Atheists and their jargon of insults

[Eli G]

I don't hate you ... I am just ignoring you.
That was it.
Have a great day .

 

[Dao Hao Now]

It is interesting, to say the less, how some anti-religious people try to discredit the biblical stories trying to classify them as myths, but at the same time they try to make it believe that the sagas of the English kings and their wizards and witches are more real than the biblical stories, legendary, but not mythical. Isn't it?

Do they fear, maybe, the pagan gods but do not want to respect the God of the ancient israelites?

You appear to have a reading comprehension difficulty.
If someone gives you an example for you to compare one mythical story you accept as mythical, to ones you don’t recognize as mythical, so that you might be enlightened to the fact that they share the same qualities and are thus mythical, means they don’t believe either to be factual…,that’s the whole point of the exercise!

 

[ChristineM]

I don't hate you ... I am just ignoring you.
That was it.
Have a great day .

Your words say differently.
But feel free to keep ignoring me, la la, la, la, fingers in ears is surely the best way to make that you hate disappear in a puff of smoke

 

[Eli G]

My last comment here was just that ...
Surely it would have been better understood in the context of my other topic about the differences between myth and legend.
My mistake, but I wrote what I wrote.

Edit: I was talking about my post#201.

 

[ChristineM]

My mistake, but I wrote what I wrote.

And so did i, but you ignored it so not my problem

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Almost all theists believe there is a God.

Every theist believes there is a god. By definition of the word "theist".

And most atheists believe there is no God.

No atheist believes there is a god. By definition of the word "atheist".

I can understand the former but the latter is inexplicable.

How so? You know how it is to not believe in a god, because you don't believe in Thor, neither do you believe in Allah or Visjnoe or Ra or Quetzalcoatl or any of the other thousands of gods except the one you happen to believe in.
So you know very well how it is to not believe in gods, because there are literally thousands of gods you don't believe in.

What do you find so inexplicable about it?

How can anyone who fancies himself a scientist conclude there is no God?

Concluding there is "no god" is quite different from not believing there is one, off course. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference.

In any case, it's quite easy to understand who someone wouldn't believe in a particular god. And you should understand that also, since you don't believe in the vast majority of gods out there either.

And that reason is simply: the evidence doesn't justify belief.

People often overlook the magic that is life

What magic?

and the anomalies that show massive holes in their knowledge

Argument from ignorance in the making?

but how do they overlook the fact that reality is so complex?

Argument from incredulity in the making?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They have nothing else to say. I mean just try asking an atheist to defend their views and you will get a meltdown about faith and burdens of proof and defense mechanisms.

Your error is an assumption in your statement. That atheism includes "views".
This is false.

There's nothing there to defend. Theism is the claim. Atheism is not buying that claim. Atheism is not a claim of its own.
So when you ask "defend your atheism", your question itself is already wrong.

Yes, I am an atheist because the evidence doesn't justify being a theist.
That's it.

The best they have against theism is to attack low hang fruit or outright just insult the theist.

If you call it "insulting" to note that the theist is incapable of meeting his burden of proof....
That's your issue, not mine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Out of curiosity, why is it untestable?

Because they are unfalsifiable claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay? And **** those people who abused you. Now I guess I wonder why you're fine with the abuse of theists by atheists, why not oppose all abuse?

I am against all abuse.
The problem however is that theists like to play the victim card inappropriately.
They will call it "insulting" when it is pointed out to them that they hold beliefs that are rationally unjustifiable.
The problem is that such theists take any and all criticism of their beliefs personal.

They consider faith to be a "virtue". I consider it gullibility. And that alone, they find "insulting".
Not my problem.

New Atheism is what's in question here, please don't pretend you don't know what the term means.

I don't really know what is meant by it, to be honest.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dawkins is just one aspect of a much deeper problem. I personally differentiate between atheism and new atheism because one is deserving of respect and consideration, the other isn't. I have great, respectful, intelligent atheist friends and wont have them insulted by combining them with the atheists discussed in OP.

Why does this sound like when a racist says "some of my best friends are black!" ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Extrapolation of irrelevant experiment can do far more harm than any Inquisition ever did.



Without magic like consciousness, love, and free will life would not be worth living to me.

If you don't think such things are 'magical" then why not define them and measure them? If you don't think there is magic then what is a fully formed idea for an experiment? Why don't you try defining "magic" in some way other than "that which does not exist".

Magic: that which suspends / violates the laws of nature.


Pray tell how "consciousness" fits that definition.

 

[blü 2]

"Magic", they say.

To be clear, I define magic as the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality, and a miracle as magic performed by a god.

And I define reality as the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

How do you define them?

What is really "miracle" or "magic" or "supernatural" in an atheist mind?

I take 'nature' to be the same thing as 'reality', the world external to the self as above.

So I take 'supernatural' to mean 'outside of nature'. That means, for want of options, that the supernatural exists only as a set of concepts, notions, things imagined, in an individual brain, with no real counterpart.

there is soooo much happening in the world right now that most people cann't explain

What's a nice clear example of this?

 

[LuisDantas]

It is interesting, to say the less, how some anti-religious people try to discredit the biblical stories trying to classify them as myths, but at the same time they try to make it believe that the sagas of the English kings and their wizards and witches are more real than the biblical stories, legendary, but not mythical. Isn't it?

I do not find that remarkable at all.

Do they fear, maybe, the pagan gods but do not want to respect the God of the ancient israelites?

Probably not. But if that happens to someone, that is not remarkable either.

 

[LuisDantas]

Dawkins is just one aspect of a much deeper problem. I personally differentiate between atheism and new atheism because one is deserving of respect and consideration, the other isn't. I have great, respectful, intelligent atheist friends and wont have them insulted by combining them with the atheists discussed in OP.

What would the difference be?

The way I see it, there is no such thing as "new" atheism.

What does exist is better visibility for various reasons.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Anyone who tries to live his life in terms of science

What does that even mean?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He certainly isn't the hard atheist he is often made out to be.

Then again, who is?

Not being sure removes that title

No, it doesn't.

I'm sure you've seen similar to this before:

I don't think I've ever met a "gnostic atheist".

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think I've ever met a "gnostic atheist".

I vaguely recall a statement in some BBS back in the 1980s or 1990s of someone who claimed to be a revealed atheist, believe it or else.

It may easily have been a joke. Assuming that I am even recalling correctly, that is.

But it is not inherently absurd. Or rather, it is not particularly absurd when compared and contrasted with certain other mainstream stances.

That is what happens when aesthetical inclinations are conflated with epistemological statements.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Neither does the widespread belief in science. It wasn't believers in science who came up with the inventions to create the internet. It was people with ideas.

And who used scientific knowledge to make their ideas a reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I hate to break this to you but "science" is a perspective and a methodology. It is not supposed to be a belief system.

**mod edit**

Then why do you continue to talk about it as if it is a belief system?

 

[ChristineM]

I don't think I've ever met a "gnostic atheist".

I lack belief that gods exist just as strongly as any theist believes in their chosen god(s).

Whether that's 100%, I don't really know but it's close.

What would tip that balance, if a god showed up and proved they were a god to my satisfaction. After all, it's all about the evidence.

What would i accept as proof? I personally cannot think of anything but we are talking an omni everything god, surely said god would know this.