Alphabet Argument

[Titan]

Alphabet Argument

Let us assume that the Alphabet represents a religious doctrine. Let us say that A is akin to a question about the reality of what we observe (such as "I think therefore I am" as it extends into reality as a whole). B is a question about whether there is a higher power or not. C concerns the nature of the deity or deities (monotheistic or polytheistic). D concerns the nature of the deities or deity (kind, genial, fearsome, judgmental, fair, evil, etc). This trend continues until the letters around N and O are questions about questions of morality and/or doctrinal contradictions within the specific religion.

Now, in this argument A is necessary for B, B is necessary for C, C is necessary for D and so on, but NOT the other way around. What we observe must be a reality for us to make a judgment on whether there is a God or not, but whether there is a God or not does not mean that what we observe is real. Do you follow?

Furthermore, let us say that you have found a perceived problem with religious concept N, which has an internal contradiction. In order to address N you must assume A - M just to be able to address it fairly. If you establish that N is not a contradiction then you provide concrete evidence that the religious orientation does not self-destruct at point N. However, if point N is false then the concept as a whole must be false. So in the interest of DISPROVING the religion you actually must allow assumptions to be made for a brief moment.

What you get, in this hypothetical situation then is that: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P .... is the alphabet where the bold letters are not self-contradictory but still based on the previous ones. Now, doing this has only allowed us to show that the religious idea doesn't fall apart at N, we STILL must prove that A - M are true. Do you understand?


You use this to it is just that you don't realize it because this SHOULD come second nature when debating.

When I ask you whether atheism can give a reason for morality you are essentially forced to assume that A argument is true in the sense that what we see, hear, smell, touch, and taste are similar to what is real. And that B is false in that there is no God (despite the fact that this has not been established and cannot be proven, I know the responsibility doesn't lie on you, I'm just saying). You continue the assumptions including the establishment that evolution is real (something I believe but which you would normally need to argue for against some fundamentalists). Until you get to N, which is "How do you define morals in atheism." If then we demonstrate that atheism has an adequate answer for the questions supposing that all previous assertions are true then we can continue with the discussion. This is what happened:

Bold are assumptions
A B C D E F G H I J K L M to argue for N

After demonstrating that N is not a problem at all, and that atheism doesn't become a self-defeating argument you get this
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N so that if you prove A - M you can already take N to be true.

Please tell me I don't have to explain this further. This is important if I'm going to be able to answer ANY questions concerning Biblical doctrine and the contradictions many atheists feel are present therein.

[curiosityandthecat]

...I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist.  

[Kyuuketsuki]

This is fine but the Christian god (a creator deity) relies bears absolutely on A so it is entirely valid to question and/or criticise the validity of that premise.

Kyu

[Titan]

Yes, but keep in mind that so does atheism. You can't exactly argue anything unless you accept that what you perceive is at least in some way associated with reality. The point I am trying to make is that answering a deeper question requires assumptions that aren't going to be proven in that argument. It is just to prove that the supposed contradictions or fallacies aren't real objections. It isn't circular reasoning because we aren't trying to prove B via N we are just trying to show that the argument still holds at N.

Curiosity:

[Kyuuketsuki]

Yes, but keep in mind that so does atheism. You can't exactly argue anything unless you accept that what you perceive is at least in some way associated with reality. The point I am trying to make is that answering a deeper question requires assumptions that aren't going to be proven in that argument. It is just to prove that the supposed contradictions or fallacies aren't real objections. It isn't circular reasoning because we aren't trying to prove B via N we are just trying to show that the argument still holds at N.

Atheism makes no claims, atheism isn't a philosophy.

Kyu

[Titan]

Dictionary.com:

aâ‹...theâ‹...ism
â€, â€,/ˈeɪθiˌɪzÉ™m/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"noun
1.    the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

But you do make the claim that what you perceive is real, albeit that isn't a horrible claim but it is one nonetheless. Secondly, are you an agnostic that leans towards atheism or a full blown atheist?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Dictionary.com:

aâ‹...theâ‹...ism
â€, â€,/ˈeɪθiˌɪzÉ™m/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"noun
1.    the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

But you do make the claim that what you perceive is real, albeit that isn't a horrible claim but it is one nonetheless. Secondly, are you an agnostic that leans towards atheism or a full blown atheist?

That definition is wrong. No I am not agnostic, I am atheist.

Kyu

[Titan]

Agnostic atheist means that he is unsure but doesn't believe there is a God. Atheism leans more towards certainty that there is no God.

[curiosityandthecat]

Touche, President.

This just reminds me of when I was studying S5 Modal Logic and wanted to rip my hair out. The problem many atheists see with using the Bible to argue Biblical doctrine or, indeed, the existence of God, miracles, etc., is that we have no reason to assume the Bible is, in fact, the word of God. It's akin to making claims about Clifford the Big Red Dog's influence on children while not needing to assume that there is, somewhere out there, a giant red dog named Clifford. We see it as a guidebook (albeit bloody, violent, and vile), a collection of stories, suggestions of how to live.

The alphabet argument is essentially a proof using variables instead of steps. If A, then B is possible. If B, then C is possible, so on, ad infinitum (or until you reach the desired claim). The difference comes into it in that, using the example:

When I ask you whether atheism can give a reason for morality you are essentially forced to assume that A argument is true in the sense that what we see, hear, smell, touch, and taste are similar to what is real. And that B is false in that there is no God

...we are essentially using different alphabets. In your alphabet, the B variable is the "God is real" (or whatever variation it was). In our alphabet, B is something different, entirely. Maybe something like, "Humans have a vested, personal interest in reality, as defined in A." Nowhere in our alphabet of proofs, assuming that N is "How do you define morals" in both our respective alphabets, is there mention of a higher power.

We are working with two different rulebooks: ours has no God to prove, whereas the Christian's does. It wouldn't make much sense for every proof to contain every aspect that is not necessary or sufficient for success, hence we leave out God, the Easter Bunny, Beowulf, Superman, Sherlock Holmes, Harry Potter and the Mighty Ducks: they're superfluous.

Simply put, the alphabet of the Christian proof for morality and the alphabet for the atheist proof for morality are different. We can still argue the validity of how we got to the same point (say, N), but it's in ironing out the differences between the ways we got there that make for interesting debate.

And, Titan, if you're going to use a definition, use a good source.  

Code Select Expand

atheism:

   Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

atheist:
    A. n.

    1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

    2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.

    B. attrib. as adj. Atheistic, impious.

It has nothing to do with doctrine. Some see "disbelief" as something to latch onto as it has that word "belief" in there, but it's no more useful than someone being an atoothfairyist and having disbelief in the tooth fairy is in proving the tooth fairy is real.

[Titan]

I find the tooth fairy and Santa Claus comparisons actually far from similar in that people aren't looking to the vast ends of space and saying to themselves "You know, there HAS to be a tooth fairy." The implications and necessities are far different. The comparison just serves to put a wedge in intellectual debate.

You are right though in that atheists use a different alphabet. I meant to put that but forgot to.

This alphabet argument also serves to demonstrate how those people who answer contradictions and think they've proven that the Bible is true are actually wrong.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Agnostic atheist means that he is unsure but doesn't believe there is a God. Atheism leans more towards certainty that there is no God.

Nope ... atheism DOES NOT equate to active belief that there is no god, atheism equates to disbelief in claimed deities. Agnosticism is just another form of atheism, in fact I believe the man who coined the term admitted he did so because he did not like the word atheist, atheist has "seniority" (for lack of a better term). If you wish to call my atheism agnosticism go right ahead but not only will you be wrong you will be declaring the vast majority of atheists wrong to call themselves atheist because you will find very, very few atheists who will state with certainty that there is no god (and that includes arch-atheist Richard Dawkins)

Kyu

[Tom62]

I don't really get it either. The religious concept already self destructs with the letter B, because it cannot be certain that a higher power exists. Letter C even moves in the fantasy realm, because is is impossible to know what the assumed nature of the unproven deity or deities is. Moving straight to the letter N or O doesn't require the letters B to M to be correct in the first place, because they are merely assumptions, make believe or wishful thinking. The Alphabet Argument doesn't prove anything other than that the religion concept is flawed.

[Kyuuketsuki]

The Alphabet Argument doesn't prove anything other than that the religion concept is flawed.

Agreed 100%

Kyu

[Titan]

I don't really get it either. The religious concept already self destructs with the letter B, because it cannot be certain that a higher power exists.

Can you be certain that life began in the way it is currently theorized? If not then you can't argue for anything past that point in the evolutionary chain...according to such logic.

Letter C even moves in the fantasy realm, because is is impossible to know what the assumed nature of the unproven deity or deities is.

Incorrect, have you ever attended a debate between two religious thinkers? There are clear distinctions they can make that can demonstrate that one is more likely to be true than the other.

Moving straight to the letter N or O doesn't require the letters B to M to be correct in the first place, because they are merely assumptions, make believe or wishful thinking.

What? Please explain...

The Alphabet Argument doesn't prove anything other than that the religion concept is flawed.

How? If you truly believe that evidence is what matters then such a claim is quite false. You can provide evidence that a theistic interpretation of the universe is more plausible than an atheistic interpretation, thus making it the more rational conclusion. You can then provide evidence that a monotheistic interpretation of theism is more plausible than a polytheistic interpretation, and so on. Evidence can be applied to all of them, logic and deduction are applicable at all points.

Atheism is forced to run up against the same problem that you believe theism faces because atheism ultimately has to explain where matter came from in the first place...and that is a problem I have not seen addressed anywhere in a way I have found to be satisfactory, all interpretations I have heard simply push the question back further and further ad infinitum.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Can you be certain that life began in the way it is currently theorized? If not then you can't argue for anything past that point in the evolutionary chain...according to such logic.

No one (except the other side) is seriously claiming science knows how life began.

Letter C even moves in the fantasy realm, because is is impossible to know what the assumed nature of the unproven deity or deities is.

Incorrect, have you ever attended a debate between two religious thinkers? There are clear distinctions they can make that can demonstrate that one is more likely to be true than the other.

Any theory built on an assumption where later (higher) evidence does not support the initial (foundational) assumptions is built on shifting sand, it is unsupported, it is weak.

The Alphabet Argument doesn't prove anything other than that the religion concept is flawed.

How? If you truly believe that evidence is what matters then such a claim is quite false.

Presumably for the same reason I am saying it ...  a valid explanation needs solid foundation or an acceptance that the answer is not yet known (though that explanation would then need to "fit" with other explanations and provide some explanatory/predictive value which no religious explanation does).

You can provide evidence that a theistic interpretation of the universe is more plausible than an atheistic interpretation, thus making it the more rational conclusion.

Go on then ... then stand back as we demolish your supposedly superior explanation (and BTW it is NOT an atheistic explanation it is scientific).

You can then provide evidence that a monotheistic interpretation of theism is more plausible than a polytheistic interpretation, and so on. Evidence can be applied to all of them, logic and deduction are applicable at all points.

Again go on ... I'd genuinely love you to.

Atheism is forced to run up against the same problem that you believe theism faces because atheism ultimately has to explain where matter came from in the first place...and that is a problem I have not seen addressed anywhere in a way I have found to be satisfactory, all interpretations I have heard simply push the question back further and further ad infinitum.

Whilst I concede it more frequently arises from a certain mindset atheism is not a philosophy, it is not an explanation it is nothing but a label.

Kyu