Fundamentalist Atheists

[CynthiaCypher]

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

An atheist according to all the leading dictionaries I have looked up is a person who does not believe in any gods or deity. So how can a Christian be an atheist if a Christian believes in a god?

 

[Bunyip]

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

You are mistaken (I presume you are mistaken, rather than being deliberately deceptive), that is not at all akin to websters definition or that of the Oxford dictionary.

It appears to be a definition of your own invention.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

Do you honestly need to have every little thing spoon fed to you over and over? This has been explained multiple times.

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.

Actually, I agree with you. He isn't a great speaker. Or, at least, there are far better speakers out there.

However, in this case, his argument was very clear, very concise, and made no appeals to "consequences" because his whole argument was with the poor structure of the question itself and the fact that it has infinite possible answers, rendering it meaningless.

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

And, again, your failure to comprehend an argument is not a refutation of it. Right now, your argument is "he didn't say exactly what I would have said, so his argument is poor and I'm going to whine about it".

This is called "moving the goalposts". You've gone from "he didn't answer the question" to "his answer is poor" to "his answer wasn't specific enough".

 

[Bunyip]

An atheist according to all the leading dictionaries I have looked up is a person who does not believe in any gods or deity. So how can a Christian be an atheist if a Christian believes in a god?

You seem to be uniquely challenged in terms of reading dictionaries. A Christian is atheist in regard to all other gods. As an atheist I can still accept that various conceptions of god exist. As I said, atheism relates to a specific claim, not all conceptions of god known or unknown.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

You are mistaken (I presume you are mistaken, rather than being deliberately deceptive), that is not at all akin to websters definition or that of the Oxford dictionary.

It appears to be a definition of your own invention.

Webster's: one who believes that there is no deity

Atheist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Oxford: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[Bunyip]

Webster's: one who believes that there is no deity

Atheist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Oxford: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Correct, well done!

Note how both of those definitions are different to yours (belief in no gods).:yes:

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Do you honestly need to have every little thing spoon fed to you over and over? This has been explained multiple times.


Actually, I agree with you. He isn't a great speaker. Or, at least, there are far better speakers out there.

However, in this case, his argument was very clear, very concise, and made no appeals to "consequences" because his whole argument was with the poor structure of the question itself and the fact that it has infinite possible answers, rendering it meaningless.


And, again, your failure to comprehend an argument is not a refutation of it. Right now, your argument is "he didn't say exactly what I would have said, so his argument is poor and I'm going to whine about it".

This is called "moving the goalposts". You've gone from "he didn't answer the question" to "his answer is poor" to "his answer wasn't specific enough".

Most question that start with "What if..." is addressing consequences.

What if there is no ice cream in my fridge?

If that is true, if there is no ice cream in my fridge then there is no ice cream in my fridge.

I am not moving the goal post. The question that girl put forward was about consequences, he failed to either address the issue of consequences completely or he passed over it. But he makes no mention of the issue of consequences. If the question is about consequences then that is the issue you addressed. He is just not a great speaker.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Correct, well done!

Note how both of those definitions are different to yours (belief in no gods).:yes:

No they are not different, they are the same. Deity is plural.

 

[Bunyip]

No they are not different, they are the same. Deity is plural.

LOL. Love how you are right even when you are wrong.

They are both clearly different to your definition, if you are having difficulty in grasping that - why not substitute the actual websters or oxford definitions for yours and note how your argument evaporates?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Most question that start with "What if..." is addressing consequences.

What if there is no ice cream in my fridge?

If that is true, if there is no ice cream in my fridge then there is no ice cream in my fridge.

I am not moving the goal post. The question that girl put forward was about consequences, he failed to either address the issue of consequences completely or he passed over it. But he makes no mention of the issue of consequences. If the question is about consequences then that is the issue you addressed. He is just not a great speaker.

No, you're not a great listener. How can he address the consequences if, as he clearly explains, there are any number of infinite possible consequences for a given position being wrong? That was the whole point of his argument - that he cannot give a meaningful answer because the question itself is ill-formed and based on a false dichotomy.

The way he answered the question was perfectly fine. Just admit that you were wrong and move on.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

LOL. Love how you are right even when you are wrong.

They are both clearly different to your definition, if you are having difficulty in grasping that - why not substitute the actual websters or oxford definitions for yours and note how your argument evaporates.

Do you even know what deity means? It means to have the essential nature of divinity, to be divine. A deity is supernatural in nature.

No atheist believe in supernatural beings, Christians do.

Otherwise we are going to have to change the definition of atheist again in this thread to mean those who lack a belief in some gods.

Is that what an atheist is, a person who believes in some gods but not others?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

No, you're not a great listener. How can he address the consequences if, as he clearly explains, there are any number of infinite possible consequences for a given position being wrong? That was the whole point of his argument - that he cannot give a meaningful answer because the question itself is ill-formed and based on a false dichotomy.

The way he answered the question was perfectly fine. Just admit that you were wrong and move on.

No it wasn't because they question was well-formed and concise. "What if you are wrong?", pretty well formed, breaks no grammatical rules and is concise. It is about consequences plain and simple.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No atheist believe in supernatural beings, Christians do.

Wrong. Atheists can believe in the supernatural, and even in supernatural beings. They just can't believe in a God or Gods, specifically.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No it wasn't because they question was well-formed and concise. "What if you are wrong?", pretty well formed, breaks no grammatical rules and is concise. It is about consequences plain and simple.

It has absolutely nothing to do with grammar. It has everything to do with the question being completely and totally meaningless when you realize that there are any number of infinite outcomes and the same question can be posed to any position. "What if you are wrong?" makes no specific claims to refute or even address when asked of an atheist, since any number of infinite Gods, and therefore infinite consequences, could result from atheists being wrong.

I will not be explaining this again. You either understand this argument now, or I will not continue this debate with you.

 

[Bunyip]

Do you even know what deity means? It means to have the essential nature of divinity, to be divine. A deity is supernatural in nature.

No atheist believe in supernatural beings, Christians do.

Otherwise we are going to have to change the definition of atheist again in this thread to mean those who lack a belief in some gods.

Is that what an atheist is, a person who believes in some gods but not others?

You seem to have grave difficulties in comprehension.

As I have said several times, atheism is relative to a specific claim. You are atheist in regard to Zeus, I am atheist in regard to Yahweh. I have given that example at least twice before.

And yes, I do know what deity means - Caligula and Kim Jong Il were both believed to be deities, I believe both men existed and that is not in any way incompatible with atheism. Nobody needs to change the definition of atheism, all you need to do is grasp the difference between your definition and those found in the dictionaries you referred to.

 

[Copernicus]

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

Only with respect to one specific God. In this context, that is an irrelevant distinction.

Sure, Christians can be subjected to the same questioning.

Then you did understand his answer. You just didn't like the way he made it.

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 ******.

Exactly. Why couldn't you just admit that you got his point? That would have saved us all that typing.

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.

Sorry, but I did know his intention, because it is not a new response to the wager. I've seen other atheists respond in just the same way. Furthermore, the video made it clear. Furthermore, the transcript made it clear. Furthermore, people paraphrased it and explained it to you. Furthermore, I have seen Dawkins use it in person. Why is it so hard for you to admit it?

 

[McBell]

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.

:biglaugh:

Make up your mind.

Or are you trying to come up with a statement even stupider than the one you labeled stupid?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Only with respect to one specific God. In this context, that is an irrelevant distinction.


Then you did understand his answer. You just didn't like the way he made it.


Exactly. Why couldn't you just admit that you got his point? That would have saved us all that typing.


Sorry, but I did know his intention, because it is not a new response to the wager. I've seen other atheists respond in just the same way. Furthermore, the video made it clear. Furthermore, the transcript made it clear. Furthermore, people paraphrased it and explained it to you. Furthermore, I have seen Dawkins use it in person. Why is it so hard for you to admit it?

Did Dawkins make any mention of the issue of consequence? The question is a matter of consequences as is Pascal's Wager.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I will not be explaining this again. You either understand this argument now, or I will not continue this debate with you.

Is that a promise?

Are you ******* kidding me? We are talking about Pascal's Wager, we are talking about game theory here. In Pascal's Wager there are relatively a few outcomes and consequences.

Such as:

Outcome A: Christian is right, atheist is wrong.
Consequences A: Christian spends eternity is paradise, atheist burns in hell.

Outcome B: Christian is wrong, atheist is right.
Consequence B: Both get nothing

Outcome C: Both Christian and atheist are wrong
Consequence C: Both are ******.

Where you got an infinite number of outcomes from I don't know, either you have no conception of game theory or you are really, really bad at math. Pascal's Wager is a game with a few outcomes.

So admit you don't know diddly about Pascal's Wager, game theory or how to comprehend a simple question like "What if you are wrong?" and move on.

 

[Thief]

Is that a promise?

Are you ******* kidding me? We are talking about Pascal's Wager, we are talking about game theory here. In Pascal's Wager there are relatively a few outcomes and consequences.

Such as:

Outcome A: Christian is right, atheist is wrong.
Consequences A: Christian spends eternity is paradise, atheist burns in hell.

Outcome B: Christian is wrong, atheist is right.
Consequence B: Both get nothing

Outcome C: Both Christian and atheist are wrong
Consequence C: Both are ******.

Where you got an infinite number of outcomes from I don't know, either you have no conception of game theory or you are really, really bad at math. Pascal's Wager is a game with a few outcomes.

So admit you don't know diddly about Pascal's Wager, game theory or how to comprehend a simple question like "What if you are wrong?" and move on.

I agree for the most part.
I fill the in betweens with the notion we end up with others that think and feel just as we do.

How else to be happy?...how else to be fair?

This places believers with others of their 'own kind'.
And believers with others of similar faith.

To each his own.

Heaven for some.....hell for others.