part 2

2. Empirical knowledge organized theoretically and refined by testing is the sole domain of scientific inquiry

With respect to science vs. near-eastern monotheisms, the victory falls to the sciences beyond any rational doubt. When talking about nature mythological discourse, which may be psychologically comforting, long ago gave way to empirico-conceptual discourse, setting comfort aside in order to determine what can be known empirically.

Science arbitrates which statements about the world, empirical statements, are or are not “known” — that is, are properly given the metalinguistic accolade, ‘is [empirically] true.’ Or as Tarski states it: ['p' is true if-and-only-if p]. (Search: Tarski’s semantic theory of truth)

Such statements are ‘methodologically fit’ according to the relevant testing procedures within science itself. (Note: Neither repeatability or quantifiability is a necessary or a sufficient requirement for hypothesis testing. See: Steve Gould. Wonderful Life)

Methodological fitness belongs to a 400 year old, yet unfinished shift -- the scientific revolution. In whom is evaluative power vested? Who shall decide what is true about nature? And by what criteria is truth ascertained?

Neither ethical fitness as in Heraclitus and his Stoic followers nor theological fitness as in Plato and his xian followers is any longer considered a viable principle for assessing the truth of an empirical statement.

Methodologically, whenever so-called sacred writings make claims about the natural world, they are subject to exactly the same forces of potential refutation as any other empirical claim. There is no Executive Privilege for God.

3. Know the opposition

“Christianity is the practice of nihilism.” — Nietzsche

Fundie bible worshipers deliberately lie in their pseudo-scientific textbooks and they demand equal time for their lies in public education.

For 2,000 years one vile hallmark of xianity has remained its hatred of natural knowledge and skeptical philosophy. The Stoics and Epicureans of Athens laughed Paul of Tarsus off the Areopagus when he proclaimed Christ’s resurrection.

Paul’s quintessential, nihilistic rejoinder remains holy writ:

27-But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28-He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not— to nullify the things that are … 1Cor1:27-28 NIV* (emphasis mine)

In his “On the genealogy of morals” (1886), Nietzsche cites Paul’s revenge filled hatred as the non plus ultra of xian resentment giving birth to values completely antithetical to those of Hellenistic-Roman thought. It took 500 years of very lucky breaks, imperial anti-pagan mandates, and destruction of libraries before xians finally destroyed most vestiges of humanism for the next 1,000 years.

Xianity today still appeals to those who believe themselves mistreated. To those in whom resentment surges. To those masochists who must punish their guilty selves. To those sadists who must project that guilt onto others and into nature. (The whole of 1Cor1 deserves reading.)

Their death impulse directed inward, engenders hatred of self. Directed outward, hatred of others and the world. Know them by their fruits — they are revenge seekers acting on their fideistic falsehoods believed in as absolute truths.

the anti_supernaturalist

* ‘1Cor1:27-28 NIV’ is the accepted form for citation by book/chapter/verse(s)/translation for ‘1st Corinthians: Chapter 1: verses 27-28 New International Version of the New Testament’

Fundies don’t ask Do you believe that evolution is true? They ask Do you believe in evolution?

I’m not being picky here. When I’m asked "Do you believe in evolution?" My answer is No, I do not believe in evolution, I know that modern evolutionary theory is true.

The difference is not mere semantics. But, if you find a detailed explanation too pedantic, stop reading now.

1. Fundies speak from an irrational, non-empirical context: faith-based supernaturalism

History matters. Distinctions in concepts matter. 'Belief in' or ‘Faith’ needs to be traced back to New Testament Greek before making sense of it. ‘Faith’ in English translates ‘fides’ in Latin. Biblical translators used ‘fides’ for ‘pistis’ in koiné Greek, “common Greek” of canonic xian texts. A direct translation of ‘pistis’ into English is ‘trust.’ For skeptical ancient Greeks, pistis was lowest on the scale of trustworthiness for claiming a statement to be true.

Having faith means my trusting that some belief is true. I trust not because I have any reliable evidence for that statement (of belief). I trust because I am someone who regards as authoritative some other person or written source which has claimed that the statement is true.

The so-called great monotheisms (judaism, xianity, and islam) are authoritarian -- authoritarian in power (as in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Ameristan -- the southern US). They are also authoritarian in matters of faith and morals (from infallible Benny16 to other monsters like James Dobson).

Having faith especially when contradicted by evidence far beyond a reasonable doubt still marks the inverted elitism of xians. Or, as early church “father” Tertullian says, “I believe because it is absurd.”

part one

The consequent is the piece of the argument that follows from the hypothetical statement. I may change "condition statement" to "hypothetical statement" because that terminology might be more familiar. The consequent is pointless, and hence, am analyzing it just for fun.

I agree with every thing else that you mentioned.

So there you go. The premise is invalid which makes the rest of the argument pointless.