[extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline

[Samantha Atkins]

On Mar 7, 2005, at 10:41 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>> Tolerable treatment includes a lack of mockery, disparagement and
>>> insults.
>>>
>>
>> You mean unlike the disparagement of and insults towards atheists you
>> keep cycling on of late?  Is intellectual consistency and integrity a
>> virtue in your system of values?
>
> Consistency includes giving as gotten. I also believe you are ignoring
> my equally critical evaluation of the quality of many theist arguments.
> So I'm not asking for tolerance of myself, as an agnostic (since until
> I have the knowledge to answer the questions of the Simulation
> Argument, I shall not have gnosis one way or the other), but of the
> atheist for the equally valid/invalid position of the theist as the
> theist should have for the equally valid/invalid position of the
> atheist.


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.

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.   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.

- samantha