From the statement "I have a degree" it doesn't logically follow that atheists can't have a hope that there is no God or that they can't have a fear of the idea of God. — Apollodorus

Is this an attempt at the Chewbacca Defense?

180 Proof's degree in psychology is relevant to this:

Ask psychologists and they'll tel you. — Apollodorus

180 Proof's degree in psychology is relevant to this:
Ask psychologists and they'll tel you.
— Apollodorus — InPitzotl

It doesn't answer the question. And it doesn't justify his objection to my suggestion that some atheists may be motivated by a feeling of fear.

Is he saying that atheists can not be motivated by feelings of hope or fear?

Normally, when you hope for something not to happen, you do so out of fear of it happening. Does a degree in psych disprove that? No, therefore it is irrelevant.

If he had said "I've got a degree in psych therefore I know so and so" it would have been a different matter. But he didn't. And I don't believe he could have done. How can a degree in psych enable anyone to assert that atheists never feel hope or fear???

Sorry, but you're running all over the place. What is on the table is that 180 Proof's degree in psychology is relevant to this:

Ask psychologists and they'll tel you. — Apollodorus

You offered a pretense of a rebuttal to this, but none of it had to do with what's on the table.

And it doesn't justify his objection to my suggestion that some atheists may be motivated by a feeling of fear. — Apollodorus

That's quite a different goal post than this:

I believe that's a big element in atheism. Atheists are afraid of the thought of there being anything higher than themselves hence they hope there isn't. — Apollodorus

Normally, when you hope for something not to happen, you do so out of fear of it happening. — Apollodorus

That doesn't quite sound correct to me. What is your reasoning behind it?

Does a degree in psych disprove that? — Apollodorus

In the particulars, that's not on the table (see above).

But the question is epistemically backwards. It is not necessary to disprove an unwarranted claim.

First, cite an example of an atheist who "fears" religion. Second, explain why this "fear" matters in determining whether or not atheism is true. Lastly, and as it clearly doesn't, why are you apparently so afraid that theism is not true and that you're living a demonstrable lie. Talking out of your ass, Apollodorus, is a condition called "logorrhea"; there's medicine for that – dialectics – which you should try some time.

Sorry, but you're running all over the place. What is on the table is that 180 Proof's degree in psychology is relevant to this:
Ask psychologists and they'll tel you.
— Apollodorus
You offered a pretense of a rebuttal to this, but none of it had to do with what's on the table. — InPitzotl

There is nothing to be sorry about. You are entitled to your views and others are also entitled to their own views.

In my view, holding a "degree in cognitive psych" has nothing to do with anything.

I disagree with your statement. You haven't proved that a degree in psych makes any difference to anything. And you haven't convinced anyone.

You did try, which is fair enough. But you failed and that is that. What more can I say?

Talking out of your ass, Apollodorus, is a condition called "logorrhea", there's medicine for that – dialectics — 180 Proof

Well, if that's what your "degree in cognitive psych" amounts to, calling everyone else sick, then I'm afraid it only proves my point. So, you needn't bother.

And if by "dialectics" you mean Marxism, I don't need that, thank you very much. Have you tried it on yourself? Perhaps you should. "Physician heal thyself" as they say. That's what you took up psychology for, isn't it?

In my view, holding a "degree in cognitive psych" has nothing to do with anything. — Apollodorus

Wrong. In your view:

Ask psychologists and they'll tel you. — Apollodorus

...psychologists corroborate your story. You're being disingenuous.

It's also mighty suspicious that I've plainly and repetitively stated what's relevant here, and you went to this nonsense about proving your claim wrong; it's almost like you have a blind spot that you were the one appealing to psychologists.

.psychologists corroborate your story. You're being disingenuous. — InPitzotl

You don't get it, do you? I meant a professional psychologist not someone holding a degree in psychology. As I said, anyone can have a degree in anything. That doesn't mean anything. Marx had a degree in philosophy but that didn't even get him a job. He had to take up journalism instead.

You're as religiously well-read, dude, as you're philosophically ignorant and fallacious (though, to your credit, not disingenuous). Whenever I take issue with your ad hominems, you reply with more projections. Okay. I guess you're good for an occasional laugh.

And if by "dialectics" you mean Marxism, I don't need that, thank you very much.

Fer chrissakes! :lol:

And if by "dialectics" you mean Marxism — Apollodorus

You don't get it, do you? I meant a professional psychologist not someone holding a degree in psychology. — Apollodorus

Professional psychologists hold degrees in psychology. You were arguing that the degree was irrelevant.

As I said, anyone can have a degree in anything. That doesn't mean anything. — Apollodorus

No, you're claiming that it doesn't mean anything. But of course it means something. I have a degree in math (minor) and computer science (major); in obtaining these, I have learned about math and computer science beyond the high school level. 180 Proof has a degree in cognitive psychology; that implies analogously that 180 Proof should have learned about those things in attaining his degree.

Yes, anyone can have a degree in anything. But degrees teach you things. That's relevant. But anyone can claim a group of professionals backs up their random internet guy theories. And that doesn't mean they actually do.

You fall in the same epistemic trap over and over and over. You must support the views you advance before they are worthy of being taken seriously. A proper, rational response to a challenge is to give support. You're not doing that. Your response to a challenge is to try to attack the challengers, not support your views.

You've got this whole thing backwards. Your opinions are worthless unless they are supported; a lack of proof of being wrong is not support. This is not about proving you wrong. This is about demonstrating you have something valuable to say in the first place.

And I've yet to see any such demonstration. You're too busy saying what doesn't prove you wrong to bother with reasons to believe you're right.

:100:

:rofl: :up:

You're as religiously well-read, dude, as you're philosophically ignorant and fallacious (though, to your credit, not disingenuous). — 180 Proof

What's there to be disingenuous about? And what "ad hominems"? I actually defended you when someone said you should be banned. I'm not like you, you know.

As for your "degree in cognitive psych" we can see of what value that is in proving your point.

A proper, rational response to a challenge is to give support. You're not doing that. Your response to a challenge is to try to attack the challengers, not support your views. — InPitzotl

I haven't noticed anyone "attacking you" at all so I've no idea what you're talking about. As I said, you're wasting your time. Claiming that atheists have no hopes or fears is just irrational. They would need to be a very special kind of people for that to be the case. Even you ought to realize that. But never mind.

As for your "degree in cognitive psych" we can see of what value that is in proving your point. — Apollodorus

Avoid epistemic double standards... whatever burden you think the "other guy" has in proving you wrong had better be a burden you met yourself to make the claim in the first place.

That's the basic idea behind Hitchen's razor: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

I pray each night to God that there is no god.

-----------------

I think the religious have a much bigger investment in having a god not to exist, than to exist.

If god exists, the religious have no choice other than having an afterlife spent either in eternal suffering in Hell, or in eternal suffering in Heaven.

You may be wondering what suffering exists in Heaven. Well, the sameness, the monotoneness of forever. Try humming the same tune for a day, and you'll go insane. Imagine the most complex, complicated, intriguing life you can, and do it again and again over and over a thousand, a million, a billion times, and then infinite times.... you see my point. Everlasting life is horror, unimaginable horror for the human mind.

So the religious have much greater need in a hope that God not exist, than the atheists; and if the religious still hope He does, then so be it. Don't say I did not warn you.

As I said, you're wasting your time. — Apollodorus

That's possible.

I haven't noticed anyone "attacking you" at all so I've no idea what you're talking about. — Apollodorus

You're misinterpreting. Here's what you're doing:

Claiming that atheists have no hopes or fears is just irrational. — Apollodorus

...you're morphing what I did say into something easier to refute... you're doing this in reaction to being challenged. Nowhere did I make the claim that atheists have no hopes or fears.

Even you ought to realize that. But never mind. — Apollodorus

Of course I realize atheists have hopes and fears. They're just people.

But I also realize that you said this:

I believe that's a big element in atheism. Atheists are afraid of the thought of there being anything higher than themselves hence they hope there isn't. — Apollodorus

...there's a gigantic leap between an atheist having an irrational fear of spiders and hoping his favorite restaurant is still open, to it being a big part of atheism that atheists are afraid of the thought of there being something higher than themselves.

The thing you haven't justified is that thing about it being a big part of atheism that atheists are afraid of the thought of there being something higher than themselves.

Pretending that all you said was that sometimes atheists fear things isn't going to fly.

Of course I realize atheists have hopes and fears. They're just people — InPitzotl

Exactly. So why deny it? You said that degrees in cognitive psych prove that to be untrue. Which is simply not true. So, you're contradicting yourself.

My reading is this:

I believe that's a big element in atheism. Atheists are afraid of the thought of there being anything higher than themselves hence they hope there isn't. — Apollodorus

I've known quite a few principled nonbelievers online and offline over the decades and none have resembled your disingenuous caricature — 180 Proof

People do tend to be reluctant to admit their own fears but that doesn't mean that those fears don't exist. Ask psychologists and they'll tel you. — Apollodorus

Those two things are separated by only one post in this thread; 180 Proof's post. The quote I have from 180 Proof is the exact quote you gave in your reply to him.

I read the antecedent of "those fears" is "of the thought of there being anything higher than themselves".

I find no reasonable reading of that where by "those fears":

So why deny it? — Apollodorus

...you simply mean an atheist's irrational fear of spiders. But I find it suspicious that you should pretend you did.

Why all of the tricks? Why the gaslighting attempts? What's so wrong with just supporting the claim you made?

My reading is this: — InPitzotl

Yeah, I know what your reading is but if it's wrong it's wrong. You can't make a wrong right. So, what's your agenda? Why not say something that makes sense for a change and then we carry on the conversation like two grown ups instead of resorting to kindergarten tricks that don't lead anywhere. You haven't even convinced yourself so how on earth do you think you can convince others???

Why all of the tricks? Why the gaslighting attempts? What's so wrong with just supporting the claims you made? Because you can't that's why. And your degree in cognitive psych just can't help you. Maybe you should get some other degree and try again.

And why are you using that weird name if you've got nothing to hide?

Do atheists actively not want God to exist? — Georgios Bakalis

That doesn't matter, for 'God' cannot exist. What is Fundamental cannot have parts. Not even something very simply composite can be First as the Absolute.

Yeah, I know what your reading is but if it's wrong it's wrong. You can't make a wrong right. — Apollodorus

That does me no good. It's possible that I'm wrong, but the reading is direct, so it's justified. The justification from a straightforward reading of the text is also pretty solid... I'm not quote mining, and I'm following the precise chain of replies, including even the specific text you chose to quote.

So, what's your agenda? — Apollodorus

I've multiple agendas here. Dissuading bad epistemic practices is one.

Simply asking you to defend your original claim is another:

I believe that's a big element in atheism. Atheists are afraid of the thought of there being anything higher than themselves hence they hope there isn't. — Apollodorus

Where does this claim come from? What does it mean for it to be true? Under what conditions do we say it's true? Do those conditions hold? Under what conditions do we say it's false? Since you mentioned psychologists, I am not a psychologist, but as I'm aware we can actually test for fear responses... can we test fear responses for the thought of higher beings? Or we can sanity check this... what does "higher" even mean here... does it suggest atheists would be scared of SETI? If so, how come atheists in practice tend to be interested in SETI?

There are all kinds of things we could discuss to honestly explore the veracity of your claim; on both sides. Maybe there are experiments showing fight or flight response to religious iconography of particular sorts. Or maybe they don't; and maybe this indicates you're wrong. Those are the kinds of things an honest exploration in the veracity of the claim you made looks like.

Why not say something that makes sense for a change and then we carry on the conversation like two grown ups instead of resorting to kindergarten tricks that don't lead anywhere. — Apollodorus

...because you're not discussing it seriously. You're not saying "my opinion is backed by this psychology study". You're not explaining the fear response. You're not defining what you mean by a higher power.

You're spending all of your time asking what people's agendas are, and saying that 180 Proof's degree in psychology doesn't disprove anything. You're morphing your claim every post and trying to peg people to straw men versions of it. None of this has to do with the thing you originally claimed being true. And this, in my opinion that you acknowledged I'm entitled to, is because you're too busy trying to say what doesn't prove you wrong to be bothered by actually discussing why you should be treated seriously.

Nobody has to knock the legs out from under your theory if it doesn't have a leg to stand on in the first place.

Why not say something that makes sense for a change — Apollodorus

Why does it not make sense to you that in order to have your opinion treated seriously, you must first support it?

You're not saying "my opinion is backed by this psychology study". — InPitzotl

Neither are you. If a degree in cognitive psych doesn't help you prove your case then what's the point? How can you demand of others what you yourself are unable to provide?

And I don't need to defend anything. I don't feel I'm under attack at all and I'm not attacking anyone. You're barking at the wrong tree.

Neither are you. — Apollodorus

You have a warped view of what's going on.

You have made a claim. You have not supported it. Therefore, your claim can be dismissed.

I have made a claim as well. I have claimed that you have not supported your claim. My claim is testable; had you offered support for theory, it would appear in the two pages of post history here on this board. That can be scanned in minutes. Such a scan reveals a lack of support for your claim.

How can you demand of others what you yourself are unable to provide? — Apollodorus

I don't really have to provide it; it's already here in the forum. Anyone can click on that "7", that "8", and that "9", and confirm what I saw for themselves... that you have offered no support for your opinion.

And I don't need to defend anything. — Apollodorus

Sure. But you don't need to be taken seriously either.

If all you're after is slinging your opinion onto the pages here, you're done. Does that suggest that I can just chock up all of your responses to me as just being bored and trolling? I'm actually fine with that.

I have made a claim as well. I have claimed that you have not supported your claim. My claim is testable; had you offered support for theory, it would appear in the two pages of post history here on this board. That can be scanned in minutes. Such a scan reveals a lack of support for your claim. — InPitzotl

You are delusional. I don't need to support anything and I don't care about your claims. I told you many times you're wasting your time.

Ask psychologists and they'll te[ll] you. — Apollodorus

I only ever mention my cog. psych. master's to counter fatuous asides like this one and ad hominem insinuations such as "fear" as a motive for holding one position or another. Only someone without the requisite intellectual competence to defeat, or even validly challenge, a position s/he disagrees with resorts to spurious psychologizing and projection like you do/have done. My CV is not an argument; that's just me calling you out epistemically on your bullshit, Apollodoofus.

I don't need to support anything ... — Apollodorus

So the troll confesses! (Kiss of death (banning) on a philosophy forum – or ought to be) Okay. I won't waste anymore of your time or my own on you, Apollodoofus, here or on any other thread. Good fuckin' luck with that.

I only ever mention my cog. psych. master's to counter fatuous asides like this one and ad hominem insinuations such as "fear" as a motive for holding one position or another. — 180 Proof

Unfortunately, your cog. psych. doesn't counter anything apart from your own fallacies. The "ad hominems" are in your head. And you are again claiming that atheists feel no hope or fear, which rather contradicts your own spurious claims.

The "ad hominems" are in your head. And you are again claiming that ... which rather contradicts your own spurious claims. — Thus Spoke Apollodoofus

[ The idea that atheists are afraid is a threadbare and spurious argument. But if you don't believe in the existence of something, how can you be scared of it? Surely only a believer believes out of fear? Additionally, can a person choose their belief? You are either convinced something is the case or you are not. If fear is your reason for non-belief, then you are choosing a position - to me this seems untenable.

:up: