It's
amazing really. It makes me blink and read it again – and again.
Atheists are transitioning from:
I
deny that Creator God exists – to
I'm
a non believer in God – to
I'm
not saying that Creator God doesn't exist. I'm just saying that I
think it's highly improbably. He might exist. He might not exist. I
just don't know.
I
read four blogs yesterday whose authors projected this last line of
thinking. These are not agnostics saying this stuff. These bloggers
self-identify as atheists.
Perhaps atheists consider the available
evidence a lot more than I've given them credit for.
It makes sense that you call this a trend, as if it was something that's just popular one day and then not popular the other. What you are missing is that the response vary from God to God since there are so many different versions.
ReplyDeleteFor example, it is justifiable to deny Creator God ABC is ABC is defined as a Turtle that holds the world on its back. But if ABC is a mystical invisible force that did something before the universe existed and then remained quiet since then... then we cannot say that it does not exist. We can only say that we are non believer in God ABC.
But you have been told these things before. It's just easier for you to complain that the definition change, mock these people who you find stupid and point out flaws that are not really flaws but simply sentences taken out of context.
Yes because North American atheists spend so much time dispelling the reality of so many different gods that they practically ignore the God of Christianity - right? They're so busy fussing over "Turtles all the way down" that the existence of Jesus is rarely mentioned.
ReplyDeleteIs that what you believe? Is that what you're saying Hugo? That tomorrow I'll find atheist blogs raging against something other than Christianity? Seriously?
Atheists blogs tend to criticize religious preference and privilege in the public domain. Because many bloggers live in countries where christianity is the dominant religious bully, it would be highly unusual to go after jainist privileges. Rest assured, all religious belief in the public domain is equally criticized as unwanted, unnecessary, and disrespectful of our equality rights and freedoms. Of course, islamic tyranny is particularly loathsome because it is antithetical to Enlightenment values that form the foundation of liberal secular democracies, whereas de-fanged christian and jewish religions no longer have the legal authority to have states kill all us apostates.
ReplyDeleteThankfully, we now have the internet... where all religions achieve the equal right to come to die.
tildeb gave me a break on this one.
ReplyDeleteWell said!
"Atheists blogs tend to criticize religious preference and privilege in the public domain."
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that Hugo thinks otherwise. He says that I filter out all the atheist blogs that go after - well - that go after all the other stuff they go after and just focus on those who criticise Christians and Christianity - like yours for example.
Anyhow, thanks for giving Hugo a break on this one.
On my blog I criticize all faith-based beliefs because the methodology is broken. Faith is a vice, not a virtue, and it needs to be shown by compelling evidence to be just as harmful as any other delusion. This includes religious belief, of course, but also includes what is called 'woo' - from the lunacy of anti-vaxers to conspiracy theorists, from the snake oil alternative therapies to complimentary 'medicines'. I've done my level best on my website to educate people about what the placebo and nocebo effects really are. I've extensively criticized the methods used by anthropogenic climate change deniers to maintain their anti-scientific faith and shown how respecting any faith-based belief empowers not just the same broken methodology that has the Vatican graduating more than a hundred exorcists a year but the same superstitious nonsense that convinces people to get rid of AIDS by raping a virgin, eating albino children in the hopes of gaining their magical powers, murdering women and children accused of witchcraft. It's the same methodology: allowing belief rather than reality to arbitrate claims made about reality.
DeleteI see the greatest threat to human well-being to be ignorance and nothing empowers ignorance in all its misogynistic, bigoted, superstitious nonsense more than faith-based beliefs. This method of holding faith to be a virtue enhances credulity, elevates gullibility, and replaces reality with belief to be the rightful, pious, and sanctimonious arbiter of claims made about reality. That's why religion poisons everything, but the poison inherent in religion is the same faith-based poisonous method that opens the door to fooling ourselves in every field we find it doing its dirty work: giving respectability to ignorance.
Faith-based belief leads to tyranny, whether in the individual's mind who think submission to the authority of some divine Dear Leader is preferable to self-authority and personal responsibility, or in the realm of the political to those misguided foot soldiers who think submission to the authority of some temporal Dear Leader is preferable to respecting equality rights and freedoms of the individual that forms the foundation of authority for our secular liberal democracies.
In either case, the reasoning is poor and the costs high to grant respect to ignorance. That's why we need to expose faith of the religious kind to be just as insidious and pernicious an ignorance as that which empowers any kind of tyranny. That's why religions die on the internet; held up to accountability in methodology reveals religious faith-based beliefs to be equivalent to delusion and fraud deserving of criticism, ridicule, and exposure.
By all means, allow your broken methodology to misinform your personal life, to help misguide and misdirect your personal actions pertaining ONLY to your self, but expect more from those of us in the public who see the execrable push of faith into our shared domain to be the nefarious agent of tyranny it is (usually gussied up under religious dresses and funny hats but also as faux medicines and popular superstitions): faith-based belief is the enemy of your secular rights and secular freedoms as much as mine.
You're obviously having trouble grasping why this point is true, which is why New Atheists are here to help clarify where your lack of sound reasoning has misled you. It's our civic duty, you see.
I have never said that, but someone irrational like you probably think I did. Show a quote that's close to what you just wrote, if you can find one, and I will explain what it meant, because clearly you did not get it.
ReplyDeleteThe "filtering" I say you are doing is taking bad actions performed by Atheists and insisting that the fact that these people are Atheists is what make their actions wrong. I don't think I ever used the word "filtering" because that's not what it is. Filtering would be reading a bunch of sources and then quoting only the Atheists ones.
What you do, according to your own explanations, is search for certain keywords, Christianity, Jesus, Atheism, and then criticize what you see. Filtering would imply you use other keywords too but not report the result of your searches.
Obviously, this seem to have made you miss the point of tildeb's reply: Atheism is a response to Theism. Atheists who live in countries where people are mostly Christians will speak about Christianity. You are completely wrong when you pretend that they target Christianity because it's the religion they dislike/despise the most.
Actually, you probably got the point, but preferred to write something completely unrelated because that's what an emotional reaction is. As an illogical person, your emotional reactions come out more often than any thoughtful comments you could make, using reason and logic.
And you don't make emotional decisions? Only logical fact based decisions? Especially regarding important subjects? If you had a really important decision to make, only reason and logic would help you form your decisions?
ReplyDeleteOf course I make emotional decisions all the time. Of course I don't only do logical fact based decisions.
ReplyDeleteI told you this already. A quick search in my email yields August 18th. What's funny is that you also did not understand that the last time I mentioned it...
The difference between you and me is that you seem to always use emotions first. You go with your gut feeling, what's feels right, with your common sense.
What we do know however is that common sense is extremely unreliable. Who would think that the Earth is round when you cannot even see the curvature from the highest peak in the world? Yet do we have any doubt about that now?
The fact that you replied with this comment proves my point. You did not address anything written here and just spewed an emotional reaction. Nothing logical about it, just a 'but but... you are emotional too!!' juvenile-like reaction.
"Who would think that the Earth is round when you cannot even see the curvature from the highest peak in the world? Yet do we have any doubt about that now?"
ReplyDeleteWell, you could have known if you'd bothered to read the Bible. It says the earth is round. Not bad for a Bronze age Book.
-----
So did you use logic and reason before choosing to live common-law with your girlfriend? Or did you use emotion? Did you check the studies which show and high rate of divorce for those living together compared to those who don't? Did you use reason and logic to ignore those findings?
First, it is appropriate to state this again:
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you replied with this comment proves my point. You did not address anything written here and just spewed an emotional reaction. Nothing logical about it, just a 'but but... you are emotional too!!' juvenile-like reaction.
You quoted part of my idea:
"Who would think that the Earth is round when you cannot even see the curvature from the highest peak in the world? Yet do we have any doubt about that now?"
And replied with something that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making about using common sense:
Well, you could have known if you'd bothered to read the Bible. It says the earth is round. Not bad for a Bronze age Book.
No Rod. The Bible does not say that the Earth is round. Please review basic geometry. Hint: a circle is not a sphere, so 'round' can mean more than one thing. I assume you were talking about that reference to the world being a circle, right? If there is something in the Bible that actually says that the Earth is spherical, please share, that would be interesting to know!
In any case, you missed the point so I will repeat it: common sense is extremely useful in everyday life, but extremely misleading if reality is not the way it first seems. That's all.
So did you use logic and reason before choosing to live common-law with your girlfriend? Or did you use emotion? Did you check the studies which show and high rate of divorce for those living together compared to those who don't? Did you use reason and logic to ignore those findings?
Because you react with emotional replies like this, you are missing the point and being completely illogical about it. When I say that you use emotions first, I am talking about the kind of posts you write here, with religion, or lack thereof, being the main topic.
So to answer your pointless question anyway: Of course I used logic and reason, in part, before choosing to live with my girlfriend. Of course emotions were also involved. The choices I make in my personal life; choices that have absolutely no impact on anyone else by myself, are not the same kind of issues that we discuss when it comes to religion.
Because you are very emotional about these topics, you confuse everything and jump from one thing to the other like a chicken running without its head. Not surprising since you clearly have nothing logical to offer about virtually everything you blame Atheists of doing because they are Atheists.
To answer your questions further, yes I am aware of studies that show that there is a higher rate of divorce if people live together. That's one of the many things to take into account when making such decisions. Now, if you were just a little bit more reasonable, you would also understand that this is clearly just one of many statistics, and there are so many other factors coming into play that it would be silly not to live with someone you want to live with just because of that...
For example, the divorce rate is also much lower for arranged marriage. Did you know that one? So I guess my girlfriend, if she had been more logical, should have asked her parents to find someone for her, right? Obviously, this is a very simplistic way to views things and goes to show that you can make statistics say whatever you want if you don't define the context well enough.
I also noticed one more point. You said 'Did you use reason and logic to ignore those findings?', showing a clear bias. You basically did not think about whether I considered the stats or not, you had your conclusion in your head, 'he ignored the findings', and then went on to write a comment using that thought. This is yet another example of how an irrational mind works I suppose.
"Who would think that the Earth is round when you cannot even see the curvature from the highest peak in the world?"
ReplyDeleteFrom dictionary.com
round
noun
. any round shape, as a circle, ring or sphere.
. a circular, ringshaped, curved, or spherical
object.
Who would think that it's not round when God clearly says that it is?
=====
"yes I am aware of studies that show that there is a higher rate of divorce if people live together."
And based upon reason and logic you ignore those findings because the divorce rate is also - here it comes - wait for it - the divorce rate is also much lower for arranged marriage.
Brilliant! The flow of logic is irrefutable.
=====
"I guess my girlfriend, if she had been more logical, should have asked her parents to find someone for her, right?"
I'm a marriage counsellor Hugo. Thousands and thousands of couples have passed through my office. Most of them are in my office because they started out just like you. Arrogant to the core.
"Stats won't apply to us. Love will conquer all. If our parents advise against it, it's proof that we should do it."
Should she have asked for an arranged marriage? That depends on how much a lasting marriage is valued by her. It obviously isn't valued very highly because if that WAS important to her, she wouldn't be planning on marrying someone of another faith.
Why would she ignore these two HUGE red flags? Perhaps she's overwhelmed by your confidence in beating the odds:
. Not just living together,
. But planning to marry someone who thinks her beliefs are irrational and illogical.
Should be interesting to watch. At least it will keep people like me employed.
-----
'he ignored the findings',
Well what would you call it when numerous studies say loud and clear "Don't do this" and you do it anyway?
What would you call it when you say, "Oh, those findings might apply to other people, but they don't apply to us. You see, we're logical thinkers. Not just logical but reasonable too."
"Who would think that the Earth is round when you cannot even see the curvature from the highest peak in the world?"
ReplyDeleteFrom dictionary.com
round
noun
. any round shape, as a circle, ring or sphere.
. a circular, ringshaped, curved, or spherical
object.
Who would think that it's not round when God clearly says that it is?
There is something very interesting here. You quote the part where I give an example of why common sense does not always work and you prefer to focus on the definition of the word 'round'. Can someone be more unreasonable? I wonder... How can someone refuse so strongly to acknowledge a simple point?
However, that's not even why it's particularly interesting! What's hilarious is that not only are you irrational and unable to follow the idea, but you also make one of the most basic mistake in logic:
All As are Bs.
X is an A.
Therefore, X is a B.
Y is a B.
Is Y an A?
We cannot know!
What does this have to do with the topic? Well if you argue so strongly that the word “round” implies that they knew that the Earth was spherical, you are wrong, because all spherical shapes are round, but not all round shapes are spherical… Basic logic FAIL.
Before moving on though, let me dodge yet another pointless punch that you would surely throw, after Googling for help on the topic: I can predict that some apologist will claim that the translations can mean both round and spherical. Or even better, I would bet that some apologists claim that they could tell by some other means that the Earth is round, etc…
The point is: I don’t care. If you stand on Earth, it feels flat. That’s it. That’s what common sense tells us. You have to use logic and reason to understand that the Earth is NOT flat.
"yes I am aware of studies that show that there is a higher rate of divorce if people live together."
ReplyDeleteAnd based upon reason and logic you ignore those findings because the divorce rate is also - here it comes - wait for it - the divorce rate is also much lower for arranged marriage.
Brilliant! The flow of logic is irrefutable.
Yet another reasoning error being exposed….
Let me write a quick story to show what just happened. It’s actually a test that you can do with young kids, to see where they are at in their mental development. The story goes like this:
- Bob walks into a room where there are 2 drawers.
- Bob puts his wallet into drawer #1 and leaves.
- Jack comes in, moves Bob’s wallet from drawer #1 to drawer #2 and leave.
- Bob comes back to the room.
Where will Bob look for his wallet?
I don’t remember the exact age, but kids younger than 4-5 I think will not be able to understand why Bob will be looking into drawer #1, even if his wallet is in drawer #2. For them, the skill involved in deducing what others think and know is not formed yet. Because of that, these kids commit a reasoning error and answer that Bob will be looking in drawer #2, where the wallet actually is.
Similar things happen here on this blog all the time. Because you are terrible at understanding how others think, at least the Atheists like me who come to your blog, you Rod commit the same kind of mistakes as these children. It’s not stupidity if you ask me, it’s simply some reasoning error due to a lack of knowledge.
What happened in this comment in particular is that you did not understand why I brought up the statistic about arranged marriage. For you it’s really odd and you find nothing more to write than to mock the comment. You think that I am stupid for using that statistic in order to ignore the other.
The point you missed is… wait. Why bother. Let’s see if you care to spot your error yourself. You might understand with the rest of the comment anyway.
I'm a marriage counsellor Hugo. Thousands and thousands of couples have passed through my office. Most of them are in my office because they started out just like you. Arrogant to the core.
ReplyDelete"Stats won't apply to us. Love will conquer all. If our parents advise against it, it's proof that we should do it."
Arrogant? There is nothing arrogant about it. That’s another thing you got completely wrong. I am not saying that I am different from the rest of the people concerned by the statistics. What I say is that I am willing to take that risk because of so many other things that matter more than what other people did.
By the way, I had a 6-year relationship with another person before. We ended up living together for a year after which we broke up. Living together had almost nothing to do with the break up and if we were still together today, we would still not be married, because she was not interested in that… We were just 2 people living in agreement, and then it eventually stopped working for several reasons. There was never any animosity, hatred or big fights because of all that. I ended up matching her with one of my best friend actually they have been together for a few years already now.
I am pointing out this detail because there was also absolutely nothing wrong with what happened to us, well, not from your perspective obviously…
Should she have asked for an arranged marriage? That depends on how much a lasting marriage is valued by her. It obviously isn't valued very highly because if that WAS important to her, she wouldn't be planning on marrying someone of another faith.
According to Rod’s logic, if someone falls in love with someone of another faith and want to get married to that person, that person does not value marriage? It’s funny to be called arrogant by someone who thinks like that… really.
Why would she ignore these two HUGE red flags? Perhaps she's overwhelmed by your confidence in beating the odds:
. Not just living together,
. But planning to marry someone who thinks her beliefs are irrational and illogical.
- Living together in my opinion is a great way to see if we are a good match.
- Who said I think her beliefs are irrational and illogical?
Oh you mean because she believes in God? Well that’s just 1 you know… so don’t put an ‘s’ after belief and you will get a more accurate statement. Obviously, because you are very illogical about religion, it’s hard for you to understand that, but there is very little that we disagree on and we respect each other, which is what matter much more. She also knows that her own belief in God is not rational, but feels that it is right.
Should be interesting to watch. At least it will keep people like me employed.
Rejoicing on the fact that couples fail because it keeps you employed?
Wow, you are really a great loving Christian AND a devoted counselor.
Do you also purposely give bad advice to people to keep being employed?
"Rejoicing on the fact that couples fail because it keeps you employed?"
ReplyDeleteUm, Hugo, Marriage Counsellors don't counsel people to fail.
I work with people who have made crucial mistakes in their thinking or who have believed gross errors regarding relationships (eg. "Living together is a great way to see if we are a good match," or that "Having differing faiths won't be a problem since we've got so many other things going for us.") and I help them re adjust their thinking so that the marriage DOESN'T fail.
It's possible that you're thinking of Mediation Services or Divorce Lawyers. They are the ones who help to end marriages, not Marriage Counsellors.
You'll see what I mean in a few years.
You did not get what I meant. I know you don't give bad advice on purpose; it was a rhetorical sarcastic question following your comment:
ReplyDeleteShould be interesting to watch. At least it will keep people like me employed.
This comment sounded as if you are happy (rejoicing) that people have failed marriage since it gives your work.
To make it more obvious, it's as if an ER doctor was saying: "Should be interesting to watch people drink and drive. At least it will keep people like me employed."
It's called black humour and it comes with sympathy fatigue which is a nice term for burn out. I'm sure that if you listened to coffee room talk after a busy night at the ER you would hear a doctor say exactly that.
ReplyDeleteThat's hilarious. Here's what just happened:
ReplyDelete1. You wrote something which you now label as 'black humor'.
2. I replied with a sarcastic comment because, regardless of you doing it on purpose or not, I knew you did not literally mean that you wish people to fail. I don't think you are horrible...
3. You replied with something serious, about how ignorant I am. You basically did not get the sarcasm in my comment.
4. I explained that to you.
5. You now reply saying that from the start you were using black humor...
You really do anything you can to avoid admitting that you did a reasoning error. Fascinating :)
Yes, an ER doctor might do the same kind of joke, and I would do the same kind of sarcastic comment to point out to them how stupid they sound for making such jokes (burnout is a valid excuse; but does not making it sound less stupid). The doctor might then think I was being serious, and I would think that was stupid of him/her as well (on top of the stupid joke; the doctor does not get sarcasm). The doctor might then claim that it was black humor in the first place, and I would tell them that this is the 3rd stupid thing they do in a row... :)
Hugo - The motive for the comment, black humour or not, does not make the statement untrue.
ReplyDeleteThe statement being 'it will keep people like me employed' ?
ReplyDeleteright
ReplyDeleteLol, right, that's what I thought but I was not 100% sure. So as I said... you really do anything you can to avoid admitting that you did a reasoning error.
ReplyDelete'but what I said before I made the error is still right!'
Keep them coming Rod; funny illogical behaviors like this help release the stress of my daily job :)