Ohhhhh whoooooaaaaa-----why are non-atheists so scornful? |
Please stop being scornfull New Chapter...be like a believer.
Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?
by Chariklo 553 Replies latest jw friends
-
still thinking
-
rather be in hades
Oh I get it. your reality is better than everyone else's.
my reality? i live in the very same reality that everyone else lives in. i simply chose to study and understand it.
You're making assumptions about me that aren't true. I never declared anything unknowable or magical.
poor choice of words, but if we're not going to bridge the gap of knowledge with facts, there's nothing left to bridge it with.
let me rephrase: what presented evidence here in this thread? I wasn't referring to outside resources.
you expect someone to type up and walk you through A DECADE'S worth of learning in math, physics and chemistry, just to get to quantum mechanics? are you serious? this is why atheists tell believers to go educate themselves in these fields. that's asking way too much. this is the barrier of understanding. either you take the time to try and understand it, or you can ignore it. i don't see how anyone can affirm their faith without challenging it though.
I didn't arrive at a conclusion about atheists from a clinical or mathematical perspective.
i know. that's why i keep saying personal observations of this nature have a value of stinky cheese. my observations as well.
I say it again: based on what I observed in people I personally know (not acquaintences, not research subjects, not survey takers) and based on what many have told me. That's it. In that sense, my oberservations ARE very trustworthy.
no they aren't trustworthy. point blank.
Did I apply it to everyone?
yea you kinda did...
The issue to me is YOU probably don't trust YOUR OWN perspective on this matter which is why you need some scientific discipline to help you out.
statistics PROVES what i'm saying to be true. this is why people collect data and do formal studies. because what we see can deceive us.
These are moral challenges, not scientific ones.
sounds suspiciously like you're saying that in order to decide on proper morals, we need belief. continue governor...
Science can prove that homosexuals, women, people of color aren't in any way inferior or whatnot, but things only change when the status quo feels threatened enough to change, and usually that involves economics.
and science proving all of that has helped start the change in morals. it's nto left up to "personal observations" otherwise, we'd be basing public policy on morons who "observe" homosexuals to be morally inferior and legislating against it.
Alabama bus boycott? Those bus companies felt the pinch of so many folks not riding the bus in those days. Enough people become outraged at injustice to stand up and do something about it. Noone needs a science to do that (but interestingly religion can and has played a strong role in promoting social justice).
and it also played an extremely large part in entrenching bigoted views, slavery and discrimination in the country. thankfully we eventually had a supreme court not staffed by jackasses and it was rather cool of them to step away from belief in order to give women control over their reproductive rights.
Yes, believers are part of the problem. Big time. Religion is a made made egoic structure. A structure of the mind which is limited.
that we can agree on.
I agree the topic title is loaded, but some of the replies are also ridiculous and unnecessairily nasty.
funny, why is it believers never say a word when a fellow believer decides to shove their stuff out there, but comes running and complaining when the tables are turned?
One of those replies came from Qcmbr which you felt a need to defend, and then you claimed that I'm upset, a mind reader, whatever. Not that I care.
perhaps i missed it, what exactly did qcmbr say that was nasty?
stop playing the victim card. believers by and large control gov't and laws and oppress the civil rights of those licing a lifestyle they don't agree with
Where am I playing victim? Show me.
the very nature of the question: "why are atheists being mean to me???" victim mentallity. you yourself keep asking this question.
If believers control government and oppress civil rights, do something about it then. I don't believe that they should.
i do, i vote.
yes I have (why would you suggest otherwise?). What I said was that no science can conclusively explain a lot of people's behavior. Pick an explanation, stick with it, fine. But something else could be a factor too.
well, if you really wanted to know why people do what they do, study those things. it's fascinating. especially the cross discipline stuff like applications of biology in traffic patterns. did you know that the behavior and movements of ants (i think it's ants, maybe termites) are described in equations that are used by airline industries and public transportation planners? or how chemical equilibrium describes some of our behavior? before dismissing, try learning it, at the very least so you can refute it properly.
-
tec
I've watched several board theists/religionists/so-called "spiritual" people go through paroxysmal spasms of contortion, attempting to substantiate their claims that the bible 'god' somehow was able to "exist" LONG before 'he' had even been mentioned in human
writings!!
Well, the alternative is the assumption that something/someone could not have existed before or unless it was written about.
No real spasms of contortion. Just reasoning. Just looking at alternatives other than the above assumption, and other such statements.
Peace,
tammy
-
Soledad
no they aren't trustworthy. point blank.
why? because you say so? and then atheists say believers are arrogant
sounds suspiciously like you're saying that in order to decide on proper morals, we need belief. continue governor...
well, yeah...a belief in something (tangible or not) is needed in order to take a stand either for or against something. What is believed in can vary depending on where you live. But it starts somewhere.
well, if you really wanted to know why people do what they do, study those things. it's fascinating. especially the cross discipline stuff like applications of biology in traffic patterns. did you know that the behavior and movements of ants (i think it's ants, maybe termites) are described in equations that are used by airline industries and public transportation planners? or how chemical equilibrium describes some of our behavior?
again, making assumptions about what I study, don't study, know or don't know. Not a poor choice of words, you simply don't know me, but you presume to school me on subjects that are of interest to you. Arrogant to the extreme. Borderline narcissistic. Is that what you have to do to assert your point of view?
before dismissing, try learning it, at the very least so you can refute it properly. Who's setting the standard for what's proper? You? Why? And where have I dismissed anything?
-
sizemik
This thread is about the behaviour, not of all atheists, but of those atheists who choose to attack and mock and scorn those who have a faith. I am very pleased that Soledad widens the discussion beyond just Christianity.
Why did it please you to also narrow the discussion to "scornful Atheists" when, as you've finally admitted, the thread is actually about behaviour.
The truth of the matter is that a faction of all interest groups that you might care to "label" . . . atheists, believers, christians, etc., display poor behaviour . . . and the ratios are exactly the same for all, as with all human behavioural traits.
In your OP you chose to ask a loaded and generalised question (it's there for all to see) which superimposes a general and common behavioural trait exclusively as the preserve of atheists . . . a perceptive bias which has been perpetuated throughout this thread in spite of it being so obviously irrational and falacious.
It's an emotional reaction bought on by what I said earlier . . . the unavailability of a reasonable and rational argument to support a view. The only option remaining is to disparage the character of the dissenting voice in an effort to have them STFU. Posters here asking simple questions quite politely, have been charged with having a bad attitude for being so arrogant as to even ask.
You can't even begin to understand your bias until you develop the ability to recognise it.
-
rather be in hades
why? because you say so? and then atheists say believers are arrogant
nope. it's simple statistics. arrogance would be me saying your opinion is wrong and mine is right. instead i'm saying both of our opinions are worthless without proof. i can't help it if you don't understand these principles.
well, yeah...a belief in something (tangible or not) is needed in order to take a stand either for or against something. What is believed in can vary depending on where you live. But it starts somewhere.
belief in god is what i mean. it's a common logical fallacy to think that starting point has to be with god. not only does it not have to, be history clearly shows that might not be a good thing...
again, making assumptions about what I study, don't study, know or don't know. Not a poor choice of words, you simply don't know me, but you presume to school me on subjects that are of interest to you. Arrogant to the extreme. Borderline narcissistic. Is that what you have to do to assert your point of view?
you're over there asking the questions, if you don't want the answers, don't ask the questions. simple. as for schooling you, nope. not my fields of study, but i do find those examples very interesting and thought they were great examples. if you've ever watched "a beautiful mind" you'd see russel crow following pidgeons around and turning that into an equation which eventually became applicable in a wide variety of subjects such as economincs, for which he (the person he was protraying i should say) won the nobel prize.
Who's setting the standard for what's proper? You? Why? And where have I dismissed anything?
me? of course not! i surely didn't contribute to the development of math. just learning it. here ya go:
no science can conclusively explain a lot of people's behavior
you say this and yet you can't wrap your head around why opinions are like assholes. now if you studied neuroscience, biology, psychology, etc...then you'd at least be able to understand that part because you'd have taken statistics. statistics is an INTEGRAL part of those fields. it simply can't be studied adequately without it. why? because opinions based on observations aren't worth a hill of beans unless you take the time to prove it with statistical analysis. why is that? because eventually we came to realize that observations are subject to biases.i pointed this out earlier in regards to homosexuals, but how about all those lovely observations about slave behavior? without a proper study and statistical analysis to prove those observations, people were free to go about believing their bigoted nonsense. observational bias. it happens to everyone, including scientists. that's why they put their work out there for review and everyone examines the evidence put forth to determine whether it's right or wrong. frankly, i find it narcissistic and arrogant to simply assume someone can say something that's false and then being angry when someone points out the flaws in the logic and then not taking the time to understand the evidence put forth...
-
Soledad
nope. it's simple statistics. arrogance would be me saying your opinion is wrong and mine is right. instead i'm saying both of our opinions are worthless without proof. i can't help it if you don't understand these principles.
I've already stated that god can't be proven now, god can only be experienced. It doesn't make a believer's point of view worthless. You're setting a standard for what constitutes proof, and I'm saying that is the reality you choose to live in. Not everyone lives in that reality, and it isn't better than anyone else's. By implication, you are saying you are right and I'm wrong (or ignorant, or that if I studied this I would know that).
belief in god is what i mean. it's a common logical fallacy to think that starting point has to be with god. not only does it not have to, be history clearly shows that might not be a good thing...
It's only a logical fallacy to those who are promoting something or dissuading someone from something. There's nothing wrong with having god as a starting point. That's what makes a believer a believer. The history you are referring to is that of mainly western civilization, and religion alone wasn't the villain of all those things that went horribly wrong.
because eventually we came to realize that observations are subject to biases.
of course they are. again I stated my reply to the question at hand is based on experiences with people who are atheists. And upon peeling back the layers and layers of explanations, I find a common theme among the one's I know: they've either become angry at god, or they hate the lifestyle they think belief imposes upon them. this wasn't a theory I created. this was told to me, and then this is something I also observed in people who haven't said anything, but their behaviours give it away.
-
snare&racket
If you think "do not put your trust in nobles" is talking about scientists or that scientists "once though the earth was flat" then there is much work to do concerning what science is.
Modern science is not simply the meaning of its word "knowledge" as the JW simple mindset would have you believe. The egyptians worked out the SPEHRE of the earth, in fact even its circumferance, thousands of years ago before Jews even existed. So scientific endeavour has long existed, but the modern scientific method, considered the best way to pursue truth has only been used for a few hundred years. Most agree Francis Bacon initiated this method in his 1620 work NOVUM ORGANUM, laying the basis of modern scientific process. Despite this people can still veer away from the honesty of this method and produce bad science. This is why they teach you critical appraisal on day one in university science degrees. Not because the majority of science is bad, but because anyone can do science and not everyone does good science.
For example I was shown a study the other day on people with 'simple faints'. They wanted to know if pacemakers would help, so they set up two groups... a test group with pacemakers and a control group.(placebo)..no pacemakers. The results showed the pacemaker group doing better. Good scientists said this was poor science, there was no true placebo as people know if they have a pacemaker or not! A second trial was designed... All had pacemakers, half switched on, half off... The results? There was no difference in the number of faints. The heart it turns out , doesn't contribute to fainting as much as blood vessell contraction, therefore pacemakers are not a worthy treatment. So yes .... Bad science can be done, but thats why you have to be informed and knowledgeable. Every young earth creationist wants to prove the carbon daters wrong, but they havent... And now we date items using up to 30 atoms... dinosaurs are over 100 million years old... FACT.
Secondly if you haven't read some of the following collections of FACTS (books below) or their equivelants, then there is no suprise that atheists and believers clash. They are trying to reach the same conclusion with different levels of information available to them. It is not a conincidence that the atheists on this forum are by-enlarge quite scientific and knowledgable. Be honest, if you are a believer and not scientific... Is there a chance you have pieces of the jigsaw missing? After all, all us atheists have read all the data on your side of the fence....
I would love you to prove these things wrong, id be straight into the church you could prove true to me. If you think they are biased or not worth reading, that is fine, but know now and for the future, that this with respect, disqualifies you from the discussion because you havent bothered to learn or refuse to examine the evidence surrounding the bible, human history, human evolution, basic biology and the universe.
Biology by (Campbell & Reece)
Wonders of the universe (Cox)
Complete world of human evolution , (stringer & andrews)
A History Of God (Armstrong)
Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, (Ehrman)
Who Wrote the Bible? (Friedman)
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel (Finkelstein)
Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (Oxford World's Classics - Dalley)
A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years (Macculloch)
-
rather be in hades
I've already stated that god can't be proven now, god can only be experienced. It doesn't make a believer's point of view worthless. You're setting a standard for what constitutes proof, and I'm saying that is the reality you choose to live in.
i didn't set any standards for proof. it either is or it isn't. that's not a reality i chose to live in, that's the reality we all live in.
1+1= 2.
if a two lines are bisected bisected by another line and the same side interior angles = 180 degrees, the two lines are parallel.
these are factual things. we have proof for this and can use it in the real world. more importantly, anyone can use it.
Not everyone lives in that reality, and it isn't better than anyone else's. By implication, you are saying you are right and I'm wrong (or ignorant, or that if I studied this I would know that).
everyone lives in this reality. unless we are not in the same universe somehow, but it seems we are in the same state. this is every bit your reality as it is mine.
now if you want to say that you chose to believe in god without proof, that's cool. as an agnostic who wants there to be a god, i can understand this. i chose to hope this for personal reasons, but i won't ignore the fact that there's no evidence for it to be true. over the past 4-500 years, science has been dismantling a lot of previously held beliefs about life and the universe around us, beliefs that previously required the presence of god. it is what it is. that doesn't make me not hope any less...
but it doesn't make it real.
if you did study this stuff, an entire world of coolness opens up to you. i have been learning how to selectively breed plants. the knowledge and skills i've gained from studying engineering makes me confident enough to go cracking open broken electronic equipment to fix. the things i've learned in statistics and math help shape my view of politics, and so too has biology. even as a jw, i was very much a pro-choice person, but after leaving, and eventually after taking some bio i solidified my opinion as to why abortion should be a right. i should say, i've never liked biology until leaving the jws. not only does blood and the thought of dissection disgust me, but i admit a tiny part of me did not know how, or want, to deal with evolution and the conflicts it would cause on exams. how do i mark evolution as the answer when i believed in a creator named jehovah?
that little anecdote isn't proof of some sort that all believers are like that. just me. i speak for no one but myself on that.
if you studied this stuff, perhaps you could be the one to find the fatal flaw inthe argument. i absolutely am not kidding with that. that is part of science and if we're wrong, someone has to point it out. i'd much rather learn the truth than keep believing a lie.
It's only a logical fallacy to those who are promoting something or dissuading someone from something.
actually it is a logical fallacy. the are multiple problems with assuming that there is a god for a starting point. the first one is observational bias. the second has to do with a bit of human nature in trying to force the facts to fit the narrative. i'm sure there's more. i wouldn't know 'em all. i remember being something like 12, and i regret this because it set me back a long way, but i remember thinking to myself that i better come up with logical reasoning to prove god's existence because, if i'm somehow going to make it through the great tribulation, i better know for damn sure or i'm not gonna make it (i dunno how you were taught about that, but we watched the holocaust video a few times for family study as i didn't care to actually study the literature :P, plus i was interested in ww2). so i set about trying to mathematically prove god's existence. that was my first mistake. and then of course, at twelve just how much did i know? lmao. i might have been in accelerated learning programs, but looking back, i didn't know the first thing about basic chemistry or physics, and especially biology. had i known, i never would have bothered getting baptized, pioneering or throwing away some really good opportunities for school.
There's nothing wrong with having god as a starting point. That's what makes a believer a believer.
there's nothing wrong with god as a starting point, if god is the starting point. if god is not the starting point, then by definition, that would be wrong. now if you were to say that there's nothing inherently morally wrong with god as the starting point, i'd agree. as you pointed out, science can be used for good or for evil. so can god. there's been some good and some bad. it all boils down to the individual wielding the power.
The history you are referring to is that of mainly western civilization, and religion alone wasn't the villain of all those things that went horribly wrong.
i do not believe human sacrifices were apart of western civilization. at least not modern (christian) western civilization. it might not be the fl reason, but it cannot see how anyone can argue that religion did not play an overwhelming part in starting the crusades, or the witch trials, etc.
of course they are. again I stated my reply to the question at hand is based on experiences with people who are atheists. And upon peeling back the layers and layers of explanations, I find a common theme among the one's I know: they've either become angry at god, or they hate the lifestyle they think belief imposes upon them. this wasn't a theory I created. this was told to me, and then this is something I also observed in people who haven't said anything, but their behaviours give it away.
and i'm once again going to point you to statistics and observational bias to explain why that opinion is what i've been saying. does it play a part for some? sure. an overwhelming part? i don't know but i doubt it. i could come up with plenty of personal anecdotal evidence "proving" the opposite. is that enough to state whether this is the case? nope. that would require a comprehensive study. i do not hang around many people who came out of a religion. in fact, none of the people i hang out with came out of a religion. i'm the only one. ok, one friend is "jewish" but by blood, not so much culture. he couldn't care less about that, so i wouldn't count him inthat. so observationally, i'm in a prety nice little bubble that would allow me to believe that atheists were simply straight up logical people who came to their conclusions peacefully. having studied SOME statistics, i know that i'd be making a pretty big mistake in simply taking my observations as fact without studying this in depth, comprehensively with a large and diverse sample size. i also know that the questions i ask have to be structured in such a way to minimize errors. that's just one example of why i say opinions and observations are bs without hard data to back it up. clearly i could be wrong, you could be right, we won't know without a comprehensive study. given the spreading of knowledge, especially with the internet, i suspect a majority of atheists came to their conclusions peacefully without too much turmoil. that's just my guess, wouldn't put my stamp of approval on that without data and you shouldn't either.
-
EntirelyPossible
I don't really partake in these debates anymore mainly because 1) I respect the believers right to believe and 2) the arguments are dumber than a bag of hammers.
Carry on.