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

[Alizia Tyler]

But you lack even a rudimentary understanding of philosophy.

My thought is: This sort of statement seems juvenile to me though it might have some traction with some fellow forumites here. It is an opening statement that leads to bickering and unneeded discord. If I said ‘Talk then about proper understanding of philosophy’ I imagine that you would stumble pretty badly.

I was responding to Tecoyah, not to you, and what I said is that an education that included rudimentary philosophy would enable one to feel comfortable within certain language use that is common in philosophical discourse. I said this because he indicated that some of the ideas talked about did not make sense to him.

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.

But hold on. Then I take this to mean that you agree with me that on a forum like this, and among serious people acting properly, that putting someone on ignore is not proper? Then I have made my point.

I think that I understand what Sherlock is attempting to carry forward and it is that that I support. I am aligned with an orientation that seeks to define and defend *conceptual pathways to the idea of God* and of course to the higher ideation that I often refer to. My basic motive lies here. The destruction of this *conceptual pathway to higher ideation* is enormously destructive and has enormous ramifications.

In our present those who carry forward the atheistic arguments — many who write on this forum and in this thread — have in my view been additionally captured by virulently destructive trends common in postmodern thinking. This sort of thinking was given fuel in the Sixties and obviously into the 80s and beyond. Reductions were crafted (cobbled together one might say) and these reduced ideological positions have come to form a wide-spread and very destructive movement that is now approaching crescendo (as I referred to before). Postmodernism, Social-Justiceism, ‘Wokism’, certain virulent forms of feminism and also Critical Theory generally — all of these are enormously destructive and are part-and-parcel of a termite-like undermining of important Occidental structures.

And one area that is especially attacked is religious life which means in fact ‘metaphysical structure’ and also ‘metaphysical anchor’. Based on what you write and what you seem to think I doubt that much of this makes much sense to you at all. Why is that? (I ask)

It is a task for me to come to understand all of this. But fairly and if possible with empathy. But this does not mean that I will simply dismiss your termite-like destructive burrowing. The only vehicle of opposition I have are my words and how ideas are handled though.

And that is why these conversations, even if no one of you gets this, are vitally relevant.

Any of this making just a tiny bit of sense Chopped Liv— er Soylent Green?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I hit mumbo jumbo in the first sentence of your other quote and....forget it. More pretentious crap.

So the rest was TL;dr.

His misogyny is obvious and indefensible. If you are attempting to defend that...glad I'm not bothering.

Madam, if I've posted anything truly distasteful, truly abusive, truly misogynistic, expressed a hatred toward women and so on, then I urge you to do your civic duty and bring this to the attention of the moderators.

Just press the "Report" function as shown here:



Your fellow board members will appreciate you for standing up to this kind of evil.

 

[Logtroll]

View attachment 67327381
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.

Faith religions = mob fallacy.

 

[devildavid]

The agnostic label does not apply to one's knowledge of theism but to whether one is confident that God exists.

Agnosticism is about how one can never have knowledge of god because it is impossible.

 

[Logtroll]

Hey, the ‘mob fallacy’ thing got me to thinking... as a non religious person (or atheist, agnostic, non-believer, etc.) I never go to group sessions to worship/practice my ‘faith’.

Is going to church on Sundays just a weekly refresher indoctrination of a mob fallacy?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

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.

I see the point you are trying to make but I am referring more to tangible accomplishment and a great deal of evidence of accomplishment as a point to begin research.

People with strong atheistic a prioris have a (generally) fixed position that they will not budge from. Many of them have psychological reasons (it is a psychological and even an emotional issue) why they oppose, for example, Catholicism (Tecoya’s case and also 4 others who have written here).

I don’t get involved, myself, in the ‘Prove to me that God exists!’ project because I think it is futile when one is dealing with those who have become hardened, as many here are hardened. So what I say is that one has to turn not to proof but to accomplishment, and the effect of a strong (and genuine if possible) relationship with the Divine. For me, I have few problems here. For others, they have big problems.

In any case I do not think that the *accomplishment* argument is a fallacy. It would be part-and-parcel of a genuine and sincere process of investigation.

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.

America arose out of a unique and singular matrix. The more that I have looked into this the more convinced I am of its *relatedness* to men who had and lived in — various I will admit — forms of faith. But the matrix was and is Christian.

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.

’Destruction’ and ‘destructiveness’ are crucial to my overall argument in favor of *keeping open the conceptual pathway to the idea of God*. I have just written (above) about postmodernism and Critical Theory. Examples of destruction and undermining.

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.

My own view is not unlike what you say here. And I suggest reading as widely as possible. Because I have made efforts to read widely, and also because I have access to an extraordinary private library (my brother-in law’s) I believe that I can see very clearly the value of critical thought and skepticism.

But not of open denial, not negationism, not rejectionsim, not nihilism. Synthesis, perhaps, but not open destruction.

Our symbol today for the destructiveness I refer to is in a) burning cities, b) toppling statues and monuments, and c) an hysterical social mood arising out of the mistakes inherent in postmodern and Critical Theory.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Agnosticism is about how one can never have knowledge of god because it is impossible.

I'm sure that's true if we use David's guide to internet definitions as you did for "atheist" some weeks ago, you often have your own favorite pet definitions for things that you like to tell everyone about.

 

[devildavid]

My thought is: This sort of statement seems juvenile to me though it might have some traction with some fellow forumites here. It is an opening statement that leads to bickering and unneeded discord. If I said ‘Talk then about proper understanding of philosophy’ I imagine that you would stumble pretty badly.

I was responding to Tecoyah, not to you, and what I said is that an education that included rudimentary philosophy would enable one to feel comfortable within certain language use that is common in philosophical discourse. I said this because he indicated that some of the ideas talked about did not make sense to him.

But hold on. Then I take this to mean that you agree with me that on a forum like this, and among serious people acting properly, that putting someone on ignore is not proper? Then I have made my point.

I think that I understand what Sherlock is attempting to carry forward and it is that that I support. I am aligned with an orientation that seeks to define and defend *conceptual pathways to the idea of God* and of course to the higher ideation that I often refer to. My basic motive lies here. The destruction of this *conceptual pathway to higher ideation* is enormously destructive and has enormous ramifications.

In our present those who carry forward the atheistic arguments — many who write on this forum and in this thread — have in my view been additionally captured by virulently destructive trends common in postmodern thinking. This sort of thinking was given fuel in the Sixties and obviously into the 80s and beyond. Reductions were crafted (cobbled together one might say) and these reduced ideological positions have come to form a wide-spread and very destructive movement that is now approaching crescendo (as I referred to before). Postmodernism, Social-Justiceism, ‘Wokism’, certain virulent forms of feminism and also Critical Theory generally — all of these are enormously destructive and are part-and-parcel of a termite-like undermining of important Occidental structures.

And one area that is especially attacked is religious life which means in fact ‘metaphysical structure’ and also ‘metaphysical anchor’. Based on what you write and what you seem to think I doubt that much of this makes much sense to you at all. Why is that? (I ask)

It is a task for me to come to understand all of this. But fairly and if possible with empathy. But this does not mean that I will simply dismiss your termite-like destructive burrowing. The only vehicle of opposition I have are my words and how ideas are handled though.

And that is why these conversations, even if no one of you gets this, are vitally relevant.

Any of this making just a tiny bit of sense Chopped Liv— er Soylent Green?

Translation:
Christians good.
Atheists bad.

I guess the rest of the world is just observers of our grand "Occidental" drama.
Enjoy the show!

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Christians good.
Atheists bad.

Let me put it this way, and this is quite a bit different: yesterday you presented some *ideas* that were logically untenable and that is not an exaggeration. All of this, your idea-structure such as it is, is based in negation. Negation is the only tool that you have or it is one that is dominant to such a degree that it appears to define you.

This is definitely *bad*. I have no more doubt about this David. You have no more platform for sensible discussion. You have wiped yourself off the map so to speak.

How has this come about? That is the Question!

I cannot speak about all brands of atheism, but I can speak to the sort of atheistic ideation I encounter here. And I can definitely, and also fairly, speak to the general negationsim that infuses all of your thinking.

My sense is that others share a similar relartionship to this ‘negationsim’ and, yes, this is definitely *bad*. For obvious reasons. Reasons that are made plain. That you yourself make plain when you make statements.

I do not like the stark dichotomy that you are trying to establish. I think that to appreciate Christianity one has to have made the effort to study it in some depth. I have done this and I continue to do it and you will not succeed — with infantile negations — to unseat me from the view I now have.

The Christian tradition is extremely important and highly relevant. It is wide and varied and has so many positive features that they’d be very hard to list. Christian ideas and Christian values infuse everything, from top to bottom, in our culture. And indeed these ideas and values are part-and-parcel of what we are.

So if I compared one to the other I would say that whatever you are, whatever you have become, is so extremely *bad* in relation to what the other is that there is simply no comparison at all.

Your object, David, is negation and destruction. I assert that this is a disease.

 

[devildavid]

I'm sure that's true if we use David's guide to internet definitions as you did for "atheist" some weeks ago, you often have your own favorite pet definitions for things that you like to tell everyone about.

Agnosticism sure isn't about what you said it was.

 

[watsup]

Madam, if I've posted anything truly distasteful, truly abusive, truly misogynistic, expressed a hatred toward women and so on, then I urge you to do your civic duty and bring this to the attention of the moderators.

Just press the "Report" function as shown here:

View attachment 67327387

Your fellow board members will appreciate you for standing up to this kind of evil.

And once again Sherlock chooses to HIDE BEHIND “report this to the moderators” rather than to address the topic at hand, which is his strange belief that a few lines in the Bible written in an era when chauvinism towards women was a cultural centrality somehow justifies the same attitude today. It’s either very amazing or very sad—or both.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Agnosticism sure isn't about what you said it was.

Its exactly what I said it was, I do urge you to try and prove me wrong though if you really feel the overpowering need to try and appear relevant to this thread.

 

[Unbeknownst]

It can have that effect, but it's not always intended that way. Being in a room with people all telling you God exists, they can hear him, he's blessed their lives, etc. etc. can smother dissent.

You start thinking that if everyone can feel his presence in the room, they can't all be wrong, right? So you convince yourself you can also feel him in the room, because you don't want to be the odd one out.

Many atheists go through what I call an "angry atheist" phase where they're absolutely insufferable and adamant in the nonexistence of any deity. I am not saying this is the case with the users you have mentioned, but I'm just pointing out that it is a phase. We grow out of it. It's not unique to atheists, either. I remember there's a term for this in a certain Christian denomination that I just can't remember, where new converts went through a similar thing.

"Angry atheists" do want debate, they just also happen to believe all theists are brainwashed sheep and that atheists are the enlightened saviors of the world. They tend argue in bad faith. I can also acknowledge that some atheists have had a negative experience with religion, which can also result in a reluctance to engage in good faith.

But I don't think that atheists are any worse than theists in this respect. From what I've seen theists are even more unwilling to even consider that they may not be right.

The OG Americans were Christians with Christian values, yes. But they had suffered first hand in a country where there was no freedom of belief, and they strove to make America different. A place where you could believe whatever you want and you wouldn't be persecuted for it.

 

[devildavid]

Let me put it this way, and this is quite a bit different: yesterday you presented some *ideas* that were logically untenable and that is not an exaggeration. All of this, your idea-structure such as it is, is based in negation. Negation is the only tool that you have or it is one that is dominant to such a degree that it appears to define you.

This is definitely *bad*. I have no more doubt about this David. You have no more platform for sensible discussion. You have wiped yourself off the map so to speak.

How has this come about? That is the Question!

I cannot speak about all brands of atheism, but I can speak to the sort of atheistic ideation I encounter here. And I can definitely, and also fairly, speak to the general negationsim that infuses all of your thinking.

My sense is that others share a similar relartionship to this ‘negationsim’ and, yes, this is definitely *bad*. For obvious reasons. Reasons that are made plain. That you yourself make plain when you make statements.

There are no brands of atheism. Are there brands of right wing Christian identitarianism? What brand are you?

My negationism? That's funny. You want to negate everything but your own extreme Christian right wind identitarian views to cleanse the world of the metaphysically existential threat of the ideations of atheism. I'm not looking to purify the world, as you are. I'm just here for the ride, and the popcorn.

 

[devildavid]

Its exactly what I said it was, I do urge you to try and prove me wrong though if you really feel the overpowering need to try and appear relevant to this thread.

No, it is not. You are wrong again.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, it is not. You are wrong again.

Having trouble reading again? I did also just say "I do urge you to try and prove me wrong though" of course if your personal opinion is all you have to offer then I can see why you'd back down to such a challenge.

 

[devildavid]

Having trouble reading again? I did also just say "I do urge you to try and prove me wrong though" of course if your personal opinion is all you have to offer then I can see why you'd back down to such a challenge.

I don't need to prove your incorrect statement wrong. It does the job for me.

 

[Unbeknownst]

I can agree that we should keep discussion open. Discussion should be kept open on all topics, really, no matter how abhorrent the subject matter. The moment we start taking away free speech is the moment we start sledding down a very slippery slope.

But... I don't agree with what you've said about destruction.

If you live in a society where your people are being brutalized by the very people who are supposed to protect you, I do not think destruction is unwarranted.

If you live in a society where you attempt to protest this brutalization peacefully and are gassed and arrested, I do not think destruction is unwarranted.

If you live in a society where despite numerous calls for action your people are still being brutalized, I do not think destruction is unwarranted.

If you live in a society where it is a matter of debate whether or not to allow monuments of brutalizers of your people, I do not think destruction is unwarranted.

Though I don't see what this has to do with atheism.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't need to prove your incorrect statement wrong. It does the job for me.

Attaboy David, the only proofs that matter are the one's you demand from others, as usual it has to be all about David, David's world, David's opinions and beliefs, David's plans...

 

[Unbeknownst]

I'm sure that's true if we use David's guide to internet definitions as you did for "atheist" some weeks ago, you often have your own favorite pet definitions for things that you like to tell everyone about.

David's definition seems to be right. The widely accepted meaning of agnosticism is the view that the existence of God is unknowable.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

There are no brands of atheism.

We are leaving next week on safari! We are going to the deepest, darkest Continent to hunt DevilDavids! When I get mine I have decided I am going to stuff him and mount him on my wall. I’ll post a pic!

You are not serious David. You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

View attachment 67327403
David's definition seems to be right. The widely accepted meaning of agnosticism is the view that the existence of God is unknowable.

David has not presented a definition of "agnosticism" (I asked him if you care to review the recent posts), only made one up in his head which is all David ever does.

The point of all this (you are likely unaware of David's tiresome habits) is to underline that definitions are selected, we each choose a definition that suits us.

David always wants to imply there's an absolute definition for things and that absolute definition always just so happens to be the one David selects, only he has the authority and erudition and wisdom to discern the actual true definitions of things.

In short David's debating style, nature, is that David is right because David is right, that's it, that's David.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I can agree that we should keep discussion open.

Your screenshot method of quotation has 2 downsides (though it is elegant!) One is that it does not notify the one you respond to. And two that it is hard to read what you are quoting.

 

[watsup]

David has not presented a definition of "agnosticism" (I asked him if you care to review the recent posts), only made one up in his head which is all David ever does.

The point of all this (you are likely unaware of David's tiresome habits) is to underline that definitions are selected, we each choose a definition that suits us.

David always wants to imply there's an absolute definition for things and that absolute definition always just so happens to be the one David selects, only he has the authority and erudition and wisdom to discern the actual true definitions of things.

In short David's debating style, nature, is that David is right because David is right, that's it, that's David.

More psychological projection.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

But... I don't agree with what you've said about destruction.

I speak of destructive trends operative today in our culture. I am speaking about specific things in specific areas.