Alex's view of Atheism

I'm not going to ignore you, because I'm so confused that you just parachuted in here and started taking shots at me. Did I do something to you in a previous life or something?

What's the problem here? You don't know me. You don't know my history with Skeptiiko. With Alex. So what is it? Are you venting or something?

Oh, come on. You can't have anything against potshots after throwing one yourself.
 
Oh, come on. You can't have anything against potshots after throwing one yourself.
I wasn't targeting anyone specifically. I was expressing frustration like I usually do, with zero grace.

My questions also weren't directed solely at Alex. I was genuinely curious what others think about his position. But you can't seriously think I'm out of line for taking someone to task who does a public podcast like skeptiko and runs a public forum? I've asked him similar questions on other parts of the forum and he doesn't seem interested in answering them. And before you say something snippy like "I wonder why??", I would ask if you sincerely think my questions are that outrageous. Am I totally misrepresenting Alex? Did I misquote him? Am I lying? Or spinning what he said in some nonsensical way? Are they rhetorical in a way like you claim is my only purpose for being here?

If this is all because I lost my cool for a minute and you took it as a window to explain how you always felt about me.....well. I don't really know how to feel about that.
 
Your questions for Alex were decent, but the presentation was ridiculously juvenile. And the fact that you posted it down here, far away from his eyes, made it seem like a cheap shot. That is all. I'm not sure why you seem so concerned about me pointing that you reap what you sow.

As for that last part, no, you're not that interesting to me. I just made an observation in exactly the same tone that you used.
 
Your questions for Alex were decent, but the presentation was ridiculously juvenile. And the fact that you posted it down here, far away from his eyes, made it seem like a cheap shot. That is all. I'm not sure why you seem so concerned about me pointing that you reap what you sow.

As for that last part, no, you're not that interesting to me. I just made an observation in exactly the same tone that you used.

Huh. That almost sounds like you're walking back what you said about me only posting things that are rhetorical? Good job totally backing down like a huge wuss.
 
Huh. That almost sounds like you're walking back what you said about me only posting things that are rhetorical? Good job totally backing down like a huge wuss.

No, that only applies to this thread. I noted from the get go that you surprised me by expressing something concise in this thread, despite the juvenile presentation.

All of the "does that have anything to do with God?" rhetoric questions remain a waste of bandwidth. For that matter, what exactly were you trying to accomplish by posting something so superficial while the other users duked it out on physics or philosophy?

Did you try to kindle any pre-existing bias by dragging the conversation to the tired theist vs. atheist rhetoric? Is it easier for you to debate from that old perspective? Or were the questions intended to influence lurkers and users unfamiliar with the forum by depicting the proponents as fundamentalists? Kindly illuminate us

Edit: syntax.
 
Last edited:
Bishop may have started the thread in this section so that everybody could participate. But I don't think Alex comes here.

Bishop, in light of what happened...do you think you would have been better served without any contribution from the Banned of Seven and by starting the thread in "Skeptiko Shows"?

Linda
 
Bishop may have started the thread in this section so that everybody could participate. But I don't think Alex comes here.

Bishop, in light of what happened...do you think you would have been better served without any contribution from the Banned of Seven and by starting the thread in "Skeptiko Shows"?

I already asked Alex what he meant by Atheists arriving at the right conclusions for the wrong reasons, to paraphrase, but he didn't seem interested in discussing it. At least not to my knowledge. And yes I started the thread here partly so that anyone could participate. But yeah, it would probably have been better to just do it in some other area of the forum. Oh well.
 
All of the "does that have anything to do with God?" rhetoric questions remain a waste of bandwidth.
Why are you so hung up on this? That's not the only thing I've ever written. Stop cherry picking my posts.

For that matter, what exactly were you trying to accomplish by posting something so superficial while the other users duked it out on physics or philosophy.
Only a couple people addressed the questions I posed or gave it any thought. Users "duking it out on physics or philosophy"? Oh, how noble. And what's your amazing contribution? Parachuting in here and being an ass? You're the best.

Did you try to kindle any pre-existing bias by dragging the conversation to the tired theist vs. atheist rhetoric? Is it easier for you to debate from that old perspective? Or were the questions intended to influence lurkers and users unfamiliar with the forum by depicting the proponents as fundamentalists? Kindly illuminate us

Are you thick? Are you aware that this is the forum for the show skeptiko by Alex Tsakiris? Or are you off planet? Are you aware that he talks about atheists nearly every podcast and their "agenda"? Did you miss the part where he asked forum members to help him arrange interviews with atheists?
 
Why are you so hung up on this? That's not the only thing I've ever written. Stop cherry picking my posts.

Only a couple people addressed the questions I posed or gave it any thought. Users "duking it out on physics or philosophy"? Oh, how noble. And what's your amazing contribution? Parachuting in here and being an ass? You're the best.

Are you thick? Are you aware that this is the forum for the show skeptiko by Alex Tsakiris? Or are you off planet? Are you aware that he talks about atheists nearly every podcast and their "agenda"? Did you miss the part where he asked forum members to help him arrange interviews with atheists?


Because your "contributions" during the last few months have only served to cheapen the discussion and are pointless. Yet, you somehow feel entitled to criticize other users.

I don't know, let's see... Actually trying to engage others in discussion since arriving? Instead of, you know, hiding in this section to spew some bile. Also, I don't recall starting with the epithets. I gave you an exit by being somewhat courteous in that post only to be called a "wuss", yet here you are still being an immature boy about it. Who is really being an "ass" here?

Sorry, but that is hardly an answer to the question. The issue is not discussing atheism, its about asking random rethoric questions in topics where others are actually trying to discuss things coherently.
 
Because your "contributions" during the last few months have only served to cheapen the discussion and are pointless. Yet, you somehow feel entitled to criticize other users.

I don't know, let's see... Actually trying to engage others in discussion since arriving? Instead of, you know, hiding in this section to spew some bile. Also, I don't recall starting with the epithets. I gave you an exit by being somewhat courteous in that post only to be called a "wuss", yet here you are still being an immature boy about it. Who is really being an "ass" here?

Sorry, but that is hardly an answer to the question. The issue is not discussing atheism, its about asking random rethoric questions in topics where others are actually trying to discuss things coherently.

You're a lunatic. I somehow feel entitled to criticize others? That is the MO of some posters here. Some posters don't even know any other way to communicate except in criticism. And you're getting all over my case for one damned post? Why don't you go give them a piece of your mind? Hypocrite.

And going back through my posts looking for "rhetoric" is just weird. But hey, keep the shots coming. I suppose you feel like this is an excellent way to spend your time.
 
You're a lunatic. I somehow feel entitled to criticize others? That is the MO of some posters here. Some posters don't even know any other way to communicate except in criticism. And you're getting all over my case for one damned post? Why don't you go give them a piece of your mind? Hypocrite.

And going back through my posts looking for "rhetoric" is just weird. But hey, keep the shots coming. I suppose you feel like this is an excellent way to spend your time.
Nope, you are not worth the time, especially now that you absolutedly fail to own up to your posts. BTW, I don't have to "go back" when they were the only thing coming from you when browsing the forum, especially the topics about the podcast shows. But, whatever. I will leave you alone so you can spend more time in denial about your own issues and allow the mudslinging to continue. Who am I, after all, to force you out of your juvenile streak?

Bye.
 
Nope, you are not worth the time, especially now that you absolutedly fail to own up to your posts. BTW, I don't have to "go back" when they were the only thing coming from you when browsing the forum, especially the topics about the podcast shows. But, whatever. I will leave you alone so you can spend more time in denial about your own issues and allow the mudslinging to continue. Who am I, after all, to force you out of your juvenile streak?

Bye.

Cool, see you later. Thanks for coming into a thread where you admitted that my questions were "decent" to tell me that I have nothing to say. The mudslinging ends with your exit.
 
DeFlowers may not be aware that some posters are not permitted to post in other sub forums. I suspect some feel those sub forums are a little sterile and too heavily modded, and stay mostly here (where the fun is ;))

Horses for courses, ay?

Group hug?
 
DeFlowers may not be aware that some posters are not permitted to post in other sub forums. I suspect some feel those sub forums are a little sterile and too heavily modded, and stay mostly here (where the fun is ;))

Horses for courses, ay?

Group hug?

The "critical discussions between proponents and skeptics" section always seemed like the most active to me. I could be wrong about that. And skeptiko has always pitted the two worldviews against one another to some interesting results.

Who are the banned 7 btw?
 
What was the negative part? I was just asking that Alex clarify what he meant by how Atheists fall on the right side of the fence on social issues for "the wrong reasons". Is that focusing on something negative? I think it's a perfectly fair question.

Nevermind, bishop, I was simply commenting on what I perceived to be a lack of balance, but I understand that you were coming yourself from a perception of lack of balance, so it's cool. Yes, it's a perfectly fair question. But perhaps, if you want an answer, you ought to PM Alex to make sure he's aware of this thread and especially your OP.

Are you a theist? If so, and if you're comfortable with it, can you describe your personal position?

Gosh, how many words do I get? I'll try to keep it brief. I accept the evidence in the testimony of those who have experienced NDEs and other visionary type experiences (not just in the modern age but throughout history, and throughout all cultures), which all points towards a supremely good spiritual force/being, which I think it's reasonable to refer to as "God". Personally, my spiritual experiences have almost uniformly been with the wicked, and not with the good, so I have come to this in a slightly different way, via an inference: given that (as I have experienced it) spiritual evil exists, and given too that we are not all utterly beholden to it, it is most likely that a protective spiritual force for good exists, and is supreme in a personal God. It's not a perfect deductive inference, but it is at least reasonable and compatible with the (positive) spiritual experiences of others, so I go with it.

The main problem for me is the problem of evil. I have never seen a theodicy that seems plausible to me, and so I am drawn to dualism: that God is the supreme good and creative force, but that He (apologies to those who are uncomfortable with gendered, particularly masculine, language for God, it simply is more comfortable for me) is not responsible for, and nor can He summarily dismiss, evil, which intrudes into His creation. Sometimes I toy with the idea of the One deliberately splitting into a duality of good/evil for evolutionary purposes, but I'm not entirely satisfied with that idea because the costs seem to outweigh the benefits.

OK, hopefully that's enough without rabbiting on for too long.

Really? And the proponents are somehow immune to doing this?

The difference to me is that whereas the proponents have the evidence on their side (NDEs with veridical perceptions, Ganzfeld and other psi experiments, etc etc etc), the materialists are in denial of the evidence.

It's to be expected that you will think this way, though. It's a well-worn thought-pattern known as "attribution bias" (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias).

One way to demonstrate creativity may be to show that you can break free of cognitive biases and errors.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

Thanks, Linda. I don't have the patience to read through those links right now, but I get the gist of them. In any case, I defend my "attribution". I noted that the narratives being spun aren't for the benefit of humanity, and that might be seen as implying malevolent intent, and I do not shy away from that - I unapologetically recognise the existence of spiritual evil in this world, an evil which impinges on human decision making, and I am not shy to suggest that certain aggressively-promoted worldviews might very well be fostered by immaterial forces - forces which would be very happy for humanity to descend into spiritual ignorance. I am not, however, saying that this is necessarily conscious, wilful, welcome or even recognised on the part of the humans involved, although in certain cases it very well may be.

@Arouet,

I don't think it would be productive to respond in detail to your post. As I wrote in my last post, my position doesn't hinge on whether or not I've correctly understood the definition of "disbelief", and I'm open to the possibility that I haven't. I'll simply sum up with this and leave it there:

If Mike Smith has never had a thought about metaphysics in his life, and one day thinks to himself, "Hmm, now that I think about it, I'm not really sure about this whole 'God' idea", and looks up "atheist" in the dictionary, and sees "lack of belief", and decides, "Well, you know what, maybe I'm an atheist?", and when I ask him says, "Yeah, I think I'm an atheist because I lack a belief in God", then I don't think there's any game-playing involved. I think he's using an overly broad definition of "atheist", and I will tell him so, but he's not being manipulative, he's just going with what he knows.

On the other hand, if Mary Sue is constantly promoting atheism online, advocating for it in forum and blog posts, decrying organised religion and willing for "an age of reason" where the church is irrelevant and we recognise that what is often known as spirituality is in fact "woo", and then, when asked in what sense she is an atheist, replies, "Oh, simply that I lack belief in God", and when asked how she defends her atheism, replies that she has no need to defend it, because the burden of proof lies with theists, then I think there is a game being played; a manipulation, and that is what I take exception to, which is basically the point I've been trying to make from the start of my involvement in this thread, even if we've gotten distracted into other sub-issues.

And of course there are all sorts of people and motivations in between Mike and Mary, I'm simply giving the more extreme examples to give you a sense of what I mean by "game-playing".
 
@Arouet,

I don't think it would be productive to respond in detail to your post. As I wrote in my last post, my position doesn't hinge on whether or not I've correctly understood the definition of "disbelief", and I'm open to the possibility that I haven't. I'll simply sum up with this and leave it there:

If Mike Smith has never had a thought about metaphysics in his life, and one day thinks to himself, "Hmm, now that I think about it, I'm not really sure about this whole 'God' idea", and looks up "atheist" in the dictionary, and sees "lack of belief", and decides, "Well, you know what, maybe I'm an atheist?", and when I ask him says, "Yeah, I think I'm an atheist because I lack a belief in God", then I don't think there's any game-playing involved. I think he's using an overly broad definition of "atheist", and I will tell him so, but he's not being manipulative, he's just going with what he knows.

On the other hand, if Mary Sue is constantly promoting atheism online, advocating for it in forum and blog posts, decrying organised religion and willing for "an age of reason" where the church is irrelevant and we recognise that what is often known as spirituality is in fact "woo", and then, when asked in what sense she is an atheist, replies, "Oh, simply that I lack belief in God", and when asked how she defends her atheism, replies that she has no need to defend it, because the burden of proof lies with theists, then I think there is a game being played; a manipulation, and that is what I take exception to, which is basically the point I've been trying to make from the start of my involvement in this thread, even if we've gotten distracted into other sub-issues.

And of course there are all sorts of people and motivations in between Mike and Mary, I'm simply giving the more extreme examples to give you a sense of what I mean by "game-playing".

So if I can summarise, what you seem to be saying is: not all atheists think alike and context matters.

If that's the case you won't find any disagreement from me! ;)
 
Gosh, how many words do I get? I'll try to keep it brief. I accept the evidence in the testimony of those who have experienced NDEs and other visionary type experiences (not just in the modern age but throughout history, and throughout all cultures), which all points towards a supremely good spiritual force/being, which I think it's reasonable to refer to as "God". Personally, my spiritual experiences have almost uniformly been with the wicked, and not with the good, so I have come to this in a slightly different way, via an inference: given that (as I have experienced it) spiritual evil exists, and given too that we are not all utterly beholden to it, it is most likely that a protective spiritual force for good exists, and is supreme in a personal God. It's not a perfect deductive inference, but it is at least reasonable and compatible with the (positive) spiritual experiences of others, so I go with it.

The main problem for me is the problem of evil. I have never seen a theodicy that seems plausible to me, and so I am drawn to dualism: that God is the supreme good and creative force, but that He (apologies to those who are uncomfortable with gendered, particularly masculine, language for God, it simply is more comfortable for me) is not responsible for, and nor can He summarily dismiss, evil, which intrudes into His creation. Sometimes I toy with the idea of the One deliberately splitting into a duality of good/evil for evolutionary purposes, but I'm not entirely satisfied with that idea because the costs seem to outweigh the benefits.

OK, hopefully that's enough without rabbiting on for too long.

On rabbiting on for too long, quite the opposite! Thanks for this entry and for so openly sharing these views. There's quite a bit to digest here, and my initial instinct is that we may actually agree on more than we might expect.
 
So if I can summarise, what you seem to be saying is: not all atheists think alike and context matters.

If that's the case you won't find any disagreement from me! ;)
Nor from me. I would agree that being an atheist is one thing, while being a more-or-less rabid anti-religionist is another.

~~ Paul
 
Back
Top