[W:658]The Atheist-In-Name-Only

[DarthPedant]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

Dig up the quotes.

Ok. I’m busy right now, but I’ll dig them up later. I don’t know why... I think you know how disingenuous you are being, and I think the others on the forum know it, too. But I suppose I set myself up for the exercise. I’ll get to it later tonight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Angel]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

Your claim was that “today’s atheism...is without s moral or semantic compass.”
Sartre and Camus were not “Atheism.” So to say that atheism never had a moral or semantic compass is not addressing individual atheists, nor is it even addressing any of the various philosophies that include atheism.

You do see the question mark at the end of the sentence, do you not?

Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus were without a moral and semantic compass?

You do know that I was responding to a post (#9) that had said of atheism and moral compass:

Nope. It never had any.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

Ok. I’m busy right now, but I’ll dig them up later. I don’t know why... I think you know how disingenuous you are being, and I think the others on the forum know it, too. But I suppose I set myself up for the exercise. I’ll get to it later tonight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We see right through him.

 

[Angel]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

Ok. I’m busy right now, but I’ll dig them up later. I don’t know why... I think you know how disingenuous you are being, and I think the others on the forum know it, too. But I suppose I set myself up for the exercise. I’ll get to it later tonight.

Much obliged.

 

[Angel]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

We see right through him.

This is the topic, AINO, not me:

This thread was inspired by recent post exchanges with Rich2018 and soylentgreen.

Disclaimer
This thread is about a particular brand of atheism, and a particular breed of atheist, and should not be taken as about atheism in general nor in particular about old-school atheism, the atheism of the 20th century or of the 19th century, which deserves the profoundest respect. This thread is about millennial atheism, Dawkins atheism, New Atheism, Know-nothing atheism. We all know the brand and breed.

Theses
1. Today's atheism has lost its way and is without a moral or semantic compass.
2. Today's atheist is an AINO
3. The AINO Creed is an incoherent manifesto

Happy New Year to all DP atheists and theists alike!


PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE THE ENTIRE OP ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE THREAD.
CONSERVE DP BANDWIDTH.
THANK YOU.​

 

[pinqy]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

You do see the question mark at the end of the sentence, do you not?

You do know that I was responding to a post (#9) that had said of atheism and moral compass:

Yes, I saw the question mark. And yes I knew what you were responding to...I explicitly referenced it.

You do understand the difference between “atheism,” which is a concept, and individual atheists, do you not?
Whether or not individual atheist have a moral compass is completely irrelevant to whether atheism has a moral. Ompass.

Oh, by the way, you have spent a lot of time saying what atheism is not, but all you’ve said about what atheism is, you have only said it is a set of one belief, without specifying what that belief is.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

I don't follow your courtroom analogy or the reference to 101, but here, in the portion quotes, you hit on the very fallacy this thread is out to expose.
If a person is about evaluating the beliefs of others, he is not on the way toward atheism; he's on the way to becoming or not becoming a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.
If a man is about determining his own beliefs about the existence of God, then and only then is he on the way toward atheism *or theism of course).
Are you a true atheist or are you an AINO? It's all up to you.

And yet you can understand how the courts work?
Presumed innocent until proven guilty?

You want to apply your understanding of the label 'atheist' to only one of the possible ways to be eligible for the word.
You want to apply 'atheist' only to the people who claim that a god doesn't exist and completely ignore the people who just do not believe the god claim.
The first group are atheists making a claim of their own; the second are just not (or no longer are) convinced the theist claim is true.
Both groups are atheists.

I don't evaluate the beliefs of others. But if these others want me to share their belief, I will evaluate their evidence.
Remember, your god claim is not the only one out there.

 

[Quaestio]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

Ok. I’m busy right now, but I’ll dig them up later. I don’t know why... I think you know how disingenuous you are being, and I think the others on the forum know it, too. But I suppose I set myself up for the exercise. I’ll get to it later tonight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't bother unless you really want to waste your time. Other people have been through this before with him, including me.
It's a big time waster trying to deal with someone whose posts are often just bare-faced lies, not just being disingenuous. You can't have a good faith discussion with someone like that. Which is just one of the many reasons why he is the only poster I now have on my ignore list.

Angel
Sage

This message is hidden because Angel is on your ignore list.
​

Life in much more peaceful on this forum without seeing his posts - unless they are quoted.

One other reason is because I was sick of seeing the picture in his signature all the time

Spoiler

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus were without a moral and semantic compass?

They are an existentialist and absurdist, respectively. You CAN make certain statements about their beliefs, but you can't group them together as if they believe the same thing. Pro-tip: the only thing you can tell about an atheist is that he doesn't believe in god. If you want more, you have to ask for more information.

 

[Angel]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

Don't bother unless you really want to waste your time. Other people have been through this before with him, including me. Which is just one of the many reasons why he is the only poster I have on my ignore list.

Angel
Sage

This message is hidden because Angel is on your ignore list.
​

Life in much more peaceful on this forum without seeing most of his posts unless they are quoted.

Also because I was sick of seeing the picture in his signature all the time

Spoiler

View attachment 67247121

Godspeed, pilgrim. I hope you get over your personal animus by and by. So I corrected you. So you took correction gracelessly. No reason to launch a campaign against me. That will only eat your heart out. Be advised. And Happy New Year.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

Because atheism insulted my mother and spit in the punch bowl and pissed in the sink and mooned the girl scouts and tied cans to dogs's tails and pulled the wings off of flies.

Wow, we atheists did all that to you, o wonder you make daily whine threads attacking and insulting atheists! This has become a real obsession for you.

That is a very good point...I've noticed some self-proclaimed atheists express an awful bitterness towards a God they claim to have no belief in...rather ironic, I think...

I don't know any atheists who are bitter against god because that makes no sense. If we're bitter about anything it's about being lied to and brainwashed from birth into what we view is a fictitious and manipulative cult. The animosity is directed 100% at believers.

If god does end up existing someday, I'll then consider him a complete asshole for creating all of the horrible things he did to cause us pain and suffering. Childhood cancer? What kind of an omniscient asshole chooses to create that?

 

[Angel]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

Yes, I saw the question mark. And yes I knew what you were responding to...I explicitly referenced it.

You do understand the difference between “atheism,” which is a concept, and individual atheists, do you not?
Whether or not individual atheist have a moral compass is completely irrelevant to whether atheism has a moral. Ompass.

Oh, by the way, you have spent a lot of time saying what atheism is not, but all you’ve said about what atheism is, you have only said it is a set of one belief, without specifying what that belief is.

Atheism's one belief is that there is no God.

You make a fair point here:

You do understand the difference between “atheism,” which is a concept, and individual atheists, do you not?
Whether or not individual atheist have a moral compass is completely irrelevant to whether atheism has a moral. Ompass.

I'd like to explore this matter further with you if you are available.

 

[Angel]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

They are an existentialist and absurdist, respectively. You CAN make certain statements about their beliefs, but you can't group them together as if they believe the same thing. Pro-tip: the only thing you can tell about an atheist is that he doesn't believe in god. If you want more, you have to ask for more information.

I only referenced them as atheists and profound thinkers.
Thanks for the "Pro-tip." But behavior is information unasked for, and the behavior of internet atheists is there for inspection by all.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

Atheism's one belief is that there is no God.

You make a fair point here:

I'd like to explore this matter further with you if you are available.

There's nothing to explore. I, with about a dozen others, have been telling you THIS EXACT SAME THING over and over and over again. An atheist doesn't believe in god, there is NO OTHER information you can derive from that term. To find out what they actually believe, you have to ask them because EVERY atheist believes something different.

He'll explain this to you again and you'll reject it like you rejected it when we explained it to you. You're not here to learn, just insult and berate.

 

[Angel]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

Wow, we atheists did all that to you, o wonder you make daily whine threads attacking and insulting atheists! This has become a real obsession for you.
...

Obsession, profession, confession. A noble enterprise is a noble enterprise.

 

[Angel]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

There's nothing to explore. I, with about a dozen others, have been telling you THIS EXACT SAME THING over and over and over again. An atheist doesn't believe in god, there is NO OTHER information you can derive from that term. To find out what they actually believe, you have to ask them because EVERY atheist believes something different.

He'll explain this to you again and you'll reject it like you rejected it when we explained it to you. You're not here to learn, just insult and berate.

Why are you here?

If there's nothing to explore, then it's not worth the bits or bytes it's expressed in.

If an atheist won't admit that he doesn't believe in God, then that atheist is also a hypocrite, and I know that without having to ask him.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

Why are you here?

If there's nothing to explore, then it's not worth the bits or bytes it's expressed in.

If an atheist won't admit that he doesn't believe in God, then that atheist is also a hypocrite, and I know that without having to ask him.

Well you're also a liar because I've never denied not believing in god, that's kind of the only requirement to be an atheist.

Why are you here if you refuse to listen to anything we say, just insult us? Not ONCE have you asked me what I actually believe, but on dozens of occasions you've told me what I believe and what I MUST believe. You are here to attack, not learn.

 

[Angel]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

Why are you here if you refuse to listen to anything we say, just insult us? Not ONCE have you asked me what I actually believe, but on dozens of occasions you've told me what I believe and what I MUST believe. You are here to attack, not learn.

What do you believe?
I'm sorry for not asking before, but our conversation has been limited, it seems to me.
I don't even know whether you're atheist or not. I only know that you try to defend atheism. God only knows why.
What do you believe concerning the existence of God?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

What do you believe?
I'm sorry for not asking before, but our conversation has been limited, it seems to me.
I don't even know whether you're atheist or not. I only know that you try to defend atheism. God only knows why.
What do you believe concerning the existence of God?

I lack any kind of belief in god. Atheism isn't something to defend as it's not a religion or belief system. You are just objectively wrong when you try to call it one.

My beliefs are a mixed platter of existentialism, secular humanism, and Taoist philosophy. It's completely unique, as is the belief system of all atheists because we don't have a pre-defined religion that requires us to believe certain things. You could not tell anything about my beliefs based on the fact that I am an atheist, the only piece of information you could get is that I LACK a belief in god.

Why don't you ask atheists what they actually believe then listen to the answers? You're constantly trying to tell us what we believe when you have no idea. You'd start less fights if you stopped trying to tell others what they believe.

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

If there's "no evidence would lead me to reject god as a basic concept," then is there any evidence that would lead you to accept god as a basic concept?
If not, then your atheism is pure and well-considered.
Rejecting the doctrines of doctrinal theism is not rejecting evidence of the existence of God; it is rejecting someone else's idea of God.
Rejecting someone else's idea of God does not touch the question of God's existence at all.

You seem to deliberately misunderstand.

Evidence has nothing to do with this. This is purely based on need and nothing else. Theists need a god and will accept him despite the lack of evidence or any good reason for its existence. As an atheist i lack any need of a god and have no reason to buy into the concept.

It is also the fault completely of the theist who demands they have good reason and evidence of a god and then try to explain it. The atheist merely responds to what are in fact flawed thinking on the part of the theist. I do not reject a god when i argue with a theist. God has nothing to do with the flawed thinking of theists. It is only theists who demand that the argument is about a god rather than what it is really about. The pointing out of how badly theists put together their arguments for a god.

The existence of a god is based purely on personal need for one. Pointing out how flawed your arguments are do not effect my not needing a god.

P.S. Now i get what a aino is.

 

[Angel]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

I lack any kind of belief in god. Atheism isn't something to defend as it's not a religion or belief system. You are just objectively wrong when you try to call it one.

My beliefs are a mixed platter of existentialism, secular humanism, and Taoist philosophy. It's completely unique, as is the belief system of all atheists because we don't have a pre-defined religion that requires us to believe certain things. You could not tell anything about my beliefs based on the fact that I am an atheist, the only piece of information you could get is that I LACK a belief in god.

Why don't you ask atheists what they actually believe then listen to the answers? You're constantly trying to tell us what we believe when you have no idea. You'd start less fights if you stopped trying to tell others what they believe.

I've bolded the responsive bits in your post.
This idiom you resort to -- to lack a belief -- is curious. Especially curious as a reply to the direct question: What do you believe?

Let's examine this curiosity.

Angel to RapidAlpaca: What do you believe?
RapidAlpaca to Angel: I lack belief.

Is RapidAlpaca saying he doesn't believe?
Is RapidAlpaca saying he is without belief?
Is being without belief different from or the same as not believing?
And wherefore the lack of clarity?
Could the lack of clarity derive from the curious and curiously awkward use of the idiom to lack belief?
Why doesn't RapidAlpaca just answer a straightforward question in a straightforward way?
Is there a God?
Yes or No.
Cut the rebop about lacking a belief.
Either you believe or you don't.

 

[blarg]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

why wold not believing in gods give me a moral compass or make me use specific words? im on my own with just that

 

[blarg]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

That is a very good point...I've noticed some self-proclaimed atheists express an awful bitterness towards a God they claim to have no belief in...rather ironic, I think...

well when i consider you god it seems it would be a murderous monster if it existed mostly im disgusted by you that you would choose to support such a thing and judge others by faith for your own hope of benefit

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

I've bolded the responsive bits in your post.
This idiom you resort to -- to lack a belief -- is curious. Especially curious as a reply to the direct question: What do you believe?

Let's examine this curiosity.

Angel to RapidAlpaca: What do you believe?
RapidAlpaca to Angel: I lack belief.

Is RapidAlpaca saying he doesn't believe?
Is RapidAlpaca saying he is without belief?
Is being without belief different from or the same as not believing?
And wherefore the lack of clarity?
Could the lack of clarity derive from the curious and curiously awkward use of the idiom to lack belief?
Why doesn't RapidAlpaca just answer a straightforward question in a straightforward way?
Is there a God?
Yes or No.
Cut the rebop about lacking a belief.
Either you believe or you don't.

Wow, you completely ignored the part where I for an entire paragraph described what I actually believe. This is what I'm talking about. You're getting angry because I don't answer the question the way you want me to. What I believe is irrelevant to you, you just want to tell me what I must believe. I lack a belief in god, and I fill that hole with other beliefs that I mentioned.

Because you dishonestly chose to ignore what I wrote:

My beliefs are a mixed platter of existentialism, secular humanism, and Taoist philosophy. It's completely unique, as is the belief system of all atheists because we don't have a pre-defined religion that requires us to believe certain things.


Nowhere in there is a god required.

 

[blarg]

Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only

That could be but atheists also need to realize the actions they hate are in no way God's fault nor does He support the things they do...there is no scriptural support for their hypocritical ways...put the blame where it belongs...

well im pretty sure nothing about your faith is the fault of any god and that no god supports it but i suppose a god could support it if it existed