Atheistic Double Standard?

[Sonofason]

That would depend on the god, wouldn't it?

I would expect a god to be nonjudgmental, generous, and inclusive.

I don't believe God cares much what you expect of HIM.

 

[Sonofason]

A good definition includes every item within the extension of the definiendum and none that are not. There is only one definition of "atheist" that does that, and it is the one you are rejecting or misunderstanding.

All atheists have tons of beliefs including the two that lead them to atheism - namely, that one shouldn't believe anything without a good reason, and that there is no good reason to accept any god claim or hold any god belief - but none derive from their atheism.

To make this more clear, let me add that besides being an atheist, as I mentioned earlier, I also happen to be an avampirist and an aleprechaunist. You might be as well.

I have absolutely no thoughts that derive from those positions. I have no beliefs about anything because of those unbeliefs. Does your aleprechaunism lead to any other beliefs? Will the Cubs repeat? If leprechauns existed, would there be such things as two that were twins? You may have opinions on these matters, but they don't come from your rejection of the idea of leprechauns.

I only reject that which is logical and reasonable to reject.

 

[Sonofason]

You will see both definitions as separate entities in many dictionaries. The word is used both ways. Atheists tend to use it the first way. It is primarily theists that I see using the more restrictive second definition, which I believe excludes most of us that call ourselves atheists.

Of course atheists use it according to the first sense, as it is absolutely necessary to be perceived as reasonable.

 

[Sonofason]

Yet here is an atheist that does not claim that no god or gods exist.

And even if I did, I would have no duty or responsibility to support that claim. I might have an incentive to do so if I had a desire to convince you or anybody else that I was correct.

You could never have the incentive because you lack the means to convince anybody that you are correct.

 

[Sonofason]

Aren't you the one playing the game with words? You're trying to force atheists to make a claim that most don't make to use the word "atheist" to describe themselves. and then criticizing them for avoiding what they already know and you seem to agree is an unreasonable position.

Atheists define themselves. We're no more interested in being defined by theists than either liberals or conservatives are interested in being defined by their detractors.

How do you feel about the jihadist's definition of a Christian, which probably usually includes the word "infidel"? Do you accept it, or are you more interested in how you and other Christians define yourselves?

Same here.

I am not playing games at all. Most atheists do claim that no God exists, and that is an unreasonable position for them to hold. I define atheists, and I do not consider nor care very much how they might prefer to define themselves. I will of course continue to define them as I see fit. I don't much care how jihadists define Christians. To be perfectly honest, I don't really care how Christians define one another. I agree with those who agree with me, and I disagree with those who do not.

 

[Sonofason]

Incidentally, you just supported my claim that the double standard to which the OP referred is much more commonly the other way around. Look at you demanding evidence from the atheist for an "unfounded faith" that you would impose on him while offering none yourself.

Isn't that a double standard in your estimation?

And you'll notice that nobody (or nearly nobody - I haven't read the whole thread yet) is demanding any evidence from you. We're merely telling you that you don't have have it, and that as skeptics, we don't believe without a reason.

No, I have no double standard. I realize that atheists have no evidence to support their atheistic beliefs. Believe me, I never expect them to provide evidence. I may teasingly ask them to show evidence, but I know they will never provide any evidence. They can't. There is no evidence in existence to support their claim. However, we who believe do have evidence. But the evidence we have is personal evidence, and it is impossible for us to share our evidence with others. God reveals Himself to us, but we are incapable of revealing Him to you. Only He can do that. Those who have not experienced God in this way simply don't deserve to experience God in this way. It's ultimately up to God to decide who He wants to reveal Himself to.

 

[Sonofason]

The biblical creation story is evidence that it's authors knew nothing about how the universe evolved. They got only one thing right: The universe had a beginning, although that is also being questioned now: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Incidentally, light wasn't first. In the beginning was a superforce that experienced symmetry breaking into gravity and what would become the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. There was still no light because there were no photons.

Then the strong force split off leaving the electroweak force. There still was no light.

Then the weak force and electromagnetic forces split. Now there were photons.

However, there was only glowing, opaque plasma for a few hundred thousand years. The first light beam appeared thereafter, at about 380.000 years after the beginning.

Now, let there be light.

If successful prophecy is your standard for godlike intelligence, you can't touch science:

"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?" - Carl Sagan

Great you have put forth a lot of claims. I do expect you to support each of these claims with evidence.

 

[Sonofason]

I refer to a similarity frequently: Both are comforted by a product that created the need that it comforts.

People tell us that their faith comforts them. If you grow up without religion, you don't need that kind of comforting.

I'm quite comfortable without the promise of immortality, or being special, or being watched over, or thinking that I will see my loved one that are gone again.

Bit the typical theist will tell you that those ideas comfort them. Why? Because they've been prevented from learning to live without those promises.

Can you see the parallel with a smoker that takes a hit of a cigarette and goes, "Ahhhhh!!!" like somebody coming up for air after a minute under water?

No, I see no parallels here.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Lots of people choose titles for themselves that are inappropriate to them. I have spoken to many atheists who clearly hate the God that they claim does not exist.

I dislike the concept of Yeshua/Jehovah/Elohim since the character of him in the Bible is a very immoral. But that does not mean I think he is any more real than Allah or Darth Vader.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

You and me both.

So you don't know why you are Christian?

 

[Sonofason]

I dislike the concept of Yeshua/Jehovah/Elohim since the character of him in the Bible is a very immoral. But that does not mean I think he is any more real than Allah or Darth Vader.

You are entitled to your opinions.

 

[Sonofason]

So you don't know why you are Christian?

I didn't say that. If you were reading carefully, you would have understood that we were talking about God, not Christ. I had said that I don't know exactly how it came to pass that I have come to the conclusion pretty much on my own that there is indeed a God. I am a Christian because I am following Christ.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And that is because Darth Vader exists, even if only a concept or a character in a film...he exists.

If that's all you require when you say that a god exists - that the idea of a god exists in a work of fiction - then I can agree with you. The Christian god is most assuredly a character in a book.

You might want to try this argument again, a little differently. You began with, "I have spoken to many atheists who clearly hate the God that they claim does not exist," I commented that I hated Darth Vader, and you claimed that that is because Darth Vader was a character from fiction.

How does that support your position?

 

[Sonofason]

If that's all you require when you say that a god exists - that the idea of a god exists in a work of fiction - then I can agree with you. The Christian god is most assuredly a character in a book.

You might want to try this argument again, a little differently. You began with, "I have spoken to many atheists who clearly hate the God that they claim does not exist," I commented that I hated Darth Vader, and you claimed that that is because Darth Vader was a character from fiction.

How does that support your position?

I have no need to support my position. You said you hated Darth Vader. I believe you. I don't think you are crazy for believing in something which has no existence. Darth Vader does have an existence. And he exists as a concept and as a character in a movie. Emotions exist. Thoughts exist. Human beings exist. And God exists as well. You are certainly free to perceive and believe that God is nothing more than a concept, and that is fine with me. The word God actually represents a concept. The word God is a symbolic representation of a concept of an entity that does indeed exist and who is responsible for the existence of the universe. I personally believe that God is a great deal more than just a concept. And quite honestly, that's all that matters.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Apes don't lack tails. They don't have tails.

Those mean exactly the same thing.

Only an atheist would employ such a devious and fraudulent definition for the word lack.

In this discussion, only the Christian fell into the gutter of personal insult. In this discussion, only the Christian couldn't handle dissent. In this discussion, only the atheist observed the Golden Rule.

Why don't I insult you back? Because I lack your inability to debate civilly the way an ape lacks a tail. Neither of those implies a deficiency - just an absence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No where in this comment have I suggested that I call atheists agnostic atheists. That was all your doing.

Your words were, "I suppose then that you would classify a truly agnostic person quite simply as an agnostic atheist."

I replied, "You shouldn't call an agnostic an "agnostic atheist" unless you know that he is also an atheist. He many be an agnostic theist."

Can you see your mistake there? I can.

No? Stumped?

Let me help you then: Nobody claimed that you called agnostic atheists "atheists." You called agnostics "agnostic atheists."

You're not having a good day, are you?

 

[Sonofason]

Those mean exactly the same thing.

Yes, you believe they mean exactly the same thing. But I know they don't.

In this discussion, only the Christian fell into the gutter of personal insult. In this discussion, only the Christian couldn't handle dissent. In this discussion, only the atheist observed the Golden Rule.

I will insult anyone I choose to insult, and I will do it anytime I choose to do it.

Why don't I insult you back? Because I lack your inability to debate civilly the way an ape lacks a tail. Neither of those implies a deficiency - just an absence.

Apes don't have tails. Apes never had tails. Apes never will have tails. How many tails does an ape lack? They lack no tails because they never required tails, and no tails are expected of them. But surely you lack God.

 

[Sonofason]

Your words were, "I suppose then that you would classify a truly agnostic person quite simply as an agnostic atheist."

I replied, "You shouldn't call an agnostic an "agnostic atheist" unless you know that he is also an atheist. He many be an agnostic theist."

Can you see your mistake there? I can.

No? Stumped?

Let me help you then: Nobody claimed that you called agnostic atheists "atheists." You called agnostics "agnostic atheists."

You're not having a good day, are you?

I wasn't talking to you. And that is definitely not what I said. I didn't call anyone an agnostic atheist. I do however recall calling you something, if I recall correctly. I'll stick with that answer.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have no need to support my position. You said you hated Darth Vader. I believe you

You did? Seriously? That was sarcasm.

I was mocking your claim that atheists hate a god they don't believe exist. That is impossible.

I personally believe that God is a great deal more than just a concept. And quite honestly, that's all that matters.

That's wonderful. I'm sure that that has helped you to become a smarter and better person. I'll have to wallow in the moral abyss of my atheism.

Now I'll go work on my language skills such as understanding what words mean and what sentences said, and you go work on your manners and sarcasm recognition skills. You can begin with this post.

 

[Sonofason]

You did? Seriously? That was sarcasm.

I was mocking your claim that atheists hate a god they don't believe exist. That is impossible.



That's wonderful. I'm sure that that has helped you to become a smarter and better person. I'll have to wallow in the moral abyss of my atheism.

Now I'll go work on my language skills such as understanding what words mean and what sentences said, and you go work on your manners and sarcasm recognition skills. You can begin with this post.

But you haven't said anything worthy of a comment. When you do I will respond.