Are atheists arrogant? immoral? angry?

[Kathryn]

The theological concept of "ex nihilo" out of nothing is fundamentally base on the belief of Creation out of "absolutely nothing." No matter, no energy, therefore "absolutely nothing."

Well. I'm applying that to myself.

 

[Kathryn]

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well. I'm applying that to myself.

I believe applying only to one's self is a circular fallacy.

 

[F1fan]

That is a no true Scottsman. Amd there is no widely accepted definition of atheist that includes that. The definition is rather broad. Broad enough that Sam Harris and some others have tried and tried to get Niel DeGrasse Tyson to call himself one (and despite his objections lots of people consider him one).

Whatever the range of definitions that make up atheists the word "atheist" carrys social baggage and prejudice. In my experience those who I told I am an atheist recoiled at just that declararion alone. Even after explaining why there's this blank stare as if what I'm saying is Greek.

There is a real underlying assumption that some sort of God exists, even those who aren't religious. I remember some years ago I was dating a girl who was raised Catholic but was not religious. We were talking about belief in God and she ended up getting very upset. Even though she wasn't religious she still carried her family's religious tradition subconciously, and that wasn't realized until we talking about why belief in God isn't factul or a rational conclusion.

I think one reaosn why religion is so prevalent still is because it is an underlying social concept that binds most all people. I was talking religion with one of my Catholic cousins, and while I did not admit I was an atheist and instead said I was Buddhist her reply was "At least you believe in something." I avoided saying I was an atheist only because I had exprience with how negatively people respond to "not believeing".

Amd yet you're accusing her of not being some sort of made up on the spot definition of atheist and misuse the phrase passive aggressive.

How so?

If a person categorizes themselves as atheist I assume they have some rationale for that, not just equating atheist as not being religious. I say that given the prejudice against the category "atheist" in societies most everywhere.

All while coming from a perspective that didn't know and struggles to understand there's no correlation between being atheist and having superior logic skills and valuing evidence more. It could just be someone is an idiot who wasn't raised with religion.

There are these types of folks that I have encountered. Lee Strobel is an example of a person who claimed to be an atheist, but hearing him interviewed on the Hank Hanegraaf show what he describes is a guy who was exposed to religion like any other person, but just wasn't religious. He then claims his conversion to Christianity was some sort of factual conclusion, as he wrote in his book The Case for Christ. It was claimed to be a reasoned argument, but it makes assumptions all the way through, including assumping the Bible is literally true. Strobel wasn't an atheist so much as he was just not religious, and I think that is a real distinction to clarify. I've heard some believers call those of other religions atheists only because they didn't believe in their version of God. Clearly there are many non-religious people who still believe in some sort of God or higher power. To my mind atheist is demarcated by the line that a mind does not think any Gods exist, consciously or subconsciously.

 

[F1fan]

Do you not think it’s rather arrogant of you, telling someone else you doubt they believe what they say they believe?

No. Because it isn't telling someone what they believe. It is that what they are saying suggests they don't fit into a certain category. If I went around saying that I was a redhead and others pointed out that I have dark brown hair, would that be arrogant of them?

I understand these debates can deolve into fuzzy and broad definitions to a point where words mean very little, moving goalposts, but in such cases we have to look at the core definition of a word to make any sense of a statement. Look at post 207 and how @TagliatelliMonster rebuts the misrepresented definitions about faith in regards to science.

 

[F1fan]

It took both imagination and faith on Einstein’s part, to envisage and develop the theory of relativity. The vast mountain of empirical observations that continue to confirm it’s predictions came after the abstract mathematical modelling.

It took imagination only in the sense that he formed a real model of how nature works. He still had to test this model. And he tested it and he was correct.

Don't confuse him use of imagination as making things up, which is more applicable to the many gods in human lore.

And the type and definition of faith as you use above isn't the same as religious faith. There are two definitions that get interchanged by theists who try to switch them to make their religious faith seem truthful and valid. This little deceptive trick only tells us believers know their religious faith is invalid, and they have to use the mundane definition instead.

It took faith for the likes of Einstein and Hawking to dedicate galaxies of intellectual effort to the search for a unifyi field theory; a faith unrewarded in their lifetimes. It took considerable faith and courage for Hugh Everett III to publish his paper on Relative State Theory - he risked his academic reputation on it. And it takes faith for those theoretical physicists researching Loop Quantum Gravity, String Theory etc. Science proceeds through intuition, inspiration, and faith, just as much as it does through observation.

Faith that means trust. Trust that out senses are reliable, that we are able to sense the universe as it is, etc. This is vastly different than religious faith.

 

[F1fan]

Well. I'm applying that to myself.

There's a good chance that a fertilized egg was part of your past.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How so?

By puking up a no true Scottsman.
Also, there is a passive element that is necessary for it to be passive aggressive. Passive aggression is watching someone drive off a cliff and doing nothing at all to prevent it.

If you are truly an atheist then you...

Trying to use that as a means to define and exclude is a logical fallacy and to project your own personal standards and expectations onto others.

If a person categorizes themselves as atheist I assume they have some rationale for that, not just equating atheist as not being religious. I say that given the prejudice against the category "atheist" in societies most everywhere.

And yet lots people are atheist simply for no other reason than they weren't raised with religion.

There are these types of folks that I have encountered.

That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people in like England, Scandinavia, Australia, places were it's more likely someone isn't raised with religion and they grow up to be an atheist.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'ld say that is very debateable, but it matters not to the point at all.
The point being that nobody accepts Einstein's model on faith and never did. It is tentatively accepted based on evidence, succesfull testing and failure to disprove it.
"faith" is not part of the equation here.

It matters not how Einstein got his ideas. The point is that nobody, including Einstein, accepted these ideas on "faith".



The "abstract mathematical modeling" wasn't invented in a vaccuum.
It was invented specifically to solve the shortcomings of Newtonian physics. Einstein didn't pull it out of thin air.

BUT EVEN SO, it matters not to the point where he got his ideas from. The point is that these ideas are NOT accepted on faith.


I can only repeat myself.

You have shifted the goal posts here.
The points were about falsifiability of claims and wheter or not "faith" is required to accept such claims.

Now you have shifted to where scientists get their inspiration from or whatever.
It matters not.

Unfalsifiable claims are infinite in number and can't be distinguished from false claims.
Falsifiable claims can. And they don't require "faith" to be accepted. Unfalsifiable claims do.

Indeed, it’s as you say; you can only repeat yourself. I have no intention of doing the same, so will leave it there.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sarcasm?!?!?

Humour. It doesn’t always translate across cultures.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It took imagination only in the sense that he formed a real model of how nature works. He still had to test this model. And he tested it and he was correct.

Don't confuse him use of imagination as making things up, which is more applicable to the many gods in human lore.

And the type and definition of faith as you use above isn't the same as religious faith. There are two definitions that get interchanged by theists who try to switch them to make their religious faith seem truthful and valid. This little deceptive trick only tells us believers know their religious faith is invalid, and they have to use the mundane definition instead.

Faith that means trust. Trust that out senses are reliable, that we are able to sense the universe as it is, etc. This is vastly different than religious faith.

It took imagination only in the sense that he formed a real model of how nature works. He still had to test this model. And he tested it and he was correct.

Don't confuse him use of imagination as making things up, which is more applicable to the many gods in human lore.

And the type and definition of faith as you use above isn't the same as religious faith. There are two definitions that get interchanged by theists who try to switch them to make their religious faith seem truthful and valid. This little deceptive trick only tells us believers know their religious faith is invalid, and they have to use the mundane definition instead.

Faith that means trust. Trust that out senses are reliable, that we are able to sense the universe as it is, etc. This is vastly different than religious faith.

Einstein didn’t test his ideas. The first big test of general relativity, by English astronomers Arthur Eddington and Frank Dyson, came 14 years after Einstein’s “annus mirabilis”. The pair had faith in Einstein’s predictions, but this faith was by no means universal, and GR could have been falsified right there and then in 1919.

It was precisely this vindication of faith in Einstein’s equations, which got Karl Popper, not to mention Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos and others, thinking about how science proceeds. Imagination and inspiration play a far greater role in that process yourself and @TagliatelliMonster appear willing to acknowledge.

Last word from me; Einstein was inspired. A mind slammed firmly shut against ideas it finds uncomfortable or threatening, could never have “lifted a corner of the veil” (Einstein’s words) in the manner of not only Einstein, but also the Copenhagenists with whom he he often did not see eye to eye. You see, in theoretical physics, there is always room for heresy.

 

[osgart]

It is in no way arrogant to defend the position of atheism. Bad arguments need to be contested, challenged, and not be given a free pass. Why? Because bad arguments become popular convictions. Some mainstream religions will go on the offensive, and try to gain more territory, and power in society. Atheists are merely defending their freedom, and trying to get to the heart of what is reality, and what exists in a civil manner.

No doubt there are some atheists who claim the intellectual superiority card. There are also theists who feel they have the intellectual, and/or moral high ground. So what?

Atheism as a position is perfectly reasonable and honest position to have. I'd rather be wrong and make my best efforts than totally right and say absolutely nothing.

Atheists and theists feel as though they have facts, and truth on their side. It's better that it all comes out, than totally withheld. If you're wrong someone will claim arrogance, if you are right someone will always find ways to deny it. If you are wrong and gain the popular perception of truth and fact, then that could be dangerous.

So speaking out in good faith is a necessity of our own survival, and prosperity. If it is indeed a battle to win hearts and minds, and a battle of truths, then so be it. Silence is too costly to not speak up and out.

The worst thing that could happen is that facts and truth get stamped out because of silence.

One thing an atheist will never ever accept is being forced into a religious corner, and there are plenty of religious corners to oppress people. Anyone who says any different is spinning a lot of garbage.

I'm glad atheists are a growing population. I'm glad there is logic and critical thinking. I'm glad that real sciences progress. Secular people can and do have a lot of humility. Everybody has convictions on fact and truth, so what? Let it all be known. The alternative, of complete silence, is actually no good at all.

 

[PureX]

Regardless of what you believe. Your outrageous extreme accusations concerning science and atheism are unwarranted.

What are the "number of patently silly and absurd reasons" that atheists justify their beliefs.

1. The absurd "there's no evidence" declaration.
2. The pointless "religious myths are fictional" observation.
3. The whole "I demand objective physical evidence (proof) even though I have no idea what that would look like or how to verify it even if you gave it to me" idiocy.
4. The "atheism is the automatic default for profound ignorance" proclamation.
5. The "religion is the root of all evil" red herring.
6. The "atheism is scientific" lie.

That's just for starters, and off the top of my head.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is in no way arrogant to defend the position of atheism. Bad arguments need to be contested, challenged, and not be given a free pass. Why? Because bad arguments become popular convictions. Some mainstream religions will go on the offensive, and try to gain more territory, and power in society. Atheists are merely defending their freedom, and trying to get to the heart of what is reality, and what exists in a civil manner.

No doubt there are some atheists who claim the intellectual superiority card. There are also theists who feel they have the intellectual, and/or moral high ground. So what?

Atheism as a position is perfectly reasonable and honest position to have. I'd rather be wrong and make my best efforts than totally right and say absolutely nothing.

Atheists and theists feel as though they have facts, and truth on their side. It's better that it all comes out, than totally withheld. If you're wrong someone will claim arrogance, if you are right someone will always find ways to deny it. If you are wrong and gain the popular perception of truth and fact, then that could be dangerous.

So speaking out in good faith is a necessity of our own survival, and prosperity. If it is indeed a battle to win hearts and minds, and a battle of truths, then so be it. Silence is too costly to not speak up and out.

The worst thing that could happen is that facts and truth get stamped out because of silence.

One thing an atheist will never ever accept is being forced into a religious corner, and there are plenty of religious corners to oppress people. Anyone who says any different is spinning a lot of garbage.

I'm glad atheists are a growing population. I'm glad there is logic and critical thinking. I'm glad that real sciences progress. Secular people can and do have a lot of humility. Everybody has convictions on fact and truth, so what? Let it all be known. The alternative, of complete silence, is actually no good at all.

Your still misusing the concept of faith in science, sounds like the layman use of faith, and misusing the concept of faith and what you called the negative goals of Methodological Naturalism. The falsification of theories and hypotheses are based on positive evidence. It is correct that the skeptical goal proposed by Popper is to establish that theories and hypotheses are false, but that is not the basis of methodology of science falsifying theories and hypotheses.

 

[osgart]

Your still misusing the concept of faith in science, sounds like the layman use of faith, and misusing the concept of faith and what you called the negative goals of Methodological Naturalism

By good faith I mean arguing with good will and best intentions. I wasn't making reference to science in that sentence.

You'll have to tell me where I even said that methodological naturalism had negative goals. It doesn't sound like something I said. I didn't mention naturalism there.

Methodological naturalism is something I see as necessary for science though I do not think it can answer all questions of existence. I don't doubt there are limits to methodological naturalism though.

 

[shunyadragon]

1. The absurd "there's no evidence" declaration.

The argument by atheists is valid that there is no objective verifiable evidence of the existence of Gods. This is fundamental to all atheist beliefs

What possible evidence for the existence of Gods could you offer,

2. The pointless "religious myths are fictional" observation.

Not pointless at all. There is no evidence for the myths and supernatural events of the Pentateuch which was not compiled until after 600 BCE. Pretty much ALL atheists believe this,

What justification based on the evidence that the mythical stories and supernatural events of the Pentateuch such as Noah's world flood.

3. The whole "I demand objective physical evidence (proof) even though I have no idea what that would look like or how to verify it even if you gave it to me" idiocy.

The demand for physical evidence is justified for belief from the atheistic perspective, not, proof, because in reality nothing can be proved.

4. The "atheism is the automatic default for profound ignorance" proclamation.

Atheism is not the automatic default. Puzzling statement that you would call silly. Atheism is simply based on the lack of evidence for the existence of Gods, and no evidence of an anthropomorphic Gods

5. The "religion is the root of all evil" red herring.

I do not any atheists that believe this. Yes, belief in the ancient tribal scriptures can be a motivation for 'evil,' such as tribal wars like the Hamas War, Persecution of ethnic cleansing of groups like Jews and LGBP groups, which is factual in history.


There are many other very fallible human causes of evil clearly acknowledged by atheists.

You use of "all" is a fallacy.

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'all or nothing (AON)'. AON presents a false dilemma by suggesting that there are only two options – either all or nothing – when in fact there are many more options in the middle ground between those two extremes.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119165811.ch68#:~:text=This%20chapter%20focuses%20on%20one,ground%20between%20those%20two%20extremes.

6. The "atheism is scientific" gibberish.

By definition religious beliefs like atheism and the various conflicting claims of Theism cannot be falsified by scientific methods. Science is neutral to religious beliefs.

Atheists are by definition Naturists which supports the consistent use of science to justify belief , and scientific methods of science, but for the most part acknowledge that science is neutral to proving any religious belief.,

You basically listed the reasons for atheists beliefs with a smattering of negative adjectives and exaggerations. Strip away all the nonsense and it is not silly at all,

 

[shunyadragon]

By good faith I mean arguing with good will and best intentions. I wasn't making reference to science in that sentence.

This is a layman's use of faith, which can by misunderstood, and does not apply to the question of the use objective evidence in scientific methods versus the subjective faith and belief basis for religious beliefs. Even "good faith" is not a justification of science.

You'll have to tell me where I even said that methodological naturalism had negative goals. It doesn't sound like something I said. I didn't mention naturalism there.

Will check and reference posts. I checked and yes I made a mistake. @RestlessSoul has the habit of using faith as a justification for Methodological Naturalism. I am very edgy about using the word 'faith' in the justification of Methodological Naturalism.

Methodological naturalism is something I see as necessary for science though I do not think it can answer all questions of existence. I don't doubt there are limits to methodological naturalism though.

Science and Methodological Naturalism does not claim to answer all questions by definition.

 

[osgart]

This is a layman's use of faith and does not apply to the question of the use objective evidence in scientific methods versus the subjective faith and belief basis for religious beliefs.

I was not attempting to insert faith into the scientific process. I was not posting about the scientific process and use of objective evidence.

I was arguing about atheism and that atheism is not an arrogant position to hold. I was arguing that atheists often argue in good faith with good intentions.

If I had to post about faith as used in pursuing objective evidence I would say faith, or having confidence towards something valid or known is apart of forming an hypothesis and pursuing an unexplored territory. There are also assumptions that are axiomatic that methodological naturalists may have faith in before going about trying to test an hypothesis.

Assumptions are kept to minimal, but can't entirely be avoided in science, and thus scientists may have faith in those untested assumptions.

 

[Kathryn]

I believe applying only to one's self is a circular fallacy.

OK.

 

[Kathryn]

I'm not going to debate this with anyone. Just sayin'.