Theists love ad hominem arguments

So someone going by the name tarheeltroll on twitter posted this on 9 October: "Atheists are overconfident narcissistic intellectuals ...

So someone going by the name tarheeltroll on twitter posted this on 9 October:
"Atheists are overconfident narcissistic intellectuals who refuse to believe that anyone can be more omnipotent than them." (source)
I'm sure that there are some atheists that fit the description tarheeltroll proposes here.  But that also describes a certain number of people in any category, anywhere.

What concerns me is that tarheeltroll is missing the whole point of the atheist stance generally.  (This is not an uncommon argument raised by theists, so everything here applies not only to tarheeltroll, but to all other theists who use this kind of reasoning.)  And that point is this: we defer to the evidence, which exists outside of us.  If we have confidence in anything, it is that an objective universe exists, the operation of which we can understand.  This is itself evident from what we see around us.

I suppose one could argue that nothing is real and that everything is just illusion.  But if that's so then one who believes that may as well just do whatever the fuck one wants.  This will likely land one quickly in an asylum, and that will be that.

No, the only reasonable thing to do is to assume that what we perceive is (roughly) how things are.  From that assumption we build science, which lengthens our lives, increases its quality, and allows us to - in some tiny way - control the universe for our benefit (or harm).  If we accept anything science has to say, then we have to accept all of it, based on the evidence provided, until such time as a better explanation presents itself.

The evidence points quite strongly to there being no god.  If there were good evidence that some god or other existed, I'm quite sure it would be accepted.  But the evidence is lacking, and so one must set aside theistic beliefs if one accepts at all the notion of an objective universe.

It is also quite sad to see people like tarheeltroll conflate the atheist stance with atheists.  This is a very serious error in thinking.  Just as too many people conflate science, the sciences, and scientists (something about which I've written elsewhen), so too is the conflation of atheism and atheists rife with fallacy.  One does not discount mathematics because a mathematician made an error.  Similarly, one does not discount scientific knowledge because a scientist made an error.  To do so is a case of an ad hominem argument, which is by definition fallacious.

Regarding tarheeltroll, it doesn't matter what atheists are - it matters whether the atheist stance is better than the theist stance.  I wish theists would at least come to understand that, if anything, about atheism.



academia activism adaptation admin aesthetics affect ageing AI analogy android anthropology anticipation app architecture art arts Asia assistive technology automobile balance biology biomimetics book branding building built environment business CAD Canada care case cfp change revision children codesign cognition collaboration colonization commercialization commonplacing communication design competition complexity computation computer science computing concept map conference constructivism conversational analysis craft creative arts creativity CSCW culture cybernetics degrowth dementia design design thinking digital digital media digital reproduction digital scholarship disability dissertation drawing economics education effectiveness efficiency emotion engineering environment ergonomics ethics ethnography Evernote evolution exhibition exoskeleton experience experimental studies fail fashion featured film food function modeling futurism gender studies Germany globalization grantsmanship graphic design Greece HCI health heritage history housing human factors humanism identity image inclusivity industrial design informatics information innovation interaction interdisciplinarity interior design internet of things intervention iphone journal journalism language law library life life cycle lifehack literature review logistics luxury making management manufacturing material culture materials mechanics media method migration mobile motion design movie nature new product development Nexus 6 olfaction online open design organization packaging paper participatory design PBL pengate performance PhD philosophy planning policy politics practice predatory preservation prison proceedings productivity project management public space publishing reading Remember The Milk reproduction research resource-limited design reuse review Samsung scholarship science science fiction semiotics senses service design simplicity society sociology software space strategic design student sustainability systems tactile tangibility technology textile theatre theory Toodledo Toronto tourism traffic transhumanism transnationalism transportation tv uncertainty universal design urban usa usability user experience visualization wearable well-being women workshop writing
The Trouble with Normal...: Theists love ad hominem arguments
Theists love ad hominem arguments
The Trouble with Normal...
Not found any posts VIEW ALL Readmore Reply Cancel reply Delete By Home PAGES POSTS View All RECOMMENDED FOR YOU LABEL ARCHIVE SEARCH ALL POSTS Not found any post match with your request Back Home Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat January February March April May June July August September October November December Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec just now 1 minute ago $$1$$ minutes ago 1 hour ago $$1$$ hours ago Yesterday $$1$$ days ago $$1$$ weeks ago more than 5 weeks ago Followers Follow THIS CONTENT IS PREMIUM Please share to unlock Copy All Code Select All Code All codes were copied to your clipboard Can not copy the codes / texts, please press [CTRL]+[C] (or CMD+C with Mac) to copy