The Main Problem With Atheists!

[POI]

Taken from post 19 of this thread - (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41593&start=10):

(i.e.) "I think the main problem many/most atheists have re this is that they tend to carry around the baggage of belief". --- I think what he means here is that atheists are now jaded, sinical, and/or such atheist minds are now closed in entertaining any possibility to the 'supernatural/divine/etc'..

I feel this point is necessary to bring up here and now because this particular interlocutor has brought this topic up more than once, and I feel we need to now focus upon it... Why? If most atheists have such "baggage", are atheists then unable to discern actual truth/reality? I'd instead say ALL reside within an "a posteriori" position, (or) the knowledge we obtain through prior experience(s). Hence, don't we ALL carry around "baggage"? Meaning, aren't we all clouded by our preconceived conclusions, based upon our experiences? If so, then I guess the next question(s) would be for debate:

1) Since we all carry (a postiori) 'baggage', is it still possible to discern a truth claim? I'd say yes.
2) If we all carry around 'baggage', then why bring it up?
3) Regardless of one's "baggage", couldn't God change one's mind regardless? I'm thinking of the story about "Saul of Tarsus", just for starters.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #7]

It is not a strawman because I acknowledge that we all 'carry baggage'.

This fallacy occurs when, in attempting to refute another person's argument, you address only a weak or distorted version of it. Straw person is the misrepresentation of an opponent's position or a competitor's product to tout one's own argument or product as superior. This fallacy occurs when the weakest version of an argument is attacked while stronger ones are ignored.

(SOURCE)

What's ironic here, is you are committing the same offense in which you are accusing me of committing.... Here is part of the OP (again).

If most atheists have such "baggage", are atheists then unable to discern actual truth/reality? I'd instead say ALL reside within an "a posteriori" position, (or) the knowledge we obtain through prior experience(s). Hence, don't we ALL carry around "baggage"? Meaning, aren't we all clouded by our preconceived conclusions, based upon our experiences? If so, then I guess the next question(s) would be for debate:

1) Since we all carry (a postiori) 'baggage', is it still possible to discern a truth claim? I'd say yes.
2) If we all carry around 'baggage', then why bring it up?
3) Regardless of one's "baggage", couldn't God change one's mind regardless? I'm thinking of the story about "Saul of Tarsus", just for starters.

Yes. That's a point. Of course I regard atheist 'baggage'as irrelevant because science (validated evidence) must prevail with tme, just as in a court of law evidence prevails whatever socil'baggage' any of the personnel may have - it is designed to work that wayTheosm doesn't uderstand this because Faiobased bias is all that matter and evidence (and logic) is irrelevant if it conflicts; these are considered faithclaims without any empirical validity, if it conflicts with the Dogma. This is why science -denial and irrationality is the bedrock, basis and dogma af Theism.

Matthew 11:25 "In praise of stupidity" KJV
At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes".

It is the main problem with theism and you may take that to the bank.

Now we may hear the usual clamor of the Believers "Oh atheists always call us stupid". I have even seen it brought up as a beef that Christian have with atheist shibboleths. In fact atheists don't pushback because they don't get it.

Theists are not (necessarily) stupid. It on;ly looks like that because they are trying to defend nonsense. The fact is that as soon as a person stops trying to defend the indefensible, they sound as smart as any rationalists.

It isn't personal and never was, but of course the Bible believers take it personally.

[POI]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #11]

William is being clouded to the much larger picture I'm trying to express here. We all have passed experiences - (good/bad/ugly/whatever). Those experiences can lead to pre-assumptions, sure. I'm asking if these pre-assumptions can still be placed aside? Maybe sometimes, they can, and maybe sometimes, they can't?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #10]

It is not about the thread subject but that you used an out of context quote from what I had written in another thread as if it had something to do with this thread subject. It doesn't. That is why it is a strawman.

I am not straw-manning simply by pointing that out. Your thread here itself is not an issue I have nor have I argued that everyone is free from baggage. My arguments (in the other thread) were specific to what kind of baggage ex Christians who have become atheists, carry around and how that influences their arguments about types of Christianity they were personally familiar with and (obviously) influenced by.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #10]

It is not about the thread subject but that you used an out of context quote from what I had written in another thread as if it had something to do with this thread subject. It doesn't. That is why it is a strawman.

Which is why I stated immediately, in the OP: "I think what he means here is that atheists are now jaded, sinical, and/or such atheist minds are now closed in entertaining any possibility to the 'supernatural/divine/etc'.."

I am not straw-manning simply by pointing that out. Your thread here itself is not an issue I have nor have I argued that everyone is free from baggage. My arguments (in the other thread) were specific to what kind of baggage ex Christians who have become atheists, carry around and how that influences their arguments about types of Christianity they were personally familiar with and (obviously) influenced by.

Right, which is why I created the topic I created.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #11]

William is being clouded to the much larger picture I'm trying to express here. We all have passed experiences - (good/bad/ugly/whatever). Those experiences can lead to pre-assumptions, sure. I'm asking if these pre-assumptions can still be placed aside? Maybe sometimes, they can, and maybe sometimes, they can't?

Yeah... I do sometimes go off on a side issue. But 'baggage' here seems to be either invalid baggage (Faithclaims) and valid baggage (reason and rationality) or baggage that is bias, which rationalists hopefully can set aside and examine the evidence with an open mind and the bias that is embraced and praised as Faith.

Religious theism of course embraces and praises the latter and (of course) denounces differing faiths and even denomination as blind, wicked and even Satanic and deserving of Hell as much as atheists (see you there heretics ) but irreligious Theists still have residual Sorta -godfaith, though they have let go of religion, like Bill Burr



(I looked at a podast that hinted Bill might have gone irreligious theist. If so that is ok and means religions are still invalid.

but they still use Faithbased claims and Gap for a god apologetics as their material including unexplaineds in physics,cosmology and the mind. None of which is d with a scrap of validity as real evidence for any kind of god.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #14]

It is not about the thread subject but that you used an out of context quote from what I had written in another thread as if it had something to do with this thread subject. It doesn't. That is why it is a strawman.

Which is why I stated immediately, in the OP: "I think what he means here is that atheists are now jaded, sinical, and/or such atheist minds are now closed in entertaining any possibility to the 'supernatural/divine/etc'.."

That only underlines the strawman you created.
You continue to argue with strawman, even opting to only quote what I wrote (out of context) re my prior post because, in the context of my comments in the other thread I was specifically referring to atheists who are ex-Christians.
That is why I wrote;

My arguments (in the other thread) were specific to what kind of baggage ex Christians who have become atheists, carry around and how that influences their arguments about types of Christianity they were personally familiar with and (obviously) influenced by.

If I wanted to create a thread on what I was actually talking about, I would have worded it differently - along the lines of;
"Is there still a misinformed influence affecting atheists who once belonged to Christian Sects?"

You continue to argue against something I have not claimed, I have clearly shown that to be the case. You continue to deny it is. There is nothing more I have to say on the matter, here in this thread, as this thread seems more about how we all carry baggage from former - less specified - influences and certainly isn't about what I was specifically arguing.

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #16]

I also explained to Transponder in post 12. At this point, you are beating a dead horse. You do not have to engage the topic. It's up to you. It does not matter if you are an ex-Christian, an ex-Scientologist, an ex-wife, an ex-lover, or other. We all carry "baggage". Are these folks still able to make rationale and logical conclusions outside of their experienced baggage, yes or no?

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to POI in post #7]

It is not a strawman because I acknowledge that we all 'carry baggage'.

This fallacy occurs when, in attempting to refute another person's argument, you address only a weak or distorted version of it. Straw person is the misrepresentation of an opponent's position or a competitor's product to tout one's own argument or product as superior. This fallacy occurs when the weakest version of an argument is attacked while stronger ones are ignored.

(SOURCE)

What's ironic here, is you are committing the same offense in which you are accusing me of committing.... Here is part of the OP (again).

If most atheists have such "baggage", are atheists then unable to discern actual truth/reality? I'd instead say ALL reside within an "a posteriori" position, (or) the knowledge we obtain through prior experience(s). Hence, don't we ALL carry around "baggage"? Meaning, aren't we all clouded by our preconceived conclusions, based upon our experiences? If so, then I guess the next question(s) would be for debate:

1) Since we all carry (a postiori) 'baggage', is it still possible to discern a truth claim? I'd say yes.
2) If we all carry around 'baggage', then why bring it up?
3) Regardless of one's "baggage", couldn't God change one's mind regardless? I'm thinking of the story about "Saul of Tarsus", just for starters.

What we got 'ere is a clear case of the Strawmanning a Strawman Fallacy !

If I only had a brain . . .

[William]

[Replying to William in post #16]

I also explained to Transponder in post 12. At this point, you are beating a dead horse. You do not have to engage the topic. It's up to you. It does not matter if you are an ex-Christian, an ex-Scientologist, an ex-wife, an ex-lover, or other. We all carry "baggage". Are these folks still able to make rationale and logical conclusions outside of their experienced baggage, yes or no?

Then I ask you now, edit your opening post and remove the out of context quote taken from what I wrote in the other thread as it is unrelated to this particular topic.

I am asking because it gives the reader false/misinformation on what my actual position is on atheism/atheists. I don't want to have to any waste time continuing to post in this thread defending my actual position on atheism/all atheists against said misinformation.



Thanks.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to William in post #16]

I also explained to Transponder in post 12. At this point, you are beating a dead horse. You do not have to engage the topic. It's up to you. It does not matter if you are an ex-Christian, an ex-Scientologist, an ex-wife, an ex-lover, or other. We all carry "baggage". Are these folks still able to make rationale and logical conclusions outside of their experienced baggage, yes or no?

I see something else here. I suspect I know what the OP really wants to say. He just fails to explain it correctly.
Look how he elaborated on his topic:

Yes, it still is straw because you are arguing something different to what I was arguing.
I wasn't arguing that some do and some do not carry baggage. I was being specific to certain types of atheists - those that come from a Christian background in which they were influenced by certain concepts they were led to believe in as true and how they argue only from the point of view of those concepts they were influenced by.

So he speaks of atheists that were christians once, were influenced (by christian indoctrination) time back and still carry the CONCEPTS of said christian indoctrination as baggage with them.

William must mean the concept of COGNITIVE DISSONANCE that christians tend to assume and nurture for protecting their faith.

And now William thinks that these ex christians, while now arguing from an atheist position, still use christian concepts like cognitive dissonance to protect their new position.

Am I right, William?