Samhain

WJ:

I said that it was possible that you didn't, and to me, from your comments it seemed that you have at least failed to grasp the problems that many atheists have with the theistic majority here in the States.

Yes, I understand that some atheists have an axe to grind in regards to politics, and I think that the main reason is because of the perpetuation of prejudices and hatred and oppression (in any form) of those who have no real quarrel with the theistic majority. While you may not be interested in the politics, many atheists will tend to be as long as G.W. and others like him refuse to acknowledge our voice within politics, history or even in the population.

If you understand struggle against oppression, whether or not it be "closet" oppression, and if you understand the toils of being different in such a significant way, in a way that the majority will reject and hate you for, then you might understand our struggle. We only seek to have a voice and to cease the demonizations from the theistic majority in regards to our character. Of course now we are the "terrorists" by many standards, and perhaps Voltaire was right in his appraisal: "What is a rebel? Someone who says 'No'."

More later...

Samhain

WJ (continued):

Here's the major difference. You have the majority of the population telling you that she's having an affair, everyone except for a select few keep trying to shove this point down your throat. You've explored this, the conclusion that she is not having an affair is based upon rigorous proofs and evidence provided to the contrary. However, you have a bunch of people who keep telling you that she is still having an affair, when you ask them to provide proof, they result to repeating that she is having an affair and that no amount of disbelief will change that, you of course provide your evidence to the contrary based upon what you know of logic, reason, and science, but your proofs are ignored and they still result in telling you that she's having an affair, regardless of proof to the contrary, further, they now call you an idiot because you can't see it as clearly as them.

Walrus, we've all explained to you why it is not a non-sensical argument, and I must draw at least one of a few possible conclusions for your obvious death-grip to a ridiculously absurd argument.
1. That you have no idea whatsoever as to the meaning of 'non-sensical' itself. I find this unlikely, but if you'd define it so that I can see that we're on the same track it would ease my frustrations in regards to this.
2. You've ignored all of our completely logical and valid arguments to the contrary for some unknown reason. This I find much more likely, although I would like to know your reason as to why you've blatantly ignored our arguments as to why it is not non-sensical for atheists to discuss the non-existence of any god(s) when there's plenty of evidence to support that such has been forced upon us in politics, socialization, business, history, etc. etc. So, when the issues of god(s) are so prevelent in our society, and we seem to be the small minority that opposes the masses in this regard, it may be a non-sensical issue by default, but because theism is so prevalent it erases any possibility that it could be considered so.
3. For some reason your theistic beliefs must hold that our arguments are ridiculous because they are non-sensical (even though we've proven that they are not). You must maintain some sort of More-informed-than-thou-art attitude and must result to ridiculous arguments in order to try and demean the atheists here by trying to establish that atheists are in some way being illogical or stupid because their arguments should be considered "pointless" since they don't believe in any god(s).

#2 & #3 are most likely, I have suspicions leaning towards #2, but I keep missing the reason as to why you'd ignore perfectly logical and valid arguments to the contrary of your position. I suspect that it may even be a combination of #2 & #3, or perhaps a combination of all three.

One more thing as well; it would be nice if you would stick to the argument this time rather than resulting in abstract mental masturbation as you seem to be so fond of. I'm not looking to get into any other discussion than the one at hand, and you've tried to lead me astray from the topic far to many times. I'd rather not discuss existence so leave the BS you have packed at the door, bring only what you would for this discussion, nothing more this time. I grow tired of going through 8 pages of nonsense with you before you even consider addressing the point.

WJ

Sam!

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You're probably one atheist that I can at least share a reasonable converstation with, whatever that means. I must carefully consider your points before I reply but am afraid we are simply back to the dynamics of the so-called 'people problem' or politics.

Let me re-post because I want to try putting myself in your shoes, if that's even a persuasive form of argument...

Walrus

WJ

Sam!

After re-reading your first/paragraph argument all I can come up with to support your (epistemic)cause of concern is that truth is Subjectivity. Now, it seems that this perception of truth or a belief has political implications, imagine that. If that captures your concern, here are some obvious choices:

1. Ignore all people who sell religion.
2. Move to state that is liberal (I think you already have).
3. Move out of the country.
4. Grin and bear it like the majority of people who suffer with their own political aggenda's and beliefs about things that need changing (or is perceived to 'need' changed).

I think the point you are missing concerning the political aspects is a pragmatic one. I believe that overall you have benefitted from such a belief system here in the states, more than you care to admit. What do you think?

If I go to Japan realizing that their belief's were actually instrumental in the quality of their lifestyle, which attracted me to begin with and caused me to relocate there, what would compel me to change their belief system?

Let me re-post with arguments concerning items 1 thru 3.

WJ

Sam!

I went back and read both your's and my arguments and still come back to us talking past each other. We do not understand one another and probably cannot unless we live each other's lives. We can only extrapolate what it would be like to think like each other thru deductive reasoning. To that end, it is obvious that atheism (just like theism) can become a dangerous political tool. We talked about this, and you still hold your own "death-grip" on it as for the justification of your belief and subsequent action.

Why on earth do you let other people bother you so much????????????????????????????????????????

I mean, did I miss something here or what? I've stated the nonsense behind arguing a non existent thing from a purely logical standpoint, and you turn it into a political debate. You see Sam, politics is another word for people. Do you believe and place your faith in people as a sole means and method behind your justification for concern in the face of pragmatism? Should people's views influence all of your behaviour so much so that it is all or nothing? If you do, then you must move where people are all like you, like minorities do. I'm an Irish Catholic should I then... .

Of course you don't subscribe to the 'all or nothing' approach and I think I know you well enough to say you accept people for both better or worse, but I don't really understand all the fuss over something that is *believed* not to have any significance or relevance other than the political concerns that are real. And if they are how have you been oppressed? Otherwise, philosophically, don't you see it is true they are nonsensical?

In otherwords, they might have an impact on you psychologically or politically (for better or worse), otherwise, logically they appear to be nonsensical and a waste of time.

Are we still talking past one another?

Walrus

Samhain

WJ:

I appreciate the compliment, but I think you may be somewhat ungracious to some others here. While it is quite hard to find those here that will have reasonable conversations without emotional ties reaching far into them, there are quite a few still.

Let's hear 'em.

From a standpoint of buying religion, I do so, however, the greatest problem I have with many of those who try and sell religion is intellectual dishonesty, and an attitude of intellectual superiority that they may or may not portray in reference to myself when I refuse to heed their selling-point (i.e. I'm gonna burn in hell if I don't worship "God", or that I must be some kind of moron not to accept the love and the light that is Jesus). Of course, these statements do have a certain tendency to get me a bit frustrated at the speaker, and I feel perfectly righteous defending my views against such an onslaught, but perhaps it takes a stronger man than I to just walk away from it. I think the major reason why I don't ignore those selling religion all together is because I abhor intellectual dishonesty or statements percieved as truth coming from ignorance. Either way I'd seek to educate, as I think it is worse for them and for myself to allow them to continue and perpetuate their ignorance.

I've lived here all my life, and I stay because of travel to the states abroad. I enjoy the diversity, and I enjoy the lack of prejudice here that I seem to find so prevelent in some other states. Of course, this isn't to say that I still to have my own share of reception of hatred, even if it is closet hatred.

I've put serious thought into it, but I don't think now is the best time for me.

Well, of course I do this, and have done so for a long time, and will continue to do so if need be. I'm not as much interested in pursuing the legal nuances that should be changed in order to compensate for the godless as much as I am concerned with establishing tolerance, complete tolerance for and from us.

I certainly don't know how I've benefitted from it. Perhaps from grants received due to my interests and contributions to the philosophy department at my university, but that isn't really due to my atheism, but due to a certain aspect of it. I do think, however that many seem to over-embellish the atheistic "struggle", or perhaps it has to do with their own personal experiences. I certainly do not feel oppressed in any way that can be compared to other civil rights movements, and I don't think it will come to that point for us in the near future either. Of course, there is some closet hatred and prejudice, but that is to be expected of any minority group, and doesn't warrant the actions that some would take in order to try and destroy hatred. I do not want to demean anyone's personal experiences with hatred from theists, but, for the most part, while we are not completely accepted here, it could be a whole lot worse than it is, and most of the things we have to deal with here in America are trivial, IMHO. However, I am frustrated with how vast the prejudice seems to be, and am frustrated by propaghandic lies used to discredit us for reasons which shouldn't even be a matter of discussion (i.e. the pledge).

Ah, but you've struck a nerve there. That instrumental quality of their lifestyle does not need to extend into politics for xians in the U.S. Further it has been set up by our government so that it should not be as well, allowing for as much diversity and tolerance as possible. If we were completely left alone to our "worldview" and not have to worry daily about the next ignorant ass who will tell us to move to Iran or will come to us selling "God", then we'd leave everyone else alone as well. We wouldn't have a problem if there wasn't oppression, hatred, and prejudice in some form in the U.S. whether or not it be closeted. If everyone was left alone to their beliefs and non-beliefs this would not be a problem, and atheists would not go around trying to change anything. We are not trying to create a atheist nation (well, most of us aren't) we are only trying to create a nation that serves all people in the same way, no one group more than another. I don't think any of us actively try and deconvert people en masse, but would answer questions and defend their views if challenged.

Of course not, but I will give you what I think you're asking for in return. If we learn anything from social interaction it is that we are a product of our environment in many ways than not. People desire social acceptance, it is very rare that you would find a person who completely shuns social environments or social interaction. Of course, we all require more or less social acceptance to varying degrees, but for the most part we are slaves to social interaction. Thus I'd venture to say that one who states that "People's opinions don't matter to me" is lying to himself or foolishly ignorant of how much dependency we have on social interaction. People's opinions always do matter to a certain degree, and I accept this and embrace it for what it's worth. I do understand where you're coming from with the non-sensical debate, but the problem is it cannot be considered from the default position here because that is not reality. While discussion of these things may be nonsensical without opposition we all realize that there is a massive opposition and millions who would change us to their point of view. I hold that we must be realistic rather than idealogical. For it makes no sense to discuss things which have no bearing upon our lives whatsoever, but it does make sense to discuss that which is the source of our oppression and opposition.

As I stated earlier, ideally, they are nonsensical, perhaps. Discussion of somethings non-existence seems absurd if there is nothing that suggests it exists in the first place. However, there are millions upon hundreds of millions who would suggest that such a thing exists and thus in reality, the question is no longer non-sensical. While the opposition may not come from science or logic, it can come from people.

Not when there is an opposing view that holds that such exists, some even would say in the realm of logic.

WJ

Sam!

Unfortunately today has not been very good... . I want to folow-up on some thoughts you have because I feel like, at the very least, you've given much time and consideration to these *real* issues that obviously mean very much, I dare say, to the both of us. And for which have impacts and/or have impacted our lives over time in a similar meaningful way (mutually exclusive)...

...to be continued.

Walrus