Atheists and their jargon of insults

[Twilight Hue]

You guys might want to learn to take what you can dish. Atheists have this funny habit of taking offense when the theist complains about New Atheism, yet you've all done nothing to eliminate New Atheism. It's like if theists wouldn't condemn bad fellow theists.

I find no offense over the matter simply because it largely has to do with matter of fact.

Theist or not. Life is going to go the way it always has on its terms and not ours. Human quibblings are not going to change how things actually work , so no point in any type of offense simply because none of it is going to matter when all is said and done where nature and the universe simply continues on foreward indifferent to whatever we think.

 

[ratiocinator]

How can anyone who fancies himself a scientist conclude there is no God?

Firstly, a lot of atheists are agnostic atheists, who don't claim to know that there is no god or gods, just that they can see no reason to believe in any of them.

People often overlook the magic that is life and the anomalies that show massive holes in their knowledge but how do they overlook the fact that reality is so complex?

Life is magic? What a bizarre claim!

Complexity and holes in our knowledge are not reasons to believe in some specific 'answer' that you happen to like. That's just an argument from ignorance fallacy and the equivalent of just giving up and saying "this is difficult, I dunno, it must be magic!" If everybody had done that with all the holes we had in our knowledge, we'd have no science or technology at all.

And you overlook the fact that filling holes with "goddidit", doesn't really answer anything at all. All it does is move the holes around a bit. Why does this 'god' exist and why did it do what it did? Isn't it too 'magic' and complex? In fact, wouldn't it be even more 'magic' and complex than the things you're trying to explain? Do you not see that you've set up an infinite regress and only personal preference, not anything remotely logical, makes you stop at a point you happen to like more than the original 'holes' you started with?

 

[Little Dragon]

when all is said and done where nature and the universe simply continues on foreward indifferent to whatever we think.

Indeed. This incomprehensibly vast and pitiless universe is entirely indifferent to our survival let alone our opinions. We are merely a snapshot of the long winding river of time.

 

[Little Dragon]

How can anyone who fancies himself a scientist conclude there is no God?

Science deals with the testable and measurable. Not the untestable hypothetical.

Which is why any actual scientist would only conclude that there is a God, on merits that lie outside of the scope of scientific investigation, such as perhaps, personal revelation, or just good old fashioned childhood indoctrination and double think.

 

[ratiocinator]

You guys might want to learn to take what you can dish.

This is quite funny really. I'm an atheist, I've not been offended by anything any theist has said here.

Atheists have this funny habit of taking offense when the theist complains about New Atheism, yet you've all done nothing to eliminate New Atheism. It's like if theists wouldn't condemn bad fellow theists.

I don't really know what "new atheism" even is. It seems to be a rather vague term that was applied when a few people wrote some books that had the audacity to raise questions about theism and and point out some of the problems with its basis and some of the problems that can be caused by it, especially in its more extreme forms.

Not all of said books were very good but at least they seem to have had the effect of it being somewhat easier for people to either express their atheist lack of belief more openly or allow some people to "get off the fence".

I've seem much more offence being expressed by theists than atheists. Not statistically significant, just my personal experience.

Frankly if theists want to have a rant at atheists, I really don't care much unless they actually want to force their ideas onto others. All I'll do is point out the problems that I see in what they say.

Some times I can't be bothered to even do that 'cos it's just more of the same and rather boring.

 

[Little Dragon]

It seems you're lumping atheists in with science fans? I think that's fairly reasonable.

Well yes. Science fans tend to understand the significant benefits of a belief system that is based upon empirically derived evidence, and conversely they recognize that article of faith based belief systems are far from intellectually satisfying explanations for the universe and humanity's relationship to it. They perceive that to accept article of faith based reasoning, is a surrender, of reason.

 

[cladking]

And you overlook the fact that filling holes with "goddidit", doesn't really answer anything at all.

Extrapolation of irrelevant experiment can do far more harm than any Inquisition ever did.

Life is magic? What a bizarre claim!

Without magic like consciousness, love, and free will life would not be worth living to me.

If you don't think such things are 'magical" then why not define them and measure them? If you don't think there is magic then what is a fully formed idea for an experiment? Why don't you try defining "magic" in some way other than "that which does not exist".

 

[Little Dragon]

Without magic like consciousness, love, and free will life would not be worth living to me.

In my view all those things are entirely non magical and logically reducible, yet no less valuable. Not sure about free will though, I don't believe it exists, even abstractly.

 

[cladking]

Well yes. Science fans tend to understand the significant benefits of a belief system that is based upon empirically derived evidence, and conversely they recognize that article of faith based belief systems are far from intellectually satisfying explanations for the universe and humanity's relationship to it. They perceive that to accept article of faith based reasoning, is a surrender, of reason.

Anyone who tries to live his life in terms of science is depriving himself of most of life. The simple fact is no important question can be answered by science. Life is a seat of the pants adventure and imagining you can can get to your destination on instruments alone will fail and deny you an experience of a lifetime.

 

[cladking]

In my view all those things are entirely non magical and logically reducible, yet no less valuable.

In theory they are reducible but 500 years of science has failed to even provide definitions. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting even for a definition and few would recognize it even if they saw it.

Not sure about free will though, I don't believe it exists, even abstractly.

This is a problem. It's a very common problem but a problem none the less. It is the primary cause of the ongoing collapse of civilization.

 

[ratiocinator]

Extrapolation of irrelevant experiment can do far more harm than any Inquisition ever did.

Eh? Who said anything about "extrapolation of irrelevant experiment"? What are you even talking about?

Without magic like consciousness, love, and free will life would not be worth living to me.

I don't think 'free will' in the sense that a lot of people think about it, even exists, it seems to be logically self-contradictory. The others clearly do exist, but why do you think any of those are magic?

If you don't think such things are 'magical" then why not define them and measure them?

Consciousness is being investigated but it's a difficult problem. Love is a rather vague term that can be used to describe many states of mind.

Why don't you try defining "magic" in some way other than "that which does not exist".

That's not a definition I would use, but you brought up the term, so you should really be defining it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I love a good discussion about the esoteric.

As for the OP and thread title. I try to be polite and civil. I tend to respond in kind. If people are sweet and self aware, then I treat them like crystal glass, if they're offensive and judgemental, then I am not so sensitive to their feelings.
I don't assume that because they are christian or satanists or whatever, that I am not going to warm to them. There are a number of theists on this forum I have considerable respect for. I think all generalization is inadvisable, including this thread premise.

I tend to follow that pattern as well. I do note that I have gotten a great deal of, shall we say interest and opinion, from other theists that I would liken to what a theist is claiming here about atheists.

I see this as a learning experience about the subjects and the people involved.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I love a good discussion about the esoteric.

As for the OP and thread title. I try to be polite and civil. I tend to respond in kind. If people are sweet and self aware, then I treat them like crystal glass, if they're offensive and judgemental, then I am not so sensitive to their feelings.
I don't assume that because they are christian or satanists or whatever, that I am not going to warm to them. There are a number of theists on this forum I have considerable respect for. I think all generalization is inadvisable, including this thread premise.

Sometimes I find myself having composed a response and, upon reflection, delete it. What emotion composes, my rational, civil side wisely censors by good use of the delete drafts tool.

Sometimes that doesn't always work smoothly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's the measurable part that counts. We can measure the mass of dark matter by inference of it's effect upon rotational velocities of galaxies, even if we can't directly observe it. It's all about the measuring. That's 99.999% of science.

I'm curious about the mechanisms proposed to explain how the immaterial interacts with the material and the evidence that demonstrates that interaction. How is that measured or determined?

I don't see those sorts of explanations.

There's a lot of you have to believe in order to see and not seeing means you don't believe. A hoop snake.

 

[icehorse]

Well yes. Science fans tend to understand the significant benefits of a belief system that is based upon empirically derived evidence, and conversely they recognize that article of faith based belief systems are far from intellectually satisfying explanations for the universe and humanity's relationship to it. They perceive that to accept article of faith based reasoning, is a surrender, of reason.

Mostly agreed. Even though I mostly want evidence, I do admit that there are beliefs that I hold on faith, with bad evidence. For example, I'm a secular humanist. What this means to me is that I believe that humans can solve their own problems without supernatural interventions. These days, the evidence for that belief is shaky, sigh.

But what's key I think is to be honest about when you're taking something on faith, and when you're not.

 

[ChristineM]

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

But what is he, if not an atheist?

In his own words "he cannot be sure if god does not exist" thus making him agnostic

 

[Eddi]

thus making him agnostic

Interesting........

Like me then!

I always thought of him as the most prominent of atheists

Clearly I was not properly informed

 

[ChristineM]

Interesting........

Like me then!

I always thought of him as the most prominent of atheists

Funny thing is about Dawkins, most atheists don't consider him something special in atheism (even before he came out as agnostic) but many theists consider him a god of atheism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Funny thing is about Dawkins, most atheists don't consider him something special in atheism (even before he came out as agnostic) but many theists consider him a god of atheism.

I respect his views and opinions on science, but I have always wished he was more reserved in his thoughts on religion. I think they have taken away from his contributions and education of the theory of evolution.

 

[Eddi]

Funny thing is about Dawkins, most atheists don't consider him something special in atheism (even before he came out as agnostic) but many theists consider him a god of atheism.

My impression has always been that he was the big daddy of atheism, but obviously not so for atheists then!

Perhaps why theists see him as such is because he has been so eloquent and vocal against there being a god