Stan just Stan
Well, Arcoon; you have been challenged, and you sent me away with zero cogent response.
...you have not yet responded as to the details of that
Are you referring to some showboating I didn't see because you did it on a blog that I don't follow, or
your recent display in this thread, where what you were saying was completely off-topic?
If you meant the latter, further discussion there would have derailed the thread even more than it already had been, which if you recall was why I suggested you make this thread. As such, why
would I have talked with you any further about it
there...?
For someone who presents himself as this amazing intellectual or whatever, that doesn't seem like it should have been that difficult to figure out.
Stan just Stan
I'll repeat the challenge again
That behooves you, considering that this is
an entirely new thread, and that there would be
zero context unless you did...
Stan just Stan
Provide your case which supports Atheism
So, are you looking for a
debate or an
interrogation? Because what you've said to (and
at) me so far feels a lot more like the latter.
In a
debate, both parties understand the subject material going in, present individual cases either
for or
against it, and then rebut the points that the other has made. You have not done that. Furthermore, despite not having heard my argument yet or having any other significant interaction with me, you've made several accusations about my alleged cowardice in the matter according to SARL0. Pray tell, what exactly were you basing those assessments on?
This may be how you do things over in Stan-Land, but in a
real debate you don't just go up to someone and demand that they present some kind of defense for a random concept. That's reminiscent of a certain belligerent Christian YouTuber known as
ShockOfGod (which is probably why your fangirl seems to think you're the second coming of anti-atheist Jesus). Come to think of it, your ill-formed demand is actually quite similar to Shock's oft-refuted trademark question,
"what proof or evidence do you have that atheism is true and correct", in that it suggests a fair amount of ignorance on your part about what atheism
actually is.
In and of itself, atheism does not contain a
rejection of any theistic ideas, but a state of
disbelief in them for one reason or another. How can you
reject the existence of something which you don't even think exists in the first place? Granted, there are a minority among nonbelievers who
do reject theism in absolute terms (ie
"God does not exist"), but that has to do with their
gnostic stance on the matter, not their
atheistic one. I don't know whether you're ignorant of this or are simply ignoring these distinctions in order to further your agenda, but the fact of the matter is that you're conflating
several ideas in order to strawman the whole of atheism.
Non-belief is
not a religion, nor does it have any kind of teachings (no matter how much you and Evangelical Christianity like to claim to the contrary); as such, what you've asked me to provide is evidence of is
my personal disbelief in god/s... which is
its own evidence. I
am an atheist, so I've just
proven my atheism.
Furthermore, your demand for
empirical evidence to support my
disbelief in something is asking me to prove a negative. This alone would be reason enough not to humor your request, but it's
also not even my warrant in the first place. You claim on the banner of your much-hyped blog that "
atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting theist theories", but there are several things wrong with that idea. For starters, you claim that atheists must somehow defend their nonexistent beliefs, but what you're really doing is just shifting your own burden of proof. In an epistemological dispute, the burden of proof lies with
the person who is making a claim, not the person
who has heard the claim and doesn't believe it. In practice, this means that the initial burden of proof lies with those on the side of theism, not with those on the side of atheism.
If this wasn't what you were looking for, perhaps you should have
actually said something, because then I'd have had something to respond to. I mean, strictly speaking, I won't really even know if I disagree with anything you claim until I
actually know what that is. Beyond inferring that your schtick revolves around rewording tired-a** Christian arguments to sound all sciencey and logical, I know next to nothing about you or where you're even coming from.
However, I
do know that, statistically speaking, you're
probably some form of Christian, and that means that your theological views are most likely something like 99% in line with those of a gnostic atheist's. In fact, members of all the monotheistic Abrahamic faiths make positive claims about the non-existence of other gods than YHWH/Allah, meaning that they only believe in
one more deity than your average atheist.
Come to think of it, that raises a few interesting questions. Do you demand the same kinds of evidence from people who don't believe in Thor, Amaterasu, Vishnu, Apollo, and/or any of the other hundreds of other gods? If you
don't demand it of them, why not? Why do you speak out against people who don't believe in YHWH, but are seemingly OK with people not believing in all those other gods?
Stan just Stan
[Show me] all of your empirical, material evidence
emotion_eyebrow I thought you were supposed to be all about
logic or whatever, but you
seriously just asked me
to provide empirical proof for a negative, didn't you...?
Stan just Stan
...OR provide disciplined Aristotelian deduction with grounded, true premises, valid form, and passing Reductio Ad Absurdum.
Tell you what; I'll give you mine after you show me yours.
Stan just Stan
When you have done so, then we will have something with actual content to discuss.
You're the one who started this thread, dude, so why is it
my responsibility to provide it with content? I mean, I understand that one of the staples of your method is to pass your philosophical obligations onto others, but c'mon...
Stan just Stan
If you persist in
claiming that Atheism has no intellectual content since it is merely "absence of belief", then there is nothing left to discuss, is there?
I can't recall ever saying that "atheism has no intellectual content", let alone that I've
persisted in saying it. Either indicate where I did so in the form of a link, or keep your disingenuous words out of my mouth.
Stan just Stan
Since you
admitted that you do have the
belief that the evidence does not satisfy you...
Another interesting choice of words. Why, it's almost as though you're basing everything you say on nothing but presuppositions, or something...
Anyway, I've "admitted" no "beliefs" about the so-called evidence being unsatisfactory. It
is unsatisfactory to me; no
belief is required.
Stan just Stan
You might also want to discuss the evidence which you have found wanting and have rejected.
I
might, but at this point there's no reason to.
You're the one making the positive claim, here, not
me; I'm just unconvinced by your "proof". Why should
I have to justify my disbelief in
your lousy argument?
From what I've seen here and in that other thread, your entire argument is predicated on the idea that atheism is some kind of religion, and that all atheists are of the "hard" variety (aka gnostic atheism). Both of these assumptions are fundamentally wrong, and I've already said what I can about them.
Tell you what; instead of just trying to pass the buck again, how about you make your own argument clear? Then I'll respond to that, and we'll see if this goes anywhere. Frankly, I've heard all of the arguments I've seen you make before, so it's not like you're bringing anything new to the table, but hey; I'm game if you are. If you're anything like the person who manipulated you into coming here, I'm at
least looking forward to seeing how you're going to misrepresent what I've said, and which points you're going to throw red herrings at or make into straw men.
Stan just Stan
It's been a day, now, and no Arcoon. I wonder why he hasn't shown up?
Because some peoples' lives don't revolve around the internet, Stan. Some of us have jobs, hobbies and wives. I happen to have
all three of those things, and they're
all more important to me than talking with some pretentious, hostile stranger about what atheism is. (
Particularly that last thing.)
Stan just Stan
C'mon in and show
us your stuff.
...We are set up with a new topic.
neutral I'm sorry; was there more than one of you this whole time...?
EDIT: A few other things you've said caught my eye.
Stan just Stan
Not the invited person...
You realize that this is
a public forum, don't you...?
Anyway, if you're going to respond to somebody, click the 'quote' button. When you do, the person you're quoting will get a notification that you've said something to them.
Stan just Stan
Most of us gave up the stupid insults at the point when we left 8th grade.
...says the guy who refers to people he's never even spoken to as "mental midgets" and "chickenshits".