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."

LOL you say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[ChristineM]

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

There are 2 kinds of nothing.

There is nothing with dimensions through which electron's can pass and time ticks on.
Or there is nothing without dimensions...

 

[shunyadragon]

LOL you say that like it's a bad thing.

It's a meaningless non-thing

 

[osgart]

According to Robert Lawrence Kuhn, there are different levels of nothing:
Level one: Nothing exists, including space-time, mass-energy, and pre-existing laws of physics. This level also includes the absence of non-physical things, such as God, gods, and consciousness.
Level two: Space-time exists, but there is no matter or energy.
Level three: Space-time and matter-energy are absent.
Level four: Space-time and matter-energy are absent by necessity.

 

[shunyadragon]

According to Robert Lawrence Kuhn, there are different levels of nothing:
Level one: Nothing exists, including space-time, mass-energy, and pre-existing laws of physics. This level also includes the absence of non-physical things, such as God, gods, and consciousness.
Level two: Space-time exists, but there is no matter or energy.
Level three: Space-time and matter-energy are absent.
Level four: Space-time and matter-energy are absent by necessity.

Creation ex nihilo refers to absolute nothing as referring to absolutely nothing existed in terms of our physical existence before the Act of Creation of God. There did apparently exist the supernatural beings of heaven, Jesus Crist, Messianic beings in other religions, Council of Gods and other beings such as angels, etc.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What objective evidence do atheists are not following????

Same as any other humans. We are not a race known for our adherence to rationality and evidence based decision making.
A quick examination of any evidence in the realm of social psych would quickly allow you to conclude how susceptible we are to the noise and perspective lent by our immediate environment.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

The only reason I have to repeat myself is because you dance all around the points made and move the goalposts in rather obvious attempts to avoid dealing with the points made.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Einstein didn’t test his ideas.

LOL!

That's the only response I can give that bizar claim.

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.

There are more ways to test mathematical models then through new experiments.
Einstein had access to all observations and results of experiments with newtonian physics. Running that data through his own model and evaluating the result would have been an easy test.

What, did you think Einstein didn't double, tripple, quadrupple checked his equations with such data?
It took him years to finalize his theory. Do you really believe he simply published it without doing such checking?

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.

This "faith" was trust in the results. This "faith" was not blind belief without evidence like in religious faith.
You really need to stop with that misleading terminology.

Imagination and inspiration play a far greater role in that process yourself and @TagliatelliMonster appear willing to acknowledge.

I already told you that it matters not to the point made where people get their inspiration from.
The point is about when, how and why claims are accepted in science. And it's not through "faith".
Einstein himself didn't accept his own theories on "faith" either.

In fact, he figured he had to have made mistake somewhere because his theory predicted black holes - a concept he though was absolutely ridiculous.

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.

Sure. So? What's your point?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

"there's no independently verifiable evidence". And it's not absurd. It's a fact. There is no such evidence for the extra-ordinary supernatural claims of religions.

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

Not pointless. Religious myths like genesis and the biblical flood are demonstrably fictional.

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.

I demand independently verifiable evidence for claims about objective reality. Why is that a bad thing?

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

Disbelief indeed is the default position when it comes to claims, yes.
Do you start with believing every claim one can make until you can show it is wrong perhaps?
So, do you believe an undetectable dragon follows you everywhere you go?
The default is always disbelief. One requires reasons to move from disbelief to belief.

Those reasons can be good or bad, rational or irrational. Nevertheless, the default is disbelief and one requires *something* to be convinced before one moves from disbelief to belief.

If you disagree with that, then I guess your default stance is to believe all claims anybody makes?

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

I don't think I have ever seen an atheist give that as a reason for his/her atheism.
Not even those atheists who actually believe that statement as written (and I'm not one of them)

6. The "atheism is scientific" lie.

Same. I don't think I've ever seen an atheist make that claim.

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

I disagree with all of them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Level two: Space-time exists, but there is no matter or energy.

Perhaps I'm wrong about this one, but doesn't the existence of space-time necessarily mean that there is energy?
Isn't it so that you can't have one without the other?

 

[PureX]

"there's no independently verifiable evidence". And it's not absurd. It's a fact. There is no such evidence for the extra-ordinary supernatural claims of religions.

What is absurd is demanding a kind of evidence that you couldn't even identify or validate if you had it, and then proclaiming that your not getting it is supposed mean something. All it means is that those of you demanding it were fools to begin with, for demanding what you couldn't possibly even recognize if you had if. And then claiming it to be the only valid evidence extant.

Not pointless. Religious myths like genesis and the biblical flood are demonstrably fictional.

So are Shakespeare plays. Which is completely irrelevant to their value or purpose. Or to the actual existence of any kings, queens, or gods.

I demand independently verifiable evidence for claims about objective reality. Why is that a bad thing?

It's a foolish thing when you couldn't recognize what you're demanding even if you had it. AND you knew that in advance of demanding it. That wouldn't look good on you at all.

Disbelief indeed is the default position when it comes to claims, yes.

Not by and pathway of logic, it's not.

Do you start with believing every claim one can make until you can show it is wrong perhaps?

That of course has nothing to do with anything. We all start with an open mind, or we start with a closed one. The closed mind will already have determined what it accepts as true, and therefore will be intent only on dismissing any alternatives. While the open mind has not made this truth determination, and so is willing to consider any alternatives it encounters. "Belief" is the mark of a closed mind. "Unbelief" is the mark of an open mind.

So, do you believe an undetectable dragon follows you everywhere you go?
The default is always disbelief. One requires reasons to move from disbelief to belief.

The opposite of a mind closed by belief is a mind open to all possibilities. Atheism is a chosen belief. A belief that you yourself identify: that no gods exist unless and until proven otherwise, to you. You stated exactly that above. Your mind is closed even though you pretend it's still open.

Those reasons can be good or bad, rational or irrational. Nevertheless, the default is disbelief and one requires *something* to be convinced before one moves from disbelief to belief.

Disbelief is an open mind. Your mind is not open as you have already stated, above, so your claim of disbelief is false. As that claim is false for all atheists who believe as you do.

If you disagree with that, then I guess your default stance is to believe all claims anybody makes?

Belief is the condition of a closed mind, not an open one. Disbelief is the condition of an open mind. But I predict you will continue to try and maintain this nonsensical gibberish because you do in fact believe that no gods exist because it has not been proven to your satisfaction that any do. And now that closed mind is busy dismissing any and all other possibilities by any means it can muster.

I don't think I have ever seen an atheist give that as a reason for his/her atheism.
Not even those atheists who actually believe that statement as written (and I'm not one of them)

You are only seeing what accords with what you already believe to be true. That's how a closed mind works.

Same. I don't think I've ever seen an atheist make that claim.

Exactly.

I disagree with all of them.

Of course you do. Now that you are a true believer in atheism, it's your purpose to disagree with and dismiss any other view of the truth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is absurd is demanding a kind of evidence that you couldn't even identify or validate if you had it, and then proclaiming that your not getting it is supposed mean something. All it means is that those of you demanding it were fools to begin with, for demanding what you couldn't possibly even recognize if you had if. And then claiming it to be the only valid evidence extant.

Why wouldn't I be able to identify or validate independently verifiable evidence?

The larger problem I see with god claims, is that they tend to be defined in unfalsifiable ways, which implies that can't have any evidence to begin with.
That's not a problem of me or my expectation to have claims supported by evidence.
That's a problem with the claim.

So are Shakespeare plays. Which is completely irrelevant to their value or purpose. Or to the actual existence of any kings, queens, or gods.

Not sure what your point or objection is here. I didn't say that there is no value or purpose in fictional stories and myths. Nor do I claim such.
I have no problem at all seeing value and purpose in fictional stories. The problem arise when we start pretending that they aren't fictional.

It's a foolish thing when you couldn't recognize what you're demanding even if you had it. AND you knew that in advance of demanding it. That wouldn't look good on you at all.

You keep claiming that I wouldn't or couldn't be able to recognize it.
It is not clear at all why you think that is the case.

Not by and pathway of logic, it's not.

So you think the logical way of approaching claims is to believe them all by default until they can be shown to be false?

That of course has nothing to do with anything.

Euh.... it's the only other option, if you say that the default is not to disbelieve claims.
Either you believe a claim or you don't.

We all start with an open mind, or we start with a closed one.

This has nothing to do with open or closed minds and I see this is a common misunderstanding of what openmindedness is all about.
Openmindedness is not gullibility.

Open mindedness is simply that you are open to accept you are wrong about something and are ready to acknowledge that when shown it is the case.
To be open to evidence of the contrary.

When you believe things on bad or no evidence, you are not being "open minded". In that case you are being gullible.

The closed mind will already have determined what it accepts as true, and therefore will be intent only on dismissing any alternatives.

Almost, but not exactly.
The closed minded person will stick to his beliefs and NOT be open to new evidence, NOT be open to the possibility of being incorrect, NOT be open to being shown wrong.

Kind of like a fundamentalist creationist.



I'm skipping the rest since it's just a collection of strawmen that I already corrected dozens of times.

 

[Kathryn]

It's a meaningless non-thing

Then it really shouldn't bother you. I'll keep it and you can just ignore it if you like.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then it really shouldn't bother you. I'll keep it and you can just ignore it if you like.

I do not ignore others unless they are Trolls. I just take bad philosophy to task. You of course may believe what you choose.

 

[Kathryn]

I do not ignore others unless they are Trolls. I just take bad philosophy to task. You of course may believe what you choose.

Thanks ever so, I will do just that.

 

[shunyadragon]

Same as any other humans. We are not a race known for our adherence to rationality and evidence based decision making.
A quick examination of any evidence in the realm of social psych would quickly allow you to conclude how susceptible we are to the noise and perspective lent by our immediate environment.

"Adherence to rationality and evidence based decision making" is a good statement, but you have failed to apply this to your accusation of atheists concerning the evidence.

This post did not answer the question: What objective evidence do atheists are not following????

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Einstein didn’t test his ideas.

ROFL

 

[shunyadragon]

What is absurd is demanding a kind of evidence that you couldn't even identify or validate if you had it, and then proclaiming that your not getting it is supposed mean something. All it means is that those of you demanding it were fools to begin with, for demanding what you couldn't possibly even recognize if you had if. And then claiming it to be the only valid evidence extant.

So are Shakespeare plays. Which is completely irrelevant to their value or purpose. Or to the actual existence of any kings, queens, or gods.

It's a foolish thing when you couldn't recognize what you're demanding even if you had it. AND you knew that in advance of demanding it. That wouldn't look good on you at all.

Not by and pathway of logic, it's not.

That of course has nothing to do with anything. We all start with an open mind, or we start with a closed one. The closed mind will already have determined what it accepts as true, and therefore will be intent only on dismissing any alternatives. While the open mind has not made this truth determination, and so is willing to consider any alternatives it encounters. "Belief" is the mark of a closed mind. "Unbelief" is the mark of an open mind.

The opposite of a mind closed by belief is a mind open to all possibilities. Atheism is a chosen belief. A belief that you yourself identify: that no gods exist unless and until proven otherwise, to you. You stated exactly that above. Your mind is closed even though you pretend it's still open.

Disbelief is an open mind. Your mind is not open as you have already stated, above, so your claim of disbelief is false. As that claim is false for all atheists who believe as you do.

Belief is the condition of a closed mind, not an open one. Disbelief is the condition of an open mind. But I predict you will continue to try and maintain this nonsensical gibberish because you do in fact believe that no gods exist because it has not been proven to your satisfaction that any do. And now that closed mind is busy dismissing any and all other possibilities by any means it can muster.

You are only seeing what accords with what you already believe to be true. That's how a closed mind works.

This is the dominant way the Theist mind works. the dominant belief is to accept one version of their parents and peers beliefs without questioning these beliefs. , ie Christianity, Islam and Judaism, The arguments from their on are subjective circular apologetic arguments assuming God exists and the ancient scripture is historical and relevant today. They classically give up any potential Free Will by accepting the party line without question.

Atheists and many agnostics justifiably question assertions of truth without evidence.

Exactly.

Of course you do. Now that you are a true believer in atheism, it's your purpose to disagree with and dismiss any other view of the truth.

You need to respond to post #236, There are important relevant questions that need your attention such as:

There is no such thing as proof in the discussion of whether Gods exist or not, because neither theists or atheists cannot prove there case.

The question will remain: What is the evidence that atheists do not consider in making their decision?

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

Claims of "truth" are strong statements. What evidence can you offer for an alternate view of "truth."?

 

[Firenze]

Atheism makes a pretty simple claim:

“I don’t believe in any gods. Convince me.”

And after thousands of years of tweaking and refining their apologetics, they have been utterly and quite pathetically unable to do so.
It’s hard for me to be inspired by such a record of abject failure to prove what should be the easiest thing in the world to prove.

I don’t think I’m arrogant by nature. I say some things that are arrogant, and I say some things that are self effacing, even humble.

Angry? With a god? That I don’t think exists? I think that’s the most ignorant claim that can be made about an Atheist. It’s helpful in discourse to assume your god exists, so that any irrationality in its description or attributes can be illuminated. But make no mistake - when you claim your god is the justification for you infiltrating my grandkids schools to replace science books with ID trash - it ain’t your phony god I’m angry with….. It’s you. That said, I think a common error among Christians is in confusing anger with the profound sadness many of us feel in the face of you abrogating your gift of Reason to cling to the vain promise of Eternal Life.

 

[PureX]

Why wouldn't I be able to identify or validate independently verifiable evidence?

If God were hovering in the air right in front of you, right now, in a "blaze of glory" (whatever that would mean) how would you "falsify" the apparent visitation? How could you prove to yourself or to anyone else that it was actually God, and not some clever alien species appearing to you in a way that it thinks you will better understand? Or perhaps it's a very clever magician's trick intended to prank you. Or perhaps your own mind is playing tricks on you.

And already you know that you could not possibly prove that it was God because you already know that no theists could possibly prove their experiences of God, to you. No matter how "supernatural" they are. In fact, that's WHY you demand that they must ... because you already know they cannot. That no one could. Because God is, by definition, beyond our capacity or control or comprehend as finite beings.

It's like infinity. How could any finite human ever prove to themselves or anyone else that infinity actually exists as a state of being and not just as an ideal? We can't. It's impossible. And yet most of us live as if the ideal of 'infinity' is an actual state of being. We use it to model our understanding of existence even though we have no way of knowing that it even exists beyond the ideal, itself. But then, does it even need to?

The larger problem I see with god claims, is that they tend to be defined in unfalsifiable ways, which implies that can't have any evidence to begin with.

That's not a problem with the claims, it's a problem with your way too narrow means of dealing with the claims. And your absurdly biased response when you can't deal with them.

That's not a problem of me or my expectation to have claims supported by evidence.
That's a problem with the claim.

No, that's your problem. The claim that God exists still stands. It's you that cannot deal with it satisfactorly because your philosophical materialism can't accept the metaphysical realm.

Not sure what your point or objection is here. I didn't say that there is no value or purpose in fictional stories and myths. Nor do I claim such.
I have no problem at all seeing value and purpose in fictional stories. The problem arise when we start pretending that they aren't fictional.

Then stop pretending they aren't fiction. Stop pretending that the representations humans create for God are the reality of God. Stop imagining that you have proven God doesn't exist by proving the representations are only representations. I don't think you can stop. Neither can your many atheist cohorts, here. It's a straw man you guys just can't ever stop beating on. "Science says there was no flood!" "History says there were no Jews enslaved in Egypt!" "Your stories are make-believe and therefor so is your God!"

It's an idiotic conclusion that you all just cannot resist drawing at every possible opportunity. .

You keep claiming that I wouldn't or couldn't be able to recognize it.
It is not clear at all why you think that is the case.

Because you are human, and are therefor limited is ways that render you incapable of such knowledge or verification.

So you think the logical way of approaching claims is to believe them all by default until they can be shown to be false?

No, the logical way is not to believe anything. And therefor to stay open-minded about whatever claims we encounter. The problem is that as a "true believer" yourself, you can't comprehend what it means to NOT believe, and to therefor remain open-minded. That state of mind doesn't compute for you.

Euh.... it's the only other option, if you say that the default is not to disbelieve claims.
Either you believe a claim or you don't.

Not believing is not the same as "disbelieving". But most atheist can't see that because they are all now SO invested in the lie of their own biased belief as "unbelief".

This has nothing to do with open or closed minds and I see this is a common misunderstanding of what openmindedness is all about.
Openmindedness is not gullibility.

See, here's where the lying is going to start. Open-mindedness just stays open-mindedness. There can be no "gullibility" until the mind starts to believe something that could be wrong (which is basically anything). But you already believe that theism is wrong. So to you, to even entertain the theist proposition looks like "gullibility".

Open mindedness is simply that you are open to accept you are wrong about something and are ready to acknowledge that when shown it is the case.
To be open to evidence of the contrary.

Open-mindedness is just open-mindedness. It does not already presume one thing is right so that it has to then be convinced that it's wrong. What you're describing is a bias. A "belief": ... that you are already right. And, therefor, any contrary position must already be wrong. That's not "unbelief", and it's not open-mindedness. That's belief turned bias, as all beliefs will do.

When you believe things on bad or no evidence, you are not being "open minded". In that case you are being gullible.

When we "believe things" (that we have ascertained the truth) we have stopped being open-minded, and have adopted the bias of our own righteousness. That's when we become vulnerable to gullibility.

Almost, but not exactly.
The closed minded person will stick to his beliefs and NOT be open to new evidence, NOT be open to the possibility of being incorrect, NOT be open to being shown wrong.

The mind that already thinks it has the truth is not open to any alternatives. And the evience is everywhere. Look how hard you're fighting to dismiss and discredit my alternative view of what you now believe is atheism. You aren't looking to be convinced, you're doing everything you can NOT to be.