Atheists and their jargon of insults

[ratiocinator]

.... for theism?

Yes. Where is even the slightest suggestion of the merest hint of the tiniest morsel of objective evidence for any version of theism?

 

[LuisDantas]

So is William Rowe not an atheist?

I don't know, but that is besides the point.

 

[1137]

Yes. Where is even the slightest suggestion of the merest hint of the tiniest morsel of objective evidence for any version of theism?

1. "I have not studied Theism enough to be aware of the evidence."
2. "I cannot refute the evidence for Theism so I will pretend it does not exist."
3. "I am confusing evidence with conclusions, what I mean is to reject the conclusion of Theism."

So #1 or 2?

 

[1137]

I don't know, but that is besides the point.

I've been trolled enough thanks, best wishes Luis!

 

[LuisDantas]

... what? Can you answer my question?

I never claimed otherwise, I specifically said criticism is not abuse and never claimed we should be protected from it. Indeed I think we should doubt all. But hey, thanks for providing further evidence of gaslighting theists.

You do not want to be respectable. You achieved enormous success.

Congrats!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Alright I will repeat myself once more but everyone pay attention haha

Properties that define "new atheism": it is epistemologically unfriendly;

I've not found this to be the case. Do you have an example?

ignores instead of addresses the evidence for Theism;

I've not found this to be the case. Do you have an example?

I myself have asked for evidence many, many, many times.

holds Theism to standards it doesn't hold itself to;

I've not found this to be the case. Do you have an example?

In fact, I've been called out by theists before for not lowering my standards of evidence to accept the claims of theism.

intentionally conflates itself with Agnosticism;

Agnosticism refers to knowledge.
Atheism refers to belief.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

often falls back on emotion rather than reason;

I've not found this to be the case, and in fact, I've found the opposite to be the case: That religious arguments often fall back on emotion rather than on reason and logic. I'm currently in the middle of such a conversation with a theist.

relies on demonstrably false/contradictory logic such as "you cannot prove a negative;”

It is very difficult to prove a negative.

utilizes false equivalencies;

Such as?

and it encourages both bias and Anti-Theism. (Elaboration of all below.)

Sorry, I don't see this elaboration you speak of.

Note I don't think "New Atheism" is a great term, I didn't make it. I prefer friendly vs unfriendly theism/atheism

What makes it different from just regular old atheism?

 

[shunyadragon]

I love atheists. That's why I try to educate them all the time; they hate me for that.

Well,ah . . . there is a severe contradiction haere. You rant insulting posts do not reflect love. You likely are the one needing an education.

First, simply the words, miracles, myth,supernatural and magic are descriptive of actual subjective events, and characters of the Bible where there is no supported objective evidence or documentation in scriptures thousands of years old. . The terminology accurately reflects much of the Bible.

What objectively are you trying to educate atheists, that could convince them of anything? I am a theist, but would avoid this type of aggressive shoot gun approach to dialogue with those who do not believe as you do.

 

[ratiocinator]

When someone says "there is no evidence for gods"...

I didn't say that. You don't seem to be paying attention. I said I've never seen any evidence. I have obviously not seem every claim of evidence throughout the world and all of history, so I can't say there is definitely no evidence. However, given I've been discussing this for decades, if there was some great evidence for god(s) I'd have expected somebody to bring it up by now. Do feel free to do so, if you have something that everybody else I've spoken to has not bothered to mention.

 

[PureX]

Alright I will repeat myself once more but everyone pay attention haha

1. it ignores instead of addresses the evidence for Theism.

Check. In fact they proclaim constantly that "there is no evidence at all" because they define evidence as having to convince them, and of course they have no intention of ever being convinced, so it's all dismissed as non-evidence, in advance.

2. holds Theism to standards it doesn't hold itself to;

Check. The theist must prove to them, by their standard of proof, that God exists, while the atheist's position (that no gods exist) is just blindly assumed to be the automatic default. No explanation or proof is necessary.

3. intentionally conflates itself with Agnosticism;

Check. They claim that they don't know if any gods exist while also constantly proclaiming that every god that anyone else has ever chosen to believe exists, doesn't.

4. often falls back on emotion rather than reason;

Check. They expend enormous amounts of time and energy attacking theists and theism because of a blinding hatred of some particular religion or religious expression.

5. relies on demonstrably false/contradictory logic such as "you cannot prove a negative;” utilizes false equivalencies; and it encourages both bias and Anti-Theism. (Elaboration of all below.)

Check. "No gods exist unless and until someone else can prove to me that one does! And when they try, I will decide what is 'evidence', not them. And I will decide what kind and amount of evidence can rise to the level of 'proof', not them. Becaue the 'default mode' is that I am right before, during, and after the debate."

Note I don't think "New Atheism" is a great term, I didn't make it. I prefer friendly vs unfriendly theism/atheism

I tend to think of it as kangaroo atheism. Because it seems to me that the whole point of it is to keep themselves in charge of their own 'kangaroo court'.

 

[ratiocinator]

"Agnostic atheism" is a pointless term because nobody rational is ever asking you to prove with metaphysical certainty there are no gods.

It simply distinguishes between knowledge and belief. This isn't hard, surely?

"well I can't prove gods don't exist" as if this means they don't find a godless universe most likely.

Well, of course an agnostic atheist would probably think a godless universe seem to be more likely. So what?

 

[ratiocinator]

In fact they proclaim constantly that "there is no evidence at all" because they define evidence as having to convince them, and of course they have no intention of ever being convinced, so it's all dismissed as non-evidence, in advance.

Again, you really should ask for your money back from the mind-reading course....

The theist must prove to them, by their standard of proof, that God exists, while the atheist's position (that no gods exist) is just blindly assumed to be the automatic default.

Untrue.

They claim that they don't know if any gods exist while also constantly proclaiming that every god that anyone else has ever chosen to believe exists, doesn't.

Untrue.

Bored now....

 

[1137]

I've not found this to be the case. Do you have an example?

This would be when the atheist states something like "one must be a fool to believe in gods," the idea that atheism is the only rational conclusion.

I've not found this to be the case. Do you have an example?

I myself have asked for evidence many, many, many times.

And do you acknowledge the evidence? Note these are general descriptions, I have no clue if you fit or not.

I've not found this to be the case. Do you have an example?

In fact, I've been called out by theists before for not lowering my standards of evidence to accept the claims of theism.

Sure like when someone accepts atheism because they are subjectively unconvinced of theism, but condemns creationists who simply are subjectively unconvinced of evolution. Or the idea that "belief require evidence, except mine."

Agnosticism refers to knowledge.
Atheism refers to belief.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

I've explained why this is a useless term.

I've not found this to be the case, and in fact, I've found the opposite to be the case: That religious arguments often fall back on emotion rather than on reason and logic. I'm currently in the middle of such a conversation with a theist.

Oh both sides absolutely can fall victim to it. I'm specifically speaking of something like "my church abused me therefore theism is wrong."

It is very difficult to prove a negative.

Can be sure, but so what?

Such as?

Such as comparing a dragon in one's garage to deities.

Sorry, I don't see this elaboration you speak of.

Sorry this was taken from my larger text

What makes it different from just regular old atheism?

Asked and answered

 

[1137]

I didn't say that. You don't seem to be paying attention. I said I've never seen any evidence. I have obviously not seem every claim of evidence throughout the world and all of history, so I can't say there is definitely no evidence. However, given I've been discussing this for decades, if there was some great evidence for god(s) I'd have expected somebody to bring it up by now. Do feel free to do so, if you have something that everybody else I've spoken to has not bothered to mention.

This is a good critique thank you, it should be "when someone says they have seen no evidence for theism." So... 1, 2, or 3?

 

[1137]

It simply distinguishes between knowledge and belief. This isn't hard, surely?

Right, and nobody rational is asking the atheist if they know with absolute certainty gods do not exist, they are asking what the atheist believes. This is why mentioning agnosticism is pointless, all intellectually honest people will avoid claiming absolute metaphysical certainty on most if not all things.

Well, of course an agnostic atheist would probably think a godless universe seem to be more likely. So what?

Right, the belief is in the godless universe, you not being "certain" of that isn't at all relevant. If a theist is requiring metaphysical certainty of a godless universe then they are an unreasonable theist, and could not provide the same evidence of their gods either.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This would be when the atheist states something like "one must be a fool to believe in gods," the idea that atheism is the only rational conclusion.

Your claim is that, "it [new atheism] is epistemologically unfriendly;"

Epistemology is defined as, "the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The term is derived from the Greek epistēmē (“knowledge”) and logos (“reason”), and accordingly the field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge."

Epistemology | Definition, History, Types, Examples, Philosophers, & Facts

Epistemology, the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The term is derived from the Greek episteme (“knowledge”) and logos (“reason”). Along with metaphysics, logic, and ethics, it is one of the four main branches of philosophy.

www.britannica.com

Can you explain how your assertion that atheists claim that "one must be a fool to believe in gods" has something to do with epistemology (theory of knowledge)? Your claim references belief, but epistemology refers to knowledge.

And do you acknowledge the evidence? Note these are general descriptions, I have no clue if you fit or not.

I've not seen any that I find convincing. And quite often when I ask for evidence, I don't actually get any.

I've asked you, for example.

Sure like when someone accepts atheism because they are subjectively unconvinced of theism,

Your claim is that atheists, "holds Theism to standards it doesn't hold itself to;"

To which I responded, "I've not found this to be the case. Do you have an example? In fact, I've been called out by theists before for not lowering my standards of evidence to accept the claims of theism."

Can you explain how what you've said here is an example of atheists holding theism to standards it doesn't hold itself to" ... ?

Atheism isn't a claim with something to accept. It's just a lack of belief in god(s).

but condemns creationists who simply are subjectively unconvinced of evolution.

Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with theism/atheism.

There are mountains of empirical, demonstrable, testable, repeatable evidence for evolution collected from almost every independent field of science by independent scientific researchers across the globe spanning over 160 years. Do you have anything like this amount of evidence for your religious beliefs? I've yet to see it from any believer in god(s), thus far.

Or the idea that "belief require evidence, except mine."

Lack of belief, isn't a belief, by definition.

Weren't you just complaining about how atheisms don't apply logic and reason in their arguments?

I've explained why this is a useless term.

I've disagreed and explained why it isn't. They are separate terms referring to separate things.

There are agnostic theists as well, by the way.

Oh both sides absolutely can fall victim to it. I'm specifically speaking of something like "my church abused me therefore theism is wrong."

I've never seen anyone making this claim.

Can be sure, but so what?

I don't understand this response.

Such as comparing a dragon in one's garage to deities.

In what way? What makes it a false equivalency?

Sorry this was taken from my larger text

Asked and answered

I don't see a response to how "new atheism" differs from regular old atheism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Right, and nobody rational is asking the atheist if they know with absolute certainty gods do not exist, they are asking what the atheist believes. This is why mentioning agnosticism is pointless, all intellectually honest people will avoid claiming absolute metaphysical certainty on most if not all things.

Right, the belief is in the godless universe, you not being "certain" of that isn't at all relevant. If a theist is requiring metaphysical certainty of a godless universe then they are an unreasonable theist, and could not provide the same evidence of their gods either.

Oopsy, you've changed it from "knowledge" and "belief" to "absolute certainty" which is a different thing, not under discussion.

 

[ratiocinator]

This is a good critique thank you, it should be "when someone says they have seen no evidence for theism." So... 1, 2, or 3?

No. I explained my position and it doesn't fit into any of those. Of course, I guess you could claim that I haven't studied 'theism' 'enough', regardless of how much I have studied it, but that would be a bit pointless. I only have one lifetime, so not nearly enough to know everything about every version of theism in the world.

Anyway, if you have some evidence, why are you playing these games? Why not just come out with it? Why be so shy?

Come on, actual objective evidence would be worldwide news - you could be famous!

Right, and nobody rational is asking the atheist if they know with absolute certainty gods do not exist, they are asking what the atheist believes.

Actually, I've seen plenty of theists claim absolute certainty of their god, I've also been challenged to prove there is no god, or accused of claiming that I know that there is no god, and other nonsense that implies that unless I'm certain, they must be right (argument from ignorance). Hence I see it as highly relevant to make my position crystal clear. I imagine that's why the term 'agnostic atheist' in such common use.

It's not my fault that a lot of theists aren't 'rational' according to your statement here.

Look above at what @PureX said (#291), that atheists think "No gods exist unless and until someone else can prove to me that one does!" Agnostic atheism explicitly means that I accept that it's entirely possible for a god to exist without there being any evidence (leaving aside the absurd use of the term "prove"). Quite obviously an omnipotent god could hide perfectly, should it so wish. Under those circumstances, there would obviously be no reason to believe there was a god, because that sort of god would have deliberately decided to make it that way.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Reverse engineering... Bern there, done thst, it's no trick, it just requires knowing of what you are dealing with

I once gave a talk on "Black Magic Reverse Engineering" at an IT Conference in Los Angeles. I did the whole presentation -- slides and all -- backwards.

 

[shunyadragon]

This would be when the atheist states something like "one must be a fool to believe in gods," the idea that atheism is the only rational conclusion.

This type of anecdotal insult is not the basis for a rational argument of conclusion for atheism

And do you acknowledge the evidence? Note these are general descriptions, I have no clue if you fit or not.

Acknowledge evidence, what evidence?

Sure like when someone accepts atheism because they are subjectively unconvinced of theism, but condemns creationists who simply are subjectively unconvinced of evolution. Or the idea that "belief require evidence, except mine."

I need more specifics as to what you mean by subjectively unconvinced of theism. Atheism is based on the lack of objective evidence for the existence of Gods. Atheists today commonly belief there is no reason. I can conclude that atheists and many agnostics do not accept the subjective claims of Theism.

Evolution is objectively falsified by overwhelming evidence, There is no evidence for the existence of God or beliefs in spiritual beings or realms beyond our physical existence. Can you provide any objective evidence for the existence of God.

The likely reason for various atheist and agnostic beliefs is that most Theism is based on ancient tribal scriptures such as the Torah, Bible and the Quran without historical provenance.

The word after miracle in the dictionary is mirage..

I've explained why this is a useless term.

Atheism and agnosticism are very real beliefs.

Oh both sides absolutely can fall victim to it. I'm specifically speaking of something like "my church abused me therefore theism is wrong."

No such argument is presented as a rational belief in atheism.

 

[cladking]

He did invent the WWW (as i stated), i.e. the protocol you use to make posts dissing the very thing you are using.

It is you dissing science by suggesting it gave us the internet.

It took centuries of ideas from individuals and the hard work of individuals to create the internet. You denigrate individuals and their achievements and turn their success over to an abstraction named "Science" led by priests named Peers. It is mere nonsense and demonstrates the same lack of understanding as "atheism". Not many of those who say "Science" gave us understanding, knowledge, and technology have ever had any idea that advanced humanity or science. But they sure can hurl stones at heretics from their glass houses.