The hypocracy of atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2014, 05:20 PM
Re: The hypocracy of atheism
Is this a serious stance?

Many people openly admit they can't trust the senses, mind, or reason. They also can be skeptical of all things, including their skepticism.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
16-08-2014, 06:00 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 11:40 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
(16-08-2014 04:09 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  You accuse christians of believing in things without evidence, but provide no evidence that your mind can be trusted.

You preach dogma just like religions do.

Your "deconversions" look very much like religious conversions.



And yet you continue to preach your dogma without a second thought. Surely someone who hates religion should be able to see this... Facepalm

Okay, let's examine this seriously; I realise the effort will be brushed aside because throwing logic and reason at a troll is not dissimilar to throwing baloney sandwiches at tanks or playing chess with pigeons, but I have nothing better to do which I actually care to do.

First Statement:

(16-08-2014 04:09 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  You accuse christians of believing in things without evidence, but provide no evidence that your mind can be trusted.

I suppose it is true enough that many accuse Christians of believing things for which there is no evidence, but it is almost indisputable that they do indeed believe in things for which there is no reliable evidence.

It is also true that we can't prove beyond a doubt that our minds can be trusted, however, I suspect you'd have a hard time finding any atheist who would declare that they trust 100% their perceptions, as any sufficiently educated or simply aware individual will tell you; the human brain is far from a perfect mechanism.
To add to that: if you wish to argue that the mind being not totally reliable renders atheism null, than you have to concede that it also renders Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. etc. null and void also as said belief systems are all ultimately resultant from an individuals 'mind'.

(16-08-2014 04:09 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  You preach dogma just like religions do.

Alrighty then:

To establish that, we need to establish what dogma is, thus I submit Oxford's definition. It is a reasonably respected catalogue of current definitions, would you not agree?

Oxford dictionary Wrote:Dogman:
Noun
A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true:
e.g. the dogmas of faith
Okay, and a principle is:
Oxford dictionary Wrote:Principle
Noun
A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning:
e.g. the basic principles of justice

Atheism, being the "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.", has only one foundational and definitional proposition, which is the individual's lack of belief in a deity. Considering that it is a condition of belief, rather than a statement of fact (I don't believe in god vs there is no god), that there are no other conditions, practises or principles, and that said condition was not designated by an authority, but rather simply comes from the word itself (which comes from the Greek atheos; the 'a-' prefix meaning 'without' and the 'theos/theism' suffix meaning 'god') which exists purely as a descriptive of a negative, atheism doesn't have 'dogma' by definition.

Individuals under them umbrella may have dogmas, but the stance of atheism itself has none.

(16-08-2014 04:09 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Your "deconversions" look very much like religious conversions.

Some do, that's true enough, but some don't. I'd bet that a lot of people tend to liken 'deconverting' unconsciously to religious experience because it's what they know, but I wouldn't know, I was lucky enough to not have been indoctrinated into silly cults.

(16-08-2014 04:09 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  And yet you continue to preach your dogma without a second thought. Surely someone who hates religion should be able to see this... Facepalm

You're the only one 'preaching', dude.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Free Thought's post
16-08-2014, 06:24 PM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
Ah yes, atheistic dogma. Much like dry water or a cold fire...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Drunkin Druid's post
16-08-2014, 06:27 PM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
(16-08-2014 04:09 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  You accuse christians of believing in things without evidence, but provide no evidence that your mind can be trusted.

You preach dogma just like religions do.

Your "deconversions" look very much like religious conversions.



And yet you continue to preach your dogma without a second thought. Surely someone who hates religion should be able to see this... Facepalm


I was not raised in the trappings of religion and indeed didn't even know who the hell Jesus was until I was almost 9 years old (I lived in a the Sierras with no tv or radio) so not believing in god or jesus wasn't something I worked at. It didn't exist. The concept of god didn't exist. No dogma existed for me to push away from. After becoming aware of Jesus and god at around the age of 10, these were just words with no reference to anything and had zero meaning.

Like an oil painting that was never painted by an artist who never existed. There's nothing to believe in, think about or look at.

One doesn't become an atheist, one simply is an atheist.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
16-08-2014, 06:29 PM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
(16-08-2014 04:30 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 04:29 PM)CleverUsername Wrote:  There's a difference between being a skeptic and being a paranoid freak.

Skepticism is self contradictory.

What is it that you think scepticism is?

Something like the following?




If so, on what basis do you disagree with it?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
16-08-2014, 06:29 PM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
Fuck off dildo...

Or I'll steal your batteries.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Sam's post
16-08-2014, 06:54 PM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
*Please Don't Feed The Trolls*


"Name me a moral statement made or moral action performed that could not have been made or done, by a non-believer..." - Christopher Hitchens



My youtube musings: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfFoxbz...UVi1pf4B5g
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 06:58 PM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
(16-08-2014 04:09 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  You accuse christians of believing in things without evidence, but provide no evidence that your mind can be trusted.

You preach dogma just like religions do.

Your "deconversions" look very much like religious conversions.

And yet you continue to preach your dogma without a second thought. Surely someone who hates religion should be able to see this... Facepalm

Buncha meaningless generalizations. I accuse no one, I don't preach. I was never ""deconverted". I got educated.

You should get out more. Yes

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
16-08-2014, 07:05 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 07:11 PM by Baruch.)
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
(16-08-2014 04:58 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 04:09 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  You accuse christians of believing in things without evidence, but provide no evidence that your mind can be trusted.

You preach dogma just like religions do.

Your "deconversions" look very much like religious conversions.



And yet you continue to preach your dogma without a second thought. Surely someone who hates religion should be able to see this... Facepalm

There is a very simple answer to your criticism diddo. The validity of the mind is axiomatic. Any investigation into the reliability of the senses and reason must presuppose the validity of the the senses and reason. Reason and logic do not need to be "proved". They are our only means of "proving" anything so they are outside the realm of proof. The senses, reason and logic are necessarily valid.

Furthermore, logic is simply a recognition that things are what they are independently from anyone's consciousness and all we need do is accept this fact and hold to it absolutely. There is no circularity in relying on the senses and reason since they are not inferred from antecedent concepts but rest on self evident truths.

If our mind is not to be trusted as you say then how can you trust your knowledge of the existence of God. Presumably you arrived at your knowledge by using your untrustworthy mind.

You should think before you post such drivel.

very well said and quite clear true scotsman.

One of the axiomatic principles of logic is the law of contradictions and law of identity. Pretty much everything else follows.
One does not need to "prove" the law of identity as it is axiomatic and cannot be refuted without using the law itself. This is not circular but much more fundamental as even a claim of circularity must follow & use the law of identity & contradiction.
i.e some propositions have been stated with identity X,Y,Z
Even if the relationship between identities X,Y,Z is circular - the terms "Between" & "circular" are also identities signifying logical relations.

Basically you cannot refute these axioms without talking gibberish.

You cannot say "you cannot trust the mind" without contradiction either, because your mind is producing this statement therefore making it untrustworthy and hence it becomes untrustworthy to not trust them mind. (like the statement "this sentence is a lie" ) Pretty much like the Russell Paradox & Kurt Godel incompleteness theorem in set theory - but that's for another day.

...and by the way skepticism isn't self contradictory because it is an attitude towards evidence seeking in combination with logic,reason and empiricism. These are all required in combination and a straw man to just take one and claim contradiction. Eg Empiricism by itself does become incoherent and hence some of the limitations found in Hume & Berkley . Logic by itself stripped from Empiricism becomes limited as per Kurt Godel's work and examples where rationalism goes astray such as found in Spinoza or Descartes. However when combined these become the most powerful evidence seeking tools humans have ever discovered with a profound legacy backed up by success in the science's and philosophies which use the combinations.


...and there is no place for God in all this because there is no evidence only attempts at finding evidence which have all failed.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Baruch's post
16-08-2014, 07:18 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 07:21 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
For the record, diddo, you have not yet (to my knowledge), despite being challenged on the point multiple times across multiple threads, given the slightest credible argument as to why a degree of unreliability in the human mind should favor a theistic position over a strongly atheistic one. How the hell does human fallibility imply the existence of a deity? You've been harping on this non-sequitur for months now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: