The Hypocrisy of Hypocrites

[vizi]

People who believe in God are hypocrites.
People who believe in no God are hypocrites.

People who make threads about hypocrites are hypocrites.
I am a hypocrite.

Seriously what is the point of the useless attacking of people who hold different religious beliefs...I have been waiting for some time for that Hypocrisy of Atheists thread to disappear...

You cannot prove or disprove God or gods. Just the same you cannot prove their is not some deity floating in the sky pulling the strings.

Is it possible to have an intelligent debate concerning religion or are you all going to continue making silly threads about how each other are hypocrites?

(I feel better now)

[chriscase]

People who believe in God are hypocrites.
People who believe in no God are hypocrites.

People who make threads about hypocrites are hypocrites.
I am a hypocrite.

Seriously what is the point of the useless attacking of people who hold different religious beliefs...I have been waiting for some time for that Hypocrisy of Atheists thread to disappear...

You cannot prove or disprove God or gods. Just the same you cannot prove their is not some deity floating in the sky pulling the strings.

Is it possible to have an intelligent debate concerning religion or are you all going to continue making silly threads about how each other are hypocrites?

(I feel better now)

I have been scratching my head trying to think whether there is any possible way one could interpret Christian doctrine as hypocritical. The closest I can come is where due to Original Sin, traditional Catholicism asserts that all humans are fundamentally evil, yet Catholics carry on being human.

[Tankbuster]

Is it possible to have an intelligent debate concerning religion

No. Or barely.
Ever seen it happen in the real world? I bet not. So why would it happen on an online forum?

or are you all going to continue making silly threads about how each other are hypocrites?

Yes, welcome to the real world

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I'm a hypocrite, too, everyone's a hypocrite. People who claim they are not hypocrites are the biggest hypocrites.

The existence of a god (or gods) is a different question though, but this has been discussed a billion times in this forum. I think the term 'god' has became a too closed concept, and even more emptied throughout the 20th and 21st century.

Just take a look at this page, and you'll be even more puzzled about the various historical definitions and ideas about god.

[Da Skinna]

If you believe in sanctity of life, you believe it for all people.


White rich old es are not lining up to adopt black kids, but they seem to get along fine forcing the poor to believe that abortion is evil.


them. They are hypocrites.

[Amorphos]

I have been scratching my head trying to think whether there is any possible way one could interpret Christian doctrine as hypocritical.

god created evil [as he created all things [and it says so in the bible]], then expects us to deal with it and punishes us if we don’t. i.e. everything is his fault not ours. secondly; 'righteousness is itself divisive' [see thread by that name for details].

you’ll be even more puzzled about the various historical definitions and ideas about god.

yes it changes all the time, and now we have a medium by which to discuss our ideas [forums] so it will change much more.
the thing i hate is when good arguments are made and then ignored. that is what makes it go around in circles.

it would take a lot of work but it would be great if all the poignant arguments were put in one place for reference.

[Da Skinna]

Is there not some forms of unacceptable hypocrisy?

Iran-Contra Scandal... Rwanda being largely ignored... Larry Craig...?

[dwringer]

I feel like a hypocrite for being bothered by hypocrisy.

I'm not sure that it isn't a logical fallacy to say that hypocrisy is bad, to be honest.

Nevertheless I don't like it in myself or in others. It's an inescapable fact of life, though.

[Amorphos]

very true

we determine things by division and contrast, hypocracy will inevitably be the result of this in many cases. we can’t really not be like it, however we can all see through it, so if for example you see through mine, why don’t we consider it so that i see through it too!

so it is not really there in a sense.

[attilavolciak07]

Finally someone says it!!

[The Colonel]

People who believe in God are hypocrites.
People who believe in no God are hypocrites.

People who make threads about hypocrites are hypocrites.
I am a hypocrite.

lol....wut?

[Otsman]

People who believe in God are hypocrites.
People who believe in no God are hypocrites.

People who make threads about hypocrites are hypocrites.
I am a hypocrite.

Seriously what is the point of the useless attacking of people who hold different religious beliefs...I have been waiting for some time for that Hypocrisy of Atheists thread to disappear...

You cannot prove or disprove God or gods. Just the same you cannot prove their is not some deity floating in the sky pulling the strings.

Is it possible to have an intelligent debate concerning religion or are you all going to continue making silly threads about how each other are hypocrites?

(I feel better now)

my head just exploded

[rathelios]

People mostly are hypocritical, though.
People don't think through their opinions and cross check any logical contradictions against other opinions they hold.
People have a tendency to sign up to an identity that comes with a set of opinions people like that are supposed to hold. These are very often contradictory.
People think what they think for subconscious emotional reasons. Facts and logic don't get a look in. The subconscious emotional self is not convcerned about whether it is hypocritical or not.

It is not possible to have an intelligent religious debate. That's what makes it so entertaining.

[HopliteElite]

It is not possible to have an intelligent religious debate. That's what makes it so entertaining.

Because there is nothing intelligent about religion. How can an intelligent debate take place between an atheist (a follower of empirical data and evidence) and a theist (a follower of blind belief in something with no empirical data or evidence).

It is like a parent trying to intelligently debate with his child over the existence of the pink elephant that lives in the child's closet or the boogeyman that supposedly lives under his bed. Sure the parent cannot "prove" that the pink elephant or the boogeyman doesn't only show up when he isn't around but the very notion is so rediculous and the probability so slim that the scenarios warrant no real consideration.

[chriscase]

Ok, how about this.

A hypocrite is someone whose behavior contradicts his stated ideals. So, a hypocrite is someone who has not attained the goals he has set for himself.

To not be a hypocrite is to have complete concordance between one's stated ideals and one's behavior.

So, hypocrisy is good, because without it we cannot grow. A person free of hypocrisy has nowhere to go. His goals are not set high enough.

[Tankbuster]

A hypocrite is someone whose behavior contradicts his stated ideals. So, a hypocrite is someone who has not attained the goals he has set for himself.

No, not really.

To not be a hypocrite is to have complete concordance between one's stated ideals and one's behavior.

So, hypocrisy is good, because without it we cannot grow. A person free of hypocrisy has nowhere to go. His goals are not set high enough.

No, chriscase, hypocrisy is not good.

Hypocrisy is saying things you know you won't be able to fulfill yourself. It's telling people they should have a proper and serious relationship, while you're sleeping around yourself.
It's saying that you will always defend someone in need, but if you see an old man getting battered by a group, you do nothing.

It's setting standards for others, but not for yourself, and pure bragging.

So, no, it's not something that helps you growing. It's pure arrogance.
If you haven't grown to the point where you can tell others about how high your standards are, then you should shut. The . Up.

THAT is hypocrisy.

[chriscase]

No, not really.



No, chriscase, hypocrisy is not good.

Hypocrisy is saying things you know you won't be able to fulfill yourself. It's telling people they should have a proper and serious relationship, while you're sleeping around yourself.
It's saying that you will always defend someone in need, but if you see an old man getting battered by a group, you do nothing.

It's setting standards for others, but not for yourself, and pure bragging.

So, no, it's not something that helps you growing. It's pure arrogance.
If you haven't grown to the point where you can tell others about how high your standards are, then you should shut. The . Up.

THAT is hypocrisy.

You seem kind of angry. I take it you didn't like my little argument.

Prying loose your counter argument, is it really so bad to pledge always to help those in need, sincerely? Even if you know you won't really be able to follow through all the time? Isn't the real offence the failure to help in the first place?

[Tankbuster]

You seem kind of angry. I take it you didn't like my little argument.

No, no, no! I feel very happy at the moment, actually Perhaps it was all those short sentences that made you think I was angry. I never let my emotions take part in a debate.
But I did disagree with you, you got that right

Prying loose your counter argument, is it really so bad to pledge always to help those in need, sincerely? Even if you know you won't really be able to follow through all the time? Isn't the real offence the failure to help in the first place?

Well, I think that if you know that there are certain conditions before you help someone, that they deserve to be mentioned.
For example, I'm pretty sure that I would defend someone who is being battered UNLESS I would be in real danger. For example, if there are arms involved, if there are loads of really angry people involved in the battering, if he clearly provoked and deserved the attack, etcetera etcetera.

I think those are important distinctions in the situation, and they deserve to be mentioned. I would say "I would defend someone who is being battered, unless the situation is really dangerous for me".
That's something entirely else than saying "I would always defend someone who is being battered." I consider the latter hypocrite, but the first is just ... a moral principle you have, and it is realistic.

I do think it's bad if you tell people things that you know you won't be able to fulfill.

[Amorphos]

chriscase

i thought this was good...

A hypocrite is someone whose behavior contradicts his stated ideals. So, a hypocrite is someone who has not attained the goals he has set for himself.

To not be a hypocrite is to have complete concordance between one’s stated ideals and one’s behavior.

So, hypocrisy is good, because without it we cannot grow. A person free of hypocrisy has nowhere to go. His goals are not set high enough.

and that tankbusters counter argument is too.

is it then that duplicity serves a purpose but can be used as a deceit. hence hypocrisy is both good and bad depending on how we use it.

so we cannot say it is bad nor good.

[chriscase]

Well, I think that if you know that there are certain conditions before you help someone, that they deserve to be mentioned.
For example, I'm pretty sure that I would defend someone who is being battered UNLESS I would be in real danger. For example, if there are arms involved, if there are loads of really angry people involved in the battering, if he clearly provoked and deserved the attack, etcetera etcetera.

I think those are important distinctions in the situation, and they deserve to be mentioned. I would say "I would defend someone who is being battered, unless the situation is really dangerous for me".
That's something entirely else than saying "I would always defend someone who is being battered." I consider the latter hypocrite, but the first is just ... a moral principle you have, and it is realistic.

I do think it's bad if you tell people things that you know you won't be able to fulfill.

You are being altogether too practical for the purposes of my thought experiment.

The usual definition of hypocrisy certainly includes an element of dishonesty, in that when you accuse someone of hypocrisy, the implication is that a moral stance was taken with no intention of sincerity.

That's all well and good, until we take the additional step of holding the outcome of someone's actions as proof of their intent. In practice, we rarely know the true intent of someone's actions when we accuse him of hypocrisy. Instead, we look at actions or outcomes, which are not necessarily in accordance with intent. The inconsistency of outcome with stated intent is taken as proof of deception, which I think is a little unfair.

The popular condemnation of hypocrisy has created an atmosphere that is so poisonous, I suspect most of us would rather set expectations so low, no one could possibly accuse us of falling short. In other words, we inoculate ourselves against the faintest whiff of hypocrisy by posturing as deadbeats. Until that job interview...

is it then that duplicity serves a purpose but can be used as a deceit. hence hypocrisy is both good and bad depending on how we use it...
so we cannot say it is bad nor good.

I think we ought to be willing to set standards high enough to fail. And if others accuse us of hypocrisy solely because of that, it should not be a hanging offense. Actually, unless someone can prove that the profession of standards was truly insincere - and not simply by virtue of the professor having fallen short - then they shouldn't call it hypocrisy.