Monday, February 22, 2016

Of Course They Do; And Of Course They Will

The Obama Administration Wants to Make Sure Non-Citizens Vote in the Upcoming Election
Read it ALL, THERE.

47 comments:

Joe Hinman said...

that is Xenophobic lie. you have no basis for saying that., You just decided me to take down atheist watch, take down the cadre sight and go to politicking full time. you want to hijack the gospel you kill me fist.l I will not accept your fascist poor per murdering dictatorship you do not know God.



The Gospel is not about being a right winger;

Stan said...

The Gospel is what it is. But who are you talking to, here? Is your rant about immigrants? Or Christianity? Or political conservatism? Or what exactly? It's hard to tell, because it seems to point all over the place.

Please clarify.

Joe Hinman said...


February 22, 2016 at 1:52 PM
Delete
Blogger Stan said...
The Gospel is what it is.

>>>tautology


But who are you talking to, here?


>>>the person making the wild hatful claims about Obama's administration, btw I'm closeing down atheistwatch and putting up Trumpwatch.



Is your rant about immigrants? Or Christianity? Or political conservatism? Or what exactly? It's hard to tell, because it seems to point all over the place.

>>>is your site about analyzing atheism or your fascist political views?

I will not stand ofr thegospel being equated with right wing hatred.

that is preaching another Jesus.
Please clarify.

Stan said...

Joe,
You are ranting without substance. If you don't like what the bible says, then make your own interpretation and present that. Saying that you "won't stand" for what the bible says is irrational. So then: exactly what does it say? You tell us.

And exactly what about that particular part of the bible is "fascist"? Are you sure you know what "fascism" actually is? Your charge is without content, merely empty ranting.

Calm down, type clearly; make a complete, rational case. Then we have something to discuss.

Robert Coble said...

Perhaps the comments by Joe was "triggered" in response to the earlier "Islam and Fascism" post? (I'm just guessing, since there is a suggestion at the end of THAT post to read Romans, Ch 9.) It's hard to guess the intent because of the inherent incoherence.

It's impossible to understand what authority Joe will use to disallow what he apparently does not like. Sounds like a "triggered" SJW to me. It seems that this is not a "safe space" for Joe.

Steven Satak said...

When words mean what ever you want them to mean, you end up sounding like you are babbling. I suspect Joe is afflicted. He knows what he means, but he has lost the common language we share and can no longer write - or think - in a straight line. He appears to be able to only spit accusation, ridicule and spite.

Hugo Pelland said...

Isn't obvious what happened here? Stan went to comment on a Christian blog, Cadre, where people discussed evolution, among other things. You can follow that from Joe's profile. And he confirmed that separately when I asked him; we happen to have written somewhere else too.

Next, Joe came here and saw Stan's blog for what it is... negative, not Christian, even if Stan sometimes mentions he is Christian, and not really about Atheism either, as it's just rants from a far right blogger commenting on things he find horrible, including the current story, which raises some interesting point, but nothing warranting the type of conclusion the headline states. Xenophobia as Joe put it, or intolerance of opponents in general I would say, is what triggers the headline, not the facts.

Phoenix said...

I know what Joe's doing. It's a parody of Christian apologists. Am I right Joe?

Stan said...

Hugo,
Like many of your claims, most of the above is false. I have never, ever made any claims regarding any religious connections of my own. So that part is false. If you find this blog negative it is because it is a positive frontal attack on your own ideologies of Atheism and Leftism. Both Atheism and Leftism are firmly attached and are causal for the negative condition in which they have left this country and indeed the entire world.

I remember very well how positive the country was in the year 2000. Then after 9/11 the country in general wondered, "why do they hate us"? We had ignored the government actions in the middle east, and worse we were ignorant of Islam and the nature of Islamic peoples.

No more. The world is a more hazardous place than ever, especially after 7 years of renegade presidency in the formerly powerful USA.

Now the Atheist Left is intent on completing the destruction of that which they hate: western society. The culture has been balkanized into camps which have institutionalized morality and camps which have no morality other than their own elitist declarations. The latter control the government and the educational institutions, as well as the media pumped into all the airwaves, cable and satellite.

If Bernie Sanders can capture an entire generation of maleducated children, there is no possible argument which counters any of the above.

When "science" uses correlation-as-causation and gains legal protection against rational assault, there is no rational argument left to protect that science from fraud.

Now possibly all this seems positive to you, and that it is negativity to illuminate it and attack it. That would be an ideology, one which is anti-rational.

Defense against the onslaught of assault will always be seen as negative by those who support the assault.

Hugo Pelland said...

Stan,

You say that 'most' of what I wrote is false. Most! Yet, the first paragraph was a simple recollection of what happened; how Joe came to your blog after interacting with you on Cadre. How can this be false? The thread is here And you have JBsptfn giving a link to your blog, on 2/20, 2 days before Joe wrote here, on 2/22. That was already 3 truthful lines in my short 7-line comment....

Next, I listed a few more points:
'Joe came here and saw Stan's blog for what it is... negative'
So, is your blog negative, yes or no? Of course it is, because you write mostly about things you dislike, or find appalling; negative comments on things you disagree with, or to use your own words: "frontal attack on your own ideologies of Atheism and Leftism. Both Atheism and Leftism are firmly attached and are causal for the negative condition in which they have left this country and indeed the entire world."
So, regardless of how you spin this, of how positive your attacks are, they are what they are: attacks on other positions. I am not saying it's wrong to do so, but how on Earth can you try to pretend that this makes your blog positive?

Nothing (or very little, to be fair) you write is about promoting any positive claims for your positions. Again, it's not wrong, but it is what it is, and you seem to want to avoid that label. I wonder why because I actually learn a lot of useful things on your site because of that approach. I like it when you actually attack my positions; it makes me think about them. What I dislike is the fact that most of the time, yes most, you use the same 'labels' as many of my positions, instead of the actual positions, and then attack them. But that's meant to happen when people disagree, so I just ignore these and move on... Anyway, the point is: why don't you own that label of negative? I really don't get it, and it is certainly true that your blog fits under that umbrella. Besides the occasional joke, it's very 'dark' in here...

Hugo Pelland said...

The next point is about Christianity. It’s true that you never say you are Christian, and there is a small chance I am wrong. In any case, you never support your position regarding Christianity, as to why it's true, or a better worldview, or anything else really, I don't know, because you don't talk about it, so I am not even sure what your positions are... Again, nothing wrong with it, it's clear what your blog is about. But what's really weird is that you said:
"I have never, ever made any claims regarding any religious connections of my own."
Is this a joke or what? You clearly note that you are a Theist who believes in a personal creator god, not a generic Deist, and you constantly imply that you are a Christian. Plus, come on, you are an old white conservative American; the odds that you are Christian must be 90%+!

Basically, what I find interesting here is that there is no good thing coming out of this I believe: you are either a Christian trying as hard as possible to deny he is Christian, which is weird, or you are not a Christian after all, which is even weirder since you are clearly always trying to support positions that match Christians' positions, and you show support to issues relating to Christians values being under attack.

There was a also a note on Atheism and how it's not addressed much on this site. This is exactly the same principle as above; you are clear as to what you do: examine Lefist and Atheist behavior and comment on them. Nothing wrong with that, just stating what the blog is...

The point on the article is also straight-forward. The title says "The Obama Administration Wants to Make Sure Non-Citizens Vote in the Upcoming Election", which is excessive rhetorical BS. Nobody wants to make non-citizens vote... As I said, some good points in the articles, yes with an 's' because there are also interesting links, but nothing warrants the jump to this wild conclusion.

So... mostly lies? No, just disagreement maybe. But it's so much easier to just throw ad hominem attacks at me, along with unrelated things. Honestly, I did not think my comment would sound that confrontational!

Finally, more as a side note, you seem to have forgotten that you know exactly why some sentences from Joe are not straight-forward. You discussed it here with JBsptfn: http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-connection-between-atheism-and.html

Stan said...

Hugo,
1. As I said before, of course you would feel negativity on this blog: it represents the falsification of your belief system and worldview. Falsification of X is negative, surely. However, presenting the truth about X is positive. If a positive assessment (truth) falsifies a worldview, that must be negatively seen by those holding the worldview.

2. " It’s true that you never say you are Christian" Everything else you say on this subject is inferential and not the case.

3. "You clearly note that you are a Theist who believes in a personal creator god, not a generic Deist"

Exactly where did you read that: point to it.

4. "which is even weirder since you are clearly always trying to support positions that match Christians' positions, and you show support to issues relating to Christians values being under attack."

I support rational values. For example, abortion is the inverse of rational. Killing one's progeny for any reason is not rational. Denying that humans at any stage of development are humans is not rational. Yes, this is a Christian position for most Christians (not all). It is also the position of some non-Christians.

Your attempt to place me in a Class is standard AtheoLeftist Classist procedure.

I value freedom of beliefs for those who are tolerant of others' beliefs. Leftism and Islam are not. Even Democrats used to support this. As did Atheists who demanded tolerance of Atheism. Now they are on the attack.

5. "which is excessive rhetorical BS. Nobody wants to make non-citizens vote..."

"Nobody"? That indicates universal knowledge, which you cannot have. So it cannot be known to be correct. Why do politically leftist open-borders advocates fight the concept of "proof of citizenship" in US Courts? What other possible motive could they have, that stands to reason? They have already provided tax payer support in terms of welfare and social security to hordes of incoming indigents, without the vote of the [native resident] people. They know what the vote of the people would be.

You can label it whatever you want; but it is false to believe that "proof of citizenship" is anything but a guarantee of voter fraud. Ever since I became aware of it, decades ago, voter fraud has been nearly totally, if not totally, a Democrat property. And so has gerrymandering for racial suppression intitially during Democrat Jim Crow, and then racial exploitation by Democrats.

6. Joe's dyslexia is no excuse for his disconnected sentences and general sloppy typing. It is a vision issue, not a rational issue, and it does not prevent editing before submitting. When he is angry he is incoherent in his messaging. So that issue has become an excuse.

Stan said...

If Joe has "Expressive Language Disorder", then that might be an explanation.

However, a concept which is convoluted in expression is not easily understood and is easily misunderstood or not understood at all.

I don't think the typos fall under this, but maybe so.

Hugo Pelland said...

Hello Stan,

You said:

"1. As I said before, of course you would feel negativity on this blog: it represents the falsification of your belief system and worldview. Falsification of X is negative, surely. However, presenting the truth about X is positive. If a positive assessment (truth) falsifies a worldview, that must be negatively seen by those holding the worldview."

No, you don't get what I am trying to say; perhaps I am using the wrong words... Take the semi-famous blog 'Debunking Christianity' by John Loftus; this is another example of a 'negative' blog because it focuses on proving something wrong, not proving something right. And I have no idea what else Loftus talks about and whether there are actual positive claims in favor of his position; I don't know, never read it... So perhaps you don't like my use of the word 'negative' in that context; how would you call this then?

But in any case, I don't 'feel' negativity when reading your blog. You are trying to read my feelings... and you are completely wrong. I don't feel like my worldview is falsified around here because, as I mentioned, most of what you write is not about my worldview, even if the 'labels' quite often fit. Because yes, I am an atheist and yes I lean more to the Left politically, socially, and economically. Though the key here is the word 'lean'; it's far from being a clear indication of what I support and why, especially why.

"2. " It’s true that you never say you are Christian" Everything else you say on this subject is inferential and not the case"

Yes, inferential, of course; I explicitly say that you never say you are Christian, that's what you quoted! But then, you say that it is 'not the case'. So what is not the case; are you saying you do not identify as Christian? Regardless, I know it does not matter here on your blog, you are clear about that. But can you really blame me for inferring that? I really don't understand why you make it sound as if it's an insult, or accusation, or something like that. I know you see it as a red herring, which it is in the context of an argument, but we are just people exchanging ideas so it's purely out of curiosity, to get a clearer picture. I find it interesting to learn about who we are interacting with.

Hugo Pelland said...

3. "You clearly note that you are a Theist who believes in a personal creator god, not a generic Deist"
"Exactly where did you read that: point to it."

Ok, so... I am not sure how to put this without insulting you... but you forget stuff Stan. I know you do. I have been reading and commenting on your blog for years, and go through old posts once in a while, just for research purposes, and I see the patterns. For instance, we even had email exchanges where I used my real name, but then you had completely forgotten that. As if 'Pelland' was common and easy to forget... And you thought there were multiple 'Hugo' because you got all confused, with the stupid troll who was using everybody's name left and right, along with random pseudo, and other run-bys, etc... Anyway, yes, you did mention explicitly that you had personal experiences that convinced you, and I remember reading that in the context of Martin approaching you for the first time, when he was on the fence between Atheism and Theism.

Quickly doing some research, I found two quotes from 2011, but I am not sure where the description of the experience itself is; couldn’t find that...

"I argue only the merits and demerits of Atheism, its issues and its rejection of an intelligent cause for the rational universe. I do admit to having a religious experience which was personal, subjective and undeniable."
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2011/02/unarmed-christian.html

" I came across another description of having experienced the presence of the deity. [...] And it is much more than a sudden realization or epiphany. There is one aspect of it that this new description provides: the experience includes what might be described as new knowledge and even a new knowledge type. [...] It didn't happen right away for me, and I never asked for it. It was actually quite a while after I had completely signed up that it happened, and I don't think it made a difference in the level my "signed up-ness", which as I say was pretty much complete. For me it was an unexpected bonus.
[...and in the comments...]
this experience is outside your ability to understand, and my ability to explain. [...] I have described my experience to the best of my ability, as I stated previously. [...] I was describing a non-material, non-empirical, internal experience, and the claims were part of the description.
"
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2011/05/knowledge-and-experiencing-knowledge.html

So it's kind of old, and I don't know if your position changed since then but I would be surprised that it did.

Hugo Pelland said...

At the same, while researching some articles, I ran into other examples where you hint at your Theistic position, not just Deistic, and more specifically Christianity, but nothing direct:
" they place themselves as superior to the humility which is required of Christians (unless they are attacked). So, while not all Atheists are Leftist, all Leftists are Atheist, if they are defined by this method. [...] Christianity undoubtedly contains undeclared Atheists who use Christianity as a path to fame and fortune, or try to. But many Christians do attempt to adhere to the principles - which are too difficult to meet - and thus they depend on the Principle of Grace. Because of the Atheist Christians both today and in the past, outsiders who wish to judge Christianity as a religion based on the actions of "Christians" have a lot to object to. But it is not a fair assessment of Christianity as a set of principles."
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/01/questions.html

" The Bible is clear about the nature of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. [...]
1. Christianity is both simple, yet too hard to actually succeed in following.
2. That's why Grace was bestowed, and why Christ died. No human can successfully live life perfectly, as did Christ.
3. Accepting Grace from the higher power of God/Christ is the one requirement.
"
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/01/will-she-be-fired-as-she-should-be.html

" I am a defacto boycotter of Apple Corporation. I don't like dictators of any stripe. Now I am a cultural and moral boycotter of Apple Corporation, because Apple's Gay CEO hates religious freedom, which is the foundation of the nation that feeds and nourishes him. [...] Gays now delight in bullying Christian small business owners with the full force of federal hate crime laws, laws designed specifically to discriminate against thought crimes and moral positions. The Gay/Federal complex uses "anti-discrimination" as a pseudo-moral sledge as it discriminates against Christians who have Christian businesses designed for Christian customers. Failure to bow to the Gay/Federal complex and its faux moral outrage because gays are not given Christian services at their pagan rituals results in the destruction of the Christian business and its owners. The "Gaystapo" is in full bloom under federal protection and federal persecution of religion. When a homosexual CEO of a major corporation starts using his power in discriminating against Christians even while supporting overt Islamic abuse, it is time to boycott that corporation."
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2015/04/boycott-apple.html

Hugo Pelland said...

"[the use of Lourdes as the best example for miracles ever]"
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/search?q=Lourdes

A few things on this thread:
"Literalists should never even speak to Atheists. The New Testament is specifically against literalism [...]there is plenty of secondary evidence of the martyring of those who viewed the miracles first hand, who stuck by the evidence they knew to be valid. The biblical New Testament texts now go back to circa 50 to 60 A.D. The letters of Paul are of known authorship. There is much else to present as evidence. [...] especially in light of the massive success of Christianity as a growing belief system [...]Christians should not spend time with hard core Atheists, other than to present their case, and leave when the invectives begin. It’s actually biblical, for the literalists. [...] it certainly is not the Christian standard. [...] I would love to think that the Grand Canyon was formed in a great flood. [...] As far as I remember, the Bible doesn't tell us, "believe in the Bible or go to Hell". Or "worship the Bible". It says to believe in Jesus/God: The Word. The biblical Jesus believed in certain prophecies because he was there. [...] So, I don't argue Bible or ecclesiasticism here, and I am sorry that I have veered this far astray today."
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2011/02/unarmed-christian.html

" These days sexual morality is being defined by whether there seems to be a victim of the activity. Sex between consenting adults is seen as benign, victim-wise. But Judeo-Christian morality has never been based on victimhood. The morality of Judeo-Christianity is based on action-consequence for individuals, and on the development of personal character traits that will tend toward producing positive consequences for personal actions."
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2011/05/ecclesiastical-suicide.html

" I know where I stand: I am a constitutionalist, who is intellectually Enlightenment-rational focused, morally theist"
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2015/12/still-not-socialist-enough-for-un-shrews.html

Sorry, did not have time for 4-5-6, perhaps later... Because that took quite some time but it was very interesting to go through some older post and re-visit arguments/positions/comments from yourself and many many others!

Stan said...

Hugo,
”another example of a 'negative' blog because it focuses on proving something wrong, not proving something right.”

And of course you have made my point without realizing it. Atheists will accept no evidence proving anything right other than Atheism, based on Materialism. They require material evidence for non-material existence. That is empirically provable. That position is demonstrably a logical absurdity and therefore is “wrong” in your terms. It is easily so proven using logical principles that it seems obvious from the deductive perspective. But from the ideological perspective, where the belief is held dear and tightly and absolutely necessary, then it will be perceived as negative. Only when contrary information is received into an open intellect which will inspect it for its merits rather than its threats to an ideology essential to the receiver can that information be neutrally or positively considered.

The position being supported here is that Atheism, Materialism, Determinism, Leftism and all their related –isms are logically invalid and are not supported by a shred of material evidence, despite logic and evidence being the claimed purview of Atheism, the ideology.

”yes I lean more to the Left politically, socially, and economically.”

Your Atheism cannot be supported by any principles of logic or empirical facts. The word “cannot” is negative regarding any truth value you attach to Atheism, and any derivatives of Atheism, which include Leftism, no matter how little “leaned” you might be. Should you choose to defend your leanings, logically, feel free to do so.

”that's what you quoted!”

I have quoted the Qur’an far more than the bible. I have quoted Atheists far more than either. Even your correlation has no relation to causation.

Stan said...

”…are you saying you do not identify as Christian?”

I’m saying that you have no idea how I identify, and that is on purpose. The subject here is Atheism, its derivatives and their truth value, their contribution to cultural decay and chaos due to the absolute lack of any moral principles common to Atheists and Leftists, as well as the irrational basis for both, which leads to an irrational, chaotic society. How I identify is this: Anti-Atheist/Anti-Leftist/Anti-irrational/Anti-amorality/Anti-faux-morality as a worldview.

”can you really blame me for inferring that? I really don't understand why you make it sound as if it's an insult, or accusation, or something like that. I know you see it as a red herring, which it is in the context of an argument, but we are just people exchanging ideas so it's purely out of curiosity, to get a clearer picture. I find it interesting to learn about who we are interacting with.”

Then perhaps the preceding is helpful to you; but I suspect not. A very common feature of Atheists is that they REALLY don’t want to discuss or analyze Atheism. What they want to do is to attack all forms of theism/deism, and to do so in an aggressive manner such that they have forcibly redirected the conversation off into the weeds where they don’t have to defend the false premises upon which their own belief is constructed.

"you did mention explicitly that you had personal experiences that convinced you,"

OK, I did say that, and it did happen, after I had studied Aristotelian logic and deductive-empirical science for quite awhile. The truth became fully illuminated and the premises were clearly valid and true; what was previously intellectually understood became fully ingrained and embedded into my being.

So yes, I did mention that, and probably should not have since you have projected it into a set of beliefs which were not claimed, and which you have inferred.

You follow with my defense of Christianty in several instances, where religious freedom (First Amendment Rights) are being violated or marginalized by Atheistic attack. But presenting the side of argument X which is under attack is not a signal of BEING an X-ist. Even Dawkins now concedes that the hegemony of Christian morality and work ethic, etc., correlate with the rise of free institutions in the west (Dawkins is not a Christian).

Yes, I do agree with theist morality. From this you conclude: what? From a person's Atheism it is not possible to conclude that there is any morality at all, especially not with any moral authority.

So now we have wasted a lot of time on your analysis by inference of me. This blog is not about me. It is about your belief system, which is false. Address that.

Hugo Pelland said...

Stan,

You said: "The position being supported here is that Atheism, Materialism, Determinism, Leftism and all their related –isms are logically invalid and are not supported by a shred of material evidence" That means that your position is of the form 'X is incorrect'. That contrasts with a position of the form 'X is correct'. Both positions are 'positive', by your definition, so what would be a better label when trying to differentiate between positions of type 'X is incorrect' versus 'X is correct'? That's all I was asking...

"Atheists will accept no evidence proving anything right other than Atheism, based on Materialism. They require material evidence for non-material existence."
Not me. But I recall you mentioning in the past that you don't care about personal opinions much, so I am not sure how relevant it is here... though, below, you asked about that specifically, so I don't know.

"Only when contrary information is received into an open intellect which will inspect it for its merits rather than its threats to an ideology essential to the receiver can that information be neutrally or positively considered."
True, that's why I keep reading things that go against my positions, like what's on your blog, but I almost never bother reading blogs by author who agree with me, like Loftus' blogs that I have literally never read; I just hear about it sometimes and assumed it's about 'debunking Christianity' because that's the title...

"Your Atheism cannot be supported by any principles of logic or empirical facts."
True. Because 'my atheism' only means that I don't accept Theistic arguments. It started with very weak atheism, for lack of a better word, which was the rejection of what I was taught as a child regarding Catholicism, not unlike rejecting Santa Clauss several years before, and expanded over the years as I read about many other forms of arguments, from Christians and non-Christians, and was never compelled to believe. Each argument is unique and requires its own logical assessment. Hence, there is no 'principles of logic or empirical facts' that can support my Atheism, as a whole, because it encapsulates a vast array of responses to Theistic claims.

"any derivatives of Atheism, which include Leftism"
I disagree. I understand that there is a pretty strong correlation among Atheism-Left-wing-Liberal, and a few other things, but the support for each position is independent of Atheism. The obvious example for me personally is the fact that I agree with my wife on most social/political issues but she believes in God.

"Should you choose to defend your leanings, logically, feel free to do so"
Of course, I am happy to do so, when I have time... but it's case-by-case. That's why the labels are just 'leaning'. When I look at the positions I accept, care about and that I am willing to defend, they tend to 'lean' on the Leftist side, but I disagree with Leftists on many issues, be it completely or in degree. Just like I agree with you on many things, even if we get to discuss the topics where we disagree, since there is more to cover obviously. In other words, there are no examples of position I hold 'because' they are Leftists positions; I hold certain positions and they happen to hall on the Left, more often than not.

Hugo Pelland said...

"”that's what you quoted!”
I have quoted the Qur’an far more than the bible. I have quoted Atheists far more than either. Even your correlation has no relation to causation.
"
This is weird Stan, so let me just put a timeline and let you be the judge:
- Hugo: You never say you are Christian
- Stan: [quotes the same] Everything else you say on this subject is inferential and not the case
- Hugo: Yes, inferential, of course; I explicitly say that you never say you are Christian, that's what you quoted!
- Stan: I have quoted the Qur’an far more than the bible. I have quoted Atheists far more than either. Even your correlation has no relation to causation.
Don't you see the problem?

"I’m saying that you have no idea how I identify, and that is on purpose."
I know it's on purpose, obviously. This does not affect my curiosity; I think it's just interesting to know more about the author we are reading. But what I find even more curious is the fact that if you are a Christian, you avoid mentioning your religion as if it were a disease, and if you are not a Christian, you somehow really really like to point out to the Juedo-Christian values, Christian miracles, and never argue that anything is wrong with Christianity. But again, not the point of the blog, so it's not an issue, just curiosity because I am interested both in people and ideas, not just ideas...

Also, another way to put it is this: I find it interesting that you see Atheism as a position that requires debunking, on its own, because of all the irrational things you see attached to Atheism. But, Atheism is the rejection of gods, or God, or any kind of spiritual realm that has been supported by religions over human history. If 100% of the population were Atheists, nobody would call themselves 'Atheists' because there would not be any 'theist' ideas to be 'atheist' about. So by never discussing these theist ideas, you are missing the biggest part of what Atheism means. Yet, you must agree with this since you say that Atheists have a burden of rebuttal regarding Theist theories; but what are those theories that you care about? I am not sure...

" Then perhaps the preceding is helpful to you; but I suspect not. A very common feature of Atheists is that they REALLY don’t want to discuss or analyze Atheism. "
I love to discuss Atheism actually. The problem is that it almost never works... because of what I just said. And again, repeated here:

"What they want to do is to attack all forms of theism/deism, and to do so in an aggressive manner such that they have forcibly redirected the conversation off into the weeds where they don’t have to defend the false premises upon which their own belief is constructed."
But that's 2 very different things. We can discuss theism/deism, or we can discuss other beliefs and how they are constructed. Regardless, nothing warrants being aggressive and I am never aggressive, I think... Especially not in person but that's not the case right now so I don't know how it sounds to you when I write that I completely reject your views regarding Theism. And I am not sure what I am rejecting because, again, it's claim-specific.

Hugo Pelland said...

"So yes, I did mention that, and probably should not have since you have projected it into a set of beliefs which were not claimed, and which you have inferred."
Yes, inferred, because of statistics... and I think it matters because I cannot tell you why I disagree with your Theistic views if you don't tell me what they are. All you do is claim that I have false beliefs, but about what? I don't really know what you are talking about when it comes to Atheism...

"Yes, I do agree with theist morality. From this you conclude: what?"
That your morality is based on subjective opinions. It is not based on reason and logic; it's based on the belief that there is a moral-giver who you happen to agree with, every time. It's an irrational system where one's beliefs are ascribed to a deity to justify that system's values. It's a lazy way to defend one's beliefs as anything can be labeled as 'godly' or 'pure' or 'good' or 'correct' just because they fit the religion, the theistic views. Thankfully, humans do adjust their views to reality and so their god-given morality actually evolves over time and becomes more and more rational with time. It's just slower because the old dogmatic rules need to be challenged, and that's why it varies so much across culture, age bracket and a bunch of other socio-economic factors. Anyway, that was a super quick summary but that's how I see theist morality in a nutshell.

" From a person's Atheism it is not possible to conclude that there is any morality at all, especially not with any moral authority."
Of course it's not possible from your point of view, because most of what you do is misrepresenting Atheists' opinions and values. That's why I stated that I don't recognize myself in what you write regarding Atheists, most of the time. I don't feel attacked or threaten or negative, or anything like that, it's simply inaccurate. The most telling thing is that you keep insisting again and again that you are so logical, following enlightment principles, a student of logic and reason etc etc etc... but this means nothing. It does not make you more rational; it does not make the people you disagree with less rational. To me, every time you claim to be logical and write a long paragraph as to why your opponents are not rational, you are simply showing some insecurity. As if you need to prove you are rational. You don't need to do that; you just need to show where the arguments are wrong. The actual arguments... not straw men.

Hugo Pelland said...

"So now we have wasted a lot of time on your analysis by inference of me. This blog is not about me. It is about your belief system, which is false. Address that."
Right, that was just some commentary. Not actual analysis of any argument. As usual, there is just so much to write about that I find it hard to get to it; not enough time... I will take a look at your posts and comment on things that relate to Atheism, but you write mostly about politics so I don't have much to say about that.

Perhaps I can repeat my question that was never really answered I feel: what is the most important thing to discuss relating Atheism? Or, what do you think is something I am wrong about and that you think I should change my mind about?

If you were to ask me, for instance, I would say evolution. Not because it's something that matters that much; but actually because it's such an interesting piece of knowledge that has no impact of religious, just like any other scientific research. Religious and non-religious people accept it, liberals and conservatives, literate and illiterate, though not as much on both sides... Basically, evolution is a great example of something I know you are wrong about, not just believe you are wrong about, and I also know that it would not change anything regarding the rest of your worldview if you were to accurately represent it. I just hate to see science defaced like you do when it comes to that topic!

Stan said...

”what would be a better label when trying to differentiate between positions of type 'X is incorrect' versus 'X is correct'?”

One is positive analysis, the other is positive advocacy. I don’t provide advocacy except as is inferred from the analysis. Inference is just opinion spelled funny.

” Hence, there is no 'principles of logic or empirical facts' that can support my Atheism, as a whole, because it encapsulates a vast array of responses to Theistic claims.”

What sort of logic and/or evidence do you require, when considering theism? If you require none for Atheism, then what is the equivalent proof load for theism?

”"any derivatives of Atheism, which include Leftism"
I disagree. I understand that there is a pretty strong correlation among Atheism-Left-wing-Liberal, and a few other things, but the support for each position is independent of Atheism.”


Even the term “Left” derives from the Aftermath of the French Revolution, with the Committee of Public Safety Committee deriving from those occupying the left side of the hall. That group implemented the Leftist Reign of Terror across France, which was an ideological genocide. It was Atheist at the start, and is largely Atheist now, the correlation being in the willingness to “socially engineer” other people’s lives, regardless of the other people feel about it. I.e., moral arrogation of Leftist proclivities onto the populace.

Stan said...

”"Should you choose to defend your leanings, logically, feel free to do so"

Of course, I am happy to do so, when I have time... but it's case-by-case.”


OK, then choose one, at your leisure. Actually I haven’t read beyond this – I’m commenting as I go – so maybe you have in the next several blocks.

” In other words, there are no examples of position I hold 'because' they are Leftists positions; I hold certain positions and they happen to hall on the Left, more often than not.”

” This is weird Stan, so let me just put a timeline and let you be the judge:
- Hugo: You never say you are Christian
- Stan: [quotes the same] Everything else you say on this subject is inferential and not the case
- Hugo: Yes, inferential, of course; I explicitly say that you never say you are Christian, that's what you quoted!
- Stan: I have quoted the Qur’an far more than the bible. I have quoted Atheists far more than either. Even your correlation has no relation to causation.

Don't you see the problem?”


Whatever you think is a problem, is your problem.

” I find even more curious is the fact that if you are a Christian, you avoid mentioning your religion as if it were a disease, and if you are not a Christian, you somehow really really like to point out to the Juedo-Christian values, Christian miracles, and never argue that anything is wrong with Christianity.”

You are obsessed with this triviality. An interesting trait of Atheists: divert the conversation from Atheism with every possible ploy. Atheists are actually anti-Christianity. Does that help with your obsession? No? Tough. I’m done with your baiting.

” So by never discussing these theist ideas, you are missing the biggest part of what Atheism means.”

Nope, that is false. Atheism is about rejection without evidence to support their rejection, without reasoning to support their rejection. The rejection cannot be rational if all it says is “I don’t believe your argument, and I don’t have to say why”. And that is what [almost] every Atheist says. “I am not convinced!” is not an intellectual argument, it is an anti-intellectual deflection using Abjectly radical rejectionism.

Atheism is about accepting faulty premises such as Philosophical Materialism and Determinism, while rejecting free will and agency or claiming that they are material things rather than ephemeral states which are not predictable using any or all laws of physics.

Atheism is the “freedom” from dogma such as Aristotelian logic, all moral creeds other than personal derivations.

Atheism inevitably leaads to the self-elevation to the pinnacle of existence in an otherwise stupid and dead universe.

Atheists become convinced of the absolute certainty of their belief system and the stupidity of all of the Other. This is the genesis of Class War, as found in Marxism and the new Marxism of the elites who own the campuses.

Atheism and Atheists demand the highest quality material empirical evidence from theists, BUT they accept the sloppiest and completely unprovable premises and conclusions for their own worldview: that is anti-intellectual all the while pretending to be the cream of intellectualism, not to mention mankind in general.

Atheists reject, out of hand and without consideration, everything which interferes with their chosen lifestyle and worldview. Your statement here shows how that looks:

Stan said...

”"So yes, I did mention that, and probably should not have since you have projected it into a set of beliefs which were not claimed, and which you have inferred."
Yes, inferred, because of statistics... and I think it matters because I cannot tell you why I disagree with your Theistic views if you don't tell me what they are. All you do is claim that I have false beliefs, but about what? I don't really know what you are talking about when it comes to Atheism...”


Here you know that you reject that which you do not even know. So you know in advance that all dualism, deism, theism is to be rejected, regardless of any argument or evidence to the contrary, and that you will reject whatever it is that you can attach to me. That is dogmatism, couched in an ideology which cannot be proved, but which provides an agreeable moral content (none). In fact, it is doubtful that you have created a coherent worldview for yourself beyond rejectionism coupled with self-determination of agreeable moral principles (it was established by Huxley that most Atheism is about rejection of moral codes in order to allow conscience-free libertinism). It is not necessary to exercise libertinism in order to feel freed by justifying it. Atheism justifies it by virtue of rejectionism, not by rational argumentation. Many Atheists move on to other systems, such as consequentialism, virtue social engineering etc., where they get to define their personal proclivity-driven moral systems as necessities for all other people. But there is more: intellectual libertinism also results, as does the drive to personal meaning derived from perceived personal superiority to the “superstition-driven” unwashed Other (personal elitism).

” "Yes, I do agree with theist morality. From this you conclude: what?"
That your morality is based on subjective opinions. It is not based on reason and logic; it's based on the belief that there is a moral-giver who you happen to agree with, every time. It's an irrational system where one's beliefs are ascribed to a deity to justify that system's values. It's a lazy way to defend one's beliefs as anything can be labeled as 'godly' or 'pure' or 'good' or 'correct' just because they fit the religion, the theistic views.”


Ah. Now it comes out. You transfer your hatred of external moral authority onto your unfounded presumption of me, and presume the superiority of yourself to determine morality. I thought that might be in there somewhere.

Stan said...

” Thankfully, humans do adjust their views to reality and so their god-given morality actually evolves over time and becomes more and more rational with time. It's just slower because the old dogmatic rules need to be challenged, and that's why it varies so much across culture, age bracket and a bunch of other socio-economic factors. Anyway, that was a super quick summary but that's how I see theist morality in a nutshell.”

So you have only contempt for theist morality. And you have not discussed Atheism’s moral position, nor the historical Atheist moral approaches to governing. Go ahead, because that is the actual issue here on this blog. I have not seen you address the presuppositions which underlie Atheism at all. As with virtually all Atheists I have had discussions with on this blog, their Atheism stems from a visceral hatred of any moral system which is not their own derivation, based on their own desires. This is the thrust of the popular Atheist authors who sell millions of hate-religion books, such as Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and the late Hitchens, and dozens to hundreds of minor authors as well. Hating religion is not a positive worldview. Defending Materialism, Determinism, and developing a coherent deductive argument which passes reductio… or producing Empirical evidence which is replicable, these are positively the necessary intellectual premises of Atheism. And no Atheist will produce any such positive case for Atheism. Thus Atheism reduces to the negative: rejection without reason or reasoning, visceral hatred of external authority which would close down the exhilarating freedom of the VOID.

” " From a person's Atheism it is not possible to conclude that there is any morality at all, especially not with any moral authority."
Of course it's not possible from your point of view, because most of what you do is misrepresenting Atheists' opinions and values.”


State the Universal Opinions and Values of Atheism, and point to the document which contains those universals. You cannot because they don’t exist. What exists, I repeat, is personal proclivity which is placed into a personal “moral system”, and a personal system of logic.

Argue against this position, not against “misrepresenting Atheists’ opinions and values”, which is a charge that has no meaning. I have given actual positions and you do not address them directly. Now is your chance to do so.

So, deny with evidence that the initial rejection of external authority results in a VOID; that the VOID typically produces an Exhilaration of Freedom; that the new found freedom results in personal derivation of moral principles (or lack thereof); that the new found freedom frequently results in a feeling of superiority in many, and that results in elitism and Leftism.

Until you deal with what I actually say, you are merely complaining without content.

Stan said...

The most telling thing is that you keep insisting again and again that you are so logical, following enlightment principles, a student of logic and reason etc etc etc... but this means nothing. It does not make you more rational; it does not make the people you disagree with less rational. To me, every time you claim to be logical and write a long paragraph as to why your opponents are not rational, you are simply showing some insecurity. As if you need to prove you are rational. You don't need to do that; you just need to show where the arguments are wrong. The actual arguments... not straw men.””

You have not pointed to a single straw man. And you need to deal with the logic errors which I point out, rather than attack the use of logic itself. You seem to fear the actual arguments being made, and thus you need to attack my approach, rather than the arguments. Duly noted.

When logic errors are specified, you should feel free to question them. But that’s not what you are doing. You are claiming that using the defined informal logic errors as criteria in analyzing an opponent’s position is somehow a mark of insecurity. Justify your psychological analysis with actual case history, rather than open-ended rhetoric. I suspect that the vitriol above is a mark of your frustration at having logic used against your worldview and its premises. If you can refute the claims, then do so. Until then, your rhetoric above is empty of content.

Hugo Pelland said...

"What sort of logic and/or evidence do you require, when considering theism? If you require none for Atheism, then what is the equivalent proof load for theism?"

Atheism, if defined as 'There is no God', is impossible to prove. When defined as 'There is probably no gods nor supernatural realm', then the evidence comes from reality, just like any other claim in my opinion, and the application of reason and logic to the claims. The question is about 'existence' and how we can make sense of it. For instance, I build my worldview on the primacy of the material world, rather than the primacy of consciousness.

Theism, on the other hand, claims that 'There is a God', so the requirements depend on what 'God' is, for the Theist making the claim. This implies that I would never try to disprove Theism without having a Theist to talk to, as it makes no sense to me, as an Atheist, to point out to a specific version of Theism and claim it's false. Actually, I could do it for 1 case, and only 1, my own previous beliefs. I can explain why my childhood beliefs don't fit my worldview anymore. But I am not sure there is any point, as any Theist would say that that's not the beliefs they hold.

"OK, then choose one, at your leisure."

There would be 2 things:

First, the Theory of Evolution, since we are not done discussing that in my opinion, so that would be the 1 thing I will go back to. The thread is buried now, but I can go back to the email notifications and comment on that again if you're interested. That's really important to me because it's a scientific issue; not an issue of religion or politics. To be blunt, this is something I know you are wrong about, and I am willing to take all the time it takes to make you see it differently. If it does happen, and that's a huge 'if', it wouldn't make any difference regarding the rest of your worldview, either politically or religiously.

The fact that it does 'not' relate to religion nor politics is actually one of the reasons I care so much about it, because I find it appalling that the religious right, in the US mostly, has succeeded so well at discrediting a scientific field because of biased opinions and misinformation. In other words, I know I will never ever change my view on that topic and I also think Theists who understand the Theory correctly will never ever change their mind about it again. The Theory of Evolution is the best set of explanations we have to explain the diversity of living things on Earth and the facts related to ancestry, genetics, micro-evolution, etc... regardless of whether God is behind it.

Second, I have asked you several times now what you think I get wrong, and I still don't know what, precisely. I know we have diverging opinions on a lot of things, and that's just human nature. However, I honestly don't know of 1 example of something factual that you think Atheists in general get wrong, and that I would also get wrong. Basically, what is a fact that you know you know, and that you know Atheists don't know. I would love to be proven wrong on that 1 thing so that I can correct that false belief. I just don't know what that would be...

I think that's what really matters for now, but I will comment on just 1 more thing, related to the following quotes:

Hugo Pelland said...

"Atheists are actually anti-Christianity. [...] You transfer your hatred of external moral authority onto your unfounded presumption of me, and presume the superiority of yourself to determine morality. [...] So you have only contempt for theist morality. [...] their Atheism stems from a visceral hatred of any moral system which is not their own derivation, based on their own desires. [...] visceral hatred of external authority "

No, no, and no. I don't understand how clearer I can make this. Even if I were to grant you that you are right about other Atheists, such as those you listed who write books (I don't think you are though, but let's assume), even then, it does not apply to me. So if you want to discuss just these opinions, that's fine, I will skip my turn. If you are interested in direct discussions with an Atheist like me, and there are many like me, if not most, then you are misinterpreting our views. I am married to Theists, nobody in my family is Atheist afaik, I don't hate anything relating to religious morality as a whole. I just think it's irrational, emotionally driven and sometimes, just sometimes, yes I hate it... just like you. I hate it when Muslims kill in the name of Allah, for example. But I actually think that, in general, Theists have better moral compass. They actually care more about what's 'good', regarding morality, than a lot of Atheist who could not care less.

So these quotes I am including here, they don't apply to me. That's what I see as strawmen over and over again.

Hugo Pelland said...

Correction: I married to 'a' Theist, obviously ;)

Stan said...

Hugo,
In your defense of Atheism you say early-on that evolution is the first consideration to be discussed. And yet you say,

” That's really important to me because it's a scientific issue; not an issue of religion or politics. To be blunt, this is something I know you are wrong about, and I am willing to take all the time it takes to make you see it differently. If it does happen, and that's a huge 'if', it wouldn't make any difference regarding the rest of your worldview, either politically or religiously.”

Now which is it? A defensive support for your anti-theism? Or ‘not an issue of religion or politics’?

It obviously is the major support for Atheism, because it is the Atheist Creation Story – unprovable and demonstrably filled with logic inversions, but highly convenient in its purported simplicity, so simple that it MUST be taught in grade schools. It proves everything (in book stories) and nothing in reality.

So if you are to “prove” what you “know” to be “true”, then provide actual empirical data or disciplined deductive logic in the form of rational syllogisms with premises traced to whatever your form of “reality” actually consists of. I haven’t read ahead, so maybe you have done so, we’ll see.

” Theism, on the other hand, claims that 'There is a God', so the requirements depend on what 'God' is, for the Theist making the claim. This implies that I would never try to disprove Theism without having a Theist to talk to, as it makes no sense to me, as an Atheist, to point out to a specific version of Theism and claim it's false.”

This is not about theism, as I have reminded you a great many times. This is about proving the rationality of Atheism and its necessary but not sufficient premises, Philosophical Materialism and Determinism (for starters). Secondarily, evolution and the necessary premises which support that. The only counter attack I have seen is that you “know it is true”. But no actual data or falsifiable experiments or disciplined, grounded, deductive syllogisms which pass Reductio Ad Absurdum.

Moving on.

Stan said...

” Second, I have asked you several times now what you think I get wrong, and I still don't know what, precisely. I know we have diverging opinions on a lot of things, and that's just human nature. However, I honestly don't know of 1 example of something factual that you think Atheists in general get wrong”

This, unfortunately, is entirely self-serving. I have said this so many times that I know from history that you will ignore it one more time, but I will say it anyway, until you actually address it because this is what Atheists GET WRONG:

Atheists and Evolutionists provide NO FACTS WHATSOEVER in support of the Truth of Atheism. THEY PROVIDE NO FACTS WHATSOEVER in support of evolution. “Facts” are Truth statements – claims of a specific piece of information as immutable, incorrigible Truth. There are NO SPECIFIC PIECES OF INFORMATION REGARDING ATHEISM, PHILOSOPHICAL MATERIALISM, DETERMINSIM, OR EVOLUTION WHICH ARE IMMUTABLE, INCORRIGIBLE TRUTH.

When you provide story telling for a “science”, it does not produce anything close to facts. When you claim “reality” for a rejectionist worldview, you cannot produce anything close to facts regarding the extent of reality. When you claim “truth” for inferences surrounding an historical proposition, you cannot produce anything even close to immutable, incorrigible truth.

Why is it that you continually do not address these defects? Instead you claim to “know” the truth of something for which there is no physical, demonstrable, replicable, falsifiable validation, only inferential opinions. Your knowledge cannot be other than a second-hand acceptance of someone else’s opinion. Yet you call it truth.

Stan said...

Next, you claim that this is a straw man (quoting myself here since this is the offending text):

” So you have only contempt for theist morality. And you have not discussed Atheism’s moral position, nor the historical Atheist moral approaches to governing. Go ahead, because that is the actual issue here on this blog. I have not seen you address the presuppositions which underlie Atheism at all. As with virtually all Atheists I have had discussions with on this blog, their Atheism stems from a visceral hatred of any moral system which is not their own derivation, based on their own desires. This is the thrust of the popular Atheist authors who sell millions of hate-religion books, such as Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and the late Hitchens, and dozens to hundreds of minor authors as well. Hating religion is not a positive worldview. Defending Materialism, Determinism, and developing a coherent deductive argument which passes reductio… or producing Empirical evidence which is replicable, these are positively the necessary intellectual premises of Atheism. And no Atheist will produce any such positive case for Atheism. Thus Atheism reduces to the negative: rejection without reason or reasoning, visceral hatred of external authority which would close down the exhilarating freedom of the VOID.”

The use of a fallacy charge here requires more than “it doesn’t apply to me”. The freedom of the Atheist VOID is exactly what you are exhibiting, as you outline what you accept and what you do not – without providing any reasons or reasoning why. The necessary intellectual premises statement stands until you refute it. In fact all of these statements stand until you actually provide something other than the excuse that,

“nope, I don’t accept that, so it’s false”.

The VOID allows ALL positions to be valid, since there is nothing in the VOID except the assertion of the truth of a single issue:

There is no deity which has any authority over me

This is the assertion without any validation which is Atheism.

” If you are interested in direct discussions with an Atheist like me, and there are many like me, if not most, then you are misinterpreting our views.”

Here’s my understanding of your views:
1. It is true that there is no deity which has any authority over me.
2. It is true that evolution is true with no need for anything more than opinion.
3. It is true that I make up my own moral judgments and that those tend to the Left, usually, in support of making decisions for the lives of others.
4. It is true that some number of western lives can be sacrificed in the pursuit of tolerance of Islam.

Unstated and undefended views are that Philosophical Materialism is True; Determinism then is necessarily True; Consciousness is not a factor in reality; logical defects in these positions do not matter.

Now. If you have other positions, I don’t know what they are, except that I am wrong about everything, because the actual claims against the fundamental premises of Atheism are declared strawmen... and so you just don't accept that.

Hugo Pelland said...

Hey, just 1 quick clarification for now, where did you get that from?
"In your defense of Atheism you say early-on that evolution is the first consideration to be discussed."
That's not the case; it's a topic I care about. You discuss a lot more than Atheism here...

Stan said...

1. Evolution would have been tossed out long ago if it were not for its appeal to Atheism.
2. I repeat here the actual issues presented to Atheists like yourself which never, EVER, get addressed:
"
” So by never discussing these theist ideas, you are missing the biggest part of what Atheism means.”

Nope, that is false. Atheism is about rejection without evidence to support their rejection, without reasoning to support their rejection. The rejection cannot be rational if all it says is “I don’t believe your argument, and I don’t have to say why”. And that is what [almost] every Atheist says. “I am not convinced!” is not an intellectual argument, it is an anti-intellectual deflection using abjectly radical rejectionism.

Atheism is about accepting faulty premises such as Philosophical Materialism and Determinism, while rejecting free will and agency or claiming that they are material things rather than ephemeral states which are not predictable using any or all laws of physics.

Atheism is the “freedom” from dogma such as Aristotelian logic, all moral creeds other than personal derivations.

Atheism inevitably leads to self-elevation to the pinnacle of existence in an otherwise stupid and dead universe.

Atheists become convinced of the absolute certainty of their belief system and the stupidity of all of the Other. This is the genesis of Class War, as found in Marxism and the new Marxism of the elites who own the campuses.

Atheism and Atheists demand the highest quality material empirical evidence from theists, BUT they accept the sloppiest and completely unprovable premises and conclusions for their own worldview: that is anti-intellectual all the while pretending to be the cream of intellectualism, not to mention mankind in general.

Atheists reject, out of hand and without consideration, everything which interferes with their chosen lifestyle and worldview."


And,

"From a person's Atheism it is not possible to conclude that there is any morality at all, especially not with any moral authority."
Of course it's not possible from your point of view, because most of what you do is misrepresenting Atheists' opinions and values."


It is not possible, even from another Atheist's point of view. That is not misrepresentation, it is a necessary consequence of Atheism and the VOID which many Atheists love, and live in. Your viewpoint is not specifically represented? Why not? ALL view points are equally valid and nonvalid under the Atheist VOID. Whatever viewpoint you have chosen, it is a personal conclusion based on zero input from Atheism. Atheism is merely rejectionism, based on false premises.

Hugo Pelland said...

How can you say
"1. Evolution would have been tossed out long ago if it were not for its appeal to Atheism."
when it's not just Atheists that accept evolution? If you cannot acknowledge that Theists accept it too, I think you might be wasting my time on purpose...

Is it your way to annoy an Atheist that's trying to converse with you?

And now, of course, your usual response is that I am saying this because I have no argument to offer, instead of you doing any kind of self-inspection, at all... to be blunt, don't you ever think you can be wrong on some things Stan?

Stan said...

As always, you have only your feelings to present here; no data or proof of anything. It is entirely without any weight that [some] theists believe in evolution. They believe it because of the irrational case made for it in public schools, which is the purely Atheist/Materialist/Determinist case without any possibility of challenge.

And of course, you do not respond to the meat of the text above, do you? You have written a lot without coming even close to addressing the issues I have challenged you on.

You provide no proof of my being wrong. No Atheist ever does. They cannot, because the points I make are valid to the point of being First Principles of Atheism: the VOID; the lack of Atheist common morals; the rejectionism; the necessity of Philosophical Materialism and Determinism; the avoidance of discussing these necessary consequences of Atheism.

So what you do instead is to picture me as the dogmatic, because you wish to maintain your religious stance in the face of its irrationality and find it necessary to take the pretense of rationality for yourself - not by presenting disciplined dialectical refutation but by using rhetoric.

Neither of your issues turn out to be regarding Atheism even according to you: evolution is "science"; and the other is concern over what I think you get wrong, which I have addressed in detail many many times and you continue to ignore and avoid (or claim that I just don't understand Atheism, because you reject any connection to yourself).

It is time for you to discuss the issues outlined above. That's what the blog is about; it is not about making you feel good about your own personal form of worldview which you identify as the norm for Atheism. It is not about dealing with you while you dance around the issues raised here. It is not about "admitting" that I am wrong because you don't like what I say.

You must either refute something which I actually say and have said are the issues, or you are the one wasting time here.

Hugo Pelland said...

Stan, regarding not commenting on every single thing you write, I have to defer to a simple lack of time again. I'll come back to what you above, here in this thread, and on evolution, which I find very interesting. For now, since you added a lot more than just what I asked you, I won't be able to go back, yet.

You said

"As always, you have only your feelings to present here"

As always? My feelings? Can you demonstrate that this is what I ALWAYS do? Of course not, you ask others to prove their claims, their level of certainty, but it doesn't apply to you here. You can make such exaggerated comments and it's rational, by default, because you are rational, I suppose?

And regarding feelings, here's the thing: you are the ONLY person to have ever tell me this. Literally. The only one. In person, I've only received the opposite comment; I've been accused of being too rational, as if that makes sense, because I actually ignore people's feelings, sometimes too much, when I expose my views. Want examples?

So the bottom line is that you are trying to read my mind, and you fail at it.

Next, not sure what to to think of this:
"It is entirely without any weight that [some] theists believe in evolution."
Is it a denial of the fact that they exist? Or an acknowledgment that you wrote something false? I think it's the latter, because you explain right after that Theists who accept evolution were brain-washed by public schools. But you are so against the idea of conceding you actually wrote something false (The Theory of Evolution survives only because it pleases Atheists) that you wrote this cryptic comment on how it doesn't matter that you said something false, your are still right, because what matters, now, is that Theists who accept the Theory are misled.

Kudos to you Stan. Honestly, thar was a masterful way of saying 'ya I was wrong' without actually saying it. No joke, you are great at that. But you're not fooling me. That was an example of something false you said, that I corrected. And you just asked for that, so there you are.

Finally, I must reiterate that I know I am not addressing much. You are right about that. It's just taking too much time... Reading is way way faster that analysing your comments and replying to them.


--setn uisng my phnoe, pradon any spllenig msitake.

Stan said...

Lack of time? You could have addressed several issues in the time it took to peck in your non-response, just above.

It doesn't matter if some theists believe in evolution in the proposition that evolution is the Atheist Creation Story, and for that reason it must be taught in schools. It is, in fact, trivial and not a falsifier as you would have it.

" Theists who accept the Theory are misled."

Anyone who accepts it as the Truth - because it calls itself science - is either misled or is misleading. True knowledge cannot be produced by ANY science, including real science, much less can True knowledge be produced by non-disinterested opinion. Truth can only be approached through grounded, valid deductions which pass Reductio.

That is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of the authors of the two dozen logic textbooks on my shelf.

So here you attack with plenty o' words, and yet do not address a single issue of Atheism, which is the topic of this blog. You have been doing this slip-sliding for months now, wasting my time.

So either address them or go dark, it's your choice.

Hugo Pelland said...

Hi Stan,

"Lack of time? You could have addressed several issues in the time it took to peck in your non-response, just above."
No time; really. The response above was written on my phone, while waiting for pizza at the bar of a hotel... it requires more time to make sure I write detailed answers on specific topics. I actually care about having thoughtful discussions when it comes to serious philosophical question such as the existence of God.

"evolution is the Atheist Creation Story"
This is inaccurate; The Theory of Evolution is no more no less an Atheist Creation Story than any other "story", or "theory" as they are called, in any other field of science. Astrophysics, for instance, explains how galaxies, stars and planets, like ours, form; this is not an Atheist Creation Story. It's exactly the same kind of science, which many Theists accept, because it's supported by good evidence and logical deductions. It's not more, nor less, Truth as you put it. It is what it is; it's a set of explanations for the facts we observe through empirical observations. The explanations are adjusted based on new observations; some explanations get discarded while others get reinforced and become more and more probable.

For instance, common ancestry is a fact so strongly supported by evidence that it cannot be denied, and the best explanation as to how living things came to be so diverse while being related is: the Theory of Evolution. There is no competing explanation and it does not remove the possibility of God being behind the creation of the universe, which yield such natural process, or God intervening in seemingly invisible ways to influence the course of evolution. I don't believe it, but it's possible. However, it's not possible that living things did not evolve, just like it's not possible that the Sun and the Earth appeared out of nowhere. We understand how they formed just like we understand how living things evolved.

"yet do not address a single issue of Atheism, which is the topic of this blog. You have been doing this slip-sliding for months now, wasting my time."
This is an unfair attack; you have almost no article on your blog commenting on Atheism. You say it yourself all the time: this blog is about Atheists and what they do, from your own perspective. And by 'Atheists' you mean a lot more people than just those who don't believe in God; you include anyone who is part of the coined term 'AtheoLeft', anyone who is moderate in their religious views such as heretics Muslims or moderate Catholics who accept the Theory of Evolution and vote Democrat. Just to name a tiny fraction of all the possible examples... There are a lot more I think, but I am not sure where you draw the line.

Hugo Pelland said...

For instance, searching for the word 'God' on the blog yields:

3/10/2016: "God forbid that the WILL OF THE PEOPLE prevail in the Republican Party [...]"
- Only an expression; not the topic.

3/1/2016: Quote from IMS " It is understandable, therefore, that a theist might think they came from God." with response from Stan: " Total non-comprehension of the actual issue [...] By misdirecting the conversation onto something not said, IMS asserts a Red Herring Fallacy."
- The comment referred to God, but Stan makes it clear it's 'not' relevant.

3/1/2016: Quote from IMS "The theist, on the other hand, resorts to logical fallacies in his attempts to support his belief that logic comes from God through intuition. It is the theist whose logic is ungrounded." with response from Stan: "This false “proof” is dependent upon a false understanding of the issue of intuition. There is no premise made that asserts “logic comes from God”. "
- (Same) The comment referred to God, but Stan makes it clear it's 'not' relevant. There is more here though:
"The issue is that intuition, itself, transcends physics and physical existence, thereby making both Materialism and determinism blatantly false."
That does not relate to Atheism, which is specifically about God. Plus, this is not accurate; Materialism and Determinism are not proven false with that statement. It is false in the mind of the author because the Primacy of Consciousness is assumed.

2/25/2016: Quoting an article; 2 references to God and 1 to Godly. This is not about Atheism in any way as the belief in God is not discussed. For what it's wort, I actually agree that the homosexual plaintiffs went too far in this case. Nothing to do with 'belief' in God, which is what Atheism is about.

2/18/2016: Mostly a funny post, which turns out to be badly research as Stan indicated. The reference to God is not related to belief: "Not informed? So... No one told him about the huge wall around the Vatican?? He needs a better staff or God-connection. "

2/15/2016: Quote of an article by Ed Feser, who talks about a recent book by Coyne on religion. This seems closer to be relevant to Atheism. The quote where the word God appears states: "it is religions that emphasize controversial truth claims about the world—in particular, “theistic faiths,” those that affirm the existence of a God or gods. But even more specifically, he says, he will “concentrate on the Abrahamic faiths: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.”" Ed Feser explains, more or less, why he disagrees with Coyne. That seems to be going down the right track for a discussion on Atheism. However, this is not what the blog post by Stan does: "Coyne is a poster boy for the dogmatic Atheist Ideologist who eschews logic completely in order to defend his own evidence-free and logic-free faith. His false characterizations of his hated Class War denizens proves conclusively his bigotry. Apparently the new book is a fitting companion to his previous logic-free and evidence-free book, "Why Evolution is True"." So what we get here is just a comment on how Coyne is a 'poster boy' and a 'bigot'; basically it's just name calling. No argument, no defense, no evidence, absolutely nothing to support the position that Coyne is wrong. I am not saying he is right either, but there is no discussion on the topic to address; this could be interesting for the purpose of this blog.

2/7/2016: Now, finally, going back more than 1 month (and roughly ~100 posts!), there is something that's directly about Atheism... or is it?
I will out my comments on it to keep the context and avoid unnecessary comments here.
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-paradox-of-firebrand-atheism-and.html?m=1

Hugo Pelland said...

Finally, on a more personal note, perhaps I can explain what it means to me to be an Atheist, as it is, after all, a personal belief: Atheism does not relate to what we know but only to what we believe. Simply put, I don't believe in God and I am convinced that many of the versions of God I have heard of are definitely non-existent, with just a few options being still possible, but just unlikely. Here's how I would list it:


1) God - Sun: I don't believe that the Sun is God, nor are the stars, the constellations, etc... I don't think anybody alive today believes that either, but it used to be common. We just know better now.

2) God - Natural Events: I don't believe there is a God that controls the natural elements. Disaster such as tsunami, earthquakes or tornadoes hit randomly based on uncontrolled natural conditions. Some people today think that God may be in control of that, partially, but I think most people who believe in God don't blame Him for natural events like that. To me, it's just purely natural so I don't believe such God exists.

...

Oops... I was going to add a few more God concepts, but I ran out of time again. Understandly so I hope this time, as this was getting very long (including the other thread). Let me know whether that was going down a useful thread or not according to you Stan. No point continuing if that's not interesting.

Stan said...

Hugo,
Today and until next Wed or later I won't have time either, but I did read this far in your message:

"For instance, common ancestry is a fact so strongly supported by evidence that it cannot be denied, and the best explanation as to how living things came to be so diverse while being related is: the Theory of Evolution."

That is an absurd statement regarding one of the most undocumented stories of evolution. It falls apart at the Cambrian Explosion. There is no possible common ancestor for all the existing phyla (save one minor phyla appearing later) which accords with the "ancestor" criteria. Nor are there many ancestors at that point, either. The criteria are clear: the ancestor must have the capability to a) possess all the information required to produce much, much more highly complex, organ bearing, neurological structural and internal information languages and information feedback systems, sexual reproduction including egg creation and maturation as opposed to mitosis, cellular specifity to single functions, and information packets containing the information for all of this which are transferred to progeny, OR b) to evolve all of these things simultaneously in a geologically minute time frame, virtually immediately with all information simultaneous and in a manner which far outpaces the negative mutations to which all organisms are subject due to universal entropy.

That is the first rational obstacle. The second rational obstacle is this:

There is no law of physics which provides for the emergence of living cells containing both DNA/RNA, and RNA-ase as well as auxillary polymerases which are required to access and utilize the DNA information, nor for the simultaneous creation of metabolic ATP feedback systems, nor for systems of acquisition of external energy and conversion to ATP and emission of waste. The minimum requirement for cell construction (dead cell) cannot be accounted for by any physical laws or the four forces of the universe. Further, the coordinated actions of a living cell toward an objective (protecting its life and reproduction for perpetuation), also cannot be reduced to the four forces of the universe. (Strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravity).

These outlines above do not do justice to the complexity of the minimal single cell, nor the magnificent jump in complexity during the Cambrian Explosion.

What you are going on is merely correlation as causation, without considering the detailed ramifications underlying the correlation.

That's it for now; but it's sufficient to disqualify superficial correlation. Full explanation cannot be created with stories; all the ramifications must be addressed. Those are highly complex and not even all of them are known.

Common ancestry is not a "fact". Common DNA artifacts are facts, but that doesn't prove anything other than their existence -- unless an ulterior motivation for calling it something else exists.

Stan said...

"For instance, common ancestry is a fact so strongly supported by evidence that it cannot be denied, and the best explanation as to how living things came to be so diverse while being related is: the Theory of Evolution."

There is no "evidence" which is not merely correlation as causation. There is plenty of evidence that it is not possible that [macro] evolution actually did happen. And there is no REAL evidence that it did, any more than there was REAL evidence for epicycles when they "solved" the planetary motion problem. Correlation is purely induction; there is no possibility of deductive validation OR falsification. At least not at our current level of knowledge and technical, material capability.

Hugo Pelland said...

"It falls apart at the Cambrian Explosion. "
This is going too far; we don't need to look at the Cambrian Explosion to come up with an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth and the fact of common ancestry. What the Cambrian period shows is actually a confirmation that the Theory is valid. It could have falsified it; it confirmed it.

"There is no possible common ancestor for all the existing phyla (save one minor phyla appearing later) which accords with the "ancestor" criteria."
Why is it impossible? This is a very strong claim that disregard what we see, today. Even if we had no access to any fossil at all, the evidence for common ancestry would still remain. Looking at living things today, we can present an explanation as to how they came to be this way, and why they are all related. That's enough to consider it 'possible'. We also happen to have proven it, but it has nothing to do with the claim that ' There is no possible common ancestor for all the existing phyla'.

You need to explain why you reject the evidenve, the reasoning and the facts. You cannot just say it's impossible when it is entirely possible, by definition. You say it yourself: it's just a so-story. Well, if it's a so-story, it means it's possible because we have that story. You can argue the story is wrong; but you cannot say it's impossible without explaining what's wrong with the story. Let alone the fact that the "story" is actually a Theory supported by evidence.

"the ancestor must have the capability to a) possess all the information required to produce [...] "
No. Whatever comes after that is wrong. The ancestor does not need to have the capability to produce anything. You are not addressing the actual Theory; what you say is impossible is your own version, not the real Theory of Evolution.

"OR b) to evolve all of these things simultaneously in a geologically minute time frame, virtually immediately with all information simultaneous and in a manner which far outpaces the negative mutations to which all organisms are subject due to universal entropy. "
No. The Theory is that there were gradual changes, never any impossible jumps because that would be... impossible. I think the problem here is that you are talking about all phyla as they are today. That's not the case; there are actually just a few changes needed in the parent species to yield 2 completely different phyla.

This is what the videos on feline and canine, which I shared earlier, explained, for instance. The Theory does not say that 1 species yield 1000s of species immediately. The first feline and the first canine may have been literal cousins, who were separated, and then slowly changed over time. Their descendants also changed slowly, got separated and so on... this yields a lot of diversity within canines and felines, even if they come from a common ancestor. That's the "story" of course; not the evidence we see today. The facts are that all canines and felines are related, morphologically and genetically. When I asked where you draw the line, the non-answer was at the species level, which does not answer anything since species are also related, genetically, and we can find cousin species just like we find literally cousins, with genetic testings. So the hierarchy does not stop at species; it keeps going. This is what the Theory of Evolution explains; these are facts.

Hugo Pelland said...

" The second rational obstacle is this: There is no law of physics which provides for the emergence of living cells containing both DNA/RNA, and [...]"
Let's assume this is true; I don't think it is, but let's just assume it is for a minute. This does not affect the Theory in any way at all. All eukaryote are related, just like all members of the same phyla are related, just like all species, all mammals, all humans, etc... This is not an obstacle for Evolution because even if there were no possible way eukaryote's cells came to be naturally, once you have them, it is possible to yield every single member of that kingdom.

" Common ancestry is not a "fact". Common DNA artifacts are facts, but that doesn't prove anything other than their existence"
Where and why do you draw the line then? You agree that members of a species can be identified by DNA; that's where you more-or-less draw the line on the other thread. But then the question is, why is DNA wrong in showing common ancestry for 2 closely related species? What about all feline? All canines? All mammals? There are not explanations for why they are not related; but there are explanations as to how they came to be like that: they evolved from common ancestors.

" There is no "evidence" which is not merely correlation as causation. There is plenty of evidence that it is not possible that [macro] evolution actually did happen. And there is no REAL evidence that it did, any more than there was REAL evidence for epicycles when they "solved" the planetary motion problem. Correlation is purely induction; there is no possibility of deductive validation OR falsification. At least not at our current level of knowledge and technical, material capability."

This conclusion does not fit with the Theory; that's where we see why we disagree on it. There is plenty of evidence that all life is related, and the explanation is that they must have evolved. It's not that there is evidence that macro-evolution actually did happen; we cannot show it in action over centuries. The idea is that there must be some explanations for today's observations. This explanation is the Theory of Evolution. Then, we can try to look at the past and see if the Theory fits, and it does. The fossil record confirmed the theory by showing that ancestors of today's living things are related morphologically and genetically. It is impossible to find an animal, today, that does not have a potential direct common ancestor in the fossil record. We cannot be sure that a particular specimen living today came literally from an old fossilized specimen; it's actually almost certain the living specimen is 'not' a direct descendant. But, it confirms that there were animals, in the past, which fit the characteristics of today's living things' theorical ancestors.