• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New Atheists?

F1fan

Veteran Member
Yes, of course I could be wrong.
So how do you apply this to your belief?

The refusal to countenance the possibility of being wrong, the inability to give ground in an argument; these are among the hallmarks of the fundamentalist (and the narcissist). Are you really going to tell me you don’t see these traits exhibited by some of the atheist contributors to this forum? Of course, it’s possible that you just don’t read their posts,
The advantage non-believers have is that the logical default in logic and debate is that the affirmative has the burden of proof. All claims are considered untrue until they can be demonstrated true. Atheist means non-theist, non-belief. Even theists don't believe in the religions of others, so there is a consistency in non-belief. Its just that atheists don't believe any of the many, many religions.

Anyone that makes a true claim in a debate opens the door to criticism, and also a burden of proof to demonstrate the claim is true. Or at least plausible and likely true. Religion as a class of claims has a serious liability in that it includes supernatural elements, and that is a phenomenon not known to exist.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Why do you even associate atheists with science? Religious belief may very well be the antithesis of inquiry, but it sure doesn't take a scientist to notice that. Atheists aren't atheists because of science, atheists are atheists because they don't believe theists and their stories. I have never been a scientist and no one has ever mistaken me for one, nor ever will, all I see is a bad attempt at bluffing, you claiming there is a certain kind of atheist who has made science their religion, and proclaimed it omnipotent and infallible, then going on to claim there are dozens of examples.

I challenge you to come up with an atheist on this forum that proclaimed that.

What is old ground is these sorts of useless proclamations.


Your challenge reminds me of the probably apocryphal story of Admiral Nelson holding a telescope to his glass eye. Of course you see no atheists making a religion of science; you’d have to be looking for it, to see it.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Yes, of course I could be wrong. The refusal to countenance the possibility of being wrong, the inability to give ground in an argument; these are among the hallmarks of the fundamentalist (and the narcissist). Are you really going to tell me you don’t see these traits exhibited by some of the atheist contributors to this forum? Of course, it’s possible that you just don’t read their posts,
No examples?
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
So how do you apply this to your belief?


The advantage non-believers have is that the logical default in logic and debate is that the affirmative has the burden of proof. All claims are considered untrue until they can be demonstrated true. Atheist means non-theist, non-belief. Even theists don't believe in the religions of others, so there is a consistency in non-belief. Its just that atheists don't believe any of the many, many religions.

Anyone that makes a true claim in a debate opens the door to criticism, and also a burden of proof to demonstrate the claim is true. Or at least plausible and likely true. Religion as a class of claims has a serious liability in that it includes supernatural elements, and that is a phenomenon not known to exist.


How do I apply what to my belief, doubt? By recognising that my beliefs are informed by perceptions refracted through the prism of my own experience and values, cultural and personal, subject always to my own prejudice, and the limitations of my human capacity for understanding. And by accepting that there is no absolute knowledge available to we humans, no certainties. Scientists today recognise this, that we can neither predict nor define anything with absolute certainty; what we can do, is a assign a very high probability of a particular observation or prediction proving correct.

Your statement that “even theists don’t believe in the religion of others” is an inaccurate generalisation btw. It’s over 200 years since William Blake published his illustrated pamphlet “All Religions Are One”, 100 since psychologist Wilhelm Reich wrote his “Varieties of Religious Experience”.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Yes, of course I could be wrong. The refusal to countenance the possibility of being wrong, the inability to give ground in an argument; these are among the hallmarks of the fundamentalist (and the narcissist). Are you really going to tell me you don’t see these traits exhibited by some of the atheist contributors to this forum? Of course, it’s possible that you just don’t read their posts,

Well, some of my fellow atheists has learned to do critical thinking on everybody else, but themselves. And IMHO they likely can't learn to do it differently, because it seems that they just like some religious people have invested to much personal integrity on being right. And to doubt that would amount to doubt themselves as for their worth. That one is hard, not just for religious people.

In short, some people can see the bias in everybody else, but not themselves. That is a general human fact and not limited to only one "side" of religious or not.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Dozens. I’m not naming names, read the “Scientism on Wikipedia” thread. Although I warn you, it does involve a lot of people on all sides talking past each other. Rather like we’re doing now.
You can quote any post on this forum to back up your claim, but obviously you won't because you can't.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Well, some of my fellow atheists has learned to do critical thinking on everybody else, but themselves. And IMHO they likely can't learn to do it differently, because it seems that they just like some religious people have invested to much personal integrity on being right. And to doubt that would amount to doubt themselves as for their worth. That one is hard, not just for religious people.

In short, some people can see the bias in everybody else, but not themselves. That is a general human fact and not limited to only one "side" of religious or not.


Yeah, absolutely. We all have an ego, myself certainly included. And when the ego feels threatened, it drowns out all other voices, inner and outer.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Read the thread I directed you to. Or don’t, it’s entirely up to you. In fact, I recommend you don’t, you probably have better things to do. As do I, I have to go to work now. Good day.

I did read the thread, your claim that

there is a certain kind of atheist who has made science their religion, and proclaimed it omnipotent and infallible,
then going on to claim there are dozens of examples.

is not there, you are just mouthing off.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I did read it, your claim that

there is a certain kind of atheist who has made science their religion, and proclaimed it omnipotent and infallible,
then going on to claim there are dozens of examples.

is not there, you are just mouthing off.

Yeah, you see, here is how it works. Some of us regardless of religion or not have learned to do in effect meta-cognition on all parts of the everyday world. It means that we know when we are subjective and have biases. But it also means that we can spot in all other humans. Not all humans can spot their own bias in general. There is nothing wrong with that. It just means that different humans use their brains differently. That is all.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Yeah, you see, here is how it works. Some of us regardless of religion or not have learned to do in effect meta-cognition on all parts of the everyday world. It means that we know when we are subjective and have biases. But it also means that we can spot in all other humans. Not all humans can spot their own bias in general. There is nothing wrong with that. It just means that different humans use their brains differently. That is all.
Rubbish.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Yeah, it’s interesting how often things that seem to be a curse, can turn out to be a blessing, of sorts.

We are here to learn, I think; which of course we cannot do, if we already know everything ;)
Not to worry, no one will ever accuse you of critical thinking.
 
Top