@anime_ It would be insane to put them anywhere else. You'd have to draw or animate a dozen people in every shot. Also the whimsical window would lose its luster.
Reddit Atheists only appear to have โwonโ if you accept their presupposition that materialism is true.
Every debate these people have ever had began with them presupposing their own metaphysics to be correct like that was just laying out the rules of the debate rather than a subtle attempt to rig the entire thing from the start.
And they got away with it so often because they were debating a specific strain of Evangelical Protestants who had become so ingrained in dualistic thinking over the centuries that they had basically no frame of reference to push back.
It was like trying to debate a liberal who presupposes that history has ended without pushing back before any conversation could be had about liberalism itself. Of course youโd โloseโ such a debate. This is exactly what has happened to conservatives over the last 30+ years.
But Iโve never once seen a Reddit Atheist enjoy debating the presuppositions of their own worldview. How many of them want to debate the Observer Effect or the Measurement Problem? Or Bell's and Leggett's inequalities? Or the Hard Problem of Consciousness? Or the implication of Gรถdelโs Incompleteness Theorems on their physicalist worldview? Or whether science can justify scientism?
None of these things prove organized religion as we commonly understand it to be true, much less Evangelical Protestantism. But they do show that the metaphysical picture which Reddit Atheists usually put forward as obvious right from the start is actually not obvious at all. Thatโs where the entire debate has to begin, and the Reddit crowd wants to skip this step entirely because it gets in the way of making themselves feel intellectual by dunking on people who think the Earth is 7,000 years old.
But the moment the debate shifts from them tearing down strawmen in the form of sky daddy to whether the foundation of their own belief system is valid, their teleology crumbles apart because the entire premise is built upon the incredibly disingenuous attempt to pretend they have none.
But everyone has a teleology, including Atheists. Atheism itself is not pure negation, no matter how many times they try to insist otherwise. Itโs a worldview of its own, with its own presuppositions and its own axioms. And those axioms almost always entail materialism, liberal humanism, scientism, or progressivism, which are very much open to attack.
@Br_MoonPhrog Everything is so fake. It's as true today with our own contemporary, cultural radicals, completely unbothered by anyone with a means to bother. Often they are given money lol. Ridiculous.
@Br_MoonPhrog Dave McGowan pointed out how the careers of all the male "counter culture" figures were never cut short by a draft notice. Another curiosity.
@DougTenNapel The truth is in there, but sometimes people see what they want to see. Ignore what they want to ignore. All for reasons we are familiar with.
@Br_MoonPhrog You come up with some solid tweets. I wish you could make them into some unified long form and incorporate your art as well. Would be very cool. Easier said than done of course lol.
@xwanyex You could just as easily point out (in fact more accurately) that her form of leftism is an unnatural product of a coercive elite who've been banging on the same drum since the French revolution and with little to show for it save their own power.
@Donna_Rachel_@Nikinaki55 I don't think she realizes how jarring it is to see someone approach this material in a giggly manner. Even in the guise of academic criticism, she betrays her true feelings and comes across as absolutely ghoulish.
@NeilShenvi Generation 68 is an important book. If it's too much for you, I would say you are too tame. What possible thing of interest or insight could you have to say?
@Mormonger@NightShade1776 "A critic may argue that Latter-day Saint theology differs from traditional creedal Christianity. That is a legitimate theological debate."
Mormon theology clearly departs from Biblical Christian theology. How could one even debate such a thing?