Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-06-2015, 01:20 AM
 
225 posts, read 215,505 times
Reputation: 354

Advertisements

Quote:
It's to do with inadequacy, insecurity and coping behaviour. The very same reason why atheists bloviate at length committing years of their life railing against a "sky daddy" they allegedly don't believe in.
+1000. With an emphasis on the coping part.

I can verify this as a former non-believer. A good analogy would be like having an itch you can't scratch ... that somewhere something deep down is not right.

It compels you to constantly affirm your non-belief through extraordinary amounts of time wasting on social media and hurling mockery and insults to believers. Of course, as an atheist I would have denied this till I was blue on the face. Someone truly secure in his world view would not behave this way.

Many non believers here would obviously proclaim outrage that I have the gall to speak for all atheists (which is exactly the way I would have responded when I was an atheist), but among the angry, militant atheist types that the OP is talking about, I think your generalizations mostly hold true.

Last edited by Not the Maginot Line; 08-06-2015 at 01:37 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2015, 02:55 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,507,234 times
Reputation: 5927
I have no problem with what you say. There is an itch and we are compelled to scratch it. But the real question is; are we justified in that? If reason and evidence counts for anything, we are. Are theists justified in carrying on as they do? If reason and evidence counts for anything, they are not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 03:04 AM
 
Location: New Zealand
1,422 posts, read 946,380 times
Reputation: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
That's our position too, including a lot of other possibilities of what might be "going on". I have never said that some sort of cosmic consciousness was not possible. Only that there is no reason to credit the idea and, if we look for a default, the materialist/naturalist one is supported entirely by everything that we do know.

And the real atheist beef is about various god -claims presented as credible when they are only one 'might be' amongst a lot of others and particular with the organized religions based on such invalid claims and having such an influence on all our lives.
Well as an agnostic, I don't have to carry the 'beefs' of atheists around with me.


Feels liberating...

Ha! Beefs Beliefs!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 03:06 AM
 
Location: United Kingdom
969 posts, read 821,341 times
Reputation: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
If reason and evidence counts for anything, they are not.
And all those outdated metaphysical presuppositions that you have that you are blind to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 03:20 AM
 
514 posts, read 467,939 times
Reputation: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTDominion View Post
And all those outdated metaphysical presuppositions that you have that you are blind to.
When interpreting comments by those followers of the New Atheist school of non-thought, you need to use an alternate vernacular.

On the left, what they say, on the right what they actually mean, in academically correct terms.

"Evidence": Positivism
"Reason": Methodological naturalism
"Logic": Scientism or ontological naturalism (most don't actually understand the logical axioms or rules of inference).
"Atheism": Verificationism or agnosticism (rarely the proper definition)

Kind of interesting that their epistemic standards are those theories of knowledge that are considered outdated or defunct in this day and age.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 03:23 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,507,234 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan View Post
Well as an agnostic, I don't have to carry the 'beefs' of atheists around with me.


Feels liberating...

Ha! Beefs Beliefs!
Just as Cultists and Faith -believers don't need to carry around the 'Beefs' of rational people about those cults and faiths. And, I suppose as Psychotics don't need to carry around the 'Beefs' of those with the ability to empathize. And Human vegetables don't need to carry around the 'Beefs' of those with the ability to reason. Those who don't care about correcting wrongdoing do not have to carry around the 'Beefs' of those who do. Yes, it must be liberating - from all responsibility, morality and rationality. Myself, I prefer the 'Beefs'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTDominion View Post
And all those outdated metaphysical presuppositions that you have that you are blind to.
If they are outdated, then it is surely right that I be 'blind' to them. Just as I am 'blind' to the outdated beliefs that lightning is the weapons of angry gods. But reason and evidence are more and more relevant as time goes on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 03:39 AM
 
Location: United Kingdom
969 posts, read 821,341 times
Reputation: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yousseff View Post
When interpreting comments by those followers of the New Atheist school of non-thought, you need to use an alternate vernacular.

On the left, what they say, on the right what they actually mean, in academically correct terms.

"Evidence": Positivism
"Reason": Methodological naturalism
"Logic": Scientism or ontological naturalism (most don't actually understand the logical axioms or rules of inference).
"Atheism": Verificationism or agnosticism (rarely the proper definition)

Kind of interesting that their epistemic standards are those theories of knowledge that are considered outdated or defunct in this day and age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
If they are outdated, then it is surely right that I be 'blind' to them.
Interesting, though not surprising, in light of the bolded. You actually don't know that you have metaphysical assumptions at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 03:44 AM
 
514 posts, read 467,939 times
Reputation: 394
Looks like our dictionary of new atheist terminology already needs an addendum.

On the left, what they say; on the right, what they interpret it to mean.

"Metaphysics": "not science, therefore meaningless"
"Ontology": "theism"
"Epistemology": "semantics"
"Philosophy": "outdated waffle"

Last edited by Yousseff; 08-06-2015 at 03:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 03:52 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,507,234 times
Reputation: 5927
I am well aware of the Theist apologist ploy of philosophical dickering to try to make us doubt the validity of reason and validated evidence so that claims based on unreason and invalid evidence can be made to look plausible.

Anyone who wants to make a case or argument based on that sort of fiddling can do so and I'll deal with it, if I can. But crafty hints that it somehow discredits any case based on reason and evidence but we are unaware of it, without any explanation to back it up, is simply yet more Theist apologetic intellectual dishonesty.

Btw. glad to see that you are still around, Youssef. I was was going to post that it is nearly one month before your prediction about economic collapse either comes true or you are made to look a total dunce.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 04:04 AM
 
514 posts, read 467,939 times
Reputation: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I was was going to post that it is nearly one month before your prediction about economic collapse either comes true or you are made to look a total dunce.
Economic collapse in one month? Can you point out exactly where I made these predictions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top