I wrote the following, indented below, in a comment box earlier today. Comments by the current crop of Atheists/whatevers revolve purely around personal attacks on me, my style, and how I conduct the blog - never does an Atheist take up the challenge to discuss the reasons for his belief set. So many Atheists are merely bullies intent on their meager attempts to destroy any criticism of their emotion-based and ever increasingly aggressive kinship of irrationality. It is not possible to maintain any serious discussion with a bully, especially one stranded in emotional adolescence.
It's not difficult to tell the difference between a serious person wanting to explain "why I am convinced by evidence and logic that Atheism is necessary", and a troll who wants to harass rather than discuss.
Yet I do seem to have sympathy for the poor dears, and a desire to give them a chance to express themselves in the hopes that one might provide a rational discussion.
That is in vain it appears, and all that Atheism seems to provide is the fearful attacks that they feel necessary in their pitiful attempts to silence their opposition.
So I am also torn between silencing them completely since they are incapable of actual logical discourse regarding their beliefs, or allowing their childish banalities to be shown the light of day as evidence of their incapacity for rationality.
Right now, I'm considering going to a comment-free blog, because where ever Atheists land, a pile of trash remains behind them.
Or perhaps a membership driven blog where only those Atheists who wish to make rational explanations of their system of belief would be kept as members to discuss with the rest of us.
It's actually a shame that it comes to this, but there are boundaries and limits - at least in the rational world, if not in the world of freedom from rationality and morality.
The modern Atheist seems devoted to destruction of everything around him from cultural decency to any criticism which offends him. And in their mimicking of Alinsky they cover themselves in a mantle of faux morality, even after having rejected every moral principle except those of their own devising.
It is because of their overt rejection of the moral basis for the standards of civil society up until recently, and because of their increasingly destructive character, that Atheists are not trusted beyond the level of a child molester. Their arrogance and moral preening despite their obvious lack of rational reasoning make them dangerous. Categorically dangerous, from the stated destructive intentions of Dawkins who is on video saying that he wants to destroy Christianity and its influence on society – to be replaced with the irrationality which he teaches at his Atheist Camps for children… to the sad band of juvenile trolls out to destroy criticism on the web.
Atheism cannot withstand direct sunlight in the form of disciplined logical analysis of its reasons for existing, its premises, and its consequences. That is what is provided here.
20 comments:
There are differences between at least two groups of atheists here. The ones you mostly encounter are "new atheists", and you are correct: they do not seem to have any evidence for their beliefs.
But there are also academic atheists. The type you find writing in journals. Quentin Smith and Graham Oppy immediately come to mind. They do support their beliefs rationally.
Do not judge atheism based on its stupidest members.
Not to get into a debate about rational vs irrational beliefs but I believe that there are both good and bad people in all walks of life. There are some atheists who are good people, just as there are some religious folk who are bad. Militant atheism is, I think, unique in that its end goal isn't merely to criticize and reject but to eliminate religion, which entails eliminating the religious, i.e. genocide.
Note the duality between that line of thinking and the Christian missionary: the latter seeks to convert by means of preaching, compassion and example, whereas the former tends to utilize force, by assuming the role of authority, in order to enforce its own belief structure upon society.
We ought discern what constitutes good vs bad actions and judge them accordingly so as to make those distinctions clear. Otherwise, if we're indifferent to the social and political consequences of negative moral and ethical decisions, our actions are void of significance -- we merely 'do' without meaning and purpose, an aimless existence.
Thanks for reading.
I for one considered replying to your 'atheist questions' list, but was immediately repelled upon seeing the usual burden of proof switch built in to the site header. I realised that there is no point debating such a naunced subject with someone that does not even know what the null hypothesis is, and saved myself a lot of time by not bothering.
Andy,
Atheism is not a null hypothesis; it is an emotional position, taken in the rejection of actual rational and material evidence with no attempt to refute either. So your attempt to claim Atheism as a "nuanced" position is self-refuting, and non-coherent.
Further, it is a transparent deflection of intellectual responsibility by the use of tropes rather than reasoning. So it is also not an intellectual position.
Your avoidance is not unexpected; Atheists do not follow evidence to its conclusion objectively; that is because Atheism is also intellectual cowardice, fearful of losing the ideology of freedom from the authority of disciplined thought as well as all other authority.
Further, the claim of the null hypothesis is merely the claim that Atheism is true because Atheism is true (circular) and that Atheism is true because there is no evidence to the contrary, which is true because I say so (Appeal to personal authority).
Coupled with the refusal to address evidence which is given to the Atheist, these salient fallacies render the Atheist who appeals to them quite irrational.
You appraisal of the concept of atheism is strange, especially given your claimed 40 years experience. I am not saying "there is definitely no Jehova / Allah / Odin / Ra / [whoever you care to name]", because that is a claim I know I cannot meet.
Rather, I hold that the burden of proof has not been met and thus my statement is "I have not been convinced of the claimed existence of [Deity]." Thus, my position is the assumption of the negative while the positive claim remains to be established.
Theists are making the positive claim, the responsibility lies with them.
This however brings us the question of the nature of evidence brought to bear on this question. You state that I am not following the evidence; my retort is 'what evidence'? If it is not measureable, we do not know that it exists.
However, I hold little hope that you will address the question of evidence with any intellectual integrity, if your blatantly false appraisal of the null hypothesis is anything to go by.
Andy said,
”You appraisal of the concept of atheism is strange, especially given your claimed 40 years experience. “
Andy, yours is the more modern version which is intended to obscure any actual intellectual responsibility for your belief.
”I am not saying "there is definitely no Jehova / Allah / Odin / Ra / [whoever you care to name]", because that is a claim I know I cannot meet. “
That is true; you cannot.
”Rather, I hold that the burden of proof has not been met and thus my statement is "I have not been convinced of the claimed existence of [Deity]."
Here you make two positive assertions which are direct claims, without any intention of supporting them:
(a) the burden of proof has not been met;
That is false until you prove that is true with evidence and/or disciplined deduction; if you cannot support that assertion then it is an empty claim without proof.
Merely declaring X to be the case has no bearing on whether X is the case or is not the case. It must be proven conclusively that X is necessarily the case, or else there is no reason or reason to support that assertion.
Further, you and no other Atheist ever outline of what the burden of proof consists; it is a secret. Except that it is generally obvious that the proof must be of a material, empirical nature: i.e. replicably experimentally validated and not yet falsified, with replicated data, peer reviewed and published in an acceptable journal. And that is subject to both the well known Fallacy of Category Error (seeking proof of existence within Category type R by searching only in Category type Q), and it is part of the Materialism Fallacy, also.
(b) you have not been convinced…
Convincing you is of precisely no value; what you can prove is the only thing with value.
”Thus, my position is the assumption of the negative while the positive claim remains to be established.”
You can assume anything you wish, but you cannot call it logic or science unless you use actual logic or science to develop real knowledge which supports your position. If you do not claim logic or science, then your position is purely emotional. If you do claim logic or science, then your claims are subject to the disciplines which inhere in logic and science.
Hence, nothing you claim as being the case has any value or weight unless you provide either disciplined logic, or replicable empirical data.
You have been provided both material claims and deductive claims which you dodge by claiming "not to be convinced" with no actual analysis demonstrating any falseness of the claims. So you must be assumed not to be in possession of any contrary knowledge regarding these claims, and so your lack of conviction has no meaning or value.
”Theists are making the positive claim, the responsibility lies with them.”
Completely, totally false. If you reject the theist claim without saying why, then your response is without any reasoning attached to it, and even being insisted upon in the face of demands that you produce reasons for your rejection. Rejection without reasons or reasoning (or evidence) is merely emotional rejectionism, and is completely without any intellectual force since it has no intellectual content. It is irrational and emotion-based, only.
”This however brings us the question of the nature of evidence brought to bear on this question. You state that I am not following the evidence; my retort is 'what evidence'?”
Your retort is false; the evidence has been given here, over and over and over and over. If you cannot find it, look in the right column under Challenges to Atheists.
"If it is not measureable, we do not know that it exists. “
Your argument here is without evidence; it is not measurable. So on your terms, your argument is without value and/or does not exist. Plus, it is obviously Materialist/Scientistic Fallacy derivative.
That indicates that you have no idea regarding the circularity non-coherence of these claims. Here is the 30 second tutorial: Neither Materialism nor Scientism can provide either material evidence or scientific evidence for the claims that (1) Materialism and Scientism are valid ideologies; (2) the non-existence of non-material entities can be demonstrated, much less proven by the use of materialist and/or scientific techniques. So they cannot show that they are the only path to knowledge because they cannot show that their own premises are actual knowledge.
Now it is possible that you are asserting your attack on knowledge from the position of Radical Skepticism, which is purely destructive of all knowledge as issuing from subjectivity. If that is so, then you can know nothing, since all your inputs are derived from fallible sensory inputs.
If you think your attack is from science, then you must also reject string theory and most of cosmology, not to mention history and historical knowledge and moral knowledge.
Or perhaps you are merely asserting blind denialism. It’s hard to say, because your comments are merely assertions without any reasons for believing them or evidence for supporting them.
”However, I hold little hope that you will address the question of evidence with any intellectual integrity, if your blatantly false appraisal of the null hypothesis is anything to go by.”
A completely empty charge intended as an insult but containing no information in its support or reasoning for believing it. You claim “null hypothesis” without any definition or rational support for having claimed it, and you also claim false appraisal without a shred of support for that claim. So they are empty, useless claims. That makes the insult appear silly.
None of your claims have any rational support. Not one.
So that is where this stands.
The Null Hypothesis cannot be used for cases where there is material and logical evidence which must be refuted, empirically and with disciplined deduction. So your assertion is non-valid.
Your insistence upon the assertion of a non-valid principle indicates a postion which is dogma and emotion driven, rather than from objective deduction or replicated empirical experiments.
Geez, can these guys really float around by lifting themselves by their own suspenders? They write as thought saying a thing makes it so, no matter how much nonsense is involved.
Apparently, repetition and volume enter when the rest of us insist these guys are just indulging in wishful thinking. Which is ironic, considering the charges the average atheist levels at religious believers.
One thing which strikes me amazing about the physical universe is how fine-tuned and constant the laws governing it are. If even one of these laws were offset to even the slightest degree, we would cease to be. That atheists would assert that everything (i.e. 'something') came into existence from nothing is so utterly deprived of any sound logical basis or rational explanation, defying even scientific inquiry itself, that it's an intellectual absurdity.
Which of these require more faith: that God created everything or that nothing created everything?
Evolution asserts that random chance could create life from non-life and develop, given just enough time, to create the stunningly balanced, uniform and necessary chain of life. In order for evolution to even have the slightest chance of occurring, abiogenesis would be necessary, yet not once has it ever been witnessed occurring in nature. It would require exponentially increasing improbability the further on it goes through time, because the more time you give it, the less likely it becomes. It's akin to stating that blind chance can create a supercomputer, if but given enough time -- it's self-defeating logic. Therefore, asserting that it did in fact occur at some random point in the past is a purely faith-based proposition. If abiogenesis/evolution were true, it would only create that much more of a problem for atheism!
Rightly, the burden of proof ought be on the (secular) scientists putting forth such faith-based assertions and labeling them fact. After all, they're the ones using their preferred field of study of material things, science, which they hijacked from none other than the Catholic Church, in order to beat the religious over the head with.
Michael, the universe is not necessarily precise and constant, you have it backwards. Our observations are getting better and better, but our approximations are just that, approximations. You see meaning where there is none except what we assign to it. Inferring a creator from our view of the universe is the biggest anthropomorphism mistake humans have been committing, for centuries. We create the equations to describe the universe and then find it fantastic that the equations work so well...
Bob, I'm not mistaken about the fine-tuning of the various laws that govern the universe. All of these constants, such as gravity, are necessary in order that it remain functional. You're right in that this doesn't prove the existence of a Creator in and of itself, but it does infer that there is. That is why belief in God is a matter of faith. That said, it is rather curious how various (atheist) scientists pretend to be experts on matters outside the scope of their field of study, such as metaphysics, philosophy, theology, etc. Just because they may know biology doesn't suddenly make them expert theologians, to say nothing of matters pertaining to morals and ethics, yet nevertheless portray themselves as being all-knowing seers (which exposes their bloated egos).
Michael, you just confirmed that you are mistaken and avoided the point, you just assert your opinion that the equations/constants we use are evidence of a creator. No argument. Just faith.
Bob,
Explain how you deduce that a universe obeying laws and having demonstrable "fine tuning" for existence can be explained materially, and without any rational input.
Do you just have faith that it could happen? Are you asserting that faith as your "reasoning"?
Or are you just asserting Radical Skepticism without any accompanying reasoning?
Bob:
”What makes you think that the universe has 'demonstrable "fine tuning" for existence'?”
Seriously? You are not aware of this principle? Why do you even show up here and discuss things about which you are ignorant? Look it up. If you are unable to look it up, then perhaps I’ll do it for you just one time. Sheesh.
If the universe was not suitable for life, there would be no living thing thinking about it, so the probability of thinking living things being in a universe that support that kind of creature is 100%, regardless of how precise the conditions need to be for such creatures to exist.”
This has to be the bottom of the barrel. “There must be no reason to discuss the reason for the existence of X because there is X, so its existence is 100%."
Look. If you don’t want to discuss things, then don’t waste my time.
”Everything I currently know about the universe is explained materially, from the small scale of atoms and their constituents up to the large scale of galaxies filled with stars, quasar, black holes and more. The interaction of these material things over the past 13-14 billion years or so account for how the planet we live on came to be.”
And that was not the question, so it’s a waste of time. Answer the actual question. I’ll repeat it for you:
”Explain how you deduce that a universe obeying laws and having demonstrable "fine tuning" for existence can be explained materially, and without any rational input.”
Here, let me slow it down a bit:
”Explain how you deduce [i.e. use propositional, deductive logic which is grounded, proper ponens format, which is disciplined, non fallacious, and coherent], that a universe obeying laws [pre-existing, controlling principles for the impending existence, start of existence and continued existence of mass/energy and space/time] and demonstrable “fine tuning” [having come into being despite extremely high odds against it, as cosmologists have defined], can be explained materially [given that cosmology says it started ex nihilo – outside of the existence of material mass/energy and space/time], and without rational input [how do you explain the pre-existence of rational rules/principles which control the beginning and continued existence of the material universe, using material proof in your deductive exercise, when rational rules/principles imply a rational creating entity?].
Hope that helps you in your answer directed toward finding truth, rather than defending a pre-conception for an ideology.
”Therefore, I am justified to believe that it is 'possible' for the universe itself to be explained materially, but I don't know how, so I stop at 'possible'.
Actually that is completely not justified given the cosmology of the last 150 years. So since it is not justified empirically (i.e. materially, experimentally, etc., within the given universe), then you must justify it, if you use it in your counter argument.
”Faith would be required to believe that the universe does have a material cause. Faith is also required to believe the universe cannot 'possibly' have a material cause.”
Here you seem to admit that material evidence is not up to the task. So your conclusion is arbitrarily faith based.
But, deduction can produce the likelihood by eliminating irrational possibilities, so have at it.
”"Or are you just asserting Radical Skepticism without any accompanying reasoning?"
Clearly you are the one who is skeptical here. You asked 'Do you just have faith that it could happen?' as if you had evidence that it could not. What would this evidence or reasoning be?”
Clearly you avoided the question.
First, You cannot make assumptions about the motivations for asking a question without the very high risk of twisting the question in your own comprehension.
Second, You already answered the question, just above; yes, you have faith that it could happen despite the scientific evidence to the contrary (Hawking/Penrose). If you are unaware of the very famous cosmological science, then you can’t very well argue your case.
Stan, "”Explain how you deduce [i.e. use propositional, deductive logic which is grounded, proper ponens format, which is disciplined, non fallacious, and coherent], that a universe obeying laws [pre-existing, controlling principles for the impending existence, start of existence and continued existence of mass/energy and space/time] and demonstrable “fine tuning” [having come into being despite extremely high odds against it, as cosmologists have defined], can be explained materially [given that cosmology says it started ex nihilo – outside of the existence of material mass/energy and space/time], and without rational input [how do you explain the pre-existence of rational rules/principles which control the beginning and continued existence of the material universe, using material proof in your deductive exercise, when rational rules/principles imply a rational creating entity?]."
176,293 bajillion years ago (note: throughout the 20th century, scientists kept arbitrarily increasing the amount of time in order to give their evolutionary model more time/chance), there was a BANG!, caused by nothing, and then, through a long and complex process completely unguided by an Intelligent Agent (because just trust them, they wear lab coats and therefore know everything about everything), the universe and all the laws which govern it came into existence. Oh, and there are multiverses and a host of other fabricated nonsense.
You're repeating yourself without supporting your claims. Just saying that people out there agree with you and I should look it up does not convince me. I don't see why your interpretation of cosmology would have more value than mine by default. I can also tell you to go look it up...
Bob,
Then you are incorrigibly irrational and with no value in a conversation.
Feel free to make up your own science facts elsewhere.
Adios.
Post a Comment