The Atheist Hypocrisy

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:25 pm

romans120 wrote:

kmisho wrote:

Quote:

I argue however that in the case of existence it is impossible to deny a positive claim of one group without asserting a positive claim of your own.

You're thinking about this entirely the wrong way.

To say that doubt implies a positive belief in the reverse turns being wary of scammers into a criminal thing.

except when you say show me the evidence that God created all this you are implying all this happened by chance. To say all this is a product of chance is a positive claim that beggs the question of how. My point is no matter which you choose it will lead back to an eternal thing. You can sit back and make yourself think its dishonest to think about but in the end any meaning of life is only going to be found in pondering that question

WRONG. False dichotomy. Either God or a roll of the dice are not the only options.

I gladly beg the question of how. This is not a fallacy the way you use it. Not knowing X does not mean that Y is true.

And I agree on the eternity bit by the way. It seems to me that atheists and theists should be able to agree that SOMETHING is eternal. I just don't see the need be animistic about it. There is no necessity to link eternity with god.

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:39 pm

kmisho wrote:

romans120 wrote:

kmisho wrote:

Quote:

I argue however that in the case of existence it is impossible to deny a positive claim of one group without asserting a positive claim of your own.

You're thinking about this entirely the wrong way.

To say that doubt implies a positive belief in the reverse turns being wary of scammers into a criminal thing.

except when you say show me the evidence that God created all this you are implying all this happened by chance. To say all this is a product of chance is a positive claim that beggs the question of how. My point is no matter which you choose it will lead back to an eternal thing. You can sit back and make yourself think its dishonest to think about but in the end any meaning of life is only going to be found in pondering that question

WRONG. False dichotomy. Either God or a roll of the dice are not the only options.

I gladly beg the question of how. This is not a fallacy the way you use it. Not knowing X does not mean that Y is true.

And I agree on the eternity bit by the way. It seems to me that atheists and theists should be able to agree that SOMETHING is eternal. I just don't see the need be animistic about it. There is no necessity to link eternity with god.

That's the problem with theists they always want to put conciousness on top of eternality.

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:39 pm

I've always thought all Ned needed was a good blowjob from Marge to straighten his ass out.

/Sorry. Shitload of typos..I blame CANADA!
canadian mist!

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:18 am

Nimitz wrote:

I've always though all need needed was a good blowjob from Marge to straighten his ass out.

I think this is a great point, actually. I don't know how many times I've thought that the people who picket abortion clinics would disappear if they actually had something worth worrying about.

Same point, but not as humorous.

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9362

Nimitz wrote:

I've always thought all Ned needed was a good blowjob from Marge to straighten his ass out.

/Sorry. Shitload of typos..I blame CANADA!
canadian mist!

This mental immage of Marge giving falacieo to Ned is the eopitomy of Oedpus Rex. I would rather screw a skunk with a condom laced razor blade than think of "Marge" giving me a hummer.

DAMN MAN, at least use some immagination. Come on, Leala from Futurama is billions of times more a hottie than Marge. If you get off on Marge Simpson, you definately got problems.

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:53 pm

But I don't have an animated gif file of Leela giving head.

Will this wallpaper do?

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9362

Nimitz wrote:

But I don't have an animated gif file of Leela giving head.

Will this wallpaper do?

Kattie Segal is the voice beihind Leela. She was as hot in Married With Children. I thought she was hotter than the daughter Kelly.

Grand Poster Joined: Jan 12, 2004 Posts: 1693

josephpalazzo wrote:

romans120 wrote:

As I have come to understand more about atheism I have noticed a common thread of most vocal atheists is that they lump all theistic or pantheistic worldviews into one category and deny there validity. All the while up holding there worldview as being the best because they don't make any positive claims not based on observable or provable evidence. I argue however that in the case of existence it is impossible to deny a positive claim of one group without asserting a positive claim of your own.

Example: Theists make the positive claim that existence is caused by a creator

Atheists say they are without belief because theists can not prove their positive claim

however in reality Atheists by denying the theist positive claim are making the positive claim that existence contains within itself it's own cause.

and the theists argue that the atheist must show evidence for their positive claim. To which we reply if God is intelligent then He could choose to reveal Himself to us in His own way by His own means: be it the Quran or the Bible or whatever and those things could contain the evidence for the theistic position.

If the atheist refuses to be objectivly be open to a world view that does not have a bias against God they are refusing to open to all the possible evidence.

There is no evidence that god exists. Let god appear at the UN in front of all humanity and prove unequivocally that he is what he claims to be. Surely such a task is NOT beyond his capability...

A God-like being appearing at the UN in front of all humanity wouldn't prove it was God. That's a problem.

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:19 am

Atheod said:

Quote:

A God-like being appearing at the UN in front of all humanity wouldn't prove it was God. That's a problem.

I disagree. All it would take to convince the world is for any 'real' god or goddess to just show up. First, an announcement in a godly booming voice that the whole world would hear simultaneously, and then maybe a magnificent entrance with plently of lightening and some miraculously flaming chariots, with multitudes of singing angels, and talking snakes and, hey, whatever it takes, right?

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:57 am

corynski wrote:

Atheod said:

Quote:

A God-like being appearing at the UN in front of all humanity wouldn't prove it was God. That's a problem.

I disagree. All it would take to convince the world is for any 'real' god or goddess to just show up. First, an announcement in a godly booming voice that the whole world would hear simultaneously, and then maybe a magnificent entrance with plently of lightening and some miraculously flaming chariots, with multitudes of singing angels, and talking snakes and, hey, whatever it takes, right?

I think what he's saying is it wouldn't prove it was the Christian god. Notice how he uses the term “God-like”. This denotes he believes there can only be one god, and his god isn’t at all like the other gods of human superstition. This seems as reasonable as believing there can be only one “true” religion as opposed to the more likely scenario of them all being false.

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:03 pm

Even if we conclude that 'something' had to have 'caused; the Universe, or even 'existence' to come into existence, there is NO logical reason why such a cause had to something greater than what it triggered into existence. After all, the Big Bang fireball universe contained little or no information compared to the Universe in the state we see now. It probably contained no information other that the magnitude of the energy within it.

So once we acknowledge that the cause need not be greater than its effect, then even an infinite regress does not require any actual infinities, either of time or space. The sum of of decreasing infinite series is finite. So all we need is an infinitesimal quantum twitch to start things, if a start is needed.

We don't need any first mover either, because matter and energy are two sides of the same coin, and QT points to the requirement that we cannot have matter without energy, and energy implies or generates movement.

Whereas proposing a God is not a valid solution to existence because you have only added another layer of mystery to the problem, along with the question of what created God? So actually it has zero explanatory power, along with the implied infinite regression of creators.

There is certainly no logical requirement for the originating event to have any complexity or structure, since we know structure and order can spontaneously emerge, at cost of energy dissipation.

There are various proposals in cosmology to cover the entropy 'problem', so again God is a completely unnecessary and invalid ultimate 'solution' to the problem of existence.

It is very dishonest or dumb to quibble about entropy and other scientifically established ideas 'proving' naturalistic explanations can't work, then proposing that an entity which flouts all scientific principles is the answer.

Newbie First Class Joined: Feb 02, 2008 Posts: 44

BobSpence1 wrote:

Even if we conclude that 'something' had to have 'caused; the Universe, or even 'existence' to come into existence, there is NO logical reason why such a cause had to something greater than what it triggered into existence. After all, the Big Bang fireball universe contained little or no information compared to the Universe in the state we see now. It probably contained no information other that the magnitude of the energy within it.

So once we acknowledge that the cause need not be greater than its effect, then even an infinite regress does not require any actual infinities, either of time or space. The sum of of decreasing infinite series is finite. So all we need is an infinitesimal quantum twitch to start things, if a start is needed.

We don't need any first mover either, because matter and energy are two sides of the same coin, and QT points to the requirement that we cannot have matter without energy, and energy implies or generates movement.

Whereas proposing a God is not a valid solution to existence because you have only added another layer of mystery to the problem, along with the question of what created God? So actually it has zero explanatory power, along with the implied infinite regression of creators.

There is certainly no logical requirement for the originating event to have any complexity or structure, since we know structure and order can spontaneously emerge, at cost of energy dissipation.

There are various proposals in cosmology to cover the entropy 'problem', so again God is a completely unnecessary and invalid ultimate 'solution' to the problem of existence.

It is very dishonest or dumb to quibble about entropy and other scientifically established ideas 'proving' naturalistic explanations can't work, then proposing that an entity which flouts all scientific principles is the answer.

Look, I realize science is definitely going to come up with very sophisticated solutions. And I realize that when we don't know something it's stupid to dream up a solution. But on the other hand how can you be objective and yet have a bias when you don't ultimately know.

The theist does not claim that "we could not be without a cause so God must be." The theist claims God has revealed Himself by various means throughout the ages as the creator and in the absence of an alternative that claim still stands as a possibility. In other words God did not fill a gap the gap was created by man.

As long as you have to say "all we need is ______ "then your going to have a problem getting around infinities and eternals. Because is = something no matter how small that thing is. Also if you go with infinite regress time would be eternal because you have continual causality/change

I am not claiming superiority and I understand why you believe what you believe. But you can not classify your world view outside of the realm of faith until you can empirically demonstrate something proceeding from nothing. (that is the hypocrisy)

All I have is faith that God has revealed himself to man and all you have is faith that nature is god

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:24 pm

romans120 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Even if we conclude that 'something' had to have 'caused; the Universe, or even 'existence' to come into existence, there is NO logical reason why such a cause had to something greater than what it triggered into existence. After all, the Big Bang fireball universe contained little or no information compared to the Universe in the state we see now. It probably contained no information other that the magnitude of the energy within it.

So once we acknowledge that the cause need not be greater than its effect, then even an infinite regress does not require any actual infinities, either of time or space. The sum of of decreasing infinite series is finite. So all we need is an infinitesimal quantum twitch to start things, if a start is needed.

We don't need any first mover either, because matter and energy are two sides of the same coin, and QT points to the requirement that we cannot have matter without energy, and energy implies or generates movement.

Whereas proposing a God is not a valid solution to existence because you have only added another layer of mystery to the problem, along with the question of what created God? So actually it has zero explanatory power, along with the implied infinite regression of creators.

There is certainly no logical requirement for the originating event to have any complexity or structure, since we know structure and order can spontaneously emerge, at cost of energy dissipation.

There are various proposals in cosmology to cover the entropy 'problem', so again God is a completely unnecessary and invalid ultimate 'solution' to the problem of existence.

It is very dishonest or dumb to quibble about entropy and other scientifically established ideas 'proving' naturalistic explanations can't work, then proposing that an entity which flouts all scientific principles is the answer.

Look, I realize science is definitely going to come up with very sophisticated solutions. And I realize that when we don't know something it's stupid to dream up a solution. But on the other hand how can you be objective and yet have a bias when you don't ultimately know.

Can't quite make sense of this last sentence. Science is a tool which provides a framework for minimizing the effects of personal bias. Of course one does ones best to be objective, while inevitably still having some level of bias. IOW, we strive to maximize one and minimise the other, of course.

Quote:

The theist does not claim that "we could not be without a cause so God must be." The theist claims God has revealed Himself by various means throughout the ages as the creator and in the absence of an alternative that claim still stands as a possibility. In other words God did not fill a gap the gap was created by man.

The objective reality of Revelation is just your claim. There is little or no evidence for it being anything more than a projection of personal beliefs.

Quote:

As long as you have to say "all we need is ______ "then your going to have a problem getting around infinities and eternals.

You are the one stuck with infinities and eternals.

Quote:

Because is = something no matter how small that thing is.

??

Quote:

Also if you go with infinite regress time would be eternal because you have continual causality/change

Infinite regress only leads to actual infinities of time if you assume causes must be greater than effects, which we know is not true

Quote:

I am not claiming superiority and I understand why you believe what you believe. But you can not classify your world view outside of the realm of faith until you can empirically demonstrate something proceeding from nothing. (that is the hypocrisy)

I don't assume that, in but that does not necessarily imply eternities once you allow that time may not be a linear dimension. I have no problem with very elementary substrate of stuff being eternal, so we don't require something to come from literally nothing. Its a much bigger ask for something like God to exist without a cause.

Quote:

All I have is faith that God has revealed himself to man and all you have is faith that nature is god

IOW you have a warm fuzzy feeling, which is not without value.

I have an up-datable set of working assumptions, which I adjust on the basis of new information, no 'faith' involved.

Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:18 am

Romans120 said:

Quote:

All I have is faith that God has revealed himself to man and all you have is faith that nature is god

It's not a question of faith, but of probability. Science has no need of faith, it has evidence. It seems probable that what exists around me today, existed yesterday, the day before that, and all the way back until I can't know, and it becomes all theory and guesswork. But matter and energy exist, and may always have existed, a likely scenario. Gods and goddessess have never existed other than as hallucinations and delusions. Dealing with reason and reality is quite different from having an emotional revelation, or guessing that the god you grew up with is the only 'real' god.

Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:58 am

romans120 wrote:

As long as you have to say "all we need is ______ "then your going to have a problem getting around infinities and eternals.

No you're not. Not if you know anything about mathematics and ontology.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore