RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
I don’t assume your disbelief is due to prejudice. The limitations of your knowledge and perceptions don’t constitute prejudice per se.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I don’t assume your disbelief is due to prejudice. The limitations of your knowledge and perceptions don’t constitute prejudice per se.
And in my case, correct as well.I don't think I'm arrogant, immoral or angry.
I prefer cocksure, edgy and vigorously expressive.
If we ask an atheist why they are atheist, most of them (here) will immediately respond with a list of grievances against religion. So it's not that surprising that some might conclude that atheists are angry, resentful, and prejudiced against religion (as they perceive it). **mod edit** And that bias is nearly always invisible to itself, the whole picture tends to support that contention.
Will they really? I certainly don't, I talk about lack of evidence for gods.If we ask an atheist why they are atheist, most of them (here) will immediately respond with a list of grievances against religion. So it's not that surprising that some might conclude that atheists are angry, resentful, and prejudiced against religion (as they perceive it). **mod edit** And that bias is nearly always invisible to itself, the whole picture tends to support that contention.
Can you give me some examples of this evidence that atheists dismiss?Most atheists dismiss any evidence or reasoning that contradicts their biased beliefs and then try to claim they don't believe anything and that they aren't biased
There really isn't any way to take that as anything but a willful and deceitful bias. And if we call them on it they just get angry about it. So ... if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck ...
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.
Most atheists dismiss any evidence or reasoning that contradicts their biased beliefs and then try to claim they don't believe anything and that they aren't biased
There really isn't any way to take that as anything but a willful and deceitful bias. And if we call them on it they just get angry about it. So ... if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck ...
Oh no, that applies to almost every religion. Christians think that they were chosen by God, Muslims think that they were chosen by Allah, Jews believe that they are the chosen people. All theists believe that they alone are right and that is where their own arrogance arises from quite often.And the antisemitic tropes continue to flow.
The only God that I ever get angry at is Chthulu Chuthulu Cthuhlu Chthulhu god dang it! Google!!! Cthulhu. And you can see why.Being angry at God is the funniest one.
Why pick a particular god to be angry at?
There are so many others. If I were to be
angry at their god (the one named God),
I'd be angry at them all. But since they
don't exist, I've no feelings for them at all.
I'd never heard of #4.
Not so. Firstly we will likely explain as to not accepting the so-called evidence (but with with very little provenance as to origins or as to truthfulness) that so many of the religious seem to accept themselves (pick your own beliefs here) - as to some particular religious text being 'the exact/sole truth' perhaps - and that we tend to believe the products of our own intelligence (but mainly as to the best of such) - especially when this is supported by an enormous amount of evidence, and which has been the most productive avenue over the last few centuries and likely as not continuing into the future - if we live that long.If we ask an atheist why they are atheist, most of them (here) will immediately respond with a list of grievances against religion. So it's not that surprising that some might conclude that atheists are angry, resentful, and prejudiced against religion (as they perceive it). **mod edit** And that bias is nearly always invisible to itself, the whole picture tends to support that contention.
Well, their constantly claiming that there is no evidence would be a pretty strong example. And when you offer them any, they will immediately declare it not to be valid, as if their personal validation is required for evidence to be evidence.Can you give me some examples of this evidence that atheists dismiss?
What limitations in his knowledge?
And your biased demand for "falsification" is also showing.Please provide your claimed (falsifiable) evidence
Your hatred is showing
Well, their constantly claiming that there is no evidence would be a pretty strong example. And when you offer them any, they will immediately declare it not to be valid, as if their personal validation is required for evidence to be evidence.
And your biased demand for "falsification" is also showing.