Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Atheodicy

Many religious philosophers have created theodicies, which are logical arguments for various levels of belief in deism or theism.

What do modern Atheists have?

Atheodicy: "Lack of belief".

What, exactly do they lack belief in? Theodicies? The Qur'an? The Bible? Buddha? Ganesh? Well that's not the point.

Here's the point: what are the Atheodicies which support the Atheist position of "lack of belief"?

Posit:
"I lack belief."
Really? Belief in what?
"I lack belief in X, Y, Z."
Why?
"I just don't have belief."
For what reasons?
"I don't have to have reasons for a LACK."
As is intended, this goes nowhere rational. It is a LACK of specifics, reasoning, logic, evidence, and rationality. Especially rationality.

It is purely the irrational defense for an indefensible position.

Let's distill out the Atheodicy from the conversation:
"I lack belief."
"I lack belief in X, Y, Z."
"I just don't have belief."
"I don't have to have reasons for a LACK."
No intellectual content; none.

23 comments:

CJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CJ said...

Grammatically, "atheism" cannot reasonably scan as "without belief", as affixes modify the root, not each other. The root of θεος (note the nominative case ending ος), making God, not "belief" the head of the construct. Hence, the word cannot be reasonably scanned as "without God-belief" but only "without-God belief").

Further, etymologically, "ism" was a relatively modern addition -- the word "atheism" not appearing in French or English until the 16th century. And thus it is more reasonable to interpret "atheos" as the primary semantic relationship.

Ahmed said...

I think its also sufficient that one can simply respond to that with "I lack belief in atheism" or "I lack belief in the absence of God". And then shift all their arguments ranging from scientism to skepticism against them.

Stan said...

It certainly should be sufficient. But in Atheist-world there are two standards. The standard for non-Atheists is quite the opposite from the standard for Atheists. Non-Atheists absolutely must provide Material Evidence, where Atheists need to provide *nothing* to support their blind rejectionism. Atheists never ever need to provide evidence of any sort, nor logic of any sort in order to support their worldview. They commonly deny that Atheism is even a part of their worldview, even though the Atheist worldview is diametrically opposed to any theist worldview. This sort of corrupt logic is indicative of disruption of the mental processes, and is commonly found in youth, before the frontal lobe has developed. Sometimes the corrupt logic persists, though. Atheist brains have been found to be different from non-Atheist brains, and the obvious denialism has garnered Atheists a trust factor below that of child molesters.

CJ said...

I save my etymological reply for atheists who try to grammatically parse "atheism".

For the "lack of belief" argument, I often reply with, "So my car's an atheist -- who knew?" But the modicum of thought required to work through the implications even of that is beyond the capacity of many of the "brights" I encounter, who can't understand why a definition that can't distinguish between them and a shrub is beyond ludicrous.

Ahmed's response is much more immediate. I'll have to try it.

Mama Row said...

i tried that line about lacking belief in the absence of God on the Atheist on the Gaiaonline forums. His response:

"Nope. That line of thought contains the presupposition that God exists, and as such it contains a positive claim."

CJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CJ said...

Nonsense. "I lack belief in P" isn't an assertion at all. It is merely a biographical descriptor. Therefore it carries no burden of proof for any value of P.

Put another way, take the P in the assertion "I lack belief in P". For the atheist P is "existence of God". For the theist it's "absence of God". One could therefore argue it is in fact the atheistic, not the theistic, claim which contains the positive claim.

But one cannot consistently argue that "I lack belief in the absence of God" is equivalent to the positive claim "God exists" but that "I lack belief in the existence of God" is NOT equivalent to "God does not exist". Either both are knowledge claims carrying a burden of proof, or neither is. The atheist cannot escape his hypocrisy.

But his is the Internet. It's a foregone conclusion you'll never convince him. Just keep insisting you have no burden of proof because you only lack belief. In the end, you'll have a stalemate with both of you proclaiming yourself the winner. That's where these discussions always end up in the end anyway; this just gets you there faster.

Just remember that any position predicated on nothing but denials (no evidence, no negatives, no beliefs, no burden of proof) is by its nature incoherent and incapable of making any positive claim. That can be used to great advantage.

Anonymous said...

Hi, SARL0

Anonymous said...

For the record, the the exchange that "Mama Row" is referring to went like this:

Mama Row: "i guess Christians could say that they lack belief that there's no God, and therefore we dont have to defend anything sense we're not asserting anything."

Me: "Nope. That line of thought contains the presupposition that God exists, and as such it contains a positive claim."

Just thought I'd add a little context.

Stan said...

Here's a little context regarding Atheism:

The Atheist who thinks he can fool anyone at all with the claim of having no opinion or belief regarding a deity is more than just a fool; that Atheist is a liar and a poor deceiver who doesn't believe his own deception, and thinks that others are so incredibly stupid that they can't tell what a liar he is. Of course the Atheist has an opinion regarding the existence of a deity. If he does not, yet attacks theism, then he is a liar. If he does not and is totally ignorant, then he is merely a sack of mindless minerals and nothing more than that. As such he is worthy of no response, any more than is a bag of rocks.

All that this Atheist "argument" does is to reinforce the obvious observation that Atheists cannot be trusted in any sense of the word, "trust". These Atheists think that they have acquired extra metaphysical knowledge by merely using denialism as a tactic for support of their worldview of active deception. But all they have acquired is unwarranted self-esteem based on the fog of floating, ungrounded, unprincipled, unstable and volatile, personal opinion of the day. There are no material facts which support Atheism. There are no principled deductive arguments which survive Reductio in support of Atheism.

Atheists cannot prove that their worldview is in any manner or detail accurate, much less that it is true. Atheists cannot prove that their necessary Philosophical Materialism/Naturalism is accurate, much less true. Atheists cannot prove that their own minds (such as they are) derive from the necessity of Materialist determinism, nor that their actions derive from prior initial states acted upon deterministically by the four forces of physics, all the way back to the Big Bang - yet that is a necessity of Atheism even though those necessary corollaries to Atheism leave Atheists having no more meaning than the existence of mud after a rain. But those are the consequences of Atheism.

Atheism is constituted solely of a mindless denialism which is coupled to massive hubris and ego-centric intellectual anarchy, based on the necessity of fitting all of the universe into causation by the four forces of physics, and inherited initial conditions. The Atheist is functionally denying that he, himself, has even a modicum of value, because he cannot produce valid, principled deductive cases for his own principles, existence, and characteristics which thus renders him without discernible value - and further, he is an accident of the unfalsifiable cult-cant of evolution: a continuation of ancient accidental mutations and heritable errors, which have no meaning and therefore no value, remotely lost in a value-free universe that doesn't give a shit about him.

Atheists are commonly held in contempt, exactly due to their inability to be intellectually and morally honest, the honesty which is given up in achieving the "freedom" from authority the Atheist VOID, and thus is a requisite defect in their worldview.

Stan said...

Anonymous: unless you self-identify, your future comments as "anonymous" will be deleted without being read.

Faith Walker said...

Stan. i extended your invitation to ArcoonEffox to come debate you. here's our exchange:

Me: "Stan has extended an invitation to you to come debate him on Atheism over on his site, if you're up to the challenge. i'm sure you're not since debating a grown man like yourself would be out of your comfort zone from debating the Christian stay-at-home-mommy's here on Gaia.

here's Stans bit on your wussy little lack of belief nonsense"

Arcoon: "Your kids must be so proud of their hypocrite bully of a mother Also, if this "Stan" guy would like to speak with me, he can invite me himself."

then he responded to your post entitled "Atheocidy"

Many religious philosophers have created theodicies, which are logical arguments for various levels of belief in deism or theism---

Arcoon: "Full stop. That's not what theodicies are.
To quote the Christian apologetics website GotQuestions, "Theodicy is the branch of theology which defends God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil." It is a theological construct that attempts to vindicate an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God, in response to the Problem of Evil.
One sentence in, and this guy has already given a bullshit definition for the thing he's basing his argument on, meaning that whatever point he's building towards will most likely also be bullshit."

What do modern Atheists have? Atheodicy: "Lack of belief".

Arcoon: "Called it ~♪
"Atheodicy" would not be "lack of belief", but a dismissal of theodicies; in other words, "atheodicies" would be arguments in favor of God's nonexistence, based on the Problem of Evil."

What, exactly do they lack belief in? Theodicies? The Qur'an? The Bible? Buddha? Ganesh? Well that's not the point.

Acroon: "A guy talking about atheism is saying that he doesn't know what it is they don't believe in... and then says whatever it is they don't believe in "is not the point".
Y'know, I'm starting to understand why you think this guy is so smart."

Here's the point: what are the Atheodicies which support the Atheist position of "lack of belief"?

Arcoon: "As far as Stan is using the word, "Atheodicies" don't even exist because atheism has no dogma. His entire argument is predicated on a tired-ass strawman that's been debunked over and over again."

Arcoon: "Anyone who insists that atheism is a religion discredits themselves, as well as any point/s they were attempting to make. As such, "an intelligent guy" would not claim that atheism is a religion."

Arcoon: "What I wanted you to get through your skull was that disbelieving in something is not the same thing as rejecting something. Myself and others had explained this to you over and over again, but you've just kept on making the same assertion with zero regard for accuracy or intellectual honesty, because of your all-consuming my-way-or-the-highway biases.

When a child stops believing in their imaginary friend, they don't generally reject their existence; they just stop believing it's real. Why would that child say "I don't believe in you!" to something they don't even think is there? Now, I'm sure that some kids might be bitter about finding out that the imaginary friend isn't real, but even being angry about how something doesn't exist is not a rejection of that thing, so your assertion that atheism is a rejection of God is just bullshit, through-and-through"

Faith Walker said...

Arcoon: "Would you like it if an atheist was propagating some malformed definition of Christianity, wouldn't you? No? Then why should atheists allow Christians misrepresent them by spreading a malformed idea of what atheism is?

Atheism is only the lack of belief in any gods - and that's it. The belief that god/s do not exist is anti-theism, and atheism, in and of itself, does not include that belief, regardless of what any random Evangelical on the internet says. Hopefully this will sink in this time."

btw.. i'm mamaro, just changed my name to faith walker.

Stan said...

That argument is from intellectual cowardice; this Atheist cannot support his actual beliefs, and uses this "mama's skirt" to hide behind.

Tell him he's a coward who has no intellectual substance, no arguments to support his phony worldview, and that I said so. Then do this: Ask him this one question: "Is there a creating deity?"

He'll blather and refuse to answer. So ask it again, just the same, word for word, and say nothing else.

Keep doing that, and occasionally repeat that I say that he's an intellectual coward, and that he's very likely a juvenile living in Mommy's basement, with computer privileges, for now. Because that is the truth. A bully who won't fight anyone but the ill prepared to fight back is just despicable. Even more despicable when he's a chickenshit.

You may reproduce this in full.
Stan

Stan said...

Also, read my reply to "anonymous" just above your comments. That person is probably the same one you are addressing, the cowardly use of "anonymous" is a tell for the troll mentality.

You are being trolled by a mental midget, not a mature Atheist.

Faith Walker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faith Walker said...

actually he claims that he's a married grown man. who has the authority, expertise and education to interpret and dictate what the bible means and that it's all a big huge fairy tale and that Christians are delusional for believing it instead of being Atheists like him. And what he says is true because he has the authority and expertise to say so. and he can call out strawman and red herring and other logical fallacies when we give our reasons for our faith and try to engage him and others in discussion and his ability to call out logical fallacies also makes him some kind elite atheist.

yes, that is the same Atheist that i've been addressing. he said to me "Hi Sarlo", which is the name i use in the Gaia forums. i'm pretty sure it's him.

Stan said...

Will you try asking that one question of him?

Faith Walker said...

of course!

Faith Walker said...

Stan, someone in the forum quoted this portion of what you said and replied to it:

"Atheists cannot prove that their worldview is in any manner or detail accurate, much less that it is true. Atheists cannot prove that their necessary Philosophical Materialism/Naturalism is accurate, much less true. Atheists cannot prove that their own minds (such as they are) derive from the necessity of Materialist determinism, nor that their actions derive from prior initial states acted upon deterministically by the four forces of physics, all the way back to the Big Bang - yet that is a necessity of Atheism even though those necessary corollaries to Atheism leave Atheists having no more meaning than the existence of mud after a rain. But those are the consequences of Atheism."

their reply:

"Atheists aren't necessarily philosophical materialists (they can believe in mind-body dualism, for example), nor necessarily determinists (they can believe in quantum indeterminacy, for example) - they merely don't believe in a specific non-material entity (deity)."


Faith Walker said...

hi Arcoon!

Stan said...

It's one thing to say such things as the positions stated as Atheist positions just above here. It's quite another to find an Atheist who will seriously defend them. For example, quantum indeterminism is not a physical fact, it is a limit on observation; further, QM indeterminism can be fully refuted parsimoniously (and is) by quantum field theory, which is deterministic. Even so, it makes a bad case for Atheists, implying that the Atheist mind is controlled, not deterministically, but indeterminately, which is the implication being made. It also makes for a bad case in defending science, which is wholly dependent upon voluntary materialism and the presupposed principle of universal determinism. And both dualism and indeterminancy refute evolution – dualism allows external intelligence into the theory, and indeterminancy refutes the “law” of “common ancestor” part of the theory.

False claims and false worldviews will always lead to circularity, infinite regresses, and/or internal contradiction, as well as fail Reductio Ad Absurdum. Atheism and its adherents demonstrate this all the time.

The internal contradiction between claiming indeterminacy on the one hand and mind-body dualism on the other hand is glaring. The source of indeterminacy under the Copenhagen understanding of QM is in observation/measurement and is purely material; mind-body dualism is deducible, but not materially falsifiable and therefore is purely philosophical. Between few and none of Atheist philosophers (materialists, all) support dualism. Thus, both of these are Red Herrings. So these examples are excuses, transparent attempts to divert, and nothing more.

And as always, “absence of belief” applies to minerals, plants, archaea and prokaryotes, not to intelligent adult humans, who can and do form opinions regarding the validity of propositions. For an aggressive Atheist to make the claim of “absence of belief” is an indicator of a massively dishonest individual, one who is basically a troll, intent on bullying, disruption and chaos, and who will not be honest about much of anything.

One can easily conclude that such an Atheist is dishonest in other aspects of his life as well, and cannot generate any trust due to his lack of foundational grounding, both intellectually and morally.

The facts in this matter are that the Atheist cannot prove that any, ANY, of his statements are true, and that is exacerbated by the transparently false claim which he wants everyone else to believe. As it happens, he can’t prove the truth of that claim, either. But: to sit fast on a lie is pitiful.

(obviously he is showing up here without engaging: intellectual cowardice on display, right here)