January 11, 2011

Arbitrary Atheists

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Are Atheists Arbitrary in their Reasoning?


  1. "Are atheists arbitrary in their reasoning?"

    Why are theists so eager to parody themselves...

  2. I think it's a "if we say it first, were right/you can't say it" mentallity.

  3. I have always suspected that 1 + 1 = 2 is arbitrary reasoning. I mean, how do you know 1 + 1 doesn't equal 6? You can't, it's impossible! Thanks Dan!

  4. Might wanna read the high rating comments on that video, Dan. They're pretty good.

    #FiverBeyond wrote:

    "This video only reaffirms that Atheism is, in fact, the philosophically superior position. In reasonable argument, a widely-accepted goal is to minimize assumptions. Per this video's logic, the atheist always starts with one less assumption than the Christian.

    Atheist assumes: Logic.

    Christian assumes: Logic, and then God.

    Note that 'Logic' cannot logically be derived from 'God' (since one requires logic in order to derive anything).

    If you dispute the assertion that one requires logic in order to derive anything, then kindly derive logic from the existance of God without using logic.

    If you can't, then you're just making two assumptions rather than one.

    Seriously, can we please give the presuppositionalism a rest? It's stupid, it's dishonest, it's an entirely illogical argument from semantics and it makes want to kill puppies.

    And because I don't have any absolute moral framework like you guys so totally do, and am a sinful human without any natural inhibitions or sense of the consequences, if I want to kill puppies I just go out and do it! See?! I just killed three of them! DAN, YOU MONSTER, LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!!!

  5. Dan, before I point out a few of the many flaws in you comment, let me say that I too agree that ‘Pretzel Logic’ is a Kick Asre album, thus why I used the phrase in my comment.

    Ok, starting with:

    Dan, in your last reply in the BBQ post you said, ,” One of us is right, I think you are frightened as to who.”

    Dan, you can’t be serious. Why would I be frightened of anything you spout on you blog. In the end, you only illustrate how you have no idea of what you are talking about and often refute yourself in posts that follow. The most perplexing thing is, as ANTZILLA pointed out so well, is that though you are shown the lack of logic and understanding in your post over the years, you’ll come back in the same post or later posts regurgitating the same baloney. Its almost like you believe that if you just say it often enough and using different ways to illustrate them, all the flaws in you claims will magically vanish.

    ” Stop being a slippery eel here. Man up, stand on your conviction. Your claim is that the laws are NOT absolute”.

    I stand by my claim and have shown evidence to support it. I think you’re having trouble grasping it though. For you it seems to be an all or nothing, black and white game. My point is that is much fuzzier, with many shade of gray, than you are aware of. How things operate under certain conditions and certain realms (atomic – sub atomic for example) can be very different, contradicting and counterintuitive. That does not mean that things do operate consistently within each realm, but instead does show that laws/rules are not absolute and universal as you claim. With that being said, I still would not claim to have absolute certainty anyway, just a well supported framework to operate within. I see no reason to fear my ‘world view’ will fall apart for any reason.

  6. ” Actually they do. All of those do not violate the laws. Double slit, as an example, shows when the factor of observation (variable) is added then the state of the particle changes.”

    Sorry Dan but you’re only showing you lack of knowledge on the subject. Its not observation that changes it, it’s the adding of a slit. Even if it were, it still does not eliminate the wave/particle duality, or being able to be in more than one place at the same time.

    ”, how do you account for wrong within your worldview?”

    Through supporting evidence that something is incorrect based on the summon of my level of education and the current sum of knowledge & evidence available to me.

    ”. If particles change state, by mere observation, that is evidence of a Creator.

    So when things in the natural world are absolute and universal its evidence of god, but when they are not an things can be tow things at the same time its EVIDENCE of god. Oh I get it.

    ” Is the principle of Cause and Effect accepted as a universal truth? “

    No it isn’t Dan, radioactivity and virtual particle are two things currently considered to have no cause.

    ”Complete hogwash. Once again, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God… blah blah blah…

    Dan, You made the claim, you need to support it. Circular reasoning is not support.

    ” That coming from someone that believes that contradictions are allowed since nothing is absolute, and there is no such thing as natural laws.”

    Again putting words in my mouth Dan. I never claimed that nothing is or can be absolute, nor do I BELIEVE things as you do Dan, I follow the current evidence and sum of current knowledge. My claim is that evidence shows that not all things are absolute. For example, on the quantum level things appear to operate under different rules as illustrated by current scientific evidence.

    Ugh, I had to leave out some of my responses since these posts are getting far too long. The sad thing is that many other people and I have had this same discussion with you before. Keep in mind Dan, my point isn’t to prove there is no god or cannot be a god, I’m just trying to point out the flaws in what you consider support for your claim of a god.

    ~Atomic Chimp

  7. I posted my response here
    Dan, as you're self confessed minor league player you might not want to read it.

  8. Reason (analytical) and logic (modal) are skill sets.

    Don't worry, many people make the mistake of confusing the ability to reason with basic cognition.

    At any rate, the person who made this video might want to bone up on the latest neuroscience and neuropsychology since most of his concerns are addressed (if not completely answered) in the field of cognitive science.

  9. I sincerely hope, for your sake, that this is satire. You've employed a series of logical fallacies in order to cast doubt on logic and reason? Are you high?

    I "use" logic because my senses, experience and reasoning are the only tools I have to make sense of the world that surrounds me. Why do you use logic and experience for every other decision in your life except for faith? That's what I would consider arbitrary.

  10. Perhaps I should simplify my previous statement: you cannot use reason to invalidate reason. This argument is a non-starter.


Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>