Atheists and their jargon of insults

[Orbit]

Okay? And **** those people who abused you. Now I guess I wonder why you're fine with the abuse of theists by atheists, why not oppose all abuse?

New Atheism is what's in question here, please don't pretend you don't know what the term means.

You mean Richard Dawkins? Who cares about guy? Do you think he's the Pope of Atheism and we all worship him?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

They have nothing else to say. I mean just try asking an atheist to defend their views and you will get a meltdown about faith and burdens of proof and defense mechanisms. The best they have against theism is to attack low hang fruit or outright just insult the theist.

Many of the forum's atheists have defended their views, and done so very well. I myself posted a long essay on the topic a couple of years ago, which you can read here: "Why I Am an Atheist."

 

[1137]

You mean Richard Dawkins? Who cares about guy? Do you think he's the Pope of Atheism and we all worship him?

Dawkins is just one aspect of a much deeper problem. I personally differentiate between atheism and new atheism because one is deserving of respect and consideration, the other isn't. I have great, respectful, intelligent atheist friends and wont have them insulted by combining them with the atheists discussed in OP.

 

[F1fan]

"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 ...

That's OK, because believers can't explain their own beliefs when questioned. The lack of evidence is a serious problem for believers, and they fill in this lack of evidence with assdumptions and guesses. Let's note these aren't knowldge.

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.

Like the war between Israel and Hamas? What is there to explain about an old grudge between two people who believe in the same God? Why doesn't that God come forth and settle it? Not enough children have died yet for a miracle?

 

[1137]

Many of the forum's atheists have defended their views, and done so very well. I myself posted a long essay on the topic a couple of years ago, which you can read here: "Why I Am an Atheist."

I'll check this out! Very rare and I'm happy to see it, kudos to you!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Now I guess I wonder why you're fine with the abuse of theists by atheists, why not oppose all abuse?

Are you now saying that disagreeing with you is equivalent to abusing you?

 

[Orbit]

Dawkins is just one aspect of a much deeper problem. I personally differentiate between atheism and new atheism because one is deserving of respect and consideration, the other isn't. I have great, respectful, intelligent atheist friends and wont have them insulted by combining them with the atheists discussed in OP.

So what do you perceive to be the distinction between atheism and "new atheism"? Because in terms of belief or definition, I don't see one.

 

[Little Dragon]

So because spiritual reality isn't bound to deterministic material reality, it can't be real? Everything must be explainable by human science?

No.

Just saying. You can't take anyone's word or any holy book's word for what any other extension to our reducible physical universe, comprises of.
Gods and demons and angels and spirits, since they cannot be quantified, are not able to be confirmed. So when someone says, my God is X and Y and Z they are making an assertion, a claim or when they say Ghosts are X and Y and Z, again an assertion is made. It is not testable.

 

[ChristineM]

Okay? And **** those people who abused you. Now I guess I wonder why you're fine with the abuse of theists by atheists, why not oppose all abuse?

New Atheism is what's in question here, please don't pretend you don't know what the term means.

Yes, my attitude too and hence my reply.

Now i guess the abuse continues whether i lie back and accept it or not. This thread is an very mild example of that

So for the second time of asking, show me where new atheism is mentioned in the op

 

[Little Dragon]

Dawkins is just one aspect of a much deeper problem.

A problem for creationists certainly.

 

[F1fan]

Dawkins is just one aspect of a much deeper problem.

Only a problem for the status quo of religious believers who have benefitted from atheism being a closeted postion like gays used to be. Now atheism is more acceptable, and there are more who are able to admit their doubts of religious claims. Too bad for the religious tribes out there who have been happy to exist without too many questions and skepticism.

I personally differentiate between atheism and new atheism because one is deserving of respect and consideration, the other isn't. I have great, respectful, intelligent atheist friends and wont have them insulted by combining them with the atheists discussed in OP.

I doubt this. I suspect you don't respect any skeptics, and are using the new atheists as an excuse to make false accusations. It only illustrates how religions are a prop for egos, and how poorly religions prepare believers to be emotionally secure in a diverse society.

 

[1137]

Are you now saying that disagreeing with you is equivalent to abusing you?

Nope, I'm saying stuff like trying to diagnosis a stranger with mental illness cause they had a divine experience is abuse. Epistemological unfriendliness is abusive.

 

[1137]

So what do you perceive to be the distinction between atheism and "new atheism"? Because in terms of belief or definition, I don't see one.

New Atheism for example is epistemologically unfriendly; ignores instead of addresses the evidence for Theism; holds Theism to standards it doesn't hold itself to; intentionally conflates itself with Agnosticism; often falls back on emotion rather than reason; relies on demonstrably false/contradictory logic such as "you cannot prove a negative;” utilizes false equivalencies; and it encourages both bias and Anti-Theism

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have been abused by theists since being a teenager, i feel i have every right to reply to the **** they give out?
And what has new atheism got to do with the price of fish?

It took me a while to think why:

"Richard Dawkins . . . bad!"

Yes, Dawkins is far from perfect, but there is as you know no spokesman for atheism. There will be atheists that are very decent. There are atheists that will be ********. But one cannot judge a belief, or lack thereof, based upon a few people. One can always cherry pick to one's heart's desire.

 

[1137]

No.

Just saying. You can't take anyone's word or any holy book's word for what any other extension to our reducible physical universe, comprises of.
Gods and demons and angels and spirits, since they cannot be quantified, are not able to be confirmed. So when someone says, my God is X and Y and Z they are making an assertion, a claim or when they say Ghosts are X and Y and Z, again an assertion is made. It is not testable.

What do you mean they cannot be quantified?

 

[1137]

Yes, my attitude too and hence my reply.

Now i guess the abuse continues whether i lie back and accept it or not. This thread is an very mild example of that

So for the second time of asking, show me where new atheism is mentioned in the op

I'm not gonna lie, I find this very gross. You know how it feels to be treated like **** yet can't even acknowledge atheists do it to theists or stand up against it. Here, watch something:

A lot of theists are bad people. They are abusive, dishonest, manipulative, even violent. I condemn these theists and implore them to do better.

Your turn!

 

[1137]

A problem for creationists certainly.

Yes as i said in my first post, low hanging fruit.

 

[Orbit]

New Atheism for example is epistemologically unfriendly; ignores instead of addresses the evidence for Theism; holds Theism to standards it doesn't hold itself to; intentionally conflates itself with Agnosticism; often falls back on emotion rather than reason; relies on demonstrably false/contradictory logic such as "you cannot prove a negative;” utilizes false equivalencies; and it encourages both bias and Anti-Theism

Do you have a source for any of these assertions? Or any concrete examples? Because it sounds like a laundry list of personal grievances that you made up. I'll give you that Dawkins is anti-theist, but anti-theists exist, so what?

 

[1137]

Only a problem for the status quo of religious believers who have benefitted from atheism being a closeted postion like gays used to be.

A problem for yes, but "only" no. Heck I oppose such religions and the status quo, but I'm not an atheist. Perhaps atheism would have really caused some change if it wasn't promoted by unreasonable and hateful people like the 4 horsemen.

Now atheism is more acceptable, and there are more who are able to admit their doubts of religious claims. Too bad for the religious tribes out there who have been happy to exist without too many questions and skepticism.

But skepticism isn't the problem, indeed skepticism is great. If people were actually skeptical we'd reject all the major religions including atheistic physicalism.

I doubt this. I suspect you don't respect any skeptics,

I respect all skeptics in fact, i just know a person saying "my beliefs are right and anyone else is a moron" is not a skeptic. In fact you probably want to avoid skepticism all together, those guys sure didn't blindly accept the existence of matter let alone reduce all to it. Like Agnosticism, skepticism is just another term misused by new atheism.

and are using the new atheists as an excuse to make false accusations. It only illustrates how religions are a prop for egos, and how poorly religions prepare believers to be emotionally secure in a diverse society.

Do you people even listen to yourselves? Anti theism is about respecting diversity? Cmon.

 

[1137]

Do you have a source for any of these assertions? Or any concrete examples? Because it sounds like a laundry list of personal grievances that you made up. I'll give you that Dawkins is anti-theist, but anti-theists exist, so what?

You're actually going to claim you've never seen an atheist like this...