This is a response to a nagging little pest we've had around here lately, to whom I was essentially blackmailed into responding. The original thread is located here. You'll see in the thread that this lovely young man threatens to send one email per day until he is answered to his satisfaction, and then proceeds to post relentlessly to that end. In an attempt to end this idiocy, I've tried to answer all of his extremely lengthy posts at once; therefore, this is extraordinarily long, and for that, I apologize.

 

---

I had planned on not responding to you, seen as how I already opted out of this never-ending argument which ultimately comes down to fundamental philosophical differences, as well as arbitrary differences of opinion. Fortunate for the sake of your continued enjoyment, I feel compelled to respond since you've dragged me and practically everybody I know into this circle-jerk.

This is an absurd statement. Essentially, what you're saying is that nobody can hold a position on anything until all possible arguments have been thoroughly researched by them personally to YOUR satisfaction. I certainly hope you don't have a stance on car manufacturers since you likely don't understand the mechanics of a reciprocating piston engine. Not to mention the thousands of other issues on which one can have a position. If a person is lacking necessary information, and you have it, then certainly, enlightening them is helpful. However, attempting to make your standards the sole arbiter of the "right" of a person to hold a position/stance/opinion on any subject is egregiously arrogant.
Also, your attempt at omniscience is laughable, as you cannot possibly know what "logical inquiry" in which any person other than yourself has engaged.



I thought we were the rude ones? Not that I need to justify myself to you, but I guarantee that the schools I have attended and will be attending soon are of a higher caliber than UNCC. Not to mention that I maintain a 4.0 in the Honors Program in an accelerated Master's program. Sorry--I don't tend to brag about such things, but you brought it upon yourself.



I was unaware that almost having a bachelor's degree made you a member of the academic elite. If this is the result, I'll gladly opt out. Not to mention the asinine assertion that people such as Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens are not in this "academia" of which you speak. You may disagree with them, but you certainly can't contest their credentials and educational histories.



Nobody is conflating the two:In fact, you were told multiple times that we consider them to be two completely separate, but complementary, concepts. A/Theism deals with belief--A/Gnosticism deals with the nature of knowledge and one's ability to acquire it. It can't get any more simple.



No. Is that clear?



Do you have any experience with The Smiths? If so, you should be able to formulate an opinion, or maybe you don't care either way. An opinion on a band is slightly different than making a determination on your belief in a deity, though. I think that's a false analogy.



True, which is the weak/negative atheist position. Skepticism is slightly different in that the very nature of reasoning faculties is questioned and it is possible that there is no truth that can be ascertained. Science certainly doesn't follow that epistemology as they do believe that the conclusions drawn from valid science are likely accurate. Essentially, if you are suspending judgment, you are living in practicality as if there is no god until such time that you can make a decision, if ever. So, functionally, you're still an atheist.



Not everybody has the time or desire to address every argument from every person. I believe it was also pointed out to you that the reason we are a group and not an individual is because everybody has separate areas of interest/expertise. Mike was typically the science geek, but he is busy studying cell membranes and getting lots of accolades in his field with a recently published study. I guess he's a dumbass as well, though, considering his affiliation with RRS.



Atheism is the default position--the natural state of one without theism. You can argue semantics all day, but I have people on my team regarding that issue such as George H. Smith, Austin Cline (very impressive credentials and an occasional site visitor, BTW), Antony Flew before dementia, Russell Blackford (whose credentials include completing a second PhD thesis,  Adjunct Professor School of Philosophy and Bioethics, Monash University, Fellow with the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies,  Editor-in-chief of the Journal of Evolution and Technology and has recently asked me to contribute to his next collaboration of atheist essays to be included in a book), Dan Barker, Michael Martin (who doesn't press the issue of the complementariness of the two, but rather equates negative/weak atheism with agnosticism, and is a Philosophy Professor at Boston University), among many others whose credentials aren't in question.
The people that you mention as "skeptics" would in fact be defined as "peculiar reasoners" in doxastic logic. Hey--I didn't make up the label.



You have already been pointed to the Oxford English Dictionary for the respective definitions, thus proving that there is no etymological fallacy occurring here, considering the fact that they are the standard authority on the English language.
I would argue that you haven't earned the position to determine for us what the criteria for qualification to hold a position is.



More rudeness and immaturity. You want to see it done differently? Great. GO DO IT.



He is required to do nothing, particularly not by you. You may have a certain philosophical position on "justified true beliefs", but we are not bound to the standards of a methodology that we have not espoused or adopted. Go impose your criteria on those of like-mind in that regard. Your extreme version of reliabilism is littered with its own host of problems. Knowledge as a JTB necessarily implies "knowing" a proposition to be true--of which we have none other than the existence of god has not been sufficiently proven. It also means that said proposition MUST be true for it to be knowledge. Why then your defense of theism? One cannot know a false proposition (ie "God exists" ) and therefore, no religious people would have a JTB in your view either. And what's your solution to the Gettier problem, which demonstrates that the tripartate method of JTB has been shown to be insufficient? Furthermore, what about the subjectivity of exactly what endeavors must be undertaken to arrive at a JTB? It must only be something arrived at through the cognitive faculties.
Technically, lack of god belief is a priori justified as a dispositional belief because without any kind of experience, one has no god belief, and if you ask any person (likely a child) who has never heard of god if such a being exists, they will find the concept absurd. The argument for god would necessarily have to be an a posteriori conclusion after one has the experience of being introduced to said concept.
And Brian is an agnostic atheist, AKA negative/weak atheist. A person with no god belief based on a lack of knowledge of said entity. Your whole argument here that one must refute theistic theories before claiming "atheism" is therefore absurd given that we up front are basing our lack of belief on a lack of knowledge.



First of all, I feel that everybody is entitled to whatever belief they choose based on the available evidence. Available is the key here. Even Descartes, who held that nothing could truly be known with certitude besides Cogito ergo sum recognized the impracticality of that position and acknowledged the necessity of operating with the resources available to one at the time. That doesn't mean that one must have no opinion during the discovery period, as the discovery period for scientific endeavors will continue forever. You can never rule out the possibility of future discoveries or lack thereof. Avoiding confirmation bias is a worthy endeavor, but one in which you are accountable only to yourself.



The "true method of science" only requires that one "suspend belief" in the sense that you do not allow your own preference to color the results. In fact, hypothesis development requires that one predict the outcome of the study using deductive reasoning before experimentation. In reality, if one has already formulated an opinion, even one with little evidence, like a hunch, it will be there. You must realize that it is there in order to not even subconsciously taint the results.
As far as forcing somebody to take a position, anybody can change their stance at any point--the question is typically about the presence or lack thereof of belief at the time. You don't have to write it in stone or anything, and changing your mind isn't punishable by death or anything. *rolls eyes*



Theology/philosophy is different from other sciences dependent on empirical evidence and reasoning. Theology be definition means the "study of god". Please explain how that is an "ontological investigation." I happen to be a noncognitivist positivist, so any statement about god is factually meaningless and only the presence of actual evidence should be considered, so I guess as you are holding me to your personal doxastic stance on epistemology, I can hold you to mine.
Also, are you claiming that autodidactic people do not exist and the only way to acquire knowledge is through an accredited university? If so, I'm sorry that you want to live in that world. I find it is the bastion of insecure people with moderate intelligence.



The necessity of such knowledge is your OPINION, not to mention the fact that by your own standards, your belief that Brian does not have said knowledge is not a JTB. Therefore, you have not earned that doxastic position since it is not necessarily TRUE or based on anything other than speculation. How do you like that one?
Also, there are different theories regarding what qualifies as justification, so yours is not necessarily TRUE either, making it not a JTB as well.



So, a person is unable to refer somebody to a source that is better/more concise/more accurate than what they have produced? How absurd. I guess professors should never use text books, then. Hell, we might as well do away with referencing and sourcing altogether.



We would like to see religion end, yes. We find it to be dangerous, divisive, and harmful. I could care less what a person's individual beliefs are as long as they don't interfere in public policy and the legislation of their morality. We all feel that if sufficient evidence came to light, we would necessarily be compelled to believe it. At the same time, we also feel that Yahweh definitely does not exist along with any other god concepts with which we are acquainted. (Yes, I have actual reasons for that, as well.)



Not necessarily true. It is only an ad hom if the insult is intended to detract from the argument either through distraction or discreditation. Some insults are just insults. Like, you're an asshat. I'm still dealing with your arguments, though, so it's not an ad hom. Not to mention that you do your fair share of insulting.



LOLZ! You're so clever and funny! I never said I did, first of all (that would be a straw-man)--I said I wrote a ten-page refutation on the Kalam argument once to a former pastor when I first deconverted. You asked if I was familiar with the argument, and I responded. No more; no less. So, save your laughter for yourself because all you have shown to be clear is that you are so desperate to bolster your argument dishonestly that you are resorting to ridicule. Keep it up. It's motivating me.



How exactly do you properly blaspheme an entity in which you do not believe? You are leading me to believe that your reliance on formal learning has left you with the inability to infer the actual point of the blasphemy challenge. We don't believe in god or hell, so blaspheming would be pointless. It was about giving atheists a voice, a presence, and making a point that we are not afraid of their hell. The actual definition of blasphemy, which does include simple "denial", is absolutely irrelevant. Plus, more pleasantries. Such a delightful demeanor!



Actually, I am primarily a determinist, although I still struggle with some aspects of it. I believe that an infinite number of unknown causes lead to any actual event. Moving my arm right now may be my choice, but the ability to move my arm is not. My belief in determinism is based on my belief in the truth of scientific materialism. If materialism is true, then all events can be reduced to physical processes and the "will" as an object exists only as a metaphor for the decisions that you are predisposed to make based on your brain structure/chemistry, just like every other behavior you exhibit.I also feel that love is a physical process--the resulting emotion experienced due to the release of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and oxytocin. Brian and I share that belief, and we're both entirely accepting and cognizant of that fact. So, we are careful to ensure frequent oxytocin/dopamine release by having frequent sex and other skin to skin contact. (Look up the studies yourself. I'm about done instructing you.)



Still interested? Ready to put your money where your mouth is?



ROFLMMFAO! That's all I can say to that one.



Project much?



You are, once again, wrong--and missing the point. A belief is only justified if it is supported by actual evidence. You yourself adhere to the principle of justified true beliefs, right? Or was that just something you read that you thought you could use against us? Also, refer back to my earlier answer on the eradication of religion.
You could look at it from a deontic perspective that it is immoral to hold any belief for which there is insufficient evidence and thus you are obliged to hold only supported beliefs, but I dislike the introduction of a sense of duty or dogmatic adherence. I feel that people should strive to be as rational as possible in these matters, but I would not attempt to force it upon them.
BTW - You do know that "penultimate" means "next to last" or "the one before the end", right? Try to limit yourself to words that you understand or the fact that you're trying too hard becomes glaringly apparent.



First of all, you should know that nothing can be empirically disproven except by way of proving the counter-position. Come on now. Logically, though...
Michael Martin makes a revised version of the Scriven Principle in Atheism: A Philosophical Justification:
    A person is justified in believing that X does not exist if (1) all the available evidence used to support the view that X exists is shown to be inadequate; and (2) X is the sort of entity that, if X existed, there would be available evidence that would be adequate to support the view that X exists; and (3) the area where evidence would appear, if there were any, has been comprehensively examined; and (4) there are no acceptable beneficial reasons to believe that X exists. (p 282)
To my knowledge, there has been no evidence sufficient to prove said being's existence and all arguments are contested and there is no general consensus from an unbiased source. Assuming this deity has the attributes given the Abrahamic god, there should be evidence, and in fact, the bible claims that this fact is self-evident. The earth is where said evidence should appear, considering it is our habitat that was supposedly created specifically for us, and it has been "comprehensively examined". There are no acceptable beneficial reasons to believe in this deity as arguments like Pascal's Wager present a false dichotomy, and the danger of holding this belief in spite of the penury of evidence outweighs any other potential benefits.

From a Bayesian probabilistic perspective, this holds true as well. Absence of evidence is always evidence of absence; therefore, one can be justified in the stance that the probability of the existence of any supernatural being is extraordinarily low.

NO!! REALLY?!?!?! I am also familiar with old William of Ockham, progenitor of Occam's Razor. Can you remove your arrogant head from your anus now?



Assuming you go with the Popperian philosophy of science, yes. Nobody disagreed with this point. Are you arguing with yourself again?



So, you can't see the distinction between the person being stupid or irrational and the belief being irrational? As far as compartmentalization goes, it is the process by which ordinarily rational people maintain irrational beliefs. Should I excoriate you for your obvious lack of psychological study now and proclaim you my inferior? Besides, if you haven't thoroughly examined every facet of our work, how can you be sure that you are justified in your belief that we are as you claim? I propose that you have not earned the right to that belief given your apparent lack of knowledge.



And that proves what exactly? I can't imagine you find that sample to be statistically valid. Your limited experience with people in your particular circle hardly warrants the claim that we aren't effective across the board. I have tons of proof that states otherwise. And don't pretend like everybody who has communicated with us or come to our site in the past two years is a fan. Your proposition is unjustified and presumptuous.



I really don't care that much what people think of Dennett or Dawkins, and I REALLY don't when, again, the sample is only representative of your own acquaintances. Somebody you know, likely a professor that you worship, dislikes Dennett or Dawkins and so you accept that as a blanket statement on their validity or accuracy. Typical of the pseudo-academic.
What would Dennett's demeanor have to do with his arguments, Mr. Philosophy? Hmmm...nothing? I have found him to be quite pleasant, personally. Of course, you know so much more about him than I, though, even if I have actually had conversations with him.
Are you getting the point that what your buddies down there at UNCC think of anybody has no bearing on their work whatsoever? I would say that for someone as dedicated to precision as yourself, you must admit that claiming that "any biology sophomore" or "anybody who knows anything" would be broad, unsubstantiated generalizations. You're getting sloppy.



Here we go again with the straw-men. Never said any of the above, so save your condescending and sanctimonious bullshit for somebody who gives a fuck what you think, because I don't.



I do hold positivist positions, but that doesn't mean tht I have committed the naturalistic fallacy (assuming that "is" equals "ought", in case you forgot) or have appealed to a code of ethics or morals to which everybody must adhere. If anybody has done this, it has been you with your subjective determination of what must be studied before one can hold any position.

[insert diatribe defending Todd Friel, professional con-man]

Your entire rant here was silly and lacking the necessary background to understand the hostility. Again, you clearly don't have sufficient knowledge of the situation to be justified in holding any position with a degree of certitude.



First of all, your friend was wrong. It did not originate with Muslim scholars; it was merely refined by them. Secondly, I suppose that the "reworking of Aquinas" statement was an opinion of mine. The major difference between the two was that Aquinas doubted the creation of the universe as it relates to temporal notions and was more focused on the sustainment of the universe. Other than minor variations, most cosmological arguments can be broken down to the same core components, which all can be reduced to an argumentum ad ignorantium. How I respond to this particular one is of little consequence. At best, it does nothing more than prove that something created the universe. Craig seems to indicate that it is ex nihilo, but that is unsubstantiated, as well as the assumption that it was not just one deity, but HIS deity. The possibility of acquiring new knowledge always exists within science, and just so I don't have to answer this question again, I really hope that it can explain "creation".
Just FYI, I have no "problem" with the jargon or terminology employed by Craig. I was merely stating that he was dressing up an old argument.
As far as the possibility of an actual infinity, I never said it was impossible, nor do I feel you can. Also, this is another example of you using straw-men--maybe you should start to look at your work objectively. I never said anything about it being "impossible" to conceive of anything; just difficult. And while the existence of actual infinities would be metaphysical, this is something that will never be witnessed or experienced and thus remains an exercise that will occur solely within the mind. There are possible ways to make it work, thus casting doubt on his claim that it de facto cannot exist.



Apparently, neither do you.



I think that the popular usage of the word is not the same as the philosophical concept, and I do not think that Mr. Atheist believes that nothing can be known of reality.



Yes. From both sides.



But that wouldn't be an argument since you didn't come up with it or construct it yourself. Hypocrite. Where's your refutation?



I believe I have given it to you.



Yes. Now kindly fuck off. I will not waste one more second of my life dealing with your immature nonsense that has become increasingly vitriolic. Attack the position, you hypocrite. You sure seem rational, you hypocrite. Any more personal attacks or baseless assertions and I will never read another one of your posts, much less respond. It's certainly not because I am afraid of your oh-so-powerful argumentation. Rather, I don't want to waste time reading your novels full of condescending rhetoric. So why don't you just go back to your friends and whine about how stupid and mean we are, k?