Are atheists arrogant? immoral? angry?

[shunyadragon]

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.

I would most definitely stop eating the mushrooms I found. Visitation visions are common today and in the past and they cannot be falsified. by scientific methods. They show up and 'poof' vanish. Well given the modern technology AI and magic this can be easily created as an illusion,
and .

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.

Yes Theists cannot objectively justify their belief in ancient mythology, miracles and texts without provenance.

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?

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.

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.

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!"

I would not ask atheists to stop, because their argument is well grounded on scientific and historical evidence.

Yes, science can say there was never such Noah flood by the objective verifiable evidence.

 

[Firenze]

You seem to be saying that your All Powerful god lacks the ability to make itself known to everyone - that it is not competent to overcome anything a ‘not all powerful’ alien might try - that it can’t figure out how to present the supernatural or metaphysical in a way we pathetic humans would understand.
That seems a way of admitting that it isn’t all powerful after all.

 

[RestlessSoul]

ROFL

General Relativity, like other mathematical models used to develop the standard model of cosmology, was tested and confirmed (for now) by subsequent observation, is my point. Please read a post in full, and try to understand it, before proferring one word responses.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You seem to be saying that your All Powerful god lacks the ability to make itself known to everyone - that it is not competent to overcome anything a ‘not all powerful’ alien might try - that it can’t figure out how to present the supernatural or metaphysical in a way we pathetic humans would understand.
That seems a way of admitting that it isn’t all powerful after all.

Perhaps it’s not God that is lacking or is lost, but us.

 

[joelr]

Christians often make certain generalizations about atheists:

Apologetics seems to teach false narratives that are subtly geared more toward pushing the believer into reinforcing their beliefs rather than deal honestly with atheism.

1. That they are arrogant and dogmatic

Doesn't really relate to atheism but more to the strawman version they want to argue against.
Atheists have no moral code and are all outlaws.

2. That they prefer to be non-religious because they are selfish and religion is an inconvenience

Exactly, they are creating a character to argue against that has nothing to do with atheism.
There are also religious people who are selfish and use the movement for personal gain and manipulation. Has nothing to do with the actual position. Again they paint the atheist as some evil character because decent normal people don't disbelieve in this specific religion.

3. That they are angry with God

One of the most famous and most wrong. Most atheists are as angry at Yahweh as they are at Zeus.
I wonder if they argue this to draw attention away from the fact that atheists just don't see good evidence for any religion? They want believers to think "of course everyone believes in God, some are just angry!"??

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.

Most religions have this personal relationship thing so we know it's psychological rather than specific to a deity. I don't think not having a father hurts the ability to create an imaginary relationship with a fictional being in your mind.

But again, never mention evidence, always make it about a character flaw they have, so only flawed immoral, angry people don't believe, for bad reasons. It's part of the manipulation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

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.

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.

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. .

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

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.

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".

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 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 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.

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.

For crying out loud.............

The strawmanning continues. Ironic also how you try to lecture me on closedmindedness while being such a great example of it.

Instead of diving into this very tiring collection of absurd strawmen, I'll just give you a couple of points that will address all the nonsense in this steaming pile of dung:

1. Unfalsifiable claims are infinite in number. There is no rational reason to believe unfalsifiable claim X over unfalsifiable claim Y, because there literally is no rational means to distinguish one from the other in terms of truth value.

2. gullibility concerns your standard of evidence to accept claims. A gullible person has a very low standard and is very easily convinced of whatever. Credulity

3. openmindedness has NOTHING to do with your beliefs and EVERYTHING with your willingness to acknowledge that you might be wrong about what you believe and how willing you are to consider alternative ideas. Ironically, your entire post here shows how closed minded you are. You keep pretending you know better then me what my beliefs and positions are about various things, eventhough I have corrected you a bazillion times already. But you stick to your strawmen, no matter what I say. You exhibited the exact same behaviour in that other thread, where you accused me of running my company like a dictator who gets a kick out of underpaying and exploiting my employees for no reason at all, based on nothing. I corrected you there also and still you stick to your guns. In fact, instead of apologizing for your mischaracterization, you in fact called me a liar and even compared me to a nazi-murderer commander of a concentration camp.

4. I am very open minded. You can easily convince me of whatever. All it takes is rational evidence. But for rational evidence to exist, you first require a falsifiable model / claim. Rational evidence is my standard to accept things. See, I do have such a standard. Not having such a standard would make me gullible and I actively try not to be gullible. Being gullible is a good way to end up with false beliefs.


To quote prof Dawkins' joke: I am very open minded. My mind is just not SO open that my brains are falling out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

General Relativity, like other mathematical models used to develop the standard model of cosmology, was tested and confirmed (for now) by subsequent observation, is my point. Please read a post in full, and try to understand it, before proferring one word responses.

It was also tested against all data and observation that was already available.........................................................................................

 

[RestlessSoul]

It was also tested against all data and observation that was already available.........................................................................................

Extrapolated from, rather than tested against. Much of theoretical physics is non-empirical. It’s empirical validation, and this has certainly been the case with general relativity, comes from confirmation of the predictions which can be drawn from it.

Einstein’s theories have been sustained - I’d hesitate to use the word ‘confirmed’ - by over a century of observation since their publication. Same with quantum mechanics. And it is worth bearing in mind in this context that Einstein’s problem (often misrepresented) with the Copenhagenist interpretation of QM was in large part due to the fact Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli etc were anti-realists. To be a scientific anti-realist is absolutely not to be anti-science, but that’s another story.

 

[PureX]

For crying out loud.............

The strawmanning continues. Ironic also how you try to lecture me on closedmindedness while being such a great example of it.

I'm not the one claiming that God doesn't exist unless someone can prove to me that it does, and by all my own rules. Do you really think that's being open minded? Or have you and others here just been telling each other that nonsense for so long that you no longer even question it?

Instead of diving into this very tiring collection of absurd strawmen, I'll just give you a couple of points that will address all the nonsense in this steaming pile of dung:

1. Unfalsifiable claims are infinite in number. There is no rational reason to believe unfalsifiable claim X over unfalsifiable claim Y, because there literally is no rational means to distinguish one from the other in terms of truth value.

As I have stated many times, now, belief is the bias of a closed mind. There is no reason we need to believe anything. Nor should we if we want to maintain an open mind. An open mind does not mean that we "believe in anything". Just the opposite. It means that we don't. But you refuse to grasp this because it blows up your whole premise that atheism is the only logical default from theism.

2. gullibility concerns your standard of evidence to accept claims. A gullible person has a very low standard and is very easily convinced of whatever. Credulity

I have no interest nor respect for your Kangaroo Court pronouncements about evidence or falsification. You demand what you know you can't have and then try to claim that your not getting it lakes your atheism automatically right. It's all just ego-driven gibberish and double-speak.

3. openmindedness has NOTHING to do with your beliefs and EVERYTHING with your willingness to acknowledge that you might be wrong about what you believe and how willing you are to consider alternative ideas. Ironically, your entire post here shows how closed minded you are. You keep pretending you know better then me what my beliefs and positions are about various things, eventhough I have corrected you a bazillion times already. But you stick to your strawmen, no matter what I say. You exhibited the exact same behaviour in that other thread, where you accused me of running my company like a dictator who gets a kick out of underpaying and exploiting my employees for no reason at all, based on nothing. I corrected you there also and still you stick to your guns. In fact, instead of apologizing for your mischaracterization, you in fact called me a liar and even compared me to a nazi-murderer commander of a concentration camp.

An open mind does not have to remind itself that it may be wrong because it Hans' presumed itself right in the first place. But you are not going to be able to accept this because it would force you to recognize that you are not open-minded, and that you are in fact a true true believer in your atheism. To the point that you are fighting with me or anyone else that dares to contradict what you already fully believe.

4. I am very open minded. You can easily convince me of whatever. All it takes is rational evidence. But for rational evidence to exist, you first require a falsifiable model / claim. Rational evidence is my standard to accept things. See, I do have such a standard. Not having such a standard would make me gullible and I actively try not to be gullible. Being gullible is a good way to end up with false beliefs.

Again with the Kangarro Court.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Extrapolated from, rather than tested against.

No. For example, Newtonian physics accurately predicted motion of planetary orbits. Einstein's equations would have to do an equally good job.
That is a test of the equations.

Much of theoretical physics is non-empirical. It’s empirical validation, and this has certainly been the case with general relativity, comes from confirmation of the predictions which can be drawn from it.

Yes. And that can be done retro-actively as well.
All the empirical tests that were already available for newtonian physics, could be repeated for relativity equations.
And these results should be at least equally accurate.

Einstein’s theories have been sustained - I’d hesitate to use the word ‘confirmed’ - by over a century of observation since their publication.

Sure. And they were also tested against all observations that already were available at the time also.
You keep ignoring this.

Furthermore, there were issues with newtonian physics that were solved by einstein's equations.
There was a need for an "update" to these physics, which is why Einstein set out to try and provide that upgrade.
That in itself is also a test for it. Does it do a better job? The answer was "yes, yes it does..."

Next to that, the theory made additional predictions, which were tested later on.

But to say that the model was entirely untested at the time of publication, is simply delusional.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not the one claiming that God doesn't exist

Neither am I, eventhough you insist on pretending otherwise. It's almost as if you are so closedminded that you refuse to let go of that strawman. Almost.

unless someone can prove to me that it does, and by all my own rules.

I don't have "my own rules".
My methodology of evaluating claims on their accuracy, is not "my personal opinion" or "my personal standard".
It is instead simple rational reasoning and logic.

An unfalsifiable claim, by definition, can't be evaluated in terms of its accuracy. So there is nothing there to evaluate.
Again: not my problem. It's a problem with the claim.

Do you really think that's being open minded? Or have you and others here just been telling each other that nonsense for so long that you no longer even question it?

I don't have to defend claims I'm not making.
Something I've been telling YOU here for quite some time is that you insist on arguing strawman. It keeps falling on deaf ears it seems.

As I have stated many times, now, belief is the bias of a closed mind.

As I have explained to you many times now: no.
Closedmindedness is when you are not open to re-evaluate your beliefs in light of new evidence.
Holding beliefs is not being closedminded (or openminded, for that matter).

Open/closed minded is entirely and exclusively related to how open / closed you are to re-evaluating your beliefs when presented with new facts / evidence that justifies doing so.

I'm so sorry that you are so obtuse, or ironically: closedminded, that you are not willing to comprehend this simple fact.

The keywords in the definition are "NOT WILLING".
Not "having a belief".

There is no reason we need to believe anything.

Evidence is a pretty good reason.

Nor should we if we want to maintain an open mind. An open mind does not mean that we "believe in anything". Just the opposite. It means that we don't.

See above. It means neither of those things.
It only means we are willing to re-evaluate our beliefs in light of new ideas / evidence / what-have-you.

But you refuse to grasp this because it blows up your whole premise that atheism is the only logical default from theism.

Open a dictionary and look the words up.
It really is ironic how you try to lecture me on being open/closed minded, while at the same time being a textbook example of closedmindedness by insisting on being wrong and arguing strawmen.

I have no interest nor respect for your Kangaroo Court pronouncements about evidence or falsification.

lol

You demand what you know you can't have

I do nothing of the sort.
That I can't have evidence for unfalsifiable claims is the logical consequence of the unfalsifiability part of the claims.
That's not my problem.

I ignore unfalsifiable claims because they are pointless and infinite in number.
I have no reason at all to believe such claims.

A good reason to believe a claim is when it can be supported with evidence. For that to be possible, the claim must be falsifiable. That's just how that works.
So, I will reject unfalsifiable claims by default, on the grounds of them being unfalsifiable. Seems like pretty rational thing to do.


This in turn makes atheism a default position if the claims that define theism are unfalsifiable claims.

See how simple that is?

You may resume your strawman argument now while ignoring everything I just said, like the closedminded person you have time and again shown to be.

and then try to claim that your not getting it lakes your atheism automatically right.

Atheism isn't something to be "right" about. Another mistake of yours. This flows from your age old strawman of the atheist position.

Oh well....

It's all just ego-driven gibberish and double-speak.

Projection?

An open mind does not have to remind itself that it may be wrong because it Hans' presumed itself right in the first place. But you are not going to be able to accept this because it would force you to recognize that you are not open-minded, and that you are in fact a true true believer in your atheism.

Another strawman. Atheism isn't a thing that requires belief. Or even can have belief.
It is a label that points to the position of non-belief of theistic claims. That is all.

Once again, you may now ignore what I said and resume your strawman.




This is to tiring...........

 

[Firenze]

Neither am I, eventhough you insist on pretending otherwise. It's almost as if you are so closedminded that you refuse to let go of that strawman. Almost.



I don't have "my own rules".
My methodology of evaluating claims on their accuracy, is not "my personal opinion" or "my personal standard".
It is instead simple rational reasoning and logic.

An unfalsifiable claim, by definition, can't be evaluated in terms of its accuracy. So there is nothing there to evaluate.
Again: not my problem. It's a problem with the claim.



I don't have to defend claims I'm not making.
Something I've been telling YOU here for quite some time is that you insist on arguing strawman. It keeps falling on deaf ears it seems.



As I have explained to you many times now: no.
Closedmindedness is when you are not open to re-evaluate your beliefs in light of new evidence.
Holding beliefs is not being closedminded (or openminded, for that matter).

Open/closed minded is entirely and exclusively related to how open / closed you are to re-evaluating your beliefs when presented with new facts / evidence that justifies doing so.

I'm so sorry that you are so obtuse, or ironically: closedminded, that you are not willing to comprehend this simple fact.

View attachment 89109

The keywords in the definition are "NOT WILLING".
Not "having a belief".



Evidence is a pretty good reason.




See above. It means neither of those things.
It only means we are willing to re-evaluate our beliefs in light of new ideas / evidence / what-have-you.



Open a dictionary and look the words up.
It really is ironic how you try to lecture me on being open/closed minded, while at the same time being a textbook example of closedmindedness by insisting on being wrong and arguing strawmen.



lol



I do nothing of the sort.
That I can't have evidence for unfalsifiable claims is the logical consequence of the unfalsifiability part of the claims.
That's not my problem.

I ignore unfalsifiable claims because they are pointless and infinite in number.
I have no reason at all to believe such claims.

A good reason to believe a claim is when it can be supported with evidence. For that to be possible, the claim must be falsifiable. That's just how that works.
So, I will reject unfalsifiable claims by default, on the grounds of them being unfalsifiable. Seems like pretty rational thing to do.


This in turn makes atheism a default position if the claims that define theism are unfalsifiable claims.

See how simple that is?

You may resume your strawman argument now while ignoring everything I just said, like the closedminded person you have time and again shown to be.



Atheism isn't something to be "right" about. Another mistake of yours. This flows from your age old strawman of the atheist position.

Oh well....



Projection?



Another strawman. Atheism isn't a thing that requires belief. Or even can have belief.
It is a label that points to the position of non-belief of theistic claims. That is all.

Once again, you may now ignore what I said and resume your strawman.




This is to tiring...........

Sounds like we could use another thread -
“Are theists angry?”

 

[PureX]

I don't have "my own rules".
My methodology of evaluating claims on their accuracy, is not "my personal opinion" or "my personal standard".
It is instead simple rational reasoning and logic.

You have not only determined your own rules, you believe in them so strongly that you think they are the definition of logic and rational reasoning for everyone always and forever.

An unfalsifiable claim, by definition, can't be evaluated in terms of its accuracy.

Of course it can. Any claim can be evaluated for it's accuracy. But accurate according to what? Is it functionally accurate? Is it quantitative value accurate? Is it sequentially accurate? There are all kinds of ways something can be deemed accurate or inaccurate. And there are all kinds of methods we can use to do so.

You think your method of evaluation is the only possible reasonable, logical method, but it's not.

So there is nothing there to evaluate.
Again: not my problem. It's a problem with the claim.

A claim is just a claim.

I don't have to defend claims I'm not making.

No one has to defend anything. Your kangaroo court has no authority over anyone. It's an intellectual conceit of your own making.

Something I've been telling YOU here for quite some time is that you insist on arguing strawman. It keeps falling on deaf ears it seems.

Of course it does. You 'true believers' can't hear anything that doesn't align with your chosen truth. It's like trying to discuss evolution with Biblical inerrantists. Their belief has become their truth, and anything else is automatically presumed false.

As I have explained to you many times now: no.
Closedmindedness is when you are not open to re-evaluate your beliefs in light of new evidence.
Holding beliefs is not being closedminded (or openminded, for that matter).

There is not one word in any of your responses here that even hint at the slightest degree of open-mindedness. You believe that no gods exist unless and until their existence can be proven to you, personally, and by your own chosen evaluative criteria, that they do. Because you believe that rejecting theism is the universal automatic default position

Open/closed minded is entirely and exclusively related to how open / closed you are to re-evaluating your beliefs when presented with new facts / evidence that justifies doing so.

I'm so sorry that you are so obtuse, or ironically: closedminded, that you are not willing to comprehend this simple fact.

View attachment 89109

The keywords in the definition are "NOT WILLING".
Not "having a belief".

The reason people are close-minded toward other people's view of truth is because they already believe in the righteousness of their own view of truth. Look at that definition again, ... "not willing to consider ideas and opinions that are new or different to your own" ... and then go back as see how you have been responding to my alternative view of atheism.

Evidence is a pretty good reason.

Evidence is a relative and therefor subjective determination.

See above. It means neither of those things.
It only means we are willing to re-evaluate our beliefs in light of new ideas / evidence / what-have-you.

That can't happen when you reject any and all new or different "evidence" proposed to you while you pretend that you're being open-minded, but in fact you set up a kangaroo court where you get to decide what is and isn't evidence according to the biased conclusions you've already determined in advance to be "the truth". You said it yourself. Disbelief is your default position. And it's everyone else's job, you presume, to somehow overcome that biased "default" while you presume to control every aspect of the debate.

There is nothing open-minded about any of that.

I do nothing of the sort.
I ignore unfalsifiable claims because they are pointless and infinite in number.
I have no reason at all to believe such claims.

A good reason to believe a claim is when it can be supported with evidence. For that to be possible, the claim must be falsifiable. That's just how that works.
So, I will reject unfalsifiable claims by default, on the grounds of them being unfalsifiable. Seems like pretty rational thing to do.

This in turn makes atheism a default position if the claims that define theism are unfalsifiable claims.

See how simple that is?

See how absurdly biased that is?

Atheism isn't something to be "right" about.

Then why are you fighting SO HARD to be right about it?

Atheism isn't a thing that requires belief. Or even can have belief.

Yet you truly believe it is the automatic default position to the unprovable claim of theism.

It is a label that points to the position of non-belief of theistic claims. That is all.

Except that you very clearly DO believe that no gods exist until they're proven to exist to your satisfaction. That's not "non-belief". And it's certainly not open-minded.

This is to tiring...........

Yep, just like those threads with the creationist. Because they're "true believer", too. No other version of truth can be considered, nor allowed to stand unmolested.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have not only determined your own rules, you believe in them so strongly that you think they are the definition of logic and rational reasoning for everyone always and forever.

What is so illigocal and unreasonable about using evidence to determine how justified it is to believe something?

Of course it can. Any claim can be evaluated for it's accuracy.

Falsifiable claims can.
Unfalsifiable claims can't.
If you disagree, I invite you to explain how you can evaluate the accuracy of an unfalsifiable claim.
Explain the methodology.

But accurate according to what?

Reality.

Is it functionally accurate? Is it quantitative value accurate? Is it sequentially accurate? There are all kinds of ways something can be deemed accurate or inaccurate. And there are all kinds of methods we can use to do so.

We are talking about claims of reality. This is not about value or functionality.
It's about reality. Claims that certain things exist in reality.

"bears exist". Yes, they demonstrably do.
"gods exist". Well, do they? How do you propose to find out?

You think your method of evaluation is the only possible reasonable, logical method, but it's not.

Give me another methodology then.

Of course it does.

Well, thank you for acknowledging that you don't care that you are arguing strawmen, I guess.......

There is not one word in any of your responses here that even hint at the slightest degree of open-mindedness.

You think that because you keep confusing open-mindedness with plain gullibility.
Just because I will not be convinced of unfalsifiable claims that can't be distinguished from sheer fantasy, for the reason that I can't distinguish them from sheer fantasy, doesn't mean I'm not open minded. It means I'm not gullible. It means I'm rational and care about being rationally justified in my beliefs.

I'm so sorry you are, ironically, so closedminded that you refuse to accept that.

Oh well.

You believe that no gods exist

No, I don't. And I'm getting really tired of having to repeat it.
In fact, I'm done here. You are literally replying to a post where MY VERY FIRST SENTENCE tells you exactly that, which you conveniently ommitted from the quote.

You are not an honest conversation partner.

You do nothing but project your own issues, accuse others of your own shortcomings and just plain lie about the position(s) of those who don't agree with you.

The thread is asking if atheists are arrogant, immoral or angry.
In these few post exchanges, you have ironically shown to be all 3.


You may now declare your victory like a true pigeon chess champion and lie once again about my beliefs and non-beliefs.

Bye and thanks for playing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"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????

I can only presume you are thinking I'm suggesting atheism is a failure to follow objective evidence. That's not what I mean.

Atheists are a diverse group of people, who have something in common.
If I said 'brown eyed people often fail to adhere to rationality and evidence based decision making' you'd probably not find it controversial. People are people, and being an atheist is demonstrative of only one choice, and says nothing about the context in which that choice was made anyway.

I'm an atheist. Easiest thing in the world for me to do is convince myself that I'm some paragon of rationality and objectivity. Do I try to be rational? Sure. Do I try to follow evidence? Sure.

But (somewhat ironically) a commitment to rationality would lead me to understand that humans...atheist or not, brown eyed or blue...are not that rational.

I'm unsure what about that is controversial. Either there is a belief atheists are a special group (which we are not) or you are talking purely about the decision regarding God, in which case I could see your point, but would see it as overstated and anecdotal.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sounds like we could use another thread -
“Are theists angry?”

Actually, this thread does very well showing the anger and arrogance of many Theists toward atheists, @PureX tops the list in this thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

General Relativity, like other mathematical models used to develop the standard model of cosmology, was tested and confirmed (for now) by subsequent observation, is my point. Please read a post in full, and try to understand it, before profering one word responses.

The history of your posts do have problems concerning your misuse of "faith" in reference to Popper's proposals, Methodological Naturalism and science.. Reading your posts in full do not always work.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually, this thread does very well showing the anger and arrogance of many Theists toward atheists

Actually over the history of RF threads like this are not uncommon that reveal the arrogance and anger of some theists toward atheists like the following: Atheists and their jargon of insults

@PureX tops the list in this thread.

La

 

[PureX]

Actually over the history of RF threads like this are not uncommon that reveal the arrogance and anger of some theists toward atheists like the following: Atheists and their jargon of insults

@PureX tops the list in this thread.

La

I may be a bit 'arrogant' from the perspecive of those I critique, but I can assure you that I am not the least bit angry.

 

[shunyadragon]

I may be a bit 'arrogant' from the perspecive of those I critique, but I can assure you that I am not the least bit angry.

Your posts are very aggressive and reflect your anger, and arrogance. By the way I posted some s and questions you have not responded to.

Actually the atheist is simply the rejection of subjective beliefs in God, the miraculous and supernatural claims based on accepted practices and methods requiring objective evidence. You terribly complicate the basis for atheist belief.