Mostly Atheist Versus All Atheist
Bill Quick

Classical Values » The endless hopelessness of arguments

A major problem which I think makes arguments a time-waster involves the confusion of opinion with fact. If (as has happened) someone tells me what God thinks, and I reply that this is only his opinion, but that I have a different opinion, and he tells me that I am not entitled to have that opinion because what God thinks is a “fact,” and I then reply that it is only his opinion that there is a God, that, assuming there is a God, that it is only his opinion that he has selected the right God, and that it is also his opinion that the God he favors in fact thinks what he asserts “God” thinks (assuming God’s opinion carries more weight than that of a given human), then we have no basis for argument, because we cannot even agree that we have different opinions.

I think I mentioned this several years back, but it’s worth a repeat:  Religious true believers are almost entirely atheist, in that they believe in the existence of only one God – the God of their preferred religion.  As far as all the rest of the Gods in which others have believed throughout history, they are atheists.

In other words, I’m not really that different from them.  I disbelieve in the existence of all gods, while they disbelieve the existence of all other gods.  You’d think that 99.999% similarity would be enough, wouldn’t you?

Bill Quick

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.

Comments

Mostly Atheist Versus All Atheist — 8 Comments

  1. That comparison misses the essence. How about this:

    Monotheist true believers are like a man who grabs a woman, rapes her, and lets her go. Atheists are like a man who does not rape any woman. If you then figure that polytheists and the broader spectrum of religious belief are like either a gang rape or kidnapping a woman and raping her repeatedly over months or years, you will see that monotheists are properly grouped with the rapists — I mean, the broad class of believers — rather than as “close to” atheists.

  2. By the way, I’ve tired of arguing with or reasoning with True Believers who just want a few minutes to talk to me and see if they can make me see things their way. If there was any realistic hope of hearing something new I might be interested from a rhetorical perspective if nothing else, but no. Never anything new. Just the same old zombie arguments that fell apart under a ten-year-old’s scrutiny.

    So my response now is “Go fuck yourself”. It may be expressed more politely. It may not be.

    • I just don’t bother anymore. It’s weird, though. I found that when I was arguing, I’d end up arguing with other professed atheists; what I usually refer to as evangelical or congregational atheists.

      The noise level just got bothersome. Someone wants to put a creche on a courthouse lawn? Fine. Whatever. I just don’t give a fuck anymore. I don’t have time anymore to get all offended and outraged.

      It’s simple. I don’t believe in gods. Take it and leave it. It’s not up to me to justify a negative.

  3. Steve is right. The essential difference is epistemological. The religious believer accepts things on faith; the atheist does not. The difference between the monotheist and the polytheist is a question of what they happen to accept on faith; the willingness to use faith as a justification is what unites them against the atheist.