Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2026 10:39 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2026 1:19 pm
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2026 11:58 am...where two or more hypotheses are empirically equivalent, there is no need to choose between them, but doing so is an aesthetic choice.
Well, an aesthetic choice is only that: aesthetic, not ontological or even epistemological.
Of course; the options wouldn't be empirically equivalent if one were ontologically or epistemologically weighted.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2026 1:19 pmBut Atheism generally tries to be much more than aesthetic, in my experience of it.
Given that your experience of atheists will include their responses to you calling them irrational, it doesn't surprise me that the atheists you experience are more robust than they might be, were you to show them some respect.
You've got it backward, I'm afraid. I encountered Atheists first because they were prostelytizing for their Atheism. They can't help themselves: they want to preach that "God is a delusion," and that "religion is the opium of the masses," and that "God is not great," and what not. And they shout it proudly, as if it's some intellectual achievement to have said it. It was the weakness of their position that has made it obvious they were shouting into a void.
But the men themselves? I always try to respect the person, even when their ideology is foolish.
Did I mention that I'm an atheist? 'It says so in a book' is evidence of the flimsiest kind; certainly not proof.
As I said: it's of no particular weight that you are an Atheist if Atheism, as I have reasoned out for you, is always either foolish or weak. It's not a great claim. All it means is that the evidence still exists, but one is insisting on ignoring it.
I am not keen to disbelieve anything, and I doubt many atheists are.
Then you haven't read many Atheists, I must conclude. I have. I can quote Nietzsche, Hume, Marx, Freud, Darwin...and a whole bunch of today's lightweight Atheists, like Dawkins and Hitchens, and even better ones, like Weilenberg or Margolis, because I don't hesitate to read them. And I read the famous agnostics, as well...like Hardy et al. I'm not afraid of any of their growlings or preachments, because they're wrong, and I've thought through the implications of their skepticism and can point out where their weakness and foolishness is located.
Know your opposition, I say. Let me quote another famous Atheist, J.S. Mill, on that point, saying one of the smart things Atheist have occasionally said:
"He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that." I completely agree. And I've listened to the famous Atheists, weighed them in the logical balance, and found them wanting...for exactly the reasons I laid out in my last message, not because of
any personal animus toward them.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2026 3:21 pmI'm familiar with the evasive definitions of "Atheist,"...
More rudeness.
No, I'm not being rude, actually. I'm just stating how it is. I've given the reasons why I find those definitions evasive, but let me fill that out, so you'll see I'm not speaking rudely.
Atheists preach. They love to evangelize their non-faith. They love to scoff. A few are content simply to be personal Atheists, and say no more; but far too many want to self-present as intellectual and superior. They're not just happy to personally be Atheists, but they often want to make others Atheists as well. (Do I need to give examples? I've already listed some, above, but I'm certain that if you move among Atheists, you know I'm right about that anyway.)
When Atheists preach, they open themselves to scrutiny, examination and critique. And when we do that, we find that Atheism hasn't got a leg to stand on. We find it out pretty early and easily, too, if we think at all. Their whole schtick depends on putting others on the defensive, and offering no side of their own to be attacked. They say, "I just disbelieve, now you prove..."
When they want to attack somebody else, however, such as Theists, they invariably choose to self-present as
knowing something. They don't just want to say, "I am personally unconvinced," but also, "
You should be personally unconvinced," or even "
You're a fool or deluded or propagandized if you believe anything else but Atheism." Yet when called upon to defend their Atheism, they turtle-up. They say, "Well, I just disbelieve, so I don't have to answer for my position."
I don't admire their cowardice in that. Nevertheless, I keep my respect for the person, because even good people can be wrong. So I don't attack the Atheist as a person, and I don't need to be rude -- I attack his
Atheism only, his ideology and his claims, not the man himself. Likewise, if you and I were with each other, I'd buy you a beer, Will...and still challenge you as to why you believe what you believe.
But I'll give you your chance now, if you like: if you know a
better kind of Atheist, one I've never encountered, then speak for him. Tell me how he can justify his Atheism. And tell me how he justifies telling other people what they are allowed and not allowed to know. Or tell me how he grounds morality. Or how Atheism would enable him to organize a society and shape its policies and laws. Or what hope for his soul his Atheism grants him, and what meaning for his life it imparts.
And if he's got none of that, why is this person an Atheist? He's got no evidence, and no goods from his Atheism. What's he thinking?
P.S. -- Just to confirm the point that I feel absolutely no animus toward people who are Atheists, no matter how much I deplore their Atheism, and to signal the kind of conversation I favour, here's an example. It involves an Atheist I wish I could meet, and a Theist I actually
have met, both of whom have my respect for their honesty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G5iYMoNlLU