J
JDaniel
Guest
The differences between the atheist and the theist lie primarily in the processes each employs to arrive at the conclusions posited as proof of their contentions. The theist makes no bones about what he uses. The theist openly says that he uses (1) deductive reasoning, (2) inductive reasoning, and, (3) faith. These do not necessarily comprise a complete list of what the theist uses, but they are the primary ones.
Some other processes include, but are not limited to, epistemological reasoning (St. Anslem’s major premise and conclusion), tradition, mystical experience, and, from the negative, heretofore unexplainable occurrences, and that which must be because the converse is untrue.
On the other hand, the atheist denies (for the most part) inductive reasoning, faith, epistemic reasoning, tradition, mysticism, and the unexplainable and negative induction (or deduction) processes. He permits only positive deductive reasoning, and only from science.
Under these constrictions, it is impossible for the parties to arrive at conclusions they can both agree on. In fact, even definitional agreement is nearly impossible to find among them.
The atheist may argue that one shouldn’t need all of these types of logic, first, because they are suspect, and second, because one is all that is needed by scientists to arrive at consensus conclusions. (That being said, it is understood that science occasionally uses inductive reasoning, but, those that do are under attack from their own ranks.) Since theists seem to require all of these, in order to make their case, therefore their shared conclusions are most likely wrong.
The theist, on the other hand, admits to certain weaknesses. But, says that these so-called “weaknesses” are due more to our human ability to know, than to the highly probable existences (or truths) of the premises of induction, et al.
If enough time is spent to present a preponderance of evidence, or argument, for the theist’s beliefs, occasionally an atheist will cross over. This is always, to some extent, daunting to the remaining atheists, as they then ask, “what did he (or she) discover that I haven’t?” To the atheists who refuse (or, are too lazy) to research, “that man was a fool”.
It is interesting to note that the actual world-wide numbers of professed adherents to some form of Theism absolutely dwarfs the world-wide numbers of adherents to the “atheistic” assemblies. But, of course, the “atheist” considers himself to be more intelligent than the ‘masses”, which happens to include theists.
It is also interesting to note that the only real arguments against the theist are, ICPK THEREFORE YCPK, (I can’t possibly know therefore you can’t possibly know) and the off-handed denial of the theist’s other statements of proof.
The atheist will respond to this by asserting that, in fact, they have proposed opposing cosmologies. Interestingly enough, during testing, those alternative cosmologies are derived from the very same scientific methods that are denied to the subject of “did the universe (and the existent series of events) start with the ‘big bang’”? Or, is there an extremely strong possibility that the “events’ started “before” it?
The “science” behind acceptance of the big-bang is the identical science that is behind the question of did the series of events begin earlier. In fact the premise of the opening post is derived directly from conclusions from big bang theory. In the anti-atheism embodiment, the conclusions are denied, whereas, in the pro-atheism one, the conclusions are affirmed (accepted).
This sort of thinking is seriously flawed and logically fallacious, betraying a certain laziness of thought (or research), or, betraying ignoble purpose. Most converts crossed over because they became informed. Thus, laziness of research can, it appears, can be corrected. A remaining question is, what happens, ultimately, to the holder of ignoble purpose?
JD
Some other processes include, but are not limited to, epistemological reasoning (St. Anslem’s major premise and conclusion), tradition, mystical experience, and, from the negative, heretofore unexplainable occurrences, and that which must be because the converse is untrue.
On the other hand, the atheist denies (for the most part) inductive reasoning, faith, epistemic reasoning, tradition, mysticism, and the unexplainable and negative induction (or deduction) processes. He permits only positive deductive reasoning, and only from science.
Under these constrictions, it is impossible for the parties to arrive at conclusions they can both agree on. In fact, even definitional agreement is nearly impossible to find among them.
The atheist may argue that one shouldn’t need all of these types of logic, first, because they are suspect, and second, because one is all that is needed by scientists to arrive at consensus conclusions. (That being said, it is understood that science occasionally uses inductive reasoning, but, those that do are under attack from their own ranks.) Since theists seem to require all of these, in order to make their case, therefore their shared conclusions are most likely wrong.
The theist, on the other hand, admits to certain weaknesses. But, says that these so-called “weaknesses” are due more to our human ability to know, than to the highly probable existences (or truths) of the premises of induction, et al.
If enough time is spent to present a preponderance of evidence, or argument, for the theist’s beliefs, occasionally an atheist will cross over. This is always, to some extent, daunting to the remaining atheists, as they then ask, “what did he (or she) discover that I haven’t?” To the atheists who refuse (or, are too lazy) to research, “that man was a fool”.
It is interesting to note that the actual world-wide numbers of professed adherents to some form of Theism absolutely dwarfs the world-wide numbers of adherents to the “atheistic” assemblies. But, of course, the “atheist” considers himself to be more intelligent than the ‘masses”, which happens to include theists.
It is also interesting to note that the only real arguments against the theist are, ICPK THEREFORE YCPK, (I can’t possibly know therefore you can’t possibly know) and the off-handed denial of the theist’s other statements of proof.
The atheist will respond to this by asserting that, in fact, they have proposed opposing cosmologies. Interestingly enough, during testing, those alternative cosmologies are derived from the very same scientific methods that are denied to the subject of “did the universe (and the existent series of events) start with the ‘big bang’”? Or, is there an extremely strong possibility that the “events’ started “before” it?
The “science” behind acceptance of the big-bang is the identical science that is behind the question of did the series of events begin earlier. In fact the premise of the opening post is derived directly from conclusions from big bang theory. In the anti-atheism embodiment, the conclusions are denied, whereas, in the pro-atheism one, the conclusions are affirmed (accepted).
This sort of thinking is seriously flawed and logically fallacious, betraying a certain laziness of thought (or research), or, betraying ignoble purpose. Most converts crossed over because they became informed. Thus, laziness of research can, it appears, can be corrected. A remaining question is, what happens, ultimately, to the holder of ignoble purpose?
JD
Yum!