Whew, I've been away for a while, though still swinging my sword on other sites... like Comcast... I've missed the theists that can do more than cut and paste...

Quote:  “The hard-core atheist, once a stock figure in American life, has gone the way of the freak show. Why? Because atheism is arrogant in its stance and simplistically dismisses life’s ultimate questions..."

Here is the number one fallacy I've been getting in religious blogland.  I've got about 5 debates going right now on various sites and every single one has made a statement in this vein.  "Arrogant"?  Everyone posting here knows, but for the sake of Xtians reading, I will spell it out.  PAY F*cking attention:

1.  Theists are making a positive claim of fact: a proposition.

2.  Atheism means "without theism" yes, there are strong and soft atheists, but only a strong atheist, of which there are far fewer (though you Xtians are converting us), make a positive claim that there is no teleological force- a vague deistic notion of a "higher power."  You are confusing attacking the idea/philosophy and an emotional defense of agnosticism with that of "strong" atheism (which is essentially "adeism&quot.  Don't get me wrong, strong atheists have good arguments, but most every atheist is willing to take the idea of some vague teleological force (ala the PreSocratics or Heidegger) provisionally.

3.  Demanding that one must have a non-provisional position is arrogance.  Not the provisional position of the scientific method.  NOT believing in the Yahweh proposition because there is insufficient evidence is NOT arrogance any more than it is for any other supernatural proposition.   You are conflating the vague deistic notion of a "higher power" (i.e. the flexible modern usage of the word "god&quot with the very specific theology of Yahweh and Jesus.  That is where there is arrogance.  Get it?  You can't say a provisional position is arrogant when you take and even demand a non-provisional one.  And the jump from "how can there be something from nothing" to "two she bears ripped apart 42 kids for calling Yahweh's prophet "baldy"" is no smaller leap than that of the evidence for transitional fossils or evolution in biology, for example, especially considering that the deism to theism jump is "based" upon fragments of redacted mythology that survived from a middle eastern nomadic cult from the Bronze Age.  Not only asking us to believe in this- but expecting that it is even possible for our minds to be ABLE TO DO IT IF WE WANTED TO is what we call arrogance.

You have to read the words and ditch your ad hominems at the door.

Read this again and pass it on to all Christians please!!! 

I am considering starting a campaign that I think will help alleviate this problem: the Yahweh Campaign.  Where ever possible, substitute the Xtians word "God" for "Yahweh" to

1. Disallow them the flexibilty that they get from borrowing the god parameters of new agers and other religionists without the specifically defined theology that Yahweh has. and to...

2.  Remind them, at least subliminally, that they are in a cult.  You will notice how uncomfortable they get with the term, as they should...

Maybe you'd like to re-read that, unless the problem lies solely in your comprehension skills. Here's the link to the post that has been removed from our site apparently: http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_infallible_pope_benedict_releases_bigoted_encyclical_vilifying_atheism

I must have missed that one. Just FYI, I reserve the right to call idiots "idiots" if I choose. Now, the difference is that I did discuss the content of these articles, which was pitifully lacking of substance, so I worked with what I was given. It would have been much easier to refute an argument if one had been presented in the first place. Instead, we got the "atheists are evil baby-blood drinker" routine. Should I conduct a study to determine if atheists are really evil baby-blood drinkers, or just realize that a person who would make that statement is a bigoted moron? At least I give some religious people credit for intelligence or some other positive attribute--I just think that they're wrong about god. I saw no such lee-way in these pieces.

The reason for the anger (or rather militancy ) amongst many atheists which has resulted in the popularity of the publications of Dawkins et alia is the fact that fundamentalist religionists of all varieties (even militant Buddhists !!!!) are acquiring political power disproportionate to their actual numbers and ,being fundamentalist, they 1.) see no problem in imposing their restricted interpretations on all and sundry and 2.) are quite prepared to demonize ;or even kill; all those that do not agree with them.
Remember in his own estimation Osama bin Laden is a deeply religious individual who is blessed by God ,is pursuing a course of action recommended to him by God the reward for which is entry to heaven.
We somewhat angry atheists see the growth of ultra militant religion as a threat and respond accordingly.If you remember that there isn't a single morally reprehensible act that hasn't been effectively justified at some time or another by religion,including rape ,murder and genocide you will see why we are worried by the threat.

So, where's the refutation of said arguments? I can't recall ever seeing a logical, non-faith and/or bible based argument justifying theodicy, the cosmological argument, or the ontological argument. You essentially did nothing other than make baseless accusations as to the moral character of atheists and the superiority of your view. So, prove it. 

Shermer takes a different approach. We have spoken to him about it many times. I also read The Science of Good and Evil, although I prefer Robert Wright's The Moral Animal, and the subject matter is entirely different. No comparison can be made between Dawkins' TGD and Hitchen's GING and that book. Try Shermer's How We Believe or Why People Believe Weird Things to get a more appropriate comparison.

So, the fact that you quoted opinions from people with whom you agree means what exactly?  You used two quotes--the first of which is blatantly false ("The hard-core atheist, once a stock figure in American life, has gone the way of the freak show.&quot, and the second was just a journalistic opinion ("The new atheists are seperated from the old by their shallowness.&quot. Woop-dee-doo.

How is the lack of a position, the suspension of belief, irrational? What defense needs to be made from that stance? 

The burden of proof is on you. The presumption of atheism is most certainly not ad hoc considering that people will generally adopt the religion of their families/society and those raised without religion naturally have no religious belief. Religion has to be inculcated into the minds of the young, and if you pretend that isn't so, I dare you to try it with your own children.

You are making a claim that god exists. Not just any god, but specifically Yahweh. All I am saying is that I have seen no evidence to warrant such a conclusion. There's no claim there. Beyond that, you claim that he is the only true god and that all the other bullshit in the Nicene Creed is true. Start with proving number one, then we'll move on. 

I appreciate the fact that you are familiar with these writers, but I wonder how you could have so ignorantly caricatured all atheists. Clearly, you can tell from reading Russell, Smith, Martin, Shermer, Dawkins, and Hitchens that atheists come in many varieties. Your broad generalizations were akin to saying that all black people are drug dealers and murderers. Sorry if I find that offensive.

Thanks for the funny response. 

Interesting.

Explain how you are a special case and exempt from your own comments. Here YOU are, reading, commenting and posting. As much a participant in the substance of this site as those you criticise. 

BTW, I think your shift key is broken. 

Hey Kelly, you look goddamn HOT !!!
Where do you live ? What's your phone number ?
Let me pick you up, let me show you round, I bet you we could have some fun !
Geekzo (will be on fire till your answer come)
PS: I don't give a damn about religion or non-religious activism

>>>How is the lack of a position, the suspension of belief, irrational? What defense needs to be made from that stance? The burden of proof is on you. The presumption of atheism is most certainly not ad hoc considering that people will generally adopt the religion of their families/society and those raised without religion naturally have no religious belief.<<<

Simple: the "lack" of a position is itself an empistemological and metaphysical statement, and subject to rational analysis. The so-called "presumption of atheism" is a recent philosophical safe-house that neo-atheists invented to insulate themselves from justifying their non-belief and answering the tough scientific and philosophical questions. Given the faith commitments manifest (and yet denied) by atheists a presumption of theism is much more tenable.

My challenge is really quite simple: without belief in the Christian God as your fundamental presupposition you can't justify or prove anything.

I am more than familiar with many of the writers. I did post-graduate work in analytic philosophy. Dawkins, Hitchens, et. al are barely worthy to be called "popularizers", and not worthy of being associated with Carnap, Quine, Wittgenstein, Russell, Kuhn, Ayer, etc.

Can't bring Stein, but I'm game - Marty

Whether or not it is a recent philosophical safehouse or not says nothing as to whether or not it is a valid position. What tough scientific questions do you think they insulate themselves from? How about philosophical ones?

Examples.

That's not actually a challenge, it is just an assertion. And a false one. Presupper arguments are some of the worst philosophical trash out there. Hopefully you have something better than the average presupper. If not, I'd ask for that tuition money back.

Who are you trying to encompass with et. al? Why would anyone associate Dawkins a biologist with philosophers? If you want to associate one of the 'new atheist's with philosophers why not mention Dennett, who studied under Quine?

1) Presumption of atheism is an ad hoc, arbitrary dodge from addressing, say, the nature, justification, and use of reason, the problem of induction, etc. by atheists.

2) If you are not familiar with the work of Kant and Aristotle on transcendental reasoning you will miss my challenge. They both dealt with presuppositions and falsifiability, but you call that trash.

4) "Et. al." - re-read my initial editorial 

You express perfectly (and intestingly enough so do many emails from others atheists who actually agree with what I wrote) the essence of what we are dealing with here.

So you think that to presume atheism due to a complete lack of justification in support of the proposition "a god exists" is somehow different than presuming the non-existence of any other X due to lack a complete lack of justification in support of the proposition "X exists". In other words, god's existence, in your mind, should be presupposed while all other beliefs in the existence of any object/entity should only be held when properly supported. Is this accurate? 

Things such as the justification of reason and answers to the problem of induction (which can't be solved by appeal to any god, by the way) are in no way relevant to the question of whether or not a god exists. An entities existence can not be established by consequence of otherwise not having adequate solutions to philosophical problems (assuming they are legitimate problems, which is an issue of contention).      

No, the problem was that it wasn't a challenge. You asserted something, you did not issue a challenge. A challenge would have been asking people to justify their beliefs or to illustrate their ability to prove something without presupposing the Christian god. You simply stated one could not. It was an assertion, not a challenge.

I called presuppositionalism trash, because it is. It is an intellectual vacuum. Pointless and devoid of valid reasoning. In case you can't tell, I'm not fond of presuppositionalism.   

I'll try to locate it. 

Ah, I see now. You are the author of the original Op-Ed piece. Well, I am of the opinion that even Op-Ed pieces should not simply be an opportunity to dismiss those one sees as adversaries with substance-free declarations of intellectual ineptitude. If the word limit is too strict to write a piece that can make valid points then there is really no point in writing the piece, aside from writing as propoganda  of course. Anyway, it is good of you to participate in this thread so you can illustrate the intellectual superiority by which you can assert the intellectual ineptitude of accomplished academics such as Professor Dawkins. 

This is contrary to the very foundation of logical argumentation. The person making a claim must prove his premise. Not believing his premise is perfectly rational until proven otherwise. Shifting the burden of proof is fallacious and if anybody has invented it to use as a safe-haven, it's the ones who know they can't prove their claim without resorting to faith, mystery, or the book of fairy tales known as the bible. Saying that the presumption of theism is more tenable is laughably ignorant.

Oh, a presuppositionalist. It's even worse than I thought. Let me guess--I can't even use logic or reason without confirming the existence of god. You may be beyond saving and I don't generally waste time with people who argue from false premises. 

Appeal to authority much? Sounds like an opinion to me. 

It's amusing how you apologize for one thing and then lob another accusation. You may or may not have noticed at the time, but we had two server crashes within weekes of each other in which we lost tons of data. We recovered what we could, but when another critic accused us of deleting comments, it was made clear that it was due to the server crash. Brian also posted both times about the dataloss, so it wasn't any great mystery. Wanna apologize again now? Any comments dealing with that article can be posted in that thread. They are irrelevant here.

 Yes, but op-ed pieces should still at least briefly address the reasons behind the opinion, and if they don't, then the opinion is going to be subject to criticism. My responses are also op-eds and I don't seem to be getting the free pass that you would like to give them.

 Their articles made broad generalizations about the character of all atheists and the status of atheism today that are simply not true. Insert any other minority group in place of "atheist" and watch the hate mail pour in saying much worse than I did.

Ummm...I'd recommend stop, drop, and roll.  You'd find me obnoxious if you don't care about religion. And this is totally off-topic. Use the contact form or myspace. 

Well, as I suspected this is "Rhetorical Responders." Its quite obvious that the books read here require crayons to complete.

Kelly, what is "the foundation of logical argumentation?" Why "your" prejudices and not someone elses? You "make the claim" so "prove that premise" itself. What is the "foundation" of logical argumentation? According to whom? Mill, Kant, Zen Koans, Descartes? What is "logic"? Predicate, doxastic, pragmatic, deontic, modal, formal? Western or Eastern? Simply throwing out the term "reason" is to avoid the tough issues. My experience with web-based atheists is that they have no clue what "reason" actually is.

I suspect this is well over your head. Your last line suggests to me you really don't know what informal fallacies are either.

I made the original claim that your couldn't make a case without being inconsistent, arbitrary, or both. I was right.

Now do something "rational" like calling me a "prick" or "bastard" or something classy.

Dawkins got out of his lane when he ventured into philosophy. More than a few atheists wished he'd have never done it. I'm surprised you actually agree with him.

As to the nature of editorials. Ummm, it was an editorial. Op-ed. Not an academic paper. But i stand behind it nonetheless and thus far all I have seen in the website, especially from Kelly, is a dodging of important philosophical questions glazed in a veneer of prejudicial "yo mama" isms. 

Are you a real pastor? 

Can't you tell?  Check out this rock solid argument he just offered: "Its quite obvious that the books read here require crayons to complete."

Sounds like a Pastor to me... you know full of shit with an arrogant, obnoxious, disgustingly childish attitude with a huge healthy dose of hypocrisy.

Kelly's Op-Ed that was commenting on your Op-Ed contained far more substance than was merited by your original article. Your Op-Ed not only wasn't an academic paper, but it was devoid of anything even remotely resembling substance. Come on now. You have to admit your Op-Ed piece was playing to your crowd and nothing more than emotion based complaining. 

So far you have received the level of reply you deserve in light of what you have offered. If you want a philosphically rigorous discussion bring something worthy of such a discussion to the table. Being as that you have alluded to being a presupper I imagine it is likely you are not capable of offering much, but surely you have something better than complaining about the mean atheists you don't like.

 If you want a serious conversation, you have to be capable of holding a serious conversation. You have yet to show yourself to be.

As to Dawkins getting out of his lane when he ventured into philosophy, if you find the arguments he presents flawed then address the arguments not the man making them. You don't call him and the others you reference philosophically inept, but you call them "intellectually inept". This is clearly a lie. Those who are intellectually inept don't hold prestiges positions at well respected major universities. You, in fact, know that Dawkins and the others are not intellectually inept, but you lie and insult because you know it is what your base wants to hear.

I have my doubts as to whether or not you hold any actual qualifications yourself. From what I've seen so far, the evidence is not supportive.   

>>>logic is the process of coming up with valid conclusions that also happen to be true... because that's what we try to achieve.
Boolean algebra is the simplest example of breaking down logic: having two input data that can be either TRUE or FALSE, an AND statement results in a TRUE output datum only if both of the input data are TRUE, an OR statement makes our result TRUE if either is true, and an XOR statement is TRUE only when only one of the input data is TRUE; finally, a NOT statement reverts the output. Similar methods apply in conversational terminology.<<<

Obviously this rocket scientist has never read Russell and Whitehead. Ever heard of modal logic? Crayola 64 go to him/it/her.

 >>>I have my doubts as to whether or not you hold any actual qualifications yourself. From what I've seen so far, the evidence is not supportive. <<<

Obviously this comes from a thorough investigation of the facts. Please... I have nothing to prove about myself to anyone here. Answer the question i posed to Kelly, but do it after she changes her hair color. Obviously that is the Rhetorical Responders most intellectually intersesting challenge for today and I wouldn't want you to be distracted.

 As to defending Dawkins by where he teaches... geez- talk about informal fallacies.

Its simple: atheists have no justification for the "reason" they pretend to understand. Theism makes so much more sense. 

And Kelly did call me a prick on the front page! Here's to being rational 

Kelly cursed you for being such an abandantly unable to coherently respond within the premise of your demands idiotic hypocrite.

Boolean algebra is a binary logic interpretation system worked out by the mathematician Bool, hence the whole "simplest" tag I applied (since there always are two input data and one output datum per statement, each piece of data can be either TRUE or FALSE, and each statement can only ever have one sort of output according to the input).

Modal logic, on the other hand, fall on one of the other models I referred to with the term "conversational terminology." Quantum computers will be able to achieve that sort of logical conclusion, but programming on electronic computers means we have to resort to other means (including "flags" and "fuzzy logic&quot.

Logic, in the end, is the systematic means of arriving to a solution to a problem. The above example of fuzzy logic is an example of a logic that, to its sort of data, the sort of data and problems it deals with, is exceedingly capable of solving; and it's all just math.

If you want to make a point, try and make it: reductio ad absurdum makes sense; a lot of things make sense as an argument. But argumentum ad hominem (i.e. calling me something in order to attack my person and not defend yourself against my argument, here with the euphemistic retort "rocket scientist" instead of a curse) and the Strawman do not make any real sense, because they do not disprove anything: they only try to take the subject of the discussion away from the equation (i.e. swapping input data) in order to get a better result (i.e. output).

It's no wonder you cannot answer back at the ad hominem you threw at Dawkins when you were called on it; you could call him inept about anything that is true that he is not good at. I could argue about even that (someone accused him of being a hypocrite for making any claims regarding chemistry, when he confesses it's not his province), since most people don't understand how interrelated mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology are - which means that any of these scientists still has a better grasp of them compared to a layman or student of humanities (i.e. philosophy, theology, etc.). Calling him intellectually inept is like going to any one Doctor and telling them they are intellectually inept! Unless, of course, you have proof that he is so?

As for you, Mr Modal Logician, not only are you not capable of making a clear statement without resorting to circular logic (including questioning the nature of logic, but then resorting to logical argumentation), you also are one of those people who obediently discard any data that does not make any particular sense on its own (i.e. the False Dichotomy of attributing a divine agent to anything you cannot or will not explain, despite the fact that this is not modal logic, but Boolean algebra ).

Hey at least Starkville has a bookstore now (Barnes and Noble at MSU) that has a good collection of books.

Mississippi is still way behind the times, but it's catching up, however slowly it may be.

The time for the implimentation of the fourth chapter of Malachi seems to be near. If that were to be true, would either side of this discussion fare well? Or would the admonishment to first remove the beam from your own eye before removing the mote from your brother's eye, apply to both sides of this discussion? In reply, do I hear a duet singing, "But we have no beams or motes!" Really? Then how is it that you differ?

Please pose an articulate argument or claim, not just idle querries.

As for our difference, there effectively is none other than opinion - and opinions change. The difference in our opinions are that one is logically articulated, based on evidence, and thriving in the scientific society, whereas the other is inconsistent, has no answer for its most basic flaw (which divine agents are true and which are not and for what reason?), and is infesting the populace that knows the least. In other words, one is rational, whereas the other is superstitious.

It is a reasonable conclusion arrived at by viewing the evidence presently available; this thread and your Op-Ed piece. I will adjust it as more evidence becomes available. Surely, you understand how this works.

Your ad hom attacks on Kelly and others are simply more evidence in support of your being unable to engage in rational intelligent conversation. You are presenting yourself as a whiny child, why should anyone think you are anything but.      

No fallacy at all. It's really quite simple. Dawkins holds a prestigious position at one of the most prestigious universities in the world. This is not something we expect of the intellectually inept. It is reasonable to conclude, based on this evidence, that Dawkins is not intellectually inept. It's not a matter of defending Dawkins, who I don't even know, its a matter of showing you to be disingenuous, a liar and a fraud.    

You are going to have to be much more specific. What do you mean by "reason" and what is the definition of justification you are using? I know what I mean by these terms, but in order to avoid all the presupper whining that is sure to follow any answer we need to make sure we nail down a solid definition and make sure that you actually understand the terms you are using.   

Unsupported assertion. Please provide the argument in support of this proposition. 

You called people she is acquainted with and probably identifies with, to some extent, intellectually inept. I don't think she claims to never having emotions. We call those people sociopaths. Besides, if it acts like a prick and talks like a prick, its probably a prick.  

Nice try. Stop projecting. 

The foundation of logical argumentation involves the use of correct reasoning to determine the validity of a statement. Logic is the method that can be used to test those arguments.

It's not a prejudice--it's just the way that it is. Sorry. Don't shoot the messenger. 

 Much of what you are talking about here involves issues other than the study of formal logic, but that's ok. Though there may have been disagreements between logicians over the years, the methodolgy used in argumentation is relatively stable. What you're doing here is attempting to detract from the argument by confusing the readers and somehow come off appearing intelligent without addressing the issue.

 Proof? What tough issue have I avoided? 

Ad hom. The reference to what and whom you have studied is an appeal to authority considering you were using that as the justification for the validity of your argument when it is completely irrelevant.

Proof? 

Maybe you would like to continue talking about coloring books? That was classy, as well.

Well, aside from reinforcing Kelly's irrelevant vitriol and personal denigration, you appear to be someone who at least is aware of some of the issues and problems with this site's naive and uninformed use of the semantic tokens "reason" and "rational."

I do have deep sympathies with Modal logic but would not - strictly speaking - be a modal logician. I'm more Kantian when it comes to issues of reason and logic. The reason I made the crack about your algebraic preferences is becuase of the Principia and Russell's eventual abandonment of the idea that mathematics and logic are bsed upon one another. That "formal" interest in logic and symbolic logic is useful, but I don't think that logic is based upon mathematics (i.e. Boolean or otherwise)

 Its also interesting that you refer to "circular" argumentation. I believe all arguments are circular (or transcendental) ULTIMATELY. Our proximate starting points vary, but ultimately they are all circular. The only way you can justify your starting points is by using them- otherwise they are not your ultimate starting points. Kant's philosophy was the search for a synthetic a priori truth. I think that's where all the debates ultimately must come. Does a person's assumptions comport with our expereience of the world?

For all of the admration I have for Michael Martin his positivism is untenable. No less than a Betrand Russell and WVO Quine would say the same I believe.

As far as reductios- I await an answer from anyone on this site as to why their view of reason, atheism, what have you, is true and not just arbitrary. I haven't heard one yet even attempt it. Most as still hung up on defending Dawkins against my op-ed piece, and Kelly's sophmoric tirades and hair color.

Modal logic deals with two specific quantifiers--necessarily or possibly. Where was this employed and how exactly does it apply to this situation? 

Nice attempt. Man, you really gotta work on your insults. These just aren't offensive or convincing. If you want to disparage my intellect, USE AN ARGUMENT.

Presuppers have no justification for the god to whom they give the credit for reason. I, in fact, do have a justification for reason--it's called the cerebral cortex, which in adult humans is highly convoluted and allows for higher functioning than the flatter cortices of lower mammals. 

Gotta call like I see em. At least I had more to my argument than that, unlike you. 

Heretic - you will find none of the base, lewd insults said toward me being reciprocated. I will not stoop to that level.

As for calling things here sophmoric, stupid, inane, inept, childish, etc. - lighten up. I can take it and so can they. And the Bible uses such descriptions, culturally defined of course.

>>>More people have been executed, persecuted, tortured, oppressed, and  needlessly divided, over this fruitless bearing ideology and circular debate of whether a mythical, supernatural being exists and who, as a people, this esoteric deity curries favor.<<<

Its the survival of the fittest. I would think you'd be proud. 

I've come in late to your section of the thread and I'm not skilled enough in logic (much water has passed beneath that collegiate bridge) to engage you in the manner you seek.

However, this statement intrigues me

"As far as reductios- I await an answer from anyone on this site as to why their view of reason, atheism, what have you, is true and not just arbitrary. I haven't heard one yet even attempt it. Most as still hung up on defending Dawkins against my op-ed piece, and Kelly's sophmoric tirades and hair color."

Stripping out the request for reductios and your attacks on Kelly, I have to assume that you believe your view of Christianity is true and not just arbitrary. On what do you base that? If I've missed your answer and it's in the thread, I apologize.

If you wish to keep the thread on course feel free to PM me if you have that privilege. 

>>>I, in fact, do have a justification for reason--it's called the cerebral cortex, which in adult humans is highly convoluted and allows for higher functioning than the flatter cortices of lower mammals. <<<

At last- an answer (but still insults. oh well, can't have everything). And you are correct regarding Modal logic as a definition, althought "defining it" wasn't my challenge. Why choose "predicate logic" over others was my point. I also mentioned deontic, doxastic, Zen, etc.

Many of the more "natrualist"  approach have said the same thing (and in some moments in his life Carnap and the "physicalist" school did as well). Are you saying that logic - then - is something "material" in nature? Is "reason" ultimately a bio-chemical response?

No jabs or insults here - only a sincere question.

>>>Your ad hom attacks on Kelly and others are simply more evidence in support of your being unable to engage in rational intelligent conversation. You are presenting yourself as a whiny child, why should anyone think you are anything but. <<<

Wow... cut to the quick. And their remarks concerning me would be for you what, a use of the square of opposition?

 Your defense of Dawkins- argument from authority. Where he teaches is irrelevant to his credibility as a philosopher. I can quote just as many from the other side. Does that mean anything?

AS to my statement about theism: its as reasonable as the presumption of atheism. Assertions awaiting proof. So what's your problem?

>>>You are going to have to be much more specific. What do you mean by "reason" and what is the definition of justification you are using? I know what I mean by these terms, but in order to avoid all the presupper whining that is sure to follow any answer we need to make sure we nail down a solid definition and make sure that you actually understand the terms you are using.<<<

Whining? Great psychology - and empty rhetoric. But I agree that we need a definotion. Kelly locates it (I take it) as the expression of bio-chemical response. Logic is, then, simply the way the brain works. What say you? 

He seems to have been agreeing with me the whole time. Interesting...

I don't know if you even realize how poorly you are representing your knowledge of logic. It's clear you have some, despite its absence in your aforementioned op-ed, but Kantian ideas of cognition would not support your god-belief, either. Any a priori judgement must be axiomatic without the use of sensory input and also be necessarily obvious using only innate cognitive faculties (which god-belief is not.) The only pure a priori cognitions are in fields such as mathematics, with the qualified a priori cognitions (ones that are based on some sensory input in order to make the discovery, but still necessarily true) in physics or other sciences. Didn't notice theology in there anywhere.

Kant places very high value on the necessity, or universality, of a proposition, although he does differ from the Empiricists in allowing for some margin of error which accounts for knowledge at the time, unlike a Cartesian philosophy which would require absolute knowledge to determine a proposition's truth-value.

In most argumentation, one does not need to venture that deep into logic. It's basic formula is contained in Boolean-type propositional equations, whether Russell eventually abandoned that idea or not.

"I have no belief in a god due to a lack of evidence" is still not a proposition that can be proven. It is the necessary a priori starting point as god belief is not necessarily obvious using purely cognitive faculties.

It wasn't a search for A, as in 1, starting point. If so, he found it when he admitted that the study of mathematics could be a pure a priori cognition. Our experience of the world, relying on sensory input, would not be a true a priori starting point as experience is not objectively verifiable or necessary and thus those conclusions are all a posteriori.

>>>I don't know if you even realize how poorly you are representing your knowledge of logic.<<<

Fallacy of relevance, but of course as long as it comes from the Rhetoriticians its valid. I get it.

 >>>Kantian ideas of cognition would not support your god-belief,<<<

Kant didn't like Natural Theology, no doubt. But he is credited with the moral argument. But I don't care - that's not my argument. I said I was "Kantian" in terms of pre-condtions of intelligibility.

>>> Any a priori judgement must be axiomatic without the use of sensory input and also be necessarily obvious using only innate cognitive faculties (which god-belief is not.)<<<

Sure it is. You give evidence of that a priori all the time. You borrow my worldview to escape cerebral cortex solipsism. Atheism cannot account for universality, invariance, abstraction, or necessity - hence pragmatism.

>>>The only pure a priori cognitions are in fields such as mathematics, with the qualified a priori cognitions (ones that are based on some sensory input in order to make the discovery, but still necessarily true) in physics or other sciences. Didn't notice theology in there anywhere.<<<

Utterly arbitrary and incorrect Kelly. It can't be both "by means of experience" and "apart from experience." (as you correctly point out later) If its a "pure" a priori it is not experienced to be known or falsified. I'm almost stunned that you would say this given the unambiguous disparity there is in the philosophy of mathmatics and science (Quine, Kuhn, Foucault)

And theology is the queen of the sciences. Theos / Logos - the science of God. Just because you don't like theology doesn't mean its not a science. It has been for millenia.

>>> In most argumentation, one does not need to venture that deep into logic. It's basic formula is contained in Boolean-type propositional equations, whether Russell eventually abandoned that idea or not.<<<

This is what I keep running into: prejudicial defenses. But- for the sake of argument -  I'm not committed to the resolving of logic to math, etc. as a Christian. Seeing you give a justifible explication to your view of logic in the first place is what I'm after. I haven't seen one yet.

If we are going to argue we need standards of reason. How do you account for sandards? 

 >>>"I have no belief in a god due to a lack of evidence" is still not a proposition that can be proven. It is the necessary a priori starting point as god belief is not necessarily obvious using purely cognitive faculties.<<<

Are you an atheist by faith? Are you attempting to prove a universal negative? You "know" that God-belief is not obvious?

 >>> Our experience of the world, relying on sensory input, would not be a true a priori starting point as experience is not objectively verifiable or necessary and thus those conclusions are all a posteriori.<<<

Correct. And you did this without calling me an insulting name. See, I ain't so bad after all

Hallowed be thy name, lovely Kelly, I can't get enough of you.
To be a little more spot on, let me offer you this little quiz: who said: "Lord Almighty, I feel my temperature rising (...)" ?
Anyone can play. And the first to find will be made God(dess) of the internet

Your rolling and more-than-ever burning Geekzo

[double posted by mistake]

I live just south of Memphis and I know exactly what you mean. I have to say, though that I found The End of Faith at a local library last week... I was genuinely shocked. But the dark shadow cast over atheism in this state will drive you to the fringe of sanity on a daily basis.

>>>First of all, it can't have been that many millenia - two is the absolute maximum!<<

I actually did mean centuries. Fair point.

Throughout the middle ages theology was known as the "queen of the sciences and philosophy is her handmaiden." Fairly common. I'm surprised you've never heard of that.

"Logos" means "idea, word, reason, or study" depending on the context. Hence "the study, or science, of God.

>>>"λέγω," which means "to speak"<<<

Nope. That's the present active indicative. It means "I say."

I did study Greek for two years.... goes with the territory. 

I believe the middle ages ended. I could be wrong...especially with that twit in office now.

Logos can mean much more than that. It certainly depends on the context, but when it comes down to it, it is one of the most hard to define words in Koine. (It has been defined as an expression of inner thought - but even that is vague and not always accurate) In any case, it does not mean "science". Science in Greek would more reflect the word epistêmê (lit. science; Aristotle, Metaph. 981a2) or epistêmonikos (lit. scientific; Aristotle Top. 100b19). In fact when translating the Latin works of Aristotle into Greek, epistêmonikos is used in place of scientia, not logos. You are equivocating study to science, and that is not the case. At least not when it comes to the Greek.

Hey nitpicker...that depends on the context. At present, "to speak" is perfectly acceptable in its current form. Consult An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (H. Liddell, R. Scott) This is also the present active subjunctive.

Good for you. Here is a cookie.

Well, if you really live there, you're very likely to guess who said: "Lord Almighty, I feel my temperature rising (...)"
This is a big clue, but let me know if you need more

Geekzo