Exposing Atheistic Myths

[aupmanyav]

That's why I didn't go beyond western religions. But Indian religions vary widely.

They do. They are like Multi-product Corporations, provide what is necessary for all sorts of people. So, every one is satisfied.

 

[aupmanyav]

And where are all the believers in those religions now? Burning in Hell for heresy, that's where they are. Nuff said.

You believe in all that crap? Some people are what they were being born (Brahman, the sole substrate of the Universe), some people merged back into Brahman (they thought they were separated), some are in proximity of their deities, some are enjoying the results of their good deeds in heaven, and of course, some are suffering in hell for their evil deeds. So what happens to a person differs and differs with his/her belief.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And where are all the believers in those religions now? Burning in Hell for heresy, that's where they are. Nuff said.

You believe in all that crap?

Um, no, he does not. Read it again, in a John Cleese voice.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, a woman got onto a subway with her very young daughter. Once they were seated, the woman got a cardboard book out of her purse and gave it to the girl. She happily opened it up and started reading during the trip.
A man nearby asked, "Wow. How did you ever get her interested in books rather than demanding an electronic device?"
The woman smiled as she pulled her own paperback out of the purse. "Children don't listen to us. They watch us. They do what we do, not what we say."


Most people who grow up in a religious home practice the religion their parents practiced. Not necessarily the one they gave lip service to, but what they actually practiced. So their church attendance, their scriptural knowledge, their rationalizations, their singing the wrong words to Amazing Grace, that's their religious baseline. And that's the religion they're going to teach their kids. Their inner religion, like Mark Twain noted. Where Christains say all the right things out loud, like peace on Earth and all that, but inside they cursed their enemies and wished God would visit retribution upon their business rivals.

 

[Politesse]

So, a woman got onto a subway with her very young daughter. Once they were seated, the woman got a cardboard book out of her purse and gave it to the girl. She happily opened it up and started reading during the trip.
A man nearby asked, "Wow. How did you ever get her interested in books rather than demanding an electronic device?"
The woman smiled as she pulled her own paperback out of the purse. "Children don't listen to us. They watch us. They do what we do, not what we say."


Most people who grow up in a religious home practice the religion their parents practiced. Not necessarily the one they gave lip service to, but what they actually practiced. So their church attendance, their scriptural knowledge, their rationalizations, their singing the wrong words to Amazing Grace, that's their religious baseline. And that's the religion they're going to teach their kids. Their inner religion, like Mark Twain noted. Where Christains say all the right things out loud, like peace on Earth and all that, but inside they cursed their enemies and wished God would visit retribution upon their business rivals.

This is very true, and insightful.

 

[Gun Nut]

If they say they believe, they've demonstrated their belief. You stand corrected if you cannot show that people don't believe what they say they believe.

I'm sorry, as much as I would like to help, the laws of the universe prevent me from making negative existence claims. The onus is on the so-called "believer" to establish the authenticity of their belief. Sorry. <shrug>

You said a belief does not exist in other people's heads. So obviously the laws of the universe don't prevent you from making negative existence claims.

It's not a negative existence claim to be unconvinced of an existence claim.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You said a belief does not exist in other people's heads. So obviously the laws of the universe don't prevent you from making negative existence claims.

It's not a negative existence claim to be unconvinced of an existence claim.

But what you said was a claim of the negative existence of belief:

My observation is that almost no one I have ever met, or read, or heard about, believes in the existence of any god.

Not: "no one ... {appears to me to} believe in the existence of any god."
Not: "{i do not believe} any one believes in the existence of any god."

 

[Gun Nut]

An intriguing observation. How are you defining 'atheist,' then?

One who does not believe in the existence of any god.
My observation is that almost no one I have ever met, or read, or heard about, believes in the existence of any god.

you would have to demonstrate telepathy to establish this as an observation.
Otherwise all you are doing is expressing disappointment in the behavior of people who claim a given belief.

disappointment implies an expectation. I merely am expressing an observation.

 

[Gun Nut]

I reject it on the grounds that these folks do not demonstrate belief in ANY (Christian or otherwise) god

Well, you certainly can do that, but it seems silly.
i get pretty dismissive of the theists who insist that they know more about my beliefs than i do, and further that i actually do believe, but pretend anti-beliefity, because reasons.
I cannot see that anyone else has an edge on the ability to test an opponent's innermost beliefs based on the individual's understanding of the other guy's religion.

That's fair. I get that. That's probably because the bulk of your "interdenominational" interactions are online, and many of the cues needed to judge a person's invisible attributes (intentions, beliefs, etc..) are missing. But... If someone observed you kneeling in a church with hands clasped and lips moving in what appeared to be prayer...as you lovingly clasped what looked like a custom printed gold leaf personalized bible like those given at baptism.. would it be fair of them to say that they have observed that you really aren't the Atheist you claim you are?

Flip it. That's where I'm at with self-proclaimed "believers".

 

[Gun Nut]

Maybe at some point we will use brain imaging to know when a person is sincere and when they are fibbing.

Standard theistic belief is not rational so it's obviously an evolved behavior that had survival value at some point in the past. There are certainly people who think they are spirits and have implants and are angels and other weird stuff, and these people are sincere. And that's because of their brains and the fact that they don't have a choice. In varying degrees there are lots and lots of these people and we all know them in our lives. That they don't spend every waking moment in fervent prayer awaiting rapture is the evolved rational parts of their brains also in operation. But they certainly are still believers.

People who spend their lives in monasteries still have to obtain food and do lots of other things the environment dictates lest they perish, so they acquiesce. That's plain old natural selection in action. If my definition of a believer is someone who prays in a corner to the avoidance of all else, natural selection will eliminate that person quite quickly from the gene pool, and has. That's why we have believers that don't do only that.

I'm going with "fibbing", absent "mentally ill".

 

[Gun Nut]

I'm sorry, as much as I would like to help, the laws of the universe prevent me from making negative existence claims. The onus is on the so-called "believer" to establish the authenticity of their belief. Sorry. <shrug>

What would qualify as establishing the belief?

Somebody can be a smoker while still believing smoking is bad for them. Behavior doesn't tell you everything.

I agree that behavior doesn't tell me everything. "everything" is quite a lot, and we are only talking about belief in a god.

The smoking analogy is flawed. It would be more accurate (to reflect my position) to say; Somebody cannot smoke cigarettes in front of me on a regular basis (observation), and also claim they are a non-smoker (Their alleged belief).

 

[Gun Nut]

So, a woman got onto a subway with her very young daughter. Once they were seated, the woman got a cardboard book out of her purse and gave it to the girl. She happily opened it up and started reading during the trip.
A man nearby asked, "Wow. How did you ever get her interested in books rather than demanding an electronic device?"
The woman smiled as she pulled her own paperback out of the purse. "Children don't listen to us. They watch us. They do what we do, not what we say."


Most people who grow up in a religious home practice the religion their parents practiced. Not necessarily the one they gave lip service to, but what they actually practiced. So their church attendance, their scriptural knowledge, their rationalizations, their singing the wrong words to Amazing Grace, that's their religious baseline. And that's the religion they're going to teach their kids. Their inner religion, like Mark Twain noted. Where Christains say all the right things out loud, like peace on Earth and all that, but inside they cursed their enemies and wished God would visit retribution upon their business rivals.

I agree with this... both paragraphs are poignant and true.

 

[Gun Nut]

But what you said was a claim of the negative existence of belief:

My observation is that almost no one I have ever met, or read, or heard about, believes in the existence of any god.

Not: "no one ... {appears to me to} believe in the existence of any god."
Not: "{i do not believe} any one believes in the existence of any god."

OK, you got me. I have done the very human thing of aggregating my individual observations, drawing a conclusion, and then generalizing the experiences into a positive claim.. there is no belief in gods. But that is just sloppy phraseology on my part that you got me on. Sometimes, one wants to start the discussion, rather than wait to respond.
also, small nit pic.. I am referring to (and stated it this way) "my observation".. which is equivalent to your first "not" ("appears to me").

 

[Torin]

Things existing without a cause is a theistic assumption that is part of the self-contradictory cosmological argument put forth by the idiot Aquinas who was laughed of serious philosophy many centuries ago.

It starts with the premise that everything is caused, then once it gets to God, it violates it's own premise by assuming that God was not caused (otherwise he wouldn't be much of a God). IOW, theists simultaneously claim that things need causes and things don't need causes, depending on when it's emotionally convenient for them.

Atheists don't need to make this patently absurd self contradictory argument. They could either assume that everything does not need a cause and therefore no God is needed to cause the known universe, or atheists could assume that everything does need a cause and therefore all things are an infinite chain and there cannot logically be a first-cause, a beginning, a God, etc..

You can probably get away with characterizing the causal principle as "everything has a cause" (and thus contradicts an uncaused God) on an atheist board like this, but if you presented that objection to an apologist you might get in trouble. The reason is that cosmological arguments tend to qualify the causal principle in some way. For example, they won't say everything needs a cause, they'll say that things that begin to exist need causes, or that things with unactualized potentialities need causes, or that contingent things need causes, etc.

 

[Keith&Co.]

they'll say that things that begin to exist need causes,

Yeah, but that's just a semantic trick to pretend that exempting God from 'everything needs a cause' is not a 'special case.'

Besides, everything we see is just matter and energy that has existed since the beginning of time. They just change configurations. Dirt becomes tree becomes lumber becomes a chair becomes trash becomes landfill becomes dirt....

Or dirt becomes tomato becomes pizza becomes baby assembly material becomes baby becomes grownup becomes the guy who throws the chair in the landfill becomes Old Man Landfill becomes corpse becomes dirt

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, and all that. They all have the same 'begin to exist' point, back at the beginning of Time. So it cannot be used as an example to explain the conditions the universe started with, as they share the same starting conditions... Whatever those are.

 

[blastula]

What would qualify as establishing the belief?

Somebody can be a smoker while still believing smoking is bad for them. Behavior doesn't tell you everything.

I agree that behavior doesn't tell me everything. "everything" is quite a lot, and we are only talking about belief in a god.

The smoking analogy is flawed. It would be more accurate (to reflect my position) to say; Somebody cannot smoke cigarettes in front of me on a regular basis (observation), and also claim they are a non-smoker (Their alleged belief).

I don't see how that is comparable. A belief is a mental state, it's not a bodily behavior.

Just describe what would qualify as establishing the belief.

 

[Gun Nut]

What would qualify as establishing the belief?

Somebody can be a smoker while still believing smoking is bad for them. Behavior doesn't tell you everything.

I agree that behavior doesn't tell me everything. "everything" is quite a lot, and we are only talking about belief in a god.

The smoking analogy is flawed. It would be more accurate (to reflect my position) to say; Somebody cannot smoke cigarettes in front of me on a regular basis (observation), and also claim they are a non-smoker (Their alleged belief).

I don't see how that is comparable. A belief is a mental state, it's not a bodily behavior.

Just describe what would qualify as establishing the belief.

It would depend on the nature of the god they purport to believe in the existence of.
If they claim to have belief in the existence of a god that has rules that they do not follow, and there are allegedly punishments for failure to follow the rules, that would be a pretty major disqualifier for the claim of belief.

If they claim belief in a god that has no rules to follow, and there are no means to predict that god's interventions in the material universe.. then such a god is equivalent to not existing in the first place.. and I disqualify that from the scope of my statement.

 

[blastula]

But see, the smoking example I gave refutes your first example. People that believe smoking causes harm still smoke. They may be foolish, but they are still believers.

 

[Treedbear]

I don't see how that is comparable. A belief is a mental state, it's not a bodily behavior.

Just describe what would qualify as establishing the belief.

It would depend on the nature of the god they purport to believe in the existence of.
If they claim to have belief in the existence of a god that has rules that they do not follow, and there are allegedly punishments for failure to follow the rules, that would be a pretty major disqualifier for the claim of belief.

If they claim belief in a god that has no rules to follow, and there are no means to predict that god's interventions in the material universe.. then such a god is equivalent to not existing in the first place.. and I disqualify that from the scope of my statement.

My attitude has always been that the possibility of the existence of God is too serious a matter to believe in half heartedly, or to believe as the consequence of believing in what people I know say or the books they tell me contain the truth. The question is far more important than believing in, say, general relativity because I have trust in the scientists and teachers and some documentary I watched on TV. The issue is too important because it is such a major factor in human history as well as current events. There's too much at stake to simply say "I believe" and attend mass once a week. Belief in God has much more to do with one's personal integrity. Why else would so many of us atheists regularly visit the religion forums if it was only a trivial matter? Personally, it would be difficult for me to believe in a God that expected less.

 

[abaddon]

If they claim to have belief in the existence of a god that has rules that they do not follow, and there are allegedly punishments for failure to follow the rules, that would be a pretty major disqualifier for the claim of belief.

Not if there's a mix of rules. If I were to say I believe in the God of the Bible, you could expect that I'd follow the rules about loving one's neighbor. Or could expect that I might stone gays. Then, because you're cherrypicking according to your personal values, you could say "Ah ha! You don't TRULY believe!" And not just because they're being inconsistent, but because you set up the rules and then pretended they are the believer's God's rules.

If they claim belief in a god that has no rules to follow, and there are no means to predict that god's interventions in the material universe.. then such a god is equivalent to not existing in the first place.. and I disqualify that from the scope of my statement.

If I made a claim, any claim, and you started arguing against it with "You don't believe the claim" rather than address the claim, then it's not "laws of the universe" you're breaking. It's the rules of logic you're defying.