When Atheists utterly refuse to discuss “Biblical views on slavery,” 6 of 7

Hereinafter continues a series depicting discussion I had—or, attempted to have—with various Atheist about a video titled, “Biblical views on slavery with and Old an New Testament Scholar”—when all segments are posted, you will be able to find them all here.

You will note that the Atheists were quick to jump to their typical brimstone and fire condemnation modus operandi. However, once I sought to pick the scab of the conclusions with which they began, which exposed the mere assertions upon which they were jumping to conclusions, they typically called me names and utterly refused to engage in issues that are inconvenient to their worldviews.

Picking up where we left off in the previous segment, spacedoohicky replied:

But you also subjectively prefer God. So, we are in the same boat. You are just more wrong than I am.

Ken Ammi:

Well, when there is only one of something it is not really a case of subjective preference. But well said, indeed, if your worldview is true their it collapses epistemology and we are just accidentally existing apes functioning under no universal imperatives—which, of course, means you are wasting your time seeking to fulfill one of Atheism’s consoling delusions: the delusion of subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence.

And so your little “just more wrong than” is utterly meaningless since you have no premise for truth, logic, ethics, for adhering to them or from demanding that others do so.

spacedoohicky:

I don’t mind. I make my own imperatives as everyone does. It’s better because I own my purpose. I don’t offload the responsibilities to someone else. Though you’re being over dramatic saying “it collapse epistemology”.

Seriously all it means is that humans, and potentially other creatures make their own purpose. That being said I’m not opposed to the possibility of a creator. There could be some super aliens that generated our universe with some amazing technology.

There could be some sort of deist God that doesn’t want anything to do with us. There could be an evil God being that there is so much suffering he seems to like it that way. So in a sense my so called “world view” is more open than yours. Though the Jewish, and Christian god obviously does not exist. http://www.humanreligions.info/god_is_impossible.html

Ken Ammi:

Friend, it is utterly fascinating to witness you and the other Atheists in this comments section moving the goalpost in every which way in desperation to avoid the contextual issue—just fascinating.

Now, I am sure that you do not mind since paying such fundamental issues as I am bringing up would force you to face your collapsed worldview and you seem quite eager to carry on your Atheist missionary endeavors.

When you say “I make my own imperatives” noted that it is a result of having to admit that there are no universal imperatives. Yet, you just utterly discredited yourself, again, since a consistent view would be that therefore you have to right to impose your subjective imperatives on anyone and should not attempt to talk them into accepting that they are wrong for not accepting your subjective imperatives.

Yet, there is no imperative to be consistent on your worldview so, at least you are consistently inconsistent.

But when you say you “make my own imperatives as everyone does” you open the door for the likes of Stalin saying, “Yup, you got it!” and the rest was millions of deaths.

Thus, these are examples of the fact that your worldview collapses epistemology since on your worldview truth, facts, logic, epistemology are all accidents, we accidentally are able to discern them, and there is no universal imperative to adhere to them—that is the bed you made, why then turn around and refuse to do so?

For example, if humans make their own purpose—also premised on admitting one of Atheism’s consoling delusions: the delusion of subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence—then if my purpose is to affirm that your worldview collapses epistemology then so be it, right?

In my book “Fifty Shades of Gray Aliens” I included a chapter titled “Ancient Atheist Aliens” wherein I chronicle just how many Atheist appeal to aliens in desperation to rebel against God.

So, you are open to virtually any and every god except the one true one: why does that not surprise me?

Now, you positively affirmed “the Jewish, and Christian god obviously does not exist” so you must now prove it. And if you just want to punt to “Well, humanreligions.info said it so, by golly, I believe it” then I can also paste URLs.

spacedoohicky:

Changing the subject isn’t equivalent to moving a goal post. I literal just said what I believe. You can take it, or leave it.

Ken Ammi:

The lengths to you which constantly go to avoid issues that are inconvenient to your worldview are fascinating.

I realize that one of Atheism’s consoling delusions is the delusion of subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence but it is rather cheap, is it not, to attempt to fill that abyss by dancing around every which way so as to avoid facing facts—yet, I realize that on Atheism facts are accidental, as is our ability to discern them, there is no universal imperative to do so nor to demand others do so either.

spacedoohicky:

To me it seems more of a problem for you. I don’t really think much about all that stuff you’re talking about. What your doing is like saying golf is inconvenient for baseball players because baseball doesn’t play by the rules of golf.

Or the dewey decimal system is an inconvenient truth to the internet because the internet doesn’t use that system.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, “To me it seems more of a problem for you” is a mere assertion to which you jumped without an argument.

If anything has been crystal clear is that you “don’t really think much about all that stuff” and I do not blame you since you would have to face the fact of your worldview’s fundamental level collapse and it would also ruin your Atheist missionary endeavors so there would go your subjective meaning.

What I am saying is more like golf is inconvenient for baseball players when baseball players demand that they will play golf as if it was baseball because “baseball doesn’t play by the rules of golf” and likewise with the Dewey metaphor.

You chimed in with merely asserted jumps to conclusions based on hidden assumptions about truth, logic, ethics, etc., it is being pointed out to you that you have no premise upon which to do so and you just say you “don’t really think much about all that stuff.”

Better to face the fact that your worldview failed you and it failed you since it fails before it even begins.

spacedoohicky:

I don’t really do missionary stuff. I mostly just enjoy exposing bad ideas. I would put a lot more work into this stuff if I was a missionary. As it is I just comment on the internet so I can watch conservative religious people rage when they get cognitive dissonance.

But if I find a nice religious person usually I just attempt to have a normal conversation. Why would golf be inconvenient to baseball players? Don’t they just not play it if they don’t like it. Usually people just play the game they like.

Ken Ammi:

And here I would have thought that by definition, you “enjoy exposing bad ideas” so as to show people that they are wrong and should convert to your point of view—your dogmatheism.

Yet, when you say “bad ideas” you are judging them against good ones and the good ones, or so I would imagine, would be the ones that conform to truth, reality, etc.: correct?

If such is the case then, guess what, we are back to the issues I have been begging you to address all along.

On your view truth, reality, etc. are accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there is no universal imperative to do so, nor to demand others do likewise.

Thus, you may “enjoy” doing thing, like eating ice-cream, but that is a merely emotive subjective personal preference du jour—and one that is based on hidden assumptions, assumption I have been begging you to expose but you “don’t really think much about all that stuff” and I suspect that is because if you actually though a little deeper than the manner in which you have become accustomed than you would undermine that which you enjoy doing and, again, one of your consoling delusions is the delusion of subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence so, there goes your enjoyment—which on your worldview refers to your interpretation of an accidental mixture of neural-chemistry, of course.

Now, if you do this to watch “conservative religious people rage” then, sorry to disappoint you. And as for “cognitive dissonance” again, upon what premise do you condemn that? You have none, so you do not condemn it. You are merely listing things you like and do not like: like telling me that chocolate ice cream is bad—the same level of impotence.

As to “Why would golf be inconvenient to baseball players?” as I noted, “golf is inconvenient for baseball players when baseball players demand that they will play golf as if it was baseball because ‘baseball doesn’t play by the rules of golf.’”

In the next segment, we will continue from here since this discussion continued.

Learn more about Atheism from my various books about that worldview.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.