RLBaty's Argument for/against Atheism

[joobz]

IN another thread,RLBaty has presented the following argument:

Quote:

THE INFERENCE FROM ATHEISM ARGUMENT

Major Premise:

> IF man was able to originate the idea/concept of
> God through the power of imagination, as opposed
> to reason and/or revelation, THEN man did originate
> the idea/concept of God through the power of
> imagination.

Minor Premise:

> Man was able to originate the idea/concept of God
> through the power of imagination, as opposed to
> reason and/or revelation.

Conclusion:

> Man did originate the idea/concept of God through
> the power of imagination.

To which he elaborated further:

Originally Posted by RLBaty

Just to be crystal clear,

(1)

My argument is valid.

(2)

Atheists believe it has true premises.

(3)

I don't believe it has true premises.

(4)

Someone reported:

- "The argument (Daniel Dennett's) is much more
- subtle than this, of course, and riddled with
- competing and unproven theories, but Dennett's
- point is NOT that science knows how religion
- evolved naturally, but that it has several
- ideas, and that all them are more plausible
- than the existence of a supernatural entity."

Should there be any serious dispute about the validity of my argument or that atheists believe its premises to be true, I will consider devoting more ministry time to help you with your problems regarding such fundamental, UNcontroversial matters.

I wish to have this thread as an opportunity for RLBaty to defend his statement 3.
RLBaty,
Why do you believe the premises to be false?

ETA:Note that the title's ambiguity reflects the ambiguity of RLBaty's approach to the discussion and I did not wish to mischaracterize it.

[Brainache]

Originally Posted by joobz

...
I wish to have this thread as an opportunity for RLBaty to defend his statement 3.
RLBaty,
Why do you not believe the premises to be false?

...

Ummm... I guess the question is why RL Baty doesn't believe the premises to be true...

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Brainache

Ummm... I guess the question is why RL Baty doesn't believe the premises to be true...

Dang you Double negative!!!!!

thanks!

[RLBaty]

I had wishes too, but none here would act in good faith in order that they might be realized.

So, pardon me if I think the conversation should take a different, reasonable course, step by step.

So, let's try this again and see if any progress can be made regarding my argument and the claims I make for it.

I will, with the setting up of this thread, try to resist the temptation to further patronize the anonymous snipers who may be intent on carrying on in that other thread.

I will, in this thread, try to resist the temptation to respond to any poster except "joobz".

Here's how I propose the chat here should proceed:

Is my argument so constructed that if its
premises are true its conclusion will follow
as true therefrom?

- RLBaty - Yes
- Joobz - ???

Do atheists believe the premises of my
argument to be true?

- RLBaty - Yes
- Joobz - ???

Is the major premise of my argument true?

- RLBaty - No
- Joobz - ???

Is the minor premise of my argument true?

- RLBaty - No
- Joobz - ???

Why do atheists believe the premises to
be true?

- To be discussed

Why doesn't RLBaty believe the premises to
be true?

- To be discussed

[ynot]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

Why doesn't RLBaty believe the premises to
be true?

- To be discussed

Needs to be explained by yourself before it can be discussed. Bet that won’t happen any time soon.

[yy2bggggs]

RLBaty:

I laud moving the discussion away from GIBHOR's thread... over 60% of that thread was devoted to reaction to you, and I think poor GIBHOR simply abandoned it.

People are free to, and may, post to this thread as well. I suggest after getting agreement from joobz to proceed, should that be granted, you take another strategy. If you click on a person's name right above their avatar picture, a menu pops down. One of the entries in this menu is to add a person to your ignore list. It'd be easier to ignore people if you don't see them.

[Akhenaten]

[joobz]

I will answer your questions as a means of facilitating discussion.

Is my argument so constructed that if its
premises are true its conclusion will follow
as true therefrom?

- RLBaty - Yes
- Joobz - Yes

Do atheists believe the premises of my
argument to be true?

- RLBaty - Yes
- Joobz - For the most part, yes.

Is the major premise of my argument true?

- RLBaty - No
- Joobz - For the most part, yes.

Is the minor premise of my argument true?

- RLBaty - No
- Joobz - For the most part, Yes.

Why do atheists believe the premises to
be true?

I answered in the affirmative with this question as I believe it will help facilitate discussion. Note that I am using imagination in the loosest possible sense of the term, that god is a product solely of the mind.

Our mental capacity is consistent with humans from at least 100,000 years ago. As such observations of modern human capacity is likely to have existed in humans 100,000 years ago.

Briefly, The human cognitive modelling system exists to improve social interactions. This system allows for us to construct mental models of others to predict behaviors and know how our behavior will/can adjust their behavior. The heart of this model is the ability to assign agency (intent of action) to another human. This system has the unfortunate side effect of assigning agency to things that are not developed by a mind (e.g., weather patterns) and a supernatural mind begins to emerge as an explanation for these things.

In other words, the evolving concept of god that has emerged in humans is effectively a form of Pareidolia.

There is additional bits of evidence that are supportive to this point
1. such as the recorded evidence of a "God spot" in the brain, which when stimulated can recreate sensations of supernatural splendor.
2. the fact that people use the same self-model to decide their moral actions and the moral actions god would want them to do (instead of another moral action site).

We will leave it there for now.

[Dave Rogers]

OK, I'll bite.

Is my argument so constructed that if its
premises are true its conclusion will follow
as true therefrom?

- Dave Rogers - Yes.

Do atheists believe the premises of my
argument to be true?

- Dave Rogers - No.

Is the major premise of my argument true?

- Dave Rogers - No

Is the minor premise of my argument true?

- Dave Rogers - Yes.

Why do atheists believe the premises to
be true?

- I don't. It is not necessarily the case that, if Man was able to etc. etc., that Man necessarily did etc. etc. This is based on a form of the fallacy of affirming the consequent; it reverses the trivial conclusion that, if Man did originate the idea/concept of God through the power of imagination, then it is possible for Man to have originated the idea/concept of God through the power of imagination.

I would argue that it is possible for Man to have originated the idea/concept of God through the power of imagination, that centuries of determined study have not produced compelling evidence for the existence of God, and that therefore the provisional, working conclusion to be reached, pending further evidence, is that God does not exist. This is a deduction from informal logic, not formal logic; I would further argue that formal logic is of no use in resolving this question.

Dave

[Dancing David]

Considering that confirmation bias, pattern recognition and associative learning are all part of the biology of brains, it seems to me that they do not fit into the categories of reason, imagination or revelation. Each of those processes are involved in the perception of qualities that may or may not be valid.

So the argument is limited and false in its simplistic categorizations. As an atheist I willing to discuss that there are alternatives to the three categories and that imagination is most likely not the reason at all for the idea of gods and beliefs in gods.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

I had wishes too, but none here would act in good faith in order that they might be realized.

So, pardon me if I think the conversation should take a different, reasonable course, step by step.

So, let's try this again and see if any progress can be made regarding my argument and the claims I make for it.

I will, with the setting up of this thread, try to resist the temptation to further patronize the anonymous snipers who may be intent on carrying on in that other thread.

I will, in this thread, try to resist the temptation to respond to any poster except "joobz".

Here's how I propose the chat here should proceed:

Is my argument so constructed that if its
premises are true its conclusion will follow
as true therefrom?

- RLBaty - Yes
- Joobz - ???

Do atheists believe the premises of my
argument to be true?

- RLBaty - Yes
- Joobz - ???

Is the major premise of my argument true?

- RLBaty - No
- Joobz - ???

Is the minor premise of my argument true?

- RLBaty - No
- Joobz - ???

Why do atheists believe the premises to
be true?

- To be discussed

Why doesn't RLBaty believe the premises to
be true?

- To be discussed

This atheist doesn't give a toss about your argument.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by tsig

Why is the idea of god special?

Originally Posted by RLBaty

What a hypocritical hoot that is!

Wasn't it that poster who was found recently trying to quote someone else to try and explain what he thought "valid" was all about!

No problem though.

I appreciate the demonstration and what it says about what I have been dealing with here for the last couple of weeks or so.

Y'all are welcome to your own opinions about that.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

I had wishes too, but none here would act in good faith in order that they might be realized.

So, pardon me if I think the conversation should take a different, reasonable course, step by step.

So, let's try this again and see if any progress can be made regarding my argument and the claims I make for it.

I will, with the setting up of this thread, try to resist the temptation to further patronize the anonymous snipers who may be intent on carrying on in that other thread.

I will, in this thread, try to resist the temptation to respond to any poster except "joobz".

Here's how I propose the chat here should proceed:

Is my argument so constructed that if its
premises are true its conclusion will follow
as true therefrom?

- RLBaty - Yes
- Joobz - ???

Do atheists believe the premises of my
argument to be true?

- RLBaty - Yes
- Joobz - ???

Is the major premise of my argument true?

- RLBaty - No
- Joobz - ???

Is the minor premise of my argument true?

- RLBaty - No
- Joobz - ???

Why do atheists believe the premises to
be true?

- To be discussed

Why doesn't RLBaty believe the premises to
be true?

- To be discussed

Still wondering why the god idea is special.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Considering that confirmation bias, pattern recognition and associative learning are all part of the biology of brains, it seems to me that they do not fit into the categories of reason, imagination or revelation. Each of those processes are involved in the perception of qualities that may or may not be valid.

So the argument is limited and false in its simplistic categorizations. As an atheist I willing to discuss that there are alternatives to the three categories and that imagination is most likely not the reason at all for the idea of gods and beliefs in gods.

In principle, I agree with you. But for purposes here, I think it acceptable to lump all forms of mental creationg of god into the imagination category. The way I am taking his point (and I hope this is what he means, as it would be a rather silly argument otherwise? Is god was either:
Deduced through sound mental reasoning.(reason)
Put into man's mind by an external, potential divine source.(revalation)
Or was a creation of mans mind through any inventive mechanism.(imagination)

These categories aren't perfect, and overlap exists, with neuances being glossed over. But they are acceptable for the current discussion.
If his point or retorts attempt to expoilt the loss in detail that occurs from this course graining, we will address it then.

[eerok]

Quote:

Major Premise:

> IF man was able to originate the idea/concept of
> God through the power of imagination, as opposed
> to reason and/or revelation, THEN man did originate
> the idea/concept of God through the power of
> imagination.

This tripe has nothing to do with with atheism. When choosing between a natural or divine origin for god concepts, an atheist would not choose the divine option. Duh. This doesn't require the burden of a defense, explanation, or any sort of theory as to how humans came up with a god concept or any other brain fart. Who knows, exactly, and who cares?

The claim that a particular idea is impossible for humans to muddle toward over a vast amount of time, however, does require an explanation, especially when that idea is some unspecified god concept. So what the heck? Why is the wish-fulfilling fantasy of god blather so hard to come up with?

[Beerina]

In other words, the burden of evidence is on the claimant. Someone claims God exists. Prove it.



As for this particular post, well, I would point out that religions transform into other religions and this is well-documented. Yahweh used to be part of a pantheon, of the hated Caananites (?), from whom these proto-Jews split, some of them "Yahwhists" who wanted a monotheistic god, and so they pared away the other members of the pantheon, including Ishtar, Yahweh's girlfriend.


I used to joke that modern religious apologists would explain that by suggesting Satan had pre-planted that stuff knowing what would happen in centuries to come, so as to just make it seem like Judaism evolved from earlier stuff. Then I read writings by some 4th century guy who said exactly that, since the stuff existed and must be explained.

[HansMustermann]

I think the problem is the major premise, which is impossible to support. Replace "God" with "elephants" and you can see what I mean. Just because it would be possible for humans to imagine something, doesn't necessarily mean that that thing originated with humans.

Ultimately that major premise seems dangerously akin to solipsism to me. I mean, equally I could definitely imagine a blue car outside even if I hadn't seen that particular combination before, but that doesn't necessarily make it a figment of my imagination.

The dominant argument for atheism doesn't really go through that premise. That's more like just an explanation for why such a concept would appear in the absence of a god, but at that point you're already done with rejecting a god on other grounds.

[RLBaty]

Joobz,

Before attempting to move along with our chat, I will give you the opportunity to counsel the numerous interlopers who appear to have showed up.

See my message #4 above.

As my experience here has demonstrated, those people don't much listen to me.

So, before I proceed in my chat with you, I will give you time to counsel those who are having trouble getting the message about your intentions regarding the setting up of this thread, according to your wishes and contrary to mine, and my intentions in accommodating your interests and compromising my own.

Any who wish to obtain my personal response and chat directly with me, can find me via the website found in the "contact" section of my information page here.

Anonymous applicants need not apply.

[devnull]

Blah blah blah

Anyway, back to the topic at hand:

Joobz, would you classify the human propensity for anthropomorphism as "imagination"? Would you classify pareidolia as "imagination"? Mental illness?

Im not entirely comfortable with that, although I agree the distinction is unimportant at this point.... Until RLBaty's argument hinges on "imagination", and suddenly you want to change the definition

[RLBaty]

As previously discussed with joobz, I will be attempting to mirror the relevant parts of this discussion on my discussion list.

Joobz would not agree to cooperate in that wish of mine for the discussion he has proposed. So, among other things, it will slow the pace of the exchange down a bit.

If any here is concerned about me leaving out what you think is an important part of this discussion of these important public issues, you are welcome to come around my place (see earlier message for how to find it) and add your comments.

[devnull]

Oh good lord.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

As previously discussed with joobz, I will be attempting to mirror the relevant parts of this discussion on my discussion list.

Joobz would not agree to cooperate in that wish of mine for the discussion he has proposed. So, among other things, it will slow the pace of the exchange down a bit.

If any here is concerned about me leaving out what you think is an important part of this discussion of these important public issues, you are welcome to come around my place (see earlier message for how to find it) and add your comments.

I am busy all day but have received word from darat that a moderated debate will be possible. I will work out particulars in pm.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

Joobz,

Before attempting to move along with our chat, I will give you the opportunity to counsel the numerous interlopers who appear to have showed up.

If I were you, I'd go straight to the 'moving along with your chat' part.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

See my message #4 above.

Something about ignoring everyone but joobz, as I recall.

You failed.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

As my experience here has demonstrated, those people don't much listen to me.

That truly is a mystery. What could possibly account for this?

Any clues?

Originally Posted by RLBaty

So, before I proceed in my chat with you, I will give you time to counsel those who are having trouble getting the message about your intentions regarding the setting up of this thread, according to your wishes and contrary to mine, and my intentions in accommodating your interests and compromising my own.

You're funny.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

Any who wish to obtain my personal response and chat directly with me, can find me via the website found in the "contact" section of my information page here.

Anonymous applicants need not apply.

Is that a virtual stampede I hear?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by devnull

Oh good lord.

Is that your major or minor premise?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

Joobz,

Before attempting to move along with our chat, I will give you the opportunity to counsel the numerous interlopers who appear to have showed up.

See my message #4 above.

As my experience here has demonstrated, those people don't much listen to me.

So, before I proceed in my chat with you, I will give you time to counsel those who are having trouble getting the message about your intentions regarding the setting up of this thread, according to your wishes and contrary to mine, and my intentions in accommodating your interests and compromising my own.

Any who wish to obtain my personal response and chat directly with me, can find me via the website found in the "contact" section of my information page here.

Anonymous applicants need not apply.

You are stalling, you do not have to read those posts or respond to them, seriously Joobz should not counsel anyone and that is a weak excuse for you to avoid tehd iscussion.

I suppose next time you post this kind of tripe it can be reported as off topic. You can just look for Joobz avatar and ignore the rest.

[HansMustermann]

Also, I'm sorry, Baty, but if you want to have a 1-on-1 chat, there are already private messages for that. Snide remarks about other forum members not treating it as some private conversation are kinda cute as a substitute for actually supporting a broken argument, but ultimately irrelevant. If something is supposed to be a private conversation, then it should be a private conversation, not a public thread.

Not to mention that if one argument is supposed to be valid and sound for joobz, then it ought to be valid and sound for everyone else. There is no such thing as The Gospel... err... Logic According To St Joobz, and The Logic According To St Baty, and The Logic According To St Dave Rogers, and so on

Also not to mention that if something is supposed to be representative of some premises that atheists agree to, then I would think it should be relevant what a random sample of atheists actually think about those premises. You can't base such a generalization on a sample of 1, be it Joobz or anyone else.

[RLBaty]

Originally Posted by joobz

I am busy all day but have received word
from darat that a moderated debate will
be possible.

I will work out particulars in pm.

I was content to proceed here, but I'll put my further participation on hold until I hear further from you regarding another option.

I already knew that a moderated chat was possible; the details being the only stumbling block to producing such a thing.

Beware of your course, however, joobz!

That you claim you are going to work out the details suggests that you think you can, unilaterally, design the construct of the event. You are welcome to give that a try, but I suspect you are going to have trouble designing and producing such a thing without negotiating important details with me and without me being able to negotiate important details with any who may presume to participate and/or moderate such an event.

For example, for purposes of such an event, one of my requirements is that there be no anonymous participants, including moderators. Confirming identities and basic employment, education, etc. background details would be a reasonable and normal process for setting up the context of the discussion.

Assorted other details would also have to be, Randi-like, negotiated.

You know me, though. I'll go with the flow and see where it is you are wanting to take this thing.

I'll try to rest up for whatever might come down the pike.

There's a big holiday weekend coming up around here. So, it may be that not much is going to change over the course of the next few days.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

Joobz,

Before attempting to move along with our chat, I will give you the opportunity to counsel the numerous interlopers who appear to have showed up.

See my message #4 above.

As my experience here has demonstrated, those people don't much listen to me.

So, before I proceed in my chat with you, I will give you time to counsel those who are having trouble getting the message about your intentions regarding the setting up of this thread, according to your wishes and contrary to mine, and my intentions in accommodating your interests and compromising my own.

Any who wish to obtain my personal response and chat directly with me, can find me via the website found in the "contact" section of my information page here.

Anonymous applicants need not apply.

as I move forward with getting a moderated debate with you, why not reply to my good faith response to your argument.

As you can see, jref is not monolithic and people here have a variety of very valuable ideas. I do not speak on their behalf and am not so presumptuous to think I could.

To devull. I agree it is a shakey issue to lump those effects into imagination.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

I was content to proceed here, but I'll put my further participation on hold until I hear further from you regarding another option.

I already knew that a moderated chat was possible; the details being the only stumbling block to producing such a thing.

Beware of your course, however, joobz!

That you claim you are going to work out the details suggests that you think you can, unilaterally, design the construct of the event. You are welcome to give that a try, but I suspect you are going to have trouble designing and producing such a thing without negotiating important details with me and without me being able to negotiate important details with any who may presume to participate and/or moderate such an event.

For example, for purposes of such an event, one of my requirements is that there be no anonymous participants, including moderators. Confirming identities and basic employment, education, etc. background details would be a reasonable and normal process for setting up the context of the discussion.

Assorted other details would also have to be, Randi-like, negotiated.

You know me, though. I'll go with the flow and see where it is you are wanting to take this thing.

I'll try to rest up for whatever might come down the pike.

There's a big holiday weekend coming up around here. So, it may be that not much is going to change over the course of the next few days.

If anonimity is a deal breaker, we are done.

[devnull]

So, there's his out.

Move along people, nothing to see here.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

For example, for purposes of such an event, one of my requirements is that there be no anonymous participants, including moderators. Confirming identities and basic employment, education, etc. background details would be a reasonable and normal process for setting up the context of the discussion.

No, it isn't. It's coming across as a little bit creepy that you keep wanting to know personal details.

Your arguments will address other arguments, not the arguer. Any questions?

Quote:

Assorted other details would also have to be, Randi-like, negotiated.

You'll find the details in the MA, everyone signing on here, including you, has already agreed to them. You're welcome!

Quote:

You know me, though. I'll go with the flow and see where it is you are wanting to take this thing.

I'll try to rest up for whatever might come down the pike.

There's a big holiday weekend coming up around here. So, it may be that not much is going to change over the course of the next few days.

Take some time, get some advice from your religious handlers. Good idea.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

Confirming identities and basic employment, education, etc. background details would be a reasonable and normal process for setting up the context of the discussion.

Why? I have a doctorate from Oxford University and am employed as a research scientist; is an argument coming from me more or less valid than the exact same argument coming from an unemployed high school dropout?

Dave

[RLBaty]

Originally Posted by joobz

If anonimity is a deal breaker,
we are done.

That impasse is so noted.

If you prefer, we can continue here and see how it goes.

The interlopers are welcome to do as they wish. Such activity, given the context of the discussion, adds important information for evaluating the exercise, as does the demand from you and/or moderators that you maintain your anonymity.

Keep me advised.

I've got some mirroring to do, and other things, and so it will be awhile before I get back to responding to your response to my first message; if that is the course you wish to take.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

That impasse is so noted.

If you prefer, we can continue here and see how it goes.

The interlopers are welcome to do as they wish. Such activity, given the context of the discussion, adds important information for evaluating the exercise, as does the demand from you and/or moderators that you maintain your anonymity.

Keep me advised.

I've got some mirroring to do, and other things, and so it will be awhile before I get back to responding to your response to my first message; if that is the course you wish to take.

Let's continue here. Please respond to my current argument, post 8.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

I was content to proceed here, but I'll put my further participation on hold until I hear further from you regarding another option.

"RLBaty", for someone who was content, you seemed to be doing a lot of grumbling.

Quote:

For example, for purposes of such an event, one of my requirements is that there be no anonymous participants, including moderators.

Why, "RLBaty"?

Quote:

Confirming identities and basic employment, education, etc. background details would be a reasonable and normal process for setting up the context of the discussion.

What possible reason do you have for needing those details?

Quote:

Assorted other details would also have to be, Randi-like, negotiated.

"Randi-like"? What does that mean?

[HansMustermann]

Heh, yeah, this is starting to look more and more surrealistic. Having to negotiate participation and reveal personal details just to... what?... see RLBaty actually support an argument he's made on a public board? That's got to be one of the most Poe-worthy stall attempts I've seen in a while.

I must remember it for when I say something silly

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

<stuff>

The interlopers are welcome to do as they wish.

<other stuff>

That's very big of you.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Why? I have a doctorate from Oxford University and am employed as a research scientist; is an argument coming from me more or less valid than the exact same argument coming from an unemployed high school dropout?

Dave

I invented RLBaty's god, so I reckon I should get a look in too.

[I Am The Scum]

How long til he's asking for the long form birth certificate?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Heh, yeah, this is starting to look more and more surrealistic. Having to negotiate participation and reveal personal details just to... what?... see RLBaty actually support an argument he's made on a public board? That's got to be one of the most Poe-worthy stall attempts I've seen in a while.

I must remember it for when I say something silly

It does seem passing strange that he's setting conditions to make an argument when he's been claiming that he already won the argument.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

How long til he's asking for the long form birth certificate?

Actually, I'll need to see a permission slip signed by all your great grandparents before you can participate in this thread.