• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:1396] Questions that atheists are afraid to answer

Alizia Tyler

Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
2,125
Reaction score
235
Location
Colombia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
His misogyny is obvious and indefensible. If you are attempting to defend that...glad I'm not bothering.

You are incapable of participation is closer to the truth.

You are one of my subjects here, because you are incapable of rational and good-fath conversation on important themes.

You are discussed, you are not a participant in any on-going conversation anywhere on this forum, at least as I am aware, and for this reason you do not participate in discussion. For this reason you become a topic.

Why you are like this, and what this means now in our culture that there are such strange birds as you, and how this might be remediated, that is what the conversation is about in my estimation.

If you participated, you’d have nothing to contribute, just noise. So it is best actually that you remain outside.

Make sense?
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,428
Reaction score
3,838
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
You are one of my subjects here, because you are incapable of rational and good-fath conversation. You are discussed, you are not a participant in any on-going conversation anywhere on this forum, at least as I am aware. For this reason you become a topic.

Why you are like this, and what this means now in our culture that there are such strange birds as yous, and how this might be remediated, is what the conversation is about.

If you participated, you’d have nothing to contribute, just noise. So it is best actually that you remain outside.

Make sense?
YOU have no place to critique another about contribution as the extra wordy gibberish you post does very little to forward actual discussion on a topic, instead people tend to ask what the hell you are trying to say. Acting like a biatch to another member does not improve the perception you present either. How does it feel when getting called out for posting because no one much enjoys it.

Why Are You Like this?
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
77,194
Reaction score
43,659
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Of course. I was going to include your likely response!

But none of it was written for you. It is about you!

Read or don’t read = it is all the same.
LOLOL What makes you think anyone else would bother to wade thru that pretentious muck either? The effort you expend is amazing...and sad.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
77,194
Reaction score
43,659
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
You are incapable of participation is closer to the truth.

You are one of my subjects here, because you are incapable of rational and good-fath conversation on important themes.

You are discussed, you are not a participant in any on-going conversation anywhere on this forum, at least as I am aware, and for this reason you do not participate in discussion. For this reason you become a topic.

Why you are like this, and what this means now in our culture that there are such strange birds as you, and how this might be remediated, that is what the conversation is about in my estimation.

If you participated, you’d have nothing to contribute, just noise. So it is best actually that you remain outside.

Make sense?
My not pandering to your pretentious walls of text is not positive evidence of any of your claims. Your posts in general lack all credibilty...so I'm quite sure it's safe to believe the same of any about me.

You have zero credibility 🤷 All you and @Sherlock Holmes do is bob and weave and convulse and blow smoke to hide that fact...and pretty much everyone else here has noted that. And called you both out on it. It's a demonstration of moral cowardice and lack of faith on your parts 🤷
 

NolanVoyd

Active member
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
284
Reaction score
77
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
OH NOES!! Did he stop thinking?
He was at a book signing party and a waiter came up and said "pardon me sir, would you like another Drink?

He paused for a moment......and then said "I think not".
 

Alizia Tyler

Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
2,125
Reaction score
235
Location
Colombia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
YOU have no place to critique another about contribution as the extra wordy gibberish you post does very little to forward actual discussion on a topic, instead people tend to ask what the hell you are trying to say.
Then that would mean, I gather, that people are thinking.

What is ‘wordy gibberish’ for you, Tecoyah, is intelligible prose to may people who a) have basic education including rudimentary philosophy, and b) regularly deal within these realms of conversation and discourse. There are no *extraordinary ideas* is any thing I write and nothing that is not written in clear, direct prose. I read widely on these topics every day and noting I write is outlandish nor even that difficult.

So what is so hard for you to grasp, and why? That is the question. Can you answer that question? Do you even care to try?

You do not know what ’forwarding the conversation’ actually is. Where should this conversation go Teyoyah? Where? I do not mean to be insulting. For you, what you seem to want is exactly what you have said: You do not want anyone to challenge you to consider any ideas that you have. You want to proceed unimpeded. You don’t have to think about anything because *the universe takes care of it all*. You don’t make any judgments or strong decisions because this runs counter to your vague existential ethics. You might not even have to make decisions about your children — because perhaps you have no children! You have no interest or concern for larger categories because this is all ‘stuff of the past’ and you are traveling forward — or so you say.

These are important topics for serious conversation! No part of any of this is a light topic. It all requires seriousness.

Acting like a biatch to another member does not improve the perception you present either. How does it feel when getting called out for posting because no one much enjoys it.

Why Are You Like this?
You totally misunderstand! I speak directly and honestly because I have trained myself to do so. My view is that Lursa is not at all serious. It is not proper to participate in a forum in which words, paragraphs, ideas and discourses are talked through and to say “I will not read anything you write, huar huar huar!” It’s NUTS.

We are obligated to read, think about, and seriously consider the idea that people have, that they have worked hard to have. This is basic stuff for a responsible citizen. It is basic civil discourse for civil people. It is civil procedure as well on a forum of this calibre. People have made this space available for serious conversation, not for inanity.

Here, people tell you *I will read nothing you write!* or “I have put you on ignore!” — simply because they don’t like the ideas you work with. That is lunatic.
 

Alizia Tyler

Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
2,125
Reaction score
235
Location
Colombia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Your posts in general lack all credibility.
Demonstrate that here in the presence of your peers. Just saying that means nothing. You have to demonstrate it.
and pretty much everyone else here has noted that
That is not an argument. That is an appeal to the mob fallacy.
And called you both out on it.
You can make any claim you wish, but it is only a claim until you have demonstrated that what you assert is true.

You will not. And the reason you will not is because you are incapable of working, honestly, within the realm of expository ideas.

I challenge you therefore: enter into conversation and debate, and stop making unsupportable claims. Read what is written, extract the main ideas, and respond.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
77,194
Reaction score
43,659
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Demonstrate that here in the presence of your peers. Just saying that means nothing. You have to demonstrate it.

That is not an argument. That is an appeal to the mob fallacy.

You can make any claim you wish, but it is only a claim until you have demonstrated that what you assert is true.

You will not. And the reason you will not is because you are incapable of working, honestly, within the realm of expository ideas.

I challenge you therefore: enter into conversation and debate, and stop making unsupportable claims.
Remember what I wrote about your credibility? If not, go back and re-read until it sinks in. 🤷

"Your posts" demonstrate it. I dont have to :rolleyes:
 

Elvira

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
29,384
Reaction score
8,913
Location
Down South
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Its' funny how people who know the least have the most to say...
 

Fracture

Banned
Suspended
Joined
Apr 7, 2021
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't see these as "questions atheists are afraid to answer". Theism is very appealing and the majority of people would gladly explore any real evidence that supports it. For someone growing up in a mostly christian environment, a theistic reality was a favourable one - offering the promise of a deity and an afterlife - whereas an atheist must face the possibility of oblivion; eternal nothingness after death and no innate "meaning of life". For me, having to accept this as a potential reality is what I was more afraid of. It is not an easy conclusion to arrive at and neither is it a comfortable one, contrary to what you seem to imply.

Anyhow.

We need a working definition of atheism. This may not be the same as what atheos meant to an ancient greek, such is the nature of semiotics that both spelling and meaning change as languages digress over time. Let us break down the english word in its modern form:

a - without
theism - belief in gods (or gods)

"without belief in god", that is not to explicitly claim there is no god(s) - such beings may not even be considered falsifiable, instead I lack belief as there has been no proof of their existence and therefore gods fall within the realm of the unknown.

Your general retort to those who answer the questions in your OP goes something along the lines of "how can you say there is no god if you cannot define god", so let's skip a step and go straight to that.

Gods are defined in countless ways throughout the scriptures that accompany the many religions, as they are usually not bound to physical limitations the permutations of how a god could be defined are endless. It is simply not feasible to individually discount every element of this infinite set, instead, we start with a blank slate and then introduce whatever the evidence supports. While elements of the unknown may have the potential to exist (some far more likely than others), the most unlikely of these have little practicality.

To entertain your question, something I might look for to evidence the output of a god would be the supernatural existing within the natural world. If it happens to conform to some scripture, even better. However, it would still need able to be objectively evaluated to eliminate the possibility that is not simply the cause of some natural means; that it instead completely violates our models of reality.

Seeing as I just read through over 1000 posts to get here, I am genuinely curious for you to share your position. I will be able to sympathise with your views regardless of how convincing they turn out to be - please do not be afraid that they will be "instantly rejected".

Furthermore, no matter what conclusions you have come to, if you are unable to articulate them in such a way that they can be shared with the rest of humanity (by providing evidence along aside a framework by which it can be evaluated) then they are useless, to anyone but yourself.
 

Logtroll

Banned
Suspended
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
249
Reaction score
119
Location
One of the Mexicos
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I don't see these as "questions atheists are afraid to answer". Theism is very appealing and the majority of people would gladly explore any real evidence that supports it. For someone growing up in a mostly christian environment, a theistic reality was a favourable one - offering the promise of a deity and an afterlife - whereas an atheist must face the possibility of oblivion; eternal nothingness after death and no innate "meaning of life". For me, having to accept this as a potential reality is what I was more afraid of. It is not an easy conclusion to arrive at and neither is it a comfortable one, contrary to what you seem to imply.

Anyhow.

We need a working definition of atheism. This may not be the same as what atheos meant to an ancient greek, such is the nature of semiotics that both spelling and meaning change as languages digress over time. Let us break down the english word in its modern form:

a - without
theism - belief in gods (or gods)

"without belief in god", that is not to explicitly claim there is no god(s) - such beings may not even be considered falsifiable, instead I lack belief as there has been no proof of their existence and therefore gods fall within the realm of the unknown.

Your general retort to those who answer the questions in your OP goes something along the lines of "how can you say there is no god if you cannot define god", so let's skip a step and go straight to that.

Gods are defined in countless ways throughout the scriptures that accompany the many religions, as they are usually not bound to physical limitations the permutations of how a god could be defined are endless. It is simply not feasible to individually discount every element of this infinite set, instead, we start with a blank slate and then introduce whatever the evidence supports. While elements of the unknown may have the potential to exist (some far more likely than others), the most unlikely of these have little practicality.

To entertain your question, something I might look for to evidence the output of a god would be the supernatural existing within the natural world. If it happens to conform to some scripture, even better. However, it would still need able to be objectively evaluated to eliminate the possibility that is not simply the cause of some natural means; that it instead completely violates our models of reality.

Seeing as I just read through over 1000 posts to get here, I am genuinely curious for you to share your position. I will be able to sympathise with your views regardless of how convincing they turn out to be - please do not be afraid that they will be "instantly rejected".

Furthermore, no matter what conclusions you have come to, if you are unable to articulate them in such a way that they can be shared with the rest of humanity (by providing evidence along aside a framework by which it can be evaluated) then they are useless, to anyone but yourself.
See where this goes - it is a higher state of consciousness to experience, “I don’t know “, than it is to think, “I know”.
 

Alizia Tyler

Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
2,125
Reaction score
235
Location
Colombia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
a - without
theism - belief in gods (or gods)

"without belief in god", that is not to explicitly claim there is no god(s) - such beings may not even be considered falsifiable, instead I lack belief as there has been no proof of their existence and therefore gods fall within the realm of the unknown.
Except that those — and there are millions and possibly even billions — who have lived their life in communion with God and in service to God and who have written extensively of their experience have something to say about it.

Great works of art, music, poetry and lives of sacrifice attest to a *relationship* to the divine. It is a fact within Occidental categories (my main area of concern).

So not only is atheism a personal declaration of lack of belief . . . it also involves a negation of generations, centuries an millennia of involvement with the reality of God and spiritual life.
Furthermore, no matter what conclusions you have come to, if you are unable to articulate them in such a way that they can be shared with the rest of humanity (by providing evidence along aside a framework by which it can be evaluated) then they are useless, to anyone but yourself.
The rest of humanity you say? That’s quite a large grouping! And also considering that some billions of people have a bona fide spiritual life.

The same is true for you then, and I turn this back to you: If you cannot share your conclusions with those many people, those many generations of people, who have lived their life is communion with God, then your declarations for non-belief will be and remain unintelligible and nonsensical.

The actual fact is that you must investigate what they have done, what they have discovered, and what it means. And using the methods that they have used.

So in fact you will accept no *evidence* except of a sort. So your methods are way off.

[And welcome to the forum and the *conversation* BTW!]
 
Last edited:

Fracture

Banned
Suspended
Joined
Apr 7, 2021
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The rest of humanity you say?

Yes! I got rather dramatic there. And thank you for the welcome :)

I see "there is no god" as a retort to the assertion that there is a god, less of a positive assertion in of itself. After all, the statement "there is no god" would have been nonsensical until someone had first postulated otherwise.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
9,303
Reaction score
2,287
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Then that would mean, I gather, that people are thinking.

What is ‘wordy gibberish’ for you, Tecoyah, is intelligible prose to may people who a) have basic education including rudimentary philosophy, and b) regularly deal within these realms of conversation and discourse. There are no *extraordinary ideas* is any thing I write and nothing that is not written in clear, direct prose. I read widely on these topics every day and noting I write is outlandish nor even that difficult.

So what is so hard for you to grasp, and why? That is the question. Can you answer that question? Do you even care to try?

You do not know what ’forwarding the conversation’ actually is. Where should this conversation go Teyoyah? Where? I do not mean to be insulting. For you, what you seem to want is exactly what you have said: You do not want anyone to challenge you to consider any ideas that you have. You want to proceed unimpeded. You don’t have to think about anything because *the universe takes care of it all*. You don’t make any judgments or strong decisions because this runs counter to your vague existential ethics. You might not even have to make decisions about your children — because perhaps you have no children! You have no interest or concern for larger categories because this is all ‘stuff of the past’ and you are traveling forward — or so you say.

These are important topics for serious conversation! No part of any of this is a light topic. It all requires seriousness.


You totally misunderstand! I speak directly and honestly because I have trained myself to do so. My view is that Lursa is not at all serious. It is not proper to participate in a forum in which words, paragraphs, ideas and discourses are talked through and to say “I will not read anything you write, huar huar huar!” It’s NUTS.

We are obligated to read, think about, and seriously consider the idea that people have, that they have worked hard to have. This is basic stuff for a responsible citizen. It is basic civil discourse for civil people. It is civil procedure as well on a forum of this calibre. People have made this space available for serious conversation, not for inanity.

Here, people tell you *I will read nothing you write!* or “I have put you on ignore!” — simply because they don’t like the ideas you work with. That is lunatic.
But you lack even a rudimentary understanding of philosophy.

And I should point out that sherlock is famous around here for his threats of putting people on ignore. How laughable that you are calling him a lunatic.

And no, you do not speak directly and honestly. You try to be cute and it comes across as nothing more than an insincere method of avoiding discussion.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
9,303
Reaction score
2,287
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I don't see these as "questions atheists are afraid to answer". Theism is very appealing and the majority of people would gladly explore any real evidence that supports it. For someone growing up in a mostly christian environment, a theistic reality was a favourable one - offering the promise of a deity and an afterlife - whereas an atheist must face the possibility of oblivion; eternal nothingness after death and no innate "meaning of life". For me, having to accept this as a potential reality is what I was more afraid of. It is not an easy conclusion to arrive at and neither is it a comfortable one, contrary to what you seem to imply.

Anyhow.

We need a working definition of atheism. This may not be the same as what atheos meant to an ancient greek, such is the nature of semiotics that both spelling and meaning change as languages digress over time. Let us break down the english word in its modern form:

a - without
theism - belief in gods (or gods)

"without belief in god", that is not to explicitly claim there is no god(s) - such beings may not even be considered falsifiable, instead I lack belief as there has been no proof of their existence and therefore gods fall within the realm of the unknown.

Your general retort to those who answer the questions in your OP goes something along the lines of "how can you say there is no god if you cannot define god", so let's skip a step and go straight to that.

Gods are defined in countless ways throughout the scriptures that accompany the many religions, as they are usually not bound to physical limitations the permutations of how a god could be defined are endless. It is simply not feasible to individually discount every element of this infinite set, instead, we start with a blank slate and then introduce whatever the evidence supports. While elements of the unknown may have the potential to exist (some far more likely than others), the most unlikely of these have little practicality.

To entertain your question, something I might look for to evidence the output of a god would be the supernatural existing within the natural world. If it happens to conform to some scripture, even better. However, it would still need able to be objectively evaluated to eliminate the possibility that is not simply the cause of some natural means; that it instead completely violates our models of reality.

Seeing as I just read through over 1000 posts to get here, I am genuinely curious for you to share your position. I will be able to sympathise with your views regardless of how convincing they turn out to be - please do not be afraid that they will be "instantly rejected".

Furthermore, no matter what conclusions you have come to, if you are unable to articulate them in such a way that they can be shared with the rest of humanity (by providing evidence along aside a framework by which it can be evaluated) then they are useless, to anyone but yourself.
Unfortunately the problem we have here is that sherlock insists it is up to atheists to give a definition of what he may imagine a god is. And apparently all we have to go on so far is that sherlock justifies his contempt for women by telling us his god demands it.

Nor is your definition of atheism complete. Simple defining of a word is pointless as words have no meaning ( or we could say words can mean anything) outside of giving them context. For example nihilism when defined literally means a belief in nothing. Which of course has nothing to do with the philosophy of nihilism.

While atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god. It actually is nothing more than a reaction to theism. There is no other use for it.

The interest of most atheists is in dealing with the weird and ridiculous morality of theists such as sherlocks belief that he is superior to women because god said so, or christians wanting to ban homosexuality and abortion. The threads on whether there is a god at all are usually started by theists because those that are started by atheists usually get ignored by theists.


As for your definition of a god the natural question to ask here is why do you need evidence of one in the first place when really the only answer any theist can give honestly is that their belief is based on faith, not evidence.
 
Last edited:

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
9,303
Reaction score
2,287
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Except that those — and there are millions and possibly even billions — who have lived their life in communion with God and in service to God and who have written extensively of their experience have something to say about it.

Great works of art, music, poetry and lives of sacrifice attest to a *relationship* to the divine. It is a fact within Occidental categories (my main area of concern).

So not only is atheism a personal declaration of lack of belief . . . it also involves a negation of generations, centuries an millennia of involvement with the reality of God and spiritual life.

The rest of humanity you say? That’s quite a large grouping! And also considering that some billions of people have a bona fide spiritual life.

The same is true for you then, and I turn this back to you: If you cannot share your conclusions with those many people, those many generations of people, who have lived their life is communion with God, then your declarations for non-belief will be and remain unintelligible and nonsensical.

The actual fact is that you must investigate what they have done, what they have discovered, and what it means. And using the methods that they have used.

So in fact you will accept no *evidence* except of a sort. So your methods are way off.

[And welcome to the forum and the *conversation* BTW!]
You do realise that vampires are also a feature that has existed through countless societies and throughout history. Stories and art have appeared all over history just like your superstitions have. And there the credibility of vampires and your argument ends.
 
Last edited:

Unbeknownst

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2021
Messages
98
Reaction score
35
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
1617884765559.png
That's such an obvious copout and you know it. Just because not everything we consider true can be proven ABSOLUTELY true does not mean they cannot be proven sufficiently or somewhat true, and it does not dispute the fact that the vast majority of things can be sufficiently proven to be true or false.

You know that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem does not mean that nobody ever needs to prove anything. You know you can't walk into court and just shrug and say "Well, I can't prove it, and that's fine because of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem." You know that's not how things work. Let's not play games.
 

Alizia Tyler

Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
2,125
Reaction score
235
Location
Colombia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I wrote: “Except that those — and there are millions and possibly even billions — who have lived their life in communion with God and in service to God and who have written extensively of their experience have something to say about it.

Great works of art, music, poetry and lives of sacrifice attest to a *relationship* to the divine. It is a fact within Occidental categories (my main area of concern).”
You do realise that vampires are also a feature that has existed through countless societies and throughout history. Stories and art have appeared all over history just like your superstitions have. And there the credibility of vampires and your argument ends.
The sort of comparison that you have made here, though I am sure that it seems perfectly coherent to you, indicates that, in addition to simply being a bad comparison, that you lack a necessary understanding of and certainly appreciation of European culture, our Occidental civilization, and the importance of Christian categories and Christian metaphysics within our culture.

So, I am more interested in how it has come about and why it has come about that *people like you* have emerged. As I say I believe — I perceive, I notice — that your efforts are always destructive. Meaning that you are tearing down not building up.

Christian categories, Christian concerns, and Christian metaphysics are the root of Occidental culture. See the thing is that *you-plural* ( I regret that I must speak so generally) lack a fundamental understanding about our own culture. Why is this? I am beginning to conclude that your contempt for the category of Christian metaphysics has such a grip on you that it possesses you and might even blind you. My impression is that it poisons you on numerous levels.

In any case, to have made a comparison between believe in God in the Christian sense to that of the fear of vampires seems really non-bright to me. A world has been built through those Christian categories. You wave all of that away with a non-intelligent imperious gesture. Yet you certainly have no right to do so.

So my general thrust is to note that it seems to me that your overall efforts are destructive to what has been built. And of course I oppose this.
 

Unbeknownst

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2021
Messages
98
Reaction score
35
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
1617886394887.png
You've mentioned the appeal to mob fallacy. I would assume soylentgreen was attempting the demonstrate to you that you were making use of the same fallacy in your argument. Just because many people have attested to the existence of God does not prove God exists, just as the many attestations to the existence of grey aliens or vampires prove neither of those exist. It's a fallacy.

Cultures and empires have also been built on polytheistic beliefs and Islam. The west consists of many secular countries, in fact, America was founded on secular ideals! Freedom of belief.

I don't understand what you were getting at with that bit about destruction. Do you not think that religion has not had a destructive effect on society? Yes, there's the art, which is wonderful, but 9/11 happened because of religious extremism. Slavery and homophobia have been justified with religion. Misogyny and misandry has been justified by religion.

I think to be skeptical of religion and sow seeds of skepticism in others is to prevent the sort of blind, unthinking faith that leads to extremism and bigotry. It's a way of protecting society.
 
Top Bottom