Are atheists arrogant? immoral? angry?

[ChristineM]

He lacks God Consciousness.

That is not a limitation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Without falsification all you have is personal belief

So many theists want to make evidence a personal matter. You just saw it "your definition of evidence". It is not my definition, it is not your definition, it is the definition of those that understand the concept. Evidence has to deal with the falsifiable, that is why it is so convincing. What many believers appear to want to count as evidence is in actuality confirmation bias. Or worse yet personal events that they refuse to test properly. They do not want to lost that "evidence" by testing it so they refuse to do so. What they can never understand is that because of that refusal they cannot call it evidence. The reason that creationists aways lose their court cases is not because judges are biased. It is clearly not because they are experts in the sciences. It is because a judge has to be an expert in what is and what is not evidence. They are taught that very early in law school and to be a judge one has to hone that ability constantly. In the Dover trial the creationist side was torn a new one not because they obviously lied at times. But because the judge could see that they did not have any evidence and therefore what they were trying to teach was not science.

Am I ranting? Yep, I am. You would think that some theists would try to learn what evidence is. Instead they want to make up their own rules.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

For me it is not the evidence put forth as much as it is the conclusions drawn from that evidence.

 

[PureX]

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.

1. Demanding evidence for some religious fictional charactor or event is just menaingless nonsense. Regardless of who else may believe it to be fact.

2. What you deem to be valid evidence (falsifiable, empiracle, objective, physical) does not define what is or is not evidence.

3. Demanding from others that which you cannot provide for your own default conclusion is just intellectually tawdry.

4. Evidence is not proof. So demanding evidence and then holding it to the totally subjective standard of proof is biased to the point of absurdity.

5. The default conclusion that if god's existence can't be proven to you to your satisfaction then no gods exist is logically unsupportable.

And yet no matter how many times these objections and contradictions are pointed out to the atheists among us, they will immediately and determinedly be ignored. As if they don't exist and we're never spoken of. In fact, the willful ignorance will be so thorough and blinding that almost none of the atheists here will acknowledge that they've EVER seen any of these points mentioned on ANY threads, ever. Even though I constantly repeat them. And so have others.

 

[PureX]

For me it is not the evidence put forth as much as it is the conclusions drawn from that evidence.

And yet the conclusion that if no one else can prove to you to your satisfaction that God exists, then no gods exist, doesn't raise any red flags?

 

[Nakosis]

And yet the conclusion that if no one else can prove to you to your satisfaction that God exists, then no gods exist, doesn't raise any red flags?

I don't expect other people to prove God's existence. IDK how'd they'd go about it anyway. In fact my general conclusion would be that man is incapable of proving the existence of God. Only God could prove their existence imo.

So I just think we ought stick to stuff we do have a chance to prove or disprove. Or at least having a greater chance of verifying the reliability of what we think to be true.

If a God exists and wants to prove themselves I'd expect them to get on about that.

 

[PureX]

I don't expect other people to prove God's existence. IDK how'd they'd go about it anyway. In fact my general conclusion would be that man is incapable of proving the existence of God. Only God could prove their existence imo.

Congratulations, you are the anomaly atheist.

So I just think we ought stick to stuff we do have a chance to prove or disprove. Or at least having a greater chance of verifying the reliability of what we think to be true.

What would that be?

If a God exists and wants to prove themselves I'd expect them to get on with it.

Why would a God want or need to prove anything to anyone? I can't think of a single reason. So why I should expect any proof? Again, I can't think of a single reason. And as you stated quite correctly above, how would we even recognize proof if it were given? I can't think of any possible way.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't expect other people to prove God's existence.

Nor do i... Unless they use their god belief as a weapon

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

1. I think it's very funny that a Christian -- who believes without evidence some very unlikely things -- supposes someone who disagrees with him is "arrogant and dogmatic." Surely expecting people to believe without evidence is itself arrogant and dogmatic.
2. This is nonsense -- we are non-religious because we do not believe in deities.
3. This is nonsense upon nonsense -- it is impossible to be angry with that which you do not believe exists.
4. Oh dear, and here I thought losing a father or having a strained relationship led to guys being gay! Yet another piece of bad psychology.

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.

As it happens, I am an INTP on Myers-Briggs, and I care greatly about truth -- which has cost me in past, when I've had to stand for truth against accepted dogma, whether religious, social or business. And I have been a change leader in business for many years, including helping to introduce a "workforce transformation" program in the Information Technology department of one of Canada's largest banks.

 

[Nakosis]

What would that be?

How the physical world works.

Why would a God want or need to prove anything to anyone? I can't think of a single reason. So why should expect any proof? Again, I can't think of a single reason. And as you stated quite correctly above, how would we even recognize proof if it were given? I can't think of any possible way.

I don't expect proof, especially if there isn't one.
If they aren't concerned about proving themselves then I certainly don't see why I should be concerned about it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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 ...

That depends on what evidence or reasoning is available. Is there any?

I'll wait for you to produce it.

 

[PureX]

That depends on what evidence or reasoning is available. Is there any?

I'll wait for you to produce it.

You do that, and while you wait, pretend you're able to know what that evidence would look like if it came your way.

 

[ChristineM]

You do that, and while you wait, pretend you're able to know what that evidence would look like if it came your way.

It would look like evidence that can be tested and repeated.

 

[Nakosis]

That depends on what evidence or reasoning is available. Is there any?

I'll wait for you to produce it.

Well, the Bible. Or whatever writings left behind by whomever they believe had the authority to speak for God.

The conclusion of this is that they did.

To me it is just evidence of people who believe they either could speak for God or did. Or perhaps felt that whatever they did say people would more likely accept the authority of if they claimed it was from God.

And I suppose the personal kind where they had some experience and concluded themselves the source of that experience was from God.

I know the subconscious mind is capable of creating "spiritual" experiences all by itself. So my conclusion is that is the most likely cause of them.

Now if there is any other evidence? IDK.

 

[shunyadragon]

1. Demanding evidence for some religious fictional charactor or event is just menaingless nonsense. Regardless of who else may believe it to be fact.

2. What you deem to be valid evidence (falsifiable, empiracle, objective, physical) does not define what is or is not evidence.

Actually it does define what would be reliable objective evidence to justify knowledge beyond what would be believed based on faith.

Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages. Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.

languages.oup.com

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"

Similar:
proof
confirmation
verification
substantiation
corroboration

3. Demanding from others that which you cannot provide for your own default conclusion is just intellectually tawdry.

Responses coached in insults are not a coherent argument worthy of response. ad hominem fallacy

4. Evidence is not proof. So demanding evidence and then holding it to the totally subjective standard of proof is biased to the point of absurdity.

See definition provided above. the comprehension of English is an issue here.

5. The default conclusion that if god's existence can't be proven to you to your satisfaction then no gods exist is logically unsupportable.

The existence of Gods is based on faith and belief, and not logically supportable with evidence.

In logic the one making a claim is responsible for logically supporting that claim.

And yet no matter how many times these objections and contradictions are pointed out to the atheists among us, they will immediately and determinedly be ignored. As if they don't exist and we're never spoken of. In fact, the willful ignorance will be so thorough and blinding that almost none of the atheists here will acknowledge that they've EVER seen any of these points mentioned on ANY threads, ever. Even though I constantly repeat them. And so have others.

I believe this is more descriptive of the dominant Theist position.

And yet no matter how many times these objections and contradictions are pointed out to the Theists among us, they will immediately and determinedly be ignored. As if they don't exist and we're never spoken of. In fact, the willful ignorance will be so thorough and blinding that almost none of the Theists here will acknowledge that they've EVER seen any of these points mentioned on ANY threads, ever. Even though I constantly repeat them. And so have others.

Theists primarily rely on blind assertion of faith, and ancient tribal scriptures without provenance of authorship and origin of text to justify their variable inconsistent beliefs in the many different religions and divisions that reject the beliefs of those that believe differently.

 

[Balthazzar]

# 1 may not be a stretch but the others are more attuned to individualized personality types. The first one, suggesting atheists are arrogant and dogmatic fairly well sums up the nature of all of us, including theists. Theories and philosophical leanings would be a type of dogmatic system of understanding, and conviction in these would instill a sense of arrogance per personality. The debates and discourse associated with non-theists are no less heated at times than those in the theist camps.

 

[shunyadragon]

You do that, and while you wait, pretend you're able to know what that evidence would look like if it came your way.

See post #95.

 

[F1fan]

If we ask an atheist why they are atheist, most of them (here) will immediately respond with a list of grievances against religion.

Not in my case, but I do hear some express the abuse and pressure to conform by religious folk who did take religion literally and seriously. There's an underlying assumption that religion is this good thing, but the abuses get overlooked for various reasons. Religion is not all rainbows and sunshine.

So it's not that surprising that some might conclude that atheists are angry, resentful, and prejudiced against religion (as they perceive it).

Is this a confession? Your anger and disdain for atheists is obvious, and you let the anger rule your responses.

And being that they notoriously dishonest about what they believe, and that bias is nearly always invisible to itself, the whole picture tends to support that contention.

See what I mean? And oh the irony.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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 ...

To which, a couple of members asked you to show your evidence and reasoning.

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.

This is clearly non-responsive -- which is to say evasive.

You yourself, in this very thread, have said you can see no reason why God would provide any "proof" (which would mean evidence that can establish fact) at all. We agree -- because that's what see. So in that case, you are left with "reasoning." Reasoning has one tiny problem -- it depends upon initial axioms which must be taken as truth. If "God" is an axiom, then any "reasoning" based upon it would be nothing but affirming the consequent -- which is a logical fallacy.

 

[F1fan]

1. Demanding evidence for some religious fictional charactor or event is just menaingless nonsense. Regardless of who else may believe it to be fact.

No comment on those who assert religious fictional characters are real. Just an attack on those asking questions and seeking truth.

2. What you deem to be valid evidence (falsifiable, empiracle, objective, physical) does not define what is or is not evidence.

Tell that to science, the courts, and logic.

3. Demanding from others that which you cannot provide for your own default conclusion is just intellectually tawdry.

But not demanding agrremen for ideas that not only lack evidence, but also inconsistent with facts and reality.

4. Evidence is not proof. So demanding evidence and then holding it to the totally subjective standard of proof is biased to the point of absurdity.

Like when a believer reads Genesis and that is evidence of a 6000 ear old universe? What you say here does not apply to evidence that convicts indicted people, or results in science, or logical conclusions.

5. The default conclusion that if god's existence can't be proven to you to your satisfaction then no gods exist is logically unsupportable.

A claim that you don;t have evidence to support. You are assuming gods exists and critical thinkers need to prove your asumption wrong. That's proving a negative, and a fallacy.

And yet no matter how many times these objections and contradictions are pointed out to the atheists among us, they will immediately and determinedly be ignored. As if they don't exist and we're never spoken of. In fact, the willful ignorance will be so thorough and blinding that almost none of the atheists here will acknowledge that they've EVER seen any of these points mentioned on ANY threads, ever. Even though I constantly repeat them. And so have others.

Your position is highly flawed, and you resist and ignore the criticisms of your bias and flawed thinking.