Theists afraid of change

[Esquilax]

I wouldn't be so condescending if it weren't for the constant hand-wave dismissals of a long, internally consistent, and compelling philosophical tradition.

... Based on a series of unjustified assertions backed with no evidence at all. You always forget to end the sentence correctly.

Given that, it's not a dismissal so much as an observation that your entire position is built on little more than unjustified confidence in a series of arguments that, though internally consistent, are also baseless.

Modern arguments against Neo-Scholasticism are mostly based on either 1) misunderstandings about the premises or 2) an unwillingness to accept the truths uncovered because doing so would require repentance or 3) objections that cannot be reconciled with necessary truths.

... And you segue right back into the condescension: 1) "You just don't understand the bold truths of what I'm saying!" 2) "You just don't want to accept what I'm saying!" 3) "But what I'm asserting without evidence is necessary, so it has to be true!"

Fucking yawn.   If you want to come sit at the adult table, then you'll need to bring evidence and not unjustified fantasies that appeal to you. You can dress up that lack of evidence in as much passive aggressive ad hoc rationalization and attacks on our character as you like, but that's not going to make it any more substantial. It's just going to confirm your own mean spirited ego.

[Crossless2.0]

I wouldn't be so condescending if it weren't for the constant hand-wave dismissals of a long, internally consistent, and compelling philosophical tradition. Modern arguments against Neo-Scholasticism are mostly based on either 1) misunderstandings about the premises or 2) an unwillingness to accept the truths uncovered because doing so would require repentance or 3) objections that cannot be reconciled with necessary truths.

Somehow I doubt that your internally consistent, compelling philosophical tradition has nothing to say about repeatedly and baselessly imputing motives to people you don't know who happen to disagree with you.  But that's your hobby horse, isn't it?

Repent!

[Nope]

Fortunately, reason eventually wins.  However, should it always be such a struggle for reason to win over dumb religious nonsense?

Indeed, reason always wins. When people truly reflect on what it means to be human they set aside their contrarian atheist stances. The pendulum swings both ways from licentiousness to temperance. Right now the libertines have sway, but eventually they'll walk the sawdust highway.

Licentiousness? I know the definition but I don't understand how you are using the term to describe atheists. 

[Crossless2.0]

Indeed, reason always wins. When people truly reflect on what it means to be human they set aside their contrarian atheist stances. The pendulum swings both ways from licentiousness to temperance. Right now the libertines have sway, but eventually they'll walk the sawdust highway.

Licentiousness? I know the definition but I don't understand how you are using the term to describe atheists. 

According to Chad, atheists are licentious nihilists.  It's his favorite trope.

[Angrboda]

I think everybody resists change, not just theists. And it isn't so much based on their theism as it is that we're a conservative species. If you have some evidence that theists are especially 'afraid' of change, I'd like to see it.

[downbeatplumb]

I think everybody resists change, not just theists.  And it isn't so much based on their theism as it is that we're a conservative species.  If you have some evidence that theists are especially 'afraid' of change, I'd like to see it.

Well perhaps not theists themselves but the religions certainly are.
It's because of the dogma and laws being lain down in the past with chance of revision.
The best religions can do is ignore bits, but they are still there in the texts.
Science can change fundamentally as can business models and civilisations but Christianity etc is destined to be stupid forever.

[ReptilianPeon]

Why are they always so afraid of change and in direct opposition of change taking place in a societal manner? 

It could also be that religious people, apologists, have a large group of lackeys/puppets/followers, and if they acknowledge anything bad about their religion or change their religious views (e.g. become Atheist) then their income will deplete. They don't have the skills to get a 'real job' so they have to keep attacking Atheists and others even if they may secretly know what they are saying is wrong. You get these people trying to tell us there is evidence Muhammad split the moon, and some of them are apparently intelligent people, and I think they know what they are saying is wrong really.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Licentiousness? I know the definition but I don't understand how you are using the term to describe atheists. 

According to Chad, atheists are licentious nihilists.  It's his favorite trope.

Yes it is becoming a trope. It's stereotype that tends to hold true given the positions advocated by many many AF members.

[robvalue]

Especially when people have bunkered down hard on the crazy, they have little choice but to scream against all change and progress.

I wonder if it's the other way round, that people scared of change are drawn to religion?

I suppose the increasingly liberal side of religion is the closest thing to change, and really religion does need to get more and more liberal to avoid being a laughing stock. At least in countries where they can't just go around killing you for being atheist, which seems to be the last remaining tactic that religion has to fight the growth of atheism.

Atheism. Every day I think to myself, "I can't believe we need a word for this."

[henryp]

Why are they always so afraid of change and in direct opposition of change taking place in a societal manner?  

The answer is simple.

It has to do with the fact that their religious beliefs are derived from a primitively written piece of who knows what that never changes.  

It is bullshit that society cannot change because of primitive ideals.  It is downright retarded and ignorant that the ancient mind that relied upon faith must dictate our lives.

Fortunately, reason eventually wins.  However, should it always be such a struggle for reason to win over dumb religious nonsense?

Sort of like using the phrase "retarded?"  There are plenty of very progressive non-religious people who think your choice of such language makes you a shitty person, and continuing to do so is acting in direct opposition of change taking place.

Tell us about your primitive ideals that you will use to justify what is commonly viewed as ignorant.