Judging my interlocutors has never helped me in my conversations so I refrain from it. If you were an Israeli who claimed that Arabs were evil by definition (and therefore deserved to be exterminated) and you accepted to calmly discuss this issue I would calmly discuss it too. It is the only alternative to war, in my opinion, and I militate against war.
I haven’t read the sequel to the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, which I think I read when I was a teenager.
You should. I just asked because I’m pretty sure that you’re the Ruler of the Universe.
Why? Because I prefer to discuss rather than judge?
I think it’s the other way around.
Accepting the views of other people is a kind of judgment, and it’s not necessarily a virtuous one. You’ve failed to understand that, and that pretty much explains why this thread has dragged on and on for nine pages.
Bull. You found an obscure and ill-thought out list from the turn of the century by someone no one has ever heard of, and judged it to be an accurate portrayal of atheists, simply because you already agreed with what it said. Posts like that make me wonder how many websites you had to pass over to get to something that obscure.
If anyone’s wondering, the author of the piece is just as up his own ass when he talks about Marxism and Nietzschean ethics. I can’t speak about his notions on objectivism & existentialism, since I abhor the one and never quite grokked the other.
(A propos of nothing, the Firefox spell checker doesn’t know “nietzschean”, but knows “grokked”. That is kind of fantastic.)
One also notes that he seems to focus on Rand, Sartre, Marx and Nietszche (a.k.a. the theists’ bugaboos) as “the atheist philosophers” but doesn’t write word one about, say, Kant or Schopenhauer ; Voltaire or Theodorus. Make of that what you will.
He also entirely omits John Stuart Mill, atheist and co-father of utilitarianism, which itself goes unmentioned.
If you try to kill me, I’ll bash your head in.
If you successfully kill me, my friends and family will bash your head in.
As I’ve repeatedly noted, people think things of themselves that are often at odds with reality.
Well, if we’re not talking about real world atheists and just playing semantic games, why call your caricatures “atheists” at all?
Why not call them ScutiBugs and ascribe to ScutiBugs all the properties you have described?
It’s clear you have no interest in an intellectual exercise and are not arguing in good faith, as you clearly want to apply any discussion to the real world (see below), i.e. to actual atheists than to ScutiBugs.
Yeah, see, this here is the problem.
You just got finished saying you would accept that this little intellectual exercise would have no real world bearing but now you immediately turn around and try to apply your premises to the real world again with an obfuscating bunch of BS in a poor attempt to hide it.
FFS, at least be consistent with your premises. You aren’t even doing that much.
Nothing facile about it. The guy made stupid declarations about philosophy that indicated that he had never actually read any philosopher and he made stupid remarks about atheists that have no bearing on reality.
I am not sure what “knowledge” you think he displayed, but aside from a few references to either common knowledge or common misunderstandings, he displayed no actual grasp of any information.
If you think that he actually displays knowledge, then you should really take the time to go study his sources to discover his errors before you plop his nonsense down in a debate as support for your position. Quoting his tract to either defend or even define a discussion of philosophy or atheism is rather like quoting David Irving to discuss the Holocaust or Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey to discuss vaccinations.
Bradley claims to have knowledge. According to UY Scuti’s rules as I understand them, that means we have to act as if Bradley has knowledge.
No. You presented a number of common misconceptions that uneducated religious people believe about atheists. (Educated religious people would rarely hold those false beliefs.)
That might be a point from which one could begin a discussion on how to undertake the massive education required of such people, but it worthless as a point from which one could address how atheists should talk with them. It is rather like identifying black people as watermelon-loving, ghost fearing people with a good sense of rhythm, and using that as the basis for how they should talk to racists.
OK. So given that Arabs are evil and stupid, convince me not to kill them.
I read that article, and the text behind the one-line summaries aren’t as inflammatory as the summaries sound. He says things like “Existence is ultimately meaningless,” which sounds like a theist’s misunderstanding of atheists, but then later he says “Meaning and purpose are possible.” He’s trying to say that there is no external source imposing meaning on us, but we still can make our own meaning. It’s poorly written because the headlines fight with the text, but it’s basically correct as I see it - I would add that the meaning we make is the only meaning that’s important anyway.
The same thing applies to his last point that you highlighted. But he’s not saying that anything is permissible. Here’s the text explaining it:
OK, that I agree with, even though the headline makes it sound like he’s saying something completely different.
ETA: At least that guy’s web site has a nice, pleasing modern design.
As I have already mentioned, I don’t converse with people who mention the possibility that they may resort to violence. I discuss ideas, I’m not a negotiator.
But you don’t discuss ideas. YOu put ideas forward and dismiss or ignore responses that you don’t like. You try to control every aspect of the “discussion”, as if you’re style is more pure, or more sophisticated or logical, or better than someone who takes a different approach.
Nothing you’ve done here amounts to a discussion. It’s be a pontification with the occasional response.
What Alessan meant to say was, “I have these friends who wouldn’t kill Arabs but they know people who would like too. And my friends can see their point. What should I tell them?”
See, totally different then how it came out originally. So, care to comment on that idea?
Right, right. What he said. Friends of friends, that’s the ticket.
Happened a couple more times today.
It’s like a poor man’s Gish Gallop.
Here are six ideas that I have mentioned or implied about atheists.
IDEA #1
An atheist’s lack of belief in god is not the sole difference between himself/herself and a theist.
IDEA #2
An atheist’s view on how the universe came into being is different from that of a theist, and this view is typically based on today’s most widely accepted scientific theory, the Big Bang.
IDEA #3
An atheist’s view on how Man appeared on Earth is different from that of a theist, and this view is typically based on Darwinism and its revisions.
IDEA #4
An atheist’s view on the purpose or meaning of life is different from that of a theist, and this view typically denies the existence of an intrinsic purpose or meaning of life.
IDEA #5
An atheist’s view on the existence of the immortal soul and afterlife is different from that of a theist, an atheist typically denying their existence.
IDEA #6
An atheist’s view on the foundation ethics is different from that of a theist, an atheist typically claiming that the basis of any axiological system resides in one’s subjectivity.