tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post5299261881520267911..comments2024-03-19T04:19:18.871-05:00Comments on Atheism Analyzed: Principles of Atheism: Atheist Logical ProcessesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-4412753566556524652016-10-02T18:18:13.616-05:002016-10-02T18:18:13.616-05:00Yes, it has been asserted, absolutely.Yes, it has been asserted, absolutely.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-47884413897747789652016-10-02T11:59:39.972-05:002016-10-02T11:59:39.972-05:00" a universe of no absolutes"
This is go..." a universe of no absolutes"<br />This is good for a chuckle. <br /><br />Did somebody actually assert "no absolutes"? In mean, in those exact words?<br /><br />If so, I hope you were kind enough to provide a link to the definition of "oxymoron" :-)<br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-59889097658552725682016-02-24T16:18:35.715-06:002016-02-24T16:18:35.715-06:00You have no refutations, no arguments, no actual p...You have no refutations, no arguments, no actual positions to consider; you are acting like a common troll. If you wish to present something in the form of a logical rebuttal to something, then do it. Otherwise, you'll be ignored or banned as a common troll.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-50751177508812211882016-02-24T14:20:05.713-06:002016-02-24T14:20:05.713-06:00I asked you to consider a possibility. You're...I asked you to consider a possibility. You're too arrogant to do that. Instead, you do exactly what you accuse atheists of. <br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-63194711357672994682016-02-24T13:01:00.600-06:002016-02-24T13:01:00.600-06:00Skeptic,
Another statement of pure scornful name-c...Skeptic,<br />Another statement of pure scornful name-calling, but without content. You never refute anything, you merely attack the person you hate. <br /><br />And what you do say implies that Atheists use special "Atheist logic" which is not beholden to standard principles of non-contradiction, non-circularity, and non-infinite regression. So that does clear up your own rational position. Again, scorn is the only weapon that Atheists have, and it is empty of content (as you point out, empty of rational, analytical Aristotelian logic).Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-29755961567331008432016-02-24T12:32:38.232-06:002016-02-24T12:32:38.232-06:00Massimo was alert enough to recognize the intellec...<i>Massimo was alert enough to recognize the intellectual hazard involved in addressing the issue of untethered opinions masquerading as logical analyses, when they fail the basic criteria of deductive analysis 101. It was best for Massimo’s position to ignore (and suppress) the existence of the issue, period.</i><br /><br />Or perhaps he recognized that he was dealing with a narcissistic troll with delusions of intellectual superiority and no clue about the logical processes employed by atheists. Think about it, dude.<br /> im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-90772856761038320492013-07-17T21:56:26.388-05:002013-07-17T21:56:26.388-05:00I used to be confused and flustered by Atheist arg...I used to be confused and flustered by Atheist arguments, and now I can say that I have a better understanding of the principles and flaws within the motivation, and a healthy respect for ACTUAL logic.<br /><br />Thank you for turning it from a generic weapon used to dismiss any discussion of God, to something much more honorable.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11551993655253788705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-79938800885809969152013-02-25T19:01:59.534-06:002013-02-25T19:01:59.534-06:00Matthew,
Thanks for a considered question, its re...Matthew, <br />Thanks for a considered question, its refreshing as a contrast to the hate mail I'm getting.<br /><br />The Freedom From Religion Foundation made the claim in a lawsuit against the Cherry Creek School District several years ago: Character traits are not absolute, many people find character traits too difficult and therefore positive requirements of character traits cannot be taught in schools because it is discriminatory. I think they lost the suit, but the belief was an Atheist belief which was used in a legal argument.<br /><br />Further, there is much hot debate between Atheist philosophers as to what constitutes morality and moral behavior. This indicates the lack of any firm or common belief amongst Atheists regarding positive character traits.<br /><br />Further still, when Atheists reject absolutes, they step into the Atheist VOID, where they experience the exhilaration of total intellectual and moral freedom. From there they either make up their own principles which are necessarily volatile according to the desires of the individual Atheist, or they acquire some sort of principles from another Atheist, also volatile, or they co-opt a fixed morality such as Judeo-christian ethical principles.<br /><br />It is very common for Atheists to show up here and declare that they "don't know any Atheists who...". This is not a satisfactory position, because there are definitely Atheists who... and there are many of them embedded in the archives of this blog.<br /><br />Logical deduction rules require that the conclusion cannot be considered to have truth value unless the premises are without falseness. This cannot occur when the premises are circular, self referencing, dependent upon another's opinion, or an infinite regression. What is required is that the premises be validated against first principles, and that they pass the test of Reductio Ad Absurdum. In other words, the premises must be grounded in incorrigible truth (self evident) in order to consider the conclusion to have truth value.<br /><br />The obvious problem arises when the Atheist (Nietzsche for example) denies that any self-evident truth can exist (without any proof of that assertion), thereby denying that logic can produce truth values. Nietzsche then developed his Anti-Rational philosophy, denying the truth of anything whatsoever (except evolution and Will To Power).<br /><br />Standing on the shoulders of giants does not refer to the preimises of deductive logic, it refers to empirical and/or mathematical findings that have been stacked up, and it ignores the underlying philosophical arguments which validate the entire sequence of discovery. The designers of this medium in which are communicating are ultimately beholden to truths which are indisputably self-evident within our known universe. (See side bar for First Principles - I did not make them up, they are found in college text books on Logic).<br /><br />Physicist Richard Feynman claimed that all of the underlying premises in supprt of an hypothesis should be reconfirmed for every experiment. That is because of the Inductive Fallacy which was elaborated by Hume, and later by Popper, and which limits the truth value of empiricism.<br /><br />This is not done, and the invariablity of the universe is presumed (or science would not be done).Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-69709647888000239242013-02-25T09:21:56.134-06:002013-02-25T09:21:56.134-06:00You repeatedly claim that 'atheists claim that...You repeatedly claim that 'atheists claim that there are no absolutes' and once that 'atheists don't believe in positive character traits'. But you fail to explain what you base this conclusion on. <br /><br />As an atheist I certainly do believe that kindness, generosity, tolerance etc. Are positive traits, this is self evident to anyone with morals. I don't know any atheists that think otherwise. I also accept that "absolutes" are working assumptions made with the best evidence currently available. This is surely the only defensible position, as to claim access to "absolute truth" without evidence is itself a circular argument. <br /><br />You also state that atheist experts tend to reference other expert. Again I must ask; what else should they reference? "Standing on the shoulders of giants" is the basis of human progress, without which we wouldn't be able communicate in this medium.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10509611739444099757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-16806985349142402652013-02-21T07:51:54.272-06:002013-02-21T07:51:54.272-06:00Hi Stan, why is it that atheists have this emotion...Hi Stan, why is it that atheists have this emotional need? Does it stem from low self-esteem?Briannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-42169671315354431682013-02-18T07:44:54.983-06:002013-02-18T07:44:54.983-06:00Spicoiter,
Thanks again, I have ordered Perelman&#...Spicoiter,<br />Thanks again, I have ordered Perelman's book.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-91457287967955203462013-02-17T06:13:10.746-06:002013-02-17T06:13:10.746-06:00Chaim Perelman: logic, theory and framework of arg...Chaim Perelman: logic, theory and framework of argumentation.Spicoiternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-46540487449094554822013-02-15T08:53:03.674-06:002013-02-15T08:53:03.674-06:00Spicoiter,
Thanks; the list contains fallacies, bu...Spicoiter,<br />Thanks; the list contains fallacies, bullying and deceptions. Interesting.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-39123598234422369002013-02-15T02:09:53.028-06:002013-02-15T02:09:53.028-06:00The atheist's argumental technique is the eris...The atheist's argumental technique is the eristic. They know well the eristic dialectic of Schopenhauer and his 38 retoric stratagems. For Aristotel, the eristic are sophismata.<br />Atheists use often the raburistic.Spicoiternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-36339158198990411032013-02-13T22:23:24.333-06:002013-02-13T22:23:24.333-06:00Thank you for this post. I share your blog several...Thank you for this post. I share your blog several times with others on twitter and facebook. I sincerely think that there is a hostility towards theism and absolutes, that hinders atheists from thinking through things they say. Pride and hatred are things that keep the wall in place to keep them from seeing the light, so to speak. It's important to be civil and I hope to at least try to subdue the hatred and hostility that some might actually stop and seriously ponder these things.Eddienoreply@blogger.com