“I am unconvinced”.This is a conclusion without a premise, and it looks like this in argument form:
IF [ Q ], THEN [ “I am unconvinced” ].The Atheist will stalwartly refuse to reveal what Q might entail as a premise. And in fact, there is no Q. The reason that the Atheist invokes this non-argument is that he has made a conclusion based only on emotional neediness, and certainly not on any rational premise, Q.
But what is Q?
When the opponent of the Atheist demands to see Q, that demand is the Burden of Rebuttal which is placed on the Atheist. The denial of having such a burden is the most common response, and the proponents of this attack on the rational process are legion across the web. But the Burden of Rebuttal is the rational demand to see the premises for the Atheist argument. Denial of that is merely a part of the chronic avoidance endemic to Atheism.
Others might go an extra step into the Atheist intellectual abyss with statements like these: “There is no case”; or “theists haven’t proven their case”. The first statement is false, blatantly so. The second statement demands this response:
IF [ P ], THEN [ “theists haven’t proven their case” ];They have merely moved the empty, unsupported conclusion deeper into the Atheist intellectual abyss.
WHAT IS P?
Because they have no Q and no P, they are maintaining an Anti-Rational position, in the manner of Nietzsche. And in the manner of Nietzsche also, they begin to assert bullying tactics (Will To Power) in order to appear to be maintaining control, including declaring - without evidence - that all accusations against themselves are fallacies:
IF [ R ], Then [ “All your accusations are fallacies” ].But once again the conclusion is an emotional desire, not an objective fact and they will never produce any evidence, R, to support their charge.
It always deteriorates from this point because the Atheist has no rational base from which to operate, so the conversation becomes an emotional mess.
I have yet to meet an Atheist who has studied logic and cares about it enough to submit himself to it. Submission is not a characteristic of the narcissism and elitism which are acquired by Atheists in the great Atheist VOID. In fact, it is the inverse; Atheists come to sites like this, not to exercise logical argumentation, but to assert their own elitism and to feed their ravenous egos. Narcissism is not a fun place to be, because it does require massive ego-feeding.
I suspect that coming to a site like this one ultimately takes a toll on the narcissist ego, which gets exercised, bruised, and not fed here. So many of them alight here for a short while and then flit off never to be seen again. There are plenty of other sites to which they can retreat and refuel their egos by associating with other self-endowed elitists. A narcissist might be wounded, but will never discard his narcissism. Narcissism has no cure. Nor does elitism. Nor does Atheism, unless it is caught before the VOID asserts itself and removes rationality completely from the individual’s worldview.
6 comments:
So... what I see here is:
- Atheists claim intellectual superiority without establishing it through any other means than "because I said so" and the use of pseudo-rational language.
I don't say "psuedo-reason" because from what you say, they only study rational argument itself long enough to take away the trappings of a rational argument - not the actual essence, which is opposed to their line of argument. They never actually get far enough into it to understand it runs counter to everything they claim.
Or else they do (on some level) but wish to retain the language in order to prop up their appearance of intellectual superiority.
The practice of maintaining two mutually exclusive sets of information for the purposes of argument (both internal and external) appears to be a common thing with Atheists. It's a double standard, essentially, that dovetails nicely with elitism, which itself holds one standard for the elite, and another for the "masses".
Perhaps the two feed off each other? I am reminded of something C. S. Lewis pointed out - the Greek myth of the Danaids in Tartarus, condemned to filling a pool with water carried from a stream using colanders. It is the symbol of not one vice, but all vices that are sourced in the ego - trying to reach that which cannot be had. Like peeling an onion, when you get to the center, there's nothing left.
Feeding the ego is like that - never ending, never satisfying, ever hungry.
So despite the intellectual trappings, the atheist's premise is essentially an emotional one, for which there is only one acceptable answer - one that, unfortunately for the atheist, cannot be supplied by true Reason. So they borrow a few words from the language of Reason and let fly.
The atheist is an Ego, placing itself at the pinnacle of creation and declaring itself to be correct in its rebellion, no matter what the cost to it or anyone else. It doesn't seem very hard to understand why one can never pin an atheist down with reasoned argument. Reason is entirely beside the point.
Jumping to conclusions from negative premises is an invalid reasoning, since it is a non sequitur of categorical reasoning, an erroneous deductive reasoning.
Modus tollens tollens
If A, then B. Not B, then not A
A = God exists, B = there is evidence
The premise of the atheist is not B, and from there jumps to the conclusion of not A.
Perhaps now the atheist says that not B is not his premise, but a deduction leaving from his perception and his experience of the world. But it so happens that neither the atheist has a "pure experience" of the reality, since he is not free of the adhesions that he goes finding in the empirical data constituted by facts of psychic and physical order.
A doxastic logic uses 'Bcp' to mean "the reasoner c believe that p is the case," and the set B denotes a set of beliefs. In doxastic logic, belief is treated as a modal operator.
Now, what a type of reasoner is the atheist? A conceited reasoner?
A conceited reasoner believes his or her beliefs are never inaccurate. A conceited reasoner will necessarily lapse into an inaccuracy.
Bc(¬Ǝp(Bcp Λ ¬p))
Interesting. I read that as:
c believes that there is never a single instance of a belief which c has, where c believes p and p is not true. (i.e. all of c's beliefs are true) or (all of c's beliefs are tautologically true)...
Correct me if I have it wrong.
And please choose a moniker so we can tell which person we are talking with, thanks.
Right
A reasoner c is inexact, inaccurate, if it exists at least one proposal p in which he believes and that is not true.
Right
A reasoner c is precise if he does not believe in any false proposal.
Interesting, thanks.
Post a Comment