Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"? (page 36)

Qcmbr

Then why create this thread? It strikes me as somewhat devious to create a topic that will touch certain hot button topics that people care passionately about when you've already decided in your world what you believe anyway.

Chariklo

Again, read the title. From page one everyone has clearly understood it. People got sidetracked, that's all. It isn't a crime. I just read on another thread congratulations to the thread's creator for the way she had kept it on topic.

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

EntirelyPossible

I tend to think the "do you believe in fairies or unicorns" argument that I see the newer atheists bring up is a fallacy. A fallacy that some atheists deny making. It's exaggerating for the mere purpose of trying to make the opposing side look ridiculous

What is the fallacy? Making it sound ridiculous to believe in invisible, undetectable, unpredictable creatures isn't a fallacy. They are the exact same thing.

Chariklo

Exactly, well said, EP.

And, as far as fairies etc are concerned, I wonder if anyone is familiar with the Findhorn community, where such beings are assumed as a matter of course.

EP, you are spot on about ridicule. That is exactly the tactic of some atheists on this forum.

keyser soze

What is the fallacy? Making it sound ridiculous to believe in invisible, undetectable, unpredictable creatures isn't a fallacy. They are the exact same thing.

Precisely. Just because there isn't an ancient book written about something, doesn't make believing in it any less ridiculous. The exact same amount of people have seen god, that have seen a fairy or a unicorn.

tec

Well, it is a fallacy on the site that lists all the various forms of fallacies. Given to me by an atheist who wanted to show me my fallacies, lol.

I think it is a fallacy because it avoids dealing the subject at hand (namely God), arguind for or against in any logical or reasonable way... and instead just resorts to comparing that belief to something that most people would ridicule. Hence, it is called 'appeal to ridicule'.

Peace,

tammy

rather be in hades

some are simply being reactionary to the false and/or insulting things "believers" say.

or it could be reactionary to constantly seeing the very same arguments over and over and over and over and over for legislation that strips people of their civil rights based on things that are obviously and factually incorrect and could easily be corrected with a little investigation into science and math.

which then leads to the same arguments over and over andover and over and over again having to explain why they are wrong about science

but of course, it's impossible to debate someone who isn't willing to take the time to at least try to understand the overwhelming mountain of evidence in front of them as to why they are wrong. evidence which they can touch, see, smell, etc..which is very different from the "proof" that believers hold up which essentially consists of, "well it feels right to me"

so to sum it up:

there are believers who vote to legislate out basic civil rights for whole groups of people...
based on beliefs
many of which are easily proven false with either a quick google search or some studying in tangible things
but we can't even get to that because
we keep having intellectually dishonest debates as to why we should even trust science in the first place.
and that simply sets back the next generation because we have to teach "the controversy" or mention creationism in science classes and that sends very mixed messages when the first thing we teach is the scientific methods which require hard data

that is frustrating. it's not the "belief" (not most of them anyway, many tend to be benign, it's the harmful stuff based on bronze age myths that's easily proven false that we can't get to an understanding over because of the intellectual dishonesty.

every single one of the nonbelievers here who are "scorning" believers here have been in your very spot. you don't think they didn't believe at once? some spent a lot of time and in some cases, quite a bit of money to LEARN scientific principles that then shaped their view of the universe based on very REAL things.

i know of chemical equilibrium and how very REAL it is because of those god awful titration experiments i had to do in gen chem 1

you guys want to throw out that science changes all the time as some sort of evidence, but we can't seem to get past the difference between a theory and a law.

you don't think an atheist doctor is going to "scorn" a jehovah's witness mother over forcing her child to lose it's life because of some moronic belief that GOD doesn't want anyone to take even lifesaving blood?

that was ALL of us and eventually, we all reasoned our way out of that cult based on mountains of very real and factual evidence, some of which is based on the very same evidence for why atheists no longer believe in god.

whether you take that next step in learning and applying those principles is up to the individual. so long as that individual isn't harming others by legislating/forcing others to abide by those beliefs, especially the HARMFUL ONES, then this whole thing is moot and i'd wager quite a few atheists wouldn't give a damn one way or the other if a believer believed in the flying spaghetti monster if we could at least agree on facts.

rather be in hades

that's not to say all believers are like that, it's very possible to believe and still like science, but come on...some of the arguments on here follow pretty much the same line of reasoning as the woman in that video.

NewChapter

Everyone who wants to debate atheism and non-atheism, you are very well catered for in New Chapter's thread explicitly created for that purpose. Please have those discussions there. This thread is about why those atheists who scorn people who don't agree with them behave as they do.

No, actually, that was not the topic of my thread, not explicit nor implied. My OP was full of honest questions about the relationship between atheists and non-atheists. For those that want to just bash on atheists, I recommened this thread to them.

Giordano

"... if you ask a Christian, for example, by which standard they determine reason, they will quickly tell you that it's the Bible, or the 10 commandments, or Jesus' teachings, etc. I am simply asking what the atheist equivalent would be, since, I assume, atheists believe they exercise reason."

"Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

Because believers don't apply reasoning. What is reasoning?

CLARITY: If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is accurate or relevant. ACCURACY: Is that really true? How could we check that? A Beliver is not accurate because they can not provide proof that one can check. PRECISION:Could you give more details? Could you be more specific? A believer either makes it up or cites the bible. Unfortunately the bible has been translated so many times that it is filled with mistakes so it can't be considered precise. RELEVANCE: When the answer is "I know", "I belive" "I have experienced such and such" those type of statements are not supported with facts therefor it's not revevant. DEPTH:How does your belief address the complexities in the question that a god exists? How are you taking into account the problems in the question? A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is, lack depth). For example, the statement, "Just say No!" re using drugs, is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. Nevertheless, it lacks depth because it treats an extremely complex issue......superficially. Belivers fail to deal with the complexities of their belief structure. LOGIC:Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow? But before you implied this, and now you are saying that; how can both be true? When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the combination of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is "logical." When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense or does not "make sense," the combination is not logical. FAIRNESS: Do I have a vested interest in this issue? Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others? Human think is often biased in the direction of the thinker - in what are the perceived interests of the thinker. When I was a Witness I was biased toward the JW construct. It was in my best interest to believe in what they taught on a number of different levels. When I stepped away and took a long hard look I realized as most on this site have that their beliefs were not logical, had no depth, were not accurate etc. Since the WTBTS was founded on the bible and incorporated most of the traditional thinking of Christianity, with only a few departures, simply pointed out that If I was rejecting a belief in the JW God I was to a large part, rejecting a belief in any christian god. The only thing left for me to do was make up my own version of god or find a different tradition of belief. Be it Hindu or something else. At that point I became a nonbeliever. Why the scorn for believers? It's not the individual it's the beliefs. To quote Eric Hoffer: “It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible.” "If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable. One has to get to heaven or the distant future to determine the truth of an effective doctrine." "The facts on which the true believer bases his conclusions must not be derived from his experience or observation but from holy writ." Aetheists scorn that kind of approach to logic.

Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

Share this