"True Atheists are Hypocrites"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-10-2010, 12:21 AM
 
"True Atheists are Hypocrites"
I honestly don't know where to start, other than saying, no, not all of us are hypocrites.
http://www.convinceme.net/coldebate/6516...rites.html
Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2010, 12:43 AM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
Atheists insist on claiming that there is no God, without any proof or evidence to back up their theory.

The above statement, taken from the web site, posted by xchainlinkx, is putting the "need to prove god false" on the atheists. It claims that we are hypocritical when we say there is no god. The article fails to mention that no one has any proof or evidence to support a god, yet religions have murdered millions of people for not believing god or not believing in their god.

As far as I am concerned, the only thing that prevents us from proving that god doesn't exist is the fact that you can't prove a universal negative. It is the same reason that we can't prove that Santa Claus, ogres, dragons, and a teapot orbiting Mars don't exist.

This attack on atheists is an attempt to make us look as hypocritical as they are, nothing more. They have been pumping out this shit for centuries.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2010, 04:01 PM
 
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
(17-10-2010 12:43 AM)No J. Wrote:  Atheists insist on claiming that there is no God, without any proof or evidence to back up their theory.

The above statement, taken from the web site, posted by xchainlinkx, is putting the "need to prove god false" on the atheists. It claims that we are hypocritical when we say there is no god. The article fails to mention that no one has any proof or evidence to support a god, yet religions have murdered millions of people for not believing god or not believing in their god.

As far as I am concerned, the only thing that prevents us from proving that god doesn't exist is the fact that you can't prove a universal negative. It is the same reason that we can't prove that Santa Claus, ogres, dragons, and a teapot orbiting Mars don't exist.

This attack on atheists is an attempt to make us look as hypocritical as they are, nothing more. They have been pumping out this shit for centuries.

Thanks for your response, just seems that debunking claims is a popular activity among the atheist community and thought this would've been another thing to add in it.

Also would like to add in a video posted today by Qualiasoup which makes it clear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk
Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2010, 04:29 PM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
Excellent video.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2010, 05:12 PM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
To say there absolutely cannot be a God is stupid and hypocritical. My belief is that I won't believe that something exists until it is proven to me.

[Image: 4hs9p5.png]

"Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family."
-Stephen Colbert
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2010, 09:56 PM (This post was last modified: 17-10-2010 10:19 PM by Ghost.)
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
Hey.

I know that the sentiment seems to be to rip this guy apart, but he actually has a pretty interesting argument. For the record, I just want to point out that I don't think this guy is a Theist.

Quote:An Atheist who only claims that they don’t believe in a God has every right to believe that and think that way; for there is no proof that God exists. It’s not until the Atheists claim that there is no God that they become the hypocrite...

This is an excellent point. To say, "I don't believe in God X," is a fine statement. Some people are raised Christian and then reject Christianity. No problem there. But the statement "There is no God" is not a negation, it's a positive statement. It is the exclamation that reality is a certain way. And it's one that is made without proof.

To put this another way, if someone says, "there are manatees," that's a statement that can be made without proof. Imagine for this exercise that it occurs before the "discovery" or widespread knowledge of manatees. So some dude sees one one day and runs back to town and says, "there are manatees," and everyone in town says, "I don't believe you. I've seen no proof of their existence or anything else that would lead me to believe that you are correct." The first person is a Manatist and the townspeople are Amanatists. But when one of the towns people say, "there are no manatees," that is a completely different argument. That is saying that this animal does not exist. Period. It's not a negation of the statement, "manatees exist," it's a positive statement that exists independently of the other claim.

Heavier than air planes can never work.
There is no 10th dimension.
Homosexuality is a choice.

These are all positive statements. They stand on their own and exist independently of antithetical statements. They are declarations of the state of reality.

But more to the point, those statements can be tested scientifically.

The difference (and I think this is an excellent point that he makes), is that there is (and never will be) any proof to support the statement, "there is no God." It is an unsupported claim. The author says:
Quote:They... disregard their most prized belief in order to be right. The belief of no evidence means no case. For a religion [Atheism] to be able to throw out their most valuable belief, just so they can be right, is very scary, and should cause everyone to question them. It would be like a Christian abandoning their Lord and Savior, just to get their way, which in return would destroy the very foundation that their religion is based on.
-Emphasis added

This is why he's crying hypocrisy. If someone says, "your statement of 'there is a God' is full of shit because there is no evidence to support it and we cannot give creedence to an unsupported argument," and then goes on to say, "my statement of 'there is no God' is perfectly fine and even though I have no evidence to support it we should give it creedence," is, in fact, hypocrisy.

Also, he makes it very clear that he is not conflating two different statements:
Quote:...they not only don’t believe in a God of any sort, they also don’t believe there is a God of any sort. Many people get these two concepts confused and think they are the same with only different views on the matter. They are not the same and are actually completely different arguments.

If someone only claims disbelief, that's perfectly fine. It's only when they state "there is no God" that they become, as he claims, their own religion and that they become hypocrits.

I feel that this argument is an excellent one that goes well beyond the traditional argument of "we don't have to prove a universal negative, that's their job."

Hey, No. J.

There were just a couple of things in your post that I wanted to challenge.

Quote:The above statement, taken from the web site, posted by xchainlinkx, is putting the "need to prove god false" on the atheists.

That's not actually what he is doing. He's saying that the burden or proof is on the person making the statement, "There is no God," JUST AS the burden of proof is on the person making the statement, "There is a God."

Quote:The article fails to mention that no one has any proof or evidence to support a god, yet religions have murdered millions of people for not believing god or not believing in their god.

This is a non-sequitor.

I'm not sure what the link you're suggesting is between lack of proof and murder, but what seems implied to me by your statement is that religions are the only organisations to murder large groups of people. That seems false. But that is an assumption on my part because as I said, I don't understand the link you are trying to make.

In the article he does say:
Quote:History of the abuse of a religion, should not count against the religion. Similar to how the results of the existence of a gun, should not count against the gun, but rather as an awareness of the power and affects of the gun, demonstrated by the person using the gun.

I'm not 100% sure that that's an iron-clad argument, but it deserves both thought and mention.

Quote:It is the same reason that we can't prove that Santa Claus, ogres, dragons, and a teapot orbiting Mars don't exist.

The teapot orbiting Mars (or Venus or whatever planet) is used a lot. Unfortunately it's false. We CAN prove or disprove the statement "there is a teapot orbiting Mars". Firstly, it should be pointed out that "I do or do not believe there is a teapot orbiting Mars," is a very different statement than, "there is or is not a teapot orbiting Mars." That being said, to prove or disprove the latter, we can observe with telescopes or send probes or deduce that since The Law of Entropy makes orderly systems become chaotic and prevents order to emerge from chaos on its own, we can assume that the teapot did not just form on it's own (just like, as Stephen Hawking points out, you might see a tea cup fall of a table and shatter but you'll never see a shattered tea cup form a whole teacup). Because every trip to Mars is well documented, we can check to see if NASA put one there (or ESA or the Russians or any other space capable power). The point is, it is something that we CAN prove or disprove. It might take time and innovation, but it's possible.

We'll never be able to prove or disprove either "there is no God" or "there is a God." The proofs do not and will not exist for either. If we hold that "there is a God" should be considered false because there is no evidence, then we must hold that "there is no God" should be considered equally false due to the lack of evidence.

--

All of that being said, after watching that video it occurs to me that if Atheism is truly defined as simply the lack of belief in God, then there must be created another category for those that state as fact, "there is no God." Not only that, but Atheism cannot be viewed, as it often is, as the opposite of Theism. It cannot be compared to Theism because it makes no statement. If Theism is defined as making the statement "There is a God" then its opposite must be defined as making the statement "There is no God" and that beyond that, another category of AX should exist; X being the opposite of Theism. For example, since Theist comes from the Greek Theos (deity, god) then perhaps this group that believes the universe was self-created and operates based on the rules of the natural universe should be called Physists, from the Greek Physis, translated into English as 'nature'. Then there would be Aphysists; someone who rejects Physistic claims.

ON EDIT: A Physist wouldn't be making the claim, "There is no God." They would be making the claim, "The universe was self-created and operates based on the rules of the natural universe." That statement simply disalows the existence of God and leads, necessarily, to the statement, "There is no God" or even, "There cannot be God".

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2010, 01:16 AM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
The idea of god is a man-made construct. Anything that you call god must adhere to one of the tens of thousands of man-made constructs of god. If there is a super being out there that is powerful enough to have created the universe, but does not fall into one of these man-made constructs, it would not be a god. it would be something else. To say that no gods exist would be to say that all man-made constructs of god are false.

There are 33,000 denominations of christianity. There are several thousand gods in human history. There are the ideas that the unified field theory and quantum physics are descriptions of god. Then there are thousands of people who decide for themselves what or who god is. I don't know of any other word that has as many meanings as the word god. When you think about it, what good is a word that has that many interpretations? What does the word god mean, anyway? There are literally as many interpretations as people who make up their own interpretations for god. When do you say that this is too rediculous?

Let's suppose there is a supreme being that created the universe. Ancient man would know nothing about such a being. Neither would any religion. This means that all the stories of god are false. Every description of god is fabricated and any similarity with between the supreme being and any man-made god would be a fluke.

About the tea pot. Suppose an alien civilization had a plant that had the same chemical make-up as our tea plant and they brewed that into a beverage the same way that we brew tea in the same type of container that we call a tea pot. Let's suppose that one of thier spacecraft had to ditch some contents and a tea pot like device ended up circling Mars and was too small to be observed for identification. Now let's also suppose that the aliens spoke a language that decribed the beverage as tea (directly from their language, no translation) and the container as a pot. As you can see, until we get a lot more satelites in orbit around Mars so that we can cover the millions of square miles of orbital area with great visual clarity, we cannot prove that a tea pot is not orbiting Mars.

If you want to call me a hypocrite for saying that there are no gods, be my guest. I haven't killed or tortured anyone because they don't agree with me and I don't plan to start anytime soon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2010, 01:46 AM
 
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
The biggest flaw in this guy's argument, as I see it, is that he doesn't understand how science works. As I've already said many times, evidence-based reasoning doesn't offer absolute proof of anything. Absolute proof is only possible in logic and mathematics. If evidence is used, that evidence may be overwhelmingly in favor of or against some hypothesis (i.e., god does not exist) but it doesn't offer absolute proof.

There is considerable evidence against the existence of god, but none of it is definitive in the sense of constituting absolute proof. The evidence most atheists use against the god hypothesis includes the utter lack of credibility in biblical evidence (contradictions, obvious mythology, failed predictions, etc.), the utter failure to show the efficacy of prayer, the absence of any physical or historical evidence to validate much of the pseudo-history of the bible, etc. For the major monotheistic religions, the logical conundrums posed by the putative "infinite" powers of their deity are also a problem for the god hypothesis. It's simply false to claim that no evidence for god's non-existence has been provided. If religion weren't such a touchy subject, there might be more scientific tests designed to demonstrate the existence or non-existence of god.

From where I sit, his argument is sophomoric ... he says right at the beginning that he's stating "facts" and talks about his "evidence". Yet I saw no evidence presented and nothing to convince me of the accuracy of his claim to be purely factual. He admits the validity of the impossibility of ever proving a universal negative and then simply casts that argument aside as if it has no validity - in effect, he contradicts himself. That could be considered hypocritical.

Although I agree that claiming god doesn't exist as an absolute truth is impossible and so superficially, his claim that anyone who asserts that god doesn't exist as an absolute truth is a hypocrite, I think many of us on this forum haven't made such a claim. Given what I consider to be pretty powerful evidence, I believe I'm entitled to disbelieve in the standard monotheistic deity and all religions that claim the existence of a deity. I also believe that any arguments based on evidence in favor of the god hypothesis are nowhere near as strong as those arguments against the god hypothesis.
Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2010, 05:23 AM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
Quote:This is an excellent point. To say, "I don't believe in God X," is a fine statement. Some people are raised Christian and then reject Christianity. No problem there. But the statement "There is no God" is not a negation, it's a positive statement. It is the exclamation that reality is a certain way. And it's one that is made without proof.

I read his post the same way. I thought it was an attempt to be clever but he's off base.

My 7 year old is convinced there is a monster that lives in his closet. No one has ever seen this monster but he insists it's there. I've looked in the closet and looked for his so-called secret hiding place. No monster, no hiding place. Is there a point when I can definitively say there is no monster in the closet even when I can't definitively prove it?

My neighbor believes that Elvis is alive and she saw him at the mall. Now, assuming he didn't die in the 70s, he'd be 75 now and, given the lousy health and drug regiment he was on when he was alive, I'd say the odds of him living to 75 were somewhere between slim and none. But, my neighbor insists she saw him this weekend at the mall. Now, I can't definitively prove she didn't see Elvis at the mall but at some point can't I definitively say (maybe not to her face as I don't want to impact neighborly relations) that Elvis is dead and she did not see him at the mall? Isn't that fact that no one has seen him alive and several people offer uncontroverted evidenced that they saw him dead sufficient for me to make a definitive statement on the topic without being called a hypocrite because I believe in the scientific method?

At what point do we no longer have to give people's fantasies equal weight? At what point can we say "close enough"? You're right that no one can say, with absolute certainty, that there is no God. What we can say with certainty, however, is that the scriptures that claim to be his word are flawed, contradictory and, in many instances, easily disproven, that the scientific method explains much of the universe, and that at no point has anyone offered any evidence that this being actually does exist.

So, how long does this argument go on for?

Let me turn it around on you a little, too. Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic? There are many conservatives who argue it's a choice because there is no definitive proof of a "gay gene". There is certainly some scientific study to suggest that there is but the data and research, as I understand it, is not 100% conclusive on the subject.

So, is arguing there is no "gay gene" a fair argument? Are people who claim to follow the scientific method and reach evidenced based conclusions hypocrites for believing that being gay is not a choice but a matter of how they are born? You tell me.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2010, 07:58 AM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
Hey, No. J.

The issue here is not whether or not God exists. That's another argument. The author nowhere makes the claim that God exists.

On the subject of the teapot, your alien theory doesn't stand up to Occam's Razor. I mention that just because it speaks to the author's point. More to the point, the statement, we can't prove if there is a teapot is in orbit of Mars, is not actually true. We can prove it (or disprove it). We just aren't set up to prove it yet. We can't fly manned missions to Mars yet either but to say that they're impossible because we can't do them today is false.

Quote:If you want to call me a hypocrite for saying that there are no gods, be my guest. I haven't killed or tortured anyone because they don't agree with me and I don't plan to start anytime soon.

What one has to do with the other is escaping me. You haven't tortured anyone? Neither has Archbishop Desmond Tutu (although he has won a Nobel Peace Prize). The point?

If you're saying "there are no Gods is a valid statement even though I don't have proof " AND saying "there is a God is an invalid statement BECAUSE there is no proof", then yes, that's hypocritical. Belief in one or the other on it's own is not hypocricy. Holding others to a standard that one does not hold oneself to is.

Hey, 2buckchuck.

I have never, in my life, heard a scientist say, "there is enough evidence against God to disprove God's existence," nor have I ever heard a scientist say, "there is enough evidence to prove the statement 'there is no God'." If you know of any scientist who has staked their reputation on such claims, I'd like to know about them.

The reason that there aren't any tests to prove or disprove the existence of God isn't because religion is touchy. There aren't any tests because testing is impossible.

He didn't contradict himself. His argument was that holding one idea to one standard and another idea to another standard was hypocritical.

Hey, BnW.

You're not a hypocrite because you believe in the scientific method. No one has said that.

This isn't about fantasies or close enough. This has nothing to do with the argument "there is a God". This is about the statement, "There is no God."

Quote:Let me turn it around on you a little, too. Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic? There are many conservatives who argue it's a choice because there is no definitive proof of a "gay gene". There is certainly some scientific study to suggest that there is but the data and research, as I understand it, is not 100% conclusive on the subject.

So, is arguing there is no "gay gene" a fair argument? Are people who claim to follow the scientific method and reach evidenced based conclusions hypocrites for believing that being gay is not a choice but a matter of how they are born? You tell me.

This has nothing to do with the argument.

It's not about what a fair argument is, it's not about "their argument is shittier than ours; therefore, ours is more sciencie," it's about standards. If someone says, "There is no gay gene," we expect them to prove it rather than just take their word for it JUST AS when someone says, "There is a gay gene," we expect them to prove it rather than just take their word for it. As far as I know, no one has identified a gay gene. It would be hypocritical if gay rights activists said, "the argument that there is no gay gene is invalid because there's no proof, but the argument that there is a gay gene is valid even though there is no proof."

This author is not saying there is a God and he's not saying that it's unreasonable to disbelieve the statement, "there is a God," due to a lack of evidence. In fact, he chastises Christians that refuse to answer simple questions related to the statement and who put the burden of proof onto their opponents. What he is saying is that if one dismisses that claim for a lack of evidence and then turns around and supports the claim, "There is a God," which suffers from the same lack of evidence that that is hypocritical. That is an entirely reasonable assertion.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

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