JFKvsNixon Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Okay now I'm confused, I thought we were talking about JFKvsNIXON's post ! The one where he said Christians do stuff to get into heaven and atheists do stuff because they know it's the right thing to do! That is just a gross distortion of my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 You don't appear to understand what hypocrisy is.What are you on about? The analogy I used about driving was illustrating how faith (represented by choosing to abide by the speed limit) would be replaced by fear (represented by needing to abide by the speed limit) if you knew that God existed and was watching you (represented by speed camera's and the police) and was likely to punish you for any wrong doing (represented by exceeding the speed limit). I didn't use it to define hypocrisy. Posted RootsBooster Remember a while back when you said Halibut was trying to "speak for the people" Yes, I do recall saying that. Posted by RootsBooster - tht's you with this statement above. Each person's knows what their faith is based on and each case may be different. I don't depute that each person knows their own faith, but I would say that It's only based on two things- Either genuine faith, or fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 Just a few quotes of yours that I’ve copied from this thread, but over the last few weeks I have read you litter SF your criticisms of the non-religious with the word “hypocrisy” in respect of their choice to celebrate Christmas and Easter, or get married in a church. But that last quote there is odd, even compared to the general level of oddness that you usually subject us to. What exactly is the difference between me not believing in god and participating in celebrations associated with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and you not believing in the Christian God and participating in celebrations associated with the resurrection of Jesus Christ? The difference is that you believe in nothing whatsoever, whereas I believe in something. I believe that the Christian God is a representation of that something, I believe that all Gods are a representation of that something, and the fact that I don't believe in those representations doesn't alter the fact that I do believe in the "SOMETHING". Is that straightforward enough for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 There's no need for an atheist to tweak anything, what you consider tweaking are probably just attempts to explain to you since you generally keep missing the point. I'm not convinced you can be an agnostic atheist, I think the two things are mutually incompatible. Agreed. Posted by Cyclone You either believe that you don't and can't know, or you decide that on balance you don't believe. Agreed. Posted by Cyclone Have you any evidence that any atheist has ever claimed that? Quoting the post earlier where someone said it was possible does not mean that it's actually happened. Why are you asking me for evidence of it? Shouldn't you be asking the person who actually believes it to be true to provide the evidence? All I'm doing is addressing the views of others Cyclone, I shouldn't have to prove their claims true while doing it. Posted by Cyclone A bit long winded and confused at the end, but what do you see as a problem with this statement? It's obvious Cyclone. I fail to see why logic should apply to the unknown phenomena which exists outside of the realm of the human understanding of time and space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I'm not convinced you can be an agnostic atheist, I think the two things are mutually incompatible. You either believe that you don't and can't know, or you decide that on balance you don't believe. Seeing as you missed my last response to this, or possibly just ignored it, I'm going to try a different way: Here are two statements about me: I do not think it is possible to know whether or not god/s exist, therefore I am an agnostic. I have never been given a good reason to do so, so I do not believe that there are any gods, so I am not a theist, therefore I am an atheist. Which one (or both) of those is wrong? (you can answer this too if you want danot) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryedo40 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 What are you on about? The analogy I used about driving was illustrating how faith (represented by choosing to abide by the speed limit) would be replaced by fear (represented by needing to abide by the speed limit) if you knew that God existed and was watching you (represented by speed camera's and the police) and was likely to punish you for any wrong doing (represented by exceeding the speed limit). I didn't use it to define hypocrisy. Quite a few theists claim to know a watchful god exists and they still break the law and harm others. Some do these things because they believe they are doing their god's will. Believing a watchful god exists doesn't guarantee that the believer would obey the law or behave in a manner that most of us would consider decent or good. Your analogy doesn't quite work for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 It is the only logical conclusion. Something must have always existed without being caused, so it might as well be the universe itself. There's no reason to think anything else even exists at all.It becomes the logical conclusion only because the presumption is that logic applies to the unknown phenomena, but why should logic apply when the universal laws of physics and the rules of contemporary science do not? Posted by flammingjimmy Yet you haven't actually specified what they are. You've just attacked what you perceive to be the character of atheists, not their arguments. Like a generalised ad hominem. Jimmy. It's the characteristics of hypocrites that cause them to do the things and say the things that conflict, making their style of arguing similar to that of theists. Here are some examples? 1.) Neither of you take well to criticism. 2.) Both of you tweak your beliefs (or lack of) to what ever suits. i.e, Theist position- 'If the big bang occurred it's because God created it'. The doubtful atheist's position- 'I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't know for sure whether god doesn't exist'. The adamant atheist's position- 'I'm atheist because I've never considered whether God exist on any conscious level'.. yeah right. 3.) The logical and scientifically minded agnostic atheists position- 'There cannot be a God/creator because the rules of elementary logic which I am applying finds a contradiction within the creationism argument which makes the creationism argument a negative argument, therefore I must concur that the universe can exist without cause.. even though I don't know why or how, even though the unknown phenomena that theists refer to as God isn't governed by the universal laws of physics and contemporary science, even though I have no way of knowing whether the rules of my logic apply to the unknown phenomena.. I still concur that God/s do not exist and that the universe can exist without cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 It becomes the logical conclusion only because the presumption is that logic applies to the unknown phenomena, but why should logic apply when the universal laws of physics and the rules of contemporary science do not?Because logic is not science, there is no law that logic can only apply to things that can currently be understood scientifically. Jimmy. It's the characteristics of hypocrites that cause them to do the things and say the things that conflict, making their style of arguing similar to that of theists.Your 3 examples are all either strawmen or not actually hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 The difference is that you believe in nothing whatsoever, whereas I believe in something. I believe that the Christian God is a representation of that something, I believe that all Gods are a representation of that something, and the fact that I don't believe in those representations doesn't alter the fact that I do believe in the "SOMETHING". Is that straightforward enough for you? You're not making sense. I don't believe in the Christian god, and you call me a hypocrite for celebrating Easter despite the fact that I don't attach any religious significance to the holiday. You admit to celebrating Easter, and furthermore actually assert that it is in commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and yet you don't believe in the Christian god too. That sir is hypocrisy. Your believe in "something" somehow prevents you from being a hypocrite. How ridiculous. Do you celebrate every religious holiday, or just the Christian ones that you don't believe in? Is is just the Christian god that you have chosen to represent "something" for yourself? In addition how dare you assert that I believe in "nothing". You have no idea what my beliefs are beyond what I have typed here. A lack of belief in gods does not equate to believing in "nothing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryedo40 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 The difference is that you believe in nothing whatsoever, whereas I believe in something. I believe that the Christian God is a representation of that something, I believe that all Gods are a representation of that something, and the fact that I don't believe in those representations doesn't alter the fact that I do believe in the "SOMETHING". Is that straightforward enough for you? So danot believes in the existence of something which happens to be the "same something" that ignorant, fearful, credulous, superstitious folk invented in foreign lands 2300-1700 yrs ago by mixing older Judaic twaddle with Hellenistic Greco-Roman twaddle. He believes in the Christian god: a god that Christians have no uniform concept of; one that's just as subjective as its many religions. So, danot, which Christian god do you believe in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.