Back from a short hiatus. Meanwhile, some of you may have been aware that my blog post have been put up at an atheist website (click here); talk about making an impact eh?
Well, I’ve been thinking of what to do about it. After all, its not every other day that you get a Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism and a former Publicity Coordinator for the Campus Freethought Alliance to personally respond your post. I thought this was quite a privilege, so its only courteous of me to return the favor.
It seems like all the points which was brought up by them was most hinged on the definitions. This goes to highlight the importance of definitions doesn’t it? The definition is the fundamental plateau which the discussion is build upon. Flawed definitions give births to flawed thought process which give rise to flawed conclusions.
Bottom line #1: Definitions must be clear.
Austin Cline ended off by saying:
“Once again we can see just how important it is to be absolutely clear about the meanings of the key terms in our arguments. When we aren’t clear on what words means, we become susceptible to all sorts of rudimentary errors that just shouldn’t be committed. If we’re going to construct clear, well-reasoned, and logical arguments, then good, reliable definitions have to be our starting point. If we ignore this, we might as well not bother trying because we’re unlikely to get very far.”
After reading his entire rebuttal, all I have to say is:
“Once again we can see just how important it is to be absolutely clear about the meanings of the key terms in our arguments. When we aren’t clear on what words means, we become susceptible to all sorts of rudimentary errors that just shouldn’t be committed. If we’re going to construct clear, well-reasoned, and logical arguments, then good, reliable definitions have to be our starting point. If we ignore this, we might as well not bother trying because we’re unlikely to get very far.”
We obviously have a problem here.
A mere wordgame. Yes I know. He thinks his clear about his meanings of his key terms and assumes that I need to readjust mine. Then again, from my perspective, I would suppose that my definitions are precise and accurate and his would need to be adjusted. So who would (or should I say can) be the judge? This means that if we were to engage in discussions or arguments, we would need to fight on their ground with their definitions to prove them wrong, lest we end up firing missiles with wrong coordinates. Gives a whole new dimension to putting yourselves in their shoes yea?
Bottom line #2: Unless we are coming from the same plateau that they are standing at, it is highly unlike they will get what we are saying, and vice versa.
Last but not least, they insisted that my definition was that of the strong atheism, not that of weak atheism, hence it would not stand against the majority atheistic movement. Though I still have my reservations in that, let’s just say that they are right; I failed to disprove weak atheism with the definition of atheism. After all, I just advocated discussions on their plateau; an environment that seems to have constantly changing definitions to suit their argument. Nevertheless, at least seed of doubts have been casting with regards about strong atheism since no one seem to bothered saying anything in defense. Perhaps they are right after all; it is the minority.
Well, strong atheism checked. Weak atheism left. What irony that the “weak” relative seemed to be stronger then the former. Unless of course, the strength of weak atheism is in its weak definitions; it is harder to break a flexible straw then a firm stick.
Eric said:
I don’t think you exactly took care of strong atheism. Keep in mind, you’re dealing with topics that can’t be dealt with in a perfunctory manner. Atheists don’t justify their beliefs with the reasons you attacked. Just as it’s unproductive to attack a definition of atheism that atheists don’t hold, it’s similarly unproductive to attack reasoning they don’t use. Is your information about atheists and atheism coming from a work of Christian apologetic literature? If so, I would suggest that you read material actually written by an atheist rather than rely solely on material written by individuals hostile to atheism to ensure that you’re attacking actual atheist arguments. It would be like an atheism attacking Christianity but having knowledge of Christianity based solely on what Bertrand Russell said about it.
There are many reasons one would conclude there is no God that don’t require one to know everything about the universe. First of all, one doesn’t need to know everything about the universe to make a reasonable conclusion that something doesn’t exist. You don’t know everything about the universe, but you reasonably conclude that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist. Likewise, many atheists feel that they can conclude that God doesn’t exist on the same basis.
Or, one may conclude that God doesn’t exist because “God” or at least God as described by the Bible and Christian belief is conceptually incoherent or internally inconsistent. I usually see strong atheism defended this way. For example, one could say that God’s behavior in the Bible is inconsistent with God’s purported omniscience. On such an account, saying God exists, or at least the Christian God then, is like saying that a square circle exists – a logical impossibility which doesn’t require knowledge of everything in the universe to recognize.
While I’m not going to defend all these arguments here, I will acknowledge that lots of people more intelligent than me have argued these points back and forth. While it may not be out of your reach to construct arguments against strong and weak atheism that a lot of people will find convincing, it’s not the kind of argument that can be won with a single page on a blog, nor can it be won with the argument you used earlier. Realize that strong atheism isn’t as fragile a position as you may think at first.
Zachary said:
Hi Eric!
Firstly, thanks again for your comment. =)
Well, I agree that such discussions cannot be won with a single post. It fact, it was never my intention. I hope my post may serve to provoke thought in those who are receptive, hence the title of “the though revolution”. I am no apologist, perhaps more like a Christian Socrates; a gadfly that is trying to sting a horse into thought or action. I have no interest in demolishing religions. Leave them for the terrorists.
Well, I guess according to your logic where a christian cannot attack an athetist with their logic, can it be used in the reverse – in which a weak atheist cannot defend a strong atheist?
Anyway, I’ve read Bertrand Russell. His arguements are always back to the Catholic Church & birth control. A stand so shallow I do not bother myself to defend. Started on Albert Camus recently. I think he writes more sense.
But anyhow, the tooth fairy example you gave was rather apt. It is true that we can reasonably conclude on the inexistence of the tooth fairy. However that example has but one simple flaw, which I will briefly explain. What is suddenly one day someone claimed to have experienced the tooth fairy? (i.e. His tooth was replaced by his wish) then at the same time at another part of the world where another stranger that has totally no connections, relations or mental problem with the previous person were to also claim to have experienced the same thing. To top it off, hundreds and millions further supported their claims with their personal experiences. Should we not re-examine the existence of the tooth fairy instead of dismissing it?
Justin said:
nice you went to hope perth. Some cool dudes there. Did ya meet joseph? the pastors son, his an awesome bloke haha. March would just been before our oceania convention. How long u stay in perth? when are you commin to brissie! haha…
p.s. i hasvernt read this post eyt but i will eventually… =D need to smarten up first haha
Eric said:
“I have no interest in demolishing religions.”
Atheism is not a religion, if that in fact is what you’re suggesting. It can be a component of a religion, such as in the case of some varieties of Buddhism that don’t have gods or North Korean juche, which functionally behaves like a religion. It can also be part of an ideology. But it’s not a freestanding ideology in and of itself. It’s simply a conclusion.
“Well, I guess according to your logic where a christian cannot attack an athetist with their logic, can it be used in the reverse – in which a weak atheist cannot defend a strong atheist?”
I’m not saying that Christians can’t attack atheists with logical debate, I am saying that it’s harder than a lot of works of Christian apologetics make it look. A lot harder.
“What is suddenly one day someone claimed to have experienced the tooth fairy?”
I would have no obligation to believe the guy. People make implausible claims all the time and if I’m to be expected to accept those claims on a rational level the onus is on them to persuade me, not me to believe them. Thousands of people claim to have experiences being touched by Hindu gods, Catholic charismatics may sincerely believe they have stigmata, and a Pentacostal might sincerely believe he or she is experiencing God when speaking in tongues.
Millions of people who have mutually exclusive ideas about what God is and what religious truth is all claim to experience God. They can’t all be right. While this doesn’t prove that your experiences happen to be wrong, it will cause an atheist to want more than your subjective experiences to prove something to them.
Zachary said:
Eric-
Haha, when i typed the word religion, i knew you would bring up that counter point, after all, austin cline has been insisting about it many times. However, since i lack a better word to classify it under and for future references with others people, i just used it anyway. Please excuse it for the sake of convenience.
Zachary said:
Justin-
Haha, OF COURSE i met joseph. I met benjung too. as well as the youth leaders, and alan. Did you get to see him? A funny guy i tell you.
I stayed in perth for about a week. In fact i posted about the missions somewhere in my blog. You can try searching for it if your interested haha.
Yep yep… next year I got a 6 month break starting from Feb. Hoping to take the time to either tour the europe Hope churches or the oceania ones. Haha.
Eric said:
A more neutral term like “position” would be a far better description of atheism than would “religion.” It may be convenient to talk about atheism as a religion, but it’s still wrong. You don’t need About.com to tell you that – religions have certain features that atheism by itself lacks. Again, while atheism can in some unusual circumstances be part of a religion, it is not a religion in and of itself and atheists are generally not religious. It may be convenient for me to refer to salmon as tuna, but that won’t make them taste the same. Precise use of language is an aid to precise thinking!
bookcrazy said:
(To Eric) Atheism has the most basic feature of religion, or the form in which you and the Dawkins clan go about it does. I have explained it at bookcrazy.wordpress.com. I do agree with most of your arguments but not with your attitude.
Justin said:
dude do oceania! then u can attend out oceania conventioN! that would be the MADDEST!!!!… =D hahahahah… wow 6 month break? thats ages! i wish i had a 6 month break… are us tudying?
Eric said:
“I do agree with most of your arguments but not with your attitude.”
What don’t you like about my attitude? I’m attacking arguments, not people.
“Atheism has the most basic feature of religion, or the form in which you and the Dawkins clan go about it does.”
Who said anything about Dawkins or the “Dawkins clan?” What makes you think I’m a fan of his? All atheism is is the absence of positive belief in any gods. That’s all! It can be PART of a religion, but it’s not a religion in and of itself. It sounds like you’re alleging that atheism as argued by Richard Dawkins is a religion and claiming that you have proven so on your blog. Send me a link to the specific place on your blog where you do that – I don’t have time to read the whole thing.
Eric said:
Okay bookcrazy, I found it.
Emily said:
Atheism is a religion like anarchy is a managed governmental system.
When there is no government, do you call it a government?
Arguing that atheism is the “belief in NO god” is to not know atheism, and to assume that you could know all possible gods for the atheist to not believe exist, is narrow.
Its easy to give that definition and assume it fits, when you think there is only one god to want to disprove/not believe in. It gets more difficult when you realize how many gods and permutations of the concept there are. A religion that says the universe is a god, even though it doesn’t actually *do* anything other than what we see it do, is impossible to disprove. Easy to question the validity and usefulness of, but impossible to disprove. MANY atheists are *strong* atheists in respect to the Christian god, but that’s not the only one we have to ponder.
The CronoLink said:
Well, what do you know? Seems “Atheism” is a term far TOO slippery to even focus it accurately and thus to offer good, solid arguments without sounding like a bigoted, narrow-minded preacher….. unless the atheist explains himself what exactly is being an Atheist for him.
Eric said:
Atheism is by definition a negative, so focusing it narrowly doesn’t make any sense. The only thing all atheists have in common is the absence of affirmative belief in God or gods. It’s like demanding that the non-belief in unicorns be narrowly focused.
lifelock promo code said:
With havin so much written content do you ever
run into any problems of plagorism or copyright violation?
My website has a lot of exclusive content I’ve either written myself or outsourced but it looks like a lot of it is popping it up all over the internet without my permission. Do you know any methods to help prevent content from being ripped off? I’d genuinely appreciate it.
https://eggs-and-bacon.tumblr.com said:
Excellent article, I need to improve the content i
have truly.
I have attemptedto blog on third part systems, it did
just
not transpire just how I wanted it to. But your website
has
providing me a hope to achieve this. I am bookmarking your website
and checking it out every once in awhile. Many thanks!