Are atheists arrogant? immoral? angry?

[SalixIncendium]

There is no proof of atheism or theism.

I think the fact that there are people who identify as atheists and theists enough proof of atheism and theism.

 

[shunyadragon]

You show a major lack of discernment about my posts.

ALL of them.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think the fact that there are people who identify as atheists and theists enough proof of atheism and theism.

The subjective claims of belief is simple a subjective reality of the diversity of fallible human beliefs, and not a question of proof between atheism and Theism in the obvious subjective nature of all conflicting beliefs, Though the gray areas of variations is problematic. Also subjective beliefs cannot be proven unless one uses circular logic to argue what one believes proves what one believes. The problem of misusing logic to justify the existence of God is endemic to Christianity and Islam in the circular reasoning od apologetic logical arguments.where the assumptions are based of the existence of God and the following arguments reflect old knowledge.

The issue centers around the concept "does God or Gods exist." These options and many more possible beliefs are subjective in their nature and cannot proven. For this reason many atheists today argue that "There is no reason to believe in Gods, because of the lack of objective evidence for Gods," instead of stating their belief that "Gods do not exist." Many also argue that the beliefs are grounded in ancient tribal beliefs of anthropomorphic hands on' Gods, and belief in ancient mythology and miracles.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The question of proof between atheism and Theism in about the obvious presence of these beliefs though the gray areas of variations is problematic. Though subjective beliefs cannot be proven unless one uses circular logic to argue what one believes proves what one believes.

The issue centers around the concept "does God or Gods exist." These options and many more possible beliefs are subjective in their nature and cannot proven. For this reason many atheists today argue that "There is no reason to believe in Gods, because of the lack of objective evidence for Gods," instead of stating their belief that "Gods do not exist." Many also argue that the beliefs are grounded in ancient tribal beliefs of anthropomorphic hands on' Gods, and belief in ancient mythology and miracles.

Yet you say you are not an atheist. So why are you so concerned with justifying atheism? Genuine question btw.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yet you say you are not an atheist. So why are you so concerned with justifying atheism? Genuine question btw.

Well, for me, the issue is that no group deserves to be misrepresented. The core of my religion is to love your neighbor as yourself. So, just as I don't care for it when people misrepresent Jews or Judaism, I try to defend other groups when they are misrepresented. If someone says Catholics worship Mary, I butt in. If someone says Atheists are less moral, I butt in. You get the idea.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yet you say you are not an atheist. So why are you so concerned with justifying atheism? Genuine question btw.

I do not justify atheism as a belief. Fundamentally I have a Universalist Philosophy where I have justifiable skepticism of the certainty of any fallible human subjective belief including my own.

If you followed my posts you would fully realize what my motives are. I feel strongly about the problem of extreme angry, aggressiveness, arrogant, and irrational hatred of many Christians toward atheism, especially Fundamentalist Christians. This obvious from t emotive of the author of this thread and others cited. Actually, to add, many of the accusations represent false representation of the why and nature of atheist beliefs like those posted by @PureX The problem goes further with the common association of science and atheism to reject the sciences of evolution and other science. This extends to my concern in politics and law reflected in the views of Mike Johnson and Marjorie Moore. This also related to Fundamentalist Christian attitudes toward to LGBQ communities, which as with atheists they associate with immorality and often atheism. The lacking of empathy toward those who believe differently is major issue in the ancient tribal religions, Scriptures such as the Bible and the Quran are minefields that reflect these problems in todays society and cultures.

From my perspective I have more empathy for atheists and agnostics than the ancient tribal religions that create many conflicts and violence. Atheists and agnostics are more likely to accept the sciences of evolution, global warming, pandemic viruses and vaccines and contemporary social sciences,

This also is reflected in the attitudes of believers toward those who believe differently around the world in the ancient Abrahamic religions such as Islam. These scriptures lack the spiritual guidance for dealing with the diversity of beliefs and the science of the contemporary world.

The problems run very deep around the world in the relationships and beliefs of ancient tribal religions.

 

[ppp]

Well, for me, the issue is that no group deserves to be misrepresented. The core of my religion is to love your neighbor as yourself. So, just as I don't care for it when people misrepresent Jews or Judaism, I try to defend other groups when they are misrepresented. If someone says Catholics worship Mary, I butt in. If someone says Atheists are less moral, I butt in. You get the idea.

I cannot think how many times I have corrected a Christian on a strawman of Judaism, and got the same type of response as the one you just replied to. WTH?!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is you continue to misrepresent belief so you can hide behind this silly claim of "unbelief" while you attack other people for theirs. Yet when I listed all the foolish justifications that most of the atheists here these days believe in

You mean those claimed beliefs that atheists keep telling you that that does not accurately represent their views?

you and the others all jump to defend them

You are confusing tell you that you are arguing a strawman, with "defending" the claims claimed by that strawman.
I don't need to defend claims I'm not making. And when you falsely claim I do make them, I can only correct you.

Because you believe in every one of them.

See?

And you say so all the time.

And yet you can't quote me where I supposedly do that.

So you're trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time, and claiming you're an open minded "unbeliever" when you're a closed minded true believer in the righteousness of 'scientific' atheism. Then you pretend to be all victimized when someone calls you out on it. Every time you demand someone else must convince you of the validity of their beliefs in the kangaroo court of your own mind you reveal yourself not to be open minded. Every time you presume that no gods exist unless someone can convince you otherwise you are stating your own atheist belief. Every time you claim that unfalsifiable or subjective evidence isn't evidence you are stating your belief in your own biased idea of evidence. And the fact that you can't even consider any alternative possibilities just shows how closed your mind has become as a result of all this belief.

And the strawmanning continues.

And then you try to claim that your atheism is just "unbelief".

It is.

When it's a whole collection of biased, unfounded, illogical and baseless beliefs.

It isn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Most of the atheists here are constantly claiming they have no god beliefs.

Correct. "no beliefs".

In fact, they claim that is the very definition of atheism.

Pretty much, yeah.

And yet they all seem to believe that no gods exist unless and until they are proven to exist by the theists

No.

, and in the exact manner that the atheists demand

If by that you mean "supported by independently verifiable evidence", then yes.

And they all seem to agree that this has not happened.

Indeed. I'm not aware of any supernatural claim being supported by independently verifiable evidence.

So as a result, they all do in fact believe that no gods exist.

No.

So it does appear that they are lying when they claim they have no god belief

No.

, as they clearly believe and argue constantly against any suggestion of the existence of any gods.

Not being convinced that a god exists, does not mean that one is convinced that no god exists.

The sooner you understand this simple concept, the faster we can move on from your go-to strawman.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Actually, what you are describing is literally nothing. Atheism is not nothing, or we would not have, nor would we ever need, a word for it. This kind of empty labeling is clearly just nonsensical gibberish. So you really need to ask yourself why you and other self-proclaimed atheists are SO ADAMANTLY beholding to this nonsensical gibberish? Why don't you simply say you're undecided? Or say that you're not a theist. But no. You refuse to use any of these far more sensible and readily understandable means of describing the position that you're claiming for yourself. And instead, you INSIST on using a deliberately empty and meaningless label like "unbelief" when clearly every one of you believes a whole range of precepts related to the possible existence of any gods. It's deliberately dishonest and misleading, and you owe it to yourself and to everyone else to figure out why you are choosing to be deliberately dishonest and misleading.

Atheism is not a person. Atheism is neither "hard" nor "soft". Atheism is a theological position that a person either agrees with or does not agree with. And that position is that the theists proposition is untrue. That no gods exist in any way that effects our existence. Atheism is not defined by atheists. Atheists are defined by their alignment with atheism.

It's really that simple.

I like your certainty in determining how I should label myself. It saves me having to think.

 

[PureX]

Not being convinced that a god exists, does not mean that one is convinced that no god exists.

What you're not convinced of is of absolutely no relevance or concern to anyone but you, and sheds no light whatever on the question being debated (the existence of God/god's). Yet you seem to imagine that this is the single defining factor for the whole philosophical concept of atheism.

No one cares about this personal kangaroo court that you are constantly trying to impose on the debate. Sorry. But it's no one's responsibility to convince you of anything.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You are confusing tell you that you are arguing a strawman, with "defending" the claims claimed by that strawman.
I don't need to defend claims I'm not making. And when you falsely claim I do make them, I can only correct you.

You nailed it.

 

[PureX]

I like your certainty in determining how I should label myself. It saves me having to think.

You should label yourself as being in agreement with atheism, or with theism, or undecided. That would be the clear and honest thing to do. But it seems that these days most atheists just cannot do this. They have to obsfiscate and peddle jibberish about unbelief and pretend they aren't really atheists even though they very clearly are.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You should label yourself as being in agreement with atheism, or with theism, or undecided. That would be the clear and honest thing to do.

Determining my labels and my honesty?
Oooooookay then.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually, what you are describing is literally nothing. Atheism is not nothing, or we would not have, nor would we ever need, a word for it.

Correct. It is indeed ridiculous to have a word for it.
It's like having a word for people who don't play soccer.

This kind of empty labeling is clearly just nonsensical gibberish. So you really need to ask yourself why you and other self-proclaimed atheists are SO ADAMANTLY beholding to this nonsensical gibberish? Why don't you simply say you're undecided? Or say that you're not a theist. But no. You refuse to use any of these far more sensible and readily understandable means of describing the position that you're claiming for yourself.

Well, there is a word for it that captures the same meaning: atheist.

Your argument seems to be with Mr English. Most people have no problem understanding what is meant by the word.
However, your emotional problems with the word doesn't change what it means.

And instead, you INSIST on using a deliberately empty and meaningless label like "unbelief" when clearly every one of you believes a whole range of precepts related to the possible existence of any gods.

And none of those beliefs, insofar as they exist, are inherent to atheism. Atheism merely refers to the non-acceptance of theistic claims.
I'm sorry you have so much problems accepting that, it seems.

It's deliberately dishonest and misleading,

No, what's deliberately dishonest and misleading, is to insist on your own personal understanding of the word simply because you don't like it.

and you owe it to yourself and to everyone else to figure out why you are choosing to be deliberately dishonest and misleading.

Tell it to yourself.

Atheism is not a person.

Atheism isn't. Atheist is.

Atheism is neither "hard" nor "soft".

Except that it is. It's quite clearly defined what the difference is between both.
Again, your argument seems to be about semantics instead of the actual position.

Atheism is a theological position

Yes. That of unbelief of theological claims.

that a person either agrees with or does not agree with.

The claims are the claims of theism.
Those who agree with the claims are called theists.
Those who do not agree with the claims are called atheists.

It's not hard.

And that position is that the theists proposition is untrue.

No.

Explained a bazillion times: not being convinced X is true is not the same as being convinced that "not x" is true or that x is false.
It could, but it doesn't have to. You can't know it merely by knowing one is not conviced that X is true.

I'm sorry you can't seem to comprehend the difference.

 

[McBell]

Actually, what you are describing is literally nothing. Atheism is not nothing, or we would not have, nor would we ever need, a word for it. This kind of empty labeling is clearly just nonsensical gibberish. So you really need to ask yourself why you and other self-proclaimed atheists are SO ADAMANTLY beholding to this nonsensical gibberish? Why don't you simply say you're undecided? Or say that you're not a theist. But no. You refuse to use any of these far more sensible and readily understandable means of describing the position that you're claiming for yourself. And instead, you INSIST on using a deliberately empty and meaningless label like "unbelief" when clearly every one of you believes a whole range of precepts related to the possible existence of any gods. It's deliberately dishonest and misleading, and you owe it to yourself and to everyone else to figure out why you are choosing to be deliberately dishonest and misleading.

All of this baggage you attach to the word atheism is YOUR baggage.
Not mine.
Not any other atheist.
Yours and yours alone.

It's really that simple.

Actually, atheism is merely a lack of belief in deities.
and I agree.
It really is that simple.

ALL other baggage you attach to it is yours.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No one cares about this personal kangaroo court that you are constantly trying to impose on the debate.

You're projecting. It is YOU trying to impose definitions and beliefs on others, and judging them liars when they contradict you.

They have to obsfiscate and peddle jibberish about unbelief and pretend they aren't really atheists even though they very clearly are.

Talk about gibberish! You sound confused. Nobody posting to you calling himself an atheist is also denying being an atheist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What you're not convinced of is of absolutely no relevance or concern to anyone but you,

Then why do you keep trying to tell me what I am convinced off?

and sheds no light whatever on the question being debated (the existence of God/god's).

It sheds light on my position on it. You keep getting wrong what my position is.
And you insist on your mistake, no matter how many times I correct you.

Yet you seem to imagine that this is the single defining factor for the whole philosophical concept of atheism.

The "philosophical concept" of atheism is limited to "not believing the claims of theism".

That's it. The sooner you understand this, the better.

No one cares about this personal kangaroo court that you are constantly trying to impose on the debate.

There is no court. There is only my actual position and your insistence on getting it wrong.

Sorry. But it's no one's responsibility to convince you of anything.

But it is your responsibility to accept what my position is, when I tell you what it is, instead of insisting to tell me otherwise.

 

[PureX]

All of this baggage you attach to the word atheism is YOUR baggage.
Not mine.
Not any other atheist.
Yours and yours alone.


Actually, atheism is merely a lack of belief in deities.
and I agree.
It really is that simple.

ALL other baggage you attach to it is yours.

You keep repeating this but you can't justify it. No one cares what you don't believe. Mostly no one cares what you do believe. All that matters is what and how you rationalize it. And you can't rationalize labeling something as nothing. So all you can do is keep repeating it as if anyone but you would care.

 

[PureX]

You're projecting. It is YOU trying to impose definitions and beliefs on others, and judging them liars when they contradict you.

Talk about gibberish! You sound confused. Nobody posting to you calling himself an atheist is also denying being an atheist.

How dare I actually insist that the label "atheism" mean something! What cad I am!