Fundamentalist Atheists

[ImmortalFlame]

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 was not talking about Pascal's Wager, I was talking about the question "what if you're wrong". I've already explained the difference between the two positions clearly, and repeatedly, in the past.

Due to your inability to deal with the arguments put to you without resorting to blatant dishonesty, distortions or ad hominems, this debate is now over.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I was not talking about Pascal's Wager, I was talking about the question "what if you're wrong". I've already explained the difference between the two positions clearly, and repeatedly, in the past.

Due to your inability to deal with the arguments put to you without resorting to blatant dishonesty, distortions or ad hominems, this debate is now over.

Yay I win! But actually "what if you are wrong?" is the basis of Pascal's Wager. And simply the question "what if you are wrong?" in this subject itself has limited outcomes not infinite outcomes. Now move on.

 

[Bunyip]

Yay I win! But actually "what if you are wrong?" is the basis of Pascal's Wager. And simply the question "what if you are wrong?" in this subject itself has limited outcomes not infinite outcomes. Now move on.

Indeed. Limited outcomes that are obviously not knowable, and hence the question is unanswerable - that being Dawkins point.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Yay I win! But actually "what if you are wrong?" is the basis of Pascal's Wager. And simply the question "what if you are wrong?" in this subject itself has limited outcomes not infinite outcomes. Now move on.

You win because people are giving up on explaining the simplest concepts because you fail to grasp them over and over? Apparently you failed to comprehend the definition of the word 'win' while you were viewing Webster's too. :banghead3

You're making the argument out to be only in reference to one position, Atheism in regards to the Judeo-Christian God. The number of infinite possibilities comes from the thousands of other god concepts that he could be wrong about including all that have not yet been conceived. How can he possibly know what his consequences will be if his position is wrong when there are thousands more to choose from, all having different benefits and consequences?

Did you expect him to go through the definition of each god concept that exists and explain what would happen if he were wrong in each scenario?

This is why the question makes no sense to begin with.

*edit* I just went back an re read some of your posts. You state that you are a multi-theist who believes in an infinite number of gods. If you believe in an infinite number of gods, how do you fail to grasp the concept that Dawkins is addressing an infinite number of possibilities?:jester3::clap

 

[Yerda]

Anyone else bothered by the existence of what I call either fundamentalist or mainstream atheists? To be honest, these guys and gals annoy me more than almost any other group. I'm talking about these outspoken atheist who'll literally result to fideism in their hate for religion or fallacy to attack religion. Pretty much 99% of r/atheism.

Anyone else see these folks?

Having considered myself a mainstream atheist for about ten years (in the context of this board) I can honestly say I have regularly been bothered by my own existence.

 

[Breathe]

*edit* I just went back an re read some of your posts. You state that you are a multi-theist who believes in an infinite number of gods. If you believe in an infinite number of gods, how do you fail to grasp the concept that Dawkins is addressing an infinite number of possibilities?:jester3::clap

To be honest, though, it does seem like Dawkin's "possibilities" of gods are pretty, well, simplistic versions of what "God" is supposed to be, as can be evidenced from saying things like "flying teapot" and other statements equally worthy of facepalming -- not believing in a man in the sky, for example, who goes by the name "Zeus", "Allah," or "Jehovah" is not necessarily the same thing as other concepts. If "God" is supposed to be some external divinity who sits there outside of the universe with a big beard who is condemning people to Hell left, right and centre, then I'm an atheist to that.
But I'm not an atheist, but other forms of theism are rarely looked at.

Although, it feels as though more... well, "mature" concepts of Divinity are frequently just ignored or briefly derided and then ignored by Dawkins and his ilk. The idea of pantheism, for example, as 'sexed up atheism' is one way of basically ignoring it altogether. I can understand why it can be that way for some, but it is not always the case, y'know?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

To be honest, though, it does seem like Dawkin's "possibilities" of gods are pretty, well, simplistic versions of what "God" is supposed to be, as can be evidenced from saying things like "flying teapot" and other statements equally worthy of facepalming -- not believing in a man in the sky, for example, who goes by the name "Zeus", "Allah," or "Jehovah" is not necessarily the same thing as other concepts. If "God" is supposed to be some external divinity who sits there outside of the universe with a big beard who is condemning people to Hell left, right and centre, then I'm an atheist to that.
But I'm not an atheist, but other forms of theism are rarely looked at.

Although, it feels as though more... well, "mature" concepts of Divinity are frequently just ignored or briefly derided and then ignored by Dawkins and his ilk. The idea of pantheism, for example, as 'sexed up atheism' is one way of basically ignoring it altogether. I can understand why it can be that way for some, but it is not always the case, y'know?

I don't know anything about Dawkins but from what I've heard, he's not in the theology business. He's in the anti-apologist business.

So complaining that his theology isn't subtle enough to suit you? I dunno. To my ear, that sounds like complaining that Ronald McDonald takes a heavy-handed approach when he slaps the Burger King.

You expect Ronald to delve -- with utter fairness -- into the subtlety of the beef selection process by the BK powers? And only then, when all the evidence has been gathered and processed, and again with utter objectivity and fairness... to gently slap their wrists?

 

[Breathe]

I don't know anything about Dawkins but from what I've heard, he's not in the theology business. He's in the anti-apologist business.

And this, here, is the problem.
If you're (not you personally) going to criticise something, at least understand what it is, first. Otherwise it just looks silly.

 

[Copernicus]

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

No, the question is a matter of response to a question. And I think you have demonstrated sufficiently that you have known all along that he answered the question and that you knew why he answered it the way he did. Your feigned ignorance was just to stir up some anger in folks here, and it worked.

Pascal's Wager was a hypothetical question about an absurd version of God--a supposedly merciful being that sends people to eternal torment (or just any eternal punishment) for offenses that are fairly trivial. How could a merciful being torture someone forever just because he or she rejected belief in his existence? So Dawkins gave a fairly stock answer to the question, and one that should be easy for anyone to understand.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

You win because people are giving up on explaining the simplest concepts because you fail to grasp them over and over? Apparently you failed to comprehend the definition of the word 'win' while you were viewing Webster's too. :banghead3

You're making the argument out to be only in reference to one position, Atheism in regards to the Judeo-Christian God. The number of infinite possibilities comes from the thousands of other god concepts that he could be wrong about including all that have not yet been conceived. How can he possibly know what his consequences will be if his position is wrong when there are thousands more to choose from, all having different benefits and consequences?

Did you expect him to go through the definition of each god concept that exists and explain what would happen if he were wrong in each scenario?

This is why the question makes no sense to begin with.

*edit* I just went back an re read some of your posts. You state that you are a multi-theist who believes in an infinite number of gods. If you believe in an infinite number of gods, how do you fail to grasp the concept that Dawkins is addressing an infinite number of possibilities?:jester3::clap

So you are really bad at math too. Pascal's Wager is limited to a few outcomes not an infinite outcomes. Now move on.

 

[TheGunShoj]

To be honest, though, it does seem like Dawkin's "possibilities" of gods are pretty, well, simplistic versions of what "God" is supposed to be, as can be evidenced from saying things like "flying teapot" and other statements equally worthy of facepalming -- not believing in a man in the sky, for example, who goes by the name "Zeus", "Allah," or "Jehovah" is not necessarily the same thing as other concepts. If "God" is supposed to be some external divinity who sits there outside of the universe with a big beard who is condemning people to Hell left, right and centre, then I'm an atheist to that.
But I'm not an atheist, but other forms of theism are rarely looked at.

Although, it feels as though more... well, "mature" concepts of Divinity are frequently just ignored or briefly derided and then ignored by Dawkins and his ilk. The idea of pantheism, for example, as 'sexed up atheism' is one way of basically ignoring it altogether. I can understand why it can be that way for some, but it is not always the case, y'know?

He may be guilty of over simplifying the concepts but it's mostly to point out how ridiculous some beliefs are when you boil them down. It also demonstrates how a lot of these concepts are very primitive in concept, such as lightning coming from Zeus but now we have a real explanation for that.

I think most people are familiar with this quote,

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

it's pretty famous. But does this sound like him skimming over an over simplified version of a god concept or addressing the actual character of the bible? He doesn't always skim over or ignore an issue.

 

[Breathe]

He may be guilty of over simplifying the concepts but it's mostly to point out how ridiculous some beliefs are when you boil them down.

But it's actually the opposite.

It also demonstrates how a lot of these concepts are very primitive in concept, such as lightning coming from Zeus but now we have a real explanation for that.

But that's not the purpose of the polytheistic gods, either. It's a poor understanding.

it's pretty famous. But does this sound like him skimming over an over simplified version of a god concept

Yes.

or addressing the actual character of the bible?

No.

 

[TheGunShoj]

So you are really bad at math too. Pascal's Wager is limited to a few outcomes not an infinite outcomes. Now move on.

I'm sorry, were we talking about Dawkins or not? Was the question to Dawkins "what is your response to Pasquals wager?" or was it "What if you're wrong?"

Please respond to the actual points that I made instead of attempting to dodge.

You're rapidly losing respect by your blatant dishonesty in the way you debate. I'm close to writing you off as a troll and never bothering to engage with you again.

 

[Copernicus]

To be honest, though, it does seem like Dawkin's "possibilities" of gods are pretty, well, simplistic versions of what "God" is supposed to be, as can be evidenced from saying things like "flying teapot" and other statements equally worthy of facepalming -- not believing in a man in the sky, for example, who goes by the name "Zeus", "Allah," or "Jehovah" is not necessarily the same thing as other concepts. If "God" is supposed to be some external divinity who sits there outside of the universe with a big beard who is condemning people to Hell left, right and centre, then I'm an atheist to that. But I'm not an atheist, but other forms of theism are rarely looked at.

Like so many folks on the internet, your impression of Dawkins seems to be limited by what others have said about him and the excerpted quotes that people pass around to each other in order to stoke up their anger and contempt. To be fair, Dawkins does say a lot of provocative things--precisely the kind of behavior you see from academics a lot. Teachers quite often say provocative things in order to stimulate critical argument, but what they say still needs to be put into context. He has explained in great detail his understanding that not everyone believes in the same version of the Christian God and that he is largely addressing the concept that he was raised to believe in. It is a fairly traditional view that, despite your view to the contrary, is still actually quite widespread in the general population of Christians.

Although, it feels as though more... well, "mature" concepts of Divinity are frequently just ignored or briefly derided and then ignored by Dawkins and his ilk. The idea of pantheism, for example, as 'sexed up atheism' is one way of basically ignoring it altogether. I can understand why it can be that way for some, but it is not always the case, y'know?

Dawkins actually has engaged in quite a number of debates with more sophisticated Christians and people of other religious views, so he is very familiar with your point here. You can see some of those debates in Youtube videos. Nobody is trying to hide them. He has even done a TV series of such debates. He has a policy of not debating fundamentalists precisely because he believes their view of God is too absurd to be worth the trouble of a debate. As he likes to put it, the effort would be helpful to their resumes, but not his. Of course, that humor falls flat with folks who disagree with him.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I'm sorry, were we talking about Dawkins or not? Was the question to Dawkins "what is your response to Pasquals wager?" or was it "What if you're wrong?"

Please respond to the actual points that I made instead of attempting to dodge.

They question "what if you are wrong" is limited to finite outcomes too.

You're rapidly losing respect by your blatant dishonesty in the way you debate. I'm close to writing you off as a troll and never bothering to engage with you again.

Is that a promise? Well go tuck tail and run then. Move on.

 

[Breathe]

Like so many folks on the internet, your impression of Dawkins seems to be limited by what others have said about him and the excerpted quotes that people pass around to each other in order to stoke up their anger and contempt.

I can understand where you are coming from, but I think you would be mistaken. I've seen his debates and read his books, but I'm just not impressed. The priest at the local church also studied under Dawkins some time ago.

To be fair, Dawkins does say a lot of provocative things--precisely the kind of behavior you see from academics a lot. Teachers quite often say provocative things in order to stimulate critical argument, but what they say still needs to be put into context.

But this is not for stimulating critical argument. It's done purely out of malicious intent.

He has explained in great detail his understanding that not everyone believes in the same version of the Christian God and that he is largely addressing the concept that he was raised to believe in. It is a fairly traditional view that, despite your view to the contrary, is still actually quite widespread in the general population of Christians.

Most Christians in Britain are Anglican and quite easygoing, so I don't believe it, no.

Dawkins actually has engaged in quite a number of debates with more sophisticated Christians and people of other religious views, so he is very familiar with your point here. You can see some of those debates in Youtube videos. Nobody is trying to hide them. He has even done a TV series of such debates. He has a policy of not debating fundamentalists precisely because he believes their view of God is too absurd to be worth the trouble of a debate. As he likes to put it, the effort would be helpful to their resumes, but not his. Of course, that humor falls flat with folks who disagree with him.

I've seen a few of these Youtube debates, seen him no TV, and so on. I just don't think he's as good as people think and I'm rarely impressed with what he says.
I see no issue with not debating creationists. "Fundies", though. Well, that term can be pretty subjective. That's an issue for me.

 

[TheGunShoj]

They question "what if you are wrong" is limited to finite outcomes too.



Is that a promise? Well go tuck tail and run then. Move on.

If there are an infinite number of gods, all with different consequences for him if he is wrong, how would his answer be limited to a finite number? You're contradicting your own beliefs right now with that statement.

I'm not running from anything. I'm fed up with (what I think) is purposeful lack of comprehension of these simple ideas that have been explained over and over.

 

[TheGunShoj]

But this is not for stimulating critical argument. It's done purely out of malicious intent.

Source? Cause that sounds like an opinion to me. you can't read minds so you don't know what his intent is.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And this, here, is the problem.
If you're (not you personally) going to criticise something, at least understand what it is, first. Otherwise it just looks silly.

What is 'it'?

He seems to understand conservative Christian apologetics pretty well from what excerpts I've seen of his arguments.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Is that a promise? Well go tuck tail and run then. Move on.

Recently, yet another RF troll put me on Ignore. I'm pretty sure I am the champion of that. So I know about the tucking and running thing.

.
.
.
.
Cynthia?
.
.
.
Cynthia? Are you there?