arguments for atheism

[ideologyhunter]

Definition: a "god" is any entity who wants to be worshiped, and deserves to be.

Premise: Worship is unethical.

Let me calculate here. My dog gazes at me, raptly, with a soft glowing look in his eyes. I feed him good stuff, dependably, and I don't give him any nonsense about, "Look at the birds, how they get food, so don't worry about food." No, I PROVIDE it on time, every day.
I entertain him all day. I'm his companion, and he gets to be mine. I have a close personal relationship with him. He doesn't have much time to sit and try to contact me with worshipful telepathy.
I don't give him a line about how I came along to save him. Unnecessary. We're just bros, BFFs. He doesn't need to obsess over what I've "sacrificed" for him.
At night, I give him a warm bed and that glow of absolute transport comes into his eyes again.
Goddamn, I must be a god!! And the dog's devotion isn't "worship" of an intangible. It's an expression of mutual happiness.
He once chewed the corner off The Living Bible.

 

[James Brown]

What if I took a page out of a religious apologist's book and said the following?

"Not believing in God has made me happy and well-adjusted, so there's nothing you could say that will change my mind."

 

[Politesse]

Definition: a "god" is any entity who wants to be worshiped, and deserves to be.

Premise: Worship is unethical.

Let me calculate here. My dog gazes at me, raptly, with a soft glowing look in his eyes. I feed him good stuff, dependably, and I don't give him any nonsense about, "Look at the birds, how they get food, so don't worry about food." No, I PROVIDE it on time, every day.
I entertain him all day. I'm his companion, and he gets to be mine. I have a close personal relationship with him. He doesn't have much time to sit and try to contact me with worshipful telepathy.
I don't give him a line about how I came along to save him. Unnecessary. We're just bros, BFFs. He doesn't need to obsess over what I've "sacrificed" for him.
At night, I give him a warm bed and that glow of absolute transport comes into his eyes again.
Goddamn, I must be a god!! And the dog's devotion isn't "worship" of an intangible. It's an expression of mutual happiness.
He once chewed the corner off The Living Bible.

Is he actually wrong?

 

[Politesse]

Same old apologetics, nothing like what was suggested in the OP.

Well, your question is not well-posed. What's a "god"? Absent a substantive definition of the word, the hypothesis that a "god" exists is not even wrong. Feel free to provide a substantive definition.

I don't think this can be done, one reason why I generally avoid getting tangled in ontological debates about the existence thereof. It was James Madison's (implied) argument that interested me.

 

[skepticalbip]

I see atheism more as simply not accepting the injection of an unknown variable to explain a physical reality... and believing it is actually an answer.

 

[Politesse]

I see atheism more as simply not accepting the injection of an unknown variable to explain a physical reality... and believing it is actually an answer.

In that case, I am an atheist myself by a simple matter of definition, but am still curious about the unanswered question.

 

[abaddon]

Hi, Abaddon.

Hey aupmanyav,

I'm very glad you're here and still talking with us!

 

[skepticalbip]

I see atheism more as simply not accepting the injection of an unknown variable to explain a physical reality... and believing it is actually an answer.

In that case, I am an atheist myself by a simple matter of definition, but am still curious about the unanswered question.

Which question? The original one that the unknown variable (a god) was offered as an answer to or the newly created question of the unknown variable itself?

The original question would be the venue of the scientists. The newly created question of the nature of the unknown variable (god) offered as a solution to the original question would be the venue of religious naval gazers.

 

[Politesse]

I see atheism more as simply not accepting the injection of an unknown variable to explain a physical reality... and believing it is actually an answer.

In that case, I am an atheist myself by a simple matter of definition, but am still curious about the unanswered question.

Which question? The original one that the unknown variable (a god) was offered as an answer to or the newly created question of the unknown variable itself?

The original question would be the venue of the scientists. The newly created question of the nature of the unknown variable (god) offered as a solution to the original question would be the venue of religious naval gazers.

The question I asked, which is whether an atheistic model could be somehow derived from the material circumstances of the universe itself, a posteriori. I am explicitly not asking for traditional apologetic arguments for or against God that come down to fundamental differences of perspective rather than empirically demonstrable conclusions.

 

[ruby sparks]

It was James Madison's (implied) argument that interested me.

That's why I posted the 'spot the elf' picture.

In other words, 'are there grounds to believe there's an elf here?'

One answer (possibly yours) might be: "How would one know (to believe either way)*, with a sample size of exactly one picture to draw comparisons from"?

In other words, I don't think we need two pictures. Or two universes.


*(because we're not talking about knowing if there's an elf, only about arriving at not believing there is).

 

[Politesse]

It was James Madison's (implied) argument that interested me.

That's why I posted the 'spot the elf' picture.

It seems to me that an elf would be rather difficult to spot at that distance, even if they weren't customarily portrayed as being able to conceal themselves from humans at will.

 

[ruby sparks]

It was James Madison's (implied) argument that interested me.

That's why I posted the 'spot the elf' picture.

It seems to me that an elf would be rather difficult to spot at that distance, even if they weren't customarily portrayed as being able to conceal themselves from humans at will.

That's not the point.

(I elaborated, belatedly as usual).

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm suggesting that we don't need two universes, in order to say the universe looks like it has no god.

The photo looks like it has no elf. There is no need to compare it with another photo in order to say that.

The bag of crisps looks like it has no aardvarks in it. It is reasonable to not believe there is an aardvark in the crisp bag. Etc. No need for another bag to compare with.

 

[ruby sparks]

And just to preempt 'but god is not necessarily in the universe' replies...

There is no good reason to believe an aardvark created the bag of crisps.

Or that an elf created mischief.

 

[skepticalbip]

Which question? The original one that the unknown variable (a god) was offered as an answer to or the newly created question of the unknown variable itself?

The original question would be the venue of the scientists. The newly created question of the nature of the unknown variable (god) offered as a solution to the original question would be the venue of religious naval gazers.

The question I asked, which is whether an atheistic model could be somehow derived from the material circumstances of the universe itself, a posteriori. I am explicitly not asking for traditional apologetic arguments for or against God that come down to fundamental differences of perspective rather than empirically demonstrable conclusions.

That is confusing. WTF is an "atheistic model"? Does this mean a model not appealing to magic for a solution?

A major difference between science and religion is that scientists readily admit that there are many questions we have for which we do not yet have answers, many questions for which we may never have answers, and many questions we don't even yet know to ask. The religious seem to believe that they have the answer to any question... this is where "god of the gaps" pops up.

 

[skepticalbip]

It was James Madison's (implied) argument that interested me.

That's why I posted the 'spot the elf' picture.

In other words, 'are there grounds to believe there's an elf here?'

One answer (possibly yours) might be: "How would one know (to believe either way)*, with a sample size of exactly one picture to draw comparisons from"?

In other words, I don't think we need two pictures. Or two universes.


*(because we're not talking about knowing if there's an elf, only about arriving at not believing there is).

As opposed to believing and asserting that there is definitely an elf captured in the picture even though it is invisible.

 

[bilby]

What exactly do you mean by this, that "physics never fails to work"? Do you mean to claim that physicists never make untrue predictions? I don't see how physics could ever have been developed, if that were so; science requires, as it were, a certain amount of targeted failure. And the history of physics is replete with failed hypotheses too numerous to count. Or is this just a platitude, not meant to be taken as a serious claim? What does it mean for physics to "work" or "not work"?

I am talking specifically about the Standard Model. It's predictions have withstood extreme testing, and while there is no guarantee that the model will continue to have a perfect record in further and even more extreme testing, the tests done so far imply that the SM is completely correct at human scales and energies; To discover an exception to that at this stage would be as unexpected as discovering that rocks sometimes fall upwards under gravity.

You sure employ a lot of emotional rhetoric, for a supposed fan of the sciences. You know that isn't how we refute one another's claims in true scientific contexts/conversations, right? I mean, tempers flare occasionally, academic politics swirl, but that isn't "science".

You are aware that this is an Internet discussion board, right?

I am not writing for a scientific journal, or even necessarily for a scientific audience. I am hoping to persuade non-scientists that they need to become scientists if they want to understand reality. I don't really expect much success, but I am at least aware that my audience is self selected from people more swayed by emotional rhetoric than by dry facts.

I am completely comfortable with the idea that everything has always existed and will always exist, in accordance with the First Law. Anyone who wants to suggest otherwise is in the unenviable position of needing to explain why the First Law shouldn't apply to this one specific event, despite observably applying everywhere and everywhen else.

"Laws" in science aren't actually laws in the sense that matter and energy are obliged to "follow" them somehow.

No shit, Sherlock

The Law part is just a metaphor, and a rather theist metaphor at that. Scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive, and are as such bound by the assumption of uniformity. If there was ever a time when "the universe was not", or was fundamentally different than it now is somehow, we would have no way of discovering what "laws" governed that time, if indeed time itself were not one of the disputed properties. If uniformitarianism breaks, so to does the scientific method and any "law" it might discover.

If uniformitarianism breaks, then we know nothing at all beyond the break. To claim that that unknown contains a god or gods is as sane and reasonable as to claim that it contains elves, unicorns, or Hogwarts School for Witches and Wizards.

The probability that a completely unknowable realm (which may not even exist) would contain something that maps closely to any human fictional constructs is so close to zero as to be unworthy of speculation.

 

[abaddon]

It was James Madison's (implied) argument that interested me.

...

One answer (possibly yours) might be: "How would one know (to believe either way)*, with a sample size of exactly one picture to draw comparisons from"?

In other words, I don't think we need two pictures. Or two universes.


*(because we're not talking about knowing if there's an elf, only about arriving at not believing there is).

This is very important.

Any reasonable definition of a god entails he or she or it is active in the universe and would leave traces, just like IDists claim. If there were a god so flawed that he/she/it cannot make a universe that's distinguishable from an unintended universe, then how does that sort of being qualify as a god? And even if "But I don't know that that's not true" were a reasonable stance... still, why believe it's true? Atheism isn't the stance of "I know there's no god", it's the stance of "I don't believe" (because a good reason to believe hasn't been given).

 

[Learner]

It was James Madison's (implied) argument that interested me.

That's why I posted the 'spot the elf' picture.

In other words, 'are there grounds to believe there's an elf here?'

One answer (possibly yours) might be: "How would one know (to believe either way)*, with a sample size of exactly one picture to draw comparisons from"?

In other words, I don't think we need two pictures. Or two universes.


*(because we're not talking about knowing if there's an elf, only about arriving at not believing there is).

Another picture maybe not. You'd probably have to attach the elf's equvalent of the biblical scriptures and then they could decide from the teachings, to believe it's there.

 

[ruby sparks]

It was James Madison's (implied) argument that interested me.

That's why I posted the 'spot the elf' picture.

In other words, 'are there grounds to believe there's an elf here?'

One answer (possibly yours) might be: "How would one know (to believe either way)*, with a sample size of exactly one picture to draw comparisons from"?

In other words, I don't think we need two pictures. Or two universes.


*(because we're not talking about knowing if there's an elf, only about arriving at not believing there is).

Another picture maybe not. You'd probably have to attach the elf's equvalent of the biblical scriptures and then they could decide from the teachings, to believe it's there.

Ok I admit I have no idea at all why you said that.

Because suppose I attached a book about elves, and about how they cause mischief. Why would that positively affect whether it's reasonable or warranted to believe in them?