Can these arguments be more than "because I said so"?

Technarch
Posts: 127
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Can these arguments be more than "because I said so"?

Say an Atheist makes the following statements:

- Science is correct, backed by statements in scientific books and journals, and its principles have been demonstrated throughout history.  A conflicting view of reality, such as Theism, cannot coexist with science, so Theism must be wrong

- You cannot use The bible in an argument because the Bible is wrong.  The Bible conflicts with science and my established position on reality.

- Your belief in reality is irrelevant to reality itself, and your views will not change reality.  Even saying "view or opinion on reality" does not make sense, because reality IS a certain way.  Your Theist views are wrong because they do not conform with the correct reality.  

- I know, without any reasonable doubt, that my general view on reality is correct based on what I've read and observed, and what other knowledgeable people have told me about reality.

- Your Theist views are wrong because they are wrong.  I will attempt to explain why, and try to persuade you.  Remember this is not an opinion on reality, it is an explanation of reality that is correct, unlike your view of reality.

 Now, any of these can be reversed so that the Theist says "my reality is correct, and yours is a faulty view that does not conform to my correct Theist reality.  You cannot rely on your scientific texts or your scientific friends just because they tell you what reality is.  Reality is a certain way regardless of your views, and I know without any reasonable doubt that my views are true.  In fact, evidence has been demonstrated throughout history by the miracles and teachings of my prophet, as evidenced in my book, as my friends have told me.  The difference is that my written sources and my friends are more reliable and are well tested by history.  Your so called reality is wrong because it is wrong.  It is incompatible with the true reality in which God exists."

So both sides are making similar arguments, each saying the other is wrong because they are fundamentally wrong, because the other reality is not the right reality, and the knowledge and data given is flawed compared to the more reliable data of their own written materials which make certain claims about reality.  How do you make the Atheist side come out "better" so that it doesn't seem like a series of "I'm right because I said so and you're wrong because I said so" arguments?  Because Theists can try the same thing, deep down believing they are right and others are wrong, while constructing an argument in order to convince the scientist of their wrongness.

Of course science has things such as evidence and provable facts, but Theist statements such as "Jesus did this so it's true" are not provable but are presented as if they were evidence.  So Theist "evidence" is a long chain of unprovable statements which are relied upon.  And then the Atheist can get back in to the trap of saying "that's probably wrong because it's bullshit- there was no resurrection because there was no resurrection" and the Theist can say "that's a fallacy- just because you say something doesn't make it true.  But your Big Bang theory, now that's bullshit," "really, do you have evidence?" "Yes I do, read this paper on why the Big Bang theory is wrong," "I read your paper and it's bullshit, it has bad data and it makes a bunch of unprovable statements, so it's wrong" "Because you said I'm wrong?  Look, your Big Bang theory is wrong because according to this paper the theory has lots of bad data and unprovable statements.  You can't just disagree with it because you think it's wrong.  Stop using your delusional reverse psychology and accept the truth," "Fuck this, you'll never stop being delusional" "Touche, you'll never see the wrongness of the Big Bang theory, and you can't make statements saying you're right and I'm wrong just because it's what you want to say.  I hope your ignorance is cured some day."

So how do you make the beginning Athiest statements carry more weight to stop this loop? 

 

 

 


Tyl3r04
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Provide evidence to back up

Provide evidence to back up your claims.


Technarch
Posts: 127
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Then the Theist can attack

Then the Theist can attack that evidence, call it flawed, unreliable, ill-researched, just an opinion or viewpoint, while Theist arguments are presented as evidence even if they are not. How do you say "my research and evidence is superior to your research and evidence" without the Theist parroting the same thing?

The Theist evidence is wrong, but to the Theist it is not.  How do you say "my evidence is right, no matter how right you think you are" without making it sound like "because I said so."   


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I don't think there's an

I don't think there's an easy answer to this question. I think the only possible way to explain the fundamental difference in the positions is from the very beginning. Unfortunately, that involves going to the beginnings of thought, and that's something that is difficult for many people to grasp.

Regardless of what fancy gift wrapping a theist assertion has, it must rely on some kind of non-empirical revelation.

When this is pointed out by the atheist, the theist will return to the uncertainty of empiricism, hoping for a stalemate.

It would be a stalemate except for the descent into nihilism that results from non-empiricism in any form!

Since nihilism in it's simplest state is self refuting, the concept of an intellectual stalemate fails.

As a last resort, the theist will fall back to the problem of induction, and most likely claim Hume's statement of the problem as proof that lack of certainty in the future proves the stalemate between faith and empiricism.

This fails because they have not taken into account the fact that later philosophers have clarified the difference between syllogistic logic and probabilistic logic (which, if I'm not mistaken, Hume himself pointed out!) and have exposed the "problem of induction" for what it is -- essentially a conflation of two separate meanings of the word "logic." Simply put, we have overwhelming probabilistic reasons to believe that the future will be like the past, since it has always been so. If it continues to be so, syllogistic logic will continue to work with 100% certainty in the same way as mathematics.

Ok... now for the simple answer (he said with his tongue firmly imbedded in his cheek.)

If we allow the existence of non-empirical or non-syllogistic proof, we create a paradox where nothing can be learned, but it is certain that nothing can be learned. This self-contradictory sentence ultimately defeats any theist claim to the contrary.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


AtheistInWonderland
RRS local affiliate
Posts: 80
Joined: 2006-07-25
User is offlineOffline
You don't need to supply

You don't need to supply evidence to justify not believing in something. It is up to the person making the claim that something exists to provide evidence that it does.


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Technarch It's

Technarch

It's unfortunately a game you can't win. Their starting point on what 'reality' is is completely different to ours. Their rules for evidence are different. We come to this arguement with "Science is as right as it can be at this point, show me where your god fit into that" they come in with "My bible is the absolute truth, Show me that my god doesn't exist".

You can't beat their bible with science because to them the bible outranks science.

Theist ranking of evidence:

1) What my pope/priest/pastor/minister told me

2) What the bible says

3) Personal experience

4) Science

Atheist ranking of evidence:

1) Science

2) Personal experience

3) Anecdotal evidence from others (including bible, priests.)

If their system for determining truth is upside down then how can you convince them?

I don't come here expecting to convert the believers anyway. Reality doesn't need evangelists. If some people want to maintain delusions they are quite welcome to. Others will figure out for themselves that they've been conned

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
AtheistInWonderland

AtheistInWonderland

Quote:
You don't need to supply You don't need to supply evidence to justify not believing in something. It is up to the person making the claim that something exists to provide evidence that it does.

Unfortunately from their point of view we are the ones with the burden of proof. To us the burden is on them because we start from the position of "no god" so they have to provide evidence that these is a god. To them the burden is on us. Their 'reality' is "god exists". We are the ones challenging current accepted reality so we must proove our case.

 We can say "But you are making the positive claim, we are just saying you're wrong so the burden of proof is on you." but I doubt that makes any difference to them.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


AtheistInWonderland
RRS local affiliate
Posts: 80
Joined: 2006-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote: We can say "But you

Quote:
We can say "But you are making the positive claim, we are just saying you're wrong so the burden of proof is on you." but I doubt that makes any difference to them.

They know what it's like to disbelieve in all of the gods they don't worship. It's not hard to show them that they don't disbelieve in those gods because they have disproven them all.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
The ultimate irony of it is

The ultimate irony of it is that atheists are using logic to try to convince people who don't believe in logic.

That's the crux of the matter, and why the most cogent argument will fall on deaf ears.

The flip side of it is there's no way to argue our position other than logically.  Emotion might work on occasion, but if we use it, we're accused (rightly) of an appeal to emotion.

Nobody ever said it was easy being right.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism