Thread by @EveKeneinan

Back to GonnaGoForIt atheist Peter vs @DataDistribute Dave.

Peter: Do you think Santa-Claus-ism is a religion?
Dave: By what definition?
Peter: I think you just answered my question.
Dave: No, I didn't.
Peter: Yes you did.

Peter then goes on to keep telling Dave what his position is. "You will go to the length and breadth of convincing me that people that do believe in Santa Claus are part of a religion!" Of course Dave said no such thing. Peter said it for him. Again. In bad English.

The true gem of this occurs at exactly 29:04, where Dave gives a deep, eloquent SIGH of frustration. This may be the exact moment Dave realizes there's no hope here.

Peter, an Identitarian Atheist, will not entertain definitions anymore than Godless™ Engineer will.

Having run into Peter, before he was banned from Twitter, I know that Peter, like many Identitarian Atheists, subscribes to a "Plato's Dictionary" ontology; that is, he believes all words have "one, true meaning" (and he know what it is).

I've seen it before.

Peter's game is to say "religion is bad" but to refuse to define "religion."

That way, no counterexamples can ever be brought against the claim. It is like saying "X is bad," without defining X.

It seems obvious that anyone actually committed to arguing for a career that "religion is bad" should at least be able to say what he means be "religion." You would think so, but this is not the case.

To define "religion" would open up the logical possibility of testing the claim "religion is bad" and since the test might not yield 100% "religion is bad" it is obvious that the test must not be made. We have a priori faith belief "religion is bad." What more do we need?

Identitarian Atheists are like SJWs in that they are NOT HONEST about the words they use. They don't define them, or else insist on idiosyncratic definitions.

at exactly 29:37, Peter is sperging out about how you can call anything a religion be messing with definitions (oblivious to the fact HE's the one refusing to define)—and @DataDistribute says " _______ is SO boring."

Can't make it out. Little help, Dave?

This hurts so much because Dave is trying to have a conversation with Peter, but Peter is having a debate with some imaginary character than lives only in his head, and he keeps growing angry with Dave for "going off script" of the character in his head.

Granted I'm about 1/2 hour in, but so for NOTHING BUT THIS has happened!

(Great meme work, @blackdazed2)

Peter: Religion is an organized set of believers who believe in higher, supernatural power, especially a God or gods.
Dave: Would Tibetan Buddhism be a religion?
Peter: Buddhism IS a religion.
Dave: It doesn't believe in a God or gods or a higher supernatural power.

THIS is what Dave is dealing with. Or me, before I blocked Peter.

Peter gives (for once) a CLEAR DEFINITION (although a bad one). Dave produces an immediate COUNTEREXAMPLE, one which is ACCEPTED by Peter—thus undermining Peter's definition. Peter refutes his own definition.

Dave is not even being wily, like Socrates. He just produce an OBVIOUS counterexample to Peter's proposed definition of religion, one so obvious, that Peter instantly affirms that, yes, Buddhism is a religion.

But Peter acts as if Dave TRICKED HIM somehow.

I always thought the idiots in Platonic dialogues yelling about how Socrates tricked them couldn't be that stupid (could they?) — but here's Peter, and I can't think of a character in a Platonic dialogue who wouldn't outshine Peter. Even the dim Ion is fairly witty.

[Actual] "If you hold on give hold me on a def hold on ition of hold on something hold on you hold on have to hold on stick to hold on it."

[Edited]
Dave: "If you give me a definition then you have to stick to it."
Peter: "Hold on! Hold on! Hold on! Hold on! Hold on! Hold on!"

"Hold on!" appears to be Peter's standard "I'm going to interrupt you now" line.

Well, I got past the 30 minute mark. That's enough for now.