Evangelicals are hurting the GOP: The movement is now synonymous with bigotry and abject stupidityTarico is a poster child for Atheism. She demonstrates the ability to remain in the Atheist Void for her entire life, while creating an alternate reality of the purest and deepest hatred which she has based on her own set of facts. And of course she is not alone; she has many fans on the one hand, and always manages to find sources with the same level of bilious vitriol as herself for justification of her hate attacks.
Republicans have long sought the vote of Christian fundamentalists. This election cycle they may prove a liability
"But how much, really, is the Trump brand antithetical to the Evangelical brand? Humanist commentator James Croft argues that Trump is what Evangelicalism, in the hands of the Religious Right, has become:
“The religious right in America has always been a political philosophy based on bullying, pandering, projecting strength to hide fear and weakness, and proud, aggressive ignorance. That’s what it’s been about from the beginning. Trump has merely distilled those elements into a decoction so deadly that even some evangelicals are starting to recognize the venom they have injected into American culture.”
"Here is what the Evangelical brand looks like from the outside:
[Each of the following is expanded at the source; ed.].Evangelical means obsessed with sex."The Evangelical brand is toxic because of the stagnant priorities and behaviors of Evangelicals themselves. Desperate to safeguard an archaic set of social and theological agreements, Evangelical leaders bet that if they could secure political power they could force a halt to moral and spiritual evolution. They themselves wouldn’t have to grow and change.
Evangelical means arrogant.
Evangelical means fearful and bigoted.
Evangelical means indifferent to truth.
Evangelical means gullible and greedy.
Evangelical means ignorant
Evangelical means predatory.
Evangelical means mean.
"They also believed that they could get something for nothing, that they could sell their brand and keep it too. They couldn’t have been more wrong."
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Valerie Tarico Analyzes Evangelicals
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Do you notice how hard she's projecting? Replace every instance of 'evangelical' with 'atheist' and you get the clearest possible picture of how the Atheo-Left view the world and just what they are doing with it.
This woman is accusing evangelicals of these things - just because she says so. The Atheo-Left, on the other hand, is actually doing this stuff.
Lewis was right. The religion most likely to make you happy, while it lasts, is the worship of one's own self.
I love how the left always complains about the evangelicals obsession with sex. The left is constantly pushing the boundaries of decency, shoving sex in our faces at every turn and then declaring us "obsessed" with sex when we ask them to put it away. The left brings everything back to sex.
The Great Feminist Class War is specifically about sex/gender/domination. The homosexual revolution is specifically about sex. LGBTQHOFBTOU is purely sex. The attack on bakeries is purely sex. The attack on Catholic nuns is purely about sex.
Virtually all TV is about sex or has a large sexual content, rarely between married people tho. Unless it is about race, of course.
The reason the Left cares about sex, race and utopia is purely for the opportunity of domination as messiahs.
I had a similar reaction to Steven's when reading this article, but with a different interpretation. Her post reads like an Atheism Analyzed post; both make generalizations about groups of people. Neither is correct.
And yet, Hugo, you cannot deny anything written here, except to say that it doesn't ever apply to you, no matter what it is. Atheism starts with a VOID; it progresses purely by personal definitions of everything: reality; logic; lack of Truth except as personally dictated; lack of objective morality - meaning that whatever is personally derived to moral is therefore moral... for everyone.
Prove otherwise. You have been challenged a number of times to prove your general statements, but you do not. What you provide is more generalizations such as "it doesn't apply to me, because I'm different".
You are the one projecting here; you cannot prove anything about evolution using actual demonstrable scientific techniques, but claim truth for evolution and its "evidence" anyway. But you do not provide evidence, instead you provide opinions which are formed into stories which are not testable, which make no testable hypotheses for prediction of any effect of the phony general "causes" such as non-specific "genetic drift" of populations, and/or non-specific "mutations" which cause new features to emerge from single cells for no reason at all.
You reject these obvious rational defects (another thread) without having any rational backup... using just generalizations.
So prove one or both of these assertions you make: Nothing here applies to Atheists because: you; and evolution has to be Fact because: you.
Hugo is always good for a quirky smile, if not a laugh. "I agree with Steve, except for the part where I disagree with him, which is actually the whole thing. Because I said so."
Dang, Hugo, aren't you glad there's a fantasyland called the Internet where that sort of muddled thinking passes for wisdom? Or at least a coherent opinion? But you're at Atheism Analyzed, and the fantasy settings have been dialed back to 'Nope'. You're gonna need more than 'Words by Hugo' to get more than a chuckle here, bubba.
Pssh. Hugo, there have to be ANY number of websites out there that would better serve your ego. Why don't you be a dear and push off?
Stan,
You're right, this is not about me; this is about you. This blog, which you label as Atheism Analyzed, reflects your views of, well, anything. The blog covers politics, environment, evolution, immigration, Islam, homosexuality, abortion, etc, etc, etc... which are not directly related to god-related beliefs. Some Theists and Atheists agree on all of them; others disagree on all of them. And you agree with that too; you mentioned how some Atheists are anti-abortion recently.
This is your writing, your choices, your picks, your interpretation, your representations, your values, your observations. This blog is about you; it's not about Atheism, it's not about Atheists. Now, I am not saying it's a problem, but it's a fact. And this becomes particularly clear when you say things like that:
" Atheism starts with a VOID."
Because this is factual wrong. Even if are to assume that you are right and that Atheism is false, it's still false to say that Atheism starts with a void. And this is where it's hard to not get at least a bit personal, even if you say that this is not about me. Because this is about ALL Atheists, and I am an Atheist, so if I say that this does not apply to me nor any other Atheist, then I am sticking to the topic and I am pointing out a legitimate flaw.
We are all people who live right now in the same time in history on the same planet, and, for pretty much everyone who writes it afaik, actually in the same country. We ALL base our views on our real-life experiences, are influences by family, friends, colleagues, society in general, we ALL read stuff online, watch some videos, read books, go to places, etc... This is what makes us who we are, Theists and Atheists alike. So when you say that Atheism is based on a void, I see nothing but an insult on all Atheists; a counter-productive claim that means absolutely nothing. You also say:
"You have been challenged a number of times to prove your general statements, but you do not."
Why so theatrical; with a challenge? What does that even mean here in this comment box... I am bringing this up because our dear friend, Steven, just said this:
" Dang, Hugo, aren't you glad there's a fantasyland called the Internet where that sort of muddled thinking passes for wisdom? Or at least a coherent opinion? But you're at Atheism Analyzed, and the fantasy settings have been dialed back to 'Nope'. You're gonna need more than 'Words by Hugo' to get more than a chuckle here, bubba.
Pssh. Hugo, there have to be ANY number of websites out there that would better serve your ego. Why don't you be a dear and push off?"
So, same here... why do you have to be so theatrical about it? It's so ironic because this is the kind of comment that does work only online, but I am not making that kind of comments. I am simply replying to what I read here. There is nothing about my ego; nothing about me trying to support some fantasyland wisdom. I am exclusively replying to what I read here and pointing out what I think is wrong. It's just discussions... but you guys make it super confrontational for some reason.
Going back to 2 of the points at hand: Atheism and Evolution. I have been accused, and even challenged, regarding some generalizations I make. But everything I read here IS a generalization. First, because they are not directly related; some Atheists and some Theists accept the Theory of Evolution, hence it's not a requirement to be an Atheist. Second, evolution on its own is a well known fact and yes, that is a general statement, which I am willing to support all day long. Just saying that I make it general does not say why it's wrong. On many threads I have expressed precise ideas about the topic and explained in great details why some claims are facts, some calims are explanations and conversely, why Stan's claims are sometimes accurate, sometimes inaccurate and sometimes revealing misunderstandings. The threads found here contain such examples:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/02/judith-curry-and-real-issue-surrounding.html
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/01/magical-evolution.html?showComment=1455326467245&m=1#c906302534183366384
Stan, you replied on the above threads, but not the questions I was asking, which were:
- Retroviruses And Pseudogenes (The entire playlist on the Facts of Evolution / Natural Selection is worth watching.)
- Universality of the genetic code, including exceptions
- Empircal tests to confirm phylogenic inference (a lot more empirical studies are referenced on talkorigins.org)
- The Genetics of Vitamin C Loss in Vertebrates and how it propagated, as support for evolutionary theory
- Prediction and findings surrounding humans' chromosome 2 as evidence of mutation and common ancestry with other apes
( Links on the other thread:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/01/magical-evolution.html?showComment=1455326467245&m=1#c906302534183366384 )
They do not 'prove' evolution directly; they are specifics observations we make. The question is thus: do you accept these as empirical observations or do you think they are fake, or something else? Then, if you do accept them, the next question is: why is the theory of evolution not a good explanation?
This is a specific couple of questions on a specific topic. It's not vague generalization and not my opinion. These are verifiable facts and the most likely explanation as to why we observe these facts is the Theory of Evolution. What is wrong with that explanation?
And, let's not forget the other ongoing question: where do we draw the line when it comes to DNA testing? As seen here, your latest reply Stan was this, I think, when I asked "where do you draw the line? At the sub-species level, species, genus, kingdom... where and why?”"
The answer was:
"Species is defined at the breeding level; not my definition, it is the common understanding. All the rest is not firm, and changes continually. I.e. it is not fact, it is a human construct meant to categorize by certain characteristics. It is frequently changed due to violating the other characteristics which place creatures in more than one category, or actually uncategorizable.
species; A taxonomic category ranking justbelow a genus; includes individuals that display a high degree of mutual similarity AND that actually or potentially inbreed.
R.M. Atlas; Principles of Microbiology; Mosby Press; 1995; pg 846.
species; A group of organisms that resemble each other more than they resemble members of other groups and cannot be subdivided into two or more species. The precise definition of what constitutes a species differs depending on which species concept is applied. According to the biologicalspecies concept , a species comprises a group of individuals that can usually breed among themselves and produce fertile offspring.However, many other species concepts have been proposed, including the phylogenetic species concept and various typological species concepts...
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199204625.001.0001/acref-9780199204625-e-4144?rskey=B2W2s2&result=1
If you want a different definition for “species” then it is up to you to specify it. I have done all that I can to make this clear to you. "
This is not an answer to the point I am trying to explain, as I described here:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/02/of-course-they-do-and-of-course-they.html
But there were no answer here yet. Again, repeating more or the less the same questions, I said:
"Where and why do you draw the line then? You agree that members of a species can be identified by DNA; that's where you more-or-less draw the line on the other thread. But then the question is, why is DNA wrong in showing common ancestry for 2 closely related species? What about all feline? All canines? All mammals? There are not explanations for why they are not related; but there are explanations as to how they came to be like that: they evolved from common ancestors."
Finally, going back to Atheism itself, I also explained several things on another thread, but you chose to comment back on Evolution. Perhaps it was just because of a lack of time as you mentioned? Anyway, I thought I was being accused on not focusing on the topic of the blog, but the conversation was directed again towards Evolution. So you tell me; more on that topic, more on Atheism, more on both, or... just nothing, because you are tired of my attempts at polite discussions?
Also, if you are to blame me again for some general statement I am not proving, please point out to it, with a direct quote, and I will either explain its defense, or concede it was wrong of me to write it. No problem either way.
@Steven Satak
Steven, I would like to add something here. What would you do differently if we were in person?
Normally, I would not care, but since you brought it up, I'm just curious to know what does it mean, to you, to say that I can only write that way because I am online? That my muddled thinking can only be put down on the fantasy land of the Internet?
Honestly, I would say exactly the same things in person, and I am thus genuinely curious to know: what would you do differently in person? What would you tell me, if I were to say to you exactly the same words in person?
Or, perhaps you can explain why you think I should go somewhere else... From my end, what I see is that this blog is about Atheism. Since I dont believe in God, I appear to fit under that blog's topic. Hence, I am interested in what the author, Stan, has to say about the topic.
So, why are you here Steven?
It seems that the answer might be what I just said above: This blog is not really about atheism; it is more about what Stan has to say about the world. And you, Steven, agree with him.
Therefore, you don't think that I have my place here, because I don't agree, I don't fit with you, and Stan, and a few others who agree with you as well. Isn't it ironic? I'm the only atheist commenting on the blog called 'Atheism Analyzed', and I'm told this blog is not for me to comment on!
So why do you think I should comment on other blogs Steven?
This is the only blog I write on right now (besides the occasional post on 2 others) because it's small, so I get to interact directly with the author, and interesting, because of the topics covered. What's wrong with that?
--setn uisng my phnoe, pradon any spllenig msitake.
Before I answer Hugo, please note that I will be opening a side-bar discussion zone for both Atheism and for Evolution. That will place the discussion zone in a specific permanent spot for access at any time, and on-going discussions. That should be far better than having to find old posts to respond to.
Any other ideas would be gratefully accepted as well, and maybe even implemented, who knows...
”This blog is about you; it's not about Atheism, it's not about Atheists. Now, I am not saying it's a problem, but it's a fact. And this becomes particularly clear when you say things like that:
" Atheism starts with a VOID."
Because this is factual wrong. Even if are to assume that you are right and that Atheism is false, it's still false to say that Atheism starts with a void. And this is where it's hard to not get at least a bit personal, even if you say that this is not about me. Because this is about ALL Atheists, and I am an Atheist, so if I say that this does not apply to me nor any other Atheist, then I am sticking to the topic and I am pointing out a legitimate flaw.”
Your claim is rejected: the rejection is due to lack of objective evidence other than subjective internal rejection. You cannot legitimately claim “factual” assertions without providing relevant objective facts. You make universal claims for all Atheists which you cannot possibly either know or prove. Further, if Atheism doesn't start with a VOID, then it must start with content. If it starts with content, then you would have provided that content. Note that pure rejectionism is not content; it is an assault on content without reasons or reasoning. So it is quite clear that the Atheist VOID a) exists; b) applies universally to all Atheists; c) is without content, either of a moral nature or of an intellectual nature. Should you have objective evidence of a universal Atheist content existing instead of the universal VOID, then provide it for discussion. If you cannot do that, then admit it.
Here’s the objective evidence against your personal subjective internal rejection: There is no universal Atheist principle of morality which is endemic to, or emergent from, Atheism. Atheism being purely the exercise of abject rejectionism, there is an inevitable and inescapable intellectual and moral vacuum at the heart of Atheism. Assuming that a garden variety Atheist has adopted a moral code, it is NOT a moral code that emerged from any "principle of Atheism". That specific moral code is externally derived by that particular Atheist as compatible with that specific Atheist’s adopted worldview and self-image. There IS no other option, except to keep and maintain a moral vacuum.
You have provided nothing of any essence or consequence to prove otherwise, except to say over and over, “well, that doesn’t apply to me”. Of course it does; you actually have no choice in the matter, because Atheism gives you no guidance, zero, nada, none, regarding any ethic or morality. Again, Atheism is purely rejectionism; you have provided only a rejectionist, subjective reason for why you think it is not.
In fact, if you think that Atheism is actually NOT a VOID, then presumably you would have provided a link to the core Atheist CONTENT which exists at the CORE of Atheism, rather than the vacuum of pure rejectionism. Where are the Principles of Atheism: The Morality at the Core of Atheist Rejection? In fact, there are none.
It is not enough to claim that everyone who exists makes up their own principles; that is not true. It is not enough to say that no religion has moral authority: that is circular Atheism. It is not enough to claim that some Atheist (you?) has moral authority over everyone else: that devolves to Nietzschean force and diktat.
It is not enough to deny that you fit the description; it is obvious that no one gets any moral guidance from having become an Atheist.
So the next issue becomes obvious: Atheism affects ALL aspects of life and culture. That's why all aspects of life and culture are analyzable as being attacked by Atheists of various subjective strains. It is not enough to claim that some theists do the same thing as Atheists: Red Herring - does not make it correct, proper or right. It is not enough to say that some Atheists have adopted certain theist principles (moral and/or intellectual): That merely shows that the universally open-end of the Atheist VOID exists including into truncated co-option of theist principles, both honest and dishonest. (In our own community there are Atheists who invade small churches in order to take them over and use them for laundering their own financial misdeeds; they are frequently busted and sometimes jailed).
"We are all people who live right now in the same time in history on the same planet, and, for pretty much everyone who writes it afaik, actually in the same country. We ALL base our views on our real-life experiences, are influences by family, friends, colleagues, society in general, we ALL read stuff online, watch some videos, read books, go to places, etc... This is what makes us who we are, Theists and Atheists alike."
And that universal claim in the form of a truth statement does not apply to me; your universalization fails. There is no reason or reasoning which applies to your universal truth statement which can be considered objective evidence in support of that claim.
"So when you say that Atheism is based on a void, I see nothing but an insult on all Atheists; a counter-productive claim that means absolutely nothing."
It is too bad that you take offense to truth statements; perhaps you need a safe place. I have provided iron-clad reasons which you cannot defeat, or you would by using actual evidence rather than using yourself as an exception to a position which obviously includes you.
Here is a prime example of your deviational, rhetorical, non-dialectical responses:
""You have been challenged a number of times to prove your general statements, but you do not."
Why so theatrical; with a challenge? What does that even mean here in this comment box.."
You continually make universal claims, as shown above, and you make them as if they are First Principles, obvious by inspection: they are not. When challenged for proof, you ridicule the challenge rather than address it head on. That is pure rhetoric being used defensively in order not to have to provide any evidence to support your claims.
" It's just discussions... but you guys make it super confrontational for some reason."
You claim that this blog is not about Atheism at all - that it is purely about me. That is a charge of rampant egomania against me, a charge which reflects directly onto frequent readers here as well. But so long as the charge is made by an Atheist, it is not confrontational? You are indulging in Copious Bullshit now.
If we were in "just discussions", then you would provide some actual evidence for your Atheism and your universal truth claims. Then we would have something with intellectual meat which we could chew and discuss. But that is not the case.
If you want to discuss something, then provide us with the Universal Principles of Atheism - Moral and Intellectual. Then we can have a go at it.
Further examples of your dissembly:
"Going back to 2 of the points at hand: Atheism and Evolution. I have been accused, and even challenged, regarding some generalizations I make. But everything I read here IS a generalization. First, because they are not directly related; some Atheists and some Theists accept the Theory of Evolution, hence it's not a requirement to be an Atheist. Second, evolution on its own is a well known fact and yes, that is a general statement, which I am willing to support all day long."
You have provided NO PROOF in the form of actual science which is a) validated hypothetical prediction of the necessary outcome of evolutionary principles (i.e. empirical); b) which is anything other than hyperbolic extrapolation of opinion, rather than actual physical, objective evidence. You instead refer to "belief sets" as if belief is a criterion for truth. You have ignored time and again the necessity of Philosophical materialism and Determinism as necessary intellectual effects of Atheism, despite their irrational premises and formation of principles. You claim "fact" as a truth statement without any hope of providing non-subjective proof of that "truth statement".
You persist in these intellectual failures, over and over and over, and then claim that dissent to that is "theatrical" and all you want is "just discussions".
Well, that is not true, is it? You specifically do not want to provide any real, non-subjective, non-extrapolated, non-opinion, objective knowledge in support of your positions. You continually provide "belief sets" as your form of Appeal To Authority. So it is not true that you want to "discuss" anything at all, since you do not respond with any real, objective facts.
Now for evolution. I have answered this question dozens if not hundreds of times:
"They do not 'prove' evolution directly; they are specifics observations we make. The question is thus: do you accept these as empirical observations or do you think they are fake, or something else? Then, if you do accept them, the next question is: why is the theory of evolution not a good explanation? "
a) Correlation is not causation; b) jump to a) and repeat as necessary until fully internalized. Evolution does provide a causal theory: Mutation/Selection/Deep Time. That causal theory is not useful for any empirical-deductivo-hypothetico-objective validation/falsification. It cannot provide objective knowledge. It is constantly reformulated to encompass all possible new inputs, and is specifically designed to be unfalsifiable. It is therefore NOT Science; it is therefore, NOT objective knowledge; it is therefore religious in nature, specifically in the form of a scientistic cult, within which it may not be questioned, especially not the premises of Philosophical Materialism and Determinism (necessary for evolution, but logically false).
""Where and why do you draw the line then? You agree that members of a species can be identified by DNA; that's where you more-or-less draw the line on the other thread. But then the question is, why is DNA wrong in showing common ancestry for 2 closely related species? What about all feline? All canines? All mammals? There are not explanations for why they are not related; but there are explanations as to how they came to be like that: they evolved from common ancestors."
DNA doesn't describe what you seem to think it does. DNA lists the Amino acids which are used in a living creature. The form of the creature and many other characteristics of the creature are not contained in the DNA but occur as artifacts of the growth process, being contained (as far as is currently known, to my knowledge) in the structures themselves, as they occur during growth. I.e., DNA is not a full "blueprint" or instruction manual for a creature. It is much more complex than that. So maintaining that because animal A has similar Aminio acid listing as animal B, that they have a genetic ancestor is not a truth statement; it is an attempt to validate a theory by extrapolation rather than by direct replication of a validation process. Using DNA for non-replicable theories outside the actual content of DNA is an error in logic. (That goes for retro-viruses, etc. as well).
I've transferred the discussion of evolution to the Left side bar, where I answered Hugo.
Hello,
Stan said:
"please note that I will be opening a side-bar discussion zone for both Atheism and for Evolution."
Good to know; I am late to reply here anyway, so I'll just write a few comments and keep the actual interesting discussions in the side-bar zone for both Atheism and for Evolution.
"So the next issue becomes obvious: Atheism affects ALL aspects of life and culture."
There are some aspects of life and culture that relate to the belief in God, but there are also many that have nothing to do with it. 'Regardless' of their position on the existence of gods, humans can learn language, history, mathematics, reason and logic; they can interact with others, study for years, play sports, go on vacation, work, have children, enjoy time with their friends and family, etc, etc... A belief in God 'can' affect some of that, or none of that, but 'never' all of that: some of them cannot even possibly be affected by Atheism, such as the rules of a sport for example. Therefore, Atheism does not affect ALL aspects of life and culture. Your statement is demonstrably false.
"We are all people who live right now in the same time in history on the same planet, and, for pretty much everyone who writes it afaik, actually in the same country. We ALL base our views on our real-life experiences, are influences by family, friends, colleagues, society in general, we ALL read stuff online, watch some videos, read books, go to places, etc... This is what makes us who we are, Theists and Atheists alike."
Stan replied:
" And that universal claim in the form of a truth statement does not apply to me; your universalization fails"
Which part does not apply to you? I re-included the paragraph to confirm that everything does apply, for sure, and I stand by every word. Let me list them, with some details added, and you tell me where I was wrong:
1) We are all alive, today, same time in history...
2) ...on the same planet...
3) ...within the same country (you for sure; others, I don't know).
4) Our views (opinions) are based on real-life experiences...
5) ...and other things.
6) Our views are influenced by, in part, our family...
7) ...friends...
8) ...colleagues (or were, if retired)...
9) ...society in general.
10) We all read stuff online, which also influences us.
11) We also watch videos...
12) ...read books...
13) ...visit places.
14) This is what makes us who we are, along with everything else we experience in our lives that was not explicitly listed.
You said:
" "So when you say that Atheism is based on a void, I see nothing but an insult on all Atheists; a counter-productive claim that means absolutely nothing."
It is too bad that you take offense to truth statements; perhaps you need a safe place. "
First, I am not offended; I am telling you that you are wrong, and I am the one making a truth statement about your claims: they are nothing but insults. If someone tells me: "You're fat", it is an insult, no matter what I think of it.
Second, you are the one with a safe place: your blog. You control everything, you ban people, and you decide what gets published or not. I am not saying that's the wrong thing to do; you have good reasons for it, but let's not pretend here... I am the one who "jumps in the lion's den" when coming here to write.
Or, in other words, regarding that second point... there are TONS of things I do not tell you because I know it would piss you off. And I am not talking about insults, that would just be wrong, no, I am talking about simple statements about what you write, what you believe and what is happening here on your blog. I self-censor myself a lot, in order to keep your "safe space" the way you like it. It's your blog and I respect your right to run it the way you want. If I don't like it, I don't have to comment here... but it does not mean that everything you write is golden and must be respected.
Hello,
Stan said:
"please note that I will be opening a side-bar discussion zone for both Atheism and for Evolution."
Good to know; I am late to reply here anyway, so I'll just write a few comments and keep the actual interesting discussions in the side-bar zone for both Atheism and for Evolution.
"So the next issue becomes obvious: Atheism affects ALL aspects of life and culture."
There are some aspects of life and culture that relate to the belief in God, but there are also many that have nothing to do with it. 'Regardless' of their position on the existence of gods, humans can learn language, history, mathematics, reason and logic; they can interact with others, study for years, play sports, go on vacation, work, have children, enjoy time with their friends and family, etc, etc... A belief in God 'can' affect some of that, or none of that, but 'never' all of that: some of them cannot even possibly be affected by Atheism, such as the rules of a sport for example. Therefore, Atheism does not affect ALL aspects of life and culture. Your statement is demonstrably false.
"We are all people who live right now in the same time in history on the same planet, and, for pretty much everyone who writes it afaik, actually in the same country. We ALL base our views on our real-life experiences, are influences by family, friends, colleagues, society in general, we ALL read stuff online, watch some videos, read books, go to places, etc... This is what makes us who we are, Theists and Atheists alike."
Stan replied:
" And that universal claim in the form of a truth statement does not apply to me; your universalization fails"
Which part does not apply to you? I re-included the paragraph to confirm that everything does apply, for sure, and I stand by every word. Let me list them, with some details added, and you tell me where I was wrong:
1) We are all alive, today, same time in history...
2) ...on the same planet...
3) ...within the same country (you for sure; others, I don't know).
4) Our views (opinions) are based on real-life experiences...
5) ...and other things.
6) Our views are influenced by, in part, our family...
7) ...friends...
8) ...colleagues (or were, if retired)...
9) ...society in general.
10) We all read stuff online, which also influences us.
11) We also watch videos...
12) ...read books...
13) ...visit places.
14) This is what makes us who we are, along with everything else we experience in our lives that was not explicitly listed.
You said:
" "So when you say that Atheism is based on a void, I see nothing but an insult on all Atheists; a counter-productive claim that means absolutely nothing."
It is too bad that you take offense to truth statements; perhaps you need a safe place. "
First, I am not offended; I am telling you that you are wrong, and I am the one making a truth statement about your claims: they are nothing but insults. If someone tells me: "You're fat", it is an insult, no matter what I think of it.
Second, you are the one with a safe place: your blog. You control everything, you ban people, and you decide what gets published or not. I am not saying that's the wrong thing to do; you have good reasons for it, but let's not pretend here... I am the one who "jumps in the lion's den" when coming here to write.
Or, in other words, regarding that second point... there are TONS of things I do not tell you because I know it would piss you off. And I am not talking about insults, that would just be wrong, no, I am talking about simple statements about what you write, what you believe and what is happening here on your blog. I self-censor myself a lot, in order to keep your "safe space" the way you like it. It's your blog and I respect your right to run it the way you want. If I don't like it, I don't have to comment here... but it does not mean that everything you write is golden and must be respected.
Note: The above post was erased (by mistake?) and I am referencing it on the other thread so I decided to re-post it since I had the email notification...
Actually your short comment just above alerted me to look in the spam folder - I don't check that... well, ever. And there it was, along with the "above post" you referenced. So I liberated both and there they are.
Post a Comment