UBC study finds believers distrust atheists as much as rapists

[valo403]

I just want to say that I love it when Photon posts in these threads. No BS, just straight to the point and calling out all the double talk and convenient dodging on the other side. That you manage to do that without just resorting to my favored 'you're an idiot' response is quite impressive.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Photon: You stated that you found my comments to be "insulting". I found that odd. Particularly odd that you might find an attempt to explain why some people might show bigotry personally.

That you attempted isn't insulting, the lines of reasoning you described were insulting. They're insulting to atheists, and to the people who you say employ those lines of reasoning.. or if they're actually accurate, then they deserve any resistance they experience.

Originally Posted by Knalus

Considering the shocking filth that most atheists spew at religious people stating that their belief system is evil, well, you are going to have a hard time making me feel sorry that your religious sensibilities have been hurt.

"Most atheists"? "Shocking filth"? That's baloney.

And even the most "shocking" positions put forward by the most vocal atheists are reasoned and evidenced enough to be plausible and not be described as filth.

There's always people who are in it just for the conflict, but if you are going to include those as representative of atheists (which is silly because atheists don't claim to be a common group with common worldviews) then Westbro gets included as representative of Christians.

Originally Posted by Knalus

The second thing I find so odd is that I was merely trying to explain the results of the study. One impression I get from atheists is their belief that they 'actually' understand how the universe works, and that they don't need to resort to belief in fairies and ceiling cats to feel good about the world.

Science != atheism, so your impression is wrong. There are plenty of religious scientists who accept evolution and the history of the observable universe as proposed by science.

Originally Posted by Knalus

So, when I tried to explain a possible way that the universe was working, you got offended. Pardon if I found that ironic.

"This guy thinks black people are less evolved and inferior to white people, closer to apes than human. Oh but I'm just explain a possible way the universe was working, don't get offended black people."

In this example the idea that black people are closer to apes is insulting and offensive. Describing that people actually think that way isn't offensive or insulting.

If I was offended (I said I found it insulting, not that I was offended), it's the thought process I find insulting, not the fact that you're trying to explain it and not that that is the thought processes (if it is) that's insulting.

Your idea that that's the thought process isn't what was insulting, the ideas themselves were what was insulting.

Originally Posted by Knalus

Thing is, I came to my conclusion from an evolutionary point of view, not a Christianity-is-better-than-anything point of view. No one seemed to get that, however. Probably because atheists can't fathom a Christian actually explaining something like this using evolution. Sorry. I guess you guys spend too much time arguing with guys like Calgaryborn.

See you sound reasonable and then you go and say "because atheists can't fathom" lumping all atheists together and then immediately expect yourself to be differentiated from "guys like Calgaryborn".

If you paint with a broad brush, expect to be painted with a broad brush. If you want to be view in a more nuanced view, you can't lump people together.

But fair enough, sometimes easy targets are just easier to deal with. But I don't think I've ever put you in that same group.

And I did edit my first reply to you to indicate that I missed but then read your intent with the post.

All that said, if your post does describe the thought process of people responding to that study use then I don't think that says much about them. If true, then I think it would add to the case that some atheists make about religion being harmful; that a group would establish and foster (and not intentionally, just naturally evolving as you suggest) such thought processes would mean the group itself is harmful (not intentionally) isn't it?

[photon]

Originally Posted by valo403

I just want to say that I love it when Photon posts in these threads. No BS, just straight to the point and calling out all the double talk and convenient dodging on the other side. That you manage to do that without just resorting to my favored 'you're an idiot' response is quite impressive.

Oh trust me the desire to lash out is there, but the desire to understand what the other person is thinking is just bigger. But thanks, I really do try to approach these things with the intent of either learning something or helping someone learn what I think; it's when I approach it as just trying to be right that I slip up and let my emotions get the better of me.

[Thor]

I try to be the lash out guy for Photon

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Gozer

What atheist (or anti-theist) sentiment is that argument relevant to?
Who has made the claim that your argument addresses?

It's relevant when anti-theists claim they have factual evidence of god's non-existence.

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Negative evidence isn't useful in a rational discussion of critical thinkers. It's functionally the same as saying "you can't prove Santa doesn't exist".

No critical thinking rational adult believes in Santa. Period. But people chuck that when you change the word "santa" to "god".

Despite equal evidence for both.

That's a pretty serious disconnect IMO. The only reason I can see for it is that most of the hardcore religious folks were indoctrinated at a very young age. That must make it harder to break free.

Not a good analogy. You're mixing a lack of evidence with evidence of non-existence. We've explored the North Pole. We've watched our chimneys on Christmas Eve. We've observed the sky for reindeer. These are descriptors of Santa that have been shown not to happen.

And the argument that we've sent probes into space and haven't seen a god or gods is not a good counter because it's never actually stated that god is in the sky. Well... except maybe the flying spaghetti monster heh.

P.S. Wasn't there a St. Claus somewhere at one point??

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

It's relevant when anti-theists claim they have factual evidence of god's non-existence.

Name one anti-theist or atheist that has ever made that claim or supported the legitimacy of that argument.

Perhaps the term anti-theist is not clear:
Antitheism is a subset of atheism which holds that theism and religion are harmful to society and people, and that if theistic beliefs were true, they would be undesirable.
-http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Antitheism

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

It's relevant when anti-theists claim they have factual evidence of god's non-existence.



Not a good analogy. You're mixing a lack of evidence with evidence of non-existence. We've explored the North Pole. We've watched our chimneys on Christmas Eve. We've observed the sky for reindeer. These are descriptors of Santa that have been shown not to happen.

And the argument that we've sent probes into space and haven't seen a god or gods is not a good counter because it's never actually stated that god is in the sky. Well... except maybe the flying spaghetti monster heh.

P.S. Wasn't there a St. Claus somewhere at one point??

Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.'' Gen 1.20

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

It's relevant when anti-theists claim they have factual evidence of god's non-existence.

We can't disprove all possible gods, but we can disprove some of them.

God who sits on clouds above the Earth? We've looked, and he's not there.
God who created the Earth 6,000 years ago? We know it's older than that.
God who created all creatures as they are today? Well no, we've seen evolution in our own lifetimes (see: flu virus).
God who literally wrote the Bible? Well no, it's full of contradictions.
God who is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent? Pick two.
God who exploded, thus creating the Big Bang? Well maybe, but he'd be completely irrelevant today.

And for the possible gods where there is no evidence for, and no evidence against: I don't believe in invisible unicorns, though they could exist. I know there's no such thing as invisible pink unicorns, because they can't be both invisible and pink.

[MoneyGuy]

What factual evidence is there of God's non-existence?

[Thor]

The same confidence I have that there is no God is the same confidence you (Christian friends) have that the Hindu gods don't exist.

I really don't get why Christians can't understand our position, they are atheists to every other God other than their own.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

What factual evidence is there of God's non-existence?

None.

[photon]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

What factual evidence is there of God's non-existence?

Define God first.

EDIT: And what factual evidence is there of the invisible unicorn's non-existence?

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by photon

Define God first.

EDIT: And what factual evidence is there of the invisible unicorn's non-existence?

A supreme being who created all that we see around us.

[T@T]

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

What factual evidence is there of God's non-existence?

none...but it is not an atheists job to prove that your God exists, that is your position.
Some people believe in a God because of what appears to them to be an inner revelation or experience they have had.
Many people in asylums or similar institutions have some type of faith that they are someone other than themselves, maybe even God himself. There is no doubting the power of such beliefs for those that have them, but this is no reason for the rest of us to believe them....is it?

[T@T]

[Thor]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

A supreme being who created all that we see around us.

But see even that you not are being very specific.

Is this God an intervening God? ie does he interact with the world, miracles, floods, plagues, etc..

Does this God have a specific communication with humankind, as in religious texts and are those texts his final word, flawless without any question?

Did this God create the universe and all that we see 6-10,000 years ago, or is the science agreed upon date of the universe when he did it.

Did this God set in motion life on earth and evolution then followed his plan, or did he create all that you see around us as is, no evolution required.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

A supreme being who created all that we see around us.

Cool.

Who created the supreme being?

Cowperson

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Cool.

Who created the supreme being?

Cowperson

It lives in realm beyond our perception, therefor our rules of creation do not apply to it. Problem solved.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Cool.

Who created the supreme being?

Cowperson

The midichlorians.. oh wait, who created the midichlorians? wait... who created the being that created the midichlorians?