There is a lot of material on the internet in general and more specifically on YouTube related to religion and atheism. People debate both sides, which is healthy and good. I enjoy listening to both sides of these debates and I always do my best to honestly assess the validity of their points.
One of the things I find telling about the relative strength/weakness of the various positions is the fact that, unlike the majority of secular/atheist outlets, I often find that websites and video channels that support theism and Christianity disable comments or do not permit open commentary in response to their messages. In many cases, comments are restricted and only posted upon approval from the moderator. NobleEagle100 on YouTube is one such channel. Some number of years ago, he called in to the Atheist Experience show and asked a question. The hosts at the time did not do the best job of managing the conversation or pointing out the logical problems with his question and argumentation. NobleEagle100 mocks them and has posted his video declaring victory over the atheists. However, he does not show the entire clip from the show, nor does he allow open conversation and debate of the content. He does permit comments that merely cheer him on "He owned the atheists" etc.
Given that I'm not permitted to post proper replies to the content of his video on the page, I'm using this space to express my views related to the content of his argument. First, you should watch the video. Here is a link:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CdTR41SQkI
The caller in the video identifies himself as "Rich". I'm not going to address the assertion he makes with regard to atheism being a humanist religion, but I do want to mention that this claim is false. Atheism does not qualify as a religion by any definition. I may address this claim in a more general sense in a later blog, but for now, I want to focus on the central challenge Rich proffers and with which he claims to have bested his atheist interlocutors. Rich claims that atheists require proof and evidence for beliefs and then he asks what proof and evidence they can offer that "atheism is true and accurate." Rich says that he has never had an atheist answer him when he asks them to provide proof and evidence for the truth of atheism. There are two problems with this demand.
First, the question commits the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Logic places the burden of proof on the party that is making a positive claim because it is not logically possible to prove a negative. This is why we generally withhold belief until we are presented with compelling evidence. I don't believe in big foot, but I can't prove that he doesn't exist. I will maintain my disbelief until I am presented with substantial evidence that confirms such creatures exist. The atheists' position is the same with regard to God claims. I don't believe that a God exists. I can't prove that God does not exist, but I will withhold belief until I am persuaded with evidence. What sense does it make to ask for proof and evidence of my disbelief? This is also why the burden of proof lies with the prosecution in legal trials. The jury's responsibility is to assess whether the evidence presented by the prosecution that the defendant is guilty (a positive assertion) is sufficient and compelling. It is not the defendant's job to prove he is not guilty.
Second, Rich asks the atheists if they can prove atheism is true and accurate. This demand is loaded with the assumption that atheism is more than a negative position. This is the reason that the show hosts keep trying to press Rich for a definition of atheism and they also attempt to provide their own. If Rich had been willing to provide a definition or a set of beliefs he was ascribing to atheists, they could have had a more productive conversation. If Rich accepted their definition, generally presented by the hosts of the show as the disbelief in god claims. By that definition, the question is nonsensical. Rich is asking a loaded question and demanding an answer that conforms to the question regardless of whether or not the assumptions inherent in the question are legitimate.
To me, the most telling bit about this whole interaction is the fact that Rich declares himself to be the victor simply because the atheists were unwilling to answer his question within the prescribed confines of the assumptions in his loaded question. He then sets about mocking and laughing without actually listening to the reasons for their resistance to answering his question. Rich is not interested in whether or not his own beliefs are true nor whether another position is more reasonable. He disallows true open debate on his YouTube channel discussion board for the same reason. He is only interested in making himself and his position look good. He taunts and uses his ability to dominate the conversation to frustrate the hosts of the show. But none of these rhetorical strategies make his arguments valid. The truth or falsehood of the embedded assumptions must be addressed before an answer is provided to a loaded question. The classic example of a loaded question is, "have you stopped beating your wife?" A person who poses that question and demands a yes or no answer and then proceeds to mock and rant at the person who refuses to provide an answer within the confines of the question is not interested in truth.
I suspect many YouTube watchers have endeavored to point out these things on the "NobleEagle100" YouTube channel because I have seen many video posts with less egregious logical errors with a multitude of responses pointing out the errors of logic that have been committed. But he evidently does not allow open criticism of his arguments. This is the best evidence of the weakness of his position. If Rich or NobleEagle100 (I'm not sure if they are the same person... do I need to prove that my uncertainty is true and accurate?) was truly interested in discovering the truth through rational means, he would let his arguments stand or fall on their own and there would be no need to censor comments. I do not use vulgar language, nor do I resort to name calling in any of my posts here or on YouTube. I am genuinely interested in discovering the truth and for that reason, I welcome any comments that Rich or NobleEagle or anyone else would like to make on my blog. Let's have genuine discourse and reason together in genuine pursuit of answers to life's questions.
One of the things I find telling about the relative strength/weakness of the various positions is the fact that, unlike the majority of secular/atheist outlets, I often find that websites and video channels that support theism and Christianity disable comments or do not permit open commentary in response to their messages. In many cases, comments are restricted and only posted upon approval from the moderator. NobleEagle100 on YouTube is one such channel. Some number of years ago, he called in to the Atheist Experience show and asked a question. The hosts at the time did not do the best job of managing the conversation or pointing out the logical problems with his question and argumentation. NobleEagle100 mocks them and has posted his video declaring victory over the atheists. However, he does not show the entire clip from the show, nor does he allow open conversation and debate of the content. He does permit comments that merely cheer him on "He owned the atheists" etc.
Given that I'm not permitted to post proper replies to the content of his video on the page, I'm using this space to express my views related to the content of his argument. First, you should watch the video. Here is a link:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CdTR41SQkI
First, the question commits the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Logic places the burden of proof on the party that is making a positive claim because it is not logically possible to prove a negative. This is why we generally withhold belief until we are presented with compelling evidence. I don't believe in big foot, but I can't prove that he doesn't exist. I will maintain my disbelief until I am presented with substantial evidence that confirms such creatures exist. The atheists' position is the same with regard to God claims. I don't believe that a God exists. I can't prove that God does not exist, but I will withhold belief until I am persuaded with evidence. What sense does it make to ask for proof and evidence of my disbelief? This is also why the burden of proof lies with the prosecution in legal trials. The jury's responsibility is to assess whether the evidence presented by the prosecution that the defendant is guilty (a positive assertion) is sufficient and compelling. It is not the defendant's job to prove he is not guilty.
Second, Rich asks the atheists if they can prove atheism is true and accurate. This demand is loaded with the assumption that atheism is more than a negative position. This is the reason that the show hosts keep trying to press Rich for a definition of atheism and they also attempt to provide their own. If Rich had been willing to provide a definition or a set of beliefs he was ascribing to atheists, they could have had a more productive conversation. If Rich accepted their definition, generally presented by the hosts of the show as the disbelief in god claims. By that definition, the question is nonsensical. Rich is asking a loaded question and demanding an answer that conforms to the question regardless of whether or not the assumptions inherent in the question are legitimate.
To me, the most telling bit about this whole interaction is the fact that Rich declares himself to be the victor simply because the atheists were unwilling to answer his question within the prescribed confines of the assumptions in his loaded question. He then sets about mocking and laughing without actually listening to the reasons for their resistance to answering his question. Rich is not interested in whether or not his own beliefs are true nor whether another position is more reasonable. He disallows true open debate on his YouTube channel discussion board for the same reason. He is only interested in making himself and his position look good. He taunts and uses his ability to dominate the conversation to frustrate the hosts of the show. But none of these rhetorical strategies make his arguments valid. The truth or falsehood of the embedded assumptions must be addressed before an answer is provided to a loaded question. The classic example of a loaded question is, "have you stopped beating your wife?" A person who poses that question and demands a yes or no answer and then proceeds to mock and rant at the person who refuses to provide an answer within the confines of the question is not interested in truth.
I suspect many YouTube watchers have endeavored to point out these things on the "NobleEagle100" YouTube channel because I have seen many video posts with less egregious logical errors with a multitude of responses pointing out the errors of logic that have been committed. But he evidently does not allow open criticism of his arguments. This is the best evidence of the weakness of his position. If Rich or NobleEagle100 (I'm not sure if they are the same person... do I need to prove that my uncertainty is true and accurate?) was truly interested in discovering the truth through rational means, he would let his arguments stand or fall on their own and there would be no need to censor comments. I do not use vulgar language, nor do I resort to name calling in any of my posts here or on YouTube. I am genuinely interested in discovering the truth and for that reason, I welcome any comments that Rich or NobleEagle or anyone else would like to make on my blog. Let's have genuine discourse and reason together in genuine pursuit of answers to life's questions.
Comments
Post a Comment