What Do People Know About What They Pretend to Discuss?

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

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.

Yes, they do. But look what I was responding to. You wrote about what the "culture of atheism does not like".

According to the definition you just gave, the "culture of atheism" is no more than disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God. In other words, we know that atheists "do not like" to believe in God, and that's all we get from that. But you talked about atheists not liking "to view [themselves] as not, or uninformed". There's nothing about being informed or viewing oneself as being informed in the definition of atheism you just gave.

It follows that you're assuming that there is a wider "culture of atheism" that goes beyond the bare definition you just gave. I pointed out to you that, whatever that culture is, it is not a monoculture. Atheists aren't a robot army, all sharing the same views on everything. Like I said, the only guarantee is that they all fit your bare definition, just quoted.

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.

I see. Your comment was not so much about a generic "culture of atheism", but was rather a comment on your perception of iceaura's and my particular attitudes? Correct? If so, then why generalise?

You would say that. Because you’re an atheist.

Not because I'm an atheist. Because it's a matter of common courtesy and it's about the acceptable standards of reasonable discourse.

If I claim that "Theists all have three arms" and you say "No they don't", do you think it should be up to you to prove me wrong, or up to me to show at least some evidence to support my (rather extraordinary) claim? At the very least, I'd say I should be obliged to produce at least a few examples of theists with three arms, in support of my thesis.

It would be almost effortless for you to refute this particular claim, for example by pointing out that you yourself are a theist and you (presumably) have less than three arms. But it's not about how easy or hard it might be to justify the negative of the claim. Rather, it's a matter of common sense and even good manners that the person making the positive claim has the onus of supporting it, in the first instance.

So, in context: if I were to claim "God doesn't exist", then it should be up to me to justify that claim, in the first instance. It would be bad form for me to make the claim and expect you to prove that God exists (i.e. expect you to prove me wrong). Of course, in the real world I don't make the claim that God doesn't exist. On the other hand, in the real world you do make the claim that God exists. The onus is therefore on you to try to support your claim, in the first instance, not for me to prove you wrong.

The only other alternative is to accept that theism is quite possibly true.

I already accept that theism - the belief that God exists - exists. I also accept that it is possible that God exists (which is what I think you meant to say there). But you go beyond the possibility. You assert actuality. That is the claim you need to support.

Then surrender your inferior idealistic notions.

I'm not sure what you're referring to? Which inferior idealistic notions?

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

You're welcome to your opinion.

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.

There's a whole thread in which for hundreds of posts you failed to produce a single thing. The closest you got to evidence was to say that you agreed with all of William Lane Craig's philosophical arguments for God, none of which constitute evidence.

Once again, you cannot, as an atheist, know whether the evidence for God, is correct.

Why not? Is the evidence so subjective that one must already have come to the conclusion prior to evaluating the evidence?

When you, or any atheist, reject evidence for God. You do so because you are atheist. No matter how convincing the evidence is.

What evidence? There's no evidence to reject, so far. Not from you. You haven't presented anything.
What evidence do you find convincing? (A waste of time asking you, I know, or you would have already put it in the thread dedicated to that question.)

Because you’re fundamental position is, there is no God.

You insist on repeating this misrepresentation, regardless of how many times you are explicitly and carefully corrected. Why is that? I understand that it might make you more comfortable in yourself, but it's really a lousy way to engage in a discussion. It shows that you're willing to ride roughshod over the truth for the purpose of scoring a pyrrhic rhetorical point. Who do you think you're fooling? And is this what your theist ethic calls appropriate behaviour - this continual dishonesty?

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.

Regardless what you believe about ear wiggling, you can demonstrably wiggle your ears. That is, if I didn't believe your claim then you could, in principle, present objective evidence to back up your claim (e.g. a video of yourself displaying this talent).

In contrast, you believe in God, but you can produce nothing to demonstrate that this God of yours exists as a real thing, separate from your subjective belief.

It's kind of like you claiming you can wiggle your ears, and then when asked "Show us, then!", you merely respond with "No!" So maybe you can wiggle your ears; maybe you can't. The best we can say is that no factual basis for your claim is apparent.

You have literally no idea what you’re talking about.
With regard to belief in God you’re wrong.
There’s no way you could be right.

Empty words on your part. If there was actually something wrong with what I wrote there, you could explain what was wrong with it. Instead, there's just unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion from you that I can't be right, that I'm wrong, that I have no idea what I'm talking about, etc.

Don't you see how this kind of knee-jerk dismissal of inconvenient arguments does nothing to help your case and everything to damage your credibility?

There is no “in the end”.

As I said, belief in God is in no way "fundamental". It is a complex web of belief built on prior belief built on prior belief. The fact that you have no apparent awareness of the really fundamental beliefs that you rely on to support such a complex notion such as a belief in a God merely emphasises just how superficial your understanding is about how your own beliefs (about anything) actually come about. This is one area in which learning some science could potentially help you.

You’re simply projecting you’re own concept into the mix. Theism, or atheism, is prior to any arrival of new information.

I have no idea what you mean by that. New information about what? The fact is: before you decide to believe in God, you already have lots of beliefs about all kinds of relevant topics, some of which I listed in my previous post. Many disparate prior beliefs are necessary for it to be possible for your to hold the belief in God, in fact for such a belief to even make any sense to you.

Over time a theist can become atheist.

Sure. A person's beliefs about God can change as a result of their experience, new information they acquire, the persuasion of other people, and so on and so forth.

But to do that the theist has to forget God.

No. He merely has to let go of the idea that his God concept represents something that exists as a real object in the world.

An atheist can become theist by remembering God.

To become theist, one first has to be aware that such a belief system is available. In other words, one must first learn about the concept of God. The final step is starting to believe that the concept describes something that exists as a real object in the world.

That's how it works.

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.

The sentences "I believe in God" and "I hold a belief in God" are synonymous. If you want to try to split this particular hair, you'll need to try harder. Insults are no substitute for argument; you really ought to have worked that out by now.

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.

More insults, I see. This time it's the assertion that atheists lack the capacity to comprehend that God exists. Ho hum.

I'm an agnostic atheist, and I'm interested to find out whether or not God exists, but it's not because of my lack of intellectual ability, I assure you.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

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.

You're attempting to split hairs again. It doesn't matter to the basic question "how" God exists. If things exist because God exists, so what? You're still asserting that God exists. If he didn't, there would be no things.

But on that other point: is there anything other than God that exists in this special way that God exists, different from the way everything else exists? If not, then isn't this just an ad hoc special pleading for God, in order to avoid certain logical arguments against God's existence that you'd rather not have to face up to?

You squirm and you wriggle and you play around with words constantly - anything to avoid using the words in the normal ways that everyday people use them when they discuss the idea of God/god/gods.

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.

We wouldn't want people to believe in the wrong God, would we? No, we must try to convince them to read the right scriptures, and obey the right religious codes and agree to live their lives under the oversight of the right religious authorities.

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

Exactly. To say something useful about ear-wiggling, a demonstration of ear-wiggling would be a good thing to look for, early on. Anecdotal claims about the existence of an ear-wiggling talent only take us so far.

That’s because you’re in the business of manufacturing beliefs. But you cannot truly manufacture a belief.

Wrong. We're all in the business of manufacturing beliefs, all the time. The process is largely inaccessible to our consciousness, which is why you might feel like your beliefs spring out of nowhere, fully formed.

You accept something, then convince yourself that it is valid.

You're talking about something that comes after the belief. You're talking about trying to justify the belief to yourself. "What if someone were to ask me why I believe this? I'd better have some good arguments, just in case." To be fair, it can be an internal error-checking process, in the best-case scenario: "Why do I believe this? Can my belief be justified, obectively? Let me check..."

A lot of beliefs - especially foundational ones - go completely unexamined, though. That is, they are never questioned. Once the belief is there, it is accepted as part of the background of the psyche and never rigorously tested against reality. It's very very easy to find examples of closely-held beliefs that turn out to have no basis at all in fact, or that are actually counter-factual.

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.

It says something useful about you that you don't worry about that stuff. It's another noteable personal trait that we can add to the list of things that explain why you continue to hold these unsupported beliefs that you have.

I wonder whether you are equally unconcerned about your political opinions, or your moral ideas, or your opinions of other people, to mention a few things at random. That is, it would be interesting to know whether this is a compartmentalised blind spot or more of a generalised deficiency.

Your problem seems to be, you can’t let go. You have to be in control of everything.

I think it's the old choice between realism and comfort. Given the choice between being comfortably deluded and confronting an often uncomforting reality, I tend to land on the side of choosing what is real over what makes me happy. You might call that needing to be in control. Alternatively, you might say that it's recognising that control is an illusion that can easily turn into a delusion.

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.

When it comes to evolution, those who refer to the theory as a religion are almost exclusively people who turn out to be very into religions of their own. It's a bit hypocritical to criticise others for following a religion if you're devoted to one yourself, wouldn't you say?

The other pertinent observation is that those who refer to the theory of evolution as a religion are almost exclusively people who are uneducated in science in general, and in particular are people who demonstrably have no accurate understanding of the theory itself.

Accepting a scientific fact has very little to do with indoctrination into anything other than an understanding of what science is and how its methods generate reliable knowledge.

These people who refer to the theory of evolution as a dogma can be safely dismissed. This is another example of subjective belief utterly failing to conform to objective reality.

Calling evolution a religion is approximately equivalent to calling Newton's laws of motion a religion, or calling the periodic table of the elements a religion.

You cannot, know, what it means to a theist outside of your comprehension.

Weasel words. Nobody can know anything that is outside their comprehension, by definition.

The only way to find out what the word "God" means to any given person, theist or atheist, is to ask them to explain what it means to them. Comprehension will then depend on what kind of answer (if any) is forthcoming, and the hearer's own capacity to understand the answer.

You assert that no atheist can possibly understand the majesty of what God means to you, but that's just another empty claim from you. Who knows? You might even believe your own rhetoric on this, but it remains just that.

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

The ear wiggler, even if never able to wiggle his own ears, can still gather enough evidence to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that ear wiggling is a real phenomenon and that there is more evidence accessible to him than mere anecdotes about ear-wigglers.

 

[iceaura]

While I thank you for your analytical attempt, I have to stress that you’re in no position to comment on theism.

I am. I can comment on your theism from a record of your posting that goes back years now, for example.

Oh! That’s convenient.

Says the typical overt Abrahamic theist, demonstrating their standard rhetorical approach on a science forum. Misrepresent, then attack.

Correct! My true position is theist.

So your rhetorical tactic of deflection by talking about what things are "like" was - as noted - dishonest.
There are several true theistic positions. Not all of them are - as yours is - fundamentally dishonest.

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

No, you weren't. You were trying to establish the bogus term "culture of atheism" as having a real referent, which it does not.
That's dishonest.
Then you were using that supposed "culture of atheism" as a basis for personal attacks on atheists.
That's standard overt Abrahamic rhetorical tactics, the fundie two-step, on this forum.

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.

Argument from evidence is not indoctrination.
You are trying to make equivalent assertion from revelation and argument from evidence - "level the playing field", in your terms.
The reason people like you want to refer to such theories as religions is fairly obvious: your tactic of misrepresentation to set up personal attack goes better with an established misrepresentation, something you don't have to work for.
When you project the desire for a "level playing field" unto others, as you did above, you make that clear.

You cannot, know, what it means to a theist outside of your comprehension.

I can learn a great deal of what it means to a given theist, by paying attention to what they say about it.
You are confusing what it is like with what it means.
You are also forgetting that most US atheists were Abrahamic theists for years. They can remember what their theistic belief was like.

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

Your true position as presented here is fundamentally dishonest, and on this forum you project this internal state unto others. That may be why you apparently don't care whether what you post is right or wrong - whatever "works" in a shitfling. But neither growth or understanding is possible from such a position
- - -

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

Irrelevant.

But the ear wiggle will have a level of comprehension, and will know whether or not that explanation coincides with the action.

They would not be able to make that assessment, unless they possessed the necessary familiarity with the biochemistry etc.

In that example you have a simple reality to deal with, see - mistake, on your part. Best go back to Darwinian evolution - there, you have a large US media-supported body of established misrepresentations to hide behind, helping you avoid accountability to reason.
.

 

[Jan Ardena]

According to the definition you just gave, the "culture of atheism" is no more than disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God. In other words, we know that atheists "do not like" to believe in God, and that's all we get from that. But you talked about atheists not liking "to view [themselves] as not, or uninformed". There's nothing about being informed or viewing oneself as being informed in the definition of atheism you just gave.

It wasn’t a definition it was an observation that went with the observation that is characteristics of the OP. I am fully aware of the definition of atheism.

It follows that you're assuming that there is a wider "culture of atheism" that goes beyond the bare definition you just gave. I pointed out to you that, whatever that culture is, it is not a monoculture. Atheists aren't a robot army, all sharing the same views on everything. Like I said, the only guarantee is that they all fit your bare definition, just quoted.

Not every atheist is characterised by the OP. It seemed to be calling out specific types, like the ones who hang out here. There definitely is a culture. For the purpose of discussion, we’ll call it an atheist sub-culture. Ok?

I see. Your comment was not so much about a generic "culture of atheism", but was rather a comment on your perception of iceaura's and my particular attitudes? Correct? If so, then why generalise?

It was a critique of a specific subculture of atheism, of which Iceaura, and yourself, among others, appear to be fully paid-up members.

Not because I'm an atheist. Because it's a matter of common courtesy and it's about the acceptable standards of reasonable discourse.

It’s the only answer, or response, you can give.
And that is due to you being an atheist.

I am a vegetarian, and part of my reason is due to the suffering of innocent animals, just to pleasure our pallets. Because of my position, I cannot accept any situation where animals suffer for that.
My position/worldview, determines my reasoning, as does yours.

If I claim that "Theists all have three arms" and you say "No they don't", do you think it should be up to you to prove me wrong, or up to me to show at least some evidence to support my (rather extraordinary) claim? At the very least, I'd say I should be obliged to produce at least a few examples of theists with three arms, in support of my thesis.

No need. I know I have two arms.
If you proceeded with your claim, there would be no discussion. Just like there is no discussion now, only your opinions.

I do back my claims, but it is simply a case of you not accepting them, because you are atheist.

If you tried to convince me that the animals did not suffer in preparation for them to be eaten, you’d have no chance. That is how you are with regards to atheism.

You’re not going to accept anything positive about God, and I’m not going to accept your atheism as sound, rational, or intelligent.
Any convincing that is to be done to create that possibility, has to come from acceptance. Not science, not philosophy, and not religion.

So, in context: if I were to claim "God doesn't exist", then it should be up to me to justify that claim, in the first instance.

Why would you state it, if you couldn’t give some account, which stem from being an atheist?
If you didn’t claim, and kept it to yourself, nothing would change, because for you, there is no God that you see, or observe. That is the only reason you could seriously have, to make that claim.

It would be bad form for me to make the claim and expect you to prove that God exists (i.e. expect you to prove me wrong).

On the contrary. It would be honest of you.
I would accept, that for you God doesn’t exist, and go about my business. But you can’t leave it there. For some reason you need your position to be be right, and all others wrong. Hence the OP.

So, in context: if I were to claim "God doesn't exist", then it should be up to me to justify that claim, in the first instance.

Firstly, I have never made that claim.
Secondly, that claim is about as important to make, as, “I can wiggle my ears”.
You need to pay more attention to what I write.

It would be bad form for me to make the claim and expect you to prove that God exists (i.e. expect you to prove me wrong).

That implies I demand you to back your claim. I never have, because I understand that you are an atheist, and it is perfectly understandable why you could make that claim.

I think you interchange “theism” with “religion”. Especially the type that actively seek to recruit new members.

Of course, in the real world I don't make the claim that God doesn't exist. On the other hand, in the real world you do make the claim that God exists.

Where have I made that claim?

The onus is therefore on you to try to support your claim, in the first instance, not for me to prove you wrong.

I’ve made no claims with you. I have discussed why for me it is obvious why God Is, and why it is obvious for you, there is no God. That’s as far as we can go, because you’re not interested in discussion. You only want to justify your position.
To sum up, our discussion is about positions, not God. If I want to talk about God, to an atheist, it has to be one with an open mind. Meaning that he/she understands that they can only see it from their position.

So we come back to the opening post, and its possible reasons why.

You seem to need to be right by any means necessary.

You have no intention of really listening to what is being said. You just jump in with objections, because you have to be on top.

The fact is, you’re not on top, because you have nothing to offer.

You automatically think atheism is synonymous with science, technology, and reason. But it isn’t.

This sub-culture is in a permanent state of a type of anger and frustration, because you know you have nothing to offer with regard to the atheist position, because ultimately, it is nothing but a lack, or refusal to believe in God.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

There are several true theistic positions. Not all of them are - as yours is - fundamentally dishonest.

Go on then!
Enlighten me.

I can learn a great deal of what it means to a given theist, by paying attention to what they say about it.

But you’re understanding is atheist.
Sub-culture atheist.

You are confusing what it is like with what it means.

There you go with your arrogant self again, trying to control both sides of the narrative, so you you can keep in the discussion.
I mean what I said.

They would not be able to make that assessment, unless they possessed the necessary familiarity with the biochemistry etc.

So.
They can make the assessment.
No non-ear-wiggling biochemist can not know whether or not they are properly correct, until they have the experience. For the ear-wiggled, biochemical analysis is of no real importance.

Jan.

 

[billvon]

I am a vegetarian, and part of my reason is due to the suffering of innocent animals, just to pleasure our pallets. Because of my position, I cannot accept any situation where animals suffer for that.

Ah. So you are defined by your inability to see animals as food, and you spend your life denying what you know is true (to apply your logic to yourself.) Your culture of meat deniers, of course, tell you that you are wise to do this, despite any evidence to the contrary. You must live in a constant state of anger and denial.

You’re not going to accept anything positive about God, and I’m not going to accept your atheism as sound, rational, or intelligent.

At least you have stated you are not open to ideas that conflict with your beliefs. Atheists are generally more open-minded than that. Show an atheist a picture of God and he will say "I need more proof than that." Pray to have a lightning bolt hit a tree - and then see just that happen - and said atheist will say "OK, that's starting to be proof that God exists. Let's try X and see if that works, too."

Any convincing that is to be done to create that possibility, has to come from acceptance. Not science, not philosophy, and not religion.

So you have to deny science, philosophy and religion and just "accept?" OK then. The flat earthers will be very happy to hear that.

You automatically think atheism is synonymous with science, technology, and reason. But it isn’t.

Of course it isn't - because atheism is a LACK of a belief. A lack of something can't be synonymous with something completely different.

Now, on the other hand, most theists have to oppose some science, because things like plate tectonics conflict with their beliefs.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

While I thank you for your analytical attempt, I have to stress that you’re in no position to comment on theism.

religion has no authority to discuss science ?

 

[davewhite04]

religion has no authority to discuss science ?

Which post? or name?

​

 

[iceaura]

But you’re understanding is atheist.

And it's the same as many theists's.

For the ear-wiggled, biochemical analysis is of no real importance.

Without it, they cannot explain ear wiggling.

They can make the assessment.

Not without the knowledge.

No non-ear-wiggling biochemist can not know whether or not they are properly correct, until they have the experience.

They can know when the explanation is incorrect. They have the knowledge necessary, and can compare the explanation with that knowledge.

I mean what I said.

Which - according to your own posting - is the same as saying only you know what it really feels like to say what you say, and you feel that feeling.

Fine with me. Not sure why you keep insisting on that, though.

 

[iceaura]

It was a critique of a specific subculture of atheism,

Dishonest.
Your posts have explicitly addressed all "atheism" and every "atheist". For years now.
- - - -

You automatically think atheism is synonymous with science, technology, and reason.

I think you interchange “theism” with “religion”.

You’re not going to accept anything positive about God, and I’m not going to accept your atheism as sound, rational, or intelligent.

Projecting again.
Misrepresentation, leading to personal attack - the overt Abrahamic theist posts on a science forum.

 

[davewhite04]

Jan Ardena:

I think it may be the way you talk to people. Wanting to sound superior for some unspirital way. I come off with that trait too, but I've worked on it. If you don't know what you are defending or talking about you look false, or if people are continuously cherry picking quotes you've forgot about... just tell the truth from your reality.

 

[iceaura]

I think it may be the way you talk to people.

He's posting dishonestly, in bad faith, with an agenda of personal attack - as before, consistently.
That is typical of the overt Abrahamic theist posting here.
And that bit of knowledge - direct observation - is part of the context for replying to this:

This is a question for atheists at Sciforums: What do you actually know about the "gods" and religions you criticize and complain about?

 

[davewhite04]

He's posting dishonestly, in bad faith, with an agenda of personal attack - as before, consistently.
That is typical of the overt Abrahamic theist posting here.
And that bit of knowledge - direct observation - is part of the context for replying to this:

What if I was an overt Abrahamic theist?

 

[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:

No, James, had that sufficed you would not have needed to ask.

That is to say, you would have picked up on it long before now.

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).

James, one of the problems of textbook conflict de-escalation is when person attempting that mitigation is a participant who has no credibility. I get that you claim to understand, but it is demonstrable you don't. Over the course of years, you should have picked at least some of this up. Instead, you're just trying to tell people what they need to say in order to satisfy you, but you can't even do that properly compared to your history of missing the point

You might as well just be honest and admit you're not really distressed by the length of the post but that it makes its case.

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.

Yes, it is always easy to find such people. And, yes, thus we find no shortage. It just doesn't make any useful sort of sense to cultivate such behavior.

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.

I disagree this isn't your brand of atheism. Wandering around asking people to come fight you isn't exactly productive, but, again, you've given us an answer, and, yes, it does make sense.

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.

Good for you, but you're missing the point again. Or changing the subject. Whichever, it's a question of competence or will.

If I take the moment to wonder if I should leave it at that or explain something more, it's a question of your need; you persistently miss the point, either way. And that's another question, why can you not follow the discussion? When I try following exchanges back, it's just a montage of you missing the point: You are responding to a portion of #162↑ invoking "any excuse" as a reference to your prior retort, and reminding that all you really showed in #111-112↑ was that you don't like theists; in that sense, your response can appear relevant. But that part of #162 is refers directly to one of your excuses, from #154↑: "I reject your initial premise that atheists know pretty much nothing. I accept that this might be your skewed perception." After a while, it would have been easier to just demonstrate the point than keep pretending pride as an excuse to duck out. That is, if we survey the three paragraphs of that portion of your retort, you appear to be pitching a tantrum about getting caught misrepresenting a post. But even that tracks back to your hurt feelings; see #131↑. The thing about the thread being a year old is that your focus on that point is its own change of subject; it's not that I don't get the gist of what Seattle was after, but he was describing circumstances only obliquely applicable, but like I said in #127↑, question, "Why is this all about me, all of a sudden?" (#122↑) is, if not disingenuous, then weirdly detached. It is, like the particular question of the thread age as you responded in #131, a strange tack to focus on a detail of obscure effect for reasons only you really can understand. I mean, sure, pride is clearly a motive, and that is what it is, but inasmuch as you might complain about evidence in favor of a shorter statement you can complain about as unsupported, we might also take the moment to consider the number of posts you've put in compared to making some sort of demonstrative point that isn't wrapped up in your damn pride. It ought to have been easier than pretending hurt feelings and proceeding to consistently miss the point on through today. It ought to have been easier than making excuses for not. Still, that's what happens when trying to follow your distractions.

Meanwhile, the whole appeal to having [_____] friends is actually metaphorically akin to textured vegetable protein in gourmet; it tastes like whatever one cooks it with, and, sure, it is what it is, but, generally speaking, it doesn't behave or taste like what it purports to imitate or substitute for.

In this case, sure, but look at the record you leave and the contempt that you hold them in. And toward that end, we can skip a head long enough to wonder—

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.

—at your perpetual list of excuses.

Still, though, you mentioned Yazata; see #136↑ above.

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.

Even by your own definition, James, you're supposed to be better than that. You want me to write your argument for you? To go fish according to my standard? Why? Why would you not support what should ostensibly be an easy argument to make?

Yeah, I do, and I've explained why, many times, at length.

So, which version applies?

 

[Tiassa]

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?

Just how much do you think I care if they're flattered? To the one, you even quoted↑ me saying religion itself is a complex expression of human psyches, both individual and collective, and I even called it a collective performance art project. Furthermore, we find ourselves back on page one again, noting #10↑, in which I pointed to my own posts in yet another thread, reiterating explicitly that the so-called "God" phenomena in our brains are associated with our perceptive and creative operations, as well as pointing out that humans are neurotic creatures, and thus there are reasons we perceive and imagine gods.

Nor are those points new. And, while, sure, there are some people who don't necessarily encounter them because I'm just not around the Religion subforum as much as once upon a time, one of the weird things about your performance James is that after seventeen years you behave as if you have no idea who you are talking to or what he has said over time.

Which, by the way, is why that long post about anti-identification. After so many uses over the years, including recent discussion between us, and it was only then that you let slip you had no idea what you were responding to? I admit, it's unbelievable, but, like your posts at #111-112, it makes a lot more sense reading as if you are simply playing a fallacious game in order to pitch to the fourth wall.

I agree!

Which only rings strangely because of your behavior.

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.

What I would point out is that usurping the throne of prevailing fallacy is no proper solution.

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

That's actually the wrong application of the excuse.

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.

How do those people have so much power over you?

Why do you let people you know are wrong set the terms of discussion?

You're mistaken if you think I feel like my atheism is threatened in any way by the behaviours of our resident theists.

Well, you did ask:

• "Does a feeling of persecution strengthen their faith, in your opinion?"​

And you are the one who just told me:

• "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."​

I admit, it's not convincing, James.

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.

Then why do theists freak you out so badly? No, seriously—

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.

—it's almost like you're just serving up, at this point:

▸ Any excuse will do, eh?

▸ And of course you justify yourself because theists.​

Okay, then.

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.

It's quite clear that you don't agree, but so what.

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.

Again, to what degree do you think I care?

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.

James, it's one thing to suggest atheists should "have the upper hand in the argument", but around here that's not generally the point. It's one thing to suggest they should, but the question remains why atheists at Sciforums don't, and it's because so much is about bigotry and satisfaction justified according to the principle of because theists.

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

Of course you're not as inclined to whatever as you project of someone else. But what, aside from your bigotry, does that fallacy serve?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan Ardena:

I think it may be the way you talk to people. Wanting to sound superior for some unspirital way. I come off with that trait too, but I've worked on it. If you don't know what you are defending or talking about you look false, or if people are continuously cherry picking quotes you've forgot about... just tell the truth from your reality.

Take a good look at the OP, you’ll find that it’s not about spirituality. It is very much about the “atheist sub-culture.”

I’m not being superior, I’m just not being inferior.

What is it that makes me look false?

Their cherry-pickings aren’t quotes made by me that I’ve forgotten. They’re conclusions they come to, and proceed as though It is something I have said.

The reason they are the way they are toward is because I tell the truth from my reality.

Jan.

 

[Thus Spoke]

For me, it's just one of those long disappointments of history; if you look back far enough in the archives, I used to be one at the heart of the critique against religion. A number of things happened along the way, but insofar as atheists themselves might be concerned, their role, and not only here at Sciforums, but there are plenty in atheistic pop-culture, as well—

—has been precisely discouraging. Part of it has to do with this assertion of atheism actually being an anti-identification, which in turn leads to cat and mousing the lowest common denominator, because that is the point of this particular manner of asserting atheism.

Yes, you're right. I am not a non-believer.

I believe in life and death.

—awareness and existence

—appraisal and apathy

—pain and pleasure

—happiness and sorrow

—triumphs and tragedies

—events and observations

—cause and effects

—rest and motion

—beginnings and ends

—today and tomorrow

—the first and the last

I believe in the finite.

I am a finitist!

♪ This is it
♫ This is it, love

 

[Jan Ardena]

@Davewhite...

1 I think it's the old choice between realism and comfort.

2 Given the choice between being comfortably deluded

3 and confronting an often uncomforting reality,

4 I tend to land on the side of choosing what is real over what makes me happy.

5 You might call that needing to be in control. Alternatively, you might say that it's recognising that control is an illusion that can easily turn into a delusion.

Here’s a nice chunky price of sub- culture atheism, Dave.

Let’s bare in mind what all this is in response to. I basically told him he needs to be in control.

1 Either he thinks the idea of having to be in control, is a solution, or method, to accepting things as they are, over the comforting idea of remaining in comfort in spite of what is real.
Or there is more to what he is saying.

What more could he be saying, if that is the case?

He could be implying that I, due to my theism, choose “comfort” over “realism”. This means I’m not prepared to accept a situation (whatever that is) as it is. I am always looking for the comfortable easy way out.
He doesn’t do that, he always chooses “realism”. Ooh!

So ask yourself. How is this response related to the point it responded to.
Answer?
It doesn’t .

This is an irrational, angry response, couched in the pretence of reason, and composure.
He wants to believe that me, and other theists, live in la la land. We’re idiots, because we don’t think like him. That we are not situated in his reality, which he terms “reality”.

3, 4..

Keep in mind what he is responding to. He has been told that he needs to be in control. That’s all.

He would choose “reality” over being “comfortably deluded”. Notice the evolution of his idea. It’s not just about “comfort”, or “realism”. It is now “comfortably deluded”, and “reality”.

He says that he tends to land on the side of choosing what is real over what makes him happy?
Of course, he is implyimg I do the opposite, otherwise why bring it in to the conversation?
Classic below the radar ad hominem.

Another case of needing to control?
Rather than be naturally happy, create your own template of happiness.
A bit like creating ones own template of God, or theism?

Atheists like James claims he was a theist at one time, meaning that at one time he believed in God.
Then he says he realised that there was no God, it was delusional, and left (in a nutshell).
Now he claims he is an agnostic atheist, because he doesn’t know if there is a God.
But, he also claims he was a theist, a person who believes in God, but there was no God.

Can you spot the nonsense?
He wants evidence of something he is positive does not exist, yet he claim agnosticism when it suits him.

The sub- culture atheists are like spoilt children.
They want their cake, and eat it too.

5 This is a classic manoeuvre.

He turns it around as though that is what I meant. I might want to call that needing to be in control.

In his mind, he has killed 2 birds with one stone. He has unleashed an attack on me, and now he has new narratives to bring into any discussion we have, and play it off as something I said. Which will be picked up by all the sub- culture atheists.

This is what they do.

When you have some time, have look through any conversation, or discussion, between a theist, and any sub-culteralist, and take in the the discussion. You will see what I mean.
When they come up against people who can see their little games, they become frustrated, and almost inevitably start attacking.

Jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

It’s the only answer, or response, you can give.
And that is due to you being an atheist.

I explained in some detail as to why it has nothing to do with my being an atheist. I talked about matters of common courtesy and acceptable standards of reasonable discourse. Maybe you think you have no obligations in those respects, on account of you being a theist and all (?)

I am a vegetarian, and part of my reason is due to the suffering of innocent animals, just to pleasure our pallets. Because of my position, I cannot accept any situation where animals suffer for that.
My position/worldview, determines my reasoning, as does yours.

Then you put the cart before the horse. The reasoning really ought to come before entrenching yourself in a position.

No need. I know I have two arms.

Well done for missing the main point and instead concentrating on a point that I explicitly addressed in anticipation of your missing the main point in exactly the way you have. You're nothing if not predictable.

If you proceeded with your claim, there would be no discussion.

Of course there'd be no discussion for that claim (theists have three arms), especially as made to a theist with only two arms. For that claim, the disproof is right in front of us at the start.

You completely missed, or chose to ignore, the point of the example, which was about onus of proof, reasonable standards of discourse and just good ol' fashioned politeness.

I do back my claims, but it is simply a case of you not accepting them, because you are atheist.

The only "backing" you have for your claim that God is real is your assertion, in one form or another, that the steadfastness of your own personal belief makes it so. Your argument for God is: Jan believes in God, so God is real. That's what it boils down to, nothing more.

You’re not going to accept anything positive about God, and I’m not going to accept your atheism as sound, rational, or intelligent.

We've never really got around to discussing the positives of God, you and I. You're so stuck on pretending you know stuff you don't know that I don't think you'll ever move on from that to discussing God in a wider context.

Thank you for finally being honest about your inability to keep an open mind, though.

Any convincing that is to be done to create that possibility, has to come from acceptance. Not science, not philosophy, and not religion.

That's the whole problem here. On the question of God, the only source of knowledge you trust is revelation. Rationality flies out the window for you.

Why would you state it, if you couldn’t give some account, which stem from being an atheist?

You missed the point again. Any account I would give would have to stem from evidence, not from my personal beliefs about the existence of three armed theists. That's how it should work, Jan. I realise that this is the opposite of how it works in practice, for you.

On the contrary. It would be honest of you.

It would be a good thing, in your opinion, for me to demand that you disprove claims that I make? That would be an honest way for me to approach the claims in question, in your opinion, would it? This is just getting weird now. You seem to be all at sea in regards to how to comport yourself in a debate.

I would accept, that for you God doesn’t exist, and go about my business.

The simple fact is, though, that you don't accept things and go about your business, Jan. You keep coming back here to insist to us all that your God is real, that you have evidence of it, that you have personal knowledge of this God (that is apparently obtained by magical means), and so on and so forth. Moreover, you repeatedly try to tell everybody what atheists believe, and what is true for atheists, despite your protestations that you have to be a theist to know what is true for theists.

Also, we settled the matter of how God exists for you years ago. There's no dispute about that. Given that God exists for you, it makes no sense for you to say that God doesn't exist for me, unless you're only interested in the existence of God as a matter of subjective belief, rather than as a matter of objective fact. If God exists for you, objectively, then God must necessarily also exist for me, objectively.

If your assertion is that God only exists as a subjective belief you have, then we're done and we really can go about our respective business.

The problem is that, even after years, I don't think you're really capable of separating the notion of God's objective existence from God's subjective existence in your mind. That lack of capacity shows up again and again in your sloppy use of language and muddying of terms. (Alternatively, it could be a case of deliberately muddying the waters - i.e. trolling - but giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think it's more likely incapacity.)

But you can’t leave it there. For some reason you need your position to be be right, and all others wrong.

My "position" is only that you have insufficient evidence to establish the existence of your God, and that therefore your claims to certainty are hollow. My position is right, regardless of what I might "need" to comfort myself or whatever.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

Firstly, I have never made that claim.

Nonsense. You've spent thread after thread reciting your "God Is" mantra, and now you're telling me you're not saying God exists? "Oh, but God doesn't exist like things exist. God has a special kind of non-existent existence!", you say. Yeah.

Secondly, that claim is about as important to make, as, “I can wiggle my ears”.

You protest too much. If it wasn't important to you to trumpet how "God Is" to the atheist world, you wouldn't be here every day doing it.

That implies I demand you to back your claim. I never have, because I understand that you are an atheist, and it is perfectly understandable why you could make that claim.

You missed the point (again!). The fact that your claim happens to be about God's existence is irrelevant to the point I made there. My point was about the onus of proof that is on anybody making claims about anything.

I think you interchange “theism” with “religion”. Especially the type that actively seek to recruit new members.

Religion is to theism as "atheist culture" is to atheism. Does that make sense to you?

Where have I made that claim?

In every thread in which you have ever discussed anything to do with God.

I’ve made no claims with you. I have discussed why for me it is obvious why God Is, and why it is obvious for you, there is no God. That’s as far as we can go, because you’re not interested in discussion. You only want to justify your position.

I have justified my position. You haven't justified yours. Saying "it's obvious" is not a justification. If it really was obvious, there'd be nothing to debate.

To sum up, our discussion is about positions, not God.

The position of theism is that God exists. How is that not about God?

So we come back to the opening post, and its possible reasons why.

You seem to need to be right by any means necessary.

This is a psychological need of mine, I assume. A character flaw that you've identified in me.

Why are my psychological needs - or yours - relevant to the question of whether God exists? Does needing to believe make God pop into existence, and needing him not to make him vanish? Is that what you're saying?

Are you capable of discussing the question of the objective existence of God? Or are you only capable of discussing what you believe about God's existence and why you "need" to believe that?

You have no intention of really listening to what is being said. You just jump in with objections, because you have to be on top.

Again with the psychoanalysis. Now I have to be right because I'm on a power trip. I get it.

Still, whether I like a power trip or not, the question of whether God exists is still sitting there waiting to be debated.

The fact is, you’re not on top, because you have nothing to offer.

Other than all the carefully-argued, logical, rational posts I've made, attempting to discuss the question with you in good faith, you mean?

You automatically think atheism is synonymous with science, technology, and reason.

As it happens, that's not at all what I think, automatically or otherwise. Where on earth did you get that idea from?

This sub-culture is in a permanent state of a type of anger and frustration, because you know you have nothing to offer with regard to the atheist position, because ultimately, it is nothing but a lack, or refusal to believe in God.

You think that atheists are angry because ... what? Because they can't disprove God? Because they secretly know God Is, deep in their hearts, but choose to deny Him, which creates internal conflict that manifests as anger and frustration? Something like that?

Would you say atheists are angry at themselves most of all, because they "really" know they're telling lies to themselves, when they could be partying on in eternal bliss and harmony with the righteous theists? Something like that?

It couldn't possibly be that atheists are not angry at religion, or at God, but get frustrated when it turns out that, in discussions, theists can't conduct themselves according to the moral precepts that they themselves say they hold to. It couldn't be anything like that, could it? It couldn't possibly be frustration at the lack of good faith displayed by the holier-than-thou fundamentalist theists on science forums, could it?

Yes, Jan, it must be that atheists just fall into a hopeless rage at the idea that they might be wrong, and they just lash at at the poor theists who innocently point out the Truth. I guess the theists can just ignore the atheist arguments, since they must be irrational because they are driven by anger. Do you agree?