[extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline

[Samantha Atkins]

On Mar 7, 2005, at 5:14 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> I was trying to gently call you on acting like a jerk.  Apparently my
>> efforts are misplaced as you immediately dive into self-justification
>> and further attacks.
>
> Nothing I said in that post was an attack. For you to believe it was
> demonstrates the immediate lack of rationality of your position.

Garbage.  You directly accused atheists of being irrational and 
hidebound and of being hypocritically intolerant of a lot of purported 
political positions of some theists as well.  Exactly how are such 
broadsides not attacks?
>


>>
>> There is nothing invalid about "I do not believe XXX due to
>> insufficient evidence, etc."  You do not have the high ground simply
>> for making up some way XXX could maybe, sort of be so and then saying
>> that since you have no way (mostly by construction) of proving the
>> negative that the imagined scenario is not the case that you most say
>> you have no way of knowing whether XXX is the case and therefore you
>> will only say that you don't know and ride the fence.
>
> The problem you have is that the real situation is very much a maybe
> and you aren't willing to admit it because you have an emotional
> investment in clinging to your committed position. I ride the fence
> because the horse race ain't finished yet. Your horse is in second
> place at this point but you insist there is no other horse in the race.

In you opinion he situation is a maybe of sufficient probability to 
justify fence sitting.  but since you have not proved your opinion it 
is hardly legitimate to cast aspersions on those with a different 
opinion.   I don't have a horse and I would thank you to stick to the 
subject.

>
>> In my opinion
>> this is a refusal to admit that by standards you apply elsewhere in
>> your life you do not believe there is a god and are not in the least
>> justified to equivocate.  In my opinion because your position is
>> shaky you lash out against those that simply say they do not believe
>> this XXX is the case. Argument after argument where you attempt to
>> justify you stance and attacks on others who do not share it has been
>> countered. Yet you continue with the very same arguments already
>> shown lacking. Surely this is enough for you to see that something
>> other than rationality is spurring you on.
>
> When I make statements that you take as attacks, it is specifically
> because I am calling you on YOUR moral inconsistency in being
> intolerant of theists moral arguments which rest on the exact same
> logic you yourself use for your own positions on issues, and your
> irrationality specifically wrt the Simulation Argument. Your repeated
> refusal (and that of others here) to recognise the logical consistency
> of my statements demonstrates the emotional, irrational degree to which
> you cling to your own blind spots and are irritated by having them
> pointed out.

I have no such irrationality and your insistence that I do unless I 
agree with you interpretation makes you a hopeless boor on the topic.  
The topic isn't remotely about the moral arguments of some theists on 
some topics.  It is beyond me why you even throw such flak into this 
topic.  Are you attempting to straddle the fence to appeal or cater to 
others whose opinions would be questioned starting with their theistic 
source?    There is no reason to go from the possibility of being in a 
sim to likely existence of god to a more or less Christian god to moral 
strictures based upon an often less than sophisticated interpretation 
of Christian scriptures to some sort of extra legitimacy for opinions 
largely based on the same.   Are you ranting at people for not 
supporting this sort of house of cards?


- samantha