Atheists are hypocrites

Author: Ehyeh

Posts

Total: 465
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
You know God damn good and well that gods are a certain genders, not sex, through all traditions both male and female and some are considered gender fluid or even binary don't act like Christians are the only ones that fucking do it.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
Yeah though that doesn't make god any less essential for many humans, just like a parent is essential for a child.
a god is like an imaginary parent
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You know God damn good and well that gods are a certain genders, not sex, through all traditions both male and female and some are considered gender fluid or even binary don't act like Christians are the only ones that fucking do it.
and that's why i didn't mention ZEUS

who looks like a man

and bears children with human women
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheism: "simply a lack of belief"
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
There's very strong scientific and philosophical arguments to the existence (or necessity) of god.
i'd love to hear one of those "very strong scientific and philosophical arguments to the existence (or necessity) of god" if you can maybe link to it or something
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
You don't mention Zeus because you don't give a s*** about Zeus or any other tradition that isn't Christian. That's all atheists care about are Christians. Their goal is to go after the biggest group of theists first and then eventually they'll work their way down till there's none left. Fact is none of you care about any of this s*** your spouting off about all you care about is that theists figure out gods don't exist and they f****** forget about them so you don't have to be around theists anymore.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
Atheism: "simply a lack of belief"
that sounds about right, more specifically though, "NOT A THEIST"
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
You're clearly not an agnostic atheist to have the hubris to say God is "imaginary" (which you cant prove).
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You don't mention Zeus because you don't give a s*** about Zeus or any other tradition that isn't Christian. That's all atheists care about are Christians. Their goal is to go after the biggest group of theists first and then eventually they'll work their way down till there's none left. Fact is none of you care about any of this s*** your spouting off about all you care about is that theists figure out gods don't exist and they f****** forget about them so you don't have to be around theists anymore.
everyone is perfectly free to believe whatever they wish

flat-earth, bigfoot, spacealiens, lochnessmonsters, fantastic, have fun with that

but when people start making laws based on what they think their god wants

that's a reasonable place to draw-the-line

i mean

at the very least

we should make sure we're all following the right god(s)

and not one of those false ones
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
You're clearly not an agnostic atheist to have the hubris to say God is "imaginary" (which you cant prove).
functionally indistinguishable from imaginary
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Hegel makes very strong arguments for God. Give them a google! there's many strong arguments for god, Thomas Aquinas makes a good shot through the transience of the universe. There's really 3 options to the creation of the universe

1. It came from nothing
2. It has always existed
3. God created it (either from nothing or himself).

To say this is simply imaginary is, a bit silly in my eyes. You have no idea, there could be many levels to reality (matter) and reality our senses simply cant see. This then means God is one of the 3 main arguments to the necessary creation of the universe, this is different from the tooth fairy, as no matter what way we put it there is no world in which the tooth fairy can be a priori or necessary for experience itself (unlike God).
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
"functionally indistinguishable from imaginary"

You dont know that.
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Ehyeh
Self consistency is irrelevant if these laws can  (in theory) fall apart at any minute. That's the problem of induction, imagine Descartes's evil demon tricking your eyes into seeing your shoelaces as tied through your perception of phenomena but in the noumenon you're actually untying them.
The whole point of self-consistency is that the laws haven't "fallen apart" yet, and they are highly unlikely to ever do so. I'm not saying that observations are foolproof, but they're all I've got.
If your perception of reality is self-consistent, does it really matter? The map will never fully reflect the territory, so whatever makes sense is basically reality to me. That's about as complicated as my philosophy gets in terms of worldview.
There's very strong scientific and philosophical arguments to the existence (or necessity) of god.
And what "scientific" argument could that be that doesn't fall prey to the same induction problem as my beliefs? You can either reject science altogether on the grounds of induction, or you can admit that observations are the strongest form of evidence for science. So who is the hypocrite here, me or you?

If you think god (at least an infinite concept of god) has "blank spots" you would be incorrect. Its simply by definition impossible to assert or deny in any sort of "blank spot". 
I said my map (or perception or model, if you prefer) has blank spots in that I haven't been able to make any observations or inferences about that part of reality. Reality itself has no blank spots, so if God exists, there aren't any blank spots in God, just as there isn't any blank spots in distant galaxies just because we can't see them.


I guess the last thing I can say is that the best thing you can do is make your beliefs pay rent. Every belief you have should inform your expectations of how reality will be in future observations. To reuse the shoelace example, if I had a belief of [untied-shoelaces] regardless of the actual state of my shoelaces, then that belief is no better than having zero knowledge about the state of my shoelaces. Scribbling "unknowable mystery" or "here be dragons" on all the blank spots of my map is at best only as useful as  the same map with blanks. Chances are good that it would actually inhibit my ability to investigate those blank spots in the future.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
3. God created it (either from nothing or himself).
clearly

(IFF) only god existed and only god created all things (THEN) all things are, by necessity, pieces of god
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
"functionally indistinguishable from imaginary"

You dont know that.
please explain how your (as of yet unspecified) god is distinguishable from imaginary
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
"The whole point of self-consistency is that the laws haven't "fallen apart" yet, and they are highly unlikely to ever do so. I'm not saying that observations are foolproof, but they're all I've got.
If your perception of reality is self-consistent, does it really matter? The map will never fully reflect the territory, so whatever makes sense is basically reality to me. That's about as complicated as my philosophy gets in terms of worldview."

Yes. In philosophy induction is considered the fools work, everything has to be through deduction in philosophy. If you're content with likelihoods, at what level of likelihood is enough to believe in? when does this likihood change if ever? is it truly consistent to follow this philosophy? i don't think it is at all. 

Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't know. Just like you dont know when you tie your shoelaces you're actually tying them within noumenon and not just phenomena. Can you show me how you can know you actually tie your shoelaces beyond simple imagination?
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Ehyeh
you dont know when you tie your shoelaces you're actually tying them within noumenon and not just phenomena.
if I can't experience it in any way, why does it matter if it exists? The whole idea of noumenon has literally zero effect on how I will live my life, and I guarantee the same for you, because every time you're shoelaces get untied, you tie them just like everyone else, and every time you cross the street, you look both ways, even though the car coming might be "just phenomena."
Just. Like. Every. Other. Person.
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
If you then hold belief in you being able to actually tie your shoe laces based on pragmatism, there then should be no push back against the idea of god from atheists either. 
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@Ehyeh
I get the sense this is an appeal to vagueness. Which empirical beliefs are necessary for day to day functioning? I feel like it exists in a manner of degrees. Some people are fine not believing in free will, some people even seem fine being unsure of what will happen tomorrow.  In this same sense some are fine not being religious or fine with god not existing, others not so much!
Yes I agree that those examples are somewhat ambiguous.
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
If you then hold belief in you being able to actually tie your shoe laces based on pragmatism, there then should be no push back against the idea of god from atheists either. 
I can see my shoelaces. Show me God.
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Ehyeh
And I know the benefit of tying my shoelaces. What is the benefit of believing in God? Because your philosophical arguments don't mention an afterlife or reward for belief or following some golden code of morality.
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
"I can see my shoelaces"

But you actually cant if Kant is right and they're simply phenomena, you simply have an impression based on the categories of your mind. How do you even know you have shoes when you run out the door? we've all seen people in psych wards thinking their wearing pants when they're really not. How do you know you're not in the matrix, like Andrew Tate would say?
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
 "What is the benefit of believing in God? Because your philosophical arguments don't mention an afterlife or reward for belief or following some golden code of morality."

There's many benefits to a believe in a appropriate god which maximises personal virtue. A belief in God can foster a sense of belonging in the universe (which many nihilists miss out on). It can give purpose to ones actions, most philosophers are actually moral realists, not because its more likely than moral relativism but simply because its good to believe some morals are objective just so we can feel like our actions matter to something. God provides all of this for some people. God is the eternal company in the transient world for many.
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Ehyeh
But you actually cant if Kant is right and they're simply phenomena
Once again, because phenomena is observable and actionable, I care infinitely more about it than your noumenon. To compare my current perception of reality to the Matrix, you need to offer me a red pill. Show me the real universe and I'll stop caring so much about this one.
Of course anything you gave me would be much more likely to just be a hallucinogen than an actual red pill.
In absence of a red pill, the Matrix is as close to reality as you can get and I'm fine with that.

There's many benefits to a believe in a appropriate god which maximises personal virtue.
Your arguments so far have only been in favor of a god, with no mention of determining which god it is appropriate to believe in. Virtue and morality are also parts of maps, not the territory. I can't point to the part of the universe where "murder is wrong" is written like I can point at gravity in action.

A belief in God can foster a sense of belonging in the universe (which many nihilists miss out on). It can give purpose to ones actions, most philosophers are actually moral realists, not because its more likely than moral relativism but simply because its good to believe some morals are objective just so we can feel like our actions matter to something.
Don't conflate nihilism and atheism. Just don't. It's lazy and offensive. There are tons of things that matter to me, like my family and winning arguments and sex. Life matters because you value it while you're alive, not in some objective, universal sense, but in the minds of humanity, which is the best part of the universe anyways.
If I can achieve these "benefits" through other means, which I already have, by the way, then your god is once again useless to me.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
I don't know. Just like you dont know when you tie your shoelaces you're actually tying them within noumenon and not just phenomena. Can you show me how you can know you actually tie your shoelaces beyond simple imagination?
empirical verification
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,293
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@K_Michael
Personally I'd agree with what you say about actionable, people have the impression of this reality, so that's what they act on,
Sure 'seems like we're tying our shoelaces when we appear to do so,
Also possible to explain exactly a method by which to tie one's shoelaces.

Murder though I'd call a bit like gravity,
Though only in the sense that a person or society would be likely to structure morality a certain way based on certain conditions.

Though it's lazy, I conflate atheism and nihilism a bit myself,
The method anyhow, that led to my loss of belief in Christianity, also led to my intellectual nihilism,

But person's got to be, got to act,
And to an atheist, this reality, our needs are real enough to compel our actions to go along with.
Have 'more an appearance or truth, than God.

Though I can understand a theist seeing it different.

. . .

@NoOneInParticular
Even if one makes an intellectual conclusion that one can't 'truly 'know anything,
Doesn't 'seem to matter much for a human,
Seems we make due with what we have then, form our conclusions and apparent truths,
Push back against what seems less likely,
Encourage apparent benefit,
Discourage apparent harm,

'Is that hypocritical?
Hm, right this instant I don't think so myself.
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
@Ehyeh
I was trying to avoid using the word empiricism for the sake of keeping my vocabulary consistent, but empiricism is a fairly accurate summation of how I form beliefs.
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
we should make sure we're all following the right god(s) and not one of those false ones
Hence why atheists are indistinguishable from fundamentalist Christians. Bigots.
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
philosophy has proven empiricism unreliable since Socrates. We're back to square one. In the end you could not even prove you can tie your own shoelaces.