A person going by the username Thinbox Dictator replied as follows to the question Is it possible atheists see themselves in a righteous battle against God? How could they not see how mistaken they are?
I don’t see myself in ‘a battle’ against something I don’t believe exists.
I don’t even know where you’ve got that idea.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
Why don’t you believe God exists?
Thinbox Dictator
Because every argument for its existence I’m aware about,is really bad.
Ken Ammi
So then it’s about your admitted limited awareness.
It’s also about your merely asserted your subjective personal opinion about those of which you are aware but that’s not a standard.
You seem to imply that presenting arguments is a requirement but how and why is that the case on your worldview?
You also seem to imply that we can only believe in things for which there are successful arguments (which you arbitrate) but how and why is that the case on your worldview?
Thinbox Dictator
Do you think before writing/speaking?
Of course that’s a standard.
How can I evaluate (,or be convinced by) something I’m not aware about?
Every apologetic argument for something supernatural I’ve ever heard,is based on misunderstanding (that’s assuming apologists don’t lie on purpose just to give people like you false confidence) whatever topic it touches/is based on.
What more you expect from me,than to evaluate arguments I’m aware about?
Every time I’ve looked into topics apologists base their arguments on I’ve found out that their arguments can at best be misunderstanding of it, but most likely it’s downright lying to their gullible audience.
They sell their arguments not to convince “unbelievers”, but to give false confidence to those who already believe that stuff.
You are a nice example of it.
You try to hang on “it’s just what I’m aware about” as if it’s some gotcha, because some dumb apologist used it before and you just swallowed it without thinking.
Use your head, just a bit, please.
Ken Ammi
Ok, so, you’re asserting that it’s a standard—ergo, a universal imperative—that all of humanity go by what you personally subjectively find to be, “really bad” or not: fascinating?
Whence did you derive such universal authority?
Indeed, how can I evaluate (,or be convinced by) something you’re not aware about: I was just pointing that out, you’re not omniscient.
Now, when you retort with that, “Every apologetic argument for something supernatural I’ve ever heard…” and then opine, that’s a down the line argument: the very first step in systematic critical thinking is for you to begin with, to first, justify demanding cogent arguments, on your worldview.
Then, justify how and why only believing in things for which there’s cogent arguments is a universal imperative, on your worldview.
What, on your worldview, is wrong with giving, “false confidence” and, “lying”?
See, you began and continue functioning based on merely asserted conclusions based on hidden assumptions: I’m just seeing if you’ll reveal them.
Thinbox Dictator
I understand that you want to change the topic, but you didn’t address the topic you seem to be so angry about.
“””
… that’s a down the line argument: the very first step in systematic critical thinking is for you to begin with, to first, justify demanding cogent arguments, on your worldview.
“””
…to myself,yes.
And it is not the first step,it is one of steps, but deffinitely not the first.
obviously your “steps” are different and our starting points are on different continents, but thankfully that is not the topic you are so angry about.
so could you please explain what you find so upsetting on the fact that you have to evaluate claims based on what you are aware about?
if the claim is insteresting/ important to you , you educate yourself on the topic, but you don’t just trust the salesman that their product is the best,right?
so obviously (to me, I didn’t imagine I would find someone disagreeing on that) , you evaluate claims based on what you know and learned.
what more can you expect from any indivudual?
if you agree with me on that, why are you upset about it?
Ken Ammi
Well, on your worldview there’s nothing wrong with changing the topic.
Yet, that’s not what I’m doing: I’m merely asking you to back up to the very first step: ever wonder why you’re literally incapable of taking it?
At least you agree that you’re no premise upon which to jump to your merely asserted conclusions since you appeal to subjectivism, “starting points are on different continents”—which is a mere assumption in and of itself.
You’re merely assuming that I’m angry and upset.
So, to put it another way: you anachronistically began with the merely asserted conclusion, based on hidden assumptions, that “to evaluate claims” is some sort of universal imperative, on your worldview, and that we are only to believe in thing which have been evaluated.
Let’s go back to my original reply:
“It’s also about your merely asserted your subjective personal opinion about those of which you are aware but that’s not a standard.”
“You seem to imply that presenting arguments is a requirement but how and why is that the case on your worldview?”
“You also seem to imply that we can only believe in things for which there are successful arguments (which you arbitrate) but how and why is that the case on your worldview?”
Thinbox Dictator
Evaluating claims has nothing to do with worldview, are you thick?
That’s why I’m baffled why you have a problem with it.
Everyone does that.
All the time.
Your version might be simple“sounds right, I believe that” and I do that lazy automatic evaluation sometimes too, despite trying not to,or dismissal without further investigation.
I’m just interested why you have a problem with me listening to apologetics and examining their arguments vs stuff I can learn independently about topics they base their arguments on, finding their arguments be invariably just big pile of thrash.
I could understand why you would have problem with my conclusion, but you are complaining about me evaluating their arguments in the first place.
It’s as if you complain that I didn’t just accept whatever they say without thinking about it.
That’s how it looks to me,so you want to change topic because you understand that apologetic arguments you know about, are really bad,I guess.
And sorry, I’m not here to explain my worldview, especially when you seem to be unable to grasp basic questions.
It would be conversation for hours and I’m not doing that, and if I would,it would be with someone who can understand basics.
I’m aware that changing topic is common apologetic tactic when you’re in a corner,but you weren’t even in a corner. You just leaped out with classic distraction when I was just asking the simplest question.
Maybe the question surprised you, because nobody asked that before.
Do you know why? Because nobody has a reason to disagree with it. Even the dumbest apologists would agree with it.
I’m guessing You misunderstood what I meant, and after I’ve made clear what I meant, you can’t just say you misunderstood, so you change topic.
I mean I hope, because I don’t believe you can be that thick with level head.
So it’s either that,or You came here to argue so you can’t think clearly… or you’re really that thick.
Either way,if you can’t answer that, there’s no point in this.
Ken Ammi
My friend, since you don’t seem to be getting the systematic critical thinking point, I’ll stop asking questions and start making statements.
You stated, “Evaluating claims has nothing to do with worldview” based on your worldview. Actually, you’re right about that evaluating claims has nothing to do with YOUR worldview, it’s just your emotively subjective personal preference du jour since your worldview provides you no premise upon which to claim that it’s a universal imperative to evaluate claims.
Yes, “Everyone does that. All the time” but the point is that, on your worldview, doing so is just an emotively subjective personal preference du jour so you disqualify yourself from even complaining about anyone who doesn’t do that.
On your worldview, “sounds right, I believe that” is 100% acceptable as is, “I do that lazy automatic evaluation” and, “dismissal without further investigation.”
I’ve no idea where you got even a hint at that I, “have a problem with [you] listening to apologetics and examining their arguments vs stuff I can learn independently about topics they base their arguments on, finding their arguments be invariably just big pile of thrash.”
On your worldview, there’s literally nothing whatsoever wrong with what you term, “big pile of thrash.”
The only problem I have with your, “conclusion” thus far is that you jumped to it, you incoherently illogically and anachronistically began with your conclusion based on hidden assumptions. Yet, on your worldview you’re utterly welcome to be incoherently illogically and anachronistic.
On your worldview there’s nothing wrong with, “without thinking about it.”
Indeed, “That’s how it looks to me” which you state subjectively.
You don’t have to explain your worldview, I’ve derived it from what you’ve stated and see it’s fundamental level failure of a collapse since it leaves you incapable of taking systematic critical thinking step number one, the very first one.
So, what you subjectively term, “distraction” is actually begging you to do what is clear you can’t do.
So, “Let’s go back to my original reply:” again:
“It’s also about your merely asserted your subjective personal opinion about those of which you are aware but that’s not a standard.”
“You seem to imply that presenting arguments is a requirement but how and why is that the case on your worldview?”
“You also seem to imply that we can only believe in things for which there are successful arguments (which you arbitrate) but how and why is that the case on your worldview?”
Thinbox Dictator
How can you not understand that worldview of individual is independent of the fact that individuals have to process information somehow, evaluate it. Consciously and/or subconsciously.
How do you connect it in your head to being dependent on worldview?
My previous response was deleted, because I wasn’t kind enough to you.
That means,if you don’t get the question,or you have incoherent answer to this,I might just ignore this nonsensical thread.
Ken Ammi
I get it, your tactic is to ignore 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999+1% of everything I point out and ask and continue on as if you haven’t been 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000+1% debunked—by your own worldview.
Let me ask this as a circumlocution to answer your question: in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you actually believe in God?
Thinbox Dictator
my tactic is to ignore your irrelevant,wrong assertions and be focussed on one information I am interested in to get from your head.
you know nothing about my worldview,that’s why I’m ignoring your wrong assumptions about it.
to answer your last question: none.
I get that you don’t understand what I’m doing here,you’re stuck trying to win an argument.
I’m not arguing with you. I’m trying to find out where we agree and go from there.
I thought “everyone has to evaluate claims” is something nobody can disagree on,but you showed me wrong.
therefore: I want to know how it works in your head.
if you weren’t stuck in your argument,this could have been already over or we could have gone further with it,but you’re not able/willing to stay focussed on a simple topic.
before it seemed to me that you are upset that I didn’t accept whatever apologetic argument that would feel right,instead I’ve looked into it and found it trash.
to it you replied that I’m wrong:
“””
The only problem I have with your, “conclusion” thus far is that you jumped to it, you incoherently illogically and anachronistically began with your conclusion based on hidden assumptions. Yet, on your worldview you’re utterly welcome to be incoherently illogically and anachronistic.
“””
which was laughably funny,because in your own complaint,you project what you think my worldview allows and you have a problem with how I jumped to a conclusion compatible with what you view as my worldview.
are you upset because apologetics is illogical / incoherent? that maybe my ridiculous worldview therefore should be fine with it?
it just shows me that I was right. you are upset that I’ve looked into it closer than I had to.
I understand that you are confused,but you should understand why you’re upset about this.
you are upset that apologetics don’t survive closer examination.
you can scream and shout how you imagine my worldview fails all over the place,because your preacher says so,but the problem is,that apologetics fail flat and you don’t like it.
I don’t like it too,that’s why I don’t buy what they sell.
so now that we got it out of the way,can we get to the interesting part?
please tell me how in your head the fact that individuals have to evaluate claims/information, is dependant on worldview.
that’s the only piece of information I’m interested in from this nonsensical conversation we have here.
if you want to shout at me with more nonsense,I can stand it,just include answer to that question, ok?
Ken Ammi
If you think that I don’t know anything about your worldview then you should correct me, please.
I actually don’t recall you ever stating, “everyone has to evaluate claims” but the issue is simple: this isn’t about subjectively agreeing but about how there’s a universal imperative that everyone has to evaluate claims, on your worldview. If there’s not, and there’s not, then everyone has to evaluate claims is just a merely asserted positive affirmation, an emotively subjective personal preference du jour rather than a standard.
Still waiting for you to reply to, “in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you actually believe in God?”
See, you complain that I don’t know your worldview but when I specifically ask about it in order to understand you better you ignore me—and then you complain that I don’t know your worldview.
Thinbox Dictator
I don’t reply to your belated questions about my worldview, because it’s irrelevant to the question I’m interested in, plus you don’t seem to be able/willing to grasp simple concepts.
I’ve already replied to your question “in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you actually believe in God?”
With “”” to answer your last question: none. “”” because that’s how you’ve ended your last nonsensical rant.
Now to your last remark:
“”” I actually don’t recall you ever stating, “everyone has to evaluate claims” “””
Are you kidding?
So little recap:
You’ve asked why I don’t believe in god, to which I replied “Because every argument for its existence I’m aware about,is really bad.”
Then you thought that the problem must be my “limited awareness* to which I replied mainly with “How can I evaluate (,or be convinced by) something I’m not aware about?”
You still didn’t get the question,so I tried to ask different way “How can you not understand that worldview of individual is independent of the fact that individuals have to process information somehow, evaluate it. Consciously and/or subconsciously.”
And then it continues, I’m asking and you try to talk about something else that would steer the conversation somewhere else where you wouldn’t like my answers to your undoubtedly even dumber questions.
If you are trying to just exercise your rethoric, I’m not doing that. I’m not debating someone who doesn’t get simple concepts.
I was asking you, repeatedly,in various ways,how do you in your head think that the fact that everyone has to evaluate claims is dependant on worldview.
I’m on topic of your complaint about my limitations.
Evaluating claims is how worldviews are built, among other things,so I find your complaint absurd. So I’m asking how it works in your head.
It’s not imperative, it’s just a fact. I’m trying to find out how it’s not a fact in your head.
It’s not subjective opinion, it’s not about agreement on that, it’s about topic of your complaint about the fact that I can evaluate only what I’m aware about.
You are trying to get out from it somewhere else.
I’m actually interested how in your head it possibly can be different in any individual.
I’m interested if you actually had a complaint or you were just mindlessly repeating apologetic rethoric with gaping hole in its logic without ever spending second on thinking about it.
So far it looks like you’re just mindlessly repeating.
Ken Ammi
It’s not mindlessly repeating but rather mindfully repeating since you keep missing the point—purposefully or not.
Your worldview is THE point. Your worldview’s core is Atheism and it infects all it touches such that you literally view everything and anything via that dirty lens.
So as to not turn this into trading essays, here it is:
On your worldview, reality is accidental (uncreated, undesigned, not the end result of a volitional plan, etc.).
As is our ability to discern it.
There’s no universal imperative to adhere to it.
Nor to demand or expect others to do so.
Ergo, it’s literally pure subjectivism and all you can tell me is that you emotively subjectively don’t personally like what I’m saying as a personal preference du jour—on the level of level of a, “My dear diary, today I feel…” entry and with the same level of flaccid impotence.
Thus, you discredited yourself by disqualifying yourself from ever condemning anything ontologically since all you can do is express how you feel about things.
Thinbox Dictator
you still don’t understand it.
I don’t care about your misconceptions about how reality works without your magical god, I don’t care what you think it implies.
I’m asking you how it is not a fact that every individual has to evaluate, one way or another, outside information.
I understand that you hear from dumb apologists how reality doesn’t work without god and I don’t care how much you ( want to ) believe it.
it is completely irrelevant.
that’s why I’m ignoring your attempts to steer conversation (I take this as a conversation, I guess you’re trying to win a nonexistent debate in your head) somewhere else,where I would try to explain to you something you must have heard in various forms and shapes before,but you just don’t like it.
what is your problem with a fact that individuals have to process outside information?
not imperative,how you try to frame it. it’s not a command from some magical force,it’s just how it works. a fact.
how in your head it depends on worldview?
just tell me how it is not a fact independent of worldviews. that’s why I’m asking you..
when you don’t address that, your attempts to pin it “on my worldview” are meaningless.
that’s why I’m ignoring them.
Well, that ended it since when I went to reply that I haven’t received the money yet, I got this, “Page Not Found. We searched everywhere but couldn’t find the page you were looking for.”
I’m unsure how or why that happened but it’s very, very common for Atheists on the site in which the discussion took place to rely on censorship as an attempt to hide their failures and run off to their safe-spaces.
See my various books here—including my contra Atheism ones.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply