Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!
“Our belief is not a belief” (Hitchens,pg 5), cries the atheist! What exactly is the atheist asserting with this? In using Christopher Hitchens’ own words here, if it is not a belief then there can be no claim at all. The speaker is not making a claim that can be true or false. In essence the statement is fallacious according to the first law of logic; the law of identity. A belief cannot be a belief and not a belief at the same time.
As Hitchens attempts to illustrate, many atheists believe that atheism is to be defined as a lack of belief in a God or gods. Please note again that a lack of belief can neither be true or false and because of that fact, a positive claim regarding the existence or non-existence cannot be made by any atheist who defines atheism in this manner.
Let me illustrate. Let’s say that someone tells you that they don’t believe in atheists. Your response would be to say “Thats absurd! There are plenty of self professing atheists in the world. Look at people like the late Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. What is your evidence for this belief?” All the a-atheist (a non believer in atheists) needs to say is “You are confused, my belief is a non-belief so I don’t have to give evidence.” You see because a non-belief cannot have a claim associated with it, the atheist can remain in his ivory tower of ignorance.
I say this because humans have the unique ability among creation that they can form beliefs. These beliefs are based on knowledge and experience, either first hand or vicariously. Something that has non-beliefs are non-sentient animals and children because of the fact of it’s ignorance. Animals cannot form beliefs because of the inability to think abstractly. Children lack knowledge so ignorance becomes the foundation for their lack of belief. So any atheist that utilizes this definition of atheism, is outwardly confessing an ignorance of information.
When atheists argue, they are standing for a position that makes a claim and not a non-claim. Simply put if you lack a belief then you cannot make a claim. With this understanding I am surprised why so many atheists argue with theists when they cannot give any counter claim to the theist since they have no belief, under this definition.
Now if a person does truly lack a belief in God then that atheist, cannot argue against any proof for the existence of God. Because a lack of belief cannot make a positive claim that God does or does not exist. Therefore a lack of belief is by general definition is agnosticism, whereas you say that you cannot affirm or deny the existence of God because you cannot make a claim for such or are ignorant.
So the definition of Atheism that states that Atheism is a lack of belief is fallacious, unless the atheists does or says nothing. Some atheists state “An atheist is one that does not believe the claims that a god exists.” This definition affirms a conclusion and presupposes that a particular person, has studied all evidences and without logical fallacy, refuted all of them.
Atheist Journalist Greta Christina attempts to define atheism in this way: “For me, and for the overwhelming majority of atheists I know, our atheism is a provisional conclusion, based on careful reasoning and on the best available evidence we have. Our atheism is the conclusion that the God hypothesis is unsupported by any good evidence, and that unless we see better evidence, we’re going to assume that God does not exist. If we see better evidence, we’ll change our minds.”
Before I dig into the meat of this statement, allow me to point out a few philosophical problems(and I understand very well that she is only trying to provide material for her article and not trying to make a logical argument). First “and for the overwhelming majority of atheists” is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. A majority does no make a principle true or false it is irrelevant. She makes a far conclusion that because there is no “good” evidence, she will “assume” God does not exist.
Greta is not using the argument that she lacks a belief. She is only making a general affirmation that she studied the evidences, did not like them, and so concluded that God does not exist. Well this thinking is also fallacious because even if there where no evidence for the existence of God, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So here again her conclusion is not based on solid evidence for the non-existence of God but a conclusion she comes to without any evidence at all.
This definition of atheism also fails the test of intelligibility. Notice her use of certain words in the definition like “good”, “better” and “careful reasoning”. Under what standard does she maintain that a proof or evidence is “good” or not? Who is the arbiter of this determination and can she assure anyone that her reasoning was consistent and non-arbitrary? No she cannot; nor have the many proofs and evidences for the existence of God been refuted by anyone logically. They may be dismissed but not refuted, and that is the apriori fallacy.
Now a claim is a positive assertion that would require evidence. If one would say that this is only a belief then it qualifies as a religion.
Why don’t atheists see that they cannot believe anything to be true without God? Without God, they have already presupposed the inability of rational thought? In their Worldview, they cannot believe that human consciousness is anything more than a random chance chemical reaction. This presupposition means that they can never use reason to try to disprove God.
There are other so called definitions of atheism floating out there in cyberspace. It has evolved through the years as it’s foundations have been challenged by many christian apologists. In my opinion, this is only a sign of the intellectual dishonesty of the atheists who merely practices the fallacy of definitional retreat so that they may desperately cling to their failed worldview because to admit their sins before an Almighty God would bruise their ego.
Hitchens, Christopher God Is Not Great, London: Atlantic Books, 2007, pg5
So atheists post on my youtube channel:
“the mind is not a thing that exist. the mind is just referring to chemical reactions occurring in the brain. People have brains the allow them to form what is referred to as concept. People’s concept might match reality, or might not match reality. You have not provided a method that confirms to any degree of certainty, much less to a high degree of certainty that a god, or god’s exist. We have a method that confirms to a high degree of certainty, that for example that for example, if I drop a object, let’s just say 5 feet above the floor in my house, that it will fall and hit my floor. I was going to address every point in your video, what you saying is just so poorly worded, and just not accurate, I did not. maybe I will watch it again and try to address every point.”
Why don’t atheists see that they cannot believe anything to be true without God because they presuppose the inability of rational thought? In their Worldview, they cannot believe that human consciousness is anything more than a chemical reaction. This presupposition means that they can never use reason to try to disprove God.
As C.S. Lewis rightly pointed out: “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”
An atheist believes that his brain is the product of random chance and chemical reactions. It would be irrational to trust such a device for cogent answers because it’s answers would only be the product of those random chance chemical reactions. If this makes no sense to you, you might be an atheist!
It comes down to what you value:
- What you wear is determined by what you value:
If you wear revealing clothes, you value “Look at my body” more than you value “I have a modest and humble spirit”
- What you do to you body is determined by what you value:
If you cut your self or peirce every area of you body, you value attention more than you value self-denial.
- What you eat is determined by what you value:
If you eat unhealthy too often then you you value your depression more than to you value your personal responsibility.
And because we do not value this:
WE VALUE DEBAUCHERY
Definition:debauchery- the excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures.
For those who do not know this. I have published some of my studies on Amazon. There are 2 book so far. My amazon author page is Here.
From there you can watch the book trailers or you can see my studies on line as I post them.
I recently had a very pleasant online debate with an old High School friend who is less conservative them myself. The chain of context goes like this:
“Hmm…wondering, would you rather have a person with a vagina but who lives life and very much looks like a man sharing a public restroom with your daughter?”
Because I did not understand exactly what she was trying to tell me, I replied “Not sure if I understand your question Christine. Are you suggesting a lesbian?”
My friend then gave me some clarity on what she was referring to:
“No – a transgender male is a person born with female parts but who identifies as male – and who likely lives life as a male and looks like a male. In other words, you’ll likely never they have female parts. The NC law (which your meme is referencing) “
With that information, I was able to begin my logical analysis,:
“Well I would disagree with your definition of transgender in the context of identity. The first law of logic is the law of identity. A transgender in the context you gave me, would be a person who is in denial of reality because they failed to genetically identify themselves. Failing to accept the reality to which their chromosomes have allotted them. Short answer is yes, they should use the lavatory they are genetically identified with and not psychologically confused with. With respect (in other words don’t hate me for this, I know you are a well informed intellectual) would you not think that the phrase “who lives life as a male in every other way” is a hasty generalization? I mean can a genetic female really have the same biological reactions as a male and vice versa being that the biological organs, chromosomes, hormones,…etc are different and by extension “live as a male”?
Please let me point out the obvious problem with the transgender community. The are Psychologically confused and they suffer from what Atheist John Searle called “anti-realism.” They, being so conditioned by entertainment and social constructs, are not able to rationally identify their genetic form; overwhelmed by a perverse emotion to satisfy a need that is founded in fantasy so reality could never fulfill.
My good friend that (and rightly so) analyzed my rebuttal, and said:
“as your statement shows, gender identity formation is incredibly complex. As a society, we are just beginning to dissect what this means and as with most forms of progress, it will take a while to get it right. But thank goodness we are working on it! I’ve worked directly with many transgendered young adults and can assure you it is not a choice nor rooted in simple confusion. Oh, if only life were that black and white… My initial point was simply that the very “law” in NC that proposes to protect the “rights” of the majority non-transgendered public restroom goers, actually will prove to have the opposite effect as it mandates highly uncomfortable, awkward short-term social situations between strangers that can not possibly be accurately dissected visa vi a brief public restroom interaction. Time will tell how this plays out. Just as gender identity formation is too complex to restrict/define via a simple “use the restroom that matches your biological parts at birth” law, it is likewise to complex to discern here on social media. I just wanted to present an opposing view to your meme – to bring to awareness the complexities of this topic that most persons have absolutely no idea about – and sadly little to no desire to try to understand. I do appreciate your willingness to engage in a surface discussion of the topic – you always make me think (something else our society doesn’t do well) and I hope I do the same.”
With good solid logic on my side, I was able to show her that her thinking was flawed. She commits the fallacy of Appealing to Consequences and I point that out to her:
“With that, allow me to think through your response.
You said “actually will prove to have the opposite effect as it mandates highly uncomfortable, awkward short-term social situations between strangers.” I fail to understand your meaning here and I apologize for that. First, it appears to be a logical fallacy known as an Appeal to consequences. This is an informal fallacy where someone ascertains an unproven consequence (whether true or false after testing) in order to convince through emotion instead of reason. Second, does not the law simply uphold the current common practice? If so, I do not recall any reports of awkward feelings from people except for arrest reports of cross dressing men in women’s bathroom, such as this reported out of Southern California: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Secret-Recording-Store-Mall-Antelope-Valley-Palmdale-Restroom-207541101.html
There does appear to be a language barrier between us. “Progress” is moving toward a goal or destination. I fail to see even how pragmatic thinking could conclude this as a beneficial goal. My pragmatic questions would be:
1. What is the goal of this progress and what would be the social cost and philosophical consequences?
2. If this is the will of the majority of people in North Carolina, then isn’t a protest undemocratic?
3. Is this not a minority inflicting rule on the majority?
4. If the minority can have this power, why vote at all? (the death of democracy?)
Now I will leave pragmatism aside and look at this through objective moral principles. In this area of reasoning, I question the principles and values behind the transgender movement:
1. What is the standard that a person uses to define themselves as transgender? Feelings or Reason?
2. If feelings, is this not an arbitrary standard?
3. If reason, what is the logical flow of that reason and what justified true belief am I missing? In a collective society such as ours (republic), the individual is only allowed influence and not rule. Same applies to minority opinions.
4. If a person cannot define their sexuality by an objective moral standard, how can they define the N.C. law as moral or immoral?
I would argue that this is a feelings based reason, one that has no consistent absolute justification. Recently I read an article on the BBC news (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36010664) about a transgender clinic in the U.K.: “But we do need to consider whether there are some ways in which being male and having a male body is particularly attractive in 2016, the beginning of the 21st Century, whether there are any ways in which the social landscape shapes and influences how people feel about their role in life, their body and how they’re going to live in that body for the rest of their lives.” The key words being “feel about their role” sums up the rationality behind the movement. Also note that the article seems to allude that the feelings toward a certain gender preference changes with the times, which is another indicator of inconsistent emotional base justifications.
Sexuality is not so much an expression of feelings (yet a driving force) but a bodily expression of what someone believes to be ultimately true. The beliefs of the transgender community do not seem (to me) to comport to reality but instead is a form of anti-realism. Gender confusion is thus one powerful expression of psychological and spiritual confusion and a rebellion against reality (reality being that which comports to facts).
You are right to say that it is a complex issue and that we do need to discuss this further collectively. I think an even deeper look is necessary by all. Best estimates, based on surveys by the Center for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf), shows that only a total of two percent of Americans identifies as gay. So what really is behind this push? It seems to be an attack on morality, objective (christian) or subjective (otherwise), in favor of confusing emotions such as lust, rebellion and social pressures.
It is inconceivable to me that as a nation, we would abandon rational thought in favor of arbitrary emotions. My MEME stands as an expression of the value I have for my daughter and the society in which I live, to uphold moral laws based on reason, morality, natural law and also democratic rule.”
One other fallacy that I also observed in her writings was the Equivocation fallacy. Words have meaning and we should avoid stretching that meaning beyond it’s intent. Progress is not a virtue as my friend seemed to allude to. The value of progress is found in the goal and the goal of transgender bathrooms has no value that I could see, nor any value my friend could defend.
There are three common theories of the Atonement. We will briefly review 2 of them and then look at the scriptures and the writings of the early church fathers for a better understanding.
- The Satisfaction Model
The Satisfaction Model (Objective or Latin or Vicarious Atonement): This is the view that most Christians are very familiar with when it comes to the Doctrine of Atonement. According to this view, Jesus Christ provides propitiation for God’s judgment to reconcile sinners with God. The Objective atonement occurs in this model as to change God’s attitude toward sinners, as once we were God’s enemies. Vicarious atonement is the view within Satisfaction Model that Jesus is the substitutionary sacrifice who died in our place.
This theory was first penned by Anslem, Archbishop of Canterbury in the 11th century. Essentially this theory of atonement was not the original understanding of the work of Christ from the early Church but instead was an extension of the medieval culture that Anselm lived in.