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

[Ecurb]

Hardly, the fact that they are logical fallacies is not derived from the authority of those who named them, but that they have been argued and demonstrated as such.

Edit: But sure, let's just leave it at this.

That's correct. Just like the fact that Ty Cobb had a .367 lifetime is not (I assume) derived (strictly) from authority -- although personally, I got the information from the MacMillan Baseball encyclopedia, and I believe it because I have no reason to doubt the authority. Nonetheless, naming the logical fallacy rather than pointing out the logical error is clearly an appeal to authority.

Also, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of logical reasoning. We know most of what we know because we have authoritative sources for that knowledge -- if Isaac Newton discovered much it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants (or was that someone else?). The notion that everything must be argued from first principles and that nothing can be accepted as authoritative is sophistry. Were that the case, we couldn't argue for anything.

Argument from authority is NOT fallacious. Why would it be? If I say that I think that Ty Cobb batted .367 because I saw it in the baseball Encycloedia, that's an entirely reasonable argument. I may be wrong -- but my argument is logical and reasonable. The formal logic would go:

P1) The baseball Encyclopedia keeps accurate records of players' statistics.
P2) The B. Enc. states that Ty Cobb hit .367 lifetime.

Conclusion: Ty Cobb hit .367 lifetime.

Where's the logical flaw? Perhaps one of the premises is wrong, but the logic is flawless. I'll grant that argument from FALSE authority is iffy (which is probably what you meant in saying the Bible argues from authority). After all, if God is the actual creator of all moral rules of right and wrong, and the bible is the revealed word of God, appealling to His revealed Word is hardly fallacious. To make any sort of logical argument we must accept some starting premises. On whose "authority" are these accepted?

[OrphanPip]

That's correct. Just like the fact that Ty Cobb had a .367 lifetime is not (I assume) derived (strictly) from authority -- although personally, I got the information from the MacMillan Baseball encyclopedia, and I believe it because I have no reason to doubt the authority. Nonetheless, naming the logical fallacy rather than pointing out the logical error is clearly an appeal to authority.

Also, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of logical reasoning. We know most of what we know because we have authoritative sources for that knowledge -- if Isaac Newton discovered much it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants (or was that someone else?). The notion that everything must be argued from first principles and that nothing can be accepted as authoritative is sophistry. Were that the case, we couldn't argue for anything.

Argument from authority is NOT fallacious. Why would it be? If I say that I think that Ty Cobb batted .367 because I saw it in the baseball Encycloedia, that's an entirely reasonable argument. I may be wrong -- but my argument is logical and reasonable. The formal logic would go:

P1) The baseball Encyclopedia keeps accurate records of players' statistics.
P2) The B. Enc. states that Ty Cobb hit .367 lifetime.

Conclusion: Ty Cobb hit .367 lifetime.

Where's the logical flaw? Perhaps one of the premises is wrong, but the logic is flawless. I'll grant that argument from FALSE authority is iffy (which is probably what you meant in saying the Bible argues from authority). After all, if God is the actual creator of all moral rules of right and wrong, and the bible is the revealed word of God, appealling to His revealed Word is hardly fallacious. To make any sort of logical argument we must accept some starting premises. On whose "authority" are these accepted?

You're misunderstanding what the appeal to authority means, and why it is fallacious. Your example is not fallacious because you are not claiming the batting average is truth merely because the encyclopedia says it is, you are claiming that the encyclopedia can be reasonably trusted so it is fair to believe the fact. If you claimed that the batting average was that merely by virtue of the encyclopedia's authority you would be committing a logical fallacy. Obviously, the veracity of the batting average is a fact that exists outside of the authority of the encyclopedia and does not derive from the encyclopedia itself.

The appeal to morality in the Bible is different. Because it relies on the premise that the Bible's authority is the source of the truth of the claim. This is fallacious because it assumes that authority makes truth, something demonstratively false.

Edit: Not to mention the fact of how you could consider an interpretation of the Bible authoritative when we've already established that it is highly subjective and open to interpretation.

[Ecurb]

The appeal to morality in the Bible is different. Because it relies on the premise that the Bible's authority is the source of the truth of the claim. This is fallacious because it assumes that authority makes truth, something demonstratively false.

Edit: Not to mention the fact of how you could consider an interpretation of the Bible authoritative when we've already established that it is highly subjective and open to interpretation.

This reasoning is not "fallacious" at all, although it may be incorrect. Not all arguments that are incorrect are fallacious. Obviously, if God is properly the "AUTHOR" of all moral rules, than his "authoritative statements" of what those rules entail ARE the best way to discover moral truths.

[YesNo]

What does morality have to do with religion anyway?

[The Atheist]

What does morality have to do with religion anyway?

This:

People who follow religion have enforced their morality onto society for thousands of years.

[Alexander III]

This:

People who follow religion have enforced their morality onto society for thousands of years.

Communists all over the world have forced their morality onto society for a hundred years. What Im saying is that Religion is not inherently the problem. It's like saying the reason we have murder is because of guns, not true you can replace that gun with a sword or knife or poison and we still have the murder. Human nature is the problem here, Religion, Communism, fascism and a million other ideologies are all interchangeable as tools of oppression.

(when I say religion, I mean the big three monotheistic ones, It's kinda hard to oppress a society with Buddhism or Taoism.)

[The Atheist]

Communists all over the world have forced their morality onto society for a hundred years.

Communism not all that highly regarded, is it?

What Im saying is that Religion is not inherently the problem. It's like saying the reason we have murder is because of guns, not true you can replace that gun with a sword or knife or poison and we still have the murder. Human nature is the problem here, Religion, Communism, fascism and a million other ideologies are all interchangeable as tools of oppression.

Certainly, but religion's been a great enabler of oppression for much longer than any other ideology, and as with the Communism example, gets a lot better press.

(when I say religion, I mean the big three monotheistic ones, It's kinda hard to oppress a society with Buddhism or Taoism.)

True!

[YesNo]

Communists all over the world have forced their morality onto society for a hundred years. What Im saying is that Religion is not inherently the problem. It's like saying the reason we have murder is because of guns, not true you can replace that gun with a sword or knife or poison and we still have the murder. Human nature is the problem here, Religion, Communism, fascism and a million other ideologies are all interchangeable as tools of oppression.

(when I say religion, I mean the big three monotheistic ones, It's kinda hard to oppress a society with Buddhism or Taoism.)

Yes, religions make up just one set of excuses used to bully other people. Other excuses would pop up to take their place if the current three monotheistic religions became marginalized.

I am beginning to think that one reason to classify these three religions based on the Genesis (J-authored) story of Abraham as primitive is because they are overly concerned with (1) belief and (2) morals rather than self-realization. I suspect other traditions use less belief and need morality as one might need a healthy diet, that is, as a starting point, not an ending point.

[AuntShecky]

Here's a beautifully written essay by a professed atheist on the need for humility:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...certainty.html

Ms Cupp writes:
"The militant atheist wants nothing more than to spoil the believer's spiritual journey. That's both mean spirited and radically unenlightened."

and as an illustration:

"I wonder what they'd say to someone like Immaculee Ilibagiza, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide who says that her faith in Jesus Christ got her through 91 days of hiding in a 3x4 foot bathroom while her family was murdered outside. Would they tell her she was crazy? Delusional? To just deal with it? I would hope not - but I am not sure."

[BienvenuJDC]

Human nature is the problem here, Religion, Communism, fascism and a million other ideologies are all interchangeable as tools of oppression.

Religion, Communism, fascism and .....atheism?

You make a valid point...

[The Atheist]

Ms Cupp writes:
"The militant atheist wants nothing more than to spoil the believer's spiritual journey. That's both mean spirited and radically unenlightened."

and as an illustration:

"I wonder what they'd say to someone like Immaculee Ilibagiza, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide who says that her faith in Jesus Christ got her through 91 days of hiding in a 3x4 foot bathroom while her family was murdered outside. Would they tell her she was crazy? Delusional? To just deal with it? I would hope not - but I am not sure."

I think Ms Cup has drawn a beautiful strawman.

I keep asking for evidence that these "mean spirited" atheists actually exist, but I'm still waiting for evidence. I don't know of atheists that hassle the bereaved or turn up and laugh at religious funerals or ceremonies.

Refusal to give religion a free pass is not "being mean".

In the case of Immaculee, I'd simply suggest that she would have found something else to believe in had she not been indoctrinated with her god-belief. Herself maybe.

[BienvenuJDC]

I think Ms Cup has drawn a beautiful strawman.

I keep asking for evidence that these "mean spirited" atheists actually exist, but I'm still waiting for evidence. I don't know of atheists that hassle the bereaved or turn up and laugh at religious funerals or ceremonies.

Refusal to give religion a free pass is not "being mean".

In the case of Immaculee, I'd simply suggest that she would have found something else to believe in had she not been indoctrinated with her god-belief. Herself maybe.

Just peruse your own posts...but I doubt that you be able to see the religious intolerance within them. The Bible speaks of those who have seared their own consciences. I wish that I would be able to give you evidence that you'd be able to understand, but none exists. The problem does not lie within the evidence, but the perspective of the critic.

[The Atheist]

Just peruse your own posts...but I doubt that you be able to see the religious intolerance within them.

Being intolerant of religion is not "being mean". I will admit to attacking religion, but it isn't done to be mean to theists. That was the point I was making. Religion is usually attacked by atheists because left unchecked, we know for a fact that religions will try to enforce their beliefs in the classroom and in public arenas.

I would class tolerating religion as giving it a free pass, which is what the author seems to be pleading for.

Quite amsuing, really, all these people pleading for religion to be given a special place. Should I give the same free pass to homeopaths, UFO believers, mediums and psychics?

The Bible speaks of those who have seared their own consciences. I wish that I would be able to give you evidence that you'd be able to understand, but none exists. The problem does not lie within the evidence, but the perspective of the critic.

Well, I can only disagree with that. Saying that the evidence isn't in a format I can understand is just a cop out.

[BienvenuJDC]

Religion is usually attacked by atheists because left unchecked, we know for a fact that religions will try to enforce their beliefs in the classroom and in public arenas.

You mean like atheists enforce their beliefs of evolution in the classrooms?

[Drkshadow03]

You mean like atheists enforce their beliefs of evolution in the classrooms?

But evolution isn't a belief in the way you're thinking as it is evidence-based. It has stood up to challenges against it and shown itself to be true up to this point, nor is it atheist-enforced. I want evolution taught in my classrooms and Creationism kept the hell out.