Possum doesn't play dead.

This thread (click).

Point One:

Bad grammar: So? The argument is all that matters, or in this case, the analysis of the argument.

Point Two:

Missing in action. (there seems to be no point two)

Point Three:

In regards to what I read of the post that I was responding to last time, Possum has said,
more then once, that atheists worship (X), or have faith in (Z). This would require knowing what atheists are thinking, thus is special knowledge/mind reading.

Point Four:

Assumes atheists have a "faith". However, yes I looking at what you wrote I was assuming that you were trying to prove God or at least show that God is possible. This assumption was made on the idea that Possum is trying to counter atheists, best way to counter them would be to show God is a thing. Thus my assumption.

Point Five:

In your view this might very well be the case, it would take a whole argument to show that not believing in any gods is, in fact, a metaphysical world view.

Point Six:

Statements can have built in premises. However, Possum doesn't identify what they are in this case. "I lack belief in (X)" does not imply that one knows what (X) is, nor does it imply that (X) is not a thing that exists. It is a statement about the belief (or lack of) of (X) whatever (X) might be.

Belief/Non-belief statements require no burden of proof. You can say you believe in Goblins, Orgers, Dragons, and no one will require you to prove that you believe that G.O.D.'s existence. As we must assume (due to social norms and logic) that you do, in fact, believe in (X). similarly, not believing in (X) requires no proof.

However there is a key difference, saying that I do not believe in (X) does not nessarly imply that I also think (X) does not exist. And there are words that I could add to show my beliefs, or lack there of to clarify the matter.

Examples:

"Yahweh does not exist": I have the burden to show how this can be seen as a logical conclusion.
I am hosting the full burden of proof for this statement.

"I do not believe in Yahweh." I have no burden to show that I do not believe in this, and it is possible that Yahweh exists, I simply do not believe it does exist.

"I believe Yahweh does not exist." I do not have the burden to show that I do not believe this, nor do I have the burden to show that Yahweh does not exist.

"God exists." Requires burden of proof.
"I believe in God" No burden of proof.
"I believe God exists." No burden of proof.

~~~

Point Seven:

God as revealed in the bible. In what way? No one can seem to agree upon God is, as debate is plentiful among believers in what this type of god is. However, this grants the bible far more credit then I would give it. The bible itself must be shown to be true first before I care what it says about anything.

As far as god-of-the-gaps, it depends on the argument at hand.
Again with the claim that atheists worship (X). You do not know that, you can not show that, this is a claim to know things you can not hope to know, it has other logical errors as well.

"If you understood God, then there would be no question as to whether He is"

Translated:

If you apply the method that I want you to apply, in the way I want you to, then you will understand things in the way I desire, and this will lead you to conclude that the conclusion I want you to have is in fact correct.

Point Eight: 

I was trying to make sense of your objections. It seemed that it was perhaps based on the commandments. I could not make heads or tails of what your assumption that atheists have a belief in pagans is based on, so I grasped at a straw that it might be one of the commandments, in this, I did not want to make a straw-man. Perhaps you could just give a clear argument to as how you have arrived at the idea that atheists worship anything.

I assume that you are being honest with your ideas & views. What is in fact true is separate from this.
I'm not sure if I said or suggested that you are, in fact lying, I doubt I did, as I would have to have proof that you did this. However, I do not think I would point it out as it would not negate the argument(s) you presented. If others have accused you of lying, I can not respond to that as it is not my stance. I do consider it my duty to the truth. Getting to that truth, ah there is the rub.

Point Nine:

Assumes atheists have a faith. This leads into all sorts of problems. Is faith good, or is it bad? What do you mean by "faith"?

Produce a valid & sound argument to show that I (or anyone else) has such a world view, and I will agree with it and support it to the best of my ability to do so.

Point Ten:

This is the way (X) word is understood by (% of people). This is all a dictionary can do for us. No, you do not have to agree with it, but you do then have to say what you view (X) word to mean so that others are not confused. It enters into some problems of course.

Lets say that I want to say that the word God is in fact Goblin/Ogre/Dragon. Clearly you would not want to use MY way of using that word, but you might, for sake of debate, allow me to have my version - but for the sake of others we would at least label my idea vs your idea of "God" lets say "God 1" for me, and "God 2" for you, it would, of course, be better if we could agree upon using different words in full, so that others are less confused by our debate.

You might indeed think, assert and submit that the word, to you is (X). This is not how I view this word, nor do I agree with it being used to describe me & my views.

If I was to say Possum means a nitwit poopy head, clearly you would object to that. Its unfair to label Possum in such a way, it might very well be my view, perhaps I have an argument that shows via logic that this is the case. Unless & until I present such an argument, you are free to reject it. Perhaps the correct view of Possum is awesome smart head for all we know. However we must negotiate, compromise, and find something we both can live with.

So then we might agree that awesome can stay, that is subjective, but smart or poopy needs to go, and head along with it, so Possum means awesome, and hey that also rhymes. We can live with this compromise, its not all of what we want, but its good enough.

So to, perhaps rather then simply asserting that you have the right way to view the word atheists you could come to some sort of compromise about it?

Or if you can not, or will not - then produce your argument that is both valid & sound that the word is (X). How will you do that? I suggest this is an impossible task, informal logic refers to "natural language" as being an unsolved problem. What a word "must be" is in that category. Only in an artificial language might we avoid such issues. We are not speaking in that language. So, we have to deal with how the (%) of people use that word, even if we do not agree with that (%), it seems to be the easiest way to understand each other.

Point Eleven:

As far as I can see, scripture is full of errors. Who is to say my concept of God is incorrect? If God made or let humans become flawed, and humans are now in charge of what the Bible says... then the bible might be flawed. I can't trust humans due to God allowing/making humans flawed. Seems like a bad plan that God has there, but I'm not viewing God from YOUR point of view, I'm viewing it though my point of view. Perhaps we are both in error of how to view God... but if so, then again that would seem to be God's fault for allowing this, or making it this way. We could have been error free, but God didn't make it that way, so here we are, error prone. From my view, that is in and of itself, an error.A perfect system would enable a perfect bible. Bleep why even write it down? Just be a God that speaks to humans out loud in there language, bleep have just one language that is free from error! I can think of more ways to make this system better then it is, but clearly, if there is a God - it has allowed us, or made us in such a way that allows for error. The possibility that there is an error means that I can't trust the bible - or any other book about God - to be correct in full. Thus I need a system that is not reliant upon that book or books. I do have a system that does this pretty darn well: logic.

Point Twelve:

Fair enough. Make a positive argument for your ideas, whatever they might be so I can analyze it! :)

Point Thirteen:

I am willing to see what empirical evidence &/or repeatable tests you have for whatever ideas you have.

If you do not have those, then present your valid & sound argument. If you do not have that, then I must be skeptical of your conclusions.

Yes, my comment was a tongue in cheek there. My view of reality - I'm not sure I even shared with you what that is yet.

Faith/Religion Depends on what you mean by "faith"/"Religion" - You need a valid & sound argument for this assertion. Also you would need to answer if faith/religion is good or bad.

You assume a lot of things about me. Ask me what I believe or do not believe and why. (rather then commit the mind-reading fallacy)

Point Fourteen:

I'm willing to concede that I assumed you were doing one thing, when you were doing something else.

Assumes atheists have a faith at all. (Needs an argument and explanation of what those words mean to you, and if it good or bad to have faith).

~~~~

Well then that brings us to the end of this thread.
I've taken screen shots of the thread and put them together here:

~~~~

So, what is my view of all this? Its not uncommon to find theists that will assert that atheists have faith and/or a religion. This of course full of logical fallacies.

The tu quo (you as well) fallacy. As it tries to put everyone on a level playing field.

Equivocation, The words "religion" & "faith" are changed at whim to be good/bad or whatever the theist needs them to be. Books like "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" - well then, that name implies that faith is BAD, right? Or is it saying that he wishes he could have MORE faith because it is good? If having faith is bad, then we should not, not believe in God if that is more faith then believing in God, but then, what would be below believing in God in terms of faith? Perhaps not believing at all? Then that makes us a pure skeptic, clearly not the writers intent, but that is the sort of issue you bring upon yourself when you make such a logical fallacy.

Mind-reading/Special Knowledge: It would take knowing what people believed in, or did not to assert they have a faith/religion or do not.

Non sequitur: Atheist: "I do not believe in God." Theist: "Ah ha! That means you do believe in God!"
Wut?

And other fallacies as well, depending upon the wording of the given argument at hand, but in essence I think these are the ones of note when you see this sort of """argument""" pop up.

I need more quotes around argument, as this isn't one. Atheists do not have a faith or religion.
However, in my first Possum post I allowed my otherwise worthy Possum to have his cake, I said sure, fine - we all have faith and religion. Now prove yours is right.

That is something he wasn't trying to do.

But he also didn't show that our faith/religion is wrong either.

So then we can't know what one is wrong or right.

That means we must be skeptical, of the conclusions.

A possum on twitter doesn't understand the word "atheist".

OlPossum1 has come to my attention via good old twitter.

Ah yes, this person seems like he is a theist of some sort, what type, I can not tell.

He has a bone to pick with atheists, and that is all well and good, but his ideas are, how to put it... incoherent.First, there is his problem with the word "atheist" he also seems to think he knows what other people believe (mind reading/special knowledge). He alone knows what atheists are, and the bleep with any corrections on the word.Well. What is one to do? I suppose you could block him, as it seems he likes to block others. But, its more fun to poke back and try (in vein) to correct him.But let me try to take the high road, and steel-man his argument. Let me assume, for now, that reality has been shaped to his ideas, and that I, and other atheists do in fact worship other (dead) idols, our own self, have no claim to objective truth.Very well. Now what?

This does not make his argument about his idea of god, (pulled from the old & new testament it seems), correct. Nor does it support any idea of any god he wants to put forth. It matters not that I (or anyone else) has "zero claim" to "objective truth" (whatever that is) - what matters is that he has not supported his claim. At all. Not even a little bit.He mentioned the commandments, I'm assuming he is referring to all 613. But perhaps he wants to ignore those, and only focus on the top ten. What version? The one where you can't boil a baby goat in its mother's milk (Exodus 23:19), or the other one? Eh, I guess it doesn't matter what number ten is, because I would hazard to GUESS (since possum doesn't explain) that he is talking about the FIRST command: Exodus 20:3 that says we should have no other gods before this god. (Yahweh)

So, if we do not put this god on "top" of our god's - because according to possum we atheists bevel in other gods I suppose. Then clearly we are putting those other gods (that he calls idols) on top of our god list.However, that does not follow per say, what if we do not in fact, worship those gods at all, or very much? What if we only kinda put them on top, or near the top? Regardless, even if it is the case that we do, in fact do this, that doesn't mean that his idea is correct, that is, there is not any support for the first idea of the first commandment. He has not shown anyone that it is, and must be true.So then, it must be assumed (or presumed) to be the case that this command:

1: came from god.
2: was preserved correctly with no edits by humans.
3: is being understood correctly by humans.

Why would I, or anyone else assume any of that? Maybe one could be taken on faith by someone of this religion, granted. But how could two or three be taken at faith at all? We know humans do edit the bible - its been done before, will be done again, we have lots of different translations of this thing. How can we hope to know that someone, somewhere did not edit this in some way? Possum didn't give us anything to show that it has the same meaning in the original language from the earliest known writings we have on the bible, so we have no reason to believe that to be the case. No argument is given.

Of course one can appeal to the bit in the bible that promises it will be "preserved" (whatever that means), but what about three? According to the bible humans are sinful, wrong, flawed, imperfect, how can we hope to know if any human gets any of this right?!

So is possum right? No way to know, as no argument was given. It helps not if he thinks he has objective truth, as he has not shown he has. It helps not that he thinks he knows what this word "atheist" means. It also helps not that he seems to think he is so right, that he doesn't have to prove anything to anyone.

Well, I suppose that is what faith can do to some humans, not all mind you. Then again this is a possum, perhaps he should just play dead and not post more nonsense on twitter... or anywhere else for that matter.

King Crocoduck: As viewed though the lenses of critical theory.

(this is a joke post)

King.
What a power word, it screams of the maleness and might of the patriarchy.
For century's over 99% of all women have suffered under Kings.
So called "Queens" were always FORCED to serve under the MALES.
They were raped, every hour by these tyrants.
Kings are nothing more then Tyrant Rulers.
So of course, the vile CIS MALE has chosen to use the word "King" as part of his name online.
Of course, it gets more problematic.

Crocodile is a creature that has massive jaws that crunch pray. They hunt for the food. The male crocodile's rape the female's 9 out of 10 times, and then eat them 50% of the time. Male crocodiles are a terror symbol by the alt-right as well, with the KKK using them as far back as 1846. The crocodile is a predator.

Ducks, of course are a symbol of patriarchy as well, we all know the TOXIC MALENESS of the story "The ugly duckling" where a innocent girl is told she is ugly until she becomes OBJECTIFIED as a "pretty" Swan. This takes the power from the women this injustice has lead to the enslavement of lady's since the dawn of the first century. The duck is a symbol of racism and slavery.

So then we have "King" (Tyrant Ruler) Croc (Predator) and "Duck" (Racist Slaver)

Thus, the so called "King Crocoduck" is nothing more then a Racist Tyrant Predator, out to kill minority groups within the LGBTQIA+ are TARGETS of such rot as this toxic male who has taken it upon himself to usher in more suppression to our most sacred duty, words have meaning.

He has made several videos about post modernism and science. Trying to debunk our correct analysis of the complex web of virtual words that are within alignment dependent upon where they are used and who they are used by, and when. His WESTERN view point of course is filled with his clear bias against women & minority groups. His so called "facts" do not for example, take into account our
LIVED EXPERIENCES.

For example he laments in one of his videos that facts should be greater then feelings, humans are not robots, but this is part of his desire to rule over us since he is a Tyrant.

This vile hate speech spewing villain was swept off the platform of Twitter by our chosen one Enable Ovary Takeover.Sadly, he made a SOCK ACCOUNT to come back. We are working hard to get rid of him. #deathtokc

He also has a potty mouth, as expected, and swore in a video where he did something he called "math" but math of course is just a way to oppress women of color.

We shouldn't be surprised he is a male after all.

In short, after looking at several of his videos its clear this toxic male is anti-feminist, anti-LGBTQ++, a racist, a Tyrant, and the most vile of CIS WHITE MALES. Please join us in our #deathtokc and flag his videos as hate speech.

---

This was the dumbest thing I've ever written... and I used to be a theist.

Don't play the SJW game

What is an SJW?

Social Justice Warrior.

But, what does that mean?

Its someone who thinks they can influence others to bring about "justice" within the social sphere of humanity, rather then the legal sphere. They want to get "justice" by any of the following:

Blocking: Your going to be blocked by "everyone" (all other virtuous people) on (social media) because you are wrong!

De-platforming. You are not allowed to talk at our place! We will protest! We will call in threats! We will riot! Your ideas can not be uttered here!

De-funding: You are not allowed to earn money! We must call your work, contact (paypal/pateron/youtube/etc) to get your funding cut, you deserve to have no money!

Virtue Signaling: Act of calling to arms upon the "evil" person of choice. "(X) said (Z)... get them!"

Mocking/Trolling/Harassment: Make fun of the target, all virtuous people unite to do this. They hurt whoever, now we hurt them.

Play victim to get others to join your "side": (X) person/group said (Z) bad thing about (me/group) I am so hurt!

----

All this and more, are typical of the SJW. Its ideology is that, justice can be delivered by the mob-mentality of the group, that "justice" is decided in the court of public opinion, and those who are "right" will shun those who are "wrong".

Take note, these people think they are in the "right" that they have the moral high ground, and others like them agree.

Part of this is "protecting" minority groups. Although said protection is not needed or called for, these groups "must" be protected by keyboard warrior tactics, by the mob - because those groups are special and need protection. You might see a lot of hate towards white males who are also straight come from some SJW types, but not all. Everyone has there own flavor.

They will use words as weapons: racist/homophobe/islamophobia /transphobe ALT-right. They also tend to demonize MRA because men's right activists are "bad" - because, well, of course they are.

Do not be fooled. SJWs do not really care about the group they are protecting.
They only care when it is "good" to care. The narrative is greater then the person in any given group, should anyone from said group say/do something that is not the "right" thing - that person will become a target just as fast - even more so - then anyone else. Being a (X) person from the group does not protect you from the mob-mentality of the SJWs.

What IS the narrative? The most extreme stance on any given issue, it depends on what issue the SJW is currently "defending" but they will tend to take the most extreme version of it, you can not question (X) you can not say (X) is not true, you best do all proper research on (X) or else. If you say or do anything that seems that you do not BELIEVE then you are a problem.

Of course, it will and does constantly turn on itself. This is the nature of such an ideology. You might be playing it, and having a great time riding that wave, but when it crashes down, and it will, you will be swept away by the same things you did, and, if you make it out, you will maybe see why you were so wrong to play the game in the first place.

Do not play the SJW game. It will end badly for you. It will end badly for everyone. Its not a good game. Its about power. It is NOT justice. Mob mentality is always going to be bad, it was responcible for stringing up people. We are starting to see SJW types take to the streets and promoting ever increasing violence upon those that are "bad" - who is bad? Whoever they want to be, anyone in there way, and then some.

Lets be better then those that play these games.
Let us not do the same to others.
Let us not play the SJW game.

The boy in the box

Bus rides to home from school took time about twenty mins or so, more because of stops.

Kids were cruel to each other. No control. Pure chaos. Some days were okay, not today.

A young boy sat in the front seat, no one ever took the front seat if they didn't have to, but he did.

He had a large box with him. Who knows why.

He was being picked on. I watched, thinking that, I was glad it wasn't me,
but feeling bad for him, I couldn't do anything for him. I could only watch.

Then, he made it worse. He put the box on himself.

That made those picking on him increase there fervor, there is physiology to this of course,
that when you appear weak the attackers will go even more attack then if you stand up to them.

They hit the box, threw things, spit at him, insulted him, yelled, the bus driver shouted to keep quiet.

No one did. We rode on, it seemed like forever before his house stop came and he got off.

Kids cheered, as if some victory had been won.

What was it like for that poor boy in the box? How afraid was he? How sad was he?
Did anyone care? Did the bus driver report it? Did the parents find out? Nothing seemed to change the next time, no added adult to the bus to keep us calm. Why?

Are we the ones tossing things at the box? Are we the ones sitting and watching those others doing it, saying nothing?

Have we grown out of such behavior?

Or are we all the boy in the box?