Atheists and their jargon of insults

[ratiocinator]

Oh, the empty retort ...

You are one of the most dogmatic and critical posters on here yet you endlessly criticise others for daring to debate things on debate forums. Sorry but I find that amusing.

 

[PureX]

Now the "Nut-huh! YOU did!" retort.

 

[osgart]

Yes, and usually for the wrong reason. Namely, ego. In which case the confrontation achieves nothing of value.

Ok.

No one cares about "non-belief". It's just meaningless gibberish coming from people that lack the clarity, honesty, and courage to state and defend their own position.

I honestly do not believe, nor consider Gods to be real. Non existence is how I treat those concepts. I have theist friends, so, no, I don't hate on theists.

Attacking theists for being theists isn't voicing opposition. It's attacking theists for being theists. I attack cowards and bullies that call themselves atheists, but then try to run and hide when they're asked to defend their atheism. Even though they constantly attack theists and demand the same justification.

I think they deserve it.

Ok that gives equal grounds for atheists and theists having to defend both positions. That's a better form of debate. I attack fundamentalism that condemns non belief of God or Gods. They deserve it. There are particular gods that deserve nothing but rejection, and criticism.

I will not be forced into theocratic rule of any kind, and I've never experienced a God.

Are you against igtheism, and apatheism as well?

Usually people debate specific gods. There are specific gods that deserve no credence whatsoever. If I have to go into details on why Superman and Spiderman are not real so be it.

No one has to buy into anyone else's truth.

 

[MikeF]

No one is suggesting that we presume a proposition to be "both" true and false. Though most are depending on their relative context. Basic logic dictates that we not presume any conclusion until we have the sufficient factual context to do so. And the fact that you are trying to argue with this is inexplicable considering that ou fancy yourself to be among the "critical thinker" crowd.

Ouch! Seems I've asked a stupid question in your view.

As to calling myself a "critical thinker", I don't think I have applied that term to myself. Given the inherent fallibility of human nature, such a designation would have more meaning and value if it were not self-assigned, but assigned by others in my opinion.

Do you see me as a critical thinker, however that may be defined?

 

[PureX]

Ok.

I honestly do not believe, nor consider Gods to be real. Non existence is how I treat those concepts. I have theist friends, so, no, I don't hate on theists.

NO ONE CARES!

What you believe or don't believe is no one's business. All that matters to us is what you assert to be true for us. And since most of these idiot-atheists I encounter assert nothing but that all theists are wrong, they are of no import or consequence to the discussion at all. They are just childish, self-centered annoyances.

Ok that gives equal grounds for atheists and theists having to defend both positions.

Only if they assert them as being true for me. I make such assertions often, but only within the limitations of our all being human.

That's a better form of debate. I attack fundamentalism that condemns non belief of God or Gods.

And it's obviously a big waste of time. Because nothing you post is going to effect the fundi's convictions. They've already heard it and rejected it.

They deserve it. There are particular gods that deserve nothing but rejection, and criticism.

Those aren't "gods", those are god-concepts. It's good to discuss and debate these but it's going to be pointless bickering if we aren't going to address the concepts themselves instead of arguing belief against belief. Belief comes from ego. And the ego blindly auto-defends itself.

I will not be forced into theocratic rule of any kind, and I've never experienced a God.

That's a political issue, and your own business, respectively. Not theism.

Are you against igtheism, and apatheism as well?

I am against people hiding their bias behind silly labels. Let's either state our positions and discuss/debate them, or shut up and listen until we determine what our position is.

Usually people debate specific gods. There are specific gods that deserve no credence whatsoever. If I have to go into details on why Superman and Spiderman are not real so be it.

No one cares about what isn't real to you. And there's no reason you should care, either.

No one has to buy into anyone else's truth.

Where are you getting the idea that you're being asked to? All any of us can do is share our experience and understanding with each other. And then let others take what they will from it, as we do the same. There is no "fight" here. No one can force anyone to agree to anything. Only a fool would try.

 

[PureX]

Ouch! Seems I've asked a stupid question in your view.

As to calling myself a "critical thinker", I don't think I have applied that term to myself. Given the inherent fallibility of human nature, such a designation would have more meaning and value if it were not self-assigned, but assigned by others in my opinion.

Do you see me as a critical thinker, however that may be defined?

I see you (from your posts) as being fairly open and curious and honest, and I respect and appreciate those qualities, greatly. But critical thinking is akin to an art form that takes practice and experience, and does not deliver perfection, ever. Which is why those who can do it tend not to make any claims based on it if they can help it. There is no getting it right. There's just doing it, doing it well, or not doing it.

 

[Stevicus]

Ouch! Seems I've asked a stupid question in your view.

As to calling myself a "critical thinker", I don't think I have applied that term to myself. Given the inherent fallibility of human nature, such a designation would have more meaning and value if it were not self-assigned, but assigned by others in my opinion.

Do you see me as a critical thinker, however that may be defined?

I think the term "critical thinker" is yet another term which gets overused and misunderstood.

In earlier decades, the preferred term was "free thinker," which implies a different concept and doesn't necessarily box anyone in.

"Thinking outside the box" was another popular phrase which seems to have fallen by the wayside. The phrase "critical thinking" implies "correct thinking," suggesting that there is only one correct way to think. It seems more an appeal to dogmatism than anything to do with actual "thinking."

 

[MikeF]

I see you (from your posts)

I think your caveat here is perfect. I fully agree that we can only really build a caricature of the others we interact with here due to the limits and nature of the interactions.

as being fairly open and curious and honest, and I respect and appreciate those qualities, greatly.

Very kind. Thank you.

But critical thinking is akin to an art form that takes practice and experience, and does not deliver perfection, ever. Which is why those who can do it tend not to make any claims based on it if they can help it. There is no getting it right. There's just doing it, doing it well, or not doing it.

I completely agree. Which is why I would advocate the need to apply the same level of rational skepticism to everything that is presented to us, be it from a Nobel laureate or a random person on the internet. ETA: And especially to what we come up with on our own, as I was reminded by @PureX .

 

[PureX]

I think your caveat here is perfect. I fully agree that we can only really build a caricature of the others we interact with here due to the limits and nature of the interactions.



Very kind. Thank you.



I completely agree. Which is why I would advocate the need to apply the same level of rational skepticism to everything that is presented to us, be it from a Nobel laureate or a random person on the internet.

AND to ourselves, to the degree that we are able.

I saw a video from Neil Degrasse-Tyson yesterday explaining why he rejected an invitation to come view two supposes space alien mummified bodies in South America. And his reasoning was that he is not a biologist or a chemical engineer. And that he is only one scientist. Therefor nothing he could or would conclude about those bodies would rise to the level of a legitimate scientific inquiry. And as a result, the trip would really just be a PR stunt.

I appreciate that Neil was able to place himself within the scope of his own skepticism. That's the mark of a true 'critical thinker' ... I think.

 

[MikeF]

I think the term "critical thinker" is yet another term which gets overused and misunderstood.

In earlier decades, the preferred term was "free thinker," which implies a different concept and doesn't necessarily box anyone in.

"Thinking outside the box" was another popular phrase which seems to have fallen by the wayside. The phrase "critical thinking" implies "correct thinking," suggesting that there is only one correct way to think. It seems more an appeal to dogmatism than anything to do with actual "thinking."

I suppose it comes down to what exactly it is that we are looking for. "Free thinker" implies to me thought that is completely unbounded. This is great of course in terms of hitting upon some valuable idea that would take longer to come upon methodically. The downside is there can be a lot of time spent coming up with ideas that have no value. The pool of useless ideas is infinite after all. There is also the risk that one can quickly get lost in imaginative fantasy, no longer tethered to the real world.

What I do like about the notion of "thinking outside the box" is that it is simply suggesting we continually reevaluate what we know and to what degree we should assign confidence in that knowledge. If we incorrectly assign too great a confidence in a particular idea, we have, in essence, boxed ourselves in.

I suggested to @PureX above, the concept of rational skepticism. In my view, it would be like the mantra "constant vigilance" espoused by Mad-Eye Moody in the Harry Potter series. New and conflicting ideas should initiate a rational skepticism in both the new idea as well as in the knowledge held with confidence with which it conflicts. That continual reevaluation aids in finding errors in knowledge held with confidence as well as continually strengthens confidence in knowledge that continually survives the reevaluation process.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I suppose it comes down to what exactly it is that we are looking for. "Free thinker" implies to me thought that is completely unbounded. This is great of course in terms of hitting upon some valuable idea that would take longer to come upon methodically. The downside is there can be a lot of time spent coming up with ideas that have no value. The pool of useless ideas is infinite after all. There is also the risk that one can quickly get lost in imaginative fantasy, no longer tethered to the real world.

Not quite -- sometimes what looks like a useless idea might just be good for something else altogether. One of the more famous examples is the invention of a glue that didn't quite work as expected. Spencer Silver, an employee researcher at 3M, was trying to create a stronger adhesive for the aerospace industry, all he ended up being able to create was a weak adhesive that could easily be removed without residue -- but provided the means of creating the Post-It Note.

Bubble wrap was invented by engineers Marc Chavannes and Al Fielding in 1960 in an attempt to create a trendy new textured wallpaper. This was a total failure, as was a later attempt to market it as housing insulation. When the wrap was eventually used by IBM to package a newly launched computer during transport, it suddenly became an overnight success. Today, few people even realize that bubble wrap began as an abject failure.

 

[MikeF]

AND to ourselves, to the degree that we are able.

Absolutely! I'll have to edit the post.

I saw a video from Neil Degrasse-Tyson yesterday explaining why he rejected an invitation to come view two supposes space alien mummified bodies in South America. And his reasoning was that he is not a biologist or a chemical engineer. And that he is only one scientist. Therefor nothing he could or would conclude about those bodies would rise to the level of a legitimate scientific inquiry. And as a result, the trip would really just be a PR stunt.

I appreciate that Neil was able to place himself within the scope of his own skepticism. That's the mark of a true 'critical thinker' ... I think.

Walking the walk, as they say.

 

[MikeF]

Not quite -- sometimes what looks like a useless idea might just be good for something else altogether. One of the more famous examples is the invention of a glue that didn't quite work as expected. Spencer Silver, an employee researcher at 3M, was trying to create a stronger adhesive for the aerospace industry, all he ended up being able to create was a weak adhesive that could easily be removed without residue -- but provided the means of creating the Post-It Note.

Bubble wrap was invented by engineers Marc Chavannes and Al Fielding in 1960 in an attempt to create a trendy new textured wallpaper. This was a total failure, as was a later attempt to market it as housing insulation. When the wrap was eventually used by IBM to package a newly launched computer during transport, it suddenly became an overnight success. Today, few people even realize that bubble wrap began as an abject failure.

Huh, you don't consider those as examples of "hitting upon some valuable idea that would take longer to come upon methodically."?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Huh, you don't consider those as examples of "hitting upon some valuable idea that would take longer to come upon methodically."?

I was responding primarily to this part of your post: "The downside is there can be a lot of time spent coming up with ideas that have no value. The pool of useless ideas is infinite after all." Useless ideas are only useless until some use can be found for them. Nobody was actually looking for a solution for "is there some way to make a sticky piece of paper easy to stick and remove with no residue from another piece of paper?"

Let me give you another example, this one a bit more sinister.

Before 2005, no US state required photo ID to vote, and before 2011, only Georgia and Indiana did. Now, in their desire to make it harder for some to vote (those who don't tend to vote Republican) between 2011 and 2016 thirteen states -- all Republican led -- passed strict photo ID laws, and more have done so since.

Now, the reason give sounds plausible -- to prevent voter impersonation fraud. But this is virtually non-existent in the US. Under George W. Bush, the Justice Department lauchned an unprecedented effort to identify and ppunish cases of voter fraud. They found almost no cases. Out of hundreds of millions of votes cast, only 35 voters were convited of fraud between 2002 and 2005, and ost of these were simple mistakes or violations of voter registration laws. None, not a single one, would have been prevented by photo ID laws.

So in fact the Republicans invented a solution that didn't in fact have a problem that needed solving.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, and usually for the wrong reason. Namely, ego. In which case the confrontation achieves nothing of value.

So do you think this applies to theists who confront atheists? Note: you do this, so it must be your ego, yes?

No one cares about "non-belief".

Theists do when they confront atheists (who are non-believers). You care about atheists being non-believers, too, as your posts reveal.

It's just meaningless gibberish coming from people that lack the clarity, honesty, and courage to state and defend their own position.

Is this a confession?

Attacking theists for being theists isn't voicing opposition.

Debating ideas is not attacking the believer, it is criticizing the ideas and why they were judged true and claimed. Attacking the person is a fallacy.

It's attacking theists for being theists.

If they are theists and making claims in a public forum then they are open to critique.

I attack cowards and bullies that call themselves atheists, but then try to run and hide when they're asked to defend their atheism. Even though they constantly attack theists and demand the same justification.

I think they deserve it.

So you admit to attacking the person? And just because they are an atheist? Could your bias against atheists leads you to an improper judgment about atheists?

 

[F1fan]

I think the term "critical thinker" is yet another term which gets overused and misunderstood.

In earlier decades, the preferred term was "free thinker," which implies a different concept and doesn't necessarily box anyone in.

"Thinking outside the box" was another popular phrase which seems to have fallen by the wayside. The phrase "critical thinking" implies "correct thinking," suggesting that there is only one correct way to think. It seems more an appeal to dogmatism than anything to do with actual "thinking."

I suggest that "critical thinker" is a skilled thinker. It's not an absolute. We are allk prone to error, and part of debate as a critical thinker is being open to adjust understanding and knowledge to better inform conclusions. I've been plenty wrong about many things, and I do my best to adjust. It's not about making perfect judgments, it's a process like science that adjusts to more accurate ways of knowing and understanding.

As we see there are some members on the forum that have a problem with reason, and even facts, and they have personal bias that leads them to attack this process. It is akin to Trump attacking the media to discredit the reliability of reporting. So when I see someone attack critical thinking, they know they are on the losing side of an issue.

 

[wellwisher]

The existence or not of supernatural phenomena, is a question which lies just outside of the scientific method of inquiry, which requires a certain rigour, when it comes to methodology, for example establishing laboratory conditions, which are required, so any experimentation is independently reproducible and therefore verifiable, as is required.

A few videos and photos of your pots and pans flying about of their own accord, is interesting, and is evidence, but it is not by itself nearly enough. To form any kind of scientific theory on the phenomena, no starting points, and so, science ignores the paranormal. Having more pressing concerns, of things which are testable. Like fusion power.

The philosophy of science limits itself to only things outside us, that can be sensed by the five senses, that we all share. This allows us to see to believe, as a group. The philosophy does not take into account the inner reality, that is not easy to share via the five externally tuned senses. For example, dreams are real. We have all had a dreams at one time. But another person cannot reproduce my dream in the lab. It is real output from the brain, but it needs to be seen from within, which is beyond the philosophy of science. Consciousness can perceive both outside and inside, with science limited itself to the outside. The inside still is real.

If you look at the concepts of dark energy and dark matter, these have never been seen in the lab to make sure they are real. Why does this get a pass in terms of the philosophy? Shouldn't there by reproducible lab proof before we celebrate? What is used as collective proof is circumstantial evidence. There appears to be something impacting secondary things, that can seen. I could just as well use fairies as the casual placeholder, since we cannot see them in the lab either. This is an example of inner reality projected to fill in the gaps.

The theory of life on other planets or in other solvents has never been demonstrated and then reproduced in the lab, so why is that still allowed in science? Why is it not lumped as superstition? It involves intellect and intuition that feel agreeable, within.

If we include applied science and the science burden of reproducible lab proof, one can refute many dogma of science. For example diamonds, which are girl's best friend, are assumed to be formed by carbon subjected to heat and pressure over millions of years. Has anyone done any million year experiments, in the lab to confirm this theory? I can build an apparatus like an anvil hot press and make diamonds in weeks. This has been reproduced in the lab and are for sale at Chatham Lab Grown Diamonds and Lab Grown Gemstones . Why hasn't the theory changed due to my latter theory playing by the book? Are politics involved?

In all cases, dark energy/matter, diamonds, life on other planets or in other solvents, etc., we sneak in some inner synthesis; logic and imagination, and gut feelings, that are supposedly outside the box of the philosophy of science. I would prefer update the philosophy to include inner synthesis and internal observations. We have other senses that are designed for the internal world of consciousness with spiritual things sensed by consciousness from within.

 

[Left Coast]

If you look at the concepts of dark energy and dark matter, these have never been seen in the lab to make sure they are real. Why does this get a pass in terms of the philosophy? Shouldn't there by reproducible lab proof before we celebrate?

Do you think that scientific inquiry only extends to things that are literally physically able to be placed inside a building with a lab in it? Cmon now. I think we both know that's silly. Anything we can observe and measure can be studied scientifically.

As far as dark matter and energy, here you go:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1516944112#:~:text=The%20evidence%20for%20the%20existence,and%20the%20cosmic%20microwave%20background.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter | Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian

All the atoms and light in the universe together make up less than five percent of the total contents of the cosmos. The rest is composed of dark matter and dark energy, which are invisible but dominate the structure and evolution of the universe. Dark matter makes up most of the mass of...

www.cfa.harvard.edu

What is used as collective proof is circumstantial evidence. There appears to be something impacting secondary things, that can seen. I could just as well use fairies as the casual placeholder, since we cannot see them in the lab either. This is an example of inner reality projected to fill in the gaps.

Nah. See, we know that matter and energy exist. We don't know that fairies exist. So when we find evidence of some force being exerted on something else, scientists posit explanations that are scientifically plausible rather than magic.

The theory of life on other planets or in other solvents has never been demonstrated and then reproduced in the lab, so why is that still allowed in science? Why is it not lumped as superstition? It involves intellect and intuition that feel agreeable, within.

Scientists don't know if there is life on other planets. We are able to scientifically look for evidence though, because we can observe and measure other planets for signs of life. What's objectionable about that?

If we include applied science and the science burden of reproducible lab proof, one can refute many dogma of science. For example diamonds, which are girl's best friend, are assumed to be formed by carbon subjected to heat and pressure over millions of years. Has anyone done any million year experiments, in the lab to confirm this theory?

This is silly. Do you believe scientists can only conclude how long a process takes if they literally sit there and watch it for the entire time?

I can build an apparatus like an anvil hot press and make diamonds in weeks. This has been reproduced in the lab and are for sale at Chatham Lab Grown Diamonds and Lab Grown Gemstones . Why hasn't the theory changed due to my latter theory playing by the book? Are politics involved?

Why would "politics" be involved? If humans have artificially developed a way to quickly produce something that naturally takes a long time... so what? Do we have any evidence that the artificial processes we use to speed up the process were present in the past? If not, we can logically infer the process took longer before we showed up. Doesn't that make sense?

In all cases, dark energy/matter, diamonds, life on other planets or in other solvents, etc., we sneak in some inner synthesis; logic and imagination, and gut feelings, that are supposedly outside the box of the philosophy of science. I would prefer update the philosophy to include inner synthesis and internal observations. We have other senses that are designed for the internal world of consciousness with spiritual things sensed by consciousness from within.

Gut feelings and imagination are fine in science, as long as they can be tested. Logic is used inherently in science. There's nothing contradictory about any of that, that I can see.

 

[Little Dragon]

If you look at the concepts of dark energy and dark matter, these have never been seen in the lab to make sure they are real. Why does this get a pass in terms of the philosophy?

Dark matter is not directly observable, because it does not interact with electromagnetic radiation or anything else except gravity. Instead we infer it's presence by observing the rotational speed of this galaxy. The galaxy is far more massive, than the normal objects of matter, stars and gas and dust etc..could account for. Gravitationally.

The theory of life on other planets or in other solvents has never been demonstrated and then reproduced in the lab, so why is that still allowed in science?

The testable hypothesis that life exists on other worlds and moons is founded upon the evidence that at least one planet harbours life, this one. Earth. Then, we extrapolate the possibility of other worlds harbouring life, from calculating the numbers involved. This galaxy contains approx 200 Billion stars, most of which, have planetary systems. There are approximately 2 + trillion galaxies in the observable and estimated universe. Therefore, a probability is estimated. Such an example is the Drake Equation.

For example diamonds, which are girl's best friend, are assumed to be formed by carbon subjected to heat and pressure over millions of years. Has anyone done any million year experiments, in the lab to confirm this theory?

A million year experiment is not possible without a time machine, or a million years to run it.

Diamond is just an allotrope of Carbon. It only forms that allotrope under intense heat and or pressure. Just like the allotropes of other elements. Diamond exists deep within Coal bearing rocks. There is no other rational explanation for the natural presence of diamonds, other than coal becoming compressed and heated into diamond, over time.

None of your arguments here reveal anything inconsistent about scientific validity. Your understanding is merely problematic.

 

[Little Dragon]

We have other senses that are designed for the internal world of consciousness with spiritual things sensed by consciousness from within.

Possibly. As yet un qualified and un quantified senses. A hypothesis. That might be testable.

ESP and Telepathy and Remote Viewing, etc...I agree these phenomena could exist, and if they do, they will be logically reducible.