Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

by Chariklo 553 Replies latest jw friends

Christ Alone

the source needs to be considered. that's not a fallacy
You did not consider the writer, what he wrote, or even the book. You only took the year 1996 and wrote it off. And I'm being intellectually dishonest?
you guys keep asking for "proof"
No, again you aren't reading my posts, are you? I said that there is very little in the way of "proof" that an atheist would take and admit to God. Even if millions of people vanished in a supposed rapture, as some teach that the Bible says, the atheist would refuse a belief in God and instead believe in aliens or government technology. The same would've been done if many atheists were present to the supposed miracles of the Bible. There would have been ANY other reason other than God that an atheist would give credit to. I gave the example of Elijah and the Baal prophets. If one of you guys were there, I could imagine that you would claim that it was some sort of weather phenomenon that generated the fire to come down from the sky.
I'm not asking for proof that God does not exist. There is no proof that God does not exist. Most intelligent atheists will admit that. Just as much as an honest believer would say that there isn't sufficient proof to prove that He does exist. My proof is largely experiencial. And while that can be mocked and discredited by some, my experience has convinced me of God. Also my logic has convinced me that if something as simple as a watch has a maker, then I don't believe it to be outrageous and off the wall to believe that a far more complex universe has a maker. I don't see that as unreasonable. And many other scientists (theistic evolutionists for one) don't either. But maybe we should all start listening to hades and his ideas so we can suddenly "get more smarter".
elderelite

Actually hades i bet christopher reeves wishes he was alive first, then he'd worry about walking
rather be in hades

You did not consider the writer, what he wrote, or even the book. You only took the year 1996 and wrote it off. And I'm being intellectually dishonest?
how about we make a deal. i'll deal with your book if you go take classes on chemistry, physics, anthropolgy, biology, and math. then you'll understand my arguments as to why your idea is outdated and intellectually dishonest.
i'm not going to waste my time arguing the semantics of logic when your very position violates it fromthe get go.
heck, your position violates that very quote you posted.
i've already seen "evidence" for god and i already know it's not real evidence at all. been there, done that. there's physical, tangible evidence that you can touch, see, etc proving god is a myth.
the very nature of the scientific method is all about logic and the evidence from all of the subjects i've mentioned provides overwhelming evidence for why god never existed in the first place and why your attempts to continuously justify the existence of god despite all the evidence showing that man made god up violates every aspect of that logic you wanted to use
Terry

There is a comfort and confidence in really KNOWING something (especially when it is true).
The next best thing to really knowing is agreeing with a large number of others who really do seem to know.
After that, there is the internal emotional comfort of being sure there MUST be validity to something noble, pure, encouraging and strongly
associated with love and charity.
I cannot be an Atheist because I don't KNOW with any sense of absoluteness that no kind of god exists.
The number of those who agree there is no god is a small number.
I'm not comforted with the idea nobody planned anything in the universe and there is no sort of appeal to goodness to be made.
The best step I can take is to introduce myself as an ignorant non-believer otherwise called Agnostic (not knowing).
Why use the word ignorant? Because I don't KNOW and that is what ignorance is all about: not knowing!
On the other hand, I use to be absolutely convinced I DID know. I had faith in what I was sure I knew. I scoffed at the ignorance
of Agnostics and was repulsed by the hubris of Atheists who pretended to know facts about non-existence of deity.
How the heck did I go from one end of the spectrum to the other?
Well, I lived long enough to have life experiences!
What I thought I knew I discovered I did not.
Life experience makes me skeptical, wary and willing to investigate rather than leap in and start believing.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it:)
Soledad

2. all this time, believers have had their entire system dismantled time and again, and instead of using actual logic and starting from scratch when it's clear you need to, you guys simply twist your beliefs to the breaking point.
prevailing logic is based on material reality, and starting from there isn't really starting from scratch I hold as a believer that there is more to reality than materialism; it is only one aspect of reality that is limited to the use of my physical senses. I have spent years looking beyond the physical beyond the material, and I'm ok with the idea that there could be a god/creator or higher consciousness (to simplify I just use god).
NewChapter

jjst for the sake of accuracy, no, most of them are not Catholic. They're Lutheran.
Yes, I realized I may have been mistaken, which is why I put (I think) in parentheses. I was too distracted to look it up for accuracy, so I put the disclaimer in there.
You think they are mostly Catholic.
No--I indicated that I was unsure when I said (mostly, I think). I know it feels good to have a gottcha moment, but I kind of gave that to you in the body of my post.
you say they believe in fairies.
No. I said they believed in elves. It was after a fairy statement, so I understand the confusion, but I was going with the Norse legends with them. I believe that Fairies are Celtic. But I did say they believed in elves. Go read the post.
You see what I am doing here? I am showing you how a perfectly modern and highly civilised society nonetheless still retain a serious belief in a magical or spiritual dimension. No-one ridicules it or them, and they are very f ar from being the only nation like this. You mention them, and it just so happens that I know both country and people very well indeed.
Exactly! Which is why I am baffled that non-atheists call it ridiculous to claim that god belief is similar to fairy belief (or elf belief). It's like they find that scornful---and in doing so---scorn those of the Fairy Faiths. (or elves---I did distinguish, but was pulling the points together)
Non-atheists all over this board take issue with the fairy argument, and I assume they would also do so with the elf argument.
rather be in hades

No, again you aren't reading my posts, are you? I said that there is very little in the way of "proof" that an atheist would take and admit to God. Even if millions of people vanished in a supposed rapture, as some teach that the Bible says, the atheist would refuse a belief in God and instead believe in aliens or government technology. The same would've been done if many atheists were present to the supposed miracles of the Bible. There would have been ANY other reason other than God that an atheist would give credit to. I gave the example of Elijah and the Baal prophets. If one of you guys were there, I could imagine that you would claim that it was some sort of weather phenomenon that generated the fire to come down from the sky.
so now you know how atheists think despite not being one?
that entire blob violates the principles of the scientific method. if the rapture were to occur, then scientists/atheists would have to sort out why that happened. if said rapture occured at the hand of god, then the evidence would lead us there after exhaustive study. unless god still wants to pull his invisible man act after the rapture.
same deal for the miracles. if some guy is walking around curing the blind with nothing more than mud and spit, scientists/atheists would then apply the scientific methods to figure out why.
1. observe - a man is curing the blind with spit and mud.
2. question - why? is it in the components of the spit or the mud?
3. hypothesize - i believe the cure is inthe materials used
4. experiment - test the mud and saliva. compare with a large sample of various muds and saliva. determine if there is anything different about the mud and saliva used, perform controlled studies with placebos to see if that mud or saliva will cure more people and collect the data.
5. analyze the data - does the data support the hypothesis? no?
then back to 3.
3. hypothesize - it wasn't the materials so maybe it's the guy himself?
4. experiment - check to see if there are abnormalities in the person's body/blood, etc if given permission. check family history, check neighbor's histories, test this against a large random sample size.
5. analyze the data - does the data support it's the guy? yes?
6. publish results
of course we're still not at the conclusion that this guy was god though. after publishing and letting others observe the data and samples, if the data holds up, then we question why this guy was so special.
and on and on we go until we reach the inevitable conclusion that this was god, or his son, or whatever. if that were truly the case.
that's the scientific method. that's LOGIC.
it does not seek to prove or disprove anything. only to understand why something happened.
I'm not asking for proof that God does not exist. There is no proof that God does not exist. Most intelligent atheists will admit that. Just as much as an honest believer would say that there isn't sufficient proof to prove that He does exist. My proof is largely experiencial. And while that can be mocked and discredited by some, my experience has convinced me of God. Also my logic has convinced me that if something as simple as a watch has a maker, then I don't believe it to be outrageous and off the wall to believe that a far more complex universe has a maker. I don't see that as unreasonable. And many other scientists (theistic evolutionists for one) don't either. But maybe we should all start listening to hades and his ideas so we can suddenly "get more smarter".
except there is evidence, you simply refuse to look at it. there is the intellectual dishonesty. that anecdotal evidence isn't mocked, it's the reality that anecdotal evidence means nothing in terms of proof, yet constantly put forth as such while refusing to understand why it is wrong. this is also part of logic.
if someone came to you arguing that 1+1 = 5, and refused to look at you holding up one finger, and then another finger showing two fingers instead of 5, at some point even the hardiest of people would get irritated.
it's not "my ideas" ffs. did i discover anything in anthropology?
did i publish any authoritative papers in math or science?
NO. not my ideas, it's just reality. you can remain ignorant to it if you so chose, but i think you're selling yourself very short
Chariklo

Not all.
edit:
Your words drip with scorn, NC, over and over again.
You illustrate the situation in the thread's title beautifully. Thanks for that.
Christ Alone

i'll deal with your book if you go take classes on chemistry, physics, anthropolgy, biology, and math. then you'll understand my arguments as to why your idea is outdated and intellectually dishonest.
I have. I'm a real life college graduate! Yay!
i'm not going to waste my time arguing the semantics of logic when your very position violates it fromthe get go.
Again, what was my position in quoting the book? That both atheists and theists use logical fallacies when dealing with each other. That was the entire point! But you have chased me around several threads for weeks (or months) and it seems that no matter what I say, rather be in hades has to disagree. This most recent disagreement was that because the book was written in 1996, it's points about the use of logical fallacies can be discredited. No argument about the actual content of what the book said. Instead you brought it on me that I don't understand the semantics of logic.
except there is evidence, you simply refuse to look at it.
And what evidence have I categorically refused to look at?
Again, there have been absolutely no specifics of anything that I have refused to look at in favor of staying in some sort of delusion. I stated that for some, there will never be enough proof of God. That's a fact. Short of Him appearing in the sky to say "I exist", there is very little that will convince an atheist of His existence. That's not intellectually dishonest. I'm not sure you understand just what intellectual honesty is, rather be in hades. You keep accusing me of being dishonest, and it's not clear where that is coming from. There was a JW apologist recently that was accusing everyone (including jwfacts.com) of being intellectually dishonest, and it became clear that he did not understand the term. I'm wondering the same from you.
If someone came to you arguing that 1+1 = 5, and refused to look at you holding up one finger, and then another finger showing two fingers instead of 5, at some point even the hardiest of people would get irritated.
Again, another fallacy. Comparing my belief in a cause of the effect (i.e a creator) to not understanding math.
I am happy though that you are bored and have contributed so much to these threads. It has provided a wealth of examples of an atheists use of logical fallacies. Believers do it all the time. And they show up on many threads. I'm glad you have taken the time to contribute to the other side and show that some atheists do the same. Well done!
NewChapter

Your words drip with scorn, NC, over and over again.
I see. So you can correct me for things I didn't actually get wrong, and when I point that out, it's dripping with scorn? So YOU illustrate MY point very well---"Atheists, please STFU! We, non-atheists, want to be able to say whatever we want, we want to be able to misrepresent what you have said, we want to be able to make statements than can be proven wrong by just scrolling up a few posts, and when we can't do that it is because Atheists are being scornful."
You seriously misrepresented nearly everything I said, but because I, the atheist, didn't STFU, I get accused of being scornful?
Here's a napkin, Char. You're dripping scorn all over the place.

Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

Share this