Dumb Atheist Sayings
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-05-2016, 11:54 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2016 01:56 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(15-05-2016 12:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-05-2016 10:36 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Without taking a stance on that question at all, I don't need to hold to a belief in absolute morality to point out there's a logical inconsistency with that larger idea.

If you subscribe to subjective morality there can be no contradiction, because there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions.

Nonsense. Have you never heard the phrase "for the sake of argument"? It means, in essence, "I don't agree with your premise(s), but I will grant it (or them) in order to show you why your ensuing reasoning is flawed."

For the sake of the argument, I will grant you your fictitious premise that your omnimax god is perfectly good and that he is the moral lodestone. A perfectly good god who can do anything and knows everything who allows what is considered evil by the very code he promulgates either cannot do everything, does not know everything, or is complicit in the evil. You can have two of those three attributes, but taken together, the three are internally contradictory. (Never mind the fact that you yourself practice moral relativity, which should also be fatal to any assertions you make about your god's morality.)

Under those conditions, the Problem of Evil is very much a problem. You simply don't like it because it's your problem, as a believer.

And that brings us to this conversation: because you don't like that it shows your god to be logically incoherent, you must now devise an explanation for it. Unfortunately for you, you chose the simple-minded route and attempted to argue, in essence, that either atheists cannot entertain hypotheticals, or people in general cannot. Either claim is silly on its face, and impugn your thinking.

Have a nice day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
16-05-2016, 12:05 AM
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(15-05-2016 04:29 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  Atheism = "No God Beliefs", it does not require you to know the concept of god to not believe it. It only requires that you not have a belief in gods. Seems simple enough to me. I don't see why it's such a mystery to others.

I think the difficulty lies in the capacity for belief, or its lack, in the subject under discussion. Rocks aren't atheists because they clearly lack the ability to hold any belief.

I think your interlocutors argument is that babies don't have the capacity to believe much beyond "Yes! That's a nipple!" for a while.

I can see both sides of the argument, myself. Babies are born without belief in gods -- in that sense they are atheists, and that's perfectly legitimate. But babies also lack knowledge of any god concept at all, and indeed most likely lack the ability to even conceive of any god-concept, and in that sense, their unbelief is irrelevant.

What it really boils down to is informed acceptance or rejection, and I think that y'all involved in this argument are talking past each other for this reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
16-05-2016, 04:31 AM
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(15-05-2016 05:31 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  No argument here. Theists typically invoke the soul to try and pass that balderdash off. I'm fine with, "We are not born believers." It's unassailable short of invoking the supernatural. Stating what we are born is fraught with problems.

I'll focus on this because that's what matters in the end.

We do agree that we cannot tell when a baby becomes a person and I can understand your point with dogs.
And yes, it's much better to say that we are not born believers, but I could claim that this phrase is problematic too, saying that not being a believer makes you a non-believer and babies cannot be born non-believers, because to be a non-believer, you need to know belief, or have the capacity for belief. That's why I think we're splitting hairs here. The problem is that we seem to have a different understanding of the word "atheist".

Now, is your problem with the phrase or the argument itself? Because the specific phrase (we are all born atheists) is not the exact one everyone would use for this argument.
And there is an argument there. Perhaps it cannot stand on its own, but try mentioning Buddhists. Most of them are atheists. They didn't become atheists, but the concept of god was never introduced to them. How can a Christian talk about souls then?



(15-05-2016 05:58 PM)jabeady Wrote:  The actual quote was, "I maintain that most of us would prefer to begin the conversation at a more advanced, adult, point." My assertion is that more people than just me share the preference.

I don't see anyone agreeing or complaining though, so your assertion is meaningless and most probably only reflects your own feelings towards the conversation.

(15-05-2016 05:58 PM)jabeady Wrote:  The conversation is not about "atheism in babies," it is about whether claiming babies are atheist is a stupid statement. Given the difficulty you've had convincing more atheists than myself of your point, I submit it's effectiveness with believers, and therefore its utility, is problematic, at best. I'm willing to relegate any perceived stupidity to your audience.

If you want to see whether claiming babies is a stupid statement, you have to talk about atheism in babies, which is what we've been doing for the last couple of posts.

Also, for being so interested in this conversation and asking for it to focus on something else, you do seem to have no idea what we're talking about. I've explained my position numerous times and given reasons for why this argument can be valid. You never addressed them, so don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you claim that a position is "problematic" just because you said so. And you might want to avoid talking about the other posters' opinions. They have a voice of their own.

(15-05-2016 05:58 PM)jabeady Wrote:  
Quote:if you don't like that, you can move to another part of the forum.

Back atchya.

Oh crap!

If I don't like what?

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes undergroundp's post
16-05-2016, 04:34 AM
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(16-05-2016 12:05 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  But babies also lack knowledge of any god concept at all, and indeed most likely lack the ability to even conceive of any god-concept, and in that sense, their unbelief is irrelevant.

Emphasis mine.

That is exactly what I've been trying to say all along. I've said it like, three times in this thread? Their unbelief is not irrelevant because the point isn't to have babies on our side (yay, more atheists?) but to demonstrate that religion and the concept of god are taught and they don't come naturally, as most theists tend to believe. We talk about babies (and not 5 or 10 year old kids) because we start being indoctrinated the very moment we are born.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like undergroundp's post
16-05-2016, 05:41 AM
Dumb Atheist Sayings
(15-05-2016 10:23 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(15-05-2016 09:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I got a few:

Atheists who believe morality is subjective, and yet make appeals to the Problem of Evil, to suggest a logical contradiction.

Why is that a problem for you? It's addressing the concept of a Perfect Author of Morality on its own terms ... and still finding it coming up short.

Oohhhhhh, that's why it's a problem. Forget I asked. Smile


No the problem is that if morality if subjective, and the theists claims that the God of the bible is perfectly Good, and an atheist thinks he's not, it would be a subjective disagreement, not a logical contradiction. I

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2016, 05:56 AM
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(16-05-2016 05:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-05-2016 10:23 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Why is that a problem for you? It's addressing the concept of a Perfect Author of Morality on its own terms ... and still finding it coming up short.

Oohhhhhh, that's why it's a problem. Forget I asked. Smile


No the problem is that if morality if subjective, and the theists claims that the God of the bible is perfectly Good, and an atheist thinks he's not, it would be a subjective disagreement, not a logical contradiction. I

Oh indeed, if the meanings of words are not agreed upon then naturally sentences made with those words will also not agree.

FFS Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
16-05-2016, 06:26 AM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2016 11:01 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(15-05-2016 02:25 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  If a PARTICULAR DEFINITION OF MORALITY is provided, and the god is depicted as acting in defiance of that particular morality, then it is clearly not being benevolent under that morality. If there is an additional claim that this is the absolute morality, then one or the other claim must be false. TAKE YOUR PICK.

Yea, that particular definition of morality states that a being can be perfectly Good and create a world with suffering and evil in it. You may disagree with this, but it wouldn’t be a logical contradiction, particularly since you subscribe to subjective morality. It would just be a difference in opinion.

Quote:That's a pretty conventional definition of free will, so sure, I'll go along with that definition for this discussion. And sure, let me for the sake of argument grant everything you just said about how a brain lacking free will would be restricted in its operation. (Though I'd hold open the possibility of higher-level reasoning -- for example a decision whether one wants to plan a vacation or do homework -- that does dictate future thoughts but is itself dictated by lower-level operations.)

But my point was that this level of restriction or outright absence of free will would NOT be an obstacle to processing information in a logical manner as you claim it is. Again, as evidenced by the chip.

The brain processes information, the way it processes information, sometimes with a great deal more effort than at other times. Some folks put a great deal of thought into their delusions, a bipolar patient has placed a considerable amount of computational power forming some of their more impressive fantasies.

Being rational and being logical, are not used synonymously with how the brain naturally processes information. But is built on a belief that one can train their brain to process information in a particular way, that they can choose how their brain processes information, construct a path themselves in which their thoughts are to follow, particularly in regards to the idea of thinking “objectively”. As if one had the ability to tell his brain to put aside the subjective influences, to allow yourself to think in such a way. There’s no “you” outside of your brain. You are not your brain’s master, just the puppet on it’s strings. It dictates how you think, not the other way around.

Quote:The problem with this analogy is that a lot of cosmological arguments insist on the premise that everything must have a cause, and it is against these arguments that the question is useful.

Except that’s not the cosmological argument, it’s a common but stupid atheist rendition of it. The cosmological argument is that everything that is contingent must have a cause. A point evident in pretty much every formalized rendition of the argument, from Aristotle’s Unmoved mover, to WLC’s “Whatever begins to exists has a cause.”

Not to mention that in pretty much every theistic definition of God, God is uncreated, had no beginning, eternal, etc…

The atheists is in turn asking who created the uncreated thing? What moved the unmoved? Which is as stupid as someone asking someone who holds that the universe was uncreated, what created it?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2016, 07:51 AM
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(16-05-2016 06:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yea, that particular definition of morality states that a being can be perfectly Good and create a world with suffering and evil in it. You may disagree with this, but it wouldn’t be a logical contradiction, particularly since you subscribe to subjective morality. It would just be a difference in opinion.

This question, the Problem of Evil, has been asked by theists and believers as well as atheists.

Your particular answer, regarding subjective morality, is nothing but a pathetic dodge. It is a variation of the "How Dare You Question god" argument.

Assume that a theist, a True Believer, is asking the question. Your dodge is now invalid, since they believe in objective morality.

(16-05-2016 06:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The brain processes information, the way it processes information, sometimes with a great deal more effort than at other times. Some folks put a great deal of thought into their delusions, a bipolar patient has placed a considerable amount of computational power forming some of their more impressive fantasies.

That's probably how religion started in the first place.

(16-05-2016 06:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Being rational and being logical, are not used synonymously with how the brain naturally processes information. But is built on a belief that one can train their brain to process information in a particular way, that they can choose how their brain processes information, construct a path themselves in which their thoughts are to follow, particularly in regards to the idea of thinking “objectively”. As if one had the ability to tell his brain to put aside the subjective influences, to allow yourself to think in such a way. There’s no “you” outside of your brain. You are not your brain’s master, just the puppet on it’s strings. It dictates how you think, not the other way around.

So are these the same "subjective" thought patterns that led you to recognize objective morality and an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god?

(16-05-2016 06:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Except that’s not the cosmological argument, it’s a common but stupid atheist rendition of it. The cosmological argument is that everything that is continent must have a cause. A point evident in pretty much every formalized rendition of the argument, from Aristotle’s Unmoved mover, to WLC’s “Whatever begins to exists has a cause.”

It's a common theistic argument to say "creation has a creator", then once they get challenged to refine it as needed.

(16-05-2016 06:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Not to mention that in pretty much every theistic definition of God, God is uncreated, had no beginning, eternal, etc…

Well shit, that must make it true. Hobo

(16-05-2016 06:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The atheists is in turn asking who created the uncreated thing? What moved the unmoved? Which is as stupid as someone asking someone who holds that the universe was uncreated, what created it?

I've learned that people who call questions and questioning stupid are usually afraid of both the questions and the answers.

(They're also arrogant, but that's a different thread...)

Stupid is blindly accepting what you are told, without hesitation, without question.
Stupid is accepting contradictory doctrines that you are forbidden to question.
Stupid is believing without evidence and in spite of contradicting evidence.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
16-05-2016, 09:29 AM
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(16-05-2016 07:51 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
Quote:This question, the Problem of Evil, has been asked by theists and believers as well as atheists.

Your particular answer, regarding subjective morality, is nothing but a pathetic dodge. It is a variation of the "How Dare You Question god" argument.

Assume that a theist, a True Believer, is asking the question. Your dodge is now invalid, since they believe in objective morality.

Lol, it’s not a dodge at all, it’s pointing out the fact that no logical contradiction can exist, when speaking of subjective concepts, just differences in opinions. You can’t claim a logical contradiction, while holding that objective moral facts do not exist.

If I hold that that a Perfectly Good Being can create a world in which evil, and suffering exists, did I make a factually incorrect statement? Is it objectively true that Perfectly Good being would not allow evil and suffering to exists in his creation?

Of course it’s not, because according to you and others there’s no objective moral facts, no objective morality, it’s subjective according to you. You can disagree with my views regarding what ‘moral or not, but you can’t claim it’s logically contradictory for me to hold my differing views.

[quote]That's probably how religion started in the first place.

Religion is the outcome of the brains thought processes, so is non-religion, atheism, etc… You didn’t derive the views and beliefs you hold, from some distinct thought pattern, dictating to your brain what methodology and rules it is to follow, what tenets it is to avoid, that plague every other human brain, because no such ability exists, no transcendent self, no choice. You’re just a victim of factors outside of your control. Unless you want to assume something equivalent to what would have to be assumed for free-will to exist, to make that work.

Quote:It's a common theistic argument to say "creation has a creator", then once they get challenged to refine it as needed.


Yes, created things have a cause, hence why they’re referred to as created, duh. God is not a created thing, that’s a belief as old as it comes. Nobody wonders who created God, because the belief in God, by definition, is belief in a uncreated being. A fact also blatantly outlined in pretty much every construction of the cosmological argument, from Aristotle to WLC, etc…

A common atheist tendency, is when called out on their strawman renditions of theist arguments, is rather that acknowledging that they erred, is to claim that the theist redefined their argument. One only has to point to the history of the cosmological argument to show that’s the claim that cosmological argument has been redefined, to incorporate the concept of an uncaused cause is factually incorrect.



Quote:Stupid is believing without evidence and in spite of contradicting evidence.

The brain believes things based on a variety of stimulations to their sensory inputs, drawing conclusions from this, for all of us. Influenced and dictated by a variety of external factors, outside of our control. There’s no transcendent version of yourself, that dictates what to filter out or not, to have it operate differently than every other normal human brain. What you believe, how you come to believe it, are dictated by external factors outside of your control, remember that.

Evidence has no smell, or color, or shape, or form, that we could say that if simulates our sensory inputs in a particular way, that it constitutes as evidence. For atheists it’s more or less just an empty word, that doesn’t correspond to any reality as to how the brain processes information. I believe a variety of things both religious and non-religious, based on a variety of factors, all of which I would call evidence. You likely believe a variety of similar and different things based on what you would call evidence. In reality the term we apply here, is one applied after the fact, a part of rationalization mechanisms, rather than a statement about ours brains processing patterns.

To hold free-will (or something remarkably like it) does not exist, and believe otherwise is a logical contradiction.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2016, 09:40 AM
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(15-05-2016 07:23 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  [quote='Momsurroundedbyboys' pid='997311' dateline='1463349346']
I'll admit I'm not fond of the whole "we are all born atheists" argument...

I do think that a person that has the proper knowledge and experience could use the "born atheist" argument. I just think it would be better to focus one's energy elsewhere.

I just don't see its utility. Any argument that has to be explained (and how much effort has gone into that very thing, just on this thread?) before the conversation can continue defeats it's own purpose. The Blank Slate argument is much better suited.

Oh crap!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: