Religious Nonsense

[Capracus]

If you have crossed the threshold to pass an opinion on "meaningful interaction", you are already seated at the table, wagering your philosophical position.
Its a bit difficult to discuss "meaning", without a philosophical position, isn't it?

I guess there's a reason it's called hidden knowledge.

She's a dance, dance, dance, dance, dancin' machine
Watch her get down, watch her get down
As she do, do, do her thing, right on the scene

https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jackson5/dancingmachine.html

 

[Musika]

I guess there's a reason it's called hidden knowledge.

She's a dance, dance, dance, dance, dancin' machine
Watch her get down, watch her get down
As she do, do, do her thing, right on the scene

https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jackson5/dancingmachine.html

More to the point, there's a reason you call it "hidden knowledge".

 

[Tiassa]

Please explain the "philosophical position" of which you speak.

Really?

I mean, come on, I'm hardly one of our neighbor's biggest fans, but ... really?

Okay, how about we try it this way: Is 'meaning' arbitrary or systematic?

Now, I'll even tip at the outset: It cannot be arbitrary, else it is meaningless.

One's philosophical position in this case is akin to where one is on the map of philosophy, much like one's global position would represent where they were on a map of the world.

I will, furthermore, go so far as to suggest this is actually similar to something I've long wondered about. Our neighbor is too general in his language, but I'm not especially worried about an overly general use of the word "atheist" compared to the religious nonsense we find, say, driving the topic post.

It's not that atheists are necessarily not philosophically astute; it's just that the ones he deals with aren't. Kind of like the religionists some atheists go out of their way to deal with, who aren't necessarily the most reasonably representative of anything other than their own human condition. The thing is, that if you knock around enough in this weird "New Atheist" and post-NA marketplace, he's not wrong. The thing is, this particular range of atheism is a superficial bias without regard to function.

Think of it this way: The only difference I find between the "patriot" who dies shooting up the place to free the sheeple and the religious nut who shoots the place up for God is the statistical the "patriot" might be an atheist, and therefore the difference would be that the religious nut thinks he's going to heaven while the atheistic "patriot" is just taking as many as possible out with him. In other words, the only difference is a matter of psychoanalysis and academia; dead is dead, murder is murder, and stupid is stupid.

Meanwhile, there are priorities we might describe as philosophical that, in turn, describe how you assess information and make subjective decisions; if we think of org or flow charts, there you go, a philosophical position. It's not actually so obscure, but you might be focusing on acts of will, such as a political position deliberately adopted.

And like I said, I'm not necessarily one of our neighbor's biggest fans. I don't say this to knock him or expect that he should feel badly; we just don't see eye to eye on a bunch of stuff.

And that is kind of important, at least to me, because you shouldn't be losing this argument to him.

Honestly, if people want to know why I pick on atheists, this is why. How the hell can they keep losing like this? It's because the rationality asserted by rejecting or failing to believe in God does not extend beyond that particular statement, so everything else these evangelical atheists say, about anything in the Universe, is either as scientific as science (e.g., "gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth equals nine and eight-tenths meters per second, per second"), or subjective as an opinion. In which case, great, "atheism" is just another religious argument.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Really?

I mean, come on, I'm hardly one of our neighbor's biggest fans, but ... really?

Okay, how about we try it this way: Is 'meaning' arbitrary or systematic?

Now, I'll even tip at the outset: It cannot be arbitrary, else it is meaningless.

One's philosophical position in this case is akin to where one is on the map of philosophy, much like one's global position would represent where they were on a map of the world.

I will, furthermore, go so far as to suggest this is actually similar to something I've long wondered about. Our neighbor is too general in his language, but I'm not especially worried about an overly general use of the word "atheist" compared to the religious nonsense we find, say, driving the topic post.

It's not that atheists are necessarily not philosophically astute; it's just that the ones he deals with aren't. Kind of like the religionists some atheists go out of their way to deal with, who aren't necessarily the most reasonably representative of anything other than their own human condition. The thing is, that if you knock around enough in this weird "New Atheist" and post-NA marketplace, he's not wrong. The thing is, this particular range of atheism is a superficial bias without regard to function.

Think of it this way: The only difference I find between the "patriot" who dies shooting up the place to free the sheeple and the religious nut who shoots the place up for God is the statistical the "patriot" might be an atheist, and therefore the difference would be that the religious nut thinks he's going to heaven while the atheistic "patriot" is just taking as many as possible out with him. In other words, the only difference is a matter of psychoanalysis and academia; dead is dead, murder is murder, and stupid is stupid.

Meanwhile, there are priorities we might describe as philosophical that, in turn, describe how you assess information and make subjective decisions; if we think of org or flow charts, there you go, a philosophical position. It's not actually so obscure, but you might be focusing on acts of will, such as a political position deliberately adopted.

And like I said, I'm not necessarily one of our neighbor's biggest fans. I don't say this to knock him or expect that he should feel badly; we just don't see eye to eye on a bunch of stuff.

And that is kind of important, at least to me, because you shouldn't be losing this argument to him.

Honestly, if people want to know why I pick on atheists, this is why. How the hell can they keep losing like this? It's because the rationality asserted by rejecting or failing to believe in God does not extend beyond that particular statement, so everything else these evangelical atheists say, about anything in the Universe, is either as scientific as science (e.g., "gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth equals nine and eight-tenths meters per second, per second"), or subjective as an opinion. In which case, great, "atheism" is just another religious argument.

You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that atheism has a philosophy or indeed that it is a philosophy, when it's actually an answer to one question.
I've found that to be quite common among new atheists. "Old atheists" (me?) tend to have philosophies that are as diverse as the number of atheists who hold them. Atheism isn't group think, that is theism, my ideas belong only to me. I hope you are clear now.

 

[Capracus]

More to the point, there's a reason you call it "hidden knowledge".

What else would you call it? Atheism wouldn’t exist if such knowledge were avaliable. Theists wouldn’t resort to lame rationalizations if this knowledge was apparent. You would likely answer my question if knowledge of deities was not hidden.

So again, is it possible for you to describe your personal path to knowing a deity? If not, just say so.

 

[Tiassa]

You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that atheism has a philosophy or indeed that it is a philosophy, when it's actually an answer to one question.

Wow, we get to go around that circle?

I've found that to be quite common among new atheists. "Old atheists" (me?) tend to have philosophies that are as diverse as the number of atheists who hold them. Atheism isn't group think, that is theism, my ideas belong only to me. I hope you are clear now.

Don''t give me that shit.

Seriously:

Please explain the "philosophical position" of which you speak.

That's just effing stupid. I give you as much effing credit as I can, and you change the subject in order to go around that circle in order to put on that arrogant pretense after having posted that stupidity.

How? How do you expect to be taken seriously?

 

[Musika]

What else would you call it? Atheism wouldn’t exist if such knowledge were avaliable.

Or alternatively, atheism terms it as such for maintaining the status quo.

Theists wouldn’t resort to lame rationalizations if this knowledge was apparent.

And of course the reason such rationalizations are "lame" is because the knowledge is "hidden", innit?

You would likely answer my question if knowledge of deities was not hidden.

If you don't have the philosophical courage to come out of the shadows to discuss what are the characteristics of "viable" knowledge snd how this pertains to the un/knowability of God (you know, like actually provide a philosophical basis for a philosophical claim), its not clear you are even asking questions that you are capable of understanding answers to (regardless whether the answer is for or against)

So again, is it possible for you to describe your personal path to knowing a deity? If not, just say so.

Sure.
But a more important question, given your far from innocuous use of words like "actually meaningful interaction" or "hidden knowledge" is whether you can come to terms with what you are already bringing to the table.

I mean, even suppose I provide you with an answer, how on earth would you propose to assess the merit of the answer?

 

[Capracus]

Or alternatively, atheism terms it as such for maintaining the status quo.

You’ve stated in other posts that gods are not empirically knowable, yet we have world religions founded on the basis that gods have manifested materially.

And of course the reason such rationalizations are "lame" is because the knowledge is "hidden", innit?

When you essentially have people trying to explain a condition from a position of an absence of knowledge, hidden would seem to be an apt description. There are countless examples of what amounts to excuses as to why gods stick to the shadows. If you’ve got one that you think will pass the smell test, please feel free to pop the lid.

If you don't have the philosophical courage to come out of the shadows to discuss what are the characteristics of "viable" knowledge snd how this pertains to the un/knowability of God (you know, like actually provide a philosophical basis for a philosophical claim), its not clear you are even asking questions that you are capable of understanding answers to (regardless whether the answer is for or against)

If I were in the shadows we wouldn’t be engaged in this discussion. If you want an example of that behavior, try talking to some gods. As far as understanding what you have to say, it might help if you offered up the knowledge in question for an opportunity to understand it.

Sure.
But a more important question, given your far from innocuous use of words like "actually meaningful interaction" or "hidden knowledge" is whether you can come to terms with what you are already bringing to the table.

Meaningful as in is there some demonstrable give and take between you and your deity. Or is it merely a presumption on your part that influence is present. If you're willing to be honest, you’d acknowledge that much of the nature of reality is likely hidden, so I don’t get why you’re so hung up on the label.

I mean, even suppose I provide you with an answer, how on earth would you propose to assess the merit of the answer?

Because there’s nothing you’ve posted in this forum thus far that is beyond the understanding of an average 12 year old, and I consider myself to be at least that capable.

 

[sideshowbob]

Hence your disagreement with them lies on the effect they bring to the cause, and not the cause itself.

It's hard to tell whether you're trying to say something or not.

 

[akoreamerican]

Wow, we get to go around that circle?



Don''t give me that shit.

Seriously:



That's just effing stupid. I give you as much effing credit as I can, and you change the subject in order to go around that circle in order to put on that arrogant pretense after having posted that stupidity.

How? How do you expect to be taken seriously?

I know it's frustrating when other people don't understand, but I believe you have to try to guide your opponent to your point of view instead of browbeating them.

 

[Tiassa]

I know it's frustrating when other people don't understand, but I believe you have to try to guide your opponent to your point of view instead of browbeating them.

I don't necessarily presume zombie reiteration genuine.

And, seriously, it's not a subtle sleight; after a while, the pretense of people pretending to be intelligent while only exercising those faculties to duck out on saying anything useful is ... I mean, come on, really? How many times have we seen this, before? It's like, yes, yes, his non sequitur happens to be true in its own context, but it's a non sequitur.

At this point, I don't really care why he's changing the subject; in a more general context, though, we eventually reach a point at which the amount this behavior comes up within an argumentative range starts to become significant of ... well, something. As to what, that's a larger question.

But, no, there is a lot going on around here that falls into a range where the question is a lack of competence or restraint, whether one is mistaken for ignorance or as a matter of will. And, really, it's not like those conditions are exclusive; our neighbor can fail according to both at once.

 

[iceaura]

Or alternatively, atheism terms it as such for maintaining the status quo.

This provides a short, obvious example of the Abrahamic theists's wordfog on science forums.
It presents no "alternative" as described. It presents "atheism" as an entity that "terms" things. It imagines a nonexistent status quo, maintained by atheism terming things. It misuses the preposition "for", producing a confusion that has less meaning the more carefully read.
And so forth.
Where does this come from?

 

[Musika]

It's hard to tell whether you're trying to say something or not.

When in doubt, you can always try returning to the points you raise:

You: Non sequitur. Atheism and communism being in the same place at the same time does not establish an cause and effect relationship.

Me: The state advocated the destruction of religion, and it officially pronounced religious beliefs to be superstitious and backward. (Further details about the effect of this idea, namely the political consequences of atheist media saturation, death, doom and destruction for theists, etc edited out)

You: I agree with them on that. It doesn't make me oppress anybody.

Me : Hence your disagreement with them lies on the effect they bring to the cause, and not the cause itself.

IOW your original point about a historical analysis of soviet communism providing no relationship of cause (atheism) and effect (violent removal of theists from the ecosystem) can be discarded.

 

[Musika]

This provides a short, obvious example of the Abrahamic theists's wordfog on science forums.
It presents no "alternative" as described. It presents "atheism" as an entity that "terms" things. It imagines a nonexistent status quo, maintained by atheism terming things. It misuses the preposition "for", producing a confusion that has less meaning the more carefully read.
And so forth.
Where does this come from?

The irony is that your endeavor to frame atheism outside of a dichotomy and a status quo relationship takes you further into one .... especially when your paranoid hyper-vigilant brain demands the presence of imaginary abrahamic religious practitioners to oppose for the sake of maintaining allusions of credibility.

 

[Capracus]

Gene Gene the Dancing Machine

 

[Musika]

You’ve stated in other posts that gods are not empirically knowable, yet we have world religions founded on the basis that gods have manifested materially.

Actually they are founded on the basis that God appears out of His own independent free will, and not out of obedience to external nature (aka, the football field of empiricism).
Of course atheism demands that we live in a universe bereft of any sentience that is independent of external nature. Therefore clauses requiring an omnimax personality to get out of hiding and appear within the language of something one can kick around on a field is simply a use of language to maintain the status quo.

If I were in the shadows we wouldn’t be engaged in this discussion. If you want an example of that behavior, try talking to some gods. As far as understanding what you have to say, it might help if you offered up the knowledge in question for an opportunity to understand it.
Meaningful as in is there some demonstrable give and take between you and your deity. Or is it merely a presumption on your part that influence is present. If you're willing to be honest, you’d acknowledge that much of the nature of reality is likely hidden, so I don’t get why you’re so hung up on the label.

You are not actually engaging in the discussion. Sure, you want to discuss the philosophical limits of knowledge, but you don't want to discuss epistemology, hence ...

Spoiler

Because there’s nothing you’ve posted in this forum thus far that is beyond the understanding of an average 12 year old, and I consider myself to be at least that capable.

12 year olds tend to not be consumed by impressions of their self effacing nature.

 

[Musika]

Gene Gene the Dancing Machine

Once again, you are getting ahead of yourself. You need to go back to basics.

 

[iceaura]

The irony is that your endeavor to frame atheism outside of a dichotomy and a status quo relationship takes you further into one

Whatever that is supposed to mean (or supposed to imply, without the accountability of meaning), no such endeavor appears in my posts.
Projection? I am not the one trying to frame atheism, after all - you are. And that is typical of the nonsense expected from Abrahamic theists.
Note: Your characteristic word fogging tends invariably to personal disparagement, rather than refutation however vague - as noted before, a strikingly prevalent tactic among overt Abrahamic theists posting on science forums.

especially when your paranoid hyper-vigilant brain demands the presence of imaginary abrahamic religious practitioners

It doesn't, of course. Which is obvious, even if it were not repeatedly debunked above.
It just observes the presence of you and your kind, and responds to their actual posting.

Which is nothing if not thread relevant.

Which is an interesting topic, actually.

And so forth.
Where does this come from?

 

[Capracus]

Actually they are founded on the basis that God appears out of His own independent free will, and not out of obedience to external nature (aka, the football field of empiricism).

Or apparently out of obedience to rational thought either. Why can’t I communicate with gods? Why do gods allow holocausts? Why do bad things happen to good people? These common sense questions persist because gods are either not present, or enjoy playing irrational games, and since even theist expect rationality from gods, they will resort to all manner of theological contortions to avoid facing these potentialities.

Of course atheism demands that we live in a universe bereft of any sentience that is independent of external nature. Therefore clauses requiring an omnimax personality to get out of hiding and appear within the language of something one can kick around on a field is simply a use of language to maintain the status quo.

Individual atheists may harbor such views, but there’s no such thing as an atheist doctrine that demands that a universe be characteristically one way or another.

You are not actually engaging in the discussion. Sure, you want to discuss the philosophical limits of knowledge, but you don't want to discuss epistemology, hence ...

Let me get this straight, I’m not engaging in the discussion, but from my non discussion you’ve somehow managed to determine my desire to discuss the philosophical limits of knowledge, which is essentially epistemology by another name, but I don’t actually want to discuss epistemology. Was that a fair translation of your nonsensical statement?

12 year olds tend to not be consumed by impressions of their self effacing nature.

What would a 12 year old’s impression of modesty have to do with their intellectual capacity? Are you implying that modesty is behind your reluctance to share your personal experiences with divinity? Maybe you could find courage from this example of theological immodesty.

God Wants to Have Sex With You

https://prayer-coach.com/2015/04/14/god-wants-to-have-sex-with-you/

 

[Musika]

Or apparently out of obedience to rational thought either.
Why can’t I communicate with gods?

Probably for the same reason most people can't replace U joints, adequately represent themself in legal matters, analyze a pathology report, build a brick wall in a straight line, bake a wedding cake or have lunch with the president of the USA.
Our ignorance and limitations are multi-faceted.

Why do gods allow holocausts? Why do bad things happen to good people? These common sense questions persist because gods are either not present, or enjoy playing irrational games, and since even theist expect rationality from gods, they will resort to all manner of theological contortions to avoid facing these potentialities.

One of the first steps in defining specific problems with theodicy would be to first try googling it.

Individual atheists may harbor such views, but there’s no such thing as an atheist doctrine that demands that a universe be characteristically one way or another.

Whatever, but you have just wagered your atheism on the basis of empiricism in an identical manner to msny, many, many atheists.

Let me get this straight, I’m not engaging in the discussion, but from my non discussion you’ve somehow managed to determine my desire to discuss the philosophical limits of knowledge, which is essentially epistemology by another name, but I don’t actually want to discuss epistemology. Was that a fair translation of your nonsensical statement?

Sure.
If you want to say certain claims are not "meaningful", sooner or later you will have to get around to delivering a standard for "meaningful" before the cows beat you home.
Alternatively you can try changing the topic to issues surrounding theodicy.

What would a 12 year old’s impression of modesty have to do with their intellectual capacity?

They are not so puffed up with airs of self importance, so they can actually learn new stuff more easily.