Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Ol' Perce (presumably deliberately) misdescribes two issues he doesn't like but can't rebut, and just ignores the rest. For someone who claims to "grasp logic" the near-total reliance on straw men and avoidance is remarkable.     

While of course demonstrating that you guys hadn't thought either one out clearly. I predict a great falling out between Myers and New atheism........Oh, it's happened already.

[bluehillside Retd.]

While of course demonstrating that you guys hadn't thought either one out clearly.

In which Percy fails to grasp that he's the one who hasn't thought things through (at all it seems), but seeks to accuse others of his own failings.

Again from Wiki re Dunning-Kruger:

"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence."

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

Uncannily accurate.


 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Percy fails to grasp that he's the one who hasn't thought things through (at all it seems), but seeks to accuse others of his own failings.

Again from Wiki re Dunning-Kruger:

"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence."

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

Uncannily accurate.

Dunning Kruger
Dunning Kruger
Myers Myers
Myers Myers
Fetch the engine
Fetch the engine

Dunning Kruger
Dunning Kruger
Myers Myers
Myers Myers
Pour on water
Pour on water.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Dunning Kruger
Dunning Kruger...

"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence."

QED

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence."

QED

Dunning Kruger went to the trouble of staging scientific tests which established some kind of behaviour. The testing of subjects was carefully done so that each person could be properly assessed. And now Hillside and the Wee wizards have reduced this to a playground taunt.An ad hominem. Is there nothing the New Atheist philistineswnt disrespect?

As for courtiers reply I'm afraid it does if you follow the logic give licence for anyone to talk about whatever they no nothing about and be justified.

Epic fail on both counts.

[Stranger]

As for courtiers reply I'm afraid it does if you follow the logic give licence for anyone to talk about whatever they no nothing about and be justified.

No. From the wiki article:

"A key element of a courtier's reply, which distinguishes it from an otherwise valid response that incidentally points out the critic's lack of established authority on the topic, is that the respondent never shows how the work of these overlooked experts invalidates the arguments that were advanced by the critic."

[Outrider]

Hitler and the Nazis followed Neitszchian principles not Catholic.

Really?  Did Nietzsche (1844-1900) feature heavily in, for instance, the 4th Lateran Conference's decision that Jews should have to wear special markings to identify them in 1215? Was he pivotal in the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain?  The far-right, including the Nazis, undoubtedly feel an affinity for some elements of Nietszche, but Christian anti-Semitism long predates his involvement.

Of course once you ditch God there is just materialism left and obviously you begin to think that you leave morality behind.

On the contrary, once you ditch God and have to justify your own actions rather than cleaving the bronze-age tribalism dressed up as divine wisdom, you can finally start to actually be an active participant in moral decisions.

It's interesting that you have conceded much in our speculations especially an understanding of the underived and that now you are attempting a moral argument since that is where I wanted to go. I'm not sure that arguing morality as if it were an absolute and then saying at the end of the day ''well, it's not really real'' is necessary that convincing though.

Who is arguing that morality is absolute?  It doesn't take long to look around the world and see that morality is a product of culture.

I still cannot see how you are deriving totalitarianism from Christ and the New Testament.

You have an absolute authority in the form of an all-knowing god who conveniently only reveals his wisdom through particular individuals who are elevated to a near-divine status as unquestionable prophets... what more do you need for totalitarianism?

Marxism has revolution and atheism and antireligion in it's very DNA as does Neitszchism.

Marxism has revolution at its foundation, but atheism is an aspiration of Marx not a tool - Lenin introduced it as a tool for political gain.  Neitszche's atheism wasn't an area that the Nazis particularly focussed on, and certainly was at odds with the Christianity that permeate the German military and civilian life at the time.

Fucking hell....... So if say, an atheist academic got caught say holding someone's breast, that wouldn't be exploitation of his academic position or his opportunity as an atheist celebrity of great zeal, that would be down to his ancestral religious heritage.

Of course it would be in part all of those things - what it wouldn't be is a result of his atheism, or anyone else's atheism in general.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. From the wiki article:

"A key element of a courtier's reply, which distinguishes it from an otherwise valid response that incidentally points out the critic's lack of established authority on the topic, is that the respondent never shows how the work of these overlooked experts invalidates the arguments that were advanced by the critic."

But there is no argument to it because the claim is that there is nothing to it. Now you know the rules, those who make the claim need to validate it. It's not up to me to invalidate the claim that there is nothing to it.

So a claim that there is nothing to it has been made by a public atheist as well as an attempt to positively avoid burden of proof by means of the half baked courtiers reply.

There may be a valid courtiers reply but it certainly cannot be used to defend Dawkins here.

Epic fail which undermines any claim that atheists make no claim.
Being on the Religion ethics board just gets better and better.

[Stranger]

But there is no argument to it because the claim is that there is nothing to it. Now you know the rules, those who make the claim need to validate it. It's not up to me to invalidate the claim that there is nothing to it.

You'll have to be specific if you want to discuss a fallacy. For example, I can make a simple statement of fact: I have never seen an argument for any god(s) that wasn't obviously flawed. That's an observation, not a claim that no such arguments exist. You can counter it by providing an argument that doesn't have any obvious flaws, but just saying that I don't know enough theology would be a courtier's reply fallacy, unless you could explain exactly how knowing more about theology would make the obvious flaws go away.

There may be a valid courtiers reply but it certainly cannot be used to defend Dawkins here.

I'm not interested in defending your boyfriend.

[jeremyp]

Oh, fuck.....just when I thought it was safe to go back on the water............ It was tried once with Elvis Presley, didn't work that time.

How do you know? Perhaps in 2,000 years time people will be arguing that Presley was resurrected and that there were eye witness accounts of the resurrected Presley.

[Outrider]

How do you know? Perhaps in 2,000 years time people will be arguing that Presley was resurrected and that there were eye witness accounts of the resurrected Presley.

2,000 years?  It turns out there's a guy works down the chip shop....

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really?  Did Nietzsche (1844-1900) feature heavily in, for instance, the 4th Lateran Conference's decision that Jews should have to wear special markings to identify them in 1215? Was he pivotal in the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain?  The far-right, including the Nazis, undoubtedly feel an affinity for some elements of Nietszche, but Christian anti-Semitism long predates his involvement.

Two things here ..........have you forgiven the germans for what they did 1932-1945? If so what is the special problem with 1215 AD, secondly what happened in 32-45 was nazi antisemitism along racial lines. Secondly If Neitszche wasn't there in 1215 I doubt Jesus and the apostles were there either. In fact they would have not been as welcome as Neitszche if at all. So out of Jesus and the Apostles and the 4th Lateran council which do you think we should take  our christianity from?

On the contrary, once you ditch God and have to justify your own actions rather than cleaving the bronze-age tribalism dressed up as divine wisdom, you can finally start to actually be an active participant in moral decisions.

Who do you think you have to justify your actions to that I don't? If I belonged to one of the commandment religions I might agree that I dont need to participate in making moral decisions although we have societal rules that hold the same place as commandments. But christianity is not clear cut like that being a relationship and so yes I do have to make moral decisions.

The uncomfortable truth is that without God the final arbiter is "Not getting caught"

Who is arguing that morality is absolute?  It doesn't take long to look around the world and see that morality is a product of culture.

You said you make moral decisions yourself. Are you now contradicting yourself .You cannot claim that you are making moral decisions and I'm not a nd then say yours are down to culture. You seem confused here.

You have an absolute authority in the form of an all-knowing god who conveniently only reveals his wisdom through particular individuals who are elevated to a near-divine status as unquestionable prophets... what more do you need for totalitarianism?

That is a caricature of christianity. Christianity ushers in the age of the holy spirit the mutual body of christ and the widespread use of different gifts by all Christians. Not at all like the Old testament. What an example of how ignorance of what you speak leads quickly to false accusation.

Marxism has revolution at its foundation, but atheism is an aspiration of Marx not a tool - Lenin introduced it as a tool for political gain.  Neitszche's atheism wasn't an area that the Nazis particularly focussed on, and certainly was at odds with the Christianity that permeate the German military and civilian life at the time.

but not the Nazi party. MARXISM MUCH LIKE ATHEISM. Humanity marches forward religion disappears....then utopia.

[Outrider]

Two things here ..........have you forgiven the germans for what they did 1932-1945? If so what is the special problem with 1215 AD, secondly what happened in 32-45 was nazi antisemitism along racial lines.

The 'special problem' with 1215 is how much that example of Christian anti-Semitism predates the Nietszche you were trying to blame the worst example of Christian anti-Semitism in history upon.

Secondly If Neitszche wasn't there in 1215 I doubt Jesus and the apostles were there either.

But I'm pretty sure it was pretty 'Christian-heavy' that 4th Lateran Conference.  Just a guess, I stand to be corrected...

In fact they would have not been as welcome as Neitszche if at all.

Well, they were Jews, after all...

So out of Jesus and the Apostles and the 4th Lateran council which do you think we should take  our christianity from?

As a non-Christian it doesn't really matter which I think should be involved; what's significant is what have Christians used their Christianity to achieve and to espouse.

Who do you think you have to justify your actions to that I don't?

Me, and so far as it relates to our garden, Mrs. O.

If I belonged to one of the commandment religions I might agree that I dont need to participate in making moral decisions although we have societal rules that hold the same place as commandments. But christianity is not clear cut like that being a relationship and so yes I do have to make moral decisions.

No True Scotsman... nice.  And how, as an outsider, do I objectively decree which is the 'right' Christianity and which the 'wrong'?

The uncomfortable truth is that without God the final arbiter is "Not getting caught"

Whereas with God it appears to be that the final arbiter is whether you're sorry afterwards, depending on your sect.

You said you make moral decisions yourself. Are you now contradicting yourself .You cannot claim that you are making moral decisions and I'm not a nd then say yours are down to culture.
 You seem confused here.

We're making decisions about moral issues - I speak of Christians in general, and within any large group there is going to be a degree of variation.  I don't dispute that there are some Christians - arguably even a lot of Christians, and similarly Jews and Muslims - who would make decisions that largely conform to the moral standards I appreciate, and would claim to do so motivated by their religion.  However, there are also some that would make moral judgements completely antithetical to those, based on their religious motivation as well - and they'd think they were doing good, and that they had a divine mandate to do it.

I'm not confused, but I'm negotiating innumerable cults and sects and denominations of at least three major iterations of the same nonsense and its interactions with various cultures around the world and history and trying to identify broad trends and historical patterns; I know you'd like me to be a raging black-and-white foaming at the mouth anti-theist because it would make your arguments easy, but reality is more nuanced than that.

That is a caricature of christianity.

No, it's the worst examples from my perspective, but it's very, very real.  Just look at the Evangelical churches in the US putting their weight behind Trump because they can see that he's enacting political decisions that conform to the spiteful, white-supremacist, American exceptionalist viewpoint that expressly and outgrowth of their religious conviction: they aren't just complying with God's will, God expressly founded the US as a white, Christian nation and it's their religious duty to try to maintain that in the face of gays, liberals, feminists, ethnics and foreigners.

Even you want a less extreme but more widespread example, look a the number of Christians around the world, again led in a large part by US origins, who campaign to keep healthcare out of the reach of the poor; some because of the 'nobility of suffering' a la Mother Theresa, some because of prosperity gospel nonsense - religious motivation that expressly seems to against what I guess you (or even I, as an outsider) would see as a reasonable interpretation of the depiction of Jesus in the New Testament.

Christianity ushers in the age of the holy spirit the mutual body of christ and the widespread use of different gifts by all Christians.

That's your take on it.  That's, broadly, what I think most Anglicans see it as, as far as I can tell.  That's not necessarily what Christianity as a whole, or any given individual Christian thinks.

Not at all like the Old testament.

Except for the hordes of fire and brimstone Christians who see that passage about Jesus coming not to change the laws but the reinforce them, or whatnot, which puts all that straight back on the table for them.

What an example of how ignorance of what you speak leads quickly to false accusation. but not the Nazi party. MARXISM MUCH LIKE ATHEISM.

If it's so ignorant, point out where it's wrong.

Humanity marches forward religion disappears....then utopia.

I think you've missed a couple of steps, and it's more aspiration than expectation, but it's certainly an excerpt of a plan.

O.
[/quote]

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

But there is no argument to…

etc

As Stranger noted, there’s little point in explaining why someone who fits the D-K profile fits the D-K profile because he lacks the ability to understand why he fits the D-K profile. 

For what it’s worth though, here it is again:

“In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.”

So let’s see shall we:

- No known coherent beliefs. Very occasional forays into what you do believe are incomprehensible, inconsistent and aligned to no known formalised faith tradition

- No cogent arguments to justify whatever it is you do believe in

- Consistent reliance on fallacious thinking when occasional arguments are attempted, and the mis-identification of fallacies in the arguments of others 

- Near pathological refusal ever to engage with the problem when your fallacies are explained clearly and rationally to you. Standard operating procedure is to ignore the explanation or to lie about it (straw man)

- Once the straw man is expressed just repeat it over and over again no matter how many times and ways it's falsified (Courtier’s reply etc)

- References by name to various writers, but no indication of having read (let alone understood) any of them

- Fondness for (usually scatological) ad homs and abuse so as to avoid addressing the problems you give yourself

- Demonisation of people whose writing disagrees with you, often accompanied with guilt by association (“X has done a bad thing. X is an atheist. Therefore atheism a bad thing”)   

- Poor literacy and inability to frame cogent thoughts, aligned with emotional juvenilia ("No, you are...") 

- Never attempting to defend your lies when they’re identified (with citations) – just move on to the next diversion or lie in the hope that people bite

And – and here’s the slam dunk – having consistently done all that (and more) you then trumpet your “victory” over people way above your intellectual pay grade who calmly, rationally and generously take the time to dismantle your efforts point-by-point.

It’s not just that you fit the profile for D-K: you’re a poster boy for it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,
 etc

As Stranger noted, there’s little point in explaining why someone who fits the D-K profile fits the D-K profile because he lacks the ability to understand why he fits the D-K profile. 

I don't recall getting the assessment forms or a D-K profiling form or a visit from the district psychologist but let me get my diary.............wait, it did happen......3rd July 2014, Inside Hillside's head.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The 'special problem' with 1215 is how much that example of Christian anti-Semitism predates the Nietszche you were trying to blame the worst example of Christian anti-Semitism in history upon.

Nazi antisemitism.

Since I take my cue from Jesus and the apostles. I take no more blame for what you reckon proceeds from the 4th Lateran council than you do for the atheist megaatrocities of the 20th century. Certainly you used the same kind of argument to excuse atheism but to less effect since atheism and revolution are at the heart of marxism . If you insist I am in the dock then you are right there with me.

Since the pope has publicly repented the sins of the 4th lateran council I wait eagerly for Ricky Gervais to do the same on behalf of celebrity atheists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And – and here’s the slam dunk – having consistently done all that (and more) you then trumpet your “victory” over people way above your intellectual pay grade who calmly, rationally and generously take the time to dismantle your efforts point-by-point.

Don't know what you're talking about......I don't even play the trumpet! Ha Ha Ha

Vlad shoots, He scores, shirt over head, victory lap of honour, he leaves the ''intellectual''* for dust.
.
* Turdpolisher

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

I don't recall getting the assessment forms or a D-K profiling form or a visit from the district psychologist but let me get my diary.............wait, it did happen......3rd July 2014, Inside Hillside's head.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias, not a clinical diagnosis. I described your behaviours – those behaviours are indicative of that bias. 

Predictably you did just what I said you do: “Standard operating procedure is to ignore the explanation or to lie about it (straw man)”.

QED

[Outrider]

Nazi antisemitism.

German anti-Semitism. Nazi anti-Semitism.  They're both Christian influenced at the very least, arguably entirely Christian.  The Nazis tried to amalgamate the Protestant German churches into a single 'people's church'.

Since I take my cue from Jesus and the apostles. I take no more blame for what you reckon proceeds from the 4th Lateran council than you do for the atheist megaatrocities of the 20th century.

What 'atheist mega-atrocities'?  Do you mean the atrocities committed by the likes of Mao, Stalin and Pot which derived from their political ambitions and were entirely incidental to their atheism? I don't blame you for the atrocities of, say, the Christians in Nazi-era Germany, but modern religious adherents are responsible for giving the veneer of acceptability to exactly the sort of ideas that inspire these sorts of activities, and which are used to justify them.

Since the pope has publicly repented the sins of the 4th lateran council I wait eagerly for Ricky Gervais to do the same on behalf of celebrity atheists.

What do 'celebrity atheists' have to apologise for?  How about the Pope apologies for the institutionalised homophobia that leads to his Church standing in opposition to equal marriage propositions around the world?  How about the Pope apologise for the millions of women around the world restricted to domestic roles because of his Church's pushing its stance on contraception around the world?  Apologies for centuries old unjustifiable discrimination would mean a little bit more of it weren't done against a backdrop of current unjustifiable discrimination.

O.

[Enki]

I keep reading Vlad's new name as 'The Suppository of Norman Wisdom' ! 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Me:

“And – and here’s the slam dunk – having consistently done all that (and more) you then trumpet your “victory” over people way above your intellectual pay grade who calmly, rationally and generously take the time to dismantle your efforts point-by-point.”

It’s not just that you fit the profile for D-K: you’re a poster boy for it.”

You:

Don't know what you're talking about......I don't even play the trumpet! Ha Ha Ha

Vlad shoots, He scores, shirt over head, victory lap of honour, he leaves the ''intellectual''* for dust.
.
* Turdpolisher

Uncanny right? QED (again)

As Ippy would say – my deepest sympathies

[Walt Zingmatilder]

German anti-Semitism. Nazi anti-Semitism.  They're both Christian influenced at the very least, arguably entirely Christian.

Go on then ''name that tune.'' Argue it.

What 'atheist mega-atrocities'?  Do you mean the atrocities committed by the likes of Mao, Stalin and Pot which derived from their political ambitions and were entirely incidental to their atheism?

And the same argument could be made for Christianity.......especially Christianity but not so much atheism I feel.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

Me:

“And – and here’s the slam dunk – having consistently done all that (and more) you then trumpet your “victory” over people way above your intellectual pay grade who calmly, rationally and generously take the time to dismantle your efforts point-by-point.”

It’s not just that you fit the profile for D-K: you’re a poster boy for it.”

You:

Uncanny right? QED (again)

As Ippy would say – my deepest sympathies

Whoosh........

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Whoosh........

That's another irony meter reduced to a pile of cogs and springs.   

[Outrider]

Argue it.

The National Socialist Party's 1920 programme - endorses what it calls 'Positive Christianity' as an effective counter to the 'Jewish materialistic spirit'.

In 1922, after the Bavarian Prime Minister said that his position as both a man and a Christian prevented him from being an anti-Semite, Hitler's response was "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."  He followed that up in 1928 in response to criticism (from the Catholic Church, I believe) that "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement is Christian."

You might suggest - and others certainly have - that Hitler's own faith was questionable, and that he was using the faith to motivate the German people.  That may be the case, but the subsequent rise of Nazism and the Holocaust that follows it shows that it worked.  Hitler, perhaps his other leaders, may have been less devout than they seemed, may even have not believed at all, but the religion they espoused in part motivated the German people that followed them.

And the same argument could be made for Christianity.......especially Christianity but not so much atheism I feel.

Can it?  Can you show that, for instance, the atrocities committed by both sides during the Crusades were not motivated in any way by the respective religious stances of the participants?  THe Japanese entry into World War II was so divorced from their Shintoism that the Allies didn't decide to deliberately separate Church and State in 1945 to head off moves for retribution?  The "European Wars of Religion" weren't about religion?  The hostilities around the division of India in the late 1940s weren't in any way religiously motivated?

O.