Why Atheist Negatively Comment on Epistemology, Metaphysics & Philosophy

Atheism, evolution and Charles Darwin_0.jpg

Actually, the title of this post is contrived from the title of the videos under which 3 short discussions took place so I figured I would compile them hereinafter.

The titles are:
Why Do Atheist Really Leave So Many Negative Comments!?
How To Destroy Atheist epistemology
Defense of Metaphysics & Traditional Philosophy Ep 1 – Jay Dyer

The first video ended up with this message “Video unavailable. This video is private” so the discussion ended when the owner of it decided, for whatever reason, to remove it from public view—in order to hide the comments or not, I know not. But this is a good example of why when I am having a discussion I copy and paste what I and the replying post into a Word doc so that way I always have the discussion saved.

I, Ken Ammi, commented
A few reasons including that Atheism is primarily an anti-Christian support group and that they tend to believe that into which they were indoctrinated which is that they are merely accidentally and temporarily existing reactionary apes or ape relatives so they comport themselves in the manner of emotively reactionary animals.

A certain Humboldt HipNeck replied
Do you know what reactionary means? It’s actually kinda funny given the context.

Ken Ammi
May I conclude that you are avoiding the issue? FYI: words have many meanings given different contexts, definitions, etc. In this case: derived from reaction.

Aaron Kellett chimed in with
Not to mention all humans are apes by definition.

Ken Ammi
By whose definition, those who believe that humans are apes?

Aaron Kellett
FYI, the taxonomic system of biological classification and the tree of life was discovered by a creationist Christian named Carolus Linnaeus.
So if you don’t like it then you should blame him and not us.
And no. Humans are classed as apes because we meet every criteria necessary to be classed as apes, regardless of whether we evolved or were specially created in our present state.

Ken Ammi
I suppose you will have to show me where Linnaeus categorized us as apes. So do you personally think that we are apes–not just categorizable as apes?

Humboldt HipNeck
lol, you may but you will still be wrong.

Ken Ammi
Yet, on the Atheist worldview being right or wrong does not matter since there is no premise for truth, logic or ethics and especially no imperative to adhere to any of them.

Humboldt HipNeck
Wrong again. Maybe you should actually ask an atheist instead of telling them what they think.

Ken Ammi
Actually, friend, my statements are based on having interacted with literally hundreds of Atheist for many, many years—including specifically reviewing the reasons that over a hundred of them gave for converting to Atheism, see here: https://truefreethinker.com/search/luceneapi_node/When%20and%20why%20they%20became%20Atheists

And that was the end of that.

The next one was also changed to “Video unavailable. This video is private.”

I had commented
“Atheist epistemology”? You mean “I am a temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organism therefore, I am”? Ammi’s Law states that Atheists will begin with conclusions 100% of the time.

A certain ByteMe TJ commented
Nope. No apologist troll script necessary. Just admit now that atheism is justified.

Ken Ammi
Friend, are you denying that you believe that we are temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organism?
Also, my law sates “Atheists will begin with conclusions 100% of the time” and you proved it by merely implying logical contradictions—such as that I made a positive affirmation and you a negative one. By the way, I am uncertain how you think you discredited my comment merely by asserting as much via the one single word “Nope.”
But since your comments are based on hidden assumptions which is why you began with conclusions so let us take a step back: how does your worldview provide you 1) a premise for truth, logic or ethics, 2) for holding to these and 3) for demanding that others do likewise?

ByteMe TJ
Ken Ammi provide reliable evidence of a god or admit atheism is justified.

Ken Ammi
Friend, are you unwilling or unable to actually engage this issue at a level beyond quaint Atheist talking points one liners?
For example, you begin with the conclusion that I ought to “provide reliable evidence” (and you do not even bother noting what would count as such evidence nor how you would examine it) or else admit that a mere lack of god belief is justified but, again, upon what basis do you simply jump to such a demand?

And that’s all folks.

The last one was Defense of Metaphysics & Traditional Philosophy Ep 1 – Jay Dyer.

A certain Ken Dreamer commented
I’m Ken too. I pick it cos I play street fighters and like the name. Anyway it seems like you two are arguing cosmologies. My view is practical. If it works to get me through life to my old age while being mostly happy and maximizing pleasures of life it’s good enough.
I presume people have beliefs systems and they appear to take a practical approach similar to the one I describe. As as long as it doesn’t end with you killing me or me killing you wouldn’t that be enough. I don’t think we have a duty to all believe the same thing communicate with each other nor live in proximity or mate.
Its seems at the very lease we can have our physiological needs met and remain alive as a consequence. I think people better if they hold my Religion but I don’t think I have to force them or convince them neither.

Ken Ammi
I pray I find you and yours well during times such as these—and in general.
You’re dreaming!!! ;o)
Indeed, if you have no premise for truth, logic, or ethics then you are forced to pragmatism and yet, that pragmatism is premised on hidden assumptions which are, guess what?, truth, logic, and ethics so you cannot get away from it.
For example, why make getting you through life to your old age, why being mostly happy and maximizing pleasures of life, how do you define good, etc., etc., etc.
Those are not stand alone issues, they are based on something—the hidden assumptions—and simply beginning in the middle does not mean that there is not a beginning.
And speaking of ethics, why do you reject “you killing me or me killing you”? Is that not the way of the natural world that got us here—survival of the fittest and all of that? And yet, killing is ethical but murder is not.
Ironically, you say you reject us killing each other and then “I don’t think we have a duty to all believe the same thing” so there goes that concept since you just stated that I do not have to believe it like you do and well, you’re in trouble now (speaking metaphorically, of course).
So, what is your “Religion”?

But no reply was forthcoming.

See my books on Atheism for more.

Atheism, evolution and Charles Darwin_0.jpg


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.