• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists and their jargon of insults

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Incredibly we base everything on "I think therefore I am". And then think in a 500 year old circular argument that only humans are conscious.

Homo circularis rationatio!!!!!
I do not agree with you and don't find anything in what you post offers me any reason to agree with your position. Your refusal to provide evidence puts you at a significant disadvantage and leaves most people left with the only one option. That is to dismiss what you claim as fact to be what you believe.

As a follower of these threads, I know this is not news to you and many other posters have brought this to your attention repeatedly. I cannot understand why you would refuse to provide support of claims you persistently repeat, but that is what you do.

I'm told by some that it is rude to correct people that make errors of fact, but I'm not correcting you. Others are not correcting you. It is the errors of fact that are being corrected. That is all that you have left for anyone to do.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
I do not agree with you and don't find anything....

As is typical everything in the post was ignored.

After it is ignored it is usually followed by insults, lectures or word games. It is a little unusual to be followed by an assertion that one can't provide reason and facts to support one's position. But then most everything that flies in the face of one's beliefs tends to be ignored.

It was Descartes who said "I think, therefore I am" and began the circular argument.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Sure, but it's SO easy for us to presume they want us to "correct" their beliefs when they don't that we very often invent that context so we can proceed to correct them. And we know this because they immediately resist our correction. So at that point, why do we persist?
I don't agree. If you put something on the public table and it doesn't make sense or is counter to the known state of the subject of the debate, what you are suggesting is that it should go unquestioned and accepted as having some weight.

I think we should include trees in this debate.
Who's need is this? And what is really motivating it? And if we were really seeking consensus, why do we resist and dismiss any perspective not our own?
And should we not learn what it is that others are trying to say? Perhaps what seems incorrect at first blush might be more fully understood upon challenge and lead us to greater understanding.
Sharing is just sharing. Not a call for our value judgment or correction.
Context. Why assume that challenging or questioning a point or claim or statement of belief is automatically rejection of any of that?
Why? Just saying this does not make it so. So what does?
In a debate, it would be necessary to learning.
And you don't really mean "question" here, do you. You mean debate, contend with, and correct according to your own presumed superior view. Actual questions are fine. But what you're referring to isn't really just asking questions, is it.
We are talking about debate aren't we? How do we know if a view is superior or inferior if we just leave it alone and do nothing with it?
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
As is typical everything in the post was ignored.
Everything that you posted was the same as what you always post and not ignored.
After it is ignored it is usually followed by insults, lectures or word games. It is a little unusual to be followed by an assertion that one can't provide reason and facts to support one's position. But then most everything that flies in the face of one's beliefs tends to be ignored.
It was a statement of fact. You don't offer any support for your claims. That is widely recognized. You aren't offering anything now, but your unsupported personal opinion that you are under attacking for your views and not for the failure to provide anything for anyone to really consider.

It is not insult to point this out. It is not word games to point this out.

It is not an empty assertion. You consistently do not provide any evidence to support your many, many claims.

I have asked you numerous times to state the assumptions Darwin used and explain and demonstrate how they are wrong. You have refused to do this largely by ignoring those requests. I have seen you do this routinely with requests made by others. I have seen you routinely ignore evidence offered and claim none has been offered and that none exists for the theory of evolution.

It was Descartes who said "I think, therefore I am" and began the circular argument.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, support, claim or state.

Historically, you will never clarify such statements so that they mean anything in relation to the discussion and debate.

Other than point out the flaws that you repeat continually so that others do not see them and think they are valid claims, there is nothing left for anyone to do but to consider your belief and recognize it isn't one based on evidence, it isn't science and can be dismissed.

And correcting obvious flaws is not an arrogance. Ignoring others and not listening to them does seem me to be though.
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
As is typical everything in the post was ignored.

After it is ignored it is usually followed by insults, lectures or word games. It is a little unusual to be followed by an assertion that one can't provide reason and facts to support one's position. But then most everything that flies in the face of one's beliefs tends to be ignored.

It was Descartes who said "I think, therefore I am" and began the circular argument.
I don't agree with you and find nothing in what you post to alter that position.

That does not state or imply that what you posted was ignored.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
No, it's not. Anyone can and will believe anything they want regardless of anyone else's stated beliefs. There is no need for argument or debate to maintain this freedom. And usually there is no call for it. Yet many of us just can't seem to restrain ourselves. And I think if we were to honestly investigate this, we would find our own egos to be the actual motive behind it.
Right or wrong, silence is often considered acceptance or consent.
Is there something wrong with seeking comfort?
That isn't a point of the debate. In certain context, no in others, yes.
And keep in mind that we humans don't get to know the truth.
I don't know that is a fact. What we don't get seems to be to know if something is a truth or not. We may actually have it. Who can say.
All we get are a bunch of relatively true fact, from which we're just making 'the truth', up.
Coming to conclusions on the best evidence and information we have.
What form of authority does? What social structure could?
I think that is the point. People with certain religious beliefs hold those beliefs as facts and don't like them challenged. The problem here is that any challenge is considered to be insult by those that hold the views. That isn't a "truth" either. Often, it isn't even a true fact.
Facts are just relative bits of information that are true or false in relation to other relative bits of information. They mislead us just as easily and often as they illuminate is. Let's not make more of them than they are.
It isn't the facts that mislead us. It is the conclusions based on them or conclusions based on no facts.
Welcome to an important aspect of the human condition. One that defines us as being human, on fact.
And this can be questioned in the proper context. Which is where we are.
On the other hand, arguing endlessly with no intention of actually learning anything new, but instead to force our opinions and views on everyone else because we are so convinced that we are right isn't a very wise or productive methodology, either.
Have you learned anything in all of this that alters your view or do you consider it all just to reinforce your view that you are not going to change in light of this new information? How is expressing an opinion forcing it on others? I would say that I do see attempts to do that here, but they usually consist of a pattern of behavior that is pretty obvious.
Is it. Especially for a collective, cooperative species like humans.
I think it is important and part of our species cooperative behavior. Even cultures that reject modern technology, still end up using it and benefiting from it.
Yes, "civil discourse"; as opposed to constant judgment and correction.
Sometimes, it is a part of civil discourse to point out facts that are not facts.
That never happens, though, because no human sees and understands the world the same as any other. In fact, despots have been trying to enforce such conformity for eons, and have always failed. We humans need to 'conform' to survive, and we have been struggling with how to do that, forever.
It seems like you are arguing against debate and that it will lead no where.
When we attack people for just sharing their worldview with us, they do tend to defend themselves. But this isn't really a debate. it's just a battle of egos from which no one actually learns anything but further entrenched self-righteousness.
This assumes that these attacks happen from the start. Some do. Not all do. And often those "sharing" their world view seem to consider any response that is not complete acceptance is an attack.
Not every conversation or discussion is a debate. Nor should they be.
True. But in a debate, much of it is.
When we attack people for the way they think, becaue they don't think like us, they tend to counter-attack.
And that seems to be part of the problem that launched this thread.
That's not debate. That's just a battle of egos. Which is what most people on here think is "debate".
Again, whose egos? The attacker or the attacked? The tenor of your position seems to be placing all the onus on one side here.
Again, welcome to the human condition and it's inevitable limitations.
Limitations aside, I believe that is the point here. You seem to be saying we should accept even manipulated facts and erroneous claims without question or challenge. How would that be civil discourse?
Everyone pretty much already is. It's why they think as they do, and believe what they believe. The question to us, is, are we willing to learn from them? Or are we only interested in 'correcting them' according to our own worldview?
I have learned from debate here. Even in the form that it takes here. And I have learned that not everyone claiming offense has truly been offended either.
"Belief" is a dishonest position that's being instigated by our ego.
Huh?
And unless we learn how to control our ego, it's a position that we will continue to hold and defend regardless of the negative consequences.
I don't think that the claim that certain theists are being insulted out of the gate is correct. Those certain theists have been here for some time and know the score. They have their own behaviors and responses that are not often made civilly or in a vacuum.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
The problem here is that many of us don't bother to differentiate between a statement of personal opinion or belief, and an actual CLAIM being made about universal reality. And this is as true of the people making the statement as the people receiving it.

Personally, I think that we should take every such statement as a personal opinion unless it's specifically designated to be a universal truth claim. If we did this, I think we would avoid a great deal of senseless arguing and insult.

Yes, unless our opinions and/or criticisms were being solicited, as when someone makes a universal truth claim.

It is insulting to presume that our view or understanding of things is so superior to someone else's that their merely stating their view warrants our correcting them.
I wanted to add that I do respect your rights to your opinions. As I do others. Often you do post things that I agree with. You also post things I do not agree with. That you have posted either in a debate forum, I consider available for discussion and debate. The same as what I'm posting now is available.

I believe people can believe as they choose. Posting opinions is part of what I see this forum is about. But doing so in a debate forum is tacit agreement that those opinions are available for challenge by statement or question. I do not believe that doing so or pointing out flaws is automatically an insult. I do not believe that challenging what others say an insult. This is not to say that people are not insulting here, but it is a two way street.

Personally, I see the OP as an airing of grievances and a back-handed insult to atheists, but it has opened up discussion about the civility of debates here that may be fruitful.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
No, it's not. Anyone can and will believe anything they want regardless of anyone else's stated beliefs. There is no need for argument or debate to maintain this freedom. And usually there is no call for it. Yet many of us just can't seem to restrain ourselves. And I think if we were to honestly investigate this, we would find our own egos to be the actual motive behind it.
This applies to discussion. Theists are often seen in the debate forums.
Is there something wrong with seeking comfort? And keep in mind that we humans don't get to know the truth. All we get are a bunch of relatively true fact, from which we're just making 'the truth', up.
A lot of theists present their positions as truth though. This runs both ways. Finding comfort in a debate forum is not necessarily the best way to go about that. Any truth claim should expect challenge.
What form of authority does? What social structure could?
Democracy is tailor made for questioning and challenging any status quo in society. Science is structured to question itself and challenge it's conclusions and assumptions. Why should religion go unchecked?
Facts are just relative bits of information that are true or false in relation to other relative bits of information. They mislead us just as easily and often as they illuminate is. Let's not make more of them than they are.
I never tried too.
Welcome to an important aspect of the human condition. One that defines us as being human, on fact.
Imagination and opinion are very influential in society. I don't frown on this.
On the other hand, arguing endlessly with no intention of actually learning anything new, but instead to force our opinions and views on everyone else because we are so convinced that we are right isn't a very wise or productive methodology, either. Is it. Especially for a collective, cooperative species like humans.
This is true! I've never denied that. Perhaps we need discussion/debate combination forums.
Yes, "civil discourse"; as opposed to constant judgment and correction.
It's true that if someone is going to try to correct someone else they should provide their reasoning and justification for doing so. What kind of judgment are we talking about? A character judgment is totally unnecessary.
That never happens, though, because no human sees and understands the world the same as any other. In fact, despots have been trying to enforce such conformity for eons, and have always failed. We humans need to 'conform' to survive, and we have been struggling with how to do that, forever.
Ok. However informed willful conformity can happen productively. Religion has powerful influence; why should atheists remain passive and silent?
When we attack people for just sharing their worldview with us, they do tend to defend themselves. But this isn't really a debate. it's just a battle of egos from which no one actually learns anything but further entrenched self-righteousness.
There's always a few people on every side of every issue that does this.
Not every conversation or discussion is a debate. Nor should they be.
True!
When we attack people for the way they think, becaue they don't think like us, they tend to counter-attack. That's not debate. That's just a battle of egos. Which is what most people on here think is "debate".
True!
Again, welcome to the human condition and it's inevitable limitations.

Everyone pretty much already is. It's why they think as they do, and believe what they believe. The question to us, is, are we willing to learn from them? Or are we only interested in 'correcting them' according to our own worldview?
That is a good point. Worldviews are often philosophical. Debate doesn't have to be a win/lose scenario.
"Belief" is a dishonest position that's being instigated by our ego. And unless we learn how to control our ego, it's a position that we will continue to hold and defend regardless of the negative consequences.
Beliefs happen to people regardless of ego. Beliefs are not knowledge statements for sure. Beliefs shouldn't hold any weight with convictions. I'd rather test my beliefs not hold them up as facts. Anything believed is in the absence of knowing.

I know plenty of religious people that wield their religion as the obvious truth. There are other religious people that never do that. I even have strong beliefs, but I don't hold anything over other people's heads.
 

Dimi95

Прaвославие!
Right or wrong, silence is often considered acceptance or consent.
Silence means yes when the other person has confirmed that it means yes. And maybe not then if they are being coerced to give an answer.
Silence means no when the other person has confirmed that it means no. And maybe not then, if they are being coerced to give an answer.
Until then, silence means silence.

That isn't a point of the debate. In certain context, no in others, yes.
Perhaps comfort in life?

Coming to conclusions on the best evidence and information we have.
In one court case the accused was sentenced with jail and he was not guilty.
They had strong evidence and information , but one detail changed the whole procces, and the accused was freed of all charges.
I think that is the point. People with certain religious beliefs hold those beliefs as facts and don't like them challenged. The problem here is that any challenge is considered to be insult by those that hold the views. That isn't a "truth" either. Often, it isn't even a true fact.
I agree
People find comfort in the victim role.
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member

cladking

Well-Known Member
If a confirmed experiment falsifies the expectations of a theory then yes.

No. All theory is based on experiment. It is true that some things like the "Theory of Evolution is not supported in its entirety by experiment but those parts that are are truly "theory". The rest of it is principally extrapolation. Experiment is never necessarily extrapolatable. This is the primary cause of the failure of "theory"; it's not really theory in the first place.

Theory is more often merely incomplete or applies only some of the time.

We see what we believe. What we don't believe never gets past our senses. Things we don't believe are not even perceived. We look right through them just as we look past anomalies and evidence that doesn't agree with our beliefs. We never even see it. Someone can point right at it after they ask for it and won't see it. You can't see what you don't expect. We perceive all things in terms of our beliefs. We are what we believe. Things we don't believe are invisible to us. Most people won't see this paragraph because there's nothing in it they believe. Experiment shows we see only what we believe to be true.

I guess I can't answer your question in terms most people can understand.
 

Dimi95

Прaвославие!
I think that is the point. People with certain religious beliefs hold those beliefs as facts and don't like them challenged.The problem here is that any challenge is considered to be insult by those that hold the views.That isn't a "truth" either.Often, it isn't even a true fact.

People have generally thin religious expirience,and they are taught that being religious is this nice exchange when you say a prayer,God comes into your life , and then you are clean and it's all good.

It's the same between different religiuos beliefs , when someone challenges the oposite view , it is considered as insult and again we have the same problem , only positions are switched.
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
People have generally thin religious expirience,and they are taught that been religious is this nice exchange when you say a prayer,God comes into your life , and then you are clean and it's all good.

It's the same between different religiuos beliefs , when someone challenges the oposite view , it is considered as insult and again we have the same problem , only positions are switched.
I think that sums up a lot of the issue. But that is not to say that people cannot be or have not been insulting on either side. Or that one side is the sole perpetrator and the other is the universal victim. I see both and sometimes the proclaimed universal victim position draws first.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Silence means yes when the other person has confirmed that it means yes. And maybe not then if they are being coerced to give an answer.
Silence means no when the other person has confirmed that it means no. And maybe not then, if they are being coerced to give an answer.
Until then, silence means silence.
Silence can mean a lot of things, but I don't really think it means consent, even if it is often perceived that way. Sometimes it means silence just as you say.
Perhaps comfort in life?
I think in terms of the comfort people feel when they believe they really do have all the answers.
In one court case the accused was sentenced with jail and he was not guilty.
That probably happens more often than it should. Should, ideally being zero, and many things effect that outcome beyond the evidence. Money has a strong impact on that from what I have seen. But in the context of this debate, we can only go with the evidence and the best explanations that can be provided by science.
They had strong evidence and information , but one detail changed the whole procces, and the accused was freed of all charges.
That is good to read. Some people have the view that only the guilty are found guilty and that the legal process should be like magic and uphold their personal positions without evidence. They don't perceive it as a process that sometimes has bad outcomes along the way and may require more effort to reach the best conclusion.
I agree
People find comfort in the victim role.
That does seem to be the case. And I agree with a previous statement you made that fostering that position is unhealthy.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
No. All theory is based on experiment. It is true that some things like the "Theory of Evolution is not supported in its entirety by experiment but those parts that are are truly "theory". The rest of it is principally extrapolation. Experiment is never necessarily extrapolatable. This is the primary cause of the failure of "theory"; it's not really theory in the first place.
No.
Theory is more often merely incomplete or applies only some of the time.
Theories are always incomplete. Absolutes and proofs are not the standard of science.
We see what we believe.
Perhaps you do. It seems you do.
What we don't believe never gets past our senses.
Again.
Things we don't believe are not even perceived.
I would say this is true for some, I have no evidence it is true for all or in all cases.
We look right through them just as we look past anomalies and evidence that doesn't agree with our beliefs. We never even see it. Someone can point right at it after they ask for it and won't see it. You can't see what you don't expect. We perceive all things in terms of our beliefs. We are what we believe. Things we don't believe are invisible to us. Most people won't see this paragraph because there's nothing in it they believe. Experiment shows we see only what we believe to be true.
I know what you believe, but just because you believe it doesn't make it a fact or something others should believe.
I guess I can't answer your question in terms most people can understand.
That seems to be a persistent issue.
 

Dimi95

Прaвославие!
That probably happens more often than it should. Should, ideally being zero, and many things effect that outcome beyond the evidence. Money has a strong impact on that from what I have seen. But in the context of this debate, we can only go with the evidence and the best explanations that can be provided by science.
Would anything change if the persecutor did not have any negative impact?
He just followed evidence and facts.
That detail comming out was random , and the judge had made the decision already.
All the evidence led to him.
At the end , they were all wrong , and they caused demage to someone not guilty of crime.
And the most important thing is that the accused never showed himself as the victim.

I understand what you mean , it's a different discussion,but i value things like this in life.

The best answer i can give as theist is that i persue the line between evidence and faith.
That is my way of seeking comfort.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Would anything change if the persecutor did not have any negative impact?
Persecutor or prosecutor or are you alluding there is often little difference?
He just followed evidence and facts.
That detail comming out was random , and the judge had made the decision already.
All the evidence led to him.
At the end , they were all wrong , and they caused demage to someone not guilty of crime.
And the most important thing is that the accused never showed himself as the victim.
In the end, the system seems to have worked if the accused was ultimately found not guilty. Not a perfect system, but one that can work. It may be the best we can expect.
I understand what you mean , it's a different discussion,but i value things like this in life.
I think I understand and agree too.
The best answer i can give as theist is that i persue the line between evidence and faith.
That is my way of seeking comfort.
I skate that line myself.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
In this case-persecutor , and for sure there is a difference.
To explain better, the persecutor was not the prosecutor, or the public official.
Sometimes they can all be the same person. I suspect you probably know that though and I'm not telling you anything new.

There are times, when years later evidence supports the accused, now incarcerated, they are freed. Sometimes that is so long, being found not guilty or seeing a claim of innocence supported may not seem like much consolation. The system can be very slow and difficult to move forward at speed unless you are in the trial process. Which still can run long.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No. All theory is based on experiment. It is true that some things like the "Theory of Evolution is not supported in its entirety by experiment but those parts that are are truly "theory". The rest of it is principally extrapolation. Experiment is never necessarily extrapolatable. This is the primary cause of the failure of "theory"; it's not really theory in the first place.
You keep making baseless and false assertions like this. Why is there never any hint of rational justification or evidence?
 
Top