The hypocracy of atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-08-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
(17-08-2014 09:25 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 09:22 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  ...
you might as well string "Blx" or "fut" together and it would have the same usefulness.

Yabut, you can't prove that Blxfut doesn't exist!

All praise Blxfut. Praise him with great praise.

Worship Slaves

Blasphemer. You are corrupting his holy name - Btfsplk.

[Image: Joe%2BBtfsplk.jpg]

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
17-08-2014, 10:07 AM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
(17-08-2014 09:01 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 08:55 AM)phil.a Wrote:  And if you are saying you don't believe in "god" as defined by the theists, are you sure you understand their definition on their own terms? E.g. from a true representation of their actual perspective? Eg can you reflect their definition back at them and have them actually agree with you?


I can repeat the definition a theist provides, but if I find it incoherent or contradictory that won't change their mind about it.

Then it sounds to me that perhaps you can only understand the theist's definition from your own subjective interpretation of it?

If your interpretation of his words was on his terms, you'd be able to reflect the understanding back at him such that he'd agree it was a true reflection of his position.

I'll demonstrate how that works if you like, would you like me to reflect your position back at you, to ensure that I understand you on your own terms?

It's crucial that I do understand you on your own terms. If I don't, then by debating with you I'm debating with my erroneous pre-conceptions of you which actually means I am debating against myself.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 10:13 AM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
(17-08-2014 09:09 AM)DLJ Wrote:  So, let me see if I have this right?

"matter of belief" can be defined as ... "descriptive of, or constituted of" that which is "relative to what an atheist means when he asserts that he lacks "belief" in god."

Laugh out load

Did I miss something?

Consider

Yes! You missed a whole layer of indirection :-)

Let me state more accurately where we presently are:

"matter of belief" can be defined as ... "descriptive of, or constituted of" that which is "relative to what an atheist means when he asserts that he lacks "belief" in god.", which in turn is relative to what a theist means when he asserts he "does believe in god."

I actually think the full "Chinese whispers" chain of meaning-making is relevant. It's not reasonable to remove a link of the chain (e.g. for me to discount the effect of atheists own interpretations and define god in this present discussion purely in terms of the theists own definition)

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 10:13 AM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
Quote:'phil.a' I personally have no fixed definition of "god", but that's fine because I'm not creating an identity for myself relative to that concept, I choose not to label myself.

Whereas I'd claim that anyone who is an explicit atheist, is creating a self-identity relative to the "god" concept, and that necessarily requires some conception of what the "god" concept actually means.

Thats just a cop out Phil.a by not defining the concept of God and leaving is fuzzy so you basically dodge any definitions or critique - saying "well, thats not quite what I mean by God"

As for 'explicit' atheists definitions of God and self identity:
There are many versions of God(s) theists provide and I will make a distinction between:
1. Strongly denying & knowing the non existence of some gods (at least to a high probability if one cannot get absolute certainty for somethings non existence) This version is usually due to contradictions in the God concept.
2. Suspending belief about other versions of God - usually due to lack of evidence.
3. Not being able to know about other versions of God - an agnosticism.

In this sense I would not be some 'dogmatic' atheist but a mixture of strong atheism to agnosticism depending on the God concept precisely because their are different God concepts.

Eg I would be a strong explicit atheist [using your terminology] for God concepts like Jesus, Zeus and Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli.
(I'm sure you never prayed to Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli let alone say His glorious name - if you pronounce it correctly the first time there must be a God !!! Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli lives ! )

However for some of the Neo-Platonistic apophatic theological versions of God may leave me as an agnostic in the strong sense.
(by strong agnosticism meaning it is not possible to know whether an apophatic 'negative theology' type of God exists in which is God defined by 'what it is not' - found in some of the neo-platonistic & kabbalistic versions defining God.)


Now I am not going to go around and start breaking down all these classifications if someone asked me if I believe in God. I'm not going to spend 2 hours explaining why I am agnostic to the apophatic God of the neo-platonists and atheist to Jesus - the simple summary is I don't believe in God = atheist.

Hope this gives some insight into why definitions are important and that atheists are not defined by some single God(s) concept.

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, 10:18 AM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
(17-08-2014 10:13 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 09:09 AM)DLJ Wrote:  So, let me see if I have this right?

"matter of belief" can be defined as ... "descriptive of, or constituted of" that which is "relative to what an atheist means when he asserts that he lacks "belief" in god."

Laugh out load

Did I miss something?

Consider

Yes! You missed a whole layer of indirection :-)

Let me state more accurately where we presently are:

"matter of belief" can be defined as ... "descriptive of, or constituted of" that which is "relative to what an atheist means when he asserts that he lacks "belief" in god.", which in turn is relative to what a theist means when he asserts he "does believe in god."

I actually think the full "Chinese whispers" chain of meaning-making is relevant. It's not reasonable to remove a link of the chain (e.g. for me to discount the effect of atheists own interpretations and define god in this present discussion purely in terms of the theists own definition)

Phil

There is no confusion in what I mean by my lack of belief in God/gods.

I do not believe any of the claims of existence for gods I have ever read or heard.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-08-2014, 10:33 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.

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

No we do not. The fact you cannot handle reality is not our baggage, anymore than throwing a fit over Santa being fiction is the fault of adults who accept reality.

You accept that Thor does not make lightening. You accept that Poseidon does not cause hurricanes. You also reject the gods and religions of others rightfully so. The only difference between you and me is that I simply reject one more god claim than you do.

You "The Yankees won the Superbowl"

Atheist, "No, the Yankees play baseball, the Superbowl is football"

You, "YOU HATE ME!"

That is how fucking childish you sound to us. Same ignorant reaction the church had with Galileo when he told them the sun does not rotate around the earth.

It was understandable when humans didn't know better to hold such beliefs, but insisting on ancient books of myth and invisible friends now in an age of scientific knowledge makes YOU, not us, look stupid. Do not blame us for the claims of the past we had no hand in writing. Otherwise you might as well believe the computer you used to type this on is made of cotton candy and runs on pixy dust.

Now grow up for a second and see if the following examples would make sense to you.

"Allah exists because the Koran says so"
"Yahweh exists because the OT says so"
"Vishnu exists because Hindus say so"
"I am a billionaire because I say so".

Now are you willing to blindly accept those examples without evidence? No? Good, now you know why we reject your claim as well.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Brian37's post
17-08-2014, 10:58 AM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
(17-08-2014 10:13 AM)Baruch Wrote:  
Quote:'phil.a' I personally have no fixed definition of "god", but that's fine because I'm not creating an identity for myself relative to that concept, I choose not to label myself.

Whereas I'd claim that anyone who is an explicit atheist, is creating a self-identity relative to the "god" concept, and that necessarily requires some conception of what the "god" concept actually means.

Thats just a cop out Phil.a by not defining the concept of God and leaving is fuzzy so you basically dodge any definitions or critique - saying "well, thats not quite what I mean by God"

As for 'explicit' atheists definitions of God and self identity:
There are many versions of God(s) theists provide and I will make a distinction between:
1. Strongly denying & knowing the non existence of some gods (at least to a high probability if one cannot get absolute certainty for somethings non existence) This version is usually due to contradictions in the God concept.
2. Suspending belief about other versions of God - usually due to lack of evidence.
3. Not being able to know about other versions of God - an agnosticism.

In this sense I would not be some 'dogmatic' atheist but a mixture of strong atheism to agnosticism depending on the God concept precisely because their are different God concepts.

Eg I would be a strong explicit atheist [using your terminology] for God concepts like Jesus, Zeus and Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli.
(I'm sure you never prayed to Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli let alone say His glorious name - if you pronounce it correctly the first time there must be a God !!! Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli lives ! )

However for some of the Neo-Platonistic apophatic theological versions of God may leave me as an agnostic in the strong sense.
(by strong agnosticism meaning it is not possible to know whether an apophatic 'negative theology' type of God exists in which is God defined by 'what it is not' - found in some of the neo-platonistic & kabbalistic versions defining God.)


Now I am not going to go around and start breaking down all these classifications if someone asked me if I believe in God. I'm not going to spend 2 hours explaining why I am agnostic to the apophatic God of the neo-platonists and atheist to Jesus - the simple summary is I don't believe in God = atheist.

Hope this gives some insight into why definitions are important and that atheists are not defined by some single God(s) concept.

Chas made a good point which I missed out.
I would also add disbelief in Gods I have never heard of - another form of atheism.
This might fall under agnosticism because I have no idea what I have not heard of, however the fact I dont believe would make me atheist. (I'm not going to quibble about definitions for Gods I have not heard of)

I just found out about:
Centzonhuitznahua & Chalchiuhtlicue. I'll now add them to my atheist list.

Chas: What do you make of Centzonhuitznahua & Chalchiuhtlicue - are they on your list ??? Maybe they existed and today you now have an opportunity to find out about their manifestations, miracles and worship rights. Careful with your kids ! I hear they like children.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
17-08-2014, 11:51 AM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
Hypocracy ? What the hell this word means ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 11:54 AM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
(17-08-2014 11:51 AM)Leo Wrote:  Hypocracy ? What the hell this word means ?

As in Hippocratic. It's how doctors swear when they get really angry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
17-08-2014, 12:07 PM
RE: The hypocracy of atheism
(17-08-2014 11:54 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 11:51 AM)Leo Wrote:  Hypocracy ? What the hell this word means ?

As in Hippocratic. It's how doctors swear when they get really angry.

Hippocrazy: Thought it was about a really dangerous animal !
[Image: hippo-vs-man.jpeg]

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: