Atheists and their jargon of insults

[ChristineM]

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.

Even way back at our old forum i used to argue (without moderation they were real arguments) that Dawkins did not represent atheism.

 

[ChristineM]

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

That's about right.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

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

With the risk of appearing pedantic…..
This does not preclude him from being an atheist (which he is).

Agnostic concerns knowledge- he is honest in admitting he has no means of knowing.
Atheist concerns belief- he wrote a book
explaining on a scale of 1 to 7
with 1 being absolutely convinced
and 7 being absolutely not convinced
that he is a 6 leaning to 7

He is what is known as an agnostic atheist
neither precludes the other.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Even way back at our old forum i used to argue (without moderation they were real arguments) that Dawkins did not represent atheism.

I liked the guy that did the Royal Institution Christmas Lecture in 1991. It was about the science without all the personal editorial nonsense.

 

[gnostic]

IMHO, they are just things they cann't explain with their current personal knowledge ... and there is soooo much happening in the world right now that most people cann't explain, that I would say miracles are happening all the time and atheists cann't negate it. Insulting is the way their brains deal with it.

just because atheists don’t believe in the existence of God, and that he or she disagree with you on that (“that” as in your theism), doesn’t mean he or she have insulted you.

As to matter of “supernatural”, “magic”, “miracle”, or “myth”…

"Magic", they say.
They say "miracles", "supernatural", etc etc etc ... they even say "spaghettis" and in their minds is an insult. So they are.

What is really "miracle" or "magic" or "supernatural" in an atheist mind?

…none of that, are insults.

Plus, the NT, called everything that Jesus supposedly did in the gospels, as miracles; miracles that defy natural laws, such as walking on water, healing with touch or with words, stopping storm on command, etc, these miracles are supernatural, not natural.

Thats not insult. It is what it is, and miracles are no different from believing in magic, supernatural or the paranormal.

One of Jesus’ miracles was to turn water to wine for the wedding. We know today the chemical composition and properties of water, and the chemical composition and properties of wine, you cannot naturally turn water into wine, because wine required grapes, and it take some times to ferment grape juice into wine, and during that fermentation, thereby further changing the composition of juice into wine, as the wine have properties of certain level of alcohol. That’s not insult. That’s the fact.

Water alone, will never turn into wine. Another fact, not an insult.

How do you not see that it isn’t possible to turn water into wine?

To believe in such miracle, you would have to believe in magic transformation, because water is just water, and without fermentation of grape, there can be no wine. Again, not insult.

The question is, will you ignore how grape juice can naturally form into wine through the process of fermentation? Or will you still believe that this miracle can actually happen?

 

[ChristineM]

With the risk of appearing pedantic…..
This does not preclude him from being an atheist (which he is).

Agnostic concerns knowledge- he is honest in admitting he has no means of knowing.
Atheist concerns belief- he wrote a book
explaining on a scale of 1 to 7
with 1 being absolutely convinced
and 7 being absolutely not convinced
that he is a 6 leaning to 7

He is what is known as an agnostic atheist
neither precludes the other.

He certainly isn't the hard atheist he is often made out to be. Not being sure removes that title

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

because spiritual reality isn't bound to deterministic material reality, it can't be real?

Spiritual reality is a meaningless phrase if it means anything other than physical reality. There is only reality and imagination. Everything that we know is real is physically detectable. People holding unfalsifiable beliefs about indiscernible creatures, spaces, and processes are discussing nothing but their own imagination and hoping to bootstrap it into reality with words.

Everything must be explainable by human science?

Everything must be discernable to be believe that it exists.

New Atheism for example is epistemologically unfriendly; ignores instead of addresses the evidence for Theism

What evidence for theism?

holds Theism to standards it doesn't hold itself to

Creation apologetics is an endless litany of "you can't prove" this or that, or trying to find some flaw in science. These are people who can prove zero themselves and need no evidence to believe.

intentionally conflates itself with Agnosticism

Most atheists are agnostic. I am.

often falls back on emotion rather than reason

Who starts threads like these bemoaning how unfairly they are treated? Who's always framing dissent as attack? Who has an emotional conniption over reading derogatory descriptions of their beliefs? Not the atheists.

Anti theism is about respecting diversity?

I use the word antitheism to describe my disapproval of organized religion's invasive incursion into lives where it is unwanted, and the effort to help confine their beliefs to their own lives. For me, it involves, among other things, making arguments like these in response to threads like this one.

So you don't care about abuse at all

I do. That's why I'm an antitheist. Look at what organized Christianity is doing in America. Some might consider that beautiful and holy, but I consider vicious and primitive. I really don't care what those people believe, just what they do, which for me includes the abuse of women, LGBTQ+, and if they could, of atheists as well. It's a scourge, and if it can be forced out of the lives where it unwanted and not respected - and I am glad to do my part - then that abuse ends.

And this is what believers object to. They've never had to deal with this kind of pushback before, and they are shocked and offended. A millennium ago, people would be killed for expressing atheistic opinion. A century ago, a man was tried for teaching evolution, Today, all that's left is complaining about atheists, and they aren't happy about it:

"The problem with being privileged your whole life is that because you have had that privilege for so long, equality starts to look like oppression." - Mark Caddo

 

[cladking]

Who starts threads like these bemoaning how unfairly they are treated? Who's always framing dissent as attack? Who has an emotional conniption over reading derogatory descriptions of their beliefs? Not the atheists.

And I suppose you believe that when believers in science are questioned they are wholly unemotional and it's a normal response to be rude and ignore arguments?

I use the word antitheism to describe my disapproval of organized religion's invasive incursion into lives where it is unwanted, and the effort to help confine their beliefs to their own lives. For me, it involves, among other things, making arguments like these in response to threads like this one.

It's virtually a duty of theists and everyone else to make their beliefs known. It's wrong to allow their beliefs to guide public policy such as with abortion or creationism in schools. But by the same token it's wrong to destroy an economy in the name of global warming without first doing something to increase efficiency or allowing the free market to act. For instance if even one refrigerator maker produced a quality product they would take over the market and put all the rest out of business. But they all conspire to make garbage at the detriment of the commonweal and the planet.

Christians probably wouldn't make garbage and rent politicians as readily.

I do. That's why I'm an antitheist. Look at what organized Christianity is doing in America. Some might consider that beautiful and holy, but I consider vicious and primitive.

I hate to break this to you but it's not theists destroying the country. The belief in Science and its Peers is still the fastest growing religion in this country.

 

[Left Coast]

And I suppose you believe that when believers in science are questioned they are wholly unemotional and it's a normal response to be rude and ignore arguments?



It's virtually a duty of theists and everyone else to make their beliefs known. It's wrong to allow their beliefs to guide public policy such as with abortion or creationism in schools. But by the same token it's wrong to destroy an economy in the name of global warming without first doing something to increase efficiency or allowing the free market to act. For instance if even one refrigerator maker produced a quality product they would take over the market and put all the rest out of business. But they all conspire to make garbage at the detriment of the commonweal and the planet.

Christians probably wouldn't make garbage and rent politicians as readily.



I hate to break this to you but it's not theists destroying the country. The belief in Science and its Peers is still the fastest growing religion in this country.

You know that most Americans are Christians and always have been, yes?

2020 PRRI Census of American Religion

2020 PRRI Census of American Religion

www.prri.org

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I suppose you believe that when believers in science are questioned they are wholly unemotional and it's a normal response to be rude and ignore arguments?

What arguments? All I see are claims. And that's what you call rudeness?

it's wrong to destroy an economy in the name of global warming without first doing something to increase efficiency or allowing the free market to act.

That was part of your answer to my comment about why I'm antitheistic regarding organized Christianity. Specifically, what I wrote was, "I use the word antitheism to describe my disapproval of organized religion's invasive incursion into lives where it is unwanted, and the effort to help confine their beliefs to their own lives. For me, it involves, among other things, making arguments like these in response to threads like this one" This is YOU ignoring MY argument, but I wouldn't call it rude.

Christians probably wouldn't make garbage and rent politicians as readily.

LOL.

it's not theists destroying the country.

You seem to have changed the subject again. Christianity isn't destroying anything. It's making the lives of women and LGBTWQ+ harder. But it does do its part in harming America when its adherents vote for Republicans like Bush and Trump to do "God's work." White evangelicals voted overwhelmingly for Trump, and America is much worse off for it.

The belief in Science and its Peers is still the fastest growing religion in this country.

Et tu, Brute, with the religion stuff?

Science cannot harm a nation, but it can help people to live longer, more functional (eyeglasses), safer (vaccines), more comfortable (air conditioning), easier (automobiles), and more interesting (international travel, electronic media) lives.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

He certainly isn't the hard atheist he is often made out to be. Not being sure removes that title

Ahh,
The question is who is making him out to be?

My understanding of the term “hard atheist”, is someone who makes the claim “no gods exist”, exemplifying certainty.
Is this the same context you are using?

Since he wrote in his book, that he is a 6 on a scale of 7 (7 meaning absolutely convinced),
it is plainly obvious that he is leaving room for doubt. Thus not making such a claim.

It appears we’re in the realm of a
“no true Scotsman” fallacy here.

 

[1137]

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.

Okay, so what do you find wrong with the relevant data?

 

[1137]

Well, there goes another false supposition (by me).

I'll have a go at what you are asking (in other posts).

Atheists, like all people come in differing flavors. Some have well developed justifications for their atheism, some just parrot what they've heard from others (as do theists). Some put their arguments in polite ways, some can be rude (just like theists). Some understand the difference between "your ideas are incorrect" and "you are stupid" (just like theists).

100%

I'll add that there is a way of being offensive that many people that are probably trying to be polite may not realize they are using. That is where the words used imply a superiority on the part of the writer. I'll not use exact examples as I don't want to make this personal, but essentially it puts the writer in the position of "instructor" to the person addressed. There's a fine line as it's OK when the writer genuinely has a better knowledge of the subject, and I personally welcome that approach, but when it's essentially saying "if you were as wonderful as I am you'd agree with me", which pisses me off when I receive it. Once again it applies to both "sides", but yes, to atheists too.

Definitely, well said. I do not disagree.

 

[1137]

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.

Fair enough!

 

[1137]

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


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.

I am actually of a similar mind here. Theism vs Atheism is much less important that if someone will force their views on you or not, and similar issues.

 

[1137]

And all you had to do is condemn abusive theists but you bias prevents you...

I'm not going to let you lie about me, see post #58. How ****ing dare you play the abuse card then come gaslight people while refusing to condemn abuse.

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!

 

[ChristineM]

Ahh,
The question is who is making him out to be?

My understanding of the term “hard atheist”, is someone who makes the claim “no gods exist”, exemplifying certainty.
Is this the same context you are using?

Since he wrote in his book, that he is a 6 on a scale of 7 (7 meaning absolutely convinced),
it is plainly obvious that he is leaving room for doubt. Thus not making such a claim.

It appears we’re in the realm of a
“no true Scotsman” fallacy here.

Well the number of Christians who consider him the god of atheism are the ones making him out to be a hard atheist.

I would agree with that description of a hard atheist

As i already stated, his claim that he cannot be sure a god exists makes pretty sound case for him not being a hard atheist

 

[ChristineM]

I'm not going to let you lie about me, see post #58. How ****ing dare you play the abuse card then come gaslight people while refusing to condemn abuse.

I have not ****ing lied about you so don't play the victim card. And post #58 is your post, so how have i lied there?

As i said, you don't know what you are talking about, i recommend you start dissing those using abuse and lies as a weapon.

 

[cladking]

Science cannot harm a nation, but it can help people to live longer, more functional (eyeglasses), safer (vaccines), more comfortable (air conditioning), easier (automobiles), and more interesting (international travel, electronic media) lives.

In the 1950's science shut down mass transit in the US in order to sell more oil, tires, and cars. Then they provided only cars that got a few miles to the gallon despite the fact many people were even willing to buy a VW bug just to save money and resources. In the '40's millions of Americans died saving a few Jews from a madman who went war against his own people and all thinking people in the name of racial purity and survival of the fittest. Today we waste vast resources and bulldoze power plants in order save the planet from a computer model.

Freud created a world where the id rules and nobody is responsible because he intellectualized a dalliance with his sister in law. But it was all very scientific. Just as renting government to anyone with the most money makes perfect sense in terms of science.

It seems every year religions get a little less crazy and everyone else gets a little more crazy.

"Science" never gave anything whatsoever to man. All progress has come from individuals and all these individuals are different. Most have a scientific perspective which precludes a belief in science. Many are even religious.

Science can destroy a nation when it is misunderstood. It's been a very long time since religion has caused so much turmoil on such a widespread basis.

It should be noted that you can't take religion out of science or science out of religion. The two are often on the same page. And as often as not this page was written by our confused language as old wives tales, legend, myth, and assumption.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

In the 1950's science shut down mass transit in the US in order to sell more oil, tires, and cars. Then they provided only cars that got a few miles to the gallon despite the fact many people were even willing to buy a VW bug just to save money and resources.

“Science” shut down mass transit in order for “science” to sell more oil, tires and cars.?
That’s an “interesting” take!

But it was all very scientific. Just as renting government to anyone with the most money makes perfect sense in terms of science.

Where exactly to you get your information?

Science can destroy a nation when it is misunderstood. It's been a very long time since religion has caused so much turmoil on such a widespread basis.

I seem to recall something in the news recently about something going on in the middle east….
Hmmm, I can’t quite put my finger on it……

"Science" never gave anything whatsoever to man. All progress has come from individuals and all these individuals are different. Most have a scientific perspective which precludes a belief in science.

Interesting that you would type this presumably on a computer(?), on an international internet forum communicating with individuals all over the world nearly instantaneously.
Which individual should I thank for
this “miracle”

Can you explain how an individual can have a scientific perspective that precludes a belief in science??? ……Oh, never mind.

Can you tell me,
what color is the sky in your world?