Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists (8 Viewers)

[watsup]

(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.

Gish gallop. *YAWN*

 

[watsup]

(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.

Follow-on Gish Gallop. *YAWN*

 

[Ouroboros]

Pinnipeds.


Mirounga


Aye caramba.


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



Good for tourism.

This is an interesting strategy for an atheist: you are unable to formulate whatever proposition you think you're making, and when pressed for clarification, you deflect into nonsense, projecting the notion that you are meeting nonsense with nonsense. It's at least a change from the other forms of dishonesty endorsed by my other opponents here.

 

[Ouroboros]

(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?

(1) The point that you repeatedly fail to grapple with is that since you refuse to validate my position-- you ask me for my reason for endorsing the *possibility* of a god and then cannot accept that I gave you a reason-- then why should I accept your account for the evolution of your atheism? You can state what you think happened, but why should anyone believe that you are accurate? All atheists believe that any testimony about experiencing encounters with gods must be either deception or delusion, but the same accusation can be leveled at the personal testimonies of atheists. (2) Not a need. A logical acknowledgement of the limitations of human knowledge and the tendency of atheists to place their thumbs on the scale of *gnosis,* just as much as any theist. (3) William Blake famously wrote that Milton "was of the Devil's party without knowing it." A real artist is certainly capable of indulging in dumbass screeds of atheism-- Philip Pullman in the His Dark Materials book-series is a better example than any of yours-- while still reaching into the same wellsprings of poetry that religion invokes. But most atheists are not capable of creativity, so all they can come up with are dead-end claims that if an alleged phenomenon cannot be verified by the tools of science, it is either a delusion or a deception-- which is how most if not all atheists would regard the religious visions of William Blake.

 

[Ouroboros]

Irony

Still waiting for you to admit that not all dictionary definitions define morality as subjective. Keep sailing down your river of De Nile.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

Show where the one I cited defined morality as subjective.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

But as I said to Individual, why should anyone accept your personal testimonies if you accept only those of other atheists? And I still did not say atheists' failures to come up with general concepts of morality was an endorsement of any theist concept of morality.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

Still a belief and a philosophy for the reasons cited.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

There is a possibility that human morality evolved in reaction to encounters with the supernatural, and there is a possibility that human morality evolved purely in reaction to events in human culture alone-- though there is no possibility that any early humans sat around discussing their moral imperatives rationally, which was your false representation. Okay, now will you specify that the early culture of which you wrote is identical with animistic religious society? Bet not.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

I also bet you will claim to have endorsed the (partial) criteria of repeatability, though you never used the word.

 

[Ouroboros]

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?

See post 5859.

 

[Ouroboros]

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*

Define your (probably false) concept of evidence.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

define evidence.

 

[Ouroboros]

Gish gallop. *YAWN*

I lose my bet; you went the Michael Cole route of deflection.

 

[Ouroboros]

Follow-on Gish Gallop. *YAWN*

More Michael Cole deflection, and more proof of atheists' derivative thought patterns.

 

[Individual]

(1) The point that you repeatedly fail to grapple with is that since you refuse to validate my position-- you ask me for my reason for endorsing the *possibility* of a god and then cannot accept that I gave you a reason-- then why should I accept your account for the evolution of your atheism? You can state what you think happened, but why should anyone believe that you are accurate? All atheists believe that any testimony about experiencing encounters with gods must be either deception or delusion, but the same accusation can be leveled at the personal testimonies of atheists. (2) Not a need. A logical acknowledgement of the limitations of human knowledge and the tendency of atheists to place their thumbs on the scale of *gnosis,* just as much as any theist. (3) William Blake famously wrote that Milton "was of the Devil's party without knowing it." A real artist is certainly capable of indulging in dumbass screeds of atheism-- Philip Pullman in the His Dark Materials book-series is a better example than any of yours-- while still reaching into the same wellsprings of poetry that religion invokes. But most atheists are not capable of creativity, so all they can come up with are dead-end claims that if an alleged phenomenon cannot be verified by the tools of science, it is either a delusion or a deception-- which is how most if not all atheists would regard the religious visions of William Blake.

(1) Only YOU can validate YOUR position, and the only way I know for that to be done is for those who do not accept your position factually true as claimed in your OP, would be to produce irrefutable answers to questions asked about your claims. As for my position, I can only explain it in the form of what, when, why, and how. You are free to believe or not, though I find being called a liar very offensive.
All atheists?
(2) "I don't know" indicates a lack of knowledge, and 'gnosis' is a word applicable to theism NOT atheism.
(3) Just more of what you BELIEVE to be true.

 

[Master Debator]

(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.

I didn't change scenario guy, they were all hypotheticals. We dont even need hypotheticals though to figure this out. You could just try making a rational argument.

I don't think feelings are objective you do. That's what we are debating. I defined objective as things that don't have to do with your feelings so naturally that would exclude all feelings. You tried to define an objective concern as feelings from biological responses that induce things like fight or flight, however I pointed out that biological responses don't just happen to people in objective danger. So then you decided to come back with objective danger plus biological feelings. Fine. All I'm asking you to do is explain what that argument is about. So someone is legitimately following their feelings to flee from or fight of danger? So what? What about the person legitimately following their desire to rape and kill? I'm not trying to refute your argument so much as figure out what it is about. You seem to have sympathy for the feelings of the person feeling frightened and fleeing a pursuer but the rapist and murderer feeling desire is also pursuing their objective concerns even if you aren't sympathetic to those goals so what I am is confused about what your point is beyond who you have sympathy for.

(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.

Ok... but a rapist is also objectively concerned about raping. I get that you don't care about the concerns of rapists and neither do I but i don't have to pretend that this concern for the person fleeing the rapist is somehow more objectively real just because it's coming from someone I sympathize with.

The fact that there can be incorrect emotional responses does not mean that they all are, which is the materialist fallacy you endorse.

What's an incorrect emotional rsponse? If someones body is being flooded with hormones to induce fight or flight that's not a biological response they can control so is an incorrect emotional response just people reacting to that in ways you disagree with? None of these arguments appear objective. In fact they all seem very focused on your subjective feelings.

(7) I won't let you distort the argument into materialist dogma so you're pitching a fit. Very unseemly.

By asking you basic, rational questions to your argument? Ok guy.

(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.

You gave me your own made up scenario and I'm questioning you about it, what's confusing here? Do you understand what debate is?

(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.

Right, only you get to create scenarios no one else and no one can question them! Real strong argument you got there.

 

[watsup]

This is an interesting strategy for an atheist: you are unable to formulate whatever proposition you think you're making, and when pressed for clarification, you deflect into nonsense, projecting the notion that you are meeting nonsense with nonsense. It's at least a change from the other forms of dishonesty endorsed by my other opponents here

So much projection in just this one short post!

 

[watsup]

Still waiting for you to admit that not all dictionary definitions define morality as subjective.

Show otherwise. You can’t and you won’t because you run away from challenges/questions as fast as you can.

 

[watsup]

There is a possibility that human morality evolved in reaction to encounters with the supernatural,

Yes, we know how much agnostics love to carry water for the superstitionists. You are very good at it.

though there is no possibility that any early humans sat around discussing their moral imperatives rationally, which was your false representation

Another strawman lie from you. All that doing so does is to show the weakness of your own arguments, not of mine.

 

[watsup]

Define your (probably false) concept of evidence.

define evidence.

Still afraid to offer any evidence, I see. I don’t blame you. It would no doubt be nothing other than more water carrying for the theists and religionists, just like agnostics always do. What are you so afraid of?

 

[watsup]

so all they can come up with are dead-end claims that if an alleged phenomenon cannot be verified by the tools of science, it is either a delusion or a deception-- which is how most if not all atheists would regard the religious visions of William Blake.

So now you are saying that Blake really did see God at a window or angels in trees? Do you really believe that?

 

[rahl]

Still a belief and a philosophy for the reasons cited.

Objectively false. Lacking a belief in a god or gods, is by definition NOT a belief of philosophy.

 

[Quag]

Still waiting for you to admit that not all dictionary definitions define morality as subjective. Keep sailing down your river of De Nile.

The dictionary agrees with me and proved you wrong

 

[Quag]

Show where the one I cited defined morality as subjective.

Been there done that but here this will help you if it not then clearly logic and reason are well beyond your very limited abilities

Definition of MORAL

of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical; expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior; conforming to a standard of right behavior… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

1a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical
moral judgments

b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
a moral poem

c: conforming to a standard of right behavior
took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination

d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment

Definition of SUBJECTIVE

of, relating to, or constituting a subject: such as; of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness; being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : nominative… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

3a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal

As morals exist only in the mind they can only be subjective