Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
not believing in god for logical reasons is hypocritical
Thrakk
Member Posts: 1,226
I think Atheists are hyprocites for criticzing people who believe in god when they too believe in something.. the absence of god.
Agnostics believe there could or could not be a god. They don't believe in anything.
Atheists do believe in something - even if it's the absence of god/s
Believing in something when there is no proof whether it is the absence or prescense of god... is stupid in terms of logic. YOU HAVE NO PROOF
So atheists are hypocrites for criticizing people who believe in god when atheists themselves have beliefs with no logic to back those beliefs up.
Comments
No. Strong atheists believe in something (there is no god) . Weak atheists do not believe in a god, but don't believe that there necessarily isn't one either(they literally do not believe in anything). Agnostics believe that there exists an entity responsible for creation (maybe not a god as you picture it) .
It brings me some joy to stomp on your ignorance though.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Not at all, it is logical to not believe in something that has no evidence, or evidence that you would accept anyway, that points towards that things existance. Atheists make no claim, some do, but all being an atheist means is that you do not believe, whether you believe it doesn't exist or just see no reason to believe it does makes no difference, so you are an atheist too since you are obviously not convince there is one.
Agnostics only claim to not have knowledge and it has nothing to do with belief, and in sense anyone can be an agnostic and something else too, like an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, which would mean you don't know for sure if there is one or not but you are or are not convinced there is.
What you are talking about is positive atheism which claims that a god/s do not exist which is a claim that you can't techinally prove, so that does not make logical sense or might just be poor wording but there is also sceptical atheism that sees no reason to believe there is one. One discounts the possiblility the other sees it techinally as a possibility but is not convinced that it exists, also why I think you would be a sceptical atheist.
I bet if you asked people and explained what agnostic meant then most people would be agnostic to a god/s existance.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
NO , I'm pretty sure you are wrong.
ARE YOU SURE THAT YOU KNOW THERE ISN'T A GOD (atheist) OR THERE IS A GOD (some religion that believes in god)
I got the definitions correct. Copied right from the dictionary.
be·lief (b-lf)
n.
Something believed or accepted as true
Atheists accept the absence of a god a a truth. This is a belief.
Well, personally I found ignosticism (no it's not a typo) to be the closest to my view on this matter and taking into account the evidence (or rather a lack thereof) also probably the most logical approach one can take.
I partly agree with the OP, however this goes mostly for the hardcore atheist, I assume many atheists that consider themselves that are actually much closer to being agnostics or ignostics, but are simply not aware of the definitions and do not care, same as they probably do not care much whether or not there is a god.
Subscribtions: EVE, SWTOR WOW, WAR, DDO, VG, AOC, COV, FFXI, GW, RFO, Aion
+plenty of F2P, betas, trials
Female Dwarf player: WOW, VG, WAR, DDO
.
Due to the recent economic crisis and spending cuts the light at the end of the tunnel was turned off. Sincerely, God.
LOL, not caring about the logic of the definitions but just sticking with your guns is so typical of someone who has made a decision and fails at seeing any other perspectives.
I don't what to say other than you are just wrong.
Absence of belief is not the same as belief in absence. You can believe god does not exist or not believe in god there is a difference.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
well let me ask you. are you an atheist? Y/N do you believe there is no god? Y/N
ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
NO , I'm pretty sure you are wrong.
ARE YOU SURE THAT YOU KNOW THERE ISN'T A GOD (atheist) OR THERE IS A GOD (some religion that believes in god)
I got the definitions correct. Copied right from the dictionary.
Get a new dictionary: One that has the terms "Strong Atheist" and "Weak Atheist". Agnostic is also ill-defined; perhaps you used the latest edition of the Merriam-Websters Christian Fanatics.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I would say I am an atheist, but I don't know if there is a god so I can't assert belief in nonexistance, I see no reason to think there is one though.
I think the defining question would be do you believe in a god? if not then you are an atheist, you don't have to necessarily believe there isn't one just not believe there is.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
i used the freedictionary.com
'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' - man, you must be a huge atheist to support terminology other than 'atheism'.
for the rest of the world, we use the dictionary and the definition of atheism is final - the same as it always is.
when's the last time i had to fill out a form in which 'strong atheist' or 'weak atheist' are there to bubble in. never. it is only 'atheist'. decorating your atheist religion is silly because atheists commonly means that you believe there isn't a god. no need foryour illogical subgeneres that say that some atheists are really agnostic. just say you are agnostic, sheesh
well let me ask you. are you an atheist? Y/N do you believe there is no god? Y/N
Originally posted by CactusmanX
I would say I am an atheist, but I don't know if there is a god so I can't assert belief in nonexistance, I see no reason to think there is one though.
I think the defining question would be do you believe in a god? if not then you are an atheist, you don't have to necessarily believe there isn't one just not believe there is.
Originally posted by Thrakk
I knew a simple Yes or No question would be too hard for you.
I think people choose atheist over agnostic to describe themselves based on how likely the existance of a god seems to them, for me I would say that technically there could be one but it does not seem probable and I think the evidence is stronger that it is just a concept people invinted, though still technically could exist.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
I see your point here.
I stick with definitions. I stick with logic (as in that course you can take in college about A /= B stuff)
I guess that's why I put 'logical reasons' into the thread name - logic and definition was my reason for atheists being hypocrites.
I would call myself a pantheist. I believe in God because the beauty and symmetry, and oneness of the universe. The only thing that could have produced mind must be mind, the most brilliant piece of art is our body. Yes we know how we inherited these things (thank you science) but it just shows a more brilliant work of art. Creation that expands and produces itself, in a logical way. I also believe because i have seen a miraculous pattern in my life and experienced things like no other.. And stories from others of course. I think people don't believe because they hold false intreprutations and their only view of God is dogmatic in nature and not philisophical
lol people say theres no evidence. Just because God doesnt pop up and say "hey im right here and i exist" people think he really doesnt. The have a bad view of him and dont in the least understand philisophical logic. Religion gives God a bad name. Most great people, and nearly everyone that shaped civilizartion, carried an abstract view of him and went against the conventional religion of the time.
How is atheism a religion? Saying I don't believe you is not a religion it be like saying - not collecting rocks is a hobby, and not to belabor the point - bald is a hair color. There is no dogma, no tenants, no ceremonies. It's not a belief system it is a position on one issue and one does not a system make. Theism is the state of mind were you have a belief in a god and atheism is a lack of that belief. There is nothing that says two atheists will agree on anything other then whether or not a god exists, everything else is up for grabs. Then it becomes a matter of philosophical positions and systems you want to adopt. The mere fact that a group of people happen to agree on things, shows that those people have similar ideas. Yes, I have a belief system but it is personal and is no way attached to atheism. If your going to say atheist religion then name one tenant of atheism. I don't think you will be able to come up with an example because none exist.
As people said earlier lack and presence are not the same thing the words do not mean the same thing.
On Time? On Target? Never Quit?
Yes, definitions are always final and never change. Ever ever ever ever ever....
Now, in the REAL world, definitions DO change. The fact is, a dictionary gives you the barest information on a word. If I look up Buddhism in a dictionary, do you think it gives all aspects of the word? If I look up Christian and it fails to tell me about baptisms or miracles, does that mean both of those ideas are not part of Christianity?
The fact of the matter is, Atheists have defined themselves, just as other groups do. Not all Atheists agree with each others definitions. Confusing, I know. But think about the meaning of Christian among the numerous denominations that surround us. I think you'll begin to understand.
My definition is simply: A lack of belief in god(s).
Other Atheists will agree with you. Other Atheists will disagree with both of us.
I personally have ZERO belief in god(s) because the people making the claims have presented no proof. Just as you have ZERO belief in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus (offensive, I know, but the same as how I feel about god(s), I can't help it).
What this should tell you more than anything is that Atheists are not a single cohesive group. They are individuals that identify themselves in a similar way. Some of us try and band together to create numbers to combat any oppressive moves against us, or to simply share ideas, or to simply feel like they are part of a group -- we are after all social creatures (that's how we evolved and survived). Most of us stay silent and live among you, and you never realize what our beliefs are, mostly because you assume we believe the same thing as the majority of Americans around you.
Oh, and the majority of us don't like to be pigeon-holed by having believers tell us who we are and how we should behave. So, get over yourself.
- LC
There are many problems with this argument, not the least of which involve the way we define the terms used above.
But to take the principle example:
If a strong Atheist were to criticize another for having strong beliefs of the truly religious variety, he may or may not be considered a hypocrit, depending upon a single very important factor, where one considers the line between fact (here I mean accepted knowledge, whether it be true or false) and faith to lie. At one extreme, even the most ludicrous beliefs must be treated as equal to all others, such as the African fable of the sun being a piece of fire in a basket on a turtles back. On the other extreme, nothing is verified fact, everything each individual percieves, thinks and feels may be illusion. For practical effect, one is forced to accept a measure in between the two, precisely where though is a major part of this argument.
Here is my reasoning, ultimately the accepted knowledge of religious faith is based upon unverifiable sources, principally the personal experiences of individuals who have long since died. The principles behind a logical rejection of religion or a religion are verifiable by any shmuck with the knowhow and/or equipment, although of course the reasoning to bring it together to that conclusion is up to the individual. That to me is the defining difference, the simple expedient of being able to verify the source of the information one is drawing conclusions from.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
I was using a scientific approach to say atheists are hypocritical. I said that they believe there is no god and therefor they believe something without proof.
I know why this thread has got such an uproar. Under a scientific approach I can prove the rebel flag is a racist symbol. Will everybody agree? obviously not.
Now as for people saying they lean more towards atheism (believing there is no god (my definition which many people agree on) than agnosticism (god is indeterminite)... I understand how you could believe there is no god (even without proof) since I don't believe dragons ever existed and the odds that they did would have to be very very small. So if I had to choose between believing in god or not, I would go with not, simply because of the odds that I make up in my mind. But, I'm agnostic, and there is more choices than either believing in god, or not believing in god. I think it is possible either way even if I would lean towards god not existing.
Edit: I apologize, I was distracted and did not read your post properly. I will, however, refute it properly later, I have a paper to do now.
I'm afraid that it is obvious to me that you have very little understanding of either the scientific method or of the difficulty in proving much of anything in this category.
Most strong atheists believe what they do because they do have evidence, however biased or flawed such individual proofs may be. It is true that proving the negative about god, or a deity at least, for absolutely certain is impossible, but in the abscence of any positive proof FOR the existance of such, Ockham's razor demands only one possibilty for those not inclined to faith. Let me put it this way, I might flip a coin 1 million times and never get it to land on edge and stay there. It may be technically possible, but after a certain point, I am forced to take the lack of occurances as proof that it won't happen.
P.S. A symbol in its very nature is fluid, ever changing in its form and function. Take the Nazi Swastika for example, prior to the third Riech, it was a sign for good luck, similar to a horseshoe or a four leaf clover. Its history spans back for close to 3000 years, being found in cultures all over the Eurasia region, and yet all people think about today when they see it is WWII and its connotations for the sign. The most you can ever "prove" about any symbol, including the confederate flag, is that X% of Y population group believes Z about it
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
I do understand where you are coming from. It is just as illogical to claim that a deity exists as it is to claim that a deity does not exist. It is impossible to prove either claim. A premise cannot be proven true just because it has yet to be proven false, and nor can a premise be proven false just because it has yet to be proven true. That is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Most atheists accept the fact that it is impossible to logically disprove the existence of God, so instead, turn to rationalism or empiricism - or a combination of the two (which is most common).
Though it is hypocritical for an atheist to criticize a theist using "logic" as their reason, it is not hypocritical to disbelieve in a deity for logical reasons. Personally, I have read, seen, heard, and written many logical syllogisms pertaining to the existence or disexistence (can't think of another word.. been writing for hours, and its 3am) of God. I'll probably post some tomorrow.
Just for clarity issues, some atheists only claim themselves as atheists for lack of better word. Personally, I have some views that many atheists to not suscribe to. I have come up with philosophy on the subject that may or may not have been in existence before I perceived the idea, and have picked up many different views from different philosophies on the subject.
so your logic (if i understand correctly) is that:
1. all atheists believe in something
2. to maintain a belief is illogical
3. all atheists criticize any other belief because it is illogical
4. therefore all atheists are hypocrites
I disagree the most with point 3. The main reason is that most atheistic arguments are not that that other beliefs are illogical (as they recognize point 2) but that other beliefs are silly and can be readily undermined by naturally observable phenomena.
religion = noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.
— ORIGIN originally in the sense "life under monastic vows": from Latin religio ‘obligation, reverence’.
Ok I admit that religion per se is not a "philosophical theory" BUT the religions themselves are.
Catholicism is one.
Christianity is one.
Islam is one.
etc etc etc.
Atheism is one yes but again we shall look at dictionary definitions
Atheism = noun the belief that God does not exist.
— DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.
— ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.
so shall we move on to "Philosophical Theory"?
A philosophical theory (also called a belief system or simply a philosophy) is a set of statements, each of which is believed to be true, and which supports some conclusion which explains something about the nature of the world we live in.
Theories whose subject matter consists not in empirical data, but rather in ideas are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. At least some of the elementary theorems of a philosophical theory are statements whose truth cannot necessarily be scientifically tested through empirical observation.
Philosophical theories may take the form of a life stance, religion, world view, or ideology.
Again I admit that the 3rd noun version of "Religion" i.e A pursuit of interest followed by devotion COULD be construed to encompass atheism but NONE of the atheists I know are devoted to atheism in the way that religious people are devoted to their reigion. Especially as the denial of god isn't a tangible something with which to give devotion.
Devotion = • noun 1 great love or loyalty. 2 religious worship. 3 (devotions) prayers or religious observances.
Again you can twist "great love or loyalty" to include atheism but love or loyalty to an idea is a difficult thing to quantify. Especially the love part.
Christians don't love the "idea" of christ because that could lead people to believe it's fabricated. They love the person not the idea.(The "idea" of christ being significantly different to the "ideas" of christ)
So to conclude.
Atheism IS a philosophical theory because it's a belief system.
Religion(s) IS a philosophical theory because it's a belief system
Atheism IS NOT a religion because it believes that the very thing the religious people base their faith on (god or a superhuman being (def. above) does not exsist.
And to finally finish here are some other "philosophical theories" which aren't religions
Cubism......A 20th Centuryy avant-guarde art movement
Cynicism........The rejection of all conventions, whether of religion, manners, housing, dress, or decency, advocating the pursuit of virtue in a simple and unmaterialistic lifestyle.
White Nationalism........a political ideology which advocates a racial definition (or redefinition) of national identity for white people, in opposition to multiculturalism.
Sorry for the wall of text but it wasn't an easy quetion to answer
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Sorry to inform you, but the world isn't black and white like that.
It's all about the reason why people believe in the things to do. Your accussation that atheists have no logic to back that belief up is completely incorrect, and as long as you keep making yourelf believe that, you'll never understand why atheist don't believe in god.
The reason why Atheists don't believe in God is because there is no evidence for one. This is logic, if there is no evidence for something, it is illogical to believe in that.
Theists, however, believe because they want to believe, don't understand that the "evidence" they have really isn't evidence at all, or other reasons. None of them, however, are build upon, and thats why atheists aren't hypocrites when they say these things.
Also Xexima, saying there is no god is not illogical.
I'm going to post this part again once more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russels_teapot
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
The argument "Well you can't disprove" is illogical. You can't prove something does not exist, but that doesn't mean that believing in something suddenly becomes logical.
It's actually quite shocking people still think "you can't disprove..." is a valid argument, imagine if we apply this ridiculous rule to our entire society, imagine if the court said to you: "Well you can't disprove you never killed that cat 4 years ago, so I'm sending you to jail"