Woke Atheist Insists, “You have to accept it”

A few months ago, I asked a question to Woke atheists – “Can you provide the evidence that Lia Thomas is a woman?” 

Archon’s Den replied:

Personal feelings, personal testimony, personal experience, intuition, etc. do NOT count as evidence, when applied to something outside yourself.  They are, however, the only valid way to know what is happening in anyone’s mind.  Lia could state that she is a Cincinnati Reds fan, a non-smoker, a vegetarian, and likes heavy metal music, and you have to accept that.  And if she says that she feels more like a girl than a guy despite the plumbing, just as she feels more like voting for Biden than Trump – that’s an objective proof.  You have to accept it, even if you are a dyed-in-the-wool Republican.  She is, and will remain, the best judge of what she thinks, feels, and believes.  She identifies as a female personality, trapped in a male body.

Did you notice that,” if she says that she feels more like a girl than a guy despite the plumbing, ….that’s an objective proof.  You have to accept it.”

No, it’s not an objective proof and I don’t “have to accept it.”  There are two common traits among human beings – deception and delusion.  It is NOT uncommon for people to lie nor is it uncommon for people to be deluded (have beliefs that don’t match reality). Therefore, it is possible that Thomas is lying, and if that is not the case, it is possible that Thomas is deluded. Archon’s Den  would have us abandon these possibilities , as if they could never ever be true,  and instead embrace Thomas’s claims on blind faith.

Let me demonstrate the complete absurdity of Archon’s Den’s position with a concrete example.

Consider this person:

She thinks she is a bird and we are all supposed to use some pronouns she invented.  Now, this video could be a hoax, in which case she would be lying.  Yet according to Archon’s logic, “You have to accept it.”  As Archon says, “She is, and will remain, the best judge of what she thinks, feels, and believes.”  Of course, she might not be lying.  In which case, since she is not a bird, she must be deluded.  It would not matter if she feels like a bird.  She is not.  And no one has the right to expect me to believe she is a bird.  Yet according to Archon’s logic, “You have to accept it.”  As Archon says, “She is, and will remain, the best judge of what she thinks, feels, and believes.”

So it’s rather amusing to realize that while woke atheist Archon insists there is “no evidence for god,” he/she believes that girl in the video is a bird (assuming Archon is intellectually sincere and practicing what he/she preaches).

Advertisement
This entry was posted in atheism, trans ideology, woke and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Woke Atheist Insists, “You have to accept it”

  1. TFBW says:

    They are, however, the only valid way to know what is happening in anyone’s mind.

    One’s body is not in one’s mind; ergo, one’s mind has no bearing on the objective facts of one’s body. “And if [he] says that [he] feels more like a girl than a guy despite the plumbing,” then the feelings (if honestly reported) are objectively deluded, because the plumbing is the obvious material fact.

    Oh, but “gender” is a mental—not biological—construct, comes the inevitable bait-and-switch. If that were true, there would be no need to mutilate the body in the name of correcting the problem. Mutilation as a response presumes that the mind and body are in conflict over the same set of facts, and that the body must be mutilated to make it conform to the mind’s delusions. Anyone pushing the duality of sex and gender while also insisting upon physical mutilation as a remedy is in error at best (and quite likely a malicious liar promoting real physical harm out of hatred for humanity).

    But let’s suppose that mutilation is off the table, and this is merely about pronouns. Can’t we simply respect his feelings of femininity by using his preferred female pronouns when referring to him? First, no: only third person pronouns are gendered, so A is talking to B about C, and neither A nor B are presumed to know the internal mental state of C while doing so. All third person pronoun use would be guesswork if it were applied on the basis of a private mental state. That’s impractical to the point of ridiculous, and one’s insistence that it must be done that way demonstrates one either to be so impractical as to be worth ignoring, or an active saboteur trying to undermine human communication (again, the latter is likely).

    Oh, but what if C has made his mental state clear to both A and B? Isn’t it just common decency for them to respect his feelings? Still no: it’s common decency to not emotionally blackmail others into socially deviant behaviour such as referring to a male by female pronouns. If C cared a rat’s arse about common decency, no such demand would be forthcoming, and one’s obligations in relation to common decency extend only so far as the decency is, in fact, practised in common. Pandering to such demands is not common decency but simply the acceptance of unreasonable demands, with all that might imply.

    Lastly, let me challenge these alleged feelings of femininity directly. I claim that it is not possible for a man to “feel female”. It is possible to hate the fact that one is male, or desire to be female, but that is not the same. It is possible to feel something which one imagines to be what it is like to feel female, but one cannot “feel female” without first being female. We know what it is like to feel hungry because we have been hungry; we know what it is like to feel tired because we have been tired; we know what it is like to feel angry because we have been angry. No man knows what it is like to feel female, because no man has ever been female. Biology does not permit it. Heck, men barely even know what it’s like to “feel male”, since they’ve never been anything else: we know what it’s like to feel tired because we’ve been tired at times and not-tired at others; we have experienced the difference.

    As such, I can deduce that Lia Thomas does not actually “feel female”, and any report on his part that he does is also either a lie or a delusion.

  2. Ilíon says:

    ^ An excellent post, TFBW.

  3. Pingback: Woke Atheist Insists, “You have to accept it” — Shadow To Light – Pickering Post

  4. Tom says:

    And if she says that she feels more like a girl than a guy despite the plumbing,

    This, combined with Michael’s ‘bird pronoun’ example, kind of reminded me of Thomas Nagel’s famous ‘What is it like to be a bat?’ question. Nagel was getting at first-person aspects of the notion of consciousness and concluded: “while a human might be able to imagine what it is like to be a bat by taking “the bat’s point of view”, it would still be impossible “to know what it is like for a bat to be a bat.”

    I suppose Archon’s Den would probably reply that bats and birds can’t report and communicate their experiences and so the cases are dissimilar. Biological women can describe their feelings and a biological man could conclude from their descriptions that he feels ‘just like a woman’ based on this. I suspect that he wouldn’t agree with this idea if it was a white person ‘identifying’ with the self-report of a black person.

  5. jayman777 says:

    Will atheists worship someone who identifies as a god?

  6. dpmonahan says:

    Well he might reply that way but the man is still going to be imagining female subjectivity by analogy to his male subjectivity.

  7. Ilíon says:

    ==Will atheists worship someone who identifies as a god?==

    If he has superior technology — say, were he a space alien — they almost certainly would. Oh! Provided he made moral and historical claims which align with what they themselves already assert.

  8. Ilíon says:

    … For instance, the person Jesus of Nazareth self-identified as ‘The God’, as ‘The Creator’, but he made “restrictive and outmoded” moral claims, so he’s out!

    On the other hand, at the Second Coming of Klaatu — provided he endorses leftism/socialism (“democratic” or not) and/or “free love” — most God-deniers will trip over one another to be the first to worship him not only as ‘a’ god, but as ‘The’ God’, regardless of his self-identification.

  9. Kevin says:

    Lia could state that she is a Cincinnati Reds fan, a non-smoker, a vegetarian, and likes heavy metal music, and you have to accept that.

    Well no, we don’t have to accept that. It means something to be a Cincinnati Reds fan, a non-smoker, a vegetarian, or a heavy metal fan. And since it means something, Lia’s claims are subject to verification against the criteria for being those things.

    If Lia owns no Reds gear and watches no Reds games and never talks about their games, there is no reason to accept the claim of being a Reds fan. If Lia smokes, there is no reason to accept the claim of being a non-smoker. If Lia eats bacon and sausage for every breakfast, there is no reason to accept the claim of being a vegetarian. If Lia owns no heavy metal music and only listens to bluegrass and folk, there is no reason to accept the claim of being a heavy metal fan.

    If it means something to be a female – and it does – then Lia’s claim of being a female is subject to verification against the criteria of what it means to be a female. If the exact opposite is the case, then there is no reason to accept the claim.

  10. MP says:

    By the way, the atheists seem to like the claims that no one can “read minds” and thus everyone has to believe whatever one says about oneself.

    For example, that seems to be the main argument for accepting that their atheism is merely “lack of belief”. Or the main argument to dismiss any suggestions that the atheist might be dishonest in any way.

    Now that’s actually somewhat strange. After all, atheists tend to be materialists, and given materialism, it would be plausible that there are ways to “read the mind” of a human (perhaps using EEG, observation of movements, something else), just as there are ways to “read the mind” of a computer.

  11. Pingback: Another Pot Of Christian Tea | Archon's Den

  12. MP says:

    I see that there is an answer in “Archon’s Den”.

    And it states, among other things:

    >As a matter of fact, on neither of these websites did I state that I am an Atheist. While not incorrect, that claim is unfounded.

    I guess it would be too much to expect an atheist to admit that in this case our host has actually demonstrated the ability to “read minds”. Yes, in the sense in which “reading minds” is commonly understood by atheists: an ability to find out unstated beliefs of other people (which, of course, is very common, to say the least, unless one insists on perfect accuracy).

  13. Kevin says:

    How can something that is correct be unfounded?

  14. TFBW says:

    Apparently AD thinks that it’s better to believe a well-supported lie than infer the truth on insufficient evidence. Scientism is all about the method, not the outcome. It’s also cute how he thinks he can justify himself with careful application of the word “sufficient”. It’s not that there’s no evidence for God; there’s simply insufficient evidence for God, so it would be an epistemological sin to believe in Him. On the other hand, Lia Thomas claims to feel female, and the bare-naked claim itself is sufficient evidence for that proposition. Sufficiency is super convenient, isn’t it? Works like magic. You just point at the things you don’t want to believe and say, “insufficient evidence”. It’s like Harry Potter minus the wand and mock-Latin.

  15. If atheism had its own Ten Commandments, one of them would be “Thou shalt never accept any burden of proof for thy position.”

  16. TFBW says:

    AD points his wand at you and utters the magic words, “onus probandi!”

  17. Ilíon says:

    What do you think are the odds that AD thinks there is “sufficient evidence” to believe in a multiverse, or “dark matter”, or the “Oort Cloud”, or that, as Carl Sagan asserted in ‘The Demon-Haunted World’: “… once in a very great while, your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick wall of your garage and be found the next morning on the street. [This claim is a consequence] of quantum mechanics … Like it or not, that’s the way the world is.“?

  18. TFBW says:

    My observations about AD’s demand for evidence brought to mind an aphorism I’ve heard at some point in the past known as “Clifford’s Principle,” expressed in its most strident form as, “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.”

    In one of those all-too-common ironies, this “principle” seems to be an article of faith among a significant subset of the New Atheist types, except that they only ever apply it as a reason not to believe in God. If they actually applied it as a general principle, they might pause long enough to notice that one can’t consistently claim to hold it as a principle until one has sufficient evidence to justify believing that such a moral duty exists in the first place. Once again, the adjective “sufficient” is liable to do most of the work here, primarily by allowing a back door for one’s intuitions and opinions to take command.

    Further reading: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/

  19. Ilíon says:

    ==… primarily by allowing a back door for one’s intuitions and opinions to take command.==

    Is ‘intuition’ the right word?

    It seems to me that when ‘intuition’ is properly used, it refers to something which one know because one knows it. That is, ‘intuition’ refers to “pre-rational” knowledge, which is knowledge that is not, and cannot be, acquired by ratiocination, but is rather a prerequisite for rational thought. For instance, I/you know that I/you exist: I/you cannot prove my/your existence rationally, and I/you don’t need to; it is true that I/you exist, and I/you know it is true, and its truth is one of the prerequisites for any act of ratiocination that I/you might undertake.

  20. TFBW says:

    I confess that “intuitions” in this case was a euphemism for “desired outcomes”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.