Psychology looks at atheism and theism. Also, atheism is tenuous/non-existent/rare ..

Ah, I see. You are making a rhetorical point.Alright, then, what exactly is the point that you are trying to make?

Here is an example why I cannot take professed atheist assertions (like they are really an atheist) at face value:This is from post #61 at: http://EvC Forum: abiogenesis hypothesis and the despair of professed materialist -->EvC Forum: abiogenesis hypothesis and the despair of professed materialist regarding chiroptera:You [insert: Chiroptera] wrote:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So far, in this thread I have made no assertians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I cite the following in this thread by you, chiroptera:Assertion #1:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pushing God out of the picture? I wasn't aware that he was ever even in the picture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Assertion #2:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Christian apologist masquarading as a scientist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Assertion #3quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You presented the opinion of someone who is predisposed against the science of abiogenesis and who is not a worker in the field.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Assertion #5:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I think it was you who set the standard that the source has to be shown to be an unimpeachable source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bailiff remove chiroptera from the string! LOL

Let us review kendemyer's initial post.He starts off:

quote:

---

I would suggest that most and perhaps all professed atheists are doubleminded and that atheistic thoughts are hard to consistently maintain in the human mind - especially a human mind that is in quest of truth.

---

Now how did he try to support this assertian? Not very well.Two quotes by two specific atheists, Sartre: and Crick: The first, being typically Sartre, I can't really say definitely what he is saying. The second quote, by Crick, as anyone can read, is open to several interpretations. Sadly, the library here is closed for the entire Labor Day week-end, so I will be unable to look up the context.At any rate, all kendemyer has are two examples of two individuals who might possibly be admitting to occassional doubts as to their beliefs. Is this sufficient reason to say that atheism does not exist as a belief?Further, at least five people on this very board came forward and claimed to be atheists. Kendemyer dismissed our claims in favor of his two ambiguous quotes, and thereby committed what if believe is called the genetic fallacy.He also states:

quote:

---

I realize that a true materialist would have no incentive to become a martyr....I would also say it appears that the Christians have afforded more tolerance to the atheist when they have been in power if one looks at history....

---

Not only are these unsubstantiated, but the reader will notice that they are decidedly irrelevant to the topic.He then mentions several former "skeptics" who converted to Christianity; of course, several Christians (I know of several, including myself) have abandoned the Christian faith to become atheists. Thus we potentially have an example of special pleading.Then we have:

quote:

---

One can see through the work of Paul Vitz that many of leading proponents of atheism have are not exactly paragons of mental health.

---

It would seem that Vitz selected a sample of prominent atheists in history to analyse. Not only is this a non-representative sample (people who have the personalities to become famous, and had to endure an inordinate amount of time in the public spotlight), but I question whether any profound psychological conclusions can truly be reached by someone who has not interviewed the subjects directly. Once again, I point out that this is a non-scientific study that is disseminated by apologetics ministries. I state this, by the way, knowing full well that I will be accused of committing the genetic fallacy. It is always a bad idea to teach buzzwords to morons.Again, this is irrelevant to the question of whether there are truly any atheists, since someone (I forgot who, exactly) proposed a reasonable explanation why atheists could be more prone to mental problems that doesn't rely on the unsupported premises that a god exists and that humans have some innate awareness of that god.Finally (and this is the best part of all!) kendemyer tries to support his claim concerning atheists and mental health by linking to an editorial on the Mayo Clinic web site that merely says physicians should be respectful of their patients' spiritual beliefs, says nothing to do with atheism or mental health.The rest of this thread simply concerned people trying to show where kendemyer's "evidence" and reasoning is faulty, and kendemyer insisting that it was up to everyone else to prove that he is wrong.

You misrepresented me. You could not support this statement you,chiroptera, made in this thread:

quote:

---

No, you are making a blanket statement that atheism does not exist, that no one who claims to be an atheist really is an atheist.

---

You misrepresentated what you did in the other string in terms of making assertions.I think you need to address this matter.

Addendum:I think you misrepresented the Mayo Clinic somewhat also but did not show the same degree of misrepresentation:Here is what Mayo actually said:

quote:

---

In an article also published in this issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Mayo Clinic researchers reviewed published studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews and subject reviews that examined the association between religious involvement and spirituality and physical health, mental health, health-related quality of life and other health outcomes.

​

The authors report a majority of the nearly 350 studies of physical health and 850 studies of mental health that have used religious and spiritual variables have found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes....

​

"Although the relationship between religious involvement and spirituality and health outcomes seems valid, it is difficult to establish causality," said Paul S. Mueller, M.D., a Mayo Clinic internal medicine specialist and primary author of the study. "The benefits of religious and spiritual involvement are likely conveyed through complex psychosocial, behavioral and biological processes that are incompletely understood."

​

taken from: Page Not Found - Site Help - Mayo Clinic

---

You seem to have scored a minor point here, I will grant that. But if you allow me, I will emphasise what I view as important: I gather from what is said here is that a non-atheist who none-the-less is not very deeply involved with her religion would fare less well than an atheist who is deeply committed to her spiritual well-being and active in her community. But it is hard to say without knowing more about the study in question; in fact, as this is a meta-study, there isn't even a single study to look at. This seems very similar to studies that show that people active in their communities and who have a large circle of close friends do better medically than those who are more isolated.As the article says, the actual link between spirituality and mental/physical well-being is unknown. This could be a consequence of a natural drive toward spirituality that was selected for in humanity's evolutionary history.

to: chiropteraPost #212 perhaps shows why I cannot take professed atheists testimony at face value. Specifically, perhaps post #212 is a prima facie piece of evidence showing why I cannot take professed atheist word regarding their professed atheism or professed unwavering atheism (You assertion that you made no assertion in the other thread).Here is a definition of prima facie evidence:

quote:

---

PRIMA-FACIE, EVIDENCE, CASE - Latin for "at first view."

​

Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.

​

Legal Definition of Prima-Facie: What You Need to Know

---

Now first I realize that your assertion about not making assertions even though you made quite a few could be due to incompetence. I think that is certainly a possibility so I certainly am not saying it was intentional. I am certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt rather than make an accusation that I cannot support and accuse a guiltless party.I also realize that your Mayo Clinic comment can also be due to incompetence.Also, I realize you are merely one professed atheist in this thread and I cannot infer with 100% certainty that all professed atheist are necesarily incompetently misrepresent or misrepresent due to other reasons.I will say, however, that your credibility at this point is rather low and if someone is going to overcome this piece of evidence that is perhaps a prima facie piece of evidence perhaps it is better if it is not you.

Hello, kendemyer.I was afraid that you were going to be gone for the week-end. Nice to see that you are still with us.Before you logged off last night, you made an attempt to support your original post, a positive development. I am now hopeful an interesting conversation may come out of this.

to: chiropteraI admire your persistence and tenacity. At the same time, I think you must face the reality that your posts in this thread are rather quixotic at this point.

quote:

---

Post #212 perhaps shows why I cannot take professed atheists testimony at face value.

---

The "assertians" you uncovered were either minor rhetorical flourishes or statement of facts that you have not yet disputed. (I think you would add an LOL here.) It reflects badly on you if you are going to use a relatively minor point to discount "atheists" (or even my) testimony.-

quote:

---

Now first I realize that your assertion about not making assertions even though you made quite a few could be due to incompetence.

---

Or it could be I forgot minor statement of no importance to the original topic. This kind of cherry picking is a sign of desparation.-

quote:

---

I also realize that your Mayo Clinic comment can also be due to incompetence.

---

An ad hominem is when you dismiss an opponents arguments by focusing on his character rather than the substance of his argument.--

quote:

---

Also, I realize you are merely one professed atheist in this thread and I cannot infer with 100% certainty that all professed atheist are necesarily incompetently misrepresent or misrepresent due to other reasons.

---

Yet,

quote:

---

Post #212 perhaps shows why I cannot take professed atheists testimony at face value.

---

you will do so anyway.--

quote:

---

I will say, however, that your credibility at this point is rather low and if someone is going to overcome this piece of evidence that is perhaps a prima facie piece of evidence perhaps it is better if it is not you.

---

If you wish.

TO: chiropteraTell you what, I, kendemyer, did write the following:

quote:

---

At the same time, I think you must face the reality that your posts in this thread are rather quixotic at this point.

---

Now you wrote that I was exercising an ad hominem regarding your testimony by giving the evidence I presented. I will give you a chance for you to tell us exactly why the material in post #212 occurred and the Mayo Clinic incident. I certainly think a person has the right to explain himself and I would not hinder this in any way.

to: chiropteraYou, chiroptera, wrote the following in the thread located at: http://EvC Forum: abiogenesis hypothesis and the despair of professed materialist -->EvC Forum: abiogenesis hypothesis and the despair of professed materialist

quote:

---

An interesting study was done a few years ago. It was shown that very incompetent people don't understand that they are incompetent. They are so incompetent that they don't even have the skills to judge their own incompetence. Sadly, we have an example of that here.

---

I, kendemyer, responded by saying:

quote:

---

I agree with you wholeheartedly. It took me to point out you made some assertions. No thank you is necessary though. LOL

---

So think readers should not impugn your motives but give you a chance to explain yourself. I certainly am willing to consider it was due to incomptence. I would hope other would as well. So again, I would not hinder you in offering an explanation in any way.

quote:

---

The evidence you present that Christians actually exist is that there are/were Christian martyrs. I don't find this very convincing, since martyrdom can be used to immortalize oneself, which is an incentive distinct from having genuine beliefs.
But let's forget that. I guess your point is, "Christians have made many great sacrifices on behalf of their beliefs, therefore they must actually believe in them." Giving up ones life is only one form of sacrifice one can commit on behalf of belief.

​

So, what about devoting the majority of one's life to atheistic philosophy? Isn't that one hell of a sacrifice? Spending years and years of one's life defending one's beliefs, elucidating one's beliefs, and being chastized for one's beliefs?

​

Wouldn't this be evidence of the sincerity of the atheists beliefs, just as the martyr giving up his physical life is evidence of the sincerity of his beliefs?

​

Why would the atheist devote his life to atheism, with all the repercussions that come with it, if he did not believe sincerely? Just as you may rebut any criticism of martyrdom with, "why would he let himself die if he didn't actually believe his views?"

---

Why isn't this evidence that atheists exist, yet martyrdom is evidence of a Christian's sincerity?

I am confused by your last post.First you seem to lightly discount self sacrifice even the most supreme example which is martyrdom:You wrote:

quote:

---

The evidence you present that Christians actually exist is that there are/were Christian martyrs. I don't find this very convincing, since martyrdom can be used to immortalize oneself, which is an incentive distinct from having genuine beliefs........

---

Then you seem to extol what you deem as sacrifice by writing:

quote:

---

So, what about devoting the majority of one's life to atheistic philosophy? Isn't that one hell of a sacrifice?

---

Now first we have to consider that many Christians have been attacked suddenly. For example, rounded up by some religious authorities or civil authorities such a Rome (even though they were model citizens). In short, many martyrs did not choose martrydom it was imposed upon them if they did not recant.We also know from Roman history that some Christians did recant rather than face the gruesome pains of martyrdom.In history that people have made false conversions to another religion rather than face persecution or martyrdom.The martyr though chooses not to recant and face the pains of martydom. I cite the following regarding the pains:

quote:

---

A. Martyr whose hand is filled with incense mingled with live coals,
and who being constrained by the pain to scatter the incense, is
said to have made sacrifice to the idol.

​

B. Martyr clad in the iron tunic and shod with the red-hot shoes,
which consume the flesh off his bones.

​

C. Martyr seated in the iron chair, while a red-hot helmet,
or morion, is set on his head.

​

taken from: http://www.cat.pdx.edu/~chuff/christian-torture/14.html

---

Also, not all martyrs know they are going to be remembered for their martyrdom since there may not be later witnesses.Next, people might deny there is a God out of anger, rebellion, or for a multitude of reasons.Lastly, I do not think you are facing the following:1. The information in my initial post.2. Human history is replete with human corruptness. The Bible says men are corrupt and concurs and furthermore says men are rebelling against a good God. Individuals who are rebellious would sometimes be expected to write against there being no God even when there is a God.3. Atheism/skepticism implies a high standard of proof. Presenting low quality information like you have repeatedly tried is inconsistent.

quote:

---

Now first we have to consider that many Christians have been attacked suddenly. For example, rounded up by some religious authorities or civil authorities such a Rome (even though they were model citizens). In short, many martyrs did not choose martrydom it was imposed upon them if they did not recant.

---

They had a choice to recant. They therefore chose martyrdom.But this is besides the point of my post. Don't you think it's ridiculous of me to say that these martyrs didn't actually believe in their religion? In the same way, it is ridiculous of you to say that people who devote their whole lives to atheist philosophy, i.e., defending it, elucidating it, being ostracized for it, etc., are not actually atheists.Why would they put up this front if they were not atheists? Why would they sacrific prodigous amounts of time defending it against bigots, out themselves from family and friends, cause mental anguish amongst their religous family and friends, proselytize their beliefs, be the subject of Q&A sessions everytime someone finds out their beliefs, give up social acceptance, give up eternal life with God, and, in the case of my friend, choose not to deny his atheism and give up a relationship with his Catholic girlfriend who he loved very much?This is the main point of my last post that you failed to address. You declared that sacrific on behalf of one's belief is proof that they are sincere. Do atheists not sacrifice on behalf of their beliefs?

quote:

---

Next, people might deny there is a God out of anger, rebellion, or for a multitude of reasons.

---

So atheists sacrific large parts of their lives because they are angry with God, etc. Do you have any evidence that their are atheists who lack a belief in God for this reason? And I don't think testimonials of ex-atheists are good evidence, since the testimonials are subject to ad hoc rationalizations based on their current belief system, and is not necessarily indicative on their views while they were atheists. Can you give me an example of an atheist who lacks a belief in God out of anger? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with this, I'm just curious whether you have any examples.People may deny the nonexistance of a magical being because they are afraid of the conclusions that might follow. Can you provide me with some evidence that martyrs you cited weren't in denial, the same way you claim atheists are in denial?If you cite that fact that they sacrificed for their beliefs, why doesn't the atheist's personal sacrifice measure up?

quote:

---

2. Human history is replete with human corruptness. The Bible says men are corrupt and concurs and furthermore says men are rebelling against a good God. Individuals who are rebellious would sometimes be expected to write against there being no God even when there is a God.

---

I do not accept the Bible as a book that accurately reflecting human nature. What the Bible says about this subject means absolutely nothing to me.Humans have been corrupt throughout history, as you say. But there has always been an incentive, such as money, power, lust, etc. What's the incentive for atheism? Being bigoted? Being tortured for eternity for unbelief?

quote:

---

3. Atheism/skepticism implies a high standard of proof. Presenting low quality information like you have repeatedly tried is inconsistent.

---

How is it low quality? It is the same type of proof you gave supporting the proposal that Christians exist. If you don't think sacrifice on behalf of one's belief is evidence they are sincere, then you have not shown that Christians exist.This message has been edited by JustinCy, 09-04-2004 06:30 PM