Inconsistent atheist arguments
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2015, 03:41 PM
RE: Inconsistent atheist arguments
Absolute monarchs count as dictators, right? Here's Tzar Alexander II, whose militaristicly expansionist mustache has subsumed and taken over his beard and sideburns, and seems to be currently deciding whether to move next on the rest of his head, or incorporate his uniform's collar.

[Image: Alexander_II_1870_by_Sergei_Lvovich_Levitsky.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Reltzik's post
29-03-2015, 04:16 PM
RE: Inconsistent atheist arguments
Quote:How do you respond to the following?

(1) "Atheism is not a belief system, it's simply a lack of belief in something"
You respond by stating this is correct.
Atheist means lack of belief in gods.


Quote:My personal opinion is that this claim is used to insulate atheists from criticism of their own beliefs while they are busy criticizing beliefs held by theists.
If an atheist makes a belief based claim to you then feel free to call them up on it.
Being an atheist doesn't mean that a person doesn't need to support any claims that they may make.



Quote:For example:

Atheist: "Religion was responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11 and all sorts of other horrible things. Bin Laden was religious, so were all those pedophile priests. The world would be better off if people were atheists, not religious."

Theist: "What about Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc..? "

Atheist: "Those people were Communists, not atheists. Atheism is not a belief system, it's simply a lack of belief in god."
This seems a little confussed.
The focus should not be on an aspect of the person making an action. The focus should be on the reason behind the action (the purpose).
Let's say that Stalin was a smoker. This does not mean that smoking is responsible for the attrocities ordered by Stalin.
Stalin didn't do what he did in the name of smoking. He didn't do it for the ideology of smoking. He did it for reasons not related to smoking.
Same thing as Stalin's atheism. He didn't carry out attrocoties in the name of atheism or for the ideology of atheism. Atheism is a rejection god beliefs, it isn't an ideology. You cannot do something in the name of atheism just as you can't do something in the name of "lack of belief in fairies"

If you think having a belief in gods makes a person less likely to commit attrocities then that is something different. You could put a case forth for this argument and see how that holds up to criticism. Be preared for people to show references where people have committed attrocities in the name of their god.


Quote:(2) Atheist: "Atheists have a higher average I.Q. than theists; it's scientifically proven, which indicates that theism is a product of low intelligence and that atheism is more rational."
Unfortunately there is no link between high IQ and rationalism.
If a person makes this claim then ask them to back it up with evidence.



Quote:Theist: "By your own definition of atheism, my dog is an atheist, since he lacks a belief in god. Wouldn't the inclusion of dogs in the sample bring down the average IQ just a little bit?"
The theist doesn't need to resort to this silly tact. All the theist needs to do is to ask for evidence that shows that theists have low IQs. There do seem to be some smart theists out there e.g. Kennith Miller, who in their proffessional life apply reason and logic and demand evidence but in some aspects of their private life they forgo reason, logic and evidence and take up faith and belief.

Quote:Atheist: "Dogs don't count, because they're not intelligent enough to conceive of a god in the first place. No dog ever thinks "There is no such thing as god""


Theist: "So, now suddenly atheism has become a positive belief? (the philosophy of naturalism)"
A dog is an atheist. This highlights the fact that atheism has no ideology. The dog is not driven to do what Stalin did.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 04:22 PM
RE: Inconsistent atheist arguments
(29-03-2015 02:17 PM)Stimbo Wrote:  It's why a courtroom scenario is an ideal analogy. Is the defendant guilty of the charges? Maybe; that's for the jury to decide based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. If you don't believe the defendant to be guilty, are you claiming that someone else is? Perhaps, or perhaps the charges are false. Either way, the jury isn't obliged to come up with an alternative accused.
This.
Plus, what many people seem to forget is that a verdict of 'not guilty' is not a verdict of 'innocent'. A jury can walk away thinking that the defendant may very well be guilty, but there was insufficient evidence to come to a conclusion of guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Same goes for the god claim.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LostLocke's post
29-03-2015, 04:37 PM
RE: Inconsistent atheist arguments
Jesus Christ! I turn my back for just a few minutes and this is what happens.. Smile Can we get a mod to do something about all these derailments?!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 04:42 PM
RE: Inconsistent atheist arguments
(29-03-2015 04:37 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  Jesus Christ! I turn my back for just a few minutes and this is what happens.. Smile Can we get a mod to do something about all these derailments?!

[Image: giphy.gif]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
29-03-2015, 04:45 PM
RE: Inconsistent atheist arguments
(29-03-2015 04:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-03-2015 04:37 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  Jesus Christ! I turn my back for just a few minutes and this is what happens.. Smile Can we get a mod to do something about all these derailments?!

[Image: giphy.gif]

That fucker in that gif better not be laughing at me. I don't know who he is but I'm damn sure he's no dictator nor does he have a moustache!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 04:45 PM
RE: Inconsistent atheist arguments
(29-03-2015 01:02 PM)jakedanger Wrote:  How do you respond to the following?

(1) "Atheism is not a belief system, it's simply a lack of belief in something"

My personal opinion is that this claim is used to insulate atheists from criticism of their own beliefs while they are busy criticizing beliefs held by theists.

For example:

Atheist: "Religion was responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11 and all sorts of other horrible things. Bin Laden was religious, so were all those pedophile priests. The world would be better off if people were atheists, not religious."

Theist: "What about Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc..? "

Atheist: "Those people were Communists, not atheists. Atheism is not a belief system, it's simply a lack of belief in god."

(2) Atheist: "Atheists have a higher average I.Q. than theists; it's scientifically proven, which indicates that theism is a product of low intelligence and that atheism is more rational."

Theist: "By your own definition of atheism, my dog is an atheist, since he lacks a belief in god. Wouldn't the inclusion of dogs in the sample bring down the average IQ just a little bit?"

Atheist: "Dogs don't count, because they're not intelligent enough to conceive of a god in the first place. No dog ever thinks "There is no such thing as god""

Theist: "So, now suddenly atheism has become a positive belief? (the philosophy of naturalism)"

Why change definitions of "atheism" from argument to argument, except to gain rhetorical advantage?

Historically, atheism was acknowledged as simply, "The state of being without gods."

That is precisely the way we are all born. None of us has any knowledge or belief in any type of a god until we are taught to believe in such gods.

Atheism is our natural state of being. Believing in gods is not natural, but rather it is "supernatural."

We are all atheists by nature, and it is only when our natural state is corrupted by false beliefs in gods that we are no longer atheists.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 04:47 PM
RE: Inconsistent atheist arguments
Fuck this! Gimme my ball, I'm goin home! Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Drunkin Druid's post
29-03-2015, 04:49 PM
RE: Inconsistent atheist arguments
(29-03-2015 01:02 PM)jakedanger Wrote:  How do you respond to the following?

(1) "Atheism is not a belief system, it's simply a lack of belief in something"

My personal opinion is that this claim is used to insulate atheists from criticism of their own beliefs while they are busy criticizing beliefs held by theists.

For example:

Atheist: "Religion was responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11 and all sorts of other horrible things. Bin Laden was religious, so were all those pedophile priests. The world would be better off if people were atheists, not religious."

Theist: "What about Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc..? "

Atheist: "Those people were Communists, not atheists. Atheism is not a belief system, it's simply a lack of belief in god."

(2) Atheist: "Atheists have a higher average I.Q. than theists; it's scientifically proven, which indicates that theism is a product of low intelligence and that atheism is more rational."

Theist: "By your own definition of atheism, my dog is an atheist, since he lacks a belief in god. Wouldn't the inclusion of dogs in the sample bring down the average IQ just a little bit?"

Atheist: "Dogs don't count, because they're not intelligent enough to conceive of a god in the first place. No dog ever thinks "There is no such thing as god""

Theist: "So, now suddenly atheism has become a positive belief? (the philosophy of naturalism)"

Why change definitions of "atheism" from argument to argument, except to gain rhetorical advantage?

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. The fact that someone does not believe in gods does not say ANYTHING about what they do believe.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
29-03-2015, 08:08 PM
RE: Inconsistent atheist arguments
When atheists correct theists, we are merely trying to bring truth into the big ol bag of lies that the theist is peddling. We never know what kind if crazy shit they are going to say next, so our responses may vary from time to time.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: