IAP Political Forum

Certain people (Baldar) have suggested that I and the other atheists here are bigots. This is something I am actually worried about. I don't want to be a bigot, I don't consider myself one.

So, am I a bigot?

Some atheists are bigots, most atheists aren't bigots.  Bigots are those who denigrate others without being able to extol their own virtues.

Has a bigot ever recognized himself as being one?

Who voted "Who are you?"

That's an odd definition.


I actually thought of that as I was posting the thread.

Threads like this leave one open to severe criticism.

If this turns into a flame-fest it will be promptly Infernoed at worst, Lobby at best.

That's the idea.

mmmmmmmmm I wouldn't say that is completely you

I've read enough of your posts to know you are a religious bigot.  On the bright side, at least you aren't as bad as Barney or D9.  Also, we are all bigots in some way to some degree.

/shrug.  You asked. :D

To a degree, yes.  I base my response not on your religious conclusions, but that you have maintained a degree of intolerance despite not having worked past some odd ideas about religion.

That said there are bigotries and then there are bigotries.  I don't find you particularly strident or guilty of the chronically poor behaviour for which the board is becoming known.  Beside which, I'm sure some of your best friends are theists.

How did you come to that conclusion?

What do you mean?

In our conversations, you've exhibited a category error or special pleading in which physical evidence is demanded for demonstration of theological or non-materialistic ideas.  Arguing an error isn't bigotry, but maintaining an enthusiasm for it may be.

I don't have the sense that your sentiments toward religion are neutral.  Am I wrong?

I don't see it as either. If no physical evidence exists how can we conclude that the object (God) exists?


No. Are yours?

The same way you might conclude that materialism is a valid position, by thinking about it and constructing a position that explains it.  Is this question beyond the scope of your thread?


Yes.  A religious concept is neither categorically correct nor incorrect simply because it is religous.

Not at all.


I never said anything like that. It just happens that most religious concept lack any evidentiary support.

And this shows the special pleading of demanding material evidence for religious concepts, while not requiring it of other concepts.  We likely share some idea about the social equality or ethics that have no evidentiary support in our five senses, but can be part of a coherent overall view.

If you are genuinely worried about whether you are a bigot, I wouldn't spend too much time on it.  The worst ones never contemplate the possibility.

In my few jousts with you, I have not found you bigoted. Your thread on phony liberals reveals you to be open minded, IMHO. Definitely not the sign of a bigot.

OswaldTheOsprey

I agree that alot of physicalists assume the physical and do not put their own critiques to their own philosophy. They forget that they are because they think they are.

Just a correction, their are nine senses.  ;)

I agree with JIMP that we are all bigoted in some ways.

As for you, IamMe, I'm sure that you have been involved in some form of bigotry at some point or another (we all have), but I would not define you as a bigot. Doesn't really fit the pattern of what I see from your posts, which is generally open-minded.

If you see someone carrying a Bible, having a cross around thier neckls, maybe a fish on thier car, do you automatically class them as morons?

And I am asking seriously here.

If you DO, then you are a bigot. Just as a person who sees a large black man on the street and wonders if they will harm you is a bigot.

Great analogy. Bigotry takes many forms.

OswaldTheOsprey

No, you are not a bigot. A bigot is a person who hates a group, person, or think with an irrational prejudice or for no sound reason. Disliking, disrespecting a concept, idea is not bigotry. The problem here is that some people like to throw the term about when someone doesn't speak in the friendly tone they like or pay lip service to their beliefs or give faux respect it doesn't deserve.

No one would call someone a bigot if he hated fascists or Fascism. But if you dislike Christianity, then all of the sudden...you are a bigot. No one pleads that you respect "Communism." I don't see people calling others who claim Communism is bad are "bigots." The irony is in the double-standard. Religions, like Christianity, are fond of putting themselves on a pedestal for special pleading. What's ok for other ideologies, ideas, isn't ok for them, regardless of how valid the criticism is, simply because one must pay respect to them by convention.

Which is why I asked my intital question Tech.

I do not know enough about IamMe well enough to know if he (is hates too srtong a word?) chrisitianity, or chrsitians.

If he hates chrsitianity as a concept, a beleief. Then No I would say he is not a bigot.

But once that DIslike(?)  tranfers to christians then he becomes a bigot. Unfortunatly it is human nature to allow that tranference.

But no one is saying that social equality or ethics are actual physical objects. They are memes.


At least I have that.

Not at all. The other day at school we had a debate (in debate club) about whether or not priests (catholic) should marry. There was this one German exchange student who was clearly very intelligent, his English was near perfect. But he was clearly quite religious. At one point in the debate he actually took a Bible out of his pocket.

I didn't think he was stupid. I thought: "This guy's religious. I better be careful what I say in my own speech."

I am sorry that this is going to be a digression from the topic.

There is no special pleading involved here.  A number of religious concepts concern an interraction with the material.  The demand in this case for material evidnce or at least an account of why it should not be required are perfectly valid.

Personal insults, innuendo and denigration is expected.  A sensible reply is not.

Have you run into the assertion that god or ideas are physical objects?


A demand for material evidence for non-material phenomena is not valid, and involve special pleading when accompanied by assertions for which no material evidence is offered.


Feel free to question the basis of your expectations.

What is God if not a physical object?

"What is God" is an interesting question.

Have you run into the assertion that god or ideas are physical objects?

Perhaps I was imprecise with my language. In order for God to exist he/she/it/they must exist outside of the human mind and the world of memes. It must exist apart from human society.

Also what other kind of objects are there apart from physical ones?

What is your material evidence in support of this assertion?


As we've discussed before, ideas are non-material.

Have you run into the assertion that god or ideas are physical objects?

It is troubling that I should even have to mention this.

Inflammatory, disrespectful and uncivil references to Silver Lining with intent to harm will be promptly deleted. There is no acceptable decent and civil rationale for attacking the memory of a former member who cannot personally respond to attacks against his character...or attacks referencing him or his memory as some sort of "weapon" against another.

The deleted posts from this thread reside in the Moderator area for reference.

I decided not to Inferno them because this will not be allowed to continue here or anywhere else on the Forum.

DO NOT use this thread to continue the subject of the deleted posts or why they were deleted.

If you have a comment or question, PM me.

I don't see why you put Barney in the same camp as me.  In my opinion I'm way more intolerant than he is.  For example, I hate you simple because you're a religious fundamentalist.  I don't think Barney hates you.

 I don't hate you so much that I wish for you to die but if you did I wouldn't really care.  I don't view your life as being worth all that much.

If you were drowning in a pool I'd probably jump in and save you. 

Call me all the names you want, I could care less.

And get your clothes wet? It could take minutes for them to dry!  You may want to err on the side of caution. After all, you might have a phone number written in water soluable ink in your pocket...

(Just joking, jimp, though I think D9 is right, I am less adamant about theists because I have a soft spot. I was one and appreciate a good myth-story every now and then. However, I don't think he's a bigot since he accepts other views than his own - just not irrational ones.)

Since this remains, I presume it is fair to comment.


Where a demonstration of certainty is demanded for the idea of God, but materialist assertions and beliefs are accepted on faith there is indeed a special pleading.

Your expectations are your business.  In future, if there is anything you prefer not to discuss, keep it to yourself.

You're in Barney's camp as Chester is in Spikes camp.

(http://www.coldforged.org/images/Spikechester1.jpg)

Chester's the little one. You're Chester.........just to clarify.

It's funny because it's true!

I imagine you have all sorts of other things to do, but if you've not received my PM, kindly let me know.

I leave this note because the PM service can be a bit spotty.

Fine with me. I have no where near the amount of knowledge on religion as Barney does. Even if I did, I still can't write as well as he can.

On the other hand, I can destroy you so you're no one to talk.

Totally?

Are you aware that you just admitted to being Barney's sidekick? If Barney were a bully (which he isn't though some people seem to think he is) you'd be the little nerdy kid who hangs around with him for protection and does all his homework.

Sad.

EDIT: BTW you are a bigot and the rest of us get tarred with the same boat.

What?! What the hell are you talking about. If you are saying that God exists only as an idea/meme then that's fine. So do unicorns.


Yes. So far as I recall you kept repeating the same argument from ignorance that I kept destroying. I thought you were a bit slow at the time.

You appear to have become a legend in your own mind.  Since you bring it up, you position on materialism does literally spring from an argument from ignorance - That because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.

I wouldn't say that assuming I am slow because you don't understand a position makes you a bigot, but it isn't a praiseworthy quality either.

It was my Baldar impression. Did you like it?


And your position on materialism appears to be based on a straw man. I don't have any positive belief in materialism; I just see no evidence for anything other than material.


I'm just being honest. I later realized you are not.

Feel free to identify any dishonesty you perceived.  If you do not substantiate the assertion, a reader can fairly conclude that you chose it as a cheap out.


The agnostic retreat?  The problem with that is that your position on materialism remains, even after you claim to have no positive belief in materialism, yet see no evidence for anything other than material.  So I've not offered a strawman.

Of course you do see exactly that sort of evidence daily.  You entertain ideas for which you have no material explanation.

Knowing that you've been challenged in the past to provide that explanation, and that you've never been able to do it, and that encounter evidence of the non-material daily, yet continuing to deny that, demonstrates something reprehensible, if not bigotry.

That said, I can understand seeing your prejudices as bigotry.  The most recent example would be,


Since your argument above is unreasonable because it is not only false but obviously so, isn't it fair to conclude that you hold a disdain for religion in the same way an anti-semite would hold disdain for jews?

OK, I see how that could have been misinterpreted.


It's not a retreat when you put words in my mouth and then say I can't back them up.


You have, as I will demonstrate.


But I don't therefore conclude that they have no material explanation. That's just lazy thinking.


Of course there is stuff for which I have no explanation. To therefore conclude that there is therefore a non-material explanation is lazy thinking - it's avoiding the question. Also, could you please define what non-material things are? Do you have any other evidence beyond your argument from ignorance.

I appreciate the clarification.


I haven't "put words in your mouth."  If you disagree, please be specific.


That's very much the problem.  While a person may assert that entertainng a thought is a purely material phenomenon, that isn't the same as having an explanation for how that phenomenon would work.  Without even any explanation, let alone material evidence for that expanation, it is faith.  When that faith cannot recognise challenges, some would see it as a bigotry.


Which question?


It is not an argument from ignorance to note that thought, ideas and perceptions are real, that we each have ampe evidence for each of them, and to note that they have no material explanation.

A non-material thing would be one that isn't material.  A material object would exist independent of perception.

I have never claimed to be a materialist. Simply I no-reason to believe that any specific phenomenon is caused by non-material things.


That's very much the problem.  While a person may assert that entertainng a thought is a purely material phenomenon, that isn't the same as having an explanation for how that phenomenon would work.  Without even any explanation, let alone material evidence for that expanation, it is faith.  When that faith cannot recognise challenges, some would see it as a bigotry.
[/quote]

You just went off on a Baldar-esque tangent. When did I assert that entertaining a thought is a purely material phenomenon.


The question of what caused a particular phenomenon.


Prove they have no material explanation. All you are entitled to say is that they have no known material explanation.


Super. Not sure how this truism helps.

First let's recognise the desperation in your demand for proof of a negative.  then let's understand that having no known explanation is exactly the same as having no explanation.

You drawn a distinction without difference. 


Then why did you ask for it? 

You made a statement you cannot prove and then call it desperation when I point that out.


No it isn't. Before we knew what causes lightning there was no known explanation. But there was an explanation. We just didn't know it.


Only in the mind of an idiot.


I didn't.

I'll let you know when I care what you think.

2.DOH, why not debate topics instead of simply dealing in ad hom's?  Is that all you've got? Has your reasoning dried up and its time to start calling people names?

This has been happening a lot lately. Zuk, baldar, you, etc.. have all refused to debate topics and simply attacked people.

ALL OF YOU: ADDRESS THE TOPICS!!!!!!!

You confuse explanation and cause.  That would be an easy error for an idiot.  What is your excuse?


You should pay more attention to what you write.

He asked for a definition, not a re-statement of the word.

Idiot is an idiot.

D9 asked why you & he were in the same camp.
I used an illustration, a parallel, to answer the question. That's not an ad hom.

Refused? You're mistaken.
I've been debating you in the "respecting beliefs" thread. That shows no refusal.

From now on, I'll keep in mind, your distaste for ad homs & treat you with the
same grace & courtesy you & D9 have shown Christians on this board, both currently &
from the days at IAP 1.0.


What topic? Is the OP(I am me) a bigot?

I don't know enough about him to state one way or another. That's
why I clicked "who are you?" as my answer.

I asked what they are not what they are not.

Where a demonstration of certainty is demanded for the idea of God, but materialist assertions and beliefs are accepted on faith there is indeed a special pleading.
[/quote]

No demonstration of certainty is demanded.  One of your regualar approaches to any question is to bang on about the empistemological problem of certainty.  For this discussion, I'll cede that point - we cannot have certainty.  We can however have reasonable grounds, a warrant, for believing things about the material world.  This, I claim, is not faith.  It is the application of some principles of evidence and reasoning.  These principles do not apply to 'god' (apparently).  Therefore, I simply ask how these principles should be EXTENDED to cover the idea of 'god'.    The only way in which this is 'special pleading' is because the godders try to make god different - though they cannot explain or demonstrate how.  (Note that a parallel thread asking for a definition of god is producing nothing of worth).

Seriously.

This of course is false. IamMe has demanded "proof" for God on numerous occasions.
 

I for one am happy abut this concession.


Yes, but here you have changed the premise.  Since you have ceded the point on certainty, then we are not speaking of believing certain general aspects of this universe, rather we are speaking of the cause for this universe.  Theists believe it was caused by a creator while those who don't accept a creator believe it had a material cause.  On this point, comparing apples to apples, the special pleading becomes larger than life.

Damn I didn't notice the 'tag'.


Not in this sub-thread.  I am simply responding to your mate's comment that "And this shows the special pleading of demanding material evidence for religious concepts".  Keep up, Reasond Faith.
 

And I am certain that you (a) noted the 'for this discussion'  and (b) will not display any certainty yourself about any of your obsessions.


?  I think it is you who are trying to change the terms of the argument.  I was speaking of rational warrant - you are introducing the very special pleading I was denying by trying to claim there is a different mode of justifying belief beyond rationality.  I made NO allusion to causes or origins of the universe - that is the purlieu of your sects.  I am simply querying the basis on which you claim a non-material whatever (for me the idea is oxymoronic) that affects the material: a basis which is not EXPECTED to use the principles of justification of the material that it purportedly affects.    The special pleading belongs entirely to your views - the burden of justification is upon you.  You introduce a class of objects 'beyond' the material that is to be immune to the ways of assessing the material.  So how should they be assessed?

I said "Topics" as in Plural: all the topics. All the ones in this thread or other threads.

I am simply trying to get people to talk about the issue rather than attacking people personally which just shows a lack of ability for the person attacking to address the issue.

Or, in my case, its funny. ;)

Not in the mathematical 100% logical certainty sense.

I am of course aware that that is not possible.

I just want sufficient evidence in order to conclude that God most likely exists.

Zuki and I both understand that.  In this context, Zuki's objection holds (granting him the same latitude you have now requested) and so does the fact that you ask for a special pleading.

How?

The acerbic newspaper columnist Westbrook Pegler once described a bigot as someone who prefers his own kind. Another definition of a bigot is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal! :laugh: ;)

OswaldTheOsprey

Because you don't just want sufficient evidence in order to conclude that the only practical alternative, materialism most likely is correct.

I'm not a materialist. It's just there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that any specific type of non-material anything exists - never mind the fact that no definition of what non-material things even are exists (I asked zukiphile for one but so far he hasn't given me anything).

Then you do just want sufficient evidence in order to conclude that either materialism or the existence of God most likely is correct.  Does this accurately reflect your perspective?

Yes, though I'm obviously open to evidence for any other metaphysical claim as well.

When one converses with you and reads your posts one gets a very different impression.  Are people defined by how they act or what they claim to be, or some of both?

Well, you must take into account that you are not reading that as an objective observer. Your own opinions/beliefs (it seems to me) make you think that anyone who cannot see 'the truth' must be deliberately avoiding the truth.

On these points you cannot see the 'truth'. I only look for those who don't seem to see it as an open question. 

Do you think that's me?

You say you do.

You’ve received the following.


Since you accept as a  truism that a material object is that which  would exist independent of perception, it should not strain you unduly to conclude that a non-material object is one that does not exist independent of perception.


The observation was not limited to this thread.  Read, Callum.

Well, really the truism part referred to the bit when you said "A non-material thing would be one that isn't material".

Even so, you still haven't old me what non-material objects are - just what they are not.

You asked for a definition of non-material objects, and received not the one you set forth in quotes above, but a defintiion of a material object is to someone of a materialist outlook no less.

Complaining that you have received nothing but a tautology is false.

Good luck with your inquiry.

I don't follow your logic that material objects exist independent of perception therefore non-material objects don't. It doesn't follow.

By your definition even if we discovered that thoughts are composed purely of matter and energy (i.e. material) they would still by definition be non-material.