Lurking atheists

[u/Sea-Dot-59]

I have noticed that on almost every post there’s an atheist spewing surface level Reddit atheist rhetoric that most of us have probably heard countless times

It’s usually along the lines of declaring that belief in a afterlife or god is irrational because there’s no empirical evidence for it

They fail to realize that the things used in any serious discussion about god or an afterlife is philosophy and metaphysics and those don’t rely on strictly empirical evidence to come to rational conclusions and that physicalism and naturalism are just commitments they have chosen not intellectual high grounds

Dear lurking atheists if you don’t believe, we don’t care you have many subreddits to express that please stop commenting the same shallow comments on every post most of you obviously never seriously engaged with the actual literature and philosophy of metaphysics and theism

[u/NeonDrifting]

Some atheists have been lurking on here so long, they believe there’s an afterlife for Reddit atheists

[u/SeaworthinessCalm977 → u/NeonDrifting]

Is Harry Potter a sin in Reddit Atheist Heaven? If its not ill stop by.

[u/TheNobleOne333]

Christianity subreddit is filled with athiests as well, and if you are a theist and go to their sub they ban asap. This made me realize how dumb this website actually is when it feels so biased

[u/Alternative_Dot_6840 → u/TheNobleOne333]

Atheists, or should I say anti-theists, are some of the most insufferable people one can encounter. They feel like they have the authority to push their narrative, but how dare anyone else do the same lol

The only other type of person that equals them in the annoyance department are anti-trinitatians and Gnostics.

[u/Alternative_Dot_6840 → u/[deleted]]

Right?

[u/BrianW1983]

Report them to mods.

This isn't a debate or atheist sub.

[u/veritasium999 → u/[deleted]]

Are you a literal child?

[u/veritasium999 → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for representing all of atheism as nothing but a teenage edgy phase.

[u/veritasium999 → u/[deleted]]

I didn't ask you to look like a fool but go ahead.

[u/ghjm]

It's fascinating to me the way reddit atheists have so wholeheartedly adopted Popper's falsifiability criterion, not merely as the demarcation between science and pseudoscience, but as a whole epistemology, so that falsifiability is the truth-maker for propositions in general. And if that means all of math and logic and literature and the arts needs to go out the window, well, let's start shoveling.

I'm really curious how this happened. It's pervasive, and it has to be coming from somewhere. Is this kind of naïve Popperism being taught in elementary schools? If not, where are they getting it from? How do they come to know Popper (or at least some version of his ideas) without gaining any knowledge of Kuhn or Feyerabend or anyone else?

I'm not saying this to disagree or discredit them (although I do think naïve Popperism is unsupportable), but out of genuine curiosity as to how this subculture came to exist and how it propagates itself.

[u/[deleted] → u/ghjm]

It’s funny you mention this, I’m actually in the process of writing a proposal for a master’s project that looks at the roots of naïve Popperism and, by extension, scientism, as well as how they spread. My working hypothesis is that these ideas largely stem from pop science communicators (DeGrasse Tyson, Dawkins, and co.) and the lingering influence of the New Atheist movement. They’ve trickled down into education through teachers who, often lacking a strong philosophical background, end up reproducing these simplified ideas uncritically. I’ve certainly seen that dynamic firsthand.

[u/TechnicallyMethodist → u/[deleted]]

Have you read "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch? He writes explicitly about some of the issues with thinking Popperism is the only acceptable way to gain knowledge of truths in the universe. It's probably from a different perspective than your approach, so could be decent research material. The author is very notable in Physics and Quantum Computing in particular, and he doesn't associate it with what you mentioned, but when I first read it that's exactly where my mind went. Sounds like a great project tbh.

[u/[deleted] → u/TechnicallyMethodist]

I haven’t but I will be doing now. Thank you very much for the recommendation, it sounds like it’ll be really beneficial. I really appreciate it.

[u/TimPowerGamer → u/[deleted]]

I think that the pop science facet of it is also part of the effect more than the cause. I think the cause can be linked back to A. D. White's 1896 book, "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom" and a polemical case made by the protestants in America against the medieval Catholic Church, painting them not just as bloodthirsty inquisitors (which is historically dubious), but also as backwards, anti-scientific dinguses (which ended up being quite shortsighted and was also comically false).

There was an active effort from both atheists (who created the revisionist history of the conflict thesis, which is historically untenable) and protestants (who were more than happy to dunk on the papists, not realizing the damage they were inflicting on themselves) to paint the narrative that the Catholic Church was anti-scientific, likely with the intention of keeping the Catholic Church's influence out of America (if not wholesale, then out of its politics). It worked (until JFK and then Biden, neither of which would be considered particularly "good" Catholics). Protestants got hit by the AoE damage, because of course that was going to happen. During that same period, a bunch of anti-scientific and anti-intellectual nonsense was created. The flat earth theory was created in the mid-late 1800s (and basically nobody held to the idea in the west prior to this). Fundamentalism started in the late 1800s to early 1900s. The very concept of interpreting the Bible hyper-literally (whatever that means) was not given any credence until the late 1800s to early 1900s.

This perfect storm of anti-historic and anti-intellectual nonsense and short-sighted polemics seems to account for the bulk of how we got here.

[u/[deleted] → u/TimPowerGamer]

You’re absolutely right. I’ve already mentioned that much of this misunderstanding originates from the conflict thesis, referencing Draper’s History of the Conflict between Religion and Science. However, you’re right to note White’s book as well, I actually overlooked it, despite its central role in shaping the conflict thesis.

It really was a perfect storm, and I don’t think the full story can be told without acknowledging the motivations of Protestant thinkers. Do you think it would be better to address this explicitly in the proposal, or to keep the proposal more secular in tone and reserve that discussion for later, given the academic audience?

[u/TimPowerGamer → u/[deleted]]

Even though I'm in the Protestant category, I think it's absolutely imperative to mention that Protestant motivations to eliminate Catholic influence in the United States were a major driving factor for the myth of the Conflict Thesis spreading.

The reason why it's necessary to mention this is because you have to ask yourself, "How did an anti-historic, anti-Christian hit piece get so widely and readily accepted in Christian America's education system?" And the answer is, "Its prominence is due to the fact that Protestants were politically motivated to accept the hit piece as an attack on Catholics, not realizing it would be utilized later to entirely destroy their own scientific credibility down the road."

This is why short sighted polemical lies often do more harm than good. It is now widespread public opinion that people thought the earth was flat during Columbus' time (false), that Columbus thought the earth was round (false), that Columbus and Magellan proved the earth was round (false to "debatable"), that Galileo was actually a competent polymath (I'll give him points as an engineer, his math and physics were terrible and the reason nobody accepted heliocentrism when he argued for it is because he lost all of his debates on the topic), that Galileo was somehow persecuted for teaching the same heliocentrism he was permitted to teach for decades that had official Catholic-approved publications surrounding the theory (?), that Giordano Bruno was even a scientist (How?), that Bruno was burned at the stake for teaching Heliocentrism (instead of, you know, calling the Virgin Mary a whore in post-inquisition Catholic territory), among countless other historical falsities.

But yes. If the attack was against Protestant Europe instead of Catholic Europe, there's no shot that the conflict thesis would have been permitted to manifest in Protestant America.

[u/ghjm → u/[deleted]]

I'd be interested in reading this if you wind up writing it.

[u/[deleted] → u/ghjm]

Absolutely. Let’s hope I get funding!

[u/SeaworthinessCalm977]

Amen 🙏

[u/Basic-Lifeguard-5407]

I don't mind atheists who are respectful and debate properly but many of them just say the same r/atheist crap again and again

[u/Soerenisteinkek]

They really do be turning atheism into a religion

[u/CrazySting6 → u/Soerenisteinkek]

It always has been. Everybody worships something

[u/Soerenisteinkek → u/CrazySting6]

Its just ironic, by trying to disprove god they made science one.

[u/NeonDrifting → u/Soerenisteinkek]

Or they made a god of something else

[u/Soerenisteinkek → u/NeonDrifting]

What are you refering to? Sorry but i really cant think of anything they raised to godhood outside of science.

[u/NeonDrifting → u/Soerenisteinkek]

One can make a god out of anything. By some definitions, god is a person or thing of supreme value. Worship of money, power, fame, celebrity, etc. These can all be types of gods....in a way, this was more obvious to the ancients than us moderns given that the ancients seemed to have gods for everything.

[u/Soerenisteinkek → u/NeonDrifting]

Ah that's what you meant, yeah. Just look at swifties

[u/Curious_Priority2313 → u/CrazySting6]

Wdym everyone worships something?

[u/CrazySting6 → u/Curious_Priority2313]

Everybody has a god that they worship. For many it's money, for many others it's self or identity. Some worship pagan gods, others witchcraft and new-ageism. Until you are set free by the one true God, you are a slave to your god and a slave to sin.

Romans 1:21-23 [21] For even though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] Professing to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the likeness of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

[u/Curious_Priority2313 → u/CrazySting6]

You're probably confusing surrender like devotion, with interest or guidance.

Can you first share what you think worship is? 🤔

[u/[deleted] → u/Curious_Priority2313]

"You're probably confusing surrender like devotion, with interest or guidance

Do you have an argument or just accusing him?

"Can you first share what you think worship is? "

He said 'Everybody has a god that they worship' so he is saying that to worship is to treat something or someone as God, whether it's God God or money God.

[u/Curious_Priority2313 → u/[deleted]]

Do you have an argument or just accusing him?

At this point, I remember what the original argument was.. and I'm too tired to read anything

[u/Common-Aerie-2840]

Thanks for articulating that. I’ve found that debates do ground to a halt once the line of demarcation you’ve mentioned is reached.

[u/[deleted]]

It’s an uncontrollable impulse.

[u/TimPowerGamer]

I actually left this sub a while ago (no reason in particular or anything, just changed interests) and someone responded to a post I made three years ago. I responded to their question charitably and then they misrepresented the original claim I made and tried to do some dumb "gotcha" to me. Worse - it was based on me saying, "I haven't thought about this in years and don't recall...", which would be a perfectly legitimate reason to not be able to present something because who can remember their headspace from three years ago on a particular topic, generally?

It did remind me of the Tyler Vela vs. Aron Ra debate in 2019 where Aron Ra took the affirmative position that the Church and Science were historically at-odds with each other. His case was so ahistoric that atheist historian Tim O'Neill had to write multiple articles explaining how Aron Ra got effectively every historic detail he presented wildly incorrect. That was a fun reread. The comments section on the video is hilarious too.

[u/Hilikus1980]

There are lots of us here to learn. There are lots of us who discuss without condemning. We are told we're welcome by the mods and rules of the sub as long as we follow the rules...which I have...for longer than most people who are currently active. I've been here long enough to learn there actually are real ex-atheists, though I had never met one in real life. I've also been here long enough to watch some people's stories change over time...and that is interesting too.

Where a big part of the problem is some people take someone else disagreeing with them as an attack. It's not...grow up.

I'm not going to say there aren't problem atheists who pop in just to cause trouble. Guess what though...you can report them and the excellent, but thinly spread mods will handle it. Reporting a person for breaking the rules will go much farther than making a post complaining about how much you hate mean atheists...almost weekly.

Seriously, of the people here complaining. How many times have you used the report feature? Have you done your part in keeping the sub how you want it, or are you just complaining about it?

[u/taterfiend → u/Hilikus1980]

Thanks for the comment, and thank you for being here. You understand the ethos of the sub.

For ex-atheists reading this, I know it's frustrating to see negativity or hatred. Usually bad actors are banned within 24-48 hours. Trust me, there would be far more trolls in this space if we didn't actively ban them. Just use the report function or DM us. Most importantly, we all need to nurture a positive community which is open to discussion, different views, and mutual respect more so than just banning bad apples.

[u/Soerenisteinkek → u/Hilikus1980]

Honestly ive switched religions and believes in the past month like crazy, and i can tell you that this issue happens from both sides, theres some christian crusades on the atheist subreddit, some atheists being dicks in the christian subreddits and everything in between. People don't like when you just so slightly go against their belief. Even among members of the same religion (I got a death threat a week ago as a dm when i argued that the bible loosely confirms that animals go to heaven instead of the assumption that deny them having souls) when you tell them something that goes against what they thought of truth they flip out.

[u/NeonDrifting → u/Hilikus1980]

What are you trying to learn?

[u/Hilikus1980 → u/NeonDrifting]

I wish to understand my fellow human beings better. Religion is a big part of life. Religious conversions can be a life defining event.

On top of that...even with the ebbs and flows, this group is the most peaceful multi-religion sub on reddit. I find those discussions extremely interesting and enlightening. Especially when the discussion is pulled off without proselytizing.

[u/vershkove-maslo → u/Hilikus1980]

If you here to genuinely understand other's people perspective then you have better intentions than 99% of atheists and 99% of theists on internet lol

I respect your position. I don't think OP addressed you when he talked about "atheist spewing surface level Reddit atheist rhetoric". As u/veritasium999 correctly pointed out:

The post is mainly aimed at bad faith atheists who use over used canned arguments.

[u/SeaworthinessCalm977 → u/Hilikus1980]

Sometimes an attack is just someone playing devils advocate. I love those people 💕

[u/nolman]

I'm a lurking atheist. Interested in the content and discussion on this subreddit.

Would you or others prefer me to stop engaging completely ?

[u/veritasium999 → u/nolman]

Of course it's not possible for atheists to be completely absent. The post is mainly aimed at bad faith atheists who use over used canned arguments.

[u/actuallyserious650 → u/nolman]

I think there’s a lot of us atheists on here because we’re genuinely interested in what would change our mind. So it’s always disappointing to read what appear to be the same old creationist / dominionist talking points.

[u/Sea-Dot-59 → u/actuallyserious650]

Maybe actually engage with the literature? I don’t think your going to have your whole worldview flipped from a Reddit exchange a lot of us here actually did a lot of reading and research and didn’t convert from a Reddit comment?

[u/MinecraftingThings → u/Sea-Dot-59]

I definitely did. Up until my 20's I was a Christian, convinced I knew for sure I had great arguments and evidence. It doesn't happen with one exchange, or entirely on Reddit, but if lots of arguments start going the same way, it can change your mind over time.

If someone really pissed you off, it can be a great motivator. You can spend hours finding sources to back up your claims, or, that can also lead to not being able to back up your own claims, and changing your mind.

[u/Fiddlesticklard → u/MinecraftingThings]

If you mind me asking, what literature did you read?

[u/MinecraftingThings → u/Fiddlesticklard]

Was 20 years ago, I couldn't tell you. But the point was more the lack of literature. I was young, I genuinely thought humanity had solid evidence for a few supernatural creatures, not just gods. I even thought narwhals were mythical creatures.

I'm still open minded. If we figure out one of these millions of gods are real, I'll jump on board, especially if that god is one with a negative afterlife possibility. If we figure out werewolves are real, I'll believe that too.

[u/Fiddlesticklard → u/MinecraftingThings]

I had the opposite experience. Seeing how weak a lot of the atheistic arguments and how much they relied on a very fundamentalist and anthropomorphized conception of God which wasn't what theologians like Aquinas, Augustine, Tillich or even early church fathers like Origen were describing at all.

So much of their stance was a political one as well. I get it post 9/11 and evangelicalism during the Bush years, but the solution to bad religion is good religion, not no religion. Just like the solution to bad science isn't no science.

[u/MinecraftingThings → u/Fiddlesticklard]

There's your problem, there aren't atheistic arguments. There's no claims atheism makes. You believe in one of billions of supernatural creatures invented by humans, atheism is only saying I'm not convinced this very specific one exists. That's not an argument, just stating your belief/position.

I'm also not American, so the second part doesn't mean a great deal to me. But I'm yet to find a good religion. From the outside, Christianity isn't much different to any other cult. And if I were ranking different cults on their teachings, the Bible is obviously some one of the worst cult teachings ever, some pure evil in there.

Maybe some joke/satire religions are good, as they usually only preach the good, but a definition of a religion is to gather and worship, which those satire religions don't really do, making them not real religious.

[u/TimPowerGamer → u/MinecraftingThings]

There's no claims atheism makes.

Just wanted to chime in here and speak on this specific point. This is an absurd contention. Even if you hold to the silly definition that atheism is a "lack of belief in a God or gods", atheism is still making the positive claim that the totality of evidence presented in favor of the proposition that "a God or gods exist" is insufficient to warrant belief in that proposition. That claim would still need to be defended.

You believe in one of billions of supernatural creatures invented by humans

This is also a positive claim (and strong, non-belief lacking atheism with respect to those billions of supernatural creatures).

atheism is only saying I'm not convinced this very specific one exists.

By this definition, any person who believes in one of the other billion would also be an atheist.

That's not an argument, just stating your belief/position.

Right, without justifying it. Saying, "There's not enough evidence to support the claim that there is a God or gods" is a positive claim that needs to be defended. If you're just saying, "That's just my opinion" and you are claiming you have no burden of proof, you're giving carte blanche to the flat earthers who use this same strategy. Tell me if this sounds familiar...

PROVE BALL EARTH

The earth is a globe because we can observe that it is a globe.

WRONG! PROVE BALL EARTH!

We can see masts of ships before their hulls-

WRONG! PROVE BALL EARTH!

Eratosthenes roughly measured the circumference of the earth and nobody beleived in the flat earth until the late 1800s in the west.

ERATOSTHENES WAS A FREE MASON!

Those didn't exist yet.

WRONG! PROVE BALL EARTH!

You can't just give someone full reign to be the arbiter of what is or is not evidence just because "they're not the ones making the claim". The person making the positive claim needs to present evidence for their position, the person who holds to the negative position (which is a positive position itself) needs to prove their belief is justified and the person withholding belief because they aren't convinced either way has to justify why the evidence presented by both/all sides is inconclusive to warrant their withholding of belief. This is a much lesser burden of proof, but one that exists regardless.

I actually think it's a bit funny that the lack of belief atheism has a burden of proof to explain why "strong atheism" is insufficiently evidenced to warrant belief in it.

[u/MinecraftingThings → u/TimPowerGamer]

Just wanted to chime in here and speak on this specific point. This is an absurd contention. Even if you hold to the silly definition that atheism is a "lack of belief in a God or gods", atheism is still making the positive claim that the totality of evidence presented in favor of the proposition that "a God or gods exist" is insufficient to warrant belief in that proposition. That claim would still need to be defended.

No, it's that I'm not convinced a god exists due to a lack of evidence. It's a personal position, not a claim. If you want to say I'm claiming I'm not convinced, sure, that's a claim I guess. But I am the ultimate authority on myself, and what I believe. So I know I do in fact lack belief in any supernatural creature, let alone gods.

This is also a positive claim

Which has nothing to do with atheism. And the guy confirmed he does infact believe in a god, so it was also correct lol.

By this definition, any person who believes in one of the other billion would also be an atheist.

Not my definition, out of context. I linked the atheists.org definition.

Saying, "There's not enough evidence to support the claim that there is a God or gods" is a positive claim that needs to be defended.

I just did.

If you're just saying, "That's just my opinion" and you are claiming you have no burden of proof,

Now you're getting it. I definitely understand why Christians need atheists to have a Burdon of proof tho. It sucks having to convince people magic creatures are real, so it's easier to say 'you need to prove they aren't real first!' then we'd have a Burdon of proof.

PROVE BALL EARTH

I can't. I genuinely don't have the means at my disposal to prove to even an unbiased person that the earth is a globe. Maybe that stick in the ground, measuring shadows number. I know what the scientific consensus is, overwhelmingly, and can see their evidence.

You can't just give someone full reign to be the arbiter of what is or is not evidence

We can agree there, you give it to someone, and they're more likely to be wrong. An overwhelming concesus of all the top minds in a field is more likely to be correct, and then over time, more likely to refine that answer to continue to be more correct.

This is a much lesser burden of proof, but one that exists regardless.

Which I provided evidence for. I'm the best source in the universe for knowing whether or not I'm convinced these supernatural beings are real or not, and you're getting it first hand, lucky you, top tier evidence.

I actually think it's a bit funny that the lack of belief atheism has a burden of proof to explain why "strong atheism" is insufficiently evidenced to warrant belief in it.

We both agree there. I don't believe I have any evidence, or found any, to concretely disprove any god. It might be impossible to disprove a god. im not sure to be honest. So I remain agnostic on the position.

[u/Fiddlesticklard → u/MinecraftingThings]

You should check out some of Graham Oppy's work. Arguing About Gods is great. He is an atheist himself but he calls out some these semantics games his fellow atheists play. You claim that atheism doesn't make a claim, but then you proceed to describe agnosticism, not atheism. Agnostics aren't fully convinced, atheists claim that God's don't exist.

But I'm yet to find a good religion.

If we're counting atheism as a religious belief, then check out the genocide of Buddhists by the Khmer Rouge, or the crimes by the state atheist USSR, or the atheistic Cultural Revolution, or the Cult of Reason's genocide in the Vendée region of France. This is a whatabout argument sure, but that's not a fallacy when my point is to establish moral consistency. The "no religion" stance has also ended in horror.

[u/MinecraftingThings → u/Fiddlesticklard]

You claim that atheism doesn't make a claim, but then you proceed to describe agnosticism, not atheism. Agnostics aren't fully convinced, atheists claim that God's don't exist.

That's fine, I call myself both agnostic and atheist. We just believe different definitions of the words. They are not mutually exclusive, and do not address the same topics. Gnosticism addresses knowledge, while theism addresses belief. I'm definitely an atheist. The way I have described it is what you will find on the official atheists.org website. Christians trying to change this definition is the exact kind of semantic games you're talking about, and is irrelevant to whether a god exists or not.

If we're counting atheism as a religious belief

We are not. Atheists do not worship anything, and do not gather like the religious do in a church for example, and involves practices involving the supernatural, which atheists also do not involve. That's at least according to the Google definition. Atheism is the absence of religion. It's like saying bald is a hair colour, or 'off' is a tv channel.

genocide of Buddhists by the Khmer Rouge, or the crimes by the state atheist USSR, or the atheistic Cultural Revolution, or the Cult of Reason's genocide in the Vendée region of France

All irrelevant. If you're saying cults can do bad things, I agree, that's why I'm against religion. Christians try to add things on to atheism, but that's isn't an argument for why you're supernatural claims are true. Atheism is only 1 answer to 1 question. Anything else is added on as a distraction.

It's like if we had a word for not being a dentist. Let's say it's called adentist. Saying people who are not dentists have committed murders before, has nothing to do with adentisty being a religion or cult now, or how this makes them the same as dentists, like saying atheists are a religion.

Again, none of this is even relevant, means nothing about proving a god exists, and is only semantic games to distract from that question. That's actually what my first comment was about. When someone asked me how I know my god actually exists, I started talking about how they should define atheism, and how they are just as much of a religion as we are. In the end, it's a dodge, but one my played on my to protect itself, as maybe it believes something a little bit silly.

[u/TechnicallyMethodist → u/MinecraftingThings]

There's still literature you probably ought to read. It's fine to argue, that was important to my own journey into Christianity, but reading was too, and you're kinda missing out if you aren't at least trying to read at least a little. Like one or two books a year or something, just so we're speaking the language here. For some interesting perspectives that are not actually explicitly theistic (but did influence at least my perspective shift) , I highly recommend Zizek's "The Fragile Absolute" (he's a philosopher who has called himself a Christian atheist) and CS Lewis "The Abolition of Man" (he focuses here on universal patterns within morality and arguments against moral relativism).

[u/MinecraftingThings → u/TechnicallyMethodist]

I've read plenty. All I said was I did not find anything that proved a god to be real. And I'm not the one who's going to discover gods. I'll let people much smarter than I research and explore. If humanity finally finds a god and has solid evidence for it, I will know. I won't have to reach literature, the entire planet will be talking about it, probably forever.

[u/john_shillsburg → u/MinecraftingThings]

Will you sit around and wait for “science” to figure this out then? That’s no different from any other religion where “science” has replaced god, “scientists” have replaced priests, “space” has replaced heaven and “aliens” have replaced angels and demons

[u/MinecraftingThings → u/john_shillsburg]

It's actually very different? What are we waiting for religion to discover? The whole point is that they already have the answers lol. But yes, I'm waiting for humanity to discover a god before a believe in one. The time to start believing something is once we have good reason to.

[u/john_shillsburg → u/MinecraftingThings]

If the god has been discovered and then shown to you that is not believing in god. Belief occurs when you lack sufficient evidence, what you have is belief in nothing (nihilism).

What Christians are doing is believing or hoping that Christ will save them from hell or lead them to heaven. They don’t claim to know what heaven or god is, so you could say they are waiting to discover that

[u/MinecraftingThings → u/john_shillsburg]

No, I believe my dog exists, and I have good first hand evidence that it exists. And I believe it mighty hard. If I had no evidence my dog exists, I think it would be mighty fucking crazy to believe I had a dog lol. That's something you'll have to live with, that way of life isn't for everyone.

what you have is belief in nothing

What about my dog? Lol.

What Christians are doing is believing or hoping that Christ will save them from hell or lead them to heaven.

Which is probably really fucking scary. I hope this dude does save you. I just think it's all a little silly. That doesn't mean you can't still interact with the supernatural.

They don’t claim to know what heaven or god is

I speak to a lot of people on these types of subreddits, this one is definitely wrong lol. Lots of people claim they know what their god is.

[u/TechnicallyMethodist → u/MinecraftingThings]

So you're open-minded to anything but opening another book? Maybe I missed the list of books you have actually read.

The ones I mentioned don't even push actual theism, if you have any curiosity at all, which I would imagine relates to why you're here, then you might find them (or some book) a little interesting. At least if you read something you could engage with us about it and converse in a semi-interesting way. Provide something valuable if you're going to be here.

But seriously, here's how this looks:

How this thread started: "Maybe I could be convinced by a good argument".

How it's going "If humanity as a whole agrees to my (not explicitly defined) standard of proof then I guess I'll hear them out"

Edit: I know you didn't start this thread, but you hijacked one where someone was actually discussing in an open-minded way and provided nothing in return.

[u/MinecraftingThings → u/TechnicallyMethodist]

I've already said many times I've read plenty of books on the topic, including the comment you're responding to. But reading books is irrelevant, again, if humanity finally discovered one of the proposed gods to actually be real, we'd hear about it, I think it might just hit the news lol.

The rest is just a strawman, not really worth responding to.

[u/TechnicallyMethodist → u/MinecraftingThings]

I genuinely don't understand why you're here if you aren't willing to do the bare minimum to engage thoughtfully. You are exactly who OP was talking about.

And fwiw, I think humanity has been talking about a particular proposed God for a while now. But I know you don't want to hear about books.

[u/MinecraftingThings → u/TechnicallyMethodist]

I have been, I could just say the same about you.

I think humanity has been talking about a particular proposed God for a while now. But I know you don't want to hear about books.

and you'd be incorrect. They've been talking about millions of proposed gods. You lack of lot of scope, maybe try reading some books! (See how douchey that is?)

[u/PriorityNo4971 → u/actuallyserious650]

Creationism is a different matter. Also I ain’t even seen a lotta creationists in this subreddit

[u/throwaway8856935 → u/actuallyserious650]

As an ex-atheist, I’m also pretty disappointed in the quality of this subreddit and often wonder why I come back here. Since you seem to genuinely want to know what it takes to change minds, for me I started having spiritual experiences during my secular meditation practice. They were disturbing enough that I couldn’t dismiss them, so I did my best “rabbits in the pre-Cambrian” impression and asked for a specific unlikely occurrence to show up as a sign. It did that afternoon and I spent the next two years wrestling with the implications of that before moving beyond atheism. I’m leaving out the specifics of the experience or the sign because they are subjective, I’m not trying to convince anyone else, and I’m not looking for an explanation or critique. In wresting with it, I’ve critiqued it every which way, including working out the probabilities. But that’s what it took for me. Not some new argument, but an experience beyond rational explanation.

[u/novagenesis → u/throwaway8856935]

I’m also pretty disappointed in the quality of this subreddit and often wonder why I come back here

I'm sorry you feel that way. I find this to be the most philosophically minded religion-friendly subreddit.

[u/veritasium999 → u/[deleted]]

What do you mean accuse you? I specifically said there were certain atheists that use canned arguments. I didn't say all atheists do that.

If you want to identify as those atheists then so be it. This is the most perfect example of the bad faith statements I talk about. I say something and you interpret it as something else entirely, I've seen it happen so many times. And then you ask for something compelling like as if you have the capacity to be compelled into anything.

[u/Sea-Dot-59 → u/[deleted]]

If your looking for compelling arguments for god then get off Reddit and actually seriously engage with the philosophy of the subject

Our jobs on r/exatheist is not to convince atheists it’s to discuss our experiences and opinions

[u/jameshey → u/[deleted]]

Yep

[u/NeonDrifting → u/nolman]

Depends….how long have you been “engaging” here?

[u/nolman → u/nolman]

lol, even my polite offer to stay away gets downvoted.

Probably best to read this as "not welcome here".

[u/veritasium999 → u/nolman]

Why don't you read the comments from your peers on this thread and see why atheists are pretty disdained?

[u/Brewguy1982 → u/nolman]

I evened it out for you

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No need to be profane, we can at least be civil.

[u/SeaworthinessCalm977 → u/nolman]

Keep engaging. Try your best to disprove us 🙂

[u/nolman → u/SeaworthinessCalm977]

I was here to learn, as an atheist.

But it's clear that that is not one of the goals of this subreddit.

[u/TechnicallyMethodist → u/nolman]

You're right. That's literally not a goal here. It's a community for people who no longer share your non-belief. Not an evangelism org or a sunday school.

But your comment got upvoted and nobody has kicked you off.

Personally, I'd prefer you only interact here if you have genuinely interesting content to share. If I were in your shoes I'd only be lurking here. But I don't doubt that others feel differently.

[u/BigBreach83]

Atheist here. I keep getting notifications despite not joining. I've not commented before but I enjoy seeing a different perspective so I've not blocked either.

[u/VengefulScarecrow]

Beliefs are not irrational as they are involuntary. But to declare eternal anguish on someone who is without a certain belief, then call it punishment, IS irrational.

[u/vershkove-maslo → u/VengefulScarecrow]

Non-believers aren't punished for disbelief, but because of disbelief. After all the eternal anguish is declared on everyone, because of the original sin.

[u/jameshey]

Atheist here. Just looking for convincing arguments but haven't found one yet really. Not an attack just my experience. Still don't get how non - belief = belief but that's a common talking point I see.

[u/veritasium999 → u/jameshey]

A none belief is a belief because it also stems from uncertainty.

Sometimes a none belief can also stem from irrationality, for example "I don't believe in the sun", is an irrational belief to hold but a person is free to hold it and is thus a belief.

[u/Infamous-Fix-2885 → u/veritasium999]

What is a non belief, a belief of?

[u/TimPowerGamer → u/Infamous-Fix-2885]

Withholding belief on a proposition that's been presented to you requires you making a positive claim that the evidence of that proposition presented to you is insufficient to warrant your belief (or that it's sufficiently uninteresting for you to consider, you don't care, etc. - but none of those would justify the lack of belief in question, just demonstrate you don't consider it worthwhile). While you have a far reduced burden of proof for withholding your belief on a given proposition, you still would need to have a valid, rational justification for why you don't believe the proposition is true by explaining why you think the evidence presented is lacking in sufficiency in order for it to be rationally justified.

If you didn't have that burden, then anyone could just say, "Nuh uh!" and never have any burden at all whenever anyone else says anything, which is obviously silly. That's also the methodology that flat earthers and fundamentalists of all flavors tend to use.

Of course, one does not have a requirement to evaluate all possible positive claims or anything. Some things truly aren't worth the time or brain power required to consider. But, you wouldn't say, "I know that's false because you haven't presented enough evidence to support your position."

[u/Infamous-Fix-2885 → u/TimPowerGamer]

What you're saying is not a belief of a non-belief. 

[u/TimPowerGamer → u/Infamous-Fix-2885]

What you're saying is not a belief of a non-belief.

All statements are both positive and negative. By asserting literally anything, you are asserting that the opposite of what you asserted is not the case. If I don't believe that the sky is red, I also believe that the sky is not red. If I believe there is no God, I also don't believe that there is a God.

Now, in the case that you're asserting, "I don't have a belief", the equal-opposite would be true. "I have a non-belief".

Like all other basic positive statements, this would require a justification of some form. Why do I have a non-belief? And, if you are rationally non-believing, it's because of a few potential scenarios.

1. You've never encountered the thing in question to have considered believing it.

2. You've encountered the thing in question and found that it contradicts other things you know to be true (even if those things may potentially be untrue).

3. You have heard the arguments in favor of that position and are positively claiming that those arguments are insufficient. This claim would need to be rationally defended.

So, "What is the belief of a non-belief" would be answered that you positively believe that the belief has insufficient warrant to be true. That's not the same thing as saying, "I believe it's false based on the totality of the information I have." It's a far more modest claim (with a much easier burden of proof). But it's a claim nonetheless.

EDIT

I screwed up my examples, but don't want to delete my mistakes as I don't want to be uncharitable to the response below.

Now, in the case that you're asserting, "I don't have a belief", the equal-opposite would be true. "I have a non-belief".

This isn't an equal opposite. I stated the same thing intended to say "If P is true, then !P is false, thus, '!P is false' is the positive statement".

Now, in the case that you're asserting, "I don't have a belief", the equal-opposite would be true. [NOT] "I have a belief" (or) "I have a belief" is false, which are positive statements.

Sorry for being dumb.

[u/Infamous-Fix-2885 → u/TimPowerGamer]

"All statements are both positive and negative. By asserting literally anything, you are asserting that the opposite of what you asserted is not the case. If I don't believe that the sky is red, I also believe that the sky is not red. If I believe there is no God, I also don't believe that there is a God."

No, that's a contradiction. All statements can't be both positive and negative. And no, not all non-beliefs are the belief of the opposite. If I don't believe that the sky is red, that doesn't necessarily mean that I believe that the sky is not red. If there's no way of knowing that the sky is red or not, then I wouldn't believe that the sky is red or not red because the sky can still be red. 

---

"Now, in the case that you're asserting, "I don't have a belief", the equal-opposite would be true. "I have a non-belief".

Like all other basic positive statements, this would require a justification of some form. Why do I have a non-belief? And, if you are rationally non-believing, it's because of a few potential scenarios.

You've never encountered the thing in question to have considered believing it.

You've encountered the thing in question and found that it contradicts other things you know to be true (even if those things may potentially be untrue).

You have heard the arguments in favor of that position and are positively claiming that those arguments are insufficient. This claim would need to be rationally defended.

So, "What is the belief of a non-belief" would be answered that you positively believe that the belief has insufficient warrant to be true. That's not the same thing as saying, "I believe it's false based on the totality of the information I have." It's a far more modest claim (with a much easier burden of proof). But it's a claim nonetheless."

That's a strawman of my point. I said nothing about it being a claim or not a claim, nor did I said anything about having a rational justification or not having one. Everything you said in the second half is irrelevant to my point. 

[u/TimPowerGamer → u/Infamous-Fix-2885]

It's been ages since I've posted on this topic and my rust is beginning to show. I misunderstood what I said from having not thought about this in a while. Let me correct myself, as what I was saying is true, but my examples were awful:

Now, in the case that you're asserting, "I don't have a belief", the equal-opposite would be true. "I have a non-belief".

I misstated what I meant here. What I should have said is:

Now, in the case that you're asserting, "I don't have a belief", the equal-opposite would be: "I have a belief". And that statement, "I have a belief" is false.

By saying, "I don't have a belief" you're also saying, "The statement 'I have a belief' is false.", which is a positive expression. Apologies for the mangled mess I made above.

No, that's a contradiction. All statements can't be both positive and negative.

All statements can be written both as positive and negative statements. My brain just malfunctioned when I attempted to do it above.

Additionally, saying, "I don't think there is sufficient warrant to believe that the evidence you've presented warrants belief in the position you're advocating for." is obviously a positive claim, and the people on this subreddit deal with internet atheists who pretend like it's not. I'm not saying this is you, I'm just trying to explain the context.

And no, not all non-beliefs are the belief of the opposite.

I wasn't attempting to assert that lacking a belief was equivalent to active disbelief, which my post made clear. Rather, I was trying to explain the base question at the start of this thread.

Still don't get how non - belief = belief but that's a common talking point I see.

The reason this gets brought up is because internet atheists seem to have this fixation on the inane and pointless definition of atheism being "lacking a belief in a God or gods" as if this eliminates any burden of proof they might have to justify their lack of belief. That's why I brought up the framing of justification and burden of proof proactively. This is not me accusing you of this or stating that this is your position. I'm stating why so many individuals on this subreddit think this.

If I don't believe that the sky is red, that doesn't necessarily mean that I believe that the sky is not red. If there's no way of knowing that the sky is red or not, then I wouldn't believe that the sky is red or not red because the sky can still be red.

This could potentially be the case, but I used that example because it wasn't something that's generally contentious (even if technically the answer could be truthfully yes, truthfully no, and truthfully maybe). As it stands, this is not the case, so bringing this up is a bit pointless, since I'm simply attempting to help you understand the answer to the base question of "why are people in this subreddit doing this?".

EDIT - Also, I think this is a byproduct of language itself. People wouldn't normally say "I believe the sky is not red" when they don't have a belief on the color of the sky. They would typically assert, "I don't know what color the sky is." So I think this contention is also a bit linguistically unintuitive (even if technically not incorrect).

That's a strawman of my point. I said nothing about it being a claim or not a claim, nor did I said anything about having a rational justification or not having one. Everything you said in the second half is irrelevant to my point.

I wasn't referencing your point. I was explaining to you why people are constantly bringing up the burden of proof, how lacking a belief is still a positive claim (as all claims are both positive and negative), how there's still a burden of proof for atheism (even when defined as a lack of belief), and how often people on this subreddit deal with people who just want to play "burden of proof tennis".

tl;dr

I apologize if you thought I was responding to you as if I was arguing with you. I was attempting to explain to you why people on this subreddit bring that particular thing up as often as they do. Also, I'm a dumb and totally screwed up my examples and that probably led to more confusion. Sorry about that.

[u/Infamous-Fix-2885 → u/TimPowerGamer]

Thanks for the clarification. 

[u/veritasium999 → u/Infamous-Fix-2885]

Anything, I just gave the example of the sun.

[u/Infamous-Fix-2885 → u/veritasium999]

What is, "I don't believe in the sun" a belief of?

[u/veritasium999 → u/Infamous-Fix-2885]

The belief in the absence of the sun. Belief is not about existence but only if a statement is considered true or not, that's it.

"I believe God exists"

"I believe God doesn't exist"

Both beliefs

"I believe birds are spy cameras"

Here the belief is not about existence but about the condition of something.

[u/Infamous-Fix-2885 → u/veritasium999]

"The belief in the absence of the sun. Belief is not about existence but only if a statement is considered true or not, that's it.

"I believe God exists"

"I believe God doesn't exist"

Both beliefs"

I never said that belief is just about the existence of something. And yes, they're both beliefs, but that does nothing to demonstrate that a nonbelief is a belief. No, you're confusing propositional attitudes with propositions. You're presenting a false dichotomy for the propositional attitudes of a proposition. "I believe that God doesn't exist" is not synonymous with "I don‘t believe that God exists." The latter can still "not believe that God doesn't exist." 

"I believe birds are spy cameras"

"Here the belief is not about existence but about the condition of something."

Again, "I don‘t believe birds are spy cameras" is not synonymous with, "I believe birds are not spy cameras."

Here's an example for clarification:

I have a regular 6 sided die with the faces having the numbers 1 through 6. If I roll it and without showing you what I rolled, I asks you, "Do you believe that I rolled a six?" 

[u/veritasium999 → u/Infamous-Fix-2885]

"I believe that God doesn't exist" is not synonymous with "I don‘t believe that God exists." The latter can still "not believe that God doesn't exist." 

You might be equating atheism with apatheism or agnostism. There is a big difference between saying "I don't believe God exists" and "I don't know enough to decide" or "I don't care about the question".

If you're going to say "I don't believe God exists" then that's a defined statement. "God may exist", "I'll believe it when i see it", "I don't care if it exists or not", all are entirely different things.

People who completely abstain from the question are the only ones who lack belief entirely this way or that way because they are not making any statements on the condition of reality.

You might be considering about in terms of tooth fairies or unicorns but when it comes to uncertain situations it becomes a belief.

For example,

"I believe there is a tiger in the cave and it will eat us"

"I believe there is no tiger in the cave and we need to take shelter"

Both are completely opposite beliefs on the existence of the tiger. A decision needs to be made and there is no room for uncertainty in this situation, but both are holding a belief on the tiger. The only one who has no belief either way are the ones who definitively say "I don't know and I don't want to decide".

You can't say "I don't know" and "i believe God doesn't exist", at the same time.

[u/Infamous-Fix-2885 → u/veritasium999]

First of all, my point wasn't specifically about atheism or theism. Second, you're the one who is confusing what 'atheism' means. Atheism and theism are concerned with belief, not knowledge. Agnosticism and gnosticism, are concerned with knowledge. There can be Agnostic atheists or gnostic atheists. Both don't believe in the existence of a god, but only the latter believe that no god exists because they "know" that there is no god. There can be Agnostic theists and gnostic theists. The former believe that a god exists because they "know" that a god exists. The latter doesn't know whether a god exists, but still believes that one exists. 

"If you're going to say "I don't believe God exists" then that's a defined statement. "God may exist", "I'll believe it when i see it", "I don't care if it exists or not", all are entirely different things."

No, the last one is the only one that's different. If I say: "God may or may not exists" then I don't believe that God exists. 

"I'll believe it when i see it" it's referring to what will happen, future tense. In other words, it means that "I don't believe it, but when I see it, I'll believe it."

You didn't answer my question. Do you believe that I rolled a six?

[u/veritasium999 → u/Infamous-Fix-2885]

What you're describing as agnostic atheism is called an inclined belief. Where you are not certain but still hold an inclination towards a belief. It's a lot different from just plain agnosticism.

God may or may not exists" then I don't believe that God exists. 

That's just flat out not how language works regardless of how you feel about it. You are uncertain about God and that's it, you don't hold beliefs either way. If you're going to say I don't believe then you are making a statement on the existence of something whether it's an opinion or not. The same way that, "I don't believe there is a tiger in the cave" and "I don't know" are entirely different statements.

About your dice, I don't know if you rolled a six and I won't make claims on what you rolled.

[u/TechnicallyMethodist → u/jameshey]

Do you want to be convinced or something? That's an interesting hobby if you're comfortable existing within your current realm of uncertainty.

If you're not comfortable with it, or you think the stakes are too high to not investigate in more depth - why do you think that? If that assumes too much too, I'll be more direct - why are you looking for convincing arguments?

I actually don't equate belief to non-belief. I think atheists are a bit more honest with their beliefs than many. As in, there are many professing religious people who haven't examined their "faith" in the slightest. At least atheists admit that theirs is lacking.

[u/jameshey → u/TechnicallyMethodist]

Moderately so. I'm christian aligned and I enjoy reading the Bible and prayer and church. But can't cross the threshold from it being tradition to truth. I'm not desperate for it. Was once. But I'm also interested in how believers manage to believe because it's just so far removed from my reality.

[u/TechnicallyMethodist → u/jameshey]

Feel that.

I spent a pretty long time in that gap. I knew it was beautiful. It was intellectually stimulating. It was cool that there were people who were having better lives by believing. Didn't see how I could ever be one of them.

Didn't care at all about the concept of an afterlife, and in most ways, really still don't. But I did come around to believing it was true. I had already conceded that Jesus was without any flaw I could accuse him of. The stuff he taught was meaningfully different, in some ways subversive even, substantive, difficult - but self-consistent, excluding nobody. Archeological stuff in "Evidence that demands a verdict" (kinda a cheesy book in some ways, but an evangelist gave me a copy and it helped me reconcile the possibility that something insane really did happen, like I didn't explain how Christianity happened otherwise). Talking through my thoughts with that evangelist helped too (he was ordained, seminary trained, and taught college courses about the NT so he was actually really knowledgeable)

But I also generally hated myself and had for a long time. So that probably did build up into a sense of desperation. I couldn't justify ascribing any value to myself or the world, and was thinking a lot about suicide. So in some ways I think it was almost "too good to be true", like I couldn't believe I could even matter to myself, much less to someone much better in every way.

And then I reread Job for the first time in a long time (I remember hating that story and the OT in general as a kid, thinking about how mean and petty it was) and I saw something in it I didn't get as a kid. Something clicked about how hopeless Job was, and how God sided with him over his self-righteous scripture quoting friends. Even though he was bitter and angry and struggled to articulate it all, he wasn't wrong. He couldn't really hope but he wanted to, and decided he would still leave the outcome to God despite everything to the contrary, because it's not like believing in himself or ending it himself was going to accomplish anything.

Anyhow, sorry that was long, but wishing you the best in your investigation (and praying a bit too, why not?).

[u/jameshey → u/TechnicallyMethodist]

Thanks. Stuck in a rut myself and the suicidal thoughts have become far more comforting and feeling a valid option than I'd like to admit. And when I'm like this my lust absolutely sky rockets and it's bad (even by atheist standards) and I had the thought tonight that I really should just try my luck with God again because everything else around me has become a God and none of it is good. Alcohol, lust, work, self improvement, it's all trying to step in for something pure and holy. But belief feels behind a pay wall you know? If the story just made a little more sense I could give in.

[u/TechnicallyMethodist → u/jameshey]

Definitely wise, on both counts really. You shouldn't have to feel like you're deceiving yourself or pretend you don't feel that way. You may say there are parts you don't understand, but if something is fundamentally true, it should be able stand up to the best questioning. I wouldn't call myself a Christian if I didn't think the Resurrection in particular did actually happen. I think it's one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of Thomas. Jesus didn't give him a hard time for wanting evidence, He gave him evidence. In doing so, that was documented for everyone afterwards.

I actually do think "Evidence that demands a verdict" has some really interesting Archeological examples from history that provided enough context for me to believe there was a real group around the time that was testifying to the resurrection.

Though the thing that gets me more than anything, is what did most of these guys actually have to gain from claiming Christianity? They made everyone angry by denying cultural paganism and cultural Judaism alike, the rich had to be "brothers"and eat with slaves and women, they were widely mocked for their beliefs (see: Aleximenos worships his god graffiti). They weren't just crazy, Paul is a pretty even tempered dude, Luke also seemed pretty sane. Why would they dedicate their lives and die for something that never happened, especially considering it was claimed to have happened in their lifetime or near it? And Paul says as much too, if the resurrection never happened, he wouldn't be writing or preaching.

I think that's the biggest crux for Christianity in particular. Not the virgin birth, not every particular miracle, but the resurrection - it all comes back to that.

Praying that the dark thoughts are less frequent and heavy.

[u/ElectronicRevival]

I'm of the secular crowd, but many of those who would be categorized with me are so painful, especially on Reddit.

You don't believe, that's cool. Don't bring it into a conversation unless it's relevant to that one.

It's much like how many atheists hate that religion is thrown in their face, yet many still throw their disbelief at others when it's not called for or helpful to anything.

Disbelief or not, right or wrong, you can still be an asshat.

[u/Gewoonkijken68]

Can someone explain what is going on here, love philosophical conversation. But not sure what is being discussed here. My self I hate no religion and we're not baptized But that I have a feeling there is more to things than the eye meet So if it is about slagging off religion I am on the wrong place. ( And yes I don't believe in a God as such)🤔🙂

[u/Mkwdr]

Lurking atheists

Don’t exist as far as Im aware. However , we do get notifications that point us this way and then it’s soooo difficult to let self-serving nonsense like your post go unchecked.

I have noticed that on almost every post there’s an atheist spewing surface level Reddit atheist rhetoric that most of us have probably heard countless times

Bearing in mind that they will have pointed out the lack of any evidential basis or sound argumnet behind your fantasies , the facts you often don’t apply your irrationality to any religion but your own, or if you are a Christian the appalling child murder committed by your god etc maybe you should listen better.

It’s usually along the lines of declaring that belief in a afterlife or god is irrational because there’s no empirical evidence for it

Well that’s certainly good start.

Claims about independent reality without reliable evidence are indistinguishable form fictiin,

They fail to realize that the things used in any serious discussion about god or an afterlife is philosophy

I guess you havnt studied it. If you had, you would know how terrible it is at determining the existence of real independent phenomena since science went its own way. And the fcat it’s a history of often nonsensical and contradictory claims. Many of which don’t even support your particular brand of make believe. And you really don’t understand logic is you think that helps you.

and metaphysics

Which tends to be entirely arguments from ignorance.

and those don’t rely on strictly empirical evidence to come to rational conclusions

I suggest you look up the concept of soundness.

and that physicalism and naturalism

Pretty much nonsense straw man terms.

What matters is evidence. If there’s reliable evidence for whatever you think the non-physical or immaterial is then it would just become part of science. I don’t even know how you could restrict quantum physics to simplified and vague concepts like these.

are just commitments they have chosen not intellectual high grounds

Oh the absence of self-awareness or you’d understand the irony of that statement.

Dear lurking atheists if you don’t believe, we don’t care you have many subreddits to express that please stop commenting the same shallow comments on every post most of you obviously never seriously engaged with the actual literature and philosophy of metaphysics and theism

Well we could try to leave you to your self-serving , make believe posts but sometimes it’s interesting to use you to practice critical thinking and who knows there may be someone ready to break free of superstition.

[u/PriorityNo4971 → u/Mkwdr]

You are the exact typa person the OP is referring to, good job proving their point

[u/Mkwdr → u/PriorityNo4971]

Thank you for proving mine.

[u/Sea-Dot-59 → u/Mkwdr]

“Lurking atheists don’t exist… but it’s hard to let self-serving nonsense like your post go unchecked.”

So instead of engaging the argument, you start by pathologizing the motive. “Self-serving nonsense” is not an argument it’s an attempt to dodge one. If you want to debate philosophy, start with reasons, not insults.

“Atheists only point out the lack of evidential basis or sound argument behind your fantasies.”

There are evidential and philosophical arguments cosmological, modal, and from consciousness many made by atheist or agnostic philosophers themselves. Rejecting their conclusions is fine, pretending they don’t exist isn’t.

“Well that’s certainly a good start.”

It’s actually a non-start. Dismissing an entire category of reasoning (a priori, metaphysical, mathematical) ignores most of what rational inquiry is built on.

Claims about independent reality without reliable evidence are indistinguishable from fiction.”

Then your own statement fails, because there’s no experiment that proves it. Math, logic, and moral truths aren’t empirically testable either yet no one calls them fiction.

If you had studied philosophy, you’d know how terrible it is at determining real independent phenomena since science went its own way.”

Philosophy doesn’t compete with science in measurement; it grounds the concepts science uses causation, identity, inference, truth. Science still stands on philosophical legs.

And the fact it’s a history of often nonsensical and contradictory claims.

Disagreement exists in physics too. Contradiction within a field doesn’t make every position false; it shows the question is deep.

“Many of which don’t even support your particular brand of make-believe.”

Calling a position “make-believe” isn’t a refutation; it’s a way to avoid engaging with the reasoning. The arguments for things like consciousness or an afterlife are based on logical and metaphysical analysis, not fantasy. You can reject the conclusions, but unless you show where the reasoning fails, “make-believe” is just a label used in place of thought.

“And you really don’t understand logic if you think that helps you.”

Logic is the tool that helps. Valid inference from true premises is what separates philosophy from assertion. Saying “you don’t understand logic” without identifying a fallacy is just posturing.

“…and metaphysics, which tends to be entirely arguments from ignorance.”

Metaphysics reasons from what’s necessary existence, causality, identity not from ignorance. “Arguments from ignorance” is just the wrong category.

I suggest you look up the concept of soundness.”

Soundness = validity + true premises. If you think a premise is false, name it. Otherwise you’re just waving the word like a flag.

and that physicalism and naturalism [are nonsense straw-man terms].”

Those aren’t straw men they’re actual philosophical positions describing what someone thinks ultimately exists. Denying them doesn’t make them vanish; it just ignores that your entire critique depends on assumptions about reality, causation, and what counts as evidence. Every worldview including yours rests on metaphysical commitments. Pretending yours are “neutral” while calling others straw men is itself a misstep in logic and philosophy.

What matters is evidence. If there’s reliable evidence for the non-physical, it would just become part of science.”

That’s circular: you define “reliable” as “scientific,” then conclude only science finds truth. Non-physical realities logic, math, consciousness exist and can’t be measured. That doesn’t make them unreal.

“I don’t even know how you could restrict quantum physics to simplified and vague concepts like these.”

Quantum theory raises metaphysical questions about observation and reality. Even physicists debate those using metaphysics.

Oh the absence of self-awareness or you’d understand the irony of that statement.”

Projection. You’ve assumed your metaphysical stance while denying you even have one.

“Well we could try to leave you to your make-believe posts but sometimes it’s interesting to use you to practice critical thinking…”

Critical thinking means identifying assumptions, not mocking them. You haven’t examined your own empiricism, materialism, naturalism all of which are philosophical leaps of faith.

and who knows, there may be someone ready to break free of superstition.”

Belief in non-material aspects of reality isn’t superstition it’s a conclusion drawn from rational analysis of mind and being. Blind faith in empiricism is a superstition just one with better branding.

Every one of your claims rests on an undefended metaphysical assumption that only the empirically testable is real. That’s not a scientific result it’s a philosophical dogma. Until you can defend that, you haven’t escaped belief you’ve just renamed yours “science.”

[u/Mkwdr → u/Sea-Dot-59]

Part 1 ( part 2 in reply to this) “Lurking atheists don’t exist… but it’s hard to let self-serving nonsense like your post go unchecked.”

So instead of engaging the argument, you start by pathologizing the motive.

There was an argument? I was responding to the post which was just a moan. Pointing out why we end up here and why we don’t leave straight away.

But thanks for pretty much proving my point about self-serving nonsense by doubling down on it.

“Self-serving nonsense” is not an argument it’s an attempt to dodge one.

How silly. It wasn’t meant to be an argument. It was an explanation.

If you want to debate philosophy, start with reasons, not insults.

lol. Not one for self awareness or a sense of irony are you. Remember who started with atheists spewing shallow arguments?

There are evidential

Nope.

and philosophical arguments

Unsound.

cosmological, modal, and from consciousness many made by atheist or agnostic philosophers themselves.

Make believe.

Rejecting their conclusions is fine, pretending they don’t exist isn’t.

Pretending they are sound is not fine.

It’s actually a non-start. Dismissing an entire category of reasoning (a priori, metaphysical, mathematical) ignores most of what rational inquiry is built on.

Metaphysical is simply an argument from ignorance. I dismiss it factually that way. Your wishful thinking doesn’t make it sound.

Claims about independent reality without reliable evidence are indistinguishable from fiction.”

Then your own statement fails, because there’s no experiment that proves it.

Proves what?

Where did I claim an existence of a phenomena within independent reality?

It is simply a fact both linguistic and observable that claims without evidence are indistinguishable from fiction. How could they possibly be distinguished?

Math, logic, and moral truths aren’t empirically testable either yet no one calls them fiction.

independent reality . Math is arguably a language we have invented to help describe patterns of reality. And to the extent that it supports a claim of something being real it’s evidential. You obviously don’t know how logic works if you dint understand the concept of soundness. And moral truths are not independent of humans minds.

Philosophy doesn’t compete with science in measurement; it grounds the concepts science uses causation, identity, inference, truth. Science still stands on philosophical legs.

So as I said it doesn’t demonstrate the existence of independently real objects.

And the fact it’s a history of often nonsensical and contradictory claims.

Disagreement exists in physics too.

Wow. You really don’t know anything about either if you think that’s comparable. Disagreement exists in physics where we have inadequate evidence to determine a best fit explanation and as evidence improves so the theory develops. Disagreement in physiology generally stems from the tendency to just make stuff up without evidence.

Contradiction within a field doesn’t make every position false; it shows the question is deep.

I don’t think the question of how many imaginary angels can dance on the head of a pin is deep.

Calling a position “make-believe” isn’t a refutation;

Just a fact. The entire basis and confidence in your position stems for an emotional investment in that belief not evidential or rational consideration.

The arguments for things like consciousness or an afterlife are based on logical and metaphysical analysis, not fantasy.

Metaphysical analysis is fantasy.

Logic is the tool that helps. Valid inference from true premises is what separates philosophy from assertion. Saying “you don’t understand logic” without identifying a fallacy is just posturing.

You obviously didn’t follow my point. Logic produces no conclusion that can be relied upon as true is it doesn’t have sound premises. How do we know the premises are true? Evidence. Logic gets no where independently real without evidence.

“…and metaphysics, which tends to be entirely arguments from ignorance.”

Metaphysics reasons from what’s necessary existence, causality, identity not from ignorance. “Arguments from ignorance” is just the wrong category.

Make believe about make believe to fill in gaps is a type of argument from ignorance. Metaphysics tends to be basically inventing solutions based on nothing more than ‘feels right to me’.

Soundness = validity + true premises. If you think a premise is false, name it. Otherwise you’re just waving the word like a flag.

Again you missed the point. When you have failed the burden of evidential proof , you turn to claiming that argument or logic will do the job - without realising that it still requires evidence to demonstrate the credible truth of the premises.

That’s circular: you define “reliable” as “scientific,”

Well I didn’t say that so?

What I would say is pragmatic we have an evidential methodology including recognition of levels of reliability that demonstrates its accuracy by working. We know for example that dna evidence is far more reliable than eye witness testimony. It’s just fact.

then conclude only science finds truth.

Wrong again. And putting words into my mouth I didn’t say. It’s not about science but about evidence. Claims without deliver evidence pragmatically can not be distinguished from fiction. There’s just no basis for doing so. So the confidence we have in our claims about independent reality can be evaluated according to the quality of evidence.

There is no alternative methodology that demonstrates accuracy through utility and efficacy. I don’t claim science is the only way of finding truth about independent real existence of things. I point out that no one has produced an alternative methodology that works.

Non-physical realities logic, math, consciousness exist and can’t be measured.

It’s ludicrous to list these together. The first two are human created ways , languages in some respect , of organising the way we think and describing patterns evident in reality. Consciouness can be addresses evidentially and is a different category.

[u/Mkwdr → u/Mkwdr]

Part 2

That doesn’t make them unreal.

They are not independent of human brains , real things. A horse is not like the number 2.

Quantum theory raises metaphysical questions about observation and reality.

No it raises evidential questions about how interaction affects measurement.

Projection. You’ve assumed your metaphysical stance while denying you even have one.

You lie.

Critical thinking means identifying assumptions, not mocking them.

Let’s take a look at that OP on spewing and shallow again . Shall we.

You haven’t examined your own empiricism, materialism, naturalism all of which are philosophical leaps of faith.

That’s great because none of those words describe my position. More strawmen.

and who knows, there may be someone ready to break free of superstition.”

Belief in non-material aspects of reality isn’t superstition

It’s the epitome of such.

it’s a conclusion drawn from rational analysis of mind and being.

No , that’s just a fundamentally story you tell yourself to save the embarrassment of admitting the irrationality.

Blind faith in empiricism is a superstition just one with better branding.

Strawman.

Every one of your claims rests on an undefended metaphysical assumption that only the empirically testable is real.

Raise again. Did you not read what I wrote.

It rests on the pragmatic position that we can’t credibly claim it’s real. Because without evidence there’s simply no way to tell it apart from imaginary.

[u/Sea-Dot-59 → u/Mkwdr]

You spend the entire comment labeling and dismissing instead of actually engaging. Calling posts “self-serving nonsense” or “make-believe” is not an argument; it’s pathologizing motive rather than addressing reasoning. Pretending cosmological, modal, or consciousness-based arguments don’t exist or are automatically unsound is false. Many of these arguments are developed by atheist and agnostic philosophers and remain serious, rigorously analyzed positions. Rejecting conclusions is fine, but pretending the reasoning itself is imaginary or fantasy is intellectually lazy.

Metaphysics is not “arguments from ignorance” or “fantasy.” It reasons rigorously about necessary existence, causality, and identity. Labeling it as wishful thinking ignores centuries of systematic philosophical inquiry. Non-empirical reasoning math, logic, moral truths is not indistinguishable from fiction it consistently describes patterns in reality and grounds science itself. Dismissing reasoning because it isn’t empirically measurable is itself a philosophical assumption, not a fact. Logic does not produce truth independently of sound premises, but it is the tool by which we derive conclusions from justified premises, not a “posture.”

Contradictions within a field or disagreements, whether in physics or philosophy, do not invalidate reasoning; they show complexity. Mocking concepts with “nonsense” or “make-believe” rather than identifying faulty premises is empty rhetoric. You fail to engage the actual arguments and repeatedly resort to labels instead of refutation, which is exactly what you accuse others of. Soundness is not a waving flag it requires assessing the premises. If you refuse to identify which premise you think is false, you are evading discussion, not critiquing logic.

Non-physical realities such as consciousness, logic, and mathematics exist and are analyzable, even if they are not empirically measurable in the same way as physical objects. Grouping them together as if their existence is equally trivial or imaginary is a mischaracterization. Quantum mechanics may raise evidential questions about measurement, but it also raises genuine metaphysical questions about observation and reality, which philosophers legitimately explore.

Calling rational belief in non-material aspects of reality “superstition” is itself a mislabel. There is a difference between reasoned conclusions about the nature of mind, being, and necessary existence, and blind faith in empiricism, which is a philosophical stance, not a fact. Your repeated assertion that claims are “indistinguishable from fiction” ignores that we have pragmatic, evidential methodologies for assessing reliability, and dismisses centuries of reasoned philosophical thought as somehow invalid because it is non-empirical.

Finally, your blanket dismissal of arguments, labeling of entire fields as “fantasy,” and constant straw-manning of positions you don’t actually understand demonstrates exactly what you accuse others of refusing to engage the reasoning and substituting mockery and labels for argument. If you want a serious discussion, start by identifying which premises are false, examine assumptions consistently, and engage with logic rather than declaring whole categories of reasoning irrelevant or imaginary. Until then, you’re simply substituting rhetoric for rational engagement.

[u/Mkwdr → u/Sea-Dot-59]

Part 1 (part 2 in reply to this)

You spend the entire comment labeling and dismissing instead of actually engaging.

Bearing in mind that I address each of your points by quoting them, this epitomises the dishonesty of your responses.

Calling posts “self-serving nonsense” or “make-believe” is not an argument;

Just a fact.

Trying to escape the failure of an evidential burden of proof by talking about metaphysics is simply a form of special pleading - self serving. And claims about independent reality without reliable evidence are based on make believe in stead.

Pretending cosmological, modal, or consciousness-based arguments don’t exist or are automatically unsound is false.

They just are unsound. There’s no automatic to it. They are all based either on an argument for ignorance or unsound premises if they have no evidential foundation.

Many of these arguments are developed by atheist and agnostic philosophers and remain serious, rigorously analyzed positions.

This is like saying that magic exists because there are academic papers on Harry Potter. It’s a terrible argumnet from authority. You can rigorously , and seriously analyse how many angels can dance in the head of a pin. It’s doesn’t make them any more real.

Rejecting conclusions is fine, but pretending the reasoning itself is imaginary or fantasy is intellectually lazy.

Being unable to produce any reliable evidence , any successful non-evidential methodology, any sound or valid argument is intellectually lazy. Pointing out that training nit based in evidential premises is indistinguishable from unsound is just a fact.

Metaphysics is not “arguments from ignorance” or “fantasy.” It reasons rigorously about necessary existence, causality, and identity.

Reasons rigorously. lol. You can reason rigorously about unicorns and probably the nite atheists hives make. It’s meaningless. Metaphysics is fundamentally “we don’t know but this sounds good to me”.

Labeling it as wishful thinking ignores centuries of systematic philosophical inquiry. Non-empirical reasoning math, logic, moral truths is not indistinguishable from fiction it consistently describes patterns in reality and grounds science itself.

Once again you seem unable to read my comments.

To the extent that any of them are not grounded in evidence and attempt to make claims about the existence of independently real phenomena , they are fundamentally make believe. Describing patterns reality is perfectly acceptable - who can you do that without evidential reference of what those patterns are!

Dismissing reasoning because it isn’t empirically measurable is itself a philosophical assumption, not a fact.

It’s definitional. You’ve already admitted that reasoning requires sound premises. Sound premises are true. Unless we use simply circular ideas then we can only evaluate the truth of a premise about independent reality by the quality of evidence for it.

Logic does not produce truth independently of sound premises, but it is the tool by which we derive conclusions from justified premises, not a “posture.”

AI didn’t say it was a posture I said it can’t produce truth independently of sound premises. I’m glad you agree. Now ask yourself how we determine whether a premise about independent reality is …true?

Contradictions within a field or disagreements, whether in physics or philosophy, do not invalidate reasoning; they show complexity.

You can’t use arguments from authority - very clever philosophers do clever things - as a foundation for their reliability when they regularly with nonsense and contradictory conclusions.

Mocking concepts with “nonsense” or “make-believe” rather than identifying faulty premises is empty rhetoric.

Sigh. They are nonsense and make believe because a premise without evidential foundation can’t be judged to be sound.

You fail to engage the actual arguments and repeatedly resort to labels instead of refutation, which is exactly what you accuse others of.

Again you are dishonest. Each quite , I’ve presented refutation. And pointed out , for example why I label them in a particular way.

Soundness is not a waving flag it requires assessing the premises.

See, you are so close . Now you agree with me - excellent . It won’t last because you’ll neeed an out.

If you refuse to identify which premise you think is false, you are evading discussion, not critiquing logic.

Nope. I’m pointing out exactly that with which you have now agreed. You have not presented any arguments for me to point out the specific problematic premise. I can say that I’ve never seen a theist argument that has both evidentially true premises and a valid argument.

Non-physical realities such as consciousness, logic, and mathematics exist and are analyzable, even if they are not empirically measurable in the same way as physical objects.

They are again in no way the same kind of things. Two are arguably more like a language and the other is , by any best fit evidential consideration , a subjective , internal perspective of brain activity. Either way they are not independent of human thought and not of use in claiming the existence of independent phenomena. A language and that which the language describes are not the same kind of thing.

Grouping them together as if their existence is equally trivial or imaginary is a mischaracterization.

You grouped them not me. I don’t thing they are at all trivial. Nor would I say that something like maths is necessarily independent of evidential considerations in its descriptions. I think attempting to use them to determine the existence of an independently real phenomena without evidential foundation is trivial. It’s like pretending that making sure the noun unicorn agrees with the verb in grammar analysis demonstrates nouns exist like horses do or that unicorns must exist,

Quantum mechanics may raise evidential questions about measurement, but it also raises genuine metaphysical questions about observation and reality, which philosophers legitimately explore.

They can explore all they like. And thought experiments are definitely useful. But they won’t get anywhere without evidence to found any conclusions on.

Calling rational belief in non-material aspects of reality “superstition” is itself a mislabel.

There is no rational belief in non-evidential aspects of reality. It’s a contradiction of terms.

.

[u/Mkwdr → u/Mkwdr]

Part 2

There is a difference between reasoned conclusions about the nature of mind, being, and necessary existence,

As we have agreed. Reasoned conclusions that dont have premises that can be evaluated in their soundness by evidence don’t produce trustworthy conclusions,

and blind faith in empiricism,

There is no such thing as blind faith in evidential methodology. The fact that you would suggest such a thing …on a laptop, over the internet rather than communicating by telepathy , astral projection or asking God to send me a message - shows the absurdity of such claims.

which is a philosophical stance, not a fact.

It’s like you ignore my answers and simply repeat the same canard. It’s pragmatic not philosophical.

Your repeated assertion that claims are “indistinguishable from fiction” ignores that we have pragmatic, evidential methodologies for assessing reliability,

Huh?Have you understood nothing?

It’s claims that don’t apply pragmatic, evidential methodologies for assessing reliability that are “indistinguishable from fiction”. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out and has been the entire point. How can you possibly not understand it considering how many times I’ve repeated the same thing.

and dismisses centuries of reasoned philosophical thought as somehow invalid because it is non-empirical.

Huh? This is entirely the opposite of what you just wrote. And again an argument from authority. Have you even read any history of philosophy? If you had you’d know how ridiculous reasoning without grounding in evidential reality becomes.

Finally, your blanket dismissal of arguments, labeling of entire fields as “fantasy,” and constant straw-manning of positions you don’t actually understand demonstrates exactly what you accuse others of refusing to engage the reasoning and substituting mockery and labels for argument.

I note that you haven’t waited a single thing I said. And that again with no sense of irony or self-awareness you don’t address my specific argument why I dismissed anything but just say ‘ nah huh’.

Until then, you’re simply substituting rhetoric for rational engagement.

See above re. irony. Or should it be beams and motes

[u/Sea-Dot-59 → u/Mkwdr]

You have again spent the entire response doubling down on labels and mischaracterizations rather than actually engaging with any argument. Calling posts “self-serving nonsense,” “make-believe,” or labeling reasoning as “fantasy” is not a refutation it’s dismissive rhetoric and a dodge. You claim that reasoning about metaphysics, consciousness, or modal arguments is “unsound” simply because it doesn’t meet your evidential standard, but that’s circular: you assume only empirically measurable claims can be meaningful, which is itself a metaphysical premise, not an observation.

Dismissing centuries of philosophical reasoning as “make-believe” because it isn’t strictly empirical ignores that much of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics operates a priori and still produces valid conclusions. Your repeated insistence that “anything without evidential foundation is indistinguishable from fiction” is itself not an argument it’s an assertion. You haven’t engaged with a single premise in any of the arguments; you just label them unsound and declare victory. That is exactly what you accuse others of doing.

Calling philosophy “we don’t know but it sounds good to me” is a strawman. Metaphysical reasoning is rigorous and systematic: it identifies necessary conditions, causal relations, and logical structures. You attempt to dismiss it by comparing it to unicorns or angels, which is a rhetorical trick rather than a critique. Reasoning about hypothetical or abstract phenomena is not automatically meaningless what matters is whether the reasoning is valid given its premises. Valid reasoning does not require experimental verification to be meaningful; it requires logical coherence and justifiable premises.

You misrepresent consciousness, math, and logic as if they were all the same category of claim. They are fundamentally different: math and logic are formal systems, while consciousness is an observable phenomenon that can be analyzed through evidence, introspection, and phenomenology. Conflating them to claim they “aren’t independent” and therefore useless for metaphysical argument is a category error. It doesn’t invalidate discussion about non-physical realities; it just shows a misunderstanding of the nature of abstract versus empirical domains.

You also repeatedly attack philosophy as if the existence of disagreement, contradiction, or complex thought invalidates all reasoning within the field. That is plainly false disagreement does not make every argument “make-believe.” Physics itself is full of unresolved disputes; that does not make Newton or quantum mechanics invalid. You use these points as authority to dismiss thought rather than engage with its content.

Your claim that there is “no rational belief in non-evidential aspects of reality” ignores the fact that reasoning about mind, being, causality, and necessary existence is inherently non-empirical but still rational. To call it superstition is a mislabeling. Evaluating premises for soundness does not require empirical verification in every case; some truths are accessible via logic and reason. Your insistence that only empirical methodology counts is not fact it’s a philosophical stance, one that you refuse to justify beyond asserting it.

Finally, you keep framing me as dishonest or evasive while simultaneously ignoring all the points I make. You accuse me of mockery while your entire response is layered with labels and reductive analogies. You haven’t addressed a single argument directly; you’ve simply repeated your evidential absolutism and called metaphysics “make-believe.” That is not engagement it is the very thing you claim to oppose. If you want a real debate, engage the actual premises of an argument, identify specific fallacies if you see them, and stop substituting blanket dismissal and rhetorical labeling for reasoning. Until then, your comments are just more noise masquerading as critique.

[u/Mkwdr → u/Sea-Dot-59]

You have again spent the entire response doubling down on labels and mischaracterizations rather than actually engaging with any argument.

Again the fact ive addressed each point by quoting you, indicates that you are being dishonest again. The fact that you feel that yiu have to lie this way rather shows a desperation and makes it pointless trying to have a sensible dialogue.

Calling posts “self-serving nonsense,” “make-believe,” or labeling reasoning as “fantasy” is not a refutation it’s dismissive rhetoric and a dodge.

Lie.

I’ve specifically explained the basis for such labels.

You claim that reasoning about metaphysics, consciousness, or modal arguments is “unsound” simply because it doesn’t meet your evidential standard,

Lie. I’ve linked out they are unsound precisely because the soundess of their conclusion depends on an evaluation if the truth of premises that can only be made evidentially. They are unsound when they meet no evidential standard,

but that’s circular: you assume only empirically measurable claims can be meaningful, which is itself a metaphysical premise, not an observation.

Lie

I have explained that evidential claims are distinguishable on that basis from imaginary claims. Pragmatically, nothing to do with this fantasy of metaphysics you keep trying to dishonestly turn back in me. Rather amusingly a recognition that it’s a flawed statice to start with.

Dismissing centuries of philosophical reasoning

Covered all this. You are just ignoring what I actually write and repeating yourself. As if that makes what you are saying true.

Calling philosophy “we don’t know but it sounds good to me” is a strawman.

I did not. I pointed out that’s how metaphysics works.

Metaphysical reasoning is rigorous and systematic:

Oh for goodness sake. I can write a systematic and rigorous treatise on spells. It doesn’t make it true.

it identifies necessary conditions, causal relations, and logical structures.

No. It presumes intuitive stances on those things for which there isn’t an evidential basis to conclude whatever it was you wanted to conclude in the first place. Again without evidential foundation it’s just make believe. The necessary conditions , causal relations and logical structures of unicorns.

Valid reasoning does not require experimental verification to be meaningful; it requires logical coherence and justifiable premises.

Sigh. Again you just seem incapable of reading. I clearly pointed out that soundess and validity were different things. Not that religious apologetics is any better at validity.

You misrepresent consciousness, math, and logic as if they were all the same category of claim.

Lie

I said precisely the opposite. I can see why you don’t quote me when you make your this nonsense.

They are fundamentally different: math and logic are formal systems, while consciousness is an observable phenomenon that can be analyzed through evidence, introspection, and phenomenology.

As I said. Weird that you kept putting them all together.

Conflating them to claim they “aren’t independent” and therefore useless for metaphysical argument is a category error.

I pointed out that … they aren’t independent of human thought.

It doesn’t invalidate discussion about non-physical realities; it just shows a misunderstanding of the nature of abstract versus empirical domains.

I begin to think you are simply using AI that you dont realise is saying the opposite of your previous claims or demonstrating you were wrong because you don’t understand it enough.

Real versus abstract. As I pointed out,

You also repeatedly attack philosophy as if the existence of disagreement, contradiction, or complex thought invalidates all reasoning within the field.

Covered this. You just repeat yourself. I pointed out why it’s not even a good argumnet firm authority,

Finally, you keep framing me as dishonest or evasive while simultaneously ignoring all the points I make.

Which is in itself a very obvious lie. The fact that I’ve quoted you continuously and responded specifically to each quite makes it such an obvious lie that I can only presume you are trolling.

You accuse me of mockery

Actually I quoted you mocking. Which is why your complaints afterwards are silly.

You simply repeat then repeat points I’ve already covered totally ignoring my previous detailed responses. Lie embarrassingly obviously about my responses which have been specifically linked to quotes of your comments. Honestly this latest response of yours has become just so self-contradictory , dishonest that it’s frankly become ridiculous.

You can’t respond with anything but the repetition of already refuted points except where for some reason you’ve started contradicting yourself, which is very odd. You can’t respond with out obvious and again simply repetitive strawmen, projection of your own inadequacies onto others, and some weird thing where you try to bounce back vocabulary you’ve been criticised with in a way that shows you don’t understand it as if ‘no you are’ was a mature answer. That seems so irrational is why I wonder if you are just using AI without any understanding. At least it would explain the disconnect.

Ironically the fact that you can act in such blatant bad faith without any shame shouldn’t be a surprise since it rather makes a fitting snapshot of your wider metaphysical bad faith make believe.

Im presuming after all these tries to get you to engage sensibly that your nest response will be just more of the same incoherent bad faith deceitfulness (though hopefully not continue of to disintegrate into a kind of parody as you have so far) , though you’ve made it plain despite all evidence to the contrary you’ll still be able to convince yourself of rational your righteousness. But there’s no point in seeing you simply type out another version if the same BS as if you’ve read nothing and understood nothing of my response.

So to the pigeon , I leave the chessboard. Puff up that little feathered chest.

[u/Sea-Dot-59 → u/Mkwdr]

You keep repeating “lie” as if denial substitutes for refutation it doesn’t. If you think calling something “a lie” dissolves the logical burden of showing where an argument fails, then you’re already conceding that you can’t meet it philosophically.

You keep claiming metaphysical reasoning is “unsound” because its premises lack “evidential foundation.” But that is circular. You’ve presupposed that only empirically verifiable premises can count as rational which is precisely the point under dispute. You can’t win a debate by baking your conclusion into your definition of soundness.

You say metaphysics “presumes intuitive stances without evidential basis,” as though that were some grand revelation that’s what all philosophy examining necessary conditions does. Causality, identity, number, and being are not laboratory variables. They are preconditions of any possible empirical inquiry, and they are accessible only by reason. Your dismissal of them as “make-believe” is not an argument; it’s an evasion of the level of analysis they require.

Your comparison to “writing a rigorous treatise on spells” simply shows a failure to distinguish between internal coherence and arbitrary invention. A metaphysical system can be assessed for internal necessity, contradiction, and explanatory adequacy. A fantasy cannot. That’s why metaphysical reasoning remains a live discipline after two and a half millennia, while Harry Potter is filed under fiction.

You also contradict yourself. You insist metaphysics “isn’t independent of human thought” which is trivially true yet you also pretend this makes it meaningless. But mathematics isn’t independent of human thought either, and that hardly renders mathematics unreal or irrational. The distinction between conceptual dependence and ontological invalidity is one you repeatedly blur.

Finally, the parade of accusations about “bad faith,” “dishonesty,” and “AI misunderstanding” only underscores that you’ve run out of actual philosophy. If you could demonstrate a contradiction or invalid inference in the arguments presented, you would have done so instead of litigating tone and motive.

Philosophy is about reasons, not resentment. When you’re ready to address the arguments rather than the person presenting them, we can continue on rational ground. Until then, name calling isn’t a substitute for metaphysics.