Atheistic Double Standard?

[CogentPhilosopher]

Sure...lots of people believe in the creature known as Bigfoot. While I have not seen this creature for myself, I have little cause to doubt the numerous claims of its existence.
I believe in aliens too. But I haven't seen any of those either. Nearly anything is possible. Who am I to judge?

But do you believe in Zeus, Khrisna, or Allah?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In a philosophy class at college I learned that one old Christian, Saint Augustine, said there are five proofs for God's existence. 1.motion-every movement is caused by a previous movement, nothing moves on it's own. 2.cause-every effect has a cause, the universe must have a cause. 3.contingency-there must some source of life that sustains life, that would have to be above life itself. 4.perfection-the universe is too perfect for it be an accident, atoms didn't just randomly collide to make planets, stars, comets etc. 5.order-only an intelligent being could make such a harmonious universe as ours, we can see a pattern of creation: light and darkness, kinds of animals, male and female, seasons that correspond to each other etc. etc. Of course this was all by an old guy who wore robes and wrote with a feather and ink. I think real Christians would say the proof is faith, the scriptures say "we walk by faith, not by sight." 2nd Corinthians 5:7 NKJV. I believe it was Immanuel Kant, a drop out from Lutheranism, who believed in inherent knowledge, knowledge "apriori" or before experience. Kant thought we could infer a lot about the "noumenal" acausal world from the "phenomenal" causal(caused) world, but that the world wasn't just our experiences and there was something like "gnosis" that could be found within the self. Or maybe that's just my take on it. I think David Hume is the father of my own school, agnosticism. I think Rene Descartes said something similar, that is that all we see could be an illusion created by a magician or demon and we can't be sure if anything really exists except ourselves. Again that's just my take on it. And I felt like I needed to respond, it is my area of knowledge. I did fail philosophy, but I got a lot of good books on it.

I was thinking of taking comparative religion and christianity in class but my financial aid (government financial assistance) didn't cover religious classes. Now they do.

I can prove logical reasons why those arguments are wrong. However, I wish I can back them up with some type of statistics. In some cases, I really don't feel that's necessary especially in regards to god with whom, by definition only exist by definition of one's need for origin, culture, and finding either meaning or moral ways to live in life. Even those who don't admit that religion has these things (as though they are relating with christianity) have this. I used a lot of psychology in my proof. Nothing atheistic. Maybe philosophy oriented. I did read some of Plato's Republic. Aristotle and Socrates.

Though I wish I had a genuine conversation on both sides of proof of god. All conversations are one-sided or cut short.

 

[Sonofason]

But do you believe in Zeus, Khrisna, or Allah?

Honestly, I have no idea. It could very well be that all of these entities (for lack of a better word that fits my situation) are the same entity. But if they are not all the same entity, then I do not believe they ever existed. Or, if they all did exist, they weren't the Creator, and not the same entity that I believe is God. The problem lies in the rhetoric and the doctrine. If the message is not the same, then the god is not the same. For me Genesis 6 suggests that the Greeks were calling entities gods when they were not gods at all.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Oh right....if a smoker is a person who who smokes, and a theist is someone who believes in the existence of God, and if a non-smoker is someone who does not smoke, then a non-theist or atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of God.

I'm not sure why you were trying to force me to reword my analogy, but here it is in its unaltered and uncorrupted form.

We all know what smoke is. We see it, smell it etc. There's 100 percent consensus. Smoking and non smoking makes perfect sense in the context it's givin.

Don't see how God is referenced in the same manner by which smoking and non smoking is comparable as an example alongside belief and non belief for which God dosent make perfect sense in the same context smoke has for smoking.

What's the context for belief and unbelief in God, when God dosent even exist?

There's really no such thing as belief and unbelief when you think about it, much less than attempts to exemplify using real world examples that in essence make very poor points for your fabricated arguments.

 

[ArtieE]

For those who have followed this thread and gotten completely confused, here is a simple guide:

You're either a theist or not a theist (atheist)
If you're not a theist you can be a weak atheist (a person who is just not a theist) or a strong atheist (a person who is not a theist plus believes gods don't exist).

 

[ChristineM]

So you ask me if masturbation is a sin, and I respond, "well I collect stamps

As seems to be normal, you make your case by bringing up irrelevances.

And I'm pretty sure many stamp collector's are human so masturbate.

Also sin a religious concept (or dieting for some reason) thus showing you are introducing more irrelevance.

The concept is not god or what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom or ever even morality in general but NOT.

The definition of atheism is quite specific, other than that, whatever an individual does or says or acts is down to that individual.

 

[ArtieE]

Let us consider the beginning of the universe. In the beginning God said, "let there be light". Today scientists tell us that in the beginning there was light. Wow...that is quite remarkable. To me, this looks like evidence for the existence of God. We discover this remarkable biblical claim within the first few verses of the Bible, and recently science confirms that it was true.

"The Christian Bible says that in the beginning God said "Let there be light" Genesis 1:3. However this turned out to be false. The universe was opaque to visible light (non-transparent) and photons couldn't travel at all. After the Big Bang the universe was primarily Hydrogen, Helium and a tiny bit of Lithium. However when a gas is too hot it becomes ionized (loses the electrons) and becomes opaque (like today's smoke). In the beginning the universe was opaque to visible light (non-transparent). After 380,000 years the universe cooled enough and it became transparent to visible light. For other wavelengths it was opaque for a billion years. So "Let there be light" turned out to be false. However the Quran correctly said that at the beginning it was SMOKE, that is, a hot non-transparent gas:

[Quran 41.11] Then He directed himself to the Heaven when it was SMOKE, and then said to it and to Earth: "Come willingly or by force" they said "We do come willingly"
Big Bang in Quran

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well atheism holds the belief that a godless universe is more likely than one with gods in it.

Nope. All that's required for atheism is to be unconvinced of the existence of any gods. You don't need to make any judgement of probabilities to be an atheist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I haven't seen this argument in bold in a long time.

If I may humbly interject.

Agnostics are not making a claim: agnosticism defined as uncertain whether God Exists.

Now, this truly is not a claim because saying, "God may or may not exist," does postulate anything. It's not even testable in anyway, it's not even something evidence could do anything with. So, while it is an idea it is not a claim.

But, Atheists (who when I remember this argument find some issue with making claims) do make a claim: the claim is God does not exist. That's a claim in that it postulates a theory or idea. Now, it is an untested claim; you really cannot disprove the existence of God but so what many claims are untested look at physics. I'm not an expert in Physics but I know we really haven't tested the General Theory or Relativity, there are plenty of untested claims on Black Holes....this isn't a criticism of Physics merely making the distinction that a Claim can be tested or untested at the moment.

You have it backwards. Agnostics make a claim ("the existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable").

Atheism at its most basic makes no claims ("I'm unconvinced of any gods"). Atheists may make their own claims, but they're beyond the strict definition of atheism.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I think he may have realized just how ignorant his remarks have been or realizes he's backed himself into a corner, and to save face has had to resort to ad homs. Not a particularly unusual tactic around here at all.

.

Or maybe it is finals week for this middle age college student as he works on his second degree.

 

[ArtieE]

You have it backwards. Agnostics make a claim ("the existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable").

There are different definitions for "agnostic". To avoid confusion just think of an agnostic as a person who doesn't know whether gods exist. And some of those who don't know also claim that one can't know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are different definitions for "agnostic". To avoid confusion just think of an agnostic as a person who doesn't know whether gods exist.

Since the person who coined the term gave it a definition that disagrees with yours, I think using your definition would create confusion, not avoid it.

And some of those who don't know also claim that one can't know.

Those are the people properly referred to as "agnostic". An agnostic isn't just someone who hasn't made up their mind yet.

 

[1137]

As seems to be normal, you make your case by bringing up irrelevances.

And I'm pretty sure many stamp collector's are human so masturbate.

Also sin a religious concept (or dieting for some reason) thus showing you are introducing more irrelevance.

The concept is not god or what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom or ever even morality in general but NOT.

The definition of atheism is quite specific, other than that, whatever an individual does or says or acts is down to that individual.

Even more examples of an atheist double standard for your collection, @Jeremiahcp

Nope. All that's required for atheism is to be unconvinced of the existence of any gods. You don't need to make any judgement of probabilities to be an atheist.

I think for me, the best part is how you guys just repeat this stuff over and over like a creationist screaming we lived with dinosaurs. Sorry bud, we didn't

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think for me, the best part is how you guys just repeat this stuff over and over like a creationist screaming we lived with dinosaurs. Sorry bud, we didn't

When it seems like you've understood what I'm saying, I'll stop saying it.

Edit: and the fact that you're making an analogy with creationists tells me that you haven't understood.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

To be honest I think many in this tread misunderstood the OP, and perhaps I could have worded it better. But the question is not what claim in general do atheist make that is unsubstantiated, but in general do they make claims that are unsubstantiated. And it certainly seems they do, which I consider something of a hypocritical position because of the common and often forceful demand for evidence of God.

After viewing atheist after atheist on these forums making baseless claim after baseless claim, I begin to question the hypocrisy of that position. If you are going to have such a forward and high demand for evidence of God then why not everything else? I was not talking about a specific claim, and if you read my posts you should be able to realize that, I was talking about a general behavior.

 

[Willamena]

For those who have followed this thread and gotten completely confused, here is a simple guide:

You're either a theist or not a theist (atheist)
If you're not a theist you can be a weak atheist (a person who is just not a theist) or a strong atheist (a person who is not a theist plus believes gods don't exist).

Actually, a simpler guide is that there is theism. Some people practice it and some don't.

 

[1137]

When it seems like you've understood what I'm saying, I'll stop saying it.

Edit: and the fact that you're making an analogy with creationists tells me that you haven't understood.

So you honestly have convinced yourself that when you say something like "oh, I find that unconvincing," you're not making a judgement? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha... oh.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To be honest I think many in this tread misunderstood the OP, and perhaps I could have worded it better. But the question is not what claim in general do atheist make that is unsubstantiated, but in general do they make claims that are unsubstantiated. And it certainly seems they do, which I consider something of a hypocritical position because of the common and often forceful demand for evidence of God.

After viewing atheist after atheist on these forums making baseless claim after baseless claim, I begin to question the hypocrisy of that position. If you are going to have such a forward and high demand for evidence of God then why not everything else? I was not talking about a specific claim, and if you read my posts you should be able to realize that, I was talking about a general behavior.

Atheists are human, not perfect. If you look closely enough, anyone's going to have inconsistencies in behaviour or lapses in judgement.

I don't think it's reasonable to hold people to a standard of perfection. Instead, I think it's better to point these issues out - charitably, if possible - and see if they take steps to correct the problem.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you honestly have convinced yourself that when you say something like "oh, I find that unconvincing," you're not making a judgement? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha... oh.

I'm making a judgement about the argument for the god, not about the god.

Even true conclusions can be argued for with bad arguments, so I don't automatically reject a conclusion just because someone is doing a crappy job making his case for it.

Has he established that it's true? No.
Is it true? Without more information, that's an open question.

Edit: even someone who believes that every god-belief is unjustified and that every theist is an irrational idiot hasn't necessarily taken a position on the existence of gods.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Atheists are human, not perfect. If you look closely enough, anyone's going to have inconsistencies in behaviour or lapses in judgement.

I don't think it's reasonable to hold people to a standard of perfection. Instead, I think it's better to point these issues out - charitably, if possible - and see if they take steps to correct the problem.

"I don't think it's reasonable to hold people to a standard of perfection."

I never said anything about expecting perfection.

"Instead, I think it's better to point these issues out - charitably, if possible - and see if they take steps to correct the problem."

And I thought it was a better idea to make a thread about it, I mean we can go back and forth on that, but that really is just a matter of personal preference.

But it does appear there could be a double standard here, and we can make excuses all day if we like, but it is does seem to be there, and it would not hurt atheists in general to have a wider scope for their skepticism.