Why don't atheists accept they are so evangelical and apologetic?

[firedragon]

Of course I expect some ad hominem and character assassination attempts even in this thread which is almost a norm. But in this matter, most atheists in this forum are pretty nice people. Yet at least one or two posts could be seen trying to attack the character of the person rather than analyse the point made in the OP. Thats ad hominem, and shows the character of the person doing it, not the other way around.

 

[firedragon]

This post makes it appear that you are not looking for honest discussion.
You are merely twisting everything around to fit your narrative.

What was more strange is that every single one of these episodes were found with other atheists defending this atheist so tribalistically (If there is such a word). Defend my brethren religiously with no regard to who or what is right. This is blind faith and tribalism.

 

[McBell]

This post makes it appear that you are not looking for honest discussion.
You are merely twisting everything around to fit your narrative.

Thank you for further demonstrating my point.

 

[McBell]

What was more strange is that every single one of these episodes were found with other atheists defending this atheist so tribalistically (If there is such a word). Defend my brethren religiously with no regard to who or what is right. This is blind faith and tribalism.

**climbs up onto pontoon boat**

I am most impressed with the speed you are able to shovel the bull ****.

 

[paarsurrey]

What was more strange is that every single one of these episodes were found with other atheists defending this atheist so tribalistically (If there is such a word). Defend my brethren religiously with no regard to who or what is right. This is blind faith and tribalism.

Does one mean that Atheism is an ism of devolution, please?
Right?

Regards

 

[firedragon]

**climbs up onto pontoon boat**

I am most impressed with the speed you are able to shovel the bull ****.

This post makes it appear that you are not looking for honest discussion.
You are merely twisting everything around to fit your narrative.

 

[McBell]

.

Thank you for further demonstrating my point.

 

[joelr]

I was never speaking about the definition of atheism. Defining Atheism does not make your argument correct. There are people who call themselves atheists but believe in a divinity. By definition they cannot be atheists, but they call themselves by the word. Read the OP, and you will see that the definition of atheism is not addressed.

The definition is addressed by lumping atheists into a group. It's not a group, it's a belief. Some who have this belief will act certain ways and others will act differently. This is not related to a belief in a lack of evidence.

Oh yes. Everyone probably knows how science works. So "how science works" is not the topic.

Well you missed the point then. Read the P, and you will see I'm explaining that there isn't any dogmatism regarding science.

None of the examples I gave are from atheism.

All of the examples you gave were about atheism. They do this and that. It's just a belief. Other behaviors are unrelated to that one belief.

Thats the point.

Apologies if I misunderstood you.

Again that's because atheists are not a group. It's just a belief. Do you group yourself in a group of people who don't believe in Big Foot, or Alien abductions? Some people who don't believe in Big Foot may want to be all evangelical and argue that there is no Big Foot and even use evidence that isn't credible evidence against Big Foot. I also don't believe in Big Foot but I am not in any way related to any other non-believer in the evidence for Big Foot.

 

[joelr]

You are wrong! Now you are not wrong as a human in any moral sense. You are wrong, because you claim you can do something with a certain method(s), which you can't do using that method(s).

So how it is that you are wrong? Well, for #1 the word "best" can't be done with neither science nor any other objective methodology as reason or logic for an universal we. You are in effect subjective and only speaking for you and those who subjectively agree with you. Thus your "we" is limited, because I can do it differently for #1.
There is no one best method for all humans for all of the world, because for some versions of best, the word "best" is not independent of individual evaluation.
So here is how you know that your "best" is not science nor objective.
It has no international scientific measurement standard; i.e. you can't calibrate a scientific instrument to measure best.
You can't observe best. It has no objective referent, i.e. it is not independent of individual psychology and it works as subjective evolution of good and/or useful.

What I have written above is connected to this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

In effect you could apparently be a believer in a variant of scientism. "Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values." I wrote apparently because you apparently take truth to be what matters. But that it matters, is not science and ends as a standard for normative and epistemological values.
But there is no such standard for all humans for all of the world. It can't be done with science, philosophy or religion.

Now if you can in effect do it other than just claim it, explain it and write it down. You would then be one of the most important humans in human history, because you would have done something nobody have done before you.

No. The scientific method is our best method for truth. I'm sure when you get on a plane, have surgery, take a drug or anything that could endanger your life you will expect the scientific method was involved in some way. Experiments, testing, trained people, every step involves the scientific method somehow.
"Best" doesn't mean ultimate possible best, it means our current best way to find truth. There is a best method for all humans if the human cares about well being.
It isn't complicated. If you were stuck on a cliff and made a rope from vines you would first perform tests with rocks to find the strongest vine and assembly. The end. Come up with an idea, test it,write it down so someone else can use it or expand on it.
Our best way to know if this vine is safe is a simple scientific method. I said it's our best way to know what is true.
Alternatives include - wishing, praying, intuition, lucky charm, guessing

And you can observe best. In medicine using the scientific method you create a combination of molecules that work statistically best at reducing a symptom with the minimum of side effects. Change the ratio and it works less. The scientific method works best. Or you could just guess.Would you take that pill?

 

[firedragon]

The definition is addressed by lumping atheists into a group. It's not a group, it's a belief. Some who have this belief will act certain ways and others will act differently. This is not related to a belief in a lack of evidence.

Great. Please do quote the particular segment of the OP you are referring to and I can respond objectively.

Well you missed the point then. Read the P, and you will see I'm explaining that there isn't any dogmatism regarding science.

There is. Maybe not with you, but some other atheists.

All of the examples you gave were about atheism.

No.

Again that's because atheists are not a group. It's just a belief. Do you group yourself in a group of people who don't believe in Big Foot, or Alien abductions? Some people who don't believe in Big Foot may want to be all evangelical and argue that there is no Big Foot and even use evidence that isn't credible evidence against Big Foot. I also don't believe in Big Foot but I am not in any way related to any other non-believer in the evidence for Big Foot.

Please read the Op and respond to it.

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Does one mean that Atheism is an ism of devolution, please?
Right?

Regards

No. Doesnt mean that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. The scientific method is our best method for truth. I'm sure when you get on a plane, have surgery, take a drug or anything that could endanger your life you will expect the scientific method was involved in some way. Experiments, testing, trained people, every step involves the scientific method somehow.
"Best" doesn't mean ultimate possible best, it means our current best way to find truth. There is a best method for all humans if the human cares about well being.

The world is what? You have given some examples, but you haven't with truth shown that your examples cover all of the world. Rather you take for granted that your examples cover all of the world.
Further you take for granted that all cases of well being are cover by using science. You haven't shown that your cases cover all cases of well being.
Yet even more problematic you haven't explained what truth is and if your truth is the only kind of truth in regards to all of the world.

...
And you can observe best. In medicine using the scientific method you create a combination of molecules that work statistically best at reducing a symptom with the minimum of side effects. Change the ratio and it works less. The scientific method works best. Or you could just guess.Would you take that pill?

Let us compare best with a rock (a rock is any naturally occurring solid mass or aggregate of minerals or mineraloid matter).
I can observe/see a rock. I can hold it. I can measure it according to different scientific measurement standards. In general a rock is connect to be through my external sensations and my ability to interact with it using my body in bodily physical sense. Further I can apply different scientific instruments to it.
I can't do that with best. Rather what you are saying it that best is a subjective evolution standard in you and that best has no objective referent.
You are doing a form of morality(well being), utility as what is subjectively most useful for you and you believe that best is a scientific method. It is not. It is a subjective evaluation in you.

To sum up:
You haven't shown what all of the world is.
You haven't shown if your truth is the only truth or if it applies to all of the world.
You confuse your internal psychology in regards to best with external sensation as observation.

 

[paarsurrey]

No. The scientific method is our best method for truth. I'm sure when you get on a plane, have surgery, take a drug or anything that could endanger your life you will expect the scientific method was involved in some way. Experiments, testing, trained people, every step involves the scientific method somehow.
"Best" doesn't mean ultimate possible best, it means our current best way to find truth. There is a best method for all humans if the human cares about well being.
It isn't complicated. If you were stuck on a cliff and made a rope from vines you would first perform tests with rocks to find the strongest vine and assembly. The end. Come up with an idea, test it,write it down so someone else can use it or expand on it.
Our best way to know if this vine is safe is a simple scientific method. I said it's our best way to know what is true.
Alternatives include - wishing, praying, intuition, lucky charm, guessing

And you can observe best. In medicine using the scientific method you create a combination of molecules that work statistically best at reducing a symptom with the minimum of side effects. Change the ratio and it works less. The scientific method works best. Or you could just guess.Would you take that pill?

" The scientific method is our best method for truth"

Does Science claim it, please? or, is it one's day-dreaming, please?
If yes, then please quote from the Science Discipline that claimed it, please. Right?

Regards

 

[joelr]

Great. Please do quote the particular segment of the OP you are referring to and I can respond objectively.

Really? You don't remember the parts of your post where you say why do atheists do this or that? Your penchant for replying with "re-read the OP" is highly suspicious. If you cannot acknowledge you said "why do atheists do this.."? Then ok, bub bye.

There is. Maybe not with you, but some other atheists.

Because atheists are not a group.

Please read the Op and respond to it.

Thanks.

I did. You made an error in lumping atheists as if they are some sort of unified group.Clearly you have no response.
Some people go around spreading the flat earth truth like evangelists or aliens visiting us and abducting people. Some don't. So? Some people will defend a position with bad evidence. How is this possibly surprising?

 

[joelr]

The world is what? You have given some examples, but you haven't with truth shown that your examples cover all of the world. Rather you take for granted that your examples cover all of the world.

Because there are no examples that demonstrate the scientific method isn't our best method to describe reality.

Further you take for granted that all cases of well being are cover by using science. You haven't shown that your cases cover all cases of well being.

When did I even say that? I said it's our best method for discovering truth. Suspiciously you haven't provided an alternate which means you are likely blowing a lot of smoke here.

If someone has a pain they can utilize simple scientific method or other. Is there some part of the world where a lucky rabbits foot will work better? Do you have a better solution?

Yet even more problematic you haven't explained what truth is and if your truth is the only kind of truth in regards to all of the world.

Science is our best way to discover truth. A semantic quibble about truth is a big bore and waste of time.
Forget truth in any other way except truth about reality. Science is the best way to tell what is true about the world.
If you have an alternative great, please speak up. So far you just seem to have problems with words but no solutions.

Let us compare best with a rock (a rock is any naturally occurring solid mass or aggregate of minerals or mineraloid matter).
I can observe/see a rock. I can hold it. I can measure it according to different scientific measurement standards. In general a rock is connect to be through my external sensations and my ability to interact with it using my body in bodily physical sense. Further I can apply different scientific instruments to it.
I can't do that with best. Rather what you are saying it that best is a subjective evolution standard in you and that best has no objective referent.
You are doing a form of morality(well being), utility as what is subjectively most useful for you and you believe that best is a scientific method. It is not. It is a subjective evaluation in you.

But your best way to find truths about that rock are scientific. It could be with instruments or it could be with experiments depending on what you need the rock for.
Alternately you could pray, guess, make stuff up. If you are using a rock in a Iron age war you need to determine which rocks will not break on armor, which are dense but light. So you perform experiments. What do you think, in some parts of the world wishing will provide better results for your entire army?

To sum up:
You haven't shown what all of the world is.

In your mind. Meanwhile in the actual world the scientific method is our most reliable way to gain truth.

You haven't shown if your truth is the only truth or if it applies to all of the world.

Wow, do you have or know of some technology like a computer, laser, MRI or automobile that was created not using any science? Are you writing on a computer that you assembled a bunch of electronics and guessed and made a working computer?

You confuse your internal psychology in regards to best with external sensation as observation.

If by "internal psychology" you mean knowledge about the world that is true then yes our best current method is the scientific method.

 

[joelr]

" The scientific method is our best method for truth"

Does Science claim it, please? or, is it one's day-dreaming, please?
If yes, then please quote from the Science Discipline that claimed it, please. Right?

Regards

If it wasn't the best method then guess what, all branches of science would use another method. But they don't do they.
They use the scientific method. Do you think scientists are like "hey should we use that other method and get even better truth or should we just use the old scientific method and get a half-a$$ truth again? Yeah,let's just half a$$ it again. We don't want to get too much knowledge".....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because there are no examples that demonstrate the scientific method isn't our best method to describe reality.



When did I even say that? I said it's our best method for discovering truth. Suspiciously you haven't provided an alternate which means you are likely blowing a lot of smoke here.

If someone has a pain they can utilize simple scientific method or other. Is there some part of the world where a lucky rabbits foot will work better? Do you have a better solution?



Science is our best way to discover truth. A semantic quibble about truth is a big bore and waste of time.
Forget truth in any other way except truth about reality. Science is the best way to tell what is true about the world.
If you have an alternative great, please speak up. So far you just seem to have problems with words but no solutions.





But your best way to find truths about that rock are scientific. It could be with instruments or it could be with experiments depending on what you need the rock for.
Alternately you could pray, guess, make stuff up. If you are using a rock in a Iron age war you need to determine which rocks will not break on armor, which are dense but light. So you perform experiments. What do you think, in some parts of the world wishing will provide better results for your entire army?



In your mind. Meanwhile in the actual world the scientific method is our most reliable way to gain truth.



Wow, do you have or know of some technology like a computer, laser, MRI or automobile that was created not using any science? Are you writing on a computer that you assembled a bunch of electronics and guessed and made a working computer?


If by "internal psychology" you mean knowledge about the world that is true then yes our best current method is the scientific method.

No. You use in the positive the words "world", "best" and "truth". It is you, who have to explain what truth is, how you have evidence for best and how you have made best falsifiable and what the world is.

 

[joelr]

No. You use in the positive the words "world", "best" and "truth". It is you, who have to explain what truth is, how you have evidence for best and how you have made best falsifiable and what the world is.

Yawn. That's a big bunch of nonsense hand waving and smoke blowing. Or is it up to me to define what "hand", "waving", "smoke" and "blowing" really means?
It's our best known way to discover truth about the world. If you have an alternative speak up. I so do not care about some semantic ontological debate. The great irony is you are writing all this on a computer, a marvel of the scientific method.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yawn. That's a big bunch of nonsense hand waving and smoke blowing. Or is it up to me to define what "hand", "waving", "smoke" and "blowing" really means?
It's our best known way to discover truth about the world. If you have an alternative speak up. I so do not care about some semantic ontological debate. The great irony is you are writing all this on a computer, a marvel of the scientific method.

Like how you use feelings. And you do care about the ontological status of the universe. You just haven't shown that it is natural. So in effect you believe in something without having shown how, it is so.

As for an alternative, that is simple. We don't know. Truth is no different than God. You can believe in them, but you don't have to.
I am a skeptic and I don't believe in truth.