Are atheists arrogant? immoral? angry?

[shunyadragon]

You certainly sound like an evangelical Christian here lol. No true Scotsman at its finest.

I doubt that you are genuinely an atheist. @F1fan is right on with the objections to extreme misrepresentation of atheists.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you are truly an atheist then you understand the prejudices against our category.

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).

What’s interesting is that your last few posts have been increasingly accusatory and passive aggressive. Do you think being vague is any less bullying?

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. 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.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It’s your responsibility to find it. That’s the challenge for all of us

It really isn't. It isn't even my responsibility when people are being genuinely curious instead of tribalistic with no better than 'true faith tests.'. I'm going to do what everyone should do when they come up against bad faith actors swinging around egos.

*ignore.*

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I doubt that you are genuinely an atheist. @F1fan is right on with the objections to extreme misrepresentation of atheists.

Feel free to doubt. I'm an atheist. I think most atheists are more like me, folk who don't think that all or even most theists are intellectual lessers, or that all theists are out to get them, convert or oppress them. Just mostly people who have different experiences that led then on different pathways. Not pathways I'm going to ever join, but I can respect all the same.

If you think that's fake, that says more about you than me.

 

[Sargonski]

I just viewed and greatly enjoyed a three part video series by Matt Baker, who did his doctoral thesis on the psychology of atheism. Although all three videos are excellent, it is the third one that I wanted to share and discuss.

Christians often make certain generalizations about atheists:
1. That they are arrogant and dogmatic
2. That they prefer to be non-religious because they are selfish and religion is an inconvenience
3. That they are angry with God
4. That they either lost their father at a young age, or had a strained relationship with their father, making it more difficult to form a good relationship with the Divine Father.

Matt Bakar deals with each of these scientifically. He comes to the following conclusions:
1. None of the 4 assertions above accurately generalize about atheists
2. What DOES seem to have a high correlation with atheism is a score of TP on the Myers Briggs (video 2 deals with this in depth). This matches up nicely with other studies that correlate atheism wish low agreeability and low conscientiousness using the Big 5 personality elements. What it basically means is that atheists are twice as likely to greatly care about truth even if it costs them and be open to change.

not sure about the arrogant part - the immoral part is pure nonsense.

Angry ? - not sure but perhaps ,, they do say ignorance is bliss so ..

 

[RestlessSoul]

I doubt that you are genuinely an atheist. @F1fan is right on with the objections to extreme misrepresentation of atheists.

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

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The point about falsifiability which often seems to get missed, especially by those for whom it is a little understood but oft cited article of faith, is Popper’s observation that it is not logically possible to verify any theory, claim or assertion. From this observation, he drew the conclusion that in the natural sciences, falsification was the only effective way of evaluating the veracity of a theory; but there is a paradox here - it is only logically possible to draw negative conclusions with confidence.

IOW: science can't prove things with certainty. Science can only disprove things with certainty.
Why do you think this "missed" or "misunderstood". I am very much aware of that fact.

It therefore follows that faith is always required in order to hold any belief, stupendous quantities of empirical evidence notwithstanding.

No, this is a misrepresentation and / or a misleading use of the word "faith" in context of discussion / comparisons with religious claims.

Every time you conduct an experiment, or otherwise attempt to falsify a hypothesis, and fail to falsify an idea, then you are supporting the idea with evidence.
So you tentatively accept the proposition. You have good reason to: to accounts of the facts, it explains the evidence, the facts support it and attempts to disprove it fail.

Those combined are very good reasons to accept the proposition.

Do you need "faith" to accept the theory of relativity? Germ theory of desease? Atomic theory?
I say no. Because you have LOADS of evidence, great explanatory power, no serious contradicting challenges and all attempts to disprove these ideas, fall flat on their face.

So you tentatively accept the claims.


If you are going to pretend that this is on par with accepting religious unfalsifiable claims that explain nothing, have no supporting evidence, are unverifiable, make no testable predictions whatsoever,.... then I'm just gonna laugh, shrug my shoulders and walk away.

 

[RestlessSoul]

IOW: science can't prove things with certainty. Science can only disprove things with certainty.
Why do you think this "missed" or "misunderstood". I am very much aware of that fact.


No, this is a misrepresentation and / or a misleading use of the word "faith" in context of discussion / comparisons with religious claims.

Every time you conduct an experiment, or otherwise attempt to falsify a hypothesis, and fail to falsify an idea, then you are supporting the idea with evidence.
So you tentatively accept the proposition. You have good reason to: to accounts of the facts, it explains the evidence, the facts support it and attempts to disprove it fail.

Those combined are very good reasons to accept the proposition.

Do you need "faith" to accept the theory of relativity? Germ theory of desease? Atomic theory?
I say no. Because you have LOADS of evidence, great explanatory power, no serious contradicting challenges and all attempts to disprove these ideas, fall flat on their face.

So you tentatively accept the claims.


If you are going to pretend that this is on par with accepting religious unfalsifiable claims that explain nothing, have no supporting evidence, are unverifiable, make no testable predictions whatsoever,.... then I'm just gonna laugh, shrug my shoulders and walk away.

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 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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It took both imagination and faith on Einstein’s part, to envisage and develop the theory of relativity.

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 vast mountain of empirical observations that continue to confirm it’s predictions came after the abstract mathematical modelling.

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.

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.

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.

 

[shunyadragon]

You certainly sound like an evangelical Christian here lol. No true Scotsman at its finest.

I am not the one making outrageous accusation of a lot of atheists from the Evangelical Christian perspective.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

NO!!!!!! It is a fact that @ADigitalArtist makes outrageous accusation of a lot of atheists from the Evangelical Christian perspective. The accusation is extreme enough to call @ADigitalArtist to account for his claims.

YES, I doubt the sincerity of what the claim is concerning their belief. This is a common problem on the internet for someone to make a bogus claim of belief to misrepresent the belief. I have encountered this problem on other sites like this forum.

 

[shunyadragon]

It really isn't. It isn't even my responsibility when people are being genuinely curious instead of tribalistic with no better than 'true faith tests.'. I'm going to do what everyone should do when they come up against bad faith actors swinging around egos.

*ignore.*

It is you responsibility not to misrepresent the beliefs and actions of atheists in an extreme and outrageous manner.

You might as well put a number of people on *ignore.* based on your abuse of atheists.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

"Imagination and faith?" No, if you understand the information evolving in science concerning the nature of light and gravity, and relying on rather simple math to construct his theory.

He did use some physical analogies of free fall to demonstrate his research. There were others working on these ideas at the time. This is true for other scientific advancements in history. Even Charles Darwin was not unique with others working on the same ideas at the time, and corresponded with others working on these ideas, It is just the fact that Einstein and Charles Darwin were the first to propose the definitive theories.

How Einstein Arrived at His Theory of General Relativity

In 1905, physicists understood something of the laws governing two types of forces: those of electricity and magnetism and of gravity. We’ve seen that the laws of electricity and magnetism, encoded…

lithub.com

Einstein didn’t have the advantage of this experience, and the tallest buildings of his day would have allowed a fall of only 4 or 5 seconds. But he realized the phenomenon of weightlessness would follow from the observations of Galileo and Eötvös. Einstein called his realization “the happiest thought of my life” and elevated this to a principle: No experiment can distinguish free fall in a gravitational field from motion with uniform acceleration (as in the elevator). He put forward the hypothesis, his “Principle of Equivalence,” that this should apply to all laws of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, and laws yet to be discovered.

From here to mathematical equations was a long struggle. Einstein knew roughly what he was looking for, but when he set out on his journey he did not possess a suitable mathematics for achieving it. David Hilbert, a professor in Gottingen, Germany, and one of the greatest mathematicians of the day, did know the required mathematics and was also in a quest for a theory of gravity; it is likely that had he fully understood the physics issues, he would have gotten to general relativity first, and indeed he almost did.

In 1915, however, Einstein completed and published his general theory. The theory met his basic requirements. First, it was consistent with the principles of special relativity. For example, the gravitational interaction propagated at the speed of light; there was no action at a distance. Second, it incorporated the principle of equivalence. Finally, it reduced to Newton’s laws except in very exceptional circumstances. Around typical stars and planets, the corrections would be very tiny.

It took faith

Not it takes a background and history of the evolving nature of knowledge in science and many scientists to develop and reach the conclusions in science. You are continually misusing the concept of "faith" concerning Methodological Naturalism. Faith represents simply subjective conclusions without science. This misuse of "faith" is nothing new with you.

 

[shunyadragon]

ENTJ here.

There is no objective evidence that at any time the "ex nihilo" (absolute nothing) ever existed.

It is simply a Theological assertion without evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

It might surprise some folks around here to see me say that I feel much the same way. I consider myself to be "half an atheist" as I am profoundly agnostic. And there are valid reasons why anyone might choose atheism that I can respect and even perhaps appreciate. But there are also a number of patently silly and absurd reasons that I see being posited all the time around here as if they were some sort of pronouncement from some Mighty Olympus of Truth that nearly always ends up being nothing more than scientism and a visceral resentment against organized religion.

I'm no fan of organized religion, myself, but neither am I blindly anti-religious. Just because it's not for me doesn't mean it's not a wise and useful choice for others

Yep. "Empirical Scientism" has become the new 'God-breathed inerrant Bible' for those atheistic fundis. Absolute, unquestioned, inviolable. Which is why I can't help but poke holes in it whenever I can. I am actually doing them a service, even though they cant see it.

Hey, good post.

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.

There is no such "Mighty Olympus of Truth" j science. In fact science does not believe in nor propose any sort of 'Truth.'

 

[Nimos]

Are atheists arrogant? immoral? angry?​

Atheists are not arrogant, we are simply better than everyone else!!

And we are not angry as long as people do what we say and accept that we think people should be punished for thinking differently than us.

So as you can see it is the believer's fault... all of it!!

 

[Kathryn]

There is no objective evidence that at any time the "ex nihilo" (absolute nothing) ever existed.

It is simply a Theological assertion without evidence.

What I mean by "ex nihilo" is "out of nothing." Not "absolute nothing." There's a difference. I was created "out of nothing."

 

[shunyadragon]

Atheists are not arrogant, we are simply better than everyone else!!

And we are not angry as long as people do what we say and accept that we think people should be punished for thinking differently than us.

So as you can see it is the believer's fault... all of it!!

Sarcasm?!?!?

 

[Nimos]

Sarcasm?!?!?

Hopefully that is obvious to anyone

 

[shunyadragon]

What I mean by "ex nihilo" is "out of nothing." Not absolute nothing.

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."