(March 3, 2015 at 8:43 pm)Ben Davis Wrote:

(March 3, 2015 at 7:31 pm)Thoughtage Wrote: The atheist believes in the conclusions delivered by reason, even though there is no proof that reason is binding on all reality, the realm it is making claims about. Faith.

*my emphasis

You're making sweeping and unsupported generalisations about all atheists. Your comment that the 'overwhelming majority of atheists' come by their lack of belief due to reason shows a gap in your knowledge on the subject. How many buddhists do you think there are; ~350 million? How many taoists; ~200 million? How many non-theistic pagans..? Now compare that to the number of people who identify themselves as 'reasonable' atheists; although this is a difficult number to pin down, I'd suggest that they represent a minority. Far from being 'a quibble', it's an important consideration to your position and one you can't simply dismiss with a wave of your hand.

Since he appears to be trying to show that, ultimately, both theistic and atheistic positions are lacking adequate epistemological justification, I'm not sure this harms his position any.

---

The sticking point for me is this characterization of atheists, straw man or not, speaking for all of reality. Reason has been shown to work in our limited sphere, and something of an assumption of uniformity is assumed where it seems reasonable to assume it. We have evidence that processes carried out on the surface of the earth are the same, regardless of where on the surface of the earth the processes occur. This is a form of proof by induction, and it's well known that the results of such arguments are only probabilistic. We have creationists who argue that the speed of light may have been different in the past, their arguments have been examined and found to be flawed. We have evidence for the probable uniformity of nature across a vast span of our local reality. However this notion that we categorically depend on reason in areas we cannot or have not examined is, I think, a stretch. It's regularly acknowledged that we don't know what happened before the big bang. Physicists regularly admit that different universes than ours may have very different laws than ours. And beyond that, the whole of science is built on the back of the idea that scientific truth is simply that which has not yet been proven false; it is uncertain by design.

So this idea that atheists outstrip the bounds of reason without evidence for their extension, and without limit to where they extend reason is simply a mischaracterization.

Moreover, to attend to the straw man, in evaluating the claims of a theist to reject them, the atheist only takes on board those assumptions already made by the theist. If they are talking about an area where reason has given evidence of reliability, they use that. Where claims such as to God's existing outside of time and space are presented, they depend upon the theist's representations.

And finally, as noted you're equivocating. The faith of the theist is typically characterized as blind faith, whereas while the faith of the atheist depends on an incomplete justification, the justification is not nearly as woefully incomplete as that of the theist. You are comparing apples and oranges.

[As a personal note, I think blind faith may be less common among theists than often characterized, but rather that faith is justified often on questionable, but present, grounds of reason.]

Also, if human reason cannot understand the fundamentals of reality, then no one has any right putting forth any argument at all claiming to explain it and any argument that is put forth can simply be dismissed. The conclusion is thus the same. The god claim must be rejected.

(March 4, 2015 at 8:36 am)comet Wrote:

(March 3, 2015 at 10:53 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Yeah, about as stupid as people who traffic in stereotypes.

yes ... true. We need to be very careful too. but I am right. If you "stereotype" the stock market like we can people you would by and sell bill gates for pleasure. it's not right or wrong ... Just the way it is.

but thats off topic.

Thoughtage here is engaged in doing exactly the same thing, about atheists. Arguing he's being fallacious while practicing his fallacy yourself is not adding to the conversation, or your luster.

Sloppy thinking is sloppy thinking. But if you're comfortable with it, what can anyone else say?

It's the same tactic that has become popular in apologetics. Reduce your opponent to admitting to solipsism, then claim you have a magic key which allows you to not admit to the same thing.

(March 4, 2015 at 11:53 am)rasetsu Wrote: Since he appears to be trying to show that, ultimately, both theistic and atheistic positions are lacking adequate epistemological justification, I'm not sure this harms his position any.

Ultimately, you're right however since he uses his argument to address 'all atheists' when it simply cannot, and then uses dismissal as a tactic to avoid answering the question or correcting his position, it demonstrates that he's prepared to be dishonest. That provides context in which I can assess his remaining arguments. I can't take his 'search for the truth' seriously when he's prepared to stand by such erroneous generalisations.

(March 4, 2015 at 12:44 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(March 4, 2015 at 8:36 am)comet Wrote: yes ... true. We need to be very careful too. but I am right. If you "stereotype" the stock market like we can people you would by and sell bill gates for pleasure. it's not right or wrong ... Just the way it is.

but thats off topic.

Thoughtage here is engaged in doing exactly the same thing, about atheists. Arguing he's being fallacious while practicing his fallacy yourself is not adding to the conversation, or your luster.

Sloppy thinking is sloppy thinking. But if you're comfortable with it, what can anyone else say?

the only thing that is being "sloppy" is you. You are assigning a value on the word based on your emotional debris. There are a limited number of personality types. Marketing and advertizing companies "stereotype" to hit a target audience. So your sloppiness is thinking that "stereotype[ping" is only bad. That half is thinking.

You don't have to like the word. that is not a requirement. But its meaning is valid. And the fact remains: Stereo typical old people are not found in dance clubs down south street raving at 1am sat.

Every system of thought of which I am aware requires some base axiom or axioms from which true and consistent theorems can be derived. Those can be considered rigid matters of faith, or, they can be regarded as tentative and subject to revision based on future investigation or information.
Theism uses the first system whereas methodological naturalism uses the second. Rasetsu points out that reason appears to offer a consistent and useful system of explanation. I doubt she would disagree that this is potentially only appearance and rationally derived claims to ultimate truths do require faith, for example that reality does exist.

But most atheists do not make claims of absolute truths. Those I know are a pragmatic bunch, and are willing to predict the sun will rise tomorrow and act on that prediction based on prior events and with the understanding that the prediction is only probabilistic and could in fact not be accurate.

Thoughtage appears to point to this faith in reason and claim its equivalence to the faith in revealed truths, or some other, even more undefined means of knowing. Even if this contention were valid and inference from past experience was totally unwarranted, making blind faith in a god or gods equal to blind faith in the results of inquiry, nothing has been resolved. Even if a god was a root cause and justification for the consistency we seem to observe in our universe, nothing has been shown that that god is the ultimate cause. Perhaps there is a meta-god, a god ecosystem, a god evolution, a parallel universe of gods behind the one we know by faith. How does God know she is not a brain in a vat? Turtles all the way down.

There is a third choice apart from faith in gods or faith in reality. That is to reserve judgement, something Thoughtage may or may not consider. If I bike to the intersection at the end of my street and I do not turn right does not mean that I do turn left. This is what makes me a militant agnostic (motto: I don't know ultimate truth and neither do you!) I expect there will always be holes in our knowledge but I will not give leave to anyone to hide a god in them, particularly not a logically impossible internally inconsistent god.

(March 4, 2015 at 9:06 pm)JuliaL Wrote: There is a third choice apart from faith in gods or faith in reality. That is to reserve judgement, something Thoughtage may or may not consider. If I bike to the intersection at the end of my street and I do not turn right does not mean that I do turn left. This is what makes me a militant agnostic (motto: I don't know ultimate truth and neither do you!) I expect there will always be holes in our knowledge but I will not give leave to anyone to hide a god in them, particularly not a logically impossible internally inconsistent god.

When I consider whether I believe gods exist, I never think of that as a question involving 'ultimate truth' or the 'foundations of reality'. I don't see where I'm in any position to weigh in on either of those concepts.

I am a gnat on a flea's ass on the back of a dragon of immense proportions. How should I know where the dragon is headed or why. I don't even know if it knows I'm here. For all I know, the dragon is flying over the surface of a still greater dragon. It may even be dragons all the way up.

But from my perspective as one among many gnats on that flea, when another gnat goes on about some mumbo jumbo I don't understand at all I don't immediately wonder what he is seeing that I don't. Neither one of us is in position to see past the flea's ass. But let him think what he likes. No skin off my own ass. I don't have to say he is wrong to say I don't share his hunch. I'll worry about gods and dragons when there is reason to do so.

(March 4, 2015 at 9:32 pm)whateverist Wrote: I am a gnat on a flea's ass on the back of a dragon of immense proportions. How should I know where the dragon is headed or why. I don't even know if it knows I'm here. For all I know, the dragon is flying over the surface of a still greater dragon. It may even be dragons all the way up.

But from my perspective as one among many gnats on that flea, when another gnat goes on about some mumbo jumbo I don't understand at all I don't immediately wonder what he is seeing that I don't. Neither one of us is in position to see past the flea's ass. But let him think what he likes. No skin off my own ass. I don't have to say he is wrong to say I don't share his hunch. I'll worry about gods and dragons when there is reason to do so.

I'm right with you on feeling really tiny in a great big universe (thank you Dr. Hubble.)
But there is a danger when the other gnat has an inflated self image and wants not just his but your place on the flea. Mostly I find theists trying to expand their domains irritating but harmless. Usually the gullibility that got them their place in the religion machine serves to keep them there and out of major trouble. The machine itself, like most established parasites, has found a niche which doesn't overreach anywhere near as much as CEOs of Fortune 500 companies or third world dictators. It drains its hosts without killing them.
Still, I wonder if we are collectively smart enough to survive 10% as long as the dinosaurs. Mostly, it doesn't seem so and the theists are pulling down the average.

When it comes to applying what we know to what we don't Neil D.T. and Carl got it best in terms of "god". I only mention their names because some people need other "BIG" people to validate their beliefs. Theist do this as well. In fact, theist rely in them.

Then there are philosophers. A wordy lot. They write very pretty and all and even speller real good. They will render other philosophies as irrelevant to themselves. They do this for whatever personal emotional they need addressing. Witch in of itself is fine. The problem arise when these good spellering wordy lot enter the ring of science and engineering and push their slop off as more than a "personal feeling". again, both groups do it but theist are the worst hurling this book at us all the time.

Thoughtage point is that far right and far left have similar and predictable traits. This is a "truth" that really is empirical. We can argue it till we are blue in the face. The fact remains, list personality traits of people and we have not only an overlap but a large element of predictability. We don't have to like it. Some bitches are even afraid of it. It doesn't change the validity of the observation.