Atheism, 21st century-style. New? Militant?

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

If there is a God who is able to create all these things, don't you think that He would have a better handle on the workings of the universe than what we THINK is going to happen? Just look how often our scientists totally screw up their calculations. We can't even decide if there is global warming or global cooling. What we THINK we know is controlled by what we are told. There is a media that is controlled by an elitist ruling class, and people think that they are God by the way that they believe whatever is printed in a newspaper. Atheists have their own gods, they just won't admit it.

God works in mysterious ways. God knows what scientists can't. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that there isn't purpose. God knows if there's global warming, but he won't tell you. I know this with certainty because I read it in a Bible.

[OrphanPip]

Think back to high school geometry. All logical proofs are derived from a very limited number of initial postulates. They prove nothing that cannot be inferred from the postulates, although, of course, the process of inference can sometimes be a complicated.

Major premise: All men are mortal. All A are B C is A C is B
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

The conclusion is merely a restatement of the premises. It is only when ONE premise is the same as the conclusion that an argument is properly referred to as "circular".

"Premise 1: God is the infallible and correct author of all moral rules.
Premise 2: The Bible is the infallibly true and accurate Word of God.

Conclusion: Moral rules stated in the Bible are the infallibly correct ones." C

Your argument is circular, let's simplify your premises to make them less obtuse.

Premise 1: God's moral rules are true.
Premise 2: The moral rules in the Bible are the same as those of God.
Conclusion: The moral rules in the Bible are true.

A is the rules of God
B is the truth of those rules
C is the Moral rules in the Bible.

Premise 1: A is B
Premise 2: C is A
Conclusion: C is B
But since C is A, this is restating A is B. Your premise assumes the truth of the conclusion.

Circular.

The socratese example:

All A are B
C is an A
Thus, C is B

This is non circular because it doesn't define C as synonymous with A.

Edit: Circular reasoning is used in math though, but that's referred to as "virtuous" circular reasoning because it is meant to infer tautological equivalencies.

[AuntShecky]

"Characterizing those who have the gift of faith as
intellectually inferior"

I dont think anyone does that, I mean lets face it only an intellectually inferior person would think that. Newton and Darwin two great minds of science were not only religious but deeply religious, very deeply.

This CNN article implies that indeed, this is the prevailing attitude of the New Atheists :

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-11-08/w...on?_s=PM:WORLD

the article states that the atheists' collective
"tone is overtly confrontational rather than gently persuasive. [Sam] Harris talks of exerting so much pressure that it becomes "too embarrassing" to believe in God, while Dawkins describes the U.S. as living in a "theocratic Dark Age."

Also, it has not escaped my notice that this thread, originally about the Militant Atheists, has veered off into dozens of different directions from anecdotes about "near death" experiences, speculation about the nature of human
consciousness, and questions about why the solar system and the rest of the universe aren't connected by a kind of intergalactic interstate highway system.

But since a few people brought up the sub-topic of perception (specifically the color green), I would like to add some thoughts on this very subject --albeit the chosen color is blue, not green-- from John Ruskin, whose essay formed a large portion of a recent LitNet posting by yours truly:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=58269


The first couple of sections of Ruskin's essay, "Of the Pathetic Fallacy" debunks the notions of "subjective" and "objective," two terms which Ruskin finds to be "the most objectionable words ever coinded by the troublesomeness of metaphysicians." In any event, Ruskin explains how a gentian can be blue regardless of whether a pair of human eyes sees it:

The word ' Blue', say certain philosophers, means the sensation of colour which the human eye receives in looking at the open sky, or at a bell gentian.

Now, say they farther, as this sensation can only be felt when the eye is turned to the object, and as, therefore, no such sensation is produced by the object when nobody looks at it, therefore the thing, when it is not looked at, is not blue; and thus (say they) there are many qualities of things which depend as much on something else as on themselves. . .

From these ingenious views the step is very easy to a farther opinion, that it does not much matter what things are in themselves, but only what they are to us; and that the only real truth of them is their appearance to, or effect upon, us. From which position, with a hearty desire for mystification, and much egotism, selfishness, shallowness, and impertinence, a philosopher may easily go so far as to believe, and say, that everything in the world depends upon his seeing or thinking of it, and that nothing, therefore, exists, but what he sees or thinks of.

Now, to get rid of all these ambiguities and troublesome words at once, be it observed that the word ' Blue' does not mean the sensation caused by a gentian on the human eye; but it means the power of producing that sensation; and this power is always there, in the thing, whether we are there to experience it or not, and would remain there though there were not left a man on the face of the earth.

(I'm assuming that this explanation would equally apply to any color, including green,Rores28 and Orphan Pip.)

[OrphanPip]

(I'm assuming that this explanation would equally apply to any color, including green,Rores28 and Orphan Pip.)

I would have to disagree with Rushkin though, the colour is our conceptualization of our perception of certain wavelengths of light. The object has the ability to reflect those wavelengths of light, which only is recognized as a colour because our brain conceptualizes the wavelengths as such.

A dichromatic colour blind person's eyes still pick up the same wavelengths, but if they are missing the red-green rod pigment sees the world entirely in shades of yellow and blue (they can also distinguish between white and black). It is not that their eyes aren't receiving the same light the rest of us are, they just don't have the photoreceptors necessary to distinguish between as wide a variety of wavelengths. So the exact same wavelength reflecting from what is a green apple for you or me, is a yellow apple for them.

The wavelengths exists without us, but the idea of colour is a result of our brain structure and how it sorts out the wavelengths we see.

[Ecurb]

Wrong again, Orphan (although this is becoming a mere irrelevant sideline to the discussion at hand, and also although you seem to understand the nature of a circular argument, which I wasn’t sure about before). Neither premise assumes the conclusion, because it is possible that the Bible is NOT the Word of God, and therefore (even given premise one) is NOT the proper arbiter of moral rules. Only BOTH premises lead to the proper conclusion. Your restatement of my syllogism is inaccurate. Your premise 2 (“The moral rules in the Bible are the same as those of God.”) is an inaccurate restatement of my premise, which, is that “Some of the moral rules of God are restated in the Bible.”

Just as “Socrates is a man” does not mean the all men are Socrates, the proposition that the moral rules of the Bible are written by God does not mean that all the moral rules of God are written in the Bible. Socrates is a man does NOT mean “Socrates = Man”, and neither was my second premise a statement of equality. Let's restate in simpler terms:

All Moral rules derived from God are correct
The moral rules in the Bible are derived from God

therefore, the moral rules in the bible are correct.

[Rores28]

Now, to get rid of all these ambiguities and troublesome words at once, be it observed that the word ' Blue' does not mean the sensation caused by a gentian on the human eye; but it means the power of producing that sensation; and this power is always there, in the thing, whether we are there to experience it or not, and would remain there though there were not left a man on the face of the earth.[/COLOR]

(I'm assuming that this explanation would equally apply to any color, including green,Rores28 and Orphan Pip.)

This position doesn't do much to address the metaphysical problem of qualia but instead seeks to redefine what color is in what I think is an interesting manner. Realize though that it takes two to tango as Pip has pointed out. If we define blue as that which has the power of producing it, then we would also define the resultant neural activity of the brain as blue since it seems equally necessary to produce the blue qualia. This is all good word fun I think but none of this is really what we mean when we say blue. Blue is an aspatial and irreducible entity. You may well tell me that a blue ball has a volume of 3L and that the ball is blue. What you can't tell me is the volume of blue, nor can you tell me what blue looks like.

I think it is a pretty cool thought though, and I appreciate the added touch of making the text blue

[The Atheist]

Likewise the flying spaghetti monster argument is a good one despite the fact that it seems to have lost popularity ....

Nah.

Once again this is dismissive of the things that are going on with qualia.

Are you suggesting qualia are not part of the material universe?

If so, what proposed mechanism do you use for their creation/existence?

Much as I'm no Dennett fan, his description of qualia as: "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us." is the one I stick with.

Perception takes place in the brain.

[manolia]

Arguments like this will convince the the peeps that sorta believe in Christianity because thats how they were raised, but it isn't at all convincing in the larger framework.

That's true. I wasn't providing a strong argument. My response was tongue in cheek because i have heard many times about god putting stars in the nightsky for us to watch and blah blah blah when the said stars we see every night belong to our galaxy only and the vast majority of stars, the ones belonging to all the rest of the galaxies, (the number is enormous) can't be seen with a naked eye.
(oh i see what you are getting at..god being all knowing knew all about telescopes and their invention )

The two problems with this and all arguments of this sort are that scientific explanations of the universe do not disprove the existence of creation they only offer and alternative explanation

I don't agree with that.
A proper scientific explanation (when given) possibly something like the grand unified theory will be the end of religion. At least that's what i believe.

Likewise the flying spaghetti monster argument is a good one despite the fact that it seems to have lost popularity and as I've stated earlier the idea that God himself requires an explanation.

Don't agree with that either. (Although i prefer Russel's teapot )

[Rores28]

I don't agree with that.
A proper scientific explanation (when given) possibly something like the grand unified theory will be the end of religion. At least that's what i believe.



Don't agree with that either. (Although i prefer Russel's teapot )

I can get down with the grand unified theory defeating the idea of deity. Although to some extent it seems to be circular (I'm sure in this thread I'll regret the use of that word....) in that a grand unified theory by definition would defeat god. I don't think this is possible though with unenhanced human minds.


Why are you and The Atheist hating on Spaghetti Monster argument?

[The Atheist]

Why are you and The Atheist hating on Spaghetti Monster argument?

Eh?

I have one as an avatar! (Different to the traditional FSM, but an FSM nonetheless, flying next to our house.)

[jocky]

This is getting to be a right pain in the but. Science can not explain the big bang and Theology can not explain anything. How about we just don't know.

[BienvenuJDC]

This is getting to be a right pain in the but. Science can not explain the big bang and Theology can not explain anything. How about we just don't know.

You are absolutely right, but then again...with a miraculous creation what needs to be explained? God has powers beyond our comprehension. How can mere mortals understand the beginning of the universe?

[YesNo]

This is getting to be a right pain in the but. Science can not explain the big bang and Theology can not explain anything. How about we just don't know.

The problem with the idea of the big bang, if it actually happened, which I think it did, is that people, including myself, think it was some sort of unique event. That uniqueness makes it unknowable, spooky and miraculous. But if it happened once, it probably happened many times in the past.

[cyberbob]

You are absolutely right, but then again...with a miraculous creation what needs to be explained? God has powers beyond our comprehension. How can mere mortals understand the beginning of the universe?

If God cannot be explained then what is the point of believing in him? The theory of god is arbitrary, there is no reason why that one narrow explanation is better than any other inexplicably miraculous one.

For example, why can't we say that God was the universe back when it was a point of infinite mass and zero volume and he chose to explode himself, thus creating the universe? There is as much proof of this as there is that God is an omniscient being beyond our comprehension.

Or how do we know that the universe wasn't created in ANOTHER universe by scientists with technology far advanced from anything we have. If they found a way to harness enough energy, they could plausibly have created a baby universe which eventually expanded into ours.

[JuniperWoolf]

the article states that the atheists' collective
"tone is overtly confrontational rather than gently persuasive. [Sam] Harris talks of exerting so much pressure that it becomes "too embarrassing" to believe in God, while Dawkins describes the U.S. as living in a "theocratic Dark Age."

You've got to understand their frustration, though. I mean, when you watch Fox or hear/read some of the willfully ignorant things that the new American far-right are saying, don't you feel that little twinge of reactionairy hostility? Honestly, I've spoken to so many people who think just like Bien that they could fill stadiums - we're not talking about a poor small group of nieve opressed eccentrics that believe that Jesus rode around on a velociraptor. There are so many of them that hostile rebuttal is actually necissairy if you don't want your kids being taught fairy tales from someone who knows absolutely nothing about basic geology because all professionals who understand their field of study before they decide to teach others are "elitist." It's maddening, how can you expect people to not get angry?

The way I see it, when you're dealing with a group that is already too far off the healthy neutral social balance then sometimes you have to take a strong stance in favour of the opposite just to maintain some balance. It results in polarization and there's a lot of anger and fighting involved, there are mobs created on the opposite side too which isn't exactly progress, but that's better than just going with it and allowing people to push laws that force teachers to teach creationism in biology class, outlaw gay marriage because they aren't given permission in a tampered-with book that's over a thousand years old and ban abortion even in rape cases and even very early because a jumble of undeveloped tissues has a "soul." That is dangerous thinking which will cause harm to people if it isn't adressed in some way by someone. The "militant" atheists are irritating and agressive, but they fill a purpose, and that purpose is keeping the fundies from getting too much steam.