@ LemonJello

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Let's take a look at your claim.

Go back ten pages to see the posts I've created. There's ten of them, which makes percentages oh-so-easy. Their subject matter, in reverse order, are as follows:

God's interruptions in human history
Orthodox confession
MLK, Jr.
Wondering about an old friend
Universality of justice
Atheism as a religion
Atheist ...[text shortened]... r thread. Apparently others find the subject matters I raise at least somewhat compelling.

Yeah but when you take out the 'hot air' from your posts , there's not actually not much substance left.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Maybe it's the God thing that troubles you so much so that you're unable to see the forest sitting there among the trees.

Do you consider atheism a position? Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does:
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

From Wiki:
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of beli matter... someone like you. Do you consider your denomination of atheism a position or not?

Excuse me, but I brought up substantive points in my last post. You responded in substance to precisely none of them. Why do you call me out if you have no intention of paying attention to what I say?

I already explained to you, several times now, that I think atheism is at its roots just an absence of theism. No, I do not consider that a 'position'. Like I have already told you, several times now, an atheist need not even hold any god related concepts at all. However, I also explained to you, several times now, that I think there are several different delineations of atheists. Many, like me, are familiar with many different conceptions of 'god'. I have, in fact, studied the relevant bodies of evidence for many different god concepts. Take yours, for instance: based on the evidence, I find it incredibly implausible that your god concept is actually instantiated. Further, I think belief in your god is unjustified. Is this a 'position' of some sort? Yes, I am sure we could reasonably construe it as one; and I am willing to present considered arguments in support of this position of mine.

However, absolutely none of this has anything to do with willful rejection. The beliefs I have that for example your god doesn't exist; that belief in your god is unjustified; etc; these are beliefs I have eventually come to based on my interpretation of the evidence and based on my own understanding of what types of conditions confer justificatory status; etc. They have nothing to do with my making "decisions" or willfully accepting/rejecting anything out of practical reasons; they have to do with my responsiveness to theoretical reasons.

Your thinking really is as shallow and confused as bbarr pointed out in the other thread I referenced: you mistakenly think atheism such as mine is reactionary and about willful rejection of a concept. But that is confused: what I reject, in accordance with my belief on the subject that came about passively in me based on my studies and interpretation of the evidence, is the claim that a particular concept is instantiated. And I challenge you to find anything that could reasonably be construed as willful rejection in the atheism I have described here.

seems to me, that if I were so absolutely sure about being an athiest, I would probably ignore the spirituality forum altogether, but hey...that's just me.

Originally posted by duecer
seems to me, that if I were so absolutely sure about being an athiest, I would probably ignore the spirituality forum altogether, but hey...that's just me.

Well, according to the atheist's resident priest, bbarr, theology is a type of poor man's philosophy; 'miniature' is the word he used. As such, it offers no harm and is therefore permissible--- even healthful--- much like popcorn in between meals.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yeah but when you take out the 'hot air' from your posts , there's not actually not much substance left.

That's a pretty hefty charge from someone who thinks it's all a bunch of nothing.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Well, according to the atheist's resident priest, bbarr, theology is a type of poor man's philosophy; 'miniature' is the word he used. As such, it offers no harm and is therefore permissible--- even healthful--- much like popcorn in between meals.

Spirituality Forum: Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after.

perhaps they should form a philosophy forum?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's a pretty hefty charge from someone who thinks it's all a bunch of nothing.

My 'nothing' is not the same as your 'nothing'.
My nothing is no thing. Its still "something", but unmanifested. It can only be experienced, not measured.

Originally posted by Palynka
Weight them by number of posts in each thread. What do you get?

Regardless, this is about repetition of the same arguments. Other threads are actually irrelevant towards the fact that you seem unable to understand what atheism is. Or are unwilling to for trolling purposes.

Weight them by number of posts in each thread. What do you get?
I get a bunch of numbers. You? Speaking of numbers, since (once again) you're bringing up the argument, let's take a look at your complaint. As stated, 30% of my last ten posts were dealing directly with atheism, one tongue-in-cheek and two in earnest. Rounding the numbers, that 30% generated 20% of all posts involving posts initiated by yours truly. Is that significant? Big 'n,' little 'o.' But you probably already knew that, huh. As is typical, you wanted to toss a red herring into the mix, make some baseless insinuation about some vague deficiency and then quietly exit the room.

Regardless, this is about repetition of the same arguments.
That sounds so much like something else we all witness here literally every day. What do you think it might be, boys and girls?

Other threads are actually irrelevant towards the fact that you seem unable to understand what atheism is. Or are unwilling to for trolling purposes.
No: other threads are actually totally relevant toward your complaint. Of course, when said complaint is properly refuted, you simply change the charges. The problem isn't that I don't understand atheism. The problem is the atheist is completely inconsistent with his own position. When this is pointed out, the problem becomes me.

Originally posted by duecer
Spirituality Forum: Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after.

perhaps they should form a philosophy forum?

They wouldn't get enough interest, but it is a thought. No pun intended.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Excuse me, but I brought up substantive points in my last post. You responded in substance to precisely none of them. Why do you call me out if you have no intention of paying attention to what I say?

I already explained to you, several times now, that I think atheism is at its roots just an absence of theism. No, I do not consider that a 'positio ...[text shortened]... ould reasonably be construed as willful rejection in the atheism I have described here.

I already explained to you, several times now, that I think atheism is at its roots just an absence of theism. No, I do not consider that a 'position'.
Is that your position on what atheism is, or is even that not a position? Are you starting to see how silly your [insert word which can inoffensively substitute for 'position' here] is? If atheism is not a position, is theism?

Like I have already told you, several times now, an atheist need not even hold any god related concepts at all.
Name names. Not including someone without self-consciousness, name one person who would consider themselves an atheist while at the same time not in possession of a god-related concept.

Further, I think belief in your god is unjustified. Is this a 'position' of some sort? Yes, I am sure we could reasonably construe it as one; and I am willing to present considered arguments in support of this position of mine.
Okay, so your atheism is a position, but atheism itself is not one. How many more guesses do I get for $20?

However, absolutely none of this has anything to do with willful rejection. The beliefs I have that for example your god doesn't exist; that belief in your god is unjustified; etc; these are beliefs I have eventually come to based on my interpretation of the evidence and based on my own understanding of what types of conditions confer justificatory status; etc. They have nothing to do with my making "decisions" or willfully accepting/rejecting anything out of practical reasons; they have to do with my responsiveness to theoretical reasons.
And I both respect and appreciate your thinking here. I would hope that everyone who holds anything with conviction would do so on the basis of open consideration, as opposed to sloppy sentimentalism or inherited laziness. Obviously, I don't agree with your conclusions, but I salute the basic idea. Without a healthy curiosity, one simply gets what one gets.

The purpose of my thought experiment here was an attempt to get those who have passed the point of consideration of the issue to consider the issue from another angle: a way to check themselves, as it were. If a person unconvinced (or, in some cases, convinced otherwise) could set that aside to simply consider the gift and their attitude toward that, perhaps they would see something otherwise missed. For instance, am I rejecting that gift only on the basis of rejecting the given? Or, is it possible that my rejection comes from not liking some aspect of who I view God to be? Or maybe even I am rejecting it on the basis of not wanting anyone's help? Or... ?

And I challenge you to find anything that could reasonably be construed as willful rejection in the atheism I have described here.
Flip it and apply it to me. Do you see me as willfully accepting or is my belief something that passively came about as a result of my studies and interpretation of the evidence?

Your thinking really is as shallow and confused as bbarr pointed out...
Coming from he-who-cannot-be-challenged, I take that as a supreme compliment.

Originally posted by duecer
seems to me, that if I were so absolutely sure about being an athiest, I would probably ignore the spirituality forum altogether, but hey...that's just me.

Yep, that's just you.

Do you ignore discussions about atheism or other religions? Does that mean you're not sure of your beliefs? This is just a red herring, isn't it?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The problem is the atheist is completely inconsistent with his own position. When this is pointed out, the problem becomes me.

You mean the position that you ascribe to atheists but none has yet admitted he subscribes to it?

Ah, that inconsistent position. 🙄

Originally posted by Palynka
Yep, that's just you.

Do you ignore discussions about atheism or other religions? Does that mean you're not sure of your beliefs? This is just a red herring, isn't it?

every person of belief has some level of doubt at some point in thier life, we wouldn't be human if we didn't.

do I ignore discussions about atheism? mostly yes. I've heard the arguments...I respectfully disagree...move along.

do I ignore discussions about other belief systems? depends on the topic. I think most faith systems have areas of commanility, and we can gain great insight into our faith perspective by listening

Originally posted by duecer
every person of belief has some level of doubt at some point in thier life, we wouldn't be human if we didn't.

do I ignore discussions about atheism? mostly yes. I've heard the arguments...I respectfully disagree...move along.

do I ignore discussions about other belief systems? depends on the topic. I think most faith systems have areas of commanility, and we can gain great insight into our faith perspective by listening

A red herring it was then.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I already explained to you, several times now, that I think atheism is at its roots just an absence of theism. No, I do not consider that a 'position'.
Is that your position on what atheism is, or is even that not a position? Are you starting to see how silly your [insert word which can inoffensively substitute for 'position' here] is? If athei . [/b]
Coming from he-who-cannot-be-challenged, I take that as a supreme compliment.[/b]

Name names. Not including someone without self-consciousness, name one person who would consider themselves an atheist while at the same time not in possession of a god-related concept.

That would be rather irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I didn't claim that there are persons who consider themselves atheist while at the same time holding no god related concepts. My claim, again, was "an atheist need not even hold any god related concepts at all". Now you should be able to see that my claim has nothing to do with anyone's considering himself to be anything.

If you had some person who held no god related concepts at all, then surely that person represents an instance of one who lacks theistic belief. The person would be an implicit atheist. Of course this particular person would not consider himself an atheist; but that is completely irrelevant to my point.

My only point with all this is what I already tried to make clear multiple times: in your arguments you obviously have in mind only a certain type of (explicit or active or strong) atheist; so, as I recommended to you in the other thread, you may want to consider clarifying your arguments to reflect that.

And I both respect and appreciate your thinking here. I would hope that everyone who holds anything with conviction would do so on the basis of open consideration, as opposed to sloppy sentimentalism or inherited laziness. Obviously, I don't agree with your conclusions, but I salute the basic idea.

Great. Finally, I think we are on some common ground. It is refreshing to say that I share your attitude here.

The purpose of my thought experiment here was an attempt to get those who have passed the point of consideration of the issue to consider the issue from another angle: a way to check themselves, as it were. If a person unconvinced (or, in some cases, convinced otherwise) could set that aside to simply consider the gift and their attitude toward that, perhaps they would see something otherwise missed. For instance, am I rejecting that gift only on the basis of rejecting the given? Or, is it possible that my rejection comes from not liking some aspect of who I view God to be? Or maybe even I am rejecting it on the basis of not wanting anyone's help? Or... ?

I'm afraid I still don't understand. If you just want to know my attitude toward your 'gift', I would only reply that I have a propositional attitude that is relevant to the subject of it: I believe that your 'gift' has no actual referent and is not a live option. Sorry, but that's about all I got for you.

And, sorry, but I still think the whole premise of this inquiry of yours is deeply confused. You are asking me questions like "Perhaps are you rejecting the gift on the basis of blah, blah, blah?" So, then, are you just not listening to what I have been telling you? I have no attitude of rejection toward the 'gift'. That would imply that I am somehow committed to the idea that it has an actual referent toward which I stand in rejection. But, as I keep telling you, I do not think it has an actual referent. If there is anything here I "reject" it would be the claim that the 'gift' has a referent, on the basis of my understanding of the evidence for such a claim. So this brings me round to my suggestion: if you want to actually influence me on this subject, you should present evidential reasons for the claim that the 'gift' has a referent in the first place.

Or, is it possible that my rejection comes from not liking some aspect of who I view God to be?

I will tell you straight out that there are aspects of your god concept that I find ugly and aspects that I think pervert notions like love and justice, etc. That is a separate matter from whether or not I think your god concept is in fact instantiated. Affective or conative attitudes I may have toward some property attached to a concept are separable from the issue of what the evidence recommends concerning whether or not the concept is instantiated. I dislike the thought of a killer hiding underneath my desk; but, of course, I can see clearly that there is no killer hiding underneath my desk. I dislike the thought of my body being cancer-ridden; but of course I know I am healthy on the basis of objective evidence (like the testimony of health professionals, medical tests, etc). So, just because I dislike aspects of such things, that has nothing to do with what actually informs my stance that such things are not actual. Relatedly, I would like the thought of a million dollars stuffed underneath my desk, but I can clearly see no such money exists. Again, I recommend you simply present some actual evidence for your theism. If you were to present what I took to be strong evidence for his existence, couldn't you bring me into theistic belief regardless of whether I "like" particular aspects about the concept?

Flip it and apply it to me. Do you see me as willfully accepting or is my belief something that passively came about as a result of my studies and interpretation of the evidence?

I think this kind of belief in general arises passively in the agent. I do not think persons go around (or even have the effective ability to go around) willfully picking out their beliefs. So, yes, I think your belief came about passively in you and I am confident it is based on your studies and interpretation of the evidence. Obviously, we differ quite a bit in our interpretation of the evidence and in its degree of truth-indication, but like you already basically mentioned, that is all fair enough. That is why there is real value in the practices of justification and in the give and take of evidential reasons for and against our views. But, of course, that involves actual evidential considerations; which is why I continue to recommend you abandon this current approach you have taken and simply start presenting evidential considerations that actually bear on the truth/falsity of theism.