Stimulating Conversation Located...

In the comments, HERE

fstdt.com Struts Their Stuff

Until today I wasn't aware of fstdt.com ("Fundies Say The Darndest Things") where Atheists and skeptics can have a safe harbor in which to ridicule that which they take out of context. Actually there is a link to context, but no one seems to have used it in my case. It's the sort of snake pit where the target du jour is countered with comments like "asshole", and the standard logic errors which they insist are the logical answers to the "idiot" they are trashing.

It pretty much confirms my suspicion regarding the maturity level of the common Atheist (and I continue to capitalize that which is a religion, replete with churches, preachers, rules not to be disobeyed (political correctness enforced with ridicule and excommunication), icons (Darwin, Dawkins), and recently found - the Atheist religious moral document source: Harry Potter.

For a look at the amazing intellectual level demonstrated, go here. It's a good laugh. But remember, they really do think that way (at that age; many probably grow up eventually).

An Atheist Feminist Attacks "Seven Lies” About Atheists

Says Meredith Bennett-Smith (note 1):

“1. Atheists are pacifists who don't fight America's wars.”

While I have not heard this accusation, perhaps it exists. She takes the meaning to follow from this:

“This myth has remained popular, and is often repackaged as the phrase, "There are no atheists in foxholes." That quote, popularized after World War II, is often attributed to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and has been used to imply that atheists are cowardly, inclined to pacifism or, in some cases, find God while serving in war zones.”

I doubt seriously that many, if any take that phrase to mean cowardly or pacifist. So this starts off with a dubious claim.

“2. Atheists are all white men.”

I think that this is purposefully obtuse. No one says this. But one could legitimately say that “ALMOST all Atheists are white men”, and even that “Most Atheists are white child-men, children of western plenty and western maleducation”. This starts to smell like a list of straw men.

“3. Atheists are immoral hedonists”

This is another overgeneralization by the author, in what appears to be a series of strawmen to be easily blown down. The correct statement would be this:

“Atheism and Atheists have no statement of ‘Atheist Moral Principles’, and that is one of the attractions of Atheism, especially for sex-crazed adolescent males, narcissistic philosophers, professors, and feminazis. They celebrate their freedom to develop their own moral principles which they apply to everyone else but themselves.”

But she also quotes Amanda Marcotte:

”"Believers, listen to me carefully when I say this: When you use this argument, you terrify atheists. We hear you saying that the only thing standing between you and Ted Bundy is a flimsy belief in a supernatural being made up by pre-literate people trying to figure out where the rain came from. This is not very reassuring if you're trying to argue from a position of moral superiority."

Atheists do not hear well; they hear what they want to hear and only that. And thus there is no purpose in trying to “reassure” Atheists, especially since Atheists are the perpetrators of BY FAR the most heinous crimes against humanity ever recorded, all within the past century. So as for “moral superiority”, Atheists are far, far behind the curve.

“4. Atheists are arrogant and aggressive proselytizers.”

First, she promotes a lie: “Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the most infamous of these New Atheists, eager to debate all comers. "I'm quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism," Dawkins said in 2006”. Dawkins will debate only those he feels he can squash, and no others. Same for most of the New Atheists. Further, Atheism has no “virtues”; it has only “lack of belief”, if one is to believe the current Atheist definition “meme”. So Dawkins attacks, and is vicious in his rhetoric.

But mostly she attacks the proselytizing done by Christians, as a Tu Quoque dodge. That does nothing to obviate the “arrogant and aggressive” characteristics of Atheists; it merely demonstrates distress of logic.

5. Atheists are angry at God and want to destroy religion.

There is nothing she can say which would contradict this claim, if one takes Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett as exemplars. And judging by the zillions of books they sell, they can be so considered. Even if the overgeneralization is removed, the statement is correct and is not a lie.

She says,

”But just as Christians do not universally hate Allah and Jews do not universally hate Jesus, many atheists are perfectly happy to differ from organized religion without demonizing its top representatives. This isn't to say that some atheists haven't had bad experiences with religion in the past — and yes, some of those experiences may even have motivated their atheism. But that's not the same as harboring a lingering hatred of God, nor does it mean they want to destroy religion for everyone else.”

That is demonstrably false, just by paying any attention at all to what Atheists say and do.

She continues with an example:

”Noting that he hates God about as much as he "hates unicorns," blogger Lee Myers clarifies, that "Not believing in a particular religion is not dependent on a negative opinion of that religion's deity or messiah figure. It's simply the result of not being convinced because the burden of proof has not been met."

I don’t know who Lee Myers is, but he is certainly not PZ Meyers. But he does make the logically false statement that “the burden of proof has not been met”. What burden of proof? The one in his head which he changes as necessary to preserve his Atheism? What can he, himself, actually prove to be erroneous, using logic and/or evidence? He undoubtedly will reject that rational requirement. Because that’s what Atheists do.

6. Atheists believe the universe is all a big coincidence.

She makes this case:

”Nobody — not religious scholars, atheists nor scientists — knows with certainty how the universe was created. But while some religious adherents choose to believe in their respective creation stories, most atheists err on the side of evolutionary theory, not random coincidence.”

This is laughably scientifically illiterate: evolutionary theory will not even address abiogenesis, much less the origin of the universe. And Atheists are, in fact, claiming such knowledge, contra her claim. But it gets worse:

”Indeed, atheism and science are closely linked. Although popular science luminary and Cosmos host Carl Sagan never explicitly called himself an atheist or a humanist, the movement wholeheartedly embraced him, and he them.

"His idea of the immensity of the universe and how small we are just impressed me so much as a teenager," Amanda Knief, managing director for American Atheists, told the St. Louis Tribune. "It really led me to look beyond the religion I was raised in and shaped my Humanism."

Sagan also rather enthusiastically accepted the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award in 1981.

The use of Sagan as a proof of a general statement is irrational:

Science contains at least one Atheist;
Therefore science is Atheist.

Science is functionally materialist, but has no necessity to be either philosophically materialist, or Atheist.

Sagan was rather enthusiastically illiterate in all regards outside of his training; he has been proven wrong in his judgment that the earth is a lonely planet with no others likely to be life-sustaining; his mantra, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is self-refuting on two counts: there is no possible evidence to support the claim… because there is no definition of “extraordinary” which is not merely opinion. This is a sub-freshman fail.

Note that she merely sidesteps the entire question which she posed.

7. Atheists want to ban Christmas.

She says,

”Of course, the takeaway here should be that Silverman and his organization are neither trying to ban Christmas nor declare war on it. They are simply choosing to celebrate it in a secular fashion.”

How could there be a more absurd statement? If that were true, then Silverman and his AA would celebrate quietly, and leave everyone else alone, wouldn’t they?

”Meanwhile, the increasing politicizing of religion, coupled with growing conflict between anti-gay religious conservatives and their more liberal children, is leading to lower religious engagement across the board.”

Here she lapses into juvenile fear-mongering of the most onerous type: making up false “facts” to be feared. It is not true under any stretch of anyone’s imagination, that “politicization” of religion is increasing. Secularism, aka Atheism, is now violently defended as the governing moral principle, with Atheist harpies filing suits against even children’s organizations to keep them Atheist. The facts are directly contrary to her claim.

She is correct that children afflicted by government schools have to be constantly deprogrammed diligently by conservative parents, if the children are to grow into rational adults.

Note 1: “Meredith Bennett-Smith is the Identities Section Editor. She is a lover of soccer, social equality, coffee and happy hours. When not fighting the patriarchy or various forces of bigotry, she can be found in Prospect Heights.” (Author description at the end of the article).

Slipperiest Atheist Ever?

In an article which is part of series for the "Stone" portion of the NYT, Gary Gutting interviews Atheist Louise Antony. Early on Gutting tries to get Antony to give the reasons that she is so positive that there is no diety. For your own amusement you should read her ongoing obfuscations, which range from divergence to the philosophy of reasons, sliding into Catholic reasons and then into why she ought to give reasons when asked, and dodging on and on. But never does she answer the question. I wonder why?

How To Argue For Atheism in Five or More Logical Fallacies

Chris Tognotti teaches Atheists how to respond to five “misconceptions” about Atheism:

COMMON ARGUMENT #1: ATHEISM IS ARROGANT IN ITS CERTAINTY THAT THERE IS NO GOD.
Your Response: Refusing to believe something which has no meaningful supportive evidence, and stating confidently that you don’t, is not arrogant. Let’s say I believe that rocks don’t talk to each other, for example. That can’t be 100 percent proven. If that’s arrogant, I’d have to remain agnostic on the talking rock proposition.

There are undoubtedly individual atheists who are arrogant — a figure like the late Christopher Hitchens, who in writing and public debate was one of the most electrifying atheist speakers in the world, is nonetheless pretty easily indicted of arrogance. But the charge that atheism itself is an arrogant view of life or the universe? Not so much. It’s really a fundamentally unassuming outlook. It begs no immediate answers, and it doesn’t threaten punishment for waiting and seeing.

This answer first asserts the common, unthinking Category Error which infests Atheism. The call for evidence is generally meant to include only physical evidence. And here is the weakest of modifiers: he uses the term “meaningful” to excuse himself from evidence which exists, by demeaning it in advance: the Common Poisoning of the Well Fallacy. He makes the false knowledge claim of knowing that there exists no meaningful evidence; he makes no attempt to back that claim with actual universal knowledge of its truth. It remains an empty claim with no meaningful supporting evidence itself.

But the real charge remains unanswered: the declaration of certainty is a knowledge claim, the claim to know for immutable fact, that there is no deity. That claim is not just arrogant, it is irrational. Such a position is far from his claim to be “unassuming”; in fact it assumes knowledge which the Atheist cannot and does not have: the assumption is blatant and is logically impossible. So the irrationality of the Atheist comes forth immediately. Claiming universal knowledge of non-existence is, in fact, arrogant.

2. ARGUMENT: ATHEISTS HAVE NO MORAL FRAMEWORK.
Your Response: Quite the contrary! There’s a case to be made that the search for moral truth is more important, and more noble, if it’s pursued for its own sake. Claiming that morality is only true or binding if God hands it down to us just isn’t true. Considering many of the world’s major holy books contain divine orders that seem flatly immoral — calls for violence, slavery, sexual discrimination and the like — religion’s claim to absolute morality seems shakier still.“

Here the Atheist both denies the charge and admits it in the very next sentence: internal contradiction. But “searching for moral truth” is not a moral premise, nor is it a moral framework. It demonstrates the actual state of morality for the Atheist: unknown, not actualized, non-existent. Further, whatever the search might find would be personal, not universal; it would be subjective and relativist, not objective and binding.

The further charge against religious morality is a Tu Quoque, and a Red Herring; the issue is being deviated away from the actual issue, which is Atheist morality. Instead, he is changing the subject to something which he thinks he can actually defend, a childish tactic, especially since his comprehension of biblical morality has hardly reached the juvenile level. Plus he cannot prove that it “just isn’t true”, so his claim is merely opinion which is not “supported” (succumbing to the exact fault which he charged in the first argument just above).

3. ARGUMENT: PROMOTING ATHEISM IS ITSELF A FORM OF EVANGELISM.
Your Response: Atheism is not a religion.

Religions are, by definition, statements of belief. Atheism is not a statement of belief — it’s a statement of non-belief. While faith aspires to convince you of an evidence-free assertion, atheism does nothing more than point to it and say “no reason to believe that.” It doesn’t state as fact any claims about the universe it can’t demonstrate in a researched scientific structure. And perhaps most distinctly from faith, it’s comfortable sitting in a space of unknowing.:

This is the tired Atheist dodge which claims not to have religion as part of its religious focus, and which claims further not to have any beliefs, being only “non-belief”. This is so transparently false, that it is an indicator of the length to which Atheists will go in their attempt to (a) deceive and (b) avoid addressing the content of their own belief system. This doesn’t just drip dishonesty, it is a flood of dishonesty.

4. ARGUMENT: ATHEISTS SECRETLY KNOW GOD EXISTS, THEY JUST HATE HIM/HER/IT.
Your Response: Look, Atheists are not blind to the finer joys of life, however much believers sometimes doubt it. Just because we don’t think the significance is supernatural doesn’t mean we’re lying about feeling the presence of God, or are in some state of bitter denial. We really aren’t blithely ignoring fears and concerns we secretly have about eternal judgement. By and large, we don’t believe a word of it.

If somebody tells you they don’t believe in God, try really believing them, and considering how it would affect your perspective if you came to feel as they did.”

First this is no answer in any universe. This actually represents the exact type of subjective “feeling” that Atheists reject in the religious. They see no reason to believe in someone else’s feeling. Why should anyone believe in what they claim their own feelings to be? If their feelings are "necessarily" accurate, but they claim that the feelings of others are not valid, that is the blatant Special Pleading Fallacy. So under their own rules their personal subjective feelings are rejected.

Second, the argument itself is probably too general, yet it certainly applies to a large, very large, segment of the Atheist population. And how are they to respond meaningfully if their protests are not accompanied by meaningful supporting evidence? Another Special Pleading Fallacy.

There are other reasons to turn Atheist which are just as irrational, including the carrot/stick of total moral and intellectual untethered freedom from absolutes (including rational logic) and the freedom from all norms of moral restrictions. And just basic juvenile rebellion, which can and does exist up to the age of 28, when the frontal cortex finally matures.

5. ARGUMENT: TALKING ABOUT ATHEISM IN MIXED COMPANY IS RUDE AND CONDESCENDING.
Your Response: If I told you I didn’t like your favorite movie, or the politician you voted for, it might irritate you, but it would probably still be a conversation starter — not a conversation ender.

This doesn’t work as neatly with religion, which makes sense. It’s really, really vulnerable to have faith in God in an age of advanced scientific discovery. As such, it’s damn near impossible to make the case for Atheism without it being quite hurtful to the believer. It doesn’t just sound like “everything you believe most deeply is untrue,” it is precisely a belief in that.

Here’s a deal we can strike: I promise not to get too riled up if you’re into a God who’d send me to hell … if you promise not to freak out that I think Jesus stayed dead. Can we shake on that?

Glad we talked.”

And here the Atheist-Scientismist arrogance leaks out all over the place, making it very slippery for the Atheist-Scientismist. First, the Atheist cannot hold religious conversations, because of the charges he makes next:

”. It doesn’t just sound like “everything you believe most deeply is untrue,” it is precisely a belief in that.”

If this isn’t the precise essence of modern Atheism, it at least is very close to the core. With no evidence of his own, no possibility of evidence of his own, yet demanding evidence which he demeans in advance as not meaningful, the Atheist takes the – maximally arrogant – position stated just above. To wit: everything that YOU believe in is untrue, as if the Atheist has some special knowledge of Truth, existence and the source of life. This is another knowledge claim, regarding knowledge which the Atheist cannot and specifically does not have. Yet this is the rigid position which for the Atheist serves as his "Truth", and which makes him superior to the non-Atheist and therefore unable to converse civilly with one. The irrationality is obvious.

Atheists want tolerance for their non-moral lifestyle while attacking religions relentlessly. Atheism has a documented track record in the history of world communities of Atheism-based social systems. These have shown the degree of amorality and irrationality which infests Atheism when it gains power. It is not pretty and it is not utopia and it is not rational.

Sphexism, Physicalism, Syntactical Engines and Semantic Engines, Not to Mention Cognitive Zombies

An interesting article over at Feser's place, with a different approach from the Chinese Room argument, and yet much the same. This time it is the robotic actions of the Sphex wasp as compared to the intellectually exploratory capacities of humans.

"Now, Dennett, perceptive fellow that he is when he wants to be, argues in Chapter 2 of his book Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting that any purely physical system is going to be essentially sphexish. The reason is that qua physical such a system can only ever be sensitive to syntactical properties, and syntactical properties can never add up to semantic properties. Now a non-sphexish creature would have to be sensitive to semantic properties. Hence a purely physical and thus purely syntactic system is inevitably going to be a sphexish system. Dennett thinks it can at least approximate non-sphexishness, however, because a sufficiently complex “syntactic engine” will in his view at least approximate a perfect “semantic engine.” And sphexishly dogmatic materialist that he is, Dennett insists that human beings are purely physical. Hence, though we seem non-sphexish, Dennett insists that we really are sphexish, but -- being exquisitely complex syntactical engines -- in so subtle a way that for practical purposes we can treat ourselves as if we were not.

But as Howard Robinson points out in the introduction to his edited volume Objections to Physicalism, Dennett’s position is a muddle. A purely syntactical engine will not even approximate a perfect semantic engine, because it will fail to be semantic at all. Syntax by itself doesn’t get you imperfect semantics; it gets you exactly zero semantics, just as the ketchup kids use for blood at Halloween time will never get you even imperfect real blood no matter how much of it you pour out. Dennett knows this, which is why (as Robinson notes) he has to resort to the essentially instrumentalist position that our sophistication as complex syntactic engines makes it useful for us to interpret ourselves as if we were semantic engines. But this too is a muddle, for interpretation is itself an act that presupposes real semantics rather than a mere ersatz. Dennett’s further reformulations of his position (e.g. in his paper “Real Patterns”) only ever paper over this fundamental incoherence rather than resolve it, but his dogmatic materialism makes him think there must be some way to make it something other than the reductio ad absurdum that it is.

As is the usual case, the Materialist seeks only to justify his presuppositions, not to investigate and accept logically derived conclusions.

There is magic associated with "complexity" just as the magic which is designated to "deep time": these can turn X into Z, just because. This magical thinking is necessary to bend the mind away from noticing the actual non-material nature of human existence. It can be explained in terms of magical capabilities of complexity and deep time etc. even though there is no possible mechanical cause which is attached; just the magic. It is another symptom of the religiosity of Atheists as they protect their own theory of origins with unprovable, antirational dogma.

Says Feser:

"It is not a kind of inductive inference to the effect that since we usually act unsphexish, we must really be unsphexish (as if further empirical evidence could in principle lead us to revise this “opinion” about ourselves). It is much simpler and more obvious and conclusive than that. It is that we have things sphexish creatures do not have: concepts. End of story. The reasoning isn’t: “We don’t act very sphexish; therefore we must have concepts.” It’s rather: “We have concepts; that’s why we don’t act very sphexish.”

And finally,

Now, you’ll recall from a recent post the notion of a cognitive zombie -- a creature physically and behaviorally identical to a normal human being, but devoid of concepts and thus devoid of the other aspects of rationality. You might think that a cognitive zombie would be sphexish, but that is a mistake. If it was sphexish, it wouldn’t be behaviorally identical to a normal human being, and thus by definition wouldn’t be a cognitive zombie. A true cognitive zombie would be something which would, like a sphexish creature, be devoid of concepts, but which, like a normal human being, would behave as if it had concepts.

The notion of sphexishness thus helps to clarify the notion of a cognitive zombie. If ya think I’m sphexy, then you don’t think I’m a cognitive zombie. A sphexy Rod Stewart on his best day wouldn’t pass for a cognitive zombie. A James Brown sphex machine wouldn’t pass either. People magazine’s Sphexiest Man Alive definitely wouldn’t be a cognitive zombie. The notion of a cognitive zombie is the notion of something as utterly devoid of concepts as the simplest of any of Dennett’s purely syntactical engines, but whose lack of concepts is nevertheless more perfectly undetectable than that of even the most complex and perfect of Dennett’s syntactical engines. Is this notion even coherent? I think not, but that is a topic for another time.

David Silverman Answers Questions... In The Atheist Fashion

David Silverman is the President of American Atheists, which is an evangelical Atheist group which was started by Madelyn Murray O'Hair, the much reviled iconoclast who led to the US Supreme Court removing prayer from schools.

Here is a video of Silverman answering questions from an audience at the end of a debate. The challenge here is to take notes as you watch the video, and develop your own analysis of what Silverman says. Watch the video before you read my own comments, which are below the video.



The first Q/A is classic. The questioner asks about the "assumption of origin" and claims that there is no scientific, replicable evidence available, so that being constrained to an epistemology requires an "element of faith", that we have "to assume belief", that we have "to assume an origin". Further, that evolutionary theory or Big Bang is fact. "It excludes itself from scientific method at origin", being "not observable, reproducible" in regard to origin. Therefore, one "still has to carry an element of faith and belief". Therefore we're "all religious".

Silverman makes the classic "redefinition" dodge: there is a double meaning to faith/belief which has been improperly used. (Note 1) Then he proceeds to claim that evolution is "proven fact", an unsustainable claim by any interpretation of "fact" or "proof" and a misrepresentation of science's contribution to knowledge (which is contingent). Then he spends considerable effort on the claim that there is no difference between micro and macro-evolution, which he fails desperately to prove with his example, including his attack on the definition of "speciation". In point of fact, actual mathematical fact, micro-evolution remains within the genome, while macro-evolution requires beneficial mutations outside of the genome to produce new features previously not in the genome.

A ≡ A;
A !≡ B, unless sufficient extra is added to A to make it become equivalent to B.
A + Δ(M) = B, where Δ(M) is change: mutation.

There is no credible account of evolution which does not require beneficial mutation, +Δ(M). Silverman starts to look foolish as he pontificates a false representation of mutation/selection.

But most damaging is that he did not answer the origins belief issue at all. He merely attempted to define it away, and dodged with the claim that evolution does not entail abiogenesis. This is the common dodge which is made to avoid the prickly problem of evolving from minerals to life. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that not to be prerequisite to subsequent evolution.

The only reponse regarding the Big Bang is that "it is true": evidence and all that. Nothing beyond that which goes to the origin of the Big Bang, which of course is the actual issue.

The next speaker is the (apparent) moderator, who makes the observation that physics has replicable “trajectory” calculations, and he relates that to the “trajectory” of evolution. He makes this into a pompous big deal of attempting to connect evolution to physics. But it could not be more false. Evolution can make no hypotheses, no predictions, no future trajectories, no way to anticipate the next round of "evolving", because the theory predicts everything and nothing all at the same time. Evolution has no predictive power because it depends on random (potential) mutations to produce (potentially) beneficial genomic changes which will produce new features IFF selected as more efficient in a changing environment. Neither the mutation, nor the acquisition of new features is predictable under the mutation/selection scenario. (Note 2) There is no knowable trajectory into the future which can be anticipated under mutation/selection. The comparison to physics is blatantly false. It is a weak attempt to obtain legitimacy by False Association (fallacy) with a real empirical science.

However, the speaker is talking about reverse trajectories only, looking back in time. But this is also without value, since there is no agreement on whether evolution is represented by a tree, a bush, a web, a grid or something else altogether. So this is defeated by actual knowledge of the state of evolutionary theory.

Then the speaker makes this claim:

"It must be proven that these trajectories are not true."

Why? That is not even part of the question which was posed. And since those "trajectories" are totally imaginary, it is easy to prove that they do not even exist, at least in real evolutionary theory. The attempt to associate evolution with physics is an ongoing failure within Atheism.

At that moment Silverman makes his uncalled for, prejudicial shouting attack:

”And that is what you theists won’t do – look it up!”

...implying that theists employ self-enforced ignorance, and further,

“...that’s why theism is evil”.

It is the self-righteous condemnation opportunity he has been looking for, which he eagerly pronounces despite the fact that there was no reason for making that statement other than his unsuppressed bigotry and the caricature-type profiling of the Other which infests Atheism.

The questioner is not allowed by circumstance to address this egregious and phony, even slanderous attack. This scenario is inevitably destined to preserve the falseness of Silverman’s position as the last, factual word, and his Ad Hominem as valid truth.

The next commenter, an Atheist, is a soft-baller, and he and Silverman agree that American education – as well as all other American failures – correlate well with American religiosity, and therefore religion is responsible for all American faults (which Silverman demonstrates, are many), especially government education. This correlation/causation logical fallacy is continually proven false by comparison of the quite high results of homeschooling with the pitifully low results of secular government schooling. And no rational person equates correlation with causation, anyway. But these two did exactly that. And again there is no chance to address these failures of basic logic during the actual debate process.

Toward the end a theist makes some statements before he gets to asking a question. He points out in disagreement that Siverman makes the claim that theists declare that their “stories are perfect”. This is another absurd caricature which does not apply to any educated theist. He fails to push this issue of Atheist caricature, however, and he continues. Everyone has the same set of facts, he says, and if there actually are facts, then which worldview accounts for the existence of such facts, brute facts which cannot be wrong?

The Atheist answer is pure avoidance. Replies Silverman,

“when you go into that it’s a wasteful experience… sidetrack, sidetrack, sidetrack, and you’re not gonna get to the meat.”

Sye interrupts,

”Of course you would want to avoid that”.

And that is the best analysis Sye has made, one which is obviously valid. This is one issue that should have been pushed clear to the wall.

The questioner makes it clear:

”…the real important issue is, if we’re gonna talk about facts, science, knowledge, we got to find out ‘what is knowledge; what is truth’, and that’s why this discussion ends up going down the road of ‘can we have absolute truth? Can we obtain it?’
…
“If I were to try to get to the root of the problem, that’s the root of the problem; that’s the foundation where things go awry, is – hang on – can we have truth or can we not have truth? If we can’t have truth, then it doesn’t do any good to have a discussion, does it?

Rather than address this question, the moderator asks his own question designed to lead away from the issue presented: he asks,

“Do you believe that the Old Testament is the word of God?”

And Sye interrupts again,

“If it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.”

And bingo, the question is defused and deflected by Red Herring deviation, a rhetorical tactic. The new question has no bearing on the conceptual issue of the existence or nonexistence of truth. It is pure deflection rhetorical deception. And Sye went for it.

Now the moderator takes the new tack he created, and in self-righteous condescention says,

“When you say that it sounds like saying ‘amen’ in a theistic crowd, maybe in a fundamentalist church [as aren’t they all] but some of us who have actually stidied the Greek / Aramaic would ask you the question, have you considered what an abjad is?”

Sye:

”No I haven’t”

Moderator:

”OK so you’re saying that an abjad, which is a consonantal text, has been actually “pointed” in four different categories, and all diametrically opposed to each other. And it depends on which pointing system as to how you translate it. It’s highly ambiguous and Doctor (unintelligible) is the one who is quoted as stating ”It’s like looking at abstract art, and so it’s all in the eyes of the beholder”

This is quite false. To think that Jews would face the West Wall and recite abstract, meaningless gibberish is absurd. Further, there are cogent interpretations of the ancient Hebrew, which in only a few places are debatable as to single word meanings. (These are frequently the areas which Atheists pick out to argue as “immoral”). The use of “abstract art” as a linguistic mechanism to denigrate a language is absurd. This fake “knowledge” of the abstraction of Hebrew is dredged into the conversation in a deviated response to the issue of the existence of “truth”. And the result becomes that Atheists appear to have the truth – that there is no truth – while theists appear befuddled by "abstract art" which doesn't exist.

He goes on,

”The Jews for years have never argued the protestant theory of the Old Testament, Nor the Catholics have argued the same as the Jews have, because the Jews have always created, they have treated their consonantal text as a traditional model as simply allowing it to be something like abstract art; it was never considered to be an accurate text at all. If you look at the linguists who have dealt with this abjad, it has never been accurately represented in any context, because it’s nothing more than abstract art. And do you have any proof that you can actually render something that’s purely consonantal…
[interruption].

[Actually ancient Hebrew is an impure abjad, which means that while it is consonantal, it also contains some vowel indicators as well. Meaning, if obscure contextually, is obtained from a list of definitions for each word, from which list a contextually proper definition is selected. It is not usually necessary to go to such lengths, because commonly the context is obvious.]

The moderator goes on,

”Can you prove me a syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis to prove that what you are saying is true?”

It’s not clear whether he’s referring to the claim that the bible is valid because of Jesus or referring to whether Hell exists. Either way, it’s another attack from pomposity, with a guaranteed answer which is attackable, and it still doesn't address the issue of whether truth exists.

Sye admits that he doesn’t know the meanings of those words, to which the moderator then, dripping with condescention, replies,

”This is why Dave [Silverman] is extremely upset about theism”

Really? Because a theist doesn't engage with false notions of linguistics?

Sye replies with a question,

”What is your ultimate authority?

[another interruption].

The video ends with no answer to that question.

SUMMARY and CONCLUSION
Never once do the Atheists answer a question which is posed to them. As shown above, they deflect and deviate and pontificate all around the issue, except for the one time when Silverman declared the question to be unimportant and refused to address it.

The first questioner addressed origins, which is the fatal point for Atheism. Silverman dodged into an arrogant “correction” of definitions, which he pursued at length along with a defense of evolution as Truth, and abiogenesis as just peripheral. In other words, he did not address origins, either the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

The next issue is the point of “trajectories” made by the moderator, a false comparison of evolution with Newtonian physics. The concept of calculatable trajectories as deductive experimental hypotheses in evolution is ludicrous; no scientist would make that claim. Because it is false. And yet Silverman leverages a false accusation out of this false premise, and turns it into a sleazy insult.

The following issue is from the soft-baller Atheist who sets up Silverman with the correlation of theism with all the problems and failures of the USA, problems which in no manner derive from theism; they agree heartily, however, that the correlation proves causation.

The next questioner raises the issue of the existence of brute facts, i.e. Truths. Silverman actually denigrates the question, and refuses to answer while assuming a haughty, arrogant posture and demeanor.

This questioner pushes ahead anyway, with the issue of Truth: if there is no Truth, then there can be no conversation, can there? The moderator takes charge and avoids answering by asking a deflecting question of his own, and pushes the subsequent issue (the exegesis of the Bible) beyond absurdity and into complete falseness, where he designates the Torah to be “abstract art”. He pushes linguistic technical terminology as if he understands it himself (he does not appear to know anything other than a few words, which he gets wrong – Hebrew is not abjad in nature, it is an impure abjad which means that it is not purely consonantal. And I frankly doubt that he has studied anything about linguistics, although he claims that distinction, and he uses that phony weapon to assert his disdain for theism.

Again, not a single question from the theists is addressed head-on by either Silverman or the other Atheists present. Altogether, this video demonstrates a series of dodges, false claims and rhetorical absurdities from the Atheists, who strut mightily as if they had won this “discussion”.

NOTES
Note 1: This doesn't seem to bother a great many Atheists, who claim that Stalin was "religious" in his beliefs, as was Lenin, Mao, Castro, Che, Pol Pot, etc., so they get to blame religion for everything evil (or at least evil as they choose to define it).

Note 2: It is doubtlessly possible to engineer a genomic change which will produce predictable results when artificially selected; this is not evolution in the standard model sense: it is genomic engineering in the design sense.

Dawkins, Eugenics, and Evil

Dawkins broached the question of eugenics in the Scotland Sunday Herald, November 20, 2006:

"IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase.

Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.
Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"

Dawkins has further said that it cannot be said that Hitler was wrong, and that killing certain infants is OK.

In response, Wesley J. Smith wrote this:

"Indeed, the fundamental premise of eugenics holds that some human beings have greater value and worth than other human beings, based on their capacities or innate characteristics. Once eugenics consciousness is accepted, who matters and who matters less becomes a matter of raw political power. Moreover, once this pernicious idea is accepted, it becomes easy to justify exploiting and oppressing those now deemed unter menchen".

The entire definition of "evil" is inverted in the messy minds of Atheists. I say "messy" because there is no intellectual filter for removing or re-ordering mental confusion under the Atheist Void - so the idea that they can kill whoever they define as killable is called "Moral"; yet they then claim that the Crusades were proof that religion is evil.

That incoherent confusion demonstrates complete poverty of intellectual discipline which inheres in Atheist thought processes.

Cephus, at his best

Over at Cephus' place, the conversation has been closed. Cephus has asked me to leave. That's understandable, because I have insisted that he recognize and address actual evidence, many, many times, and he has tired of avoiding that. Further, I have addressed his one, single tactic which he uses to avoid contrary evidence: his persistent use of the Category Error. He has even defended his use of the Category Error by invoking the same Category Error (which is actually an error of Circular Reasoning as well). His normally beligerant attitude has not mollified in the least, and at the end he insisted that I acquiesce to his invocation of the Category Error, or leave. Since I don't adhere to anti-rational positions, I have left.

In Cephus-world, if it is not a physical lump, then it cannot be considered knowlege because there is no way in his world that objectivity can apply as a test. When presented with the concept that objectivity exists due to logic in the first place, and that there are objective tests for disciplined logic, the lack of interest in that was deafening. And that applied to the necessity for the pre-existence of logic before empiricism, which depends on logic for its existence. Anything I could say in Cephus world was declared a "story", and deprecated in any way he could dream up. So he would then return to his demand of physical proof for non-physical existence, and ended by telling me to leave if I didn't cough it up.

He has taken to removing some of my comments over there, so I have copied this back over here; it is my last and final comment over in Cephus-world.

"So you want me to leave because you refuse to address the deduction head-on, as would a mature intellectual who would want to disprove the deduction using actual principles of logic. Instead, you declare the issue to be feelings, rather than logic, without even examining the logic involved.

Your concept of "objective" is quite warped in order to insulate you from having to deal with logic. You cannot rationally declare that your position is based on logic, because you both refuse to address it when you could actually try to refute it, AND you refuse to disabuse yourself of the logical fallacy of Category Error, which you use both to justify your denialism, and which you use to intiate your denigrations of dissent from your own religoius worldview.

Your view of "knowlege" is quite warped into physical-objects-only, which is necessary in order to protect your worldview. Knowlege itself is non-physical; there is no lump of mass nor is there any burst of energy which is labelled "knowlege". You have actually refused to address those issues as well, declaring them to be "religious", when in actuality they are facts (and "facts" are also non-material, because they are "meanings" which have no physical mass/energy).

Your concept of "reality", "real", "is" and "evidence" are warped in order to protect your worldview from any conceptualization beyond physical objects.

You cannot prove that your worldview is true or valid; you merely require that opposing views be commanded to provide paradoxical evidence, which you know to be irrational, in order to protect your religiously held worldview.

Go ahead and delete this if it offends you, as you have other comments I have made; this one will be copied over to my blog to memorialize our "conversation" here.

You position is a one-trick pony show, and that trick is to make an irrational demand for evidence which is a logic error: the venerable Category Error. You use that to avoid examining any/all evidence which goes counter to your worldview.

I guess that wraps things up.
Adios.

Oh yes, I will post this comment at my blog, to prevent its loss due to your habit of deleting uncomfortable comments."

ADDENDUM
A rational person will aways question his worldview to determine its rationality. When I started to question my own Atheism, it was the irrational nonsense of Materialists and the quasi-literate Scientismists that forced me ever deeper into the questions of "what is logic?" "how does knowledge happen?", "what are the limits on knowledge? What are the limits on material, empirical factoids? How is rational discerment accomplished?" and many more questions were generated in the pursuit of those and similar subjects. When one does this, a theme occurs: logic is necessary, and illogic must be eiminated, if one is to maintain a rational worldview.

I have found that Atheists necessarily must, at some point in their defense, abandon the rules of disciplined logic. That's why I abandoned Atheism.

ADDENDUM
It's a day later, and Cephus has not posted my parting comment. I wouldn't be surprised if he nuked the entire thread. But maybe he's just preoccupied.

If You're Interested...

...I'm holding a conversation with Cephus over at his place.

It's not much, because he refuses to address the theist arguments which are most basic to monotheism. So far it is classical Atheist denialism, with no trace of intellectual willingness to actually address issues using either logic or empirical techniques (both of which Atheists claim as their strong suit).

So if you are interested, tune in over there. If not, it's no great loss since he is refusing to answer the intellectual and material challenges given him in both deductive and material form.

Phillip Kitcher: Same Argument, Different Words.

There is an ongoing intellectual scramble in the Atheist-Intellectualist community ever since the publication of Thomas Nagel’s book, ”Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False”. The title itself is a slap in the Atheist face, since monism is a necessary belief, and Darwinism is a sacred tenet within that belief.

The Atheist/Materialist response has been widespread and not at all happy with Nagel.

Nagel has been a long time philosopher of differentiation. There is a difference between fact and meaning, between observing and comprehending, between qualia and electron discharge. For the Materialist, there is little if any difference because everything is physical, and thus there is very little motion required to get from fact to meaning, or from observing to comprehending, and so on. In fact, pre-determination of those movements exists, just due to cause and effect of mental input (neurological electrical discharge) to mental output (meaning).

But Nagel says that there is both less and more than that; less certainty of Materialist constraints, and more to the mind than physical determinism.

The most interesting part though is the response of overt Philosophical Materialists. Rather than disprove or refute the allegations against Materialism, they take a different tack.

For example, In response to the attack on his ill-fated book “Universe From Nothing” in the New York Times by David Albert, Lawrence Krauss declared that such questions as cannot be answered by scientists are to be dismissed, because they are "“not interesting”. He was referring to the question of the source of quantum fields and the source of laws governing them, which Krauss insists constitute "nothing", and need no explanation of their source.

When Atheist icon Antony Flew wrote “There Is a God” based on the requirement of a source for the apparent intelligence contained in DNA, the idea was attacked as illegitimate because Flew was to be declared senile for suggesting it. His argument went unanswered, while the intellectuals attacked Flew personally and publically and loudly. The argument is declared illegitimate and the arguer incompetent.

And here, the idea of dualism and the failure of science to provide monist unifying theories as presented by Nagel is attacked by Philop Kitcher in the same vein:

”Dewey, a thinker who understood the philosophical significance of Darwin better than anyone else in the first century after “The Origin of Species,” appreciated two things that are crucial to the controversy in which Nagel is engaged.

First, philosophy and science don’t always answer the questions they pose — sometimes they get over them.”

Brilliant response to any question which might upset the Materialist applecart: just get over it. Forget it. It is not interesting.

”Second, instead of asking what life and mind and value are, think about what living things and minds do, and what is going on in the human practices of valuing.”

Your issue is devalued; therefore it has no value. Because: there is no way for empiricism to answer such issues, so the issues are without value, and we are the arbiters of that. "Get over it!"

”This shift of perspective has already occurred in the case of life. A Nagel analog who worried about the fact that we lack a physico-chemical account of life, would probably be rudely dismissed; a kinder approach would be to talk about the ways in which various aspects of living things have been illuminated.”

Rudely dismissed, yes; rationally, no.

The bottom line is always the same: Materialism is valid and true, because we Materialists declare all other questions to be illegitimate, and refuse to discuss them. At best, all non-material questions must be shown to have material solutions so that they can be addressed under Materialism; otherwise, "Get over it, because we won't answer with any reasoning for why they are false (which we can't prove)".

This frequently is restated as the Burden of Proof, where the material evidence must be presented (and even when it is) or the question is rejected without cause – other than it is illegitimate to ask such things. And as Kircher demonstrates above, even asking what life is and how it jumped into existence from minerals is an illegitimate question. So, "Get over it".

Stated in plain speaking: “I don’t have to tell you why you are wrong; you just are”.

So rather than discuss Nagel’s theory, Nagel is merely declared wrong and that it is illegitimate for him to even think such thoughts.

Fine argument from the Atheists, once again. It demonstrates fully the dogmatic religious nature of Philosophical Materialism and the emotional neediness of Atheism, and the paucity of its intellectual power.

Kircher winds up with the usual Scientism-as-faith recitation:

”Nagel is in the grip of a philosophical perspective on science, once very popular, that the work of the last four decades has shown to be inadequate to cope with large parts of the most successful contemporary sciences.

First delegitimize with the Appeal to Authority which is not even necessarily true of relevant “authorities”, a poisoning of the well. There is no question that science involving sources and fundamental connections has stalled. It’s not a philosophical question, it’s an empirical observation. Physicists admit it.

Because of that perspective, a crucial option disappears from his menu: the phenomena that concern him, mind and value, are not illusory, but it might nevertheless be an illusion that they constitute single topics for which unified explanations can be given.”

Here we go: the questions are illegitimate, “illusions” which empiricism might not be able to answer. So asking the questions is out of bounds and dealing with proposed answers is to be avoided, if it takes articles in the NYT to avoid it.

“The probable future of science in these domains is one of decomposition and the provision of an enormous and heterogeneous family of models. Much later in the day, it may fall to some neuroscientist to explain the illusion of unity, a last twist on successful accounts of many subspecies of mental processes and functions. Or, perhaps, it will be clear by then that the supposed unity of mind and of value were outgrowths of a philosophical mistake, understandable in the context of a particular stage of scientific development, but an error nonetheless.”

So there are categories and subcategories but no general category? That is mathematically impossible, since for every category [X] there is category [!X] and together they have a supercategory. [note 1] What Kircher is proposing (to merely ignore the question) is much less rational than what Nagel proposes (to at least acknowledge it honestly). But it is all that Kircher has left in his arsenal, since his arsenal is filled only with denial of intellectual responsibility to address issues which defeat his Philosophical Materialism.

Further, Kircher does not seem to understand the concept of decomposition which he promotes. Decomposition always goes to cause. And each cause has a prior cause, at least in the material realm and thus also in Materialism. So decomposing the prior causal chain toward a unifying or primary cause is perfectly empirical and scientific. That’s why scientists do it. So Kircher is not even consistent in his invocation of science; he deviates in order to cover for his Atheism, and invents a new definition of scientific pursuit, one which is senseless.

ADDENDUM:
William Carroll makes the following observations regarding Kircher’s assertion of illusion:

“Human beings are biologically one and psychologically one. The physical and chemical processes that are features of human life also possess characteristic unities. Unity does not mean homogeneity. Each of the various natural sciences studies the unity appropriate to its domain of inquiry. The different empirical sciences do function in the ways that Kitcher suggests. But it does not follow that any sense of a wider unity, for example, of a human being as a whole reality, is only an illusion. It is the function of a more general science of nature, traditionally referred to as the philosophy of nature, to describe this wider unity.”

Actually the sciences of chemistry and molecular biology and others have been rather subsumed under the necessities of physics, which is a unification of sorts. But it is empiricism as a limitation which caps the ability of actual knowledge under Materialism.

“Understanding unity in nature is not only a theoretical or speculative concern. If a human being is not one thing—that is, if he or she does not possess an intrinsic principle of unity, precisely as a human being—then no one can really be a cause of his or her own activity. Causal action flows from the nature of things. Human beings think and act; it is not the brain that thinks nor the body that acts. Without real human causal agency—agency that would not exist absent a human being’s being one thing—there could be no human responsibility for any action. In such a scenario, ethics becomes the real illusion.”

And in fact, the top-down sorts of ethics which are invented by Atheist philosophers are actually illusions of ethics, because they refer to a behavior set for the other guy. Atheists have entered the Atheist Void, been stripped of all absolutes, and exit ready to tell the Other what to do. Could it be that the hatred of absolutes, which goes clear back to adolescence, colors the fight against an absolute unity? Not for most, maybe just for the few.

Notes:
Note 1: Even a creating deity has a super category: [creating deity] & [not creating deity] = [existence]. Further, existence has a super category: [Existence] & [nonexistence] = [Existence] because non-existence is an empty set. So existence is tautological.

Hank Answers the Ten +1 Questions, Or Does He?

Over at Hank's place, he has decided to answer the Ten Questions for Atheists.

Let's look in:

Hank,

"Top Ten+ Questions For Atheists

1. Can you prove empirically that there is no creating agent for the universe? If the answer is yes, then you must show your work if it is to be considered anything more than just a claim.

We’re not off to a very good start.

Short answer: No, I can’t prove empirically that there is no creating agent for the universe."

So for the first issue, empirical proof disproving the existence of a creating agent for the universe, you claim no evidence. Good answer, because of course, that is the Atheist/Materialist demand on the theist, that the theist provide material evidence for a creator. Under Materialism, which is a default or null position for Atheism, only the material exists; therefore, all evidence either pro or con must be material, and the gold standard for material evidence is empirical, replicable, experimental, falsifiable but not falsified, data which has been peer reviewed and published. So there can be no material evidence either way, for replicable experimental testing. (This will come up time and again as we proceed).

But then you squirm just a little by your assertion of the Atheist mantra regarding the burden of proof, and then your apparent non-comprehension of the terms “agent” and “creating”. First Burden of Proof: if you decide to reject a proposition, it is anti-intellectual to assert Burden of Proof as the reason. It is not a reason, it is a dodge for preventing the need to give reasons and reasoning for having rejected a proposition. It is not acceptable rational processing to claim that proposition T is false without attaching reasoning as to why T fails. But that is the motivation behind the "burden of proof" dodge: to claim "false" without giving any rational reasoning for the falseness.

Now, for the terms, “agent” and “create”: actually those are perfectly good English language words, so I will not be seduced into the endless ploy of Atheist re-definition. However, I will put them into a format which might clarify the use of “universe” as the evidence:

IF [there exists a material universe which popped into existence],
THEN [there must exist a prior cause exhibiting the agency and capacity to have caused (created) it].

There. Hope that helps. It is a simple deduction, and you are free to attack the logic, the format, the premise (there exists a material universe), the grounding, the coherence, and the Reductio Ad Absurdum contrary.

2. The question is this: Can you prove deductively that there is no creating agent for the universe?

Your answer is no, but. You have neither evidence nor deductions to the contrary, but you are merely “unconvinced”. And there you stop, without any clue as to what it would take to “convince” you. That means that the conversation stops here, because you can always be “unconvinced” regardless of whatever is presented to you. And that turns the issue into a purely emotional one. And it permeates your answers.

But the issue is not whether you can be convinced of something, even with evidence which you do not refute and deductions which you do not refute. The issue is what you know to be true and how you know it. And you do not claim to know for certain anything regarding the necessity for a creating agent, it is just that you are unconvinced. I suspect that you do think you do know that empirical findings would be convicting even though empiricism is riddled with uncertainty due to the inductive fallacy, falsification restrictions, and Godel’s theorems (at a minimum), not to mention its complete inability to address the non-physical issue at hand. However, at this point I don’t actually know that about you for sure.

Now I ask myself, should I even continue here, since Hank’s only position is that he is not convinced? I cannot know at this point what it could possibly take for Hank to be convinced, so there is possible conversation to be had in that direction. Hmm.

Well, let’s forge on a bit anyway.

3. The question is, “What are your moral principles? List them completely.

Says Hank,

” Seek happiness. Share love. Be honest. Don’t hurt people.”

Hank claims other moral principles too long to list. Apparently he has derived a considerable moral theory, too comprehensive to share, so apparently he doesn’t expect others to abide by his morals, since they don’t get the details. But the point of this is actually contained in the next issue.

4. The question is,

“What makes your moral principles “moral”, rather than personal guidelines? Perhaps you will want to define “moral” from the Atheist viewpoint.”

Hank says,

” I consider my principles “moral” because they seek to avoid harm and dishonesty and maximise happiness at a bare minimum. I think “not hurting people” and “being honest and loving” are decent goals for anyone, regardless of the particulars of their philosophy. Your methods may vary, but if the core of your morality is to avoid harm to others and to maximise happiness, we’re going to intersect at some point – and possibly at many points.”

So here Hank has set up not just a moral code which he thinks are decent goals, but he also defines “moral” for himself and he condenses it further into “avoid harm”, and “maximize happiness”. Now, this is interesting, because nearly every Atheist (actually every Atheist who has come here to discuss it, but I’ll grant that a minority of objectors might exist) strongly supports abortion. I’ll bet that we can agree that every abortion involves two unique individuals entering the abortion abbatoir, while only one comes out alive, the other having its life terminated (aka killed) in that abortion. So for most other Atheists, “harm” is a term which they redefine to suit themselves. Now I’m not sure exactly what Hank means by “harm”. But it is a subjective term.

But my favorite is always “maximise happiness”. This is precisely the chant of all situational ethicists, from Consequentialists to Pragmatists and Virtue Ethicists. Maximizing happiness is very tricky, because making one individual happy very commonly makes another person envious. The all too common solution for this is outcome leveling, a process which is guaranteed to make half the population happy and the other half furious. So 50% is a theoretical maximum for happiness, at least under those moral theories. Most folks can be happier than that with no help from the outside.

Hank:

” If any one of your moral principles is “honour the creator” or “don’t piss the creator off”, we’ll most likely encounter points of difference.”

Well, most of us live in post-Christian, secular (Atheist) countries, so you are in no danger of being forced into that sort of moral principle.

” And what, by the way, are anybody’s moral principles but “personal guidelines”? Do any two people share precisely the same moral principles?”

Actually, Hank, quite large groups share common moral principles. There are several umbrella groups which refer to written codes for behaviors, and although the written codes differ in some regards, they have common principles. Deviations from the codes are not due to the codes, but due to those folks who choose to use their own personal fabrications of meanings for the details of the codes. That produces cults, just as Atheists who have personally fabricated their own codes based on their own moral authority to determine Right from Wrong in a world where they have denied absolute Good and Evil. You might read your Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil), arguably the most influential philosopher for the 20th century despite his death at the end of the 19th.

Hank continues,

” Claim the sky is blue and I can look up. Claim an immortal invisible being created the universe and wants very specific things from me and everyone else, for example, and I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t take your word for it.”

First, that is not the claim, is it? We are merely discussing the origination of material existence, not that the originator has any other characteristics. And the issue is certainly not for anyone to take my word for it, so that is a dodge. You have been given actual arguments for which you have no disproof, other than not “being convinced” (a position which is no position at all, logically).

Rather, the issue in this discussion is and has always been this: What do you know? What can you prove? What can you disprove? What are your precise standards of evidence? Which of those standards have been violated? What additional evidence, specifically, do you require? Is that evidence demand rational?

In other words, if your position is rational, then how do you support it with rational conclusions?

Above you have claimed no counter evidence. So you merely need to be “convinced”. So what are your standards for conviction? You have, so far, given no clue as to what would convince you, perhaps other than a visual contact with an invisible entity, which is not a rational demand.

Moving along:

5. What is the source of your morals?

”A combination of things: the empathy I have as a human being (which is by no means unique to our species), my parents, schooling, friends and my society and culture in general.”

I don’t know you or your location (not the USA, apparently, as shown by your spelling). But schooling, society and culture in general – in the USA and probably the Eurozone – are pushing “change” as the moral imperative, without details other than intolerance of the Other who might demurr (note 1). That is the direction of Leftist, top down control. You don’t say that this is your position (yet), but many whose morals are influenced thus are merely pawns in the Leftist game. (btw, I capitalize Atheism and Leftism because they are fundamental for ideologies just as are Christianity and Islam).

” my mother removed my brothers and I from that Sunday School when she learned we were being taught about Hell. My mother may well have intended that I learn some valuable lessons from Sunday School, but a place of eternal torment ruled by an immortal psychopath at the behest of another immortal psychopath clearly crossed some sort of moral boundary.”

That overheated analysis of the ecclesiastic consequences of denialism is completely outside the issue at hand: what is your moral authority derived from that makes you able to determine general principles for behavior of everyone? If you deny having moral authority, then what gives your self-derived moral principles any force, even for yourself?

6. What makes that source a “moral authority”, with unquestionable, indubitable ability to determine what is morally Good and what is morally Evil in a purely materialist context, where evolution has caused our existence?

Hank replies,
”Ay, there’s the rub. The appeal to the requirement for a “moral authority”, as if we can’t figure out for ourselves as thinking, feeling human beings, what constitutes harmful or beneficial behaviour.

Yes. What gives your personally derived principles any authority over anyone else’s principles?

Hank responds with, not actual logic, but an analogy he hopes will work:

” Here’s a quick test: punch yourself in the face. Go on – hard as you can. No? Why? Because it’d probably hurt, I’m guessing. Okay then: go and punch somebody else in the face, completely at random. Wear something to protect your hand if you like. No? Don’t want to? Why? Because it would hurt them too?
Because it may provoke retaliation? Because they might call the police? Or a huge angry friend? You could probably think of a dozen reasons not to punch a stranger in the time it took to read this paragraph – but you really only need one. Hurting people is a bad thing.”

Now Hank, here is what you have, in essence, said: common sense is your moral authority, and it should be for everyone. Here we enter into the realm of the common Atheist philosophical denial that common sense has any value (since common sense is used in the assessment of the existence of a creating agent for the material universe), vs. the Atheist claim that morality evolved as a common sense need for cultural existence. So the common sense argument fails Atheists' own demands on it, which are logically non-coherent, being internally contradictory.

Now that is a problem for the general run of Atheist, but you have not yet taken the contradictory position specifically, although you alluded to it in questions 1 and 2, above. So the suspicion of the non-coherence of your position remains, and the question remains unanswered.

” But please bear in mind that that “authority” might change their mind and starting asking you to punch strangers in the face tomorrow. After all, one of the most famous “unquestionable moral authorities” inspired a still-popular series of books which contained rules to slave ownership, orders to kill homosexuals, adulterers & people who worked on weekends, orders to commit genocide & rape and threats of eternal torment.”

Attacking ecclesiasticism has no bearing on your personal authority to determine what is moral (note 2). Why should I or anyone accept your morals as authoritative? That is the issue. If they are not authoritative, then why should I or anyone accept them, other than common sense? If common sense is without credibility, then why should I or anyone accept anyone’s common sensical morality?

”:…is stranger-punching a bad thing because my authority forbids it – or does my authority forbid stranger-punching because it’s a bad thing? If the latter, from where does that authority get the knowledge that it’s a bad thing?”

Now if this sequence were talking about your moral authority, your implied conclusion that you have no actual moral knowledge other than “common sense” would be correct.

But you are actually talking about a higher authority, which is not the subject at hand (note 3). So this is a Red Herring Fallacy. Let’s stay on the subject of your moral authority, for which you have made no case except for “common sense”.

Hank continues,

” Smarter people than me have been asking questions like that for longer than the aforementioned series of books has even existed. In the absence of a coherent answer from the various flavours of pro-authority advocate, I’m happy to align with the general opinion of humanity that punching strangers is a Bad Thing.”

Aside from the obvious exceptions to this declaration of morality in caps (Note 4), there are two logic failures in that statement, even ignoring the Appeal to Authority of the Masses.

First, there is no way that he can declare the non-existence of “coherent answers”, unless he has investigated each and every author who has written on the subject. So that statement cannot be the case, and is false.

Second, to declare an alignment with “humanity” means that whatever culture exists, he accepts it. Either that, or that all human culture is in agreement with his “common sense” regarding moral principles.

Now, if he accepts whatever the majority culture exists as a moral authority, then he would be, at various times, a hedonist, a papist, a communist, a fascist, an Islamist, a Christian, etc., depending upon whatever culture he thinks is dominant, and whatever culture has most successfully asserted its will to power at the moment.

Contrarily, if he thinks that all human culture agrees with his “common sense” as being authoritative, then we could see all of those cultural types behaving as his “common sense” has dictated.

It can’t be determined from his comments which of the above thinking applies to his comment, but it doesn’t really matter because none of those things are the case.

7. Can you empirically prove your morals to be valid for all humans? If the answer is yes, then you must show your work if it is to be considered anything more than just a claim.

Hank,

”No, I can’t.”

Wait, you just declared above that your morals are congruent with “humanity” somehow.

Well.

Moving on:

Hank asks some potentially valid questions:

” Now, please explain why I should have to prove that my morals are a “one size fits all” for the entirety of the human race before they can be shown to be valid in any way (even just for me).”

Hard to interpret that, but let’s dive in:

First, you declared the validity of your morals by associating them with those of “humanity”. Now not so much? Of course, if your morals are actually not valid, even for you, then they certainly could not be declared valid for the entirety of humanity, could they? So the issue remains, why should anyone accept your morals as authoritative? This sentence merely avoids the issue.

Next:

” Next, explain why even attempting to do so wouldn’t be a massive exercise in narcissism, arrogance and hubris.”

Oh, it would, Hank, it would indeed. But that is what Atheists in general - if not you yourself – have declared, over and over and over. It is called Leftism, generally speaking, and it is morally intolerant of dissent, which it declares to be intolerant because it... dissents... and which is not to be tolerated by the tolerant. That is the thrust of Dawkins’ attempt to eradicate the Other.

He continues,

” Morals are plastic and always have been. That which was considered moral five centuries ago wouldn’t stand today (unless you’d like to bring back stake-burnings for heretics). That which was considered moral five decades ago wouldn’t stand today (unless you’d like to undo the entire Civil Rights movement in the US, or repeal Aboriginal voting rights here in Australia, or any number of advances various societies have made in that time).”

So your morals are plastic? Interesting. I usually use the word malleable, but plastic might be a better description. But of course that holds only for those who make up their own morals, including all the issues which you raise. For Christians (your favorite attack target), the positive/negative admonishments (note 5) of the ten commandments were not in any manner plastic; they were, however, rendered into negative commands by the admonishments of Jesus, the new leniency without abnegation, which allows corruptors to mutilate as their free will leads them. This is not plasticity, it is corruption, and it is not part of the code.

Hank moves on:

” What I can do is repeat my simple rules (Seek happiness. Share love. Be honest. Don’t hurt people) and then challenge anyone to show why those goals aren’t worth pursuing without a moral authority coercing you to do so.”

OK, a small quibble. Seeking happiness is not a moral principle; it is a human right, which improperly indulged, can lead to inhumanities like cannibalism a la Jeffrey Dahmer. But never mind that. Now what he suggests is that his moral principles are not morals, they are really just suggestions for goals, with no moral authority, but worthwhile, even without moral authority.

Sure, that’s fine. But no longer being actual morals, then no enforcement of violators would be seemly, would it? And being suggestions, there would be no expectation of anyone else accepting them based on your declaration of their moral value, yes. They are merely suggestions for your own self. So that appears to be cleared up.

Moving on:

8. Why should anyone trust you, or any Atheist? Be specific.

Hank:

”This question reeks of a presumption that, as an atheist (a small “a” is sufficient for a regular old noun), I shouldn’t be trusted from the get-go for the solitary reason that I don’t accept the claims of extant theistic gods.”

Close, but not exactly. The clear presumption is derived from the above issues: Atheists can and do make up their own morals to suit their own proclivities, and every Atheist can be reasonably expected (a) to have rejected all absolutes, and (b) to have unknown and potentially volatile moral principles, which (c) he is free to change at will and without notice. It is clear from reading Atheist philosophers that they wish, in general, to destroy all current absolute-based moral premised in currency culturally, and to dictate their own personally derived moral principles as the foundation for cultural change. How this relates to the random Atheist is unknown.

Since no one who encounters a random Atheist can know what moral premises, if any, that Atheist believes apply to him, there is no rational mechanism by which trust can be generated – especially with the additional knowledge that personally derived codes can change upon the whim of the person generating them.

Hank:

” You should trust me for the same reason you trust your barista not to poison your latte in the morning, or your barber not to slit your throat with a straight razor when tidying up your neck-stubble, or your plumber not to crack your skull with a wrench when they’re at your house unclogging your drains: without a basic level of trust among strangers within a social species like ours, we’d all end up too paranoid to leave the house, buy anything or open the front door. We – and our society – would not function.”

Completely beside the point. The question concerns Atheists, those who declare their disbelief openly, and who are known to have the moral issues described above. Atheists are so few, still, that most random encounters will not be assumed to be Atheist, at least in the USA; further, even Atheists with no moral code at all, having been stuck in the Atheist Void, would still likely obey legislated behavioral restrictions in order to avoid punishment. But under certain circumstances, who knows what their moral code would allow them to do? So the examples Hank gives above do not apply to the issue, which is trusting an individual whose moral principles are both volatile and unknown.

”You can’t know everything about everyone: your insurance claims assessors, tax accountants, waiters, cab drivers, local cops, judges, school teachers, firefighters and a zillion other people you don’t know very well (or at all) could all be atheists.”

They could be mass murderers or child molesters or whatever, and not knowing that would generate caution in a careful person. Knowing that they were Mass murderers, child molesters, or Atheists is a different matter.

”Do you trust them to do their jobs and do the right thing by you or do you intend to give them the third degree about their religious opinions and morals before engaging their services? If the latter, you might find that it’s very hard indeed to get good help these days. Especially if you’re on fire.”

If I knew that a mass murder were coming to put out the fire, I would be quite reluctant. And if I knew a person were an Atheist, I would – like most folks – be reluctant to trust him alone with my children. This is called prejudice by Atheists; it is common sense, not prejudice. Shall we discuss the utility of common sense again?

” Here is my solemn oath for anyone who’s wondering: I, Hank of Everything Sucks, don’t intend on poisoning anyone or slitting their throats or cracking their skulls. Even if they ask presumptuous and offensive questions.”

That’s great, except for the observation that personally derived morals are volatile and subjectively variable. But thanks for the declaration of your position as of yesterday.

9. Can you prove, empirically, that the incident which is referred to as the Miracle at Lourdes was purely a physical phenomenon? If the answer is yes, then you must show your work if it is to be considered anything more than just a claim.

Hank:

”Right away, this makes a lie of the promise of your blog’s header: “A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy”. The miracle at Lourdes definitely fits into the first category.”

Au contraire, mon ami. The issue is what you can prove to be true regarding your rejection of theist propositions. This is a theist proposition for you to analyze for us. Being de facto Materialists and null hypothesis scientismists, Atheists should jump at any physical phenomenon available for Atheists to refute; in fact, it is necessary for Atheists to refute should they claim either to know the necessity of Atheism as “fact”, or claim even to be unconvinced due to lack of material evidence.

Otherwise their disbelief is unconvincing, being with no reasoning.

So, attacking the question does not remove the intellectual responsibility for providing the evidence requested.

Hank launches into what turns out to be Materialism/Scientism, sort of:

” I don’t make any sort of claim that the alleged miracles at Lourdes are nothing but mundane phenomena; I say merely that any claims of divine intervention should be viewed skeptically and that none appear to have been supported, from Lourdes to those tiresome crying statues or sightings of Mary in tortillas and tree stumps and toast. But to repeat myself: no I can’t “prove it empirically”. I get the feeling that nobody could prove anything empirically to your satisfaction – if they happened to disagree with you, anyway.

Can you or anyone else prove empirically that the alleged miracle at Lourdes was, as advertised, a miracle? Can you show me not just a pile of crutches and some glowing testimonials, but the detailed before-and-after medical records of every single person who claim to have been healed at Lourdes? If you’re not a theist – or even if you are – this is a red herring.”

Actually you appear not to know anything of the origination of the miracle at Lourdes (note 6), and despite that, you dismiss it as a Red Herring. OK, you admit not to have any empirical refutation for part of it, anyway. So your objection is not due to having contrary evidence, it is due to Radical Skepticism, disproportionally applied. (Note 7) The claim exists, you cannot refute it, so you deny it without any evidence. Got that. Just not interested in looking into it.

”Can I demand at any point that you empirically or deductively (or anythingly) prove unquestionably and indubitably that there is a God, a creating agent, a supreme “moral authority”, a miracle-maker at Lourdes or anything at all that would call my atheism into question in any meaningful way?

Your Atheism is questionable for the following reason: you demand evidence, yet you have no evidence for your position. You reject evidence given you, both deductive and empirical without disproving it but rather call it Red Herring, or just dismiss it outright by claiming not to be convinced for no reason or reasoning given.

So your Atheism is without empirical evidence, without deductive logic, exists based on pure denialism of existing empirical evidence and logic which you could at least attempt to disprove using empiricism on the one hand, and logic on the other hand, but you do not.

So your Atheism, being neither empirically nor logically based, must be an emotional artifact, which was attained in your youth and never shucked with actual reasoning.

To further expand on your question, the demand for empirical proof of a creating deity is a logical error: it is a Fallacy of Category Error. There can be no legitimate demand for material proof of a non-material existence. Yet despite this error, there does exist the material evidence which has been given you and ignored empirically, plus the deduction stands untouched by your analysis, which does not exist in this position statement by you.

”“Would I be justified in remaining unconvinced of the existence of any such thing if that demand wasn’t met?”

That demand actually has been met, so your unconviction is not justified… unless you give counter-evidence or counter logic, which you have not done.

Moving on again:

Hank:

” Until an explanation of why my political leanings are relevant to my opinions on religion is forthcoming, I won’t answer your question.
“

You have answered it sufficiently with your characterizations such as your unprompted and unnecessary use of the term “nutters”, an indication that you could not hold back your political prejudice even when trying to do so.

An extremely high percentage of Atheists are Leftist, and most of them acquired their Atheism before the period of maturation of the frontal lobe has matured (early 20s to 27 y.o.), further, they do not use rational analysis in their defense of their worldview, rather they respond emotionally and using logical fallacies rather than logic or material evidence as their justification.

” However, I will say that the question is revealing: you appear clearly prejudiced against the (again, capitalised, for some reason) “Left”, as if having a left-leaning political outlook is something undesirable. I wonder: could you demonstrate that empirically?”

First, the idea that empiricism can address all human questions and issues is attached only to the false notions which inhere in Scientism and Materialism, both of which are false ideologies. So your demand is not rational.

The “Left” is capitalized because it has an overwhelming tendency toward the arrogance of self-anointed Messiahism and the emotional disorder of co-dependency which Messiahism encourages with the definition of groups of designated Victims, which require another designated group of Oppressors. This is intended to provide permanent constituencies for the Messiahs. The self-appointment of moral authority by Atheists who have rejected common absolute cultural principles leads a high percentage of Atheists into the elitist notion of Messiahism. The Left is a moralizing cult, so it is capitalized.

Next up:

”11. At what age did you become an Atheist? What is your current age?
More irrelevancy. Can you explain what a person’s age might have to do with their ability to rationally assess the likelihood of a theistic claim? Can a person in their late 30s (who has not been religious for over twenty years) not have amassed the requisite intelligence to be an informed atheist? Does somebody need to be an atheist for forty years before it counts? This is ageist and another argument from authority.”

You have failed to grasp the import of the age issue. Atheism is virtually always acquired in the juvenile years up to the early 20’s; it never has any empirical or deductive support as its justification; it virtually always is emotionally held and emotionally defended in the sense of being an emotional need, rather than a rational necessity. This indicates and tendency to hold onto adolescent conclusions well into adulthood, without analysis or modification. That theory is not mine, but it appears to hold up well.

The request for age information is neither ageist nor an argument from authority, it is merely a request for raw data. Perhaps there will be someone, like Samuel Clemmons, who falls outside of the bell curve altogether. (note 8)

Your charges of ageism and argument from authority are false and are rejcted.

Hank:

” And, again, this question reveals more about its author than it asks of its recipient.”

Only if one accepts your Jump to false Conclusion error, and resulting bigotry.

Hank summarizes:

” Well, that was underwhelming.”

Particularly your non-response.

”What we have here are some petulant and unreasonable demands to prove empirically/deductively that gods don’t exist (a ridiculous position that almost nobody holds)…”

Demonstrably false.

”…a demand to list and source and justify my entire moral principles followed by an argument from “moral authority”, a further demand to (again, empirically) debunk the alleged miracle at Lourdes, concluded with a couple of irrelevant and prejudiced questions about age and political leanings.”

Hmm. Well sort of, but also sort of not…

” What was missing? Any reason whatsoever to accept theistic or miraculous claims (or even a half-decent reason to lean toward deism)…

Hank was given both material evidence and deductive logic, both of which he acknowledged his inability to refute. So this claim is ludicrous.

… an understanding of the burden of proof and yes – even an understanding of atheism.”

Hank has given no reason for me to think otherwise regarding the Atheist’s ability to provide either material evidence or deductive logic for his beliefs; I understand quite well that his position is based on denialism and emotional need. Further, the continued problem Hank has with burden of proof merely decorates his non-rational denialism of needing to deal with the logic and evidence with which he has been provided. He has given no rational or empirical reason for Atheism.

Hank wraps up with his not unexpected attack on me:

” For someone who was an atheist for forty years (a claim I shall accept on face value as it’s not extraordinary, despite the seeming lack of familiarity with the subject displayed by the inquisitor), Stan doesn’t seem to have learned much about atheism.”

As I said before, Hank has given neither reasoning nor material evidence for his belief; he obviously has denied any value to both material and deductive evidence presented for his analysis, a performance which presents as an emotional response devoid of any analytical, contemplative, deductive content.

Notes
Note 1: It is common for Atheists such as Dawkins to declare that their objective is to destroy the Other (religion: based on acceptance of evidence for a creating agent for the universe).

Note 2: It also has no bearing on determining the pre-existence of a non-material creating agent for material existence. Attacking the bible is purely a literalist approach to exegesis, a process which Atheists claim to deplore, yet in which they invariably engage; this is a non-coherence in Atheist behavior.

Note 3: The inclination to aggressively accuse rather than to defend one’s position is a logical failure, that of Tu Quoque used as a Red Herring. It is purposeful deviation from the question at hand which is the objective, by attempting to distract the conversation into another realm outside of the issue at hand. Rhetorically, if the conversation can be diverted or rerouted, the challenge can be averted and no answer will be required where an answer which cannot be produced.

Note 4: There are times need strangers might need punching, such as one engaged in raping for example. That would not be a random stranger although randomly discovered, but it obviates the use of caps in declaring the moral principle, which would necessarily be laden with exceptions. That means that it fails as a principle except in the sense that “common sense” must guide the individual who claims common sense as his authority. In other words, what that individual considers “common sense” at any particular time rules his moral judgment.

Note 5: Positive laws are those which allow only those behaviors which are specifically spelled out as acceptable (the type which Obama stated that he favors). Negative laws are those which allow all behaviors which are not specifically prohibited (more toward Libertarianism).

Note 6: One would think that a person addressing a subject would at least look it up (computer access is so easy these days) in order to address the actual issue. The miracle at Lourdes is a specific series of events, the material aspect being the creation of a spring at the behest of a revelation. This spring of water still exists, and never pre-existed that moment. It is a physical manifestation which is available for refutation. However, no Atheist to date has done anything of an empirical nature, despite their declared affection for empirical knowledge of all phenomena. The most common response is to denigrate, deny or ridicule, thus demonstrating the lack of empirical power of their Scientism.

Note 7: Radical Skepticism can be used rhetorically to disclaim the ability to derive knowledge from circumstance A, and yet dropped in order to make claim B. This switching of philosophy midstream is intellectually dishonest.

Note 8: Clemmons acquired his Atheism due to his anger at the death of his beloved daughter, when he declared his Christian God evil first, then dead. Nonetheless, he never stopped railing against that God which he hated.

The Atheist Argument Against God.

1. Here is the argument against god(s), placed into a legitimate syllogistic format:

P1: IF [ X is the case], THEN [There is/are no god(s)];

P2: IT IS TRUE THAT [ X is the case];

C: THEREFORE: [There is/are no god(s)].

As an Atheist, it is impossible not to accept this syllogism, because it is the Atheist position.

But unless X is fully explained and supported as a rational, coherent, and irrefutable claim, then there is no reason to accept Atheism as a rational position.

So it is up to the Atheist to provide the details of X, and to show that X is irrefutable logically, therefore it is indisputable under disciplined logical analysis that there can not exist any god(s).

Or contrarily, provide empirical, material evidence (data) that shows conclusively that there is no God.

2. Atheists seem to want to quibble over what "god" entails; that is an illegitimate argument because Atheists have already rejected their concept of "god", and are obligated to show the details of what it is that they have rejected, as well as obligated to show their exact reasons for rejecting it.

3. If there is no incontrovertable logical explanation/argument in support of the Atheist Argument shown above, then there is no reason to accept Atheism as a rational position, and it becomes reasonable to accept that Atheism must have non-rational reasons for its existence.

4. Atheists are expected to use known disciplined logical processes for supporting their Atheist Argument, and to own up to any fallacies, grounding errors, non-coherence and other axiomatic failures which are found in their arguments. If necessary this section might be more fully elaborated in the future.

Atheists are invited to make their case using this syllogism.