Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:22 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:42 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 1:54 pm
"A person, place or thing, or idea," if your primary school taught you correctly. Abstract nouns are also nouns, you see. But that's not the point. The point is that your primary school should have taught you also that "evil" can be a noun. You might not like that, but it's how it is.

So I just wanted to know why, contrary to Oxford, contrary to common usage, you felt so determined to make "evil" merely an adjective; and I offered you an opportunity to expand on that as necessary.

Interested in explaining? Or not?

Sorry, I forgot.

I have a widgleywoggley - it's also a noun for obvious reasons that you provided for a noun - it is an idea.

You don't know what an abstract noun is? Let me help you, then.

https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/ ... act-nouns/.

Oh thanks, I'll put it beside my widgleywoggley

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:52 pm

https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/ ... act-nouns/.

Oh thanks, I'll put it beside my widgleywoggley

Do that. When you do, you'll realize your skepticism was mistaken, and not a little silly. Standard grammar recognizes concepts as nouns.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:35 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:30 pm The underlined-bolded-blue statements I emphasized tells me that you are resisting any willingness or possibly lack an ability to connect the analogies I'm using to help you understand the perspective of the athiest of the religious persons such as yourself.

You're quite right. I'm not detecting any connection between the analogies you're attempting to draw, and any salient point. And I think it's because you are assuming I think things I don't think, or that "religious people" you may have encountered all think in the way you're trying to describe in the analogy. But I assure you, they do not...and I do not...so the analogy is not working well for me.

That's why I invite you to speak plainly. The analogy is firing very wide of the mark I think you want it to hit. It's not helping me see your real-world position...it's obscuring it to me.

You want to prevent me from using means to associate your beliefs to the absurdity, something psychologically inhibiting. I get that and why I'm at a loss here. There is no way that I can get you to understand the perspective of the atheist without using YOUR own reflection on the absurd in general. Using a method that removes particular differences requires pointing to those examples about other third parties, like using the child's play that BOTH of us can relates to, can prove HOW we both might interpret certain kinds of faulty thinking that we both should agree to on principle.

I think the example DOES place you in agreement with me on what 'absurd' thinking is. This at least establishes agreement about something we share about the meaning of the absurd.

Note that my choice of using 'absudity' here is due to the fact that you interpret that the 'athiest' is flawed to some kind of absurdity as I think of those I call, 'religious', for the same thing. Given we are on opposing opinions about whether religion or atheism is the more rational of the two for the default norm of appropriate thinking (and thus, least 'absurd'), we need to establish the common ground of both of us to see where the problem lies. The choice of using a kid at play that I'm sure we both agree to should we observe this is -- versus presuming it more rational to presume the kid is ACTUALLY fighting some real monster -- we establish this common ground. I also select the child because we would likely agree that "play" itself is not at issue but rather the interpretations one might draw should the kid demand that we believe him literally.

The point of my comment on your resistance is that I presume this as evidence of some of this analogy to be sinking in. Why would you NOT be able to see the point in some respect to context given you are at least intellectually on par with me? Having to spell MY point directly spoils the effectiveness because I am not tweeting an opinion but rather trying to get you to relate FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE in agreement of shared common experiences. Otherwise, to state overtly the 'point' only transfers back to me to some impossible task: the impossibility to implant in you what is in my head without you being able to relate personally. For me to prove anything to you requires that you can infer this from your own logical aptitude. This cannot be done by merely expecting one of us to concede utter defeat of who we are or how we see ourselves .... and why I was concerned about affecting your emotional state as I explained happened to me before. I'm not trying to defeat you as a person. Are you expecting that I should have some means to do this without compassion to your state of mind and your perspective?

You need to tell me how you perceive the analogy so that I can at least lead you to understanding how the athiest may think. If you have your own analogy for me too, this may help me understand your perspective of the irrationality of the athiest. But that is up to you to formulate. [Though we should take turns or risk this getting too confusing to debate.]

Either way, your apparent concern here indicates that you are not going to acknowledge any model of comparison.

Not at all. I'm happy to refer to an apt analogy.

But I suggest the analogy as given isn't helping us understand each other.

But HOW? You are stating this as an opinion in context without explaining how you do not find this analogy fitting to the goal I have for defending the atheist as you do to defending religion. The analogy is not an aside that digresses to some other issue as though we are in a coffee break before we have to go back to work of debating. Can you not give charity that I have meaning and try to see what I might be meaning in fairness? You just in one swipe just declared that there is NO relevant connecting point to the analogy as though I was talking about some other topic altogether.

It is about determining common ground for your logical inference about what absurd thinking is. While I am 'leading' you, this is my way of trying to get you to share my perspective FROM your own. Like I said above, you can do this too to help me understand you. Find some analogy that you trust we both could agree to of some third person, third party, perspective. The try to 'lead' me to see how you see it. Isn't this the foundation of philosophy as brought to us by the likes of Socrates?

I had experience with affecting some persons close to me this way AS they were dying (but didn't tell me). We ended up cutting off contact in a somewhat understandable agreement when I discovered a couple years after that she had a horrible final year. She was strongly Evangelical and so my approach to prove something effectively using her own good capcity to reason in 'apologetics', probably contributed to her suffering.

Ah, this is much better! Just say what's on your mind...no analogy, just the facts.

Tell me more about this incident. I would be very interested in how it affected your view of Evangelicals...what kind was she, by the way? Some Evangelicals are inclined to be rather mystical and experiential, and others are inclined to be more factual and data focused, so it will help me to know.

She was rationally competent and why I think I affected her. I don't think I should be commenting about other people with depth out of respect and security about speaking about personal matters online. I'm using my real name here and saying too much can also aide the scammers who use just this sort of information for harm. The 'point' of mentioning her at all was about my concern of affecting your own psychological mindset with respect to how religious people's core intrinsically defines them. I am concerned about the possiblity of me actually succeeding in altering your perspective to mine without harming you in the process. Unlike the kid who might be trivially pretending, your religious beliefs, if sincere, are not. The analogy would be if the kid sincerly DID see a monster and WAS sincerely fighting it against all appearances to the contrary; telling one that their actual expression of what they say is a lie when they know it isn't can reflexively make one become uncomfortable with them and potentially act to 'gaslight' them with uncertainty. This leads many to questioning their sanity (or interpret the rest of the world as such) in a way they might lash out on themselves (like suicide) or become extreme and terroristic should they want to take it out on the world. Certainly for some, they can at least become tormented as per my mention of this person who spent her dying days in supposed constant turmoil and fear.

I'm more likely to just piss you off and make another person distance themselves from anything else I have to say.

Heh. Not even a bit. I'm quite happy to talk to you, Scott...and not one bit "pissed off." I think these are important questions, and I'm happy to talk about them.

Good to hear. But it nevertheless has impact on people with religious beliefs with more prevalence than the athiest. An athiest would less likely be concerned to be proven 'wrong' upon finding themselves in some purgatory upon death. They might resist being penalized for it if this other world turns out to be such, but it is not like it would matter: I don't think killing oneself AFTER they already died would be effective, for instance.

I too cannot evade the significance of emotions even though I am relatively 'skilled' at being isolated without getting depressed on the state of "nihilism" that many fear about when considering athiesm. Even most atheists I know still cannot divorce their 'belief' in some form of absolute morals. [See Michael Shermer and his "Can you be good without God?" discussions.] This is the same issue that created problems with Communism given the fact that IF the present athiest presumes some future "paradise" on Earth, that becomes a religion IF the present people have to 'sacrifice' for a progeny. I mean why would anyone without children or other loved ones think it alright to sacrifice their own life for some future that they could never be a part of?

See, this is why I like talking to you, Scott. You're an honest Atheist. You see what the problems are, you speak of them accurately, and you raise the honest questions...so why wouldn't I want to talk to you?

I find the analogy unhelpful to understanding you. But I find your frank description of the situation with the "persons close to me" very relevant. And I want to understand what it is you're actually experiencing. Is it really surprising, therefore, if an honest description turns out to be more helpful than a vague and somewhat tangled analogy?

I would say not.

I think if you read to here by now, I've answered this above. I see that you are sincere and I too appreciate this. The analogy as a tool is effective for relating something that cannot normally be expressed for stating it onesided. And while some keep the process of analogy fuzzy, my intent is to lead you from your perspective, ...an invitation to walk with me on my turf but with YOUR eyes. It is YOUR perspective that I'm appealing to, not mine. Expressing things perfectly formal is like expressing a complex mathematical statement that may provide exactitude in logical meaning, but is emotionally disrespecting that humans need to be 'entertained' from within in order to be motivated to look deep into the more complex.

Euthanize it by flushing it here

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:36 am You want to prevent me from using means to associate your beliefs to the absurdity, something psychologically inhibiting.

Okay, Scott...I really didn't want to have to explain this, but you're kind of pushing me into it. So I'll speak frankly.

I know that you are trying to explain to me how Atheists think. And for some reason, you seem convinced I don't know. I don't really understand how you could think that, since the analogy to which you invite me is so blunt and awkward there's little subtlety to discover there. And I sense that you intend it to be, as you say, suggestive of Theist "absurdity" and "psychological inhibition." I get its pejorative flavour. But rather than being insulted by all that, I'm rather taken aback that you want this particular analogy to represent Atheism.

You see, as it happens, I do know a lot about that; because while Atheists often do not bother to read any Theists, or get much understanding of them, I read many of the "big" Atheists -- not only the ones that the less informed love, such as Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins, but the ones that actually hit hard, like Nietzsche, Freud, Darwin, Marx or Hume, or more recently, people like Mackie, Flew, Buckley and Weilenberg. I have them all on my shelf, if you want to discuss them. Just so you know.

So I've taken Atheism seriously, and I've done a lot of homework on that. I don't say much about that, usually, because I always want my interlocutors to bring out their best, too. But I can pretty much promise you, as a Christian, that I've probably read more Atheists than most Christians ever will or would want to...and more than most Atheists I meet have ever read, as well. You might know more than me about Atheism as a theory...but I wouldn't bet on it.

There's always more to read, of course. But I do try to keep up. You see, I DO want to understand Atheists: and I think understanding them means taking their strongest arguments, not their weakest ones, and doing something intelligent with those. And since you're a reasonable guy, I'm sure you see the fairness in that. I ought to deal with the best examples of Atheism, not the sad little popularizers on the low end, right?

Now, I admit that I have my own reason for that. It's no secret here that I would desire to convince people who have been indoctrinated by Atheism that belief in God and faith in Jesus Christ are far more rational, and far better than any commitment to Atheism. Being able to do that means I have to understand my audience, and especially get ahead of them as much as I can in regard to their own sources. That's why I seek out not just the popularizers, but especially the people the popularizers quote and depend upon. To be ready to give an account of my faith, I have to be well-informed about theirs.

I fall short of getting it all, I'm sure. But I do try, and try very hard to get a handle on the worldview of the Atheists I talk to. And I've thought a lot about their reasoning, and I know which arguments they have that are really weak and which have some bite. That's all part of what it takes.

But back to the point: I don't like your analogy, because if I take it seriously, it seems very unfair -- to Atheists.

It asks me to accept, as a premise starting out, that Atheists think of all their opponents as children -- that Atheists are ignorant of how many deep thinkers in history have been Theists, and how much the history of science or civilization owes to them, and imagines everybody else as simply childish. It asks me to draw an analogy with imaginary monsters which, as a Theist, I of course reject...but in regard to Atheists, it asks me to imagine they are completely ignorant of the evidence associated with Theism, and can see no more than "monsters in the closet" in Christianity. If that were true, it would speak very sadly of their wit and knowledge. Then it asks me to regard all Atheists of this knee-jerk, shallow and rather prejudiced type -- it has to, if it is representing your monster analogy as genuinely reflective of Atheist thought. And it asks me to sympathize with that -- to imagine myself as similarly simple minded, and prejudiced, and thus to see from the perspective of those who, understanding nothing, dismiss it all anyway.

But I don't want to be so unfair. I don't want to caricature all Atheists as unthinking, as bigoted, and as superficial. I want to speak to Atheists on the assumption they are intelligent and interested in evidence. I want to reason with them as people, not insult them as if they were all blockheads, obstinate ideologues, and dogmatists who can only get by if they can caricature the opposition.

Nobody is well-served if we go about misrepresenting each other like that. I'm hopeful you can see the sense of that.

So maybe you're right: maybe too many Atheists are of just the sort you seem so earnest to make sure I "understand." Maybe they all caricature their opposition in the facile way you suggest. Maybe they are just a kind of snob, having contempt for the 96% of the world's population who still think some sort of Theism a viable concern. Maybe they all are incapable of studying anybody else's view, and have to dismiss it as a bunch of magic and monsters. Maybe. But if that's true, then I still think there's not much merit in dealing with people on that level. It's unkind. Besides, such a simple description of their patterns of thought offers little to deal with. It's not terribly threatening, wise or profound; rather, it suggests a person who has little grasp of any of the basic issues. And as I said earlier, I think we owe our opposition -- if we are sure of our own ground -- not to deal with the lowest depiction of their views, but rather to try to address the strongest version of their arguments, with a spirit of charity and willingness to consider. To me, that just seems basic.

So I think your analogy does a grave injustice to the Atheist side. And I would much rather imagine them as intelligent people of good will, who really have an interest in truth, rather than in the sorts of people you are describing. And, quite frankly, it doesn't seem that there even would be much to understand about an Atheist if he thought in the sort of simplistic way to which the analogy invites me.

Once again, therefore, I would prefer we speak to each other in plain statements of reason, evidence and logical argumentation. Your analogy is too unkind to Atheists, I think. And I would rather suppose they can do better.

Fair enough?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:22 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:36 am You want to prevent me from using means to associate your beliefs to the absurdity, something psychologically inhibiting.

Okay, Scott...I really didn't want to have to explain this, but you're kind of pushing me into it. So I'll speak frankly.

I know that you are trying to explain to me how Atheists think. And for some reason, you seem convinced I don't know. I don't really understand how you could think that, since the analogy to which you invite me is so blunt and awkward there's little subtlety to discover there. And I sense that you intend it to be, as you say, suggestive of Theist "absurdity" and "psychological inhibition." I get its pejorative flavour. But rather than being insulted by all that, I'm rather taken aback that you want this particular analogy to represent Atheism.

You see, as it happens, I do know a lot about that; because while Atheists often do not bother to read any Theists, or get much understanding of them, I read many of the "big" Atheists -- not only the ones that the less informed love, such as Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins, but the ones that actually hit hard, like Nietzsche, Freud, Darwin, Nietzsche or Hume, or more recently, people like Mackie, Flew, Buckley and Weilenberg. I have them all on my shelf, if you want to discuss them. Just so you know.

So I've taken Atheism seriously, and I've done a lot of homework on that. I don't say much about that, usually, because I always want my interlocutors to bring out their best, too. But I can pretty much promise you, as a Christian, that I've probably read more Atheists than most Christians ever will or would want to...and more than most Atheists I meet have ever read, as well. You might know more than me about Atheism as a theory...but I wouldn't bet on it.

There's always more to read, of course. But I do try to keep up. You see, I DO want to understand Atheists: and I think understanding them means taking their strongest arguments, not their weakest ones, and doing something intelligent with those. And since you're a reasonable guy, I'm sure you see the fairness in that. I ought to deal with the best examples of Atheism, not the sad little popularizers on the low end, right?

Now, I admit that I have my own reason for that. It's no secret here that I would desire to convince people who have been indoctrinated by Atheism that belief in God and faith in Jesus Christ are far more rational, and far better than any commitment to Atheism. Being able to do that means I have to understand my audience, and especially get ahead of them as much as I can in regard to their own sources. That's why I seek out not just the popularizers, but especially the people the popularizers quote and depend upon. To be ready to give an account of my faith, I have to be well-informed about theirs.

I fall short of getting it all, I'm sure. But I do try, and try very hard to get a handle on the worldview of the Atheists I talk to. And I've thought a lot about their reasoning, and I know which arguments they have that are really weak and which have some bite. That's all part of what it takes.

But back to the point: I don't like your analogy, because if I take it seriously, it seems very unfair -- to Atheists.

It asks me to accept, as a premise starting out, that Atheists think of all their opponents as children -- that Atheists are ignorant of how many deep thinkers in history have been Theists, and how much the history of science or civilization owes to them, and imagines everybody else as simply childish. It asks me to draw an analogy with imaginary monsters which, as a Theist, I of course reject...but in regard to Atheists, it asks me to imagine they are completely ignorant of the evidence associated with Theism, and can see no more than "monsters in the closet" in Christianity. If that were true, it would speak very sadly of their wit and knowledge. Then it asks me to regard all Atheists of this knee-jerk, shallow and rather prejudiced type -- it has to, if it is representing your monster analogy as genuinely reflective of Atheist thought. And it asks me to sympathize with that -- to imagine myself as similarly simple minded, and prejudiced, and thus to see from the perspective of those who, understanding nothing, dismiss it all anyway.

But I don't want to be so unfair. I don't want to caricature all Atheists as unthinking, as bigoted, and as superficial. I want to speak to Atheists on the assumption they are intelligent and interested in evidence. I want to reason with them as people, not insult them as if they were all blockheads, obstinate ideologues, and dogmatists who can only get by if they can caricature the opposition.

Nobody is well-served if we go about misrepresenting each other like that. I'm hopeful you can see the sense of that.

So maybe you're right: maybe too many Atheists are of just the sort you seem so earnest to make sure I "understand." Maybe they all caricature their opposition in the facile way you suggest. Maybe they are just a kind of snob, having contempt for the 96% of the world's population who still think some sort of Theism a viable concern. Maybe they all are incapable of studying anybody else's view, and have to dismiss it as a bunch of magic and monsters. Maybe. But if that's true, then I still think there's not much merit in dealing with people on that level. It's unkind. Besides, such a simple description of their patterns of thought offers little to deal with. It's not terribly threatening, wise or profound; rather, it suggests a person who has little grasp of any of the basic issues. And as I said earlier, I think we owe our opposition -- if we are sure of our own ground -- not to deal with the lowest depiction of their views, but rather to try to address the strongest version of their arguments, with a spirit of charity and willingness to consider. To me, that just seems basic.

So I think your analogy does a grave injustice to the Atheist side. And I would much rather imagine them as intelligent people of good will, who really have an interest in truth, rather than in the sorts of people you are describing. And, quite frankly, it doesn't seem that there even would be much to understand about an Atheist if he thought in the sort of simplistic way to which the analogy invites me.

Once again, therefore, I would prefer we speak to each other in plain statements of reason, evidence and logical argumentation. Your analogy is too unkind to Atheists, I think. And I would rather suppose they can do better.

Fair enough?

Well done IC. I don't think there has been a post on the forum of that size that I have not flashed through on a speed read. Good points. Not sure about the 96% stat though.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 5:47 am Good points. Not sure about the 96% stat though.

The 96% comes from the CIA Factbook.

Apparently, self-declared Atheists comprise only 4% of the world's population. The rest are agnostics (another 4%), and then a whole bunch of different "religious" categories (at 92%). It seems very few people are inclined to say for sure they don't believe in the possibility of the existence of some kind of God or gods or supernatural entities of some kind.

So if the CIA is right, it's 96%. I'd guess there's some margin of error there, but does it matter a whole lot? Probably not. It would still be a good argument if it were only 90% or 85% or 75%, to say that an Atheist has to think a lot of the world is comprised of mental inferiors, if that's the case. And that does rather incline Scott's portray of Atheists look a little imperious and smug, does it not? I'm sure he'd rather it didn't.

And thank you.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:20 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 5:47 am Good points. Not sure about the 96% stat though.

The 96% comes from the CIA Factbook.

Apparently, self-declared Atheists comprise only 4% of the world's population. The rest are agnostics (another 4%), and then a whole bunch of different "religious" categories (at 92%). It seems very few people are inclined to say for sure they don't believe in the possibility of the existence of some kind of God or gods or supernatural entities of some kind.

So if the CIA is right, it's 96%. I'd guess there's some margin of error there, but does it matter a whole lot? Probably not. It would still be a good argument if it were only 90% or 85% or 75%, to say that an Atheist has to think a lot of the world is comprised of mental inferiors, if that's the case. And that does rather incline Scott's portray of Atheists look a little imperious and smug, does it not? I'm sure he'd rather it didn't.

And thank you.

I am just tired of the bullshit. If 99% of the people were nuts, does that mean that the 1% who isn't is ACTUALLY deluded are incorrect for calling out a fraud? I used your very Jesus Christ's mythical story in the secular version of Emperor's New Clothes, to point out how the crowd tends to follow the 'religious' belief in superiority, the King. The irony is that you conservative morons cannot see the comparison.

I don't care if you think that I'm being arrogant here. You and yours have and still hold the political powers for most of time and have abused the public by using religion as a tool to control. Religion is a fraud and its effectiveness to delude is more powerful than those victims of con artists, like those Nigerian love-scams that even the most intellectually 'normal' people are easily duped by to my astonishment. We are likely missing information when we see those victims given the con operates on utilizing the 'guilt' of the victim to resist reporting and who you can see that almost no amount of clear logic suffices to overthrow their continued beliefs.

You guys are either dumb or intentionally deceptive. And there you have it buddy. Instead of demonstrating your own 'wisdom' you are demonstrating how and why countries like China are as strict against religion as they are. Instead of making me your friend, you are making me your enemy for proving to me your insincerity. And now I'm not going to go as easy on you. Your right-wing nuts anyways. So you should respect this as caving into your own hypocritical belief in ANY means to an END!

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 5:47 am

Well done IC. I don't think there has been a post on the forum of that size that I have not flashed through on a speed read. Good points. Not sure about the 96% stat though.

And for you, a case in point, your avatar is both a creation of a well-known atheist and friend of MY community, Seth McFarland, AND his character, Brian is also, contrary to the fact that he's on Fox, is also Seth's own 'avatar' for athiesm, and left-wing activism. So you are dressed up to appear contradictory to him. Perhaps you might ask him permission for your use of it in direct opposition to his own views?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:36 pm I am just tired of the bullshit. If 99% of the people were nuts, does that mean that the 1% who isn't is ACTUALLY deluded are incorrect for calling out a fraud?

No, Scott, it doesn't. But it does mean that that 1% is reeeeeeally self-confident.

Now, maybe they're right. Maybe 99% of the world is totally nuts. Maybe.

Or maybe they've overshot their real knowledge.

I don't care if you think that I'm being arrogant here.

I don't. I was merely suggesting your analogy misfired badly, and I was at pains to make it clear to you that I thought there could be more to the Atheist case than you were allowing in the analogy. But not so much, I would say, that Atheism can be believed.

I was trying to be a little less blunt. But you did want me to address your analogy, and you did push that pretty hard, didn't you, Scott?

You guys are either dumb or intentionally deceptive.

I guess I can understand this assumption, Scott, if perhaps you've never actually met an intelligent Theist. But think for a few minutes, and you'll realize that that sort of characterization just doesn't stand up to the facts. There are too many smart Theists out there, and they're too easy to find.

Have you read any? But if I am willing to read Hume or Nietzsche, why would an Atheist be afraid to read intelligent Theists...like, say Lewis or Chesterton, or Craig or Plantinga or even Flew, after he converted to Deism from Atheism? Shouldn't you ask yourself if maybe you've been a bit hasty? Isn't it possible?

I'm not picking on you, Scott. I'm just asking you to think about that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:21 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:36 pm I am just tired of the bullshit. If 99% of the people were nuts, does that mean that the 1% who isn't is ACTUALLY deluded are incorrect for calling out a fraud?

No, Scott, it doesn't. But it does mean that that 1% is reeeeeeally self-confident.

Now, maybe they're right. Maybe 99% of the world is totally nuts. Maybe.

Or maybe they've overshot their real knowledge.

I don't care if you think that I'm being arrogant here.

I don't. I was merely suggesting your analogy misfired badly, and I was at pains to make it clear to you that I thought there could be more to the Atheist case than you were allowing in the analogy. But not so much, I would say, that Atheism can be believed.

You guys are either dumb or intentionally deceptive.

I guess I can understand this assumption, Scott, if perhaps you've never actually met an intelligent Theist. But think for a few minutes, and you'll realize that that sort of characterization just doesn't stand up to the facts. There are too many smart Theists out there, and they're too easy to find.

Have you read any? But if I am willing to read Hume or Nietzsche, why would an Atheist be afraid to read intelligent Theists...like, say Lewis or Chesterton, or Craig or Plantinga or even Flew, after he converted to Deism from Atheism? Shouldn't you ask yourself if maybe you've been a bit hasty? Isn't it possible?

I'm not picking on you, Scott. I'm just asking you to think about that.

You've proven to me in context of HOW you respond is insincere. I'm extremely well read but don't depend upon the need to reference them. I've gone through all the philosophy and logic of religion and am informally very qualified to the subject of this as well as many others. What you may read and what you intepret are only materially creditworthy if you can use what you learn to argue. Most of those authors on the apologetics for Christianity are familiar to me. I even have natural family who are both in the evangelical apologetic community of those you mentioned and authors also.

What you falsely presume is that I should continue to INVEST in this as though I secretly want and need to find some reason to BE religious when you don't get that this pursuit you think I should have is percieved to me WITH REASON to be nonsense. My only interest with even bothering with the subject now is to determine why people believe in these things and how to defeat this irrationality.

I don't NEED to be concerned about what happens when I die nor feel compelled to 'understand' the motives for beings that are not yet throughout all of time been proven to exist. You are expecting me to adopt a need to inspect PARTICULAR religious claims regardless of the futility of this given I'd require doing this inifinitely to cover each and every person's equal fantastical beliefs. If you think this is rational, I have to put my foot down. It is only a distraction from doing more constructive goals I have that deal with reality and are more rewarding. If NOT believing in you is a sin, let the God you believe in deal with me himself. Am I not exercising my 'free will' on this as your God supposedly put us here on Earth to do?

I think i speak for all atheists when i say, a reasonable person who understands knowledge will never believe in anything for which they cannot see the evidence themselves or at minimum know that it comes from a source without ulterior motives (which describes literally no religious source).

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:55 pm You've proven to me in context of HOW you respond is insincere.

Hmmm...I wonder how. It seems to me I've given you the benefit of the doubt at every turn. And I really didn't want to criticize your analogy, as you know. You did keep pushing it...

Most of those authors on the apologetics for Christianity are familiar to me.

Well, Scott, there's a difference between knowing a name, and having read and thought about what they actually wrote. If you want to, I can chat with you about specifics from Nietzsche, Hume, Weilenberg or Buckley, and a whole bunch of others. So I have to ask: are you "familiar" to the extend of actually having read what they actually wrote? Or do you just know them by name, and dismiss them because you've heard they're "Theists."

Then why not read Anthony Flew. He was probably the leading Atheist representative back in the '60s, and changed his mind for solid reason when he got older. He wrote a book titled There is No A God," (with the "No" struck through) and it's very fair-minded.

What you falsely presume is that I should continue to INVEST in this

No. I just think that if you're having conversations with a Theist who reads Atheists, maybe you want to be an informed Atheist who reads Theists, rather than somebody who dismisses something he's never even given himself the chance to read.

My only interest with even bothering with the subject now is to determine why people believe in these things and how to defeat this irrationality.

I'm afraid this attitude is all too common among Atheists. What I have found is that they often came to their Atheism young...usually in their teens...and for some deeply personal reason...something was "unfair" or they perceived a "betrayal" of something they had hoped in. They're angry, and they want payback. Ironically, as Lewis once put it,

"I was at that time living like many atheists; in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with him for creating a world. Why should creatures have the burden of existence forced on them without their consent?"

You are expecting me to adopt a need to inspect PARTICULAR religious claims regardless of the futility of this given I'd require doing this inifinitely to cover each and every person's equal fantastical beliefs.

Not a "need," Scott. I'm just asking you to consider the evidence. If the truth is out there, you'll find it among the particular claims. You won't find it by refusing to look at all, and just dismissing all claims en masse.

That seems fair, doesn't it?

Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:58 pm I think i speak for all atheists when i say, a reasonable person who understands knowledge will never believe in anything for which they cannot see the evidence themselves...

I agree. And that's why refusing to look at the evidence is so self-defeating. It betrays that Atheism is merely a wish, not any evidence-concerned belief at all.

Religion is just the hopes and dreams of those most fearful of death, that believe themselves worthy of nothing less that everlasting life, usually hypocrites with their free pass. Historically they've seen it as the "power" they so rightfully deserve, that is achieved passive aggressively, that has no proof of it being divine whatsoever. So largely religions are pipe dreams based upon fear.

The only Religion I have any real respect for is Buddhism.