atheism, philosophy and emotional immaturity

[Faith No More]

I am not better or smarter than anyone else and I'm not trying to be.

Could have fooled me.

[jstrodel]

No, it is every bit my right to tell people how to reason because they reason wrong. Everyone uses arguments from authority to reason. When you learn a language, you expose yourself to others ethics and philosophy and others minds and you don't check every single thing, and as soon as you check things, you are begin to depend on other authorities. In fact, the people that wrote those books cited many other authors to support their claims which they did not verify to the same degree that the authors did.

It is not an issue of whether I am reasoning wrong or right, it is the fact that people are relying on others views and perspectives that contain unproven information, and that unproven information is an argument from authority. Atheists are dishonest the way that they apply the label "fallacy" to something that is not categorically fallacious, it is only fallacious if it is applied wrong.

I am not asking people there opinion, I am educating you. You are wrong, if you think that the argument from authority is categorically wrong. There has never been a book in history and never will be a book that was written where every single aspect of every idea relied exclusively on content that the author verified completely to the degree that he received it. Maybe a book of math proofs or something like that, but aside from that, nothing.

Learning is a collaborative process. If people can't recognize that, they shouldn't talk like they are intellectuals. They don't know anything.


If you are uneducated enough to think that the argument from authority is categorically a fallacy, do yourself a favor. You don't even have to read a real book on logic or actually work hard to understand this. Just do this:

http://www.google.com
argument from authority fallacy
Type it in. Read some of the entries. Actually learn what you are talking about. Most of you don't have a clue, and you are leading others to accept nihilistic ethics based on false ideas. So yes, I am pissed, and it is not just my opinion.

[Mystic]

You made a very strong point in the last post. However, personally, I question a lot of things that don't make sense to me, even if all authorities practically have agreed upon. I understand society would not function as well, and our learning process would severely deteriorate if none of us learn from authorities. For example there is as much positive integers as negative and positive integers. However there is infinitely more real numbers then integers. This is what a mathematical theory aims to prove. I myself reject for various factors. It's set theory. I believe there is infinitely more real numbers then integer and believe set theory proves that, but I feel set theory doesn't prove there as much positive integers as there negative and positive integers. I feel this just inadequacy of the tool of set theory. It's useful way of thinking but it's limited in scope. I stoke to my intuition even though everyone in the class accepted it. This is mathematics. I maybe be wrong but I don't believe I am.

Unfortunately, we all do depend on authority. But as you see, it makes people think wrong all the time. Muslims will follow their authority. Jews their own. Hindus their authorities. Society doesn't function without it.

And our whole system of learning, the idea of citing sources, etc, is all based on appeal to authority and trust of authority. You are right in that sense. But we have the right to question the authority even if it will slow down "information" we believe in, for it will turn "information" we believe and happens to be true, into knowledge.

[Joel]

You don't even have to read a real book on logic

Thank you.

[jstrodel]

You made a very strong point in the last post. However, personally, I question a lot of things that don't make sense to me, even if all authorities practically have agreed upon. I understand society would not function as well, and our learning process would severely deteriorate if none of us learn from authorities. For example there is as much positive integers as negative and positive integers. However there is infinitely more real numbers then integers. This is what a mathematical theory aims to prove. I myself reject for various factors. It's set theory. I believe there is infinitely more real numbers then integer and believe set theory proves that, but I feel set theory doesn't prove there as much positive integers as there negative and positive integers. I feel this just inadequacy of the tool of set theory. It's useful way of thinking but it's limited in scope. I stoke to my intuition even though everyone in the class accepted it. This is mathematics. I maybe be wrong but I don't believe I am.

Unfortunately, we all do depend on authority. But as you see, it makes people think wrong all the time. Muslims will follow their authority. Jews their own. Hindus their authorities. Society doesn't function without it.

And our whole system of learning, the idea of citing sources, etc, is all based on appeal to authority and trust of authority. You are right in that sense. But we have the right to question the authority even if it will slow down "information" we believe in, for it will turn "information" we believe and happens to be true, into knowledge.

Thank you for the kind words. Very few things are are as certain as mathematics.

At the end of the day, everyone has to pick a side that they are on. Maybe atheism isn't belief, it is non-belief. I don't accept that.

But even if you accept the very dubious proposition that atheism is a non-rational rejection of a belief and not a belief and as such, requires no support for its truth claims, you still in the end must trust someone.

If you are an atheist, you have to trust someone. You must have faith, otherwise you would not be able to get through the day. No one lives out their life based on mathematical theorems. The argument from authority is a reality for all people, that all must recognize that their very lives are in others hands, and that they must trust others and accept that they don't know everything, and can't know everything. This is a scary process, actually, it is terrifying. But the anxiety is equal on theistic and atheistic sides.

[Joel]

On what basis do you think "I don't believe you." is a belief?

[Mystic]

Atheists not only trust authorities like Theists do, they trust their own reasoning capabilities. For example, they believe so and so is using fallacious reasoning, but they trust they themselves have used proper reasoning in rejecting "proofs" or "evidence" in favor of God. They realize others are in error but they will have faith they are not in error.

They also have to have faith in free-will to function. They also have to have faith in praise and value.

Perhaps it's not all about "thinking for yourself". Perhaps we need to discuss with experts, debate with one another, get feed back to our own thoughts....

I think a little distrust in one own's reasoning capabilities is also healthy and there needs to be balanced approach with regards to learning from authority and thinking for yourself.

[jstrodel]

Is it a belief that is intended to be taken as a truth claim? Someone could say "the earth is round". Another person might respond "I don't believe you". Does the rejection of belief in the earth being round require justification?

What do you think, Joel? Do you think that rejecting a belief in a round earth requires justification?


This is pure 100% sophistry by the way.

[Ryantology]

But those factors of the relevance and rigor of the authority are part of the argument from authority, MysticKnight. Someone could make an argument from authority to a church that had a history of 2000 years of giving authoritative pronouncements that shaped entire civilizations. That would very likely to be a good argument. The awareness of the nature of the authority is what makes it likely to be correct.

And it would be a fallacy to appeal to that kind of authority, because the clergy and the church are authorities only of their own artificial dogma and their own interpretation of scripture. That they have usurped a lot of worldly power doesn't make their opinions on anything more legitimate than mine.

[Joel]

Is it a belief that is intended to be taken as a truth claim? Someone could say "the earth is round". Another person might respond "I don't believe you". Does the rejection of belief in the earth being round require justification?

What do you think, Joel? Do you think that rejecting a belief in a round earth requires justification?


This is pure 100% sophistry by the way.

That's irrelevant to my question. I simply asked what your basis is for thinking "I don't believe you." is a belief. Justification doesn't matter.
"I don't believe you." is not the same as "I believe you are wrong.

EDIT: It does require justification, yes; because there is evidence to suggest otherwise.