How do you justify the notion that only science and logic are valid?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
You're right. I literally wish to kill myself now. Nice going Sheldon, hope your body count soars as high as the heavens :P
I came here because the ghosts of my previous male atheist identity is still lurking around my subconscious, constantly ''poking'' at me. I figured that I might want to settle it by getting in touch with something related to my past identity (and that ''something'' is, of course, this site), to communicate with it and attain inner peace; it is almost like traveling back in time and talking with your younger self.
And even though this has gone horribly wrong, I still feel an urge to stay, because these people raped me psychologically and I can't just leave without retaliating. What's more, if I leave then they would've got what they wanted, and they'll use this tactic to harm future visitors. I can't let them go on dilly-dally unpunished. I guess I won't stop until I make Sheldon admit what he's done.
I'm telling you this because I trust you, and you're one of the few good people here. Thanks for the kindness, it means much for me.
@ hanni the witch
"And even though this has gone horribly wrong, I still feel an urge to stay, because these people raped me psychologically and I can't just leave without retaliating. What's more, if I leave then they would've got what they wanted, and they'll use this tactic to harm future visitors. I can't let them go on dilly-dally unpunished. I guess I won't stop until I make Sheldon admit what he's done. "
I read this post and realize you are so consumed by anger, it is harming you. This is not the place to exorcise this anger, and you will not find a solution within Atheist Republic.
Please remember that Atheist Republic did not reach out to you, you decided to come in here and engage. I do not know what you expected, but obviously it has added just another level of anger and frustration to your life.
Right now, and with your emotional and mental state, this place is toxic to you.
I ask you to leave and find a proper place or organization to heal yourself. This is not that place.
Hanni, I like you and sincerely hope you return and engage in debate with us. This is not rejection or myself running away, it is perceiving a fellow human being awash in anger, frustration, and confusion, and in a negative spiral of emotions. But for now, take care of yourself.
For the record, many of us are very supportive of your lifestyle. I sincerely wish you well.
@Hanni Re: "I want to assure you that I have no bad intentions--I'm not here to cause inflict emotional damage on you;"
... *timidly peeking out from behind couch*... Uh-huh... Yeah, right.... Sure... I'm just suppose to take your word on that?... Humph!... Not gonna happen, sister! Last time I fell for that I woke up chained to an iron radiator in a creepy looking concrete block medical room with a video screen showing some freaky looking, big-cheeked dude on a tricycle telling me, "I want to play a game." And I ended up having to dig a key out of Cog's asshole just to open the padlock and escape. Oh, the horror!... *shudder*... *sob*... I ain't fallin' for that shit again!... *quickly ducking back behind couch*...
@Hanni Re: "Stop"
Who stop? Stop what? You really should start indicating to whom you are addressing. Helps with better communications.
Oh save hanni Cheezus/jeeezus
Can the non-physical change the physical? If it does, then that change is evidence of the non-physical. If it does not, then who cares about the non-physical?
As far as I know: all information is stored physically. If the non-physical can't change the physical, then presumably there can't be evidence for it, since you would be unable to gather information about it.
Yes it can, your thoughts change the state of the brain which then changes your body via nerves. They're intertwined.
The evidence is non-physical, which definitely is tricky to gather, but it's there in our minds and you know them instinctually.
I have no idea how to extract information from something that isn't physical. And I'm skeptical of anyone who thinks they can.
Everyone can, it's instinctual
I don't believe you. I would like a convincing demonstration.
Perhaps you could explain to us in detail what you are capable of in this respect so a demonstration can be constructed. That is, if you are open to a demonstration.
". I literally wish to kill myself now. Nice going Sheldon, hope your body count soars as high as the heavens :P"
I'm truly sorry to learn that. I've been there, more than once.
If that claim is true, I urge you to seek help, but this forum is truly not the place to look. Perhaps begin with Lifeline.
In any event, trying to blame another for your suicidal feelings is a horrible thing to do to another person.
I repeat , I'm truly sorry if you are in such a dark place. BUT nobody here put you there and we are not responsible for you or for your life.
OK, but here's something you might want to think about: if you have any conscience and recognize what people here have said and done, then why do YOU still inhabit this toxic place, being friends with toxic people?
Given that the current group is toxic, the reasonable thing to do is to exit and stop associating with them, right?
Then why are you still speaking on behalf of this site? As if you're just paying me sympathy and are not actually genuine?
@posters ... has anyone checked their mail? Our postal service has been backlogged because of Coronavirus - oh well, I guess better late then never!
Having read all the posts...including the one accusing me writing nonsense, and little Shelley of virtual murder...I can only add...W.T.F.F ?????????????????????
Not responding to this vampiric mess of potage. Good morning all.
Oh this is going to be good ...
Ah, the number of people that have come here claiming to be "former atheists" ...if the veterans here were paid $5 for every time they had seen this, they could build a nice retirement trust fund from the accumulated wealth.
And at this point, how is "emotionally authentic" defined?
Whenever I see weasel phrases such as this, that's the first question that arises, because frequently, pedlars of such phrases have a habit of demonstrating that they don't know what they're talking about.
Even if this assertion is true, the next question that inevitably follows is "So what?" Because even if this assertion of yours happens to be true, it's perfectly possible to live one's life without worrying about this, and simply enjoying the ride.
On the other hand, if this assertion of yours is something you pulled out of your rectal passage, then understanding any logical explanation for the requisite features of our being will add rather than subtract from them. An essential point that you appear to have missed.
Au contraire ... you are aware that people's tastes can change over time?
I'm sure the regulars here can provide plenty of examples of music they thought was wonderful during their teenage years, but enjoyment of which they now look back upon as a source of embarrassment, as they acquired both knowledge and experiences that led them to change their view.
And at this point, you're making the elementary mistake of conflating rigorously established operating mechanisms with blindly asserted post hoc apologetic attempts at "justification", a distinction many here are familiar with.
For example, we've had mythology fanboys of various stripes come here repeatedly, blindly asserting that we have no explanation for various human emotions, without bringing their various cartoon invisible magic men into the picture. Who end up being displayed as woefully ignorant, the moment those here with the requisite knowledge start talking in depth about human brain chemistry.
Indeed, none other than Carl Sagan described part of the underlying biology in his television series Cosmos. Those of us who went on to track down relevant scientific papers, found the contents thereof highly illuminating.
Bullshit. And it's at this point that I know your assertion about being a "former atheist" is a lie. Because atheism in its rigorous formulation doesn't involve any "tenets" at all, a mistake that mythology fanboys of various stripes continue to perpetuate in their fatuous apologetic vomitings.
Since it's obvious that you never learned this elementary concept, I'll tell you right now that atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT. In short, it consists of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertion". There's nothing else involved.
Plus, you're obviously committing another fatuous error here, namely mistaking recognition of the validity of science and logic, on the basis of a large body of observational data that they work, with the erection of an entirely non-existent a priori ideological presupposition, another of those elementary errors we see all the time from mythology fanboys.
Quite simply, those of us who paid attention in class, recognise the validity of science and logic, because we have a vast body of observational data, telling us that these are reliable methods of obtaining proper substantive knowledge about the relevant domains. If someone adds to the mix a new methodology, distinct from these two, that is provided in addition with reliable evidence of the utility thereof, we'll add that to our epistemological lexicon, so to speak. What we're not prepared to do, is treat made us shit as fact, just because it pleases assorted intellectual indolents to do so.
Again, I smell apologetic mendacity at work here.
We're used to people asserting such things, only for said assertions to be found suspect when subject to critical examination.
Ahem, the very existence of the so-called "spiritual", is merely another of those blind assertions on the part of mythology fanboys of various species, that we've been waiting to see supported with genuine evidence for 5,000 years. And in all that time, all we've had from the mythology fanboys, is regurgitation of the very same mythological assertions requiring corroboration, or the peddling of ex recto apologetic fabrications that are regarded as comedy fodder by my tropical fish. Said ex recto apologetic fabrications have been utterly shredded every time they've been presented here.
Indeed, if you had bothered to do your research properly, before posting your weak little diatribe, you would have learned that the regulars here have engaged in far more serious discussion of the relevant topics, than you're capable of even imagining. We've contemplated notions that you don't even know exist, and by doing so, exposed much of the vacuity and inanity of mythology fanboy assertions.
We don't justify this, because you've erected a blatant strawman caricature of our actual thought. But we're used to mythology fanboys doing this. We see it so often that we can recognise the requisite epistemological stench from miles away.
Correction, what those of us here who paid attention in class care about, is ideas that enjoy rigorous support, and appropriate techniques for establishing this.
If your ideas don't enjoy rigorous support, it's time to start asking yourself some serious questions.
Try the fact that the so-called "methods" you're alluding to here aren't real methods, but weak exercises in wishful thinking. We're used to the business of trying to conjure the holograms inside mythology fanboys' heads into reality, by the weaving of apologetic spells, and quite simply it doesn't work. Reality will give you what it's going to give you, regardless of what fantasies you entertain on the matter.
See above. We apply diligent effort to the business of learning what actually works.
1. Mocking my identity as an ex-atheist. Wow how convincing.
2. Being emotionally authentic means you live accordance with your feelings and don't rationalize them; for example, if you like tacos, you like tacos and you're not ashamed of it, even if your friends hate it. In this case, an emotionally inauthentic person might try to convince herself into stop liking tacos, or even outright deny the crave.
3. As explained above, my love tacos cannot be logically explained. It's just feelings, and that's it. Science has something to say and that's great; in fact science stands with me because it has indeed discovered that tastes are based on feeling. No rectal passages involved :/
4. Non sequitur. Why do you think I'm arguing that tastes don't change over time? And how does it affect my position? Of course feelings changes over time. What's the problem? Heck, science changes over time too.
5. Now, as I've already explained above how rationalizing of feelings work (and how that's bad). Apparently I wasn't clear enough and you misunderstood. By ''rationalizing'' I did not mean ''giving a rational explanation to how feelings work (which is definitely a good thing)''.
6. Speaking of irony. You deny, yet ironically immediately start confirming what I said. You literally just resorted to scientism once again, as I expected. What you said are all based on the assumption that only scientific ways of learning things count, and that others are non-sensical (which is the fallacy of begging the question). Sheldon is blatantly guilty of this as well.
7. I hate to say that, but I'm forced to because you people keep presuming that I DON'T know anything that they know.
8. You've brought up mythology and stuff. OK, you technically aren't wrong, and apparently there's some misunderstanding. When I said ''spiritual proof'', I was not talking about anything physical at all. And yes, due to lack of scientific understanding, ancient people had to put deities in charge of natural phenomena. Now of course science has progressed, but science and not ''refuted'' spiritualism. Spiritualism is not all about gods throwing lightning bolts, after all.
9. This is not a straw man, this is a questioning of your fundamental principles, in which you straight out avoided answering directly.
10. You still keep repeating things that I already know (and have no refuting power). Look, the EXACT thing I'm arguing against is the notion that only a ''rigorous''(physical, you mean) method is appropriate.
11. Now you're just dismissing thing as unreal. It's begging the question: you're just saying it's fantasy because it's not real (to you). And the notion that it's not real is exactly what I'm arguing for: that the spiritual is just as real, albeit not in the same way planets are real. I warn you, you're being a classic example of close-minded-ness!
12. Do you understand what I originally meant? I meant that if atheism can't justify its disproportionate preference of the physical (which is not a straw man because everyone here has already repeatedly confirmed this for me, even though they deny it), then it doesn't even live up to its own merits, which makes it on equal grounds with religion (and you'd hate that). This is a paradox.
And the entirely predictable ersatz for a response has arrived.
Let's take a look at this shall we?
What part of "we've had enough people peddling this assertion here in the past, to recognise the aetiology" did you not understand from my post?
Indeed, in case you hadn't worked out this elementary rule of proper discourse that applies here, just because you present an assertion here doesn't automatically make that assertion true, a lesson we keep having to teach every smug, self-satisfied and complacent mythology fanboy who comes here.
What makes you think no one here already does this? Other than some peculiar species of presumption on your part?
Yawn. See my exposition on changing tastes, which you manifestly ignored.
Actually, what science has discovered is that tastes are based upon the interaction of sensory data with brain chemistry. Once again, I paid attention in class.
YOU were the one who asserted "you can't "un-love" something in your post. I demonstrated via the requisite means that this assertion was wrong, which means it's as far removed from a "non sequitur" as it's possible to be.
Once again, your discoursive deficiencies are on display in an embarrassing manner here.
The problem is that this piece of observational data refutes one of your assertions. Let's see how long it takes for this to sink in.
Don't even think of peddling the duplicity that we've seen associated with this statement by the usual suspects here. It will not go well for you.
You've "explained" nothing. You've asserted much, but assertions do not equal explanations. Let's see how long it takes you to learn this elementary concept, shall we?
Oh, do tell, have you actually learned from my exposition on the relevant distinctions?
Let's see how quickly this assertion withers under the relevant discoursive bombardment, shall we?
First of all, "scientism" is a duplicitous apologetic fabrication, that we've seen here regularly peddled by the usual suspects, as a means of attempting to hand-wave away a preference for properly supported postulates over made up shit. And as such, it stinks. Your peddlng this here will NOT work out well for you.
Apparently you haven't learned from my presenting the relevant distinctions.
BULLSHIT, and a bare faced lie to boot, given that I stated this:
explicitly in my previous post.
What part of "we're prepared to learn something new if someone exerts relevant diligent effort" did you fail to understand from the above?
Your duplicity at this point is duly noted.
BULLSHIT. See above.
Except that above, you've demonstrated lucidly that you don't.
Oh dear, the "non-physical" is making yet another appearance here.
The existence of the so-called "non-physical" is another of those mythology fanboy assertions we've been waiting to see supported, with something other than mythological regurgitation and apologetic fabrication. Good luck with this one, because if you're genuinely successful with respect to this, a holiday in Sweden and a shiny gold medal await you.
Oh really? I'm going to enjoy seeing how long this assertion lasts.
Then what IS it about? You're the one throwing assertions around here like confetti, how about you clean up the mess and support some of them?
Bullshit. I explained in depth precisely WHY it's a strawman, or did your reading comprehension fail at this point as well?
Once again, don't play the familiar mendacious tactic we see all too often here, of pretending to know what we think better than we do ourselves, and posturing as being in a position to issue decrees with respect thereto. This will bring a world of hurt crashing on your head.
And at this point, I can tell that you're talking out of your arse. Not least because I'm a past student of pure mathematics, which is rigour incarnate, but which operates in the abstract realm. As, funnily enough, does formal logic.
One of the embarrassing pieces of observational data that you've apparently failed to notice here, is that scientists have provided evidence for vast classes of entities and interactions, that the authors of mythologies were incapable of even fantasising about, and which in several cases were far more exotic and counter-intuitive than the contents of the assertions of pre-scientific humans. The whole of quantum physics is counter-intuition writ large, as indeed, several of its key contributors were only too ready to admit.
No, you're merely asserting this. Once again, learn the distinction between mere assertion and genuine argument.
Oh no, not this tiresome trope again, that we see so often here from bullshit merchants. And once again, you demonstrate that you know sweet fuck all about me, or my publicly documented output here.
Here's a clue for you: being open-minded does NOT mean "lap up any bullshit that comes one's way". A lesson we keep having to teach the mythology fanboys.
It IS a fucking straw man, for the reasons I've explicitly presented. Namely, that the sole remit of atheism, is suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions.
And in case you didn't register this elementary concept, our acceptance of the physical has nothing to do with a priori ideological presupposition, and everything to do with the fact that evidence for the physical is available by the fucking supertanker load.
Fucking learn this elementary concept, will you?
Bullshit, for the reasons I gave both in my previous post, and the preceding paragraph here.
Now, do us all a favour, will you, and fucking learn the relevant concepts.
Oh I am a fanboy now..........................
That's not a begging the question fallacy, what you're describing would be an argument from incredulity fallacy, though I doubt it applies to Calilasseia's post, since he's way too savvy to make such a mistake.
"Oh this is going to be good ..."
And indeed it was------you, not the confused child.
I always enjoy your lucidity of thought and eloquence of expression.
One new bit struck a chord. About tastes changing with time. That's true for me in two meanings of the term.
(1) my physical taste palette has changed several times. From young child, older child, young adult, older adult to MUCH older adult. ,. I'm not able to claim any one was/is superior, only that they are different..
(2) Music. I first became aware of my own musical preferences was when I was about 11; Elvis and Mario Lanza . Don' t ask me why those two,I have no idea. . At 16 I discovered the Beatles, and thought John Lennon was a genius. I later moved on to jazz, Blues and classical. Latterly, I have been discovering female singers of the 1950's. EG The stunning Jazz singer, Anita O'Day, and lesser lights such as Julie London, Kathy Kirby and Kay Starr.
Today I think most of the Beatles' music has aged ,badly. Instead of seeing John Lennon as a genius, I now see a pretentious wife beating wanker of modest talent.
But, after all that, today I think ABBA is the greatest pop music group of all time .Catchy, musically literate tunes,(which have not dated) presented in sublime harmony. ---and who can ever forget Agnetha's magnificent bottom?
The above is simply my opinion based on subjective criteria, so I make no truth claims. So yeah, my tastes at least have changed over time, a lot and continue to change. I'm not sure if I'm evolving or regressing .
Addendum. Same with books. At 18 I read all of the James Bond books, over a week. They're quite short and only require a reading age of about 12. I thought James Bond was really cool, with wonderful taste in everything. Today I see a sadistic, amoral thug , and couldn't care less about his tastes. I also think there's probably a lot of his creator in him, and none of it flattering.
Hanni! I buried a fucktard in my back yard yesterday and when I woke up this morning.... nothing happened.... nothing grew.... and nothing was there. It's as if fucktards don't exist! But you and I know differently.... don't we! So what do you imagine could have happened. I only ask because one of us is far more experienced than the other.. I have never been sure that actual fucktards are real things..... still, after only 8 pages of posts.... you are beginning to convince me.
@sexymonkeyman and @concerned posters
I’m OK!!! His reference to “fucktard” is his anger that I made him wait ssooooo long for his punishment!!!!
I asked him to get me my smokes after we couldn’t find the rolling pin... he hobbbled away and hasn’t come back... tit for tat, I guess
Is she still threatening to "utterly destroy" me?
I will see all your "wows" and raise you another dozen wows....that's a good three hours of my life I will never get back.
@Sheldon: YOU CALLOUS BASTART! Not even caring about her Atheist Male Ghosts of the past lurking around her subconscious. Those fucking atheist ghosts uttering messages of science in her mind (Whispering softly... "This is a penis and that is a vajayjay. You will only have inner peace by traveling back in time... wooooo wooooo..... woooo woooo."
RE: "These people raped my psychologically" AWWWWWW FUCK! Even I have to give a miss to this one. I read the road sign but fuck me --- I am a better person than SHELDON and just can't bring myself to set foot on that road... :-)
Oh! And it's official.... I have just been fired from my position as head of the Sheldon Fan Club. My true feelings towards that beast will no longer allow me to remain in that exhaled position. I am not depressed or dissuaded from my mission in life however. I understand that Calilasseia and Nyarlathotep are seeking minions.
Can someone tell me why she is focused on Sheldon's Dilly Dally? And why would she want to punish it? "Say your sorry!" *WHACK!* *WHACK* "Admit it!" *WHACK* *WHACK* (Excuse me for a minute while I step behind that tree over there.)
Okay, *Wiping my hands on the grass* I'm back.
RE: "The above is simply my opinion based on subjective criteria, so I make no truth claims."
OH! WELL FUCK ME THEN. PLEASE DISREGARD THIS ENTIRE POST!
You FOUND my rolling pin ... great, going to whip us up a banana cream pie...
Shit! You asshole! You wiped your hands in the grass!!!!
I know it's wrong, but I just had to share this one again, and again, wow!