Stan just Stan
OK, so far we have nothing in defense of Atheism, except that it is a negative, a negation, not a positive idea or worldview.
What we
have so far is your pretentious a** failing to actually address anything that I said, in favor of just plowing ahead with your already-refuted strawman arguments.
Stan just Stan
It seems to convey, this negation, a sense of arrogant entitlement, as if there is some special knowledge which the Atheist has that theists have none of.
Tell me more about how saying "
I'm not convinced by your claims" is a display of arrogant entitlement.
When you're done, we can discuss the arrogance and entitlement of telling someone "
You're an awful person if you don't believe in the things I do", and feeling totally justified in believing that, because of something written in an old book.
Stan just Stan
According to the above, there is no content to Atheism, nothing there to discuss.
You invest an awful lot of time and effort into trying to debunk something which you think has "no content". One would think that it would be one-and-done, but instead you've got a whole blog dedicated to the subject. (Well, that and all manner of anti-Left whinging, of course.)
In reality, I gave you
plenty of discussion points, and you responded to
none of them - including the challenge I made toward the entire premise of your argument, which has gone uncontested.
Stan just Stan
Not the reason for the negation...
The reason that atheists don't believe theistic claims is because, for one reason or another, they're unconvinced by them. I more or less said
that before, too.
Hey, so, why the hell do you keep putting the word "
void" in all-caps, anyway? Are you
shouting that word in the middle of your sentences...?
Stan just Stan
From my experience, Atheists claim mightily that they are the possessors of the facilities of "logic" and "evidence" - and yet they produce nothing of the sort.
Your
experience must be somewhat lacking if you've never heard of people presenting logical arguments for the non-existence of god/s. It's been going on in one form or another since
at least ~300 BCE.
Stan just Stan
Claiming no
intellectual content--
"Intellectual content" is a legal term which refers to the ownership of written/recorded media:
Example:
The Library wishes to collect and preserve written accounts from various ethnic groups about their lives in this community, with the intent of them eventually being use by researchers and authors.
All submissions, including their intellectual content, become the property of the Library.
...unless of course you're arguing that atheists don't claim legal ownership their ideas, but that wouldn't really make any contextual sense, now would it?
Stan just Stan
It is demonstrated that in valid logic space, either Atheists have one or the other, but not both. By claiming zero intellectual content to Atheism, then, the contrary claim of having either logic or evidence is falsified, much less both, is falsified. And of course, it is not possible to discuss a subject which is characterized as an intellectual void.
Yum yum, word salad. It's more filling
and has zero calories, because there's nothing actually to it~!
Stan just Stan
But there is another falsifier, which is the actual observable actions of [Arcoon]. By aggressively attacking theists with his own positions...
your harassment of theists...
I'm just gonna stop you right here, and say
Since you say these alleged "aggressive attacks" and "harassment" are "observable actions", I'd like to see some examples of them.
Stan just Stan
...that he declares correct and true by virtue of his demeanor of intellectual supremacy
I'm fairly certain what you're referring to is an exchange between myself and SARL0 (known to you as
"Row Mama" and
"Faith Walker"), and for the record I wasn't "
declaring myself correct and true by virtue of my demeanor or intellectual supremacy", but defending my ability to interpret the Bible in the first place.
TL;DR, I gave her my educated opinion about a Bible verse that she was willfully taking out of context. Based upon this misinterpretation, she claimed that I was utterly incapable of understanding scripture and giving an opinion about it because I am a nonbeliever. I told her that I'd studied it for nearly 20 years as a believer, and for nearly six from a secular, historical perspective in college, which meant that I not only could interpret it just fine, but was actually something of an expert on the subject. She responded by to that by spewing a bunch papaphobic nonsense at me, and began regularly calling me a "cult-leader", which she has persisted in doing to this day.
(
Psst - you do realize that she's manipulated you into fighting her battle for her, right...?)
Again,
Stan just Stan
...he displays that which he denies that he even has: beliefs concerning the validity of theism, and by logical extension, deism.
This conclusion which you're arguing by assertion is dependent on proof of the claims you've made about me above.
Similarly, your
entire argument is dependent on atheism containing some sort of positive claim about the non-existence of god/s, which you're trying to weasel past the radar with this latest bit of semantic bullshit about "beliefs concerning the validity of theism". You don't get to redefine what atheism
is in order to suit your argument.
Stan just Stan
[Arcoon's] objection to providing coherent and disciplined deduction or even standard empirical evidence demonstrates that his non-non-beliefs must not be based on either
My non-belief in theism is based on theism's inability to produce a convincing argument. It's
not complicated, so stop trying to pin your shortcomings on atheists.
Stan just Stan
I did present my position first, which is that the Atheist should defend his own position.
So, your theistic beliefs revolve around atheists defending their position? What's
that religion called?
I don't know if you're just being deliberately obtuse, but what I was
asking for was your position about god/s, since it's apparently not an atheistic one. In other words, I wanted to hear your empirical material evidence, or disciplined Aristotelian deduction with grounded, true premises, valid form, and passing Reductio Ad Absurdum (y'know, Standard Logic 101, or whatever) for the existence of god/s, since you're demanding that of your opponent.
Stan just Stan
The conversation is specifically with you, as designated in the title.
Good for it. However, this is a public forum, and anyone can say anything they like in it without either of us being able to delete their comments.
Well, I did forget the purpose of all this...What? You forgot the whole point of what you were trying to do, and have only just now remembered? What was it that you
thought you were doing this whole time, then...?
Stan just Stan
Is there a creating deity?
, so you
should already know my answer to this question. (I also find the way that it's worded to be kind of strange, but I digress.)
My answer is that there's no reason to believe there is one.
EDIT: I've become aware that you were talking to
me in a post which was seemingly addressed at Lucky. I address that post below.
Stan just Stan
Arcoon is still being coy. He obviously does not want to discuss the intellectual basis for the grounding of his worldview.
Are you afraid to speak directly to me? To answer the questions I gave above? To address the issues that I have posted?
...Arcoon apparently is stuck in his denial of (
blah blah blah, same stuff)
Get over yourself, would you...? I already explained to you that I've got other obligations which are more important to me than talking to some random, white-knighting prat on the internet whose arguments have already thoroughly been debunked by others in the past.
Stan just Stan
Probably, one might think, because his Atheism is based on an intellectual VOID, leaving no intellectual, rational content to discuss.
One might
also think that was a malformed sentence which begs the question. Then again, your whole argument is based on an inaccurate presupposition about atheism, so what can one expect?
Stan just Stan
This is the case for all Atheists, yet somehow they believe themselves to have an enhanced intellect purely by virtue of having adopted this intellect-free, evidence-free, logic-free worldview foundational VOID. They come to believe seriously that dodging intellectual responsibility for their mindless rejectionism is a feature demonstrating high intelligence and elitism, so the condescension and insults they throw out which are based in their own intellectual vacuum represent elite superiority. In actuality they are merely sputttering juvenile arrogance in the sense of know-it-all self-delusion.
Here's a picture of a giant strawman to go with the giant strawman you just made...
...and here's a pic of some fake vomit to go with your
ad nauseum argument
Stan just Stan
foundational VOID
intellectual VOID
Atheist VOID
Stan just Stan
When Atheists claim the sole possession of logic and evidence...
Atheists generally claim to be the sole possessors of logic and evidence
Stan just Stan
Apparently you hereby agree that you have no material evidence to support your "lack of belief". And you apparently agree that evidence cannot be had, and that since you have none, then you can't realistically demand any material evidence either.
Apparently you're fond of duplicitous, self-serving assumptions, because I made no such "agreements".
Stan just Stan
If that is not the case then we can discuss the nature of materialistic grounding and the logic of Category Errors.
Here's an idea; how about you
actually ******** make your case for theism, or deism, or whatever the hell it is you're presenting as an alternative to non-belief.
Stan just Stan
Since Atheists generally claim to be the sole possessors of logic and evidence to support their Atheism, then your Atheism must be supported solely by logic, having no possible evidence.
Ever hear of a little concept called "
evidence of absence"? Since you're so big on logic or whatever I'd assume you have, but since so much of what you've said has been pure pretense I figure I ought to explain anyway. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event
had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
Stan just Stan
That means that your decision which you placed on "Ask A Mormon" thread is based in logical analysis of all possible "reasons" which have ever been given for the existence of a deity:
"Since you know I'm an atheist, you ought to already know my answer to this question, but here you go anyway: "There's no reason to believe that there is one". "
Of course this devious answer does not apply to the question: Do you believe that there is a creating deity, yes or no. You avoided the
yes or no by the slippery assertion of not having any
reason to believe that there is.
What's "slippery" is the way this question is worded in the first place, because it's designed so that either answer gives you the opportunity to say, "
Aha! So you DO believe in something! Checkmate, atheist!". It's transparent to the point of being comedic what you were trying to do, and now that it's failed you're accusing
me of being disingenuous.
That said, when you gave that question to SARL0 for me, that caveat was not even present in the first place. Neither you nor her included it when it was asked of me:
(
Note: That pic is a link which will take you to the post it came from.)
In the future, you'd best get your s**t straight before you accuse people of dishonesty, lest you wind up with even
more egg on your face.
Stan just Stan
Agnosticism is NOT Atheism
. They both address different aspects of dis/belief. Here's a handy chart which illustrates this point:
Stan just Stan
Even under
your definition of Atheism as being nothing, just an intellectual vacuum--
This is the
second time you've attempted to put those words in my mouth, but this time it's
extra poignant because it's right on the heels of you (invalidly) accusing me of intellectual dishonesty. Way to show your true colors, Stan.
Stan just Stan
Obviously you do, in fact, have that which you claim not to have: ideological justification for your Atheism.
You think being unimpressed is an "ideological justification"...?
Stan just Stan
As we have established, there is no possible material evidence which justifies your Atheism. None.
You act as though the idea of not being able to prove a negative is some kind of radical new concept...
Stan just Stan
EITHER you have logical, disciplined arguments which refute all possible reasons (logical arguments) for the probable existence of a creating deity,
OR you do not have.
...but first, since you are claiming that there
is such a thing in the first place, the burden of proof lies on
you to provide evidence of it.
You mentioned earlier in the thread to Faustine Liem how Bertrand Russel said that a subset cannot define the set. Well, you know what
else Bertrand Russel famously said?
Bertrand Russel
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics [sic] to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
If you're gonna ask for evidence from
the dissenting side, you'd best get to serving me some tea, Stan. Otherwise, I won't even know what it is I'm trying to disprove - and that makes your disingenuous demands (wait for it...) VOID.
Stan just Stan
...This is your chance to convert theists by the use of disciplined logic. I should think that you would jump at the opportunity.
Well, of
course you would think that. You've assumed that SARL0 is indeed some poor little victim who's being picked on by a mean old atheist because that
strokes your ego, confirms your presuppositions, and fuels your anti-atheist agenda.
Stan just Stan
It was pointed out by Arcoon that I should talk only on threads I start--
No, it
wasn't. What I
said was that since the topic of that thread was Mormonism, you going in there and starting to talk about atheism out of nowhere was inappropriate, because it was off-topic.
The more you lie about what people have said, the more credibility you lose.
Stan just Stan
Like the newbie to this site that I am--
says the guy whose profile contains comments dating as far back as 2009
talk2hand
