Paul -

You never asked me to convince me? I don't get that. Again, you're talking about not being convinced to take what I say seriously, when like I say it doesn't matter to me. To clarify, it doesn't matter to me whether or not you agree with my views, and it also doesn't matter to me whether or not you take them, or my reasons, seriously. In short, nothing about your opinions on anything I say or how I say it matters.

(July 23, 2010 at 7:56 am)Godhead Wrote: "Peer review", that's another one, which makes me laugh, and it goes to show that it's the same in the scientific "community" (read : clique), and the way even scientists ridicule each other shows that science has been hijacked by deeply insecure individuals whose goal is a nobel prize, fame and recognition, and the validation of their equally insecure 'peers" (clique).

Oh yes, peer review's all about scientists' insecurity, and not about weeding out faulty theories through a rigorous process of empirical observation. Of course, your made-up psychoanalysis must be correct.

Quote: Many atheists lack the ability to think for themselves, which is why they constantly ask the other person to provide proof.

If 'thinking for yourself' means believing the first thing that pops into your head, then call me an intellectual sheep!

Quote:It's the same thing in debating societies, the point isn't to express your view and hear the other person's view, and perhaps learn something from each other, it is to play verbal chess, it's always win-lose, never win-win, and people who are good "debators" aren't necessarily right in their views at all. So the long and the short of it is that a lot of the atheists are deeply insecure.

As a keen debater myself, I'll agree with you on that front. Debating is about the process, not the result. How you get from that to 'A lot of atheists are insecure', I'm not quite sure. If I were engaging in a bit of pseudo-scientific psychobabble myself, I'd say that your constant assertion that atheists are insecure is a sure sign of insecurity about your own position. But I'm not, because your motivations for belief are irrelevant, and I couldn't care less about them.

Then what the hell are you doing here, Godhead? You aren't willing to have a rational discussion about your beliefs, that much is clear. Why then, are you even here at these forums? To spout indefensible statements of belief and then get all hypocritically whiny when you are called out for your bullshit? If you don't care whether or not anyone takes your beliefs seriously, why are you bothering to state them in an atheist community in the first place?

Those questions are all hypothetical. I know the answers. You are a bullshit slinging troll. Fuck off already.

I have a few minutes. Let's do this.

(July 23, 2010 at 7:56 am)Godhead Wrote: In response to the opening post, I think that my total honesty annoys a lof of atheists.

I think you mean intellectual dishonesty.

(July 23, 2010 at 7:56 am)Godhead Wrote: As soon as a theists comes along, atheists start itching for an argument, and try to assert their intellectual superiority over theists.

This is an atheist forum built to challenge religious views. Is this a surprise that discussion and debate come up from time to time, even between atheists? It's not made to continually pat ourselves on the back.

(July 23, 2010 at 7:56 am)Godhead Wrote: However when the theist doesn't play along, the atheist gets angry. During the time that I've been here, I've observed the undercurrents going on underneath the surface, and really, it boils down to atheists having no intention at all of trying to understand theists.

I'll take you as an example. You made the point that something is true if it feels right to you, and it feels right if it feels right. That is certifiable, grade A, 100% horseshit. You're equating your belief system with a vague interpretation that can only be described as a tautology. If a person asks specific questions, please be honest enough to answer them specifically.

If the question is "Why do you believe in God?", an answer such as "because I do" is unacceptable, as it has zero explanatory power.

(July 23, 2010 at 7:56 am)Godhead Wrote: All they want to do is repeatedly play out the senario that gives them the most satisfaction, which is to affirm to themselves how clever they are.

I'll speak for myself. I strive to understand the mindset of theists in order to clarify the discussion, and assess any inconsistencies in their argument and mine. I give scenarios as guides, because some theists, as well as atheists, do have a tendency to be inconsistent in applying logic to certain situations.

(July 23, 2010 at 7:56 am)Godhead Wrote: I am completely honest about my reasons for believing in god, as well as my ability to articulate those reasons.

You have yet to articulate anything about your beliefs and your methodology behind coming to those conclusions.

(July 23, 2010 at 7:56 am)Godhead Wrote: I have no need to constantly reference other people's words to try and give my arguments credibility as I simply don't care about credibility in the slightest.

It's quite obvious you don't care about your words being at all credible. So why get mad when people call you out on your claims, since you have provided no backup or insight in a rational discussion?

(July 23, 2010 at 7:56 am)Godhead Wrote: It's very telling for an atheist forum to have a mechanism by which everyone can give each other "Reputation" points, it really does sum up what's really going on. Right now I have 1 point (which I wouldn't miss if it disappeared), and although I appreciate the positive comments I don't have have a psychological need to collect them.

...and? Why draw conclusions about others when it certainly doesn't apply to you? Have you ever thought that it's a method of drawing in people with like ideologies to commend others without having to post about it?

(July 23, 2010 at 7:56 am)Godhead Wrote: That's the difference between people who are secure in themselves, and people whose goal in life is to be validated by their "peers".

Yes, because making an intro thread saying "ask me anything" isn't seeking validation for your own biases.

(July 23, 2010 at 7:56 am)Godhead Wrote: "Peer review", that's another one, which makes me laugh, and it goes to show that it's the same in the scientific "community" (read : clique), and the way even scientists ridicule each other shows that science has been hijacked by deeply insecure individuals whose goal is a nobel prize, fame and recognition, and the validation of their equally insecure 'peers" (clique).

You have no idea how the scientific method works. Take a research and technology class before you start talking about this, or at least look up the definition in wikipedia. Science isn't all tits and champagne, there's a lot of hard work involved, and peer review is an extremely strenuous and rigorous process for any aspiring scientist. Personal insecurity has absolutely nothing to do with this, and your assertion really does paint a picture about the simplistic and errant nature of your arguments.

(July 23, 2010 at 7:56 am)Godhead Wrote: Many atheists lack the ability to think for themselves, which is why they constantly ask the other person to provide proof. I say you seek it, and judge it for yourself.

You have just demonstrated that you don't know what burden of proof is.

(July 23, 2010 at 7:56 am)Godhead Wrote: If you don't then you have no interest in anything other than defending your view. "Defending", that's another telling word. It's really just a game, defend your view, defend your position within the clique.

The only telling words are the ones you posted in regards to your ignorance on this matter. You provide evidence for your claim, as per any rational discussion that demands it. If someone kills a person because they said it felt right to them, would you call them delusional or ill? It's the same thing when someone says a God exists on the basis of it feeling right. It makes no sense, as there are no demonstrable elements, and the person won't illustrate how he came to that conclusion in the first place.

(July 23, 2010 at 7:56 am)Godhead Wrote: I have not once posted a link to anything to back up anything I've said and I have no intention to do so. I have no interest in defending my view, only expressing it and explaining it as best as I can, using my own words.

Assertions are not demonstrations, nor are they relevant to anything in a rational discussion. You have yet to explain why you believe what you believe.

(July 23, 2010 at 7:56 am)Godhead Wrote: It's the same thing in debating societies, the point isn't to express your view and hear the other person's view, and perhaps learn something from each other, it is to play verbal chess, it's always win-lose, never win-win, and people who are good "debators" aren't necessarily right in their views at all.

Debating societies use logic to demonstrate their points, which often requires demonstration. In order for someone to learn from you, you have to make your case clear and understand that you have to provide evidence for the other person to even consider it. Rational discussion has nothing to do with emotions or subjective interpretations.

You bitch and moan about others being insecure because they challenge your vague and unexplained view, then have the audacity to come and say that methods of modern science are a product of that insecurity, and that atheists can't think for themselves.

I don't think you could be any more obtuse if you tried.

(July 23, 2010 at 7:56 am)Godhead Wrote: So the long and the short of it is that a lot of the atheists are deeply insecure.

Not at all, you're just ignorant.

Omnissiunt one -

The peer review process is about scientists patting each other on the back.



Paul -

I'm not here to discuss things on your terms.



Tavarish -

It doesn't matter if what I say isn't acceptable to you, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, or demonstrate anything. The scientific method and the peer review process has nothing to do with searching for truth, it's merely a structure designed to enable closed minded people to remain closed minded. It's classic insecurity.

(July 23, 2010 at 7:56 am)Godhead Wrote: So the long and the short of it is that a lot of the atheists are deeply insecure.

No, a lot of people are deeply insecure. And a lot of people aren't. (There are a lot of people in the world by the way).

Quote:The scientific method and the peer review process has nothing to do with searching for truth, it's merely a structure designed to enable closed minded people to remain closed minded. It's classic insecurity.

So it's just a gargantuan coincidence that science is demonstrable and actually gets results?

(July 23, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Godhead Wrote: The peer review process is about scientists patting each other on the back.

You have just graduated from willful ignorance to outright stupidity.

(July 23, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Godhead Wrote: It doesn't matter if what I say isn't acceptable to you, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, or demonstrate anything.

You're trying to have people learn from you in an arena where ideas are discussed. You have to at least present why your ideas are plausible in order for any learning of any kind to take place. You can't be a hermit crab that recedes into its shell anytime anyone asks you why you think the way you do and expect there to be reasonable discussion.

(July 23, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Godhead Wrote: The scientific method and the peer review process has nothing to do with searching for truth, it's merely a structure designed to enable closed minded people to remain closed minded. It's classic insecurity.

You must have it confused with your own method of thinking. You come to a forum filled with skeptics saying you have come to a conclusion about the nature of the universe, and then run around like a chicken with its head cut off when people ask you how you got there. You shoulder a burden of proof and need evidence to have your assertions considered in a serious light.

I honestly can't tell you how much willful ignorance irks me. It's icing on the cake that you would shit on the very method that made it possible for you to actually convey your insane ideas to people all over the world instantly, not to mention enjoy a life expectancy twice as long as those who lived hundreds of years ago.

This actually reminds me of "Storm" by Tim Minchin. You're Storm.

Tavarish -

There is no burden of proof. If you don't believe what I say, not only does it not matter to me, but it isn't up to me to prove it. You can be as skeptical as you like, I don't have to demonstrate anything, nor will I ever do so, and I wouldn't even if I could. I would still leave it up to you to either check it out yourself, or not, it doesn't matter to me. There are no consequences for me if I don't prove anything so as far as I'm concerned it is perfectly fine for me to make any claim. You don't have to like it, but as i say there are no consequences if I don't, other than you not believing me, which is a given, and I'm ok with that.

(July 23, 2010 at 4:38 pm)Godhead Wrote: There is no burden of proof.

(May 15, 2010 at 10:12 am)Paul the Human Wrote: Why? Why do theists believe? Why don’t atheists? What makes us so different?

Drop the inter-cranial philosophical stuff and explain yourself. What are the reasons that you believe? What are the reasons you do not? Those ‘reasons’ are certainly debatable, but let’s try to be forthright and forego the pedantic/semantic sparring and the philosophical meanderings that do not do anything to answer the original question. Just to see if it can be done.

Personally, I think theists believe because they want to believe in a higher power at the very least and someone who made humans to exist for a purpose. I think that they think it gives meaning to our lives where it would otherwise have none.

Atheists don't because we recognize the above for some reason or another. Personally, I am an atheist because I like the idea that I have power over my own life and not simply in the context of what someone - anyone - else has defined for me.

I've never also liked philosophy very much perhaps for the reason I never liked literary analysis very much, despite both of these things being an effort in critical thinking and analysis. It spends all those mental resources concerning yourself with a deeper meaning of something when sometimes a flower is just a damn flower and not an existential symbol of the protagonist's struggles against reality that needs a bunch of emo kids talking about how important it is.
If you've seen the south park episode "scrotie mcboogerballs" - you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I do not believe because I value science and thinking for yourself and really the ability of mankind to achieve something more than what we are. To think that one of the closest living relatives to the chimpanzee, forty one years ago, landed on the moon is absolutely astonishing.
And it's not just about technological progress but that after all the random changes and adaptations to the earth's environment that a single species could ever have been born that had the ability to immediately and irrevocably render itself capable of becoming completely immune to the kinds of extinction events that have wiped out more than half of all life on this planet.

Not to say that an errant asteroid couldn't kill us all, but we're the only species on earth capable of detecting and avoiding any such catastrophe proactively. Whether we do this by nudging the asteroid out of the way or by avoiding the catastrophe by moving to the Moon or Mars.

Better yet, most of the above has only been opened up as possibilities within the last few decades, since we've come to identify many of these extinction events as real things. To think of what we will be capable of in both the near future and long after I'm dead (you know, the day before immortality is discovered) and even what we're capable of now is truely astonishing. Just to be able to recognize that we can do these things.

Yet, when I talk to theists, they can't seem to acknowledge that humans are capable of anything without god's influence - that anything good that happens to us is only because god was in a good mood that day and wasn't concocting a plan to genocide agaisnt more sodomites when we're not being punished for being what we were supposedly created to be.

I like the idea that every time some fantastic thing is created by a person - the airplane, the space shuttle, velcro, eight-tracks, and nanotechnology, that there's always someone, somewhere, at some point in time going "Yeah, nanotechnology is great, but we might be able to make something more awesome."
I don't need or want the idea that we're special because god made us so and for a purpose. We've made our own purpose in our existance, proven that we can overcome more and more every single day, and that we still have the potential to do anything. I don't believe anything is impossible given time, patience, and the inscruitible and insaciable human curiosity that makes us unsatisifed with anything we have and the desire to know and understand.

We've made our world the way it is and I like where things are going. No god is necessary to explain anything. That's why I'm an atheist.