Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists (2 Viewers)

[Ouroboros]

No I laugh at the fact that you have decided to make yourself the arbiter of someones ability to appreciate poetry when you know nothing about the person what they have done or shown that you have any ability to appreciate poetry yourself

Basically you are pretending to be God on this issue and it is laughable

I related a fact, that there are good artists and bad artists (which might be clearer than saying "poets," since so many posters here think it's purely about verse. You are free to believe the guy you cited is a good artist as well as, I guess, an atheist (even though you did not expressly say so). And I might differ with that opinion had I read the guy. Did you read his work?

 

[Ouroboros]

See 5800

Twice nothing is still nothing.

 

[Ouroboros]

It’s the definition of atheism

Atheists lack belief in a god or gods. It is by definition, not a belief.

The dictionary definition cannot be cited to support the false assumptions of actual atheists. And all those here identifying as atheists defend their beliefs in a reality without gods in terms of their own philosophies, not in line with dictionaries.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ouro doesnt do definitions

I can keep track of them better than you, Mister "All Dictionary Definitions Define Morality as Subjective."

 

[Ouroboros]

Your typical misrepresentation of what I said. I used anthropological research as the basis for my claims while all that you ever have when you get stuck is “we don’t know for sure”. Total cop-out. If there is any “fatuous”, it is that statement that you use over and over when you have painted yourself into a corner. I stand by all my claims as stated back then while you offered nothing but pablum, as usual. You are even afraid to openly state from whence you believe morality came, but instead dance all around it. What that shows is that you are so uncertain of your claim that you are afraid to be embarrassed by openly stating it.

Since you have no interest in clarifying your position re anthropology, I think you're afraid of being embarrassed in case you say something new that contradicts your earlier statements. Go ahead, hide some more.

 

[Ouroboros]

This statement makes even less sense than most of the ones that you post, but what it shows is that you spend your time attempting to knock down the arguments of others instead of openly stating yours. You have spent weeks on end evading a direct answer to the question as to how morality derives in human societies. What are you so afraid of? And what are you claiming is the “general concept of morality” of which you speak? Nor that I expect anything from you but running away from questions.

Same to you as to Individual: since you ignore earlier posts in which I answered your questions, why should I repeat myself? BTW, you have also resolutely failed to define the evidence that you think refutes theistic claims, as long as we're discussing unanswered questions.

 

[Ouroboros]

I've asked whether cannibalism is moral several times. Crickets. Not even, "Yes, but only if you're starving to death."

Age of consent in Medieval Europe was as low as 10. These are Christians we're talking about.

Tutankhamun married his sister.

The list is endless. It seems "morality" has a close association with inherited instincts.

What is this supposedly a "list" of? Of things that atheists supposedly repudiate? Of things all "Christians" have advocated? If you phrased your earlier questions as badly as you did here, no wonder you got no responses. (Assuming that's true.)

 

[Michael Cole]

What is this supposedly a "list" of?

Pinnipeds.

Of things that atheists supposedly repudiate?

Mirounga

Of things all "Christians" have advocated?

Aye caramba.

If you phrased your earlier questions as badly as you did here, no wonder you got no responses. (Assuming that's true.)

I wasn't asking questions in that post. You are very confused.



Good for tourism.

 

[Individual]

(1) As you have claimed, different atheists make different derivative arguments. Yours, for instance, is to pretend that your stance is simple logic borne out by observable reality. You can claim you came to your conclusions independently, but since I have seen the same argument from at least one atheist who has posted on this forum, I think it's more likely that both of you picked up this argument from some previous source. (2) From agnostic weighing of all possibilities, since you are again trying to claim that I have advocated theism as a source of morality. (3) Atheists are so attached to their worship of science that they generally have no appreciation of poetry, which here means the entire gamut of artistic endeavor, not just verse.

(1) You may believe that, but you would be wrong, though I was just an unbeliever from the first mention of an invisible god, until I became aware of the word atheist, which I found fitting to my views. There may be some atheists who began life as a theist or agnostic who later found reason to become an atheist, though I never was. Sorry.
(2) You found a need to include the possibility of a god or gods in your source of morality, while I did not. What morality above that of an atheist was found in need of a god?
(3) Now an unsubstantiated claim of atheists having a worship of science. Science simply provides us with useful knowledge. I'm still at a loss trying to see how you associate an appreciation or lack of with atheism. The renowned Greek poet, Diagoras of Melos, was known as the Atheist of Melos. Were not Picasso and Rodin artistic?

 

[Quag]

You can forget the content of your previous posts but I need not do so.

Irony

 

[Quag]

I related a fact, that there are good artists and bad artists (which might be clearer than saying "poets," since so many posters here think it's purely about verse. You are free to believe the guy you cited is a good artist as well as, I guess, an atheist (even though you did not expressly say so). And I might differ with that opinion had I read the guy. Did you read his work?

Well irrelevant drivel but funny you have made a claim in the OP then switch from ability to appreciate poetry to making good or bad poetry/art and admit you ahve never read this poetry but still cling to the claim while admitting you have lack the information to support it
Your claim is that atheists lack the ability to appreciate poetry, not that they cannot produce "good" poetry
Whether or not your personal opinion of someone's work is good or bad has no bearing on that
Someone can appreciate poetry that you do not personally like and your personal tastes in poetry or any art form is irrevant to their bility to appreicate it.
despite your beliefs on this subject you are not the God of the arts

 

[Quag]

Twice nothing is still nothing.

Irony

 

[Quag]

I can keep track of them better than you, Mister "All Dictionary Definitions Define Morality as Subjective."

Lol you still don't comprehend the definitions from the dictionary you provided

 

[Master Debator]

(1) You continue to try to deny the objective nature of all human feeling and not just mine. I am happy to keep reminding you of your fallacy.

You continue to just present this weak ass lie, as if we all can't read, just because you and your argument are soft.

(2) You obviously did not read the example because you asked for my criteria. If you thought you had already critiqued my position, you would not ask for further criteria, so you were just creating a strawman.

Now you're just talking in circles like you're frightened of honesty debate.

(3) I created a scenario to illustrate my position and your only way to challenge it was with a scenario whose terms you keep changing to suit your subjective moods.

Your scenario didnt detail any objectice concerns, just subjective ones that you don't know how to identify as such.

(4) A feeling is genuine according to the situation being responded to, and the two cannot be separated by the false distinction of materialism.

What the **** does that even mean? The fact that you can't even be clear about your argument shows us all how weak you think it is. You're ****ing scared of presenting it clearly. You should be because I'm better at this than you are.

Again what does genuine mean? If only the objective facts matter then what do we need your feelings for? And if the biology of fear matters then genuine feelings constitute all biological responses, even to fake threats.

Again, how do you think "fight-or-flight" manifests in evolutionary biology without an appeal to emotions connected to safety, bodily integrity, et al? (5) Atheists can only hurt me by saying such stupid things that my ribs ache from laughter. Thanks for your contributions to my amusement.

I'm asking you guy. It's your argument but you seem real ****ing shy about explaining it.

(6) Already covered that any feelings that distort the nature of the situation are not objective feelings.

So what are you defining as an objective feeling? Feelings that you approve of? This argument is more emotional than I first thought.

Thus, to depart from your highly mutable scenario, if Rachel Morin felt apprehension prior to being actually assaulted by the scumbag who raped and murdered her, that would be an objective feeling, not separable from her biological responses to her fear.

What if she wasn't feeling apprension as you just fantasized for the sake of your argument? Are you arguing that would of been inappropriate? Your argument isn't very clear. Can you make it with more confidence so I know what it **** it actually is?

if she repressed her appropriate fear with a rationalization like, "oh, I shouldn't feel fear of sketchy dudes because that shows prejudice," that would be a subjective feeling, not appropriate to the actual situation.

So appropriate is just based off your feelings? And you think this makes it objective? Because you agree with it? That's funny.

 

[Master Debator]

(7) If my anticipation of your position is incorrect, you ought to be able to show how the imputation does not apply to your position, which you did not. What you judge as subjective is based in your subjective desire to defend materialism.

Right, you think debate is me proving the things you claim about me are false. That is also funny.

(8) There there, guy, why do you post mush and then claim it's "steel?"

I know it's steel because you've shyed away from addressing my salient points about biological responses verses objective facts.

(9) If you truly believed words "get to be defined by the people using them," then you would have no problem with my definition of subjectivity. What you really mean that your subjective interpretation of a word or a situation is right because it's coming from you, even though you clearly have no idea what the word "coy" means in the real world.

You can make up any defintion or subjective that you want. We get to question whether it makes sense or remains consistent. So far you seem to defining objective feelings as feelings you agree with.

(12) If you are such a champion of objectivity, show the post by which you can justify, objectively, your imputation of theism to me. You won't, because you can't take responsibility for your many fallacies.

My objective argument is the one about biological responses. I don't even know what this theism thing you're crying about even is. I don't think I've mentioned God or religion at all. Have you been so triggered that you're confusing me for someone else?

---

 

[JoeB131]

1) Their arguments are derivative.

2) Lacking morality, they can only define what they think it is not.

3) They lack any appreciation of poetry.

That's a good start, yes?

Not really.

Their arguments have good points -

If your morality is based on being punished by an imaginary fairy in the sky, that's not morality, that's fear.

I love poetry.

 

[rahl]

The dictionary definition cannot be cited to support the false assumptions of actual atheists.

And all those here identifying as atheists defend their beliefs in a reality without gods in terms of their own philosophies, not in line with dictionaries.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. It is by definition, not a belief of philosophy.

 

[watsup]

Since you have no interest in clarifying your position re anthropology,

Ultimate irony! It is you who hides behind obfuscation and an unwillingness to answer questions. What are you so afraid of? Why won’t you tell us where you think that morality comes from? You hide for weeks and months at a time instead.

 

[watsup]

BTW, you have also resolutely failed to define the evidence that you think refutes theistic claims, as long as we're discussing unanswered questions.

Quit lying. I’ve answered the question as to what evidence I would consider numerous times, no matter how often you lie about that, which is basically every day.

 

[Ouroboros]

You continue to just present this weak ass lie, as if we all can't read, just because you and your argument are soft.

Now you're just talking in circles like you're frightened of honesty debate.

Your scenario didnt detail any objectice concerns, just subjective ones that you don't know how to identify as such.

What the **** does that even mean? The fact that you can't even be clear about your argument shows us all how weak you think it is. You're ****ing scared of presenting it clearly. You should be because I'm better at this than you are.

Again what does genuine mean? If only the objective facts matter then what do we need your feelings for? And if the biology of fear matters then genuine feelings constitute all biological responses, even to fake threats.

I'm asking you guy. It's your argument but you seem real ****ing shy about explaining it.

So what are you defining as an objective feeling? Feelings that you approve of? This argument is more emotional than I first thought.

What if she wasn't feeling apprension as you just fantasized for the sake of your argument? Are you arguing that would of been inappropriate? Your argument isn't very clear. Can you make it with more confidence so I know what it **** it actually is?

So appropriate is just based off your feelings? And you think this makes it objective? Because you agree with it? That's funny.

(1) So is there some way in which you think the subjective feelings of other people, as opposed to just me, ARE objective? Of course you don't, and you just tried to talk about "my feelings" because you thought an ad hominem would be cool, rather than the dishonest rhetoric it really is. (2) See above for my correct estimation of your lack of honesty. (3) Way to avoid the fact that you changed your scenario to suit your subjective moods. What was that stupid crap about the shover being "happy" to shove the victim? Did you truly think that was a refutation of the shover's imputed malice toward the shovee? Not in your wildest bad rhetoric. (4) Your inability to understand clear terms does not make the terms unclear. (5) Repeating your false dichotomy remains pathetic. The issue is whether or not a given emotional response is linked to an objective concern. That does not make the objective concern the sole measure of reality, it shows that the two are both objectively real, because the emotion ties into what the subject does to respond to the concern. The fact that there can be incorrect emotional responses does not mean that they all are, which is the materialist fallacy you endorse. (7) I won't let you distort the argument into materialist dogma so you're pitching a fit. Very unseemly. (8) I gave you an illustrative example and you deflected with materialistic dogma. I think someone who's not me is the one who's emotionally triggered. (9) You're never going to know what the **** anything is, since you're married to false materialism. That's your privilege, I guess. As for your silly counter argument, no, the absence of a reaction is not incorrect any more than the lack of air in a vacuum proves that air is unreal. Any number of factors could prevent the victim's lack of response: she's distracted by something else and doesn't get the chance to assess the aggressor's threat level. (10) Still appropriate according to the objective situation, as in my original scenario and in my response to your flawed scenario.

 

[Ouroboros]

Right, you think debate is me proving the things you claim about me are false. That is also funny.

I know it's steel because you've shyed away from addressing my salient points about biological responses verses objective facts.

You can make up any defintion or subjective that you want. We get to question whether it makes sense or remains consistent. So far you seem to defining objective feelings as feelings you agree with.

My objective argument is the one about biological responses. I don't even know what this theism thing you're crying about even is. I don't think I've mentioned God or religion at all. Have you been so triggered that you're confusing me for someone else?

---

(1) You began with making a lame ad hominem, "If I don't agree with you, I must be defending my own hurt feelings." Nope, it's materialists who are downgrading all emotional responses to epiphenomena to form a false conclusion about what constitutes objective phenomena. Husserl kicked the butts of all naive materialists long ago. (2) Didn't shy away in the least; I clearly showed that your dichotomy was and is false. (3) Nope, still basing objective feelings upon what factors bring them into being, rather than dismissing them all for the sake of a sterile philosophy. (4) You have a short memory since you have conveniently forgotten your post 5771: "Ask yourself right now if you think Ms. Cleo or rando on the internet armed with google are better predictors and treaters of cancer than doctors..." In my post 5755 I said not one word lauding fortune tellers as being better predictors than doctors, and the idea of telling fortunes remains a fundamentally religious concept, asserting "fortunes." You made a clumsy attempt at a "reductio ad absurdum," because you wanted to deflect from my critique of your flawed definition of science as "predictive." But I'm gonna help you out there with my next post.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is a general post since a lot of you here seem afflicted with tunnel vision and don't read the whole thread, the better I guess to convince yourselves that your responses are blisteringly original rather than derivative. To sum up: Master Debater came slightly closer than most of you to the goal of defining the nature of evidence, but he got off on a false trail, claiming that science, and presumably the evidence it produces, is predominantly "predictive" in nature. I showed this to be false. But I also hinted at a correct definition when I alluded to a word beginning with "r" that might have solved MD's mental confusion. Here is a whole Wiki article devoted to defining that procedural concept, which I know all of you must be familiar with as good atheists, but for some reason were unable to come up with............................................https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeatability..............................Now the word repeatability is not the definition of evidence I requested from all of you, but the definition is in the essay itself. so now none of you have no justification for your cumulative inabilities to define evidence, because, not to put a fine point on it, the right words are in the ****** essay. Man, you can't make a horse drink or make an atheist think!

 

[watsup]

From agnostic weighing of all possibilities, since you are again trying to claim that I have advocated theism as a source of morality

Then tell us what you claim is indeed the source of morality. What re you so afraid of, being called on yet more silliness on your part?

 

[watsup]

the materialist fallacy y

materialist dogma

false materialism.

naive materialists

You still have not shown that there is anything in the universe beyond the material or what is derived from the material. What alternative do you offer? Formless entities? *L*

 

[watsup]

inabilities to define evidence, be

Still hiding instead of offering any evidence at all for any of you wacky theories, I see. What are you so afraid of?