The New Atheist - Mock and Ridicule Believers

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Do believers ever describe anything they believe to be true as theories? Of course not as that would be incongruous. [/quote]

I think this is a good point. Everyone accepts multiple theories about everything else. Everyone here accepts multiple theories about that Malaysian plane. We all come up with theories of what happened and we listen to the theories of others. We think some are more likely than others but ultimately know the truth is going to be at least somewhat different than anyone’s best guess.

It’s never this way for believers. Wether they be Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish or whatever. Their belief is the end all be all and they won’t accept any other possibilities.[/quote]

I don’t know how many times I have admitted I have no idea if I’m right. I believe what I believe based on the evidence I have been presented and what my rational mind accepts.

Am I right? Fuck if I know. I don’t even CARE if I’m right. I can’t help the way I think on this issue and feel. I’ve already pointed out why I think it would be much easier for me to have faith in heaven and a loving God.

162

[quote]on edge wrote:

It’s never this way for believers. Wether they be Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish or whatever. Their belief is the end all be all and they won’t accept any other possibilities.[/quote]

In theory, one of those could be right to do so.

163

I had never even heard of Richard Dawkins before. I doubt the majority of atheists care enough to pay attention.

165

[quote]csulli wrote:
I had never even heard of Richard Dawkins before. I doubt the majority of atheists care enough to pay attention.[/quote]

You can call my agnosticism whatever you want. “You have faith in you not knowing!”

Herp derp. Point conceded. I believe that I don’t know because that is what I believe. You still won’t see me knocking on anyone’s door or making a million threads about my “faith.” You’ll see believers though.

I feel like I’m constantly trying to be trapped into a “haha you agree with me” type thing. YOU BELIEVE IN AGNOSTICISM SO DON’T TELL ME YOU DON’T HAVE FAITH.

It’s just tiresome. We ride this bike over and over again for some reason.

166

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Atheism does not require faith, it requires reason. We are hardwired for religious belief and the atheist is going against that wiring, whether God or evolution (or both) wired us that way is another matter, by using reason and logic. The problem most religious people have is accepting the irrationality of their beliefs. It doesn’t mean they are wrong. [/quote]

It does require faith. There is no God and you believe it, but there is no reason to back it up.
Atheists have the same problem as theists philosophically. Why there exists something rather than nothing is still a philosophical problem whether you are theist or atheist.
The theist believes that something, whatever that may be exists because God caused it to exist. Atheists have varying theories on why something exists rather than nothing, but they have very little agreement on what ‘that’ is. They just know it’s not God.
The existence of God can be philosophically argued to be true and though objections do exist, they have yet to be proven.[/quote]
How is atheism faith? Basing what one believes upon scientific evidence and facts is not the same as basing it on what cannot be proven or measured or even observed. And the atheist, when confronted with a question that he cannot answer using science, will admit that he doesn’t know which is different from the believer. Do believers ever describe anything they believe to be true as theories? Of course not as that would be incongruous. [/quote]

If you believe that which you have no evidence for or that where the evidence is not conclusive then you are acting in some degree of faith. Where certainty lacks, faith fills in.
It’s more than believing the absence of a God. It’s believing also that life has no objective meaning, that moral values have no objective foundation and that existence comes from nothing or just is. There is not good or sufficient evidence to back any of those beliefs up, but a healthy majority of atheist believe it. You believe it on faith.
And be careful how you treat science less you make it ‘your religion’. Science is not religion. Science isn’t in the business of proving or disproving religion. It’s an over extension and misuse of the discipline. That doesn’t mean they don’t ever intersect. But one must be prudent to keep your definitions clean. [/quote]
That is not true at all. It could very well be said, and there is actual evidence for this, that biological imperatives are the objective foundations of morality and the meaning of life.

167

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
That is not true at all. It could very well be said, and there is actual evidence for this, that biological imperatives are the objective foundations of morality and the meaning of life. [/quote]

Like infant studies suggesting we have a predisposition to punish the other for something as small a difference in food choices? I mean, if predispositions are the foundation of morality, then bigotry is as moral as it gets.

168

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Do believers ever describe anything they believe to be true as theories? Of course not as that would be incongruous. [/quote]

I think this is a good point. Everyone accepts multiple theories about everything else. Everyone here accepts multiple theories about that Malaysian plane. We all come up with theories of what happened and we listen to the theories of others. We think some are more likely than others but ultimately know the truth is going to be at least somewhat different than anyone’s best guess.

It’s never this way for believers. Wether they be Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish or whatever. Their belief is the end all be all and they won’t accept any other possibilities.[/quote]

Theories about what?

169

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Atheism does not require faith, it requires reason. We are hardwired for religious belief and the atheist is going against that wiring, whether God or evolution (or both) wired us that way is another matter, by using reason and logic. The problem most religious people have is accepting the irrationality of their beliefs. It doesn’t mean they are wrong. [/quote]

It does require faith. There is no God and you believe it, but there is no reason to back it up.
Atheists have the same problem as theists philosophically. Why there exists something rather than nothing is still a philosophical problem whether you are theist or atheist.
The theist believes that something, whatever that may be exists because God caused it to exist. Atheists have varying theories on why something exists rather than nothing, but they have very little agreement on what ‘that’ is. They just know it’s not God.
The existence of God can be philosophically argued to be true and though objections do exist, they have yet to be proven.[/quote]
How is atheism faith? Basing what one believes upon scientific evidence and facts is not the same as basing it on what cannot be proven or measured or even observed. And the atheist, when confronted with a question that he cannot answer using science, will admit that he doesn’t know which is different from the believer. Do believers ever describe anything they believe to be true as theories? Of course not as that would be incongruous. [/quote]

If you believe that which you have no evidence for or that where the evidence is not conclusive then you are acting in some degree of faith. Where certainty lacks, faith fills in.
It’s more than believing the absence of a God. It’s believing also that life has no objective meaning, that moral values have no objective foundation and that existence comes from nothing or just is. There is not good or sufficient evidence to back any of those beliefs up, but a healthy majority of atheist believe it. You believe it on faith.
And be careful how you treat science less you make it ‘your religion’. Science is not religion. Science isn’t in the business of proving or disproving religion. It’s an over extension and misuse of the discipline. That doesn’t mean they don’t ever intersect. But one must be prudent to keep your definitions clean. [/quote]
That is not true at all. It could very well be said, and there is actual evidence for this, that biological imperatives are the objective foundations of morality and the meaning of life. [/quote]

That would be mechanism, not object.

170

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Atheism does not require faith, it requires reason. We are hardwired for religious belief and the atheist is going against that wiring, whether God or evolution (or both) wired us that way is another matter, by using reason and logic. The problem most religious people have is accepting the irrationality of their beliefs. It doesn’t mean they are wrong. [/quote]

It does require faith. There is no God and you believe it, but there is no reason to back it up.
Atheists have the same problem as theists philosophically. Why there exists something rather than nothing is still a philosophical problem whether you are theist or atheist.
The theist believes that something, whatever that may be exists because God caused it to exist. Atheists have varying theories on why something exists rather than nothing, but they have very little agreement on what ‘that’ is. They just know it’s not God.
The existence of God can be philosophically argued to be true and though objections do exist, they have yet to be proven.[/quote]
How is atheism faith? Basing what one believes upon scientific evidence and facts is not the same as basing it on what cannot be proven or measured or even observed. And the atheist, when confronted with a question that he cannot answer using science, will admit that he doesn’t know which is different from the believer. Do believers ever describe anything they believe to be true as theories? Of course not as that would be incongruous. [/quote]

If you believe that which you have no evidence for or that where the evidence is not conclusive then you are acting in some degree of faith. Where certainty lacks, faith fills in.
It’s more than believing the absence of a God. It’s believing also that life has no objective meaning, that moral values have no objective foundation and that existence comes from nothing or just is. There is not good or sufficient evidence to back any of those beliefs up, but a healthy majority of atheist believe it. You believe it on faith.
And be careful how you treat science less you make it ‘your religion’. Science is not religion. Science isn’t in the business of proving or disproving religion. It’s an over extension and misuse of the discipline. That doesn’t mean they don’t ever intersect. But one must be prudent to keep your definitions clean. [/quote]
That is not true at all. It could very well be said, and there is actual evidence for this, that biological imperatives are the objective foundations of morality and the meaning of life. [/quote]

Evidence is fine and dandy, but on it’s own implies a correlation. We make epistemological connections between things, but they are not certain. Indeed, we can be certain about very little. Most things we take as obvious and for granted are actually taken on faith. We don’t know the future will behave as the past. We don’t know every instance of physical causal event, so we can establishment by degrees of Likeliness. So in most cases we take things on faith. Evidence just increases probability, but never affirms certainty.
In the absence of certainty, we have degrees of faith.

171

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
That is not true at all. It could very well be said, and there is actual evidence for this, that biological imperatives are the objective foundations of morality and the meaning of life. [/quote]

Like infant studies suggesting we have a predisposition to punish the other for something as small a difference in food choices? I mean, if predispositions are the foundation of morality, then bigotry is as moral as it gets.

[/quote]

[i]The results were a bit startling: When the infants had watched a play involving a rabbit with a food choice that matched theirs, 83 percent preferred the “helper” dog. When they’d watched a play with a rabbit who liked a different food, 88 percent chose the “harmer” dog. This held true regardless of the babies’ original food choices–the only thing that mattered was whether the rabbit’s identity, it terms of food choice, matched their own.

To further parse the motivations underlying the infants’ choices, the researchers conducted a similar experiment that involved a neutral dog that neither help nor harmed the rabbit. In this part of the study, the older infants’ preferences revealed that when watching rabbits who had different favorite foods than them, they not only liked “harmer” dogs more than neutral dogs, but strongly preferred even neutral dogs when compared to “helpers” (this was true among the 14-month-olds, but not the 9-month-olds). In other words, it seemed that they not only wanted to see the rabbit treated poorly, but also would rather see it treated neutrally than get some help.[/i]

Read more: Are Babies Bigoted? | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

172

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Okay, so you provided some evidence that some people here are biblical creationists. Originally you said it without precedent, just out of the blue.
I could say I find it hilarious when atheists perform mental gymnastics to prove something came from nothing.
Then I get all kinds of horseshit nonsense about ‘science-this’ and ‘quantum mechanics says’.
Where actually I am basing it on a statement by Dr. Lawrence Krauss who famously said “It depends on what your definition of ‘nothing’ is.”
This was in defense of his book ‘Something from Nothing’.[/quote]

If anyone has been around here long enough, it’s pretty established that there are some creationists here. In fact, you participated in the thread I posted, so quit playing dumb like you’re not aware of threads that you’ve participated in. So you should be aware of where I would be getting my examples, as you did in fact participate in that very thread.

How is using science or quantum mechanics or whatever is applicable to the specific situation, to explain observations of the world “horseshit nonsense”?

I’m familiar with that book, my brother has it, but I haven’t read it.
The difference is that the mental gymnastics of physicists is based on something measurable.

Not all atheists think that the universe came from nothing, I’m content to say that I don’t know, while you/someone else says it was God (or maybe you don’t). Big difference there.[/quote]

Saying you don’t know is not an answer. It’s a choice, but not an answer. And I don’t say the universe came from God, necessarily. I say existence is based on God necessarily, I don’t claim that the firsted caused thing by God is the universe. There is a big difference between those claims.

173

[quote]pat wrote:

Saying you don’t know is not an answer. It’s a choice, but not an answer. And I don’t say the universe came from God, necessarily. I say existence is based on God necessarily, I don’t claim that the firsted caused thing by God is the universe. There is a big difference between those claims.[/quote]

Speaking of the universe, there’s some news.
Big Bang’s Smoking Gun Found
http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/big-bangs-smoking-gun-discovered-140317.htm

174

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Saying you don’t know is not an answer. It’s a choice, but not an answer. And I don’t say the universe came from God, necessarily. I say existence is based on God necessarily, I don’t claim that the firsted caused thing by God is the universe. There is a big difference between those claims.[/quote]

Speaking of the universe, there’s some news.
Big Bang’s Smoking Gun Found
http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/big-bangs-smoking-gun-discovered-140317.htm
[/quote]

175

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Okay, so you provided some evidence that some people here are biblical creationists. Originally you said it without precedent, just out of the blue.
I could say I find it hilarious when atheists perform mental gymnastics to prove something came from nothing.
Then I get all kinds of horseshit nonsense about ‘science-this’ and ‘quantum mechanics says’.
Where actually I am basing it on a statement by Dr. Lawrence Krauss who famously said “It depends on what your definition of ‘nothing’ is.”
This was in defense of his book ‘Something from Nothing’.[/quote]

If anyone has been around here long enough, it’s pretty established that there are some creationists here. In fact, you participated in the thread I posted, so quit playing dumb like you’re not aware of threads that you’ve participated in. So you should be aware of where I would be getting my examples, as you did in fact participate in that very thread.

How is using science or quantum mechanics or whatever is applicable to the specific situation, to explain observations of the world “horseshit nonsense”?

I’m familiar with that book, my brother has it, but I haven’t read it.
The difference is that the mental gymnastics of physicists is based on something measurable.

Not all atheists think that the universe came from nothing, I’m content to say that I don’t know, while you/someone else says it was God (or maybe you don’t). Big difference there.[/quote]

Saying you don’t know is not an answer. It’s a choice, but not an answer. And I don’t say the universe came from God, necessarily. I say existence is based on God necessarily, I don’t claim that the firsted caused thing by God is the universe. There is a big difference between those claims.[/quote]

How is it not an answer?

176

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

If there is God, it doesn’t matter if you or I reject the notion or call it by a different name than I do. [/quote]

Thing is, if this God that exists is the God that’s believed in around here, these things most definitely matter to Him, and, by extension, to all of us.

Ecumenism is probably impossible within Christianity and certainly impossible between Christianity and the rest.
[/quote]
Not true.

[/quote]

Oh, I think it is.

The loosest interpretations of each religion might find some way to fit with each other.

But as someone becomes devout, their devotion becomes sui generis.

If Push is right, then Muhammad Ali was wrong. If Gandhi was right, then Jewbacca is wrong. If I am right, they’re all wrong.

It is fantasy, to think that you can find a tree and ask, “how did this get here?” and hear two entirely different and conflicting accounts of the tree’s planting and decide that they are both correct.[/quote]

Well if we’re are hashing out theology, then sure we each will defend that which we relate to the most. But that is an academic, argumentative affect. It’s not a real world, “I am better than you” modality.
Yes, I know you can put forth examples where that occurs, but in many cases it also does not occur.

If a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu or a Christian has a flat tire, I am willing to help them all equally.

I have been to a mosque with a Muslim friend I had a few years ago and did Friday prayers with him. I have spoke with a Hindu coworker about religion and faith extensively. I have had Jewish friends and talked and exchanged ideas about religion. It was all friendly, it was non-condemning it was seeking for understanding. In doing all that, I understand my own faith better as a result.
So yes, there is ecumenism between the faiths. People of goodwill exchanging ideas in a friendly manner. Listening to one another in their expressions of faith. It happens on a personal level. Sometimes it happens in a larger expression too.
Popes have been to a mosque before, for the purpose of having a relationship, not to change anyone. Pope John Paul II was best friends with a Jewish Rabbi.
What I found from my experience is that, at our core, though our theologies are different, our love of God was the same. I didn’t condemn them, nor did they condemn me.
We were able to get alone, share some common things about faith and put differences aside.

It’s not only possible, it’s happened and happens. It happens at the human level. When all the screaming and shouting over each other is through, what we have left are people. People with a longing to be closer to God. It’s not a judgement on who’s right and who’s wrong. It’s not a shouting match or ‘My God can beat up your God.’

You certainly have some very negative impressions on religion and religious. I honestly don’t know what I could do to change that impression. I shared my experience, but I am sure that won’t be enough.
Are you willing to look at cases of ecumensim? See where people actually do get along despite the difference in belief? Where religious difference is not the impetus of war and evil?
[/quote]

You have misunderstood me. First, I really don’t have negative impressions of religion and the religious. As I just mentioned in another thread, one of my major sources of income has to do with research of Medieval Christian art and architecture. I have been to, and enjoyed to the fullest, most of the “great” churches on the planet.

More importantly, my thoughts did not have anything to do with fellowship or peaceful coexistence. I was not saying that all religions must always be in conflict, or are always in conflict. In fact, most Christians I know–who, admittedly, are city-dwelling academic types–are interfaithists.

I was talking about philosophical incompatibility. You and I offer a fine example. Despite the fact that we argue passionately sometimes, we respect each other, and I consider you a friend to the fullest extent that the word can apply to someone conversed with behind a veil of anonymity. I genuinely like you.

That said, our philosophies are incompatible. If I am right, you are wrong. If you are wrong, I am right. Excepting the loosest figurativists, the adherents of the world’s great religions are in exactly this same boat (vis-a-vis each other).

177

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

You are correct in one sense. I have a rock solid faith that looks to science as an illuminator not an endeavor worthy of de facto worship.

Frame that quote and do with it what you will.[/quote]

One of the peculiarities I’m most grateful to have developed is that I do not feel the slightest suggestion of an impulse to worship anything at all, and in fact would not allow myself to do any such thing under any circumstance. Not god, not science, nothing.

Maybe it’s hubris. Maybe, on the other hand, it’s the truest expression of the best thing about political conservatism. Time will tell.[/quote]

Not so fast. You are still worshipping something. It is implicit in your post. Tell me what it is.[/quote]

If you believe that I worship anything at all, then you have a ridiculously inclusive definition of the word “worship.”

Perhaps you mean that I worship myself. This could be argued, in a very loose and twisted kind of way. But, then, that would make me just like every other living creature on the planet.

178

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

You are correct in one sense. I have a rock solid faith that looks to science as an illuminator not an endeavor worthy of de facto worship.

Frame that quote and do with it what you will.[/quote]

One of the peculiarities I’m most grateful to have developed is that I do not feel the slightest suggestion of an impulse to worship anything at all, and in fact would not allow myself to do any such thing under any circumstance. Not god, not science, nothing.

Maybe it’s hubris. Maybe, on the other hand, it’s the truest expression of the best thing about political conservatism. Time will tell.[/quote]

Not so fast. You are still worshipping something. It is implicit in your post. Tell me what it is.[/quote]

If you believe that I worship anything at all, then you have a ridiculously inclusive definition of the word “worship.”

Perhaps you mean that I worship myself. This could be argued, in a very loose and twisted kind of way. But, then, that would make me just like every other living creature on the planet.[/quote]

Technically worship is defined in respect to a deity (supernatural being) so unless you consider yourself that I’m not sure the definition applies.

179

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

You are correct in one sense. I have a rock solid faith that looks to science as an illuminator not an endeavor worthy of de facto worship.

Frame that quote and do with it what you will.[/quote]

One of the peculiarities I’m most grateful to have developed is that I do not feel the slightest suggestion of an impulse to worship anything at all, and in fact would not allow myself to do any such thing under any circumstance. Not god, not science, nothing.

Maybe it’s hubris. Maybe, on the other hand, it’s the truest expression of the best thing about political conservatism. Time will tell.[/quote]

Not so fast. You are still worshipping something. It is implicit in your post. Tell me what it is.[/quote]

If you believe that I worship anything at all, then you have a ridiculously inclusive definition of the word “worship.”

Perhaps you mean that I worship myself. This could be argued, in a very loose and twisted kind of way. But, then, that would make me just like every other living creature on the planet.[/quote]

Technically worship is defined in respect to a deity (supernatural being) so unless you consider yourself that I’m not sure the definition applies.[/quote]

Yeah, my point is that Push’s definition of “worship” is obviously not technical or accurate.

Though, I have been called a miracle between the sheets.