Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

[Immanuel Can]

But I wasn't saying "me." I was saying what rational Theists are bound to believe if they wish to remain rational.

Which is that they should agree with you!

No, it's on the assumption that they know that rational consistency is a virtue, and that they want to form their syllogisms logically, and use reason not mere prejudice or preference.

But I do not think you are right about atheists.

Then ask them what moral precept they think they, as Atheists, have a moral obligation to follow. They'll tell you they have no such obligation, because Atheism has no moral view.

And they're being honest.

But don't take my word for it. Ask them.

Me: And can you prove that is the case?
It doesn't even need further proof than you already have. If you use the word "proof," you must believe there is a common reality held by you and by me, in which proof is either available or lacking. Availability of it would be inductively compelling to you, and lack would be probabilistically compelling. That's what you're already implying, whether you realized it or not

.

So far, the proof is lacking. It is therefore not available, not compelling. Not even prababilistically.

You're not getting it. YOU provided the proof. I'm speaking of your own self-contradiction. If you ask for "proof," then the rational assumption that goes along with that is that people have a shared world (from which "proof" for both can be drawn). So you've already conceded the point, just by the way you asked.

Want to rephrase?

Before we get onto what God is like, can we have the proof he exists?

Yes. I've listed some good inductive arguments for you, and I've suggested the experiential option. But if you won't look at the proof, then no, there's no proof for someone who won't look.

it's my inductive judgment, based on the evidence I have in hand, rational, empirical and experiential. But am I certain to the exclusion of any error margin? Of course not. Nobody ever is. That's why faith is essential to all human knowing.

Can you give the evidence? What are the instances from which you make the inductive judgement?

Read Michael Polanyi's "Personal Knowledge." He does a wonderful job of this.

Of course. There is a "trilemma" in the possibilities. But you were only asking about the conflicts among Theists. However, I'm quite happy to include Atheism, and you'll find that the Law of Non-Contradiction still applies. See here...

If there are no Gods, Theism and Polytheism are untrue.

If there are many gods, then Monotheism and Atheism are untrue.

If there is one God, then Polytheism and Atheism are untrue.

However you slice it, 2/3 are always untrue. You don't even have to know which is THE truth to see that it's impossible for more than one to be true at a time.

Only if God(s) exists.

No, regardless. Aristotle's Law does not presuppose any God, even if Aristotle himself was a Polytheist. And since I've included Atheism, under item 1, you've got no cause to complain. I included your objection.

If God(s) do not exist then all statements about God(s) are equally untrue, or to be accurate they are neither true or false but are meaningless.

False. The statement, "Santa Claus is real" does not lack meaning. It's simply not true. So even if you believe God to be no more than a "Santa Claus" case, you don't have a meaningless claim.

But you're right about one thing: if there were no God, then "meaning" itself would have no meaning. But I doubt you were thinking of that.

Similarly:

Law of Non-Contradiction. If it is categorically wrong to be a paedophile, then it cannot be categorically right to be one. If it's wrong to tell a lie in circumstance Z, then it cannot be right to tell a lie in circumstance Z. If it is always wrong to kill babies, then killing these babies cannot be right...

Unless moral terms are meaningless, or unless morality is determined by each individual, or a matter of goodwill, or a sociological description. Again, you cannot evoke the Law of Non-Contradiction unless the possibilities are 'jointly exhaustive', which they aren't.

Actually, they are. "Right" and "wrong," if they mean anything at all, are mutually exclusive options in all cases in which the relevant particulars are the same.

It's simply a matter of understanding logic.

I understand that logic is only about the relationship between abstract symbols; e.g. 'P and not-P'. It tells you what is 'valid'. It does not tell us facts about the world. I think you are flogging a dead horse.

Wow. You really don't know anything about logic. You're only talking about symbolic logic, and even there, you haven't understood the relationship between validity and truthfulness.

I see why I can't persuade you. You think all claims are just prejudice statements...presumably, except your own.

Then change the term. Just say, "paedophelia." Paedophiles think they're right, and you and I think they are hideously wrong. But both sides use the term without the "begging" element of "abuse."

So what is your point? You are simply telling me your opinion.

And there it is...completely missing the point, by your own admission, and mistaking logic for "opinion."

I can't help you with that. You're going to have to learn how logic works first.

Me: But let us concentrate on the 'objective' bit...You could start with your objective evidence that God exists.
This has been done repeatedly and in print, audio and video, so I'll summarize. There are logical, analytic, empirical, experiential, revelatory and moral arguments for the existence of God. These you can easy research online, if you really care. Start with things like the Kalaam, then work toward the Moral Argument, perhaps.

I have spent a very great deal of time on 'Proofs of God'. I have not found any.[/quote]
That doesn't even make any sense. It's like saying, "I've spent a great deal of time in France, but never found France."

I try to take the charitable reading of what you say, if I can. But I can't fix that level of self-contradiction, I'm afraid. You're going to have to help me understand how you "spent a great deal of time" on something which you also claim you have "never found."

Meanwhile, go to http://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer, and have a look around. You're going to see a lot about these issues...though you've "never found" anything, despite "a great deal" of effort to locate them, allegedly.

[davidm]

Well this is why, as much as I would honestly like to, I can't seen to have a serious philosophical discussion with you. To take one example:

The Ontological Argument is analytical: that is, it deals with what is definitionally so, not with empirical tests.

Yeah, of course, we all get that. The question, though, is whether you actually believe that this argument works. I do recall you saying, at some point, that theists don't really use this argument primarily; but that is awfully strange if one were to believe that the OA was actually a logical proof of God's existence. The fact that you shove this argument to the background suggests that you yourself know that it does not do what it purports to. The most telling evidence of this is that you did not rebut my refutation of Plantinga's OA but merely advised that I should contact the man myselfr.

More later. if you seriously want to discuss Kalaam and fine-tuning, I suggest separate threads, because if we do it here this thread will conceptually grow like topsy. I do believe matters of this sort belong to the judgment of mods. But the mods here seem to be like your God: eternally silent. So I suppose we must act as our own mods.

[Immanuel Can]

The Ontological Argument is analytical: that is, it deals with what is definitionally so, not with empirical tests.

Yeah, of course, we all get that. The question, though, is whether you actually believe that this argument works.

Good. How did your conversation with Dr. Plantinga go? Tell me about that.

[Arising_uk]

...
It's funny: the skeptics take the pronouncements about the Bible that were made by Crusaders, Nazis or slaveholders, but don't listen to what is said to them by those who actually practice the faith. It's almost like they're determined to misrepresent it...rather like the Crusaders, Nazis and slaveholders, actually...just for their own purposes. ...

So all those Crusaders were not Christians and Soldiers of the Faith, they did not believe as fervently as you in your 'God' and act accordingly?

As to your Bible the OT is full of slavery and the NT has it's moments,
Ephesians 6:5-8
Timothy 6:1-2
Ephesians 6:9
Colossians 4:1
Matthew 18:25
Luke 12:47
Matthew 24:51

Which is no surprise really as the model your 'God' offers is one of subservience so 'it' could hardly be promoting slave-rebellion as look what 'it' did to 'its' 'angels'.

You also conveniently ignore that 'its' ultimate aim is to kill billions of us and enslave the rest.

[Arising_uk]

... There are ... empirical ...arguments for the existence of God. ...

What empirical evidence or argument is there?

That is, show me this empirical evidence for your 'God' existing like you you can show me the empirical evidence for a tree existing.

[davidm]

The Ontological Argument is analytical: that is, it deals with what is definitionally so, not with empirical tests.

Yeah, of course, we all get that. The question, though, is whether you actually believe that this argument works.

Good. How did your conversation with Dr. Plantinga go? Tell me about that.

You see? And there you are. Did you read the rest of my above post?

I'm asking you what you think of Plantinga's OA, and if you support it, to rebut, if you can, in detail, my concise and cogent rebuttal of it -- a rebuttal that is correct. It identifies the illicit move from natural-language "possibility" to "modal possibility" from P1 to P2 but you have had nothing to say about this. I challenge you to meet this point,

The real point, of course, is that you know perfectly well that none of the ontological arguments, including the modalized versions, prove that god exists, but you simply don't want to admit this. If from time to time you would admit that at least portions of your apologetics are fallacious, you would gain more respect and you would make it possible for you and I and others to have a real philosophical discussion, free of rancor. Bear in mind that I, an atheist, actually used modal logic to disprove a common atheist claim that God's infallible foreknowledge was incompatible with human free will.

I invite you to respond in a similar spirit -- though I predict you will not.

[davidm]

The thing is, my impression is that you are not interested in whether Plantinga's OA or any other OA is true or false. You are only interested in whether such arguments, however fallacious, can be used to persuade others that God is real. THAT is apologetics, and not philosophy. And not honest.

[Belinda]

Immanuel, if one Googles "Parable of the Workmen" one reveals nothing but sources that name this parable by its more usual titles. Nobody using this discussion forum is so stupid that they don't know how to interpret Google.

This just isn't true. Calm yourself down. And I don't need to "google" the agrarian parables. I know them all.

I supposed that you do know them.I mean the parable with the narrative about how the owner of the vineyard hired workmen at successive times during the day. When the owner told his foreman to get the men in to be paid there were complaints that men who had joined the workforce later in the day were being paid the same as those who had laboured all day in the heat of the sun. Obvously all the workmen did not get what they deserved. Nobody was underpaid but the latecomers were overpaid. This illustrates that God does not calculate but that His generosity is boundless.
So , Immanuel, your vengeful God is not the Christian God.

MATTHEW 20 1-16

see also

https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/parables ... ari-final/

I don't think you are a Christian, Immanuel. I think you belong to one of those sects that believe that God is a vengeful judge. You don't even credit Islam where credit is due, so you are also narrow minded.

[Immanuel Can]

I invite you to respond in a similar spirit -- though I predict you will not.

You're right. But only because you and I already talked about this extensively.

You took issue with Dr. Plantinga...both his theory and his integrity...and so I invited you to speak to him, in the hope that perhaps he could get through to you in ways I couldn't think of how to do.

But we've done as much as you and I can do with that. You don't like it. Fine. But since it's not the lynchpin of arguments for God, I see no point in trying to convince you of it any more than I already have.

So on we go.

[Immanuel Can]

The thing is, my impression is that you are not interested in whether Plantinga's OA or any other OA is true or false. You are only interested in whether such arguments, however fallacious, can be used to persuade others that God is real. THAT is apologetics, and not philosophy. And not honest.

That's incorrect, but you're entitled to believe what you want to on that. However, your reluctance to repeat your allegations to Dr. Plantinga is perhaps a reason for reflection.

[Immanuel Can]

I mean the parable with the narrative about how the owner of the vineyard hired workmen at successive times during the day.

Ah. Not Mark 12, then. You see? It's not possible to know just from the word "workmen."

When the owner told his foreman to get the men in to be paid there were complaints that men who had joined the workforce later in the day were being paid the same as those who had laboured all day in the heat of the sun. Obvously all the workmen did not get what they deserved. Nobody was underpaid but the latecomers were overpaid.

Right, that's basically it.

This illustrates that God does not calculate but that His generosity is boundless.

This is not so. For you have forgotten that all were workmen hired by the "master" in the story. There is no part of this story in which the master distributes money to people who were not his, far less to people who hated him. If you see that there, you're making it up...it's not in the text.

So , Immanuel, your vengeful God is not the Christian God.

No, He's the God of justice, who will eventually settle all questions of injustice. He's also the God of free will, who will not force anybody to come to Him. Most of all, He's the God of relationship, who calls us all to choose to be his friends and servants now.

But clearly, it's not an offer everyone takes. It's certainly not an offer He forces on the unwilling. And certainly, if you read the passages I listed, you know that's also what both Christ and the apostles said. So whoever said the contrary to you, he didn't know what he was saying.

You don't even credit Islam where credit is due, so you are also narrow minded.

Please enlighten me: where do you think "credit" is due to Islam? I have at least taken them seriously enough to actually read the whole Koran and some of the Haddiths, to learn what they actually believe. I've also talked with Islamic persons about how they understand their beliefs.

Have you?

[Greta]

... Immanuel. I think you belong to one of those sects that believe that God is a vengeful judge. You don't even credit Islam where credit is due, so you are also narrow minded.

Belinda, I think Immanuel would say he is just focused

It seems to me that theist conceptions of God reflect their needs and desires. Immanuel wants justice for those who are unworthy. The latest evangelist chapters / cults are looking for "magic in their lives", etc.

I think this is why "atheists" and "theists" speak at cross purposes. Time again again I find myself accused of amorality for simply observing a situation. Many theists seem to be very strong on social norms, so that if one speaks about a suboptimal situation without the prerequisite added forelock-tugging pejorative commentary, you will then be judged as a supporter.

I refuse to "tug my forelock" because it's dumb and patronising, bloody obvious platitudes expressed for no reason but to reassure the neurotically suspicious. What a bore - appropriate for Facebook and Twitter, I suppose, but not philosophy forums.

It's an interesting schism - with one bunch talking about what they want and what they think should be. Meanwhile, the other lot speak about what they think may be the case.

So the atheists figure that the theists are deluded for believing in obvious superstitions. Yet, history has shown us that the parables of any religious text carry enough true observations of the human condition to be functional. Further, the promise of eternal life can give hope to those who otherwise may have otherwise had none.

Meanwhile, theists believe that atheists actually want a cold, uncaring universe and thus assume that they reject goodness and embrace nothingness. In truth, atheists tend to note the universe's uncaring nature without pleasure, and then will tend to speak of how we humans have the chance to inject some morality and care into proceedings - to gentrify the wild, so to speak. Nonbelievers worry about religions' tendencies towards seeking total control and also the irrational discrimination against innocents based on confused modern reinterpretations of ancient texts.

Each "tribe" ultimately seeks moral solutions to societal issues. At that point it becomes political, as you noted earlier.

[Dubious]

...your entire edifice is based purely on suppositions presented as propositions which for you amount to virtual certainty as it relates to the Bible.

That's a tidy theory. Unfortunately, it's not true. But if it functions for you, you may be reluctant to relinquish it, I understand; not knowing me, you have no reason on hand to incentivize you to relinquish a theory you think is explaining things to you.

Very kind of you to allow me such leeway. But isn't your belief in the Bible complete? Remains there a tincture of doubt? Based on everything you've written there is no reason to think that...especially as you continue to challenge atheists to justify themselves morally vis-a-vis theists such as yourself being in service to a book called The Bible! Of course, there is nothing "logical" about a contest which excludes a rational moral perspective to those who fail to surrender to it! No one accepts that as being logical or even mildly rational by any criteria and yet you want to educate others to think logically so they can keep up with your theistic arguments...which are never less than eminently logical AND rational

Conclusion: It's not just a "tidy theory"!

Btw, do really believe that a moral sense is built upon and decided by syllogisms?

No, of course: rationality cannot "decide" anything. But rational thought is premised upon syllogisms, whether they are formed well and consciously, or whether they are formed only accidentally, by people who don't actually understand the rules of logic.

THE POINT IS you used the word PREMISE in a way that made no sense being out of tune contextually and conceptually. I inquired! In response at least half your lengthy post was a lecture on the meaning of premise, propositions, syllogisms, suppositions, etc...which is kind of laughable. Judging by your posts and their usual negative feedback, you are not in a position to train anyone in logic. You may have a fair acquaintance with the "mechanics" of it but not in its application. That is, you may know how to repair a car without knowing how to drive one.

However, if you think it futile to communicate, not being up to your standards in the cerebral art of thinking, I wouldn't mind at all receiving the same silent treatment as Uwot!

...rationality cannot "decide" anything.

Rational thought, whose base is far more extensive than being merely syllogistic, is called upon to decide everything even the decision not to decide conclusively at some point. There is no other valid way to decide anything without rational thinking.

Syllogisms as logic paradigms I have very little respect for being as instrumental to deception as any truth it may elicit. All you have to do is precede a desired conclusion with matching premises to make it glow with a simulacrum of certitude. How many times has that been done by "logic experts" like yourself on philosophy forums? In short, they too easily yield False Positives.

It's not difficult to manipulate syllogisms to validate personal beliefs or substantiate lies all neatly wrapped-up in little pieces of logic! It's amusing to consider whether the ensuing conclusions are waves or particles! These kind of "coded validations" are equally employed to prove the unprovable or conversely disprove or cast doubt into that which has long been confirmed! When so utilized, logic degrades to a duel of fallacies thrown back and forth! It becomes host to a betting game on conflicting propositions.

Ironically there is very little Logic applied when syllogisms are used as ploys to limit credibility gaps within arguments.

Also, formal logic is completely ineffective deciding anything biblically or theistically based. This is made obvious in the thousands of posts where its employed to prove something of theistic importance in spite of never having proved anything! Applied in the context of theism it operates as nothing more than a credibility game whose manipulations you've mastered completely!

To end with another great Shakespeare quote the truth of which makes logic redundant.

In religion,
What damned error, but some sober brow
Will bless it and approve it with a text,
Hiding the grossness with fair ornament?

[davidm]

I invite you to respond in a similar spirit -- though I predict you will not.

You're right. But only because you and I already talked about this extensively.

You took issue with Dr. Plantinga...both his theory and his integrity...and so I invited you to speak to him, in the hope that perhaps he could get through to you in ways I couldn't think of how to do.

But we've done as much as you and I can do with that. You don't like it. Fine. But since it's not the lynchpin of arguments for God, I see no point in trying to convince you of it any more than I already have.

So on we go.

And there you go again!

"...perhaps he could get through to in ways I couldn't think of how to."

But that has never stopped you from going on about everything else at great length. Here, though, you fall silent ... we both know why. You know my rebuttal is correct, and you just can't bring yourself to admit it!

Here again, you say "it's not the lynchpin of arguments for God ..." But good god, man, if you really thought the OA in any form was valid and sound, you'd have a logical proof for the existence of God, which would be the greatest lynchpin argument of all time for God or anything else.

This tells me, again, that you know that the OA doesn't work, but you can't bring yourself to admit this. Or, more pointedly, as I have suggested, you may know it doesn't work but you don't care, just so long as some people believe it. A pity you can't just say something as simple as, "You know, you're right; Plantinga does make an invalid move from P1 to P2, but perhaps there are stronger OAs out there. I will do some research and see what I can find." That would earn you some real respect but I guess you may not want respect from people you think are going to burn forever in a lake of fire.

[davidm]

It's funny: the skeptics take the pronouncements about the Bible that were made by Crusaders, Nazis or slaveholders, but don't listen to what is said to them by those who actually practice the faith. It's almost like they're determined to misrepresent it...rather like the Crusaders, Nazis and slaveholders, actually...just for their own purposes.

It's funny: theists who take pronouncements about evolutionary biology that were made by Social Darwinists, but don't listen to what is said to them by those who actually practice the science. It's almost like they're determined to misrepresent it ... rather like the Social Darwinists, actually ... just for their own purposes.