Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Burden Of Proof And Atheist Intellectual Responsibility

Atheists virtually always deny that they have any Burden of Rebuttal when they claim to reject theist arguments and propositions. They merely claim that theists have not proven their case, or have not provided evidence. And they do so without any justification for their claim.

Said one Atheist:
” If there was such a thing as the burden of rebuttal you could never believe anything as there is an infinite number of concepts to rebuttal. Since this leads to absurdities, it is the burden of the one making the positive claim to provide evidence.”
Qualia Soup

There is likely to be only one valid rebuttal containing one sequence of valid premises; if the Atheist opposition cannot provide a valid refutation, then there are, of course, an infinite number of non-valid rebuttals based on non-valid premises. But that infinite regression has no bearing on whether there exists one, single valid rebuttal. The originator of the original argument is obliged to point out the non-validity of the false rebuttals, in other words, the theist will point out the errors in the Atheist's false case. Of course, iff there is no valid rebuttal, then the conversation will potentially go on infinitely while the rebuttor searches for a valid reason to rebut where none exists.

However, the Atheist is free to showcase his presumed intellectual abilities by demonstrating the actual, factual errors he perceives to exist in the theist proposition.

But the Atheist position is not really that. The position taken by Atheists is that they can “rationally” reject any argument without giving either a reason or reasoning for their rejection. They merely claim that the theist argument is "not evidence" (Note 1) or "not proven"(Note 2).

But that is not a rational position; it is, in fact, anti-rational. Given the opportunity to describe in detail what he thinks the standards are for either evidence or for logical deduction, the Atheist demurrs and claims "no Burden of Rebuttal". The internet is rife with this claim.

If an Atheist will not provide any reasons for having rejected an argument, then his reason for having done so is not based on logic or evidence or he would have provided that. No reason = no reasoning. As with all things Atheist, the self reigns, and the emotions dominate: the rejection is emotionally based. Why?

In order to maintain his personal bliss as unencumbered by the authority of external rules (both moral and logical), the Atheist will rationalize reasons to support his position on the intellectual responsibility to show his reasoning, whether in the VOID or having emerged into untethered free thought. But in a debate where tethered, principled deduction rules, his own form of logic invariably fails him completely. Thus, if he has no rational refutation (and he does not), then he claims that he needs no refutation anyway. He argues that he need not give any reasons or reasoning for his claim that “there is no evidence” (false), that the evidence is insufficient to convince (why is that, then? What are your reasons, your needs?), that there must be physical evidence (there is, but it is never addressed when presented), etc.

Why is the evidence for theism which is given to the Atheist blanket-rejected out of hand, never point by point with counter deductive arguments? Few make any "logic" arguments, none make any disciplined deductive counter arguments, and generally none address the actual issue, which is direct, hard evidence which categorically proves that Atheism is correct and valid and incontrovertible. (Never mind the recent inclusion of agnosticism into the category of Atheism, a false re-definition ploy in a failed attempt to justify giving no refutation).

It resolves to this: either the Atheist has valid reasons of logic or evidence, or he does not. Either he can justify his rejection, or he cannot. That he will not, or need not justify his rejection is merely absurd, and is intellectual dishonest.

There is only one valid reason for an Atheist to reject his responsibility to actually rebut, with statements of logic or evidence, theist arguments and evidence. That reason is that the Atheist has no reason to give for his rejection, and he has no reasoning to share. At bottom, the reason is emotional neediness, not rational discovery of valid and true deduction.

Denial of the intellectual responsibility for justifying the rejection of an argument is a prime example of Atheist dishonesty. In this case it is intellectual dishonesty, but intellectual dishonesty is an indicator of moral dishonesty as well. To say "you have failed to make your case" while declining to say why is not a reason: it is a lie. A lie is a lie.

To take one step further, when the Atheist community advertises itself as “Good Without God”, it is both intellectually dishonest, and morally dishonest. First, no person is completely good, and to make that claim is morally: !Good; the actual question is when and where are you !Good? The statement, "Good without God" is a conclusion without premises, and is demonstrably false.

Second is the issue of what Atheists might think constitutes "Good". Atheist philosophers cannot agree on what the term "Good" even means. Common variety Atheists don’t even think that far into the issue: their claim essentially is that because they are not in prison, that makes them Good. But they are not even up to their own standards of “high empathy” as “Good”, so Atheist claims of being Good are merely blustered propaganda and without any substance.

The Atheist claim of not needing to provide justification for rejecting theist arguments is both intellectually dishonest and morally dishonest.

More on intellectual responsibility here and here.


Note 1. When pressed on the issue of what constitutes "evidence" many Atheists claim to accept non-material evidence, but then reject all evidence which is non-material.

Note 2. When pressed on the issue of logical arguments presented by theists, Atheists make a number of claims, including "Which god?", and "Too many theist arguments to address", and when pressed hard to address a specific argument, they either claim not to understand the issue, or they present demonstrable logical fallacies while making false claims of fallacy against the argument.

37 comments:

Burt said...

If I said I had a perpetual motion machine it would be your burden to prove me wrong.

Stan said...

Burt,
That is easily done. When a falsifiable material claim is made, it is subject to material, empirical, experimental replication. Only if you refuse to produce the material proof of your material claim (i.e. dishonest claim) would replication attempts not be possible. Examination of your prototype would be easy, and replication of your design would also be easy.

For non-material claims, such as rational, logic based arguments, the testing is different, of course. If you can deduce errors to the theist logical claims which are made fully available to you, then you are free to do so. Few (very few) Atheists attempt to do so, and those who do, fail to complete the task because they are not familiar with actual disciplined deductive logic requirements and techniques.

The lack of physical evidence or rational evidence to support their worldview never seems to deter Atheists from their emotional attachment to the Atheist VOIDism which they cherish.

Aqium said...

Where did he say the perpetual motion machine was material?
You ask him to produce "proof" (not evidence!) of his claim, what happened to your "Burden of Rebuttal" (with capital letters!)?

Steven Satak said...

Ah. Looks like the burden the rest of us have to shoulder is ignoring the likes of Burt and Aquium. I know a Sophist when I see one.

Spicoiter said...

The atheist mistake is identifying truth and objectivity. The concept of objectivity is an undue reduction of the classical concept of truth, which they obscures and distorts; the premises behind the theory of objectivity are not axiomatic, and lead to contradictions. The positivist objectivism is an impossible. It is impossible an empirical perception apart from previous concepts and categories; all valuation implies selection. Certainty has a subjective character.

Do atheist distinguish between synthetic and analytical judgments? Do they differ between objectivity and positivist objectivism? Between epistemological objectivity and ontological objectivity? Between methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism? The only defensible way of epistemological naturalism (aka scientism) is that it is a methodological decision to follow a research program.

Positivism corresponds to the belief according to the equation "scientific = true = objective = formalized = rational". To justify an objectivity of knowledge with independence of the formulation of a single subject, are located in a gnoseological anthropocentrism.

In fact, assert that only the scientific propositions are valid to the extent that exclude value judgments, is making eo ipso a value judgment.
Those who did not understand or do not support this is by not being able to get rid of the positivist bondages, so that they fall into the objectivist fallacy accounts.
The cause of the truth cannot be in the knowing subject.
Objectivists reduce truth to verification. The positivist bias, that subordine the truth on the evidence, don't know the truth of evidence, since it cannot be "proven" in the strict sense of the term, because it would open a process to infinity.

Stan said...

Aqium,
You can differentiate between "material proof" and "evidence"? How so?

If the material proof does not exist, then there is no motion to be observed, is there? So the perpetual motion machine does not provide any motion at all.

Thus, the claim, which is in regard to possession of physical processes, is false.

It's really quite simple.



Aqium said...

Then if theists believe their gods affect the material world then material proof should be there to be observed. None is ever produced.
Simple.

Stan said...

spicoiter said,

”…the premises behind the theory of objectivity are not axiomatic, and lead to contradictions.”

Yes, actually the premises reduce to verifiability (physicalism) as you say later. Subjective experience is declared non-valid due to the lack of verifiability by second parties as is required of empirical science. Yet the necessity of verifiability is a conclusion of logic, not of science. And logic underlays science and cannot be verified by science. So logic supercedes science and yet is known to be valid only subjectively, being based on presumptive axioms and tests for rational absurdity.

Regarding verificationism: yes, that is the source then, of the Objectivist/Atheist view that there is no truth: the scientific method is still based on induction first, deduction only secondarily, afterward. Induction cannot provide absolute verification (only non-falsification), so if all verification is merely physical and inductive, then there is no absolute verification and thus no (knowable) truth, especially if verification is required even for non-physical truths. So dependence upon physical verification never produces truth.

An additional fallacy is that declaring there to be no truth, absolutely, does not follow from induction-as-sole-knowledge generation: even though truth might not be known, or at least knowable inductively, that has no bearing on whether it exists.

Further, if the Objectivist claims that it is true that Objectivism is true, then he has created an internal contradiction. If there is no truth, then Objectivism (and Positivism) cannot be true.

Always interesting to hear your observations, thanks for your comment.

Stan said...

Aqium,
Absolutely false. Not only is the universe itself a material indication - unless you choose to believe that something comes from nothing and can prove that - the miracle claim at Lourdes, France also stands untouched by Atheists who demand physical evidence.

Your position places impossible conditions upon you, yourself:

Condition 1:
You are free to prove that the universe came from absolutely nothing whatsoever, all on its own, for no reason (cause) at all, using the discipline of empirical science in all of its aspects and glory, providing evidence of falsifiability, experimental replicability, full data, and peer review, all of which constitute the standard for empirical knowledge.

Condition 2:
You are free to disprove the miracle at Lourdes, using the discipline of empirical science in all of its aspects and glory, providing evidence of falsifiability, experimental replicability, full data, and peer review, all of which constitute the standard for empirical knowledge.

If you decline the empirical, experimental challenge and attempt to support your claim using logic alone, then you must provide a deductive argument with premises which are necessary and sufficient to support the conclusion and are grounded in first principles, being neither circular nor infinite regressions.

So go ahead and re-make your case, either empirically or deductively.

If you are unable to provide these minimal knowledge kernels for your case, then you have no case, because your concept is refuted.

Do not bother with mere Skepticism; Skepticism does not produce knowledge, it merely reduces to claims of inability to know anything, which is a claim it cannot sustain, rationally.

Spicoiter said...

Because of the obsessive requirement of evidence of atheists they are pigeonholed in evidentialism, a theory of justification according to which the justification of a belief relies solely on the evidence for this. Technically, although a belief is typically the primary object of concern, evidentialism can be generally applied to doxastic attitudes. By formulating evidentialism depending on the attitude of the doxastic belief, their more defended forms come from Conee and Feldman: The belief, B, toward the proposition, P, is epistemically justified for the subject, S, in time, T, if and only if B has the evidence that S has in T.

It is clear that evidentialism ends up in an infinite return. This argument starts with the observation that, normally, a supporting evidence for a belief consists of other beliefs, but it seems that these other beliefs can do the work of justification only if they in themselves are already justified. And evidentialism demand that support these beliefs are justified by still more evidence if they should be justified in themselves; but the same reasoning would apply to the new level of more profound belief of support: these can be justified only if they are in themselves justified, and evidentialism therefore demands a deeper and uniform level of the belief of support etc, etc . According to this argument, a justified belief requires an endless supply of reasons, and this leads to an absurdity, because it calls for a evidence of the evidence, and then a evidence for the evidence of the evidence, and so on. The argument of the return makes the assumption that the justification for a proposition takes the form of another proposition.

Given any statement P, it seems reasonable to ask a justification for Q. If this justification takes the form of another statement, P', one again can reasonably ask for a justification for P', and so on. There are three possible outcomes to this inquisitorial process:
1. the series is infinitely long, with every statement justified by some other statement.
2. the series forms a loop, so that each statement is ultimately involved in its own justification.
3. the series terminates with certain statements having to be self-justifying.

An infinite series seems to offer little help, since it is basically impossible to check that each justification is satisfactory.
A loop begs the question.

The coherentism of modern epistemology on the study of knowledge exceeds the evidentialism by breaking the chain of absurd infinite returns. As a theory of the truth, coherentism restricts true sentences to those who align themselves with some specified set of judgments, and the belief of someone is true if and only if it is consistent with all or most of their other beliefs. Usually, coherence implies something stronger than mere consistency.

See evidentialism and coherentism on wikipedia.
See also methodological nominalism and methodological essentialism.

Andrew said...

Re: Condition 1&2.

These are material claims, affecting material reality.

These are YOUR claims, and the burden of demonstrating their proof falls to you.

It takes a special type of hubris to state that your claims are special and do not require evidence, yet those who reject your immaterial claim reject logic and reason.

It takes a fantastically indoctrinated mind to claim that those who reject your claim shoulder the burden of providing ~proof~ of non-existence.

You outright state that the task of disproving your evidential-less claim is impossible. ~Agreed. You cannot provide proof that there are not fairies at the bottom of my garden. That does not mean there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. Immaterial fairies, to be sure.

"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." - Anonymous

Finally, you ignore the uncountable material claims theists make regarding their deity of choice. You ignore what theism actual is, in order to score debate points.

This comes across as nothing but intellectual ignorance and dishonesty.

Burt said...

I love the quick switch from "there can't be material evidence of God - so you must prove the big bang!" to "everything is material evidence of God - prove me wrong!"

"You outright state that the task of disproving your evidential-less claim is impossible. ~Agreed. You cannot provide proof that there are not fairies at the bottom of my garden. That does not mean there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. Immaterial fairies, to be sure."

Don't forget that Stan is also claiming people who don't believe in his fairies are evil because they don't believe. Fairies who affect the physical universe! There's no evidence of this but prove me wrong or it must be right!

Stan said...

Andrew said,
”Re: Condition 1&2.

These are material claims, affecting material reality.”


Yes. The claims are regarding material reality which is affected by non-material causation. This is in response to the claim that there is no such thing.

”These are YOUR claims, and the burden of demonstrating their proof falls to you.”

False. These contain the proofs: physical manifestations; the burden is upon you to falsify them using empirical techniques, or accept and admit that you have no physical case to refute them.

”It takes a special type of hubris to state that your claims are special and do not require evidence, yet those who reject your immaterial claim reject logic and reason.”

This is a special type of absurd: the evidence is given, and you reject that it even exists. That is why actual refutation is required: because absurdity is not a rational excuse for Atheism.

”It takes a fantastically indoctrinated mind to claim that those who reject your claim shoulder the burden of providing ~proof~ of non-existence.”

False. If that is your claim, then you are responsible for it in all its manifestations. If you claim [!X], the burden of demonstrating [!X] is purely yours.

But your approach is merely to deny without having any reasoning or reasons other than: “I don’t have to.”

”You outright state that the task of disproving your evidential-less claim is impossible. ~Agreed. You cannot provide proof that there are not fairies at the bottom of my garden. That does not mean there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. Immaterial fairies, to be sure.”

I have given you material evidence of material events which had non-material causes. Your response is … “fairies”? Really? Can you not see how weak your position is?

”"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." – Anonymous”

And yet that is not what is claimed here, is it? Why not respond to the actual material evidence which is given you? Why Not???

”Finally, you ignore the uncountable material claims theists make regarding their deity of choice. You ignore what theism actual is, in order to score debate points. “

I have pared the field down for you, to simplify your task of refutation. You have two material effects from non-material causes, and yet you complain that there are a bunch more claims that you would rather address.

That is just pitiful.

”This comes across as nothing but intellectual ignorance and dishonesty.”

Under which Atheist permutation of “intellectual” and “honesty” do you refer? There are so many different Atheist personal creations of these things… all which are ungrounded, untethered and without any discipline of actual objective deductive reasoning. The Atheist VOID removes all responsibility to objective rules, such as actual Aristotlian logic, so you must specify the rules of your personal thought process.

In the meantime, you have PHYSICAL MATERIAL EVIDENCE with which to deal; either do so, or admit that you cannot.

Stan said...

Burt said...
”I love the quick switch from "there can't be material evidence of God - so you must prove the big bang!" to "everything is material evidence of God - prove me wrong!"

Again Burt, the rules of logic: if you claim [!X] then you must prove [!X]. The claim of !X is a conclusion without premises; the Atheist refuses to give premises for his conclusion. If he has reasons, or reasoning, then he should provide them. But instead, the Atheist claims that the evidence of material effects from non-material causes are beneath him, so he belittles the evidence. HE NEVER, EVER, EVER ADDRESSES THE EVIDENCE HEAD-ON LIKE AN ADULT.

” Don't forget that Stan is also claiming people who don't believe in his fairies are evil because they don't believe.”

And that is an outright LIE.

I claim that Atheists do not and cannot generate any trust due to their unknowable personal morals, which they are free to create after entering the Atheist VOID. Whatever morality the Atheist has is personal, and is potentially volatile on a moment’s notice. In fact, many Atheists create their own moral premises based on the situation presented. For that reason, no one can know their moral position in advance, and trust is obviated.

I never use the word “evil” (you presuppose that the above means evil, when in fact it means unknowable trust) because to Atheists, evil has no meaning, objectively. Even so, they are free to apply “evil” to their concept of the Christian God because their own subjective morality supersedes that of the proposed deity. So “evil” – when used by Atheists – is a personal construct, not an objective first principle. Under those conditions, corruption by subjective meaning, “evil” no longer has a knowable meaning.

”Fairies who affect the physical universe! There's no evidence of this but prove me wrong or it must be right!”

Yet another LIE. The evidence is given. Your response is to DENY that the material evidence exists even in the face of it, not to respond to the evidence given with any empirical – or even theoretically empirical – counter evidence. Your only response is the incredibly juvenile “fairies” false analog.

Try responding to the actual material evidence which is presented. Or admit that you cannot.


Stan said...

Andrew and Burt:
Respond rationally to spicoiter's analysis, above. When you do, resolve your analytical premises in first principles and analysis of coherence.

Just do it. Provide evidence/logic for Atheism under rational processes.

We'll wait right here (for a little while).

Andrew said...

You only claim my 'fairies' response is juvenile because YOU CANNOT REFUTE IT. You denigrate the claim rather than address it like an adult.

The physical material evidence of these fairies is my garden.

You have PHYSICAL MATERIAL EVIDENCE with which to deal; either do so, or admit that you cannot.

Spicoiter,

We must assume basic axioms. We exist. The universe exists. Etc. Otherwise we are left with solipsism. This eliminates your infinite regress issue.

And really, what's the alternative standard? We DON'T need evidence to accept a claim?

Stan said...

Andrew,
Why not address the actual issues presented to you here? Do you think that by presenting absurd analogs you can avoid addressing the issue? This is fatal to Atheism as a rational pursuit.

You have physical effects which are given to you. That is what was demanded and denied. Now you want to deflect the conversation off of that and onto your Red Herring, in the hopes that you can avoid addressing the exact evidence which was demanded and denied.

Either address the evidence given you, or go somewhere else. Red Herrings do not work here. The conversation was and remains the Atheist demand for evidence.

Stan said...

Andrew,
Re: your response to spicoiter.

"We must assume basic axioms. We exist. The universe exists. Etc. Otherwise we are left with solipsism. This eliminates your infinite regress issue."

So there exist basic overarching "truths" then? Are these inviolable? Are these incontrovertible? Are these perpetual, valid even outside the universe? Are these given Truth value for use in logical argumentation? Aside from your beginning presuppositions which you give, what others do you recognize?

As for overcoming solipsism, those you mention cannot overcome the "brain in a vat" Skeptical argument; no one can prove that "reality exists" because reality is subjectively apprehended and so it is dependent upon the senses and subject to their filtering, distortions, errors, and limitations of capability. Further, the apprehension of reality is subjective and therefore is subject to personal interpretational errors. (This is a favorite plaint of Atheists who are confronted with personal experiential data).

So what are the first principles of your own system of logic? And how are they verified for Truth value?


Andrew said...

Stan your avoidance of the issue is noted. I see you would rather continue to denigrate the claim, dodge your burden of rebuttal and call fallacy where none exists.

You say this is unrelated to an atheists demands for evidence, but we both know you are just being coy because you can't prove me wrong.

You do know what an axiom is, so why do you ask such ignorant and irrelevant questions? It now sounds like you want to merely clutter the thread with as much nonsense as possible in the hopes no one will notice how tenaciously you avoid your intellectual responsibility by refusing to shoulder your burden of rebuttal.

And as it has been previously pointed out, intellectual dishonesty is an indicator of moral dishonesty.

Spicoiter said...

"We DON'T need evidence to accept a claim?"

That depends on what type of claim and what type of evidence. Reality is multidimensional. Because there are scientific evidence, epistemological evidence, ontological evidence, formal evidence, logical evidence, medical evidence, legal evidence... And each one has a different methodology.
And further, there are different levels of evidence. In the field of science, Guyat and Col considered six levels of evidence, which are used in legal and medical science. The SIGN considered eight levels of evidence, the CEBN ten levels of evidence, the AATM nine levels of evidence. Respect logical evidence, Husserl considered an identity of judgment, modes of formulation and the corresponding differences for evidence. For Husserl, there are various levels of evidence and various concepts of judgment, which accounts for the differentiation of the own stratus corresponding for each logic discipline -with their respective obbjectivity and own forms of mention and compliance- and of identity which, on the other hand, lets talk about the same passes judgment be different ways.
So, Andrew, you have on mind a crude and clumsy simplification of evidence.

It's about the beliefs upon which we build our cognitive evidence and our actions and volitions. But the fact that beliefs are based on experience as related to the reality in which we are and are, is subjectively interpreted through cultural elements, starting with the meaning of perception interpreted by language, producing evidence and, therefore, individual and social knowledge of very varying degrees.
So, beliefs serve as sources of evidence. The interpretations of reality on which we build our evidence is very different. All are representing evidences with different truth values, depending on the context or "field of reality" in wich is established a "point of view".
(Popper)

Stan said...

Andrew shows his stuff:

”Stan your avoidance of the issue is noted. I see you would rather continue to denigrate the claim, dodge your burden of rebuttal and call fallacy where none exists.

You say this is unrelated to an atheists demands for evidence, but we both know you are just being coy because you can't prove me wrong.”


Andrew, I remember why you were booted. You are about to be booted again for the same juvenile irrationality as before. Strike ONE. Re-read the comment I made above. Then consider this: no mature Atheist philosopher falls to the level of false analogies; they have rejected the use of orbiting teapots, unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters as mature, viable, rational argumentation. They are all Red Herring Fallacies in the form of False Analogy Fallacies. This includes your fairies. Do you actually think that your use of that device is going to convict anyone that your inability to justify your own Atheism is valid? I repeat that I consider your repetition of that fallacy, coupled with parroting my analysis of your position back as your own Tu Quoque, to be the lowest form of immature, childish argumentation available.

”You do know what an axiom is, so why do you ask such ignorant and irrelevant questions?”

It is obvious that you do not want to share your specific axioms or first principles, and that you therefore make absurd statements such as that one. Strike TWO.

”It now sounds like you want to merely clutter the thread with as much nonsense as possible in the hopes no one will notice how tenaciously you avoid your intellectual responsibility by refusing to shoulder your burden of rebuttal.”

Parroting is not argumentation, it is Tu Quoque and it is a juvenile avoidance technique.

”And as it has been previously pointed out, intellectual dishonesty is an indicator of moral dishonesty.”

Because you are merely parroting, blindly, you obviously wish to show that this statement is false by Tu Quoque. Therefore, you appear to have no concept of actual dishonesty, as is common with juvenile Atheists.

Strike THREE.

You are a complete waste of computer cycles and my time. Any future comments will by removed.

Stan said...

In the five years this blog has been operational, 10 people have been removed, mostly for persistent irrational behavior and repeated failure - refusal, actually - to accept the consequences of that.

It has happened again.

We will be operating in moderated mode for an unspecified period. It is a pain, I know, but sometimes it is necessary.

Steven Satak said...

Wow, didn't think it would degrade this quickly. And they call theists delusional. Sounds like a lot of them just don't want to grow up.

Stan said...

One of the interesting things about some Atheists, even many Atheists of the immature variety, is that they consider it a "win" if they are annoying and bull-headed enough that you stop conversing with them. They go away and tell their pals about their success. Truly pitiful.

Hugo said...

One of the interesting things about some Atheists, even many Atheists of the immature variety, is that they consider it a "win" if they are annoying and bull-headed enough that you stop conversing with them. They go away and tell their pals about their success. Truly pitiful.

Stan,
I did notice that kind of Atheists (and Theists too obviously) and it's quite ridiculous. At the same time, I did write something similar myself on this old thread I commented on... but you can be assure that it's for very different reasons. If you were to ban me, it would make me smile because I think you act in a very irrational and emotional way when you ban people. I don't see this as a 'win' and I would certainly not go tell someone about it; it's really just funny to see you react like that.

I don't understand why you do so honestly... why get so angry so quickly at people and want to block them? I mean, if they were starting to post dozens of comments a day and become 'really' obstructive then I would get it, but it's never the case here on this blog afaik... isn't ignoring sufficient? Isn't it actually more satisfying since you could show how stupid the real trolls are, since they would be talking to themselves...

Anyway, hopefully you don't take this as a baseless insult, I am really just curious as to why you react like that! But I am more curious about discussing actual logical arguments obviously (even though I don't have the time to do so.) So I will be reading your answers on the other thread.

Cheers

Stan said...

Hugo,
These folks are removed because they have an intent of wasting both time and my blog space with absolute BS.

When I started this blog I actually thought that Atheists (I originally did not capitalize their religion) would respond to conversations that would address issues directly, adhering to known logical processes. That has long since been proven completely false.

So I entertain their presence long enough to demonstrate their thought process (such as it is) and to elaborate on their specific fallacious points of error. When I do this, these folks respond in completely irrational fashion. (Only ten of them have done so to the point of removal).

I originally was drawn into very prolonged bouts of trying to apply reason to the unreasonable. This, I found, is a waste of my time here on earth. So what I do for these irrationals is to allow them a few chances to deal with their obvious fallacious assertions, and when they go berserk rather than address them, I stop the conversation by removing them.

This blog is not a bulletin board for insanity. Once the falseness of a position is demonstrated, that is enough. Either it is accepted or it is rationally debated under the rules of disciplined deduction, or it is stopped.

I am not paid for this blog, and these people are a waste of time.

Steven Satak said...

Haha, noticed that myself. A lot of these 'intellectuals' come to play 'bait Stan' and then chase their tails with nonsense.

Even when it's pointed out and explained, they just keep jabbering away. Until you realize that the jabbering is the point, it's all very confusing. They're constantly shifting their ground as if the whole point was to avoid - forever - any sort of accountability.

They're here mostly to shore themselves up. The proof is when they come here, get banned and then retreat to their mutual-admiration-society 'free reason' forums and accuse Stan of being 'stupid' and 'intolerant'.

Like small children, they want what they want and when whining doesn't work, they shriek, fall to the ground and cry 'no fair!'. It's very hard to hold a conversation with such self-centered types (or spoiled children, for that matter) as they continuously fall back on insults when their 'reasoning' fails them.

The funny thing is that they already know what they believe is a lie. It's just that they won't satisfied until they've bullied everyone else around them into agreeing.

It's about personal power, and always has been. Actual reason has absolutely nothing to do with that. The point is that it is just another tool to make others do your will. The appearance of reason will work just as well, and you can redefine all you want.

Spicoiter said...

Is atheism falsifiable?
Atheism claim that "all gods are imaginary", but they cannot verify it. If one find "a god who is not imaginary" then it is falsifiable. But atheism claim that "there is no god who is not imaginary", then it is not falsifiable, since negative particular propositions are meaningless. Therefore, atheism is not falsifiable, that is, not scientific, nor belonging to scientific language.
If atheism is not falsifiable, it does not belong to science and therefore it is not objective, because a statement that is logically impossible to falsify does not belong to the scientific field. It doesn't respond to scientific approaches, but existential, ideological, philosophical approaches.

What you think about this, Stan?

Stan said...

Yes, that is my position.

Further, Atheists frequently complain that theist propositions are not falsifiable, and therefore their evidence is without value. But this is a Category Error because theists' claims generally refer to non-empirical existence, so the falsifiablity requirement is void.

Atheists have reductively concluded in advance that Materialism must apply to theists' claims (although some deny it even while not able to think non-materially). So these reductionists deny the category of non-material existence, yet they have no material evidence to prove that their denial is valid.

In short, Materialism cannot be demonstrated to be valid using Materialism as the proof; Atheism cannot be proven to be valid using Materialism as proof.

Which is why there is a concerted effort amongst Atheists to deny that they actually have God theories, and/or that they have any intellectual responsibility for their rejection of arguments and evidence.

These are conscious, obvious deceptions, which render Atheists who exercise these deceptions to be intellectually dishonest, which is morally dishonest as well.

Steven Satak said...

"Which is why there is a concerted effort amongst Atheists to deny that they actually have God theories, and/or that they have any intellectual responsibility for their rejection of arguments and evidence."

So what exactly are they asserting? It seems to me they are insisting they have nothing - no coherent theories, no accountability. They have Nothing. And they revel in it with a kind of terrible gladness. As though rejecting everything but themselves was the point, and that doing so results in anything but what really happens... eventual madness and ruin.

Talk about squandering your gifts. It's as if a man with 20/20 vision and no luck in courting women volunteered to blind himself. He then recommends it to others simply and solely because it would be THEIR decision. And then claims that the sight of a beautiful woman was not only delusional but something all people were better off without.

Madness. Sheer madness.

I believe I mentioned this before, but Lewis wrote that he'd abandoned the ship of Materialism not at the call of poetry, but because he did not think it could keep afloat. Something else, at least, had to be less untrue than a philosophy that contained such stark self-contradictions.

Ciro Galli said...

I have a better solution for this problem and is: God Himself if He is to exist is the only intellectually responsible being to prove His own existence. Once an apologist has taken the position of the defendant, God has lost the argument. In Pat Condell's words: "If God exists, I wanna hear it from Himself. I don't wanna hear it from anybody else. And in case you're wondering that includes you."
If there are non-believers, it's God's ineptitude and God's alone, being Him the superior being in the equation.

Stan said...

Ciro,

That position is internally contradictory, being both true and false simultaneously. It is true that no human can prove conclusively that there exists a non-material entity which is an agent with the capacity to create the material universe to another human, and especially so when the second human exhibits radical skepticism; it is false to conclude that such a creating entity is responsible for any incredulity in its own creation (having provided free will), and it is false that such an entity has any responsibility to individual components of its creation, especially merely because they demand it. To think that a human would control such an entity with commands is ludicrous. It is in fact worse than that. It is the incredible hubris of elevating oneself to the power of such a deity, in the face of reality: having none of the power or knowledge which supports that elevation. Thus it is irrational to the point of insanity.

Ho Ho said...

Spicoiter:
"Atheism claim that "all gods are imaginary""


Considering atheism makes zero claims this is an interesting thing to say. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in deities. This lack is caused by not having been presented with good enough evidence to validate the claim.

Stan said...

Ho Ho,
Atheism is an intellectual VOID, in which absolutes are rejected. This is an intellectual necessity due to having to avoid explaining the source of absolutes. Atheists experience an exhuberant feeling of total freedom from being limited to existing principles for both rational thinking and morality.

This rejectionism and intellectual VOID which surrounds Atheists has consequences, both intellectual and moral.

Intellectually, there are no principles upon which to ground arguments, so Atheist arguments are necessarily either circular or infinite regresses, but never grounded in absolute truths. Hence Atheist "free thought" which is untethered to any principles of rationality. Hence, antirationalism in Atheism.

Morally, Atheists are free to create their own morals as they see fit. This allows them to create morality to fit their own proclivity. That in turn is circular morality because morality is created to match behavior and behavior therefore is always moral. So the Atheist is tautologically moral. Thus the Atheist is morally superior to the Other, and is therefore Elite.

Elitism always leads to Leftist totalitarianism.

So Atheism, by its very nature is much more than rejectionism; it is a danger to society.

Apologist68 said...

Bravo Stan.

I am just a simple laymen when it comes to such matters ..I just discuss what I feel God has helped me to understand ..and I love your responses ..let me see if I, in my simple mind, get what you are saying.

You have basically broke down Atheist rejection of a First Cause into it's very basic foundation consisting of two platforms.

The material world and moral world.

Neither of which they can explain rationally given their worldview.

Which obviously leads to the desire to not defend an indefensible position but rather, in order to feel good about their irrational worldview, they must maintain a constant critique of other views to avoid dealing with their own short comings?

Marshall Crago said...

This article WILL certainly prove helpful.

Anonymous said...

check this top [url=http://online-casino.gold/]casino[/url] offers