Nabble - AtheistExile's Member Forum

Fun Quiz: Who's That Fundamentalist?

2010-06-10T02:40:11Z

It doesn't matter which Abrahamic religion you look at, their fundamentalists all think alike. It can be hard to tell them apart, just from their rhetoric. Take this quiz and see if you can guess which fundamentalist said what . . .

Who's that fundamentalist?

AtheistExile Admin,
AtheistExile@gmail.com
"You my say I'm a dreamer . . ."

Musical Trends?

2010-05-23T23:11:47Z

It's funny how there's a virtually infinite number of ways to combine musical notes into a song, yet only a select few styles and genres dominate popular music at any given time. Until the advent of free (or pirated) .MP3 music files, I used to think the limited variety of popular music was due to record labels and radio stations pushing groups and artists that fit a formulaic mold determined by perceived trends. But with everybody (for a decade now) downloading any song they wish, we're finding that popularity still conforms to existing genres.

Much of American culture has been exported (and emulated) around the world via our music. Blues, jazz, rock and roll, country western, motown, rap, gospel, etc. Why does our music hold such sway in other cultures? This might be a good thing for American music companies but I don't think it's good for original, innovative, music.

I've felt, for quite a while now, that popular music needs an infusion of new and unique creative influences. Musical stagnation has been increasing for decades. Have you noticed how the practice of "covering" older songs (or parts of them) has grown over recent years? It's as if artists are finding it more and more difficult to create original material.

Maybe it's the audience and not the performers who are in a rut. Perhaps there's a world of great music out there that goes unnoticed because the audience is conditioned to favor existing musical formulas. Trends are normally short-lived and in constant flux . . . I don't know that we can say there's anything really trendy about popular music any more. Or maybe I'm just getting old.

AtheistExile Admin,
AtheistExile@gmail.com
"You my say I'm a dreamer . . ."

From forum: General Discussions

Re: Making Atheism Enchanting, by Gene Edward Veith

2010-04-01T22:39:13Z

Hi markin luther,

I had no idea, until a few minutes ago, who G. E. Veith is. I went to his blog and read some of his entries. As I pointed out in my prior reply, I wasn't responding to the man . . . I was responding to just one of his essays. In other words, I don't care what the man stands for or what he thinks. I care only about the one essay ("Making Atheism Enchanting").

Mr. Veith tries to represent a liberal Christian ideology. He knows that science has decimated biblical claims and that only fundamentalists still try to deny this obvious fact. The problem with Mr. Veith's ideas -- and with liberal Christian ideology in general -- is that he cherry-picks what good he can find in the Bible and rejects the rest. This undermines the whole point of the Bible . . . IT'S THE WORD OF GOD or it's nothing more than any other supernatural myth.

That's where blind obedience and brainwashing come into play . . . they're required to maintain suspension of disbelief . . . they're required for faith.

AtheistExile Admin,
AtheistExile@gmail.com
"You my say I'm a dreamer . . ."

From forum: Religion & Spirituality (R&S)

Re: Making Atheism Enchanting, by Gene Edward Veith

2010-04-01T20:38:40Z

Hi, A.E.

I didn't really expect a response. I'm not a forum kind of guy & had no intention to have an ongoing dialogue. I'm a workaholic single father, always short of time. What caught my attention was your comments about Veith; the phrases: "blind obedience" & "brainwashing"; these phrases could hardly apply to his life & thought, unless used by someone unfamiliar with Veith & for an audience equally unfamiliar. It is not an asset to your arguments to casually use these words. If you are just preaching to your choir they will accept these sort of comments but if your aim is actually to have an open dialogue with those who disagree or those who are undecided I think you will do better to avoid characterizations that will not ring true.

Thanks, I feel better already

From forum: Religion & Spirituality (R&S)

Re: Making Atheism Enchanting, by Gene Edward Veith

2010-03-31T21:13:06Z

Hi markin luther,

Thanks for joining the forum and for your comment.

This thread is about this one essay, "Making Atheism Enchanting", only. I criticize the lack of imagination he presents here. What he has written before and since is irrelevant and outside the specific scope of this criticism.

Your general broadside is a little too easy, don't you think? How about something specific? What is the strawman argument I'm allegedly making?

He says atheism has no appeal; I say he must lack imagination if he can't set aside his brainwashing long enough to imagine a life based on reason instead of dogma, understanding instead of faith, moral responsibility instead of moral absolution, natural laws instead of supernatural edicts.

AtheistExile Admin,
AtheistExile@gmail.com
"You my say I'm a dreamer . . ."

From forum: Religion & Spirituality (R&S)

Re: Making Atheism Enchanting, by Gene Edward Veith

2010-03-30T19:52:04Z

I'd like to suggest you read a little more by & about Mr. Veith. His background in & his deep thought about many faiths makes your comments about him appear as a sophomoric attempt to set him up as a straw man so you can bravely knock him down. You are a bright guy, do some research & have at it.

From forum: Religion & Spirituality (R&S)

Re: Free Will Explained

2010-03-17T19:28:19Z

Hey Dafydd,

I'm under the strict impression that Dennett is a compatibilist.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"One influential contemporary defense of compatibilism is Daniel Dennett's. In his 1984 book Elbow Room, as well as in several important papers, including “On Giving Libertarians What They Say They Want,” (1981c) and “Mechanism and Responsibility” (1973), Dennett advances compatibilism by drawing upon important developments in the philosophy of mind."

He's supposed to be influential but I find his videos plodding and uninspiring. If you've ever watched the "Four Horsemen" (Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett) video (on YouTube), you know how he slows down a conversation and contributes very little. I've also watched several of his lectures and don't feel he's ever argued his theses well and always does even worse in the Q&A follow-ups.

AtheistExile Admin,
AtheistExile@gmail.com
"You my say I'm a dreamer . . ."

Re: Online Discussions and Logical Fallacies

2010-03-16T03:16:29Z

Hi King,

One could spend a whole semester studying logical fallacies. I certainly don't know them all. Most of us just rely on our internal bullshit meter. But if you're going to do a lot of debating, it really helps to read up on logical fallacies. You can find many authoritative sources by Googling "logical fallacy".

AtheistExile Admin,
AtheistExile@gmail.com
"You my say I'm a dreamer . . ."

Re: Online Discussions and Logical Fallacies

2010-03-16T01:51:38Z

I've avoided reading this post because I thought it was about Uzza and her syllogism. I'm glad to see it has nothing to do with her.

I just read your explanation of free will and kept thinking about it while I was reading this piece. I kept wondering if you had used some logical fallacy to solve the problem of free will. I'll be damned if I can think of one.

I guess that if you're going to be a professional writer then you really need to know and avoid logical fallacies. Strike that. You need to know and avoid logical fallacies no matter what.

King Tutankhamun
King210Common@yahoo.com

Re: Free Will Explained

2010-03-16T01:40:53Z

My head is still reeling. If you are right then you have just solved one of the biggest philosophical problems of all time. It is so simple there must be something wrong with it. But I knew when I read it that it was right. I makes perfect sense. You should put your theory out to a larger audience or submit it to a philosophical publication.

King Tutankhamun
King210Common@yahoo.com

Re: Free Will Explained

2010-03-07T14:57:23Z

By the way. Could you explain the difference between volition and free will?

Re: Free Will Explained

2010-03-07T14:55:42Z

I read a book by Dennett a long time ago about free will. He said it is not compatible with determinism or indeterminism. I forget why he said that. In hindsight it appears that if you take away determinism and indeterminism there is nothing left. But you show exactly how free will is compatible with determinism and you didn't have to write a book to make a convincing argument. Well done!

Re: Free Will Explained

2010-03-07T11:47:45Z

Yes, Dafydd, this is my own theory. Normally, whenever I think I've come up with something unique, a quick search of the Internet proves that I wasn't the first to come up with the idea. But in this case, I can't find another explanation of free will that matches mine.

If ANYBODY finds my explanation expressed elsewhere on the Internet, PLEASE let me know. For now, I'm claiming the central ideas as my own.

The key concept, I think, is the temporal advantage over causality that we derive from our prescient imagination. The ability to keep steps ahead of causality is necessary to establish a direction into our futures. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to understanding free will is to understand that free will is not an effort or goal, it's an effect or product resulting from the human brain's interaction with the world around us.

AtheistExile Admin,
AtheistExile@gmail.com
"You my say I'm a dreamer . . ."

Re: Online Discussions and Logical Fallacies

2010-03-07T11:39:49Z

I'm glad you're entertained, Dafydd. But what did you think of the article itself?

AtheistExile Admin,
AtheistExile@gmail.com
"You my say I'm a dreamer . . ."

Re: Online Discussions and Logical Fallacies

2010-03-05T04:58:29Z

Atheist Exile wrote:

If you compare a good discussion to good sex, then getting sucked in by the Sock Puppet Fallacy would be analogous to a circle jerk.

I'm still laughing. That is funny.

Re: Free Will Explained

2010-03-05T04:42:05Z

Is this your own theory Exile? It's pretty good. Nothing jumps out at me to debate. It's been a long time since my philosophy class but I do remember how boring this subject was. There were all kinds of principles involved. Like dualism, monism, agency, and other stuff I can't remember. Philosophers drone on and on but are never convincing.

Yet here you are. Explaining in common language on a single page how free will works in a deterministic world. And it is convincing. No technicalities or twisted logic. Just simple facts we all take for granted.

This is the best explanation I've ever read. Great job.

Free Will Explained

2010-03-02T17:57:27Z

Free Will Explained

This post takes my latest arguments for free will and tries to address all the feedback I've received recently.

Determinism is the principle that causality is responsible for all events in the universe: that everything is determined by causality.

Free will is a more slippery concept than is determinism and has different meanings to different people. This essay will try to explain free will from my compatibilist point of view.

Because time is linear, the future hasn't happened yet. Future events unfold everywhere simultaneously, yet is locally unique. The birth and death of an entire galaxy is irrelevant to us if it's so remote we can't even see it. While the senseless death of a starving child in Africa is tragic and heartbreaking, you'll undoubtedly never know about it. The point is that causality permeates the entire universe and makes its mark on everything: whether or not any particular event seems momentous or even noteworthy. But how do these events affect the future? Will anything we do make a difference in the grand scheme of things? The Big Bang has predetermined the demise of the universe . . . so aren't our own lives equally predetermined?

With this frame of reference, I propose that the future does NOT exist and is NOT predetermined everywhere, for everything. The futures of inanimate objects, however, ARE predetermined unless they fall under the control of animate beings. Wherever intelligent life leaves an impression, the future is far from predetermined. What I'm talking about is the distinction between animate and inanimate modes of response to causality -- the difference between us and rocks. This distinction is most clear when we use humans as the example. This is because humans, unlike other lifeforms, embody ALL the key phenomena of life -- motility, consciousness, intelligence and, yes, free will.

The law of causality states that: "every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause". This is true of both animate and inanimate objects. The difference between the animate and inanimate modes of response to causality is that inanimate objects have only one potential reaction to an event while animate beings have variable potential reactions to an event. One major reason for this is that animate beings are complex systems. They have many functional parts that integrate, holistically, into single entities. Animate beings are much more complex and much less predictable than inanimate objects. I'll be discussing determinism versus free will, so, for animate beings, let's stick with humans.

Whether or not you believe in determinism or free will . . . or believe free will is compatible with determinism (as I do), it's pretty difficult to deny causality (and, therefore, determinism). Without a single scientific experiment for support, we can, at any time, observe that cause always precedes effect. Conventional wisdom holds that free will is antithetical to determinism . . . but I hope to show that determinism (causality) actually creates free will.

Human identity and experience presents a problem for determinism. We all live as if we have free will: we work, play, think and plan as if we have free will. On the other hand, we can see that causality determines all events. How do we reconcile the difference? First, we need to acknowledge there might not be a difference. What if causality creates free will?

That's my basic premise: causality (determinism) creates free will. Nothing I've written above is essential to what follows -- I just wanted to frame free will in context of time and animate beings: of life.

Allowing no exceptions to causality, we must accept that effects can't exist without antecedent causes. Therefore, the processes of the brain, such as memory, thought, analysis and imagination, can be thought of as effects caused by the brain. Of these effects, imagination is most relevant to free will . . . because imagination can be prescient. We can extrapolate cause and effect into the future to imagine potential scenarios that might occur. We then evaluate these potential scenarios and gauge the likelihood (and to what extent) they might actually happen. This is, essentially, the process of planning. We use our experience and intelligence to estimate future outcomes, then plan the steps and contingencies necessary to best ensure -- or avoid -- those outcomes. Of course, short term, simple, plans are more likely to succeed than long term, complicated, plans. Depending on our skill at prognostication, our success rates vary from person to person. But, on the whole, short term plans usually succeed. I know this, without question, from my professional experience as a project manager.

How does planning relate to free will? Here's the interesting, awesome, part. Our ability to mentally anticipate cause and effect represents a temporal advantage over causality. Causality must wait for the future to unfold in the present but we can keep steps ahead of causality by extrapolating it into the future. In other words, we can (in our imagination) go where causality can't . . . and bring back conclusions that greatly affect our decisions. Steered by these conclusions, our choices guide us, step by step, through potential futures.

When causality meets human intelligence, we make decisions based on forecasts of events likely in our futures. There are other causal factors involved, like experience, heredity, education, circumstances, etc., but it's prescient imagination that steers our decisions in self-directed ways. When determinism meets human imagination, it becomes self determinism: free will.

The claim that free will (volition) is antithetical to determinism is a false dichotomy stemming from any assertion that assumes free will is undetermined or indeterminate. If that's how you define free will then, of course, free will would be impossible. After all, EVERYTHING is determined. Right? Free will is not a conscious process or goal of itself, requiring effort to exercise: it's an on-going, natural, human, reaction (effect) to the world around us (cause).

Volition, of itself, is not free will. That would make free will indeterminate -- and we know that's not possible: EVERYTHING is determined. Volition, desires, plans -- whatever you want to call them -- are just causal factors that combine with other causal factors to influence our decisions.

The compatibilist view sees free will as natural and within the confines of physical laws. Undetermined or indeterminate choices or actions would be anything but free will: acting without reason or purpose is not free will. Neither is acting randomly. So, claiming that free will is not deterministic means that, if we do have free will, then we must act without reason or purpose, or we must act randomly, or some combination thereof.

But we KNOW we act with purpose. We don't stumble through life continually shocked to find ourselves doing things we don't want to do. That would make planning impossible! We KNOW we've planned our own dinners, careers, families, retirements and funerals. Our experiences represent continuous empirical evidence for free will.

Our ability to plan is so natural and human that we take it for granted. We're inured to it. The future and planning is a larger consideration in our lives than most people realize. Planning, as a prescient form of imagination, is caused by the brain's interaction with the world (causality). Free will is the effect -- the product -- of our prescient imaginations.

It's a paradox. We have no choice but to be self-directed. We are causally self-determined. Free will is a part of human nature.

Our individual destinies are NOT written in the stars (may the force be with you) -- our destinies are ours to make. We (as well as ALL life forms) might eventually face extinction as the universe grows cold and fades away. Our collective destinies might be extinction but our individual destinies are ours to make. Most of us will die obscure deaths but a select few -- as long as humanity survives -- will be remembered by history because they exercised their free will to fundamentally change our world.

AtheistExile Admin,
AtheistExile@gmail.com
"You my say I'm a dreamer . . ."

Free Will is Real and Doesn't Contradict Causality

2010-02-07T19:55:46Z

Determinism Versus Free Will: The Difference is Options

In the determinism versus free will debate, determinists believe causality and choice are mutually exclusive – while compatibilists believe they are intimately intertwined. I will attempt to present a rational argument for my particular brand of compatibilism. Mine is a unique (I can’t find my central tenet repeated by anybody else on the Internet) and forceful argument that explains how free will is compatible with determinism without contradicting it in any way.

Divergent Assertions:

Determinism asserts that causality is responsible for all events of the past, present and future. At the beginning of time, the Prime Mover kick-started this universal cascade of cause and effect. To most theists, the Prime Mover is God. To most atheists, the Prime Mover is the (inflationary model) Big Bang.

Compatibilism asserts that free will is compatible with determinism and that choice is its sole essential requirement. The central tenet of my particular brand of compatibilism emphasizes the observable and scientifically verifiable fact that animate beings respond to cause and effect differently than does inanimate matter. The ramifications of this fact holds the key to free will. Many determinists vehemently deny this fact because they sense it threatens their dogma. It doesn’t. Free will is compatible with determinism without undermining determinism itself. I’ll elaborate on this point, below (under, “Compatibilism – Logical Conclusions”).

Determinism – Logical Conclusions:

Determinism is all about causality: cause and effect. Causality governs the physical laws that rule the universe. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Not only does effect always follow cause – the effect is always 100% predictable in every detail. In other words, for every action, there is only one possible reaction. Outside the quantum realm, causality is inerrant.

Determinism allows no uncaused effects. This means that if you could gather and understand all factors extant in a closed system (such as the universe) at a specific point in time, it would be possible to extrapolate, with absolute certainity, the state of that closed system at any other point in time (past, present or future). Not only is the state of the closed system predictable, but every factor within the system is also predictable – extending even to our acts and thoughts. Let’s take a look at what happens when we take determinism to its logical conclusion.

A Surrogate Religion

Since the dawn of civilization, mankind’s greatest, most monumental, achievements all required the planning and coordination of man-hours, brain-power, material resources, engineering and construction, etc. World Wars I and II are other examples of colossal efforts, logistics and events that (arguably) eclipse our greatest achievements. Take any of these, or all of them, and put them in a deterministic context.

In a deterministic context, the events of these achievements and wars were scripted at the beginning of time. Every last imaginable detail – even the thoughts of those involved – has always been predetermined.

Wait a minute . . . doesn’t the Old Testament and Quran make the same claims? Hmmm, just a coincidence, I guess. Not! Hell, with a 13.75 billion year-old script so detailed, specific and inerrant, you might as well say God wrote it.

With absolute determinism, we don’t have the slightest chance of exerting any influence on our own lives. We are at the mercy of destiny. Not as appealing as creating your own destiny . . . but better than no destiny at all.

May the force be with you.

Compatibilism – Logical Conclusions:

Free will and compatibilism have gotten a bum rap because of dogmatic materialism: a physical doctrine that denies the clear distinctions between inanimate matter and animate beings. For some reason, most determinists don’t (or won’t) acknowledge the differences between a living being and a lifeless rock.

Inanimate Matter Has No Options

I must confess: I was reciting determinist dogma whan I stated, earlier, that “Not only does effect always follow cause – the effect is always 100% predictable in every detail. In other words, for every action, there is only one possible reaction.” That statement is actually false. The truth is: it is only inanimate matter that has only one possible reaction to an action. Inanimate matter has NO options.

Animate beings, on the other hand, react to causality with an entirely different mode of response. For every action encountered by an animate being, there is NOT just one possible reaction: there are variable numbers of reactions. In other words, with animate beings, causality leads to options – NOT a single, immutable, reaction. Unlike inanimate matter, animate beings have options.

I’m not certain that cause and effect, as a scientific prinicple, was ever formally extended to, or meant to include, living creatures. Regardless, the animate mode of response violates no laws of nature: it was introduced by, and is part of, the phenomenon called “life” – and I think we can all agree that life is quite natural. If the prevailing view of causality includes animate beings, without recognizing the animate mode of response to cause and effect, then it’s the prevailing understanding of causality – not causality itself – that is false. If so, our understanding of causality needs to be expanded to acknowledge the animate mode of response to causality.

It’s not as if causality, as an absolute, has to apply to everything. We already know that causality does NOT apply, at all, to the quantum realm; so it’s positively NOT true that absolute causality applies to everything. Living beings, therefore, set no precedents by responding differently to causality. Causality produces variable potentials (causal options) when it encounters an intelligence with mastery over causality.

Animate Mode of Response: Causal Options

The advent of life introduced motility to the universe. Motility is simply the ability to move without the influence of an external force. Even single-celled organisms can move to avoid harsh or noxious conditions. The significant difference is that the movement is NOT 100% predictable. Unlike inanimate matter, there is more than just one direction the organism can take. Nor will identical organisms move identically under identical conditions. This is an undeniable departure from the precisely predictable reactions of inanimate matter.

Motility is just one obvious factor distinguishing animate beings from inanimate matter. Consciousness and intelligence are also factors. Their complex contributions introduce more variables, giving us more options to consider. Options are what it’s all about . . . because options mean choices and choices means free will. Options and choice are as natural to intelligent beings as their lack is to inanimate objects. Animate beings need not react like inanimate objects in order to qualify as natural: that would be downright unnatural. Think about it!

A natural function of intelligence is to choose from the options that causality continually presents us. Our intelligence allows us to extrapolate causality into the future so that we can predict which option should be best to choose . . . and, therefore, guide our own "causal paths". This mastery over causality, combined with choice, gives us free will -- even if our choices lead us to unexpected consequences.

The advent of animate beings augmented causality with options. This is not unnatural or supernatural . . . it’s just a different mode of response to causality: an evolution of causality, if you will. Intelligence includes the ability to learn from, adapt to, and harness causality for our own purposes. The mental process for this ability is not yet understood but appears to include a feedback mechanism. Humans understand causality and use it in self-directed ways. When causality meets intelligence, determinism becomes self-determinism. That’s what free will is.

AtheistExile Admin,
AtheistExile@gmail.com
"You my say I'm a dreamer . . ."

From forum: Free Will and Consciousness

Online Discussions and Logical Fallacies

2010-01-10T15:07:46Z

Don't worry. This post will not list and define the many types of logical fallacies that exist. I’m not expert enough for that and I’m too lazy to Google the research necessary. What I hope to do is describe some observations about logical fallacies garnered from blogs and forums from around the Internet.

Logical fallacies have a legitimate function in formal debate. If you can persuade your audience and win your point with an invalid argument, then good for you. You’re a clever dude (or dudette). After all, you’re arguing from an assigned premise; not, necessarily, from conscience.

Ostensibly, online discussions aren’t structured for formal debate. They are more like a soap box (podium or platform) in a public square: people have an open invitation to speak their minds. In such forums, we try to respect the diversity of opinions expressed and assume they’re expressed honestly. Although they might be unintentional, logical fallacies (when we recognize them) are frowned upon because they disrupt and mislead public discourse: they obfuscate understanding.

It might be annoying but, in a public setting, a certain amount of logical fallacy is to be expected; especially from (but not limited to) religious folks. Most of us have used logical fallacies without even realizing or intending it. Most of us have also tried to salvage a losing proposition by bolstering it with a desperate twist or spin that would (with any luck) derail reason.

We don’t need to know what logical fallacies are in order to use them. It’s not as if we contemplate which fallacy would be the best to one to use. But when we do employ a logical fallacy, it suggests a weakness in our argument that we hope to disguise – even if we’re not cognizant of the ploy. This urge is essentially dishonest, though often understandable at a human level.

There’s a difference between an impression and an opinion. The difference is information. How much thought have you given to the topic? How much do you know about it? An impression is insufficiently informed: an opinion is, at minimum, reasonably informed. One should not invest too much ego in an impression (or an opinion for that matter). I think people sometimes present their impressions as opinions and resort to logical fallacies when their pretext is threatened – something that’s more likely to happen with an impression than with an opinion.

Perhaps as common is the attempt to present an opinion as a fact. This tendency is rampant with controversial subjects like religion, politics, abortion, and free will versus determinism. Emotion is an all-too-human motivator for logical fallacies.

Semantics, otherwise known as “word games”, is another common source of logical fallacies. It can be very subtle and difficult to detect. By padding the definition of a word (or words) with your own meaning(s), you can produce an invalid argument that seems logically sound. This tactic is easily defeated by citing Dictionary.com but one must first notice the word game to begin with. The term, “word game”, might be a bit too critical: people often do this by mistake or without realizing it.

Another common logical fallacy is the Strawman Fallacy. I’m on a personal campaign to change the name to the much more descriptive “Sock Puppet Fallacy”. I’m sure you’ve all been victims of the Sock Puppet Fallacy. The way it works is that somebody takes what you say, then puts a spin on it that changes your meaning. They then attack what they claim you meant instead of what you actually said. In effect, they’re arguing with themselves instead of you. Hence the new name, Sock Puppet Fallacy. If you compare a good discussion to good sex, then getting sucked in by the Sock Puppet Fallacy would be analogous to a circle jerk.

The Sock Puppet Fallacy may be the most onerous fallacy of all because it’s hard to explain how it’s perpetrated innocently; except through confusion on the part of the respondent. The most obvious reason to use this tactic is because the original argument is sound and, therefor, the only way to defeat it is to restate the argument to your own advantage. This takes forethought or a desperate desire to deny error. I don't have much patience for this dishonest form of fallacy.

And finally, there's the good old favorite of religious folks everywhere . . . begging the question. We're all familiar with this circular form of reasoning. Christians and Muslims can elevate this recursive "logic" to an infinite regression if you give them half a chance. When backed into a corner, most Christians will invoke the "divinely inspired" Bible as evidence of God. This must be the most common example of begging the question in ANY sphere of thought. One must presume that God exists in the first place to lend his divinity to the Bible. "God exists because he must exist: how can this be God's word if God doesn't exist?"

These are just the logical fallacies I’ve noticed the most. Your mileage may vary. So how do we know when a logical fallacy is intentional or not? Usually, we don’t. But, if we know the author’s style, we can surmise a lot by when and how he/she uses logical fallacies. If the author’s use of logical fallacies is rampant, we can safely assume it’s intended . . . that it’s a consciously dishonest tactic. If we see he/she only resorts to fallacies when his/her argument is threatened, we can assume it’s intentional. If the use of logical fallacies are rare or indiscriminate, we should assume it’s not intentional.

By the way, a common indication of an impending logical fallacy is often revealed when somebody keeps demanding that you make sense, or explain yourself, when nobody else has a problem understanding or responding to your points. Either he/she is especially insightful and sees a problem that others don’t . . . or . . . he/she is waiting for something meatier to bite into. In this situation, it’s best to clarify (if you’ve been less than clear) -- but choose your words carefully; there’s a good chance you’re being set up.

Differences of opinions are a fact of life. They happen all the time, to everybody. We should recognize that, particularly with controversial topics, others will not always agree with us. This doesn’t mean they’re wrong and you’re right. It means we don’t have a conclusive answer. By the same token, nobody has the best argument every time. When we acknowledge a better argument, we learn and grow . . . and we demonstrate that understanding is the motivation behind rational integrity.

Freethinkers have a vested interest in rational integrity and, from what I’ve seen, are often sticklers for sound logic. However, we’re not immune to logical fallacies: we see them all the time on atheist forums. For the most part, the most blatant examples seem to come from younger freethinkers – but there’s plenty of examples from all age groups. Sound logic and honesty are not requirements of freethought; though they should be.

AtheistExile Admin,
AtheistExile@gmail.com
"You my say I'm a dreamer . . ."

Re: Atheism is Insanity

2009-12-28T21:56:29Z

N O T E :

This thread has been cropped. Entries above this one are originals. The remaining original entries have been removed due to a waste of pixels that sullied the conversation without advancing it.

I understand that this eventually happens in most, if not all, forums. It was my decision that the original thread degenerated too much and was harmful to the forum. I did, however, save the excised entries to a Word document.

AtheistExile Admin,
AtheistExile@gmail.com
"You my say I'm a dreamer . . ."

Re: Pat Condell: Aggressive Atheism

2009-12-20T00:30:12Z

Yeah . . . thanks for the heads up. It should now be formatted correctly.

AtheistExile Admin,
AtheistExile@gmail.com
"You my say I'm a dreamer . . ."

From forum: Religion & Spirituality (R&S)

Re: My conversation with an ex-Muslim

2009-12-19T23:01:14Z

@u2b1derful,

I think that Western values have more influence on wavering Muslims than does atheist reasoning. Atheism is secondary compared to freedom, equality, justice and human rights. Once the Muslim's eyes are opened to how life can be without the oppression of Islam, THEN atheism enters the mix.

Better late than never. And better that they see the light of reason than be converted to some other religion.

AtheistExile Admin,
AtheistExile@gmail.com
"You my say I'm a dreamer . . ."

From forum: Religion & Spirituality (R&S)

Re: From Ali Sina: The Problem is Islam, not Muslims

2009-12-19T22:51:31Z

I think ex-Muslims have more credibility than non-Muslims when it comes to what Islam is like. Mona, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali: these voices speak with authority because they have experienced Islam and Islamic societies, first-hand.

AtheistExile Admin,
AtheistExile@gmail.com
"You my say I'm a dreamer . . ."

From forum: Religion & Spirituality (R&S)

Re: From Ali Sina: The Problem is Islam, not Muslims

2009-12-19T22:48:55Z

Hey King,

I'm not an ex-Muslim, but what the heck . . . I'll take that as a compliment(?).

AtheistExile Admin,
AtheistExile@gmail.com
"You my say I'm a dreamer . . ."

From forum: Religion & Spirituality (R&S)

Re: Evolution and the Second Law

2009-12-16T01:14:14Z

So a physicist specializing in complexity theory sees the biosphere as he does everything else -- the second law of thermodynamics in action. He said that "chemistry is a subset of physics, and biology a subset of chemistry", so, to him, even nature is a thermodynamical system: one in which evolutionary processes, like speciation and natural selection are mere emergent properties of the (even larger) complex system we call the biosphere. All of the complexity and diversity of life are manifestations of the self-organization required to maximize entropy in inexorable compliance to the laws of thermodynamics.

Sounds plausible to me

From forum: Cool Science

Re: From Ali Sina: The Problem is Islam, not Muslims

2009-12-06T17:07:13Z

Ali Sina says some of the same things that Mona girl said in your other post. It appears that many muslims read the quran even less than christians read the bible.

From forum: Religion & Spirituality (R&S)

Re: My conversation with an ex-Muslim

2009-12-06T17:03:56Z

Mona seems like a very nice girl. I'm glad she has left Islam. It gives me hope that exposure to our ideas will loosen the grip Islam has on young adherents.

From forum: Religion & Spirituality (R&S)

Re: Obscure scripture reveals 10 new commandments!

2009-12-06T16:59:35Z

What a goofball! ROLF

Its so hokey, its funny.

From forum: Religion & Spirituality (R&S)

Re: Pat Condell: Aggressive Atheism

2009-12-06T16:57:33Z

It looks like you need to reformat the text, Exile.

Mr. Condell is a barracuda for reason. He cuts to the bone. I love it.

From forum: Religion & Spirituality (R&S)

Pat Condell: Aggressive Atheism

2009-12-04T06:10:18Z

Pat just keeps getting better and better. His latest video really hangs religion out to dry. Below the video, I've also included the transcript.

Well, I’ve been hearing quite a lot of bitching and whining in the press lately about aggressive, intolerant, atheism; as if that’s, somehow, a bad thing. It seems religion can dish it out okay but it can’t take it: like a street thug who calls the police when his victims fight back. Aggressive atheism is really defensive atheism, because right now nothing is more aggressive than political religion. Being an atheist or secularist today is no longer a matter of opting out; but of actively fending off. So I’d say any abuse religion gets, it’s got coming ten times over. And, besides, I don’t think it’s possible to be too aggressive in defending freedom of speech, which is, of course, absolutely sacred, as we all know. Much, much, more sacred than any god or prophet or scripture could or will ever be, from now until the end of time – or eternity – whichever lasts longer.

People sometimes tell me, “You know, you’re just as intolerant as the people you criticize.” Really? I hope so . . . because somebody has to be. There are some things I’m very intolerant of and there’s no point in trying to deny that. Let’s see now . . . there’s misogyny and sexism – I’m extremely intolerant of them ( I hope that doesn’t offend) – racism, antisemitism . . . no . . . no tolerance of them, I’m afraid. Sorry about that. Homophobia, perhaps? Not a shred of tolerance to be found. Gosh, I do have some issues, don’t I? How about cruelty to animals? Again, absolutely no tolerance whatsoever.

But brace yourselves, because that’s not the half of it. Not only am I openly and brazenly intolerant of all those things . . . but if religion is used as an excuse for any of them, I’m afraid I become aggressively hostile and, what’s more, I don’t apologize for that because I have no need to apologize for it. And neither do you.

I’m always being told that I should respect people’s feelings. Well, okay. But what about my feelings? What about the feeling of utter revulsion I get whenever I think about the God of the desert and the horrible thoughts and deeds he inspires. This God is my Satan. When I hear his name, I smell sulfur: when I hear his words, I smell death. I can see that his filthy religion as polluted the world I have to live in far more thoroughly than any fossil fuel could ever dream of. And I can see that everything about this God has been purposely designed to poison our experience of life on Earth – not to enhance it. To keep us fearful. To suppress knowledge. To curtail freedom and creativity. And to celebrate death. It’s nothing less than the dumbing down of the human race. And demanding respect for it is, frankly, an insult that deserves to be repaid with considerable interest.

Religion deserves no respect at all because:

A.) It offers no respect at all.

B.) It offers no evidence at all.

Evidence is actually unwelcome, as it removes the need for faith: and that would be such a waste of all that phony virtue. Faith is one of the 3 phony virtues; the others being piety and righteousness. Not so much a trinity, as 3 ugly sisters. Unlike the witches in Macbeth who see the world in a caldron, these 3 have done their best to turn the place into one (praise the Lord) and they’re still going strong. Among the many gifts from these delightful muses we have, well, the Middle East conflict for a start – and that’s the gift that just seems to keep on giving – not to mention the cancer at the heart of it: Jerusalem. That jewel in the desert; that celestial piss-hole in the sand, from which the spiritual black death of the Middle Eastern desert has oozed and spread throughout this world like a vile oil slick; coating and contaminating everything it touches with a thick slime of pious ignorance . . . only we don’t call it ignorance, we call it faith.

What a horrible little word that is: faith. Exuding, as it does, its fake aura of purity and virtue while fronting some of the ugliest ideas this planet has ever seen. Closing people’s hearts when it should be opening them; making them proud of things they should be ashamed of; and ashamed of things they should be proud of.

When we look at the violent barbarism of the Islamic world, we can see that no righteous act is too depraved for a mind that claims the full license allowed by faith. If you take this God completely at his word, you can be just like him: a vicious heartless monster . . . and feel good about it.

Even in the civilized world, nothing is too dishonorable to be sanitized by faith. It was faith, remember, that deprived gay people in California of their basic civil rights on the same day that America elected a black president. It was faith that persuaded Christian black people to send the gays to the back of the bus.

And all this would be ugly enough on its own but, because of the free pass that we consistently give to this fake virtue of faith, religion is now completely out of control. It’s already got its hands around the throat of the United Nations and it’s pushing for a world-wide blasphemy law to protect people from hearing words that might crowbar their tiny minds out of the stone age.

The very concept of blasphemy is a perfect illustration of the cowardly immaturity of the religious mind and the emptiness of religion itself. If religion contained any truth, it could be ridiculed, insulted, even defiled, without being diminished in any way. Its truth would shine through: undimmed, unblemished, shaming those who abused it into silence. But that’s not how things are. Religion is prickly. It’s intolerant. It’s ultra-defensive precisely because it’s brittle and fragile. It’s about as substantial as a meringue. It’s all froth and no substance. It’s had thousands of years to make its case and all it’s produced is sophistry, violence and a raft of morals that would shame a rattlesnake. And no amount of windbaggery and flim-flam from clergy can any longer disguise the simple bald fact that there is nothing there.

The only true thing about religion is that it’s false. Its claim to higher knowledge is laughable. It doesn’t even have any lower knowledge. Not one of its ludicrous claims about reality would have a hope in hell of standing up in a court of law . . . and it’s time we stop treating them as if they do. That’s all we’re saying and that’s all we’re asking.

And anyone who thinks that’s too aggressive knows what they can do with themselves. And if they don’t, I’ll be more than happy to tell them. Peace: crazy idea; crazy times.

AtheistExile Admin,
AtheistExile@gmail.com
"You my say I'm a dreamer . . ."

From forum: Religion & Spirituality (R&S)

Re: The Brain, the Whole Brain and Nothing but the Brain

2009-12-02T20:28:43Z

Once the brain has formed circuits in response to stimuli and concepts, I think it can take those thoughts and expand on them indefinitely. But your premise does not allow for this. The brain never has any contact with anything outside itself. You are really asking if an isolated brain can spontaneously spawn a mind.

I don't think so. An independent mind is bombarded with stimuli yet takes years to develop. The brain in your scenario could never develop a mind.

So your point is well taken. The mind is more than the brain.

From forum: Free Will and Consciousness

Re: Morality is Relative Because of its Many Sources

2009-12-02T19:49:59Z

According to my professor, empathy and cooperation are definitely evolved traits. Your observation that moral intuition is the only firsthand source of morality and therefor stronger in some ways is very insightful. There is a lot here to consider. Thanks for the excellent post.

From forum: Free Will and Consciousness

Re: An Objective Basis for Morality?

2009-12-02T19:42:01Z

You think a lot don't you Exile?

A survival based moral system sounds pretty doable. Wouldn't the sins like lying, stealing, cheating and stuff become less absolute? I can see survival dictating any of them in extreme cases.

Would a healthy able bodied beggar be immoral?

From forum: Free Will and Consciousness

Re: Meet the Lowly Slime Mold

2009-12-02T19:32:36Z

Welcome Pap

My face hair still grows too thin for a beard. But if beer gets in your mustache, I bet food does too. Doesn't sound too hygenic! My uncle calls his mustache a womb broom. Once again, not very hygenic!

Just joshing. Actually I can't wait til I can grow a decent mustache and beard. Just to see what I look like.

From forum: Cool Science

Re: Meet the Lowly Slime Mold

2009-12-02T07:13:20Z

No, I don't have more hair, unless you count my ears. It was a failed attempt at humor.

Back in the eighties I used to have a handlebar mustache. The only thing I didn't like about it was when ever you took a drink of something, you always got some in the mustache. I sucked alot of beer foam out of that thing.

From forum: Cool Science