@ hanni the witch

"And even though this has gone horribly wrong, I still feel an urge to stay, because these people raped me psychologically and I can't just leave without retaliating. What's more, if I leave then they would've got what they wanted, and they'll use this tactic to harm future visitors. I can't let them go on dilly-dally unpunished. I guess I won't stop until I make Sheldon admit what he's done. "

I read this post and realize you are so consumed by anger, it is harming you. This is not the place to exorcise this anger, and you will not find a solution within Atheist Republic.

Please remember that Atheist Republic did not reach out to you, you decided to come in here and engage. I do not know what you expected, but obviously it has added just another level of anger and frustration to your life.

Right now, and with your emotional and mental state, this place is toxic to you.

I ask you to leave and find a proper place or organization to heal yourself. This is not that place.

Hanni, I like you and sincerely hope you return and engage in debate with us. This is not rejection or myself running away, it is perceiving a fellow human being awash in anger, frustration, and confusion, and in a negative spiral of emotions. But for now, take care of yourself.

Hugs.

For the record, many of us are very supportive of your lifestyle. I sincerely wish you well.

Oh save hanni Cheezus/jeeezus

And the entirely predictable ersatz for a response has arrived.

Let's take a look at this shall we?

1. Mocking my identity as an ex-atheist. Wow how convincing.

What part of "we've had enough people peddling this assertion here in the past, to recognise the aetiology" did you not understand from my post?

Indeed, in case you hadn't worked out this elementary rule of proper discourse that applies here, just because you present an assertion here doesn't automatically make that assertion true, a lesson we keep having to teach every smug, self-satisfied and complacent mythology fanboy who comes here.

2. Being emotionally authentic means you live accordance with your feelings and don't rationalize them; for example, if you like tacos, you like tacos and you're not ashamed of it, even if your friends hate it.

What makes you think no one here already does this? Other than some peculiar species of presumption on your part?

In this case, an emotionally inauthentic person might try to convince herself into stop liking tacos, or even outright deny the crave.

Yawn. See my exposition on changing tastes, which you manifestly ignored.

3. As explained above, my love tacos cannot be logically explained. It's just feelings, and that's it. Science has something to say and that's great; in fact science stands with me because it has indeed discovered that tastes are based on feeling. No rectal passages involved :/

Actually, what science has discovered is that tastes are based upon the interaction of sensory data with brain chemistry. Once again, I paid attention in class.

4. Non sequitur. Why do you think I'm arguing that tastes don't change over time?

YOU were the one who asserted "you can't "un-love" something in your post. I demonstrated via the requisite means that this assertion was wrong, which means it's as far removed from a "non sequitur" as it's possible to be.

Once again, your discoursive deficiencies are on display in an embarrassing manner here.

And how does it affect my position? Of course feelings changes over time. What's the problem?

The problem is that this piece of observational data refutes one of your assertions. Let's see how long it takes for this to sink in.

Heck, science changes over time too.

Don't even think of peddling the duplicity that we've seen associated with this statement by the usual suspects here. It will not go well for you.

5. Now, as I've already explained above how rationalizing of feelings work (and how that's bad).

You've "explained" nothing. You've asserted much, but assertions do not equal explanations. Let's see how long it takes you to learn this elementary concept, shall we?

Apparently I wasn't clear enough and you misunderstood. By ''rationalizing'' I did not mean ''giving a rational explanation to how feelings work (which is definitely a good thing)''.

Oh, do tell, have you actually learned from my exposition on the relevant distinctions?

6. Speaking of irony. You deny, yet ironically immediately start confirming what I said.

Let's see how quickly this assertion withers under the relevant discoursive bombardment, shall we?

You literally just resorted to scientism once again, as I expected.

BULLSHIT.

First of all, "scientism" is a duplicitous apologetic fabrication, that we've seen here regularly peddled by the usual suspects, as a means of attempting to hand-wave away a preference for properly supported postulates over made up shit. And as such, it stinks. Your peddlng this here will NOT work out well for you.

Apparently you haven't learned from my presenting the relevant distinctions.

What you said are all based on the assumption that only scientific ways of learning things count

BULLSHIT, and a bare faced lie to boot, given that I stated this:

If someone adds to the mix a new methodology, distinct from these two, that is provided in addition with reliable evidence of the utility thereof, we'll add that to our epistemological lexicon, so to speak.

explicitly in my previous post.

What part of "we're prepared to learn something new if someone exerts relevant diligent effort" did you fail to understand from the above?

Your duplicity at this point is duly noted.

and that others are non-sensical (which is the fallacy of begging the question). Sheldon is blatantly guilty of this as well.

BULLSHIT. See above.

7. I hate to say that, but I'm forced to because you people keep presuming that I DON'T know anything that they know.

Except that above, you've demonstrated lucidly that you don't.

8. You've brought up mythology and stuff. OK, you technically aren't wrong, and apparently there's some misunderstanding. When I said ''spiritual proof'', I was not talking about anything physical at all.

Oh dear, the "non-physical" is making yet another appearance here.

The existence of the so-called "non-physical" is another of those mythology fanboy assertions we've been waiting to see supported, with something other than mythological regurgitation and apologetic fabrication. Good luck with this one, because if you're genuinely successful with respect to this, a holiday in Sweden and a shiny gold medal await you.

And yes, due to lack of scientific understanding, ancient people had to put deities in charge of natural phenomena. Now of course science has progressed, but science and [sic] not ''refuted'' spiritualism.

Oh really? I'm going to enjoy seeing how long this assertion lasts.

Spiritualism is not all about gods throwing lightning bolts, after all.

Then what IS it about? You're the one throwing assertions around here like confetti, how about you clean up the mess and support some of them?

9. This is not a straw man, this is a questioning of your fundamental principles, in which you straight out avoided answering directly.

Bullshit. I explained in depth precisely WHY it's a strawman, or did your reading comprehension fail at this point as well?

Once again, don't play the familiar mendacious tactic we see all too often here, of pretending to know what we think better than we do ourselves, and posturing as being in a position to issue decrees with respect thereto. This will bring a world of hurt crashing on your head.

10. You still keep repeating things that I already know (and have no refuting power). Look, the EXACT thing I'm arguing against is the notion that only a ''rigorous'' (physical, you mean) method is appropriate.

And at this point, I can tell that you're talking out of your arse. Not least because I'm a past student of pure mathematics, which is rigour incarnate, but which operates in the abstract realm. As, funnily enough, does formal logic.

11. Now you're just dismissing thing as unreal. It's begging the question: you're just saying it's fantasy because it's not real (to you).

Again, bullshit.

One of the embarrassing pieces of observational data that you've apparently failed to notice here, is that scientists have provided evidence for vast classes of entities and interactions, that the authors of mythologies were incapable of even fantasising about, and which in several cases were far more exotic and counter-intuitive than the contents of the assertions of pre-scientific humans. The whole of quantum physics is counter-intuition writ large, as indeed, several of its key contributors were only too ready to admit.

And the notion that it's not real is exactly what I'm arguing for: that the spiritual is just as real, albeit not in the same way planets are real.

No, you're merely asserting this. Once again, learn the distinction between mere assertion and genuine argument.

I warn you, you're being a classic example of close-minded-ness!

Oh no, not this tiresome trope again, that we see so often here from bullshit merchants. And once again, you demonstrate that you know sweet fuck all about me, or my publicly documented output here.

Here's a clue for you: being open-minded does NOT mean "lap up any bullshit that comes one's way". A lesson we keep having to teach the mythology fanboys.

12. Do you understand what I originally meant? I meant that if atheism can't justify its disproportionate preference of the physical (which is not a straw man because everyone here has already repeatedly confirmed this for me, even though they deny it),

It IS a fucking straw man, for the reasons I've explicitly presented. Namely, that the sole remit of atheism, is suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions.

And in case you didn't register this elementary concept, our acceptance of the physical has nothing to do with a priori ideological presupposition, and everything to do with the fact that evidence for the physical is available by the fucking supertanker load.

Fucking learn this elementary concept, will you?

then it doesn't even live up to its own merits, which makes it on equal grounds with religion (and you'd hate that). This is a paradox.

Bullshit, for the reasons I gave both in my previous post, and the preceding paragraph here.

Now, do us all a favour, will you, and fucking learn the relevant concepts.

hanni the witch " Now you're just dismissing thing as unreal. It's begging the question: you're just saying it's fantasy because it's not real (to you)."

That's not a begging the question fallacy, what you're describing would be an argument from incredulity fallacy, though I doubt it applies to Calilasseia's post, since he's way too savvy to make such a mistake.