Defeating Atheism's "Difficult Questions"

[reason]

That depends on what kind of atheist one is. I for example do not believe, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that I'm right.

So you don't think that atheism is true but you believe it anyway? Is it not possible to claim that you're right without committing yourself to atheism come what may?

I say I have no reason to believe but I wouldn't dare do something such as predict that this will never ever happen.

It's not about what you predict, but what atheism predicts. You are not atheism. Atheism is a proposition with definite logical consequences. When those consequences constrain the content of empirical observation, we call them 'predictions'.

I think these are some overarching generalizations that are irrelevant.

I don't think they're irrelevant.

Also, at what point does she say this? I missed it. Can you give me the time when she explicitly says this?

Right at the beginning. Maybe she misspoke, but it would be far from the first time I've heard atheists make such claims. Many subsequent comments appeared to lean on the same assumption. [EDIT: watching it again, the guy more or less says the same thing right off the bat].

So then you agree? Bald guy challenges the caller directly: "How do you know that the truth value is unobtainable?"

I agree, but the atheist is being inconsistent.

 

[sprinkles]

So you don't think that atheism is true but you believe it anyway? Is it not possible to claim that you're right without committing yourself to atheism come what may?

It's possible but I'm not going to do it. Easy enough answer.

It's not about what you predict, but what atheism predicts. You are not atheism. Atheism is a proposition with definite logical consequences. When those consequences constrain the content of empirical observation, we call them 'predictions'.

I posit that it is not one proposition, but many.

I don't think they're irrelevant.

I do, because atheists do not have only one proposition.

Right at the beginning. Maybe she misspoke, but it would be far from the first time I've heard atheists make such claims. Many subsequent comments appeared to lean on the same assumption.

I'll have to look for it.

I agree, but the atheist is being inconsistent.

In the video? Probably, somewhere.

 

[sprinkles]

Right at the beginning. Maybe she misspoke, but it would be far from the first time I've heard atheists make such claims. Many subsequent comments appeared to lean on the same assumption. [EDIT: watching it again, the guy more or less says the same thing right off the bat].

I hear what you're talking about now.

Yes that is a logical slip, I completely agree. I failed to catch it since I'm generally not that detail oriented.

At least we're on the same page regarding that, now.

 

[reason]

Okay, it's late, and I don't want to listen to the whole thing now, so here are a few choice selections from the first few minutes.

Bald Guy to Caller: 'Do you have any good reason why you would believe anything that is unfalsifiable?'

Caller: 'I do care about the truth of [whether God exists], but it's unfalsifiable to me--I can't demonstrate it.'

Bald Guy: 'it makes sense, in the sense that I've heard other people say this before, and it doesn't make sense in that I have a really hard time grasping how anybody can both understand that they believe something but they don't have a good reason for and actually still believe it.'​

Notice how the bald guy casually equates 'unfalsifiable' with having no 'good reason' to believe something. In this case, a 'good reason' is tacitly assumed to be an empirical observation (or possibly a logical proof, but that isn't relevant to the discussion). It's also worth noting that it's paradoxical to demand a good reason for everything anyone believes. In any case, we also get this priceless line:

Lady: 'I just wanted to say that accepting unfalsifiable things as true is not reasonable--so that's my only point.'​

I'll also add this one to the file:

Bald Guy: 'By accepting a proposition which you don't know to be true, you are limiting you're limiting your options on your ability to discover what is actually true.'​

This is so false it makes my teeth itch.

 

[sprinkles]

Okay, it's late, and I don't want to listen to the whole thing now, so here are a few choice selections from the first few minutes.

Bald Guy to Caller: 'Do you have any good reason why you would believe anything that is unfalsifiable?'

Caller: 'I do care about the truth of [whether God exists], but it's unfalsifiable to me--I can't demonstrate it.'

Bald Guy: 'it makes sense, in the sense that I've heard other people say this before, and it doesn't make sense in that I have a really hard time grasping how anybody can both understand that they believe something but they don't have a good reason for and actually still believe it.'​

Notice how the bald guy casually equates 'unfalsifiable' with having no 'good reason' to believe something. In this case, a 'good reason' is tacitly assumed to be an empirical observation (or possibly a logical proof, but that isn't relevant to the discussion). It's also worth noting that it's paradoxical to demand a good reason for everything anyone believes. In any case, we also get this priceless line:

Lady: 'I just wanted to say that accepting unfalsifiable things as true is not reasonable--so that's my only point.'​

I'll also add this one to the file:

Bald Guy: 'By accepting a proposition which you don't know to be true, you are limiting you're limiting your options on your ability to discover what is actually true.'​

This is so false it makes my teeth itch.

Yes, I agree this stuff is poor.

I'm also pretty sure that these are mistakes and they don't actually intend to say these things so literally. It is a live show after all and they are doing this stuff off the top of their head.

 

[reason]

I posit that it is not one proposition, but many.

Every proposition is many propositions. In fact, every proposition has infinitely many implications. However, logically, a proposition is semantically equivalent to its consequence class, i.e. its infinite implications. In other words, atheism, as a proposition, is equivalent to an infinite set of many propositions that are entailed by it, and that includes all its predictions. In other words, the predictions are just part of what atheism means, and they cannot be subtracted from it.

You're just making ad hoc twists and turns to avoid confronting your error.

 

[Wolfie]

Bald Guy: 'By accepting a proposition which you don't know to be true, you are limiting you're limiting your options on your ability to discover what is actually true.'​

So if someone were to accept that there is a God, that wouldn't close their minds to other possible theories?

 

[sprinkles]

Every proposition is many propositions. In fact, every proposition has infinitely many implications. However, logically, a proposition is semantically equivalent to its consequence class, i.e. its infinite implications. In other words, atheism, as a proposition, is equivalent to an infinite set of many propositions that are entailed by it, and that includes all its predictions.

You're just making ad hoc twists and turns to avoid confronting your error.

That's not what I meant.

What I meant is that different people who call themselves atheists form their proposition differently (and some don't even make one from the start) so this cannot go anywhere unless we are both on the same page on the specific definition of atheism that we are using.

 

[reason]

So if someone were to accept that there is a God, that wouldn't close their minds to other possible theories?

No more than to accept atheism would close their mind to the possibility that God exists.

We accept things all of the time while also acknowledging that we may be mistaken, and that we might discover such errors through rational discussion and investigation. This is practically what it means to be rational--not perpetually withholding judgement, but judging without committing oneself come what may.

 

[reason]

That's not what I meant.

What I meant is that different people who call themselves atheists form their proposition differently (and some don't even make one from the start) so this cannot go anywhere unless we are both on the same page on the specific definition of atheism that we are using.

My definition of atheism: the position that no gods exist. That's all. Everything I've said about atheism has been about this and nothing more.

 

[sprinkles]

No more than to accept atheism would close their mind to the possibility that God exists.

We accept things all of the time while also acknowledging that we may be mistaken, and that we might discover such errors through rational discussion and investigation. This is practically what it means to be rational--not perpetually withholding judgement, but judging without committing oneself come what may.

The problem is that reason does not exist in a vacuum, so it does matter what you judge and when.

At the same time though, I don't see the point if action or consequences don't follow.

 

[Wolfie]

No more than to accept atheism would close their mind to the possibility that God exists.

We accept things all of the time while also acknowledging that we may be mistaken, and that we might discover such errors through rational discussion and investigation. This is practically what it means to be rational--not perpetually withholding judgement, but judging without committing oneself come what may.

He may have been referring to the people who don't do what you just described.

 

[sprinkles]

He may have been referring to the people who don't do what you just described.

A lot of people don't do that.

How often do you go back to examine something that you just accept to be true?

People usually do this very seldom. People do not constantly relearn things and reanalyze things that they are already sure of. Often times in practical scenarios, people only reconsider when things have gone wrong, and at that point they not only have to retract one point but also the whole house of cards that they subsequently built upon it.

 

[Mal12345]

I already did. If you're claiming to know something that cannot be demonstrated to me, and others claim to share this knowledge and have their own internal practices and inner language (and idioms and buzzwords and an entire culture) then I say it fits the definition.

That's stretching the definition quite a bit. Esoterica refers to the hidden belief structure of a religious organization such as the Mormon church or Scientology. Exoterica consists of those beliefs willingly released to public view.

Yes that's fine. I'm just looking for consistent reasoning.

If you're looking for it in that atheist call-in show video, good luck!

 

[Eric B]

Well, I would think so. According to the video I just viewed previously to this one, D'Souza has three hypothetical explanations for modern blacks, and dismisses two of them: genetics, and victimhood. He then pins the blame on black culture itself. He states that victimhood is a worn out theme that leads blacks to find their salvation in the federal government (the march on Washington, for example). This sort of thing has been going on for, how long?, almost 40 years. And no social progress has been made, only regress. Pro-black legislation has done nothing but create an excuse for more victimhood. Socialism requires victims in order to survive, so it works out for both sides. The idea of social progress is a myth used to sustain the system. But nobody who wants the government hand-outs to continue can possibly be in favor of progress without engaging in a deeply rooted contradiction, because it's so obvious that social progress requires the inevitable end of hand-outs.

If the conservatives are not using victimhood to get continued government hand-outs, and thus sustain a system based on the myth of social progress made impossible by those same hand-outs because they encourage more victimhood, more hand-outs, and more single-parent black families, then one must ask about the conservatives' goals in pursuing their own victimhood.

The question is, why is he (and some others) so focused on blacks?
I think it's scapegoating, and also a bit exaggerated. Like blacks on welfare are getting all the money.
All of the waste and excess that goes to corporatism; that doesn't matter; they deserve that and more, and taking from them to give to these false-“victim” blacks is what's ruining everything.

So yes, victimization is used to point the blame somewhere, so that more breaks (including, yes, handouts--corporate welfare, overboard deregulation, etc) could be given to the powerful, who are seen as “deserving” it.

Oh yes indeed, he believes that the culture which "delivers the goods," not the hand-outs, has the superior system. But you should ask whether or not deconstructing the man himself truly reveals his alleged motives. Or if he is just reaping the benefits of the American melting-pot and wishes to spread his good fortune to others.

So it works for him; therefore it's superior, and if it's not working for others, there must be something wrong with them, whether “cultural” or “genetic” (and conservatives of this ilk even tried that latter one again not too long ago, don't forget! Either way still betrays a caste mentality, as the “problem people” are obviously seen as inferior by one of those criteria or the other).

He wasn't even here to see or experience (as he would have, as dark as he is) the full dynamic of racial oppression and its lasting effects, yet he comes here and continuously judges these people he apparently has had no other dealings with.

 

[Mal12345]

The question is, why is he (and some others) so focused on blacks?
I think it's scapegoateng, and also a bit exaggerated. Like blacks on welfare are getting all the money.
All of the waste and excess that goes to corporatism; that doesn't matter; they deserve that and more, and taking from them to give to these false-“victim” blacks is what's ruining everything.

So yes, victimization is used to point the blame somewhere, so that more breaks (including, yes, handouts--corporate welfare, overboard deregulation) cold be given to the powerful, who are seen as “deserving” it.

If only that was D'Souza's stated thesis, and not just the conclusion you've drawn about him. But I haven't seen any evidence of corporate welfarism, and if he has any kind of libertarian/objectivist blood in him, like you said, then he will be fervently against the idea of welfare toward anybody, wealthy, poor, or in between.

So it works for him; therefore it's superior, and if it's not working for others, there must be something wrong with them, whether “cultural” or “genetic” (and conservatives of this ilk even tried that one again not too long ago, don't forget! Either way still betrays a caste mentality, as the “problem people” are obviously seen as inferior by one of those criteria or the other).

He wasn't even here to see or experience (as he would have, as dark as he is) the full dynamic of racial oppression and its lasting effects, yet he comes here and continuously judges these people he apparently has had no other dealings with.

The problem isn't the people, according to D'Souza, it's the culture.

 

[Eric B]

If only that was D'Souza's stated thesis, and not just the conclusion you've drawn about him. But I haven't seen any evidence of corporate welfarism, and if he has any kind of libertarian/objectivist blood in him, like you said, then he will be fervently against the idea of welfare toward anybody, wealthy, poor, or in between.

Some non-neocons (including true "Libertarians") are consistent in that, but many conservatives are so busy pointing at "social programs" for the supposedly "undeserving"; they refuse to even acknowledge the existence of corporate welfare as such. To them, it's "rewarding the productive".

The problem isn't the people, according to D'Souza, it's the culture.

Which is just another way of saying the people. The people make up the culture.
Meanwhile, conservatives like this blame the problems of their "culture" on others (including this "culture" we're talking about, now).
All cultures have problems, and while there may be a lot of people floundering who could do better for themselves, still, this guy seems to be spending too much time on this one group. It was enough when writing the book tn the subject of racism, but if he's still making comments like the cab statement about them at every turn (where it's that readily citeable), then he seems to be a bit overly fixated, if you ask me.

 

[Mal12345]

Some non-neocons (including true "Libertarians") are consistent in that, but many conservatives are so busy pointing at "social programs" for the supposedly "undeserving"; they refuse to even acknowledge the existence of corporate welfare as such. To them, it's "rewarding the productive".

Which is just another way of saying the people. The people make up the culture.
Meanwhile, conservatives like this blame the problems of their "culture" on others (including this "culture" we're talking about, now).
All cultures have problems, and while there may be a lot of people floundering who could do better for themselves, still, this guy seems to be spending too much time on this one group. It was enough when writing the book tn the subject of racism, but if he's still making comments like the cab statement about them at every turn (where it's that readily citeable), then he seems to be a bit overly fixated, if you ask me.

I can't say if he's fixated on blacks because I've only seen 3 of his videos and read none of his books. But so far he seems more interested in defending Christian ideals. You're fixated on politics because in one post you turned this topic away from atheism and toward some social issue. According to an interesting meme I've seen around lately, that makes you a political Genius.

 

[Eric B]

Sorry about that, but as I've said, the issues become intertwined, which IMO, is harmful for the "Christian" cause, because it's not about any superior culture or economic system. According to its central message, all cultures and human systems are "fallen".

 

[WhoCares]

Couldn't get past 4:58 on the video. As soon as someone sets themselves up to defend their viewpoint what is sure to follow is a rejection of the alternate viewpoint. If you are so convinced you are right, why the need to prove any opposing thought wrong? Why not just live your life smug in the knowledge you've got it all figured out and off to heaven you go? I suspect the penchant for evangelism is because no-ones really convinced by the stories that christianity's based on so they constantly shore up their belief by evangelising others.

The whole characterisation of aetheists in the first few minutes sounded a lot like any characterisation of 'evil' by the christian church...aka, its sexy, looks cool, popular and smart peole do it...must be evil. Watch out! You're being seduced.

As far as I'm concerned you dont need to make alternate viewpoints wrong in order to subscribe to yours. I might believe in the existence of magic for example but I dont need to prove magic exists to anyone else in order to believe it. Furthermore it causes me no detriment if I believe magic exists and 50 other people don't. If someone wants to believe in the christ go for it. I can believe in magic and you can believe in christ and the world will not implode as a result.