Delicate Offers a Truce

[Excited Penguin]

Yes, I know that, even though this wasn't addressed at me. But isn't it the case that the Dark Ages were, in effect, extremely religious? It seems to me like to take religion out of the equation like that is a little going too far. I rather regret more the fall of the Greek civilization, than the Roman one, by the way. And you can't expect me to credit religion simply for being the only game in town in Europe for such a long time. The Dark Ages were hell on earth for most people for a reason, and that reason is very intimately connected with religion - or at least that's my impression, based on what I learned and read. Am I wrong?

I wouldn't take religion out of the equation, by any means. That it often promotes superstition and demands that unsatisfactory theoretical answers to real world difficulties be accepted on insufficient evidence is a problem; my point is that it's a problem today as it was then, and it was then as it was long prior to the establishment of the state church. Can you think of a period that wasn't particularly religious, outside of perhaps the last 150 years in places like Europe and certain segments of the West?

Not exactly as it was then. Are you forgetting about the whole Renaissance period? Aren't we far less religious right now? Don't we base our views more on reason and evidence than at any other point in history, despite our various religious affiliations and religiosity or lack thereof(for the most part)?

[Excited Penguin]

I'm arguing there's a link between religion and progress, the less of the former, the more of the latter. I don't have to be a historian to make that claim. Or do I? - I may be wrong.

[Crossless2.0]

I'm arguing there's a link between religion and progress, the less of the former, the more of the latter. I don't have to be a historian to make that claim. Or do I? - I may be wrong.

That only works if you take a very broad definition of religion to include such things as Stalin's Soviet Union or Mao's China -- state religion, I suppose. Otherwise, there are examples of regimes in which religion was, if not eliminated, at least forced deep underground that aren't known as shining examples of "progress" except perhaps on a state-funded technical level.

[Excited Penguin]

I'm arguing there's a link between religion and progress, the less of the former, the more of the latter. I don't have to be a historian to make that claim. Or do I? - I may be wrong.

That only works if you take a very broad definition of religion to include such things as Stalin's Soviet Union or Mao's China -- state religion, I suppose. Otherwise, there are examples of regimes in which religion was, if not eliminated, at least forced deep underground that aren't known as shining examples of "progress" except perhaps on a state-funded technical level.

Yes, I would have to include those and not only them. I guess I should replace the term religion with irrationality  .

[Delicate]

How many times and in how many ways in how many threads have you been asked to provide this evidence?

But you don't understand why you're taken less than seriously? 

I've been asked for evidence for claims I haven't made or aren't interested in.

I've never been asked to demonstrate, for instance, why I take most atheists to be irrational.

When I provide reasons I see no analysis of my reasons. All I see is rage.

How dare I believe in reasons and evidence!

You're not interested in providing this evidence you say you have for your beliefs? Really? I should think as a born-again Christian you'd be all about that, given your obligation to spread the Good News.

That's the evidence people are interested in seeing.

You do remember your bio information, don't you?

I used to be an apatheist.

Then I heard Richard Dawkins speak, saw how ridiculous he was and I became a born-again Christian. Delicate

Leaving aside what a laughably bad reason that is for adopting a particular religious faith, it's your "evidence" for the truth of your alleged Christian faith that we're waiting on. Can I make this any clearer for you?

We're having a conversation in another thread where downbeatplumb holds to an obviously bad epistemic position.

Can you prove that x is a basic belief to him? He doesn't even accept that basic beliefs exist.

To make such a case you have to first show that his hardcore empiricism is false. Then you show how foundationalism is true. Then you show how x is basic.

Without the prior arguments, the latter makes no sense to downbeatplumb. Likewise, my arguments for theism won't make sense without pointing out the foundations behind it.

You're asking me to do the latter without the former, which makes no sense.

[Delicate]

Thanks for the substantive response.

My argument is predominantly that the objections atheists raise, including the one you have, are false.

You haven't been able to refute the evidence provided, many in this very forum.

Pick an argument you think is evidently false. I'll either concede your point out give you good reasons to think your objections don't hold water.

LOL what!?

Atheists raise a mountain of objections, so your argument is that they are all false? Because why?


How can you even begin to define all the objections raised by atheists, they are so vast and different, and what makes you think that atheism should be required to substantiate their objections, before you even provide evidence?

You've just demonstrated how intellectually inadequate you are by the last statement alone, you've never made an actual argument, who can refute you when you generalize and never specify what you're actually referring to and instead try to pawn off your argument as casually just being "All atheists are wrong" that's not an argument, that's willfull ignorance and a determination to never specify in fear of being directly disproven.

Let's talk about a specific case. Pick your favorite.

[Delicate]

I want to (and have) proven that most atheistic claims are false.

By definition, atheists don't make claims... well, at least, concerning divinities. It is the non-acceptance of the claims made by theists that define the atheist.

On the other hand, atheists, like all other humans, make claims about many things and some of those are entirely based on faulty reasoning, yes.
We are humans, after all.

I disagree and I've laid out why elsewhere.

[Heat]

LOL what!?

Atheists raise a mountain of objections, so your argument is that they are all false? Because why?


How can you even begin to define all the objections raised by atheists, they are so vast and different, and what makes you think that atheism should be required to substantiate their objections, before you even provide evidence?

You've just demonstrated how intellectually inadequate you are by the last statement alone, you've never made an actual argument, who can refute you when you generalize and never specify what you're actually referring to and instead try to pawn off your argument as casually just being "All atheists are wrong" that's not an argument, that's willfull ignorance and a determination to never specify in fear of being directly disproven.

Let's talk about a specific case. Pick your favorite.

Stop trying to turn the tables, this reversal trick you keep trying is incredibly annoying. Either pick an existing claim from an atheist and attempt to disprove it(Which still wouldn't make your belief any more valid), or try to prove your own claim, the fact that you keep dodging this evidence of god being asked for repeatedly is starting to unveil the curtains in to your insecurity about the authenticity and validity it has in the first place.

[Delicate]

You're not interested in providing this evidence you say you have for your beliefs? Really? I should think as a born-again Christian you'd be all about that, given your obligation to spread the Good News.

That's the evidence people are interested in seeing.

You do remember your bio information, don't you?

I used to be an apatheist.

Then I heard Richard Dawkins speak, saw how ridiculous he was and I became a born-again Christian. Delicate

Leaving aside what a laughably bad reason that is for adopting a particular religious faith, it's your "evidence" for the truth of your alleged Christian faith that we're waiting on. Can I make this any clearer for you?

You're still working on the assumption that I want to prove theism.

I don't.

I want to (and have) proven that most atheistic claims are false.

If you can't prove theism, then you didn't disprove atheism, so to speak. Atheism means not believing in Gods. You can only "dispel" atheism by convincing all atheists that God exists. If you can't convince me that God exists, then you didn't do a damn thing to atheism, even if I were the only atheist in the world.

Not necessarily, because I see two distinct projects: refuting objections to theism and making arguments for theism.

One is a negative project another is positive.

And frankly, the positive case requires far more background work, especially given that many people here aren't even capable of rational responses, and I mean that as a matter of fact, not an insult.

There are places where the caliber of atheist thought is more sophisticated. There the positive case is more cost-effective to make.

[Delicate]

You're still working on the assumption that I want to prove theism.

I don't. 

I want to (and have) proven that most atheistic claims are false.

How fucking ignorant, and misinformed are you?

1. Theism is REQUIRED to prove it's validity, otherwise atheism is the DEFAULT POSITION.

2. ATHEISM DOES NOT CLAIM A GOD DAMNED THING, STOP REINFORCING THIS WILLFULLY IGNORANT THEISTIC NOTION THAT IT DOES.

I think 1 and 2 are false. I've explained why elsewhere.