Why do some atheists have to be so insulting and mean?

[Trailblazer]

I already wrote answers to everyone's posts to me on this thread in Word documents as I often do, but I have been too busy on other forums to have time to post my posts... But I plan to do that on or before the weekend.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

So what is the reason for your disbelief, lack of evidence that God exists? So you have no need for any God because God does not exist?

What do you mean by: Believers try to equate a lack of need, to a lack of belief.

My position(not belief), is that there is not one bit of evidence that could support any belief in the existence of any Deity. In any God(s). In anything supernatural. If anyone could present just one God-specific bit of evidence, my position would change immediately. I should never need to convince myself that anything that I believe is real, actually is real. "So you have no need for any God because God does not exist?". I think we are talking about two different questions, and are just trying to link the two to make them inclusive. I may or may not have need of a God, but I find no evidence that any God(s) exist. Or, maybe a God does exist, and I still may have or have not any need for a God. To answer your question, Since I have no reason to believe that a God(s) does actually exist, then the need for a non-existent God(s) becomes irrelevant. If you are talking about a need for God(s) in a rhetorical sense, I certainly do. In Viet Nam, in times of sickness, and other events in my life, I have called for God's help many times.

Because many believers feel that their belief is right, some feel that those that do not believe are wrong, ignorant, evil, or just making a bad choice. Many feel that the reason Atheist refuse to believe in God's existence, is not because of the lack of evidence supporting the existence of a God, but that they lack a need to believe in the existence of a God. This implies that a belief in God does not fit into their everyday lives, and nothing to do with the lack of actual evidence. Therefore lack of need equates to lack of belief. One statement does not depend on the other. This is false equivocation(fallacy).

 

[Audie]

Crystal. I also have no need for any God, but this is not the reason for my disbelief. I have no need for truffles, but truffles still exist. Believers try to equate a lack of need, to a lack of belief. This is fallacious and intellectually dishonest.

Short and to the point. Well said.

 

[Trailblazer]

My position(not belief), is that there is not one bit of evidence that could support any belief in the existence of any Deity. In any God(s). In anything supernatural.

My opinion is that there is a lot of evidence that supports belief in the existence of a Deity, enough to have absolute certitude that there is a deity. I have absolute certitude.
I'll get back to the rest of your post later... Right now I have to get to work.

 

[Audie]

My opinion is that there is a lot of evidence that supports belief in the existence of a Deity, enough to have absolute certitude that there is a deity. I have absolute certitude.
I'll get back to the rest of your post later... Right now I have to get to work.

Interestingly different pov! No amount of evidence for anything would make be absolutely certain.

 

[Audie]

I already wrote answers to everyone's posts to me on this thread in Word documents as I often do, but I have been too busy on other forums to have time to post my posts... But I plan to do that on or before the weekend.

May we ask that next time you state your position
more clearly, that there is less turmoil over a misunderstanding of your actual intent?

 

[Trailblazer]

Interestingly different pov! No amount of evidence for anything would make be absolutely certain.

There are not that many things I am absolutely certain about, God and my husband come to mind...
And now I am absolutely certain I have to get to work...

 

[Trailblazer]

May we ask that next time you state your position
more clearly, that there is less turmoil over a misunderstanding of your actual intent?

I do not always have an intent... I really had no intent when I posted the OP. I just had an urge.
But I will try to make my points clear.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution IS a fact beyond any reasonable doubt. It is a scientific certainty, proven by the scientific method of enquiry through inductive and deductive reasoning.. The story of Jesus and the existence of a God IS NOT a fact beyond any reasonable doubt. It is a cultural belief based on faith and tradition, not on certainty. Religion was not designed to produce any tangible benefits, only emotional rewards. It was designed to make adults feel good about themselves and others. Despite this emotive aspect of religious belief, it still persists despite the development of our improved reasoning ability. Religious beliefs and rituals may continue to help adults feel good, but this is more a matter of feelings than of reason. So, why should we elevate the emotional aspects of religious belief over the cognitive or intellectual ones?

Richard's opinions are his own, and the ToE is a certainty. So unless you have another verifiable provable alternative explanation that can explain the facts and data, I can't see the point you are making. Is the converse also true? If people don't believe in God intellectually inferior, and those that do superior?

I acknowledge my belief, faith as such, I don't claim 'undeniable fact' or intellectual superiority- again the wise man knows himself a fool
The bones of Piltdown man were declared to belong together 'without question' Phrenology was the 'purest form of science' the laws of classical physics were 'immutable' while the Big Bang and concepts of deeper mysterious forces guiding physics- were 'religious psuedoscience'

If ToE is likewise a 'fact', then I am less interested in 'facts' than in what is actually true, which often turns out to be the exact opposite.

 

[Revoltingest]

I hail from a place called North Kilttown.
Tis every bit real as the Piltdown.
But when things are wrong
they're fixed before long,
so science need suffer no meltdown.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

My opinion is that there is a lot of evidence that supports belief in the existence of a Deity, enough to have absolute certitude that there is a deity. I have absolute certitude.
I'll get back to the rest of your post later... Right now I have to get to work.

The fact that it's your OPINION that there's lots of evidence to support the existence of a Deity, will negate the idea of absolute certainty. In fact, it negates the idea of any level of certainty. I will concede that you may subjectively have absolute confidence and conviction, in regards to this certitude. But no certitute is absolute. So let's simply start with just one objective fact or data, or any consistent fallacy-free train of logic, that might suggest the existence of any Deity.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I acknowledge my belief, faith as such, I don't claim 'undeniable fact' or intellectual superiority- again the wise man knows himself a fool
The bones of Piltdown man were declared to belong together 'without question' Phrenology was the 'purest form of science' the laws of classical physics were 'immutable' while the Big Bang and concepts of deeper mysterious forces guiding physics- were 'religious psuedoscience'

If ToE is likewise a 'fact', then I am less interested in 'facts' than in what is actually true, which often turns out to be the exact opposite.

I agree that stating the TOE as a fact was probably not the best term to use. But its explanations are at such a high degree of certainty, that it may as well be classified as a fact. Just like Gravity, Laws of Motion, and other Laws of Nature, could also be classified as fact. Phrenology is the product of man's pattern-recognition instincts, using measurements from the skull to answer man's questions about intelligence, personality, and racial distinctions. It was just another example of telling people what they wanted to hear, to gain profit, notoriety, fame, and power. It failed and was exposed by science. The Piltdown Man hoax was certainly questioned, and also exposed by science. I'm not sure what you mean by the laws of classical physics being immutable. Even light is not immutable. Understanding the BB is still a work in progress, and there are only 4 forces in the known universe, and no mysterious forces have been discovered. Maybe you can explain how "religious pseudoscience" is truly guiding today's scientific research?

Surely, you must understand that science is always evolving. Even nature has made its share of mistakes before we arrived on the scene. But science like nature, learns from its mistakes, as well as from its successes. It sounds like you are just looking for excuses to not accept any scientific understandings that will challenge your religious understanding.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I agree that stating the TOE as a fact was probably not the best term to use. But its explanations are at such a high degree of certainty, that it may as well be classified as a fact. Just like Gravity, Laws of Motion, and other Laws of Nature, could also be classified as fact. Phrenology is the product of man's pattern-recognition instincts, using measurements from the skull to answer man's questions about intelligence, personality, and racial distinctions. It was just another example of telling people what they wanted to hear, to gain profit, notoriety, fame, and power. It failed and was exposed by science. The Piltdown Man hoax was certainly questioned, and also exposed by science. I'm not sure what you mean by the laws of classical physics being immutable. Even light is not immutable. Understanding the BB is still a work in progress, and there are only 4 forces in the known universe, and no mysterious forces have been discovered. Maybe you can explain how "religious pseudoscience" is truly guiding today's scientific research?

Surely, you must understand that science is always evolving. Even nature has made its share of mistakes before we arrived on the scene. But science like nature, learns from its mistakes, as well as from its successes. It sounds like you are just looking for excuses to not accept any scientific understandings that will challenge your religious understanding.

- that was my point, the laws of classical physics were once held to be immutable, and they were far more directly observable, testable, repeatable than ToE, which is inherently speculative

Many atheists rejected the BB explicitly for what THEY saw as the overt theistic implications of a beginning. one of many instances of science V atheism.

So by Hoyle's own definition of the BB- putting your money on 'religious pseudoscience' turned out to be the best bet didn't it?


But no preferences should lead, why not just follow the evidence where it leads? If Darwinism being fatally flawed appears to support God, I have no ideological bias against this, are you conceding that you do?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My opinion is that there is a lot of evidence that supports belief in the existence of a Deity, enough to have absolute certitude that there is a deity. I have absolute certitude.
I'll get back to the rest of your post later... Right now I have to get to work.

When you get back from work: what evidence?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

- that was my point, the laws of classical physics were once held to be immutable, and they were far more directly observable, testable, repeatable than ToE, which is inherently speculative

Many atheists rejected the BB explicitly for what THEY saw as the overt theistic implications of a beginning. one of many instances of science V atheism.

So by Hoyle's own definition of the BB- putting your money on 'religious pseudoscience' turned out to be the best bet didn't it?


But no preferences should lead, why not just follow the evidence where it leads? If Darwinism being fatally flawed appears to support God, I have no ideological bias against this, are you conceding that you do?

In hindsight we can always point out immutable scientific ideas and beliefs from the past. But to state that scientific ignorance should justify religious ignorance is just irresponsible. Science is not interested in any Biblical truths, myths, or superstitions. It is only interested in understanding and explaining natural phenomena. Unfortunately, in its quest for knowledge and understanding, many religious beliefs and ideas became casualties. Many original church-fed explanations were proven wrong, again and again. Even the church could not suppress the mountain of evidence supporting scientific beliefs. To simply dismiss the ToE just to keep the faith, is to ignore every underlying principle and tested theories, that supports all aspects of the Biological Sciences. Without the ToE, nothing in Biology would make any sense. We can't simply say that "God did it by creating 'kinds', around 10,000 years ago. That statement would become the sum total of all knowledge in all of the Biological Sciences. And since a God was involved, all other scientific disciplines would become redundant.

Fred Hoyle, although a brilliant mathematician and astronomer, believed in a "steady-state universe'(Einstein had suggested it earlier). He actually lost that argument to the Big Bang Theory. He had no answers to how galaxies were distributed by expansion, or any alternative explanation for the CMBR. So, I don't understand what you mean by, "turned out to be the best bet didn't it?". Also, what are these "overt theistic implications of a beginning" that you are talking about? What one chooses to believe depend on many things, not just implications.

Even if all of science from the beginning of time to now, were in all respects fatally flawed, it would not in anyway prove the existence of a God by default. That would still be an argument from ignorance. Science is NOT ideological, it is logical and methodical. It is pseudo-science that is ideological. Science is falsifiable and the other is unfalsifiable. There is a clear distinction. Is Science an Ideology? | Issue 15 | Philosophy Now .

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In hindsight we can always point out immutable scientific ideas and beliefs from the past. But to state that scientific ignorance should justify religious ignorance is just irresponsible. Science is not interested in any Biblical truths, myths, or superstitions. It is only interested in understanding and explaining natural phenomena.

agree entirely, any conclusion that lends credence to God should not be dismissed for this reason

Unfortunately, in its quest for knowledge and understanding, many religious beliefs and ideas became casualties. Many original church-fed explanations were proven wrong, again and again. Even the church could not suppress the mountain of evidence supporting scientific beliefs. To simply dismiss the ToE just to keep the faith, is to ignore every underlying principle and tested theories, that supports all aspects of the Biological Sciences. Without the ToE, nothing in Biology would make any sense. We can't simply say that "God did it by creating 'kinds', around 10,000 years ago. That statement would become the sum total of all knowledge in all of the Biological Sciences. And since a God was involved, all other scientific disciplines would become redundant.

As above, compared with QM, science moving beyond a Victorian age theory like Darwins' would (will I think) hardly be the most traumatic upheaval in scientific understanding.

'nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo.
I'm a big fan of science, that's why I am a stickler for the method, rather than simply an academic consensus, which, as we have seen, has a poor track record of predicting truth in the big questions

There is no way to test, observe, measure a single cell morphing into a human being through millions of accidental errors. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Fred Hoyle, although a brilliant mathematician and astronomer, believed in a "steady-state universe'(Einstein had suggested it earlier). He actually lost that argument to the Big Bang Theory. He had no answers to how galaxies were distributed by expansion, or any alternative explanation for the CMBR. So, I don't understand what you mean by, "turned out to be the best bet didn't it?". Also, what are these "overt theistic implications of a beginning" that you are talking about? What one chooses to believe depend on many things, not just implications.

(Wiki)
In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[47] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.

[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

^ science v atheism

Even if all of science from the beginning of time to now, were in all respects fatally flawed, it would not in anyway prove the existence of a God by default. That would still be an argument from ignorance. Science is NOT ideological, it is logical and methodical. It is pseudo-science that is ideological. Science is falsifiable and the other is unfalsifiable. There is a clear distinction. Is Science an Ideology? | Issue 15 | Philosophy Now .

science is not ideological, the Big Bang is not ideological, but many scientists are quite openly. Steady state was explicitly an alternative to the BB that presented the preferred Godless implication (no creation = no creator)

it's not science that was wrong, it was atheist ideology getting in it's way, not the first time, and I believe this is the case with understanding life also.

 

[Dantedeven]

haughtiness

 

[Truly Enlightened]

agree entirely, any conclusion that lends credence to God should not be dismissed for this reason



As above, compared with QM, science moving beyond a Victorian age theory like Darwins' would (will I think) hardly be the most traumatic upheaval in scientific understanding.

'nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo.
I'm a big fan of science, that's why I am a stickler for the method, rather than simply an academic consensus, which, as we have seen, has a poor track record of predicting truth in the big questions

There is no way to test, observe, measure a single cell morphing into a human being through millions of accidental errors. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence



(Wiki)
In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[47] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.

[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

^ science v atheism



science is not ideological, the Big Bang is not ideological, but many scientists are quite openly. Steady state was explicitly an alternative to the BB that presented the preferred Godless implication (no creation = no creator)

it's not science that was wrong, it was atheist ideology getting in it's way, not the first time, and I believe this is the case with understanding life also.

Atheism is a position, a point of view, a choice, if you will. What it is not, is a science or a religion. There are no higher powers for all life to follow or answer to. There are no unexplainable supernatural phenomena. There is absolutely no evidence that supports the existence of a God(s), whether it is 100 years ago or the present day. None, except what we want to believe or make up. A belief in a God(s) does not require any evidence, therefore belief has nothing to do with science.

You seem to base all of your conclusions and ideas on what people have said and believed in many years ago. What about some of the more current ideas? Science doesn't care what people say or believe, it only cares what people can prove or falsify. I have no idea how not believing in God's existence could get in the way of any scientific understandings, discoveries, or principles. But I do understand how religious beliefs can interfere in one's life. Science learns from its mistakes as well as its successes. Therefore it's tract record is irrelevant, as long as it keeps moving foreword. Should we judge the adult by his actions as a baby?

Cells do not morph, they divide and differentiate. And, we can observe cell division. We can also observe, measure, and explain human embryology, from the moment of conception to a full grown human adult. There are many indirect and inductive ways to accomplish this, without an electron microscope, a video camera, and 80 years to spare.

Let's say you bake a cake for the first time and fail because of mistakes and errors. You keep trying until you stop making these mistakes. Maybe after 5-10 tries, you start making cakes without having accidents or errors, most of the time. Unlike the cake analogy human evolution took billions of years of trial and error to get it right. These errors are generally not repeated in human development, obviously. Unfortunately it meant the loss of 99.999% of all other species on the planet, to pave most of the way for the survival of humans. We are still a work in progress, but it will be the inherited genetic material of our survivors that will give us our survival edge.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

A belief in a God(s) does not require any evidence…

Very true. Nor for that matter, does a disbelief. Of course, a belief in a god can be based on evidence, while it's difficult to what evidence can be presented to explain a disbelief.

The original question in this thread is surely worth asking: why do some (thankfully not all) atheists resort to ridicule or abusiveness? Perhaps it's a bit like the USian culture wars: the minority can get over-excited when the majority ignore them. The militant atheist is just another offended fundamentalist.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, in an Ideal Universe, yes-- all people would be held responsible for their actions.

And in an ideal situation? The consequences would be immediate.

Alas, it simply Isn't To Be, is it? No-- far too many folk get away with literal murder sometimes, simply because they are born to the "Right" people. Or they have incredible wealth (typically because they were born into it-- almost never because they earned it).

And if being kind were enough? No kindly little old lady would ever go hungry-- ever.

I wish this were So. But it simply isn't So. The Universe is Indifferent, and seems to not care in the slightest if people are mean or kind or simply indifferent. The Universe simply Is.

It's up to us lowly humans to be Kind. I applaud your desire to also be Kind-- I wish more people were like you strive to be.

I think that this life is All There Is, and why not be Kind? My hope for you is that you experience more Kindness, and less Meanness.

Thanks Bob. I agree that in an ideal situation the consequences would be immediate or at least soon thereafter.

To me, not being kind is mean unless there is a good reason not to be kind.

My religion is not as nice as Christianity, always turn the other cheek.

I believe we should be kind and compassionate to all people unless they have a selfish, private motive, or some disease of the soul. Kindness cannot be shown to liars or manipulators because it only makes them continue in their ways since they think you have been deceived.

Kindness to them is injustice to others.

Still, we should forgive them and realize it is not good to harbor hatred and anger and resentment. It took me a few days, but I have forgiven this man who was insulting and mean.