Atheists and their jargon of insults

[cladking]

I once gave a talk on "Black Magic Reverse Engineering" at an IT Conference in Los Angeles. I did the whole presentation -- slides and all -- backwards.

So... Were you reverse engineering something in p[articular or the "reverse engineering" reverse engineering itself. I always wanted to try my hand at the latter.

 

[cladking]

Evolution is objectively falsified by overwhelming evidence, There is no evidence for the existence of God or beliefs in spiritual beings or realms beyond our physical existence. Can you provide any objective evidence for the existence of God.

AND EVERY RESEARCHER AND EXPERIMENTER HAS BEGUN WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS IRRELEVANT.

If this assumption is wrong then every conclusion can be equally wrong. Homo circularis rationatio.

 

[cladking]

The word after miracle in the dictionary is mirage..

And "assumption" always comes before "science".

 

[ChristineM]

It is you dissing science by suggesting it gave us the internet.

It took centuries of ideas from individuals and the hard work of individuals to create the internet. You denigrate individuals and their achievements and turn their success over to an abstraction named "Science" led by priests named Peers. It is mere nonsense and demonstrates the same lack of understanding as "atheism". Not many of those who say "Science" gave us understanding, knowledge, and technology have ever had any idea that advanced humanity or science. But they sure can hurl stones at heretics from their glass houses.

You didn't ask who invented electricity or quantum mechanics, the science of communication etc. i replied to your post, if you don't like the answer its not my problem .

Do you have any idea what a peer is? Let me tell you, someone who tries to find fault in someone's work, if they cannot find fault then science moves forward another step.

And interestingly, you used several branches of science including quantum mechanics to post your abuse of science. That i call hypocrisy

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm not playing these lacktheism games

You're playing games using that phrase.

if someone claims the gods are fictional, are myths, that divine experience is delusion, they need to provide evidence.

Generally, the critical thinker is saying that HE doesn't believe in gods and that he doesn't believe the theist who claims to have experienced spirits. Most are agnostic atheists, a term you object to, but perhaps you should take a moment to think about. I describe myself in those terms precisely because I DON'T say that gods don't exist. I can't know that, which is what agnosticism is - being in a state of unknowing and aware of that.

the amount of atheists openly supporting and refusing to condemn the abuse of theists by atheists is astonishing.

What abuse? Calling gods sky fairies? Telling a believer that the critical thinker doesn't believe his god claims because he has different standards for belief? Why would I take your side in that matter and agree that that is abuse or that I should condemn those who do that? Getting bent out of shape over that is an issue for the person willing to be offended by that. If one feels abused reading words like those, then he probably shouldn't be in conversation with unbelievers.

Such as comparing a dragon in one's garage to deities.

And this offends you, too? It's an apt analogy for the excuses the theists give for why their gods that they insist exist can't be detected, a series of just-so answers regarding why we can't detect it. If you think the analogy doesn't apply, make your argument.

Why would I waste my time one someone who won't even engage honestly and plays the "I believe nothing" games?

That's you gaslighting now (your phrase for misrepresenting another). None of us says we believe nothing. We just don't believe that gods exist, because we have no reason to believe that.

Dont project your methods onto me okay? I dont decide something is true or not simply based on subjectively finding it insufficient.

That method is called critical analysis, the proper way to evaluate evidence. Nobody's accusing you of being a critical thinker, whose methods are NOT subjective. They're codified rules of proven value in deciding what is true about the world.

That atheists conflate faith and fideism is only illuminating for the theist.

Only unjustified faith. The word is also sometimes used to refer to justified belief, such as faith that a one's car will probably start in the morning, but that's not unjustified belief if it has started the last few hundred times it was tested, aware that occasionally, it does not. That's empiricism and justified belief.

That you DON"T conflate faith with fideism suggests that you don't know what they mean: "the term "fideism" comes from the Latin "fides," which means "faith." Fideism asserts that religious truths can be found through faith alone and that reason and logic are limited in their ability to explain religion and spiritual experiences."

So theres so much evidence for atheism you could write books on it, yet you cant present any.

The atheist doesn't need evidence. The theist does, assuming he wants to be believed by a critical thinker.

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.

Yes, the critical thinker rejects fideistic epistemology, which to you is unfriendly, and that is in fact a bias, albeit a rational one.

And yes, I am antitheistic, but only for organized, politicized religion like American Christianity that wants to invade government and limit the lives of unbelievers according to their religious beliefs, which is also a rational bias.

What the theist offers as evidence for a god is not that by academic, legal, and scientific standards for evaluating evidence, whether that be scripture, arguments for gods, or pointing at something in the world.

That you don't understand that an atheist can be agnostic (most are) is your deficiency, not the atheist's.

The atheists position is not emotional, but the easily offended fideist's is.

I don't know what proving a negative is doing there or what it has to do with false equivalency.

What is your objection to the evidence?

None supports a god belief.

"Agnostic atheism" is a pointless term because nobody rational is ever asking you to prove with metaphysical certainty there are no gods.

It's a useful term when dealing with theists who can't understand that not believing isn't the same thig as believing not, but only if he can understand the concept or doesn't reject its possibility out of hand as those who use words like "lacktheist" appear to do.

There's atheism, Agnosticism, theism, and then arrogant atheists and theists who don't understand epistemology.

This is an extremely uninsightful comment as well as an incorrect approach to the spectrum of god belief and god claims. This is your arrogance on display here. What do you think you have to teach anybody about epistemology when you frame this topic in a tripartite MECE geometry where everybody is one or another of those categories, but nobody is more than one or fewer than one rather than as the 2x2 Punnet square you have already been shown reflecting that claims of belief and claims of knowledge are independent variables.

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

Nope. A creationist is not a critical thinker and his opinions about what evidence reveals can be dismissed irrelevant.

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?

What you are dealing with is skepticism and empiricism (critical analysis of evidence). The claim is that there is insufficient evidence to justify a god belief.

the idea that atheism is the only rational conclusion.

It is, assuming that it is agnostic atheism. The strong atheist cannot support his claim that gods don't exist, making that belief as irrational as the opposite belief, and that is why of all four possible positions combining theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism, ONLY agnostic atheism is rational. Next best is agnostic theism - "I don't know that a god exists, but I choose to believe one exists," which is probably a statement that the belief is comforting. Seeking comfort is rational even if the god belief itself isn't.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In fact they proclaim constantly that "there is no evidence at all" because they define evidence as having to convince them, and of course they have no intention of ever being convinced, so it's all dismissed as non-evidence, in advance.

You also don't understand what the agnostic atheist is telling you about his position. "No evidence" is generally short for "insufficient evidence to justify belief." And what you describe is faith-based though, or deciding what one wants to believe is true and THEN rejecting contradicting evidence. The critical thinker has trained himself not to do that. It can become a habit of thought when evaluating any claim.

The theist must prove to them, by their standard of proof, that God exists, while the atheist's position (that no gods exist) is just blindly assumed to be the automatic default. No explanation or proof is necessary.

You can't prove that your god exists, and every atheist and most theists understand that. You should understand "Where's your evidence?" as a rhetorical question meaning "I need sufficient evidence to believe before believing and I know you don't have it."

And you are another one who can't make a distinction between "I don't believe you," which I call unbelief and "I know you're wrong," which can be called disbelief (when we have two distinct concepts and two words, it's inefficient to consider them synonyms). By this reckoning, the phenomenon you embody can be called unbelief/disbelief conflation, which is either some kind of cognitive defect wherein ideas are transformed in the rendering of the words of others into idea, or, if done deliberately, bad faith argumentation.

They claim that they don't know if any gods exist while also constantly proclaiming that every god that anyone else has ever chosen to believe exists, doesn't.

There it is again. If you can't conceptualize what you are being told, you're forced to argue against the straw men your mind generates.

They expend enormous amounts of time and energy attacking theists and theism because of a blinding hatred of some particular religion or religious expression.

This is you choosing to be offended by atheists' rejection of theism. Nobody is attacking you, but your claims and those of the poster I just answer are emotional reactions to atheists. You both are obviously very bothered by who we are and what we believe, and are personally offended.

Because it seems to me that the whole point of it is to keep themselves in charge of their own 'kangaroo court'.

More emotive language. You are upset at your claims and opinions being judged, aren't you? Take a page from the book of those you resent and see if you can't learn to imitate their calm disposition and demeanor outwardly if not inwardly as well. You can use this post as a starting point if you like. Neither of you bother me, and I feel no desire to do more than correct your errors.

 

[LuisDantas]

Dawkins is just one aspect of a much deeper problem.

If you call evidencing an "aspect", sure. And the problem happens to be expectation of privilege from arrogant theists.

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.

Count your blessings. You do not want to deserve them.

 

[shunyadragon]

And "assumption" always comes before "science".

It is a given you reject Methodological Naturalism and the concept objective verifiable evidence and science in general. Of course this computer would not work and airplanes could not fly if it were based on "assumptions."

No legitimate scientist put "assumptions" before science, only those with an ancient religious agenda..

 

[shunyadragon]

It is you dissing science by suggesting it gave us the internet.

Science did give us the internet, and the computers. You diss science calling it "assumptions."

It took centuries of ideas from individuals and the hard work of individuals to create the internet. You denigrate individuals and their achievements and turn their success over to an abstraction named "Science" led by priests named Peers. It is mere nonsense and demonstrates the same lack of understanding as "atheism". Not many of those who say "Science" gave us understanding, knowledge, and technology have ever had any idea that advanced humanity or science. But they sure can hurl stones at heretics from their glass houses.

Based on the Scientific Methodological Naturalism and objective verifiable evidence.

Your stuck in the Newtonian world of wood steel and stone.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

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

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?

I'm glad!

3 straw men do not a rational argument make.

Right, and nobody rational is asking the atheist if they know with absolute certainty gods do not exist, they are asking what the atheist believes. This is why mentioning agnosticism is pointless, all intellectually honest people will avoid claiming absolute metaphysical certainty on most if not all things.

I see by your profile, that you’ve been on this forum for about 12 years, with closing in on 13,000 posts.
Can you honestly say you’ve never witnessed a theist ask if someone could “prove” that a god doesn’t exist?
Or witnessed a theist proclaim that they “know” their god exists?…….
Honestly?

Right, the belief is in the godless universe, you not being "certain" of that isn't at all relevant. If a theist is requiring metaphysical certainty of a godless universe then they are an unreasonable theist, and could not provide the same evidence of their gods either.

So here you are admitting that there is no objective evidence that gods exist.

Yet, you are objecting to atheists not accepting the “evidence”, while admitting that a “reasonable” theist can’t provide this “evidence”.

Am I getting that right?

When you say these theists are not being “reasonable” or “rational”, should these theist see see your comments as attacks or “jargons of insults”?

 

[shunyadragon]

AND EVERY RESEARCHER AND EXPERIMENTER HAS BEGUN WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS IRRELEVANT.

If this assumption is wrong then every conclusion can be equally wrong. Homo circularis rationatio.

No assumptions made by science other than the objective verifiable evidence supports Methodological Naturalism. This is your anti science agenda kicking in based on an ancient tribal religious agenda.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have never denigrated any atheist on this forum or any other.

Hiw certain of this are you?

Insulting is the way their brains deal with it.

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

You have to know how to distinguish the difference between singling out a group and denigrating it.

You are denigrating and belittling, as you are speaking as thou you look down on atheists and think of yourself as better than them.

 

[shunyadragon]

For me, treating all types of people with dignity is very important. I have never denigrated any atheist on this forum or any other.

You denigrated atheists in the opening post by accusing them of using insults in their arguments. Your accusation of silly anecdotal statements supposedly used by atheists is insulting. In reality you have failed to address the actual arguments that atheists make concerning their objections to belief in Gods.

When I refer to atheists as a group, I simply mean their common beliefs and practices, which they normally do on their part about believers. It doesn't affect me at all, and it is completely expected, that atheists talk about us, believers, in their own terms and in reference to our common beliefs and practices... as is my case with respect to atheists, which is totally acceptable and normal.

You have not yet the actual arguments atheists make concerning whether Gods exist or not.

You have to know how to distinguish the difference between singling out a group and denigrating it. In Cuba we have a saying: "courteous does not take away from bravery."

A good start: can you focus on the topic?

IF you wish to focus on the topic you need to address specifically the arguments atheists make concerning the existence of Gods.

 

[shunyadragon]

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."

None of the above represents the arguments by atheists concerning the existence of Gods

 

[Twilight Hue]

I recall watching a story about a scientist in New Mexico that had developed a method to study lightning by shooting a copper wire into the air attached to some sort of rocket. He was very successful from all accounts and the video.

Of only Benjamin Franklin did that. *grin*

 

[1137]

Your claim is that, "it [new atheism] is epistemologically unfriendly;"

Epistemology is defined as, "the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The term is derived from the Greek epistēmē (“knowledge”) and logos (“reason”), and accordingly the field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge."

I said epistemological unfriendliness, this is a specific term.

Epistemology | Definition, History, Types, Examples, Philosophers, & Facts

Epistemology, the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The term is derived from the Greek episteme (“knowledge”) and logos (“reason”). Along with metaphysics, logic, and ethics, it is one of the four main branches of philosophy.

www.britannica.com

Can you explain how your assertion that atheists claim that "one must be a fool to believe in gods" has something to do with epistemology (theory of knowledge)? Your claim references belief, but epistemology refers to knowledge.

I simply defined the term for you.

I've not seen any that I find convincing. And quite often when I ask for evidence, I don't actually get any.

I've asked you, for example.

Of course it isn't subjectively convincing to one who has concluded atheism, who cares what is convincing but what is true.

Your claim is that atheists, "holds Theism to standards it doesn't hold itself to;"

To which I responded, "I've not found this to be the case. Do you have an example? In fact, I've been called out by theists before for not lowering my standards of evidence to accept the claims of theism."

Can you explain how what you've said here is an example of atheists holding theism to standards it doesn't hold itself to" ... ?

I mean if being subjectively convinced is defining of truth for you but nobody else, that's not equal standards.

Atheism isn't a claim with something to accept. It's just a lack of belief in god(s).

Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with theism/atheism.

It was a comparison...

There are mountains of empirical, demonstrable, testable, repeatable evidence for evolution collected from almost every independent field of science by independent scientific researchers across the globe spanning over 160 years. Do you have anything like this amount of evidence for your religious beliefs? I've yet to see it from any believer in god(s), thus far.

Only 160 years? We've been interacting with the gods for over 10,000!

Lack of belief, isn't a belief, by definition.

To the intellectually dishonest sure, who cares at this point.

I've disagreed and explained why it isn't. They are separate terms referring to separate things.

There are agnostic theists as well, by the way.

For theists the term is equally pointless

I've never seen anyone making this claim.

Give me a break.

In what way? What makes it a false equivalency?

You cannot think of any way the garage dragon differs from gods?

I don't see a response to how "new atheism" differs from regular old atheism.

Then I would again direct you to compare Dawkins to Rowe. It's funny how only new atheists ignore the existence of new atheism when even other atheists call or out.

 

[1137]

Oopsy, you've changed it from "knowledge" and "belief" to "absolute certainty" which is a different thing, not under discussion.

Actually you changed it

 

[LuisDantas]

Theism _has_ a burden of evidence (if not proof) that atheism indeed lacks.

It is an inherent assymetry among the two stances.

 

[Vinayaka]

I ... just ... don't ... get ... it. This theist versus atheist debate. Every time a new thread on the same topic pops up, I groan, 'not this again'. In ten years of watching the little angry train go around and around, has it gotten anywhere?

 

[shunyadragon]

I said epistemological unfriendliness, this is a specific term.

Not specific. So far your approach had been ' epistemological unfriendly.

Any dialogue should be friendly and based on specific arguments for and against the existence of God

I simply defined the term for you.

OK, but you have failed to address the epistemological argument for the existence for God

Of course it isn't subjectively convincing to one who has concluded atheism, who cares what is convincing but what is true.

The arguments for the existence of God is inconclusive, because of the subjective nature of the claim from both sides. and not what can be determined is true.

I mean if being subjectively convinced is defining of truth for you but nobody else, that's not equal standards.

Atheists and many agnostics are not convinced by the subjective evidence and arguments by Theists,

Only 160 years? We've been interacting with the gods for over 10,000!

Subjective claim by Theists. Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years.

To the intellectually dishonest sure, who cares at this point.

I do believe that any conclusion of a subjection position that cannot be objectively determined is a belief, Atheism and Theism would be subjective beliefs.

For theists the term is equally pointless

False generalisation. You cannot speak for all Theists,