...Truth?

[Mister Agenda]

The theist would say that, because their god is the source of all truth and the ultimate end, a search for truth is an endeavor to get closer to god. After the necessary Kierkegaardian leap of faith into whatever worldview, theists do have a reason to find truth.

Do you think someone who believes in a trickster god, or an evil god, would agree with you? Theist is an awfully broad category to shoehorn into such a narrow worldview.

As for this being fundamentally rational, I'd argue that there are no worldviews that are fundamentally rational. All require the leap into belief. I can argue this if you like.

Sounds like you've answered your own questions, then.

Past that point is what I'm talking about. Once theists establish a reason to be rational and a foundation for it, they then have an impetus to search for truth. I don't see the same in atheism—after establishing rationalism and a foundation for it, I don't detect an immediate reason to find truth.

So you're complaining to us about your inability to imagine reasons to be interested in truth sans theism? Can you imagine reasons for your own ability to be interested in truth as an agnostic?

As for fake news about sabertooth cats, that's a completely different matter. Telling the truth about something, while beneficial in some instances, isn't in many others, and that's beside the point.

Being interested in the truth and telling the truth are completely different matters, being interested in the truth is exactly the point.

These are two different issues: "functional" truth such as "there's a sabertooth cat about to attack" and philosophical truth such as "do I even exist." For the atheist, sure, there's a reason to value the former, but I see no reason to value the latter.

Nothing you said previously could reasonably be construed as 'truth' being short-hand for 'big questions and ultimate meaning' and not 'that which is factual'.

But given that, and given that my personal epistemological framework can best be described as 'rational skepticism', I can tell you that my desire to avoid fake news and non-factual beliefs leads me to scrutinize claims carefully, the more they would impact me if they were true, the more closely I examine them. If you've got a proposition for my existence, lay it on me and I will do you the service of letting you know about any mistakes your case may have.

---

The original question was why "not being duped" is important.

For people who have to be walked through 'why not being duped' is important; there's a bridge in Brooklyn just waiting for them to get in on the ground floor.

---

Kirkawhat and Dessiewho: Two famous philosophers who are highly respected in the philosophy realm.

It's hard to take seriously someone who took that seriously.

---

Also, I don't quite understand "I starting to back away." Are you worried that I'm a theist and that I'll mess up the atheist forums?

He's worried that you're going to be a waste of valuable time and brain cells.

---

I'm sorry that all you guys feel offended by my questioning. I don't get offended by ideas and I guess I just assume other people are the same. I see that's not fair to believe on the internet.

It's not your ideas that are offensive, it's your smug and condescending tone. I would think someone who was actually interested in the truth more than gratifying their ego would be able to convey the humility that allows one to accept new ideas.

I also see that these forums aren't where I should be expecting to find worthwhile philosophical discussion.

You generally reap what you sow around here.

I entered assuming people were ready and willing to talk cooly and logically about philosophy in the context of the history of ideas and the rules of logic in general.

You assumed you could project your suppositions about what you think we must think on us without resistance. And apparently you lack the self-awareness to comprehend that your behavior is rude.

I assumed atheists believed themselves to be intelligent and willing to question. I see now that, with this experience at least, these were unfounded assumptions and I made them unfairly.

Intelligent enough to smell a bullshitter a mile off. I dare you to say something more smug.

So far the only thing I've found is defensiveness, a denial of the things most philosophers would think ludicrous to deny (the validity of two of the greatest philosophers of all time, for instance), and a complete lack of desire to accept real questioning in the name of seeking truth.

I've noticed a marked tendency of our non-atheist visitors being baffled that anyone would be offended by being grossly mischaracterized.

 I see now that the atheists who are willing to reply to me on this forum are no better than the Christians I've engaged with in the past who also committed what seems to me like intellectual suicide of a pretty low form.

I wouldn't be surprised it you get the same reaction from lots of groups...but it can't possibly be your approach, eh?

I don't think this is productive and it's definitely not achieving my original goal of finding intelligent conversation about the things I hold to be important.

I don't for a moment believe that you were ever actually in the slightest interested in an intelligent conversation.

I thought you people wanted to find truth and understand reality. Maybe I was wrong. Or maybe it's just the internet. Regardless, this has become pointless. I don't appreciate that.

Finally the 'you people' comes out. What do you think you've offered that would help with finding truth and understanding reality? You came out of the gate telling us what we must think. If you know what we must think, what the fuck was the point of coming here to find out what we think? Did you do the same thing with the Christians, walk in and tell them what they thought and then demanded that they defend the position you projected on them?

Anyhow, you guys have a fantastic life (to quote the Doctor). You won't see me again. And to anyone who reads the train of posting, I hope you can figure out what prompted the returns I got for my efforts to find truth. Honestly now I just feel sad and more alone than ever in my search.

Likewise. The returns you got were for being an insufferable ass, an impression cemented by this clichéd rage quit post. That's fixable, if you can accept that you have that problem and want to change. And it can start to change at any moment if you try to do better. You're always as good as your last post with me.

---

You confuse it with antitheism, the position that indeed, there are no gods.

It's a nit, but antitheism is the position that no one should be a theist; not a positive claims that no God or gods exist. You can be an antitheist and an agnostic atheist at the same time. Conceivably you could be a theist and an antitheist at the same time, but it would be a little odd.

'I believe in God but I don't want to and I don't think people should, it just encourages him!'