Atheism article at American Wiki

General discussions
nozzferrahhtoo
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:17 am

Post by nozzferrahhtoo » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:50 pm

markg,

I fail to see any connection between your diatribe on the legal profession and my point. Can you clarify as I see no reason to reply to it as it is way off topic.

Also the fact that no one argues for the existance of Thor and Santa was my actual point so why would I want to find you someone who does? No wonder you think my post is "lacking in substance and persuasiveness". You clearly didn't read it.

Either that or my first idea of "Troll" was actually correct.
markg
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:52 am

Post by markg » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:53 pm

nozzferrahhtoo,

You wrote:
I fail to see any connection between your diatribe on the legal profession and my point. Can you clarify as I see no reason to reply to it as it is way off topic.
Can you please do the following:

Show that my posts were irrelevant diatribes. I am of course talking about my two posts to you earlier.
nozzferrahhtoo
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:17 am

Post by nozzferrahhtoo » Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:43 pm

MichaelNugent wrote:
Conservapedia wrote:Learned times, peace, and prosperity: Francis Bacon argued that atheism was partly caused by "Learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion."
Michael,

I particularly like this one. They say it like this is a bad thing. A possible cause for atheism is times of peace and prosperity where people are more "learned". No wonder the pious often do not want people to become too educated.

Maybe C-pedia do get some small things accurate some of the time?

Pain, poverty, lack of education... these are what makes Theism strong? I am glad they admit that. Non belief therefore grows in times when people are learned? I wonder why!

Maybe it is because belief in gods are a substitute for a lack of answers. People turn to god when there are just too many unanswered questions. The more educated one becomes, the less questions they have. They never get all the questions, but each person may have an internal threshold at which point they realize a lot of their questions DO have good answers and the ones that they have not got answers for yet most likely DO have some. Substituting gods is just no longer needed.

The new york times has recently posted a story saying the recession in the US is bringing in extra business for the Evangelists.

The December 13 Article titled "Bad Times Draw Bigger Crowds to Churches" even quotes one Rev. Don MacKintosh, a televangelist, as saying:
We need to leverage this moment, because every Christian revival in this country's history has come off a period of rampant greed and fear.
It must be pointed out that the list of possible reasons for it failed to point out that there simply is no reason to think it is true, nor does anyone seem keen to provide any.
adamd164
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Cork
Contact:

Post by adamd164 » Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:04 pm

I know little about the actual history of Christian legal apologetics, but why on earth would you assume that it matters to any of us whether a reductio ad absurdum can be fallaciously extrapolated from the hearsay method of court evidence to an exception of the laws of biology and physics in the case of Christ's supposed resurrection? You're forgetting that the very same legal system with which you're dealing assumes the laws of the universe to be constant - it would be rendered futile if god's sporadic mingling with everyday events were a remotely tenable proposition.

And by the way, secular members of the legal community may well have written critiques of this; I really have no idea. Law isn't my subject (despite markg's insistence that we all have a fondness for it!). If someone can share, please do.
markg
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:52 am

Post by markg » Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:23 pm

nozzferrahhtoo,

I will point out to the following regarding your last post:

The American wiki article on atheism states the following:
Learned times, peace, and prosperity: Francis Bacon argued that atheism was partly caused by "Learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion."[116] Jewish columnist Dennis Prager has stated that a causal factor of atheism is the "secular indoctrination of a generation."[117] Prager stated that "From elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world – the secular – is presented. The typical individual in the Western world receives as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the Middle Ages." [118] Atheists and secularists rarely point out that universities such as Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge and many others were founded by Christians.[119][120]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism
I will have more to say in my next post regarding the last post of nozzferrahhtoo and adamd164. I do have some matters to attend to but in the meantime I suggest adamd164 look at this essay:

A Jurisprudential Analysis of Hume's 'In Principle' Argument Against Miracles by Paul K. Hoffman
http://www.ses.edu/Portals/0/journal/ar ... offman.pdf
adamd164
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Cork
Contact:

Post by adamd164 » Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:55 pm

I await your reply eagerly. :) Cheers.
robdonn
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:43 am
Location: Dublin

Post by robdonn » Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:10 pm

markg wrote:nozzferrahhtoo,

I will point out to the following regarding your last post:

The American wiki article on atheism states the following:
Learned times, peace, and prosperity: Francis Bacon argued that atheism was partly caused by "Learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion."[116] Jewish columnist Dennis Prager has stated that a causal factor of atheism is the "secular indoctrination of a generation."[117] Prager stated that "From elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world – the secular – is presented. The typical individual in the Western world receives as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the Middle Ages." [118] Atheists and secularists rarely point out that universities such as Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge and many others were founded by Christians.[119][120]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism
Hitler built the Autobahn, does that make it a Nazi road? Margaret Sanger was a disgusting racist, does that mean that Planned Parenthood is out to cull black babies?

We can discuss history and we can rant and rave about how Atheism has never driven a nation to war. Sure, some of the worst figures in history were Atheists, but they didn't perform their acts because they were Atheists. We can talk about all of the horrible actions performed throughout history by Christians and in the name of Christianity, but you probably wouldn't want to talk about that.

Or we can talk about the present, where we have Atheists still doing nothing horrible in the name of Atheism while Christians are still lying through their teeth and f*cking people over to achieve their own means and to restore Christianity to its previous glory. And we're seen as the immoral ones...
Ygern
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 3003
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:02 pm
Location: Cork
Contact:

Post by Ygern » Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:52 am

MarkG

I see you haven’t replied to my offer. So I’ll keep myself from going distraught at your apparent rejection by picking holes in everything you write.

Since you appear to have in your possession The Little Book of Skeptic Terminology I know you will appreciate this.

To start off, you really need to clarify one thing.
You wrote:The American wiki article on atheism
I want you to clarify why you choose to characterise a dishonest and inaccurate fundamentalist fringe-group’s website as an ‘American wiki.’? Are you trying to falsely give it an air of respectability or credibility by making it appear that it is representative of some majority? You know this is not the truth. Not even in the United States do the majority espouse these right-wing extremist views.

Not only is the ‘Appeal to Common Belief’ a logical fallacy, the ‘Appeal to manufactured Common Belief’ is both illogical and dishonest.

Why are you resorting to it? As a skeptical thinker, surely you are above this?


You wrote: Now since the resurrection of Christ is a very central issue in terms of the evidence of Christianity I will ask you a simple question:
What notable person from the atheist legal community was willing to stretch out his neck and tackle Christian legal apologetics?

Fallacy #1: there is no logical sequence or connection between proving the historicity of the Christian notion of resurrection and Christian Legal Apologetics. They are not necessarily unrelated issues, but the one in no way substantiates the other. You’ll be interested to learn that that the concept of resurrection could be completely invalidated and it would still say nothing about whether Apologetics had anything cogent to say of Christianity, Jesus or the Hnau. And vice versa.

But you then go on to say:
The atheism article in that American Wiki cites Christian legal apologetics as one of the disciplines related to showing the existence of God
Fallacy #1 : you appeal to something you call ‘American Wiki’ as an authority (doesn’t exist, dear friend. Stop pretending, you’re not fooling anyone but you are making people wonder about your scrupulousness.)

Fallacy #2: Christian Legal apologetics - again you seem to assume for no reason at all (other than the utterly discredited Conservapedia say-so) that this is an existant authority worth paying any attention to.

Fallacy # 3: In any case, the issue of the resurrection of one Jeshua ben Joseph is not a matter that can be decided legally. It needs to be decided empirically - i.e. on actual testable facts; it’s not a matter for balance of probability; especially when the issue concerned is one of the most unlikely, implausible and solipsistic claims.

As a side-note; your favoured den of apologists cites one (1) mid-nineteenth century academic (Greenleaf) only in its page on the subject. The quote (as a skeptic, I know
you’ll find this enlightening) is not a proof, merely a hypothesis. It is not supported by any evidence whatsoever (not that Conservapedia has ever shown any inclination to get into the evidence business).

Neither Greenleaf nor the list of presumed accomplices (on the same page) are ever described as having cited one item of data or evidence to support let alone prove this hypothesis. Given Conservapedia’s lamentable but unabashed reputation for making stuff up, I wouldn’t be too surprised to learn that many of the men on their list are being slandered by their inclusion. I might be persuaded to investigate the matter further if any of this putative ‘Christian Legal Apologist’ evidence is made available. Sadly, Conservapedia is silent on the matter of evidence, proof or falsifiability of its purported hypothesis.

As a budding skeptic, I know you will want to familiarise yourself with the real meaning of these words. As such I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with the contents of these sites:

How to create a scientific theory or hypothesis

Or even

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

(I promise, Wikipedia won’t make you bleed from the eyeballs or anything. Well, ok, it won't make you bleed much.)

If you prefer to read about logical arguments in my own words you could go here:
Bad arguments and how to spot them


Summary of this point: making an allegation that you are going to prove the resurrection of the aforementioned Jeshua is indeed a provocative if bold claim. Put up even the slightest shred of evidence. Any evidence. Testimony. Hearsay. Rumour. Fantasy. Really. I’ll be happy to take on anything.
You wrote:Now given that quite distinguished members of the Christian legal community have engaged in Christianity and/or praised it …what notable atheist member of the legal community has taken on Christian legal apologetics and addressed the many exceptions to the hearsay rule that these Christian legal apologists say exist as far as arguing that the resurrection of Christian did occur? I am betting that you can not cite one notable or even non notable atheist member of the legal community who did this!
Never mind notable or non-notable atheist members of the legal community. I’ll do this all by my non-legal-nor-notable atheist self. Just as soon as you summarise in one short sentence what valid reason there is for Christian apologists to insist that the laws of evidence must be waived to accommodate their fond imaginings.

Hoping to hear from you soon.
Or I am sure I will be utterly crushed by your indifference

Fondest regards,
River Tam

PS In case you were wondering about Hnau, referenced above, they're an invention by that renowned Christian apologist C.S. Lewis in his sci-fi novel Out of the silent planet. And to answer your next question, yes. I have read all his fiction. And his Christian Apologetics volumes. I've even read his academic stuff like The allegory of love.

PPS I really can't wait to hear about the special exceptions to evidentiary law.
lostexpectation
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:28 pm

Post by lostexpectation » Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:41 am

its not 'american wiki' its conservapedia
test
nozzferrahhtoo
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:17 am

Post by nozzferrahhtoo » Thu Dec 18, 2008 9:06 am

Alas I think this might be a case of do not feed the troll. As pointed out above he has been spewing out Non sequitur to obfuscate the points used against him. Im still baffled by the link between the legal profession and anything at all I replied to him.

A shame really as this site does need a few more antagonists, but the best we have at the moment is MichealG. (No slight on MG, I enjoy his presence, we just need MORE of them thats all).

Some of his replies have been obviously intended to rile up a reaction and the claim that the onus is on us to show why his non sequitur are irrelevant is classic troll. No sir, if you say something the onus is on you to explain the sequence, links and relevance. Otherwise we can all say anything we like and expect people to waste time showing it is irrelevant (yea, your wrong because little green apples! Now please do the following: show why little green apples are irrelevant).

Also in the last few days a teenager by the name of MarkG joined the atheist nation forums saying "I know God loves us because that's what I learned". I do not know if the two users are connected but If that’s the level of proof on offer then we have not much to expect.
Post Reply