Atheists and their jargon of insults

[cladking]

Of course there's an 'us'. Nobody (remotely professional or rational) works in isolation.

This isn't really true. The fact is everyone who ever got an idea for a new hypothesis or a new experiment was working strictly and utterly in isolation. Indeed, those coming up with new interpretations of the Bible and every single idea in human history was working in isolation. Neither science nor life are spectator sports even though they seem to be to homo omnisciencis. We don share a mind but it seems so because we share a confused operating system that I call "modern language". We each stand on the shoulders of giants because we have language so complex any idea can be framed in it (at least every idea except metaphysical language can be framed in our languages).

"Science" means something different to every single individual. Those who can't comprehend how it works tend to insult everyone they believe is a heretic.

 

[1137]

What is "new atheism" in your opinion?

Alright I will repeat myself once more but everyone pay attention haha

Properties that define "new atheism": it is epistemologically unfriendly; ignores instead of addresses the evidence for Theism; holds Theism to standards it doesn't hold itself to; intentionally conflates itself with Agnosticism; often falls back on emotion rather than reason; relies on demonstrably false/contradictory logic such as "you cannot prove a negative;” utilizes false equivalencies; and it encourages both bias and Anti-Theism. (Elaboration of all below.)

Note I don't think "New Atheism" is a great term, I didn't make it. I prefer friendly vs unfriendly theism/atheism

 

[1137]

Theism isn't one thing. And all I can say is that I've never seen any real evidence or sound arguments for any version to date. Hence my lack of belief.

Sound arguments are pretty rare for the big question, metaphysical certainty is usually if not always an illusion.

As for evidence, you can address the evidence but not ignore it. What did you see and why did you find it unconvincing?

Okay, but that's not my claim. I'm merely saying that I see no evidence or reasoning to suggest they are real.

The world is full of claims that lack evidence: many, many different religions, cults, and sects—that can't all be true because they contradict each other—as well as things like astrology, homoeopathy, ghosts, alien abductions, and so on, and so on...

What is your objection to the evidence?

You can't take all of them seriously, you'd have to believe endless contradictory things at the same time (even from just the theist claims), so I wait for somebody to provide any evidence that's remotely convincing. So far, I've seen none.

Are you suggesting you don't even seriously consider claims before presuming they are wrong due to being outside your understanding?

 

[cladking]

...and then others came up with ideas to make practical devices, that they obviously couldn't have done without the science.

Ever hear of the Antikythera mechanism? The human consciousness exists outside of belief and models. We experience it only inside of our beliefs but but one of the characteristics of consciousness is pattern recognition and using nothing but this someone invented and built this device with no science whatsoever.

We are sleepwalkers but even in our sleep we can interact and affect the waking world.

Those who believe in science are mystics whom can't see anomalies.

 

[ratiocinator]

This isn't really true. The fact is everyone who ever got an idea for a new hypothesis or a new experiment was working strictly and utterly in isolation.

This is just nonsense. Any new idea in science or technology is based on a whole load of previous knowledge and previous ideas, let alone the necessary reviews by others to get it accepted.

The rest of your post is more bizarre verbiage that seems to make little to no sense.

 

[cladking]

Science makes models that match reality

So you choose to ignore what you can't understand, quantify, or observe.

This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to tell you; we are a product of our beliefs, not of reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

I love atheists. That's why I try to educate them all the time; they hate me for that.

We don't hate you.
We just dismiss silly stories about sky fairies.
Might even pat you on the head.

 

[ratiocinator]

ignores instead of addresses the evidence for Theism

What evidence?

intentionally conflates itself with Agnosticism

*sigh*

Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ratiocinator]

So you choose to ignore what you can't understand, quantify, or observe.

I ignore things I have no reason to take seriously.

 

[cladking]

Any new idea in science or technology is based on a whole load of previous knowledge and previous ideas, let alone the necessary reviews by others to get it accepted.

So on what are new paradigms based?

Why is science revolutionized every few years if we already have all the answers?

If someone invents fusion power and starts selling it what difference does it make if it's accepted? If machine intelligence is invented it wouldn't even matter if it's accepted by Peers or not.

Why do you have the implicit assumption that science is right?

 

[cladking]

We just dismiss silly stories about sky fairies.

Actually most of those doing the insulting are actually ridiculing any single thing they don't understand or sounds like heresy.

 

[ratiocinator]

As for evidence, you can address the evidence but not ignore it.

What evidence?

What did you see and why did you find it unconvincing?

I've seen nothing remotely like objective evidence. Ever.

What is your objection to the evidence?

Again, what evidence. You keep on referring to "the evidence". I have no idea what you're talking about.

Are you suggesting you don't even seriously consider claims before presuming they are wrong due to being outside your understanding?

No.

 

[LuisDantas]

By me in this thread lol.

What suspicion? I explicitly said you were wrong haha, are you just a troll? Do you not see the difference between questioning and abusing someone for real?

Victimization will get you nowhere with me.

 

[1137]

What evidence?

.... for theism?

*sigh*

Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sigh indeed, don't you guys get tired of these silly games? "Agnostic atheism" is a pointless term because nobody rational is ever asking you to prove with metaphysical certainty there are no gods. There's atheism, Agnosticism, theism, and then arrogant atheists and theists who don't understand epistemology. The atheist simply does this so they can say "well I can't prove gods don't exist" as if this means they don't find a godless universe most likely.

 

[cladking]

I ignore things I have no reason to take seriously.

Like how the fundamental forces interact.

You ignore EVERYTHING you don't understand like how gravity works. Most people just paper over such things if they notice them at all as something that will be known by and by. There is even the assumption science won't change when the answer is known. In a sense they are right that science won't change with 4experim3ent because it changes only with funerals.

 

[LuisDantas]

Alright I will repeat myself once more but everyone pay attention haha

Properties that define "new atheism": it is epistemologically unfriendly; ignores instead of addresses the evidence for Theism; holds Theism to standards it doesn't hold itself to; intentionally conflates itself with Agnosticism; often falls back on emotion rather than reason; relies on demonstrably false/contradictory logic such as "you cannot prove a negative;” utilizes false equivalencies; and it encourages both bias and Anti-Theism. (Elaboration of all below.)

Note I don't think "New Atheism" is a great term, I didn't make it. I prefer friendly vs unfriendly theism/atheism

That is just atheism. You really ought to accept that you are not owed protection from criticism just because.

 

[1137]

What evidence?


I've seen nothing remotely like objective evidence. Ever.

Then your position is similar to a creationist saying there's never been objective evidence for evolution.

Again, what evidence. You keep on referring to "the evidence". I have no idea what you're talking about.

When someone says "there is no evidence for gods" they are essentially taking 1 of 3 positions:

1. "I have not studied Theism enough to be aware of the evidence."
2. "I cannot refute the evidence for Theism so I will pretend it does not exist."
3. "I am confusing evidence with conclusions, what I mean is to reject the conclusion of Theism."

Which are we dealing with here?

No.

I'm glad!

 

[1137]

Victimization will get you nowhere with me.

... what? Can you answer my question?

That is just atheism. You really ought to accept that you are not owed protection from criticism just because.

I never claimed otherwise, I specifically said criticism is not abuse and never claimed we should be protected from it. Indeed I think we should doubt all. But hey, thanks for providing further evidence of gaslighting theists.

 

[1137]

That is just atheism.

So is William Rowe not an atheist?

 

[ratiocinator]

Why is science revolutionized every few years if we already have all the answers?

Nobody (sensible or at all informed) has ever claimed claimed science has all the answers.

If someone invents fusion power and starts selling it what difference does it make if it's accepted?

Well, it would either be a con, or it would be accepted because it worked and it could be shown that it actually is fusion power, i.e. reviewed by others.

Why do you have the implicit assumption that science is right?

As I said, science produces models that match reality with respect to their subject matter, to the degree they have been tested. That's the highest standard we have. It works.