Bad atheist arguments

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).

This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.

A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).

As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).

This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".

Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).

The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.

(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).

All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.

The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.

Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.

Interesting. All the Atheists I have ever interacted with were people of faith. Faith that there is no God.

Which would only apply to gnostic atheists. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists.

 

[Vastator]

I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).

This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.

A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).

As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).

This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".

Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).

The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.

(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).

All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.

The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.

Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.

Interesting. All the Atheists I have ever interacted with were people of faith. Faith that there is no God.

I agree. Most of the Atheists I've known have come from theistic backgrounds; and walked when the tenants of faith failed the smell test...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).

This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.

A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).

As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).

This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".

Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).

The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.

(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).

All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.

The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.

Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.

Interesting. All the Atheists I have ever interacted with were people of faith. Faith that there is no God.

I agree. Most of the Atheists I've known have come from theistic backgrounds; and walked when the tenants of faith failed the smell test...

Most of the atheists you have known are agnostic atheists. No faith required.

 

[EvMetro]

I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).

This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.

A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).

As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).

This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".

Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).

The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.

(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).

All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.

The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.

Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.

Interesting. All the Atheists I have ever interacted with were people of faith. Faith that there is no God.

Which would only apply to gnostic atheists. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists.

Pick one or the other. An agnostically inclined atheist is still an atheist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

An agnostically inclined atheist is still an atheist.

Correct! An agnostic atheist doesn't accept belief in any gods, but also does not claim with certainty that there are no gods.

So, no faith required.

 

[EvMetro]

I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).

This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.

A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).

As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).

This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".

Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).

The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.

(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).

All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.

The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.

Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.

Interesting. All the Atheists I have ever interacted with were people of faith. Faith that there is no God.

I agree. Most of the Atheists I've known have come from theistic backgrounds; and walked when the tenants of faith failed the smell test...

Most of the atheists you have known are agnostic atheists. No faith required.

Wrong, Atheism is specifically faith that there are no deities.

 

[Questioner]

An agnostically inclined atheist is still an atheist.

Correct! An agnostic atheist doesn't accept belief in any gods, but also does not claim with certainty that there are no gods.

So, no faith required.

Whatever else they substitute for it is their faith.

 

[Questioner]

I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).

This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.

A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).

As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).

This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".

Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).

The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.

(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).

All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.

The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.

Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.

Interesting. All the Atheists I have ever interacted with were people of faith. Faith that there is no God.

I agree. Most of the Atheists I've known have come from theistic backgrounds; and walked when the tenants of faith failed the smell test...

Most of the atheists you have known are agnostic atheists. No faith required.

Wrong, Atheisism is specifically faith that there are no deities.

Of course there are no deities or gods, just God.

 

[EvMetro]

An agnostically inclined atheist is still an atheist.

Correct! An agnostic atheist doesn't accept belief in any gods, but also does not claim with certainty that there are no gods.

So, no faith required.

Atheism is specifically faith that there are no deities

 

[Vastator]

I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).

This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.

A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).

As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).

This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".

Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).

The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.

(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).

All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.

The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.

Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.

Interesting. All the Atheists I have ever interacted with were people of faith. Faith that there is no God.

I agree. Most of the Atheists I've known have come from theistic backgrounds; and walked when the tenants of faith failed the smell test...

Most of the atheists you have known are agnostic atheists. No faith required.

Wrong, Atheisism is specifically faith that there are no deities.

Wrong ignoramous. Athiesm is the stance that the existence of a creator by theists, hasn't met the burden of proof required for all other beliefs.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wrong, Atheisism is specifically faith that there are no deities.

False. That's the colloquial bastardization of the word. But, you can define it that way for discussion. But you are going to find yourself very confused about what people actually believe. Take Richard Dawkins, for instance. By your definition, he is not atheist.

 

[Vastator]

I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).

This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.

A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).

As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).

This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".

Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).

The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.

(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).

All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.

The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.

Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.

Interesting. All the Atheists I have ever interacted with were people of faith. Faith that there is no God.

I agree. Most of the Atheists I've known have come from theistic backgrounds; and walked when the tenants of faith failed the smell test...

Most of the atheists you have known are agnostic atheists. No faith required.

Wrong, Atheisism is specifically faith that there are no deities.

Of course there are no deities or gods, just God.

Show us...

 

[Questioner]

I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).

This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.

A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).

As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).

This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".

Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).

The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.

(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).

All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.

The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.

Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.

Interesting. All the Atheists I have ever interacted with were people of faith. Faith that there is no God.

I agree. Most of the Atheists I've known have come from theistic backgrounds; and walked when the tenants of faith failed the smell test...

Most of the atheists you have known are agnostic atheists. No faith required.

Wrong, Atheisism is specifically faith that there are no deities.

Wrong if you oremus. Athiesm is the stance that tbr existence of a god/creator by theists, hasn't met the burden of proof required for all other beliefs.

Whatever else atheists believe in, is their faith - not the "lack of belief", or if they truly believe in "nothing" at all, they're a nihilist who would have no qualms about raping, murdering, torturing's children.

So by whatever axiom, whether it invokes a "god" or not, that they use to substantiate a belief in the wrongness or murder, rape, torture, or so forth, is their faith indeed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Whatever else atheists believe in, is their faith - not the "lack of belief", or if they truly believe in "nothing" at all, they're a nihilist who would have no qualms about raping, murdering, torturing's children

Boring troll,intentionally saying stupid shit for attention.

 

[Questioner]

Interesting. All the Atheists I have ever interacted with were people of faith. Faith that there is no God.

I agree. Most of the Atheists I've known have come from theistic backgrounds; and walked when the tenants of faith failed the smell test...

Most of the atheists you have known are agnostic atheists. No faith required.

Wrong, Atheisism is specifically faith that there are no deities.

Of course there are no deities or gods, just God.

Show us...

Some me quantum particles in action, rather than being naïve and assuming that an abstract concept could be "seen" or "shown", as the naïve and superstitious believe, of course.

You can't even show me the contents of your own mind.

 

[Questioner]

Whatever else atheists believe in, is their faith - not the "lack of belief", or if they truly believe in "nothing" at all, they're a nihilist who would have no qualms about raping, murdering, torturing's children

Boring troll,intentionally saying stupid shit for attention.

Look up the Marquis de Sade, or Max Stirner if you're interested.

If you believe those are wrong, even if "just because" rather than "God or the Bible", that's still faith nonetheless, which ironically can't be substantiated to begin with without appealing to systems such as the Common Law system, which developed from prior systems including "religious" and Judeo-Christian ones.

"Man without morality is little removed from beasts".

And many people, even as per the law and its architects itself, such as Holmes are immoral on an interpersonal level, only not doing those things to begin without out of fear of the law and violent retribution, not out of morality, intentions, sincerity, or other notions that the law is predicated on in 1st world countries.

It never presumes that most men are moral, or anywhere on the same level of morality as an architect and preserver of the law to begin with, but that some are merely forced not to be as "immoral" as they otherwise would without it to restrain their feral passions and impulses. Though in a 1st world nation, the law gives a man or woman a right to be a sociopath in private, so long as they don't step over the fine line and violate its rules, much as the legal system is designed to prevent it from being "gamed" or weaponized by sociopaths using it for evil or malevolent intentions, such as revenge or harassment; vexatious litigants being and example of that.

 

[EvMetro]

Wrong, Atheisism is specifically faith that there are no deities.

False. That's the colloquial bastardization of the word. But, you can define it that way for discussion. But you are going to find yourself very confused about what people actually believe. Take Richard Dawkins, for instance. By your definition, he is not atheist.

Theists have faith there is a God, Atheists have faith that there is not a God. Agnostics do not have faith either way. Atheistically inclined atheists are still atheists, which means they still have faith that there are no deities.

 

[Questioner]

Wrong, Atheisism is specifically faith that there are no deities.

False. That's the colloquial bastardization of the word. But, you can define it that way for discussion. But you are going to find yourself very confused about what people actually believe. Take Richard Dawkins, for instance. By your definition, he is not atheist.

Theists have faith there is a God, Atheists have faith that there is not a God. Agnostic do not have faith either way. Atheistically inclined atheists are still atheists, which means they still have faith that there are no deities.

Whatever you believe in addition your atheism (e.x. such as the many atheist organizations founded on the faith-based axioms or nonscientific principles of the Secular Humanist religion or cult, arguably lying and falsely representing themselves by marketing themselves to naïve suspects as "atheism" to begin with, when they are sects, often authoritarian in function, with a fixed, unquestionable set of tenants, axioms, prime truths, and positive or affirmative beliefs and values, not simply a "lack of belief" in such - accepted on the basis of faith, as presumable any axiom is).

As an example, some atheists falsely and erroneously attribute contemporary morality or moral sentiments to an ubiquitous human nature, when in reality this is false, as per the law and the philosophy it is founded and predicated on.

It is arguable that human nature plays a role in morality (much as it does in immorality, with crimes such as rape or murder being related to inborn "impulses"), however the law, of course does not presume that all are "equally" moral, asserting outright that some, in practice, are immoral men and women, only not doing evil out of fear of punishment by the law or state, let alone actively doing good on a level like that of say, Ghandi, Mother Teresa, MLK, or other hero's one might name.

Likewise, the law claims that higher mental concepts, such as thoughts, motives, intentions reason, self-restraint and control, many of which being based on restraint or self-control or discipline of the passions, emotions, and lower impulses, are the basis of human morality in a 1st world, civilized nation; the many maladapts to civilization nevertheless there are, and is most certainly not reducible solely to positive biology, much as intentional or premeditated crimes like rape or murder, are legally not reducible to biology, with the law holding each man and women personally responsible for his or her crimes against society at large.

 

[Vastator]

Whatever else atheists believe in, is their faith - not the "lack of belief", or if they truly believe in "nothing" at all, they're a nihilist who would have no qualms about raping, murdering, torturing's children

Boring troll,intentionally saying stupid shit for attention.

Look up the Marquis de Sade, or Max Stirner if you're interested.

If you believe those are wrong, even if "just because" rather than "God or the Bible", that's still faith nonetheless, which ironically can't be substantiated to begin with without appealing to systems such as the Common Law system, which developed from prior systems including "religious" and Judeo-Christian ones.

"Man without morality is little removed from beasts".

And many people, even as per the law and its architects itself, such as Holmes are immoral on an interpersonal level, only not doing those things to begin without out of fear of the law and violent retribution, not out of morality, intentions, sincerity, or other notions that the law is predicated on in 1st world countries.

It never presumes that most men are moral, or anywhere on the same level of morality as an architect and preserver of the law to begin with, but that some are merely forced not to be as "immoral" as they otherwise would without it to restrain their feral passions and impulses. Though in a 1st world nation, the law gives a man or woman a right to be a sociopath in private, so long as they don't step over the fine line and violate its rules, much as the legal system is designed to prevent it from being "gamed" or weaponized by sociopaths using it for evil or malevolent intentions, such as revenge or harassment; vexatious litigants being and example of that.

Such assumptions are predicated upon the view of the observer. As such; aforementioned people are merely observers, little more than base animals. Restrained only by the fear of the unknown...

 

[EvMetro]

False. That's the colloquial bastardization of the word...

Speaking of this, the reason why so many people become atheists is because they resent the only moral authority in the history of the world. The only way some people can cope with being found immoral because of their bad behavior is to deny the moral standard. If they can only erase the one and only moral standard in the world, then their bad behavior will somehow become good.