Theists and BS assumptions about science
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2016, 08:57 AM
RE: Theists and BS assumptions about science
(27-04-2016 08:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  then yes it's an important part of your identity as a person.

Well... that's largely a philosophical discussion on it's own in many existential or other defining ways.

Something being an important part of ones identity is even still hard to quantify from an outward perspective. Not just one's own internal coining but when a perception becomes an identity the legitimacy or accuracy of the claims becomes exceedingly clouded.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2016, 09:04 AM
RE: Theists and BS assumptions about science
(27-04-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-04-2016 08:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  SOME people use it as an important identifier of who they are and what they think.

SOME =/= all. Nor does it mean that when scientists use the label "atheist," it is for the same personal reasons you keep asserting.

YOU need to learn context.

Actually it's not really known how many scientists who say they don't believe in a God or higher power, would label themselves atheists. There is a history of scientists who don't believe in God, who avoid that label altogether, like Carl Sagan, Neil Tyson, Einstein, etc...

Ones like Dawkins, Coyne, Krauss, are ideologically driven, headlines rallys and events, write books to push it, tie atheism to truth, reason, take comfort in growing numbers, and driven to push it forward because they see it tied to bettering life.

And yet you assert that you know why scientists label themselves as "atheist." YOU STILL don't see the contradiction.

"The proof is in the pudding, lol.

When you tie your atheism, to being rational, clear minded, thinking objectively, when you create communities around it, etc, then yes it's an important part of your identity as a person."


YOU don't a clue what YOU're talking about. YOU still assert that YOU know why scientists who use the term atheist do so. YOU don't have a clue but YOU think YOU know more about why atheists use the term "atheist" than atheists. YOU are arrogant and self-contradicting.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
27-04-2016, 09:15 AM
RE: Theists and BS assumptions about science
(27-04-2016 09:04 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(27-04-2016 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Actually it's not really known how many scientists who say they don't believe in a God or higher power, would label themselves atheists. There is a history of scientists who don't believe in God, who avoid that label altogether, like Carl Sagan, Neil Tyson, Einstein, etc...

Ones like Dawkins, Coyne, Krauss, are ideologically driven, headlines rallys and events, write books to push it, tie atheism to truth, reason, take comfort in growing numbers, and driven to push it forward because they see it tied to bettering life.

And yet you assert that you know why scientists label themselves as "atheist." YOU STILL don't see the contradiction.

"The proof is in the pudding, lol.

When you tie your atheism, to being rational, clear minded, thinking objectively, when you create communities around it, etc, then yes it's an important part of your identity as a person."


YOU don't a clue what YOU're talking about. YOU still assert that YOU know why scientists who use the term atheist do so. YOU don't have a clue but YOU think YOU know more about why atheists use the term "atheist" than atheists. YOU are arrogant and self-contradicting.

Self-identyfing atheists =/= scientists. A very small fractions of self-identifying atheists are scientist. They don't even represent the half of scientist who don't believe in God.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2016, 09:21 AM
RE: Theists and BS assumptions about science
(27-04-2016 09:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-04-2016 09:04 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And yet you assert that you know why scientists label themselves as "atheist." YOU STILL don't see the contradiction.

"The proof is in the pudding, lol.

When you tie your atheism, to being rational, clear minded, thinking objectively, when you create communities around it, etc, then yes it's an important part of your identity as a person."


YOU don't a clue what YOU're talking about. YOU still assert that YOU know why scientists who use the term atheist do so. YOU don't have a clue but YOU think YOU know more about why atheists use the term "atheist" than atheists. YOU are arrogant and self-contradicting.

Self-identyfing atheists =/= scientists. A very small fractions of self-identifying atheists are scientist. They don't even represent the half of scientist who don't believe in God.

YOUR statement is irrelevant and makes no sense in the context of this discussion. At NO POINT have I made the claim that atheists = scientists.

I am rebutting the point YOU keep trying to assert about why scientists who use the term "atheist" choose to do so. YOU don't know but continue to assert that YOU do.

The common factor here is YOUR bias and presumption, which YOU have failed to support.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
27-04-2016, 09:59 AM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2016 10:16 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Theists and BS assumptions about science
(27-04-2016 09:21 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I am rebutting the point YOU keep trying to assert about why scientists who use the term "atheist" choose to do so. YOU don't know but continue to assert that YOU do.

The common factor here is YOUR bias and presumption, which YOU have failed to support.

No, you're conflating groups that I draw distinctions between.

Scientists who don't believe in God, and scientists or others who self-identify as atheists are not the same. In fact it's not known whether most scientists who claim to not believe in a God or a higher power, would self-identity as atheists. Or whether most of them would askew the label like Tyson, Einstein, Sagan, etc..

So if I were saying something as to why many scientists are inclined not to believe in God, this doesn't mean that I'm saying something about why some scientist self-identify as atheists.

Secondly as far as self-identifying types are concerned, there seems to be no reason to treat scientists who might label themselves as such, Dawkins, Krauss, Coynes, of the worlds, any different than your run on the mill self-identifying atheists. That identify themselves as atheists matter as much to them as it does to the general population of atheists.

And to reiterate again, reasons for why some people might not believe in God, are not the same as the reasons for why some people are inclined to associate the label atheist with themselves.

Such labels are integral to our identity, when they're not we tend to askew those labels all together. It's quite evident that Atheism while it just means that lacking a belief in God, to any individual self-identifying atheists it's significantly more meaningful than that, tied to their sense of perceiving the world, recognizing truth, being rational, objective, honest, etc..., community, etc...

Quote:YOUR statement is irrelevant and makes no sense in the context of this discussion. At NO POINT have I made the claim that atheists = scientists.

They're entirely relevant to your misinterpretations of my views. This is me expanding and clarifying points I made previously in just a few sentences, to close whatever ambiguity you relied on to draw your erroneous assumptions about my views here.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2016, 10:30 AM
RE: Theists and BS assumptions about science
(27-04-2016 09:59 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-04-2016 09:21 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  

No, you're conflating groups that I draw distinctions between.

Scientists who don't believe in God, and scientists or others who self-identify as atheists are not the same. In fact it's not known whether most scientists who claim to not believe in a God or a higher power, would self-identity as atheists. Or whether most of them would askew the label like Tyson, Einstein, Sagan, etc..

So if I were saying something as to why many scientists are inclined not to believe in God, this doesn't mean that I'm saying something about why some scientist self-identify as atheists.

Secondly as far as self-identifying types are concerned, there seems to be no reason to treat scientists who might label themselves as such, Dawkins, Krauss, Coynes, of the worlds, any different than you run on the mill self-identifying atheists. That identify themselves as atheists matter as much to them as it does to the general population of atheists.

And to reiterate again, reasons for why some people might not believe in God, are not the same as the reasons for why some people are inclined to associate the label atheist with themselves.

Such labels are integral to our identity, when they're not we tend to askew those labels all together. It's quite evident that Atheism while it just means that lacking a belief in God, to any individual self-identifying atheists it's significantly more meaningful than that, tied to there sense of perceiving the world, recognizing truth, being rational, objective, honest, etc..., community, etc...

"No, you're conflating groups that I draw distinctions between. "

You have not made clear distinctions, at all. In fact, your very next sentence highlights this:
"Scientists who don't believe in God, and scientists or others who self-identify as atheists are not the same."

YOU keep trying to inject your beliefs about why scientists who identify as atheist, do so. But YOU also try and inject your beliefs about why atheists who are not scientists do so. YOU don't know, but you presume to know and then fail to support your assertions with any facts when pressed.

"In fact it's not known whether most scientists who claim to not believe in a God or a higher power, would self-identity as atheists. Or whether most of them would askew the label like Tyson, Einstein, Sagan, etc.."

Irrelevant. No one is interested in the individual opinion. That isn't the topic at hand at all, but you keep trying to inject it in (red herring).

The issue at hand is what informs the opinion of atheism with respect to those within the scientific community. You assert that it is because of a desire to "fit in." But you don't provide a shred of evidence to support that. You haven't even provided a shred of evidence to support this assertion for non-scientists who identify as atheist.

"So if I were saying something as to why many scientists are inclined not to believe in God, this doesn't mean that I'm saying something about why some scientist self-identify as atheists. "

You don't know why "many scientists" do or do not believe in god, nor do you know why they do or do not use the label "atheist." YOU don't know and have provided 0 evidence to support this assertion. YOUR belief that it is true is no more relevant to the reality of the situation than what I had for breakfast this morning.

"Secondly as far as self-identifying types are concerned..."

You keep using this line. What does "self-identfying" entail? They put "atheist" on their public profiles? They have an atheist bumper sticker? They checked off "atheist" on their last census? The bottom line is that anyone who agrees with putting "atheist" down on a survey or checks the "does not believe in a higher power" option, is a "self-identfying" atheist.

"Self-identfying" is a useless term you keep injecting because this is the "group" you make baseless assertions about.

"Secondly as far as self-identifying types are concerned, there seems to be no reason to treat scientists who might label themselves as such, Dawkins, Krauss, Coynes, of the worlds, any different than you run on the mill self-identifying atheists. That identify themselves as atheists matter as much to them as it does to the general population of atheists. "

And yet, the discussion at hand is why are scientists disproportionately less religious than the general population? That question is asked because the correlation indicates that there is a reason to treat the scientific community as different from the general population. Why? Because they are different, especially with regard to LEVEL AND QUALITY OF EDUCATION, which has been shown to strongly correlate with lower proportions of religious people (in or out of science).

You don't want to treat them as two different populations (scientists would be a population within the general population), because it doesn't fit your narrative that you can't support.

"And to reiterate again, reasons for why some people might not believe in God, are not the same as the reasons for why some people are inclined to associate the label atheist with themselves. "

And to reiterate, no one gives a flying fuck. But you presume to know WHY people use the label "atheist." With regards to the scientific population, you take your presumptions (that are unfounded and unsubstantiated) about the general population of atheists and apply them. And you've provided exactly no support for this asinine assumption.

"Such labels are integral to our identity..."

To YOUR identify maybe. But YOU don't know the level of importance that literally any and everyone else assigns to a label regarding their religious opinion.

"It's quite evident that Atheism while it just means that lacking a belief in God, to any individual self-identifying atheists it's significantly more meaningful than that, tied to there sense of perceiving the world, recognizing truth, being rational, objective, honest, etc..., community, etc..."

Once again, you presume this but have provided NO/ZIP/NADDA/ZERO/0 evidence or reason to believe this.

Just because YOU assign importance to your theistic label to your life, does NOT mean anyone else does. And it sure as hell doesn't mean that atheists do. Some atheists might. Some might not. But you assert that anyone using the title "atheist" as a descriptor or who attends what you consider to be gatherings of "atheists," must mean that the title has some special significance to them. Which is an unfounded bullshit assertion.

Why do I use the term atheist and why are people here on an atheist forum? Because it is a word born out of necessity because theists have bent culture into thinking that the default position on a god(s) is to believe in one. Atheism no more describes who I am or what I believe or why, than labeling myself as a non-baseball player would, or an afairyest.

But you continue to presume to know the personal reasons for why people use specific labels for themselves. Are you a clairvoyant? No? Didn't think so.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
27-04-2016, 10:32 AM
RE: Theists and BS assumptions about science
"They're entirely relevant to your misinterpretations of my views. This is me expanding and clarifying points I made previously in just a few sentences, to close whatever ambiguity you relied on to draw your erroneous assumptions about my views here."

They are a representation of you trying to waffle out of one set of claims and into another. (from making claims about scientists who identify as atheist to people in general who identify as atheist. And in neither case, have you provided even a shred of logic or evidence to substantiate your claims).

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2016, 10:51 AM
RE: Theists and BS assumptions about science
(27-04-2016 08:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  We are sitting here in an "atheist" forum, lol.

I mean they even have atheist pins and buttons, and logos, bummer stickers, conventions, and even songs.

Yeah ? So ?
Is proof of NOTHING. I have not one of those, I know of no songs. Most people who know me know nothing of my skepticism towards belief, and in fact assume I'm rather religious (as my family happens to be well known in some Catholic and Episcopalian circles). Your assumptions are totally unfounded, and unsupported.

Quote:The first and main thing you'll know about most people here, before you even know their gender, their career, their nationality, whether they're a husband, or a father, is a declaration of their atheism, and an allegiance with atheists both past and present. If there's a group of individuals you find yourself the closest to identifying with, it's likely atheists. Hence why you're here, your friends, and connections.

All you know is, they post here. ANYTHING else is your bias talking.

Quote:In fact it's integral to seeing yourself as rational, as objective, seeing yourself as seeing clearly, seeing truthfully, as not deluded etc... A version of you that one day became religious, and believes in God, would be a you, you wouldn't even recognize, the thought of which might even be repulsive.

No. Just sadly ignorant. Not even in the realm of possibility. I know more about (comparative) religion(s) than you ever will.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
27-04-2016, 10:53 AM
RE: Theists and BS assumptions about science
(27-04-2016 08:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The proof is in the pudding, lol.

So you assert. A false analogy, with no support.
Point not even addressed.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
27-04-2016, 11:50 AM
RE: Theists and BS assumptions about science
(27-04-2016 10:30 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But you presume to know WHY people use the label "atheist." With regards to the scientific population, you take your presumptions (that are unfounded and unsubstantiated) about the general population of atheists and apply them. And you've provided exactly no support for this asinine assumption.


I observe the significance the individuals I read of, and interact with attach to being “atheist”, how they see it as distinguishing them for those that are not atheists. That they see it as what it means for them not to be ignorant, as Bucky put it, what it means for them to be see reality clearly, be truthful, be honest, not being deluded, being rational, not engaging in compartmentalization, they’re independence, sets them apart from the ignorant masses, not part of the herd, etc…

These are points routinely made by self-identifying atheists here, and else where. That that label means something to them, more than just a belief that God doesn’t exist, and an integral part of how they see themselves. The bucky that believes, to bucky would be an ignorant one.

Quote:To YOUR identify maybe. But YOU don't know the level of importance that literally any and everyone else assigns to a label regarding their religious opinion.

No, i just gauge the importance those that I read of interact with attach to this, and assume they are to some degree representative of the whole, until the gets befuddled. That's the assumption that I work with, given the hands I'm dealt.

Quote:Why do I use the term atheist and why are people here on an atheist forum? Because it is a word born out of necessity because theists have bent culture into thinking that the default position on a god(s) is to believe in one. Atheism no more describes who I am or what I believe or why, than labeling myself as a non-baseball player would, or an afairyest.

Is it important for you hold only true beliefs? Is it important for you to hold rational views, to think objectively, to only believe in solid scientifically based conclusions? Is it important for you not to be deluded, or ignorant?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: