Atheism Undermines Knowledge

[Esquilax]

As has already been said, you asserted it.

...and you have not refuted it.

Claims presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, Chad.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Nearly all the responses have pointed to a different target. I see now that the OP contains two parallel ideas. By not presenting these as distinct lines of thought readers could not see the link. Because it is subtle I need to reflect on how to best present it, so it can be easily understood and countered appropriately.

Secondly, I did not challenge atheism itself. I have attacked the common and pernicious belief among atheists that all phenomena can be explained in terms of material actions through efficient causes. Thus my sole purpose for the OP was to show that physical reduction and absurdist nihilism must go hand-in-hand. If I have not shown this, I do not attribute this to the weakness of the argument itself, but rather a lack of clarity in my presentation. Clearly, more work needs to be done on my part.

[Anomalocaris]

No, the "argument" is bullshit contrived to reach a red herring held up solely to sooth your batshit emotional neediness. You can disguise neither the ridiculous overreaching structure of your argument, nor the emotional pathology that drives you to cling to it, whatever your phraseology.

[Ryantology]

If I have not shown this, I do not attribute this to the weakness of the argument itself, but rather a lack of clarity in my presentation.

This is the same sentiment Republicans use today to explain why they got hosed in last year's national elections.

Your argument is nothing but an example of your inability to cope with a universe which doesn't care about you. Your real goal is to cram your god into gaps smaller than the Planck unit, because those are all of the scraps which fall from our absurdist materialist table. Notably, you gravitate, like a good apologist, right towards the nearest point of infinite regress, not because you have anything profound to share with us about <tP in regards to its ramifications on reality, but because you have found a place where there will always be a reliable gap in which you can fit your ever-shinking God.

You can demonstrate that a materialist viewpoint is incorrect by proving the objective truth of supernatural phenomena, but of course, you cannot do that, either, because supernaturalists insist that we simply cannot ever observe such phenomena empirically (making exceptions for yourselves and your supernatural experiences you are sure really happened to you, I suppose). No matter what the topic, it always goes right to the gaps the moment the light of critical inquiry shines upon it. It is a true cockroach religion.

[Simon Moon]

As has already been said, you asserted it.

...and you have not refuted it.

There is not need to refute an unsupported assertion.

I wouldn't think that concept needs explaining.

Argument from ignorance.

Not at all. An argument from ignorance would be "I know no possible solution therefore it must be God". In contrast, I presented two possible solutions. Since one has more explanatory power, it is the favored solution.
[/quote]

It sure is an argument from ignorance. Basically what you presented is, "I can't think of a natural solution, therefore it must be transcendental order".

Not only that, you presented a dichotomy, when the actual list of possible solutions could be extremely long. What makes you think those are the only solutions?

[ideologue08]

Depends on what constitutes valid "evidence" doesn't it?

---

...and you have not refuted it.

Claims presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, Chad.

Depends on what you think "evidence" entails doesn't it?

[Neo-Scholastic]

My problem is not with atheism itself, but physical reduction. I think bridging the gap between mind and body is a serious philosophical issue. The mind-body problem still leaves something to explain. That is what I meant about undermining knowledge. You guys have stopped inquiry well before the reach of reason. You stance is not "I don't know" but rather "I do not care to know." A small part of the dilemma in the induction problem. You have given up and pretend that nothing more needs to be explained.

I had hoped someone would be able to contribute to my understanding by at least taking the problem seriously. A provocative thread title helps attract attention, but apparently that is the wrong strategy. It attracts the attention of the wrong type of critic. Being open minded, I find it conceivable, though unlikely, that a non-theistic solution could be found. If so I will return to my previous atheism. You cannot truly call yourselves freethinkers if you have stopped thinking.

[justin]

Dude, you seem to making this way more complex than it actually is.
Atheism is just the rejection of god or gods. That is it. stop assuming atheism is anything more than that.

[Ryantology]

My problem is not with atheism itself, but physical reduction. I think bridging the gap between mind and body is a serious philosophical issue. The mind-body problem still leaves something to explain. That is what I meant about undermining knowledge. You guys have stopped inquiry well before the reach of reason. You stance is not "I don't know" but rather "I do not care to know." A small part of the dilemma in the induction problem. You have given up and pretend that nothing more needs to be explained.

I had hoped someone would be able to contribute to my understanding by at least taking the problem seriously. A provocative thread title helps attract attention, but apparently that is the wrong strategy. It attracts the attention of the wrong type of critic. Being open minded, I find it conceivable, though unlikely, that a non-theistic solution could be found. If so I will return to my previous atheism. You cannot truly call yourselves freethinkers if you have stopped thinking.

Our stance is that we will consider your approach to the truth once you can demonstrate that there is any chance that your approach is valid. You believe we don't care to know because you have made the arrogant presumption that you already know precisely where the truth lies and consider important only lines of inquiry which lead toward verifying that conclusion. You have made this clear over and over again, in spite of your allegedly open mind. We take your problem seriously. We don't take your approach to solving it seriously.

[The Grand Nudger]

Chad, reading the OP, something struck me as incredibly odd. There is a paragraph or two about deterministic this and thats (and how you feel that this relates to atheism )...then you reached down deep into the grab bag and said:

-If random - after which followed the usual smears.

You understand the trouble I'm having trying to decipher what you meant to say, yes?

Perhaps this could all be cleared up simply. Does a rock require some sort of "transcendent" power to "non-randomly" roll down a hill? How much magic is involved there?

---

I realize, by the time you spent to post that, that you feel that you're onto something serious and worthy - that you have something insightful to add to the discussion - but, to be frank, the question above is what follows, for me, from what you wrote. So really - how serious is this discussion supposed to be?

---