‹ First  < 221 222 223 224 > 
 
   
 

Question for Atheists (+BM)

 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14433
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
04 September 2017 08:54
 
jdrnd - 04 September 2017 08:30 AM
SkepticX - 31 August 2017 01:40 PM
After_The_Jump - 31 August 2017 01:35 PM

@ jdrnd

Do supernatural entities exist?

There’s no evidence to suggest they do.

It’s not just that ... what does “supernatural” even really mean? Is it even a coherent concept?

Does a claim of anything “supernatural” even get out of the gate in order to get in the race, or is it just flat out DOA so doesn’t even really qualify as wrong?

Its a great question.
Russell Blackford addresses this in his article “The future of Philosophical Naturalism” in Free Inquiry Aug/Sept 2017 Vol 37 No 5, pages 24-29.

He says:
“In practice our understanding of the Supernatural may not be based on a single specifiable characteristic…
...rather we’re inclined to regard imagined influences on the world as lying outside the natural realm if they violate commonsense ideas…”


Yup ... in simple, concrete, everyday language, supernatural is just a more palatable way of saying magic.

 
 
Kalessin
 
Avatar
 
 
Kalessin
Total Posts:  128
Joined  02-07-2017
 
 
 
04 September 2017 15:45
 
jdrnd - 04 September 2017 08:20 AM
Kalessin - 31 August 2017 03:27 PM

Take note.
I’m not the only one who has difficulty figuring out what point you are trying to make

I think I told you repeatedly smile.  I was highlighting weaknesses in. the post about atheists believing Governments are greater than God, and that it doesn’t work as an anti-atheist rhetorical trap.  And I also didn’t like the “What do you worship / what is your religion / just say you’re Christian/atheist/ whatever” approach to conversation (I don’t use this approach with others either) , but I accept we differ on this.  Got it?

I like the Sam Harris position that you can critique ideas without criticising the people who have them, and I think moreover that people can advocate ideas they agree with OR disagree with (or feel neither way about) as a way of exploring and reaching for truth and meaning in conversation.  Or are you only allowed one point of view that you must hold very deeply and be willing to defend as a sort of lifestyle choice, you’re never allowed to just engage in speculative conversation?  I just don’t agree.

But I also said that in a natural conversation what you believe tends to come out anyway.  Another post highlighted the supposed ‘neutral’ lawyer who tended to defend theists or attack atheists despite saying he was neither.  So whatever he self-asserted, the evidence was there in his posts.  Happy for you to read my posts and make your own judgements.

And really who cares what I “am”?  If I say something you agree with or don’t we can get busy on that.  Do you agree with my criticism of the “atheists think Governments are greater than God” post?  Or do you think my criticism is flawed?  Did my comments about baseball strike a chord? smile

 
Kalessin
 
Avatar
 
 
Kalessin
Total Posts:  128
Joined  02-07-2017
 
 
 
04 September 2017 15:50
 
SkepticX - 04 September 2017 08:54 AM

Yup ... in simple, concrete, everyday language, supernatural is just a more palatable way of saying magic.

Supernatural as a term really serves no purpose, and the question “Do supernatural entities exist?” is a contradiction (which is why I didn’t rise to it).  If something exists, it’s not supernatural, since it exists. 

If you substitute magic, which is a good analogy, that works as well:  “Is magic real?”  “Well, if it;‘s real, it’s not magic.”

[ Edited: 04 September 2017 15:53 by Kalessin]
 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5293
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
04 September 2017 16:26
 
Kalessin - 04 September 2017 03:50 PM
SkepticX - 04 September 2017 08:54 AM

Yup ... in simple, concrete, everyday language, supernatural is just a more palatable way of saying magic.

Supernatural as a term really serves no purpose, and the question “Do supernatural entities exist?” is a contradiction (which is why I didn’t rise to it).  If something exists, it’s not supernatural, since it exists. 

If you substitute magic, which is a good analogy, that works as well:  “Is magic real?”  “Well, if it;‘s real, it’s not magic.”

Is God magic?

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5293
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
04 September 2017 16:29
 
Kalessin - 04 September 2017 03:45 PM

  Do you agree with my criticism of the “atheists think Governments are greater than God” post?

Yes I agree…

But so what?

Why is your criticism important?

 
Kalessin
 
Avatar
 
 
Kalessin
Total Posts:  128
Joined  02-07-2017
 
 
 
04 September 2017 19:08
 
jdrnd - 04 September 2017 04:29 PM

Why is your criticism important?

I probably wouldn’t say it’s important.  I’ll try harder next time smile ...but thanks for agreeing with it.

jdrnd - 04 September 2017 04:29 PM

Is God magic?

Well, magic exists as a concept (MW def:  an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source),  but the ‘seemingly’ in the definition means it is grounded in observation or speculation.  I don’t think definitions of God (MW def: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe) depend on observation or speculation.  So I think they can’t be compared.  God can’t be the same as, equivalent to, magic and vice versa.

Let’s try and give you something more to chew on.  In the context of hard solipsism how can anyone know if God exists?  There is almost no assertion that can logically resist the “how do you know that” deconstruction until you get to “I know I am thinking” territory.  That leaves you with an “I” and a “thinking” that you might be able to argue for using logic. 

The argument “I just know”  or “God told me” or “my observations of the world suggest that” etc. are not proofs in themselves and can all be deconstructed. 

With hard solipsism you also can’t know that unicorns don’t exist.  You are not far from an ontological trap in that thinking about unicorns is just as real as any other thought, so if rivers exist as a thought then unicorns are just as real as rivers.

So if I am discussing ‘core beliefs’ with either theists or atheists I am interested in their perspective on hard solipsism, and would approach this through questioning.  If you want a way back from it into some workable version of reality you can decide to assign more relative (rather than absolute) value to beliefs that are demonstrated by experience and evidence, but these always have to be subject to many caveats..  So working back from the hard solipsism position, and carefully assigning temporary value based on demonstration to various beliefs, means that if you are asked “do you believe this table is made of wood”, you might say “yes, to the extent that I have no reason to think otherwise based on all my experience, but not to the extent of making a definitve, absolute and universal claim”.

So, if you can’t know that God exists, and you can’t know that unicorns don’t exist, but you can cautiously assign some experiential value based on demonstration, how would you answer whether pixies are magic smile.

[ Edited: 04 September 2017 19:11 by Kalessin]
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1488
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
05 September 2017 03:42
 
Kalessin - 04 September 2017 03:45 PM

Another post highlighted the supposed ‘neutral’ lawyer who tended to defend theists or attack atheists despite saying he was neither.  So whatever he self-asserted, the evidence was there in his posts.

Sure, but those kind of protracted and disingenuous discussions don’t help anybody. They are the least productive and most contentious, as there is no agreement as to where one party stands. If someone wants to know whether I am a Red Sox fan or a Yankees fan I wouldn’t string them along endlessly with my opinions of baseball and occasional allusions to the merits/drawbacks of Fenway Park and Yankee Stadium and expect them to piece it together for themselves. That would be silly. Moreover, as in the case of the lawyer guy I referenced, I wouldn’t overtly laud the Red Sox and denigrate the Yankees while claiming to be neutral in my opinion of them. That would be hypocritical. 

Happy for you to read my posts and make your own judgements.

Would you be happy if we made the wrong judgement? If not, there’s an easy way to avoid that.  grin

And really who cares what I “am”?

We do. And you should too. Makes for more direct and less speculative conversations.

Thanks.
Ron
grin

 
Kalessin
 
Avatar
 
 
Kalessin
Total Posts:  128
Joined  02-07-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2017 15:05
 
MrRon - 05 September 2017 03:42 AM

... there is no agreement as to where one party stands.

This is an ideas forum, right?  It matters what I say and how I present, defend or explain my ideas.  If you need to infer a worldview from that, that’s your choice but doesn’t make whatever I say more or less correct.

Would you be happy if we made the wrong judgement?

I don’t care whether you are right or wrong about me, if you are engaging with my ideas fairly and civilly.  I am from the pre-identity politics generation (in fact several gens before that - so this idea of “what club I belong to”  as some essential part of dialogue is not convincing. 

In fact this helps my side of the argument - if knowing my identified position would change the way you dealt with an idea of mine, that shows you aren’t willing to take on ideas on their merits.  If it doesn’t change it, then you shouldn’t need to know.  In science, the idea of double blind testing is accepted as a way to counter confirmation bias.  So it’s actually better not to know in order to make your assessment and response to an idea as objective and honest as possible. 

Let’s test this:

(a) I am a staunch believer in Yahweh but with a keen interest in philosophy.  I think the problem of evil is not adequately resolved in scripture or in religious philosophy, and this means either the scripture is incomplete or the philosophy is flawed.  Thoughts?
(b) I am an anti-theist with no tolerance for faith and quackery but with a keen interest in philosophy.  I think the problem of evil is clearly not resolved in scripture or religious philosophy, which implies either that the scripture is incomplete or the philosophy is flawed.  Thoughts?
(c) I think the problem of evil is clearly not resolved in scripture or religious philosophy, which implies either that the scripture is incomplete or the philosophy is flawed.  Thoughts?

My gut feeling would be to post (c) in order to open up the most inclusive debate. 

Finally on this - I also know that people like to generate some sparks and antagonism in threads, or just look for oppositional positions, or want to assert or defend a particular standpoint and therefore need to know your colours, but I just prefer the Socratic method every which way.  He’s definitely an inspiration to me, both as a philosopher and as a silky ball-playing Brazilian defender smile.

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1488
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
05 September 2017 17:05
 
Kalessin - 05 September 2017 03:05 PM
MrRon - 05 September 2017 03:42 AM

... there is no agreement as to where one party stands.

This is an ideas forum, right?  It matters what I say and how I present, defend or explain my ideas.  If you need to infer a worldview from that, that’s your choice but doesn’t make whatever I say more or less correct.

Would you be happy if we made the wrong judgement?

I don’t care whether you are right or wrong about me,

I would think that a healthy attitude involves caring (to some degree at least) whether or not people are right or wrong about you. The alternative seems so… I don’t know, defeatist, and detached. Besides, I care whether I am right or wrong.

if you are engaging with my ideas fairly and civilly.  I am from the pre-identity politics generation (in fact several gens before that - so this idea of “what club I belong to”  as some essential part of dialogue is not convincing. 

In fact this helps my side of the argument - if knowing my identified position would change the way you dealt with an idea of mine, that shows you aren’t willing to take on ideas on their merits.  If it doesn’t change it, then you shouldn’t need to know.  In science, the idea of double blind testing is accepted as a way to counter confirmation bias.  So it’s actually better not to know in order to make your assessment and response to an idea as objective and honest as possible. 

Let’s test this:

(a) I am a staunch believer in Yahweh but with a keen interest in philosophy.  I think the problem of evil is not adequately resolved in scripture or in religious philosophy, and this means either the scripture is incomplete or the philosophy is flawed.  Thoughts?
(b) I am an anti-theist with no tolerance for faith and quackery but with a keen interest in philosophy.  I think the problem of evil is clearly not resolved in scripture or religious philosophy, which implies either that the scripture is incomplete or the philosophy is flawed.  Thoughts?
(c) I think the problem of evil is clearly not resolved in scripture or religious philosophy, which implies either that the scripture is incomplete or the philosophy is flawed.  Thoughts?

My gut feeling would be to post (c) in order to open up the most inclusive debate. 

Finally on this - I also know that people like to generate some sparks and antagonism in threads, or just look for oppositional positions, or want to assert or defend a particular standpoint and therefore need to know your colours, but I just prefer the Socratic method every which way.  He’s definitely an inspiration to me, both as a philosopher and as a silky ball-playing Brazilian defender smile.

I get it. And there’s certainly something to be said for taking on ideas on their merits. But there’s no reason you have to lose that when clearly defining your position from the outset.

The bottom line is that refusing to directly answer questions just comes across as either a) not being fully committed to a position, or b) having something to hide. That’s never a good starting point for reasoned discourse. State your position openly and honestly and if it’s worth it’s salt it will to stand up to scrutiny. And as a bonus you may disabuse some of their erroneous beliefs. That’s always a good thing.  grin

Thanks,
Ron

PS - So here is the “idea” on the table… Do you believe there are any gods? Care to discuss?

 
Kalessin
 
Avatar
 
 
Kalessin
Total Posts:  128
Joined  02-07-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2017 18:55
 
MrRon - 05 September 2017 05:05 PM
Kalessin - 05 September 2017 03:05 PM
MrRon - 05 September 2017 03:42 AM

I would think that a healthy attitude involves caring (to some degree at least) whether or not people are right or wrong about you. The alternative seems so… I don’t know, defeatist, and detached. Besides, I care whether I am right or wrong.

While I’m posting on an ideas forum, I am more focused on whether I have communicated my ideas effectively or whether people have understood my ideas, rather than their overall judgements about my worldview or character or anything else like that.  A fair number of bad reasonings arise from basing your argument around your view of the person you are talking to (ad hominem, no true scotsman, confirmation bias) rather than what they say.

But, yes, I am very detached.  I’m aware that I have a pretty cold debating style, and have actually worked on “defending the indefensible” or steel-manning positions I don’t necessarily like, in order to fully understand and explore arguments,  I also like the Socratic method, for that reason but also because actually it is less confrontational but often just as effective in getting to the heart of a particular position.  I’ve been on various internet forums for a long time and truly don’t get offended by anything. 

All those late night sessions on unsavoury but free-spirited AOL chatrooms in the 1990s pretty much did the job smile  So I’d agree with detached but not defeatist.  Have a look at my posts and see what you think!

he bottom line is that refusing to directly answer questions just comes across as either a) not being fully committed to a position, or b) having something to hide. That’s never a good starting point for reasoned discourse

I disagree with this.  Not being fully committed to a position is a perfectly good starting point, just as good as being committed either way, and can actually help a conversation progress.  And I think I already said in answer to these questions that I’m always open to changing my opinions.  You really think that’s never a good starting point?

“Having something to hide” is somewhat relative and there’s an eye of the beholder issue here.  I don’t mind if you are hiding something, everything, or even falsely identifying yourself, as long as we can debate the ideas fairly and construcitvely.  If you are a feminist but deliberately adopt a chauvinist position in order to tease out particular ideas and perhaps test the validity of some arguments, that’s fine with me.  I don’t really believe that Kantian ethical absolutes apply in forum discourse (I mentioned on another thread that I wasn’t really a fan of Peter Singer’s strident moralising), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t interesting, useful, and meaningful. 
Perhaps it’s those AOL chatrooms that hardened me up smile

PS - So here is the “idea” on the table… Do you believe there are any gods? Care to discuss?

Obviously I’m really interested in these discussions so am happy to participate.  But I have no position to defend, I’m simply interested in the discourse rather than yes/ no .  Offer up a proof or disproof and I will jump in either way.  Or, I can speak on behalf of someone I know who was passionately defending a non-religious intelligent design argument recently.  It made me realise that a being or beings could be drastically more powerful than us, more knowledgeable and able to control our destines, and in many ways inscrutable to us, but not necessarily be inherently Divine.  So an unusual challenge for a strong theist position would be “how do you differentiate God from that?  Compared to ants we are gods of a sort, and no doubt beyond their comprehension.  Wouldn’t an ant consider us all-powerful?

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1488
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
06 September 2017 03:42
 
Kalessin - 05 September 2017 06:55 PM
MrRon - 05 September 2017 05:05 PM
Kalessin - 05 September 2017 03:05 PM
MrRon - 05 September 2017 03:42 AM

I would think that a healthy attitude involves caring (to some degree at least) whether or not people are right or wrong about you. The alternative seems so… I don’t know, defeatist, and detached. Besides, I care whether I am right or wrong.

While I’m posting on an ideas forum, I am more focused on whether I have communicated my ideas effectively or whether people have understood my ideas, rather than their overall judgements about my worldview or character or anything else like that.  A fair number of bad reasonings arise from basing your argument around your view of the person you are talking to (ad hominem, no true scotsman, confirmation bias) rather than what they say.

But, yes, I am very detached.  I’m aware that I have a pretty cold debating style, and have actually worked on “defending the indefensible” or steel-manning positions I don’t necessarily like, in order to fully understand and explore arguments,  I also like the Socratic method, for that reason but also because actually it is less confrontational but often just as effective in getting to the heart of a particular position.  I’ve been on various internet forums for a long time and truly don’t get offended by anything. 

All those late night sessions on unsavoury but free-spirited AOL chatrooms in the 1990s pretty much did the job smile  So I’d agree with detached but not defeatist.  Have a look at my posts and see what you think!

he bottom line is that refusing to directly answer questions just comes across as either a) not being fully committed to a position, or b) having something to hide. That’s never a good starting point for reasoned discourse

I disagree with this.  Not being fully committed to a position is a perfectly good starting point, just as good as being committed either way, and can actually help a conversation progress.  And I think I already said in answer to these questions that I’m always open to changing my opinions.  You really think that’s never a good starting point?

“Having something to hide” is somewhat relative and there’s an eye of the beholder issue here.  I don’t mind if you are hiding something, everything, or even falsely identifying yourself, as long as we can debate the ideas fairly and construcitvely.  If you are a feminist but deliberately adopt a chauvinist position in order to tease out particular ideas and perhaps test the validity of some arguments, that’s fine with me.  I don’t really believe that Kantian ethical absolutes apply in forum discourse (I mentioned on another thread that I wasn’t really a fan of Peter Singer’s strident moralising), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t interesting, useful, and meaningful. 
Perhaps it’s those AOL chatrooms that hardened me up smile

PS - So here is the “idea” on the table… Do you believe there are any gods? Care to discuss?

Obviously I’m really interested in these discussions so am happy to participate.  But I have no position to defend, I’m simply interested in the discourse rather than yes/ no .  Offer up a proof or disproof and I will jump in either way.  Or, I can speak on behalf of someone I know who was passionately defending a non-religious intelligent design argument recently.  It made me realise that a being or beings could be drastically more powerful than us, more knowledgeable and able to control our destines, and in many ways inscrutable to us, but not necessarily be inherently Divine.  So an unusual challenge for a strong theist position would be “how do you differentiate God from that?  Compared to ants we are gods of a sort, and no doubt beyond their comprehension.  Wouldn’t an ant consider us all-powerful?

That’s all well and good, but if you care whether or not you have communicated your ideas effectively then it follows that you should care whether people are right or wrong about your worldview, no? After all, our ideas/opinions reflect our worldview to a great degree. Besides, openly and honestly stating your worldview when asked just seems to be the courteous thing to do. Especially when everyone else has laid their cards on the table. grin 

When you say you “have no position to defend”, does that mean you are not a deist/theist/atheist (although I don’t see how you can’t be at least one of those)? Or does it mean you are a deist/theist/atheist, but you are willing to take any of those positions just for the sake of discussion?


Thanks Kalessin.
Ron

 

 

 
Kalessin
 
Avatar
 
 
Kalessin
Total Posts:  128
Joined  02-07-2017
 
 
 
06 September 2017 15:39
 
MrRon - 06 September 2017 03:42 AM

When you say you “have no position to defend”, does that mean you are not a deist/theist/atheist (although I don’t see how you can’t be at least one of those)? Or does it mean you are a deist/theist/atheist, but you are willing to take any of those positions just for the sake of discussion?

 
I think those choices might a false dichotomy, but can I add that in some areas I am uncommitted, I don’t know or don’t have an opinion.  For example, there are some great discussions on free will here.  I honestly need to understand the different conceptions more fully and will engage with people in order to test ideas and work through things,  but I don’t have a prior position or specific worldview on it. 

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1488
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
06 September 2017 16:44
 
Kalessin - 06 September 2017 03:39 PM
MrRon - 06 September 2017 03:42 AM

When you say you “have no position to defend”, does that mean you are not a deist/theist/atheist (although I don’t see how you can’t be at least one of those)? Or does it mean you are a deist/theist/atheist, but you are willing to take any of those positions just for the sake of discussion?

 
I think those choices might a false dichotomy, but can I add that in some areas I am uncommitted, I don’t know or don’t have an opinion.  For example, there are some great discussions on free will here.  I honestly need to understand the different conceptions more fully and will engage with people in order to test ideas and work through things,  but I don’t have a prior position or specific worldview on it.

Are you saying that you don’t have a prior position or specific worldview on whether or not any gods exist? 

Ron

 
Kalessin
 
Avatar
 
 
Kalessin
Total Posts:  128
Joined  02-07-2017
 
 
 
06 September 2017 19:24
 
MrRon - 06 September 2017 04:44 PM

Are you saying that you don’t have a prior position or specific worldview on whether or not any gods exist?Ron

Not necessarily, but for the purposes of this discussion, it’s not relevant.  My feeling is that yes/no exchanges on opinions are just a way of forcing people to defend or attack a rehearsed position, and as I said I’d rather any of that came out naturally in the course of a civil dialogue.  Can’t we engage on either/both sides of a debate based on our view of the arguments or the knowledge and insights we might have to share?  I think it’s my age. but it starts to feel like identity politics which I’m not a huge fan of.  For example, am I obliged to tell you in advance that I am Jewish, or African, or gay etc., all of which might inform my views but perhaps might also mean you don’t simply address my arguments or ideas directly?  Or is the only bit of my worldview that matters to do with theism/deism etc.

Also, to return to your earlier point -

if you care whether or not you have communicated your ideas effectively then it follows that you should care whether people are right or wrong about your worldview, no? After all, our ideas/opinions reflect our worldview to a great degree. Besides, openly and honestly stating your worldview when asked just seems to be the courteous thing to do. Especially when everyone else has laid their cards on the table

Again, I disagree.  Firstly I don’t care if people are right or wrong about my worldview and would expect that typically it means they are indulging in ad hominems (“yeah, you’re just like all the other liberal atheists / you only think that way because you’re a brainwashed christian / etc. etc.”) rather than just addressing ideas.
Secondly, our ideas/opinions might reflect our worldview at times but it’s not a given.  They might not.
Finally, laying cards on the table is only honest and courteous if it’s voluntary and if you’re playing cards.  And if you think about that analogy, you don’t normally show your cards until the end, since the skill is measured by how well you play.  It’s equally honest and courteous to welcome people to a debate and take account of their contribution on face value.

Would suggest we just agree to differ since I don’t think this is a substantive point and there are no ethical issues involved.  I’m not lying, trolling or trying to trap anyone.  If it’s truly important to you then see if you can work it out from my 61 posts or by asking clever questions (not Y/N}, I really enjoy logical sparring smile

Actually I don’t know if you are a theist or atheist (don’t tell me), but here’s the kind of question I might ask you either way: what is the most irritating argument in support of either a theist or atheist position that you hear?  One of each would be great, and why. I’m genuinely interested.

Kalessin

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1488
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
07 September 2017 03:46
 
Kalessin - 06 September 2017 07:24 PM
MrRon - 06 September 2017 04:44 PM

Are you saying that you don’t have a prior position or specific worldview on whether or not any gods exist?Ron

Not necessarily, but for the purposes of this discussion, it’s not relevant.

It’s relevant if you’ve been specifically asked.

My feeling is that yes/no exchanges on opinions are just a way of forcing people to defend or attack a rehearsed position,

Well the thing that’s worse than defending/attacking a stated “rehearsed” position is defending/attacking/debating a perceived position. It creates too many false starts and false assumptions. Besides, either one’s ideas/opinions can stand up to scrutiny or they can not. No sense in couching them indefinitely. 

and as I said I’d rather any of that came out naturally in the course of a civil dialogue.

Well, as this is a civil dialogue, my natural question for you is… do you believe there are any gods? Your straightforward answer will probably pave the way for much more interesting (and productive) discourse than we’ve seen to this point.

Can’t we engage on either/both sides of a debate based on our view of the arguments or the knowledge and insights we might have to share?  I think it’s my age. but it starts to feel like identity politics which I’m not a huge fan of.  For example, am I obliged to tell you in advance that I am Jewish, or African, or gay etc., all of which might inform my views but perhaps might also mean you don’t simply address my arguments or ideas directly?  Or is the only bit of my worldview that matters to do with theism/deism etc.

Well, since this is an atheist thread in an atheist forum, your theistic/atheistic worldview does matter a great deal. And stop pretending that we won’t be able to have reasoned discourse if your beliefs were suddenly known. Because that’s certainly not the case. 

Also, to return to your earlier point -

if you care whether or not you have communicated your ideas effectively then it follows that you should care whether people are right or wrong about your worldview, no? After all, our ideas/opinions reflect our worldview to a great degree. Besides, openly and honestly stating your worldview when asked just seems to be the courteous thing to do. Especially when everyone else has laid their cards on the table

Again, I disagree.  Firstly I don’t care if people are right or wrong about my worldview and would expect that typically it means they are indulging in ad hominems (“yeah, you’re just like all the other liberal atheists / you only think that way because you’re a brainwashed christian / etc. etc.”) rather than just addressing ideas.
Secondly, our ideas/opinions might reflect our worldview at times but it’s not a given.  They might not.
Finally, laying cards on the table is only honest and courteous if it’s voluntary and if you’re playing cards.  And if you think about that analogy, you don’t normally show your cards until the end, since the skill is measured by how well you play.  It’s equally honest and courteous to welcome people to a debate and take account of their contribution on face value.

Would suggest we just agree to differ since I don’t think this is a substantive point and there are no ethical issues involved.  I’m not lying, trolling or trying to trap anyone.  If it’s truly important to you then see if you can work it out from my 61 posts or by asking clever questions (not Y/N}, I really enjoy logical sparring smile

Actually I don’t know if you are a theist or atheist (don’t tell me), but here’s the kind of question I might ask you either way: what is the most irritating argument in support of either a theist or atheist position that you hear?  One of each would be great, and why. I’m genuinely interested.

Kalessin

No thanks, I won’t try to “work it out” from your 61 posts whether you believe in any gods or not. You’ve been asked directly and with sincerity. Keep dodging if you insist, but I won’t be the one throwing the ball.

Actually, you may have missed it, but if you’ve been paying attention you would have seen that I already described myself as an atheist several posts back.

Regards,
Ron grin

[ Edited: 07 September 2017 16:28 by MrRon]
 
‹ First  < 221 222 223 224 >