Why are atheists thought ill of?

[Blackmail!]

You could try by starting here Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Or here...

Teleological Arguments for God's Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


When you're done, feel free to come back for more. There are plenty of other good, rational, objections to theism that don't require the atheist to make of fool of himself or his intended victims.

I already know them. And there are dozens others "demonstrations".

What more can you offer us?

 

[juggernaut]

Why is the thought experiment silly?

The thought experiments are silly because they misrepresent the theist's position. The theist's belief is not analogous to a belief in those things for all the reasons I already mentioned. Again, this is why atheists are thought ill of. They can't even be respectful when communicating with other non-believers.

 

[INA]

The thought experiments are silly because they misrepresent the theist's position. The theist's belief is not analogous to a belief in those things for all the reasons I already mentioned. Again, this is why atheists are thought ill of. They can't even be respectful when communicating with other non-believers.

But what if they respectfully believe the things to be analogous for the purposes of proof or non-proof, your opinion notwithstanding? What is inherently disrespectful in that? Are they required to show pious reverence for a concept as probable to them as the "silly" things you enumerated? Why?

 

[juggernaut]

I already know them. And there are dozens others demonstrations.

What's more can you offer us?

You asked for a better reason...those are better reasons...I know you didn't know them because you wouldn't have relied on Russellian crap if you had. What other sort of replies would you like...objections that rely on the problem of evil? objections that rely on the logical inconsistency of an omniscient, omnipotent god? take your pick, I've heard (and taught) 'em all. Sophomoric ramblings from a man whose best work was done in the philosophy of mathematics aren't going to cut it with any "true believer".

 

[Quinlan]

But what if they respectfully believe the things to be analogous for the purposes of proof or non-proof, your opinion notwithstanding? What is inherently disrespectful in that? Are they required to show pious reverence for a concept as probable to them as the "silly" things you enumerated? Why?

Yes, the "silliness" of the examples is used to highlight the improbability of the belief and how absurd it seems when people believe in improbable things and then influence the world greatly based on improbabilities.

 

[juggernaut]

But what if they respectfully believe the things to be analogous for the purposes of proof or non-proof, your opinion notwithstanding? What is inherently disrespectful in that? Are they required to show pious reverence for a concept as probable to them as the "silly" things you enumerated? Why?

I wasn't referring to you. See previous posts containing ad hom attacks. The point is that as long as the atheist is looking down his nose at the theist, making light of his beliefs, he's not going to get anywhere. The average believer doesn't see his belief as akin to the belief in a pink unicorn and will be mildly (or majorly) put off by the comparison. Neither you nor I understand what is in the mind of the believer so when we jump to the conclusion that it must be an empirically based belief, and that that empirically based belief is in something on par with the tooth fairy, we do ourselves a great disservice.

 

[INA]

Yes, the "silliness" of the examples is used to highlight the improbability of the belief and how absurd it seems when people believe in improbable things and then influence the world greatly based on improbabilities.

Well, yes.
But as far as I'm concerned, the example used can be absurd or non-absurd. The bottom-line is you can't epistemically reach a conclusion no matter how absurd or plausible the non-provable point is. As such one non-provable point is as worthy as the next (between these 2 examples). Where disrespect is seen is where one non-provable item stakes a claim to more respect, on bases that seem to assume some "preciousness" for one (belief in a God) but not another (belief in invisible pink unicorns).

It feels akin to the shitstorm radical Islamists unleash on people who offend for lack of respect for MOhammed's likeness, even though the offenders don't believe in MOhammed and have no high regard for his likeness.

Neither you nor I understand what is in the mind of the believer so when we jump to the conclusion that it must be an empirically based belief, and that that empirically based belief is in something on par with the tooth fairy, we do ourselves a great disservice.

I do in fact know what is in their heads when they trot out half-baked arguments that they seem to think are empirical but that are based on nothing but straws. I've seen no argument for why it is not exactly on par with the tooth-fairy, and opinions on "disservice" are just that - opinions that assume a reverence that is to be earned..

 

[Costrin]

WHAT IF *INSERT LABEL HERE* DOES *INSERT GENERALIZATION HERE*.

Atheists always and only use Russel's teapot or similiar arguments. They have no other arguments. And they push these arguments onto believers all the time, without being asked. Atheists are insulting, disrespectful, generalizing, and don't listen. They never wait for the theist to explain their position first before criticizing beliefs.

Glad we got that cleared up, now can't we all just be fwiends?

Yes, that is what you sound like to me right now, Juggernaut.

 

[juggernaut]

Yes, dear.

Remember I was merely responding to the thread. You and I actually share very similar beliefs on this matter.

 

[Blackmail!]

You asked for a better reason...those are better reasons...I know you didn't know them because you wouldn't have relied on Russellian crap if you had.

Again, I don't care!

I know these arguments, but I don't find them to be very interesting and worth our attention because they deeply delve into metaphysics. Even that dear Gödel could be wildly irrational, sometimes.

I'm not here to convince you, I'm not here to convince anybody.

The form of atheism used by Russel is called practical atheism. But there are hundreds of other forms of atheism, I guess you know them, since the earliest form of Euclide's assertorical argument.

We all know this. At least we should. So why argue?

 

[Feops]

I think you're being a bit unfair to the theists. It's far more black and white to the atheists that I've encountered. Also the example you used is somewhat lacking. The empirical evidence that the theist uses to support his position is epistemically accessible to the atheist. The atheist just doesn't see it as evidence. Think here of Paley's Watchmaker. If you're not down with the teleological account you can go back to St. Anselm's "greatest possible being" or the Platonic "unmoved mover". Invoking absurd examples to empirically discredit the believer is shifty move that many atheists make. They misrepresent the true theist's position in order to make claims about the lack of rationality inherent in it. As a rational being, I find that problematic. The best an empiricist can do with a concept of god is deny it on the grounds of probability, but that's an inductive claim and inductive claims are, necessarily, limited in their scope of applicability to the natural world. If there's a supernatural being somehow responsible for it all we cannot have direct epistemic access to it simply because it is supernatural. You cannot prove or disprove it exists, because you cannot do anything at all with it, empirically. The theist and atheist end up being in the exact same place logically. The theist takes the leap of faith in one direction, the atheist in the other. The rest of us sit here wondering what the hell everyone is so excited about.

Rather than hack this apart point by point, as I dislike doing, I'm going to cherry pick one particular part.

"If there's a supernatural being somehow responsible for it all we cannot have direct epistemic access to it simply because it is supernatural. You cannot prove or disprove it exists, because you cannot do anything at all with it, empirically."

You've basically circled around to say that we cannot prove the supernatural because the supernatural is beyond proving. Why then is my example (and I'll grand it's absurd) invalidated? I could list any possible combination of supernatural forces, which would expect any manner of behavior of humans, to any result in a hypothetical afterlife, and there would be no way to disprove my assertion. If the supernatural could indeed be anything, then there are infinite possibilities. If there are infinite possibilities, then we don't even have a starting point on how it all works, how we should act, who we should worship, etc.

If you must have a more grounded example, take any of the old, dead religions, that once had large and educated followings, but no one gives serious consideration today. How does a religion become outdated? How can you be certain that their gods and their teachings are invalid and won't apply to you?

Personally I'm not married to the notion of being an atheist. I think it would offer considerable peace of mind to have some sense of how things are and how things will be. I'd love to know. I just haven't seen anything that convinces me that religion x, y, or z is a fundamental truth to the exclusion of other hypothetical truths.

 

[INA]

Again, I don't care!

I know these arguments, but I don't find them to be very interesting and worth our attention because they deeply delve into metaphysics. Even that dear Gödel could be wildly irrational, sometimes.

I'm not here to convince you, I'm not here to convince anybody.

The form of atheism used by Russel is called practical atheism. But there are hundreds of other forms of atheism, I guess you know them, since the earliest form of Euclide's assertorical argument.

We all know this. At least we should. So why argue?

Because atheists are oppressive supercilious assholes, is what I'm gathering from the rantings in this thread.
/bubble.

 

[Blackmail!]

You and I actually share very similar beliefs on this matter.

Frankly, I don't think so. I've noticed you rather used every possible theistic arguments through hidden ways, and you desperatly seem to want that we focus on them.

We're not that stupid, you know.

 

[Sentura]

this thread is proof that nothing good will come of religious debates on the internet.

 

[/DG/]

I can see why some people are atheists. My brother has become one after discovering his homosexuality. I'm a Catholic Christian, but I don't agree with all of the hate views involved with my religion. I reject their reality and substitute my own.

 

[juggernaut]

Rather than hack this apart point by point, as I dislike doing, I'm going to cherry pick one particular part.

"If there's a supernatural being somehow responsible for it all we cannot have direct epistemic access to it simply because it is supernatural. You cannot prove or disprove it exists, because you cannot do anything at all with it, empirically."

You've basically circled around to say that we cannot prove the supernatural because the supernatural is beyond proving. Why then is my example (and I'll grand it's absurd) invalidated? I could list any possible combination of supernatural forces, which would expect any manner of behavior of humans, to any result in a hypothetical afterlife, and there would be no way to disprove my assertion. If the supernatural could indeed be anything, then there are infinite possibilities. If there are infinite possibilities, then we don't even have a starting point on how it all works, how we should act, who we should worship, etc.

If you must have a more grounded example, take any of the old, dead religions, that once had large and educated followings, but no one gives serious consideration today. How does a religion become outdated? How can you be certain that their gods and their teachings are invalid and won't apply to you?

Personally I'm not married to the notion of being an atheist. I think it would offer considerable peace of mind to have some sense of how things are and how things will be. I'd love to know. I just haven't seen anything that convinces me that religion x, y, or z is a fundamental truth to the exclusion of other hypothetical truths.

And that, dear friends, is why I will die agnostic.

Because atheists are oppressive supercilious assholes, is what I'm gathering from the rantings in this thread.
/bubble.

No, just self-defeating.

Frankly, I don't think so. I've noticed you rather used every possible theistic arguments through hidden ways, and you desperatly seem to want that we focus on them.

We're not that stupid, you know.

Apparently you are. Costrin has already seen my position previously and was actually kind enough to offer me a more accurate label, as pointed out earlier in this thread.

 

[INA]

yeah, this thread turned into a masturbatory exercise that strayed from its purpose.

But to circle back to the topic -- Atheists are not ill-regarded because of how vocal they are. They are ill-regarded whether or not they are militant because people who are theist often/usually do not separate being theistic and being ethical or good. Further, most people have a deep need for religion and consider those who appear to lack this need arrogant and untrustworthy by this fact alone.

 

[Blackmail!]

Apparently you are. Costrin has already seen my position previously and was actually kind enough to offer me a more accurate label, as pointed out earlier in this thread.

I think you're trying to manipulate us, and that you're very sly, somehow.

Again, the category of the arguments you want us to focus on are ONLY theistic ones. Furthermore, you want us to think like a theist, to understand the theistic mind... And yet, you pretend to be an agnostic.

That's slyness.

---

You know, the various ontological arguments, I had to eat those stupidities for years. And they lead to nowhere, they are tautological and vain. So why should we bother discussing them?

---

And the differences between you and me, it's not only a question of beliefs, but rather of attitude.
You want to proselytize. I don't want to.
You persuaded you're right and you want that everybody knows that. I don't care.

I'm not that insecure.

 

[juggernaut]

Please show me a single argument I've provided for the existence of god without it's accompanying objections. I actually gave you links to the arguments against the very strongest arguments for god's existence. What exactly have I been proselytizing? To stop using lame arguments if you want to be heard? If that's proselytizing then, here, please take this pamphlet.

 

[Blackmail!]

Please show me a single argument I've provided for the existence of god without it's accompanying objections. I actually gave you links to the arguments against the very strongest arguments for god's existence. What exactly have I been proselytizing? To stop using lame arguments if you want to be heard? If that's proselytizing then, here, please take this pamphlet.

Tell me, why are you so fascinated with true atheists?

What do you want us to understand?