Responding to "UnrepentantThinker"

This exchange is growing too lengthy to place in the comment format, so I place it here as a post.

Said unrepentantthinker:

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.

You completely misunderstand my position, meaning you probably have not read much of this blog. Or if you have, you have misunderstood it. The Atheist position is based on one fundamental premise: the rejection of theism. Nothing else. If a stranger claims to be an Atheist, that is all that you can know about him. But you can project beyond that, logically: the Atheist has rejected the basis for Christian morality; the Atheist has rejected the religious basis for freedom (“all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…).

Further, based on experience, it is probable that the Atheist is a physicalist/materialist, meaning that humans likely have no logical or moral value; that the Atheist probably is a literalist when he reads the bible, and yet he decries those who are literalists when they read the bible. The list of features which are common to Atheists is quite long. There is no need to claim that you are different, because it is easily recognized that ALL Atheists are different. Yet they have that one thing in common: rejectionism and starting from a Void.

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.

By this statement you appear to claim that physical evidence is all that there is, and all that there can be. This is a Logical Positivist position, a la A. J. Ayers, a position long abandoned by Atheist philosophers. It is a logical Category Error, which makes the essential claim that (a) only material existence actually exists; and (b) only material existence must be examined for evidence of non-material existence. The claim that searching category [R] for proof of the existence of Category [!R] is a logical error (also a mathematical error).

So this does not bode well for your claim of having logic and evidence to shore up your position.

Further, it appears unlikely that you have even been in contact with actual theist claims, such as those made by Aquinas, arguments which are based in known phenomena and analyzed logically. However, let's continue and see what you offer.

The only inputs to this evaluation are evidence and reason, and the only output is a belief about the truth of god claims.

What sort of logic? What are your disciplined Aristotelian deductive arguments that prove to you that there is no creating agent for the universe(s)? You provide nothing of the sort.

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.

Did you mean “inconclusive”? Otherwise this sentence and the next make no sense. Perhaps you could elaborate.

Without an a priori presumption of the validity of your specific scripture, you don’t get to first base.

I never, ever refer to scripture from any religion or ecclesiastic persuasion. Only logic, disciplined deductive logic in particular, is necessary to defeat Atheism. So this comment reflects ignorance of this blog, and certainly is falsely presumptive of the analytical nature of theism itself.

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.

Are you conceding to TAG arguments? Odd.

The jump from there to a continuing active theist creator requires additional evidence, also lacking.

Your conclusion is false, given the quantum understanding of the universal existence and continuance from moment in time to the next, but we’ll move on, anyway.

The statement “lacking” is an assertion without evidence to support it. This is a common failure of Atheist assertions, which, while demanding evidence, provide no evidence to show that evidence is “lacking”. In order to satisfy that statement’s veridicality, one must point to a compendium of analyses which purport to have examined ALL possible sources of evidence and then have drawn the immutable conclusion that there is no evidence extant or even possible. This is not possible, of course, so the claim cannot have any truth. This is a logical error, that of making an impossible universal statement as truth.

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.

That of course depends upon what is meant by “naturalistic”. The logical failure of that terminology can be seen by claiming that a creating agent for the universe is “natural”. Thus "naturalism" can't eliminate a deity, whereas materialism could, if it were not a Category Error. So your continuing attempt to discount arguments before they are made seems disingenuous.

On the subject of “validity of scripture”, history is replete with humans making up mythologies and religions to explain the unknown.

This is an irrational approach: it is the Logical Fallacy of False Association. It is without rational value and is a beginner's logic error. It is the same as this: "some fossils are frauds; therefore all fossils are frauds". Completely unconvincing logically

The following is merely a cartoon of ecclesiastic history, with no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a creating agent for the universe and its contents, and useless as an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe and its contents.

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.

The above is completely irrelevant to whether there exists a creating agent for the universe. You have abandoned logic in favor of a narrative, which has run off the rails a considerable distance. What you are doing now is attempting to trash certain aspects of specific religious ecclesiastical positions, in the hopes of smearing the entire population: that is a classist, elitist position and another case of the Fallacy of False Association. Your analysis of religion seems gathered with no rational discrimination from other Atheists and their websites, rather than from any depth of theological analysis performed on your own, based on actual historical studies of real issues. If you wish to actually make the Atheist claim that there is no possible creating agent for the universe, then evidence and logic for that is how to defend Atheism. Other attacks are superfluous.

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.

First, this comment is useless since it does not apply to this blog or anyone here. There is no divine revelation used or necessary to disprove the illogic of Atheism. There is none anywhere on this blog. Second, your indiscriminate presuppositions are false. You have made assumptions which you apply prejudicially, from your obvious assessment of your personal eliteness.

Even so, the statement seems internally contradictory: you are claiming that the second part, which claims “delusion for the others” – meaning Atheists – is correct? Or did you mean that all revelations are delusions? Your evidence for that is …. What? You are descending into irrational assertions for which you cannot possibly have any physical evidence, and you offer none. Your claim of evidence is just an empty claim; you have not offered any evidence for this false accusation. You have offered no evidence at all to support the non-existence of a creating agent for the universe. Where is your evidence?? Where is your deduction?? There is none; in fact that statement is merely a prejudicial judgment made with no possible evidence: none whatsoever. Pure prejudice.

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.

And now you become yourself: belligerently irrational. It didn’t take all that long for the real you to show up. It is Judeo-Christianity which you obviously hate. And your hate is bolstered by a false concept of the torah/bible and its message regarding the O.T. (Judaic) deity: the deity of the Jewish Torah/Christian OT Pentateuch bible is obviously NOT “omnibenevolent”. That is an Atheist creation (Straw Man Fallacy) which is a necessary Atheist fabrication, necessary in order to facilitate their false attacks, a fallacy which you fall into headlong.

The pretentious psychological classification of “vindictive psychopath” is again an elitist judgment (without any actual psychological input), made from your presumption of your personal human superiority as a personally derived moral authority, along with the superiority of your personally created (do it yourself) morals, which you think supersede the morals of the Jewish deity. (And probably is simply a plagiarism from Dawkins, thoughtlessly stolen without intellectual discrimination).

Yet your presumption of moral superiority and moral authority to make such a judgment is completely deniable (even by other Atheists), precisely because there is no moral principle set designated as “Atheist Moral Principles And Rules For Human And Deity Behaviors”. Therefore, your morals are just your personal opinions and nothing more (same goes for Dawkins). In fact, making such a judgment actually requires the hubris of self-elevation to, and beyond, the self-imbued deity level (both Jewish and Christian and presumably Muslim, Hindu, etc.), which is logically ludicrous on its face.

All the good parts of the Christian moral code spring from “do unto others as you would have them do onto you”.

And just how does Atheism define Good? Atheism was taken to its logical limits by Nietzsche, who showed logically that Good and Evil cannot actually exist, especially in a deterministic, physicalist, Darwinist, Atheist universe. So what has happened here, is that you have exercised your own presumed, self-endowed moral authority to be the moral arbiter and judge of what is Good, despite the irrational process of doing so. In other words, it is again just your personal opinion of what "morals" means. Nothing more.

We hardly need an invisible magic friend to build on that.

What is needed in your case is the reasoning and evidence behind your obvious claim to the personal moral authority to declare what is Good and what is Evil. Where is it?

And all the bad comes from where license is given to go over that line.

And here you have assumed the personal moral authority to declare the Atheist Principle of Evil for all mankind and all other Atheists. That's quite a lump of hubris.

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”)

You have descended to the bottom here. This is your case against the existence of a creating agent for the universe and its contents? Are you not aware that both Atheists and Christians did those things in antiquity, and that it was Christians who led the progress out of those practices?? Are you that ignorant, historically? You've not heard of Wilberforce? Or are you merely attached to Atheist false claims regardless of their falseness?

And your real colors are now in full furl:

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.

Now you assume that you are omniscient, along with the ultimate moral authority for the universe. You assume to know how and what I think.

But of course you do not know what or how I think. You are merely blustering about the reason you hate Christianity, Judaism, and all other external forces for personal self-control. It has just come out: you do not wish to actually have moral constraints other than what you make up for yourself. Good, good; your position is acknowledged and has been anticipated. You have made yourself clear.

But in actuality I don’t give a rip about your behaviors. I do care about the organized Atheist assaults on the non-Atheist community which are increasingly onerous. Those assaults are becoming more and more like those of pre-revolution France, and pre-revolution Russia, as well as pre-revolution China and Laos, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. etc.

Perhaps it’s that you can’t see yourself controlling your actions without them, so you assume no one else can either.

You have shown up here in complete ignorance of the nature of this blog (which lends to the doubt that you are analytical in any fashion whatsoever), which blog is based on my experience as an Atheist for 40 years and my experience with Atheists for nearly 8 years. I know full well that Atheists can maintain an existence outside of going to prison, and can feign attachment to the dominant morality of the culture in which they exist. So your accusation is without merit and is actually intellectually juvenile, given the historical Atheist massacres and bloodlust of the 20th century which tortured and killed hundreds of millions of innocents, including the massacres of children. By far the bloodiest, deadliest encounters in the history of mankind have been those encounters with Atheists, whose Atheism enabled them to wholesale massacre other humans and entire cultures with no moral qualms.

So your perception of me, based in total ignorance, is false; your perception of Atheists controlling themselves, a perception based in apparent ignorance of history, is also false.

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.

Your final preemptive protest cannot be taken seriously. You are obviously an elitist and classist who makes prejudiced suppositions about the Other. Here’s a list of your assertions made here:

1. You claimed a worldview based on reason and evidence, yet you provide no evidence to support your case; you attack only cartoons of your own ecclesiastic perceptions which are false.

2.You preemptively condemned arguments not made and positions not taken without giving any reasoning or evidence.

3. You assumed the personal moral superiority and authority for yourself to condemn a deity, which deity you cannot prove does not exist, and which you did not prove does not exist.

4. You defined your conception of Good and Evil, as if you are the moral authority for the universe. Yet Atheism has no conception of Good and Evil. You just made up that which is convenient for yourself.

5. Your physicalism and logical positivism are passe’ intellectually, yet that is what you assert, despite the logical arguments against them made by Atheist intellectuals.

6. You have condemned me under false presuppositions, for which you had no evidence and could have no evidence.

7. You made elitist and classist assertions. And that confirms your elitism and classist worldview.

8. Your final protest, in defense of your attempted insult, demonstrates that you accept that humans are not special in any way. This is the danger of Atheism - among its other falseness - the necessary conclusion that humans are just another accident of evolution, animals to be treated like animals, except of course for the elitists, the classists: the Atheists who are exceptional (in their own perception).

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.

> Your condescending arrogance is confirmation of your self-image as a superior being, intellectually, morally and existentially. But contrary to what your P.S. says, you have presented no actual evidence to consider: none. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that there is not, or cannot be, a creating agent for the universe.

All you have done is to make empty claims of possessing logic and evidence, which logic you failed as described above, and which evidence you cannot provide to demonstrate the non-existence of a creating agent for the universe and its contents.

Your arguments are intellectually empty of actual logic and evidence, and cannot rise to the level which is necessary to even discuss Atheism. It is really quite immature, intellectually, being riddled with logic errors, inaccurate self-perceptions, and false cartoons to be attacked as if that proved something. If this evokes an emotional response, then try coming back with actual logic and evidence which actually proves that there is no creating agent for the universe and its contents (have I repeated this enough to make the point clear?)