List of common fallacies of Atheists

[reggieM]

Moral outrage is the product of human sentiment.

Where is the quantifiable proof of this statement? What physical materials is moral outrage composed of?

There is no reason to believe that human sentiment does not have natural causes, or that materialism precludes the existence of human sentiment.

I think I showed very clearly and logically that moral outrage about anything is completely illogical in a materialistic system.

Of course, materialists can act illogically and get outraged about all kinds of things. But that, in itself, is an excellent proof of how false materialism really is. I think your posts on this topic are a perfect example of the same. You don’t want to embrace the necessary conclusions of your own philosohpy.

But rather than continue to call me names – please address the argument as I’ve given it.
What moral commands does physical material give. What does physical-matter command as obligatory or condemn as morally wrong? What material compounds require and forbid human actions, and where, precisely can they be found? Why do human beings fail to obey the moral commands of their own physical composition, if there are such commands to be found somewhere? What human behavior is morally forbidden by the physical laws of nature?

 

[DavidHume]

I think I showed very clearly and logically that moral outrage about anything is completely illogical in a materialistic system.

You did not. You haven’t even laid out what you think constitutes a “materialistic system,” let alone provide a logical argument, so it is impossible to point out your mistakes. Classic strawman.

Of course, materialists can act illogically and get outraged about all kinds of things. But that, in itself, is an excellent proof of how false materialism really is.

How is that any sort of proof? Is this what passes for rigor in your world? No wonder you are beholden to superstitious nonsense.

But rather than continue to call me names – please address the argument as I’ve given it. What moral commands does physical material give.

None. Humans give moral commands.

What does physical-matter command as obligatory or condemn as morally wrong?

Nothing. Humans condemn things as morally wrong.

What material compounds require and forbid human actions, and where, precisely can they be found?

None. Humans require and forbid human actions.

Why do human beings fail to obey the moral commands of their own physical composition, if there are such commands to be found somewhere?

Because the commands are epiphenomenal.

What human behavior is morally forbidden by the physical laws of nature?

None.

Luckily, I don’t need to look to atoms for moral guidance any more than I need to look to a big man in the sky.

 

[reggieM]

Yes it is, because the first approach has produced nothing of benefit, while the second has produced everything that is allowing you to use this forum.

It should be easy for you to see that is false. You’re claiming that naturalism produced the rules of logic – which allow me to use this forum for means of argumentation – and not to mention have allowed for the writing of software code.

Where are the physical components of the rules of logic? Perhaps they can be found in a collection of neurons in the brain. If so, which neurons are the rules of logic composed of? Does every human being who uses logic have exactly the same “logic-rules neurons”? When someone makes a logical mistake – is that one of the neurons malfunctioning? If so, which one or more?

Since I’m very sure that you don’t have any answers to these questions, perhaps it’s better to retract your claim that “everything allowing me to use this forum” comes from unintelligent natural laws and matter.

 

[reggieM]

Is this what passes for rigor in your world?

Let me tell you about “my world”. On second thought … I’m not really the subject of the conversation here, am I?

… superstitious nonsense.

Ok, we’ve had thus far:

spreading your slanders and lies
nauseatingly false
yet another slander
bigoted religious people
Superstition and voodoo
hypocrite
(yet again) What hypocrisy
mooching off
and …
What unparalleled arrogance

We can close with an insult to the God we love and worship and for Whom this site is oriented …

a big man in the sky

I hope, eventually, you’ll run out of this colorful language.

Until then, I think I’ve found the limits of what I can discuss with you on this topic.

 

[j1akey]

reggieM:

Science has been the single greatest engine for destruction through history.

No it hasn’t, people have been. People are always coming up with better tools to kill, science makes discoveries, people decide what to do with them.

 

[reggieM]

You’re correct that in this case, physically there is no difference between trash and flowers if no bias is used at all. However, this is not a practical way to view it for two reasons. First, our physical bodies have developed preference. We like flowers, sex, and candy, and dislike garbage, scrapped knees, and isolation.

If we liked other things though, wouldn’t those be as permissible as any others?

Second, continued existence plays a big roll in what is perceived as good or bad. Murder is bad, destruction of what is viewed as “home” (nature, community, etc) is bad, etc. Liking destruction is counter productive to the survival of that very preference, and thus it is no wonder that some things are liked and some disliked… Both these reasons are relative to our species. I doubt the algae blooming from our garbage would think it is a bad thing.

I’ve heard it said that there is a selective advantage to some of our behaviors, but how do we know that? How can we determine what behaviors will contribute best to the survival of our species for a long time in the future? We can guess what those will be, but if those guesses are driven by natural laws themselves – then the genocidal maniac has just as much right to his behavior as anyone else. He may have an idea that for the survival of the species, it’s best to destroy a race of people. The only thing that proves him right is the course of history – perhaps centuries in the future.

In short, materialism says we’re just material, but it doesn’t say that order and purpose are not a part of what that material can render for itself.

When materialism says that order and purpose are the products of unintelligent, unconscious physical material and fixed natural laws, then that appears to be a contradiction.

Some have said (PZ Myers for example) that the only purpose that materialism offers is self-interest. So, people will do what they think benefits themselves (and this includes things that benefit human society because they think it benefits themselves).

But there are no natural laws that indicate what “self-interest” is, or how human beings know what is best for themselves.

Even if it is true, then the point stands – materialism is an amoral system. It can yeild moral actions or immoral actions and those have equal value.
In fact, one cannot measure the moral quality of any action in a materialist view.

The only measure one can use is “did that help the person’s self-interest”?

But every action can and will be justified by that view.

 

[DavidHume]

Until then, I think I’ve found the limits of what I can discuss with you on this topic.

You found the limits of what you can discuss when you were confronted with the benefits of methodological materialism and failed to provide a single example of a benefit from denying it.

Religious superstition is a barren fig tree and should be cursed until it withers and dies.

 

[DavidHume]

The only measure one can use is “did that help the person’s self-interest”?

But every action can and will be justified by that view.

If there were only one human, this might well be correct. But since there are many humans, all of whom can impact others’ self-interest, it is practical for individuals to understand and follow the consensus sentiments of their communities.

E.g. it might be OK in your personal moral code to go murder people, but it’s OK in my (and most people’s) moral code to lock you up for doing it.

No divine commandments necessary.

 

[liquidpele]

If we liked other things though, wouldn’t those be as permissible as any others?

I’ve heard it said that there is a selective advantage to some of our behaviors, but how do we know that? How can we determine what behaviors will contribute best to the survival of our species for a long time in the future? We can guess what those will be, but if those guesses are driven by natural laws themselves – then the genocidal maniac has just as much right to his behavior as anyone else. He may have an idea that for the survival of the species, it’s best to destroy a race of people. The only thing that proves him right is the course of history – perhaps centuries in the future.

When materialism says that order and purpose are the products of unintelligent, unconscious physical material and fixed natural laws, then that appears to be a contradiction.

Some have said (PZ Myers for example) that the only purpose that materialism offers is self-interest. So, people will do what they think benefits themselves (and this includes things that benefit human society because they think it benefits themselves).

But there are no natural laws that indicate what “self-interest” is, or how human beings know what is best for themselves.

Even if it is true, then the point stands – materialism is an amoral system. It can yeild moral actions or immoral actions and those have equal value.
In fact, one cannot measure the moral quality of any action in a materialist view.

The only measure one can use is “did that help the person’s self-interest”?

But every action can and will be justified by that view.

Probably yes.

The “then the genocidal maniac has just as much right to his behavior as anyone else” is ridiculous. People are different… skin color, eye color, hair color, history, freckles, weight, bone structure, etc. The reason genocide is not accepted at all is because the idea of discrimination only leads to more discrimination, which spirals into places like Afghanistan where you just don’t want to go visit. Those are not happy places. Technically we wage genocide against roaches, rats, and other pests. Don’t get me wrong, genocide is very very bad, but is it bad just because they killed a lot of one type of person, or is it bad because they were killing people? I would say the latter, in which case it’s comparable to all willful murder - which unfortunately is a common and I think unavoidable thing in our species.

It’s a contradiction that order can come from unintelligent physical things? The old faithful geiser, the sailing stones, the salt flatts, the steadyness that the sun burns, the steady orbits of the planets, the moon that always faces us with the same side, the rock bridges, vallys carved by glaciers… I see plenty of order that is natural… and those are just some of the inorganic things!

PZ is an idiot. There, I said it. Self interest is indeed a part of it, but it’s beyond what you think of as self interest. It’s also unconscious, sociological, genetic, and seemingly random. However, you can’t look at how we pamper song birds but exterminate rats and claim we ignore self interests - this is a fact of life. At the end of the day, if you don’t take care of *enough *of your self interests, you likely won’t survive and thus your ideas regarding how you should live cease to matter.

Self interest is not just one thing, as I said before, it’s more complicated than that. There is not one law or way it works just like there is not one way that people earn a living.

It’s amoral?? This depends on how you define morality. You view it as external, which is why you see it as amoral. I see morality as defined and built into us, and thus it is actually one of the tools of self interest itself. Basically, we’re back to a previous topic where I stated in another thread that I think morality created the church and not the other way around, but then the church (and secular government) refined it to allow for society to prosper in greater numbers and advancement. In short, you see morality as the path of Christ as described by the church. I see that as simply guildlines for society based upon the moral fabric built into us by natural selection and self interest.

One thing is for certain though… it’s complicated.

 

[tdgesq]

Religious superstition is a barren fig tree and should be cursed until it withers and dies. (Emphasis added).

Wow. Does anyone else see the irony in this statement? I wonder where this normative standard comes from.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Wow. Does anyone else see the irony in this statement? I wonder where this normative standard comes from.

Haha! :doh2:

“The greatest trick of the Devil is to convince the world that he doesn’t exist” - invisible and denied source of doubt and discomfort.

 

[tonyrey]

Wow. Does anyone else see the irony in this statement? I wonder where this normative standard comes from.

By the fruits of atheism you shall know them…

 

[liquidpele]

Wow. Does anyone else see the irony in this statement? I wonder where this normative standard comes from.

I’m afraid I don’t see it… but I’m not aware of any symbolism with fig trees which is what I’m assuming is the missing link. Care to elaborate?

 

[James_S_Saint]

According to evolution theory, if religion was a fruitless endeavor (a barren fig tree), it wouldn’t be so significantly here for you to be upset about its existence.

Religion == “re-legion” - to maintain the group.

It is abhorred by the atheist today merely due to the incentive to ensure that there is but one grouping (a different re-legion") as all others are reduced by internal strife, betrayal, doubt, and hopeless discomfort.

 

[tonyrey]

*Do you consider that the quanta of physical energy is derived from anything? *
But even if it is derived from something, there’s no way of knowing what that something is, ergo no rational reason for declaring it to be God.

So would you agree that there is either:

1. An unknown source of energy that has always existed,
2. An unknown source of energy that appeared spontaneously,
3. Physical energy that has always existed, or
4. Physical energy that appeared spontaneously?
   If so which do you consider the most likely?

Is it a virtue to regard science as the sole means of explaining reality?
Yes, in one sense of the word ‘virtue.’ It’s honest because it’s the **only **means that can produce reliable methods.

I’m afraid you will contradict yourself in a minute…

*Do you believe physical energy is the sole type of energy? *
I believe it is, but I accept that there might be other types of energy.

If another type of energy were rational would it be superior to physical energy?

Why believe in something you can’t observe, measure, test?

Don’t you believe in anything you can’t observe, measure, test? Think carefully…

Here again it seems that the only possible evidence is that which you define as evidence. Yet in a court of law there is much acceptable evidence that is not scientific but personal. Intangible motives, decisions and purposes that you would rule out on principle are taken into account and serve as a basis for determining innocence or guilt…
You can call it my personal definition if you like, but the, “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of evidence is ubiquitous and I think most people would agree that it is the level of evidence required when attempting to prove the existence of a given entity.

Indeed - given that physical objects are not the only entities!

I think that trying to equate the intent of an individual with non-physical energy, as you seem to be doing in your example, would fall under the heading of “redefinition fallacy.”

The fact remains that intents - which have a reference to the future - have not been explained in terms of physical processes - which have no reference to the future.

Can you summarise the parts that you think support your argument?

A key passage in Two Dogmas of Empiricism:
“Physical objects, small and large, are not the only posits. Forces are another example; and indeed we are told nowadays that the boundary between energy and matter is obsolete. Moreover, the abstract entities which are the substance of mathematics – ultimately classes and classes of classes and so on up – are another posit in the same spirit. Epistemologically these are myths on the same footing with physical objects and gods, neither better nor worse except for differences in the degree to which they expedite our dealings with sense experiences.”

If many people have the same subjective experiences is that not objective evidence?
Well, it depends on the nature of the experience. Generally such a set of experiences should have some historical basis in fact.

On the contrary. It opens up opportunities for further investigation into spiritual reality.
But such investigation can prove nothing, so the activity holds no validity or value.

So you don’t think people have any experiences which are beyond the scope of science?

Science doesn’t take us very far into the exploration of the things that really matter.
It has a better chance than philosophy, which can only provide us with subjective, untestable rhetoric.

Don’t you think you are reasoning philosophically now?

Do you conduct your life according to scientific principles?
I’ll pop to the shops because I need some milk or something…

A trivial example. How about choosing a life partner or a place to live?
Do you believe it is an objective fact that we are persons who are thinking and making decisions?
Yes.

Does that count as objective evidence for anything?
I guess it counts as objective evidence that we have the ability to think and make decisions.

Thank you. That is all we need!

Don’t you think the cause must be proportioned to the effect?
Are you referring to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? I’m certainly not educated enough to contradict it.

I am referring to any explanation which is worth its salt.

Please explain precisely what is the evidence that you as a person exist?
I think therefore I am. That’s the only evidence to which I can personally attest.

So your thoughts do count as evidence?

Is there any limit to the number of things you don’t know beyond which atheism becomes an untenable theory?
The number of unknowns has no link to the validity of atheism.

Isn’t it linked to the explanation of reality by physical causes?

The atheist position is a lack of belief in God due to the absence of evidence.

Which implies that physical causes are in principle sufficient to explain reality.

The only way to refute the beliefs of atheists is to provide evidence of the existence of God.

How about evidence of supernatural reality?

As I said previously, “beyond reasonable doubt” is an appropriate level of evidence.

You believe that you and your intangible experiences exist beyond reasonable doubt. So your intangible experiences are an appropriate level of evidence?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m afraid I don’t see it… but I’m not aware of any symbolism with fig trees which is what I’m assuming is the missing link. Care to elaborate?

The statement: “Religious superstition is a barren fig tree and should be cursed until it withers and dies.”

One irony to it is…

Hume (the original) said that no statement of morality could be true or false; it simply represented our feelings. Therefore, the above statement cannot be true; it simply means that the poster DavidHume feels it strongly. But that is no reason for anyone else to feel it strongly, nor does the statement reference anything else than the poster’s feelings (given Hume’s assumptions).

 

[DavidHume]

The statement: “Religious superstition is a barren fig tree and should be cursed until it withers and dies.”

One irony to it is…

Hume (the original) said that no statement of morality could be true or false; it simply represented our feelings. Therefore, the above statement cannot be true; it simply means that the poster DavidHume feels it strongly. But that is no reason for anyone else to feel it strongly, nor does the statement reference anything else than the poster’s feelings (given Hume’s assumptions).

That’s not really irony. Not even the Alanis Morrisette kind. I never said or implied anything otherwise.

That being said, no one has yet provided one example of a benefit of not assuming that things have natural causes.

I provided scores of examples of benefits of assuming that things do have natural causes. In contrast prayer hasn’t scored us one advance.

Celibacy, fasting, penance, mortification, self-denial, humility, silence, solitude, and the whole train of monkish virtues; for what reason are they everywhere rejected by men of sense, but because they serve to no manner of purpose; neither advance a man’s fortune in the world, nor render him a more valuable member of society; neither qualify him for the entertainment of company, nor increase his power of self-enjoyment? We observe, on the contrary, that they cross all these desirable ends; stupify the understanding and harden the heart, obscure the fancy and sour the temper. We justly, therefore, transfer them to the opposite column, and place them in the catalogue of vices…

 

[DavidHume]

Wow. Does anyone else see the irony in this statement? I wonder where this normative standard comes from.

Where all normative standards come from – human sentiment.

 

[tdgesq]

Where all normative standards come from – human sentiment.

You mean it is your human sentiment that religious superstition should be cursed until it withers and dies. Here is a serious question, and I don’t mean it to be offensive: Why would or should anybody care about your individual human sentiment? It seems to me that your human sentiment does not create any standard by which human beings ought to abide.

In any case, your position is self-refuting. Let’s just pretend for a moment that normative standards come from human sentiment. Well, my human sentiment is that religious superstition (using your terminology) should not be cursed until it withers and dies. Apparently this constitutes a normative standard by which people ought to abide. Your own theory of ethics proves the opposite of what you just argued.