Atheists and their jargon of insults

[MikeF]

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?

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?

Sharing is just sharing. Not a call for our value judgment or correction.

Why? Just saying this does not make it so. So what does?

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.

Let's refocus on what we are actually talking about. We are talking about discourse on RF, not about private one-on-one conversations, which is where I think all your stated concerns would be applicable.

On RF, there are plenty of places in which someone can share their views in a protected manner, free from challenge and correction. There are also those few sub-forums specifically created to encourage challenge and correction of any views expressed within that sub-forum. Within this small set of sub-forums, the only limitation to providing counter arguments would be one's patience.

 

[cladking]

You keep making baseless and false assertions like this. Why is there never any hint of rational justification or evidence?

You want me to perform an experiment showing there is no experimental justification for gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest!

 

[cladking]

You want me to perform an experiment showing there is no experimental justification for gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest!

If experiment were this easy AND there really were gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest there would be experimental justification and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Experiment on the cutting edge is always hard which is why humanity lives right on the cutting edge and always has.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Every experiment shows that people see what they believe exists. You can dress "see" up in pretty clothes by calling it "observation" and your beliefs by calling it "evidence" but these are still just words, semantics, and word games.

No matter how many times you are told that experiment lies at the heart of science it is dismissed and I am "corrected". I rub peoples faces in experiment that shows the messes we leave behind but they still deny experiment. They still continue to extrapolate the inextrapolatable and interpolate the uninterpolatable. They continue to be blind to the simple fact that paradigms rule our perceptions of experiment and these are periodically revolutionized.

Reductionistic science is simply incapable of understanding anything that can not be reduced. This is true by definition because we are a species that knows everything and reasons in circles. "God" provides clues to our nature continually (like the double slit experiment) but we persist in our beliefs in our omniscience, intelligence, and our unique status as being the only thinking species which is quite remarkable since no one has ever even defined "thinking"!!!

We are the very crown of all of God's creation and only we have the omniscience to appreciate it. What a remarkable species we must truly be. As such we have a perfect right to demean and insult anyone who doesn't accept the premises and prevailing paradigms.

Thanks for making my point.

 

[ratiocinator]

You want me to perform an experiment showing there is no experimental justification for gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest!

Did I ask you to do anything remotely like that? No.

I asked you to provide some rational justification for your, so far, baseless and unargued assertions.

 

[PureX]

This applies to discussion. Theists are often seen in the debate forums.

A lot of theists present their positions as truth though. This runs both ways.

I agree. But ultimately, we ALL know that when it comes to the subject of 'God', we are ALL just posting our opinions. Calling those opinions belief, calling them truth, calling them whatever else doesn't change the fact that none of us can know for certain if God exists, how, or to what end. Which is why I think it would make more sense to presume a statement of opinion unless and until someone explicitly states that they are claiming to know God or no God for certain.

Finding comfort in a debate forum is not necessarily the best way to go about that. Any truth claim should expect challenge.

Truth claims are actually very rare around here. Lots of belief claims, lots of opinions, not much claiming to know the actual truth, though. And it would only take a moment to clarify the difference.

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?

Science and democracy have nothing to do with any of this. Theism is faith based.

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.

Ok. However informed willful conformity can happen productively. Religion has powerful influence; why should atheists remain passive and silent?

Because another person's faith choices are none of their business.

For some reason a lot of atheists seem to fancy themselves to be the judges of everyone else's faith choices when they lack any of the qualifications necessary to fulfill such a responsibility. And they are completely blind to the annoying arrogance of this presumption because they really believe that they are qualified to judge and 'correct' other people's faith choices.

There's always a few people on every side of every issue that does this.

True!

True!

That is a good point. Worldviews are often philosophical. Debate doesn't have to be a win/lose scenario.

Theistic debate is NEVER win/lose. The best we can ever hope for is to broaden our own understanding by exploring someone else's. I doubt that debate is even a particularly effective way of doing that.

Beliefs happen to people regardless of ego.

I disagree. I think belief is the direct result of the ego wanting to be 'right' when we can't actually know it to be so. That's what belief is: the presumption of our own righteousness in the face of our inability to actually prove it.

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 don't really see any logical reason for us to 'believe in' anything. We either know it to be so (fact), or we choose to trust it to be so (faith) based on our hope that it is (which often takes the form of estimated probability). Belief is just a kind of blind arrogance that we use to ignore our very real and reasonable doubt.

One of my main disagreements with religion is that they too often deliberately mislabel belief as faith, and preach that we must deny and ignore all doubt. This is a doorway to insanity, not a doorway to truth.

 

[cladking]

I asked you to provide some rational justification for your, so far, baseless and unargued assertions.

I said all science and human knowledge is based on experiment and you said it's unjustified.

If I am right only an experiment can prove it.

I say all people are mystical and act on their beliefs and experiment bears this out. Homo rationatio circularis.

You ask for an experiment.

 

[ratiocinator]

I said all science and human knowledge is based on experiment and you said it's unjustified.

Yes, that would be because you haven't even tried to justify it.

If I am right only an experiment can prove it.

So your whole position is just blind faith and circular reasoning.

I say all people are mystical and act on their beliefs and experiment bears this out.

What experiment would that be?

You ask for an experiment.

No, I did not.

 

[PureX]

Let's refocus on what we are actually talking about. We are talking about discourse on RF, not about private one-on-one conversations, which is where I think all your stated concerns would be applicable.

On RF, there are plenty of places in which someone can share their views in a protected manner, free from challenge and correction. There are also those few sub-forums specifically created to encourage challenge and correction of any views expressed within that sub-forum. Within this small set of sub-forums, the only limitation to providing counter arguments would be one's patience.

Please read post #546 as I just addressed these concerns, there.

 

[MikeF]

... none of us can know for certain if God exists, how, or to what end.

Of course we can.

 

[osgart]

I agree. But ultimately, we ALL know that when it comes to the subject of 'God', we are ALL just posting our opinions. Calling those opinions belief, calling them truth, calling them whatever else doesn't change the fact that none of us can know for certain if God exists, how, or to what end. Which is why I think it would make more sense to presume a statement of opinion unless and until someone explicitly states that they are claiming to know God or no God for certain.

Due to science, history and such certain Gods can be ruled out. Humans invented the title of God. I'm not sure I know what you mean by God.

Truth claims are actually very rare around here. Lots of belief claims, lots of opinions, not much claiming to know the actual truth, though. And it would only take a moment to clarify the difference.

Then everyone should be happy.

Science and democracy have nothing to do with any of this. Theism is faith based.

There's usefulness in questioning the spread of faith based ideas.

Because another person's faith choices are none of their business.

As long as it remains personal, and private that is true. Anything public has the right to be questioned.

For some reason a lot of atheists seem to fancy themselves to be the judges of everyone else's faith choices when they lack any of the qualifications necessary to fulfill such a responsibility. And they are completely blind to the annoying arrogance of this presumption because they really believe that they are qualified to judge and 'correct' other people's faith choices.

It'll never be solved on a public Internet forum. This goes both ways though. There are knowable things.

Theistic debate is NEVER win/lose. The best we can ever hope for is to broaden our own understanding by exploring someone else's. I doubt that debate is even a particularly effective way of doing that.

Debates put forth claims and counter claims. I prefer discussion about it.

I disagree. I think belief is the direct result of the ego wanting to be 'right' when we can't actually know it to be so. That's what belief is: the presumption of our own righteousness in the face of our inability to actually prove it.

Wishful thinking and belief are two different things.

I don't really see any logical reason for us to 'believe in' anything. We either know it to be so (fact), or we choose to trust it to be so (faith) based on our hope that it is (which often takes the form of estimated probability). Belief is just a kind of blind arrogance that we use to ignore our very real and reasonable doubt.

So then reason and logic are valid approaches to understanding our world. Belief is holding something to be possible and it could be likely in the minds of a believer. Belief is a starting point not a finished product.

One of my main disagreements with religion is that they too often deliberately mislabel belief as faith, and preach that we must deny and ignore all doubt. This is a doorway to insanity, not a doorway to truth.

I think that's an awful, and harmful way to live.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I agree. But ultimately, we ALL know that when it comes to the subject of 'God', we are ALL just posting our opinions. Calling those opinions belief, calling them truth, calling them whatever else doesn't change the fact that none of us can know for certain if God exists, how, or to what end. Which is why I think it would make more sense to presume a statement of opinion unless and until someone explicitly states that they are claiming to know God or no God for certain.

Truth claims are actually very rare around here. Lots of belief claims, lots of opinions, not much claiming to know the actual truth, though. And it would only take a moment to clarify the difference.

Science and democracy have nothing to do with any of this. Theism is faith based.

Because another person's faith choices are none of their business.

For some reason a lot of atheists seem to fancy themselves to be the judges of everyone else's faith choices when they lack any of the qualifications necessary to fulfill such a responsibility. And they are completely blind to the annoying arrogance of this presumption because they really believe that they are qualified to judge and 'correct' other people's faith choices.

Theistic debate is NEVER win/lose. The best we can ever hope for is to broaden our own understanding by exploring someone else's. I doubt that debate is even a particularly effective way of doing that.

I disagree. I think belief is the direct result of the ego wanting to be 'right' when we can't actually know it to be so. That's what belief is: the presumption of our own righteousness in the face of our inability to actually prove it.

I don't really see any logical reason for us to 'believe in' anything. We either know it to be so (fact), or we choose to trust it to be so (faith) based on our hope that it is (which often takes the form of estimated probability). Belief is just a kind of blind arrogance that we use to ignore our very real and reasonable doubt.

One of my main disagreements with religion is that they too often deliberately mislabel belief as faith, and preach that we must deny and ignore all doubt. This is a doorway to insanity, not a doorway to truth.

I am curious what your definition of belief is. To me a belief is just something that you are convinced is true (whether it is actually true or not). You seem to be saying that a belief is something we think is true but are not convinced it is true. Is this correct? I may be understanding your use incorrectly.

I don't think it is possible to believe something that you are not convinced is true.

 

[viole]

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.

According to what you say, forensic evidence is not evidence. If a murderer claims that it was not him, but an evil spirit, who killed the victim, then his claim should be taken seriously, right? Who dares giving naturalistic explanations for something that could have very well been the work of the devil? For, we cannot perform experiments in the past, to validate the naturalistic origin of things, can we?

Are you sure about that?

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

Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact. Like gravity. Gravity is not a theory, either.
However, there are theories trying to explain both facts.

We see what we believe.

Not really. Anyway, beliefs are applicable only to things without evidence. Like gods and such. Or the curative power of homeopathy. Or that black cats bring bad luck. And all those things belonging to those categories.

Things like evolution, or gravity, belong to knowledge.

Things we don't believe are not even perceived.

It is difficult to not believe in a brick that fell on your head, even if you do not believe in bricks. Therefore, your statement does not obtain, in general.

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.

As I said, that is nonsense, with all due respect. Of course we see what we do not expect, at least afterwards. Like that brick. And I venture to postulate that once it hit your head, even if completely unexpected, what happened will not be invisible to you anymore. Well, I hope so at least.

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

Of course not.

Ciao

- viole

 

[cladking]

Did I ask you to do anything remotely like that? No.

I asked you to provide some rational justification for your, so far, baseless and unargued assertions.

I do not know how you could be more illogical. If science is based on experiment then only experiment can justify the contention.

No experiment shows I am wrong.

 

[Jimmy]

They insult what they don’t know imo

 

[cladking]

Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact. Like gravity. Gravity is not a theory, either.
However, there are theories trying to explain both facts.

Words like "theory" and "natural law" leads us to believe we know far more than we think we do. Until about 2010 we didn't really know any more about gravity than the great pyramid builders knew. Now we know its speed but we still don't know what causes it or how to shield it. It's the same way with Evolution since no experiment has ever shown change in species is gradual and caused by survival of the fittest.

Sure we know an awful lot now days but not nearly so much as most think.

I am continually amazed at the ability of those trained in science to say things that are not true and go against theory. Not everyone does it of course, but most.

Not really. Anyway, beliefs are applicable only to things without evidence.

And that is your belief. Of course you also believe you can study evolution and life without knowing what consciousness is. You believe all the big questions about reality have been answered and now we just need to fill in the gaps. You believe you can extrapolate knowledge to see all of reality. You believe that two plus two equals four by definition and in the real world.

If any of your assumptions were true then "evidence" would always point square at reality and interpretation would never be necessary. There would be no God or Gods and peers would have every answer.

But experiment shows, the only reality homo omnisciencis can know, that you see what you believe. You only see what you believe until experiment shows something else (did I mention experiment has already shown something else?).

And I venture to postulate that once it hit your head, even if completely unexpected, what happened will not be invisible to you anymore. Well, I hope so at least.

When I said we see what we expect I did not mean that nothing can surprise us.

Of course not.

Incredible!!!!

I answered your question in that paragraph over and over in many different ways and none got through to you. None got through to anyone who believes they see what's there. You can NOT see what's there!!!! Just as you didn't see the paragraph or any words in it. You believe you see reality just like every homo omnisciencis.

 

[vulcanlogician]

They insult what they don’t know imo

I've known quite a few atheists who had a strict religious upbring wherein they studied and/or memorized much of the Bible.

Just like theists, atheists come in all different flavors: snarky, brash and insulting, patient and understanding, etc. I mean, yeah, you have staunch, hard-nosed atheists out there.

Some folks are just downright rude when expressing their beliefs and refuse to budge or even acknowledge compelling arguments. That isn't conducive to useful discussion. But theists are just as guilty sometimes. I've had quite a few interesting conversations with theists over the years. One of my favorite forums ever was a Christian forum I used to frequent. I've had long, interesting conversations with Christians wherein both parties were interested in what the other had to say. I've had intensely logical and respectful debates with theists where both parties (first and foremost) strove toward honesty rather than agenda-pushing. And I've also had crude, mocking, satirical exchanges with theists where mutual respect just wasn't a thing (and they were quite enjoyable sometimes). Many of those exchanges were worthwhile in there own way.

"To everything there is a time and a purpose under Heaven."

 

[Jimmy]

I've known quite a few atheists who had a strict religious upbring wherein they studied and/or memorized much of the Bible.

Just like theists, atheists come in all different flavors: snarky, brash and insulting, patient and understanding, etc. I mean, yeah, you have staunch, hard-nosed atheists out there.

Some folks are just downright rude when expressing their beliefs and refuse to budge or even acknowledge compelling arguments. That isn't conducive to useful discussion. But theists are just as guilty sometimes. I've had quite a few interesting conversations with theists over the years. One of my favorite forums ever was a Christian forum I used to frequent. I've had long, interesting conversations with Christians wherein both parties were interested in what the other had to say. I've had intensely logical and respectful debates with theists where both parties (first and foremost) strove toward honesty rather than agenda-pushing. And I've also had crude, mocking, satirical exchanges with theists where mutual respect just wasn't a thing (and they were quite enjoyable sometimes). Many of those exchanges were worthwhile in there own way.

"To everything there is a time and a purpose under Heaven."

You can memorize the Bible and still not know

 

[cladking]

You believe you see reality just like every homo omnisciencis.

And herein is why I'm not understood. I say that we are the odd man out and every other species is conscious and perceives reality differently and nobody can imagine it or understand. The concept of a universal metaphysical language that is based on logic is alien to us because we believe we are logical. We believe we see reality even though each of us see something different. Dependent on perspective and experience every single rabbit sees the exact same thing. Homo omnisciencis is very very different. How can we see something if we must first believe it and it is beyond our imagination. We live in a world where reality itself is beyond the imagination of the only species that deems itself "intelligent" and thereby omniscient!!!!!

It's a truly remarkable state of affairs. The one sleep walking species thinks it's the only species capable of wakefulness.

Even the simplest concepts like that we build models of reality and experience our beliefs despite being experimentally established seem to be beyond most peoples' reckoning. Simple concepts like all of reality affects all of reality on a real time basis which is always shown by experiment are ignored. Simple concepts like every experiment necessarily applies to all things at all times are ignored. No matter how many truisms, tautologies, and simple facts I cite I am met with a chorus of those who share erroneous assumptions telling me my facts don't fit their assumptions.

In the real world no two identical objects can exist. Even if you have two things you can't tell apart yet, like photons, they can not be identical because time prevents them from occupying the same space. People refuse to see reality because what they believe is comfortable and they'd rather be comfortable than correct. They'd rather lose money and do the wrong thing in a crowd then make money or do the right thing alone.

We are funny creatures (not that I'm laughing).

 

[vulcanlogician]

You can memorize the Bible and still not know

You can be a Christian and still not know. If we define "Christian" as anyone who has accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior (ie. no knowledge requirement) than it follows that "knowing" is not a prerequisite for being Christian, right?

It's "Him who has ears. Let him hear." Not, "He who believes a set of doctrines, let him hear." An atheist can understand (and even admire) Christianity, and yet not be convinced that the resurrection of Christ really happened.