Debunking Scientism - Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 6)

[Silmarien]

Lol... Your projection is showing, you might want to tighten that back up a bit.

Until such time you're prepared to support with evidence that deities exist, then I'm sure there's no end to your insults. Take care.

"Doubling down on rejection of rational thought"... sheesh.

What projection? When you refuse to justify your beliefs or lack thereof, you have rejected rational thought. Insisting that for some reason you do not need to give any justification whatsoever is not the pinnacle of reason--it's the abandonment of it altogether. Of course, you're under no obligation to be rational, but don't expect to be taken seriously if you go down this particular route. I'm not trying to insult you, but I do think that a bit more self-reflection here would not go amiss. Take that advice or leave it.

As for providing evidence that deities exist, I'm not a polytheist and thus do not accept the claim that deities exist in the first place. Maybe Zeus and Thor are out there, but it's not something I'm interested in trying to demonstrate. There's a long and venerable tradition attached to classical theism, however, and some of its arguments have won me over. I'm not interested in apologetics and recognize no obligation to try to convert you to theism, but if you want to explore this stuff yourself, it's out there.

 

[HitchSlap]

What projection?

Hmmmm... what did I have in mind, oh yeah, when you said this, "narcissistic obsession with your own lack of belief." lol

When you refuse to justify your beliefs or lack thereof,

I see no reason to believe in your god. What else do you need?

you have rejected rational thought.

We'll have to agree to disagree what is meant by by "rational thought," then.

Insisting that for some reason you do not need to give any justification whatsoever is not the pinnacle of reason--

I justify my lack of belief in god/s because you've failed to proffer evidence of your god/s. What would you like for me to consider?

it's the abandonment of it altogether.

I'm happy to justify my reasons for unbelief. However, you've given no starting point. What would you like to discuss?

Of course, you're under no obligation to be rational,

Assuming rational actually means rational, in this case, neither are you, so it seems.

but don't expect to be taken seriously if you go down this particular route.

Nor you, if you persist in tilting at straw men or projecting your own ideas of what you think it means for me to be atheist. No one's impressed by this except you. Maybe it's you suffering from narcissism?

I'm not trying to insult you,

But you're just smug enough to do it anyway.

but I do think that a bit more self-reflection here would not go amiss. Take that advice or leave it.

Over thirty years as a Christian, and about ten years transitioning out of Christianity, and yet I've not reflected.

As for providing evidence that deities exist, I'm not a polytheist and thus do not accept the claim that deities exist in the first place.

Then whatever are we talking about, then? lol

Maybe Zeus and Thor are out there, but it's not something I'm interested in trying to demonstrate.

What? Have you abandoned all rational thought?

/sarcasm/

There's a long and venerable tradition attached to classical theism, however, and some of its arguments have won me over.

Ah, so there it is. You've convinced yourself god/s exist because some people smarter than you who are dead now said so a long time ago, now everyone else who disagrees is a narcissist having abandoned all rational justifications.

I understand your projection now.

I'm not interested in apologetics and recognize no obligation to try to convert you to theism, but if you want to explore this stuff yourself, it's out there.

Yeah, I know. I have. Still not convinced.

 

[HitchSlap]

Tell me at least one.

No evidence for god/s.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Sure, atheism itself doesn't need justification in a direct and general sense, but the epistemology that any one atheist happens to use (whether he does so knowingly or unknowingly) and by which he/she makes supposedly "logical" or "rational" conclusions, does directly involve the cognitive process of ... justification.

So, to some extent the overall worldview or Outlook-On-Life that any one atheist has does involve justification of some sort and at some level within the total view of the world that he/she holds, and nowadays that more often than not reduces down to the fact that the atheistic person asserts Evidentialist or Verificationist or Positivist predilections about how he/she thinks the world "should" appear ... IF there were a God. Of course, if an atheist happens to be an existentialist, like Sartre or Nietzsche, then the atheistic perceptions can be held so much the easier and with lesser amounts of justification.............. (kind of like some Christians do who draw from Kierkegaard or Pascal ).

So, all of this Mumbo-Jumbo that atheists often try to pass off on the rest of us that 'their little view' doesn't involve justification--that it's nothing more than a 'just so' condition--probably needs to stop, unless they're actually full-blown Existentialists.

I mean, justification is conceptually inherent within the state of mind of being "unconvinced."

Well said. Basically, a lack of belief in Martians is either justified or requires no justification, but a lack of belief in Australia would probably require some kind of justification to be taken seriously.

Now, would God be more like Martians or Australia here?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well said. Basically, a lack of belief in Martians is either justified or requires no justification, but a lack of belief in Australia would probably require some kind of justification to be taken seriously.

Now, would God be more like Martians or Australia here?

Are we talking Earth bound history here (suggesting a more Correspondence type view of truth), or a more Cosmic level of history which not only includes the Earth [our assumed position of observation] along with the actual Mars [which we barely see with the naked eye, except for those who are privileged enough to be operating the Mars rover] both conceptually and observationally (suggesting a more Coherence type view of truth, unless one isn't really a realist anyway, and perhaps a more Pragmatic view of Truth is suggested)?

So, God might be more like ... the whole Cosmos in which resides Mars (and possible little green men), along with Earth and its earthlings and their artificial conceptual marker of Australia ...

And are we conceiving of Australia as we safely and in relaxed fashion peruse a cartoon of it from a map, or by way of our actual experience in Australia with all of its aboriginal people, various [nasty] snakes, lizards, spiders, and kangaroos? [Nice kangaroo, nice kangaroo...hold on, let me pet y*******mmffffff!!!!!!]

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Are we talking Earth bound history here (suggesting a more Correspondence type view of truth), or a more Cosmic level of history which not only includes the Earth [our assumed position of observation] along with the actual Mars [which we barely see with the naked eye, except for those who are privileged enough to be operating the Mars rover] both conceptually and observationally (suggesting a more Coherence type view of truth, unless one isn't really a realist anyway, and perhaps a more Pragmatic view of Truth is suggested)?

So, God might be more like ... the whole Cosmos in which resides Mars (and possible little green men), along with Earth and its earthlings and their artificial conceptual marker of Australia ...

And are we conceiving of Australia as we safely and in relaxed fashion peruse a cartoon of it from a map, or by way of our actual experience in Australia with all of its aboriginal people, various [nasty] snakes, lizards, spiders, and kangaroos? [Nice kangaroo, nice kangaroo...hold on, let me pet y*******mmffffff!!!!!!]

If I asked you, "Pancakes or waffles?" you'd go on and on about epistemological exegesis rather than giving me a simple answer.

 

[Silmarien]

Hmmmm... what did I have in mind, oh yeah, when you said this, "narcissistic obsession with your own lack of belief." lol

It is narcissistic to bring every single conversation back along to the question of, "Why should I personally accept whatever you believe?" The fact that you're flipping out now and insisting that I provide you with some evidence, when I have already stated that I could care less whether you're a theist or an atheist, demonstrates my point perfectly. You appear to be unwilling to have a conversation about theism without ultimately making it about your own lack of belief, which certainly makes it look like everything has to be about you. Perhaps Christian apologists have trained you to react like this, but that doesn't make it acceptable.

There's no projection here. I don't have a lack of belief to obsess about, and contrary to popular opinion amongst the nonbelievers around here, my world doesn't revolve around atheism.

The rest of your post seems to be primarily ranting and raving, willful misrepresentation, and the same sort of ugly hostility you dish out to theists here over and over again without apparently being about to accept any criticism yourself. If you can't take the heat, get out of the fire. Don't expect theists to bend over backwards to accommodate you when you turn around and behave like this.

 

[HitchSlap]

It is narcissistic to bring every single conversation back along to the question of, "Why should I personally accept whatever you believe?" The fact that you're flipping out now and insisting that I provide you with some evidence, when I have already stated that I could care less whether you're a theist or an atheist, demonstrates my point perfectly. You appear to be unwilling to have a conversation about theism without ultimately making it about your own lack of belief, which certainly makes it look like everything has to be about you. Perhaps Christian apologists have trained you to react like this, but that doesn't make it acceptable.

There's no projection here. I don't have a lack of belief to obsess about, and contrary to popular opinion amongst the nonbelievers around here, my world doesn't revolve around atheism.

The rest of your post seems to be primarily ranting and raving, willful misrepresentation, and the same sort of ugly hostility you dish out to theists here over and over again without apparently being about to accept any criticism yourself. If you can't take the heat, get out of the fire. Don't expect theists to bend over backwards to accommodate you when you turn around and behave like this.

Ok. Nice chat.

ETA: Just old school I guess, but I'm not accustomed to having others tell me what my argument is, how it's unjustified, and irrational for having it, and then feign indignity when I point this out.

I'm happy to discuss anything you'd like, so try me.

 

[zippy2006]

Ok. Nice chat.

ETA: Just old school I guess, but I'm not accustomed to having others tell me what my argument is, how it's unjustified, and irrational for having it, and then feign indignity when I point this out.

I'm happy to discuss anything you'd like, so try me.

She's right, and although it might sound strange I think she is kind to point it out to you. What she is saying is plain as day and the approach of most theists is to just ignore you. I know I do. Objections may sting, but when it comes to disagreements those who object to us are preferable to those who ignore us. Count it good luck, then.

 

[HitchSlap]

She's right, and although it might sound strange I think she is kind to point it out to you. What she is saying is plain as day and the approach of most theists is to just ignore you. I know I do. Objections may sting, but when it comes to disagreements those who object to us are preferable to those who ignore us. Count it good luck, then.

Oh brother. If I had a nickel for every time a theist honestly sought out a genuine discussion, I might have one nickel.

 

[zippy2006]

Oh brother. If I had a nickel for every time a theist honestly sought out a genuine discussion, I might have one nickel.

Yep. My point is that you can thank Silmarien for your lone nickel.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yep. My point is that you can thank Silmarien for your lone nickel.

My dad taught me to never accept wooden nickels. All she has done is point out my refusal to accept her straw man as my own. It's disingenuous at least, and rude at best.

Perhaps you're interested in an honest discussion?

 

[zippy2006]

My dad taught me to never accept wooden nickels. All she has done is point out my refusal to accept her straw man as my own. It's disingenuous at least, and rude at best.

Perhaps you're interested in an honest discussion?

Call me stingy, but I don't have enough magnanimity for machines that have a record of stealing my wooden nickels.

 

[HitchSlap]

Call me stingy, but I don't have enough magnanimity for machines that have a record of stealing my wooden nickels.

So honest discussion is out of the question, then?

 

[gaara4158]

My dad taught me to never accept wooden nickels. All she has done is point out my refusal to accept her straw man as my own. It's disingenuous at least, and rude at best.

Perhaps you're interested in an honest discussion?

I think they’d be more interested in a discussion if you first explained what would constitute good evidence for the existence of a god. The people here tend not to be interested in evangelizing to us, but they will discuss philosophical issues pertaining to theology at length for as long as we can keep up.

 

[zippy2006]

So honest discussion is out of the question, then?

A fruitful discussion strikes me as unattainable, at least prior to addressing the issues that Silmarien has raised.

Take care, Hitch,
Zip

 

[HitchSlap]

I think they’d be more interested in a discussion if you first explained what would constitute good evidence for the existence of a god. The people here tend not to be interested in evangelizing to us, but they will discuss philosophical issues pertaining to theology at length for as long as we can keep up.

Knowledge is demonstrable, objective, and can be independently verified. But that's me, what we're inevitably left with is what convinced them, and why isn't it enough to convince me?

Soon enough, the conversation devolves into atheist's being fools, yada, yada. What can you do?

Meh.

 

[HitchSlap]

A fruitful discussion strikes me as unattainable, at least prior to addressing the issues that Silmarien has raised.

Take care, Hitch,
Zip

Take care, Zip.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think they’d be more interested in a discussion if you first explained what would constitute good evidence for the existence of a god.

I'd prefer to just cut to the chase. Show me that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and it's enough for me. What is my criteria for the evidence being sufficient? For starters, I've found that the evidence for alien abductions is better both in quality and quantity, so Christians have their work cut out.

The people here tend not to be interested in evangelizing to us, but they will discuss philosophical issues pertaining to theology at length for as long as we can keep up.

I'm not sure how this relates to your previous point. Philosophy and theology can as elaborate as they like, but digging around in the dirt for five minutes will tell you more about reality than philosophy and theology ever will.

 

[gaara4158]

I'd prefer to just cut to the chase. Show me that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and it's enough for me. What is my criteria for the evidence being sufficient? For starters, I've found that the evidence for alien abductions is better both in quality and quantity, so Christians have their work cut out.



I'm not sure how this relates to your previous point. Philosophy and theology can as elaborate as they like, but digging around in the dirt for five minutes will tell you more about reality than philosophy and theology ever will.

While I agree with you, it’s been my experience that they will press you to justify your assertion that digging in the dirt really can tell you anything about reality. That leads us into a rabbit hole of what constitutes knowledge, truth, and evidence and if they play skeptic’s advocate they’re then able to shift the burden of proof to us. Unfortunately that means pretty much every conversation leads straight into a battle of epistemologies instead of what the original discussion topic is about.