Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That was my first post on this thread, so you might have me confused with someone else. Also, I don't understand your question. But my point is just that if we're going to count one sense/feeling as veridical (telling us the truth about reality), why can't we/someone else count the opposite sense/feeling as veridical just the same?
is there another another vic? I see postings about dishonest, hubris, is a theist parenting to be an atheist?
because to claim that atheist and theism have basically the same mixtures of personalities is, by far and away, the most valid claim?
Not sure, but your reply to me seemed to be continuing a conversation, not beginning one. So I thought I'd make sure you realized I just started on this thread.
Quote:
I see postings about dishonest, hubris, is a theist parenting to be an atheist?
And I see dishonest postings about alleged skepticism that I'm an atheist, a tactic to discredit me on a personal level since no one can refute my arguments
Quote:
because to claim that atheist and theism have basically the same mixtures of personalities is, by far and away, the most valid claim?
I didn't make that claim, although I would agree that there are wise/foolish people on both sides of the fence.
Quote:
so I am confused.
Just stick with what I did say here, which had nothing to do with any of this other stuff.
And I see dishonest postings about alleged skepticism that I'm an atheist, a tactic to discredit me on a personal level since no one can refute my arguments
More straw. We are not being dishonest when we doubt if you are an atheist, we doubt because you use Christian arguments and behave like a Christian. To misrepresent that as a tactic is just dishonest.
And your arguments have been refuted. You have even refuted yourself at times.
More straw. We are not being dishonest when we doubt if you are an atheist, we doubt because you use Christian arguments and behave like a Christian. To misrepresent that as a tactic is just dishonest.
And your arguments have been refuted. You have even refuted yourself at times.
There's a word we're not supposed to call someone who fits the above description.
But that doesn't mean we can't recognize one when it reveals itself.
More straw. We are not being dishonest when we doubt if you are an atheist, we doubt because you use Christian arguments and behave like a Christian. To misrepresent that as a tactic is just dishonest.
And your arguments have been refuted. You have even refuted yourself at times.
If I may add to this.
There's nothing wrong with playing the role of devil's advocate. There have been times in my life when I did that, particularly when I was a vice-principal and during planning sessions felt that another side of the situation being discussed was not being considered or seriously considered. And under those circumstances, I would spend a reasonable amount of time and effort putting forth other viewpoints that were not my own. And I did so because I felt it was part of my professional responsibility.
This is why -- in my view -- it is logical for us to disbelieve that Vic is non-believer. I just read half-a-dozen fairly long posts from him in another thread. And he spends an inordinate amount of time and effort putting forth viewpoints that he says are not his. Day after day. Thread after thread.
Another tactic which he and others use incessantly is debating debating. I don't believe anyone here is scoring points with the panel...since there is no panel...on pointing out when someone is violating some technical rule about debates. No one here is going to change their bottom line thinking because of debating rules. I'm here trying to understand other people's thinking...I don't really care if they are using non-sequiturs or other faulty debating points, as long as I can understand what they are trying to communicate.
There is one other possibility here, however, and that is that Vic likes to argue for the sake of arguing. And I don't find that very admirable, either.
My bottom line is, with Vic, I personally don't want him to tell me what others think about an issue. I'd prefer he tell me what he thinks about an issue. If I want to learn about an opposing viewpoint that belongs to some group of people, I'd prefer to hear it from people who believe in that viewpoint...that will communicate for me the big picture more accurately.
More straw. We are not being dishonest when we doubt if you are an atheist,
So you say. But again, if you can dispute with me whether or not I believe in a god, I can dispute with you whether or not you're having these "doubts".
Quote:
we doubt because you use Christian arguments and behave like a Christian.
I don't recall ever making a positive argument for the Christian god And yeah, sooooo many Christians walk around saying "I don't believe in a god"
So you say. But again, if you can dispute with me whether or not I believe in a god, I can dispute with you whether or not you're having these "doubts".
I don't recall ever making a positive argument for the Christian god And yeah, sooooo many Christians walk around saying "I don't believe in a god"
You emanate dishonesty. And others are beginning to smell it.
More straw. We are not being dishonest when we doubt if you are an atheist, we doubt because you use Christian arguments and behave like a Christian. To misrepresent that as a tactic is just dishonest.
And your arguments have been refuted. You have even refuted yourself at times.
It is indeed a straw. He tries to make a big deal about what is a real puzzle, but a side -issue, and then impudently claims that it is a ploy of ours because we can't refute him. We can't make him admit that he's been refuted, that's true, but he has been. On every count, I think.
I won't labour the point to the browsers and lurkers, but these debates are never about 'getting the theist side to admit they are wrong', as they never do. It is about the best case.
Vic's best line has been our weakness; atheists saying "God does not exist" all the time. Normally the caveats would be understood 'so far as the weight of evidence goes'; "so far as we can tell", but it does give theism the perfect opportunity to present it as a claim to total knowledge on the existence (or not) of a god, which of course is untenable.
I have made the argument several times that if atheism HAD maintained this illogical position, we would have had to modify to the agnostic -based position that atheism actually holds. But, largely, the Other side don't listen.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-07-2019 at 10:07 PM..
Vic's best line has been our weakness; atheists saying "God does not exist" all the time. Normally the caveats would be understood 'so far as the weight of evidence goes';
No one should accept this. We don't accept it from the theists, and I'm not going to accept it from you. Until you can actually give some of this evidence, it's just posturing on your part.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yeah, sooooo many Christians walk around saying "I don't believe in a god" 
