Intellectual Laziness of Atheists

...maybe.
i honestly just dont care. i dont care if there is a god, i dont care if there isn't, but thats not because i'm intellectually lazy.
i just choose to be happy, and thinking about that would just make it boring and hard. why should i research to see if I'm right or wrong, when i could just live life easily, and happily, and then when i die, maybe i'll find out then.

 

I really have to agree with the original poster on this.
Sure, Intellectual Laziness doesnt not necessarily apply to all Atheists but it most definately explains a whole lot of them (some I see here at Hipforums).
I dont need to repeat the original posts but to say its really an easy way out for a lot of people who have trouble with logic and consequences (or better.. who half-get the ideas) but they find themselves so overwhelmed that its actually easier to go for Atheism.
The more frustrated they are and especially - the more false pretenses they refuse to give up on.. the more fierce they become in their Atheism.

I would add to Intellectual Laziness - Emotional and Spiritual Laziness.
For many of these folks, its just too darn 'difficult' to wrestle with big and scary concepts of a God or Gods, Spiritual world and maybe more than anything - Morality, Values and Mortality.
So again, its just so much easier on the old Heart and Soul to try and 'bow out' and go sit in the stands.
They dont have anything to do so they end up 'calling foul' on anyting they do NOT like or critisising the players (seekers).

Of course the truth is - NOBODY gets to go be a spectator in the Arena of life.
You might be in love with the idea that you are 'just watching' (many Atheists love this idea of being 'outside' of everything else) but the fact is you are in a belief system anyways.
Its not a particularly good one and its bare-bones simplistic but its still a faith and your still in the arena with all of us too.

But yeah.. Definately a case of intellectual laziness.. Ive used that same description for a while now myself.

 

Let's exchange the unfamiliar term "intellectually lazy" with one we are more familiar with - "stupid." I'm not entirely sure what it would mean for someone to be intellectually lazy, but I have a pretty good idea what it means for someone to be stupid. If the original poster or anyone who agrees with him think that all atheists are stupid, then that's just ridiculous because, then, Bertrand Russell, Ernest Hemingway, George Bernard Shaw, James Joyce, G. E. Moore, Karl Popper, Mark Twain, and David Hume are stupid, which is obviously not the case. If, on the other hand, all the original poster wanted to say is that some atheists are stupid, then I agree wholeheartedly. Some stupid atheist arguments include:

Look at all those priests abusing kids.
Therefore, God does not exist.

My daddy said God does not exist.
Therefore, God does not exist.

I don't want to follow the laws of God. Who does he think he is anyway?
Therefore, God does not exist.

But of course, the same can be said for some Christians, Hindus, and scientologists (probably all scientologists, actually). That's just because stupid people make up a very large segment of the population. If I were to say that all theists are stupid, then would obviously be false because it would entail that Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz, Kant, etc. are stupid, which is obviously not the case. But that doesn't change the fact that some theists are stupid. Some stupid theist arguments include:

My daddy said God exists.
Therefore, God exists.

My warm, fuzzy feeling inside tells me that God exists.
Therefore, God exists.

I have faith that God exists, and no one can tell me different.
Therefore, God exists.

So what does this thread prove? That some people are stupid and nothing more. If you ask me, that's so self-evident that I don't need a whole thread devoted to it.

 

Ideological Naivete--that's the disorder that sheeple on both sides of the spectrum suffer from. Accepting on blind faith or blind ideas. The Unified Field Theory is one of them(go research Plasma Theory, and get back to me).

First off--lets kill all philosopical notions that there is absolutes. Bam, there it is.

Second, to secular, empiric-minded people: You understand the five senses, do you? Sight, Sound, Taste, Touch, and Hearing. THESE ARE SUBJECTIVE METHODS OF GATHERING DATA. The concept of Objective Reasoning is just an IDEA. You think that's a chair your sitting on, staring at a screen? There is shit going on at this moment you wouldn't belive!

Right now, the atoms that make up the backs of your thighs and your ass is 'hovering' over the atoms that make up the chair you're 'sitting' on. What you think is a computer monitor is an electron gun shooting photons at a projection screen, or small diodes emitting those photons towards your face and eyes, which interpret shapes, colors, text, and depth within the four thousand to seven thousand Angstrom field of visible light radiation pouring from their sources, processed in the back of your brain. Your equalibrium, which determines where you are in these four dimentions, is in your ear, but is interpreted by your eyes(or mind's eye, if you will)...

"...Do you think that's air you're breathing...?"

All this, when interpreted by your brain, is OLD INFORMATION. It is SUBJECTIVE, since it has been filtered through the effluvia that makes up your ideology, so you pic out the things that appeal to your asthetic, but either loathe, ignore or autonomously acknowledge the rest--already programmed by your environs.

With that in mind, now for those who adhere to "Blind Faith":

The more ones ideology is based on fallacies and not facts, the more the information around is being mutilated by the interpretation made through those fallacies.

Case in point---the swastika; most people were conditioned to see this symbol as a hateful, evil symbol AFTER World War II, but it still is considered a positive symbol by cultures worldwide...Hindis, some American Indian tribes, Greeks, Romans, Celts...all had an interpretation of the swastika. There is swastika interpretations that are still in existence in JEWISH TEMPLES in Israel(What I think is so funny about dumbass teenagers spraying swastikas on churches and synogogues and don't know what they are doing. They usually spray the symbol horizontally, like '+', rather than the 'X' shape that Nazis distorted for their liking; ask any pagan or occultist, and they will tell you that changing or distorting a symbol gives it power. The horizontal '+' like swastika is the original, positive symbol, the 'X' shaped swastika is not...I digress.).

So--by shaking the ground that Atheists walk on(by playing my hand at what I think about Empiricism), and by nudging the religious Metaphysics-By-Proxy to WAKE THE HELL UP and get a BRAIN and some structure to your fallatical arguements....who's left?

The people in the middle. "Do unto others as they do unto you..." Brotherhood, the sharing and consensus of ideas. The acknowledgement of each others faults and butresses, strength and weaknesses. Balance.

"Cogito, ergo sum." Yeah, Rene...but about what, and why?

The people who control that control your mind...they can manipulate the world around you and make you belive what they want you to belive about social structure, beliefs, cognition, and critical thought. Open your mind, and others will be equally open.

 

Adventurous...

What if occam said ALL HUMAN BELIEF ON ANY FACET OF A POSSIBLE GOD.
BE it wether a god is or is not.
Be it what shape or size or duration such a thing exhibits.
ALL..is speculation only.

Occam can say this quite easily...

For he will hand over 1 million US dollars to any human who can show him ANY existant evidence of a god.
This is a cheap trick..yes..cause that is all that is needed.
SO far in human existance. 'God' exists nowhere but human minds.
Just like nations, justice and beauty..think well on that.

Occam is an agnostic. What we call 'god' may exist.
And there is indicative evidence in the very nature of reality and it's process. To support this.
But we are so self centered we think we can imagine a god....
We can indeed imagine the 'concept' of a god.
But not the thing itself if indeed such exists.

You sound like a tribalist with 'athiests' are this a 'believers' are that.
US and THEM

How stupid are we if we make the same mistakes over and over.

Einstein was right
"Only 2 things are infinite. The universe and human stupidity. And i'm not to sure about the universe."

Occam

 

Oh no.. Atheists are believers too.
Personally, I dont think its as easy as exchanging the idea of 'intellectual laziness' with 'Stupid' either.
As pointed out earlier - a lot of people are stupid people in any segment.
Byrndskynrd really says a lot up there - 'Naturalism' was something you could get away with 200 years ago.
You cant possibly be pulling the same thing in 2006.
Unless you just dont want to put the effort into it?

Putting what Byrnd is saying into an analogy..
.. A student up here at the college was after class one day in a fierce debate with a Science Prof he hoped to impress.
Frustrated that the Prof kept asking him to give evidence for his belief in a Godless Universe (instead of whats NOT good about other beliefs) the student finally SLAMS his hand down on the table:
"THIS! I believe in THIS! SLAP!"
Then takes his foot and STOMPS the ground. "THIS! Stomp! I believe in what IS cold Hard and REAL!"
The Prof then says to the student "This floor you call hard solid reality is in fact a tremendous swirl of Molecules which you can never see or hold..
[Prof gives incredible list of photons, neutrons, charges etc...]
Then tells the student that with just a simple reversal of polarity... something invisible that we dont even know what it 'is' .. in a microsecond could cause this 'STOMP!' floor to simply vanish into nothingness right beneath the floor.

Anyways.. sorry that was a long analogy but the point is that the student was really stating emphatically he was putting his faith into things which cannot be seen or touched and forces we dont even understand how and what they 'are' or how they exist - yet - in fact, we are subject to them every waking minute.
The student was intellectually 'lazy' in that he only wanted to know about what suited his belief system and ignoring anything that complicated it, made it difficult to reconcile or forced him to ask more questions.

Far too many Atheists or agnostics are guilty of that.
But.. I guess its like a 'Crutch' for them so they can sleep at night?

 

You're lazy.


Oh yeah?! YOU'RE LAZY!


what? no. You're the one who is lazy.



You guys crack me up.

 

Try and dig a bit deeper will you OSF.
Thanks.

 

Again, a pragmatic question needs to be answered: what does God add to one's explanation of things? Where are the discernable effects of God's existence that can be clearly and directly attributed to God? Of course one is entitled to hold the position that God exists as a matter of faith, but that doesn't lead one's explanation very far. Naturistic explanations of how and why things are the way that they are work very well.

Furthermore, don't confuse subjectivism with relativism. Could I/we be wrong about what I/we perceive? It's possible, but that (the mere possibility) by itself is not a convincing reason to throw aside all that we believe about the world. Again, these perceptions work, not only individually but taken all together. That's not intellectually lazy. My explanations work. If you think God works better, then you're going to have to show how this explanation works better (i.e. is able to explain more phenomena more convincingly and allow us to make more successful predictions).

Just because it's possible to have a differing view on some issue, that by itself is not a convincing reason to affirm that view (notice that's a different claim than denying one's right to hold a view; you do have the right to hold as many ill-conceived and unconvincing views as you'd like).

 

Gunison.
Your entire post is presumptive.
Well done.
That pretty much cleared up any remaining questions about atheists being intellectually lazy.
You gotta admit though - that was probably a nice easy feeling writing that though.
Good demonstration!

btw.. you cant really be relying on naturism for your presumption can you?
I mean, at least pick something a century or two closer to modern thinking - if for no other reason than to give yourself a little credibility.
Just a tip.

 

Just something that Erasmus has been saying that's been bothering me.


(1) Just because a certain philosophical position has fallen out of favour doesn't mean that it's false. Philosophers are notoriously fickle.

(2) List of some contemporary philosophers who are self-described naturalists:

W. V. O. Quine (1908-2000)
Hilary Putnam (1929-present)
Richard Dawkins (1941-present)
J. C. C. Smart (1920-present)
Paul and Patricia Churchland (1942-present) and (1943-present)

Arguably, naturalism is a predominant tendency in contemporary philosophy.

 

Of what?

Don't know whether that's a compliment or not. So, I'll just raise an eyebrow at it.

I can and do rely on such explanations (because they work). No one yet has given me any convincing reason to prefer a supernatural rather than natural explanation of how/why living organisms are the way that they are.
That's not "presumptuious" on my part because, as I've said before, all you have to do is come up with a better account of things and I'll believe it. Further, I've defined what I mean by 'better.' You want to raise an objection? There's what you have to do in order to succeed.

 

You can find convincing reasons.
Maybe you even have found them.
You just dont want to consider them or possibly your not very adept and weighing the balance of evidence.
Does that sound more like the real story?

 

Well, the person who started this thread cited the notion of harmony as evidence of God's existence. In a previous post within this thread I considered that position and argued against it. So you're saying, because I wasn't won over and changed my position, I necessarily didn't give the other fellow's position adequate consideration?

There are plenty of convicing reasons for (and against) God's existence. That is, by appealling to nothing other than the reasons presented in favor of a position, one could be won over to that position. But arguing convincingly is not the same thing as winning someone over.

So, here again you're attributing belief states to me that you're not only not in a position to verify (because they're my belief states, after all) but for which there is actually evidence against my holding them (in the form of a previous, chartitable post).

Never mind me, are the reasons any good?????


Are atheists intellectually lazy? Some are. But there is little to support the claim that this intellectual laziness arises from some intrinsic feature of atheism.

 

For sure it does not have to be the case.
It doesnt make a faith right or wrong either.
I just notice that so many can be attracted to Atheism for psychological and emotional reasons.
Feeling 'safe' from any critisism is one. Its not a good reason since Atheism doenst put people in the stands as judges and observers, like so many would love to believe.
But
Thats the 'feeling' some get from it.
Other feel very safe from critisism because during a debate they can simply 'excuse themselves' by saying "Im OUT of this'.
Its not true really, but that is the 'feeling' they want.

I think if you ask anyone seriously interested in theism, philosophy and just the whole 'what are we' questions of our life-times, I think they will say its often difficult, frustrating and for many converting to Christianity (just an example) they meet tremendous, heart wrenching and often intellectually fierce challenges and emotional struggles that follow.
Never mind if Atheism or agnosticism holds the truth or not - its just a big huge relief and cop-out temptation for so many people.
Well.. not 'many' but enough to go for it on those reasons alone.
Its a fantastic warm fuzzy blankie for too many people and its so easy to live with that they will fight themselves to the death to deny deny deny for losing it.

 

I dont see much problem with lazy atheists. not beleiving something they have no evidence of, is that so bad? of course, you may prefer those theists who wrestle with demons and gods, to what avail? better I say to concentrate on what is in front of your nose than on questions that are not determinable

 

Well you certainly do have 'evidence' in the sense of millions of people who claim some sort of contact with him.
Several large books which claim to have recorded communications with a God.
Every culture since the dawn of civilisation seeming to be under the impression their is one (or more) and somehow they came from or through or past a God.
Psychiatrists always seem to be concluding that humans all seem to have a 'slot' in their makeup which is designed to either seek or question or hold a premise of a God existing. 'Hardwired for Theism' as they put it... just as they would for romance or the concept of entertainment or creating things etc.

Now do you want to accept these things as evidence beyond a reasonable doubt .. or actually even as 'good evidence' is another thing.
I would strongly suggest that for many atheists - if this kind of evidence was existing for .. i dunno.. lets say 'The existance of a cancer curing squids somewhere in the ocean' (just example) then I suggest that most would agree that is something most definately worth taking seriously and worth investing some time on.
Most would definately agree there was some signifigant truth to it - even if they did not personally mount expedition to find it.
The cultural memory, inherint psychological awareness of the squids born into people as well as a lot of books with maps and testimonies - You would probably even agree its likely based on the evidence.
Beyond a reasonable doubt that 'something like it' probably exists.

The God theory is a little different - not because the wieght of value of the evidence is any more or less - but because there may be personal consequences and internal struggles as well as emotional dilemas etc.
Again, Im not saying this is all atheists either - just most.

What always makes me boggled is to see how some will set absolutely impossible standards before they accept any 'Pro-God' evidence.... but will instantly accept any 'counter evidence' .. lol.. including just some rhetorical question or just slightly relevant objection they find.
Example: ID would be outright rejected due to no imperical, verifiable scientific and logical 'proof' (meaning a time machine and four camera angles minimum)
HOWEVER
If they see just one article about some story of bacteria in a pond in WW2 Japan that may have done a genetic shift which which happened to favour the surviving bacteria as long as they lived with the killer enzyme.. BANG!!! IT NOW GOSPEL TRUTH and is a magic fact that cancels out any and all things that sound like 'God stuff'.

Seriously, you see this kind of selective reasoning and standards being pulled off by atheists all the blinking time on forums now.
Never mind Intellectual laziness - if anyone is corning the market on intellectual dishonesty look no further than these guys for it.

Well its still better than all that scary consideration of redemtion, accountability, law and grace, right and wrong and all that ugly stuff eh?

 

I see no evidence to believe that the "god" many people refer to was responsible for law or morality. What will they try to attribute to "him" next, the returning of the light after winter solstice? the bigger the claim the more scrutiny of the evidence. science is experimental method. belief should only accompany hard evidence not the imaginings or myths of other people or history. Just because alot of people for a long time believe something does not mean it is true or should be believed. Again, I would not call it intellectual laziness to not believe in something that there is no evidence for.

 

ROFLMAO!!! Atheists are "intellectually LAZY"???

How A Christian Is So Much More Intellectual than an Atheist
ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE: GOD DID IT!
ORIGINS OF MAN: GOD DID IT!
ORIGINS OF ETHICS: GOD DID IT!

Christian Motto: IF I CAN'T EXPLAIN IT...GOD DID IT!! Yay!!

Yeah, all atheists are morons and Christians are REAL intellectual giants.

That WOULD be insulting if it weren't so goddamned stupid...

 

Materialists are just in denial about the cosmic consciousess "god" that does everything and is everything, no seperation between anything. It is all one consciousness.

Why do christians have to be the only combatants against atheists?

Quantum mechanics and mystical knowledge PROVE beyond any shadow of a doubt, to me and others, who we are.

We are One,

I didn't need quantum mechanics to prove ME, but it certainly helped burn away all the doubts.

So it is no stupid, it is the OBVIOUS conclusion.

And all the great coincidences in the formation in the universe... so all of these formations that made life possible, playing Devil's advocate and saying it is all chance. It would take 10 to the powder of 10 and that to the power of 80... This is longer then the current age of the universe... This is in Cosmic Coincidences a book.


In one clings to materialism, there are tons of unexplaniable paradoxes in quantum mechanics... it just comes abusurd to believe tha matter is supreme and conciousness is a epiphenomenon ending upon death which is what most atheists feel.

I wouldn't call athiests stupid. They are just afraid of the truth of who they are...

And they are phony, it is just GOD pretending to be an athiest... when I look at an athiest, I don't see an athiest... I see GOD in drag. it's just pretending to be an athiest...

come on admit it you joker you!