Atheists and their jargon of insults

[ratiocinator]

Then why is almost every response irrelevant to the argument?

You posted an argument!?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It is therefor a "presumed conviction", not an actual one. Not something we can actually know to be so. It's a deliberate pretense of knowing in the face of our not knowing that then causes us to ignore and deny our not knowing.

What is the difference? The person is convinced it is true, that equates to a belief. How do I know if what I think is true is actually true? People believe things because they are convinced they are true. No other reason is possible in my opinion.

It's a "conviction" based not on actual knowledge, but on the denial of our lack of it. We are just blindly presuming to know what we don't actually know to be so. Thus, we "believe" it to be so. We don't actually know it.

I disagree. How do we actually know anything? I think what you are saying is that people have bad reasons for some of their beliefs and I would agree. However they are convinced by the evidence in the way they evaluate it. No one is blindly just convinced without some sort of reason. No one can make themselves believe something they are not convinced is true.

What we can convince ourselves to be true is not the same thing as knowing it to be true. Belief is not knowledge. It's a presumption of knowledge that we don't actually have. It's dishonest in that way, and therefor often misleading to ourselves and others.

No one can convinces themselves something is true if they are not convinced by the evidence. Can you convince yourself the moon is made of cheese?

I also contend that it is completely unnecessary. We are quite capable of accepting information provisionally. Knowing that we don't actually know it to be correct. There is no reason for us to "believe in" it's correctness for us to accept it and act on it as being correct, provisionally.

All of our beliefs are provisional. All of them can be change if we become unconvinced or convinced of something different. Some people can be arrogant about their beliefs and not want to look into their beliefs further but their beliefs are still just what they are convinced is true.

 

[PureX]

You're trying way to hard not to understand.

I parked my car in the garage last night. Now I "believe" it is there this morning even though I don't actually know that it is. Thus, I presume to know what I don't actually know, and I ignore the fact that I don't actually know it to be so.

Why? I guess because I like the comfort I get from presuming to know something that may, in fact, not be so. I choose to ignore the fact that my car may not be there, even though I'm being dishonest with myself about the possibility.

In this instance it's not likely to matter, because the likelihood of the car still being there is high. But the fact remains that I am being dishonest with myself about what I actually can know to be so, by choosing to just blindly believe that it's so and ignoring the reality that it may not be. And this bit of self-deception is completely unnecessary. I could simply withhold 'believing' anything about the car and wait to see if the car is there when I need it.

In any case I can think of, belief is nothing more than an unnecessary pretense of knowing something that we don't actually know. And lying to ourselves in this way is not a good habit to fall into. Because sooner or later that dishonesty is going to come back to bite us. Or bite someone else when we impose it on others.

 

[F1fan]

You're trying way to hard not to understand.

I parked my car in the garage last night. Now I "believe" it is there this morning even though I don't actually know that it is. Thus, I presume to know what I don't actually know, and I ignore the fact that I don't actually know it to be so.

Sure, and this is a fact-based belief. Your car has been there every day for 5 years, why not this day?

Your neighbor will likely assume the same thing. He might also believe that Jesus was executed so that he is saved from sin. He might believe that vaccines are harmful. He might believe that wearing masks during the pandemic are useless. He might believe that Trump is being railroaded and did nothing wrong.

So that people believe things doesn't mean they are correct. It matters HOW people arrived at belief that matters. This is what critical thinkers focus on, the process of how a person arrives at a conclusion and belief.

Why? I guess because I like the comfort I get from presuming to know something that may, in fact, not be so. I choose to ignore the fact that my car may not be there, even though I'm being dishonest with myself about the possibility.
In this instance it's not likely to matter, because the likelihood of the car still being there is high. But the fact remains that I am being dishonest with myself about what I actually can know to be so, by choosing to just blindly believe that it's so and ignoring the reality that it may not be. And this bit of self-deception is completely unnecessary. I could simply withhold 'believing' anything about the car and wait to see if the car is there when I need it.

As far as your car goes, the patterns set in and you assume nothing has changed for the last 5 years, or even longer. The older we get the more we rely on patterns and consistency. Humans crystalize their beliefs and thinking after about 40 years old, which means we get set in our ways. It's not that you aren't being honest, it's that we rely more on patterns than active thinking.

In any case I can think of, belief is nothing more than an unnecessary pretense of knowing something that we don't actually know.

I prefer to call it temporary judgments, and they could be in error. More rigid thinking and belief is a liability, and comes with age.

And lying to ourselves in this way is not a good habit to fall into. Because sooner or later that dishonesty is going to come back to bite us. Or bite someone else when we impose it on others.

I wouldn't call it lying, it is very much a natural process, but can also be laziness. We critical thinkers use these forums as a means to keep our minds in shape. Let's note that you exhibit critical thinking skill where it comes to politics and social issues.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then why is almost every response irrelevant to the argument?

You consistently and persistently make claims and not arguments. That you seem to believe what you say and see what you want is not missed by others. The problem I see--others seem to see it too--is that you don't offer anything to anyone that would sway them and constitute an argument. Several have tried to point this out to you, but you ignore it or reject it.

You tell people they are wrong, without showing them why.

How many times have I asked for the basis of your claims and gotten nothing? How many others have asked the same and gotten nothing in return?

How many times have I asked you to post Darwin's assumptions with your assessment of them and why you claim they are all wrong and gotten nothing?

We could go on here for a long time, but that is sufficient evidence to support that there is an issue and it is not one where others are seeing what they want. It is that you are not presenting anything for others to see and this fact is seen.

If experiment shows we see what we believe then this applies at all times in all cases.

This is just a naked claim that offers no reason for me to consider it as more than just a claim that can be dismissed as unsupported.

What is the evidence to support it as a fact? What is the explanation that demonstrates a reason to accept this claim? What is provided for me to weigh against my existing knowledge and understanding and find reason to accept this claim?

Assertion, empty and without support, can reasonably be regarded as an offering of some universal truth. That is how I see posts presented, as revealed truth that should be swallowed whole. That condition, paradoxically, renders evidence and experiment meaningless. Given their is no need of experiment or evidence for swallowing without question.

Based on observation, I am convinced that you don't see the dichotomy and it isn't an outcome I want to see. It is a recognition of what I have seen.

Evidence can not be the basis of theory.

So you moved the goal posts here from "experiment is the basis of science" to "Evidence can not be the basis of theory" and still it is just an assertion without support.

Theories are based on the evidence of observations of the natural world and the evidence of observations from experiment(s). As an explanation of the evidence, how can they be disconnected from and independent of evidence? They are not the product of baseless imagining.

How likely is it that everyone that sees your posts and responds is all wrong and you are all right? How likely is it that so many people, with varied knowledge and experience, cannot really understand what they see?

In the face of this body of evidence, is it more likely that the issue doesn't sit with your audience?

I have hope that you will see this, understand it and find some better way to communicate your ideas and positions.

 

[PureX]

Sure, and this is a fact-based belief. Your car has been there every day for 5 years, why not this day?

And every day for those 5 years it could have not been there. The point is the belief is a false and unnecessary presumption of knowledge regardless of what it's based on: fantasy, desire, habit, probability, or whatever.

Your neighbor will likely assume the same thing. He might also believe that Jesus was executed so that he is saved from sin. He might believe that vaccines are harmful. He might believe that wearing masks during the pandemic are useless. He might believe that Trump is being railroaded and did nothing wrong.

He is free to believe whatever he wants, and nothing you or I can do will stop him. And that is as it should be because you and I are no better equipped to determine what he should believe than he is,

So that people believe things doesn't mean they are correct. It matters HOW people arrived at belief that matters.

This matters to whom? And in what way? Belief is a mistake right from the outset because it's a rejection of doubt when doubt is logical. It doesn't matter how one arrives at the determination to reject doubt when doubt is logical.

This is what critical thinkers focus on, the process of how a person arrives at a conclusion and belief.

Why, they can't do a thing about how anyone else arrives at their conclusions or what conclusion they arrive at. And that is exactly as it should be. So all they really are is an annoyance. God help us all if they ever gain the power to police other people's thought processes as they imagine they do!

As far as your car goes, the patterns set in and you assume nothing has changed for the last 5 years, or even longer. The older we get the more we rely on patterns and consistency. Humans crystalize their beliefs and thinking after about 40 years old, which means we get set in our ways. It's not that you aren't being honest, it's that we rely more on patterns than active thinking.

Trusting that a pattern will hold does not require us to believe in it. So why do we? I think we just like pretending that we know more than we do. It makes us feel in control even when we aren't.

I prefer to call it temporary judgments, and they could be in error. More rigid thinking and belief is a liability, and comes with age.

It didn't come with my age. The older I get the more I can see that belief is just our capitulating to ego.

I wouldn't call it lying, it is very much a natural process, but can also be laziness. We critical thinkers use these forums as a means to keep our minds in shape.

No you don't. You use them to attack anyone that doesn't think like you do because you think your way of thinking is superior to theirs. If you were really critical thinkers, you'd be self-critical, and would have recognized this egocentric arrogance this long ago.

Let's note that you exhibit critical thinking skill where it comes to politics and social issues.

I exhibit those skills across the board. You just can't accept it when it's aimed at your thinking processes. And you're way more open to it than most of the other self-proclaimed 'critical thinkers' are, here. They're so auto-defensive it's ridiculous!

 

[cladking]

How many times have I asked you to post Darwin's assumptions with your assessment of them and why you claim they are all wrong and gotten nothing?

I don't know how many dozens of times I've listed all of these for you.

Surely you remember that he assumed consciousness is irrelevant to the nature of change in species or the study of change in species. Dozens of times I've listed his numerous assumptions and proven they were wrong such as the assumption that populations tend to be relatively stable. ALL of his 19th century primitive assumptions were wrong. You can't Look and See reality so Look and See Science means nothing. It can not apply to the reality none of us can see directly.

This is all simple enough. People just can't see it and in no time at all you'll be telling me that I've never made an argument at all.


But this isn't the point of this thread. This thread is asking why many of those who support a world view of science and most believers in science feel that it is acceptable to insult those who don't agree with them. I suppose the answer to this question is that since religion is based on ancient science it resonates with everyone and believers in science don't like having their faith shaken by myth and make believe. And, of course, some people are naturally rude and this can apply to those who are most devout as well as those who are least. Faith or lack of faith in anything can still be associated with rudeness.

 

[cladking]

So you moved the goal posts here from "experiment is the basis of science" to "Evidence can not be the basis of theory" and still it is just an assertion without support.

The two sentences are grammatically and logically identical.

It is supported by dozens of experiments and observations that people see what they believe. "Evidence" is meaningless in science except to create hypothesis. Most people who create hypothesis rely chiefly on evidence and logic. Frequently they create hypotheses because they find anomalous evidence and the derived hypothesis leads to new experiment which creates a new paradigm or an advancement of existing theory. Most anomalies on close inspection actually do support existing theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know how many dozens of times I've listed all of these for you.

You never have.

Surely you remember that he assumed consciousness is irrelevant to the nature of change in species or the study of change in species.

It has never been demonstrated that consciousness is or how it is relevant to the evolution of living things. Here again, you are making claims without benefit of demonstration.

Dozens of times I've listed his numerous assumptions and proven they were wrong such as the assumption that populations tend to be relatively stable.

Not once have you done. If you think you have this may be a problem beyond the scope of this forum.

ALL of his 19th century primitive assumptions were wrong.

Again, a claim without any evidence or description what a primitive assumption is.

You can't Look and See reality so Look and See Science means nothing.

And yet that is what you are demanding.

It can not apply to the reality none of us can see directly.

You claim to see it as it is and do not seem able to demonstrate that.

This is all simple enough. People just can't see it and in no time at all you'll be telling me that I've never made an argument at all.

This time you are correct. You assert what you believe and cannot fathom why others don't see this or accept what you believe without question as what reality is.

But this isn't the point of this thread. This thread is asking why many of those who support a world view of science and most believers in science feel that it s acceptable to insult those who don't agree with them.

That is what the thread is trying to assert. It isn't a fact. That you haven't demonstrated these believers in science to be anything more than people that disagree with you. I have come to consider that what you incessantly refer to as "Egyptologists" are really just people on forums about Egyptology that don't agree with your empty claims either.

I suppose the answer to this question is that since religion is based on ancient science

Ancient science is a baseless claim and remains so. You offer it as some understood and widely recognized thing that isn't.

it resonates with everyone and believers in science don't like having their faith shaken by myth and make believe. And, of course, some people are naturally rude and this can apply to those who are most devout as well as those who are least. Faith or lack of faith in anything can still be associated with rudeness.

I tried. I really did. I had hope. It was very, very thin and has gotten thinner.

You have not even recognized my post with two reports demonstrating evolution from natural selection. And this is not the first time you have ignored them. I suppose you will simply claim that you didn't see them. But it is strange that you seem not see them so often.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The two sentences are grammatically and logically identical.

It is supported by dozens of experiments and observations that people see what they believe. "Evidence" is meaningless in science except to create hypothesis. Most people who create hypothesis rely chiefly on evidence and logic. Frequently they create hypotheses because they find anomalous evidence and the derived hypothesis leads to new experiment which creates a new paradigm or an advancement of existing theory. Most anomalies on close inspection actually do support existing theory.

It is not supported by anything I have ever seen you post. No evidence ever from your end of this. You simply run a monologue of revealed truth and get upset when this is widely recognized and dismissed.

 

[cladking]

It has never been demonstrated that consciousness is or how it is relevant to the evolution of living things.

And I didn't say it is relevant to Evolution. I SAID IT WAS ONE OF DARWIN'S ASSUMPTIONS.

Then in your very first breath after I said YOU AGAIN WOULD DENY I HAVE LISTED DARWIN'S ASSUMPTIONS you denied I listed his assumptions.

ALL OF DARWIN'S ASSUMPTIONS ARE FALSE. He reasoned in circles from false assumptions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know how many dozens of times I've listed all of these for you.

Surely you remember that he assumed consciousness is irrelevant to the nature of change in species or the study of change in species. Dozens of times I've listed his numerous assumptions and proven they were wrong such as the assumption that populations tend to be relatively stable. ALL of his 19th century primitive assumptions were wrong. You can't Look and See reality so Look and See Science means nothing. It can not apply to the reality none of us can see directly.

This is all simple enough. People just can't see it and in no time at all you'll be telling me that I've never made an argument at all.


But this isn't the point of this thread. This thread is asking why many of those who support a world view of science and most believers in science feel that it is acceptable to insult those who don't agree with them. I suppose the answer to this question is that since religion is based on ancient science it resonates with everyone and believers in science don't like having their faith shaken by myth and make believe. And, of course, some people are naturally rude and this can apply to those who are most devout as well as those who are least. Faith or lack of faith in anything can still be associated with rudeness.

Why don't you start fresh and post these things you have claimed you posted now?

It would end this in your favor to do so.

Darwin's assumptions and the evidence and explanation for them.

The no evidence for evolution claim.

The all change in all living things is sudden claim.

The speciation occurs at bottlenecks from some behavior driving the fixation of an unusual trait.

There is so much more, but lets just go with these four.

Give it a whirl. Since you are convinced you are right, it should be a piece of cake.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And I didn't say it is relevant to Evolution. I SAID IT WAS ONE OF DARWIN'S ASSUMPTIONS.

Now you are getting angry that I don't accept your revealed truth at face value as fact.

Show me.

Then in your very first breath after I said YOU AGAIN WOULD DENY I HAVE LISTED DARWIN'S ASSUMPTIONS you denied I listed his assumptions.

You never have. I have followed these threads where the request has been made and ignored without fail.

ALL OF DARWIN'S ASSUMPTIONS ARE FALSE. He reasoned in circles from false assumptions.

Again, an assertion without evidence to convince anyone. How do you not see this?

 

[cladking]

And yet that is what you are demanding.

I am "demanding" nothing. I am seeking relevant argument without insults and derogatory comments. Most of those who don't agree with human omniscience are not getting it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am "demanding" nothing. I am seeking relevant argument without insults and derogatory comments. Most of those who don't agree with human omniscience are not getting it.

I disagree. You make claims and repeat them ad nauseum. This is not the means of a search for debate and discussion. Commenting on the recognition of that and pointing it out to you is not insulting or derogatory.

I have no idea what that last comment is supposed to mean.

I believe it is a defense mechanism used to wave away what you cannot explain or support given how it is offered and how frequently variations of it are offered.

One does not need to be omniscient to recognize flawed attempts to assert positions as fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am "demanding" nothing. I am seeking relevant argument without insults and derogatory comments. Most of those who don't agree with human omniscience are not getting it.

And of course, this will drift us a way from the valid points and requests I have made so that they will be ignored.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And I didn't say it is relevant to Evolution. I SAID IT WAS ONE OF DARWIN'S ASSUMPTIONS.

Then in your very first breath after I said YOU AGAIN WOULD DENY I HAVE LISTED DARWIN'S ASSUMPTIONS you denied I listed his assumptions.

ALL OF DARWIN'S ASSUMPTIONS ARE FALSE. He reasoned in circles from false assumptions.

Show me wrong by providing those assumptions, supporting them as Darwin's assumptions, demonstrating that they are wrong and explaining why.

Show me that all change in all living things is sudden. Provide the evidence and the explanations.

Show me that we are not Homo sapiens and are some other species.

All you need to do is demonstrate these claims of yours and I would be put in my place.

It should be easy.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You're trying way to hard not to understand.

I parked my car in the garage last night. Now I "believe" it is there this morning even though I don't actually know that it is. Thus, I presume to know what I don't actually know, and I ignore the fact that I don't actually know it to be so.

Why? I guess because I like the comfort I get from presuming to know something that may, in fact, not be so. I choose to ignore the fact that my car may not be there, even though I'm being dishonest with myself about the possibility.

In this instance it's not likely to matter, because the likelihood of the car still being there is high. But the fact remains that I am being dishonest with myself about what I actually can know to be so, by choosing to just blindly believe that it's so and ignoring the reality that it may not be. And this bit of self-deception is completely unnecessary. I could simply withhold 'believing' anything about the car and wait to see if the car is there when I need it.

I don't think anyone actually thinks like this. Everyone understands that the car may not be there but that probability is low so the belief is warranted. I don't think anyone can know anything with 100% certainty and when people say they believe something is true I think they understand that.

In any case I can think of, belief is nothing more than an unnecessary pretense of knowing something that we don't actually know. And lying to ourselves in this way is not a good habit to fall into. Because sooner or later that dishonesty is going to come back to bite us. Or bite someone else when we impose it on others.

I think this is not very practical or necessary. You use the term belief as 100% certainty, I use it and most people use it as saying it has a high probability of being true. Everyone has been wrong before so people know this, but without beliefs you cannot function in your life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am "demanding" nothing. I am seeking relevant argument without insults and derogatory comments. Most of those who don't agree with human omniscience are not getting it.

And like that you are gone.

Perhaps you will come back and accept the challenge and show me wrong.

From experience, I don't have a lot of confidence that will happen. But I hope you do.

 

[cladking]

Darwin's assumptions and the evidence and explanation for them.

Darwin had the exact same assumptions as almost every educated person in the mid-19th century. Most of these assumption were acquired while sitting on their parents' laps and derive principally from our confused languages. They believed in things like "I think therefore I am" and that God created the universe. They believed all of reality and the entire cosmos was like a giant clockwork and every aspect could be calculated when man learned enough and acquired enough data. They believed oak trees and salamanders were not even conscious. Most believed in spontaneous generation and all believed (pretty much still do) that everything fit cleanly into categories and types and there were enormous numbers of virtually all things in existence. It would never occur to them that all things are unique and no two identical things exist in reality. They believed a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit and they can be counted just like snowflakes. They believed progress was linear because all advancement must take place in terms of what was already known. They believed that mathematics applied to all reality by nature. They believed all cycles and processes were harmonic at root.

All of Darwin's beliefs appear in his work and all of his beliefs are false. Perhaps God really does exist but it is unprovable by science.

All individuals are as much a product of their time and place as Eliza Doolittle. It's not a single belief that creates individuals but rather it is countless thousands of them and every single one of Darwin's beliefs have been shown to be erroneous. The world can never turn out another Darwin because there will never be another 19th century Britain. It is simply irrelevant that Darwin was insightful and gifted because he reasoned in circles from bad assumptions. It doesn't matter that he was the best mind of the era in biology because he was wrong about everything just as most of science appears to still be wrong especially in life sciences, anthropology, and archaeology.

I'm willing to elaborate, support, or clarify any part of this post but experience tells me most won't even read it and the few who do will not respond relevantly.

The modern world is a mere extension of the 19th century and 19th century scientists are wrong across the board. They're the greatest scientists the world has ever known but they were all wrong (for the main part).