What is with all the threads attacking atheism/atheists lately?

reply to post by Student X

Originally posted by Student X

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Student X

 

Well, you were shown that an atheist didn't post that and you've not retracted your defamatory statements against atheists...so what's with the intellectual dishonesty? If you're going to use this quote anyway, you're just using a poorly-constructed straw man made from isolated, out-of-context theistic statements and then labeling it "atheist" and probably drawing an angry face with pointy teeth on it.

Read what I said a little closer please.

You said:

Fine. I don't care who said it. My point still stands.

Because you don't seem to care about being intellectually honest. Does it honestly take that much effort to apologize for an error?

I'm quote myself: "In my experience with atheists and "skeptics" it seems that "God" and such usually boils down to a rejection of evidence that others might find conclusive in favor of a "I'll believe it when I see it" stance."

Thankfully, your experience doesn't amount to a hill of beans in categorizing a group of people. I'm not of the "I'll believe it when I see it" stance, I'm of the "If there is sufficient evidence of this phenomenon to overcome the null hypothesis, I'll believe it" stance.

Now I'll expand on that, in the hopes of clearing up any misunderstanding. IN MY EXPERIENCE are key words that I would like to draw your attention to.

Yes, they're the words that should have made you pause and then...well...delete your damn post. If it's just your experience then it doesn't amount to anything in this conversation.

In my experience with atheists and skeptics, which is wider and deeper than merely this little thread and the handful of atheists in it...

Little thread? It's like the 8th largest thread in the subforum now. And both your experience and this thread pale in comparison to the 500-750 million large overall population of atheists in the world.

when asked what sort of evidence would persuade them to change their position, they often indicate an "I'll believe it when I see it" sort of stance "or I'll believe in heaven "when I go there". Maybe YOU would say otherwise, but that is beside the point. My experience with atheists and skeptics is wider than my experience with YOU sir.

Still a silly point. Your experience is a handful of people amongst hundreds of millions. But a drop in a bucket.

And guess what? Those positions, and my position, are not indicative of overall atheism. There are hundreds of millions of atheists, who am I to say I speak for them all?

"Because short of me going there, nothing that you could present, nothing, would be conclusive evidence. In the age that we live, it could all be faked, pictures, video, phone calls, whatever."

So that quote - regardless of who said it - brought to mind a question I often ask atheists...what would change your mind?

And yet, you can't just get over the fact that you were wrong and just apologize for an accidental misquote in which your bias took over from simple observation of who was writing it.

The answer I usually get is something along the lines of "I'll change my mind when I see God/go there to heaven. Because short of me going there/seeing it for myself, nothing that you could present, nothing, would be conclusive evidence." If you would have an entirely different sort of answer to that question, I would like to hear it.

Something that is observable, testable, and repeatable. It's basically the same standard I have for any phenomenon in the world. Now, I might not accept the claims of a specific deity with that evidence, but it's a step. Proving a specific deity would be slightly different. Proving a specific religious interpretation of that deity would be even more difficult.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

Yes, you're still not apologizing because you can't get over bias. Makes sense.

reply to post by eight bits

Originally posted by eight bits

The point is that the claim has some level of testing behind it, while theistic claims that make massive reality claims, including but not limited to the intervention of a supernatural force in defiance of the laws of physics into the natural world, are testable yet yield no data that provide evidence in favor of the claims.

I see no evidence that "theistic" stances typically make so many more unevidenced claims than other similarly comprehensive metaphysical stances.

Theistic claims make more unevidenced claims of interference in the natural world. I've yet to encounter many non-theistic metaphysical systems that make as many statements of interference in the physical world as theistic ones.

Some metaphysical propositions must be right.

No, they mustn't. They could all be wrong. Hell, metaphysics could simply be mental onanism.

None of them have evidence for or against, else they would be physics, not meta-.

Then why do they bother making claims of the breach of metaphysics into the physical world?

Why not Jensen's metaphysics, then?

Apart from metaphysics, many of the detailed temporal claims of the revealed religions (that Mohammed received the recitations rather than composed them himself, for instance)

Mohammed claimed to receive the recitations. No evidence exists that he did.

have the usual corpus of evidence for private experiences of people now long dead: the principals' recorded testimony, maybe supplemented with some pertinent observations by contemporaries.

And they are often contradictory not just between different religions, but within religions. It's why we have sects.

As always, the evaluation of evidence, its bearing, and the extent to which it supports conclusions is entirely subjective. An evaluator who finds Mohammed credible becomes a Muslim. Someone else who does not so find does not so become.

Then they are making an illogical assertion. The credibility of the witness has nothing to do with their testimony and their testimony has nothing to do with whether or not their claims reflect reality.

This is why we have science. This is actually why science rejects eye witness testimony.

100% subjective. Whether the subjective conclusion is correct or not may be an objective matter, but that doesn't help. We have no direct knowledge of objective contingencies, only our inferences, and those inferences about contingencies are subjective and fallible. All of them.

And yet those subjective and fallible inferences are accurate enough for people to apply them to all sorts of wonders...like the ability for people to communicate from different parts of the world with electrical impulses.

Congratulations, BTW, for keeping a conspiracy-free thread atop the religious conspiracies board for so long.

Yeah, odd that a sarcastic claim of a conspiracy is now the 8th largest thread in this board's history...

I guess the ATS-PTB bought your image of the God Squad having a secret meeting to smite the seed of Chucky. Lol.

Guess so.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


You didn't provide any damn evidence. You created a demonstrably illogical argument. Now, it might simply be illogical because you didn't present it properly, but there wasn't a lick of logic or proper presentation of your argument, let alone evidence.

Argument =/= evidence

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
And the simultaneous existence of 1.9999999999999999999999999999999 and 2 have nothing to do with this discussion.

It has EVERYTHING to do with this discussion because it goes to prove that the creator only creates and is not created by anything else.

This is a non-sequitur. Where do you get from the existence of numbers with incredibly small differences to the existence of a creator and the implication that this creator is eternal and creates ex nihilo.

Please, demonstrate the line of logic that goes from 1.9999999999999999999999999999999 and 2 coexisting to "the creator only creates and is not created by anything else."

Thank you.

Maybe you're just not presenting your argument very well, but it just seems like random things flung together to me.

Its like saying did the egg come before the chicken or did the chicken come before the egg and I say the egg came first!

I say eggs came first. Egg laying creatures evolved well before chickens.

Thanks for the reply.

Theistic claims make more unevidenced claims of interference in the natural world.

So you say, but I haven't seen evidence for this.

In the West, "interference" would take the form of historical miracles, and I addressed historical claims separately from others, where the evidence is what historical evidence so often is. Otherwise, the role of God after the creation (if any; some Deists are Westerners) is in many accounts lawful, regular and sustaining of some order. So, not interference at all.

No, they mustn't. They could all be wrong.

You and I are the same person.

You and I are not the same person.

Both are metaphysical propositions. Exactly one of those is correct. There is at least one correct metaphysical proposition.

Then why do they bother making claims of the breach of metaphysics into the physical world?

I am unsure what you are asking. Who's "they," which claims, and what is a breach? All metaphysics provides "framing" assumptions for statements about the physical world. For example, the metaphysical proposition that there is a physical world provides a framing assumption for the previous sentence.

Mohammed claimed to receive the recitations. No evidence exists that he did.

The record which purports to be his testimony is evidence. You may regard that narrative as untruthful, of course, but it is surely admissible, and another rational person might regard it as truthful, while a third rational person maintains credal equipoise. All three evaluations are attested.

Anything that is observable, and which can be judged differently likely under different hypotheses is evidence about the truth of those hypotheses.

And they are often contradictory not just between different religions, but within religions. It's why we have sects.

That's interesting, but it is also true of all human intellectual endeavors. There is nothing peculiar to religion in "birds of a feather flocking together," nor that not all birds join the same flock.

Well, you're a statistician, so I am sure you've been present at a dog fight between an Orthodox Bayesian and a Neyman-Pearson fundamentalist. Good thing everybody has to check their guns at the door.

This is why we have science.

Scientists take one another's word for a great deal. That is making a judgment about witness credibility, not avoiding it.

And yet those subjective and fallible inferences are accurate enough for people to apply them to all sorts of wonders...like the ability for people to communicate from different parts of the world with electrical impulses.

Yes, my point. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with subjective inference. It's the only kind of contingent inference there is. It is subjective inference that took federal employees on roundtrip junkets to the Moon, and subjective inference that thinks Benny Hinn cures people.

Subjectivity, then, is uninformative about reliability.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Thankfully, your experience doesn't amount to a hill of beans in categorizing a group of people.

Yes it does. Maybe my experience with many atheists and skeptics over the years doesn't matter to YOU, but thankfully your self-serving opinion about my experience doesn't amount to a hill of beans to me. You lost all credibility with me long ago. Your opinions are worthless to me.

Yes, you're still not apologizing because you can't get over bias. Makes sense.

I don't owe you an apology, because I wasn't referring to any particular atheist or skeptic. If I had used your name then I might be apologizing. If I had said something like, "With madnessinmysoul and atheists like him it seems that "God" and such usually boils down to a rejection of evidence that others might find conclusive in favor of a "I'll believe it when I see it."

But I didn't say that. I referred to atheism as an alignment of thought...I used plural, broad terms which you are taking personally so that you can try to score some rhetoric points. It doesn't matter who said it because in my experience many atheists say the same sort of thing about God in particular and the paranormal in general. Thats one of my problems with atheism as a category of thought.

In fact, I'm beginning to feel like maybe you owe me an apology for continuing to misunderstand that.

Something that is observable, testable, and repeatable. It's basically the same standard I have for any phenomenon in the world. Now, I might not accept the claims of a specific deity with that evidence, but it's a step. Proving a specific deity would be slightly different. Proving a specific religious interpretation of that deity would be even more difficult.

Your self-serving standard amounts to little more than a psychological defense mechanism against the sort of religious experience that would evaporate your atheism. Its like a scientism mantra. It lands you smack-dab in the middle of the very same sheep-goat catch-22. Which means your answer boils down to the very same sort, even though you try to obscure it with your defensive word-play.

Originally posted by Student X

But I didn't say that. I referred to atheism as an alignment of thought...I used plural, broad terms which you are taking personally so that you can try to score some rhetoric points. It doesn't matter who said it because in my experience many atheists say the same sort of thing about God in particular and the paranormal in general. Thats one of my problems with atheism as a category of thought.

Use broad brushes much ?
Atheism is not a category of thought. It is no more or less than one simple declaration:
There are no deities.

Beyond this point any atheist (individual) can have wildly differing opinions.

Stop desperately trying to pigeonhole people. it is as futile as attempting to herd cats.

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Atheism is not a category of thought.

In my experience, it is.

The Problem with Atheism

by Sam Harris

[...]

"One problem with atheism as a category of thought, is that it seems more or less synonymous with not being interested in what someone like the Buddha or Jesus may have actually experienced. In fact, many atheists reject such experiences out of hand, as either impossible, or if possible, not worth wanting. Another common mistake is to imagine that such experiences are necessarily equivalent to states of mind with which many of us are already familiar—the feeling of scientific awe, or ordinary states of aesthetic appreciation, artistic inspiration, etc."

[...]

I will stop regarding atheism as a category/alignment of thought when it stops seeming more or less synonymous with a PROFOUND and SIMILAR level of ignorance of and antipathy toward mysticism and the paranormal, and when more atheists stop making 'common mistakes' about mysticism and the paranormal, and when they start pursuing their own mystical experiences by 'building their own telescope' which is the analogy Sam uses in that essay.

reply to post by Student X


In regards to Madness posts

You lost all credibility with me long ago. Your opinions are worthless to me.

Amen to that, some people are so adamantly defiantly stubborn with a supposed super intellect, every post reeks of pure arrogance. The bold assertion of you are wrong, I am right mantra of the radical hardcore aggressive atheist will be met on the field of intellectual battle. That is why this thread is so long, we could just ignore these guys, but we need to expose the arrogance. Atheistic arrogance breeds more arrogance which can lead to obnoxious behavior and eventually insanity. I give you "TheAmazingatheist" as just one example.

reply to post by Student X


Please enlighten us with a description of this religious "experience" you talk about. Tell me how that would prove any specific religion's claims, and please explain how this might change a non-believers or Atheist's mind.

Also, experiences are subjective so in terms of intellectual content, the "experience" argument is bankrupt. For how could you be sure one particular experience would imply "GOD" if others experienced the same and thought otherwise? The answer is; you can't be sure. And many people attribute different meaning to different experiences.

Simple fact; Atheists and Theists can't prove there is or isn't a God, but MOST Atheists don't claim to know, they just state there isn't any evidence to assert a belief. The theist (MOST of the time_ asserts that God is true, God is real. I'd say it is the Theist who is the dishonest and least humble party.

I must say, I admire your persistance, but not your arguments.

Peace comrade,

A&A

SUMMARY: Agnostic Atheist - doesn't claim to know cause of reality and therefore would be dishonest with themselves if they told themselves there was a God (regardless of it's truth or not) It's a cautious and intelligent stance to take.

Gnostic Theist/Atheist - claims to know with certainity whether God does or doesn't exist. Irrational assertion of beliefs. Personal experience is nothing, you could be under a grave misaprension, high on drugs, or misinformed.

Originally posted by Student X

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Atheism is not a category of thought.

In my experience, it is.

The Problem with Atheism

by Sam Harris

[...]

"One problem with atheism as a category of thought, is that it seems more or less synonymous with not being interested in what someone like the Buddha or Jesus may have actually experienced. In fact, many atheists reject such experiences out of hand, as either impossible, or if possible, not worth wanting. Another common mistake is to imagine that such experiences are necessarily equivalent to states of mind with which many of us are already familiar—the feeling of scientific awe, or ordinary states of aesthetic appreciation, artistic inspiration, etc."

[...]

I will stop regarding atheism as a category/alignment of thought when it stops seeming more or less synonymous with a PROFOUND level of ignorance of and antipathy toward mysticism and the paranormal, and when more atheists stop making 'common mistakes' about mysticism and the paranormal, and when they start pursuing their own mystical experiences by 'building their own telescope' which is the analogy Sam uses in that essay.

edit on 9-2-2011 by Student X because: (no reason given)

Agenda based thinking is not really healthy. You have built yourself a belief system and will pursue it relentlessly denying anything that contradicts or threatens its precepts.
More commonly known as a religion.
Ignorance you call it ? or is it a simple difference of opinion ?
I feel no threat from your beliefs. I don't require the world and my life to be more than it is. Much like everyone else, I am mundane living a normal life.
The difference between us ? I'm fine with what is. You need something more (or so it appears)

reply to post by Noncompatible


Exactly. it is the Gnostic Theist that asserts a definitive belief without verifying it's validity.

The Agnostic would rather be cautious (or sceptical) than (POTENTIALLY) deluding him or herself.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Amen to that, some people are so adamantly defiantly stubborn with a supposed super intellect, every post reeks of pure arrogance. The bold assertion of you are wrong, I am right mantra of the radical hardcore aggressive atheist will be met on the field of intellectual battle. That is why this thread is so long, we could just ignore these guys, but we need to expose the arrogance. Atheistic arrogance breeds more arrogance which can lead to obnoxious behavior and eventually insanity. I give you "TheAmazingatheist" as just one example.

edit on 9-2-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

If you substitute" inside track on the truth" for "super intellect", the word "theist" for "atheist" in your post, you will see a mirror image.
Interesting, no ?

In essence, you can no more prove there is a deity (any deity) than I can. You simply hold a belief that I do not.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


double post

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


AmazingAtheist is brilliant, he is interested in philosophy, science and politics. He's not just some arrogant ignorant Atheist - He has reasons for his disbelief as do many other Atheists. I respect this guy's opinion.

Showing 1 unrelated video the user has uploaded is just an awful tactic to discredit the Atheist argument and position.

Here's a video more related to the subject at hand:-

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Did the Christians on this site have a secret meeting at a Church and agree to start attacking atheists and atheism? Seriously, the majority of active threads on the topic in the last 5 months were started by Christian theists attacking atheists, and the threads by atheists only seemed to have popped up in response.

Is there a more cogent conspiracy to suppress non-believers? I mean, the conspiracy is there. In fact, the stated goal of almost every religion is to convert, thus suppressing skepticism.

I have noticed over the many years I have been using the WWW that the "Trolls for Jesus" are fighting a losing battle; the Internet is their swansong (their last dying breath); they simply cannot rationally and morally defend their evil, genocidal and contradictory deity against their opponents and are reduced to "cherry picking" and "quote mining" to suit their own personal beliefs, misinterpretations and prejudices.

It seems to me that the "intellectual" war against Biblical fanaticism has been won long ago by the Enlightenment philosophers and this victory is being continually repeated, restated and revised on Internet debates; it will take some time for this to filter down to the mostly relatively uneducated, overly superstitious and barely literate masses, many of whom are suffering the effects of lifelong religious hypnosis and indoctrnation.

Ultimately the debate between the Deists and Atheists will probably continue for the rest of history, since it is unlikely that proof will ever be supplied to support either position; never the less, the fanatics of ancient, primitive and barbaric forms of organised religion (such as Christianity and Islam) have already long ago lost their battle and their eventual global decline seems inevitable; they are simply shoring up a burning house.

Unfortunately the fanatics of the world's two most powerful, dangerous, militant and genocidal religions (Christianity and Islam) still have some control over governments, armies and nuclear weapons; they are also making up for their intellectual defeats through expansion by "breeding." This may not end well; before the arrival of a more Enlightened (i.e.,educated and rational) humankind, the fanatics of religion may well seek to destroy each other in relentless holy wars.

Words are weapons. Propaganda is the first stage of war; and religious propaganda is often the first stage of Holy War.

Lux

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Yes, but the video I posted verified this point.

Atheistic arrogance breeds more arrogance which can lead to obnoxious behavior and eventually insanity.

Obviously this is not the case with all Atheists.
I have watched enough of his videos to know he has slowly drifted away from sanity, if he is just acting he is doing a very good job which comes naturally to him, at the very least, he is terribly obnoxious.
Which creates a lighting rod for theists to attack him and his belief structure. If you think he is helping the atheist cause you are mistaken. Theists will point to him and laugh with a "what an idiot". An atheist with manners will just "shudder" and know he is not helping their cause at all, rather detracting from it.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Again, i disagree. And of course all atheists are not like the amazingatheist, every person is different, they just share one non-belief.

At least i'm honest enough to admit it's my OPINION that the AmazingAtheist is a great youtube personality. I think he provides honest and meaningful opinions on philosophy and current affairs. And of course he acts like an idiot, and sometimes says rediculous things, but that's part of his act; he crosses entertainment with current affairs and hot topics (philosophical, social and moral)

Here's another Atheist;

Maybe you'd care to listen to his opinion; he's not arrogant, ignorant or dishonest:-



Watch the video before critising the title.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Atheistic arrogance breeds more arrogance which can lead to obnoxious behavior and eventually insanity. I give you "TheAmazingatheist" as just one example.

Meh. That guy's an obvious idiot, and I'm sure that once he has to move out of his parent's basement, he'll probably rejoin civilized society. But it's more than likely just an act -- contrary to some, I believe that there is an underlying sense of decency (how many people shout the "F" word at their grandmother? Why not? It's just a word, right?) and from the looks of him, he's not going to do anything to jeopardize his access to McDonalds

And yet, no one seems to see loudmouthed idiots like this as being a huge liability, and decry this kind of behaviour. Earlier in this thread, I gave Madness (and every other atheist who was posting,) the opportunity to decry an atheist posting hate. The only response was "well, what are you going to do, there are all sorts of people out there." Try giving that response the next time someone rants about the Westboro Baptist Church and see how it flies.

Personally, I say let them be as arrogant and profane as they want to be, because all it does is reinforces those who hold similar, pointless and usually unmerited, views of themselves, while putting off people who don't, which is pretty much everyone. Frankly, if I was an evangelical agnostic, I'd run around all over the place, promoting this guy's babbling and similar atheists, because it would surely drive a person who didn't believe in God, but did believe in common courtesy and decency, far away from that crowd, towards the "well, we're not too sure about the whole 'God' business" line of belief.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Here's another Atheist;

Maybe you'd care to listen to his opinion; he's not arrogant, ignorant or dishonest

... and he's also not an atheist.

I'm guessing that you've never read any of his books, but Alan Watts tended towards being a pantheist, though he's known (and criticized) for trying to blend aspects of Zen Buddhism and Hinduism and some other stuff into a cosmic view of things.