-->
@3RU7AL
ok.
Atheists are hypocrites
Posts
Total:
465
-->
@Ehyeh
Its a response to the fact that we base what is empirical based on shared experience (to confirm) yet this is based on shaky foundations if people cant be proven to even be self-conscious.
i interact with debateart.com
you interact with debateart.com
your "state of mind" is 100% irrelevant
your interaction with debateart.com is observable and quantifiable
-->
@Ehyeh
Albert Einstein wrote in 1954, one year before he died, "The word 'God' is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses; the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish,"
-->
@Double_R
because if you want the conversation to be about the god you believe in then you need to propose it first.
exactly
which god are you even talking about ?
-->
@Ramshutu
Saying that our common reality is presented as some absolutely truth is a straw man.
right
clearly
some phenomena are MORE observable and verifiable and some are LESS observable and verifiable
-->
@Double_R
I did,
but then I went on to explain how this shows us that refuting god's existence
requires us to start with a clearly defined example, and since everyone will
define him differently there is no way any one person can conceive of let alone
take a position on the existence of every god proposed.
Belief in God is a matter of faith and it is about faith in a transcendent reality, it makes no sense to require a transcendent reality to be “clearly defined”.
The point here is twofold; first it explains what atheists are mostly talking about when they say God is not real. That is, they're talking about whatever they are conceiving him to be, not necessarily what you are.
Almost all adult believers are conceiving of God to be transcendent, this idea of it being a matter of faith and transcendence is not really a secret, Atheists who pretend they don’t know that are either completely uninformed about the subject matter, or have an agenda and this disingenuous misconception is nothing but a tactic.
This is why the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it, because if you want the conversation to be about the god you believe in then you need to propose it first. And the burden is on the person who makes the claim.
Belief in God is a matter of faith, there is no “burden of proof”. Theism is a choice one makes, as is Atheism, the Theistic conclusion in not logically coercive, neither is the Atheist conclusion, neither is a matter of proof, both are a matter of faith. To the believer that choice to have faith provides an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as having value, meaning, and purpose.
It also explains why atheism should not be defined as the belief that God doesn't exist, because no one who holds such a belief could possibly do so while taking into account every god concept. Lack of belief is far more rational and accurate understanding of the position, because that is the one thing every atheist has in common.
If Atheism is defined as “lack of belief” it leaves no basis for distinguishing between Atheist and Agnostic. Most Atheists are explicit in their contention that God does not exist, and practically speaking, Theist and Atheist present themselves as competing beliefs, defining Atheism as simply a lack of belief obfuscates the issue and is not explanatory.
Belief in God is a matter of faith and it is about faith in a transcendent reality, it makes no sense to require a transcendent reality to be “clearly defined”.
The point here is twofold; first it explains what atheists are mostly talking about when they say God is not real. That is, they're talking about whatever they are conceiving him to be, not necessarily what you are.
Almost all adult believers are conceiving of God to be transcendent, this idea of it being a matter of faith and transcendence is not really a secret, Atheists who pretend they don’t know that are either completely uninformed about the subject matter, or have an agenda and this disingenuous misconception is nothing but a tactic.
This is why the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it, because if you want the conversation to be about the god you believe in then you need to propose it first. And the burden is on the person who makes the claim.
Belief in God is a matter of faith, there is no “burden of proof”. Theism is a choice one makes, as is Atheism, the Theistic conclusion in not logically coercive, neither is the Atheist conclusion, neither is a matter of proof, both are a matter of faith. To the believer that choice to have faith provides an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as having value, meaning, and purpose.
It also explains why atheism should not be defined as the belief that God doesn't exist, because no one who holds such a belief could possibly do so while taking into account every god concept. Lack of belief is far more rational and accurate understanding of the position, because that is the one thing every atheist has in common.
If Atheism is defined as “lack of belief” it leaves no basis for distinguishing between Atheist and Agnostic. Most Atheists are explicit in their contention that God does not exist, and practically speaking, Theist and Atheist present themselves as competing beliefs, defining Atheism as simply a lack of belief obfuscates the issue and is not explanatory.
-->
@Sidewalker
Belief in God is a matter of faith and it is about faith in a transcendent reality, it makes no sense to require a transcendent reality to be “clearly defined”.
you are correct
anyone can believe anything they wish for any reason they wish
but if you're going to expect someone else to believe what you believe
you need to be able to explain what the hell you're talking about
-->
@Sidewalker
both are a matter of faith
no "faith" is required to "lack belief" in bigfoot
-->
@Sidewalker
it leaves no basis for distinguishing between Atheist and Agnostic
an agnostic believes that knowledge of god is IMPOSSIBLE
an atheist does not make this claim
an atheist simply "lacks belief"
-->
@Sidewalker
Most Atheists are explicit in their contention that God does not exist
citation please
-->
@Ehyeh
I disagree. There will soon be a philosophical revolution in many years to come. Things will become a whole lot more certain one day, its certainly possible if we can tweak kants categories of mind to be analytic a posteriori, then we wouldn't have to rely on logical fallacies to justify our perception of "reality".
Firstly - Again - it’s not dependent on any logical fallacy, that’s not correct (see my posts above)
Secondly - again - no one is attempting to justify their perception of reality - it’s simply all we have to do anything. This is a straw man.
Secondly - again - no one is attempting to justify their perception of reality - it’s simply all we have to do anything. This is a straw man.
I would agree ramshutu, i don't think we can currently be certain of anything beyond ones own existence. This will one day change.
I doubt it. Because we can never be certain whether our perceptions are valid - and any way or validating them uses those perceptions. All we have is a some basis upon which to conclude things - the truth of that basis will never be known absolutely.
The issue you keep tripping up on, again and again, as I have pointed out, is that certainty doesn’t matter. The lack of absolute certainty or truth has no impact on what we view or the knowledge we have. We have never had nor probably ever will have absolute certain truth on anything, and yet here we are.
All we have to assess anything is our senses. That’s it. That’s all we have. It’s that or nothing. And it seems from those senses we have a shared sense of reality that obeys a specific set of rules.
That’s the only observation we make, and have ever made. In the absence of any other observation telling us otherwise - it is literally the only conclusion we have that has any basis of any kind.
You keep pretending as if this conclusion is somehow asserting the observations as truth: absolutely not. No. Definitely no.
You are a person, I can interact with you, I interact with people, they obey given physical and biological rules.
These are the only ways I have to make any determinations about what you are. You could very well be a figment of my imagination - but I have no basis and no observation upon which to draw that conclusion - so why draw that conclusion?
That’s the distinction here; I strongly suspect you’re projecting your need for truth, and your supposition that absolute truth is somehow important, or can be known - onto me; don’t paint us with your assumptions.
The bottom line here; and to paraphrase your whole argument:
The sun is a big ball of gas, we revolve around it, and that means tomorrow, the sun will rise.
That’s the only conclusion that can be drawn from the information we have. We have no information upon which to conclude any differently. It may not actually be true, the sun may not actually exist - but there is no basis on which to draw that conclusion.
That’s the distinction you fail to understand here. Saying that the sun exists may not be true - but is the only statement we can make that has grounding in anything. Any other statement we made, has no grounding in anything.
Your thread here is effectively trying to argue that if you can’t prove for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, then it’s hypocritical for someone to call the claim the sun will not rise tomorrow stupid.
No.
That argument conflates truth with basis. There is basis to conclude that the sun will rise, and no basis to conclude it won’t. There is basis to conclude the universe is what we observe - and no basis upon which to conclude it doesn’t.
What the actual truth is, does not matter - as it what the ultimate truth ends up actually being - will never be knowable.
The issue you keep tripping up on, again and again, as I have pointed out, is that certainty doesn’t matter. The lack of absolute certainty or truth has no impact on what we view or the knowledge we have. We have never had nor probably ever will have absolute certain truth on anything, and yet here we are.
All we have to assess anything is our senses. That’s it. That’s all we have. It’s that or nothing. And it seems from those senses we have a shared sense of reality that obeys a specific set of rules.
That’s the only observation we make, and have ever made. In the absence of any other observation telling us otherwise - it is literally the only conclusion we have that has any basis of any kind.
You keep pretending as if this conclusion is somehow asserting the observations as truth: absolutely not. No. Definitely no.
You are a person, I can interact with you, I interact with people, they obey given physical and biological rules.
These are the only ways I have to make any determinations about what you are. You could very well be a figment of my imagination - but I have no basis and no observation upon which to draw that conclusion - so why draw that conclusion?
That’s the distinction here; I strongly suspect you’re projecting your need for truth, and your supposition that absolute truth is somehow important, or can be known - onto me; don’t paint us with your assumptions.
The bottom line here; and to paraphrase your whole argument:
The sun is a big ball of gas, we revolve around it, and that means tomorrow, the sun will rise.
That’s the only conclusion that can be drawn from the information we have. We have no information upon which to conclude any differently. It may not actually be true, the sun may not actually exist - but there is no basis on which to draw that conclusion.
That’s the distinction you fail to understand here. Saying that the sun exists may not be true - but is the only statement we can make that has grounding in anything. Any other statement we made, has no grounding in anything.
Your thread here is effectively trying to argue that if you can’t prove for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, then it’s hypocritical for someone to call the claim the sun will not rise tomorrow stupid.
No.
That argument conflates truth with basis. There is basis to conclude that the sun will rise, and no basis to conclude it won’t. There is basis to conclude the universe is what we observe - and no basis upon which to conclude it doesn’t.
What the actual truth is, does not matter - as it what the ultimate truth ends up actually being - will never be knowable.
-->
@3RU7AL
anyone
can believe anything they wish for any reason they wish
Yep, we all “choose” our beliefs.
but if you're going to expect someone else to believe what you believe
It seems that there are as many evangelical Atheists as there are evangelical Theists.
you need to be able to explain what the hell you're talking about.
The basis of faith is not inferential reason, it is personal encounter with the values, meaning, and purpose that can be apprehended in and through ordinary experience.
Yep, we all “choose” our beliefs.
but if you're going to expect someone else to believe what you believe
It seems that there are as many evangelical Atheists as there are evangelical Theists.
you need to be able to explain what the hell you're talking about.
The basis of faith is not inferential reason, it is personal encounter with the values, meaning, and purpose that can be apprehended in and through ordinary experience.
The believer does not commit to an inferred God whose existence depends on the strength and validity of the arguments that are devised for proving or disproving his likely existence. Faith does not move in the arena of historical or metaphysical probabilities, it moves in the arena of inwardness, of self-knowledge.
Faith is total commitment to a discernment, it brings depths of new discernment, opportunities for new commitment and empowerment for realizing our unique potentialities.
To believe in God is primarily to believe in the objectivity the meaning, value and purpose found in the experiential reality of a human being. That view is not based on evidence but is an axiom that makes a life of faith – of seeing all experience in the light of such objective value and purpose – possible. Such a belief is confirmed primarily by the sense it enables people to make of their lives. It is also confirmed by the greater vitality, happiness, and moral dynamism that it reportedly brings to those who accept it.
-->
@Sidewalker
anyone can believe anything they wish for any reason they wishYep, we all “choose” our beliefs.but if you're going to expect someone else to believe what you believeIt seems that there are as many evangelical Atheists as there are evangelical Theists.you need to be able to explain what the hell you're talking about.The basis of faith is not inferential reason, it is personal encounter with the values, meaning, and purpose that can be apprehended in and through ordinary experience.
The believer does not commit to an inferred God whose existence depends on the strength and validity of the arguments that are devised for proving or disproving his likely existence. Faith does not move in the arena of historical or metaphysical probabilities, it moves in the arena of inwardness, of self-knowledge.
Faith is total commitment to a discernment, it brings depths of new discernment, opportunities for new commitment and empowerment for realizing our unique potentialities.
To believe in God is primarily to believe in the objectivity the meaning, value and purpose found in the experiential reality of a human being. That view is not based on evidence but is an axiom that makes a life of faith – of seeing all experience in the light of such objective value and purpose – possible. Such a belief is confirmed primarily by the sense it enables people to make of their lives. It is also confirmed by the greater vitality, happiness, and moral dynamism that it reportedly brings to those who accept it.
With posts like this, you should get off the sidewalk and take the lead.
Well written!!!
-->
@Ehyeh
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?
Agnostic means without knowledge. Atheistic means without belief.
-->
@3RU7AL
@Double_R
It also explains why atheism should not be defined as the belief that God doesn't exist, because no one who holds such a belief could possibly do so while taking into account every god concept.
an atheist does not make this claiman atheist simply "lacks belief
Please don't sit here and try to pretend that atheists don't do certain things because you want to see more superior and thought and action than theists. Atheists believe no gods exist. They do not at any point try to compare one god to another, all gods are in one single category, all gods are false. They do not believe any gods exist and to say otherwise is a falsehood on your part and a lie and an attempt to manipulate the conversation. This is why you get topics like atheist or cowards and atheists or hypocrites because you're all goddamn liars and try to look better than these because you think you're superior to them. Fuck that.
Polytheist-Witch: Please don't sit here and try to pretend that atheists don't do certain things because you want to see more superior and thought and action than theists. Atheists believe no gods exist. They do not at any point try to compare one god to another, all gods are in one single category, all gods are false. They do not believe any gods exist and to say otherwise is a falsehood on your part and a lie and an attempt to manipulate the conversation. This is why you get topics like atheist or cowards and atheists or hypocrites because you're all goddamn liars and try to look better than these because you think you're superior to them. Fuck that.
The Christians burnt witches. Atheists had nothing to do with these godly acts. They were Skeptical it was even justified.
Theists are upset with Atheists because Atheists do not participate in godly acts defined by theists such as witch burning and crusades wars.
“Atheists believe no gods exist. They do not at any point try to compare one god to another, all gods are in one single category, all gods are false. They do not believe any gods exist and to say otherwise is a falsehood on your part and a lie and an attempt to manipulate the conversation.”
-->
@Sidewalker
Yep, we all “choose” our beliefs.
not exactly
one is either convinced or not convinced
-->
@Sidewalker
The basis of faith is not inferential reason, it is personal encounter with the values, meaning, and purpose that can be apprehended in and through ordinary experience.
sure, if you're a GNOSTIC
but if you really believe this
how can you ever hope to CONVINCE anyone with words over the intarwebs ?
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Atheists believe no gods exist.
citation please
-->
@Shila
Your death threats are boring act on them or f*** off.
The following charges have been directed at Christianity generally, and the established church specifically:
* That 9 million people were killed as a result of the witch hunts
* That the witch hunts were the product of a deliberate campaign by the established church to suppress an ancient pagan ‘mother goddess’ religion, or (more generally), to suppress women
* That the witch hunts were the result of hysterical anti-heresy efforts carried out by the Inquisition
* That the witch hunt era came to an end as a result of the ‘Age of Reason’, the rise of science, and a declining belief in the supernatural
* That 9 million people were killed as a result of the witch hunts
* That the witch hunts were the product of a deliberate campaign by the established church to suppress an ancient pagan ‘mother goddess’ religion, or (more generally), to suppress women
* That the witch hunts were the result of hysterical anti-heresy efforts carried out by the Inquisition
* That the witch hunt era came to an end as a result of the ‘Age of Reason’, the rise of science, and a declining belief in the supernatural
Polytheist-Witch: Your death threats are boring act on them or f*** off.
Your death wish is becoming more apparent. That is why you are on a Religion Forum full of Catholic converts.
From your title you declare you are a witch in many religions. Is that to improve your chances of getting burnt?
-->
@Shila
Then act, pussy.
-->
@3RU7AL
So according to you atheists do believe gods exist so let's have the atheist here list the gods they believe exist which will be zero, because you're a lying piece of s***
-->
@3RU7AL
Yep, we all “choose” our beliefs.
not exactly
one is either convinced or not convinced
Are you saying you aren't the one responsible for what you believe? Who was responsible for convincing or not convincing you of what you believe then? And how did they choose what you believe?
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Please don't sit here and try to pretend that atheists don't do certain things because you want to see more superior and thought and action than theists. Atheists believe no gods exist. They do not at any point try to compare one god to another, all gods are in one single category, all gods are false. They do not believe any gods exist and to say otherwise is a falsehood on your part and a lie and an attempt to manipulate the conversation. This is why you get topics like atheist or cowards and atheists or hypocrites because you're all goddamn liars and try to look better than these because you think you're superior to them. Fuck that.
To qualify as an atheists - you must not believe in God. Anyone who doesn’t believe in God is an atheist.
If you believe that no Gods exists - you are also an atheist. But one does not have to believe no Gods exist in order to be an Atheist.
Why this is important, is not anything related to what anyone actually believes, or any motivations about it; it’s because the definitions and they're implications are used by thesists as some weird, nonsensical gotcha to make themselves feel more comfortable about being confronted with opposing views:
That one can paint atheism as a religion if you can use the word “believe” together with some positive claim atheists make. A
That somehow, theists feel able to dismiss the credibility of atheist arguments because they too also have faith - that atheists are just as bad, with some weird tu-quouqe.
So let’s actually spell out the specifics here, to avoid any and all possible equivocation:
People who do not believe in God, but are open to the possibility that a God exists, and don’t make claims either way: are agnostic atheists.
People who believe in God, but are open to the possibility that God doesn’t exists and doesn’t make claims either way; are agnostic thesists.
There are gnostic Atheists; atheists that do not believe, but also make claims about God.
There are Gnostic Atheists that are convinced, through evidence and logic, that God or Gods do not exists. I am one of them; but being part of this group is not a requirement to call yourself an atheist.
That belief is not absolutely, and is qualified based on rational levels of uncertainty.
There are, I am sure, gnostic atheists who profess an unqualified rejection of God, and believe, with certainty that God does not exist. I am not one of them, and I have yet to meet one.
The problem with people who haggle about the definition of Atheism, is that they invariably mean the second of those two gnostic atheist definitions. And they do so often for reasons of that perjorative equivocation I mentioned.
I have yet to meet any Atheist that “believes” God doesn’t exist any more than I have met someone who “believes” the sun will rise tomorrow.
I have met lots who, through evidence, logic and observation rule it out beyond reasonable doubt - but that’s neither a belief, nor absolute, nor a prerequisite for the atheist label.
Now, if you want to clarify the specifics of your wording; and you want to claim that to be an Atheist, one has to have broadly concluded through evidence and reason beyond a reasonable doubt that supernatural Gods are unlikely to exist; but do not hold this conclusion with a conviction beyond that suggested by the evidence - I don’t think that’s the right definition, but at least it accurately identifies the Gnostic subset of Atheists correctly: and I would have less of a deal with it.
If you want to suggest Atheists “beleive” anything or not about God, that’s where you start getting pushback.
Polytheist-Witch: Then act, pussy.
Sounds like you have a misbehaving bitch part.
Follow the instructions.
If it hurts go to a smaller size.
If it leaks go to a bigger size.
-->
@Ramshutu
If you believe that no Gods exists - you are also an atheist. But one does not have to believe no Gods exist in order to be an Atheist
Another liar who wants some kind of door that they can go through to insult theists and not get called out for it. Own your s***.
-->
@Shila
Act on your death threat or fuck off, pussy.
Polytheist-Witch: Act on your death threat or fuck off, pussy.
Still threatening your dying sensation less private part. Signs of menopause not misplacement of your broom.