A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[Sheldon]

Likewise, I have no memory of ever thinking that there is "something else out there" or "some greater purpose".
Maybe "developmental science" isn't saying what you think it is saying?

Then you weren’t paying attention. Or are being willfully provocative.

Your observation of my post is a no true Scotsman fallacy.

You’re mistaken. Your argument is anecdotal.

I'm not mistaken, and the original claim by a theists was anecdotal. KWED like myself and others stated they had not had the experience theists were claiming we all had. You immediately produced a subcategory to irrationally eliminate all such testimonies, that by definition is a not true Scotsman fallacy,

So the original sweeping claim was offered as just anecdotal, and was clearly falsified by the same standard it was offered, by KWED and others personal testimonies to the opposite, you cannot have it both ways, and you cannot use a logical fallacy to dismiss the testimony of others.

It was and is a no true Scotsman fallacy, and my observation is demonstrably not anecdotal as teh principles of logic are nothing to do with my personal testimony.

Furthermore KWED myself and others were not telling you and other theists what you experienced, though we may disbelieve it, only that your claim we all experienced it is demonstrably wrong.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes, and it's the antithetical belief to theism, which is the belief that no gods exist.

Atheism is not a belief.

"Unbelief" is not a belief.

Well there you go...

In fact, it's not even a statement.

It is a statement not to hold a particular belief, nothing more.

It's just meaningless gibberish that requires no label, and offers no information.

Well we can thank angry disgruntled theist like you, and the all pervasive nature of theism for that, if they didn't constantly try to tell others how to live, and what they can or cannot say or believe, as you keep doing, then it wouldn't need a label would it.

Which is exactly why the majority of self-proclaimed atheists are so desperate to hide from their own absurd hypocrisy, behind it.

It's your endless sophistry in misrepresentation of them they're denying, people are allowed to disagree with even you, especially in a debate forum, and since it is you and not atheists, who is contradicting the dictionary here I don't think hypocrisy is a word you ought be throwing around champ.

Claiming "no reason" as one's reasoning is the logic of either an idiot or a liar.

That's a straw man fallacy, and the ad hominem speaks for itself. Its clear your sophistic rant is reaching its endgame, you started by contradicting the dictionary, have relentless told others what they think and believe, and now all you seem to have left is petulant insults....impressive.

....and quelle surprise, not one single word offered by you in even a pretence of trying to demsonrate any tangible empirical or objective evidence for your archaic superstitious beliefs.

A whole thread that represents naught but a red herring to hide your vapid belief behind, and you then call us hypocrites,.

You owe me an irony meter champ.

 

[Sheldon]

Do you think that other similar terms like "civilian", "vegetarian", or "non-smoker" (which all, like "atheist", describe someone based on something they don't do) are gibberish?

I don't think we should be in a too much of a rush to dismiss his obvious expertise on gibberish.

 

[Sheldon]

Do you think that the fact that you had to change the subject from "unbelief" to inaction because you couldn't address the point I made about "unbelief" being meaningless gibberish could be an indication that maybe you should be rethinking your position?

Yes of course, I mean it's not as if anyone ever based their actions on a belief, oh wait a minute? I think that's another irony meter you owe me champ...

Theism is a belief, and theists claim to base their actions and lives on it, atheists do not have that belief, and their actions and lives are not therefore based on it.

It's not hard if one can read and comprehend a simple word definition. Step away from your agenda for a moment, take a deep breath, and ask yourself why your beliefs are not enough for you here? An eternity of bliss in heaven after the stepping stone of the few decades of this life doesn't seem to have given you much satisfaction, or contentment judging form the angry nasty rants you're directing at others for not sharing those beliefs? Could it be your anger is rooted elsewhere, maybe you might examine your angry discontent here, as it seems implausible that others simply not sharing your beliefs can be such an irritation?

Have you considered meditation? I mean theism doesn't appear to make you very happy.

 

[KWED]

Then you weren’t paying attention. Or are being willfully provocative.

I always pay attention.
I am never provocative, although some people do seem eager to be provoked.

 

[sojourner]

Anything that does not adhere to the principles of logic would be by definition irrational, that's what the word means. So I'm not sure why anyone wants to base beliefs or claims on the irrational, but yes I choose not to, as I care that what I believe is true, and know that irrational beliefs or claims are less likely to be true.



Well I don't believe we are "more advanced than other life forms" for a start, I find that notion ludicrous and at odds with evolutionary science. However our ability to be creative is measurable and can be evidenced without any recourse to unevidenced subjective claims, I know of no objective evidence that can demsonrate or measure anything spiritual.

That’s your business, of course, but just because you choose not to explore those facets does not lessen the credibility of others who do so.

Can one measure love? Beauty? Aesthetic? Imagination? These things are real.

 

[KWED]

1) That is what I’m saying.

I presented three possibilities. Are you admitting to all of them?

2) we’re not aware because we’re not self aware on a cognitive level.

A person could be "self aware on a cognitive level" and still be unaware that there is a world.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not mistaken, and the original claim by a theists was anecdotal. KWED like myself and others stated they had not had the experience theists were claiming we all had. You immediately produced a subcategory to irrationally eliminate all such testimonies, that by definition is a not true Scotsman fallacy,

So the original sweeping claim was offered as just anecdotal, and was clearly falsified by the same standard it was offered, by KWED and others personal testimonies to the opposite, you cannot have it both ways, and you cannot use a logical fallacy to dismiss the testimony of others.

It was and is a no true Scotsman fallacy, and my observation is demonstrably not anecdotal as teh principles of logic are nothing to do with my personal testimony.

Furthermore KWED myself and others were not telling you and other theists what you experienced, though we may disbelieve it, only that your claim we all experienced it is demonstrably wrong.

I disagree. The first post is anecdotal.

 

[sojourner]

A person could be "self aware on a cognitive level" and still be unaware that there is a world.

Are you claiming to be such a person?

Look, all I’m saying is that the process of self-awareness and becoming self-differentiated is a natural cognitive process wherein one becomes aware of the self in ways that allow the individual to see that the world is bigger than one’s own, individual experience. And that’s what spirituality ultimately is. You don’t have to believe in deity or ascribe to particular theological ideas.

 

[sojourner]

I always pay attention.
I am never provocative, although some people do seem eager to be provoked.

If you refuse to see that the world is larger than your own experience of it, then you’re not paying attention. Or your post is disingenuous.

 

[KWED]

Psychology Today isn’t a “specialist magazine.” It’s a popular magazine.

Of course it is a specialist magazine. It specialises in behavioural science.

OK!, Vogue, Good Housekeeping, etc are popular magazines.

 

[Sheldon]

That’s your business, of course, but just because you choose not to explore those facets does not lessen the credibility of others who do so.

Did you even read my post?

"Anything that does not adhere to the principles of logic would be by definition irrational, that's what the word means. So I'm not sure why anyone wants to base beliefs or claims on the irrational, but yes I choose not to, as I care that what I believe is true, and know that irrational beliefs or claims are less likely to be true."

I'm not choosing to ignore anything, I ma trying to ensure any beliefs I hold are true, and being irrational makes that much less likely.

Can one measure love? Beauty? Aesthetic? Imagination? These things are real.

Love is too broad a descriptor, but yes I can measure emotional responses. Beauty is again a broad descriptor, and often based on subjective perception, so I'd need more to go on. If I am physically attracted to another, or recognise them as attractive, that is clearly an evolved trait, we'd die out out pretty quickly if we didn't see beauty in others, and that is of course measurable. Imagination exists in the human brain, and is a useful problem solving ability, again it's not hard to see how this would have evolved as a survival mechanism.

I see no objective evidence for anything spiritual or supernatural though. People clearly find succour and comfort from such beliefs, but that doesn't make them real.

 

[KWED]

Cognitively, not much. But I believe infants are highly intuitive.

You said you disagreed with the statement that "There's nothing there when an infant is born. A clean slate".
Now you seem to be agreeing with it.
I do wish you would make your mind up where you stand on these issues.

 

[KWED]

We also have a tendency to dismiss what we don’t want to see. Seems like some here are dismissing possibilities that lie outside the rational mind, which dismisses whole segments of valid human experience. It’s funny that many believe humanity is more advanced than other life forms. They do so based on our ability to be creative and think outside predetermined boxes. Yet when it comes to spiritual experience, they throw that creative capacity down the drain.

So you are saying that just because a claim has no evidence to support it, and seems unlikely given what we do know, we should still treat it as a very real possibility because it would be cool if it were true?

The thing with creativity is that it shouldn't be used to make up answers when no actual answer is there. Creativity is about finding new ways of finding the actual answer. Inventing stuff to fill gaps in our knowledge and then insisting that those inventions not be challenged is not "creative".

 

[sojourner]

I see no objective evidence for anything spiritual or supernatural though. People clearly find succour and comfort from such beliefs, but that doesn't make them real.

“Spiritual” and “supernatural” aren’t necessarily synonymous. Again, just because you haven’t seen or recognized the spiritual only constitutes an anecdotal argument.

 

[sojourner]

You said you disagreed with the statement that "There's nothing there when an infant is born. A clean slate".
Now you seem to be agreeing with it.
I do wish you would make your mind up where you stand on these issues.

Intuition isn’t “nothing.” Memory isn’t “nothing.” Newborns have both. Please stop gaslighting.

 

[Sheldon]

I disagree. The first post is anecdotal.

Well if you think waving logic away has any meaning then that's your choice, but it is demonstrably irrational, and I've explained the initial theistic claim was anecdotal, as of course are all theistic claims for evidence, so that's an odd double standard.

The fact remains a claim was made that all people experience or have a sense of the spiritual, and several posters pointed out they had no such experiences, falsifying the claim using the same standard on which it was based.

However, you then dismissed their testimony with ironically, an anecdotal claim. Creating a subcategory to maintain the original anecdotal claim, that is a no true Scotsman fallacy, whether you accept it or not.

The exchange went like this:

1. Everyone experiences the spiritual.
2. KWED and others, we haven't, therefore the claim is false.

NB Note here the original claim asserts what others experience, based on anecdote alone, the falsifying claim however only asserts that we personally have not experienced any such thing, and you object here to anecdote, even though this was teh standard the original claim set.

Now you then create a subcategory to all, and make anecdotal assertions, in order to dismiss the subcategory and preserve the original claim.

So a no true Scotsman fallacy, by definiton.

Ironically your response, "I disagree" is demonstrably anecdotal, as you offer nothing beyond a subjective dismissal.

 

[sojourner]

So you are saying that just because a claim has no evidence to support it, and seems unlikely given what we do know, we should still treat it as a very real possibility because it would be cool if it were true?

The thing with creativity is that it shouldn't be used to make up answers when no actual answer is there. Creativity is about finding new ways of finding the actual answer. Inventing stuff to fill gaps in our knowledge and then insisting that those inventions not be challenged is not "creative".

Creativity isn’t particularly about “finding answers.” Many times, its function is to provide space to question. That’s what spirituality is all about: creating space to question those things that are larger than us. And that’s a real endeavor.

 

[KWED]

Can one measure love? Beauty? Aesthetic? Imagination? These things are real.

No one is claiming that they are not real. However, they do not exist beyond the mind. And the mind, as far as we can tell, is a product of and dependent on the physical brain.

 

[KWED]

I disagree. The first post is anecdotal.

Not the one claiming that everyone is born with an appreciation of the spiritual, the sense of there "being something more". That was a positive claim (although probably based on that individual's personal experience).
However, the subsequent anecdotes were enough to refute the claim.