A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Atheist Pamphlet
Probably an outline of Atheist moral principles...
Nice folksy attempt at a slander. I tried to find an generally accepted name for the type of fallacy it is, but couldn't find a good fit. Closest I could come up with is an "Ad Hominem". You could say something logically equivalent like, "It's probably a list of atheist foods", or "....atheist colors", but that wouldn't convey the negative connotation you want to attach to atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. No more, no less. Nothing in there about food tastes, favorite colors, musical preferences... Or morals. On the other hand, each atheist must adhere to some moral code, and if our representation in the US prison population is any indication, we seem to be doing a better job of it than theists.
Sorry Brian, The cartoon is right on the money, even in your own terms: there is no principled theory of anything, including morals, included in Atheism. All anyone can know about an Atheist is that he has rejected theism, which leaves the remainder of the unknowns about the Atheist wide open, including knowledge of what he might have created for his own do-it-yourself ethical principles, or adopted another Atheist's home-grown ideas in the absence of theist principles. If that turns out to Humanism (not all Atheists are humanists), then a quick read of the First Humanist Manifesto will set up that Atheist's moral landscape in its true AtheoLeftist colors.
So the cartoon hits the centroid of Atheism: Nothing. There are no Atheist principles, as you say. There is no Atheist Moral Principle. There is no Atheist Ethical Principle. There is only: Nothing.
So it can't be an Ad Hominem, because as you point out, it is true.
And your claim that Atheists must adhere to "some moral code" is certainly no help, given the organized Atheist atrocities which dominated the 20th century. Not all Atheists have adhered to a moral theory at all, having found that the freedom from morals allows them a freedom from constraint, and enables whatever it is they want to do without moral restriction.
The prison population meme is phony, being based on a falsification of a study which has questionable origins (two hits in one subject). But that sort of intellectual malfeasance is part and parcel of the freedom which Atheists love, having rejected theist moral and ethical restrictions. Even were it true, and it is not, it would merely prove that Atheists don't get caught so often, even possibly pointing to a more deviant and clever approach. So as a logical argument it fails to show moral superiority, immediately, categorically, and remorselessly.
I interpreted this as: the pamphlet is blank because Atheists have Nothing to say.
I guess they used all their words up on online blog accusations. It was a waste, since the dears, having nothing to say, immediately accuse others of having no motivation beyond being 'mean-spirited'.
I know what the accepted definition of atheism is. I also know what atheists use in place of logic, and I know what they use in place of 'gawds'. That is, in order, whatever works for the topic at hand and themselves.
Their disbelief is supposedly because God (or gods) is/are unbelievable. Their reasoning is non-existent on this point and thus, accounts for their rapid descent into insult and accusation.
But the truth, from their own mouths, is that God (or the gods) is unacceptable.
Sooooo... you presume to judge God after deciding for some obscure reason that you just can't believe he exists. This indicates a hubris, an ego that I would not trust in *any* walk of life.
Atheists have next to no compunction when it comes to making up whatever facts they want, to *win* the argument. And so we throw in the bit on 'morals'.
I will tell you something else atheists generally lack, and that is a sense of humor. They've been indulging in cost-free snark and cynicism and flippancy for so long, they no longer share the same perspective as most humans.
You atheists take yourselves so seriously. But then, I can understand. If you feel about yourselves the way I feel about the One who made me, I can understand it very well.
If I understand Brian correctly,he's saying that atheists are good because they fear going to prison.
Brian,if there's more theists in US prisons than atheists it's only because atheists are still a tiny minority in most aspects of society.So according to your reasoning which is also a fallacy of argumentum ad numerum,theists are more good than atheists because they are more involved in charity organisations than atheists in the US. Take a look at the Forbes list of charitable organisations,christian organisations top the list.United Way may be secualr but it was founded by church leaders in 1887 http://www.forbes.com/top-charities/list/
I can understand why you want to paint atheists as hollow and empty. If we have nothing, the bad alternative you present looks good. That’s about the only way it can be better by comparison; compared with nothing. Without your shallow and simplistic atheist strawmen, you actually have to provide something substantive to make your position look good. Substantive as a measure of quality rather than quantity. My atheism is the result of a reasoned evaluation of the natural world, the ONLY world that humans are able to evaluate, and finding god claims completely lacking any supporting evidence. The only inputs to this evaluation are evidence and reason, and the only output is a belief about the truth of god claims. Leaving morals for later, let’s talk about logic. The person who passes this (Euthyphro Dilemma and Atheist Credulity) off as a conclusive argument has nothing to teach me about logic. Without an a priori presumption of the validity of your specific scripture, you don’t get to first base. Even if we grant all of the conclusions of the TAG type arguments, the most we get is deism, a creator who did a onetime creative event and left town. The jump from there to a continuing active theist creator requires additional evidence, also lacking. Any argument of the form with “a naturalistic explanation for the natural world is impossible therefore god is necessary to create it” is self defeating when the infinite regression it starts is discounted by bare assertion. On the subject of “validity of scripture”, history is replete with humans making up mythologies and religions to explain the unknown. And establish authority. We have records of the Council(s) of Nicea where MEN got together to decide which gospels to put in the bible, building on the OT work of the Jews. Before that the Hindus put their story into the Vedas, later we have Mohamed writing his little story. Just within Christianity we had Luther and Calvin rewriting things to their liking vs the Catholic church, and Joseph Smith taking license to do the same. Let’s not forget great schism, and the orthodox churches. We can share common ground in looking on in horror at the ghastly offense against humanity that L. Ron Hubbard has spawned. And that’s just a small part of the list. Every one of you claiming divine revelation for themselves and divine delusion for the others, “We got it right, they got it wrong.” I’m half convinced, you all got the second part right. As for morals, if you want to argue for the superiority if a moral code based on the worship of a deity whose words and actions recorded in the bible justify a description of “vindictive psychopath” rather than “omni-benevolent”, you go right ahead. And try. All the good parts of the Christian moral code spring from “do unto others as you would have them do onto you”. We hardly need an invisible magic friend to build on that. And all the bad comes from where license is given to go over that line. Let me know what you think of those “anti-theist” moral ideals about slavery being wrong, equality of women, not stoning adulterers, etc. (Those notions are counter to biblical teaching, so they must be literally “atheistic”) But that’s not the real problem you have with atheists; no, I think that what really bothers you is that we don’t answer to your stick and carrot. Perhaps it’s that you can’t see yourself controlling your actions without them, so you assume no one else can either. And no, I’m not full of myself. I think that the people who are full of themselves are the ones that believe they’re the special creation of their invisible magic friend, who created the whole universe for just for them. P.S. If my calling your beloved god a “invisible magic friend” evokes an emotional response that looms larger in your mind than the content of the message, consider how that emotional attachment to god colors your evaluation of the evidence.
7 comments:
Nice folksy attempt at a slander. I tried to find an generally accepted name for the type of fallacy it is, but couldn't find a good fit. Closest I could come up with is an "Ad Hominem". You could say something logically equivalent like, "It's probably a list of atheist foods", or "....atheist colors", but that wouldn't convey the negative connotation you want to attach to atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. No more, no less. Nothing in there about food tastes, favorite colors, musical preferences... Or morals. On the other hand, each atheist must adhere to some moral code, and if our representation in the US prison population is any indication, we seem to be doing a better job of it than theists.
Regards, Brian
Sorry Brian,
The cartoon is right on the money, even in your own terms: there is no principled theory of anything, including morals, included in Atheism. All anyone can know about an Atheist is that he has rejected theism, which leaves the remainder of the unknowns about the Atheist wide open, including knowledge of what he might have created for his own do-it-yourself ethical principles, or adopted another Atheist's home-grown ideas in the absence of theist principles. If that turns out to Humanism (not all Atheists are humanists), then a quick read of the First Humanist Manifesto will set up that Atheist's moral landscape in its true AtheoLeftist colors.
So the cartoon hits the centroid of Atheism: Nothing. There are no Atheist principles, as you say. There is no Atheist Moral Principle. There is no Atheist Ethical Principle. There is only: Nothing.
So it can't be an Ad Hominem, because as you point out, it is true.
And your claim that Atheists must adhere to "some moral code" is certainly no help, given the organized Atheist atrocities which dominated the 20th century. Not all Atheists have adhered to a moral theory at all, having found that the freedom from morals allows them a freedom from constraint, and enables whatever it is they want to do without moral restriction.
The prison population meme is phony, being based on a falsification of a study which has questionable origins (two hits in one subject). But that sort of intellectual malfeasance is part and parcel of the freedom which Atheists love, having rejected theist moral and ethical restrictions. Even were it true, and it is not, it would merely prove that Atheists don't get caught so often, even possibly pointing to a more deviant and clever approach. So as a logical argument it fails to show moral superiority, immediately, categorically, and remorselessly.
I interpreted this as: the pamphlet is blank because Atheists have Nothing to say.
I guess they used all their words up on online blog accusations. It was a waste, since the dears, having nothing to say, immediately accuse others of having no motivation beyond being 'mean-spirited'.
I know what the accepted definition of atheism is. I also know what atheists use in place of logic, and I know what they use in place of 'gawds'. That is, in order, whatever works for the topic at hand and themselves.
Their disbelief is supposedly because God (or gods) is/are unbelievable. Their reasoning is non-existent on this point and thus, accounts for their rapid descent into insult and accusation.
But the truth, from their own mouths, is that God (or the gods) is unacceptable.
Sooooo... you presume to judge God after deciding for some obscure reason that you just can't believe he exists. This indicates a hubris, an ego that I would not trust in *any* walk of life.
Atheists have next to no compunction when it comes to making up whatever facts they want, to *win* the argument. And so we throw in the bit on 'morals'.
I will tell you something else atheists generally lack, and that is a sense of humor. They've been indulging in cost-free snark and cynicism and flippancy for so long, they no longer share the same perspective as most humans.
You atheists take yourselves so seriously. But then, I can understand. If you feel about yourselves the way I feel about the One who made me, I can understand it very well.
It's somewhat like Steve Martin's bluegrass song, "Atheists Ain't Got No Songs". Now they have a song, which merely says that they have no songs....
If I understand Brian correctly,he's saying that atheists are good because they fear going to prison.
Brian,if there's more theists in US prisons than atheists it's only because atheists are still a tiny minority in most aspects of society.So according to your reasoning which is also a fallacy of argumentum ad numerum,theists are more good than atheists because they are more involved in charity organisations than atheists in the US.
Take a look at the Forbes list of charitable organisations,christian organisations top the list.United Way may be secualr but it was founded by church leaders in 1887
http://www.forbes.com/top-charities/list/
I can understand why you want to paint atheists as hollow and empty. If we have nothing, the bad alternative you present looks good. That’s about the only way it can be better by comparison; compared with nothing. Without your shallow and simplistic atheist strawmen, you actually have to provide something substantive to make your position look good. Substantive as a measure of quality rather than quantity.
My atheism is the result of a reasoned evaluation of the natural world, the ONLY world that humans are able to evaluate, and finding god claims completely lacking any supporting evidence. The only inputs to this evaluation are evidence and reason, and the only output is a belief about the truth of god claims.
Leaving morals for later, let’s talk about logic. The person who passes this (Euthyphro Dilemma and Atheist Credulity) off as a conclusive argument has nothing to teach me about logic. Without an a priori presumption of the validity of your specific scripture, you don’t get to first base. Even if we grant all of the conclusions of the TAG type arguments, the most we get is deism, a creator who did a onetime creative event and left town. The jump from there to a continuing active theist creator requires additional evidence, also lacking. Any argument of the form with “a naturalistic explanation for the natural world is impossible therefore god is necessary to create it” is self defeating when the infinite regression it starts is discounted by bare assertion.
On the subject of “validity of scripture”, history is replete with humans making up mythologies and religions to explain the unknown. And establish authority. We have records of the Council(s) of Nicea where MEN got together to decide which gospels to put in the bible, building on the OT work of the Jews. Before that the Hindus put their story into the Vedas, later we have Mohamed writing his little story. Just within Christianity we had Luther and Calvin rewriting things to their liking vs the Catholic church, and Joseph Smith taking license to do the same. Let’s not forget great schism, and the orthodox churches. We can share common ground in looking on in horror at the ghastly offense against humanity that L. Ron Hubbard has spawned. And that’s just a small part of the list. Every one of you claiming divine revelation for themselves and divine delusion for the others, “We got it right, they got it wrong.” I’m half convinced, you all got the second part right.
As for morals, if you want to argue for the superiority if a moral code based on the worship of a deity whose words and actions recorded in the bible justify a description of “vindictive psychopath” rather than “omni-benevolent”, you go right ahead. And try. All the good parts of the Christian moral code spring from “do unto others as you would have them do onto you”. We hardly need an invisible magic friend to build on that. And all the bad comes from where license is given to go over that line. Let me know what you think of those “anti-theist” moral ideals about slavery being wrong, equality of women, not stoning adulterers, etc. (Those notions are counter to biblical teaching, so they must be literally “atheistic”) But that’s not the real problem you have with atheists; no, I think that what really bothers you is that we don’t answer to your stick and carrot. Perhaps it’s that you can’t see yourself controlling your actions without them, so you assume no one else can either.
And no, I’m not full of myself. I think that the people who are full of themselves are the ones that believe they’re the special creation of their invisible magic friend, who created the whole universe for just for them.
P.S. If my calling your beloved god a “invisible magic friend” evokes an emotional response that looms larger in your mind than the content of the message, consider how that emotional attachment to god colors your evaluation of the evidence.
UnrepentantThinker,
I responded to your comment in a post.
Stan
Post a Comment