Interesting Facts the American Humanist Association (AHA) Might Not Know, part 2 of 4

This post has been moved to True Freethinker where it was posted at this link.


  1. If they did help people, would you criticize them for doing it solely for the publicity?

  2. Mariano:
    Let us parse your elucidation.

    "Therefore, since it is difficult why bother; just do not believe in a god."

    Straw man. They, in the quote you cited, did not say "it is difficult to discuss god, therefore don't believe in god." They throw a good opening jab by reminding us that "god" means different things to different people, rendering any support of "god" necessarily problematic precisely because of the definitional issue.

    "Or why not, since it is difficult, just go ahead and choose one, or more, god(s) out of a hat?"

    Now you're getting it! Indeed, why not?

    "But why is scientific testability the criteria?"

    Because it is the gold standard of human knowledge. We are natural beings, and therefore can only know anything with confidence if it is natural in character.

    "Is it scientific testable that scientific testability is the ultimate, if not only, cogent epistemology?"

    No, otherwise we would have circular logic: scientific testability is justified by scientific testability, which is justified by scientific testability, etc. Not unlike "The God of the Bible" theory: God is justified by the Bible, which is justified by God, which is justified by the Bible, etc.

    "If not, then the criterion fails its own criteria and eternally loops in a cycle of circular illogic"

    Nope. The exact opposite, actually. If science were justified by science, THAT would be circular. Science is justified by something other than science. And it would fail its own criteria if it claimed what you claim it claims. But since it doesn't, it doesn't.

    "Science deals with the natural so why is it being called upon to investigate the supernatural?"

    We have a winner! God is inherently unknowable, by definition. There may exist a supernatural, but we are incapable of knowing it, therefore the default position is not accepting it.

    "It just so happens that we do have a place to start:... inferring the existence of a creator and even particular characteristic of this creator from nature."

    In other words, justifying the supernatural by pointing to the natural. Which raises 2 questions:
    (1) what is the natural justified by? Most religious justify the natural by pointing to the supernatural, resulting in circular logic,

    (2) didn't you just condemn the very approach you are now supporting? If I remember correctly from 30 seconds ago: "Science deals with the natural so why is it being called upon to investigate the supernatural?" Why indeed, Mariano?

  3. Ginx: Yeah, he would.

    Mariano, why in bloody hell do you still keep saying this stuff The American Humanists Association is one of the groups that collected donated money to fund self-serving ad campaigns instead of helping people in need during a time of worldwide recession.

    even though it's been pointed out repeatedly to you that atheists DO do charities?

    Are you so bigoted that you just can't give up your bashing even when you're shown to be wrong? It's also been pointed out to you that xians have been doing the exact same kind of "self-serving" stuff for years before we started in on it.

    Is it that only christians are allowed to be that way?

    Perhaps Dave is right when he said:

    Until a few years ago, there was sort of an unspoken social agreement in this country: the Christians would agree not to burn us atheists at the stake if we atheists would agree to keep quiet about our atheist views and not discuss them in public. It is okay to discuss our views quietly among ourselves or in isolated academic settings (such as philosophy departments), but we must not actually claim publicly that we think we are right or – God forbid! – that we truly think Christianity is false and morally wrong.

    The “New Atheists” have broken this unwritten agreement and that seems to be what is really upsetting Mariano.

  4. What can atheists know about morality? They reject any notion of morality, do they not? And, by the way, what is their evidence for claiming that ANYTHING is right or wrong? With what yardstick do they measure here since they reject Absolute Morality as well as the Principle of Causality?

    Surely, all they are trying to do is arbitrarily assert their MINORITY will over the MAJORITY! Why should that be tolerated in a democratic society?

  5. My arbitrary answers will not give much comprehension to this topic.