Pseudo-scientific-atheism

M

Mrs.Lucysnow

Valued Senior Member
This is a term coined by another member from a different thread:

"Pseudo-scientific atheist =Atheism blended with the style that an unscientific actor would exude if he were trying to portray a scientist but presented with a smug superiority similar to that of a born again Christian who believes that they have been saved and that they have found the one and only truth in the word of God as found in the Bible."

Its an interesting point. Is pseudo-scientific atheism a replacement for religion in the lives of the atheist? In short does it resemble religious fervor, obstinacy and unquestioned dedication?

Does anyone recognize the following behaviour on sciforums?


"I would just call these people atheists if they did not have a religious like blind conviction in the truth and superiority of beliefs and did not pretend that their beliefs were scientific. The incorrect pretension that their beliefs are scientific is one of the articles of faith of this religion. Members of this faith typically believe whatever fits better with how an actor would act the role of a scientist when they don't have real information on which to form a belief. That is why I call this religion pseudo-scientific because they work the look of science and pretend that the look of science is knowledge rather than taking the truly scientific attitude of just not knowing the truth about those subjects that can't be known. I think there psychological factors shaping this religion that I am calling pseudo-scientific atheism. One factor is a feeling of having been at least mildly oppressed by theism and the other factor is an attachment to a pride in being intellectually superior to the average theist. At least that is how I interpret what I see. And the average member of this pseudo-scientific atheist religion probably is significantly intellectually superior to the average theist but they don't need to get all proud of their intelligence and their culture."

Are our atheist members actually atheist fundies and guilty of pseudo-scientific atheism? Are atheists here smug or does this reaction stem from something else?
 
lucy said:
"Pseudo-scientific atheist =Atheism blended with the style that an unscientific actor would exude if he were trying to portray a scientist but presented with a smug superiority similar to that of a born again Christian who believes that they have been saved
- - -

Its an interesting point. Is pseudo-scientific atheism a replacement for religion in the lives of the atheist? In short does it resemble religious fervor, obstinacy and unquestioned dedication?
Click to expand...
Atheists may be smug, often. Even more often, they may appear smug to the latest incarnation of the troll theist, spamming the forum with yet another presentation of something like " if you think all this is just random accident, you can't account for purpose and complexity and meaning". The attitude of condescending boredom the umpteenth repetition of that invokes is hard to conceal.

But smugness and ignorant arrogance by themselves are not enough to declare a resemblance to religion - however persuasive the parallel, in appearance. You need at least ritual, creed, positive belief in a specified something.
 
There are some non believrs here who have an excellent grasp of science, I would not call their perspectives pseudo anything.

Then there are others like me who are not scientists and who merely take a strong interest in the way science operates.

Thinking of all the non-believers here I'm not sure I can class anyone as pseudo-scientists.

I don't think it takes much to see that religious do not take a scientific approach to their claims, does that make the person who can observe that a pseudo scientist?

Not really sure you have a point, at least regarding members here.
 
Almost anyone can fall into the traps of superstition and I have seen many scientists with as much Dogma, as a priest.
 
The truth might sound abrasive to some, but isn't that inevitable? The superstitious worldview is not a correct model of reality. So people are comfortable in their illusions and cannot accept, like scientists do, new information.
 
I would say there are few who escape the description that nirakar has given. In my own experience only JDawg and Tyler ever challenge any pseudo-scientific assertions made by atheists and very rarely, Skinwalker. While I have seen Fraggle "warning" many theists for their unscientific assertions [even when none were made, in one remarkbale instance], I have yet to see him challenge a single atheist on their ridiuclous and unscientific claims.
 
SAM said:
While I have seen Fraggle "warning" many theists for their unscientific assertions [even when none were made, in one remarkbale instance], I have yet to see him challenge a single atheist on their ridiuclous and unscientific claims.
Click to expand...
You very often put claims in the mouths of atheistic posters that they did not make, misrepresent and misdescribe claims by atheists, and so forth - to the point that your sincerity is often in question, because it doesn't seem possible that someone as fluent and literate as you appear to be could have honestly misunderstood some of these fairly basic issues.

That is going to skew your perceptions of bias in the moderation, responses, etc. No one else is going to see the need to respond to unscientific assertions and pseudo-scientific claims not actually made.

Again: the smug arrogance of many atheists here does remind people of fundie religion purveyors - but one needs more than that to start talking about "replacing religion". At least, one hopes so.
 
Are you claiming that the only unscientific assertions made by athiests are in response to me? There are plenty of instances when JDawg has been attacked, for pointing out the fallciousness of arguments and Fraggle himself is guilty of making unscientific generalisations about theists with Skinwalker actively backing him up even though it is supposedly against the "scientific" standards of this forum.
 
SAM said:
Are you claiming that the only unscientific assertions made by athiests are in response to me?
Click to expand...
No.
SAM said:
There are plenty of instances when JDawg has been attacked, for pointing out the fallciousness of arguments and Fraggle himself is guilty of making unscientific generalisations about theists with Skinwalker actively backing him up even though it is supposedly against the "scientific" standards of this forum.
Click to expand...
I doubt that your version of anything Fraggle has said regarding atheism is accurate.
 
Last edited:
Then please explain how this:

No one else is going to see the need to respond to unscientific assertions and pseudo-scientific claims not actually made.
Click to expand...
is a response to this:
me said:
I would say there are few who escape the description that nirakar has given. In my own experience only JDawg and Tyler ever challenge any pseudo-scientific assertions made by atheists and very rarely, Skinwalker. While I have seen Fraggle "warning" many theists for their unscientific assertions [even when none were made, in one remarkbale instance], I have yet to see him challenge a single atheist on their ridiuclous and unscientific claims.
Click to expand...

Also add Lucy's name to the challengers, she has made some pretty good rebuttals to irrational arguments by other atheists.
 
spidergoat said:
The truth might sound abrasive to some, but isn't that inevitable?
Click to expand...
sure because each progression often unemploys many (to remain complacent makes them obsolete)

The superstitious worldview is not a correct model of reality. So people are comfortable in their illusions and cannot accept, like scientists do, new information.
Click to expand...

what about the illusion of thermodynamics.

Heat is not a property of energy: (show me heat within an atom at BEC as the energy is still there)

life: abuse entropy and any one who knows that 'evolution' is a quality description offering the understanding that 'life' upon this planet continues to change with its environment or it will go extinct; Evolution as a real pattern that any can plainly see; 'life' did NOT equilibriate by law, as the 2LOT suggests it must (its the law)


so to state the scientific arena is open, is just stupid



the dichotomy of ALL TIME:

the sciences provide evidence of evolution

the religions (for the most part) do not

the science follow math, the religious don't for their laws

BUT>........ the religious can prove with the physics of the sciences that evolution could not work (because the math of the science is WRONG)


because the second law of thermodynamics is (a macro analogy of hot going cold), placed within the confines of the micro scale without the comprehension of what HEAT is, in the first place.

Heat is just em causing motion to mass; all cases!
 
Last edited:
sam,

I have yet to see him challenge a single atheist on their ridiuclous and unscientific claims.
Click to expand...
So what is an example of such a claim apart from the one that asserts the belief that gods do not exist? Noting that most atheists do not make that claim.
 
For example:

So what is an example of such a claim apart from the one that asserts the belief that gods do not exist? Noting that most atheists do not make that claim
Click to expand...

Doh! thats the definition of atheism.


If I do not make the specific claim of believing in God and insist that is not what theism is, it only makes me look like an idiot.
 
Words change in meaning over time, that also has to be taken into account when defining a group such as atheists. I looked it up online real quick and it seems the term can either refer to complete denial that any gods exist, or it can refer to lack of belief and skepticism. For instance, I call myself an atheist, but to me it just means I haven't seen any compelling reason to believe in supernatural causes. Of course the definition of "supernatural" can be argued over as well. I believe the universe is governed by a consistent set of rules, that there's a specific and constant pattern that either determines what's going to happen in the universe or at least gives probabilities for each outcome. I never claimed to understand the full picture, I have a feeling there are questions that might have answers but we as humans are physically incapable of understanding them (i.e. what comes "before" time?). For all I know, the ultimate "reason" everyone refers to as "God" might just be some sort of math principle, and how that translates into reality or why that particular principles exists is something I'll never understand as a human.

What irks me about religion is that you have these arrogant folks standing up and saying "look, I have divine insider knowledge of how the universe works. God chose me, not you, so you gotta listen to ME. And on that basis, live your life as I tell you to live it." Where does this insider knowledge come from? Does God talk to these clerics and preachers, which would technically make them self-proclaimed prophets? If they got their "knowledge" from a book, how do they know the book is holy? Is it a gut feeling everyone else in the world should trust because these guts are prophetic? Or did other people tell them to believe in this book, in which case what makes these other people so holy that they should be taken at their word? The whole thing is absurd, really. Noone should ever preach religion to others in a condescending fashion, as if they knew for certain what was right for everyone else. Religion should be a personal matter and only discussed when someone is looking to understand another's views.

What sets scientists apart is that when they make extraordinary claims, the masses mock them for it. Then the scientists go build a flying machine or a computer, and everyone shuts up.
 
sam,

So what is an example of such a claim apart from the one that asserts the belief that gods do not exist? Noting that most atheists do not make that claim.

Doh! thats the definition of atheism.
Click to expand...
Not really. That's the definition you want to apply to every atheist, yet it does not, as everyone here has been trying to tell you for a long time.

If I do not make the specific claim of believing in God and insist that is not what theism is, it only makes me look like an idiot.
Click to expand...
Theism is a simple concept, a belief in the existence of a god. Atheism is not a belief but the absence of belief as you have been told only too often. And I repeat - the disbelief in a proposition is the not the same as a belief that it is false.

Until you understand this basic position you will continue to misunderstand, misquote, and misrepresent, the essentials of atheist arguments.

The essential atheist argument continues to be that theism makes claims it cannot support with any credible evidence. That makes such claims unbelievable. Also, given the fantasic scope of theist claims there is also the issue of credibility.

The essential nature of atheism in this regard is entirely rational and it is not surprising that most scientists tend to lean towards this same position of disbelief in theist claims.

Your mission here seems to be a continuous attempt to demonize atheists and their positon and twist their views into something they are not.

So do you really have any examples of how any atheist here has made any truly unscientific claim regarding atheism in the above context?
 
SAM said:
Then please explain how this:
"No one else is going to see the need to respond to unscientific assertions and pseudo-scientific claims not actually made”

is a response to this:
“
Originally Posted by me
I would say there are few who escape the description that nirakar has given.
Click to expand...
Whether you would say so or not, there have been many posters responding to unscientific assertions and pseudo=scientific claims actually made as scientific assertions and claims by atheists or anyone, and Fraggle is one of them. You appear to be incapable of distinguishing the "scientific" from the "unscientific" in discussions of atheism. That was the relevance of the response.

Smug arrogance certainly stains many atheists, but that is not nearly enough of a parallel with the religious to declare that atheism is a religion.
 
Last edited:
Bishadi said:
sure because each progression often unemploys many (to remain complacent makes them obsolete)



what about the illusion of thermodynamics.

Heat is not a property of energy: (show me heat within an atom at BEC as the energy is still there)

life: abuse entropy and any one who knows that 'evolution' is a quality description offering the understanding that 'life' upon this planet continues to change with its environment or it will go extinct; Evolution as a real pattern that any can plainly see; 'life' did NOT equilibriate by law, as the 2LOT suggests it must (its the law)


so to state the scientific arena is open, is just stupid



the dichotomy of ALL TIME:

the sciences provide evidence of evolution

the religions (for the most part) do not

the science follow math, the religious don't for their laws

BUT>........ the religious can prove with the physics of the sciences that evolution could not work (because the math of the science is WRONG)


because the second law of thermodynamics is (a macro analogy of hot going cold), placed within the confines of the micro scale without the comprehension of what HEAT is, in the first place.

Heat is just em causing motion to mass; all cases!
Click to expand...

Nothing you said makes any sense.
 
Is it REALLY smug to laugh out loud and in the face of someone who is trying to seriously tell me Xenu The Intergalactic Warlord needs a-dolla-fif-dee to properly a line my theta-soul towards alpah-centary-mecca178TX?

Scientology is a Religion. It is no different than Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Mormonism. etc... is my "knowing" Xenu is not real really smug ? I suppose me saying as much may hurt the feeling of a Scientologist? For that I apologize. But, if the Scienotoglist has come here I can only assume they want to come to the realization that there is no Xenu? Why else come here? Subconsciously they must know they are addicted to their fantasy like a crackhead to coke. They want help. *he says smugly*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top