral freedom to reject any and everything without cause, and to make themselves the center of their universe; i.e. self-endowed superiority in intellect and morality, resulting in the consequence of self-endowed elitism coupled with the internal concept of not having to present any evidence for their own superiority: it just is.
This is far from theism; it is closely coupled to the description of self-deluded narcissism.
” “Rejection is a positive opinion, not a lack of opinion”
Not believing in something is as simple as that. It isn't a complicated mental process, neither does it imply active denial. You're trying to create a very weak semantic definition of belief, because you desperately need to equate both atheism and theism as systems of belief, when they are not the same in this respect. You need this false equivalence because you can't understand what it's like to not believe, but also because it gives you a way to argue that atheists have a burden of proof.”
Your rejection of any burden to support your rejection is noted. Your charge of lack of understanding is rejected; I was exactly where you are now until I learned the fundamentals of disciplined logic and how to think rationally. If you have to claim that your worldview doesn’t contain rejection in order to protect your inability to defend that rejection, then you have neither rational logic, nor empirical data in your defense: your position is naked to attack.
Prove otherwise, if you can. And remember, mere assertions are not arguments, they are throw-away opinions.
Science is rarely satisfied with the idea that, “sometimes things simply are”, unless those things are untouchable by scientific thought and methodology: hence the inherent limitations of physical investigation on the complete realm of knowledge.
Simply is, in this context, means that there is no other logical possibility. In other words, we are talking about only one coherent way of something existing or being. For example, the law of noncontradiction. There is no enforcer of that law, it simply is the case that a cannot simultaneously be a and not a.
Your position is better stated thus
You can state it this way if you are prepared to justify it by demonstrating that laws greater than those of the universe exist, are knowable, and necessarily imply that our laws are local to this universe only. Otherwise, you would be adding complexity for which there is no means to evaluate or reduce it.
The challenge is for the Atheist to prove the questions given him: that there are reasons for the existence of the universe beyond “it just is”;
Atheists have no challenge born of their position because they are not presupposing anything about the universe. Theirs is a null position. If you assert that gods exist, then you must justify what that has to do with anything, and why that logically follows in the argument about absolutes.
the Atheist is challenged to prove, either with unfalsified empirical material evidence in his defense, or with incorrigible, disciplined logic in his defense, that there can be no agent responsible for the bringing of the universe into material existence.
As an agent of the null position (or null hypothesis, in a manner of speaking), atheists are not required to prove anything. Just as a child isn't required to prove that Santa doesn't exist when he stops believing in him. It is your burden to substantiate your position.
Absolutely false. Atheism is the rejection without accompanying logic or evidence of the basic posits of theism: it is blind belief, and therefore a fundamentalist religious position.
You are framing this along the lines of your religion again. A null state is not a belief, or a denial. It is a lack of these things.
Have you ever heard the metaphor about how giving a man a hammer will cause him to see all problems as a matter of nails to be pounded? That's what you're doing here. You have your religion. That is what you know. You are trying to solve the problem, atheism, by treating is as just another belief or religion.
It is none of those things. If you wish to understand it, you will need to talk with atheists and openly listen to them about how they understand the world and specifically, how they understand their positions.
You have just demonstrated the new standard for Atheism: do not present any incorrigible deductive argument in your defense; do not present any non-falsifiable, conclusive, unfalsified and peer-reviewed empirical data in your defense. What you do is deny any responsibility, either intellectually or scientifically for defending your blind faith.
Atheism is a lack of belief. It has no positive beliefs associated with it. That means that any two atheists must have different, even if subtly so, beliefs because atheism doesn't actually describe what they believe. That is why your reasoning fails. You are treating a label which describes an absence of something as one which describes a belief system, and then you are merely lumping atheists together based on shared beliefs which doesn't work because shared beliefs implies an ideology or belief system external to atheism, like humanism or Buddhism.
You have made the blind accusation of “blind spot” without any support for your assertion: where in the deduction is there a “blind spot”?
The blind spot is a person's inability to acknowledge or see their own belief system, but simply accept it as matter of fact.
Everyone does this at some point. However it becomes dangerous when it is reinforced, because it becomes a tool to ingrain some ideology. If you can't see your ideology, then you can't question it, and thus you can never doubt it.
I have given you no reason to claim that I think that Atheists are “theists without god”. Quite the contrary, Atheists create themselves when they enter the Atheist VOID of having rejected without cause; this mindset gives them the self-endowed intellectual and moral freedom to reject any and everything without cause, and to make themselves the center of their universe; i.e. self-endowed superiority in intellect and morality, resulting in the consequence of self-endowed elitism coupled with the internal concept of not having to present any evidence for their own superiority: it just is.
I meant theists without god, as a shorthand for treating atheists informed by the way you perceive things, but without god as a centerfold.
This also goes back to what I said earlier: you are grouping people based on an absence of something, not by positive beliefs. You can't group atheists together because there isn't a trait in common ideologically.
Your rejection of any burden to support your rejection is noted. Your charge of lack of understanding is rejected; I was exactly where you are now until I learned the fundamentals of disciplined logic and how to think rationally. If you have to claim that your worldview doesn’t contain rejection in order to protect your inability to defend that rejection, then you have neither rational logic, nor empirical data in your defense: your position is naked to attack.
Why don't you believe in unicorns?
Now take your answer and put god there. That is what an atheist is.
Just as you have no burden to prove that unicorns don't exist, I have no burden to prove that gods don't exist.
Burden of proof is on the party with the unsupported claim.
”Simply is, in this context, means that there is no other logical possibility. In other words, we are talking about only one coherent way of something existing or being. For example, the law of noncontradiction. There is no enforcer of that law, it simply is the case that a cannot simultaneously be a and not a.”
This universal is an axiom of logic, which is fundamental to the rational construction of the physical universe and our rational ability to comprehend it. Yet if we start with nothing, and jump to something for no reason, then there is no reason to assert an expectation that anything rule based should “be the case”. Jumping from nothing, including rules, to rules, presupposes a reason. Rules are not epiphenomal to behaviors, they describe the reasons behind behaviors. In this sense, the “law of non-contradiction” is not a rule, it is epiphenomenal to actual rules; it is an observation of behaviors, not a command. The actual question then is “Why does this occur in this manner in this universe?” and how would our logic and rational conceptualization have to change if it were not the case?
At bottom our logic is a result of observation of the universe and the consequences of its rules, and our science looks for the cause of those rules based on applying logic to observations of cause and effect, another epiphenomenal observation.
So I agree that there is only one way of existing coherently within our universe; but the rules which determine that are unknown at the moment. The rules of logic are descriptions of behavior which we describe as coherent, not prescriptions.
” Your position is better stated thus
You can state it this way if you are prepared to justify it by demonstrating that laws greater than those of the universe exist, are knowable, and necessarily imply that our laws are local to this universe only. Otherwise, you would be adding complexity for which there is no means to evaluate or reduce it.”
That’s just not so. I actually reduced your more extra-universal statement into local knowledge (of our known universe) which we can have vs. knowledge which we can’t generate materially. And that’s all. If anything, you must demonstrate that the laws of the material universe extend beyond the universe we know, including to its preexistence without time, mass/energy and space - and that you can know and demonstrate that.
(more below)
” Atheists have no challenge born of their position because they are not presupposing anything about the universe. Theirs is a null position. If you assert that gods exist, then you must justify what that has to do with anything, and why that logically follows in the argument about absolutes.”
I do not assert anything except that Atheists cannot defend their rejections of even the most basic theist position with any disciplined deduction nor with any empirical non-falsifiable findings. And further, they will not. The null position is merely a void in which Atheists create their own reality, including reasoning and morality. The reasoning which emanates from the void refuses to defend itself by using the same evidential forms which it demands of theists. In other words, coming from the void position results in Special Pleading for the non-responsibility of the Atheist to provide any of the evidence which he demands from theists.
” As an agent of the null position (or null hypothesis, in a manner of speaking), atheists are not required to prove anything. Just as a child isn't required to prove that Santa doesn't exist when he stops believing in him. It is your burden to substantiate your position.”
And it is your burden to substantiate your rejection. Rejection without accompanying reasoning is merely rejection without reasons; if there are no reasons for the Atheist to reject, then he is merely an obstreperous obstacle without any rational content.
Atheists take this position because they have no reasoning to support Atheism. So they adopt the obstreperous obstacle position, and claim that it is rational; it is not. It is intellectual bullying: dance, theist, dance until you please me! No that’s not pleasing me, dance faster, higher! No, still not pleasing me.
There is no pleasing the obstreperous obstacle.
(more below)
"'Absolutely false. Atheism is the rejection without accompanying logic or evidence of the basic posits of theism: it is blind belief, and therefore a fundamentalist religious position.'
You are framing this along the lines of your religion again. A null state is not a belief, or a denial. It is a lack of these things."
The null state is indeed a void, a rejection without reasons or reasoning, and therefore he who asserts it specifically owns a positive belief that T is false without accompanying logic or data to support that positive belief: a belief without substance or evidence: blind belief, i.e. fundamentalist religious-type of blind belief regarding religious issues. If you cannot give reasons for your belief that T is false, then you have no rational case for your belief.
”You are trying to solve the problem, atheism, by treating is as just another belief or religion.
It is none of those things. If you wish to understand it, you will need to talk with atheists and openly listen to them about how they understand the world and specifically, how they understand their positions.”
This is another accusation of ignorance without any basis; you apparently have not read any of this blog, you have merely shown up and started out with your denial of intellectual responsibility for your rejections and opinions. This is the most common approach for Atheists to take: Theist arguments are wrong and I don’t need to give any deductive reasoning or material evidence as to why they are wrong; I have no responsibility for my unsubstatntiated opinion, I just reject theism out of hand; that’s how we do it in the Atheist void.
Further, theists cannot please me, because the VOID gives me what I want and need: first, it gives me freedom from authority and thus I gain total autonomy over my intellect and morality; second, it gives me superiority to those theists, who do not determine their own intellectual process and morality and who submit to external authority of things like deductive process outcomes and external moral authority, authorities which do not exist in the Atheist VOID.
(more below)
”Atheism is a lack of belief. It has no positive beliefs associated with it.”
Positive rejection means a positive belief that something is false. And if that cannot be demonstrated, then it is blind belief. You cannot defeat this with false analogies about hammer/nails or presupposition that I have a religious bent. You must defeat this with logical analysis, not implications about motivations.
”That means that any two atheists must have different, even if subtly so, beliefs because atheism doesn't actually describe what they believe. That is why your reasoning fails. You are treating a label which describes an absence of something as one which describes a belief system, and then you are merely lumping atheists together based on shared beliefs which doesn't work because shared beliefs implies an ideology or belief system external to atheism, like humanism or Buddhism.”
I agree with the simplification of the Atheist VOID you describe, and I challenge you to continue toward the consequences which the Atheist VOID produces: (1) absence of (rejection of) intellectual and moral authority; (2) emergent personal development of undisciplined rational processes and personal development of moral theories which are compatible with the personal proclivities of the individual Atheist; (3)self-perception of personal elitism by association with elites and disassociation with non-elites.
”You have made the blind accusation of “blind spot” without any support for your assertion: where in the deduction is there a “blind spot”?
The blind spot is a person's inability to acknowledge or see their own belief system, but simply accept it as matter of fact.”
I know what it is; I asked where it is in the deduction, not what it is. Show exactly why X is false due to 'blind spot'. Otherwise, retract the charge.
”This also goes back to what I said earlier: you are grouping people based on an absence of something, not by positive beliefs. You can't group atheists together because there isn't a trait in common ideologically.”
Atheists seem to have in common the denial that they positively reject theism, coupled with the denial of intellectual responsibility for owning that denial by producing disciplined reasoning or material evidence in their defense. This is not an absence, it is a common presence, which they/you deny. The commonality is not in ideology (disregarding the ideological dishonesty of not owning denials); the ideology is behaviors: rejecting the authorities as stated above in favor of personal autonomy in both intellectual process and moral principles. This does, indeed, lead to diverse ideologies and behaviors, including rational issues as well as moral. Of course being fabricated locally, those can be changed at a moment’s notice due to the assumption of personal autonomy in those areas. And that is why Atheists are not trusted. And one step further, that’s why Atheists don’t understand why they are not trusted.
”Why don't you believe in unicorns?
Now take your answer and put god there. That is what an atheist is.
Just as you have no burden to prove that unicorns don't exist, I have no burden to prove that gods don't exist.”
False analogy. The antique unicorn/FSM/orbiting teapot analogs etc., ad nauseum are all material category analogs being falsely compared to assertions of non-material categories: Blatant Category Error, making the analogy false. Material claims demand material evidence which is not provided; non-material claims demand rational evidence which is provided and not refuted – it is merely rejected without cause, and responsibility for the rejection is not owned.
”Burden of proof is on the party with the unsupported claim.”
Burden of Rejection (aka Burden of Rebuttal) is on the party who rejects the evidence being presented.
I believe there is a perfectly valid philosophical criticism grounded in your overzealous desire to see deductive logic demonstrate a no-God position.
Firstly, most, if not all, atheists necessarily employ a Humean epistemology, meaning of course the rejection of the Rationalists, in particular the Cartesian, arguments for the idea that knowledge is based on reason itself, and rather, as Hume would put it, it is impossible to follow the Cartesian argument where all concepts of sensory experience are deprived. This further means that the basis for an understanding of reality lie, for the atheists, in the concept of observable evidence, at which point it is trivial to demonstrate how God is a flawed conclusion, given that there is a lack of empirical, and therefore epistemological, justification for the existence of any immaterial being.
However you likely hold the Rationalist position, meaning that this discussion would be a long one, and one which Hume and Kant are far more able to debate than I.
In regards to some of the more specific claims you seek to impose, the claim of the atheist need to justify their rejection is indeed a strong one. Being an atheist, it is necessary for me to explain why the arguments for God are logically flawed.
Here you have a few emotional and moral appeals. I will try to brush them off quickly, to get to the Cosmological Argument. The principle that atheism has no inherent system of morals is true, however it is not true that no system can exist without a God (for example Utilitarianism relies not on a Deity, but a concept of pain and pleasure). This of course means you can "trust" an atheist to have a system of morals just as much as you can trust a Christian. This may be a bold claim, but it survives on the basis of varying moral teachings, and no clear guide, neither in the Bible, nor by Theological scholars, to a universal system associated with the Christian God. There are many positions, though the most prominent among them do rely on the secularly justified ethical principles of Mill (Utilitarianism), Kant (Deontology), and Aristotle (Virtue ethics).
Your devaluation of Atheism as an emotional position is only valid IFF the response to your challenge is always in the negative. Counting your chickens a bit too early.
The concept of the Void may largely be associated with the positions taken by nihilism, often in the name of Nietzsche. Nihilism, and I stress this, is NOT the same as atheism. However, the position is held with intellectual integrity, questioning the logical validity of the whole of knowledge on the basis that premises themselves are uncertain (as a necessity of the problem of induction). This does not exclude logic, far from it, many see this as an unfortunate necessary conclusion based on logic. Thereby logic itself is not rejected in the VOID, but any and all knowledge claims are rejected.
This leads us, finally, to the primary concept you refuse to explicitly present. The Cosmological argument. The problem with the Cosmological argument is that it relies on the a priori intuition that there has to be a creator for something that exists. The problem with this line of reasoning is that A. Intuitions are often false and B. the Humean, and thus generally the atheistic, position is that intuition is a belief held about something rather than an a priori justification, making the argument fall apart because the premise "IF there exists something THEN there is a creator" falls flat, not only on the basis of no needed sentience (a physical force has equal explanatory power) but also because it is not justified beyond assuming that it must be necessarily true.
Hence, to the philosophically inclined atheist, it is clear that that relying on the moral argument and the Cosmological argument for God, is logically inconclusive, and thus the Null Hypothesis must necessarily be there is no God.
Andreas Egeland said...
”Here you have a few emotional and moral appeals. I will try to brush them off quickly, to get to the Cosmological Argument. The principle that atheism has no inherent system of morals is true, however it is not true that no system can exist without a God (for example Utilitarianism relies not on a Deity, but a concept of pain and pleasure). This of course means you can "trust" an atheist to have a system of morals just as much as you can trust a Christian.”
This does not represent the issue at all. The issue is, and always has been as I have stated it, not that the Atheist has no “system of morals”, more properly stated as a personally derived set of congenial ethics. The issue is that every Atheist, having been through the Atheist VOID, finds himself to be his own arbiter of ethics and morals – i.e. he is his own moral authority and he thus makes up his own system, or he co-opts someone else’s system. There is no question about this: Atheist philosophers argue the issue of social “thriving” all the time. There is very little question that the philosophers also do not subscribe to character building personal morals, because they are already their own moral authority. Atheist morals, then are targeted for the Other.
Further, there is no way, upon meeting an Atheist, to determine whether his apparent “niceness” is a tactic under Consequentialism, or what his actual moral motivation might be. This inability to know intent leads to the concept of trust, which Atheists have no way to acquire for themselves. Trusting the Atheist to have a system of morals in no way illuminates what that system might be. Further, the 20th century experience with Atheists in control of large populations falsifies the idea of trust in Atheist morality as being beneficial or benign.
Further yet, the Atheist trend toward ever more lenient eugenics reflects that “death for others” is fine; and that when “Choice” means “kill”, the Atheist-Leftist trend toward mal-definition in pursuit of its “morals” shows both intentional and self-deception, which is the opposite of actual morality. And when the original intentional deception becomes a self-deception, the claim to rationality as a part of the ideology is self-falsified.
” This may be a bold claim, but it survives on the basis of varying moral teachings, and no clear guide, neither in the Bible, nor by Theological scholars, to a universal system associated with the Christian God. There are many positions, though the most prominent among them do rely on the secularly justified ethical principles of Mill (Utilitarianism), Kant (Deontology), and Aristotle (Virtue ethics).”
This merely proves the point: Atheists cannot be known to have any specific ethical belief, and when they make an ethical claim, it could be Consequentialist, or it could change on a moment’s notice as required for a situation at hand. Trusting a consistent, known moral response from an unfamiliar Atheist is not possible. Trust is an expectation of a specific response in a specific situation. There is no trust to be had, when reliable ideological responses cannot be expected.
Sure, Atheists probably have some form of ethical theory that they have concocted for themselves. But what is it? And what will it be tomorrow, or this afternoon?
Further, making claims about the bible has no bearing on Atheist trustworthiness.
(more below)
”The concept of the Void may largely be associated with the positions taken by nihilism, often in the name of Nietzsche. Nihilism, and I stress this, is NOT the same as atheism. However, the position is held with intellectual integrity, questioning the logical validity of the whole of knowledge on the basis that premises themselves are uncertain (as a necessity of the problem of induction). This does not exclude logic, far from it, many see this as an unfortunate necessary conclusion based on logic. Thereby logic itself is not rejected in the VOID, but any and all knowledge claims are rejected.”
First, if any and all knowledge claims are rejected, how is knowledge of the truth value of logic “known”? Second, how is knowledge of First Principles, the required axioms underlying logic “known”?
The idea that any knowledge of anything is kept when in the Atheist VOID is self-defeating. The VOID is based on rank rejectionism of authority, not on rejection of specifics based on logic. Logic becomes based on either continued rejectionism or on personal proclivity for what “should be true” and how to defend that concept (rationalization). As for Nietzsche, he is one of the few Atheists who admitted to the Reductio Ad Absurdum conclusion for Atheism: there is nothing left of a rational nature and Anti-Rationalism ensues. Further, Anti-Rationalism is the default process within the VOID, and it persists after exiting into the vaunted freedom of free-thought and autonomous Atheist thought processing.
”This leads us, finally, to the primary concept you refuse to explicitly present. The Cosmological argument. The problem with the Cosmological argument is that it relies on the a priori intuition that there has to be a creator for something that exists.”
Interesting. I just made the argument with Hugo, above, regarding the concept of contingency vs. non-contingency. This is a logical argument which is based on First Principles, as opposed to the false principle that it is (a) an intuition and (b) intuitions are known to be false… sometimes. It would be best to attack the argument rather than to deny the ability to make such an argument.
(more below)
” The problem with this line of reasoning is that A. Intuitions are often false and B. the Humean, and thus generally the atheistic, position is that intuition is a belief held about something rather than an a priori justification, making the argument fall apart because the premise "IF there exists something THEN there is a creator" falls flat, not only on the basis of no needed sentience (a physical force has equal explanatory power) but also because it is not justified beyond assuming that it must be necessarily true.”
So it is your intuition that a logical argument cannot lead to reasonable, rational conclusions, especially when of valid form and not based in circularity, infinite regress, fallacy, but is based on deducible First Principles? This refutes your claim to Logic.
Also, the assertion of a physical force implies an infinite regression of physical forces, or a non-contingent physical force. So, you must either defeat the concept of non-contingency as an ultimate source for contingent existence, or own that infinite regressions are an acceptable existence. Your argument leads inexorably to the conclusion that an infinite regression of contingency is more logical than a single non-contingency.
Now, since you invoke materialism, you must show that your Philosophical Materialism is provable, and not intuitive: PM must demonstrate its validity using only material techniques: the venerated scientific method (experimental, falsifiable, replicable – not the intuitive method of evolution). If all that exists is material (even ad infinitum), then that must exclude non-material existence, and the non-existence of non-material existence must be determined by the use of material techniques… otherwise materialism is an intuition, and cannot be accepted under your own terms.
Further, there are the issues of (a) whether life can be hypothesized as coming from minerals, atoms or subatomic particles, and (b) whether mind can be hypothesized as an agent, even while being totally pre-determinate by electron flow in neurons prior to intellectual process. If not, then mind is without value to either analysis or creative function. (Darwin’s Doubt), and (c) whether Skepticism is a form of knowledge, or an intuition.
These things and others are intuited by Atheists; they also intuit that science will solve all issues whatsoever (Scientism). Yet, under certain circumstances, Atheists will also accept the godellian theorems, which require higher orders of proof for any system to be validated. Internal contradiction is seemingly no barrier to Atheist self-justification. Atheists tend to use their freedom from authority to assert whatever it takes to seemingly support their ideology, and to deny that they use either intuition or rationalization in the process.
Finally, the only moral argument I make is that Atheists have no common or consistent means of generating trust or respect, morally, because there is no way to predetermine a valid expectation for someone who makes up his own morals and might change them situationally.
What I discuss here, generally, is not the case for a deity. What I discuss is the rationality of Atheist positions.
And in general, Atheists demand evidence of a physical/material nature, yet they provide none for their maintenance in the VOID/null - except for their intuition that Skepticism is a more valid source of knowledge than is deduction.
This universal is an axiom of logic, which is fundamental to the rational construction of the physical universe and our rational ability to comprehend it. Yet if we start with nothing, and jump to something for no reason, then there is no reason to assert an expectation that anything rule based should “be the case”. Jumping from nothing, including rules, to rules, presupposes a reason. Rules are not epiphenomal to behaviors, they describe the reasons behind behaviors. In this sense, the “law of non-contradiction” is not a rule, it is epiphenomenal to actual rules; it is an observation of behaviors, not a command. The actual question then is “Why does this occur in this manner in this universe?” and how would our logic and rational conceptualization have to change if it were not the case?
Right, so if you accept that "the law of noncontradiction" simply describes the observed law of logic in action and does not command it, then you should be able to accept that the absolutes of the universe are their own observed phenomenon and do not require command from an unseen deity. This is where your major sticking point is, you say that atheists cannot believe in absolutes, implying that a god is required for absolutes to exist which is not a logically coherent statement.
I referenced the Euthyphro in a different comment because this is what "god creates/enforces absolutes" looks like. Just replace piety with logic, or reason, or absolutes and the argument looks the same.
So I agree that there is only one way of existing coherently within our universe; but the rules which determine that are unknown at the moment. The rules of logic are descriptions of behavior which we describe as coherent, not prescriptions.
So if there is only one way of existing coherently in our universe, what purpose does a god serve except to add unnecessary complexity? Like taking Newton's F=ma and then adding a few quadratic terms which cancel each other out, just for the sake of it.
If anything, you must demonstrate that the laws of the material universe extend beyond the universe we know, including to its preexistence without time, mass/energy and space - and that you can know and demonstrate that.
I do not assert this argument, however. I consider that outside the bounds of knowledge.
I do not assert anything except that Atheists cannot defend their rejections of even the most basic theist position with any disciplined deduction nor with any empirical non-falsifiable findings. And further, they will not.
Examples:
"The Christian god exists"
Objection: an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-benevolent god cannot coexist alongside pain, suffering, evil.
"Morality comes from god"
Objection: The Euthyphro dilemma refutes it.
"God is all-knowing, and free will exists"
Objection: That god cannot exist.
These are classic theist positions and their atheist refutations which rely on logic.
And it is your burden to substantiate your rejection. Rejection without accompanying reasoning is merely rejection without reasons; if there are no reasons for the Atheist to reject, then he is merely an obstreperous obstacle without any rational content.
The rejection comes from an unsubstantiated claim. It's really that simple. I accept the null position, you must substantiate your claim that a god exists. In all of the millennia of civilization, no philosopher or scientist has ever substantiated the claim that god exists, therefore my rejection stands.
The null position is merely a void in which Atheists create their own reality, including reasoning and morality. The reasoning which emanates from the void refuses to defend itself by using the same evidential forms which it demands of theists. In other words, coming from the void position results in Special Pleading for the non-responsibility of the Atheist to provide any of the evidence which he demands from theists.
Where is your deduction, hmm? You're asserting this, not proving it. It is an opinion.
The null state is indeed a void, a rejection without reasons or reasoning, and therefore he who asserts it specifically owns a positive belief that T is false without accompanying logic or data to support that positive belief: a belief without substance or evidence: blind belief, i.e. fundamentalist religious-type of blind belief regarding religious issues. If you cannot give reasons for your belief that T is false, then you have no rational case for your belief.
You are trying to create false equivalence between not accepting your proposition and asserting your proposition. When someone makes a claim, unless that claim is supported by evidence or reason, the person making the claim must substantiate it and everyone else who doesn't accept it, stands as a judge of that claim and its evidence or reasoning.
You have not provided a sound argument for why god exists, or non-materialism is valid. It is not my burden to prove that you are wrong, or even prove that my lack of being convinced is justified. I made no claims here. I never presented an hypothesis. I am the judge of your hypothesis.
This is another accusation of ignorance without any basis; you apparently have not read any of this blog, you have merely shown up and started out with your denial of intellectual responsibility for your rejections and opinions.
You are making claims about me based on prejudice, not reason.
This is the most common approach for Atheists to take: Theist arguments are wrong and I don’t need to give any deductive reasoning or material evidence as to why they are wrong; I have no responsibility for my unsubstatntiated opinion, I just reject theism out of hand; that’s how we do it in the Atheist void.
You made no claims and presented no reason that god exists. You merely blogged a post about atheists. Unless you can substantiate your claim that god exists, all I can do is take the negative stance.
Further, theists cannot please me, because the VOID gives me what I want and need: first, it gives me freedom from authority and thus I gain total autonomy over my intellect and morality; second, it gives me superiority to those theists, who do not determine their own intellectual process and morality and who submit to external authority of things like deductive process outcomes and external moral authority, authorities which do not exist in the Atheist VOID.
These are emotional, not logical, arguments.
Positive rejection means a positive belief that something is false. And if that cannot be demonstrated, then it is blind belief. You cannot defeat this with false analogies about hammer/nails or presupposition that I have a religious bent. You must defeat this with logical analysis, not implications about motivations.
Ah, so now you're talking about strong atheism.
Strong atheism doesn't exist as an umbrella ideology. It is piecemeal. That is to say, a strong atheist, is merely an atheist who has a logical case against a particular god. It does not mean the atheist has a general atheist ideology, or is even a strong atheist against all gods.
For example, I take the position that the Christian god is logically contradictory, and therefore I can know it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean, however, that I know all gods don't exist, or that I would even claim to know if they do or don't. Because god is a nebulous, ambiguous term, I can only ask each theist to define themselves.
I agree with the simplification of the Atheist VOID you describe, and I challenge you to continue toward the consequences which the Atheist VOID produces: (1) absence of (rejection of) intellectual and moral authority; (2) emergent personal development of undisciplined rational processes and personal development of moral theories which are compatible with the personal proclivities of the individual Atheist; (3)self-perception of personal elitism by association with elites and disassociation with non-elites.
You cannot support any of these arguments. Atheism is not an ideology, so any of those traits, even if you tend to find them amongst certain atheists, do not characterize atheism. It's like making the same claims about people with brown hair, or dark skin, or blue eyes. Atheism doesn't work that way.
Now, if you want to talk about humanism, or the freethinker movement, or atheism+, be my guest. But atheism is not an ideology.
I know what it is; I asked where it is in the deduction, not what it is. Show exactly why X is false due to 'blind spot'. Otherwise, retract the charge.
Okay, I'll be more explicit in my reasoning. In all these arguments, you characterize atheists with certain traits of ideology. You are a theist, theism invites ideology, beliefs about god, etc. Despite my protestations you characterize atheists with ideology, distinct beliefs. I keep telling you that you don't need to see the world tht way, you don't need ideology concerning god. You have ideology concerning god, that is your blindspot.
That is to say, something like:
A blindspot requires an ideology to be assumed true, implictly
You have an ideology concerning god
You have a blindspot with your ideology concerning god
You implicitly see atheists in terms of how you see god, that is, in terms of there being ideology
I don't know how to point it out to you more clearly. I keep trying to tell you: I have no beliefs concerning god. I don't believe in god. I have no god-belief. We may as well be talking about unicorns.
I guess you'd have to learn to trust people like me when we tell you this.
Atheists seem to have in common the denial that they positively reject theism, coupled with the denial of intellectual responsibility for owning that denial by producing disciplined reasoning or material evidence in their defense. This is not an absence, it is a common presence, which they/you deny. The commonality is not in ideology (disregarding the ideological dishonesty of not owning denials); the ideology is behaviors: rejecting the authorities as stated above in favor of personal autonomy in both intellectual process and moral principles. This does, indeed, lead to diverse ideologies and behaviors, including rational issues as well as moral. Of course being fabricated locally, those can be changed at a moment’s notice due to the assumption of personal autonomy in those areas. And that is why Atheists are not trusted. And one step further, that’s why Atheists don’t understand why they are not trusted.
You presuppose that god is required for authority, for absolutes, for morality. Therefore, you assume that atheists lack these references.
They don't. Moral absolutes exist for atheists. Authorities exist for atheists. So do absolutes.
But just to try a tangential line of reasoning: suppose that you're right. Well, we're all atheists concerning some gods. In your line of reasoning then, you positively reject a wide range of religious gods, in favor of one or a handful that you believe in. You therefore are in denial of your positive denial of these gods, and you don't realize it. Your denial of these gods causes intellectual dishonesty and a sense of personal autonomy in choosing your religion. That is why theists cannot be trusted.
False analogy. The antique unicorn/FSM/orbiting teapot analogs etc., ad nauseum are all material category analogs being falsely compared to assertions of non-material categories
Because this is about belief, it doesn't matter whether the thing is material or not. Indeed I could ask if you believe in demons or genies, same thing.
”Right, so if you accept that "the law of noncontradiction" simply describes the observed law of logic in action and does not command it, then you should be able to accept that the absolutes of the universe are their own observed phenomenon and do not require command from an unseen deity.”
That does not follow in any sense. Here is what you claim:
IF [ order is observed] THEN [ order is merely observed and does not require a cause].
Completely non sequitur. Observing order in no way obviates the need to investigate its cause.
”This is where your major sticking point is, you say that atheists cannot believe in absolutes, implying that a god is required for absolutes to exist which is not a logically coherent statement.”
First, I implied nothing of the sort; you inferred it without any reason, other than to imply illegitimacy without specificy. Rather an Ad Hominem which attacks my rationality but not the argument; fallacy and false.
Second, you created a statement which I did not make, in order to refute it: Red Herring of the Straw Man flavor.
Third, you have shown no reason which demonstrates other than that Atheists have no absolute belief system which is called Atheist Absolutes, or What Every Atheist Believes, or something of the sort. That is because there is no such absolute belief system for Atheists. In fact, there is no such thing as an Atheist Common Absolute Belief. (except for denial without cause, maybe). This is fact, observable, and without any reference to deity or first cause or non-contingency.
What you attempt to do is to change the subject from Atheist beliefs (the subject of this blog) to beliefs which you assume that I have, although you do not know anything about me or my belief system. So you generated a series of Red Herrings in Tu Quoque, Red Herring, and Ad Hominem clothing.
”I referenced the Euthyphro in a different comment because this is what "god creates/enforces absolutes" looks like. Just replace piety with logic, or reason, or absolutes and the argument looks the same.
Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dilemma as I have shown (look in the side bar under euthyphro). Do you wish to argue euthyphro? I can certainly do that. (no dilemma has only two choices: 0,1 vs. 1,0. There also are 0,0 and 1,1, as can be seen in any truth table analysis. i.e. T,T; T,F; F,T; F,F)
See: Euthyphro
”So I agree that there is only one way of existing coherently within our universe; but the rules which determine that are unknown at the moment. The rules of logic are descriptions of behavior which we describe as coherent, not prescriptions.
So if there is only one way of existing coherently in our universe, what purpose does a god serve except to add unnecessary complexity? Like taking Newton's F=ma and then adding a few quadratic terms which cancel each other out, just for the sake of it.”
Every concept of a creating entity is placed outside the universe first and foremost, and provided the universal coherence which we observe. That is what Atheists must address, not issues of predetermined laws, other than the non-contingent source of those laws. That includes “What is the source of coherence?” as well as other source-type questions. Did coherence just happen to occur a priori? Under what hypothesis is this possible in Materialist philosophy?
(more below)
”If anything, you must demonstrate that the laws of the material universe extend beyond the universe we know, including to its preexistence without time, mass/energy and space - and that you can know and demonstrate that.
I do not assert this argument, however. I consider that outside the bounds of knowledge.”
If materialism is all there is, and materialism begets material existence, then material knowledge should be possible, or at least inferable from deductive processes. This is a direct consequence – one of many – of Atheism and Materialism. The consequences of X must be owned, if X is the worldview.
”Examples:
"The Christian god exists"
Objection: an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-benevolent god cannot coexist alongside pain, suffering, evil.
"Morality comes from god"
Objection: The Euthyphro dilemma refutes it.
"God is all-knowing, and free will exists"
Objection: That god cannot exist.
These are classic theist positions and their atheist refutations which rely on logic.”
None of these are theist arguments; you have assembled assertions, not arguments to refute. Further, they are not even valid, and here’s why:
First, no Christian principle based on the bible states that God is omnibenevolent; quite the contrary. And omnibenevolence is necessary to your argument. Also, your claim to know the moral requirements for being a non-physical creating entity are rejected.
Second, euthyphro is a false dilemma, easily refuted. See the side bar.
So your third comment, “God cannot exist”, cannot be supported by the first two, false conclusions. And it is not an argument against either free will, or whatever the creating entity knows. Further, you cannot prove with positive evidence that a non-physical agent capable of creating the universe and everything in it “cannot exist”. Your “proof” consists of attacking false positions not claimed biblically and using false dilemmas.
Finally, you cannot prove, using materialist techniques or disciplined logic that there absolutely exists no non-physical agent capable of implementing the universe and everything in it. So your comment that god cannot exist, meaning such an agent cannot exist, is opinion, not fact.
(more below)
”Further, theists cannot please me, because the VOID gives me what I want and need: first, it gives me freedom from authority and thus I gain total autonomy over my intellect and morality; second, it gives me superiority to those theists, who do not determine their own intellectual process and morality and who submit to external authority of things like deductive process outcomes and external moral authority, authorities which do not exist in the Atheist VOID.
These are emotional, not logical, arguments.”
These are precisely consequences of new thought and moral processing which is personally subjectively created in the Atheist VOID. Yes, the consequences are indeed emotionally based in Atheists, because disciplined rationality / morality have been jettisoned in favor of “free thought” and personal morality.
” Ah, so now you're talking about strong atheism.
Strong atheism doesn't exist as an umbrella ideology. It is piecemeal. That is to say, a strong atheist, is merely an atheist who has a logical case against a particular god. It does not mean the atheist has a general atheist ideology, or is even a strong atheist against all gods.”
Redefining Atheism is a common deflection of reality: Atheism involves rejection and entry into the VOID.
There is ”“no general Atheist ideology”, and that is the point. No “general Atheist ideology” includes lack of concern for known logic and for any ethic other than personally congenial to the originator (and his consumers, if any).
”For example, I take the position that the Christian god is logically contradictory, and therefore I can know it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean, however, that I know all gods don't exist, or that I would even claim to know if they do or don't. Because god is a nebulous, ambiguous term, I can only ask each theist to define themselves.”
That’s a standard Atheist dodge. You cannot refute the most fundamental concept of a non-physical agent with the capability of creating the material universe. And that is the primary issue.
”You cannot support any of these arguments. Atheism is not an ideology, so any of those traits, even if you tend to find them amongst certain atheists, do not characterize atheism. It's like making the same claims about people with brown hair, or dark skin, or blue eyes. Atheism doesn't work that way.”
I asked you to refute them. You did not. You claim instead that Atheism encompasses nothing. And you have agreed that Atheism entails the VOID. It’s even the default. But the VOID has consequences which are logically and sociologically discernible. Your rejection is merely an out-of-hand, blanket presumption of ideological claims – which are not made. Behaviors, not ideologies, are demonstrated, although those behaviors result in worldviews which are ideologies. You’ve made no attempt to show that the consequences are not a logical process.
This falls in line with your other denials of having to show your work; if you reject the above, then demonstrate the illogic of each specific consequence. Either give reasons, or admit that you cannot.
(more below)
”Okay, I'll be more explicit in my reasoning. In all these arguments, you characterize atheists with certain traits of ideology. You are a theist, theism invites ideology, beliefs about god, etc. Despite my protestations you characterize atheists with ideology, distinct beliefs. I keep telling you that you don't need to see the world tht way, you don't need ideology concerning god. You have ideology concerning god, that is your blindspot.”
Same failure as before: what specific statement is a failure due to your perception of “blind spot”. I have demonstrated the non-ideological source of logic for the identification of common Atheist behavior traits which necessarily result from the Atheist VOID, which you have not refuted but instead you make unsubstantiated blanket charges of blind spots based on a presupposition of my theism – an assertion made as a truth statement with no cause whatsoever since you know nothing about me other than that I revere logic.
You fail to point to specifics because there are none. Your charge is false to the core.
”I don't know how to point it out to you more clearly. I keep trying to tell you: I have no beliefs concerning god. I don't believe in god. I have no god-belief. We may as well be talking about unicorns.”
Frankly, I don’t know how to be gentle and diplomatic about this: that statement is dishonest. Either you have rejected the theist concepts, accepted theist concepts, don’t know any theist concepts, just don’t care about theist concepts, or have forgotten theist concepts completely. It is logically impossible to not have any beliefs concerning theist concepts and yet show up on a blog to discuss why theist concepts are inadequate to your standards (which you conveniently do not reveal).
”I guess you'd have to learn to trust people like me when we tell you this.”
Re-read the above regarding Atheism and trust.
”You presuppose that god is required for authority, for absolutes, for morality. Therefore, you assume that atheists lack these references.”
False. There is no god required to understand that Atheists do not have an Absolute Moral Atheist Dogma. That is obvious from your own comments: Atheists are all over the place, morally and intellectually. Let’s syllogize:
IF [Atheists reject absolute authority for moral principle], THEN [ EITHER they make up their own moral theories under their own self-presumption of moral authority, OR they accept moral theory that someone else made up under their own self-presumption of moral authority].
There is no god presumption contained or implied. Your accusation is false, and I think you misread the issue with the presupposition that the argument is disposable by innuendo; it is not. Kindly either direct your analysis to the actual argument or admit that you cannot refute it.
(more below)
”They don't. Moral absolutes exist for atheists. Authorities exist for atheists. So do absolutes.”
This is ridiculous; you have claimed before that there is no common ideology; now you claim that there exist Atheist moral absolutes. Atheists have no absolutes; that is a common Atheist statement. You’ve made it yourself: Atheists cannot be held to an absolute ideology because they have none. Conclusion: Non-coherent. Again, to the core.
Authorities? Atheist philosophers can’t agree on anything, including what evolution actually is. Moral authority presumes the ability to provide consequences for failure to comply. There is no human anywhere who commands moral authority over all other humans (including the pope, any mullah(s), Dalai Lama, etc), and there is certainly no specific Atheist moral authority who determines what all other Atheists are to accept for their morals. There are minor players such as philosophers, but even Dawkins admits to moral confusion: “I can’t say that Hitler was wrong, morally”. This assertion is false.
Absolutes? I have had Atheists tell me that torturing babies is not a moral subject, that it varies by culture because morals are acquired via evolution… There are no Atheist Absolutes. Unless it is the unsustainable, unprovable, absolute opinion that “there is no non-material, non-contingent agent which implemented the material universe and all that is in it”, i.e. “deity cannot exist”, of course. And that is a position which is made by Atheists but they decline to prove, categorically, as is required of an absolute (unless it is a revelation, which it must be for Atheists, it appears).
(more below)
”But just to try a tangential line of reasoning: suppose that you're right. Well, we're all atheists concerning some gods.”
Again, that demonstrates a misunderstanding of Christianity, which allows for false gods of unknown type and quantity. And a misunderstanding of Hinduism which accepts all gods, with each person deriving his own deity. And misunderstanding even the ancient Greek culture which acknowledged all gods including the “unknown”.
” In your line of reasoning then, you positively reject a wide range of religious gods, in favor of one or a handful that you believe in. You therefore are in denial of your positive denial of these gods, and you don't realize it. Your denial of these gods causes intellectual dishonesty and a sense of personal autonomy in choosing your religion. That is why theists cannot be trusted.”
This is a blatant Tu Quoque fallacy, based on “information” which you made up; you have no idea what my ideology is; you know nothing about me. You are attempting to Red Herring your way out of defending Atheism. It is also a false analogy, because it does not apply.
Further it is the dodge called, “you are too insane to know that you are insane” gambit.
Your analysis of trusting theists is false, based on false premises (denial of gods), and a poor attempt to recoup from the injury to pride due to the proof of lack of trust that Atheists generate in their lack of standards which are credible. Doesn’t wash.
”False analogy. The antique unicorn/FSM/orbiting teapot analogs etc., ad nauseum are all material category analogs being falsely compared to assertions of non-material categories
Because this is about belief, it doesn't matter whether the thing is material or not. Indeed I could ask if you believe in demons or genies, same thing.”
Because you are attempting to not answer for your own disbelief by foisting your characteristics off on me, you are again Tu Quoqueing rather than taking responsibility for answering the question by giving honest reasons: You are attempting to say, Well, you disbelieve in some ridiculous things so I can disbelieve and not give any reasons, regardless of the evidence proffered which needs addressing; I falsely associate your argument with absurdities in order to avoid addressing it.
What I believe has no bearing on what you can or cannot prove. Certainly you must realize that it is your Atheist position which is under scrutiny, and for which you are asked for reasons for rejections. You dance all around but give no reasons, other than fallacious attacks on me, not the issue. Well, except for attacking, not arguments, but false concepts of theist assertions, and using false dilemma.
But you actually cannot give any reasons, and that is your problem, certainly not mine. If you claim to have a rational worldview (and maybe you do not), then provide rational reasons for your rejection, reasons which pass the tests of logical analysis. If you cannot provide disciplined logic or certified empirical data in your defense, then admit it. That is the mark of intellectual honesty, not the phony claim of having no beliefs regarding the existence of god.
IF [it is irrational to believe something, and that is the real reason you don’t believe a thing], THEN [ it is incumbent to EITHER own that position and prove it, OR admit that you cannot prove it, ELSE there is no credibility to your position of rejection].
(more below)
”The rejection comes from an unsubstantiated claim. It's really that simple. I accept the null position, you must substantiate your claim that a god exists. In all of the millennia of civilization, no philosopher or scientist has ever substantiated the claim that god exists, therefore my rejection stands.”
That is entirely false; the claim has a logical basis which must be refuted by demonstrating that either the logic is false, or that a fallacy has been used, or that its premises are false. Or refuted by material, empirical, falsifiable, replicable experimental data. Your choice.
Just declaring “unsubstantiated” is itself an unsubstantiated claim which is merely an assertion, not an argument in defense of Atheism or contradiction of theist principled argument. It is non-coherent, because (aside from being false) it is self-contradictory – being unsubstantiated itself - and thus, non-coherent.
”Where is your deduction, hmm? You're asserting this, not proving it. It is an opinion.”
You are right; this deserves a formal statement:
IF [Atheists reject authority for thought and morality in the Atheist VOID], THEN[ Atheist thought and morality is based on no authority other than their own] AND [ Atheist thought process and moral basis is of their own derivation].
IF [Atheist thought process is of their own derivation] THEN [ it is likely to match the proclivity of the thought process creator, and likely not to match known disciplined deductive processes (which likely have not been even studied)].
IF [Atheist moral/ethical principles are of their own derivation] Then [ the principles are subjective, non-authoritative for other individuals, likely to volatilize rapidly, likely to be congenial to the behaviors of the principle creator, AND likely to apply mostly to the Other rather than to the creator].
”You have not provided a sound argument for why god exists, or non-materialism is valid. It is not my burden to prove that you are wrong, or even prove that my lack of being convinced is justified. I made no claims here. I never presented an hypothesis. I am the judge of your hypothesis.”
You are the judge, but make no claims? That is preposterous; you claim precisely that “you have not provided a sound argument” in the exactly preceding sentence. And above you claim that “god cannot exist”. Those are positive claims, and you made them. Judgments are made on the basis of comparison of an assertion made to known facts regarding the assertion; then the difference is communicated as a judgment. You are not judging openly, you are acting as a silent information tyrant, condemning with no reasoning as to why or where falseness exists or how it is determined. This means you “must be pleased”, but there is no positive guidance to your “pleasure”, only to your “displeasure”, much like a petulant monarch.
”This is another accusation of ignorance without any basis; you apparently have not read any of this blog, you have merely shown up and started out with your denial of intellectual responsibility for your rejections and opinions.
You are making claims about me based on prejudice, not reason.”
Fact: I discuss Atheism with Atheists every day and have been for > 5 years.
Fact: I was an Atheist for 40 years.
Fact: You accused me of ignorance of Atheism.
Fact: You continually deny any ownership for any position.
IF [ the four facts, above] THEN [my statement above is valid, logically based on fact and not on prejudice].
Kindly support your assertion to the contrary, based on these facts; otherwise retract it.
”You made no claims and presented no reason that god exists. You merely blogged a post about atheists. Unless you can substantiate your claim that god exists, all I can do is take the negative stance.
I have made the primary case for theism here and many other places on this blog, including, but not restricted to, the Challenges to Atheists in the right hand column. This is more evidence that you have not read much of this blog.
Refute that case.
(more below)
Your position is to deny responsibility for owning what you believe (no deity can exist). But you actually cannot demonstrate any disciplined counter logic which demonstrates inconvertibly that your belief or your (dis)-belief and VOIDist worldview are valid, much less demonstrate that they are valid using empirical, falsifiable, replicable, experimental, peer reviewed data ( the currency of knowledge in materialist circles), nor can you prove that Materialism is valid by disproving (falsifying) non-materialism using materialist methods. And that leaves Materialism as a non-coherent philosophy, without either logic or material evidence in its defense: a blind belief, the same as Atheism.
Post a Comment