Atheists should step up

[skepticalbip]

As a theoretical agnostic; functional atheist...whatever...



There are Christians who want to make homosexuality a capital crime, and then prosecute on that.

I'm not making this up;

PS Praise Loki!

You're agreeing that the God conclusion...confusion...delusion is no trivial matter right?
The implications of the God question almost demand that atheists do more than just NOT collect stamps.

Theology and religious epistemology deserve a seat at the table alongside so-called hard sciences.

Are you suggesting that F=dP/dt should be changed to "F=dP/dt if Allah wills it"?

 

[Lion IRC]

Good question.

 

[skepticalbip]

Good question.

And what are you suggesting would be gained if the phrase "ʾin shāʾa llāh" (if Allah wills it) were added to the end of each step in the solution of a physics problem?

 

[funinspace]

As a theoretical agnostic; functional atheist...whatever...



There are Christians who want to make homosexuality a capital crime, and then prosecute on that.

I'm not making this up;

PS Praise Loki!

You're agreeing that the God conclusion...confusion...delusion is no trivial matter right?
The implications of the God question almost demand that atheists do more than just NOT collect stamps.

Not really...but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth...

Theology and religious epistemology deserve a seat at the table alongside so-called hard sciences.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Good question.

And what are you suggesting would be gained if the phrase "ʾin shāʾa llāh" (if Allah wills it) were added to the end of each step in the solution of a physics problem?

Partial credit on the exam question?

 

[skepticalbip]

Good question.

And what are you suggesting would be gained if the phrase "ʾin shāʾa llāh" (if Allah wills it) were added to the end of each step in the solution of a physics problem?

Partial credit on the exam question?

Hey, that should warrant full credit. Whatever the solution that is written, it would be correct if it was the will of Allah. There could be no wrong answers if the answer is conditional on the will of Allah.

But I was thinking more of something like calculating the fuel needed to achieve the proper delta V to place a satellite in orbit then hearing from some priest just before launch that god had told him that god decided to change the value of G.

 

[abaddon]

The implications of the God question almost demand that atheists do more than just NOT collect stamps.

Rhea's post, quoted below, is IMV a superb description of atheism.

I do not “believe there is no god,” no. Rather, I am unable to muster up a belief based on your evidence. Sorry, falls short of belief. I watch you make your claims and there is just not a flicker of belief for your imaginary friend. No tug, no, “wait, did I almost see something?” no, “maybe I can buy that...”. It just plain fails to get a rise. Sorry. It’s a big nothingball.

I LACK belief. There’s no belief in the other direction of god(dess)(es), there’s simply a lack. The claims fall flat. A dud in the great comedy of life. No laughs. And likewise no groans. Just a bored stare.

That's an informational and educational description of atheism. More than most, because it gets across what the feel of being an atheist is as well the motivation behind the atheism. So think on it if you want to understand the topic, and perhaps your criticisms will become more on-target.

I'm atheist because every theistic conception that I have ever encountered elicited a response very like that^^^^

Including the "bored stare" because "the God question" is vapid. And that's why I'm an atheist. When I get vocal about being an atheist, it's to convey "I don't see anything compelling to 'the God question' so stop the yapping about it unless you can make its significance clear".

So criticize this stance if you want to aim for the bull's eye for a change. You're shooting all your arrows off into the woods.

 

[bilby]

You're agreeing that the God conclusion...confusion...delusion is no trivial matter right?
The implications of the God question almost demand that atheists do more than just NOT collect stamps.

Nope. The question implies nothing. Only answers to the question have implications, and the implication you prefer disappears if the answer is 'gods are entirely fictional'.

The implications of the Superman question almost demand that criminologists do more than just NOT give his powers a moment's consideration. If Superman really does fight crime, then that would be HUGE; So clearly it would be unacceptable for serious criminologists to simply dismiss this important part of their field of study, right?

Theology and religious epistemology deserve a seat at the table alongside so-called hard sciences.

As does a detailed study of the composition and effects of Kryptonite.



You are assuming your preferred conclusion, as usual. That's intellectually bankrupt.

IF you are right, then the implications are massive. But IF you are wrong, the implications of proceeding as though you were right are also massive - and very damaging to society.

And the overwhelming absence of a single shred of evidence for the non-fictional status of your God says that you are wrong.

The evidence for your God is exactly as compelling as the evidence for Superman.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Theology and religious epistemology deserve a seat at the table alongside so-called hard sciences.

Theology is not a science. Much of it isn't even sane. Religious epistemology is utterly unable to demonstrate anything.

Descartes: God lays down the laws of the Universe like a king lays down his laws. All the metaphysical necessities like morals and numbers. God could make 2 + 2 = 5 if God so desires. And of course God is perfectly good. So why does not God use his abilities to eliminate all moral evil? Nothing could stop a God who makes the very logic of the Universe. So, taking perfect being theology to it's logical conclusion, theology collapses utterly. Religious epistemology collapses into obvious nonsense.

 

[Rhea]

You're agreeing that the God conclusion...confusion...delusion is no trivial matter right?

He totally didn’t.
He said that humans who THINK they have a god are a serious problem.
No actual god required for them to be a serious problem to teh rest of humanity.

The implications of the God question almost demand that atheists do more than just NOT collect stamps.

Only if the god is a monumental asshole. If it was a benevolent god, it wouldn’t matter much at all.

Theology and religious epistemology deserve a seat at the table alongside so-called hard sciences.

That’s a non sequitur. No they don’t. They use completely different rules. They can go make their own table.

 

[skepticalbip]

Theology and religious epistemology deserve a seat at the table alongside so-called hard sciences.

Theology is not a science. Much of it isn't even sane. Religious epistemology is utterly unable to demonstrate anything.

Descartes: God lays down the laws of the Universe like a king lays down his laws. All the metaphysical necessities like morals and numbers. God could make 2 + 2 = 5 if God so desires. And of course God is perfectly good. So why does not God use his abilities to eliminate all moral evil? Nothing could stop a God who makes the very logic of the Universe. So, taking perfect being theology to it's logical conclusion, theology collapses utterly. Religious epistemology collapses into obvious nonsense.

But then maybe Lion has a point. Maybe the reason we have not yet been able to develop a sustained nuclear fusion power plant is that the Pope's design hasn't been tried. Even Ken Ham could have probably solved the problems if he had been asked.

 

[bilby]

He totally didn’t.
He said that humans who THINK they have a god are a serious problem.
No actual god required for them to be a serious problem to teh rest of humanity.


Only if the god is a monumental asshole. If it was a benevolent god, it wouldn’t matter much at all.

Theology and religious epistemology deserve a seat at the table alongside so-called hard sciences.

That’s a non sequitur. No they don’t. They use completely different rules. They can go make their own table.

No, they don't need to do that. They just need to pray for their own table.

Apparently.

- - - Updated - - -

Theology and religious epistemology deserve a seat at the table alongside so-called hard sciences.

Theology is not a science. Much of it isn't even sane. Religious epistemology is utterly unable to demonstrate anything.

Descartes: God lays down the laws of the Universe like a king lays down his laws. All the metaphysical necessities like morals and numbers. God could make 2 + 2 = 5 if God so desires. And of course God is perfectly good. So why does not God use his abilities to eliminate all moral evil? Nothing could stop a God who makes the very logic of the Universe. So, taking perfect being theology to it's logical conclusion, theology collapses utterly. Religious epistemology collapses into obvious nonsense.

But then maybe Lion has a point. Maybe the reason we have not yet been able to develop a sustained nuclear fusion power plant is that the Pope's design hasn't been tried. Even Ken Ham could have probably solved the problems if he had been asked.

Yup. That's why science and technology advanced so much during the Middle Ages, when theology and religious epistemology were dominant.

Oh, wait.

Shit.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I have always thought atheists should step up and meet their burden of persuasion.
You either believe there's no God(s) in which case you are a believer, (LOL. See what I did there?) or you have some sort of objective, empirical evidence to support your claim.
Bring it!

Fictional characters don’t actually exist. Done in one.

 

[steve_bank]

Atheists unite! Rise up, change the world by changing one theist at a time. Today one thesit, tomorrow the world!!!

Start saying that publically and spreading it on social media will scare the bejesus out of some theists. Maybe they will get what their religion looks like to us.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Theology and religious epistemology deserve a seat at the table alongside so-called hard sciences.

Why? What possible benefit could come of that?

 

[Worldtraveller]

The ONLY (and I really mean only) reason religion can or should get any kind of consideration is because many (most?) of the people that wield political power keep trying to force their beliefs on others. Other than that, it is utterly trivial.

 

[Brian63]

That is an extremely significant consideration though, even if it was the only one. We should be very concerned that faulty religious beliefs are held by so much of the populace, who in turn vote for people in public office to enforce those faulty religious beliefs. So we should be devoting at least some attention to the voters and population in general who are propping up this dangerous situation, and trying to lessen their inflicted harm.

 

[PyramidHead]

That is an extremely significant consideration though. We should be very concerned that faulty religious beliefs are held by so much of the populace, who in turn vote for people in public office to enforce those faulty religious beliefs. So we should be devoting at least some attention to the voters and population in general who are propping up this dangerous situation, and trying to lessen their inflicted harm.

Do you feel this way about faulty political beliefs as well?

 

[Brian63]

Yes.

All faulty beliefs and behaviors will have at least some influence on all of us, just to varying degrees and manifested in different ways. The religious beliefs, ethical beliefs, scientific beliefs, political beliefs, our social behaviors, our individual mental and physical health, etc. are interwoven in our minds to form a network of beliefs, biases, values, opinions. Beliefs do not exist in a vacuum and are not isolated from each other. A person's religious views will not outright determine, but will still influence their views on other matters like their ethics, their politics, what information sources they use, what other biases they will then have. All of these then influence the rest of the mind's network as well.

The decisions we individuals make have impacts on each other externally as well. That is the price we pay for having to share a world with each other.

This psychologist explains the phenomenon much more clearly than I can:

Why Bad Beliefs Don’t Die

...beliefs do not occur individually or in a vacuum. They are related to one another in a tightly interlocking system that creates the brain’s fundamental view of the nature of the world. It is this system that the brain relies on in order to experience consistency, control, cohesion, and safety in the world. It must maintain this system intact in order to feel that survival is being successfully accomplished.

This means that even seemingly small, inconsequential beliefs can be as integral to the brain’s experience of survival as are beliefs that are "obviously” connected to survival. Thus, trying to change any belief, no matter how small or silly it may seem, can produce ripple effects through the entire system and ultimately threaten the brain’s experience of survival.

 

[PyramidHead]

Yes.

All faulty beliefs and behaviors will have at least some influence on all of us, just to varying degrees and manifested in different ways. The religious beliefs, ethical beliefs, scientific beliefs, political beliefs, our social behaviors, our individual mental and physical health, etc. are interwoven in our minds to form a network of beliefs, biases, values, opinions. Beliefs do not exist in a vacuum and are not isolated from each other. A person's religious views will not outright determine, but will still influence their views on other matters like their ethics, their politics, what information sources they use, what other biases they will then have. All of these then influence the rest of the mind's network as well.

The decisions we individuals make have impacts on each other externally as well. That is the price we pay for having to share a world with each other.

This psychologist explains the phenomenon much more clearly than I can:

Why Bad Beliefs Don’t Die

I agree with all that. But in the case of religious beliefs, at least of the type under discussion here, the dispute seems to be primarily factual, while the others (moral, political) center upon values that may have no easy reconciliation. How do you determine which moral or political views are faulty, when there is no disagreement about the facts but only about what to do concerning them?