Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

by Chariklo 553 Replies latest jw friends

  • snare&racket
    snare&racket

    My reply may seem harsh or heavy handed... Especially "disqualifying" people from discussions, but let me explain, because I think it is very serious...

    Imagine you are away on holiday with your kids, you are with 2 friends. One of the kids gets a very bad fever. One friend says " wrap him in cold towels and give him asprin to bring his temperature down!" he knows this because thats what he was told at first aid training some years ago. The second is a nurse and says "i have seen this before and seen the evidence for what to do in the literature, we should do nothing!"

    The first aider then shouts "no...thats not true, thats the opposite of true!"

    Would it be fair to ask how the first aider knows this?

    How do you know this?

    First aider "i am sure thats what we were taught in first aid training some years ago"

    Have you ever read the evidence the nurse is talking about?

    First aider " no...but there is no point, i know it says to do the opposite of what i was told!"

    But how can you be sure without knowing the evidence?

    Nurse "you are right Mr First aider, I once thought the same thing but now I have seen the evidence! The temperature actually kills the bacteria!"

    first aider " well i havent seen the evidence you are talking about, but i know what i was told, besides asprin never killed a child!"

    nurse " actually, by reducing the temperature, children have died with fevers!"

    So who are you going to listen to? Lets say you could press PAUSE in time, and spend a few days reading the evidence the nurse was talking about, would you choose not to?

    I am 'all ears' for those that do read all the facts even if they come to a different conclusion than I did, in fact these are the most interesting people to talk to on earth! But if you are not interested in seeing WHY we no longer accept the bible or a god, then there is no point having a discussion. Read the evidence and at least see where we are coming from! FACTS and EVIDENCE are without bias or judgment. Dont throw back a cheap "how dare you, we are not stupid, ignorant....bla bla bla" I'm not saying you are, nobody is born informed ,we all had to read the books/info above. It is obvious by your questions, arguments and sarcasm that many of you havent read all the facts available to a human in 2012 on nthe issues we debate here at the forum. It just makes for a very uninteresting, frustrating time.

    There is a video of Dawkins talking to a christian female (wendy?), she keeps asking for evidence of evolution, he repeatedly tells her it exists and that it is in the literature and museums, she laughs, states that it is not and asks again 'show me the evidence.' At one point she asks for intermediary fossil evidence, not really understanding what that means, for every fossil is exactly that. But Dawkins being a decent chap, ignores her ignorance and the evidence of her lack of informed reading and suggests the fossil evidence of reptilian jaws progressing into the formation of early inner ears. He explains how we have a beautiful chronological line of evolution, preserved in the fossils of this amazing process... Her response? 'show me the evidence'

    This forum often feels the same as watching that video....so very damn frustrating. I remember Ndrew thinking she was clever by asking for a book on pre-evolution devlopment, i.e. abiogenesis... I instantly suggested one to her. For a week I asked her if she had bought it yet, had she read it yet... Eventually she admitted she never was going to buy it, yet daily on these pages she kept up the pretense "how did life begin on earth?" .... If you really want the answers... Buy the books! If you dont, dont join in and pretend that you do....

    here is the big question.... TRUTH OR WHAT IS COMFORTING TO YOU

    Its a hard decision, all the best in your choice.

    snare x

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Hey, Snare,

    I have two questions. Do you have a link to that Dawkins video? And what book did you recommend?

  • Soledad
    Soledad

    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.

    It doesn't make it unreal either. I don't think science has to contradict belief, or vice versa. It all lies on where you want to place the credit. I choose to place the credit with god, and my belief in god is subjective, personal. I've said this over and over.

    Furthermore, I think science (of any kind) can be culturally biased, or tainted. Definitions, explanations, etc, mostly appeal to those who would probably agree with them to begin with. Not so much the case today, but in other times this meant people of European heritage, males predominantly. It's written in their language (not literal language, I mean in a way they understand it best). The rules and parameters are fitting to their point of view. Yes, here I go playing the racism/sexism card. Go ahead and throw it at me. I expect it.
    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.

    unless I've not communicated this properly, that is what I have been saying. You say god is not the starting point. I say god is the starting point. You say prove it. I also say prove it. Neither one of us can. Then you go on to point out all this "cool" stuff you've been studying and that if I did the same it might change my mind (or open up a "world). I say, it further informs my belief, and I choose to credit god for it. Choose. Am I clearer now?
    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.

    Religion played a big part in these things, I did say that. I also said it wasn't the only villain. Furthermore, like I stated earlier too, religion isn't god. It points at god, but it isn't god, it's an egoic structure. God didn't order people to be burned or tortured--but of course people said he did to justify it.

    I don't have the sources available now, but there are great alternate explanations available for human sacrifices and the crusades as well. Some of the theories involve more material or economic-based explanations. I also read a while ago that the burning of "witches" was more about squelching the very first recorded incidences of women's liberation in Europe. Because "witches" would typically determine their own destinies-meaning actually owning land or property, being financially independent, controlling their sexuality and reproduction, this was a big no-no in a society that still viewed women as chattel, even as late as the 19th century. These are alternate theories, with some compelling data to back it up, but also some opinion thrown in there. Worth looking into though.
    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.
    there are limits to how much information people want to take in. Some have a huge appetite for information, some don't. Like I said, I study, nothing I've studied has changed my mind much, just informed what I believe. Atheists arrive at their conclusions either through years of study, questioning and challenging, or through personal disappointments or negative experiences with religion. Any explanation, or variation thereof, can be true. What I have discovered is that it's a lot of the latter. This is where I get my opinion from. Sure, get data, get facts, get a very large and diverse sample of people. You'll probably have as many answers as you'll have people answering. Peel away more layers and there will be a theme emerging, either one way or another. In the end, does it matter? It can all based on personal experience, subjective views, culturally biased or tainted ideas that may not have taken into account the kind of individual who is using or interpreting the information. Or not.

  • ziddina
    ziddina
    "Why on earth would you expect to find temporal "proof" of a creator who by definition is outside time and space..." Chariklo, page 14

    Where on earth did you get THAT definition of "god"?? From the bible???

    "Bingo. that sums it up for me. You can only experience god, you can't prove it." Soledad, page 14

    So, your only 'evidence' or 'proof' for the existence of some ill-defined 'god' is highly subjective and intensely personal... And most definitely NOT able to be observed by all onlookers...

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    zid...PM for you

  • ziddina
    ziddina

    Gung go look right now...

    Still haven't pulled in pumpkins nor turned off Halloween decorations...

  • Christ Alone
    Christ Alone

    Zid, the bible does teach that God exists outside the constraints of time. There are many scriptures that deal with this.

    So, your only 'evidence' or 'proof' for the existence of some ill-defined 'god' is highly subjective and intensely personal... And most definitely NOT able to be observed by all onlookers...

    That is how I see it. God, in my belief, IS subjective and highly personal. We can argue science all day and pretend we(believers) understand and can fully explain God. But when it comes down to it, for me, God must be experienced rather than "proved".

  • Soledad
    Soledad

    I am 'all ears' for those that do read all the facts even if they come to a different conclusion than I did, in fact these are the most interesting people to talk to on earth! But if you are not interested in seeing WHY we no longer accept the bible or a god, then there is no point having a discussion. Read the evidence and at least see where we are coming from! FACTS and EVIDENCE are without bias or judgment. Dont throw back a cheap "how dare you, we are not stupid, ignorant....bla bla bla" I'm not saying you are, nobody is born informed ,we all had to read the books/info above. It is obvious by your questions, arguments and sarcasm that many of you havent read all the facts available to a human in 2012 on nthe issues we debate here at the forum. It just makes for a very uninteresting, frustrating time.

    I'm not sure if this is directed at me or not. But in any case, here's a basic breakdown of what I believe:

    • I believe in god, but not in religion. Any religion.
    • I believe in the gospels, but not much else from the bible (and even the gospels are iffy to me at times) I have a special distate for those letters from Paul, as I think he is the culprit of much of the misogyny in Christianity. But some of the more plesant stuff I find inspiring. Love the Psalms and Proverbs, as these are mostly poems and songs.
    • *Groan* I have several college degrees...and I'm still in college. I simply think science is just a way to arrive at god and doesn't contradict faith or belief. I think it mostly supports. But this is my point of view. You say data and facts and evidence are not biased. I say they can be. Evidence can be tainted. Facts can be misrepresented and misinterpreted. Data can be skewed. Modern science has an ethnocentric, sexist and class conscious component to it. Non-modern science had a lot of that as well, but people dont usually reference it unless it supports something else too.
    • As far as atheists, I personally believe they have a grievance against religion, which they equate with god. Again a personal opinion. But I understand that may not always be the case.
  • snare&racket
    snare&racket

    NC

    Dawkins and Wendy Wright (think its near the end, and I warn you... You live in the same country as this woman, I believe it is also easy to buy guns over there... Watching this video MAY lead to you commiting crime!)

    http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DYFjoEgYOgRo&gl=GB

    Not sure, i sent her a few to choose from, her point was that "science had nothing to say" about how life began. These two were certainly in the list.

    The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology (Luisi 2010)

    Abiogenesis: How Life Began. The Origins and Search for Life (Trifinov, Lane, Freeland, Russell, 2011)

    P.s. loving the new pic

    snare x

  • snare&racket
    snare&racket

    It wasnt about you at all, but may I ask what your degrees are in please ? i ask because it is relevant...

    " *Groan* I have several college degrees...and I'm still in college."

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit