@ControlsFreak's banner p

ControlsFreak


				

				

				
4 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 02 23:23:48 UTC

				

User ID: 1422

ControlsFreak


				
				
				

				
4 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 02 23:23:48 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1422

Unfortunately, your atheism is at least as unbacked by evidence and reason as either. You are personally as irrational as the trans ideologues, but you give yourself a pass out of pure self-serving smugness. From whence comes equality between methodological constraints of science and metaphysical theory of ontology? It's nothing but really old and really popular and so it seems "normal". You probably like the cultural/political connotations, and you may have been raised to believe such irrational things. If you're going to act like anyone is "given a pass", it is you, and every time you pull this schick, it eats away at the detente that the mods claim to believe in/enforce. The result of you continuing to break down the detente is that, unless the mods continue to protect you, your irrationality will no longer be given a pass. It'll be made clear that you're no different than trans ideologues.

You're engaging at the object level and you should be at the meta level.

I mean, people still do that, tho. They just don't have to say it anymore. Do we use kid gloves on Christians because Christians aren't often in the forums saying that they believe in the resurrection? I mean, it's been at least as long since I've actually seen that.

If I'm being flippant, I'd say that my observations of the internet wars were that both sides had major problems, but probably the biggest area that atheists felt like they were constantly getting crushed on was the argument from morality. They tried lots of things to try to fix this. Ultimately, I think they were so unsuccessful that they just did everything they could to bury the topic and ridicule anyone who even thought about morality as a thing.

...directly leading to exactly the phenomenon that you describe.

There's a difference between "focusing on" and "mistaking it for a metaphysical theory".

Science has methodological constraints; it makes certain assumptions and speaks only to things within the constraints of those assumptions. But instead, folks want to claim that those are not constraints on the method; they're constraints on reality. Rather than building an actual metaphysical theory, they just declare that their constraints handwave the whole problem away.

Why would it matter? The truth value of a statement or belief stands independent of whatever it may engender.

To be as flippant as the commenter two posts up in this thread, because the atheists are wrong. /thread

It's only bonus badness that their wrongness led to one of the very things the OP was complaining about.

The tone and assumptions you make in this post are strange to me. It's like you expect to see members of this forum deride and criticize atheism... why?

I thought it was pretty strange to see those expectations going in another direction, but it seemed to be considered not strange at all; just a regular, serious question. I wonder what you make of that asymmetry.

I'll go back and compile the data after this finishes blowing over. Will have a good comparative assessment of the community's emotional response.

The central claim of atheism is that the Christians (or other theists) are wrong

I mean, this is a part of it. They generally have significantly more at the core. It takes about two questions of asking "why is that" to get to it. (Hint, they're usually appealing to methodological constraints, which they're sneakily confusing for a metaphysical theory.)

Goodguy asked why the Motte doesn't pounce on this whenever someone makes decisions based on those teachings.

Actually, he didn't. Not a word about making decisions. Just about Christians being Christians in general.

Nope, not an argument about the object level. About the meta level.

I was a bit surprised, too, when I first started checking him out. I have likewise been very disappointed by most other 20th-century-or-later French philosophers. Check out this series for a good introduction.

"methodological constraints actually are a metaphysical theory"

This is actually a beautiful line from Rene Girard, skewering such poor reasoning.

atheism doesn't imply that shoes are atheists

Boy did you miss the meme wars.

I think the first one is straightforward: they confuse methodological constraints for a metaphysical theory. That is, science has methodological constraints; it makes certain assumptions and speaks only to things within the constraints of those assumptions. But instead, folks want to claim that those are not constraints on the method; they're constraints on reality. Rather than building an actual metaphysical theory, they just declare that their constraints handwave the whole problem away.

What shoes got to do wit it.

end banking like Jesus clearly said we should, or stop accumulating wealth and live like the birds and beasts of the field like he also said we should

It never ceases to amaze me how utterly poor people's reasoning becomes when they're trying to make their opponents sound bad. This is, like, woke-twitter-level atrocious.

I wrote:

Try it and see. Try calling atheists delusional or saying that they're treated with kid gloves. You might be surprised, and then you might not make such silly claims as your original comment.

I don't think you've responded to anything I wrote in the slightest. Tilting at windmills; blinded by your own rage; incapable of even reading when the topic makes you too emotional.

Mod hat is as mod hat does. Praise be to mod hat!

When you try to claim that Christianity gets treated with kid gloves, you get bland shoulder shrugs and some upvotes. When you point out that actually, it's atheism that is treated with kid gloves, you get banned. The modding happens because atheists don't even bother trying to defend their absolute bollocks metaphysics since they know they'll get trounced, so instead they fight with oversensitive interpretations of the rules (declaring that actually responding to people's questions is "obnoxious" and "unnecessarily antagonistic").

If anything in this forum is 'sacred' in the language of Robin Hanson, it is atheism. It shall not mix with the profane things, like arguments about the culture war.

I'm still not clear what you mean when you say that people are claiming science's constraints are constraints on reality.

They simply handwave away the possibility of any form of being/existence that is not squarely within the purview of one specific tool: science. That tool has significant methodological constraints, like observability, repeatability, testability, etc. There are others, and they can be presented in a variety of ways.

There was no Church of Atheism

I mean, I'm left asking, "Who cares," in return? Like, does the diversity of Christianity and the fact that there are a bunch of disparate groups somehow change things?

misreported

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I see. You seem to have just imagined me saying something about my personal beliefs. Moreover, you have some weird post-modernist idea that your perception of my beliefs/identity has some bearing on the validity of the form of my argument. Also, you struggle with "greater than or equal to".

What exactly is it telling of? If you wish to call it hypocrisy, feel free, but I can wholeheartedly assure you that people will leap to the defense of things they care about/prefer more than those they don't.

People will obviously engage more with topics that they care about than topics they don't care about. But you specifically raised a concern with what you perceived as the form of an argument. We can go back to antiquity to find good reason to think that one should consider the form of an argument apart from its particulars.

My objection to you is that you didn't submit anything more than post-modernist nonsense about how, since atheism makes metaphysical claims, it's just as unfounded as religion.

Huge ROFL. I've never said that. Just not even. Double ROFL in thinking that it's anything post-modernist. Instead, it's like, core classical philosophy. I've seen some kind of ridiculous misunderstandings/misaccusations about post-modernist philosophy, but this is a new one. Just comically off the mark.

If my concern is genuinely new to you, it's the problem of non sequitur if one wants to use complex terminology for no good reason. But yeah, sorry Ugg. We have developed thousands of years of knowledge in how reasoning works, and your argument simply isn't persuasive. It's hardly even an argument. It's just mood affiliation. Ugg's going to have to catch up with the times and figure out how to make a proper argument.

Thanks! I have what I need to know about your position.

Can one shut up and multiply their way to a problem of evil? Can you, like, multiply a quaternion by an elliptic curve, and it somehow pops out in there somewhere?

I'm here for a discussion where people actually read each other and respond in a way that is, uh, responsive to what they have said. That's kind of the purpose of this place. Ah, I do see that you're new here.