The hypocracy of atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2014, 11:41 PM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
Darn. I was hoping you wouldn't have talked yourself into a corner by this time, Diddo.
However, you are laughably confused.

Oh well. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
17-08-2014, 12:56 AM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
(16-08-2014 09:18 PM)Deidre32 Wrote:  Disbelief isn't "dogma."

This. This sums up pretty much what is wrong with the OP's assertion. Words don't mean what you think they mean, diddo. Sure you want them to mean what you want them to mean, but it is absurd to use it to misrepresent others.


If you don't want a sarcastic answer, don't ask stupid questions. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 01:43 AM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
(16-08-2014 07:25 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 07:22 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Your logical fallacy is...

Except as mentioned in this thread by others. There are atheists and skeptics who Do accept they can't be certain and remain skeptical of all knowledge on a grand scale.

There is nothing hypocritical of the position.

I would disagree - most skeptics do not have to "remain skeptical of all knowledge on a grand scale" - Only a few schools of "philosophical skepticism" adhere the the most austere of skeptical positions such as Pyrrhonian skepticism - in which skepticism is the foundational epistemology and all belief is suspended [in the most austere form this may be self contradictory considering belief in skepticism is also suspended for Pyrrhonian skepticism- but they don't claim knowledge of skepticism as a truth claim, only suspension of belief.]

Many skeptics are merely "local skeptics" - such as outlined below, especially those involved within philosophy of science.

Skepticism also does not automatically go with atheism which only deals with lack of belief in God which may be a skeptical position or in some cases non-skeptic atheists.

There can be various degrees of skepticism depending on the evidence available i.e in principle someone can state they are "fallibilists" provisionally accepting some knowledge with potentially everything open to challenge which means they are not "100 % certain" however they can give high probabilities or likelihoods such as in bayesianism eg the Earth rotating around the Sun being extremely difficult to challenge & would require an overhaul of a vast amount of well founded knowledge to overturn - in all likelihood according to these skeptics the Earth does rotate around the Sun - but its phrased as an extremely high probability not absolute certainty .

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
17-08-2014, 01:50 AM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
(16-08-2014 07:50 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 07:35 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  That isn't a fallacy, you made the claim. You have to create an argument to support. How can you be absolutely sure of anything?

That position is self contradictory. Now you need to provide evidence that you you need to provide evidence that you need to provide evidence......

Diddo - read my posts and you will see your last two comments don't make any sense.
i.e posts regarding logic as axiomatic (reply in addition to true-Scotsman good points)
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ism?page=3
and various degrees of skepticism article above.

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
17-08-2014, 02:06 AM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
How about we enquire into truth with an open mind :-)

In fact, it turns out there are quite a few different sorts of atheism.

I think atheists benefit from having awareness of which camp they belong to, but also theists making blanket truth claims about atheism will appear as ignorant if they don't fully understand the main atheist differentiations.

Regarding the claim in the original post that atheists are dogmatic.

I do not think there is any reasonable argument that an implicit atheist (e.g. a newborn baby, or someone who never talks about god in any way) could be dogmatic about their (lack of) god belief.

On the other end of the scale, I do think there is an argument that a strong atheist (someone who asserts that god does in fact not exist) may be dogmatic, simply because I'm skeptical such people have personally held evidence that supports their negative truth claim about god's non-existence.

An explicit atheist (someone who asserts they lack belief in god) seems to me to potentially sit somewhere in the middle, and wether or not they are dogmatic probably depends on the individual. In my experience, some are, some aren't.

I do think there are dangers of worldview dogma which athiests can fall foul of if they don't remain open minded and skeptical of everything, including the truth claims of atheist "heroes" such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchins etc, and at times - even their own truth claims! If I always want to be the person in the room with the best ideas, sometimes I need to be able to spot that I'm not, and react by taking someone else's ideas on board. People who can't spot that sometimes they are not the person in the room with the best ideas are condemned to remain as the person in the room who does not have the best ideas!

A venn diagram from the wiki article on atheism showing the relationship of some of the main different types of atheism:

[Image: 977px-AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg.png]


Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like phil.a's post
17-08-2014, 02:36 AM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
As a related aside, It can be hazadous to attempt to make a truth claim about one's own essential nature, because the claim has a quality of self-reference or circularity about it.

Because of this, sometimes our words as behaviour disproves our words as truth claim! For example, say someone accuses me of arguing, and I respond with the following truth claim: "I am not arguing!"

Very clearly, I am arguing with the person by my very assertion that I am not arguing, so my words as behaviour disproves my words as truth claim. As another example of the same underlying phenomenon, consider the following quote by ex british PM, Margaret Thatcher:

"Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't."

Many truth claims I might make of myself have this exact same quality about them, that the making of the claim inherently contradicts the truth of the claim.

So bearing that in mind, what then of my truth claim: "I lack god belief"?

Does my need to make the claim evidence anything which contradicts the claim in any way?

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 03:22 AM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
Actually, as a tangentially related aside to the aside (I love spiralling off down a deconstructionist rabbit hole), it occurs to me that (due to the previously mentioned issue) the truth claim "I am a theist" does to some extent implicitly acknowledge that god might not exist!

The premise for the claim "I am a theist" can only be that not everyone is a theist (it needs to be asserted) so the claim itself implicitly proposes that god is in fact - a matter of human belief.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like phil.a's post
17-08-2014, 03:26 AM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
(17-08-2014 03:22 AM)phil.a Wrote:  Actually, as a tangentially related aside to the aside (I love spiralling off down a deconstructionist rabbit hole), it occurs to me that (due to the previously mentioned issue) the truth claim "I am a theist" does to some extent implicitly acknowledge that god might not exist!

The premise for the claim "I am a theist" can only be that not everyone is a theist (it needs to be asserted) so the claim itself implicitly proposes that god is in fact - a matter of human belief.

Phil

[Image: 21afac98202ea34dd8348d63279986b309397fcd.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 03:43 AM
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.

I don't need to because nowhere have I claimed that my mind can be trusted. So your post contains a burden of proof fallacy

I do not and would not make the claim that my mind can be trusted. If you want the truth of my position, i'm skeptical about it, therefore my life is an ongoing enquiry into the truth of the matter.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes phil.a's post
17-08-2014, 03:45 AM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
(16-08-2014 07:20 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 04:45 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  What principles are laid down by atheism as undeniably true?

Logic and Science

Wrong. You don't understand what logic is or how the scientific method works.

What principles are laid down by atheism as undeniably true?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: