Atheistic Double Standard?

[1robin]

What point do you think has been proven? What double standard are you saying exists, and how has it been demonstrated?

1. You denied cause and effect and sufficient causation principles which have no known exceptions.

By appealing to:

2. The multiverse which has no known evidence, its only merit being that it can't be proven impossible.

I gave those exact examples of how atheists use double standards, to which you responded with the exact double standards I mentioned.

Case closed.

 

[Sonofason]

As far as I can tell, that is the general purpose of Internet forum debates.

It does seem to be a commonality that we all share here.

 

[Sonofason]

Consider the possibility that they hate God in the same way they hate, say, Hannibal Lecter or Darth Vader.

I don't see a whole lot of people frothing at the mouth over their hatred for Hannibal Lecter and Darth Vader. But I have seen several atheists who seemed very close that.

 

[Sonofason]

Theists use it in the first sense, too, if you look at how they actually use the word rather than how they say they use it.

I would never say that my garage lacks a unicorn. It is not how the word is supposed to be used. I realize we all have the freedom to say what we want, but to say you lack a unicorn in your garage would be inappropriate, or in other words quite wrong. To be logical and correct, you would have to say something like, There is no unicorn in my garage. Or there are no unicorns in my garage. You could say, no unicorns exist in my garage at least as far as I can see. But you cannot reasonably and accurately say my garage lacks a unicorn. I would suggest using a dictionary more often if this seems to difficult. But if there exists a God that requires faith in Him for eternal life and salvation, then I could with great certainty reasonably say that atheists lack the faith in God necessary for salvation.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

1. You denied cause and effect and sufficient causation principles which have no known exceptions.

By appealing to:

2. The multiverse which has no known evidence, its only merit being that it can't be proven impossible.

I gave those exact examples of how atheists use double standards, to which you responded with the exact double standards I mentioned.

Case closed.

Easy on that case there. One quick thing before you close it forever and win the internet.

Ok..two

First, substitute the word god for the word multiverse and the statement is equally true. Actually more so, as there are maths that point to a possible multiverse, but none suggesting god afaik.

Second..no known exceptions.. except your causeless god I assume?

 

[Polymath257]

1. You denied cause and effect and sufficient causation principles which have no known exceptions.

Any quantum decay. For that matter, quantum mechanics in general.

2. The multiverse which has no known evidence, its only merit being that it can't be proven impossible.

Funny. That is exactly how people argue about God. The difference is that a multiverse comes out naturally from the mathematics of quantum field theories. Deities do not.

Case closed.

Indeed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see a whole lot of people frothing at the mouth over their hatred for Hannibal Lecter and Darth Vader. But I have see several atheists who seemed very close that.

If there were a significant number of people who were demanding that we praise Darth Vader on our money, in government meetings, and by our kids in school every morning, you probably would.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would never say that my garage lacks a unicorn. It is not how the word is supposed to be used. I realize we all have the freedom to say what we want, but to say you lack a unicorn in your garage would be inappropriate, or in other words quite wrong. To be logical and correct, you would have to say something like, There is no unicorn in my garage. Or there are no unicorns in my garage. You could say, no unicorns exist in my garage at least as far as I can see. But you cannot reasonably and accurately say my garage lacks a unicorn. I would suggest using a dictionary more often if this seems to difficult. But if there exists a God that requires faith in Him for eternal life and salvation, then I could with great certainty reasonably say that atheists lack the faith in God necessary for salvation.

Do you understand the difference?

Not what I was getting at. I'm saying that theists use the "lack of belief in gods" definition for atheism, not the "rejection of gods" definition.

To illustrate my point: do you agree with these two statements?

- if someone believes in any gods - even one - he isn't an atheist.
- atheists actually exist.

 

[crowfeather]

Speaking in general and in your opinion, do non-believers hold a double standard when it comes to religion?

Atheists can hold nothing but double standards. It is the nature of atheism.
The believer attempts to hold true to what he considers he must at least try to hold true to.
The atheist has nothing at all to hold true to, and so may do anything he feels like doing, while feeling perfectly justified.
Because all he has is his ego for guidance, which can justify anything at all, can never be wrong, knows everything, and hates everyone.
As is evidenced in almost every online forum.

 

[Sonofason]

Any quantum decay. For that matter, quantum mechanics in general.


Funny. That is exactly how people argue about God. The difference is that a multiverse comes out naturally from the mathematics of quantum field theories. Deities do not.




Indeed.

That depends on who is manipulating the data and fudging the numbers

 

[Sonofason]

If there were a significant number of people who were demanding that we praise Darth Vader on our money, in government meetings, and by our kids in school every morning, you probably would.

Most people, including all Christians, are just not that stupid. But we are wise enough at least to know there is a God, unlike atheists.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

1. You denied cause and effect and sufficient causation principles which have no known exceptions.

That must have been you. I'm a big cause and effect fan.

2. The multiverse which has no known evidence, its only merit being that it can't be proven impossible.

Sounds a lot like a god.

Case closed.

LOL.

 

[Sonofason]

Not what I was getting at. I'm saying that theists use the "lack of belief in gods" definition for atheism, not the "rejection of gods" definition.

To illustrate my point: do you agree with these two statements?

- if someone believes in any gods - even one - he isn't an atheist.
- atheists actually exist.

Not so, I never say I lack a belief in other gods. There are no other gods to lack. There is only one God and all atheists lack Him.

 

[Polymath257]

That depends on who is manipulating the data and fudging the numbers

So you are claiming quantum mechanics is wrong?

 

[Sonofason]

So you are claiming quantum mechanics is wrong?

It is not necessarily completely wrong, but I believe it is lacking a bit, if not a great deal of truth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not so, I never say I lack a belief in other gods.

Never mind. You seem bound and determined to misconstrue what I say. I give up.

 

[crowfeather]

Quantum Mechanics isn't wrong. It's people thinking they can understand it, that are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those

I'm sorry if I disappointed you. I mean, what would you think of me if you could convince me that 2+2=5.

I tried to tell you that even theists don't use the "rejection of belief in gods" definition WHEN TALKING ABOUT ATHEISTS, but you went off half-cocked on your own weird tangent that had nothing to do with anything I said.

Anyhow, like I said, I give up. If you aren't even going to bother with basic reading comprehension, then this conversation isn't worth my time and frustration.

 

[Sonofason]

I tried to tell you that even theists don't use the "rejection of belief in gods" definition WHEN TALKING ABOUT ATHEISTS, but you went off half-cocked on your own weird tangent that had nothing to do with anything I said.

Anyhow, like I said, I give up. If you aren't even going to bother with basic reading comprehension, then this conversation isn't worth my time and frustration.

It must be frustrating. I probably do understand what you are trying to say. But I'm not certain I do. We all probably agree, there are no living breathing leprechauns in the room with us. Honestly, how many people actually believe this? 1? maybe 10? And we could probably study those individuals and determine that they are absolutely bonkers, totally nuts.

It's a whole lot different with theism. There are billions of theists... and so many of them believe that they have within themselves all the evidence they need to support their beliefs. Some of them probably are downright nuts. But, you have to believe that they all are. And that probably doesn't sit very well with any atheist.

We who believe are perhaps your greatest evidence that God does exist. And that alone must really gnaw at atheists. Why do all of these people get to experience God, and I don't? That certainly could instill a great deal of anger and hostility towards this god, and those whom God reveals Himself to.

 

[Sonofason]

Quantum Mechanics isn't wrong. It's people thinking they can understand it, that are.

Assuming such a thing as Quantum Mechanics actually exists, you're probably right, and Quantum Mechanics would not be wrong. After all Quantum Mechanics is Quantum Mechanics, so how could it be wrong. It's just the theory of Quantum Mechanics that is likely lacking since as you say no one really understands it. Not that Quantum Physicists don't understand the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, they just don't completely understand Quantum Mechanics.