Do theists sort of think that belieiving in god makes god real?

[Kharakov]

Do theists sort of think

This is where you went wrong

You may have (perhaps) thrown this out as a jokey comment, but I hope you realize it's massively bigoted on any serious level.

Considering corrupt, piece of shit theists who deserve to be tortured before they are killed have banded together to enslave the poor in the USA... it's definitely incorrect. If they weren't intelligent and evil, they wouldn't have done what they did. The poor are a bunch of fucking losers who should be torturing and raping the rich, but they are too fucking stupid to do what should be done.

So, I'm just saying. It's not theists. It's the lazy, stupid, poor. Just joking, it's the rich who use the good will of humanity for humanity to raise themselves ever higher who deserve pain, torture, and to watch their children be raped and murdered in front of their eyes. That would be so fucking sweet.

 

[Underseer]

Yeah, some definitely do. I often hear that they wouldn't want to live in a world where (insert godless unholy consequences here). As if reality is determined by one's personal desires.

But that's hardly the same thing as thinking that belief makes things true.

And actually, I think you can take account of such things, where the evidence is more or less balanced on both sides and the truth of the matter is uncertain. Not every kind of "reasonable belief" is based on a strict probability calculation of how likely something is to be true. So if theism is a preferable worldview, that doesn't boost its chances of being true, but it may boost it being a reasonable thing to commit to. Religious commitment doesn't require you believing things with 100% certainty.

For example, I don't think Pascal's Wager works because of standard objections. But it could work in theory if you could narrow down the options, specify that the religious option is not too unlikely, and you understand that religious belief / commitment isn't the same thing as believing 100% in things you don't have that kind of support for.

You can't be serious. Pascal's wager?

Threats don't make things true. The whole argument is premised on a logical fallacy, so even before you consider anything else, the argument fails.

Further reading:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum

And how could you possibly calculate probabilities unless you can compare universes with an afterlife and Hell to universes without an afterlife and Hell? I've seen the kind of "probability calculations" theists tend to do.

 

[Underseer]

You must believe that the moon is made of green cheese, or else my friend Ted (who totally exists, I swear!) will torture you for three days. you don't want to be tortured for three days, do you? Look, I'm not going to tell you what to do, but Ted is coming. You have a choice to make, and you'd better make it soon!

Remember, I'm not the one making the threat here, I'm just warning you about what Ted is going to do to you, therefore I am not trying to prove something by threat!

Oh, right. By your argument, we have to say that I proved that it is more likely that the moon is made of green cheese than not. Do you agree that there is a very good chance the moon is made of green cheese? Or do you realize that whether or not Ted exists and whether or not Ted will torture you is completely unrelated to the question of whether or not the moon is made of green cheese?

Threats don't make things true (or in your wording, more likely to be true).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah, some definitely do. I often hear that they wouldn't want to live in a world where (insert godless unholy consequences here). As if reality is determined by one's personal desires.

Well, that's what they certainly seem to think, based on the recruiting arguments.

The last four guys in the Navy that tried to 'save' me all used the basic spiel: So, as an atheist you think you'll never see your dead Grandfather again. Wouldn't you rather believe you could look forward to a reunion.

Well, yes, I would LIKE to believe in a reunion. Grandpa and grandma immediately, hopefully without the Alzheimer's from their last days. And I would LIKE to believe that i'll eventually see my kids again, and their kids, and their kids, and their kids...
But the mere fact of: it would be nice if it were true is not, for me, a reason to join a group who believed that it is true.

At least in politics, if something would be nice if it were true, that would be a reason to join a political party that is working to make it be true. Like, if someone had a plan to make nuclear waste NOT be a threat to the environment, I'd support that as a goal. But it would NOT be a reason to join a party who maintains that nuclear waste has already been solved, as far as threat to the environment goes.

 

[rousseau]

Do theists sort of think

This is where you went wrong

You may have (perhaps) thrown this out as a jokey comment, but I hope you realize it's massively bigoted on any serious level.

Rude yes, but not a joke.

If we constrain the argument of metaphysics to what is knowable, then strong logic skills will lead a person to secularism.

Unless your 'theism' is vague enough to be defined as 'an unknowable cause', then theists just haven't thought logically through the problem yet, or aren't relying on rational thought to form their beliefs.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do theists sort of think

You may have (perhaps) thrown this out as a jokey comment, but I hope you realize it's massively bigoted on any serious level.

Rude yes, but not a joke.

Considering how many theists have insisted that intellectuals think their way away from God, I'd agree.
Many don't think they're allowed to think, many are proud that they don't.

My uncle used to say, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."
My grandfather (uncle's father in law) thought this was an arrogant approach. Grpa said, "God said it, that settles it, whether I believe it or not, you communist."

And the fundies on FundiesSayTheDarndestThings are constantly rejecting all science and logic for their blind faith exactly because thinking leads to atheism.

 

[Vork]

Yeah, some definitely do. I often hear that they wouldn't want to live in a world where (insert godless unholy consequences here). As if reality is determined by one's personal desires.

But that's hardly the same thing as thinking that belief makes things true.

And actually, I think you can take account of such things, where the evidence is more or less balanced on both sides and the truth of the matter is uncertain. Not every kind of "reasonable belief" is based on a strict probability calculation of how likely something is to be true. So if theism is a preferable worldview, that doesn't boost its chances of being true, but it may boost it being a reasonable thing to commit to. Religious commitment doesn't require you believing things with 100% certainty.

For example, I don't think Pascal's Wager works because of standard objections. But it could work in theory if you could narrow down the options, specify that the religious option is not too unlikely, and you understand that religious belief / commitment isn't the same thing as believing 100% in things you don't have that kind of support for.

You can't be serious. Pascal's wager?

Threats don't make things true. The whole argument is premised on a logical fallacy, so even before you consider anything else, the argument fails.

Further reading:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum

And how could you possibly calculate probabilities unless you can compare universes with an afterlife and Hell to universes without an afterlife and Hell? I've seen the kind of "probability calculations" theists tend to do.

You completely misunderstood my point. No one is saying that "threats make things true".

I also said I didn't think Pascal's Wager works because of standard objections; but your own links miss the point. Certainly my own point anyway, and I'm guessing they would also fail as responses to the original Pascal's Wager. (The second link might apply to the original Pascal's Wager perhaps)

 

[Vork]

You must believe that the moon is made of green cheese, or else my friend Ted (who totally exists, I swear!) will torture you for three days. you don't want to be tortured for three days, do you? Look, I'm not going to tell you what to do, but Ted is coming. You have a choice to make, and you'd better make it soon!

Remember, I'm not the one making the threat here, I'm just warning you about what Ted is going to do to you, therefore I am not trying to prove something by threat!

Oh, right. By your argument, we have to say that I proved that it is more likely that the moon is made of green cheese than not. Do you agree that there is a very good chance the moon is made of green cheese? Or do you realize that whether or not Ted exists and whether or not Ted will torture you is completely unrelated to the question of whether or not the moon is made of green cheese?

Threats don't make things true (or in your wording, more likely to be true).

No that's not "my wording" at all. The very thing I made explicit *I wasn't saying* (because I knew captain obvious types would make a fuss over it), you are pretending I said anyway.


What I actually said:

"So if theism is a preferable worldview, that doesn't boost its chances of being true..."

 

[Vork]

Rude yes, but not a joke.

Considering how many theists have insisted that intellectuals think their way away from God, I'd agree.
Many don't think they're allowed to think, many are proud that they don't.

My uncle used to say, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."
My grandfather (uncle's father in law) thought this was an arrogant approach. Grpa said, "God said it, that settles it, whether I believe it or not, you communist."

And the fundies on FundiesSayTheDarndestThings are constantly rejecting all science and logic for their blind faith exactly because thinking leads to atheism.

So you use the extreme fringe as evidence for theists in general? That would be "bigotry" in any other context. Even if you want to say "there are quite a lot of them like this", it still doesn't support a negative statement of that nature.

 

[Vork]

Do theists sort of think

This is where you went wrong

You may have (perhaps) thrown this out as a jokey comment, but I hope you realize it's massively bigoted on any serious level.

Rude yes, but not a joke.

If we constrain the argument of metaphysics to what is knowable, then strong logic skills will lead a person to secularism.

Unless your 'theism' is vague enough to be defined as 'an unknowable cause', then theists just haven't thought logically through the problem yet, or aren't relying on rational thought to form their beliefs.

Very little is strictly knowable when it comes to metaphysics. For example, you can't strictly know that there is anything outside of your own mind. Do we take skepticism to that degree, or do we allow that there are reasonable arguments potentially for various metaphysical things like an outside world?

You would accept that some strictly unprovable metaphysical beliefs--like an outside world--are reasonable beliefs? But you don't think theism is in the same category when it comes to quality of arguments supporting it? (Or anything remotely near.)

Well you kind of expect atheists to think that. Theists will obviously often think otherwise...

 

[Keith&Co.]

So you use the extreme fringe as evidence for theists in general? That would be "bigotry" in any other context. Even if you want to say "there are quite a lot of them like this", it still doesn't support a negative statement of that nature.

How are you sure that those are the extreme fringe?
I mean, if you're just going to label them as the fringe, without any sort of support, that's also bias.

I personally don't think theists are taught to think. God's Word has a whole lot of dos and don'ts, but not much explanation of why. Build a home, put a knee-high wall around the roof. No explanation, so there's no way to know if this applies only to desert homes, or only Mediterranean homes, or only homes where the dwelling also functions as a place of business. So there's no way to know God's intent as far as homes in areas that get plenty of snow. There are attempts at rationalizing this, either based on the idea that it's expired as a commandment, or whatever, but the 'thinking' is hampered by not being allowed to come to a conclusion that rejects the Word.
And that's not a fringe problem.

 

[Vork]

So you use the extreme fringe as evidence for theists in general? That would be "bigotry" in any other context. Even if you want to say "there are quite a lot of them like this", it still doesn't support a negative statement of that nature.

How are you sure that those are the extreme fringe?
I mean, if you're just going to label them as the fringe, without any sort of support, that's also bias.

I personally don't think theists are taught to think. God's Word has a whole lot of dos and don'ts, but not much explanation of why. Build a home, put a knee-high wall around the roof. No explanation, so there's no way to know if this applies only to desert homes, or only Mediterranean homes, or only homes where the dwelling also functions as a place of business. So there's no way to know God's intent as far as homes in areas that get plenty of snow. There are attempts at rationalizing this, either based on the idea that it's expired as a commandment, or whatever, but the 'thinking' is hampered by not being allowed to come to a conclusion that rejects the Word.
And that's not a fringe problem.

You were appealing to a site called "fundies say the darndest things".

That's not obviously a fringe source?

And you know someone who said, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it". So presumably a hard-core Bible believer. Now have there been plenty of hard-core Bible believers in the history of theistic religion? Sure. You may be able to fairly say that they aren't a fringe movement, but entirely part of the mainstream. But they still don't represent theism in the general sense.

How many atheists just go along with their view--just borrowed from others really--without really thinking about the issues in a fair minded way? Atheists are all super-rational and theists just blindly follow tradition?

 

[Hermit]

When they say "God is real to me" isn't that what that means?

I have yet to meet a theist who would consider the proposition "If I ceased to believe in God, God would cease to exist." as logical or plausible. So, no. When they say "God is real to me", they do not mean to say that belief in a God makes him real. They think he is real, and that's why they believe in him. What they really say is "God is real. I don't give a flying fuck what you think."

 

[rousseau]

Rude yes, but not a joke.

If we constrain the argument of metaphysics to what is knowable, then strong logic skills will lead a person to secularism.

Unless your 'theism' is vague enough to be defined as 'an unknowable cause', then theists just haven't thought logically through the problem yet, or aren't relying on rational thought to form their beliefs.

Very little is strictly knowable when it comes to metaphysics. For example, you can't strictly know that there is anything outside of your own mind. Do we take skepticism to that degree, or do we allow that there are reasonable arguments potentially for various metaphysical things like an outside world?

You would accept that some strictly unprovable metaphysical beliefs--like an outside world--are reasonable beliefs? But you don't think theism is in the same category when it comes to quality of arguments supporting it? (Or anything remotely near.)

Well you kind of expect atheists to think that. Theists will obviously often think otherwise...

Fair enough, as long as said theist isn't making any type of claim beyond something resembling agnosticism.

I can actually jive with the argument, 'I have no evidence, but I think the universe has a creator', but I have a hard time reconciling much beyond that with any type of rational thought process.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You were appealing to a site called "fundies say the darndest things".

As the most egregious example of what I was talking about, about theists. the 'fundies' were not the only group I was talking about.

And you know someone who said, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it". So presumably a hard-core Bible believer. Now have there been plenty of hard-core Bible believers in the history of theistic religion? Sure. You may be able to fairly say that they aren't a fringe movement, but entirely part of the mainstream. But they still don't represent theism in the general sense.

Don't they? Are they the fringe or are they the kernel at the center? THEY certainly feel that they're the True Christians, and all others are just wannabes.

How many atheists just go along with their view--just borrowed from others really--without really thinking about the issues in a fair minded way? Atheists are all super-rational and theists just blindly follow tradition?

The rationality or irrationality of atheists has absolute nothing to do with the thinking habits of the theists. It's exactly this sort of whataboutism that makes me question whether theists think, or if they just learn to spout certain platitudes, or kneejerk aphorisms.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For example, you can't strictly know that there is anything outside of your own mind.

Properly applied, then, a god is something only in my mind.

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

I can actually jive with the argument, 'I have no evidence, but I think the universe has a creator', but I have a hard time reconciling much beyond that with any type of rational thought process.

That's very much my take. I think its possible, but couldn't put any kind of percentage probability against, the likelihood of a creative force existing. It could be anywhere between 0 and 100 but its actually something that I'm not concerned about. I can't see what difference it would make, I don't think it would make me behave or think any differently. But I do wish that more people felt the same way. I'm completely in awe of nature and the universe and that is more than enough to keep my mind engaged.

 

[remez]

Do theists sort of think

This is where you went wrong

You may have (perhaps) thrown this out as a jokey comment, but I hope you realize it's massively bigoted on any serious level.

Rude yes, but not a joke.

If we constrain the argument of metaphysics to what is knowable, then strong logic skills will lead a person to secularism.

Unless your 'theism' is vague enough to be defined as 'an unknowable cause', then theists just haven't thought logically through the problem yet, or aren't relying on rational thought to form their beliefs.

All of your logic there arbitrarily depends on what you mean by "knowable".

I suspect you are assuming somehow that only natural causes need apply. If that is the case, then why should a theist constrain their argument to only natural causes? It naturally does not make sense, because, if what you mean by "knowable" means natural causes only then what you just reasoned there was simply this .......

If we constrain our arguments to only natural causes then we get a nature only conclusion.
Therefore theism is irrational.

Remember................"Nature never deceives us; it is we who deceive ourselves."

so...
What do you mean by knowable?

 

[Kharakov]

And the fundies on FundiesSayTheDarndestThings are constantly rejecting all science and logic for their blind faith exactly because thinking leads to atheism.

Corrupt psychics (people who use analytics to predict stuff and induce depression, which can cause God seeking behavior) will pretend to be God for reasons that don't seem too bad, until you realize they live in mansions and have all the nice stuff.

Which is why they should be tortured. Then killed. Well, basically anyone who lives the easy life on the effort of others without attempting to contribute.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I can actually jive with the argument, 'I have no evidence, but I think the universe has a creator', but I have a hard time reconciling much beyond that with any type of rational thought process.

That's very much my take. I think its possible, but couldn't put any kind of percentage probability against, the likelihood of a creative force existing. It could be anywhere between 0 and 100 but its actually something that I'm not concerned about. I can't see what difference it would make, I don't think it would make me behave or think any differently. But I do wish that more people felt the same way. I'm completely in awe of nature and the universe and that is more than enough to keep my mind engaged.

It's about not having a double standard I suppose, because inevitably one must ask what created the creator?

I always liked Sagan's take, that if the creator needs no creator why does a cosmos? The cosmos is pretty awesome, why can't it be a creator? For believers, it's probably because it isn't enough like the person envisioning their "creator." But with a touch more thought it is, because we are the cosmos, part of that creator.

Theists, anyway, see themselves as something separate and special. They're not Earth, they live on it. So a creator must be like themselves, separate and special.