Some atheists think that they have warrant to do whatever they please in certain situations, willfully disregarding certain "facts" that are true (for me), all while ignoring the "fact" (which is also true for me) that I wrote a couple of books about stuff once.
Let me try to reason with them here.
In the first place, atheists don't believe in the existence of problems, so atheism isn't really speaking to the issue of how to reason.
Today, I was minding my own business after lunch when my supervisor came up and asked me if I would like to go to the Colorado Avalanche hockey game tomorrow night. For free. We're talking club level tickets here, at center ice, with free valet parking.
Answer me and do not lie. If this happened to you, would you doubt the goodness of God? If so, you're a Detroit Redwings fan (or, even worse, a Vancouver Canucks fan!) and are thus incapable of reasoning any further.
As human beings, we all know that there is such a thing as good, and that good is known as the National Hockey League (NHL). This is true even within the atheistic worldview, for if there is good there must be hockey. It is the sine non quantum mechanics of reality.
Now certain atheists will say that I am offering an external critique here; but how can they pretend to offer an internal critique if they deny me the ability to use my internal critique I just made up? It is internal to atheism that hockey is a good thing; therefore, God.
Only a moron would disagree with this. I teach ethics and have my own blogspot blog. Do you? Answer me and do not lie.
I take it that it was your turn to respond to me, eh? Next.....
ReplyDeleteUh oh, this is worse than expected... Loftus thought this was a response.
ReplyDeleteUh oh, this was worse than I expected...Piketus thinks I consider it to be a serious response.
ReplyDeleteActually, I don't expect one.
That is, unless someone at Triablogue can actually think of some argument they consider to be truly an internal critique of their beliefs.
No matter what I say, they say it's not an internal critique, so now I challenge them to say what would be considered an internal critique of their particular faith, or do what I ask them to do: consider the obvious.
Loftus,
ReplyDeleteIt's really not that hard to come up with an internal critique. We've been over this ground with you thousands of times already, the latest being Paul's comments.
To demonstrate an internal problem, one must use only axioms from the system you are trying to critique. To show the problem, you must (using only axioms from the system you are trying to critique) show a contradiction.
Thus, if Christian Axiom 1 = A, and Christian Aximo 2 = ~A, you have shown a contradiction within Christianity.
It is not an internal critique to show that Christian Axiom 1 = A and Atheist Axiom 1 = ~A.
So, if you want to demonstrate an internal critique, you can do the following:
1) Start with Christian Axioms.
2) Compare these Christian Axioms.
3) Do not impute any of your Atheist Axioms.
4) Demonstrate a contradiction within only the Christian Axioms.
Surely you can do such a thing, can't you?
You still haven't done what I'm asking for. I know what an internal critique is. You seem to think I need to be informed about this and you continue to reply on a High School level in describing what one is, as if this is really high level stuff, which it's not at all.
ReplyDeleteI'm asking you to state what an internal argument FOR YOUR PARTICULAR BELIEFS would look like. Don't give me anything less.
I think there's one when it comes to your God sovereignly decreeing all human actions and desires and yet holding humans alone responsible for their actions and desires. I'm claiming the same thing when it comes to the problem of evil. You claim this is not an internal argument, and I am puzzled you don't think so.
Because you repeatedly do this I'm left at a standstill, and I'm asking whether you would ever consider any argument an internal one against your beliefs. My bet is you cannot come up with one that you'd agree is indeed an internal one to your own beliefs. Give me one argument that you would consider is an internal critique of your beliefs. Just one.
In this absence of this all I can do is to ask you to consider the obvious. But you won't even do that, will you?
Loftus, you might want to note that I put your little argument in the T-blog house blender. It's in the If Evil, Then God thread.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the axioms of Christianity? I asked my sister, who's a devout Christian, and she didn't know of any. I'm puzzled. Don't Christians get their mind renewed by the same God?
ReplyDeleteBen Dahl
I asked my brother, who is a devout atheist, what are some of the axioms of atheism. He didn't know. I'm just curious, didn't you both get your minds by the same Momma Nature?
ReplyDeleteLoftus said:
ReplyDelete---
You still haven't done what I'm asking for. I know what an internal critique is.
---
This would be more believable if you actually used an internal critique some time.
Loftus said:
---
I'm asking you to state what an internal argument FOR YOUR PARTICULAR BELIEFS would look like. Don't give me anything less.
---
I've given plenty of these in the past to you. Your problem is that you do not accept the same presuppositions I do, and you think that by denying my presuppositions you are engaging in an internal critique.
So, for instance, when I argue that God is the definition of "good", you start chanting "Euthyphro!" But the Euthyphro dilemma is based on a different set of presuppositions than the Christian doctrine of morality, and thus it is not an internal critique of Christianity.
But of course as we continue we'll see that this ultimately isn't even relevant once we see your true motivation:
Loftus said:
---
Because you repeatedly do this I'm left at a standstill, and I'm asking whether you would ever consider any argument an internal one against your beliefs. My bet is you cannot come up with one that you'd agree is indeed an internal one to your own beliefs. Give me one argument that you would consider is an internal critique of your beliefs. Just one.
---
And all Loftus has missed is the entire boat. If there was an argument that I believed showed an internal inconsistency within Christianity, I WOULD NOT BELIEVE CHRISTIANITY. Loftus is, in effect, trying to make me argue against Christianity.
Let's turn the tables a bit. Loftus, my bet is you cannot come up with a single argument internal to logic that disproves logic; not a single one that you'd agree is indeed an internal one to your own belief in the validity of logic. Give me one argument that you would consider is an internal critique of your belief in logic. Just one.
Loftus said:
---
In this absence of this all I can do is to ask you to consider the obvious. But you won't even do that, will you?
---
Of course, "the obvious" is question begging in the first place. Loftus wants his views to be defined as "obvious" so that he can refute opponents by saying, "you can't even consider the obvious." Two can play that game, but why bother?
And all Loftus has missed is the entire boat. If there was an argument that I believed showed an internal inconsistency within Christianity, I WOULD NOT BELIEVE CHRISTIANITY.
ReplyDeleteI'm not asking you to argue against your faith, although I do in fact think that anyone who cannot argue against what they believe is not a fully educated believer. I can argue against my faith easily, but that doesn't make me think the alternatives fare any better.
All I'm asking for is that you show me a plausible internal critique, even if you disagree in the end.
Can you even do that?
If not, then all I can do is to ask you to consider the obvious, again.
Loftus said:
ReplyDelete---
I'm not asking you to argue against your faith, although I do in fact think that anyone who cannot argue against what they believe is not a fully educated believer.
---
I suppose you may be trying to escape in the ambiguity of the term "argue." I can address the arguments of the opponents to my position. I know what they are because you keep presenting them repeatedly. In that sense, I can "argue" against my position.
But I do not believe these arguments; if I did, I would not believe my original beliefs. This, dear Loftus, is "obvious."
So I could provide you "arguments" against my position, but I would also provide you with the reasons why said arguments are bogus.
Of course, this still smacks of you shirking your responsibility, trying to get me to defend your view because you can't, and such...
Loftus said:
---
All I'm asking for is that you show me a plausible internal critique, even if you disagree in the end.
---
But such would assume that Christianity is not a complete worldview to begin with. So let's cut to the chase:
I'll stipulate that I can't offer an internal critique against Christianity for the same reason you can't--one doesn't exist. You could, of course, rectify this by actually providing an internal critique against Christianity. I'm not going to do your work for you.
I'll stipulate that I can't offer an internal critique against Christianity for the same reason you can't--one doesn't exist.
ReplyDeleteI thought so.
Does everyone else here at Triablogue think likewise?
Then the only thing left to do is to consider the obvious, because as I've argued, if you admit of no possible internal critique of your beliefs when there are equally no possible internal critiques for opposing beliefs, they cannot all be correct. That's when youmust consider the obvious.
That's my argument.
What part of it do you dispute?
Loftus said:
ReplyDelete---
Then the only thing left to do is to consider the obvious, because as I've argued, if you admit of no possible internal critique of your beliefs when there are equally no possible internal critiques for opposing beliefs, they cannot all be correct.
---
This, of course, is based in several fallacies. Let's stick with the most obvious for now:
Just because one view is internally consistent and incapable of succuming to an internal critique does not mean that all views are immune to it. If this were the case, there would be no such thing as an internal critique in the first place.
Really, Loftus, this is quite silly. It's like you arguing that if "2 + 2 = 4" is internally consistent, then so is "2 + 2 = 5."
Loftus,
ReplyDelete"I can argue against my faith easily, but that doesn't make me think the alternatives fare any better."
Okay, start with refuting the bird man argument and the Franklin J. Loftus argumentum ad poochum argument.
sincerely,
PM
bjJohn,
ReplyDeleteAre you chasing your tail?
"Then the only thing left to do is to consider the obvious, because as I've argued, if you admit of no possible internal critique of your beliefs when there are equally no possible internal critiques for opposing beliefs, they cannot all be correct. That's when youmust consider the obvious."
"That's my argument."
So, the obvious is that everybody can't be right? Brilliant.
oops, typo, that should be "John"
ReplyDeleteJust because one view is internally consistent and incapable of succuming to an internal critique does not mean that all views are immune to it. If this were the case, there would be no such thing as an internal critique in the first place.
ReplyDeleteNope. Several views are incapable of an internal critique. Have you ever tried to internally critique pantheism? Good luck. Remember also, that no one is a logic machine. We use reason to defend beliefs we have adopted for other reasons (this is obvious, BTW).
Oh, and that applies to me. I'm just smart enough to realize it. You however can claim otherwise, but if you do so, you also reveal the fact that you are uneducated.
Manata, do you normally revert to the informal fallacy of ridicule when there is nothing you have to say?
The birdman argument was a test. I wanted to see if I could defend the lesser (men with wings), so that I would know how to defend the greater (all creatures should be vegetarians). And I did it.
As far as my dog Franky goes, I have never heard one argument to the contrary. Want to give it a go?
Of this argument I'm very serious.
Loftus,
ReplyDelete"Manata, do you normally revert to the informal fallacy of ridicule when there is nothing you have to say?
The birdman argument was a test. I wanted to see if I could defend the lesser (men with wings), so that I would know how to defend the greater (all creatures should be vegetarians). And I did it.
As far as my dog Franky goes, I have never heard one argument to the contrary. Want to give it a go?
Of this argument I'm very serious."
Who me? I'm still waiting for you to deal with my previous response to your comments in the other thread. Do you usually accuse people of fallacies while hiding from their previous responses?
John, perhaps you missed my most serioues point. You claimed:
""I can argue against my faith easily, but that doesn't make me think the alternatives fare any better."
So, I want to see YOU "argue against your faith," and I want to see "YOU" do it "easily."
So, please argue against these arguments (as you said you could):
1. The Bird man argument.
2. The argumentum ad poochum, i.e., Frankie J. Loftus
3. The outsider test.
Okay, got it? You claimed that,
"although I do in fact think that anyone who cannot argue against what they believe is not a fully educated believer."
And so are you an "educated believer?" Can you "argue against what you believe?" If so, please give us the arguments against (1), (2), and (3) above.
And, as far as trying to refute your dog argument, why would I want to give it a try. Didn't you say that you'd rather be a dog in your wife's house than a human in God's world? Why would I want to comment on your rather sick and disgusting desires to clean your rear with your tongue instead of using toilet paper? So God didn't make you flexible enough to clean your rear with your tongue and you're taking it out on him. Hey, whatever helps you justify your apostacy and sleep at night...
Loftus said:
ReplyDelete---
Several views are incapable of an internal critique.
---
This was in response to my pointing out that just because one view cannot be critiqued internally does not mean that all views cannot be critiqued internally.
Surely, even John Loftus can see that there is a difference between "all" and "several."
Loftus said:
---
Remember also, that no one is a logic machine. We use reason to defend beliefs we have adopted for other reasons (this is obvious, BTW).
---
You are only partly right. There are certain beliefs that I held to before I logically reasoned them out; but there are many other views that I hold to because I reasoned them out. Furthermore, simply because I believed something before I could prove it does not mean that I am incapable of proving it now that I know how to do so.
Loftus said:
---
Oh, and that applies to me. I'm just smart enough to realize it. You however can claim otherwise, but if you do so, you also reveal the fact that you are uneducated.
---
I'm more interested in your evidence than in your assertions.
Manata, I cannot dialogue with you. I just can't. If you actually want to do so, then I have always been willing. I do not continually ridicule you, even though, like you, I think your beliefs are ridiculous. I show self-restraint, supposedly a Christian virtue.
ReplyDeleteLet me show you what I mean.
Paul: I'm still waiting for you to deal with my previous response to your comments in the other thread. Do you usually accuse people of fallacies while hiding from their previous responses?
I don't know what you're refering to. If it's that book length Blog entry, I never read through it. I think you can make a point in less words. I have time contraints. Would you like to condense it here?
Paul: So, I want to see YOU "argue against your faith," and I want to see "YOU" do it "easily."
I can argument against what I believe as a whole easily, but I may not be able to argue against specific arguments like the ones you mentioned easily.
And as far as my argument about Franky goes, I still haven't heard any serious critique of it from anyone. I'm supposing that you'd prefer to ridicule it because you cannot deal with it.
vLoftus,
ReplyDelete"I do not continually ridicule you, even though, like you, I think your beliefs are ridiculous. I show self-restraint, supposedly a Christian virtue."
Sure, John. Whatever you say. How many times have you called people, "idiots," "morons," "wife beaters," etc? Grow up. I actually think you might be crazy if you actually think you show self-restraint.
"I don't know what you're refering to. If it's that book length Blog entry, I never read through it. I think you can make a point in less words. I have time contraints. Would you like to condense it here?"
John, what point. The blog was a debate that took place over a week. But that's not what I was talking about. You came into that "book length" (30 page, actualy) blog entry and made some comments. You asked me to reply. I did so. You've been absent. So, since you said, "do you resort to fallacies when you have nothing to say," I, like you, took your absence of words in response to my comment back to you as an indicator that you accuse people of fallacies when *you* have nothing to say. So, my point actually built of your ad hominem and turned it against you.
"I can argument against what I believe as a whole easily, but I may not be able to argue against specific arguments like the ones you mentioned easily."
Do you "believe" those arguments of yours? You said, "I do in fact think that anyone who cannot argue against what they believe is not a fully educated believer." But now you're saying you can argue against an atheism with no arguments, but if you include arguments with your atheism, you can't argue against those arguments. John, without any specific arguments, your "belief" is a major undefinable blob with nothing to say in support of it. WHO COULDN'T argue against something like that? Anyway, your point has been refuted. This is becoming a common theme with you and I.
"And as far as my argument about Franky goes, I still haven't heard any serious critique of it from anyone. I'm supposing that you'd prefer to ridicule it because you cannot deal with it. "
And I haven't herard any serious critiques of the belief in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. John, maybe no one is bothering to critique it because it is plain stupid. Why critique it? It does a fine job in undermining any intellectual credibility your blog has. Even atheists have told me they think it is ridiculous, John. Tell you what, try to get on the radio show Faith and Freethought, for example. Tell them that you'd like to present your dog argument. See if you get scheduled. John, your dog argument is a joke. And, if you "believe it" then try to argue against it.
PAUL MANATA: I asked my brother, who is a devout atheist, what are some of the axioms of atheism. He didn't know. I'm just curious, didn't you both get your minds by the same Momma Nature?
ReplyDelete>>That's brilliant. I love that stuff. Sad thing is, it probably bounced off the bulletproof atheist noggins...
ALAN
John, maybe no one is bothering to critique it because it is plain stupid. Why critique it? It does a fine job in undermining any intellectual credibility your blog has. Even atheists have told me they think it is ridiculous, John. Tell you what, try to get on the radio show Faith and Freethought, for example. Tell them that you'd like to present your dog argument. See if you get scheduled. John, your dog argument is a joke.
ReplyDeleteLook, there are a lot of atheists who don't consider the problem of evil to be that serious of a problem. So? Why should I care. I think they just don't understand it.
I just fail to see how God does not and cannot treat us from our perspective with what we are capable of understanding, just like we do with children and pets, that's all. We are intelligent enough to know that punishment isn't what's needed with regard to children and pets, why isn't God that smart?
I have answers to your objections, too.
But such an argument is part of a bigger whole anyway.
And as far as Free Thought Radio goes, if they want me to, I'll make the argument there. Let them know I'm available. If anyone there thinks it's a joke then I will make them squirm. Count on it. If I have to make my case against fellow atheists, I will. There are a lot of them who are just plain ignorant about some things. Your bedfellow, Jim Lazarus, in my opinion, is one of them. I would find it strange if he'd want to debate me on this. He should know better.
John,
ReplyDeleteLazarus would beat you like a puppy, oops, I mean...a pinata