Bump....
Well, I guess this thread has finally died out. Too bad, it was interesting.
Thanks to Girl6 for trying to make things work. I think it was a noble experiment, and thanks to the participants, including JK, for keeping things relatively civil.
If this is indeed it, I have a couple of concluding thoughts.
First, it was not my, nor I think anyone’s, intention to make this an Everyone vs. Jk thread. Shall we just say that JK’s point of view was not merely a minority viewpoint, it seems to be singular. That is nothing, in the abstract, to be ashamed of or sorry for, nor is it something to be unduly proud of (though, there is a certain honor in fighting for a singular position – so long as you can support it!).
Needless to say, a review of this thread will, I think, show that (rightly or wrongly) JK not only failed to convince anyone of his position, but was also unable to explain it in a way that most of us could understand. In short, so much of JK’s position seems predicated upon re-definition of commonly used terms and ideas to suit his argument.
I say this not to be insulting, but merely because his definition of atheism, like his historical assertions, appear to be relatively singular points of view. They may not be wrong, but the inability to fully explicate and explore them using terms as they are commonly used and understood, makes efforts to convince others of the correctness of your position difficult.
I am more than a little disappointed that JK decided to essentially end his participation in this discussion not by patiently explaining his position, or asking for clarification on what points of his explanation other participants didn’t understand, but essentially by accusing other participants of not only failing to provide effective facts and rebuttals to JK’s arguments, but also into degenerating into spurious questions.
I would, respectfully, beg to differ. I think Girl6 did an admirable job of keeping the questions above spurious, nor do I fell that JK’s imputation that the conversation had for all intents and purposes degenerated into name-calling has much merit. Indeed, the failure, it seems to me, was due in large part not only to a lack of patience on the part of some participants, but also – in no small order – to a failure by JK to explain himself in a way that otherwise intelligent people could understand.
By this I mean, JK’s final arguments were, essentially, that he had already provided extensive explanation and definitions of his position on what is Atheism, but also that his contention of Hitler’s atheism is a fact.
He not only never addressed many, significant, and overwhelming “facts” that contradicted that assertion, but he specifically fell into the intellectual trap of claiming, essentially, that the reason he was making no progress and not being understood is because those in the conversation (save himself) were insufficiently schooled in the philosophies and facts necessary to establish the truth of his asserted proposition.
I plead guilty. I also plead that, given the singular nature of the claim; it is than JK’s responsibility to explain both the philosophy and the facts. He did not. He instead argued that he could not continue the conversation until people knew as much about Hegel and Nietzsche as did he, and had as good knowledge of the history of Nazism and Hitler as did he. In short, he argued “secret” knowledge to prove his proposition. This I reject.
Not only is JK’s position that people engaged in challenging his assertions are insufficiently educated on the topic patently ridiculous (based on nothing more than the depth of the conversation and the many references and citations provided in the conversation), but it suggests to me, at least, that JK is not able to defend his assertion in any way that would be convincing or merits more than fleeting attention.
In sum, Hitler may indeed have been an “atheist” but nothing provided by JK would change anyone’s mind on that position. Indeed, beyond the secret knowledge of the topic that JK apparently gleaned from Hegel and Nietzsche, JK cited no other contemporary and credible experts who hold his seemingly unique position or views – this is not to suggest that there aren’t any, but rather, how would we know?
Finally, I must say how disappointed I am at the “secrete” and “magic” arguments that JK has attempted to make. In point of fact, not only did I present a completely plausible and un-refuted (by JK) counter explanation based on “facts” to his assertion, I ended up spending as much time trying to figure out and explaining JK’s philosophical position (i.e. Luther leading to reformation, humanism, enlightenment, Marxism, Atheistic fascism…etc.). I note that JK merely ever only hinted at what he “believes” with such nice comments such as “you are partially right…” or other dodges. He NEVER once said what he believes or provided an intellectually coherent chain of argument or reasoning to show me how he got there. That is sad, for I am sure it would have been interesting.
In any event, I am glad that those who participated in this thread did so in a civil manner, and it was both interesting and fun to explore these ideas.
