I notice that post #112 was a mere 13 – 14 hours after post #108, so I conclude that either she has no answer to my subsequent posts or did not hang around long enough to see them.

But metal ions matter too, since many biological processes are mediated by – for instance – calcium, sodium and potassium ions moving around; and many others involve metals (such as iron, cobalt, zinc and magnesium – full of transition-metally goodness, apart from the Mg) in the catalytic pathways.

Of course, that’s the best kind of chemistry, as dictated by our god, the all-powerful Atheismo! Unless you’re from that break-away denomination that believes in organic chemistry above all else. Then I clearly hate you and everything you stand for despite our minor differences in faith.

Wait. I might be thinking of Protestants and Catholics…

(PS. In case Ms. neon returns. This post is me having a joke with Nigel. This does not constitute evidence that atheism is a religion.)

The confusion is in your mind because your argument only works if the atheist believes there is no god. You have therefore convinced yourself that all atheists perforce believe that there is no god. Even some dictionaries agree with you, but I don’t think anyone can know better what atheists believe than those atheists themselves.

Oops. I missed out the word “seemingly”.

That second sentence should read “You have seemingly therefore convinced yourself . . .”

. . . everything I’ve said about Dawkins and the other three horsemen is true. Dawkins really did claim that he and those like him are innately superior to lesser humans

Citation?

Seriously, it’s time to put up or shut up.

and he really did call for children to be removed from religious parents to be properly indoctrinated in his superior belief system.

IIUC, he suggested children should be raised with no belief system.

But, as before, what is your citation to support your assertion?

Dawkins has also called for the removal of scientists from official positions on the charge that their religious beliefs prevent them from being properly scientific

Again, citation needed. *Yawn*

and yes, all these behaviors really are identical to those of the officially atheist Communist Party in the former USSR.

How so?

First, you should back up your claims about Dawkins et al. with actual quotes or references. After all, your claims about him are pretty outrageous.

Second, for each behaviour you ascribe to Dawkins, you need to cite examples of how the USSR did what you claim that Dawkins is suggesting. Then the rest of us might pay some attention to what you are saying.

However, you chose to comment on a critical-thinking blog. I should not have to tell you how to make a case. Do you seriously wonder why people dismiss your comments so readily?

The only difference being that Dawkins thankfully lacks the power to execute his totalitarian desires.

And, of course, all the other differences between Dawkins and the USSR (such as the fact that Dawkins’s work is based on evidence and / or reason, but don’t let such trivia stop you have a good old rant about Dawkins).

So I would change premise 3 to read “beliefs that cannot be shown to be true or false are unfalsifiable and therefore do not constitute knowledge claims” The conclusion then would be that atheism is a metaphysical belief and not a scientific fact.

Atheism is not a metaphysical anything. You are again trying to create a false dichotomy.

Atheism is a conclusion. In principle, it is provisional, in that it awaits the arrival of evidence for the existence of some god(s) or other. In the meantime, atheism adopts the assumption that there is no god. Most atheists are aware that it is an assumption, and that new evidence may come to light to contradict it.

This is why you will find atheists describing atheism as a lack of belief in god rather than a belief that there is no god.

By way of contrast, theists adopt an assumption that there is a god, but (AFAICT) most do not admit to its being an assumption.

OK, enough with the chemistry jokes

Ooh, a bit of inorganic chemstry there!

A great many people strongly believe it is possible to either prove or disprove that proposition and it is also highly dependent on one’s definition anyway.

Well, technically this is true, but you really were thinking of the god of the bible, were you not?

The god of the bible is impossible to disprove, because of the properties assigned to that god. In principle, gods of other religions are (or may be) susceptible to disproof.

It has been my experience that any commenter claiming that theism is as valid as atheism because you cannot disprove the existence of god is actually thinking only of the god of the bible.

It is a typical atheist strawman to claim the Judeo-Christian god exhausts all concepts of god. It does not.

And it is a typical theist strawman to do exactly the same thing, and then to claim that it was the atheist who made the claim in the first place.

Or are you going to back up your assertion with an actual quotation for a change?

[Thumbs up] I’ll have a go at some arguments on here, but I always enjoy your more complete replies. It’s very difficult to argue with someone such as our noble friend, probably because their minds are so inert. I swear I glow red when those arguments come up. (OK, enough with the chemistry jokes.)

Now perhaps mentioning the USSR is a case of Godwinov’s Law?

I have been told categorically by a great many that atheism absolutely does *not* assert that god does not exist, that it is a mere “lack of belief”. Which I reject.

It is not your place to tell anyone else what they do or do not believe, you arrogant fool.

Saying a thing is wrong is not the same as actually showing that it is.

Well, maybe you should take your own advice.

And then read my responses to your post #108.

I would say I’d look forward to Nigel teaching you why . . .

I hope I did not disappoint.

Fundamental worldviews are not the kinds of things one can “prove” but if you like I can give you a logical argument.

premise: Atheism asserts “God exists” is false.

It depends on what you mean by “false”. I prefer to assert “god exists” to be groundless/unproven. As will most atheists of whom I am aware. The real world allows us to have another option “we don’t know”. Your scenario rules this out.

premise: “God exists” cannot be proven true or false.

Well, it cannot be proven false. It could be proven true any time god cares to do something unequivocally miraculous in public.

Also, which god? Do you consider Thor, for instance, to exist? No? Then – according to your “logic” – you are an atheist.

premise: beliefs that cannot be shown to be true or false must be false according to the law of parsimony.

Wrong. If there are two opposing views and no evidence on which to choose between them, the principle of parsimony requires that we assume the simpler option to be true until evidence comes to light to indicate that the more complex option is closer to the truth.

Rational people change their minds when presented with new information that contradicts a previously-held position. I hope this concept is not too alien for you to grasp it.

Therefore: atheism is false.

Wrong.

Premise one is not a strawman because it is just the plain maening of the word.

No, it is one meaning of the word, and probably not the meaning taken by most people who are functionally atheistic.

To go back to an earlier analogy that may help to clarify what I’m saying: if you don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy, does that mean you consider the Tooth Fairy’s non-existence to be indisputably proven?

IF theism is “it is the case that god” then atheism must be “it is not the case that god”.

This is a false dichotomy. First, you are assuming that there is only one god. Second, you are assuming that a person must either believe irrevocably in the existence of a god, or that they must believe that gods do not exist. There is a range of nuances in between that seem to elude you.

For instance, there may well be many theists who consider a god of some sort to be likely, but who do not consider that god’s existence to be indisputably proven. You ignore the existence of agnostics altogether. And you ignore that most atheists do not abide by your definition of atheism. Most atheists of whom I am aware adopt the position that there’s probably no god, and would be more than happy to change their minds should some real evidence come to light.

Therefore Dawkins is not an atheist.

And you have officially lost your marbles. Did you try looking under the sofa.

Seriously, go back and re-read your argument. Then think about it some more.

What he is is an arrognat upper class twit who has latched onto a political movement to promote his ego and to abuse those he considers beneath his station.

And what you are doing is perpetrating libel. I don’t care what you have to say about Dawkins or any other atheist unless you are prepared to back up your claims with actual quotes from their writing (in context, too, not mere quote-mining).

That is why he thinks that people like him, The Brights, are innately superior to others and who consequently then have the right to assume totalitarian powers and remove children from their parents to be raised according to the values of the state. Something we’ve not seen since the officially atheist state of the USSR engaged in the exact same practices.

Do you have one shred of evidence to back this up?

This always happens when a political belief system ignores the fact/value distinction.

Every theocracy ignores the fact/value distinction. In the case of a theocracy, they try to dictate their own facts based on their preferred values. Taking the case of the USSR, communism does not arise from atheism – the USSR applied official atheism because the church’s existence undermined the party dictat. But the USSR did many things for expediency and only pretended that those things followed from communist philosophy.

Does mentioning Stalin also trigger Godwin’s law, does anyone know?

Occam’s razor is a scientific principle, atheism is not science.

Wrong.

Occam’s razor is a principle of logic.

You just did. If it is true that atheism is the only possible logical conclusion one can have then it is necessarily true that there is no god.

Here you see only your strawman.

Atheism is not a belief that there is no god. No atheist who understands logic will ever claim so. Atheism is the assumption that there is no god, based on the very reasonable premise that there is no evidence to support the existence of any god. In fact, atheism can be defined more broadly as living life without religion. In this case, a great proportion of the population of the UK is – functionally at least – atheistic.

Don’t you dare ever to tell me what I do or do not believe.

It is this confusion of necessary vs contingent truth to which I object.

The confusion is in your mind because your argument only works if the atheist believes there is no god. You have therefore convinced yourself that all atheists perforce believe that there is no god. Even some dictionaries agree with you, but I don’t think anyone can know better what atheists believe than those atheists themselves.

So, you are objecting to something that does not – for the mosdt part – exist.

It is my position that the New Atheists muddle the fact/value divide and attempt to proclaim their value system, atheism,

Atheism is not a value system. Again, you are conflating it with humanism.

Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? No? Does the fact that you don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy constitute any kind of value system? No, of course not. Similarly, not believeing in any kind of a god is not a value system.

Probably the best summary of atheism that I have seen is this: There’s probably no god, now just get on with your life.

as if it were fact. Which it is not, and then abuse others who have different values than they do.

Again, you have not supported this assertion. Where does any atheist (new or otherwise) claim that atheism is some kind of “fact” (I have no idea how the absence of belief in fairy stories can be a fact by itself, but I’m always willing to learn)? Where does any atheist abuse people for not being an atheist?

And please bear in mind that attacking a feeble argument or a baseless assertion is not abusing a person, even if that person is so invested in their argument that they feel bad about the argument being rtorn to shreds.

This is completely false as there are many people who reach the opposite “logical” comclusion.

Here you show a failure to understand logic. That you put “logical” in quotes implies that you yourself do not believe that religion is logical.

No religion is logical, because every religion violates the principle of parsimony. There are no grounds for assuming the existence of any “higher power”.

However, just because anyone can quite convincingly argue that religion is illogical is not the same as saying there is anything wrong with it. Having said that, I do object (strenuously) when someone tries to argue that religion is rational or logical. Because it ain’t.

Humans are, on the whole, irrational far more than we are rational (being rational takes some practice and effort). So being religious is perfectly normal for a human. But don’t ever try to say it’s rational.

This is why people see atheists as arrogant because saying that atheism is the only possible logical conclusion about religion is like saying that “Bach is superior to the Beatles” is the only possible “logical” conclusion one can have.

Utter tosh.

Your analogy fails. (Also, argument by analogy is a logical fallacy, because the argument can only ever be as good as the analogy even if the argument is flawless). A more accurate analogy would be that saying Judaism is better than Christianity is like saying that Bach is better than the Beatles.

What if there was no music, and no evidence that music existed? What would be the point of having a favourite musical artist then? (And, yes, I do recognise that I am stretching the analogy.)

There is no evidence that there is any god. Therefore, all religions are irrational.

Logic cannot rank competeing worldviews.

It depends what you mean by a worldview.

If you are talking mainly about how you interrelate with the rest of humanity, then neither atheism nor science* takes a stance on this (but humanism does take a stance). However, if you are talking about interacting with the universe, then atheism – as I said – really is the only logical conclusion, and science is the set of processes through which we arrive at our understanding of the universe.

* Here I recognise that the social sciences may soon be telling us more about how we should behave, or at least informing us about which behaviours have the greatest likelihood of leading to undesirable impacts.

Neither atheism nor theism are scientific theories for which there could be any evidence

I have never seen any atheist claim that atheism is science. Can you provide a link or reference to where someone does? Or are you going to make another assertion that you refuse to support?

Both are value systems and values are not facts.

Actually, your first half of this sentence is wrong, but the second half is right.

Atheism is not a value system (perhaps you conflate atheism with humanism?), but I agree that it is not a demonstrated fact. The god of the bible has properties that render disproof a logical impossibility.

What atheism most defintiely is, though, is a rational conclusion. And this is where it differs from all religious positions.

There is no evidence for the existence of any god. Therefore, assuming the existence of one (or more) violates the principle of parsimony and is thus illogical. All religions require an irrational precept. Religions are widespread and popular because humans are intrinsically irrational.

If any god were to decide one day to provide unequivocal proof of its existence, then I suspect that all atheists would suddenly become religious. Because that would be the rational thing to do. In the absence of any evidence for a god, however, the rational thing to do is to assume that there is none, and to live your life accordingly.

What I object to is the conflation of atheism with science. It is not science, it is one worldview among many

Atheism is not science, but your complaint is a mere strawman. As far as I am aware, no atheist has ever claimed that atheism is science.

However, atheism is the only rational outcome of any critical consideration of religions. So it arises through a process that is analogous to the processes whereby science allows us to learn about the universe.

Science has, however, taught us that atheism is permissible. In other words, we have discovered, through scientific investigation of the universe, that there is no requirement for a deity to (for example) account for the diversity of life we see on Earth. The universe looks pretty much the way we would expect it to if it had developed according to natural processes.

@ 87 Nigel Depledge Says: “Where – exactly – on Bad Astronomy has any atheist refused to accept a logical argument backed up with evidence?”

Neither atheism nor theism are scientific theories for which there could be any evidence. Both are value systems and values are not facts. What I object to is the conflation of atheism with science. It is not science, it is one worldview among many.

This is not an answer to my question.

In your previous post (22) that I was addressing, you claimed that atheists do exactly the same stuff that the BA highlights as the unacceptable behaviour of the Autism One organisers.

So, either answer the question or retract your comment.

First. Apologies ma’am, but from your posts there was no way of knowing if you were a man or a woman.

Now. I pointed out the flaws in your own logic. Your argument failed on that alone. The fact that you are contradicting yourself on premise one within the same post just compounds the wrong. I thought it was necessary because some people might read your nonsense and think it workable.

You are under the impression that atheism is some sort of religion but it isn’t. Lack of belief is not a belief in itself, and when you understand that you may be able to open your mind to it. Remember it was you who brought up atheism in this topic. The topic was about vaccines and how a pair of sceptics were ejected from a conference simply for not agreeing with the dangerous woo peddlers.

Now atheism is the only LOGICAL conclusion about something which we do not and cannot provide any evidence for. Parsimony actually states to not include unecessary terms, therefore we shouldn’t include the god term. Now if you want to believe in a god, that’s fine. Just try to understand our position and why it is logical.

And you continue to spread lies about Mr. Dawkins. I would suggest you go out and read what he’d written and listen to what he’s said because it’s obvious you haven’t. But think about something. Do you think it’s correct if a person’s religious belief prevents them from doing their job properly? Should they keep the job? Let me help you, the answer is no on both counts. This applies to scientists, lawmakers, doctors, soldiers, you name it.

PayasYouStargaze Says: —“Just about everything you’ve said in post 108 is wrong.”

Saying a thing is wrong is not the same as actually showing that it is.

“Premise 1 and 2 are true by definition.”

Well, that is your opinion, a great many people (esp. New Atheists) do not share your belief that atheism is defined as the denial of god’s existence. I have been told categorically by a great many that atheism absolutely does *not* assert that god does not exist, that it is a mere “lack of belief”. Which I reject. Secondly there is nothing wrong with putting definitions in one’s premises. Finally, your opinion that premise 2 is true by definition is also highly contentious. A great many people strongly believe it is possible to either prove or disprove that proposition and it is also highly dependent on one’s definition anyway. It is a typical atheist strawman to claim the Judeo-Christian god exhausts all concepts of god. It does not.

“The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that is that due to premise 3, premise 2 is false”

I don’t always have a lot of time, as it was I didn’t even have the chance to check and close my bold tag. So I would change premise 3 to read “beliefs that cannot be shown to be true or false are unfalsifiable and therefore do not constitute knowledge claims” The conclusion then would be that atheism is a metaphysical belief and not a scientific fact. But… I had an appointment to get to.

“As neon says before his rediculous tirade against Mr. Dawkins”

One, that’s Ms Noen thank you and two, everything I’ve said about Dawkins and the other three horsemen is true. Dawkins really did claim that he and those like him are innately superior to lesser humans and he really did call for children to be removed from religious parents to be properly indoctrinated in his superior belief system. Dawkins has also called for the removal of scientists from official positions on the charge that their religious beliefs prevent them from being properly scientific and yes, all these behaviors really are identical to those of the officially atheist Communist Party in the former USSR. The only difference being that Dawkins thankfully lacks the power to execute his totalitarian desires.

Using neon’s premises:
premise 1: Atheism asserts “God exists” is false.
premise 2: “God exists” cannot be proven true or false.
premise 3: beliefs that cannot be shown to be true or false must be false according to the law of parsimony.

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that is that due to premise 3, premise 2 is false, which is what premise 1 states is the atheist postion. As neon says before his rediculous tirade against Mr. Dawkins, premise 1 is true because that is the meaning of the word, so premise 3 does not apply to it anyway.

Just about everything you’ve said in post 108 is wrong. I would say I’d look forward to Nigel teaching you why, but he already has and you’ve ignored it.

For one thing, your “logical” argument is flawed. Premise 1 and 2 are true by definition. Premise 3 mearly confirms that if “god exists” cannot be proven, then you must assume that it is false, which is the atheist position as stated in premise 1.

@ 87 Nigel Depledge Says: “Where – exactly – on Bad Astronomy has any atheist refused to accept a logical argument backed up with evidence?”

Neither atheism nor theism are scientific theories for which there could be any evidence. Both are value systems and values are not facts. What I object to is the conflation of atheism with science. It is not science, it is one worldview among many.

@ 91 — “Atheism is the only logical conclusion one can reach about religion”

This is completely false as there are many people who reach the opposite “logical” comclusion. This is why people see atheists as arrogant because saying that atheism is the only possible logical conclusion about religion is like saying that “Bach is superior to the Beatles” is the only possible “logical” conclusion one can have. Logic cannot rank competeing worldviews.

“Almost no atheists at all will claim that there is absolutely no god”

You just did. If it is true that atheism is the only possible logical conclusion one can have then it is necessarily true that there is no god. It is this confusion of necessary vs contingent truth to which I object. It is my position that the New Atheists muddle the fact/value divide and attempt to proclaim their value system, atheism, as if it were fact. Which it is not, and then abuse others who have different values than they do.

“Any position that assumes the existence of god (or claims to “know” that god exists) violates the principle of parsimony and is therefore irrational.”

Occam’s razor is a scientific principle, atheism is not science.

“Present one logical argument, or one piece of evidence, to refute atheism.”

Fundamental worldviews are not the kinds of things one can “prove” but if you like I can give you a logical argument.

premise: Atheism asserts “God exists” is false.
premise: “God exists” cannot be proven true or false.
premise: beliefs that cannot be shown to be true or false must be false according to the law of parsimony.
Therefore: atheism is false.

Premise one is not a strawman because it is just the plain maening of the word. IF theism is “it is the case that god” then atheism must be “it is not the case that god”. Therefore Dawkins is not an atheist. What he is is an arrognat upper class twit who has latched onto a political movement to promote his ego and to abuse those he considers beneath his station. That is why he thinks that people like him, The Brights, are innately superior to others and who consequently then have the right to assume totalitarian powers and remove children from their parents to be raised according to the values of the state. Something we’ve not seen since the officially atheist state of the USSR engaged in the exact same practices.

This always happens when a political belief system ignores the fact/value distinction.

If not for big corporations, spending on average 50 to 100 million dollars just to get thru the approval process for a new drug,

I’m afraid it’s more than this now. A single large Phase III trial alone can cost several tens of millions of dollars. Depending on the trial and the type of drug, you might spend $10,000,000 just to make the drug product for the trial.

who do you think should be manufacturing those drugs? They’re not going to be discovered, tested and approved by a guy in his garage and even he would have to make a reasonable profit just to stay in business. Do corporations and governments lie? Certainly! Are mistakes made? Without a doubt. But we are still better off today, with all those imperfections, because scientists, engineers and some of those bureaucrats we elect are the ones who find and correct those problems. We live longer, regardless of all these errors of judgement, so I guess overall, we’re doing something right. Usually, we learn something from our mistakes. I was born in the middle of WWII. I would not return to that time for all the iPads on earth and when you espouse the elimination of vaccines, THAT’S the society you seem to be longing for, when blacks couldn’t marry whites, when measles, mumps, polio and smallpox KILLED people, when civil liberties were generally more for the rich than the poor. We’ve come a long way, socially, medically and technologically. We’ve made mistakes and we’ll make more but we’ll learn from them. Welcome to the human race.

Hear, hear.