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.
