Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists (3 Viewers)

[Individual]

Define your criteria for belief, non-tautologically.

Several persons have done that, which led to my posting "You can lead a horse to water..."

 

[Individual]

You were never debating with all your one sided questions, sealion. So I answer what amuses me and disregard whenever you repeat questions answered.

You've done nothing but avoid answering everything asked. Your thread is an opinion, when others question you about it you show that you are incapable of supporting your claim, leaving you to do nothing more than attack those who question you.
How childish.

 

[Individual]

Your watering-hole is clearly surrounded by "poison" signs; you've just been drinking from that tainted source so long you can't read them any more.

You seem to deal with nothing but beliefs.

 

[Individual]

Every definition you've advanced of "evidence" remains a tautology. And once again you dodge any question put to you.

Point out what you believe makes them a tautology.

 

[Master Debator]

(1) The actual meaning of "ad hominem" is all the proof required.

Sure..... now where in here does it say ad hominems have to be about people?

Ad Hominen

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact", to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong – without ever addressing the point of the debate.

A common misconception is that an ad hominem attack is synonymous with an insult. This is not true, although some ad hominem arguments may be insulting by the person receiving the argument.

(2) You're still the one playing mind-reader when you impute psychological faults to others without material evidence. Evidence is supposedly important to atheists, until it isn't. But please continue to condemn yourself out of your own mouth.

Material evidence? What's that? Why don't you go ahead and define evidence for me.

(3) Your arbitrary separation of the objective and the subjective remains your non-rational argument. You should go back to that, though, since you've already lost the ad hominem thing.

What arbitrary separation? My separation of the objective from the subjective is purposeful and with reason.

(4) Your proposition that rapists and rape-victims have equivalent subjectivities invalidates your disagreement by virtue of the proposition's nonsensical content.

Where is the substance of this argument? Again nonsensical is just name calling, where is the argument to describe how they're desires aren't equally subjective.

(5) The disregard you describe is purely subjective, unlike the objectively based ideals of an organized society.

Explain to me how ideals are objective when people disagree about them.

(6) Now, organized societies can make mistakes based on subjective ideals as much as individuals. But the objective needs for societal defense still establish a need for its citizens' prudence over pure subjectivity, and the slaves' desire to escape bondage does not annul that societal need.

It doesn't establish that shit for me but then I'm less servile than you appear to be. How do you explain our disagreement?

The slave who wants freedom does not want the total anarchy of subjective rule; he wants to join the society and have access to the rules that govern societal membership.

That's you make believing the motivations of a fantasy person for the sake of you frail argument. I never argued a slave wants anarchy just different rules and a different type of society by virtue of slavers having to force their participation in the slave one. That's what makes social rules and constructs subjective.

(7) You are in no position to critique anyone's consistency after equating the rapist's desire to rape and the victim's desire not to be raped-- a conflict which gives birth to the objective need for social controls of the rapist's purely subjective desires.

I am in position to make arguments, this is a debate board. Try addressing those arguments if you disagree with them instead of focusing on your feelings about me. Not all societies control rapists, famously, at the start of the American slaver society rape of slaves was perfectly legal. Hell up until the 90s it was still legal in some places to rape your wife. Rape has been legal in this country for a lot longer than it has been illegal.

(8) Your lack of understanding of the equivalence of the different sciences is a "you thing."

Funny because Im the one explaining it to you.

(9) If you were truly happy you wouldn't continue advancing nonsensical content, because it shows your desperation.

I'm having a hell of a time pointing out the nonsense that are your counter arguments.

 

[Quag]

Your revised rules are not binding. If the definition of morality from an established dictionary doesn't support your claim, your claim remains wrong. However, my post 6315 provides a justification for my statement that morality is intersubjective since it stems from universal human problems and the deviations between the moral systems are epiphenomenal.

No revised rules that is what I said from the start. I am correct and you are incorrect
I had a moment's talk with him
And saw that he was good,
A spirit candid to the brim,
Breathing of brotherhood,

 

[Quag]

Your detour into nonsense remains your problem not mine.

Your dishonesty shows a lack of morals on your part not mine

Nice web you have weaved
You must be very tired

 

[Quag]

Talking to atheists is indeed like trying to drink seawater.

Irony from a the radical theist
He was the Prince who built his castle at low tide…

Unknowingly, he stood in shock and surprise

 

[Quag]

A critique of a post is not an ad hominem because a post is not a person, any more than a philosophy. And you still have no evidence (supposedly important to atheists) that I am a theist.

What a worthless usless post lacking any merit or honesty
Radical theism is not a good look for anyone

 

[Quag]

Repeated if petty failure.

Failure of a post
The false claims of the ad-hominem OP remains unsupported.

We cannot kindle when we will
The fire which in the heart resides;
The spirit bloweth and is still,
In mystery our soul abides.

 

[rahl]

What word was "gif" supposed to be?

God. iPhone autocorrected.

The only people using gifs here have been my opponents. But maybe you meant to type "god" as the previous sentence suggests, Once again, the primary M-W def for "belief" is this: "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing,"

No it isn’t. The primary definition is lack of belief in a good or gods.

The thing in which atheists place all of their confidence is scientific materialism, and every one of my opponents here has asked for validation of religion in those terms. Not playing baseball is not predicated on playing basketball, but not believing in gods remains predicated on the false notion that materialism explains all real phenomena.

Nope. Not believing in god is predicated on no evidence existing proving the existence of god. Lacking belief in a god is by definition not a belief. Just like not playing baseball is by definition not a sport.

 

[Lursa]

God. iPhone autocorrected.

No it isn’t. The primary definition is lack of belief in a good or gods.

Nope. Not believing in god is predicated on no evidence existing proving the existence of god. Lacking belief in a god is by definition not a belief. Just like not playing baseball is by definition not a sport.

It's hilarious since I'm a practicing Christian...so he's wrong as usual (re: gifs). I am capable of, however, examining issues without bias and with clarity and fact. A true Christian believes in God on faith alone and anyone needing more is weak in faith, needing proof.

 

[watsup]

Your clumsy dismissal of religion in societies remains the proof of my statement.

More lies because you are unable to provide a viable alternative to humans developing their own moralities. I’m not sure why you keep bringing up religions, because that’s what happens with them too—the humans involved come up with the moralities and then they overlay them with the myths and superstitions of their particular God or gods.

 

[watsup]

I'm not surprised that you can't read an actual sustained argument

You start off with "intersubjective" once again as if that actually meant something when you have not taken the time to try to explain that claim in depth. It's just more fluff to try to make your arguments sound "intellectual". They are clearly not.
You make claims and then you back away from them as fast as you can. For instance, you made a claim of "entities that appeared to be god" and when I asked you to expand, you hid behind your normal excuses and ad hom like you do every single day. And earlier you had used the term "formless entities" with the same result--I asked you to explain and expand and you simply slunk away without doing so.
Same with this "intersubjective" bit. Here is the definition: "existing between conscious minds; shared by more than one conscious mind".
That's not saying anything. It's woo-woo garbage. Can you expand and explain how exactly this works in order to develop moralities? Or will you just slink away yet again, as per normal.

 

[lolbert]

I have come to the conclusion that debating religion on the internet is pointless. Every argument for and against God's existence has already been made, and nobody's opinion changes.

 

[watsup]

The biggest difference of many is that recent animist societies have had no contact with more advanced societies, the sort of societies that did not exist in archaic times

What are you trying to say? What recent animist societies can you point to that "have had not contact with more advanced societies"? Seems like that is exactly the opposite. What animist societies have not had contact with more advanced societies? Where are they located?

None of the recent societies are in the position of early human societies, that of formulating concepts of gods and spirits for the first time ever.

Still makes no sense. What are you terming as "recent societies"? Give some examples. I have no idea what you are talking about, and I don't think that you do either unless you can fill this out with some practical examples. And basically every human society that has ever existed has formulated conepts of god and spirits for the first time on their own. Can you give examples of those who did not?

Only a firm believer in materialism would assume that animist societies today were influenced by other religions, particularly in those eras when anthropology did not exist and no independent observers existed to chart those societies' development.

Who said that animist societies today were influenced by other religions? You are just chock full of strawmen, like always. Try debating just one side of the story instead of trying to fill in the other side. We can do that just fine.
And you still don't understand the basis of anthropology. Yes, the often admit that there were no independent observers and no written record of primitive societies which is why they study the artifacts of those societies to try to determine their social substance. This is no secret, but you act like it is a big deal.

I told Michael Cole that weeks ago and he had no more answer than you, just another knee jerk defense of anything that seems to support scientific materialism.

This is just more of your normal projection. You are the King in that regard.

 

[watsup]

I have come to the conclusion that debating religion on the internet is pointless. Every argument for and against God's existence has already been made, and nobody's opinion changes

Then don't debate religion on the internet. See how easy that is?

 

[devildavid]

So since you are against conceptions of religion in any form, including those that posit gods appearing at the dawn of humankind, your objection to gods appearing in a later era is meaningless.

I am not against conceptions of religion in any form. I know that they exist. My question addresses one particular religious conception that is illogical. If god always existed why would god wait until a certain time in history to present humans with what this god says that morality should be for humans? It makes no sense at all. Were earlier humans not in need of this all important knowledge? Did this god not care about it until a certain time in human history? Makes no sense.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not quite what you been asking, but go ahead and state what non-materialistic phenomena you're talking about.
State your question clearly and concisely and I'll try to answer it clearly and concisely.

I highly doubt that, but since we've been mostly talking about gods, define what you would look for in the evidence that you an atheist would require to prove the existence of god. There is a potential, non-tautological definition of evidence out there, so let's see you dispense with tautologies and provide a clear and concise definition.

 

[Ouroboros]

Your response is exactly why.

My responses have nothing to do with your love of tautologies.

 

[Ouroboros]

I am not against conceptions of religion in any form. I know that they exist. My question addresses one particular religious conception that is illogical. If god always existed why would god wait until a certain time in history to present humans with what this god says that morality should be for humans? It makes no sense at all. Were earlier humans not in need of this all important knowledge? Did this god not care about it until a certain time in human history? Makes no sense.

I don't believe that either Judaism or Christianity would assert that their God was not seeking to persuade humans to observe good moral actions ever since the human race emerged from Eden. Without looking up your original post, I think you were over-emphasizing the cruciality of the Risen Christ, at least in Christianity, as if that was the first time ever the Christian God had intervened to instruct first his chosen people, and then, through them, the rest of the world. But neither the prophets of Judaism nor the resurrection of Christ could MAKE people believe in God's morality in the history according to the Bible. So there's no particular reason to believe that had Christ sacrificed his life at the beginning of human endeavors-- which, to be internally consistent with the religion, is not "caveman days." but "right-after-Eden days," that the results would have been different. Both Jews and Christians would say that the "all important knowledge" was being constantly given to "earlier humans" since Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden, but that impious humans just kept ignoring the knowledge. Christians then split off from Jews in asserting that the Risen Christ was a new dispensation not confined to a chosen people. I think you mischaracterized the "religious conception" of both religions just for rhetorical advantage. And I still find that rhetoric flawed because I don't think it would make any difference to you if the knowledge were distributed from the very origins of humankind. Egyptian religion is far less history-minded, but it's implied that the gods worshipped in the earliest manifestations of that religion were around even at the dawn of man. And I suspect you don't validate that religion any more just the priesthood located the sacrifice of Osiris in some twilight era prior to actual history.

 

[Ouroboros]

Several persons have done that, which led to my posting "You can lead a horse to water..."

Not one of you has defined the criteria you endorse for evidence, though you can congratulate yourself that you have floated the greatest number of tautologies.

 

[Ouroboros]

You've done nothing but avoid answering everything asked. Your thread is an opinion, when others question you about it you show that you are incapable of supporting your claim, leaving you to do nothing more than attack those who question you.
How childish.

No, I haven't given you the answers you believe would prove your case. Thus you usually contort yourselves into furious displays of supposed intellectual affront, like this one. How funny.

 

[Ouroboros]

You seem to deal with nothing but beliefs.

The entire thread has been a contention over beliefs, mostly between my agnosticism and the atheism of my main opponents. I have never denied that agnosticism is a belief, a philosophical formulation hinging on my observations re the failures of both theism and atheism. Atheists represent the belief that they've figured out the only way to correctly interpret the phenomena of the universe, but they can't even define evidence.

 

[Ouroboros]

Point out what you believe makes them a tautology.

You define evidence as what proves a thing, which is a circular proposition.