Fundamentalist Atheists

[Falvlun]

So, if the forest is sound and a tree falls... I'm confused.

Then it was a bad apple?

 

[TheGunShoj]

Sure. I have heard Dawkins repeat that canard. And his fans tend to like dusting that one off as if it were some sort of trump card. But that is about as stupid a statement as one could make.

Atheism by definition is the disbelief in ALL gods, not just one or two or three...atheism is when you don't believe in ANY GODS AT ALL. Since most Christians believe in one god they are no way close to being atheist.

Yes. If you are going to take it very literally it isn't technically correct. But you don't have to. You understand the implied concept which is true to the core. You disbelieve in thousands of gods, I just believe in one less than you. Why do you make a special exception for your god?

Do you have an issue understanding implied themes in phrases or conversation?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Yes. If you are going to take it very literally it isn't correct.

Then please translate Dawkins for me. I didn't know he had his own coded language.

But you don't have to. You understand the implied concept which is true to the core.

Then please demonstrate how it is true to the core.

You disbelieve in thousands of gods.

No I don't. I am a Multi-Theist. I believe that there are an infinite number of gods.

I just believe in one less than you. Why do you make a special exception for your god?

I make no such exception. I assert a definition. Atheist believe in no gods, theist believe in gods or a god.[/quote]

Do you have an issue understanding implied themes in phrases or conversation?

No at all. Calling a Christian an atheist for not believing in Zeus is just plain dumb.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Of course the Dawkin's Otaku will never see that. Dawkins is like Justin Bieber to them. And just like you cannot convince a Bielieber that Bieber's music actually is just pap, you cannot convince a New Atheist that what Dawkins puts forward is nothing but pap, it's propaganda...it is marketed towards a specific prejudiced mind set and it is very dumbed down for easy consumption and to reinforce prejudice.

Of course the Jesus freaks will never see that. Jesus is like Justin Bieber to them. And just like you cannot convince a Bielieber that Jesus' wisdom is just pap, you cannot convince a Jesus freaK that what Jesus puts forward is nothing but pap, it's propaganda... it is marketed toward a specific prejudiced mindset and it is very dumbed down for easy consumption and to reinforce prejudice.

(Boy... it feels so icky to say stuff like that!)

They have created a reality for themselves and in that reality Dawkins is like an atheist superhero, he is marketed as a voice for the voiceless, a stalwart opponent of all the evils of religion. And since that is their reality, nothing can disconfirm their belief that Dawkins is anything but great. Which is kind of sad, because now they cannot even look at anything Dawkins says or does with the eye of criticism or even examine his works objectively. It is personal to them.

How the faithful do howl when the heathen will not bow low enough.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then please translate Dawkins for me. I didn't know he had his own coded language.

For goodness' sake. It wasn't long ago that you were lecturing me on semiotics, and now you assert that using a word for its illustrative, rather than literal, definition requires some sort of "coded" language.

You're impossible to reason with. Your irrational and hate-filled bias against atheists makes any kind of rational discourse on atheism with you completely hopeless.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You're impossible to reason with. Your irrational and hate-filled bias against atheists makes any kind of rational discourse on atheism with you completely hopeless.

Hopeless... but such fun.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Then please translate Dawkins for me. I didn't know he had his own coded language.




Then please demonstrate how it is true to the core.



No I don't. I am a Multi-Theist. I believe that there are an infinite number of gods.




I make no such exception. I assert a definition. Atheist believe in no gods, theist believe in gods or a god.

No at all. Calling a Christian an atheist for not believing in Zeus is just plain dumb.[/QUOTE]

Are you a troll?

I never said he has his own coded language. I just said that the statement isn't meant to be taken literally. Obviously you aren't an atheist because you do believe in a god. That's not the point of the phrase and you know it.

Why do I need to demonstrate that this is true when it is painfully obvious? You believe in a god and I don't, therefore, we both share thousands of gods that we do not believe in. Is this not true?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hell wasn't brought up as an issue in her question. Her question was simply "What if you are wrong?" And he never truly answered that question.

Again: if you exercised some self-reflection and thought about it a bit, you'd realize that he did answer the question.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

You believe in a god and I don't, therefore, we both share thousands of gods that we do not believe in. Is this not true?

No. I am a Mutli-Theist. I believe in an infinite number of gods. But that is not the point, by definition an atheist does not believe in any gods, so it is incorrect to compare a Christian with an atheist.

There is just no comparison at all. Either you are an atheist or a theist.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Again: if you exercised some self-reflection and thought about it a bit, you'd realize that he did answer the question.

He evaded it.

Let say I believe Justin Beiber is the greatest singer alive. And a person asked what if I were wrong about my taste in music and I were to go on a tirade about how they might be wrong for liking Bruno Mars or were to tell them that the only reason they like B.A.P. is because they were born in Japan and then ask them what if they were wrong about their own taste in music...would that truly be answering their question?

 

[Copernicus]

No. I am a Mutli-Theist. I believe in an infinite number of gods. But that is not the point, by definition an atheist does not believe in any gods, so it is incorrect to compare a Christian with an atheist.

There is just no comparison at all. Either you are an atheist or a theist.

But there is. Christians are monotheists who reject the existence of other gods, especially Greek and Roman pagan gods. Dawkins did not invent his reply to Pascal's Wager. Lots of atheists used the same one before him--that atheists reject the existence of the Christian god for largely the same reason that Christians reject the existence of other gods. Hence, atheists don't need to answer the question "What if you're wrong?" to a Christian. The Christian can answer it himself, because Pascal's Wager carries just as much weight for other religions they reject as it does for Christianity. Since that very clearly was what Dawkins was saying in the context of the video clip, some folks have become frustrated at your claim that he didn't answer.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

But there is. Christians are monotheists who reject the existence of other gods, especially Greek and Roman pagan gods.

And that makes them monotheist, not atheist. There is a distinction.

Dawkins did not invent his reply to Pascal's Wager. Lots of atheists used the same one before him--that atheists reject the existence of the Christian god for largely the same reason that Christians reject the existence of other gods. Hence, atheists don't need to answer the question "What if you're wrong?" to a Christian. The Christian can answer it himself, because Pascal's Wager carries just as much weight for other religions they reject as it does for Christianity. Since that very clearly was what Dawkins was saying in the context of the video clip, some folks have become frustrated at your claim that he didn't answer.

Sure, Christians can be subjected to the same questioning.

Let's say I am a fundamentalist Christian who lived by all the moral precept of fundamentalism and prescribed to all the doctrines of it but what if I am wrong and there is no God? Then I wasted my life, I limited myself to being narrow minded. But in reality I lost nothing. And maybe made life hell for others.

Now let's say that there is a God but it is not my God, let us say this God is not very nice and opposes everything I believed, in fact this God is Cthulhu...then surely I am ******.

It is that simple to refute Pascal's Wager. But Dawkins did not go that route. Face it, he could have done better.

And please do not try to argue that was what Dawkins was implying. None of you truly know if that was his intention.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No. I am a Mutli-Theist. I believe in an infinite number of gods. But that is not the point, by definition an atheist does not believe in any gods, so it is incorrect to compare a Christian with an atheist.

There is just no comparison at all. Either you are an atheist or a theist.

How do you not understand this simple argument? He isn't saying that they are literally atheists - he is saying that they could be said to be "atheistic" with regards to other Gods. It's a simple argument used to illustrate the fact that atheism is not a difficult to understand idea when you realize that there are (usually) lots of Gods you don't believe exist. A fundamentalist Christian, for example, doesn't believe in the existence of any Gods except for the Judeo-Christian God, so they could be said to be "atheistic" with regards to the Muslim Allah, the Hindu Gods, or the ancient Greek Gods. This is not meant to be literal, it is an illustration used to show that a disbelief in Gods (or, at least, some concepts of Gods) is actually a commonly - if not universally - held position, and that atheism is little more than a logical extension of that position.

He evaded it.

Let say I believe Justin Beiber is the greatest singer alive. And a person asked what if I were wrong about my taste in music and I were to go on a tirade about how they might be wrong for liking Bruno Mars or were to tell them that the only reason they like B.A.P. is because they were born in Japan and then ask them what if they were wrong about their own taste in music...would that truly be answering their question?

That's not even remotely comparable. The way he answered the question was to show how meaningless the question was by explaining that there are any number of possible answers, and that the same question can be asked of literally any position. Your continued lack of understanding, despite multiple explanations, is staggering.

Let's say I am a fundamentalist Christian who lived by all the moral precept of fundamentalism and prescribed to all the doctrines of it but what if I am wrong and there is no God? Then I wasted my life, I limited myself to being narrow minded. But in reality I lost nothing. And maybe made life hell for others.

Now let's say that there is a God but it is not my God, let us say this God is not very nice and opposes everything I believed, in fact this God is Cthulhu...then surely I am ******.

It is that simple to refute Pascal's Wager. But Dawkins did not go that route. Face it, he could have done better.

Except for the fact that that's exactly the argument he made.

And please do not try to argue that was what Dawkins was implying. None of you truly know if that was his intention.

Except, of course, for those people who actually listened to and understood his response, rather than people who, like you, just kicked and screamed like a child at the mere mention of Dawkins' name and whose default position, before hearing or understanding anything the man says, is to deride, insult and misrepresent him - because trying to actually understand another point of view is too difficult when you're so utterly incapable of accepting even the remotest possibility that any one of us lowly, pathetic, heathen atheists could possibly have an intelligent response to anything a theist asks of us.

 

[Bunyip]

I make no such exception. I assert a definition. Atheist believe in no gods, theist believe in gods or a god.



No at all. Calling a Christian an atheist for not believing in Zeus is just plain dumb.

Atheism is relative to a specific claim, Christians are atheist in relation to Zeus. It is not dumb, it is just how it works. Caligula was worshipped as a god, I believe Caligula existed and was worshipped as a god - that does not mean that I am not an atheist.

Atheism is not belief in no gods - where did you get that idea from?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

How do you not understand this simple argument? He isn't saying that they are literally atheists - he is saying that they could be said to be "atheistic" with regards to other Gods.

So now people can be atheish? Is that like truthiness? They seem like atheist but aren't really atheist?

It's a simple argument used to illustrate the fact that atheism is not a difficult to understand idea when you realize that there are (usually) lots of Gods you don't believe exist.

Simple is right.

A fundamentalist Christian, for example, doesn't believe in the existence of any Gods except for the Judeo-Christian God, so they could be said to be "atheistic" with regards to the Muslim Allah, the Hindu Gods, or the ancient Greek Gods. This is not meant to be literal, it is an illustration used to show that a disbelief in Gods (or, at least, some concepts of Gods) is actually a commonly - if not universally - held position, and that atheism is little more than a logical extension of that position.

No...no...no. A Christian who does not believe in Zeus is not atheistic, they are Christians, A Jew who does not believe in Allah, is not necessarily atheistic, they are Jewish. A Muslim who does not believe in Zeus is not atheistic, they are being Muslims.

Except for the fact that that's exactly the argument he made.

I see him making no such argument...where does he say "Well I would be ****** but if you are wrong about Zeus then you are just as ****** as I am."

He no way implied any of that in his answer. His answer was sloppy.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Atheism is not belief in no gods - where did you get that idea from?

Webster's Distionary, the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language and books like that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No...no...no. A Christian who does not believe in Zeus is not atheistic, they are Christians, A Jew who does not believe in Allah, is not necessarily atheistic, they are Jewish. A Muslim who does not believe in Zeus is not atheistic, they are being Muslims.

Do you understand the difference between "literally" and "figuratively"?

I see him making no such argument...where does he say "Well I would be ****** but if you are wrong about Zeus then you are just as ****** as I am."

You were expecting him to use those exact words?

He no way implied any of that in his answer. His answer was sloppy.

I transcribed his answer a few pages back. It is extremely clear. The fact that you are unable/unwilling to understand that is a problem with your lack of comprehension, not how "sloppy" his response may or may not have been.

 

[Bunyip]

No...no...no. A Christian who does not believe in Zeus is not atheistic, they are Christians...

A Christian is atheist in regard to Zeus, just as I am atheist in regard to Yahweh.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He evaded it.

Let say I believe Justin Beiber is the greatest singer alive. And a person asked what if I were wrong about my taste in music and I were to go on a tirade about how they might be wrong for liking Bruno Mars or were to tell them that the only reason they like B.A.P. is because they were born in Japan and then ask them what if they were wrong about their own taste in music...would that truly be answering their question?

I see: you just don't get it.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Do you understand the difference between "literally" and "figuratively"?

Show me how that was meant to be figurative...so atheish is now a word? Kinda of like an atheist, but not really?

You were expecting him to use those exact words?

No. Examining consequence would have help his argument, instead he just decided to act indignant and fumble as usual. He is not a really great speaker.

I transcribed his answer a few pages back. It is extremely clear. The fact that you are unable/unwilling to understand that is a problem with your lack of comprehension, not how "sloppy" his response may or may not have been.

Yes and in your transcription he mentions nothing about consequences. Or did you leave that part out?