Atheists are hypocrites

Author: Ehyeh

Posts

Total: 465
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
It seems to me that atheists are hypocrites (atheists in the form of those who say there is no god). I want to write this post to see where (and if) my logic has gone astray. If we go into meditation and assume nothing (as Descartes did), I'm unsure how you can outright decide God cannot exist. As it would appear, there's not very much we can be certain of! It is evident our senses are untrustworthy (as shown by Socrates in Phaedo). To be sure of naturalism, physicalism, materialism, etc, you must first assume your senses to a pretty high degree to be correct. Yet there's really not a very philosophical reason to believe this outside of pragmatism. If the things we see cannot be proven to be mind-independent or real, Why are people so quick to assume God is a logical absurdity? It appears to me almost everything in this world (currently) requires some element of faith, this element of reality is exemplified by the problem of induction. Prove me wrong.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
I'm unsure how you can outright decide God cannot exist
which specific god are you considering ?

what is your personally preferred definition of god ?
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Likelihood's are irrelevant, I want sure knowledge of ALL gods not existing. I also think once we conceptualise an infinite god the ability to falsify them through looking at reality becomes impossible. If someone is an atheist, they evidently must believe all gods cant be real. That is then their burden of proof, not mine. Hitchens razor.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
If someone is an atheist, they evidently must believe all gods cant be real.
this is incorrect

an atheist is simply "not a theist"

in the same way

apolitical is simply "not political"
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
this is incorrect

an atheist is simply "not a theist"

in the same way

apolitical is simply "not political"

Bull shit. You only say it like that so you can harass theists. Atheists do not believe any gods exist. You can change the wording all you want that is a true statement.
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
In my original comment i was referring to those who directly don't believe in a god. I find it a silly semantic game to say "atheism simply means lack of belief" that's literally what agnostic means too. So what is the dividing factor? If to simply lack belief means to not affirm anything, why not simply call yourself agnostic? it would make much more semantic sense.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

 Its evident most atheists take a harder stance against god compared to agnostics. Agnostics refrain from belief and lack of believe and say its unknowable. Atheists refrain belief, meaning they don't believe, compared to agnostics not believing or not not believing. Unless you believe its impossible for someone to do this? (which I would say is nonsense). Someone can be an agnostic theist (things gods unknowable but believes) someone can be an agnostic atheist (thinks gods unknowable but chooses not to believe). Evidently this shows they're different.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
 that's literally what agnostic means too.
actually, an agnostic is someone who believes it is IMPOSSIBLE to know god
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@Ehyeh
I am an agnostic atheist and as such I would never say that a god or gods didn’t exist as I would be making a factual claim, which would attract a burden of proof.
 
I don't think anyone can disprove or prove the solipsistic view of existence; it is also an ultimate argument killer as it eliminates all evidence beyond one’s own existence.
 
However I am not sure I understand how hypocrisy features in this regarding atheism.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
exactly
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Bull shit. You only say it like that so you can harass theists. Atheists do not believe any gods exist. You can change the wording all you want that is a true statement.
NOUMENON = GOD
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
It seems to me that atheists are hypocrites (atheists in the form of those who say there is no god). I want to write this post to see where (and if) my logic has gone astray. If we go into meditation and assume nothing (as Descartes did), I'm unsure how you can outright decide God cannot exist. As it would appear, there's not very much we can be certain of! It is evident our senses are untrustworthy (as shown by Socrates in Phaedo). To be sure of naturalism, physicalism, materialism, etc, you must first assume your senses to a pretty high degree to be correct. Yet there's really not a very philosophical reason to believe this outside of pragmatism. If the things we see cannot be proven to be mind-independent or real, Why are people so quick to assume God is a logical absurdity? It appears to me almost everything in this world (currently) requires some element of faith, this element of reality is exemplified by the problem of induction. Prove me wrong.
spinoza's god is impossible to deny

however, spinoza's god is NOT a theistic god
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Elliott
Read my very first post. Im directly talking about atheists who say God does not exist (which are many). Are you someone who believes in nothing? I cant imagine you don't have faith in some things existing. If you do have faith in things existing are you then not appealing to vagueness and probability? At what probability does something become justified belief?
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Why is a pantheist conception of god non-theist? 
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
We all know its bullshit that atheism simply means "lack of belief" even if that's the case in the dictionary.  Most atheists are directly against the concept of god. I think the definition of agnostic should be broadened to mean lack of belief, at least then people who don't just lack of belief but make affirmative points to the contrary aren't considered "agnostic" like they are in the atheist grouping.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,293
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Ehyeh
Eh, I could be wrong of my Atheistic conclusion, but I don't think I am.

I don't think any of my family members spat in the bag of sliced bread I used to make a sandwich yesterday,
I 'could be wrong,
But it seems reasonable enough based on past experiences and current views of their character to conclude it likely they did not.

I 'could be an Agnostic in life I suppose,
But I prefer stating my certainty, as I think and feel certain enough about it for me.
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@Ehyeh
Read my very first post. Im directly talking about atheists who say God does not exist (which are many). Are you someone who believes in nothing? I cant imagine you don't have faith in some things existing. If you do have faith in things existing are you then not appealing to vagueness and probability? At what probability does something become justified belief?
To say everything  requires some element of faith may contain a fallacy of equivocation as there is more than one definition of faith, there is faith as having trust in a person of thing based on evidence, then there is religious or spiritual faith that requires no evidence.
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
That's odd. I feel like God is far more likely to exist than not. You see how we're back at square one simply by me stating that? if I simply choose to argue for an infinite god, he becomes impossible to assert or deny. Why would you hedge bets for or against infinity? How can you even create a probability against infinity?
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Elliott
I would hold that we need faith in everything unless you can solve the problem of induction, that's the necessary conclusion. How can you be sure your family and friends don't laugh at you behind your back and are simply aliens conducting a trumanesque experiment on you? Even if you think that's unlikely. Its not certain, there's no reason to think the sun couldn't just disappear any moment. Can you show how its a false equivocation? i believe you have an unjustified proposition there.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,293
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Ehyeh
Sure if we state our beliefs conclusion as we believe just because we believe,
I don't expect there to be any superiority between the two, from an objective view, not prepossessed towards one feeling of the other.

Well, infinite God might depend on one's definition of God,
Might depend on whether another 'accepts such a definition.

My own interest isn't so much in arguing against people's reasons for believing God,
So my being at square one doesn't bother me much,
Though I've debated the point with someone at least once in the past, as a way of testing my own beliefs and conclusions.

I'm not an Atheist interested in crusading against religion,
I'm happy enough usually to talk in bits on religion,
Admiring what I find beautiful or useful, in Religion 'or Atheism. I think.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
Why is a pantheist conception of god non-theist? 
pantheism
 noun

pan·the·ism | \ ˈpan(t)-thē-ˌi-zəm  \
Definition of pantheism

1: a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
Why is a pantheist conception of god non-theist? 
Theism or metaphysical personocracy (especially in cosmocentric theism in which God is the origin of cosmogony) is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities. [**]

notice the key words "SUPREME" AND "BEING"

theism projects a human personality onto the idea of god
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
If I google "theism definition" many definitions will include a pantheistic conception of God. 

Theistic: relating to or characterized by belief in the existence of a god or gods.

 Theism or metaphysical personocracy (especially in cosmocentric theism in which God is the origin of cosmogony) is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities.

From the wiki of theism 

Pantheism: a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God. Many theists do believe God is intelligent, although that's generally more panentheistic, most people interchange them.

Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
That's not really true at all. Christian religions say God is completely unconceptualizable, he cant be put into boxes not does he have characteristic or sin like humans. Just because God is "person" doesn't mean he's one like a man or human.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
I feel like God is far more likely to exist than not.
which god are you specifically talking about ?
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@Ehyeh
I would hold that we need faith in everything unless you can solve the problem of induction, that's the necessary conclusion. How can you be sure your family and friends don't laugh at you behind your back and are simply aliens conducting a trumanesque experiment on you? Even if you think that's unlikely. Its not certain, there's no reason to think the sun couldn't just disappear any moment. Can you show how its a false equivocation? i believe you have an unjustified proposition there.
If there is no evidence for something I would take that it evidence for absence but not proof of absence, but then if you take the solipsistic argument nothing is certain, you can’t even prove the sun exists. As I said it is an argument killer.
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Elliott
It seems we ought to agree faith is pragmatically necessary then once we shed all our assumptions.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Ehyeh
It seems to me that atheists are hypocrites (atheists in the form of those who say there is no god). I want to write this post to see where (and if) my logic has gone astray. If we go into meditation and assume nothing (as Descartes did), I'm unsure how you can outright decide God cannot exist. As it would appear, there's not very much we can be certain of! It is evident our senses are untrustworthy (as shown by Socrates in Phaedo). To be sure of naturalism, physicalism, materialism, etc, you must first assume your senses to a pretty high degree to be correct. Yet there's really not a very philosophical reason to believe this outside of pragmatism. If the things we see cannot be proven to be mind-independent or real, Why are people so quick to assume God is a logical absurdity? It appears to me almost everything in this world (currently) requires some element of faith, this element of reality is exemplified by the problem of induction. Prove me wrong.
You  are reducing God to a logical argument.
The evidence for God is overwhelming. Look around and see  creation, the universe, the physical and natural laws. We don’t need justification or faith to accept God. The bigger problem is creating God in our image.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
That's not really true at all. Christian religions say God is completely unconceptualizable, he cant be put into boxes not does he have characteristic or sin like humans. Just because God is "person" doesn't mean he's one like a man or human.
why do the christians insist on calling their god a "him" or a "he" ?

why do the christians refer to "god's will" as if their version of god doesn't already know exactly how every event will play out ?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Elliott
If there is no evidence for something I would take that it evidence for absence but not proof of absence, but then if you take the solipsistic argument nothing is certain, you can’t even prove the sun exists. As I said it is an argument killer.
there is a significant amount of quantifiable empirical evidence for "the sun"

there is significantly less quantifiable empirical evidence for "the god" (or "the bigfoot" or "the space aliens" or "the lochness monster")
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@Ehyeh
It seems we ought to agree faith is pragmatically necessary then once we shed all our assumptions.
I would would agree that faith based on empirical evidence is necessary for us to function within our perception of reality. Religious belief requires no such evidence.