WTF Is Up With Atheists Lately?

[Pinkie]

I know comics are generally supposed to be funny and stupid at times but I think it ironic that a comic trying to paint all theists as stupid uses stupid arguments, bad logic, and broad (often false) assumptions to get there.

Meh, I thought it was funny.

Quite the rant-o-rama, LOL.

 

[Pinkie]

The word you're searching for is "honest". Believing something that isn't true is a lie.

You have scientific proof there is no Divine, Cephus?

I'm all ears.

 

[iangb]

Rationality, science, factual knowledge do not help me form my morality or my spiritual views. They have great value to me, but in other aspects of my life.

For example, I didn't marry my ex because I thought he'd be great breed stock. I did so because I thought I loved him. I'd die for my kid, not because I think she's the Second Coming, but merely because I love her like no one else on this earth.

There's need, in a healthy adult, for BOTH satisfied emotional needs and rational decision making.

This post of yours reminded me of one I wrote myself about five years ago - reminded me so strongly, in fact, that I had to go back and find it. Here.

For those people that are tl;dr-ing, I quote the relevant bit (now with spellchecker/better paraphrasing!):

"My point I'm making is this: human beings, such as we are, often believe in illogical things such as 'justice', 'free will' (maybe) and 'apathy'. And sometimes we benefit from them, sometimes we suffer because of them, but they always they affect us - in a very proper sense, they are real. Why should God be any different?

About a couple of years or so ago, I (as an Angry Atheist back then, on a different forum) made a two threads in the space of about a week. One attacking God for being illogical and the other vehemently arguing that 'love' is real. It's only more recently (read: since-my-agnosticism) that I see the conflict between the two ideas. And I'd rather live in a world with love than a world where God cannot exist. "

As far as the general topic goes - I think the big issue most people make is generalising. Not all atheists are dicks, just as not all Muslims are suicide bombers and not all Christians are Fred Phelps. Unfortunately, we've all got the extremists giving the rest of us a bad name. Personally, I'm an agnostic atheist - emphasis on 'agnostic' - and I would judge someone on their actions, not on what their beliefs were. I would only seek to 'convert' someone if I felt that their beliefs were directly harming them, which isn't all that often, as far as I'm concerned (see above).

Oh, and I was in an 'atheists society' for a while when I was at uni - in fact, I still go to their socials once in a while. Generally we talked geek culture and pop philosophy, if we deigned to even get that highbrow. Mostly, it was an excuse to go to the pub with some random people and make friends. The Christian Union always liked us, too - every now and then we'd meet up and chat theology with them, which (given that I do that anyway online from time to time) I see as being perfectly acceptable. There were a couple of 'angry atheists', but I don't think they were representative of the group.

 

[Locke and Load]

Meh, I thought it was funny.

Quite the rant-o-rama, LOL.

I mean sure it was funny but still...does not make it a good argument lol.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

You have scientific proof there is no Divine, Cephus?

I'm all ears.

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If a theist says they believe in the existence of a higher power, and an atheist represents the non-existence of god as fact, it's perfectly reasonable to ask that the atheist prove it. I've seen words like "rational" and "scientific" thrown around in this thread, so where's the rational scientific proof that there is no god?

 

[zgoldsmith23]

If a theist says they believe in the existence of a higher power, and an atheist represents the non-existence of god as fact, it's perfectly reasonable to ask that the atheist prove it. I've seen words like "rational" and "scientific" thrown around in this thread, so where's the rational scientific proof that there is no god?

...except the atheist is making a claim that is not outrageous. Burden of Proof is on the one making the outrageous claim. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

...except the atheist is making a claim that is not outrageous

In the opinion of the atheist. To the atheist, the claim is not outrageous because they agree with it.

Burden of Proof is on the one making the outrageous claim. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The burden of proof rests with the one making a claim of fact, not the one making a claim of belief. Pinkie's claim is one of belief, whereas there have been several claims of fact made by atheists in this thread -- ergo, those atheists, the ones who talk about rationality and science, should prove that there is no god.

 

[hallam]

...except the atheist is making a claim that is not outrageous. Burden of Proof is on the one making the outrageous claim. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

This is spurious counter argument. The person making the claim has the burden of proof (whether that is the theist position or the atheist position). Outrageousness does not factor into this one bit. The burden of proof fallacy is clear here. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. Considering any claim on metaphysics is extraordinary that means if the atheists promotes their position as fact they have to back it up too.

 

[atrasicarius]

In the opinion of the atheist. To the atheist, the claim is not outrageous because they agree with it.



The burden of proof rests with the one making a claim of fact, not the one making a claim of belief. Pinkie's claim is one of belief, whereas there have been several claims of fact made by atheists in this thread -- ergo, those atheists, the ones who talk about rationality and science, should prove that there is no god.

No one is saying, "Absolutely, without a shadow of doubt, there is no god." What people are saying is, "In the absence of any kind of evidence for god, the logical position is to assume there is none until further evidence is presented." See the difference?

 

[Pinkie]

This is spurious counter argument. The person making the claim has the burden of proof (whether that is the theist position or the atheist position). Outrageousness does not factor into this one bit. The burden of proof fallacy is clear here. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. Considering any claim on metaphysics is extraordinary that means if the atheists promotes their position as fact they have to back it up too.

I'm not of the opinion that the existence of the Divine can be "proven". I'm of the opinion that for some people, like me, choosing this belief fills an emotional need/want. It's always a choice, unless you really believe in brain washing, and it's always done for emotional reasons. It's not the proper subject of a scientific inquiry -- ergo, my belief cannot be scientifically proven to be "wrong".

It is neither right nor wrong, as a matter of science, precisely because it is NOT a matter of science. It's not a shared experience -- it's my interior, spiritual life. It's my philosophy, if you will, or a part of it. I was a nihilist for awhile, and life worked on me to alter me. Now I'm a Diest.

Criticizing me for my most private thoughts, which affect nobody else, seems supremely arrogant to me.

 

[Pinkie]

No one is saying, "Absolutely, without a shadow of doubt, there is no god." What people are saying is, "In the absence of any kind of evidence for god, the logical position is to assume there is none until further evidence is presented." See the difference?

What makes this the most logical position?

I also believe there is no other life in the universe. Can't prove that, either....it's just a guess. This belief likewise does not aid me in choosing vaccines or even paint colors for the living room.

If ET shows up, I'll change my mind. If I die and there's an afterlife, I'll change my "mind".

None of this is "logical"; it's belief, chosen (at least by me) on a completely different basis.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

In the opinion of the atheist. To the atheist, the claim is not outrageous because they agree with it.



The burden of proof rests with the one making a claim of fact, not the one making a claim of belief. Pinkie's claim is one of belief, whereas there have been several claims of fact made by atheists in this thread -- ergo, those atheists, the ones who talk about rationality and science, should prove that there is no god.

I am not guaranteeing there is no "god" but simply saying "one is highly unlikely as there is no evidence so why waste my time?"

 

[atrasicarius]

I think Carl Sagan has something to contribute to this thread: The Dragon In My Garage

 

[zgoldsmith23]

I'm not of the opinion that the existence of the Divine can be "proven". I'm of the opinion that for some people, like me, choosing this belief fills an emotional need/want. It's always a choice, unless you really believe in brain washing, and it's always done for emotional reasons. It's not the proper subject of a scientific inquiry -- ergo, my belief cannot be scientifically proven to be "wrong".

It is neither right nor wrong, as a matter of science, precisely because it is NOT a matter of science. It's not a shared experience -- it's my interior, spiritual life. It's my philosophy, if you will, or a part of it. I was a nihilist for awhile, and life worked on me to alter me. Now I'm a Diest.

Criticizing me for my most private thoughts, which affect nobody else, seems supremely arrogant to me.

Well since this is a public forum and you posted them, I wouldn't call them "private."

 

[hallam]

I'm not of the opinion that the existence of the Divine can be "proven". I'm of the opinion that for some people, like me, choosing this belief fills an emotional need/want. It's always a choice, unless you really believe in brain washing, and it's always done for emotional reasons. It's not the proper subject of a scientific inquiry -- ergo, my belief cannot be scientifically proven to be "wrong".

It is neither right nor wrong, as a matter of science, precisely because it is NOT a matter of science. It's not a shared experience -- it's my interior, spiritual life. It's my philosophy, if you will, or a part of it. I was a nihilist for awhile, and life worked on me to alter me. Now I'm a Diest.

Criticizing me for my most private thoughts, which affect nobody else, seems supremely arrogant to me.

I would agree with most of what you say here. But you can see the redaction that atheists make. First it is fact. Then once you demand proof for the atheistic "fact," they withdraw to "No one is saying, "Absolutely, without a shadow of doubt, there is no god." It is the tactic of doubt. These argument persist for two reasons. Theist don't provide arguments that atheists will ever accept (namely because there are no arguments that atheist will accept except the one they have adopted already) and atheists refuse to actually prove anything because that is not their game.

 

[Pinkie]

I would agree with most of what you say here. But you can see the redaction that atheists make. First it is fact. Then once you demand proof for the atheistic "fact," they withdraw to "No one is saying, "Absolutely, without a shadow of doubt, there is no god." It is the tactic of doubt. These argument persist for two reasons. Theist don't provide arguments that atheists will ever accept (namely because there are no arguments that atheist will accept except the one they have adopted already) and atheists refuse to actually prove anything because that is not their game.

Well, not that I believe it will ever happen, but if the Rapture occurs, will you change your mind, as I plan on doing if ET lands?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

No one is saying, "Absolutely, without a shadow of doubt, there is no god." What people are saying is, "In the absence of any kind of evidence for god, the logical position is to assume there is none until further evidence is presented." See the difference?

Really? Consider the following snippets from this very thread:

I apologize we're bugging you theists with our "facts" and what not...

"People who don’t want their beliefs laughed at shouldn’t have such stupid, and funny beliefs"

What if you met someone who really, truly believed in Santa Claus? How would that impact your opinion of them? You wouldn't necessarily try and argue them out of believing Santa, but you would still be thinking, "Wow, this guy's kind of an idiot," even if they were normal in all other respects.

Yes, we do want more people to subscribe to our practices. It's called rational thought.

Because like it or not, our beliefs inform our actions. People don't tend to keep their religious beliefs to themselves, they tend to promote them loudly, vote based on them, treat others differently because of them, etc. When people have inherently irrational beliefs, their actions tend to be inherently irrational. That alone is a good reason to promote rationality.

As far as I'm concerned, people who are more concerned about their emotional comfort than about factual reality are doing something wrong. Follow reality where it leads, no matter how it might make you feel, don't go where you feel best, then try to justify holding that belief.

They've been saying that for the past 2000 years or so. Heck, look at some of the crazy religious groups who keep preaching the end of the world and are always wrong, yet their followers still cling to their absurd ideas. Reality and religious belief seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I'm not sure reality and religious belief are even on the same plane.

We usually call those "science conventions"

It's like saying it makes you feel good to think you have a billion dollars in the bank. It can make you as happy as you want, but at the end of the day, it's just a lie. If you have to make a choice between intellectual honesty and emotional comfort, pick intellectual honesty. At least you're not believing a lie.

Another great quote: "You are entitled to your own thoughts, not your own science."

To some people, emotional comfort is more important to them. I'm happy for them if they have found happiness. At one time, Belief also brought me happiness. The problem for me is, honesty was ultimately more important.

The word you're searching for is "honest". Believing something that isn't true is a lie.

When you throw around words like "rational" and "honest" and "scientific" and "truth" (just to name a few used in the above quotes) to justify your atheism sounds a whole lot like a claim of fact to me.

 

[atrasicarius]

What makes this the most logical position?

I also believe there is no other life in the universe. Can't prove that, either....it's just a guess. This belief likewise does not aid me in choosing vaccines or even paint colors for the living room.

If ET shows up, I'll change my mind. If I die and there's an afterlife, I'll change my "mind".

None of this is "logical"; it's belief, chosen (at least by me) on a completely different basis.

That's kind of how logic works. You can make any number of assertions, but without evidence to back them up, the base position is to assume them to be false. "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." You don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Why? No evidence.

 

[hallam]

Well, not that I believe it will ever happen, but if the Rapture occurs, will you change your mind, as I plan on doing if ET lands?

I'm a theist (Protestant Christian) who happens to have a science degree. But I see your point. Yes, I am open to exchange and the change of ideas. The problem is the game itself. I don't believe that atheist are open at all or here for the exchange of ideas. My experience, and this is just my experience alone, is that they (atheists) are here to antagonize only.

Now, they probably see me as the same. But I accept this due to mutual stubbornness.

 

[atrasicarius]

Really? Consider the following snippets from this very thread:

When you throw around words like "rational" and "honest" and "scientific" and "truth" (just to name a few used in the above quotes) to justify your atheism sounds a whole lot like a claim of fact to me.

Do you know beyond the shadow of any doubt that Santa Claus doesn't exist? No, but you're still comfortable saying "there is no Santa Claus." Why don't you think about why that is for a while?

 

[Thrilla]

I have never been in the military, so I guess I'll have to take your word for this.

Still seems odd. For starters, a military chaplain is supposed to be able to counsel servicemen of any faith. HTH would an atheist chaplain do this?

It also sounds as if you're claiming the military provides no counseling outside the chaplian services. Again, could be true...but it seems unlikely to me.

he's talking out of his backside....except on the point of a few people pushing religion.. it's a very few, but it still happens.

having chaplains doesn't violate church and state separation.. but to not have them available would be a violation of the first amendment.
due to the practicalities of military life, they have to provide religious services... to not do so would be a de facto violation of freedom of worship.
when you take people out of society and place them in a segregated community of their own, there are certain things you must provide them... chaplains are on that list.

there are plenty of non-religious counselors in the military.. of every stripe of counselor too...from drug and alcohol to suicide prevention to mental health counselors.

 

[hallam]

Do you know beyond the shadow of any doubt that Santa Claus doesn't exist? No, but you're still comfortable saying "there is no Santa Claus." Why don't you think about why that is for a while?

Comparing God to a commercial idea created by an artist in Harper's Bazaar may not be the best analogy here. I can say Santa Claus doesn't exist because we know exactly where the "idea of Santa" was started and the progression of it as a commercial enterprise. You can't say the same of God. You can make claim against the first oral traditions, accuracy of the holy texts, but you don't have enough hard evidence to say that God was definitively man made in the same way as I can show you the complete history of St. Nicholas and the creation of the commercial Santa Claus.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Do you know beyond the shadow of any doubt that Santa Claus doesn't exist? No, but you're still comfortable saying "there is no Santa Claus." Why don't you think about why that is for a while?

Um, no, actually I'm not comfortable saying any such thing. For all I know, there may well be a Santa Claus.

Regardless, those above quotes clearly demonstrate claims of fact. I would now like to see proof that there is no god.

 

[Pinkie]

That's kind of how logic works. You can make any number of assertions, but without evidence to back them up, the base position is to assume them to be false. "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." You don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Why? No evidence.

I believe genocide is wrong. Can I prove this, scientifically?