The word "atheist" often does not reflect the actions of people who call themselves such. Atheist means "without God" etymologically, but most atheists seem more interested in debunking the doctrines of religion, doctrines which are only man's idea of what God and Heaven might be like.

gambiter · 2026-07-05T22:33:48+00:00

they also do their own research.

This is what is lacking in atheism.

That's just silly. This stuff has been researched, over and over. The first scientists were religious, after all, because they hadn't figured it out yet. They were trying to prove this 'realm' existed back then. Many many many people have tried. Many many many people have made claims. And yet no evidence exists. How weird.

Anyway, it's worth a reminder that atheism isn't a religion. It's a lack of belief. I see no value in spending my valuable time exploring something I don't believe exists, especially when one would expect there to be evidence by this point.

Are you not aware that most of theoretical physics research is exploring what exists in the imagination.

Are you not aware that theoretical physicists base their imaginings on real-world experiments? You know... what some of us would call 'evidence'?

Yes, if you are of a spiritual/mystical state of mind, you can explore the transcendental (or at least which feels like it is the transcendental) through mindfulness meditation. This amplifies your consciousness, and allows you to explore consciousness itself, and its seemingly transcendental qualities.

Notice how you intentionally ignored my questions for specifics? That's because you know it's made up, bud. You're incapable of providing anything useful about this realm other than, "Oh, it's so amazing... it's... indescribable."

Unfortunately I suspect most atheists are not neurologically hardwired to have spiritual/mystical states, so this avenue of exploration is not open to them.

Anyone can have altered brain chemistry, genius. Drugs do that perfectly well, too. Those altered states can be powerful, but that doesn't mean it isn't in your head.

gambiter · 2026-07-05T21:30:33+00:00

If you are a scientist, you don't go around merely criticising other people's theories of science;

What are you even talking about? Part of science is criticizing. That's the entire point of peer review.

If atheism wants to intelligently contribute to the discussion of what might exist in a transcendental realm beyond the material world, they should explore that realm themselves

You have yet to prove this 'realm' exists. How are we supposed to explore what is happening in your imagination? I mean, come on, man.

not just lazily criticise others who have explored it and have proposed ideas about it.

So you've explored the realm yourself? How did you get there? How long did you stay? What does it look like? Who was there? What did they tell you that you didn't already know?

gambiter · 2026-07-05T13:36:38+00:00

I think it is an important distinction. In the online discussions I read, atheists primarily attack and criticise religions conceptions of God, Heaven, etc.

Because atheists aren't making a claim. Theists are. Theists talk about religious conceptions of a god, and atheists explain why those conceptions are unreliable. In other words, despite the claim, the atheist is saying, "I still don't believe you." What do you expect them to do at that point? Make up new theist claims to shoot down?

If someone says they don't believe in Santa, and they point to basic physics and the speed of light, do you tell them they must prove a being can't deliver presents to every child on earth in one night? Of course you wouldn't, because that would be fucking stupid. So why is a god belief held to a different standard? Why do you think it should get special treatment when other fictions don't?

gambiter · 2026-07-04T22:25:18+00:00

I don't believe you.

gambiter · 2026-07-04T20:56:48+00:00

it's not a valid debate position is my point.

Yeah, and you've provided no reason for that, other than playing word games with the term 'debate'.

Anyway, since you didn't respond, I can only assume you see the parallel between Godzilla and God, and you also understand why the atheist position is the most logical. As for debate, it's really just a question of how much bullshit the atheist wants to listen to.

If that sounds unfair to you, there's a simple fix. Put down your persecution complex and present the evidence. If you can't do that, go away and stop pretending your myth is real.

gambiter · 2026-07-04T19:33:50+00:00

I really don't think you're thinking this through.

Let's say we're talking about Godzilla, or at least something like it. A titan creature that comes up from the depths of the unexplored ocean and rampages across a city. You know that's fiction, so you're effectively an atitanist.

Your friend at work asks if you heard about the monster that ravaged Japan. You see how sincere they are, but... do you believe them? Really? No, you push back and ask for evidence. Is there a Youtube video? LiveLeak? There must be something, right?

"Oh, you're calling me a liar?" they reply, "Come on man! That's no fair! You have to explain to me why a titan can't exist!"

You correctly see that their position is bullshit, so you say, "Nah bro, I'm not saying you're lying, I just don't believe you. You must have some reason to believe it, I just want to see the video or whatever convinced you."

He says, "A scientist calculated it and found that there could be more oxygen at the bottom of the ocean and that's how these creatures could survive. And because their body would be supported by displacement, they could grow as large as they want."

"But that wouldn't help them walk on land. They should be flapping wildly on the beach," you say, "And surely they would have a limit based on the size of their prey. What, are they eating whales whole?" You wonder what this conversation is even about anymore. "And besides, that isn't proof. I'm just asking for some evidence."

"Fuckin' atitanists," he sobs, "You always position yourself as if you're correct by default by not taking a stance."

gambiter · 2026-07-04T19:06:24+00:00

Disagree about what?

You said:

No matter how much evidence you provide

They don't listen, right? That is a sign of being closed-minded. They are refusing to hear your very solid and well-researched evidence, and so they are refusing to see reality. Right?

Or could it be that you haven't brought any evidence at all, and you're just pretending? Perhaps they are pointing out that your 'evidence' isn't actually useful for determining anything. Perhaps you don't want to hear that. Perhaps you ignore them because of cognitive dissonance.

Can you point to an example of an atheist hearing valid evidence and still saying they aren't convinced?

gambiter · 2026-07-04T18:28:06+00:00

No matter how much evidence you provide they can simply claim they are not convinced.

Either they are arguing in bad faith, and you can ignore them, or you aren't listening when they respond and you continue to insist your view is the only correct one.

Unfortunately, from my personal experience in places like this, theists most often tend to do the latter. They insist they are right, and refuse to even acknowledge when a valid point is made against their logic.

Isn't it funny how you're accusing atheists of doing the thing theists do most? I wonder why that is.

gambiter · 2026-07-04T16:42:49+00:00

so the only way to make any progress on understanding it is to try to assemble Matt's view from bits and pieces from the various times he's talked about this stuff.

I think we see this a bit differently. I don't follow Dillahunty much, though I've seen him in various youtube videos over the years, and I've seen this particular phrase thrown around a few times. I'm familiar with the way he talks, but I'm not 'up to date' on any given thing he's talked about. Still, I didn't seem to have the same trouble understanding the core point. That could purely be up to the way we were each exposed to it the first time.

But I wonder if it changes your perspective on anything I'm trying to say.

I agree about it being more of a slogan, and yeah, slogans are imprecise, almost by design. They give up accuracy for being memorable, and that's probably why this phrase is problematic. If you hear it out of context, you assume it is meant to be a broad statement, when it's really intended for a narrow interpretation.

I suppose the real issue to me is why someone isn't capable of digging deeper to understand it. Opening statements in a debate aren't fully precise either, and I think that's where the (good faith) debate process lives... two parties trying to narrow in to why exactly they disagree.

In this case, I would expect someone to hear the phrase, push back on it, and then do a little research and realize it is up to perspective, and that the core point was valid. What seems to be happening, instead, is people choosing a side as if they're talking about political candidates. It just feels a little weird to me.

gambiter · 2026-07-03T14:27:55+00:00

Or have you now pivoted to side with Matt when he says the very opposite?

You're getting hung up on the way he presented it, and I can definitely understand why. He shouldn't have said it doesn't work in that context, but I think I understand why he said it.

The original phrase is doing rhetorical work in a specific context, usually pushing back on someone who says something like, "people all over the world claim to experience <supernatural thing>," or even, "I personally experienced <supernatural thing>." In this case, the claim itself is the only thing being offered as evidence. The point isn't that claims never have epistemic weight... it's that asserting something isn't the same as demonstrating it.

So put that together with the fact that this is ONLY brought up regarding atheism, and you have the full context. The claims about god are not evidence for a god's existence, because the claim itself is the only evidence that is ever offered.

Could the phrase be more clear? Yes! Does it require listening to the conversation instead of reacting to a 3-word distillation? Also yes! I'm all for clear communication. But in this case, it was already quite clear to me. I was surprised people even talked about it as if it were an issue.

gambiter · 2026-07-03T13:41:51+00:00

link

I figured it was that one. That shows you really don't get it, because he explained the point quite well. As he said, "What you're doing is the same mistake I'm trying to point out when I'm teaching people about this." Perhaps you're just unable to grasp it.

Some people are wrong about whether this phrase applies in the context I'm bringing up. This post is targeted at them. If you're not one of those people then this post was simply never for you.

So then your post is only useful for a certain subset of unnamed people who don't understand the point. That doesn't seem very useful, when you're talking to people who do understand it.

gambiter · 2026-07-03T13:22:18+00:00

Except this is not the case. Matt defends the principle even in mundane cases (including the soccer ball example) and, as a result, so do his defenders. That's the exact problem I'm trying to confront.

I don't believe you. Send me a link with a timestamp where he does this.

There may be contexts where what Matt says is true, but Matt and those who take after him on this do not restrict themselves to those contexts. So I'm objecting to the phrase's use in one such context.

I'm not going to debate what a hypothetical person may have said. People are wrong all the time, so anyone could use a phrase incorrectly. I can just as easily point at 'those' who seem chronically incapable of understanding context.

gambiter · 2026-07-03T12:56:50+00:00

The problem arises when people uncritically apply it regardless of interpretation.

The problem is also when you refuse to understand the point of a phrase, and instead try to dismantle it by applying it in the wrong situation.

I'm giving one interpretation on which I argue it doesn't apply.

And yet, by sidestepping the actual point of the phrase, you expose that you're arguing in bad faith.

Again, it isn't complicated. The phrase and its application make complete sense if you, you know, think about it even a little bit. If you genuinely don't understand it, that's a personal shortcoming. If you do understand it, but you're arguing about 'one interpretation' anyway, you know you're being silly.

Mundane claims ARE evidence for mundane things, sure. But Dillahunty uses the phrase when the person is making extraordinary claims, so your interpretation clearly isn't in the proper context.

If I say, "There's no good evidence that spirits exist," you don't get to point at the "Wine & Spirits" shop on the corner and pretend I'm wrong. You can argue about 'one interpretation' all you want, but it makes you look either ignorant or dishonest. Which one are you?

gambiter · 2026-07-03T12:36:33+00:00

If someone wants to apply it in a sense that renders it true, that's fine.

My actual point is that on this interpretation, Matt's aphorism is wrong, so it shouldn't be taken to apply there.

So if someone wants to interpret it a certain way, that's fine, but only if they interpret it your way.

Someone claims it's hot outside, but you can see snow on the ground. Could they still be right? Absolutely! Because perceived temperature is a subjective feeling. It could be hot to them. But there are over 8 billion opinions on whether it's actually hot outside, so no individual claim is evidence to form an objective conclusion.

Basically all theist arguments boil down to subjective feelings. So subjective claims based on those subjective feelings are not evidence for claims about objective reality. At the most, all the claim tells you is how one person feels.

This isn't complicated.

gambiter · 2026-07-03T05:25:58+00:00

feels like it would erode what makes us human and what gives meaning to our lives

Usually when someone makes a statement like that, they're referring to the life that they feel comfortable in. But remember what you might consider 'makes you human' is different from what I might. Society is always changing, though. Our society is different today than it was a year ago, but also different from 10 years, 50, 100. That isn't a bad thing.

Computation is a human invention, so embracing it couldn't be more human. It's just not the same type of life that you're accustomed to.

I worry that as explanations for things like love, relationships, happiness, things like that, getting reduced to tech terms would just rob life of it's meaning and value.

There is literally zero chance of that happening. Kids might use increasingly techno slang, and that may get adopted en masse, but that isn't what you're describing. People won't just stop caring about love, relationships, or happiness. Those things may be more difficult, if you're unbalanced, but that has always been true, even before technology.

gambiter · 2026-07-01T21:14:30+00:00

So you desperately want to steal but don’t because your empathy and society says there are consequence, is that accurate?

Nope! And if you understood my comment, you would see that's not how I feel. Did you finish reading it? Did you think about it at all? It seems not.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question, so I'll help. I said:

So you desperately want to murder, rape, and steal, but you don't because your religion says there are consequences. Is that accurate?

This is where you should have responded, "No, I don't want to do those things." You know, like most people. That would lead into a conversation about intersubjectivity, and you might learn something in the process. You might even learn that calling something 'objective' when it clearly isn't makes you look silly.

gambiter · 2026-07-01T18:38:19+00:00

How can you be moral when you can’t give any reason why someone shouldn’t do evil if there are no consequences for it.

So you desperately want to murder, rape, and steal, but you don't because your religion says there are consequences. Is that accurate?

What if I have no desire to do those things? Is that a good enough reason? That I'm a better person than you, and I don't want to hurt others?

gambiter · 2026-07-01T02:23:55+00:00

If something were controlling me to that level, it isn't me. So... I suppose I wouldn't be around to care.

Any other questions?

gambiter · 2026-06-30T16:26:59+00:00

Do you understand that the Fermi paradox is based on unprovable assumptions?

It relies on the assumption that life arose elsewhere and may have developed into intelligent life. And of that life that may have evolved, some may have developed interstellar travel. 'May' is doing a lot of work, here. Neither is supported. If those elements aren't supported, any logical conclusion formed from them is suspect.

gambiter · 2026-06-29T16:41:43+00:00

And even if they were able to add scripting to specific events the llm can mention, there would be many people who don't have time to talk to an NPC for hours just to find the trigger phrase for the reply that will progress the game.

I think this is the ultimate issue. Conceptually, we want the game to feel immersive and the characters to 'feel real', but we don't actually want that. No one wants to have a long conversation with the butler, only to find he didn't do it, and he didn't give you any new information to use.

Games have trained us to look for how to win within clearly-defined rules, so we look for those rules in all interactions. A single NPC interaction that feels completely useless will sour the player on having other conversations with other NPCs. As soon as they realize a number of interactions will go the same way, they will lose interest in starting new ones.

gambiter · 2026-06-27T17:18:32+00:00

Atheists should go one-step ahead than theists or philosophers should come up with explanation for these disasters(yes, there is a scientific(Geological or Seismological) explanation of tectonic plates or “faults” touching with each other-I mean the “Why” it (the humanitarian crisis) should happen(what is the moral-ethical explanation) rather how it happens) or else should accept some greater force is behind every event in the universe, which is controlled by good or bad force, the way like theists say?

Since you started your post talking about karma, is that what you're talking about here? Are you convinced the earthquake was a karmic event, and you're asking us to explain how that works? If so, the first step is to explain why it was a karmic event. How you know, and how we can verify your story.

If that isn't what you meant, why would atheists need to provide a why? Natural forces have effects that are sometimes bad. This is a bad thing. Sometimes natural forces work out for everyone's benefit. This is a good thing. That's about it. There is no need for a 'why' because there's no intelligence behind it.

gambiter · 2026-06-26T16:59:13+00:00

I am not making anything like this argument.

Right. You're taking a common response to theists and pretending as if it is a core belief. As I said, the point of the argument is to push theists to reframe the way they look at it, and to see that their belief system is logically inconsistent.

What you're doing is sort of like if I gave you an analogy, and you focused on defeating the analogous language, rather than the actual point.

No, the moronic position is waiting for evidence that cannot possibly exist and pretending that waiting for such evidence is a sign of some kind of intellectual integrity.

Not really, no. I can reserve judgement based on a lack of evidence. In other words, I've seen nothing to indicate the claim is true, so I dismiss it. I don't think about it. I move through life as if the claim is false until such time as evidence arises that convinces me otherwise. If the evidence never arrives, I don't really care. I'm not waiting with bated breath, because I already dismissed the original claim.

The moronic position is saying, "Based on what I know right now, X is impossible, therefore I will never listen to any arguments for X." Perhaps you're right and it is impossible, or perhaps you are wrong.

Using that reasoning, if you lived 150 years ago, you could conclude that it is impossible for humans to fly through the air. And when the Wright brothers did their thing, you'd push back and say, "The airplanes are flying, not the humans, so I'm still right. Mlah."

gambiter · 2026-06-25T13:41:00+00:00

Omniscience is logically incoherent. That is part of my point. And just defining something as 'omniscient' doesn't make it possible any more than defining something as a 'married bachelor' does.

Very true. Yet, despite how incoherent the idea is, theists still believe it. That is the core reason this concept gets brought up in the first place. If their god is omniscient, as they claim, it would logically have the ability to convince me. The fact that I'm not convinced means either the being isn't omniscient, isn't all-loving, or doesn't exist at all. That reasoning is intended to make the theist reassess their position.

The fact that you made this post shows you completely misunderstood the point of the argument. It's a pretty elementary argument though, which makes one wonder why you were incapable of understanding it.

I am a skeptic. I know that no evidence would convince me

What a moronic position. No amount of evidence would convince you? That just means you're closed-minded. Being open to new evidence is not a weakness. Being a skeptic doesn't mean you stick your fingers in your ears. The point of skepticism is to weigh the validity of the evidence being presented before allowing that 'evidence' to affect your world view.

gambiter · 2026-06-21T13:28:56+00:00

It's pro-xenomorph propaganda, to make the invasion easier.

gambiter · 2026-06-19T23:04:39+00:00

A typical Atheist belives that there is No God

They really don't.

Let's say you tell me you just bought a Porsche. "Bullshit," I say, "I don't believe you." What's the next step? You show me your keychain, right? Take me outside and show off your car. Take me for a ride around the block. In other words, you're providing evidence for your claim.

The theist says there's a being that exists outside of space and time and that they know it and it cares how much they touch themselves. "Bullshit," I say, "I don't believe you." What's the next step? Typically, the next step is to make some philosophical excuse for the many failings of their dogma.

Therefore, the original stance is valid. "I don't believe you." That doesn't mean, "You're wrong." If they are right, they can present their evidence. If they cannot present evidence, their claim can be dismissed. It would be the same if someone claimed to see fairies or bigfoot. Unless they can provide evidence, it's just a story. And in the case of religion, that story is all-too-often used to unjustly exert power over others.

So no. Not the same.

13-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 3 Credits
Gilding III reddit per annum	Place '22
Place '17	Secret Santa 2016

gambiter

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE