Defeating Varieties of Atheistic Arguments

[swivel]

swivel

So if I am a highschool drop out and I say that I don't believe in electrons because I have never seen one does that make me intelligent?

I never equated atheism or theism with intelligence. I just am pointing out that they are different epistemological systems, with different needs, and logic does not help either one converse with each other. You have to be inside the same epistemological framework in order to have a meaningful discussion about how we know things. And that is the job of ontology. If you don't have an ontological agreement, there is no point in discussing a topic.

You are being reactionary without understanding my post. I'm not trying to compete with you. The two of us speak a different language, have different epistemological and ontological frameworks, and should be satisfied just being entertained by each other's philosophies.



Edit: Satyr, that was a wonderful read. I disagree with part of your next post, though. You seem to think that conversation will never make a theist turn into a skeptic. I have converted more people than a Mormon on missionary. And not because I wanted to, I don't care what people think. But by living with my family, and participating on two other forums, I have seen over a dozen people open their brains up to the scientific method, and pull themselves out of the misery that often accompanies weak faith.

 

[Enterprise-D]

There is so much testimony from great philosophers and scientists about a category (God) that explains all other categories, and if a person is not interested it seems to indicate that a person is non-philosophical – in other words if the category gets too big that it makes me small – well- that’s enough philosophy, that’s enough science, that’s enough investigation – they lose their nerve – their philosophical enquiry gets blunted by envy.

Testimony does not equal PROOF. Testimony assists a case, however people can be liars, misinformed or paid off.

It’s just like buying a car – if you refuse to go for a test drive yet insist that the salesman logically prove to you that the car runs nicely he will say “Sorry we don’t do business that way”.

Obviously you’ve never dealt with a resourceful salesperson. He could have you stand up on the parking lot and watch him drive. Or he can show you a video demo. Or he could have Dr. Z explain the mechanics behind the car. Many possibilities.

In other words, can a person expect to stand outside the process of knowing God and perceive God?
No.

You’re comparing a product of science with a product of faith. There is no video demo, beta version, computer model or Dr. Z of god. Therefore there can be no way to perceive any such being except by such a being coming over for dinner.

PART TWO – Defeating varieties of atheistic arguments

......

TESTING THE TRUTH OF AN ARGUMENT

(P1) All turtles have wings
(P2) All horses are turtles
(C) All horses have wings

The sad fact is that this is a logical argument. Of course it is not true but it contains no logical fallacies. Defeating this type of argument requires an analysis of the premises. For example here is the common “Religion causes war” argument.

This can be applied to anything you wish to say. This method of logical argument however must be carefully wielded and worded…

(P1) War is regrettable
(P2) Religion causes war
(C) Therefore religion is regrettable

One can defeat this argument by examining the premise of P2 and establishing that violence is in fact caused by many things, the most likely being human nature.

…for example, your argument here leaves a NARROW berth of judgement. It also is much too simplistic. Perhaps a better argument would be:

(P1) War is regrettable
(P2) Religion has been at the root of many wars
(C) Therefore religion can be regrettable

This argument not only holds up its conclusion, it also leaves room to suggest that this argument may not be true in some cases. And this is just a better way of stating the argument you chose, don’t take it as the be all and end all of the transitive property.

TESTING THE LOGIC OF AN ARGUMENT

(P1) Today is Tuesday
(P2) The grass is green
(C) I’m tired

These statements are all true but the arguments are totally illogical – what is not true, however , is that the premises establish the conclusion. Often you encounter this in the form of arguments that are merely tentative suggestions ( in other words the plausibility can often be easily swung to prove the opposite).

(P1) Scientists examine matter
(P2) Study of matter has not revealed god
(C) Scientists have no interest in religion

One can defeat this by showing evidence of scientists that have been interested in god.

This is of course rubbish. If any athiest has said this to you, then frankly (s)he is obviously not logical. Mutually exclusive truth statements, or intersecting arguments (sets) exist in science and mathematics; and logic thinkers will of course never form a corollary based on two unrelated (or partly unrelated) statements such as you have tried to imply.

Further, scientists are - as anyone else - free to believe what they wish. What they present as truth to the public must completely separate from their theisms. Conversely, if a scientist proves the existence of god, under the rules of the scientific method of course he can air it.


Your examples are shaky, your initial car comparison is emotive and actually a fallacy in its own right. Try again.

 

[Satyr]

Edit: Satyr, that was a wonderful read. I disagree with part of your next post, though. You seem to think that conversation will never make a theist turn into a skeptic. I have converted more people than a Mormon on missionary.

This is only possible if there are certain elements already present in the others mind:

Honesty.
Courage.
Intelligence.
Knowledge.

An absence of any one of these elements will make the mind invulnerable to any reason.
One can be knowledgeable, for instance, but lack courage and so use what knowledge he has of the natural to believe in the super-natural.
They will be driven by an insufferable need to escape what terrifies them. They will see you and your attempts to “convert” them as ‘evil’ and God testing them.

For many religious minds the absurdity of what they believe in constitutes an added reason to continue believing; it becomes a symbol concerning the sacrifices and the faith they posses.
The more absurd and illogical their beliefs the more they hold onto them. This they project upward as evidence of their faithfulness.

I’ve analyzed the Christian mind, in particular, and I think all religious minds exhibit similar traits.
I’ve noticed that they think forwards and reason backwards.
They begin with a desired conclusion and then find reasons to support it. They do not start with an open mind and then evaluate the evidence, coming to probable or improbable explanations for them, believing in things in degree rather than as absolutes. They already know where they want to go and their thinking is dedicated to finding a path to it.
This is their burden.
This they call their open-mindedness.

They cannot perceive any conflict of interest in their beliefs and so can never become skeptical about them, beyond a certain level.
What skepticism creeps inside them, they interpret as the Devil’s temptation, the serpent’s tongue.

The one common characteristic of all religious minds, besides geographical and cultural commonality, is that they share some traumatic event or existential anxiety or stunted psychology (sometimes having to do with repressed sexuality or sexual insecurities) which they cannot psychologically deal with.
Belief then becomes a matter of survival. They need it to cope with the human condition and with a world that frightens them and makes them feel insecure and small.
The ‘God’ factor comes, as a big brother, a father figure, a larger than life element to save them and protect them and give meaning to their suffering and offer them an escape from their weaknesses and insecurities and inferiorities.
The God factor also offers a revenge against all those that have hurt them or caused them to feel insecure and inferior. Through him they are redeemed.

Being meek and weak then becomes an advantage. Being dim-witted and ignorant a benefit.
Survival of the un-fittest. The tables are turned on nature, they become super-natural beings, deserving of special consideration, their pains will be recompensed and their inabilities in this life will become abilities in the after-life.

“The meek shall inherit the earth”

They also find pride in their faith.
They are not descendants of apes but of the One and only God, in whose image they were made and for whom a privileged place in heaven was reserved, if they remain disciplined and submissive to Him.
This is called indirect power. Strength through association.
They are not strong as individuals but only in relation to the one they choose to belong to and ally with.

So…good luck.

 

[swivel]

I've always found it sad for religion to note that the beaten-down and weak are the most vigorous in their faith. Alchoholics, drug addicts, gambling addicts, prisoners, impovershed, abused... those that are in the worst positions seem to be those that are most susceptable to the allure of religion.

I dig what you are saying Satyr. I agree that a large portion of theists lack the capacity to reason, but I think a very large portion of believers only do so because they never encounter anything else. They are indoctrinated from birth and never meet people brave enough to talk about their lack of superstition.

My current girlfriend is a brilliant doctor of psychology, but when I met her, she was not able to be honest about her atheism. She was apologetically spiritual, and wouldn't explore forbidden lines of thought. All it took was seeing how I treat people, and listening to my calm "courage" to not be superstitious, and she began to embrace what was already within her... the ability to be purely rational.

And I dare say, the two of us find more awe each day with the brilliance of life than any spiritual person I know.

So, I agree with you regarding some people, but I hope you get to encounter these other types, and hold out some hope for them the way that I do.

 

[Satyr]

I've always found it sad for religion to note that the beaten-down and weak are the most vigorous in their faith. Alchoholics, drug addicts, gambling addicts, prisoners, impovershed, abused... those that are in the worst positions seem to be those that are most susceptable to the allure of religion.

I would say that much of religious fanaticism and unquestioning belief in the unseen and often illogical is dependant on a beaten spirit to exist at all.

Only when a human is demoralized, taken over by fear and hope, stricken with a tragedy or has succumbed to a weakness can he be said to be open to a religious life-preserver.
A drowning man clutches at his hair and tries to pull himself out of the water.
Desperation is a good motivator.

All spirituality is spawned in this existential angst. The unknown frightens us and we grasp at any idea which comforts us and offers us meaning and hope.
Since the human condition is fraught with anxiety it makes it all the more natural that all humans would exhibit some kind of spirituality, to varying degrees.

The most vulnerable and psychologically needy will be the ones exhibiting the greatest degree of faith and fanaticism in the hypothetical.
This is why poverty, war, tragedy, old age and dullness of mind are fertile grounds for religious faith.

It isn’t that anyone can offer indisputable evidence for ay assertion it’s that some need less convincing and evidence than others.


Notice how no response is offered.

 

[AAF]

That's the best way to keep an attacking robot at bay. If you tell them this sentence is false, they will have to follow the logic out to its conclusion (because they're robots) and they will never escape the infinite loop of paradox. Maybe they'll make like a Dell laptop and spontaneously catch fire.
As humans, however, we have a word for bullshit.

:m:

Clearly, baumgarten, you are a liar & vulgar too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

 

[lightgigantic]

Enterprise-D

Testimony does not equal PROOF. Testimony assists a case, however people can be liars, misinformed or paid off.

I agree - testimony establishes epistemology (credibility) - epistemology establishes proof

Obviously you’ve never dealt with a resourceful salesperson. He could have you stand up on the parking lot and watch him drive. Or he can show you a video demo. Or he could have Dr. Z explain the mechanics behind the car. Many possibilities.

But in terms of the real world they would either lather you in pesuasivesness or assume taht you were not really interested in the vehicle if you were not prepared to do something so elementary as take it for a test drive

You’re comparing a product of science with a product of faith. There is no video demo, beta version, computer model or Dr. Z of god. Therefore there can be no way to perceive any such being except by such a being coming over for dinner.

You are jumping the gun by asuming that the epistemology of perceiving god does not produce an objective result - unless you are saying that chemistry also yields acts of faith due to some strange concept of ontology

…for example, your argument here leaves a NARROW berth of judgement. It also is much too simplistic. Perhaps a better argument would be:

(P1) War is regrettable
(P2) Religion has been at the root of many wars
(C) Therefore religion can be regrettable

This argument not only holds up its conclusion, it also leaves room to suggest that this argument may not be true in some cases. And this is just a better way of stating the argument you chose, don’t take it as the be all and end all of the transitive property.

If you want to take it up there is a specific thread for this - the point is that premise 2 is fallacious, so it is not a water tight conclusion, whatever you want to draw from it

This is of course rubbish. If any athiest has said this to you, then frankly (s)he is obviously not logical.

Its an example I encounter - admittedly it easy to defeat but I gave a clear example to illustrate the point of falsity

Your examples are shaky, your initial car comparison is emotive and actually a fallacy in its own right. Try again.

Wll try it in a car yard and see what happens

 

[lightgigantic]

swivel

I never equated atheism or theism with intelligence. I just am pointing out that they are different epistemological systems, with different needs, and logic does not help either one converse with each other. You have to be inside the same epistemological framework in order to have a meaningful discussion about how we know things. And that is the job of ontology. If you don't have an ontological agreement, there is no point in discussing a topic.

Therefore why do atheists pass judgement on theology despite a complete lack of epistemology?
Thats what I call a lack of intelligence

You are being reactionary without understanding my post. I'm not trying to compete with you. The two of us speak a different language, have different epistemological and ontological frameworks, and should be satisfied just being entertained by each other's philosophies.

So in otherwords there is no such thing as objective peception?

 

[lightgigantic]

swivel

I've always found it sad for religion to note that the beaten-down and weak are the most vigorous in their faith. Alchoholics, drug addicts, gambling addicts, prisoners, impovershed, abused... those that are in the worst positions seem to be those that are most susceptable to the allure of religion.

There are also three other types, namely the seeker of wealth, the curious and those who desire to understand the nature of the absolute (each is successively better than the former). And what - you would rather a drug addict be an atheist than come clean and become a theist in the process? Isn't that kind of sad?

I dig what you are saying Satyr. I agree that a large portion of theists lack the capacity to reason, but I think a very large portion of believers only do so because they never encounter anything else.

And what of atheists - they have all bases of objective reasoning covered?

They are indoctrinated from birth and never meet people brave enough to talk about their lack of superstition.

So you have a premise that all people who acept religion are indoctrinated by birth, or is a variable - and even then, if a person never really acclimitised to other social environments wouldn't you expect them to be influenced by their place of birth - if an atheist was indoctrinated sice birth, is taht an automatic indication of a person being under the purview of a false doctrine as well?
As for meeting people brave enough, I would say people intelligent enough to recognise the connection between epistemology and knowledge

My current girlfriend is a brilliant doctor of psychology, but when I met her, she was not able to be honest about her atheism. She was apologetically spiritual, and wouldn't explore forbidden lines of thought. All it took was seeing how I treat people, and listening to my calm "courage" to not be superstitious, and she began to embrace what was already within her... the ability to be purely rational.

What is intrinsic to this statement except that A influences B, or B influences A? eg -
My current girlfriend is a brilliant doctor of psychology, but when I met her, she was not able to be honest about her theism. She was apologetically atheistic, and wouldn't explore forbidden lines of thought. All it took was seeing how I treat people, and listening to my calm "courage" to not be superstitious, and she began to embrace what was already within her... the ability to be purely rational.

And I dare say, the two of us find more awe each day with the brilliance of life than any spiritual person I know.

Even a worm in stool thinks "at last I have found my castle!!"
In otherwords we are still left with the picture that every living entity in the world thinks something is great but we are still left to puzzle over what is actually great and what isn't ...

 

[Sarkus]

testimony establishes epistemology (credibility) - epistemology establishes proof

I do not agree - how can testimony establish epistemology?
To do so is an appeal to both consensus (e.g. sufficient testimony gives credibility) - and to authority (e.g. the testimony is reliable because of who gave it) - without rational justification for either.

Yes, the authority could be given by qualification - but that is then just a self-perpetuating pseudo-authority with no actual value.
It appears no different, I agree, to a teacher of, say, Physics - teaching only what he has been taught - but the difference is that what the physics teacher is teaching has other evidence behind it - and is not solely reliant on the authority itself.

 

[lightgigantic]

I do not agree - how can testimony establish epistemology?
To do so is an appeal to both consensus (e.g. sufficient testimony gives credibility) - and to authority (e.g. the testimony is reliable because of who gave it) - without rational justification for either.

Yes, the authority could be given by qualification - but that is then just a self-perpetuating pseudo-authority with no actual value.
It appears no different, I agree, to a teacher of, say, Physics - teaching only what he has been taught - but the difference is that what the physics teacher is teaching has other evidence behind it - and is not solely reliant on the authority itself.

I will give you an example

A university is set up with the testimony that it is the latest and greatest way to learn physics - this can lead to credibility - inother words a person who may not even exhibit a strong inclination to study physics may suddenly decide to study there - in other words they get convinced by the testimony on the strength of credibility - some value is perceived, which you could argue is faith - and on the strength of that perceived value one applies the epistemology to learn the discipline of physics, and after several years of theory (including what they went through in senior secondary schooling) they get the opportunity for practical application - in other words its a long road to direct perception, and it reaches its dynamic high point after the point of the performance of the successful epistemology.

If the epistemology was bogus, then one could say the ontology is bogus, whether it be physics or religion - in other words there may be many ontological opinions, but the opinions of those who have applied the epistemology bear credibility

 

[Sarkus]

A university is set up with the testimony that it is the latest and greatest way to learn physics - this can lead to credibility - inother words a person who may not even exhibit a strong inclination to study physics may suddenly decide to study there - in other words they get convinced by the testimony on the strength of credibility - some value is perceived, which you could argue is faith - and on the strength of that perceived value one applies the epistemology to learn the discipline of physics, and after several years of theory (including what they went through in senior secondary schooling) they get the opportunity for practical application - in other words its a long road to direct perception, and it reaches its dynamic high point after the point of the performance of the successful epistemology.

If the epistemology was bogus, then one could say the ontology is bogus, whether it be physics or religion - in other words there may be many ontological opinions, but the opinions of those who have applied the epistemology bear credibility

I think I am beginning to see where you are coming from - but, as you no doubt expect, I still disagree.

In the case of religion, it is not the credibility of the epistemology that is driven by testimony alone - but it is the epistemology itself that is driven by that same testimony. The same testimony can not be used to both give credibility AND to be the source of the epistemology. It is a self-fuelling fallacy - "Believe to perceive to believe"

Secondly, other than testimony - what other epistemology is there for religion? Physics has observation of the physical world. Religion has... ?

Thirdly, there are undeniable epistemological weaknesses with testimony - such as appeal to authority, misinterpretation through language, prior knowledge of the one giving testimony (which can lead to appeal to authority, for example), appeal to consensus - all logical fallacies - and with good reason.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D
I agree - testimony establishes epistemology (credibility) - epistemology establishes proof

Credibility does not equal proof either. If I am able to come up with enough money to bribe the most honest witness his testimony still couldn't stand up by itself in court. Physical evidence must also be presented

But in terms of the real world they would either lather you in pesuasivesness or assume taht you were not really interested in the vehicle if you were not prepared to do something so elementary as take it for a test drive

Still you have not dealt with a salesperson worth his salt. A true salesperson would be able to sell you that car without the ignition being turned. It is YOUR responsibility to insist on a test drive, not his. They do it because it's the easiest way to land a sale, it ISN'T necessary. He has other sales tools under his belt. Bear in mind I have done sales for years in the past. I've landed sizeable deals without having a thing in stock to demo.

You are jumping the gun by asuming that the epistemology of perceiving god does not produce an objective result - unless you are saying that chemistry also yields acts of faith due to some strange concept of ontology

How in heaven's name (yes..irony) can a philosophical discussion/exploration of a perception produce anything objective? Theists seem love the sciency sounding words "epistemology" and "ontology"; that is the equivalent of firing blanks, because they are still branches of philosophy. Philosophy, while it may be perceived as scientific, differs from science in one fundamental way: philosophies entail questions that cannot be answered empirically. Keep in mind, strictly speaking, a philosophy does not allow for leaps of faith either, but I understand a more loose definition will cater for specific beliefs (like any theism).

If you want to take it up there is a specific thread for this - the point is that premise 2 is fallacious, so it is not a water tight conclusion, whatever you want to draw from it

How is my premise 2 fallacious? Religion has been used as a justifying factor for many wars; such can easily be shown via history texts. Actually feel free to not answer this part, I'll look it up. It matters not anyway because transitive corollaries are definitely not the only method of argument that logical individuals use to question statements that the blind theist accepts as factual. Your "varieties of athiestic arguments" don't seem to be very ...um... varied. :bugeye:

Its an example I encounter - admittedly it easy to defeat but I gave a clear example to illustrate the point of falsity

Granted, however, feel free to dismiss those individuals as emotive rather than logical.

Wll try it in a car yard and see what happens

The right salesperson will have you itching to buy a car. Keep in mind as well that a sales rep knows that the item is the least important in the sales process. The most important issue is to get you to TRUST him. Of course if you're going to test this premise via a shifty used-car dealer (a la Piranha Club), that's a whole different ball game. You deserve what you get if you don't test drive it.

 

[swivel]

So in otherwords there is no such thing as objective peception?

Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

[lightgigantic]

I think I am beginning to see where you are coming from - but, as you no doubt expect, I still disagree.

In the case of religion, it is not the credibility of the epistemology that is driven by testimony alone - but it is the epistemology itself that is driven by that same testimony. The same testimony can not be used to both give credibility AND to be the source of the epistemology. It is a self-fuelling fallacy - "Believe to perceive to believe"

If that is infact what your experience of religion offers, then I would agree with you - in other words that would be an example of bogus religion because it doesn't actually have an epistemological basis (which BTW, was one of the reasons I drew up the thread about correct epistemology of religion) -

Secondly, other than testimony - what other epistemology is there for religion? Physics has observation of the physical world. Religion has... ?

observation and experience of god's nature and also one's own nature
BG 9.2 This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed.

Thirdly, there are undeniable epistemological weaknesses with testimony - such as appeal to authority, misinterpretation through language, prior knowledge of the one giving testimony (which can lead to appeal to authority, for example), appeal to consensus - all logical fallacies - and with good reason.

Therefore the real test comes not with testimony but by application of epistemology - testimony need not be integral to the process, but its usually the case that a person has to be "convinced" of the value of something before they begin to try anything - so that convincing can be either true or false (testimony is not infallible), and you can find examples of both in any field of knowledge, from religion to science

 

[lightgigantic]

Enterprise-D

Credibility does not equal proof either. If I am able to come up with enough money to bribe the most honest witness his testimony still couldn't stand up by itself in court. Physical evidence must also be presented

I don't say that credibility is infallible - I say that it is usually required for a person to be convinced, on the strength of the credibility of testimony, before they perceive the value in anything - that convincing can be either true or false, which the next stage, application of epistemology, verifies - the same holds true for science - we hear the tesimonies of science as a child and become convinced to study it as a career in adulthod - doesn't mean whatever testimony we heard as a child is true or even that the training you receive under the guise of science is bonafide

Still you have not dealt with a salesperson worth his salt. A true salesperson would be able to sell you that car without the ignition being turned. It is YOUR responsibility to insist on a test drive, not his. They do it because it's the easiest way to land a sale, it ISN'T necessary. He has other sales tools under his belt. Bear in mind I have done sales for years in the past. I've landed sizeable deals without having a thing in stock to demo.

But the point of the car salesman is that is the customer insisting that the salesman prove that the car runs perfectly well by use of logic, while refusing to go for a test drive - yes - the customer could just buy the car - in the same way a person could just simply take to the process of religion, but if they lay a condition that the absolute nature of the end result be established by logic, it will not work - in other words logic only brings you to the point of practical application, and it is practical application that grants the understanding of the object in question (ie religion)

How in heaven's name (yes..irony) can a philosophical discussion/exploration of a perception produce anything objective?

My point exactly - it relies on practical application (epistemology) - its a response to atheists saying XYZ about god yet having not applied any proces to undersand the subject

Theists seem love the sciency sounding words "epistemology" and "ontology"; that is the equivalent of firing blanks, because they are still branches of philosophy. Philosophy, while it may be perceived as scientific, differs from science in one fundamental way: philosophies entail questions that cannot be answered empirically. Keep in mind, strictly speaking, a philosophy does not allow for leaps of faith either, but I understand a more loose definition will cater for specific beliefs (like any theism).

Actually these words epistemology and ontology have equivelants in sanskrit, so if I use them it is just so I can discuss the ideas with persons who don't have a foundation in sanskrit

So unanswered questions, ie curiousity, is not a driving force behind science? - and what are scientific theories if not answers that don't have an empirical basis?

How is my premise 2 fallacious? Religion has been used as a justifying factor for many wars; such can easily be shown via history texts. Actually feel free to not answer this part, I'll look it up. It matters not anyway because transitive corollaries are definitely not the only method of argument that logical individuals use to question statements that the blind theist accepts as factual. Your "varieties of athiestic arguments" don't seem to be very ...um... varied. :bugeye:

Actually I don't think I rely on anything theistic to establish the fallaciousness of your claim - anyway - see you there

Granted, however, feel free to dismiss those individuals as emotive rather than logical.

If blind belief is one ridiculous extreme, then th eopposite, blind disbelief, also must occupy some aspect of response

The right salesperson will have you itching to buy a car. Keep in mind as well that a sales rep knows that the item is the least important in the sales process. The most important issue is to get you to TRUST him. Of course if you're going to test this premise via a shifty used-car dealer (a la Piranha Club), that's a whole different ball game. You deserve what you get if you don't test drive it.

Seems like you seem to be agreeing that the only logical conclusion is to apply the relevant epistemology to determine the validity of a claim - if that is in fact your basis, why do you insist it is not relevant and a person is enable to say XYZ about religion despite not applying it?

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So in otherwords there is no such thing as objective peception? ”



Isn't that an oxymoron?

lol - First lets establish whether anyone advocates it and then we can discuss its value

 

[lightgigantic]

Something I wrote a long time ago.
CHRISTIAN DEBATE TACTICS AND MOTIVATIONS (an analysis)

BTW - I am not a christian but I will argue from the point of general religious principles

1] Turning the Tables

Christians are inclined to mutate the debate from one demanding proof from the one proposing a “truth” to one demanding an equal burden from the one not being convinced of the proof given.

I encounter the same plurality in discussions against atheists "Prove there is no god" draws the same response

They enact a sort of diversion trying to prove a hypothesis by demanding the other to prove a negative.

Well lets examine where the burden of evidence lies - if countless billions of people attest to the existence of something and you turn around with nothing more to say than "Its all in your imagination", I think you have to come up with something better

Their “Reverse Reasoning” scheme is a result of their need to show that all forms of belief, even unbelief, require faith and therefore the choice should be decided on the grounds of which side is promising the most; a very selfish stance given their supposed selflessness.

If you cannot prove god doesn't exist (using the same empirical methods that you insist that god be proven) doesn't it indicate a dynamic that functions on the same general principle?

In this way they accomplish two things:
1] They avoid the burden of presenting arguments for their proposition {for which there are none that can be taken seriously by a thinking man}, by subtly admitting they cannot, and then challenging the other to present an argument against their proposition, that they obviously cannot, and in this way equating the two.

2] They attempt to show that all positions are founded on faith and blind hypothesis making them all quasi-religious {Here they are partially correct but avoid the fact that atheism is the product of skepticism and doubt and theirs has neither inclination within it} and so again they equate the theistic and atheistic positions by describing them as resting on the same bedrock of human ignorance as their own.

quit dancing and just prove that there is no god will ya!!

This clever strategy completely avoids the fact that there are no absolutes but only superior and inferior positions judged by the quality and quantity of their supportive arguments based on empiricism and logic created through experiential mechanisms.

And now you have somehow proven that there are no absolutes? In other words the only absolute is that there is no absolute
One of the difficulties with absolute negatives is that they tend to eliminate all possibilities while at the same time making it very difficult to dtermine what processes were applied to give the said statement its privledged status

Here a religious mind shows the quality of its reasoning by not being able to perceive gradations of “truth” but only absolutes {God Itself is an absolute notion} and by perceiving the universe as a “this” or “that” construct, a black or white, a good or evil reality with no coloration or shading of any kind in between.

Actually theologists often discuss the nature of variety in god - in other words there can be variety within the absolute - try researching the word "godhead" - that said I am sure you can even find atheists that advocate an absolute cause to existence - they argue however that it i snot god

There’s a saying that goes like this:
“Don’t argue with a fool because he’ll pull you down to his level and then beat you with his experience there.”

Good advice - I will try and remember it as I continue on with this examination

Unfortunately, for them, the burden of proof rests squarely upon their shoulders and no amount of verbal acrobatics can unburden them of it.

If its so obvious to prove that god doesn't exist - just do it - instead you can only come up with phenomena that owes the cause of its existence to something mysterious you can not determine

The one claiming a “truth”, in this case an absolute “truth” at that, is the one that must offer arguments and evidence, equal to the proposition offered, and in support of this “truth” and not the one denying or resisting the arguments themselves.
If the other, in this case atheists, remains unconvinced or can explain away said arguments and evidence using rational and logical counter-arguments or can offer alternative explanations for supposed supporting phenomena, then it is not up to the denier to prove the opposite of the proposition proposed but only to cast doubt upon it if he can.

These are only tentative suggestions

An absolute statement of truth would demand absolute undeniable arguments. Any hint of imperfection would constitute such a statement as hypothetical and theoretical, at best.

So if I say china exists and you have never been to china and reject the existence of china on that basis, what is your position?

Here I must mention that there are Atheists that hold on to their own opinions in absolute dogmatic ways and are just as guilty of absolutism as any religious fanatic is. The only honest atheistic position is that of one not believing in things it is unconvinced of or has not witnessed adequate proof of.
If I have doubt, I have reason to remain skeptical.

Then you bring yourself into severe epistemological difficulties the moment you use the word god

I have no proof that there’s a Gargoyle in my closet so I am an unbeliever in Gargoyles but retain the possibility that there might be merely based on the fact that I cannot search all the closets in the world and cannot discount the fact that these creatures may exist in realms and dimensions out of my perceptive abilities. {Agnosticism}

You are now performing the dancing technique that you abhor in theists

2] Using Human Psychology

Christians, like many religious minds, inevitably rely on human psychological weakness, existential anxiety and instinctual survival drives and egotism to support their absolutist, dogmatic fundamentalism, masking as Theistic philosophy.

The methods of offering threats and promises to entice and beguile the unsuspecting victim with their ‘Siren’ song are well known to me.
It is of no surprise that religion and, more specifically, Christianity flourish and thrive in the soils of suffering, tragedy and human hopelessness.

Then there are also the other three catergories, namely the seeker of wealth, the inquisitive and the seeker of the absolute truth

It was during the Dark-Ages that Christianity reached the peak of its power and, the relative, well-being of most in today’s western world shows why it is currently in decline, while in less fortunate geographical areas, full of poverty and war, religion still holds power over the populace [Islam for instance].

Do americans feel offended when their views are described as eurocentric?
Been to an islamic country have you? Or does time magazine establish your limits of international perception?

Suffering has always been a fertile ground for religion.

I guess its times like that when people realise the futility of materialistic solutions

It has spread during times of social and cultural strife

well why is their strife? Isn't that an important question in life? I don't want suffering but why does suffering enter my life? I don't want death - Why does desth enter my life?

and it still finds followers in those that have lived through a tragic personal circumstance or undergo a period of psychological stress and existential discontentment.

Actually to be stabilised on the platform of relief from strife for ones religiousity is unsatisfactory - in other words one will eventually get re-socialised around illusory notions of peace in th ematerial world (ie ascribe eternal values to temporary phenomena) and thus lose the intensity of one's desire to approach god - unless one makes mopre advancement fropm the platform of strife via philosophy

They promise much in the afterlife but conveniently they are proven right or wrong after consciousness has ceased and one is already dead.

On the contrary one can perceive benefit even in this life

They threaten often, by evoking images of ‘hell’ and ‘demons’, playing upon primeval and instinctual fears and creating notions of sin and shame.

So if I posted a photo of yopu having sex with your mother on the net (assuming you performed such an act) how would you feel? Is shame, or even the hindsighted re-organisation of one's values due to error an illusory notion or a sign of intelligence?

The whole premise of Pascal’s wager is fraught with similar religious promise and threat and neglects to mention that there IS! a loss in believing in a God that may not exist at all. It is the loss of living life completely and fully, open-minded and unhindered by fear or expectation.

So in other words you ar e free to have sex with your mother and even post in on the net yourself? Intriguing

If we take into account the laws and rules of religious ethos and see life as an opportunity for exploration then there is a price in believing in gods that may not be there and in disciplining one’s self to an authority that is absent.

Or alternatively it could be good advice that we are neglecting - its still not clear in exactly what ways we are missing out on the joyous bounds of liberation by discarding religious rules - Like suppose I take delight in smashing shop windows - I just love the tinkling sound you know - what right do you have to infringe on my freedom if I chose to explore this?

Living in ignorance is the most terrible price of all.

Still haven't established where you are residing

Adam made his choice what's yours?
Dedicating yourself to a single source and an only goal is full of unnecessary and, in my view, intolerable consequences. It sacrifices all other possibilities and all other sources and goals on the demanding alter of a single one hypothesis.

You don't happen to be refering to the notion that bodily enjoyment is the be all and end all of life?

In the case of Christianity, the hypothesis is of such childishness and hypocrisy as to become ridiculous and obscene to whoever studies its premises with an open and courageous spirit.

Actually I can understand what you are saying - I understand how the institutionalisation of religion can lead to issues - but I don't think its proper to perceive the value of a subject (ie religion) by using the worst and lowest example of its existence (I can only assume you have tons of experience with nutcase xtians in the states - not to say all are like that - in fact if you examine all religions you will see that some get it right and some get it wrong - much like any other branch of knowledgable enquiry - fopr instance because some scientists were proven to be cheats and crooks does that mean we should get rid of all scientists? Or does it mean that we should endeavour to rectify science in its proper form?)

3] Hiding behind Theism

The defensive stance of running behind a legitimate philosophical proposition to disguise our dogmatic fanaticism as an equal philosophical position is also another Christian method.

So you ar e denying that there are dogmatic atheists?

Recently Christians have fought to include religion in schools and are presenting their ideas of Creationism as just another “scientific theory” that may lack any scientific respectability, due to an absence of empirical evidence but that nevertheless is the equal of Evolution Theory or any other scientific hypothesis because of Biblical accounts and third party attestations.

So in other words, despite earlier attesting of the evils of religion clamping down on freedom of speech or enabling converse ideas to flourish in their presence, you insist on applying similar contrivances in the name of atheism?

Modern-day Christians and Christian apologists prefer to approach the “God” subject from a purely Theistic perspective in order to gain credibility and respect and when the initial gain has been made and they sit at the same table as other philosophical theories they unleash the tirade of mythological prejudices and fairy-tale constructs to then “prove” the superiority of their specific religion as opposed to that of others.

Now you have also left the "secure" confines of your agnostic blockade th eoment you say it is mythology and fairy tales - if you have evidence don't hesitate to present it - it might help your argument

But Christians, as other religious fundamentalists, wish to go beyond the premises of a theistic philosophical approach. They not only wish to prove the existence of God, a prejudiced starting point to begin with,

You left the agnostic blockade again - you are revealing your own prejudice

but need also to paint him with humanistic and positive colorations as to make Him more palatable and commercial and desirable.

Your position is that man created god - their position is that god created man -what absurdity are you expecting? A reconciliation of epistemolgies?

It isn’t enough, for them, that there is an ultimate creator but It must also exhibit the conscious intelligence, emotional predispositions and transcending concerns they want It to, as well: “God is Love”, “God is good”, “God is compassionate”, “God is omnipotent”, and so on.

So now you have evidence of what can and cannot be - actually if you study world religions, which I am sur e you haven't and won't, you will see that these "concoctions" are intrinsic to numerous religions in numerous cultures in numerous times

Yet, they can no more offer convincing arguments as to why He is so than they can offer convincing argument that He IS at all.

You are kind of like a mystery thriller that has the middle pages removed - you state your opinions but completely negelect the premises to establish them. Why can't god be omnipotent? Why can't god be good? Because you said so? On what strength should we accept your ideas? Your charisma? And if we accept it on that basis wouldn't we be guilty of blind belief?

Then they ask us to risk our entire intellectual integrity and future investigative prospects by surrendering to their primitive dictums completely so as to not endanger our theoretical after-life fate at the hands of an otherwise compassionate, forgiving and loving deity.

All I am requesting is that one applies th e relevant epistemology (or even examine it) so at least one can know what one is talking about when they use the word g"god" and not sound like a buffoon in the assembly of persons who have applied the said epistemology

Perhaps they, due to some life tragedy or internal weakness, can accept certain characteristics as being self-evident in a being they want to believe exists as they want it to exist even though its actions show it to be the reverse of what they claim it is.

Aren't you merciful

How can “evil” exist in a creation constructed by absolute “good”?

How can free will exist without the opportunity for evil?

How can omnipotence be unable to defeat “evil” and if it tolerates it, as necessary, then is it absolute “good”?

I am not aware of instances of god being defeated by evil - maybe that is some nutso christian conclusion you've heard
As for the tolerating it, do you mean why doesn't god come and fix up our problems? Well that's the reason we are in the material world to begin with.

What is “evil” and “good”? Christians fail in giving definitions on this matter.

Good is that which is conducive to knowledge of god and evil is the opposite. Although I would prefer to use the words illusion and truth.

If evil is allowed as a necessary environment for free-will, then why is then free-will asked to be constrained and surrendered to “good”?

Whats the alternative? To be forced? Do you think that the eternal realm is full of people who are miserable because they are just itching to do something they're not allowed? Surrender becomes easy when you are socialised around the activities of liberation

If I am created to be ‘free’ and I choose a path other than the one desired by a deity then why is it sinful to act according to the properties of my nature?

There are many words for sin in sanskrit - one is vikarma - which translates as something which offers results seperate from notions of happiness - like it could be described as vikarmic (and also quite stupid too) to hit oneslef in the head with a hammer - but you can do it if you want

If God is concerned for our free-will then why is there no choice in when and if we wish to exist, in the first place?

Lol - how would you propose a choice be given to something that is not conscious?

It appears that, according to Christianity, I no more have the option of dying on my own terms, since suicide is a ‘sin’, than I do living on my own terms, since I have no choice as to whether I wish to live at all and once alive I have no choice but to choose the one and only path or suffer eternally for my insolence.

The concept of eternal hell is contended in the vedas, but still its not a nice place to go, mainly because a moment there feels like an eternity - but you are right in one sense - ultimately the scope for our free will is quite miniscule in the material world - much like the scope for free will is greatly reduced in a jail compared to a normal citizen


In the case of “first cause”, let us avoid the inherent human prejudices of cause/effect for now, and go straight to the ‘Why does God not require a cause but the universe does?’ question.

Why is the sunshine contingent on the sun?
And if god had a cause, how could he be god? (that is totally resilient to illusion)

If there are other ways of acquiring knowledge, other than experiential and reasoning, then what are they and how is it then that not everything can be deemed possible based on intuitive arguments that cannot be substantiated or analyzed?
The Gargoyle in my closet is there after all.

There are 3 main types of knowledge
1 - direct perception - handy for crosing the road
2 empiricism - good for solving relative problems
3 - hearing from authority - required for understanding those things that are beyond our capacity of empiricism and direct perception

If the constructs and the motives of a “God” are incomprehensible to us, as mortal beings, then how are we to assume to know His emotions, His morality and His wants and desires?

Knowing god in full is not possible but knowing enough about him to be qualified for liberation is - in other words one can know his general desire etc

If “God” is incomprehensible then why can it not be that the absence of “God” be, likewise, incomprehensible?

God is incomprehensible to a person who doesn't apply the correct epistemology to perceive him

Why do we deserve eternal life?

The vedas say deserve it or not, you have it as your eternal companion, even in ignorance - hence eternity in illusion equals many births and deaths

If “God” could have created a universe of His liking then why create one at all?

Not sure what you are getting at here - I think even christianity acknowledges two types of creations - namely the material and the spiritual universes

Is it a test of some sorts?

the material one definitely is

If it is a test, as Christians are inclined to believe, and God is omnipotent, then does He not already know the outcome of His own test?

he knows what actions gives what results - basically there are only two actions in the material world - acts in the service of god and acts in the service of illusion

If He does then why go through it at all and expose His creations to so much pain and suffering to come to conclusions He already knows?
Is he a sadist?

lol - he doesn't need to learn anything - we do

The idea of life being a testing ground and an entrance exam for Heaven implies ignorance on the part of the tester, since by giving free-will the creator loses control over the creation.
Therefore omniscience is absent.

Well your goldfish also have free will, but its unlikely that they will be able to exhibit their free will to such a degree that they could turn your house upside down and demand ransom money from your parents

But if free-will was given [the debate continues on that one] then why not use it to become autonomous and superior to the creator Himself. A father wants his children to surpass him and a child naturally wants to be more than his father.

If you go to the artificial insemination clinic and ask the staff to make you your own father they will probably say "sorry the position has already been taken" -

What kind of sick, self-centered bastard gives birth or creates in order to hold dominion over that for eternity?

You hate your parents as well I take it

What does that say about Him from a psychological perspective?

Actually I am more wary of yours

What kind of Father/King wants his child to be forever a prince at his right hand side and does not want him to sit on the throne himself?

If the parent is conquered by the child's love they may offer great liberal concessions but if the child is ungrateful - actually you have a lack of knowledge - if you conceed that we have taken birth in the medium of illusion, how is it possible for us to also be god (in other word show is it possible for god to be overcome by illusion)? Basically there is a constitutional difference between th eliving entity and god that is eternal - just like there is a constitutional difference between a drop of sea water and the ocean


Anyway I could go on but I guess you get the picture

 

[Sarkus]

Well lets examine where the burden of evidence lies - if countless billions of people attest to the existence of something and you turn around with nothing more to say than "Its all in your imagination", I think you have to come up with something better.

Two fallacies:
Burden of proof fallacy: you (general) are the one making the claim of existence - so burden of proof is on you.
Appeal to Consensus: the number of people holding the same belief / understanding is irrelevant click here

If you cannot prove god doesn't exist (using the same empirical methods that you insist that god be proven) doesn't it indicate a dynamic that functions on the same general principle?

You CANNOT prove the non-existence of ANYTHING - unless you happen to be in a position to examine ALL areas of space-time.
BURDEN OF PROOF is thus on the one making the assertion of existence.
This is simple debate logic.

If its so obvious to prove that god doesn't exist - just do it - instead you can only come up with phenomena that owes the cause of its existence to something mysterious you can not determine

All one can do is prove that specific definitions of God can not exist - through logic. One can NOT prove the non-existence of all definitions of God.
Hence where the burden of proof lies.

So if I say china exists and you have never been to china and reject the existence of china on that basis, what is your position?

To believe that China exists on your testimony alone is irrational - otherwise you would believe anything anyone says.
To believe that China does not exist is also irrational.
The only rational course would be to have no belief with respect to China's existence until such time as there is evidence of its existance or sufficient evidence to conclude that China can not logically exist.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D
I don't say that credibility is infallible - I say that it is usually required for a person to be convinced, on the strength of the credibility of testimony, before they perceive the value in anything - that convincing can be either true or false, which the next stage, application of epistemology, verifies - the same holds true for science - we hear the tesimonies of science as a child and become convinced to study it as a career in adulthod - doesn't mean whatever testimony we heard as a child is true or even that the training you receive under the guise of science is bonafide

You said and I quote:

...testimony establishes epistemology (credibility) - epistemology establishes proof

Let us reword your sentence
P1 Testimony establishes epistemology
P2 Epistemology = credibility (or somehow is linked to it, whatever you wanted to express via the brackets)
C Epistemology establishes proof.

Do you see how ridiculous it is for you to bash the transitive property via math or physics sequence of statements, then hide YOURS in a cheeky grammatical maze? By your earlier statement, you are lending way too much leverage to testimony, then you become defensive when I call you up on it.

Let us also address your statement that scientific training is questionable. The point that the non-theists are trying to get across to you is that scientific training never claims to be absolute. Any science you learn can be proven or disproven empirically; Even in childhood, I can recreate almost any experiment even to a smaller scale to prove many different postulations of any branch of science. The scientific process does not solely depend on testimony. Try again.

But the point of the car salesman is that is the customer insisting that the salesman prove that the car runs perfectly well by use of logic, while refusing to go for a test drive - yes - the customer could just buy the car - in the same way a person could just simply take to the process of religion, but if they lay a condition that the absolute nature of the end result be established by logic, it will not work - in other words logic only brings you to the point of practical application, and it is practical application that grants the understanding of the object in question (ie religion)

Um...like I said, this is a bad example; you insist that the test drive is the only way to logically prove that a car runs perfectly, it is not. Give up on this comparison. You also further embroil yourself in this example by contradicting your perceived power of epistemology and state that practical application grants understanding of religion. HOW is a philosophy a practical application?

My point exactly - it relies on practical application (epistemology) - its a response to atheists saying XYZ about god yet having not applied any proces to undersand the subject

See above

Actually these words epistemology and ontology have equivelants in sanskrit, so if I use them it is just so I can discuss the ideas with persons who don't have a foundation in sanskrit

EXCUSE me? Any "ology" word is usually assumed by John Q. Public to be rooted in GREEK.

Using the word "equivalents" is the same as using the word "translations". Do not think that I'll be awed and mistakenly conclude that "equivalents" mean "origins". Are you a linguist or historian of accomplishment? i.e. can you reference your sanskrit statement? Feel free to correct me, but when I look these words up i see:

Epistemology: from the Greek episteme meaning knowledge and logos meaning explanation
Ontology: from the Greek ontoc meaning to be and logos meaning explanation. Actually I've seen a reference with Greek lettering which I've left out for simplicity of my typing.

My question/point here: please give a link that may upset the Greek origins of these words.

So unanswered questions, ie curiousity, is not a driving force behind science? - and what are scientific theories if not answers that don't have an empirical basis?

Scientific theories don't necessarily equate "unsubstantiated guess". The word "theory" in science is used to describe an logical self-consistent observed model which can be tested empirically. I understand your question though...any scientific postulation that is put forth is an observation that requires explanation. Further to this empirical proofs can be established or ascertained.

However, unanswered questions does not equate to curiosity. For example, I can ask you "are you high?" but I could care less.

Oh and by the way, I won't embarass you by showing your fallacious P1, P2 and C here as well.

Actually I don't think I rely on anything theistic to establish the fallaciousness of your claim - anyway - see you there

Seen...

If blind belief is one ridiculous extreme, then th eopposite, blind disbelief, also must occupy some aspect of response

Why? How does any statement have any similarities to its polar opposite? Would it not be more logical to state if blind disbelief is ridiculous then blind disbelief is rigid sanity? (Opposite extremes, opposite properties).

Fallacious P1 P2 and C again lightee-baby. I'm starting to think that this thread should have been named: "Various Self-defeating Theistic Arguments"

Seems like you seem to be agreeing that the only logical conclusion is to apply the relevant epistemology to determine the validity of a claim - if that is in fact your basis, why do you insist it is not relevant and a person is enable to say XYZ about religion despite not applying it?

1. Babble-ations: you have said that i agree that application of epistemology determines the validity of a claim. Why are you assuming I don't know enough about religion to completely deflect your XYZs?
Conversely, I very much doubt you are a theological linguistical historian mechanic statistician sales-representing scientist to apply any epistemology of all of those subjects as you have been trying to do.

2. Again...you can PROVE anything about a car. It is a techological product of science. Example: YOU can sit in a car in neutral and rev it (this is NOT a test drive) and with enough knowledge and experience, and with the physical evidence of SOUND (of the engine), SMELL (lack thereof of oil/brake fluid/burning rubber), and SIGHT (alarm lights, absence of smoke from overheating), you can presume the car is in at least working condition. You CANNOT prove anything that religion claims since there's no physical evidence to test. If I can see you can sit in god's lap and rev him though...I may entertain your arguments.