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

Hereinafter concludes 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:

spacedoohicky:

But when do baseball players demand golf be played like baseball? As to why I don’t try to convert people out of religion, I learned a long time ago people with stakes in religion rarely if ever change their mind based on arguments.

They usually change their mind based on some personal paradigm shift. In the instances where people do give up religion its usually an instance of some personal internal conflict.

For example one may have a child that gets cancer, and pray their child recovers. When the child does not recover that parent may realize that God either isn’t loving, or doesn’t exist. Since the only God they can imagine is loving they may decide that God does not exist because if he did he would have saved the child from cancer. It’s not universal.

It’s likely some people will believe God exists no matter what happens. But the ones who do change their mind, and stop believing usually will do it because of some tragedy like a child died from cancer even after all the prayer requesting that child be saved.

Most journeys out of religion are quite personal. Though some people do change their minds based on arguments. Those people appear to be rare though. Or the argument followed some personal struggle, and the argument just pushed them over the edge into disbelief in God. But I submit that more often than not disbelief in God arises purely from a unique personal struggle.

Ken Ammi:

Appreciate you and this interaction, friend.

So, “when do baseball players demand golf be played like baseball?” Never. The metaphor is that you are attempting to play this game of cogent, logical, facts based discussions without a premise so you have to beg, borrow, and steal from my worldview in order to attempt to discredit my worldview—which, of course, means that you are sawing away at the branch upon which you sit.

So, you “don’t try to convert people out of religion” you merely show up, jump to the conclusion that they are wrong and you are right and go away—for fun?

I could say much the same things about Atheists rarely if ever changing their mind based on arguments—of which you are a prime example since you cannot even justify engaging in argumentation.

All I can tell you is that I do not fit your myopically quaint description.

Also, I have a project wherein I read the reasons that over 100 Atheist gave for converting to Atheism and one of the features is thinking that they were oh so clever.

But, again, as an Atheist how is any of this an issue for you—besides the Atheist consoling delusion about which I told you before.

spacedoohicky:

I wouldn’t call a person losing their religion over their child getting cancer quaint. > “All I can tell you is that I do not fit your myopically quaint description.”

Ken Ammi:

Please note the qualifying term in that quote, “All I can tell you is that—-I—-do not fit your myopically quaint description.”

In any case, consider your scenario: they experience having their child die of cancer and opt for Atheism, a worldview whereby their child was an accidentally existing ape, it lost in struggle to survive as the fittest (with life and the drive to survive also being accidental), there are no ethics so they cannot condemn, there is no logic so their reasons for rejecting God collapse, and the only value that baby’s life had was subjective—a byproduct of specicism and a Darwinian survival instinct (also accidental) that caused the parents to reproduce their genetics (for not actual reason based on accidents).

I know not of what you speak by being demeaning but I know that you have no premise upon which to condemn it and that is one of the very many issues you keep conveniently avoiding.

spacedoohicky:

People have children that die from cancer. Some people quit religion because of that. You call that “myopically quaint”. I think that’s demeaning. The definition of demeaning: “causing someone to lose their dignity and the respect of others”.

In this case that someone would be parents of children who died from cancer. If it is not your objective to demean those people then I don’t know why you call them myopically quaint.

Of course I couldn’t possibly know if you have children let alone any that died from cancer regardless of prayers pleading with God to save such children. That was my example of people who quit religion without atheist influence.

But you’re response is to demean them for that, and say you don’t fit the example. This response from you seems rather strange being that you are still religious when my example was of people who are no longer religious.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, you are now focused on finding some fault in my personality as the latest of your ad infinitum excuses for distracting from the fact that you are doing so based on a worldview that is such a fundamental failure that you cannot even condemn me even if I was being demeaning.

Now, you are falsely asserting (and anyone can see above and verify this) that I called “myopically quaint” when some people quit religion because their children die from cancer.

What I had written was “All I can tell you is that I do not fit your myopically quaint description.”

I then explicitly explained to you that you had taken me out of context, when I wrote, “Please note the qualifying term in that quote, ‘All I can tell you is that—-I—-do not fit your myopically quaint description.’”

Thus, it has utterly nothing to do with such parents nor their kids.

Now, please focus on how on your worldview truth, logic & ethics are accidental, as is our ability to discern them, there’s no universal imperative to do so nor to demand others do so: you made that bed, will you sleep in it?

spacedoohicky:

What? My description was Christians who lose their religion because their children died from cancer. I didn’t give any other description. I don’t see how, “All I can tell you is that—-I—-do not fit your myopically quaint description.” does anything.

How does highlighting “I” do anything? According to you, you still don’t fit the myopically quaint description of a Christian that becomes atheist because their child died from cancer.

Ken Ammi:

I see that you are still desperate to avoid focusing on how on your worldview truth, logic & ethics are accidental, as is our ability to discern them, there’s no universal imperative to do so nor to demand others do so.

I noted “you made that bed, will you sleep in it?” and you will apparently just keep distracting in any and every possible direction that you can. Why are you so very terrified of your own worldview?

Yet, you seem to fail to notice that even if it is the case that I was demeaning then you would have only proved that an accidentally existing ape who has no universal imperative to be ethical was subjectively demeaning.

Thus, what have you gained except to place a temporary band-aid of subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence?

spacedoohicky:

I don’t know what to think about that. It all just seems like you’re fantasy view of other people. I could contradict you, by saying you’re wrong about how I feel, or think, but you would just say I’m lying.

You’re creepy mostly because you’re acting like you can read my mind, but also appear to be making guesses about feelings others have based on some sort of theory of spiritual warfare you’ve acquired from somewhere.

That’s my guess, but at least I admit I’m making a guess. You on the other hand seem very cocksure about the thoughts, and feelings of a stranger you’re messaging on the internet.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, what I have been telling you all along is that all you have is a fantasy view since you are lost in a tempestuous sea of emotive subjectivism.

And no, I would not say you are lying precisely because I cannot read your mind nor motivations, I can only tell you when you are mistaken. Thus, you think I am creepy even though I based my statement on my observation of your claims–and the many issues you conveniently constantly sidestep.

Here are some examples of the issues you seem to utterly refuse to discuss: you claim I hold a “fantasy view” that I would accuse you of “lying” that I “acting like you can read my mind” that I am “making guesses” that I have “some sort of theory of spiritual warfare” that I am whatever “cocksure” means but merely as a laundry list without telling me what is supposed to be wrong with any of that (even if it is true).

spacedoohicky:

It depends on if you care. If you’re a psychopath you probably won’t care. If you’re not a psychopath then you probably will care. That’s generally how it works. > “means but merely as a laundry list without telling me what is supposed to be wrong with any of that (even if it is true).”

Ken Ammi:

See, friend, you are finally able to latch onto the only thing that you are able to latch onto on your worldview which is emotions. And yet, on your worldview emotions, which would result in things such as caring, are subjective interpretations of accidental bio-chemical neural reactions in our accidentally evolved brains.

Like I said, “you are lost in a tempestuous sea of emotive subjectivism.”

Also, I noted, “Here are some examples of the issues you seem to utterly refuse to discuss: you claim I hold a ‘fantasy view’ that I would accuse you of ‘lying’ that I ‘acting like you can read my mind’ that I am ‘making guesses’ that I have ‘some sort of theory of spiritual warfare’ that I am whatever ‘cocksure’ means but merely as a laundry list without telling me what is supposed to be wrong with any of that (even if it is true).”

spacedoohicky:

But only some things are based on emotions. Other things are not. Generally motivations are emotional, but other things such as logic are not. But I’m about to give up talking with you because you’re insufferable. Yes that’s an emotional statement. Since you have a weird preoccupation with degrading emotion. Have at it.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, you are stating those things, or so it seems to me, due to what I have noted time and again which is that you are strictly a purely surface level thinker. And I am not talking about being dumb, which you clearly are not, but about you utterly refusing to get into metal level issues. I suspect that this is because you are simply unused to it (most Atheist are) and because you must realize (consciously or not) that there is no meta level on your worldview.

Thus, “degrading emotion” no: the issue has been that you degrade emotion by holding to a worldview whereby they are the accidental results of accidents and that we merely subjectively interpret them (which we can do accidentally).

Well, that was the end of it all.

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.