Atheists and their jargon of insults

[F1fan]

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.

How often do you go out to your car and think "Oh it's gone, It aint gonna be there. Someone stole it. I'm sure this was the night."?

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,

Really? You and me aren't better equipped to NOT believe in the Jesus myth, or that vaccines are dangerous, that wearing masks in public won't help reduce transmission of a virus? I'm well equipped to not believe these, and other irrarional ideas that lack evidence.

This matters to whom?

It matter to critical thinkers. We prioritize HOW conclusions are arrived at, because that is HOW they are true, or likley true. I don't care that you believe Trump isn't fit for office, I want to hear WHY you made that conclusion.

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.

So if you believe that Trump is unfit for office it is a mistake? None of us can have a position on this or any other issues or idea? You can have doubt, but even doubt has to be justified in some way. You can't by default not hold a belief about Trump's fitness just because you have doubt about your judgment. Making judgments is a process, and it isn't a mistake to hold belief. We can always adjust our conclusions with more evidence, or more consideration.

I happen to believe OJ killed his ex wife and Ron Goldman. Is there doubt? Just to the degree that I did not see him do it, but no reasonable doubt. I vote to convict him. Why? The evidence is compelling.

Why, they can't do a thing about how anyone else arrives at their conclusions or what conclusion they arrive at.

If someone claims that America will be better off if Trump is elected I want to hear why they believe that (they won't, but the pressure needs to be applied). Critical thinkers assess the arguments that support anothers claims or position. That is how debate and discourse works. If a claimant can present evidence and sound reasoning as to why they believe X then they are agreed with. You have presented evidence and argumenst that I agree with, namely political issues. You do that because THAT is what convinces others. That conservative theists and voters reject reason is their flaw and liability.

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!

Trump 2.0

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.

It is subconscious. Our minds want security, predictability, stability, etc. You park your car in the driveway and you expect it to stay there. Most of us never wake up to a stolen car, but some do.

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

Yet you have loads of beliefs that you state on this forum. So you must believe your ego is as inflated as anyone elses.

Still, belief doesn't have to be tied to ego. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Like I said, I believe OJ did it. But if I read tomorrow that someone else did it, I wouldn't be bothered one bit, I'd just be corrected. So your black/white thinking about belief isn't accurate.

No you don't.

How can you assert that you know that we critical thinkers don't use forums to hone skills? This sounds like an emotional denial. Could you be wrong in your belief?

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.

Debate is adversarial. Forum users have to be ready to face criticism and skepticism. It's not for everyone.

And look at you attacking me for my statements. A little hypocrisy at work on your part?

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!

No, you are pretty solid where it comes to politics and social issues. But you definately have some sort of religious beliefs that you claim are true, but fail to explain HOW you think them true. I'm not the only one who criticizes your beliefs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you couldn't even see the post you quoted!

How about showing that the transition to mature reproductive organism is the same for corn, humans, cats, whales, Great Basin bristlecone pine, ants, dragonflies, bats, mayflies and aardvarks. It should be the same if they are all sudden.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

nice try.
But I am not going to do your homework.

You made the claim so it is on you to supprot your claim.
If you can not or will not support your claim, your claim will be dismissed as nothing more than a bold empty claim.

You do understand that your "What I say is True until it is proven wrong" stance does not help your arguments ... claims, right?
I mean, can not call a list of bold empty claims anything other than a list of bold empty claims.
Said list is not even evidence, let alone an argument.

I looked back and didn't see a claim so much as a question. There does not appear to be a claim of @McBells to support.

Work with us. Establish a dialogue. I recommend that you stop seeing what you want and ignoring that which contradicts what you believe you know and find out what science really says about these subjects.

 

[cladking]

Where is the answer to my challenge? Cast aside it appears per your stand operating procedure and I practically did the heavy lifting for you too.

You missed post #587 just as I predicted in the post. You also missed the statement that Darwin had thousands of assumptions and each was wrong.

 

[McBell]

You missed post #587 just as I predicted in the post. You also missed the statement that Darwin had thousands of assumptions and each was wrong.

Below is post #587.
You present nothing more than bold empty claims.

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.

 

[PureX]

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.

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.

I am pointing out that belief is not knowledge. That it is a false pretense of knowing. But clearly you are not going to accept this.

 

[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.

I didn't miss this post. There is a response, but no answer in it. The only attempt you make is the same as before and it is wrong.

Population stability is not an assumption of the theory. This has been previously explained to you on several occasions.

I tried. I had hopes that you would open you mind to reason. My assumption that you would want to debate the facts turns out to be a false assumption.

I don't want to keep playing this game. I find it a worthless endeavor.

Ah well.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I am pointing out that belief is not knowledge. That it is a false pretense of knowing. But clearly you are not going to accept this.

Can you explain the difference between belief and knowledge?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

nice try.
But I am not going to do your homework.

You made the claim so it is on you to supprot your claim.
If you can not or will not support your claim, your claim will be dismissed as nothing more than a bold empty claim.

You do understand that your "What I say is True until it is proven wrong" stance does not help your arguments ... claims, right?
I mean, can not call a list of bold empty claims anything other than a list of bold empty claims.
Said list is not even evidence, let alone an argument.

I have concluded it is a game. It seems one to gain attention in my opinion. Like the computer in War Games discovered, the only winning move is not to play.

 

[PureX]

Can you explain the difference between belief and knowledge?

Sure. It's direct experience. I know my car is in the garage when I see it there. I believe it's in the garage when I don't see it there, but I presume it's there anyway.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why don't you choose one of those "bold empty claims" and try to refute it?

It really doesn't matter whether your claims can be refuted. It is trivially easy to make baseless claims that nobody can refute, you just have to make them unfalsifiable.

Thinking that we must accept your claims unless they can be refuted is a well known logical mistake called an argument from ignorance.

 

[PureX]

How often do you go out to your car and think "Oh it's gone, It aint gonna be there. Someone stole it. I'm sure this was the night."?

How often to you say to yourself, "I know I'm an atheist an all, but it really is quite possible that God exists, and that my atheism is therefor just unfounded bravado"?

Really? You and me aren't better equipped to NOT believe in the Jesus myth, or that vaccines are dangerous, that wearing masks in public won't help reduce transmission of a virus?

No. We think we are, but in truth, we aren't. None of us really knows what's going in, here. It's important to remember this.

It matter to critical thinkers.

Yes, they seem to be addicted to the idea that they are smarter than everyone else. And therefor have the responsibility of judging everyone else's thought processes against their own.

We prioritize HOW conclusions are arrived at, because that is HOW they are true, or likley true.

That's a logic circle. Process X leads to conclusion X. So X must be the right conclusion because it's consistent with the process.

 

[cladking]

Darwin was wrong about everything according to the experiments of the last century and a half.

It really doesn't matter whether your claims can be refuted. It is trivially easy to make baseless claims that nobody can refute, you just have to make them unfalsifiable.

All my claims are not merely falsifiable but are supported by experiment. Where is your evidence or experiment that justify Darwin's assumptions, for instance? I can show a century and a half of experiment to show he is wrong. People see what they believe... ...so did Darwin.

 

[cladking]

Population stability is not an assumption of the theory. This has been previously explained to you on several occasions.

Now I've linked three times to the assumption. But you apparently didn't see other assumption in post #587.

Why would I attempt to list his thousands of erroneous assumption when no one will address those at the table.

 

[gnostic]

I am pointing out that belief is not knowledge. That it is a false pretense of knowing. But clearly you are not going to accept this.

Can you explain the difference between belief and knowledge?

How often to you say to yourself, "I know I'm an atheist an all, but it really is quite possible that God exists, and that my atheism is therefor just unfounded bravado"?

that last one, is an absurd example, because the opposite is just as absurd:

"I know I'm a theist and all, but it really is quite possible that God don’t exists, and that my theism is therefore just unfounded bravado"​

Both theism and atheism are just opposite positions & opposite beliefs about the “belief” of the existence of deity or deities. Neither sides have “knowledge” about god or about God’s existence.

Neither sides have evidence to back their belief or non-belief. And neither sides have anything to offer to natural sciences.

“Natural Sciences”, as in physics, chemistry, Earth sciences, astronomy & life sciences (eg biology-related sciences)

Evidence & experiments (plus data) are the only true commodity for natural sciences, because they are the only means to objectively TEST any model of a hypothesis or theory.

The “testing the model” or “testing the hypothesis”, is the most important steps in the Scientific Method, after “formulating the hypothesis”.

A hypothesis or scientific theory have to be ”falsifiable”, meaning they have to be “testable”, “refutable”.

If you are able to test the hypothesis or theory, with observations of evidence or experiments, then the hypothesis or theory is falsifiable…even if the experiments or evidence should “REFUTE” the falsifiable hypothesis or falsifiable theory.

And if a hypothesis have been rigorously tested and verified to be “probable” or “likely”, then this hypothesis have potential of becoming a new “scientific theory”. And a scientific theory is knowledge, it is a knowledge that would explain WHAT the phenomena is and HOW that phenomena work, and being able to test that knowledge with verifiable observations (“observations” as in experiments, evidence & data).

As I have always said, any science (referring to Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences) required evidence & experiments to test any given model, even if those test would refute the model.

That not the case for either theism or atheism, as there are no way test the existence of god…you cannot perform experiments that would make god observable. And if you cannot observe, test or measure God, then you would have no evidence, as in absence of evidence or zero evidence.

Neither theism, nor atheism, have anything to do with science, and neither of them have “knowledge“.

You have only directed the “unfounded bravados” barbs at atheism, but theism is certainly no better, as it provides zero knowledge.

 

[MikeF]

Both theism and atheism are just opposite positions & opposite beliefs about the “belief” of the existence of deity or deities. Neither sides have “knowledge” about god or about God’s existence.

I disagree. Scientifically we have a lot of information and knowledge about entities categorized under the label 'gods'. It has been more than established that the whole category consists of psychological/social constructs that have evolved over millennia of human thought. They are pure human invention, just as nationality and currency are. Speculation that any of the large number of entities in that category actually exist would be wholly unfounded and unsupportable, for it is not even established that such entities are even possible in the real world. Scientifically, they are properly seen as fictions, or better described as myth if such fictions are held by some to be real.

 

[cladking]

Scientifically we have a lot of information and knowledge about entities categorized under the label 'gods'.

There is no evidence at all, far less "scientific evidence" that any of the first known "gods" were believed to be imaginary consciousness that control men's lives. The words appear in sentences that are believed to be magic and incantation.

Indeed, I have come to believe there is precious little real science at all in most of the soft sciences from history to anthropology. It is mostly the interpretation of "evidence". Sociology is about statistics and interpolation.

This opens up many possibilities if "gods" meant something different.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now I've linked three times to the assumption. But you apparently didn't see other assumption in post #587.

Believe you did whatever you want.

Why would I attempt to list his thousands of erroneous assumption when no one will address those at the table.

I don't care. I know you aren't going to do anything and frankly I'm tired of the game. I tried to engage you in serious debate and you convinced me there is no point to it. Believe whatever you want.

 

[F1fan]

How often to you say to yourself, "I know I'm an atheist an all, but it really is quite possible that God exists, and that my atheism is therefor just unfounded bravado"?

Never. Why would ackowledging a possibility mean that my default position is unfounded? What is unfounded is what theists claim of some God existing, as if they know it. I invite believers to explain why they believe, or why they think they know, but the answers are not reasoned conclusions based on evidence. It never is.

No. We think we are, but in truth, we aren't. None of us really knows what's going in, here. It's important to remember this.

Yet here you are trying to argue a position that you think is true. And you are incorrect to say that critial thinkers are equipped to use their skill in debate against foolish and non-factual claims and beliefs. You see it every day, so I'm not sure why you deny it.

Yes, they seem to be addicted to the idea that they are smarter than everyone else. And therefor have the responsibility of judging everyone else's thought processes against their own.

They? You claimed to be a critical thinker a few days ago. Now you insult and condemn a group you belong to? Self loathing is such a religious thing to do.

That's a logic circle. Process X leads to conclusion X. So X must be the right conclusion because it's consistent with the process.

That is how logic works. You don't like correct conclusions?

 

[ratiocinator]

All my claims are not merely falsifiable but are supported by experiment.

They rarely make much sense, quite frankly. But go ahead and give me an example. Show how it is falsifiable and what the supporting evidence is (Note: "no experiment has shown it to be wrong" is not evidence to support it).

Where is your evidence or experiment that justify Darwin's assumptions, for instance?

What assumption?

I can show a century and a half of experiment to show he is wrong.

Why haven't you?

And you have still not justified your absurd assertion that only experiment is relevant to science.