Atheists and their jargon of insults

[Orbit]

You're actually going to claim you've never seen an atheist like this...

Like what? You listed a dozen things.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm not gonna lie, I find this very gross. You know how it feels to be treated like **** yet can't even acknowledge atheists do it to theists or stand up against it. Here, watch something:

A lot of theists are bad people. They are abusive, dishonest, manipulative, even violent. I condemn these theists and implore them to do better.

Your turn!

I am not talking of a few ambiguous words, i am talking mental and physical abuse.

Feel free to condemn all you want, it will make no difference. This i have understood for a long long time

BTW, by his own words Dawkins is not atheist.

 

[1137]

Like what? You listed a dozen things.

Noted.

 

[1137]

I am not talking of a few ambiguous words, i am talking mental and physical abuse.

Feel free to condemn all you want, it will make no difference. This i have understood for a long long time

BTW, by his own words Dawkins is not atheist.

So you don't care about abuse at all, and I'm nauseated you'd play that card just to validate abusing who you'd like to. Don't bother responding to me again, I won't be subjected to someone like that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A lot of theists are bad people. They are abusive, dishonest, manipulative, even violent. I condemn these theists and implore them to do better.

Your turn!

You could have changed the word "theists" in both sentences to just "people," and it would have been much better.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No.

Just saying. You can't take anyone's word or any holy book's word for what any other extension to our reducible physical universe, comprises of.
Gods and demons and angels and spirits, since they cannot be quantified, are not able to be confirmed. So when someone says, my God is X and Y and Z they are making an assertion, a claim or when they say Ghosts are X and Y and Z, again an assertion is made. It is not testable.

I agree with you that we shouldn't take someone's word for it or accept a holy book at face value. For instance, I'm agnostic when it comes to believing in deities, but I believe in spirits because of what I've witnessed and documented. If you're interested, you can read my posts here and here to find out what I believe and why. Of course, what I've written reflects my beliefs. I understand that others may disagree and not accept them, and that's fine with me.

 

[Alien826]

Ironically, your description doesn't reflect my overall experience with the atheists on this forum. Maybe it's because I'm not hostile to them and don't give them a reason to be hostile to me. I don't make fun of them, accuse them of being sinners and rebellious against God, threaten them with hellfire for not accepting a specific god, or act as if I'm morally superior to them simply because I believe it's possible that deities could exist and they don't. My general experience with a few Abrahamic theists, on the other hand, has been quite the opposite, to the point where I felt compelled to put them on ignore for a while and eventually cease replying to their replies to me entirely. To be honest, my interactions with these Abrahamic theists have confirmed my opinion that they are some of the rudest, most unpleasant people I've ever met online. With the exception of a couple of theists, I'd rather converse with atheists.

If I may, I'll suggest a few reasons why you don't get attacked by atheists (apart from your sweet demeanor and unhappy history that makes me want to give you a hug).

Your beliefs (Spiritualism in general in fact) don't insist on belief in order to get some kind of reward or avoid some kind of danger. We either believe there is some form of survival after physical death or we don't. It doesn't matter, if true it's going to happen to us all no matter what. Most important, we retain some measure of control.

The idea is appealing (I'm speaking personally here) in that it feels like a continuation of my life on Earth, but (hopefully) better, where I can explore reality from a new viewpoint. When I die, if I find myself in some kind of "afterlife" I will certainly seek you out if that is possible and we can have a chat about what I've discovered.

It makes sense in a way. There don't seem to be any all powerful beings that made it all. Just a progression of evolution (not sure how to say this) where the spirit beings are the next stage of humanity. If true I expect there to be a physical mechanism behind it all. The idea that I may be part of a continuing improvement to humanity (and I hope dogs ) is very exciting to me. I've pretty much given up hope here on Earth.

Sorry, I've drifted off into speculation. And, atheist friends, I'm not claiming that any of this is true, just hoping.

 

[Eddi]

BTW, by his own words Dawkins is not atheist.

I'm not here to bash atheism or atheists, that is not my style..........

But what is he, if not an atheist?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Nope, I'm saying stuff like trying to diagnosis a stranger with mental illness cause they had a divine experience is abuse. Epistemological unfriendliness is abusive.

Anyone who is not a professional who attempts a diagnosis of mental illness is likely causing harm. And even a professionial would not attempt to diagnose a stranger, but would try to get to know them first.

But I'll ask this question of you: if a mother claims in court that she "heard Jesus's voice telling her to kill her children because the end was coming and this will save them from sinning," do you think it more likely (not a diagnosis, just a reasonable guess) that she had a real religious experience, or suffered a mental illness?

And then I'll expand on that, and ask you: do you think it more likely that an omnipotent God (one who could make His will known universally with a mere thought) would choose to try to make His will known by speaking to one or two "prophets" in order to get his message out, when being omniscient, He must know that will end up with the message garbled, as it always has been?

 

[ChristineM]

So you don't care about abuse at all, and I'm nauseated you'd play that card just to validate abusing who you'd like to. Don't bother responding to me again, I won't be subjected to someone like that.

You have no idea what you are taking about, if you did then you may have a different point of view.

I find it interesting that you are not pointing out the abuse of @Eli G OP. That says much about where your bias lies.

 

[Alien826]

So because spiritual reality isn't bound to deterministic material reality, it can't be real? Everything must be explainable by human science?

I would have put a period (full stop) after the word "explainable" in your last sentence. "Everything must be explainable".

I would say there are two levels to this.

- Does it exist?
- What is its nature?

The first is a lot easier than the second. We can have evidence that there might be "something there", but it doesn't get us very far. The next stage requires a lot more work, and finding some way to actually examine the phenomenon is just the first step.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

So you don't care about abuse at all, and I'm nauseated you'd play that card just to validate abusing who you'd like to.

I believe that this is an unfair accusation to make against @ChristineM.

I've read her posts and am aware of her painful past, and I've never had the impression that she is indifferent about abuse.

Don't bother responding to me again, I won't be subjected to someone like that.

That is entirely your decision, but I believe you are mistaken about her.

 

[Alien826]

Nope, I'm saying stuff like trying to diagnosis a stranger with mental illness cause they had a divine experience is abuse. Epistemological unfriendliness is abusive.

Fair enough, but how to tell?

If someone takes a knife and murders his whole family then says he did it because "the voices told me to", the first assumption is that he is mentally ill, no? Yet if the voices speak of "peace and love" we should assume it was a divine experience? I'm not claiming that all such things are due to mental illness, but how can we differentiate?

 

[1137]

You could have changed the word "theists" in both sentences to just "people," and it would have been much better.

100% but I'm trying to make a point. It's insane that someone couldn't admit this can applies to atheists (not you, the other user)

 

[Orbit]

100% but I'm trying to make a point. It's insane that someone couldn't admit this can applies to atheists (not you, the other user)

People are people. Being an atheist doesn't cause someone to be a jerk any more than being religious does.

 

[1137]

Anyone who is not a professional who attempts a diagnosis of mental illness is likely causing harm. And even a professionial would not attempt to diagnose a stranger, but would try to get to know them first.

I'm glad we agree.

But I'll ask this question of you: if a mother claims in court that she "heard Jesus's voice telling her to kill her children because the end was coming and this will save them from sinning," do you think it more likely (not a diagnosis, just a reasonable guess) that she had a real religious experience, or suffered a mental illness?

I honestly can't say, as a polytheist it appears to me since gods are absolutely evil.

And then I'll expand on that, and ask you: do you think it more likely that an omnipotent God (one who could make His will known universally with a mere thought) would choose to try to make His will known by speaking to one or two "prophets" in order to get his message out, when being omniscient, He must know that will end up with the message garbled, as it always has been?

I think it's more likely any god claiming to be omnipotent is a liar and not too be trusted.

 

[1137]

I would have put a period (full stop) after the word "explainable" in your last sentence. "Everything must be explainable".

I would say there are two levels to this.

- Does it exist?
- What is its nature?

The first is a lot easier than the second. We can have evidence that there might be "something there", but it doesn't get us very far. The next stage requires a lot more work, and finding some way to actually examine the phenomenon is just the first step.

I think that's fair, I like these 2 questions for almost any X.

 

[1137]

I believe that this is an unfair accusation to make against @ChristineM.

I've read her posts and am aware of her painful past, and I've never had the impression that she is indifferent about abuse.



That is entirely your decision, but I believe you are mistaken about her.

All she had to do was condemn abusive atheists, I can't see how that was too much or unfair to ask. As someone who has undergone abuse and condemns all of it, I can't stomach that.

 

[1137]

Fair enough, but how to tell?

If someone takes a knife and murders his whole family then says he did it because "the voices told me to", the first assumption is that he is mentally ill, no? Yet if the voices speak of "peace and love" we should assume it was a divine experience? I'm not claiming that all such things are due to mental illness, but how can we differentiate?

Legally speaking sure, the assumption is practical. I'm a polytheists who believes in evil gods, so I think we're talking a bit past each other. I have no problem putting the murderer away, but I find it totally possible her god told her to do it. People used to do way crazier stuff for their gods.

 

[1137]

People are people. Being an atheist doesn't cause someone to be a jerk any more than being religious does.

I never suggested it did. This makes it even worse that someone can't admit to there being abusive atheists and abusive atheism.