Here are three people without opinions I disagree with, but I honestly hold HR in higher consideration. He as the most outrageous statements, the less versed arguments and several leaps of logic, but he has what the other two don't have: self-awareness and honesty. He's the first to admit his case is faulty and that is what makes him comfortable, not what is right because he's right. On the other hand, we have KYF and MrBig, who continue to be two clueless boobs that pretend to have a clue and project towards and mock those who actually have a clue.
Let's start with KYF: you know what I find it funny? The fact that you say "oh if you were around children, you'd know how little morals they have!" while still holding Freudian considerations as still true. Actually, KYF, I spend at least an afternoon a week with my nephew, who is 4 as we speak, and I know he isn't as selfish as Freud made toddlers out to be. Sure, he only developed most of his current morals with parenting, but he was capable of acts of selflessness and altruism even before fully understanding spoken language.
Not only that, I have read many papers and seen a few documentaries on the issue, and toddlers are capable of basic morality even when they're among other toddlers with minimal parental influence (like in a playground). So yeah, I do say Freud is wrong on that department and he has been wrong since the 90's (and since the 60's in female psychology and other issues).
But what really gets me are two things it's not the first time you do:
- When you're confronted with scientific research that contradicts your opinion, suddenly they don't know shit and are just arguing from ignorance. You already that with the gravitational wave and I have to ask: what fucking credentials do you have to infer that scientists that specialized in the field are bullshitting their way through and you know what is true?
- When you start using a concept, you parrot it like there's no tomorrow, even if you don't what the fuck you're talking about. It's like you're in high school and learning for the first time psychology and spouting what you learn everywhere so you can pretend do be smart. Didn't your teacher say that Freud is taught for historicity's sake, NOT veracity's? Didn't you teacher say that conditioning requires repetition and that various stimuli of the same kind still count as the repetition of the same stimulus? Seriously, what the hell, KYF, didn't you pay any attention in school to fail so fucking hard at psychology, chemistry, biology, physics, etc?
Now, finally, to MrBig who pretends to be better than KYF but that's really it, pretense: I can't really count how many red flags you raise with your argumentation. And by red flags I mean "acts that suggest that the person talking doesn't know what s/he's talking about and is just trying to save face". The biggest of them all was saying someone lacks the belief and disbelief in a concept and not being apathetic towards the concept, which is a flagrant logical paradox. Belief and disbelief are diametric opposites, so lacking both would mean apathy, but since you said "pure agnostics" aren't apatheists (which I referred to because that was the only logical stance left), you're pretty much arguing an impossible stance to be had.
This is why I insisted agnosticism was about knowledge, not belief, because agnostics simply don't know whether God exists or not. They can believe it, disbelieve it or present apathy (or even say that the concept of God lacks proper definition to be discussed, which is ignosticism), but somehow sitting on a fence that doesn't logically exist, that they surely can't. So, in my opinion, you bickering about how you're strictly talking about agnosticism is just backpedaling when you got caught with your pants down.
Another thing that really irks me is when you complain about me not knowing my terminology when you only acknowledge concepts after I said them and just putting links that in no way, shape or form contradict what I said before. That tells me that you have a general (misguided) idea about the subject and when people go specific you just have to run to Google to attempt to save face and pretend you knew all along and don't even bother to read if it actually contradicts what I said. Kind of funny you share the trait of not bothering to read all the way through and pretend you did with KYF. That and your cereal box psychology.
Speaking of not reading all the way through, Zombie Jesus on a Stick, MrBig seems to be small on reading comprehension and argumentation. You're still harping like a moron about me not knowing that atheistic agnosticism=agnostic atheism when I said with all letters that I simply pointed out because you were pretty much tripping all over yourself with the terminology and came up with a concept salad that only denoted your ignorance on the matter. And funny how you simply ignored that portion of my post and only quoted the satire I made. Cherry-picking at its finest.
Then you say "I said the man wasn't an atheist but possibly an agnostic or agnostic atheist" with a straight face like it isn't stupid at all! For the love of Cthulhu, your argument of "purest form" is both unnecessarily pedantic and one more sign of your backpedalling. He is an atheist AND an agnostic, because you seem to still haven't computed that they intersect. And the worse part is that you pretend to know they aren't mutually exclusive but argue like they are.
Oh, and thanks for letting me know that your level of argumentation is below junior high school, considering that you completely ignore that positive and negative claims have opposite implications even if are similar in phrasing. Ignoring the fact that are extant dinosaurs, saying "All dinosaurs are dead" and "There are no living dinosaurs" have two fundamental differences: burden of proof and claim of knowledge, which are derived from their positive and negative nature as claims:
- Saying "All dinosaurs are dead" is a positive claim that implies the person saying it knows that all dinosaurs are dead, thus being a claim of knowledge that has the burden of proof and can be falsified.
- On the other hand, saying "There are no living dinosaurs" is in refutation of the claim "There are living dinosaurs", which is a claim of knowledge like the example in the point above. The refutation of a claim of knowledge is necessarily a claim of ignorance, and in this example it implies the person doesn't know of any living dinosaurs, thus choses to state there aren't any. By the virtue of that, the negative claim can't be falsified (since the positive claim is the one that requires confirmation) nor has the burden of proof.
See the difference? That's why I said what I said, because anti-theism does claim positively (thus being a belief) while atheism doesn't. Anti-theism pretty much overrides atheism in that aspect (and the reason why you see anti-theism being linked to direct opposition to religion and theism is because it somehow knows of God's nonexistence and deem theists wrong and even toxic to society for claiming knowledge that is opposite to it) but atheism is in no way, shape or form a belief. Hell, even atheists joke with that saying that atheism is as much of a belief as baldness is an hair color. And, I'll be honest, so far the people I've seen erroneously claiming that atheism is a belief are those who want to falsify it in order to prove theism (which is a false dichotomy, but they insist anyway) and, knowing that negative claims can't be falsified, somehow twist it into being the positive claim it isn't. In other words, your arguments about it are not only untrue but actively hurting your reasoning in the process by making you fall into unnecessary fallacies.
Moving on, what a filthy strawman you created all over the morality talk. I've said that evolutionary process matter in morality, not that they're all they matter, and I even pointed out that I do know that society has a prime role, thus not saying that society hasn't anything to do with morality. But you just went "fuck that, I'll pretend you never said that and attack an argument you never made!". You just made yourself look stupid by saying things I'm well aware of.
Finally, no, I'll make it clearer for you why your whole point of morality being linked to the existence of God in religion is misguided. What you pointed out wasn't about God's existence, was about God's AGENCY. Because somehow you forgot that there are people who believe in the existence of God but not in its agency (namely deists and pantheists) and, guess what, most of them do not follow religious doctrine, so yeah, doctrine is derived from divine agency, not divine existence.