What Do People Know About What They Pretend to Discuss?

[davewhite04]

great name for a documentary on religion and how much money & liberty it takes off the working class Vs how much money & liberty the corrupt leaders of those churches hoard for their own elitist aristocracy Vs how much money & Liberty they give back to society.

all very inconvenient points im sure

What money and liberty have the Church taking from you?

 

[Tiassa]

"In a Future World": Click for Telekenesis.​

Notice how my first sentence answers your question in full, and how the next two sentences introduce new ideas for your consideration.

There is no interrogative in the sentence you responded to. Indeed, you omitted the actual interrogative, and your "first sentence answers" what is essentially your own straw man. We've discussed such sleights recently, between us, James; you really ought to stop. And, really, you're getting reckless with it:

I see. You expected me to respond to your accusation that the atheists here, and particularly myself, know "pretty much nothing", by your assessment. Assuming your premise is unquestionable, you move immediately to suggesting possible explanations for this complete lack of knowledge, namely: (a) we don't know there's stuff to be known, or (b) we're lazy people, or (c) we think ignorance is an advantageous strategy in an argument.

James, would you please make sense? More specifically, yes, it is quite clear you are dismayed by my assessment (#118) of your responses at #111-112, but what, pray tell, has that to do with your attempt to misrepresent the topic post?

I reject your initial premise that atheists know pretty much nothing.

How do I show you a dearth?

Like I said, parlor games and wordplay. That I can show you. And, at least as you might suggest, here, you would agree with a critique against certain behavior (#133↑, "Insisting on a modern definition …"), yet what evidence would that conduct be to support the idea that these would know any more than pretty much nothing? It doesn't.

And in truth I never have understood what so confuses ostensibly enlightened people about the idea that if you disarm the device then it cannot continue to do its damage.

There are bits and pieces, but mostly it looks like trivia picked up here and there. And that's the thing; it's not that the talking points haven't changed since the days of O'Hair, but there does come a point at which some axiom of pedantic fallacy kicks in. To wit, sure, I encountered, recently, an interesting discussion of storycraft and history, but what made it really awkward was its occurrence in support of fallacy.

Unless and until you establish this total lack of knowledge that you allege, there's really no need to consider your explanatory hypotheses.

Any excuse will do? Still, for your part, all you seemed to show at #111-112 is that you really don't like theists.

Still, I've kind of been through this over and over, and, yes, over the course of years. The behavior is consistent: How do I show you a dearth? Like when I scorched DaveWhite04 earlier in the thread; part of my impatience was that I saw the same cheap trick last month, and even that one was annoying from the outset because, quite frankly, there are some people around here atheists should not be losing arguments with.

On that last, we should probably skip ahead to this:

Why is your focus on sciforums' atheists, here? Do you not see the same, or worse, behaviour from the theists here?

Seriously?

Because—

Is this because your personal sympathies lie more with the theists? Or is it more a matter of individual personalities? It seems like you've taken a dislike to some of the atheists here, so you're willing to look past the regular behaviour of the theists here to focus on the atheists.

—you really, really need to start paying attention. So, of course, please, let me be clear:

• I don't give a damn specifically about the theists any more than anyone else. Their religion is a problem to me when it is a problem to me. Around here they're generally annoying, but nobody says we have to keep them around if they're utterly full of shite. Well, okay, maybe you do. And I know it's been a long time, James, but in the context of what you aren't picking up along the way, sure, it might not occur to you that among the various things we used to tell complaining members was a standard about letting people make the point by their foolishness. There really is nothing that says we have to keep them around. It looks more like keeping a ritual whipping boy than any quiet sentimental affection for those looked upon as village idiots.

• It is unfortunate to find need to remind that I'm quite aware of religious bigots, but it is also true I just really, really think atheists ought to know better than to envy them.​

It is this latter, an apparent envy of perceived satisfaction, that drives errors. Yes, we know about the religious on these counts; it doesn't excuse atheists from having a clue or even basic pretense of relationship with informational reliability. There comes a point when it's just a fight between a bunch of lazy religious politics, and, well, okay, then, whatever. Again: Break the structure or usurp it? The latter is easier to do than figuring out how to build a functional structure after smashing the previous.

Anyway:

I tend to assume you're mainly out to insult me and other atheists, anyway, and on that basis you really don't deserve a large investment of time and energy on my part.

James, you're always making excuses like that. Kind of like we were talking about before you decided to come here and miss the point.

I dispute your contention that the atheists here are ignorant smart-arses who behave like two-bit, half-wit, supremacist dullards.

Show me something better.

That might be your own skewed perception, but that's your problem, not mine. Alternatively, perhaps you're just out to insult people and this isn't what you really think. Either way, it's rude and doesn't deserve much of a response.

More excuses.

You're hardly leading by example.

Yeah, y'know, you're years late on that one.

You're referring to my reluctance to censor certain political views that you disagree with. Please try to stay on topic.

James, it's kind of hypocritical to lodge a fallacious complaint about always being expected to take the high road when that was, in fact, your line, that other people were expected to do so.

Again, that's been going on for years.

Still, though, we might return to the point of you offering up fallacy—("Demanding that atheists always take the high road", #131↑)—and remind to please try to stay on topic, or, at the very least, not make stuff up.

I would also point out that I reject your notion that no atheist has demonstrated the ability or willingness to "establish a better field" for discussions here. On the contrary, I see many thoughtful, thorough posts from our resident atheists. Maybe you're reading selectively.

Well, it should be easy, then, to make the point. But that's kind of the thing: We might, for the moment, return to the point of making excuses. It took you how long to get around to being too privileged to bother? Seven posts over two weeks?

Okay, then.

[(cont.)]​

 

[Tiassa]

Whale Music: Click for the best thing in Heaven.​

Meanwhile:

• Contrast point: I mentioned the O'Hairs, earlier, and here's another idea of a blast from the past. Christianist apologism over forty years ago is easily brushed aside beceause it is presented in service of absurd fallacy. Still, though, as I've said before, the historical record we have is the historical record we have. Thus:

→ While we have certain agreement about particular kinds of problematic topic posts, one of those actually helps illustrate. It was a sucker setup line for a thread title, a summary of a talking point, and a video. The punch line, of course, is that the summary of the talking point was sparse and dysfunctional, and in offering nothing more save someone else's opinion in a video we're expected to watch in a view-promoting marketplace while our member can't be bothered to tell us anything about it, it's actually easier to go out and survey the literary record on the question, because we're dealing with a talking point, which means it's been used before. And, yeah, Christianist apologism over forty years old is easy to fault for its service to fallacy, but it really does leave good tracks to the historical record. And if we consider that the people who have carried this ostensibly problematic saying for over two thousand years have no problem whatsoever reconciling it with reality according to the atheistic objection, it starts to stand out that said objection requires rare application of a given definition. The talking point has always been a good plinking stone for hurling at ignorant Christian evangelists, but even they didn't have a problem understanding the saying; their particular absurd fallacy is extraordinary, even spectacular, compared to other religious people; their underlying problem in answering such simplistic inquiries is that they have no idea how to deal with people they have boxed themselves into being incapable of understanding. But compared to these people, one of the easy political necessities we might attend is that one should not challenge such opponents who verge on noncompetency and fail. Having half a clue about what one criticizes helps avoid such circumstances, which would actually count as setbacks were they taking place on a large enough stage.

Still, though, simply knowing how to find the apologism allowed me to figure out what our neighbor was on about, and whatever the Christians do with the information is their business; for our part, the record was sufficient to show the fallacy of the atheistic proposition.

There are better ways to go about it than losing the argument that way, which is about the only way an atheist can. To challenge that grade of idiocy and fail? That only empowers the idiots. Just sayin'.​

So ... where were we?

Oh, right:

As it happens, I'm something of an expert on atheist critiques of religion, having "read up" on them extensively in the past. If you ever want to discuss anything specific on that topic, let me know.

There, you actually managed to tell me something about what you know about what you criticize, even if obliquely. Thank you. I admit, I kind of expected that was true; or, at least, it makes sense compared to your constant anti-identifying political behavior.

But you also managed to miss the point again, and I only mention that because it's kind of important to keep track. We were discussing your hurt feelings, but I do confess to finding the point of knowing what the critics say about what one criticizes its own fascinating becaon, and a much more insightful and productive consideration.

If I, personally, wanted to post something other than what I post, I'd do so, obviously. You can therefore conclude that this is how I want it to be. You're wrong about my postings being mere reactions to our theistic members' behaviour, but I already addressed that point at some length previously, and you ignored it.

#131-133? Sure, I'll get back to that, eventually.

You won't be happy, I already know that. But it does take a while to sort through that much pretense and projection.

See, here's an example from the current consideration:

In case you meant the generic "you" - as in "all you atheists" - well, the others can answer for themselves if they want to.

Like I said in #153↑, I had passed over a particular point for its part in trying to pretend confusion where there really ought not be any. This, in turn, referred to #131↑ which opens with a bizarre five-paragraph pretense of confusion in order to demand clarification or apology. You then continue this into the next quote and response. I also undertook your highroading fallacy. The rest of that post can make for a weird joke you wouldn't understand, so, sure, at some point we can get back to that and try to find something useful about it. Meanwhile, here you are, again, pretending confusion that only you need.

That's poor reasoning on their part, if that's what they are thinking.

Coming from you, James?

Okay, then.

Why should the fact that atheists argue with them do anything to convince the theists that their claims are right? Do they assume they are right because they feel attacked? Does a feeling of persecution strengthen their faith, in your opinion?

Yes, actually. Kind of like you.

Like I said, breaking the cycle or usurping it. You and I can complain all we want about religious people, but when all one has to offer is wordplay and parlor games, or hooting, overconfident ignorance, or glib, self-righteous make-believe, yes, that behavior only reinforces the feeling of brutish and barbaric persecution. Indeed, I find it hard to believe you don't understand this, being something of an expert on ... oh, right, what the critics say about what you want to criticize.

Seriously, though, how would you not be able to recognize the hardening of irrationality among religious zealots atheists treat that way? Most days, it seems like the point of such behavior.

And, really, like a couple of examples I've noted, involving wordplay: When self-superior aggression fails in such spectacular fashion, it only hands self-superior religious paranoia another example of thoughtless, zombified persecution.

Correct. Again, the question that arises is: why your obsession with the atheists?

Let's try it this way: In politics, society, and the human endeavor, I get that supremacists exist. We know about the supremacists. What is anybody else's excuse?

Similarly: I get that religious whatnots exist: morons, zealots, bigots. We know about the religious people. What is anybody else's excuse?

Is this just another example of your labelling every view you disagree with "supremacism"? Is that all this is?

For instance this: I'm talking about behavior, James. What "view" do you think I have defined as supremacism?

Or, can you not tell the difference? Are you capable of separating behavior from issue?

Then again, if we roll back to #122↑, your inquiry, "So what will you do? Give it up as a lost cause?" in some way requires that the balbutive bachhanal will not or cannot change for the better.

Is it that you're worried that there is a power imbalance between theists and atheists here, with the atheists having more de facto power? If that's true, does that automatically make the atheists supremacists, then?

I need to double check: You are intending to be taken seriously?

The more direct answer: No, James, the problem is that you are part of the problem. Yes, sure, whatever, the way you, personally, are behaving is part of the problem. But, also, the whole point of addressing the behavior I did in the topic↑ and early↑ posts↑ is that it is part↑ of the problem↑.

Wordplay and parlor games are, at some point, childish. Wandering around, calling out for theists to say something so you can run circles around them on your terms is very nearly precisely the opposite of productive. Aiming so low will always find someone dumb enough to take up the proposition so that atheists can treat them poorly, which in turn only hardens their faith and ensures that there are people out there who are willing to take up the proposition so that atheists can treat them poorly, and the thing is that sure, we can always wonder about the competency of people who will harm themselves for the sake of religious delusion, but for atheistic predators, at some point it becomes the psychological equivalent of bloodsport.

Do you consider everybody who holds some degree of power that you personally disapprove of a "supremacist"?

Do you have anything more than fallacy and projection?

Does that make you and I, as moderators of sciforums, supremacists, equally? Or is there an exception for your own power?

Get hold of yourself, James.

[fin]​

 

[RainbowSingularity]

intellectual sloth

not to be confused with an intellectual sloth

 

[James R]

Tiassa:

Firstly, thank you for your clarification regarding "anti-identification".

You took a long post to do that when the following would have sufficed, but so be it:

... I resent anti-identification--the art of identification according to what we're not ...

I get it that you want atheists to say what they are for rather than what they are against. I get it that you want them to say what they are, rather than what they are not.

I understand your frustration in being told constantly that atheism is just lacking belief in god(s).

On the other hand, I think I've already posted on why there's truth in that statement, despite the frustration you feel.

Discussing the bare bones of atheism is not the same thing as discussing atheism as a movement or a philosophy.

I understand that you want to know what comes after "I don't believe in god(s)." It's a reasonable thing to ask.

I also understand your frustration that so many discussions of atheism here never get beyond establishing that theists believe in god(s) while atheists don't.

I think that what happens is that a lot of people get stuck on the idea that one belief is right and the other is wrong. So, they feel obliged to try to point out what's right about the one belief and wrong about the other - endlessly, if the opposition keeps coming back at them.

A more constructive discussion is the "So what?" discussion. You believe in God? Great. So what? Think God is a human fantasy invention? Okay, so what? What comes next?

I don't think you and I disagree on the limited value of the battle over which belief is right, especially given that its impossible to prove the point either way.

I'm also not in disagreement with your point about the pointlessness of identity politics in all its forms. So you identify with this or that? Okay. Is that good? Why is it good? There ought to be better arguments than tribalism (and there are).

And you quote this:

Because this brand of atheism is an anti-identification. It needs religion in order to exist. It needs religious people who are idiots in order to exist. Its purpose is supremacist, not functional. Its method of arguing about religion is to denigrate it, not to examine it carefully and attempt to comprehend the components and how they harmonize or conflict.

Certainly, the religious often reduce their faith to the caricatures so justly opposed by so many atheists, but religion itself is a complex expression of human psyches, both individual and collective. It is, by certain perspectives, a collective performance art project. And it can be analyzed and understood. Its function can be defined, considered, and reoriented or refined. But this is not part of what this brand of atheism seeks. Rather, what these people are after is a metaphysical club to beat others over the head with, to make themselves feel better about their own lonely futility in a vast, possibly infinite, and arguably indifferent Universe.

It's always easy to find people who will jump on any bandwagon for the sake of something to identify with or against. Thus, we find no shortage of unthinking atheists, just as we find no shortage of unthinking religionists. Both groups are more than happy to grab any metaphysical cudgel they can find with which to beat the opposite group over the head. In return, they seek belonging and love from the in-group, as you say.

I agree with you that there is a "brand of atheism" that doesn't look much beyond anti-identification. All I can say is that this isn't my brand of atheism, though of course it will be easy to find people who will insist that the opposite is true, and you might even be one of them.

 

[James R]

Tiassa:

Forgive me if I skipping a lot of the pointless personal snipes. You have said a couple of interesting things.

Any excuse will do? Still, for your part, all you seemed to show at #111-112 is that you really don't like theists

I'm sorry that's the impression you've taken away from my postings here. It's a false impression, and indeed I have at various times explicitly written of the many theists whom I respect, while at the same time disagreeing with some (not all) of what they have to say. I have theist friends. I have theist relatives. I've had theist teachers. I have theist work colleagues. I like them a lot of them just fine, I assure you.

I like some of the theists here just fine, too. I don't like the way that some of the theists here choose to conduct themselves in discussions and debates. It's not so much about what they believe; it's more about the dishonest ways in which they engage in discussions about their beliefs (and mine). I try to draw attention to underhanded tactics when I see them. The correct conclusion to draw is that I don't like intellectual dishonesty, not that I don't like theists.

Still, I've kind of been through this over and over, and, yes, over the course of years. The behavior is consistent: How do I show you a dearth?

Maybe you ought to try reading some of Yazata's posts, to take one example. If you do that, you might see beyond this "dearth" you keep referring to. I could also suggest you read some of my own more thoughtful posts, but I can't see you running to take up that suggestion in a hurry, given your current antipathy. I'm doing other quality posters a disservice here by failing to mention them by all name, but it would take too long.

Besides, I'm not one who is keen on jumping through arbitrary hoops just to satisfy somebody who is determined not to be satisfied. What would be the point of me digging through the archives to find hundreds of counter-examples to your thesis? You could do that yourself. In fact, you should have done that yourself. Instead we get you up on stage, theatrically reciting the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.

I don't give a damn specifically about the theists any more than anyone else. Their religion is a problem to me when it is a problem to me. Around here they're generally annoying, but nobody says we have to keep them around if they're utterly full of shite. Well, okay, maybe you do.

Yeah, I do, and I've explained why, many times, at length. This in spite of my intense hatred of the lot of them (see what I did there?). Funny that.

There really is nothing that says we have to keep them around. It looks more like keeping a ritual whipping boy than any quiet sentimental affection for those looked upon as village idiots.

It sounds to me almost like you feel sorry for these poor idiots who can't hold their own against the mindless atheist mob out for their blood. Do you think they'll be flattered by your assessment of their capacities?

It is unfortunate to find need to remind that I'm quite aware of religious bigots, but it is also true I just really, really think atheists ought to know better than to envy them.

I agree!

Again: Break the structure or usurp it? The latter is easier to do than figuring out how to build a functional structure after smashing the previous.

Such is the nature of revolutions, as I think I said before. Not that a violent atheist uprising is likely to happen any time soon, as I think I've also said before.

Well, it should be easy, then, to make the point. But that's kind of the thing: We might, for the moment, return to the point of making excuses. It took you how long to get around to being too privileged to bother? Seven posts over two weeks?

Meh. Things to do, you know how it is. (You know how it is?)

 

[James R]

There, you actually managed to tell me something about what you know about what you criticize, even if obliquely. Thank you. I admit, I kind of expected that was true; or, at least, it makes sense compared to your constant anti-identifying political behavior.

My anti-identifying political behaviour might have something to do with being told repeatedly that I am "without God", hence "a-theist", I suppose. We never seem to get past that to the "So what?" The theist wants to emphatically keep insisting that my belief is wrong, despite the glaring "dearth" of the requisite proof.

Yes, actually. Kind of like you.

You're mistaken if you think I feel like my atheism is threatened in any way by the behaviours of our resident theists. I'm fortunate to live in a society where real persecution of atheists is unknown. Not so many years ago, that would not have been the case. Right now, it definitely is not the case in certain places in the world. I live a charmed life. My beliefs on this matter are not a matter of my life or death.

Like I said, breaking the cycle or usurping it. You and I can complain all we want about religious people, but when all one has to offer is wordplay and parlor games, or hooting, overconfident ignorance, or glib, self-righteous make-believe, yes, that behavior only reinforces the feeling of brutish and barbaric persecution. Indeed, I find it hard to believe you don't understand this, being something of an expert on ... oh, right, what the critics say about what you want to criticize.

Most of the time, I don't think that words on a computer screen really hold a candle to true brutish and barbaric persecution. A dose of perspective wouldn't hurt you. Bear in mind, also, that these poor persecuted people - these theists - are members of a powerful and well-funded majority, even in the "enlightened" States of America. A few pesky atheists snapping at their heels really shouldn't do much to shake their confidence, one would think.

Let's try it this way: In politics, society, and the human endeavor, I get that supremacists exist. We know about the supremacists. What is anybody else's excuse?

Similarly: I get that religious whatnots exist: morons, zealots, bigots. We know about the religious people. What is anybody else's excuse?

I get it. I happily (?) concede the point that there are atheist morons, zealots, even bigots if you like, out there. I don't agree that they comprise the standard-model sciforums atheist, however.

Wordplay and parlor games are, at some point, childish. Wandering around, calling out for theists to say something so you can run circles around them on your terms is very nearly precisely the opposite of productive. Aiming so low will always find someone dumb enough to take up the proposition so that atheists can treat them poorly, which in turn only hardens their faith and ensures that there are people out there who are willing to take up the proposition so that atheists can treat them poorly, and the thing is that sure, we can always wonder about the competency of people who will harm themselves for the sake of religious delusion, but for atheistic predators, at some point it becomes the psychological equivalent of bloodsport.

I doubt that the likes of Jan Ardena or Musika will be jumping to agree with your assessment of them as poor idiots that the atheists run rings around. I think their own assessment would more likely be the opposite.

I understand if you feel that the atheists have the upper hand in the argument, based on the strengths of the case they could make against theism, and therefore you feel sorry for the theists who are put in the unfortunate position of feeling like they have to try to counter even though the best case is never put.

I'm not as inclined as you to see our resident theists as fragile flowers unfairly persecuted by the mindless atheist mob.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I mean, the thing about all the atheistic criticism of religion and religious people I see around here is absolutely and disgracefully ignorant. It's almost as if "atheism" has become, at Sciforums, a supremacist identity movement worshiping self-love and intellectual sloth.

That is unfortunately true.
The culture of atheism does not like to view itself as not, or uninformed.

And it turns out that when you try to discuss things with these atheists, all they can do is bait and wait, as if they were some manner of divine predator hunting those they consider weak.

They want every explanation of God, so they can create negative reactions. This justifies their position.
No one is a theist purely because they were convinced by a discussion, argument, or scientific evidence.

I can move my ears without touching them. I suspect billions of people can.
However, there are probably billions people who can't.
I could do this as long as I can remember. I never practised.

Now I sure there is a perfectly detailed explanation for how this works.
But it doesn't matter, because the explanation will not, fundamentally help in achieving the outcome.
For that, you have to just know how to do it. Once you can do it, the explanations become clear.

My point? One is either theist, or atheist. That is the fundamental position.
There is no point in trying to convince people to accept the theist position, because they can only view it from an atheist position, for which, the central premise is, there is no God. Hence the atheist, cultural, ground zero, will always prevail.

Ask them what they know, they wait for someone to answer their petty challenge, because it's not about history or philosophy or scholarship; in the end, it reads like petty supremacism as a cult among ignorant people.

Let's say you bang your head, and as a result you lose your memory. I come along and tell you your name is Tiassa.
What would that word mean to you? What if you didn't accept it? What would it mean?
I would be able to tell you heaps about that word, and how it relates to you, but it means nothing unless you accept it.

If you did accept it, initially it would still mean nothing, but because you accept it, you will allow for that. Hence you would develop faith in what I say. Eventually, over time, your memory starts to return, and you begin to fit into the role of Tiassa.

The word ''God'' is simply just a word, to an atheist. Why? Because for any atheist, there is no God. This is their reality. So they cannot explain anything about mine, or their own fundamental position. They can only comment, and their comments are on their individual characters.

For some, it would be better if everyone were atheist, because they wouldn't have to keep justifying their position.
They would prefer to just have a frustration-free life. Their angst is the result of unsatisfied desire. My 2 cents.
​

So, yeah, I'm curious: Atheists at Sciforums have, traditionally, believed themselves smarter than religious people.

Smartness is very fashionable at the moment, and I think atheism is invested in smarts.
Theists tend to be more interested in intelligence.
Smartness evolves and produces brilliance, whereas intelligence is unchanging, and is the underlying source of all actions.

jan.

​

 

[iceaura]

You don't even know what forum you are in, yet it's the "theists" that are dumb... science at work again.

I am in a scientific forum, addressed to religion as a scientific topic.

And absolutely nothing about anyone being "dumb" appeared in that post you quoted.
Nothing.

Something that did appear, was an accusation of dishonesty often used as a basis of personal attack by the overt Abrahamic theists who post here.

And here you are, misrepresenting me as posting that theists are "dumb", and basing a personal insult on that misrepresentation. Then you have this bogus me representing "science". Do you see?

Now, I do not think you are - as Jan Ardena and other fundies quite obviously are, for example - posting dishonestly, in bad faith throughout. I think you are afflicted by what I used to call "working man's disease" - the confusion of ignorance and stupidity, and the projection of that confusion unto others. Just a guess.

But this pattern does not recommend the overt Abrahamic theists who post here, or their defenders. Especially not when they accuse other people of "derailing threads".

Something about a log in one's eye comes to mind.

 

[iceaura]

Now I sure there is a perfectly detailed explanation for how this works.
But it doesn't matter, because the explanation will not, fundamentally help in achieving the outcome.
For that, you have to just know how to do it. Once you can do it, the explanations become clear.

There is a guy - an actual scientist - who taught himself to wiggle his ears with techniques he developed via understanding "how it worked".
On the other hand, plenty of people who can wiggle their ears could not understand the explanation if it were presented to them. It would not become clear.

My point? One is either theist, or atheist. That is the fundamental position.

That is false. There are atheists who share your fundamental position, for example, and theists who don't.

There is no point in trying to convince people to accept the theist position, because they can only view it from an atheist position, for which, the central premise is, there is no God.

Many atheistic people hold no such "central premise".

 

[davewhite04]

I am in a scientific forum, addressed to religion as a scientific topic.

And absolutely nothing about anyone being "dumb" appeared in that post you quoted.
Nothing.

Something that did appear, was an accusation of dishonesty often used as a basis of personal attack by the overt Abrahamic theists who post here.

And here you are, misrepresenting me as posting that theists are "dumb", and basing a personal insult on that misrepresentation. Then you have this bogus me representing "science". Do you see?

Now, I do not think you are - as Jan Ardena and other fundies quite obviously are, for example - posting dishonestly, in bad faith throughout. I think you are afflicted by what I used to call "working man's disease" - the confusion of ignorance and stupidity, and the projection of that confusion unto others. Just a guess.

But this pattern does not recommend the overt Abrahamic theists who post here, or their defenders. Especially not when they accuse other people of "derailing threads".

Something about a log in one's eye comes to mind.

"You don't even know what forum you are in, yet it's the "theists" that are dumb... science at work again."

This is your response to what I said above?

Do you know you use different words for the same thing if used in a different context? For example... atheists are supposed to be more intelligent then theists, so considering what I've read, "dumb" this "idiot" that "delusional" you with another personal attack just above, this is ridiculous.

Oh and you didn't know what forum you've been using for the past 3 weeks. I'm pointing that out because I think it's ridiculous, I hope you know that now.

 

[iceaura]

This is your response to what I said above?

Yep.

Oh and you didn't know what forum you've been using for the past 3 weeks. I'm pointing that out because I think it's ridiculous, I hope you know that now.

You misrepresent my post, and use that misrepresentation as the basis of personal insult and attack. As noted, that's typical of a certain category of theist, on these forums. When you do it in direct response to a post in which that pattern is explicitly mentioned, it stands out even more.

Here's another common type of theist's posting here - the erosion into language that doesn't quite make sense, and makes the less sense the more carefully read:

for example... atheists are supposed to be more intelligent then theists, so considering what I've read, "dumb" this "idiot" that "delusional" you with another personal attack just above, this is ridiculous

In addition to the addled sentence structure, note the quote marks around words that are not mine or consistent with my arguments etc in my posting above, in a response to my posting. This from someone objecting to having threads "derailed" by insufficiently respectful or attentive atheist posting.

So what do people responding to such posts need to know about arcane Christian theology? What we know of the theists's posting involved we learn here.

 

[Jan Ardena]

There is a guy - an actual scientist - who taught himself to wiggle his ears with techniques he developed via understanding "how it worked".

Do you have a link to that story?

On the other hand, plenty of people who can wiggle their ears could not understand the explanation if it were presented to them. It would not become clear.

It does matter, as they’re re above any explanation. But if it is explained in a way they can comprehend, they will understand it, because it would coincide with how they do it. Any other explanation is surplus to requirements.

That is false. There are atheists who share your fundamental position, for example, and theists who don't.

You don’t know my position. Why? Because you’re an atheist. Someone who cannot wiggle their ears, but know the mechanics of how it’s done, still don’t know what it is like to wiggle their ears.

We know what our true position reveals to us, the rest is speculation, or imagination.
For example, I don’t have a clue what it is like to be a billionaire. I will never know what it is like to be a billionaire until I become one.

Many atheistic people hold no such "central premise".

Doesn’t matter. There is no God, as far as atheists are concerned. Their tenets are born out of that.

I know you want there to be a level playing field, where theist are so because they choose to be so, and atheists choose not to take that leap. Meaning we all start out the same. But that is not the case.

Jan.

 

[James R]

That is unfortunately true.
The culture of atheism does not like to view itself as not, or uninformed.

You speak as if there's just one "culture of atheism". The truth is that atheists are not so easy to put into one neat box. The only thing any two given atheists are guaranteed to have in common is that neither of them will believe in God/god/gods. You won't be able to tell in advance whether they view themselves as well informed, uniformed, confident or doubtful about their belief, or anything else.

They want every explanation of God, so they can create negative reactions. This justifies their position.

Really, it's the theist position - the "positive" belief - that needs justification, not the negative.

No one is a theist purely because they were convinced by a discussion, argument, or scientific evidence.

Right. And like you, a lot of them just aren't interested in niggling matters like the weakness of the scientific evidence in favour of their position. Yet this is the kind of thing that people on a science forum tend to be interested in investigating (surprise!)

On one level, there's no problem with holding the belief in the absence of evidence. You can rationalise your belief on the basis of "faith", or your gut feeling that your belief is "innate", or whatever you want. The problem really only comes when you start pretending that you have some good evidence, when really you know you don't. That's dishonest. Either you're telling other people lies in the hope that they will be sucked in by your deception, or you're telling yourself lies in order to make yourself feel more comfortable, or some combination of the two.

I mean, if you really don't care whether there's evidence or not, you have no reason to pretend. Right? Just say "I don't care if there's no evidence" and move on with your life.

My point? One is either theist, or atheist. That is the fundamental position.

There's nothing fundamental about a matter as complex as belief in a deity. To believe in God - or not - requires that you already hold a whole bunch of prior beliefs, usually tacit rather than explicit: beliefs about persons, beliefs about agency, beliefs about the nature of the physical world, beliefs about your own mind, beliefs about your own abilities (such as the ability to reliably distinguish fact from fantasy through intuition).

Whether you believe in God or not, in the end, depends on how all these prior beliefs come together in you as an individual.

This is all quite separate from the question of whether the belief you arrive at in the end is objectively defendable, as opposed merely to one that fits with your psychological makeup in some subjective sense.

Science establishes that the "innate" beliefs of human beings - i.e. our "default" assumptions about matters like persons, agency, the physical world, our own minds and our own abilities - are in many ways faulty in objectively demonstrable ways. We should not be surprised, therefore, that so many people end up with beliefs about all kinds of things that have no demonstrable objective truth.

If you think that holding a belief in a deity - or not - is something fundamental, then you're just skimming the surface of a deep pond and telling yourself there's nothing worth looking at beneath the surface. And if you think that because you believe - or do not believe - in God, that says anything about whether any such thing actually exists, then you're deluding yourself that you know what's below the surface even though you never actually looked there.

There is no point in trying to convince people to accept the theist position, because they can only view it from an atheist position, for which, the central premise is, there is no God.

It's a mystery why there are so many missionaries, it would seem. And why do the Jehovah's witnesses keep knocking on my door? Don't they, like you, realise there's no point trying to convince people to convert?

Let's say you bang your head, and as a result you lose your memory. I come along and tell you your name is Tiassa.

What would that word mean to you? What if you didn't accept it? What would it mean?
I would be able to tell you heaps about that word, and how it relates to you, but it means nothing unless you accept it.​

It's an imperfect example, but run with me for a moment.

People get to choose their own names. If I introduce myself and say "Hi, you can call me Alfred", then my name is Alfred, at least for the purposes of this conversation. That is, my belief that my name is Alfred determines reality.

In contrast, if I say "My car is blue", it won't suddenly change colour from yellow to blue. Even if start believing that the colour of my car is blue - or I start calling that sunflower-like hue "blue" - that doesn't determine the reality. Other people are going to keep on telling me that my car is blue, no matter how much I believe it is yellow.

You're right in one sense, though. If I didn't accept that my car is blue, and insisted that it is yellow instead, then would it mean anything to me if lots of people told me it was blue, contrary to my personal assertion/belief? Obviously not. What they had to say wouldn't matter to me, if I was so stubborn as to preference my own subjective beliefs above the objectively verifiable facts.

If you, as a theist, assert your subjective belief that God exists, and you accept that as your belief, does that say anything useful about God? Or does it just say something about you? Is the job done once you, subjectively, accept God? Or is it important to you that there actually is a God, in reality, as well?

See, I have this nasty habit of wanting to test my personal beliefs against the objective reality, borne in part from training in critical or "scientific" thinking. Because - heaven forbid! - some of my beliefs might turn out to be wrong. Doesn't it ever worry you that your beliefs about your God might turn out to be wrong?

If you did accept it, initially it would still mean nothing, but because you accept it, you will allow for that. Hence you would develop faith in what I say. Eventually, over time, your memory starts to return, and you begin to fit into the role of Tiassa.

So you're saying that people can be indoctrinated into holding a belief that soembody pounds into them for long enough, regardless of whether the belief is objectively correct? I agree that this can happen. I wonder how this idea might apply to religion.

The word ''God'' is simply just a word, to an atheist. Why? Because for any atheist, there is no God.

At one level, any word is "simply just a word". What is important is not what we call things, but the things themselves. In this case, the word "God" is a placeholder for a whole bunch of ideas - a complex concept with many facets. The word "God" is no more "simply just a word" for the atheist than it is for the theist. You need to get past the idea that you can define your God into existence. What is actually needed is that the label must connect with something tangible, real. By creating a label, all you have defined into existence is the concept, not the thing conceptualised.

Smartness is very fashionable at the moment, and I think atheism is invested in smarts.

Theists tend to be more interested in intelligence.
Smartness evolves and produces brilliance, whereas intelligence is unchanging, and is the underlying source of all actions.

This is meaningless word-juggling, I assume for effect.

 

[davewhite04]

It's a mystery why there are so many missionaries, it would seem. And why do the Jehovah's witnesses keep knocking on my door? Don't they, like you, realise there's no point trying to convince people to convert?

I remember when I quoted a passage in the Pauline epistles to a Jehovah Witness, she asked me which church I was part of, I said Church of England, she fled out of my gate and called me a prostitute, never to be seen again

 

[iceaura]

Do you have a link to that story?

Nope. Long ago, in a magazine article about biofeedback applications and research.

But if it is explained in a way they can comprehend, they will understand it, because it would coincide with how they do it.

It can't be. They haven't the background knowledge.
And it doesn't "coincide" with how they do it. Most of the process of doing it is not available to their awareness.

You don’t know my position. Why? Because you’re an atheist.

But I know that some theists hold a much different one, and some atheists hold a similar one.

Someone who cannot wiggle their ears, but know the mechanics of how it’s done, still don’t know what it is like to wiggle their ears.

Your true position is not what something is "like".

We know what our true position reveals to us, the rest is speculation, or imagination

You are as likely to be mistaken in the nature of your true position as anyone else, and more likely than most to fall prey to illusions and errors - because you regard revelation as a source of knowledge. That's a famous way to go wrong.

"Many atheistic people hold no such "central premise"."
Doesn’t matter.

You being wrong about the same things, over and over, may not matter to you, but it does pertain to the value of your posting here.

I know you want there to be a level playing field, where theist are so because they choose to be so, and atheists choose not to take that leap.

Wrong again. I don't.
Those who answer to reason (atheist or theist) are not on the same playing field as those who do not, and I have no wants in that matter.
Meanwhile, most atheists in Abrahamic dominated cultures, such as the US, chose. Most theists did not - they were raised into their beliefs from childhood.

.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

and atheists choose not to take that leap.

please note
subjecting the "leap" to be "that" as a secondary position to the self(as if the leap is speaking for its self[Animism of the leap]) does not make the leap seemingly smaller and in so more agreeable to a scientific process.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Nope. Long ago, in a magazine article about biofeedback applications and research.

Oh! That’s convenient.

It can't be. They haven't the background knowledge.

They’ll have some knowledge, hence they would “comprehend” it.
No amount of knowledge is necessary, as they can wiggle their ears. But any explanation they can comprehend, would be eaten up, because they can do it.

And it doesn't "coincide" with how they do it. Most of the process of doing it is not available to their awareness.

It doesn’t matter, because they are performing, perfectly, the action that the explanations are explaining. But the ear wiggle will have a level of comprehension, and will know whether or not that explanation coincides with the action.
IOW the practical knowledge, is greater than theoretical knowledge.

A theist is in a better position to talk about theism, than an atheist.

But I know that some theists hold a much different one, and some atheists hold a similar one.

We’re individuals, so we cannot all be the same with regard to anything at all.
But the term “theist” is one that describes our fundamental position. We all believe in God. Which kind ties in to the meaning of the word.

Bowser is a theist, I am a theist. On that level we’re both the same. But he may still hold different views than I would. But that does not even begin to touch upon our fundamental position.

Your true position is not what something is "like".

Correct! My true position is theist.

You are as likely to be mistaken in the nature of your true position as anyone else, and more likely than most to fall prey to illusions and errors - because you regard revelation as a source of knowledge. That's a famous way to go wrong.

Ones true position is who they are. It is not about right or wrong, it is about growth and understanding.

If believed that I could move my ears, because I lived in the UK, although I would be mistaken, it would not alter the fact that I can wiggle my ears.

Theism isn’t about revelation. I could either be rational, or deluded, it makes no difference to my fundamental position.

You being wrong about the same things, over and over, may not matter to you, but it does pertain to the value of your posting here.

But I’m not wrong.
There is no God, as far as any atheist, anywhere, anytime, anyplace.
That is not to say you necessarily believe that there is no God. If you think I’m incorrect, please state why?

Meanwhile, most atheists in Abrahamic dominated cultures, such as the US, chose. Most theists did not - they were raised into their beliefs from childhood.

While I thank you for your analytical attempt, I have to stress that you’re in no position to comment on theism. What you’re talking about is religion. People can choose to be religious, because religion is based on actions, not belief. There are loads of atheists who are religious, who think they believe in God.

Usually at some point those individuals disillusioned with their religion, and embrace atheism. They just didn’t realise they were always atheist.

I usually find that those are the atheists who become nasty.

The atheist who has always known that they are atheists, tend to be more reasonable. That is my experience at least.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You speak as if there's just one "culture of atheism".

This the first definition from google...
atheism; disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods..

Does every single atheist, from any place, or time, not fit into that description.

While atheists, like theists, will have different cultures, they are all identified as as atheist. That is what I am talking about.

You won't be able to tell in advance whether they view themselves as well informed, uniformed, confident or doubtful about their belief, or anything else.

Never said I could. But I can say that (if think it’s relevant) about you, or Iceaura, because I have gotten to know your characters over time. To the point where I can predict what type of response I will get.

Really, it's the theist position - the "positive" belief - that needs justification, not the negative.

You would say that. Because you’re an atheist.
The only other alternative is to accept that theism is quite possibly true.
Then surrender your inferior idealistic notions.

Right. And like you, a lot of them just aren't interested in niggling matters like the weakness of the scientific evidence in favour of their position. Yet this is the kind of thing that people on a science forum tend to be interested in investigating (surprise!)

Like Iceaura, you’re in no position to talk as if you have any real comprehension of theism

On one level, there's no problem with holding the belief in the absence of evidence.

There are loads of evidence for God, and I have put forward some in the past, and given sources of greater explanation, in the past. But you don’t accept them.

As an atheist, how could you.
You first need to put it away.

The problem really only comes when you start pretending that you have some good evidence, when really you know you don't.

Once again, you cannot, as an atheist, know whether the evidence for God, is correct.
When you, or any atheist, reject evidence for God. You do so because you are atheist. No matter how convincing the evidence is.
Because you’re fundamental position is, there is no God.

I mean, if you really don't care whether there's evidence or not, you have no reason to pretend. Right? Just say "I don't care if there's no evidence" and move on with your life.

If there is evidence, there is evidence. Whether I care about it, or not is besides the point.
If there are explanations about ear wiggling. Great! But I can already wiggle my ears. It doesn’t mean I don’t care.

There's nothing fundamental about a matter as complex as belief in a deity.

You have literally no idea what you’re talking about.

Tobelieve in God - ornot - requires that you already hold a whole bunch of prior beliefs,

With regard to belief in God you’re wrong.
There’s no way you could be right.

This is all quite separate from the question of whether the belief you arrive at in the end is objectively defendable, as opposed merely to one that fits with your psychological makeup in some subjective sense.

There is no “in the end”.
You’re simply projecting you’re own concept into the mix. Theism, or atheism, is prior to any arrival of new information. You are either theist, or atheist. Over time a theist can become atheist. But to do that the theist has to forget God. An atheist can become theist by remembering God. That’s how it works.

If you think that holding a belief in a deity

I don’t “hold a belief” in a deity.
That you think I do only reveals your own idea of what you would theism to be.
You need it to be that, so your whack ideas can fit.

And if you think that because you believe - or do not believe - in God, that says anything about whether any such thing actually exists, then you're deluding yourself that you know what's below the surface even though you never actually looked there.

Whether or not God exists, is something an atheist, or better still an agnostic atheist, would be interested to find out, because as far as they can comprehend, there is no God.

The very idea of God “existing”, is atheist ideology. Theists understand that God does not exist, in the way everything exists. To theists, God is the source of existence. Things exist because God exists.

It's a mystery why there are so many missionaries, it would seem. And why do the Jehovah's witnesses keep knocking on my door? Don't they, like you, realise there's no point trying to convince people to convert?

Primarily because they are recruiting for their religion. Notice, missionaries, JW’s, are never satisfied that people are theists. They need people to be part of their religion.

People get to choose their own names. If I introduce myself and say "Hi, you can call me Alfred", then my name is Alfred, at least for the purposes of this conversation. That is, my belief that my name is Alfred determines reality.

That is not the same as fitting into your name.
If you informed your friends and family that you are going to change your name every Sunday, and you demanded that they address you by your new name, for that week. Your friends and family would eventually become confused about who you are. Because your character is invested in your name.

Yes I could call you Alfred, but it would take sometime to get used to.

There used to be character who I conversed with, a lot on these forums. She would systematically change her name. I got used to it, but it was confusing.

If you, as a theist, assert your subjective belief that God exists, and you accept that as your belief, does that say anything useful about God?

So what?
I assert my ear-wiggling talent, which I accept.
Sure, it doesn’t say anything useful about ear-wiggling.

Or does it just say something about you? Is the job done once you, subjectively, accept God? Or is it important to you that there actually is a God, in reality, as well?

It is however you see it, or in your case, choose to see it.

See, I have this nasty habit of wanting to test my personal beliefs against the objective reality, borne in part from training in critical or "scientific" thinking. Because - heaven forbid! - some of my beliefs might turn out to be wrong. Doesn't it ever worry you that your beliefs about your God might turn out to be wrong?

That’s because you’re in the business of manufacturing beliefs. But you cannot truly manufacture a belief. You accept something, then convince yourself that it is valid.

Why would it worry me that theism is wrong or false. I didn’t manufacture it. Just as I didn’t set out to wiggle my ears.
Your problem seems to be, you can’t let go. You have to be in control of everything.

So you're saying that people can be indoctrinated into holding a belief that soembody pounds into them for long enough, regardless of whether the belief is objectively correct? I agree that this can happen. I wonder how this idea might apply to religion.

That’s not what I was saying, but yes people can. Darwinian evolution/Neo Darwinism is a great example of such indoctrination. There is very good reason why people who are not indoctrinated, refer to it as a religion.

The word "God" is no more "simply just a word" for the atheist than it is for the theist.

You can only know what it means to you, and you get an idea of what it means to other atheists.
You cannot, know, what it means to a theist outside of your comprehension.

A non ear-wiggler cannot know what it is like, to be able to wiggle his ears, despite all the knowledge, on the subject.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

please note
subjecting the "leap" to be "that" as a secondary position to the self(as if the leap is speaking for its self[Animism of the leap]) does not make the leap seemingly smaller and in so more agreeable to a scientific process.

Do you have a dumbed-down version of this, for the likes me?

Jan.