Atheists and their jargon of insults

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is interesting, to say the less, how some anti-religious people try to discredit the biblical stories trying to classify them as myths, but at the same time they try to make it believe that the sagas of the English kings and their wizards and witches are more real than the biblical stories, legendary, but not mythical. Isn't it?

What on earth are you babbling about?

Do they fear, maybe, the pagan gods but do not want to respect the God of the ancient israelites?

Que?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I lack belief that gods exist just as strongly as any theist believes in their chosen god(s).

Whether that's 100%, I don't really know but it's close.

What would tip that balance, if a god showed up and proved they were a god to my satisfaction. After all, it's all about the evidence.

What would i accept as proof? I personally cannot think of anything but we are talking an omni everything god, surely said god would know this.

Personally, I think the "negative" claim of things existing is entirely useless and a waste of energy.

If people would start reciting all the things they believe to NOT be real, they'ld spend the rest of their lives doing just that and still not be anywhere near finished by the time they die.

Negative claims of existence are thus rather irrelavent and not worthy of being discussed.
For the most part, they are also logically impossible to demonstrate.

Think about it... how much time, really, do you spend pondering the claim "undetectable cookie monsters do NOT exist"?

I treat it like I treat every other claim of existence... Which is to say: non-existence is assumed until existence is demonstrated.

I see no evidence of gods, so I ignore gods. I live my life as if they don't exist.
I also live my life as if there is no undetectable dragon about to eat me. Can I demonstrate there is no such dragon? No.
But why would I live my life in any other way?


Gods are in the same category. There is no rational reason to believe they are real. So I live life as if they aren't real.
For all practical intents and purposes, I assume they are not real.

I will happily change my mind about that the day someone gives me a rational reason to.

 

[ChristineM]

Personally, I think the "negative" claim of things existing is entirely useless and a waste of energy.

If people would start reciting all the things they believe to NOT be real, they'ld spend the rest of their lives doing just that and still not be anywhere near finished by the time they die.

Negative claims of existence are thus rather irrelavent and not worthy of being discussed.
For the most part, they are also logically impossible to demonstrate.

Think about it... how much time, really, do you spend pondering the claim "undetectable cookie monsters do NOT exist"?

I treat it like I treat every other claim of existence... Which is to say: non-existence is assumed until existence is demonstrated.

I see no evidence of gods, so I ignore gods. I live my life as if they don't exist.
I also live my life as if there is no undetectable dragon about to eat me. Can I demonstrate there is no such dragon? No.
But why would I live my life in any other way?


Gods are in the same category. There is no rational reason to believe they are real. So I live life as if they aren't real.
For all practical intents and purposes, I assume they are not real.

I will happily change my mind about that the day someone gives me a rational reason to.

So we both lack belief in gods, though i knew that already.

For me that rational reason is falsifiable evidence

 

[ratiocinator]

It wasn't believers in science who came up with the inventions to create the internet. It was people with ideas.

Ideas that would be impossible to implement without a 'belief' in current science. Engineering is applied science. You wouldn't even have the most basic electronics without believing that the basic science of quantum mechanics was a good description of reality.

This really shouldn't need pointing out, it's so beedin' obvious, but science supports technology and what is technologically possible is what drives new ideas of ways to use it.

Take away any belief in science and we'd have no technology.

 

[ChristineM]

It wasn't believers in science who came up with the inventions to create the internet. It was people with ideas.

The internet inventors were both American engineers who specialised in the science of communications

Refinement into what we know today as the world wide web was Tim Berners Lee, a computer scientist who worked at cern.

Funnily enough, all 3 hav the distinction of being people.

 

[ratiocinator]

For me that rational reason is falsifiable evidence

I think I get what you mean but technically you can't falsify evidence (unless it was faked or due to observational or experimental mistakes, which is why we generally require experiments and observations to be repeatable).

Evidence is the raw data; the observations and experimental results that lead to hypotheses and theories and it's those that can be falsified - by additional evidence that is inconsistent with their predictions.

If some idea doesn't make any falsifiable predictions, then it counts as unfalsifiable and simply cannot therefore be tested. We have no way to 100% rule it out. This applies to many versions of god(s) as well as the undetectable dragon that lives in my garage. The reason people don't believe these kind of claims is simply that there is no positive reason to do so.

I can rule out any honest god that made the earth and the universe 6000 years ago because there is endless evidence that falsifies that age. The other way to falsify an idea is logical inconsistency, and I'd argue that some other version of god can be ruled out on those grounds too. But that still leaves many versions that it's impossible to falsify which is why I regard 'hard atheism' as irrational. There is simply no way at all to 100% rule out all versions of god(s).

 

[ChristineM]

I think I get what you mean but technically you can't falsify evidence (unless it was faked or due to observational or experimental mistakes, which is why we generally require experiments and observations to be repeatable).

Evidence is the raw data; the observations and experimental results that lead to hypotheses and theories and it's those that can be falsified - by additional evidence that is inconsistent with their predictions.

If some idea doesn't make any falsifiable predictions, then it counts as unfalsifiable and simply cannot therefore be tested. We have no way to 100% rule it out. This applies to many versions of god(s) as well as the undetectable dragon that lives in my garage. The reason people don't believe these kind of claims is simply that there is no positive reason to do so.

I can rule out any honest god that made the earth and the universe 6000 years ago because there is endless evidence that falsifies that age. The other way to falsify an idea is logical inconsistency, and I'd argue that some other version of god can be ruled out on those grounds too. But that still leaves many versions that it's impossible to falsify which is why I regard 'hard atheism' as irrational. There is simply no way at all to 100% rule out all versions of god(s).

If falsified then its not compelling enough but out of fairness falsifiability must be an option in such a scenario. For me at least

 

[1137]

Your error is an assumption in your statement. That atheism includes "views".
This is false.

There's nothing there to defend. Theism is the claim. Atheism is not buying that claim. Atheism is not a claim of its own.
So when you ask "defend your atheism", your question itself is already wrong.

I'm not playing these lacktheism games, if you aren't comfortable admiting your beliefs maybe you need better reasons to hold them.

Yes, I am an atheist because the evidence doesn't justify being a theist.
That's it.

Okay, how do you determine this?

If you call it "insulting" to note that the theist is incapable of meeting his burden of proof....
That's your issue, not mine.

I wouldn't say that is insulting, now if you also called them a moron it would be.

Because they are unfalsifiable claims.

Gods? You can definitely falsify my gods in theory, it's not my problem if you fail to do so.

I am against all abuse.
The problem however is that theists like to play the victim card inappropriately.
They will call it "insulting" when it is pointed out to them that they hold beliefs that are rationally unjustifiable.
The problem is that such theists take any and all criticism of their beliefs personal.

Yes those theists need to get a grip, being questioned is not an insult.

They consider faith to be a "virtue". I consider it gullibility. And that alone, they find "insulting".
Not my problem.

What? We all have faith in tons of things lol

Why does this sound like when a racist says "some of my best friends are black!" ?

I have no idea.

What would the difference be?

The way I see it, there is no such thing as "new" atheism.

What does exist is better visibility for various reasons.

Well look at Richard Dawkins vs William Rowe and you'll have a good illustration

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes, I am an atheist because the evidence doesn't justify being a theist.
That's it.

Okay, how do you determine this?

It's simple enough. You look at all the claims of evidence that have ever been given to you for any god(s) and decide than they all have flaws or are totally inadequate. It's not practical to list them all on a forum post, though, for obvious practical reasons.

The burden of proof is on those making a claim, so if somebody claims some god exists, then it is up to them to provide evidence.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well look at Richard Dawkins vs William Rowe and you'll have a good illustration

Sorry, you will have to sustain your own claims. You realize that you did not answer my question, right?

Edited to add: are you implying that you are owed some degree of protection from criticism? If so, why?

 

[cladking]

Ideas that would be impossible to implement without a 'belief' in current science. Engineering is applied science. You wouldn't even have the most basic electronics without believing that the basic science of quantum mechanics was a good description of reality.

Every single individual holds his scientific models differently. They differ in countless ways. The similarities are enough that we often come to the same conclusions but we are each very very different.

When I refer to "believing in science" I am referring to those individuals who believe that science operates on genius and that its theories are inviolable and handed down by Peers. Obviously there are countless parameters for "believing" and some individuals are worse than others.

Most real scientists are not believers and most engineers don't really think about such things but often are.

Anyone who doesn't realize that there is a "basis to science" that has nothing to do with intelligence probably believes in it.

 

[1137]

It's simple enough. You look at all the claims of evidence that have ever been given to you for any god(s) and decide than they all have flaws or are totally inadequate. It's not practical to list them all on a forum post, though, for obvious practical reasons.

I understand why any X may not be justified, I'm asking about theism specifically

The burden of proof is on those making a claim, so if somebody claims some god exists, then it is up to them to provide evidence.

Hey fair enough. So if someone claims the gods are fictional, are myths, that divine experience is delusion, they need to provide evidence.

 

[cladking]

The internet inventors were both American engineers who specialised in the science of communications

Refinement into what we know today as the world wide web was Tim Berners Lee, a computer scientist who worked at cern.

Funnily enough, all 3 hav the distinction of being people.

I spoke briefly with one of the pioneers. He was working at the time but I believe I had his full attention.

But I neglected to ask him Tim Berners Lee just invented computers or if he also invented electricity. Getting power to move through conduits is remarkable enough but then training it to activate a printer mustta been some kind of magic. Imagine leaving a trace of where you've been on a piece of paper or a punchcard!!! Now the real trick would be to recreate the program, computer, and power from the output alone.

 

[1137]

Sorry, you will have to sustain your own claims. You realize that you did not answer my question, right?

Edited to add: are you implying that you are owed some degree of protection from criticism? If so, why?

You asked the difference between Atheism and New Atheism. This has already been addressed so I provided a further example.

Protection from criticism? Why would I need that. Protection from abuse? Idk if I personally need it but it's virtuous to be sure.

 

[wellwisher]

Op doesn't describe me and my beliefs but instead builds a strawman and tears it down. Different atheists have different ideas on different things. They aren't a monolith

The only unifying thing required to be an atheist is to find god propositions unconvincing. Anything beyond that and whether or not the atheist is gnostic or agnostic is tertiary

When I look at Religious books like the Bible, I look at them like I would with science data. I use that book as the data base for my analysis, and try to keep my reasoning within that range of data. I am not judging the data, but rather approaching it like I would if a was analyzing a book from literature.

One can still analyze content and find hidden message even if fictional books fro Shakespeare or the TV shows like Star Trek, since they often contain timeless messages, even if the characters are fictional or not. One can still use the power of reason to analyze any data set; comic books, and gain experience developing critical thinking skills based on the possibilities that the data set allows. Denying certain practice data sets, prevents any exercise of the mind; fat head, leading to name calling; emotional thinking instead of reason.

If you ever took a literature course in High School or College, you often had to read and analyze a work of classic literature. I always thought it interesting, that many aspects of the human condition, are the same today as when the a book was written; War and Peace. However, I also could see how people were different, due to their times and their lack of seeing into their own future. Religious books teach us timeless human wisdom as well as allows us to live in a different time, so we can analyze and infer how we would have behaved, back then, if you did not have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

If the topic is Noah's Ark, this is the data set. I will reason with that data based using my development skills for reverse engineering, to help me fill in and set the stage. This is called Creationism, by the Atheists, but I call it reverse engineering based on the sparse fossil evidence. I will help to fill in the missing links based on that limited data set. It often takes ingenuity.

Based on all the data, my best integrated analysis is Genesis is speaking about the evolution of modern human consciousness, through the eyes of people living at that time of change. It was a time, when the unconscious mind was much closer to the surface and the wall between realty vision and unconscious projection overlay, was very low.

The ego secondary was leaving the womb of its unconscious development, and becoming more differential. Religious works are like the IT of consciousness, since the data best fits one aspect of science; forensic psychology. They were closer to the operating system of the human brain, and mapped it out; software code has it own language that can different from hardware.

 

[LuisDantas]

Every single individual holds his scientific models differently. They differ in countless ways. The similarities are enough that we often come to the same conclusions but we are each very very different.

When I refer to "believing in science" I am referring to those individuals who believe that science operates on genius and that its theories are inviolable and handed down by Peers. Obviously there are countless parameters for "believing" and some individuals are worse than others.

Most real scientists are not believers and most engineers don't really think about such things but often are.

Anyone who doesn't realize that there is a "basis to science" that has nothing to do with intelligence probably believes in it.

Sounds like a problem of perception, due to a lack of proper scientific education.

Meaning that it is unlikely to be present in actual science.

 

[1137]

"Magic", they say.
They say "miracles", "supernatural", etc etc etc ... they even say "spaghettis" and in their minds is an insult. So they are.

What is really "miracle" or "magic" or "supernatural" in an atheist mind?
IMHO, they are just things they cann't explain with their current personal knowledge ... and there is soooo much happening in the world right now that most people cann't explain, that I would say miracles are happening all the time and atheists cann't negate it. Insulting is the way their brains deal with it.

Illuminating thread man, i thought RF was better than places like reddit, but the amount of atheists openly supporting and refusing to condemn the abuse of theists by atheists is astonishing. I'm really grossed out tbh but it's good to know.

 

[LuisDantas]

You asked the difference between Atheism and New Atheism. This has already been addressed

By whom? Where?

(...)

Protection from criticism? Why would I need that. Protection from abuse? Idk if I personally need it but it's virtuous to be sure.

Sure sounds like you are confirming my suspicions, then.

 

[cladking]

This really shouldn't need pointing out, it's so beedin' obvious, but science supports technology and what is technologically possible is what drives new ideas of ways to use it.

Technology can be thought of as a magic trick in three dimensions created by a one dimensional science. We attempt to model science in three dimensions and we all succeed to a greater or lesser extent.

"Science" has never given anyone any technology at all. Understanding experiment often provides insights that result in new technology by means of creating an idea in an individual. Like like species don't evolve, science doesn't give rise to technology. Individuals are basic and fundamental to reality, not beliefs and not abstractions like "species".

And now I'll be insulted because this is how "theists" are countered when they win arguments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not playing these lacktheism games, if you aren't comfortable admiting your beliefs maybe you need better reasons to hold them.

I just explained them to you, but you are not "playing those games". Why not? Because they put you in a situation where you can't defend your nonsense?
It is off course a lot easier to argue against strawmen, I know.

Okay, how do you determine this?

I listen to those making the claims and their arguments / evidence they can offer in support of them and then conclude they are insufficient.
So pretty much in the same way as you listen to scientologists and bigfoot believers and then conclude as I do. That it is insufficient to warrant belief.

It's pretty straightforward.

I wouldn't say that is insulting, now if you also called them a moron it would be.

Feel free to quote me where I supposedly did that.

Gods?

Among others, yes.

You can definitely falsify my gods in theory, it's not my problem if you fail to do so.

How?
Please present me your falsifiable god hypothesis.

Yes those theists need to get a grip, being questioned is not an insult.

Glas we agree on that.

What? We all have faith in tons of things lol

Feel free to tell me in what way I invoke "faith" in the religious sense.
If you are correct, I will thank you and instantly stop doing it.
But my expectation is that you either will find nothing, or you'll do a bait 'n switch and use the word "faith" in a sense that it means something different from "religious" faith.

I have no idea.

I have a couple.

Well look at Richard Dawkins vs William Rowe and you'll have a good illustration

Why don't you explain it to us, since you brought it up, instead af asking us to go hunt for it.