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.

Excusing Major Hasan: The New Case For "Pre-Post Traumatic Stress For No Reason Whatsoever in the Un-Traumatized"

The AtheoLeftists started immediately to excuse Major Hasan on the basis of insanity: it had nothing to do with the vulnerability of his victims who were obeying the gun control laws and were unarmed – on a military installation.

“Major Hasan is a Virginia-born army psychiatrist and a recipient of the Pentagon’s Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, which seems fair enough, since he certainly served in it, albeit for the other side. Most Americans think he’s nuts. He thinks Americans are nuts. It’s a closer call than you’d think. In the immediate aftermath of his attack, the U.S. media, following their iron-clad rule that “Allahu akbar” is Arabic for “Nothing to see here,” did their best to pass off Major Hasan as the first known victim of pre-Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. “It comes at a time when the stress of combat has affected so many soldiers,” fretted Andrew Bast in a report the now defunct Newsweek headlined, “A Symptom of a Military on the Brink.”

“Major Hasan has never been in combat. He is not, in fact, a soldier. He is a shrink. The soldiers in this story are the victims, some 45 of them. And the only reason a doctor can gun down nearly four dozen trained warriors (he was eventually interrupted by a civilian police officer, Sergeant Kimberly Munley, with a 9mm Beretta) is that soldiers on base are forbidden from carrying weapons. That’s to say, under a 1993 directive a U.S. military base is effectively a gun-free zone, just like a Connecticut grade school. That’s a useful tip: If you’re mentally ill and looking to shoot up a movie theater at the next Batman premiere, try the local barracks — there’s less chance of anyone firing back.

“Maybe this Clinton-era directive merits reconsideration in the wake of Fort Hood? Don’t be ridiculous. Instead, nine months after Major Hasan’s killing spree, the Department of Defense put into place “a series of procedural and policy changes that focus on identifying, responding to, and preventing potential workplace violence.”

Hasan shot the first MP to confront him and was about to administer the death shot when he was shot and stopped by the second. But only after a deadly rampage on the legally disarmed. Why would the selected, trained defenders of the USA be forbidden from carrying their issued weapons? Would it be the creeping Leftism which infests every facet of American life?

The Left works on fear: we fear these things: something BAD might happen so these things must be legislated against. The list of "these things to be feared" includes nearly everything, but especially guns and carbon and corporations and the herd. The herd is too stupid; they are dangerous to themselves. Only the AtheoLeft can save them from themselves (especially the trial lawyers, who need laws to support their lawsuits). Unintended consequences be damned.

In fact, unintended consequences are useful in escalating the Leftist rhetoric. Never waste a crisis; use it for its emotional content and irrational thinking. In Hasan's case, the rhetoric is "workplace violence and how it must be stopped", as irrational a use of a crisis as it gets.

The Hasan terror attack (his own admission) is as foreseeable as are future attacks on any disarmed group of people. What the AtheoLeft actually fears is the herd itself, which at some point will actually turn on them. As Obama fears, with “pitchforks and torches” if that is all they are allowed. It’s no wonder the Left rationalizes so stupidly against weapons in the hands of their enemies – not Hasan, of course, he has PrePost Traumatic Stress For No Reason Whatsoever Syndrome – but the herd itself.

Therefore, weapons must be demonized with cloaks of moral selfrighteusness. Alinsky would be proud: even America's defensive warriors are disarmed and vulnerable. Clinton's administration noticed the obvious: the folks in the armed services do not vote Democrat. Just coincidentally, they disarmed them.

The AtheoLeft wants everyone to merely be TARGETS.

Burden Of Proof And Atheist Intellectual Responsibility

Atheists virtually always deny that they have any Burden of Rebuttal when they claim to reject theist arguments and propositions. They merely claim that theists have not proven their case, or have not provided evidence. And they do so without any justification for their claim.

Said one Atheist:

” If there was such a thing as the burden of rebuttal you could never believe anything as there is an infinite number of concepts to rebuttal. Since this leads to absurdities, it is the burden of the one making the positive claim to provide evidence.”
Qualia Soup

There is likely to be only one valid rebuttal containing one sequence of valid premises; if the Atheist opposition cannot provide a valid refutation, then there are, of course, an infinite number of non-valid rebuttals based on non-valid premises. But that infinite regression has no bearing on whether there exists one, single valid rebuttal. The originator of the original argument is obliged to point out the non-validity of the false rebuttals, in other words, the theist will point out the errors in the Atheist's false case. Of course, iff there is no valid rebuttal, then the conversation will potentially go on infinitely while the rebuttor searches for a valid reason to rebut where none exists.

However, the Atheist is free to showcase his presumed intellectual abilities by demonstrating the actual, factual errors he perceives to exist in the theist proposition.

But the Atheist position is not really that. The position taken by Atheists is that they can “rationally” reject any argument without giving either a reason or reasoning for their rejection. They merely claim that the theist argument is "not evidence" (Note 1) or "not proven"(Note 2).

But that is not a rational position; it is, in fact, anti-rational. Given the opportunity to describe in detail what he thinks the standards are for either evidence or for logical deduction, the Atheist demurrs and claims "no Burden of Rebuttal". The internet is rife with this claim.

If an Atheist will not provide any reasons for having rejected an argument, then his reason for having done so is not based on logic or evidence or he would have provided that. No reason = no reasoning. As with all things Atheist, the self reigns, and the emotions dominate: the rejection is emotionally based. Why?

In order to maintain his personal bliss as unencumbered by the authority of external rules (both moral and logical), the Atheist will rationalize reasons to support his position on the intellectual responsibility to show his reasoning, whether in the VOID or having emerged into untethered free thought. But in a debate where tethered, principled deduction rules, his own form of logic invariably fails him completely. Thus, if he has no rational refutation (and he does not), then he claims that he needs no refutation anyway. He argues that he need not give any reasons or reasoning for his claim that “there is no evidence” (false), that the evidence is insufficient to convince (why is that, then? What are your reasons, your needs?), that there must be physical evidence (there is, but it is never addressed when presented), etc.

Why is the evidence for theism which is given to the Atheist blanket-rejected out of hand, never point by point with counter deductive arguments? Few make any "logic" arguments, none make any disciplined deductive counter arguments, and generally none address the actual issue, which is direct, hard evidence which categorically proves that Atheism is correct and valid and incontrovertible. (Never mind the recent inclusion of agnosticism into the category of Atheism, a false re-definition ploy in a failed attempt to justify giving no refutation).

It resolves to this: either the Atheist has valid reasons of logic or evidence, or he does not. Either he can justify his rejection, or he cannot. That he will not, or need not justify his rejection is merely absurd, and is intellectual dishonest.

There is only one valid reason for an Atheist to reject his responsibility to actually rebut, with statements of logic or evidence, theist arguments and evidence. That reason is that the Atheist has no reason to give for his rejection, and he has no reasoning to share. At bottom, the reason is emotional neediness, not rational discovery of valid and true deduction.

Denial of the intellectual responsibility for justifying the rejection of an argument is a prime example of Atheist dishonesty. In this case it is intellectual dishonesty, but intellectual dishonesty is an indicator of moral dishonesty as well. To say "you have failed to make your case" while declining to say why is not a reason: it is a lie. A lie is a lie.

To take one step further, when the Atheist community advertises itself as “Good Without God”, it is both intellectually dishonest, and morally dishonest. First, no person is completely good, and to make that claim is morally: !Good; the actual question is when and where are you !Good? The statement, "Good without God" is a conclusion without premises, and is demonstrably false.

Second is the issue of what Atheists might think constitutes "Good". Atheist philosophers cannot agree on what the term "Good" even means. Common variety Atheists don’t even think that far into the issue: their claim essentially is that because they are not in prison, that makes them Good. But they are not even up to their own standards of “high empathy” as “Good”, so Atheist claims of being Good are merely blustered propaganda and without any substance.

The Atheist claim of not needing to provide justification for rejecting theist arguments is both intellectually dishonest and morally dishonest.

More on intellectual responsibility here and here.


Note 1. When pressed on the issue of what constitutes "evidence" many Atheists claim to accept non-material evidence, but then reject all evidence which is non-material.

Note 2. When pressed on the issue of logical arguments presented by theists, Atheists make a number of claims, including "Which god?", and "Too many theist arguments to address", and when pressed hard to address a specific argument, they either claim not to understand the issue, or they present demonstrable logical fallacies while making false claims of fallacy against the argument.

Atheism As Religion

How exactly should a religion be defined? Religions have many characteristics in common, which do not necessarily include the belief in a deity (e.g. Buddhism) – although most do. And it cannot be said that religion is belief without reasoning – all though some are - or belief without rational backing – although some are - because there exist grounded arguments which support certain rational, probabilistic beliefs which are physically nonfalsifiable, empirically experimentally unapproachable, yet are rationally acceptable (e.g. Deism).

Nor can it be said that religion is ahistorical – although some definitely are – because some have historical credentials that exceed those of other historical events and figures (e.g. Abrahamic religions, including Islam and Judeo-Christianity).

The religion which is discounted by Atheists is, at its base, a cartoon attitude: blind belief without either rational evidence or physical evidence. While this does not apply all religions, it is the reductive caricature which Atheists believe constitutes religious belief. Yet as has been shown time and again, there is no basis for applying this to all and every religion. Still, it can be applied to other irrational belief systems and worldviews, which we shall now do below.

What of Atheism itself? Outside of maintaining a full set of overt characteristics which are exactly those of theist religions but without the theism, Atheism is exactly a blind belief without either rational or empirical support for its premise, which is that there is not and cannot exist a deity. How is that the case?

Atheism is nothing more than blind rejection without cause of all logical and physical evidence for a deity. That is the basis for the case that Atheism is a blind belief, a religious belief conforming to the definition of religion which is held by Atheists themselves.

Many (a great many) Atheists try to wipe away the need for empirical or logical proof for supporting their own position with the claim that they have no intellectual responsibility for their belief that there is no deity, and that they can reject logical arguments without giving any reasoning. They deny any burden for providing sound, reasoned reasons for their rejections of theist arguments. They ignore the absurdity of this position, because it seems (they think) to give them an effortless “win” for their Consequentialist tactic. This type of win is without any intellectual force because it has no intellectual content. When that attempted evasion fails them logically, as it must, they claim that they really have no “deity belief”, an absurd claim which also fails immediately under the slightest skeptical scrutiny.

They further attempt to obscure their own beliefs by trying to redefine the term, ”Atheism”, to include agnosticism, pure ignorance (all babies are Atheist they claim), apathy and inability to know anything (pond scum, minerals and dark matter).

But in actuality Atheism was and remains the out-of-hand rejection, without reasons which are based in logic or empiricism, of theism arguments and claims. So if the rejection is neither rational nor scientific, it is purely emotionally based. The rejection is pure Rejectionism for rejection’s-sake, or at least for the soothing of emotional neediness of the individual Atheist.

This is confirmed in the occurrence of Atheism as a worldview precursor. First Atheism occurs generally in the adolescent years, up to the young adult years. In some individuals the frontal cortex does not mature until nearly 30 years of age; whether this is applicable to late adoption of Atheism is debatable, but it is certainly the case that a large portion of Atheists acquire their Rejectionism in adolescence and early adulthood.

Second, it generally occurs in individuals who have not studied the discipline of logic, and are not beholden to logical discipline as a worldview.

Third, the existence of the Atheist VOID performs as both emotional carrot and stick in the addiction of the individual to himself as source, rather than to any external source of logic or moral precept. The VOID is the exuberant rejection of all rational and moral authority, which the Atheist sees enthusiastically as a wonderful new “freedom”: free thought and freedom from religious morality. His personal thought and his personal moral judgment overrides all others.

As the Atheist develops his own personal world of thought processing and moral determination, he becomes the equivalent of his own religion, albeit a very self-contained religion, wherein he is the determinant of all things “properly thought” and all things “properly moral”. This is possible only within a cloistered mind which considers itself the apogee of all evolution, and with few, if any, peers. In other words, elite.

And it allows, in fact requires, that any challengers to this new mental and moral elitist anarchy be dismissed, and with no reasons required for that dismissal other than that the challengers are non-congruent with what the cloistered mind believes to be true: that what the Atheist has is all that is of value in the universe. (In fact, after dismissing without cause all challengers to his personal Truth system, the Atheist comes to develop his own personal logic system and his own personal moral code which should, he believes, apply to all of the Other, too; he is, after all, elite).

That lets out both disciplined deduction and careful empiricism, if those do not correspond directly and completely with the Atheist’s conception of reality. And for the most part, they do not.

So the Atheist is caught up in a self-centered religion which blindly believes in its own personally derived Truths, concepts which are not based or grounded in logical reality or in empirical understandings of reality, a religious view which further has uneducated comprehension of what constitutes both rational, deductive conclusions and empirical contingent knowledge. Further, he believes that ungrounded Skepticism produces Truth, when in fact it produces only Rejection, without cause.

And yet the Atheist commonly believes himself to be both rational and scientific, and claims those pursuits as his personal high ground, as if he alone can comprehend them. This demonstrates the irrational, blindly religious characteristic of Atheism, especially when actual logic and the obvious limitations of empiricism are pointed out to him and he rejects that. Unable to reconcile actual disciplined logic with his own thought process, and unable to comprehend the limitations of science output as knowledge, the Atheist continues to live in his own cloistered mind, using his own thought process and his own concept of reality which is limited to his own thought processing.

If the Atheist were, in fact, rational and empirical, then he would demonstrate rational or empirical cause for having rejected theist arguments. But the Atheist cannot provide either empirical, experimental evidence for the non-existence of a deity, nor can he provide disciplined, deductive refuting reasoning which categorically proves the non-existence of a deity. The Atheist cannot prove the non-existence of the non-material. The Atheist cannot prove much of anything at all. What he has is just opinion. The Atheist has nothing to bring to the intellectual party – except rejection without cause. In fact, it is anti-intellectual: religious rejectionism without cause.

There can be no reason to believe Atheist rejections because Atheists can give no reasons and no reasoning for their rejections. They actually have no reasons other than their own emotional attachment to the Religion of Self to which they subscribed when they entered the Atheist VOID.

Atheism, we must conclude, is one of the least rational, most blind beliefs of any religion, because it cannot provide a case for its belief system; yet the Atheist is unable to shake the irrational belief system and its ultimate worldview because it gives him the emotional crutch he needs: false feelings of presumed elitism, and the false freedom of believing in irrational conclusions which have no premises except Rejectionism, much less grounded, rational premises.

Obstreperous Denialism vs Disciplined Logic

Occasionally along comes an Atheist who refuses to answer any questions asked of him. He will ignore the questions by declaring them without merit or “baseless”, yet not saying why so. And/or he will invoke his immunity by demanding that there is no Burden of Rebuttal, only a Burden of Proof placed on theists. When asked about the Materialist Fallacy embedded in his demand for proof, he will change the subject in order to attack some form of ecclesiasticism, a favorite Red Herring of naïve and unlearned Atheists. When the bottom is reached, some form of the following statement will be there in the Atheist mental mire, and will be invoked as a last ditch denial:

“I am unconvinced”.

This is a conclusion without a premise, and it looks like this in argument form:

IF [ Q ], THEN [ “I am unconvinced” ].

But what is Q?

The Atheist will stalwartly refuse to reveal what Q might entail as a premise. And in fact, there is no Q. The reason that the Atheist invokes this non-argument is that he has made a conclusion based only on emotional neediness, and certainly not on any rational premise, Q.

When the opponent of the Atheist demands to see Q, that demand is the Burden of Rebuttal which is placed on the Atheist. The denial of having such a burden is the most common response, and the proponents of this attack on the rational process are legion across the web. But the Burden of Rebuttal is the rational demand to see the premises for the Atheist argument. Denial of that is merely a part of the chronic avoidance endemic to Atheism.

Others might go an extra step into the Atheist intellectual abyss with statements like these: “There is no case”; or “theists haven’t proven their case”. The first statement is false, blatantly so. The second statement demands this response:

IF [ P ], THEN [ “theists haven’t proven their case” ];

WHAT IS P?

They have merely moved the empty, unsupported conclusion deeper into the Atheist intellectual abyss.

Because they have no Q and no P, they are maintaining an Anti-Rational position, in the manner of Nietzsche. And in the manner of Nietzsche also, they begin to assert bullying tactics (Will To Power) in order to appear to be maintaining control, including declaring - without evidence - that all accusations against themselves are fallacies:

IF [ R ], Then [ “All your accusations are fallacies” ].

But once again the conclusion is an emotional desire, not an objective fact and they will never produce any evidence, R, to support their charge.

It always deteriorates from this point because the Atheist has no rational base from which to operate, so the conversation becomes an emotional mess.

I have yet to meet an Atheist who has studied logic and cares about it enough to submit himself to it. Submission is not a characteristic of the narcissism and elitism which are acquired by Atheists in the great Atheist VOID. In fact, it is the inverse; Atheists come to sites like this, not to exercise logical argumentation, but to assert their own elitism and to feed their ravenous egos. Narcissism is not a fun place to be, because it does require massive ego-feeding.

I suspect that coming to a site like this one ultimately takes a toll on the narcissist ego, which gets exercised, bruised, and not fed here. So many of them alight here for a short while and then flit off never to be seen again. There are plenty of other sites to which they can retreat and refuel their egos by associating with other self-endowed elitists. A narcissist might be wounded, but will never discard his narcissism. Narcissism has no cure. Nor does elitism. Nor does Atheism, unless it is caught before the VOID asserts itself and removes rationality completely from the individual’s worldview.

Understanding Atheism

This is actually a good time to summarize the new Atheist position.

Claim 1. There is no Atheist position: it is a void.

Claim 2. Actually, the Atheist position is the claim that Theist arguments are (a) false; (b) can’t be falsified or proven false.

Claim 3. Claim 2 is not actually a claim or position, and need not be defended.

Claim 4. Claim 3 is not actually a claim or position, and need not be defended.

Claim 5. Claim 4 is not actually a claim or position, and need not be defended.

…Ad infinitum…

"No One Can Prove Me Wrong": An Excuse For Atheist Non-Rational Denials Sans Evidence.

[Hat tip to Martin for directing me to Qualia Soup] The completely self-unaware Qualia soup explains why Atheists have no Burden of Proof, and the other guy always does. He starts by making the standard Fallacy-laden attacks on theist claims: They are based on a need to have an answer now rather than waiting on science, which he equates with the argument from ignorance; they have no explanatory power, e.g. how does divine speech create mass/energy? They fail to produce the honorable answer, which is “I don’t know”.

QS equates Theist arguments with "no one can prove me wrong" claims from all sorts of metaphysical quackery. But he is also quick to point out that all the Theist arguments definitely have already been proved wrong, in his opinion. Or maybe he is admitting that they cannot be proved wrong, and that's just wrong, again in his opinion. What he is saying in this regard depends on where you are in the conversation.

He makes the bewildering argument that one need not know everything about the universe, so Theism is of no use. But that is Special Pleading since many Atheists are scientists pursuing knowledge of the universe, so they think that sort of knowledge has value. So that argument fails at the gate.

He then proceeds with the Voidist theory of Atheism: the Atheist makes no claim other than the claim that all the Theist claims are invalid; so the Atheist needs no proof for the validity of his own claim (and it is a claim, despite the claim that the claim is not a claim). And therefore that claim is itself internally contradictory and self-defeating.

According to QS, only the claim maker has burden, yet when the Atheist claims the claim to be false, that claim is not the same thing as a claim, and need not be justified as if the claim were actually a claim. If you catch his drift.

Further according to QS:

“Theism is just one of a “ragbag” of claims, which no one needs to give credence to.”

So he claims the right to deny them along with everything else in the category labelled "Categorically Self-evidently False A Priori". Declaring them false right here up front saves so much time and effort. Unfortunately it is circular and false and irrational. It does set a tone for what's to come, though.

Further, says he, two rules for debate do not exist: only the claimant has a burden. The skeptic has no claim (other than being the claimant claiming that the other’s claim is false, for no claimed reason, no claimed logic, no claimed empirical data for support). See, by claiming that you are making no claim of rebuttal it requires no Burden of Proof for the rebuttal, if you are QS. That makes life so much easier. Skeptics merely claim that Theistic arguments fail (no need to prove that claim, it's just obvious, self-evident, like an axiom). The “real” Double Standard, claims QS, is expecting a skeptic to prove the claims which derive from his skepticism. Expecting that of a skeptic is not a good thing (for the skeptic).

In a string of remarkable claims, QS identifies his idea of a dishonest claim: “lacking the belief in the non-existence of gods”, which is just the Theist version of the Atheist claim, "lacking the belief in the existence of gods" and to QS, that sort of mimicry cannot be acceptable. So QS goes to great lengths to claim that sort of mimicry is just wrong, which he does in order to discount the Atheist's position as also being valid for Theists. This results in a prolonged exercise in Special Pleading:

[the remainder of this is directly transcribed from QS on his Burden of Proof video, and might contain unintentional typos. My comments are interspersed in brackets].

“…aping the skeptic’s position doesn’t eliminate the need for justification."

[Say what? If it works for the skeptic, then it must be allowed for the Other, too. Otherwise it is Special Pleading - Atheist hypocrisy]

"If one goes these lengths to avoid the Burden of Proof, one has to wonder about their strength of conviction. If there are sound reasons for believing in supernatural beings, why not lay out those reasons instead of wasting time in this curious denial dance? "

[Oh my yes! Lay those refutations out! Why should the Atheists get to do the dance of going to great lengths to avoid the Burden of Proof, but no one else gets to dance? Either everyone should get to dance, or no one should; fair is fair!]

" If a scientist speaking at a conference complained about the unfairness of having to present evidence for their claims, they’d empty the auditorium. But in the area of supernatural claims we consistently encounter people who are reluctant, even indignant, when reminded of their Burden of Proof."

[So all auditoriums should empty out when Atheists complain about having to present evidence for their claims. And as for metaphysical claims, one suspects that people do become irritated when material data is demanded for non-material claims - and then the claim for counter proof responsibility is denied. Also, obviously lacking in this QS article is the overt statement that the “proof” required must meet the “standards” of the skeptics and no one else, referring to a standard which is also obviously lacking in this video but which is quite obviously the scientific, empirical proofs endorsed by AtheoMaterialists as the only source of knowledge. Those proofs, of course, require a falsifiable subject matter, which Theist claims are not, therefore invalidating the requirement and making the AtheoMaterialist evidentiary standards false, inconsequential, and trivial]

"In many ways this isn’t surprising. The expectation of evidence is kryptonite to claims that lack sufficient support."

[Such as Atheist claims of theist non-validity while offering no empirical evidence as support for their claims]

"People who pretend to be psychic developed an arsenal of smoke and mirror tactics to fend off critical questions. For centuries, certain religions have demonized questions and in the process developed a skewed complacency about not anwering them. But today increasingly we understand that there is no valid basis for letting supernatural claims escape justification."

[The use of the undefined term “justification” throughout is indicative of the intransigent nature of this demand; one may require different justification for opponent’s claims than for one’s own claims, or one may demand out-of-set justification for the opponents claims, and that’s exactly what this is all about. Further, the invocation of mystery religion and psychics is not an argument against any deity; it is a Red Herring. Finally, justification has already been denied at the outset; and a need for material justification is a Category Error. So this is all just false blather]

"We see through institutions which forbid or evade questions, that declare themselves unaccountable. We are rightly critical of them and we expect and demand better. If certain groups over the centuries have grown accustomed to not substantiating their claims so they regard the mere suggestion as impudent, the way we resolve that is not by letting them remain accustomed to dismissing their Burden of Proof but by pointing out that they were at fault for growing so accustomed in the first place."

[This is totally irrelevant to the issue of requiring Atheists to support their claims of falseness; another Red Herring]

"Supernatural claims that survived/thrived historically by shrouding themselves in mystery are now more than ever in the information age being fished out into the glare of rigorous inquiry. And they are suffering in their new, alien environment where their old tricks aren’t so effective on the more critical modern mind. Booming threats don’t cow us into obedience as in years gone by. Too many of us know what is going on behind the curtain. In greater and greater numbers we are outgrowing the long intellectual stagnation of human kinds superstitious adolescence. When we are exposing supernatural claims that have bluffed and bullied their way into a position of unearned respect, they deserve no reverence and deserve no more ceremony than any other claim."

[More and more irrelevance, having nothing to do with requiring Atheists to prove their claims of falseness]

"Clearly, demanding evidence for every statement uttered would make interaction impossible.

[A common dodge: Atheists want to muddy up the issue by claiming that Theist claims are just part of a stream of claims that they can't take the time to argue properly. So they can all be denied, categorically, as was done initially. But they also claim that they have defeated the theist arguments, and that the theist arguments aren't falsifiable and can't be defeated. What they claim depends on the need of the moment]

"But those who make bold supernatural claims should get used to owning their Burden of Proof."

[Yes. Making the claim of falseness regarding a claim of supernatural existence requires owning their Burden of Proof; merely claiming that it is false with no reason or support or evidence fails the Atheist’s own requirements. Further, their requirements are materialist, and thus their Burden of Proof is to provide material evidence to support their claim of falseness].

"In science..."

[Watch this carefully: science is being invoked in a metaphysical conversation]

"...owning a Burden of Proof is routine..."

[so is owning the Burden of Rebuttal]

"...because it is understood by those who observe scientific principles that claims require justification..."

[including skeptical denialist claims made without empirical evidence].

"It’s expected that authors of scientific papers will explain their reasoning and evidence."

[Including and especially those claiming disproof].

"And it’s common for this to be done, not grudgingly, but enthusiastically."

[Yes! Atheists should embrace this enthusiastically!]

"If we’re interested in holding justified beliefs, finding out which claims have valid support and which don’t is something to embrace, not avoid."

[Absolutely! This includes claims that declare having falsified another claim]

"It’s when we stake our egos, hopes or identities on specific claims that we create needless problems, because anything which threatens the claim also threatens us. The Burden of Proof becomes threatening because having to justify the claim risks discovering that we can’t do so.

[Wherein the QS demonstrates his total self-unawareness: Atheists are threatened so badly by having the Burden to support their skeptical denial claims that they become maximally irrational when pushed hard to do so.]

"In this way our ability to assess the claim becomes fatally undermined by personal need for it to be true whether or not it has valid support. If on the other hand we commit ourselves not to specific claims but to refining knowledge…"

[This is a wonderfully self-unaware statement of the need to adhere to destructive skepticism, and never, ever take a stance on a piece of knowledge, because that would require that the skeptic has to leave skepticism in order to defend his new knowledge; i.e. take a position which requires a Burden of Proof. Skepticism is a refuge from knowledge, where one can take potshots from the front porch without joining the parade. This is their idea of "refining knowledge". They don't actually want knowldge; they want to destroy whatever they don't like, with no repercussions. ]

"we can watch claims gather support or collapse, without the Burden of Proof forming any personal threat."

[no commitment, no threat, so do not leave skepticism for knowledge, ever]

"Meeting a Burden of Proof isn’t always easy. But without this mechanism, without people volunteering “here’s my new idea and the evidence to support it”, our education would be at a standstill."

[Unless “my new idea” is that "your metaphysical claim is false", then as an Atheist I don’t need any evidence for that idea, Of Course].

[And the unstated presupposition is that the desirable education is Materialism-only, because history, math, logic, philosophy, ethics etc have no material evidence]

"Fortunately a long history of genuine contributors to education haven’t been so unforthcoming. Supernatural claim makers who think they are somehow exempt from the standards which apply to other claim makers…"

[BINGO! Here it is: the same standards apply for metaphysical claims that apply to materialism; it’s the infamous Atheist and Materialist Category Error. The always self-unaware QS admits to his erroneous requirements without realizing he has done so]

"…are mistaken."

[thus it is perfectly reasonable under this schema to demand that Atheists provide material, empirical, scientific hard data for their claims that Theist metaphysical claims are false. They are not exempt from their own rules.]

"And in an increasingly educated world… "

[False: technologically trained under Materialist restrictions, not well educated; these folks have no actual knowledge of logic, despite their use of co-opted terms they don’t understand, such as “Special Pleading”]

"...their Special Pleading will only see them left behind in the darkness of past ignorance, where many of their claims originated."

[It is absolutely NOT Special Pleading to demand that the characteristics of a set be used when determining how to analyze the set! If the set is “metaphysical”, then the use of “physical” requirements is irrational: it is a Category Error.]

"Extraordinary claims have an inescapable Burden of Proof".

[Such extraordinary claims as Philosophical Materialism for example; abiogenesis; the material mind; lack of human agency; and the claims that Theist claims are false. Yes, Burden of Proof.]

"When those who make extraordinary claims don’t for whatever reason take their Burden of Proof seriously, they relieve us of the burden of taking their claim seriously."

[Which is exactly why Atheists have no intellectual credibility. Making claims that Other’s claims are false, yet denying that they must support their claims, makes the Atheist an intellectual failure, and more than that, an intellectual coward who runs from his responsibility and hides behind the skirts of denialism – denying that he has any responsibility for his own worldview, and need not justify it.

In fact, returning to the “standards required” statement made by QS above, if the standard is to deny responsibility for any Burden of Proof and just claim without support that the opposing claim is false, then unless that standard is extended to Theists too, the Special Pleading of Atheists is overwhelmingly obvious.

So this whole exercise by QS is false, from start to finish.

For an antagonist to merely claim that an argument is false without having to prove it to be false under the evidentiary theory of the antagonist, is intellectual cowardice and irresponsibility.]