For Atheists - define what you don't believe in

[Underseer]

That is how you view it, because you find it so straightforward to reject belief. You aren't motivated to "keep the faith". You don't put any hopes in prayers, have a community of believers that you've bonded with in support of your faith, engage in sacrificial acts, or engage in any of the activities intended to support the mindset. Unless you can get a religious person to question the foundations of belief in gods, not just the particular god that (s)he believes in, that person is likely to do what we all do in cases where some aspect of reality gets contradicted. We tinker with the edges of the belief that give us the most trouble. If you suddenly discover that your birth parents actually adopted you, you don't suddenly come to the conclusion that you had no birth parents. Your world is shaken, but you still believe that you had birth parents, even if the ones you believed in weren't the ones you thought they were. You can convince a Christian that his or her version of God is somewhat off in some respect, but that is rare. It isn't all that difficult to patch up the conceptual hole left behind, given a strong motivation to maintain faith. Usually, arguments are successful mainly with those who have already somewhat come around to the conclusion it leads to. The argument you make may help give them a little shove, but it isn't because you have shattered their world. Chances are, it already had a lot of cracks in it to begin with.

You didnt understand my point: its not the definitions of gods that makes someone atheist, its the noncomittment to the religious way of ”kno wledge”. The christian god is obviously not a rational thought and most christian wokld probably agree. They believe in jesus and god DESPITE rational arguments, not because of any.
The fools that try to rationalize their belief in deitises can we ignore. They are obviously bonkers.

Yep.

The problem is not their specific beliefs, but their method of evaluating truth claims.

Who really gives a shit if they believe in a magical sky fairy that "spoke" reality into existence?

The problem comes when they apply that same bad epistemology to other questions such as "Is it moral to give money to an effort to pass a law in Uganda that would result in the execution of all gay people in Uganda?" All of a sudden, the bad epistemology that was created to make it possible for them to believe in nonsense has real and very negative consequences in the real world.

It's good that we stopped them from causing the mass murder of all homosexuals in Uganda, but the larger issue is that it is impossible to convince people that that was a bad thing to do, and that is because of their bad epistemology.

 

[Copernicus]

That is how you view it, because you find it so straightforward to reject belief. You aren't motivated to "keep the faith". You don't put any hopes in prayers, have a community of believers that you've bonded with in support of your faith, engage in sacrificial acts, or engage in any of the activities intended to support the mindset. Unless you can get a religious person to question the foundations of belief in gods, not just the particular god that (s)he believes in, that person is likely to do what we all do in cases where some aspect of reality gets contradicted. We tinker with the edges of the belief that give us the most trouble. If you suddenly discover that your birth parents actually adopted you, you don't suddenly come to the conclusion that you had no birth parents. Your world is shaken, but you still believe that you had birth parents, even if the ones you believed in weren't the ones you thought they were. You can convince a Christian that his or her version of God is somewhat off in some respect, but that is rare. It isn't all that difficult to patch up the conceptual hole left behind, given a strong motivation to maintain faith. Usually, arguments are successful mainly with those who have already somewhat come around to the conclusion it leads to. The argument you make may help give them a little shove, but it isn't because you have shattered their world. Chances are, it already had a lot of cracks in it to begin with.

You didnt understand my point: its not the definitions of gods that makes someone atheist, its the noncomittment to the religious way of ”kno wledge”. The christian god is obviously not a rational thought and most christian wokld probably agree. They believe in jesus and god DESPITE rational arguments, not because of any.
The fools that try to rationalize their belief in deitises can we ignore. They are obviously bonkers.

I understood your point perfectly well, but I just disagreed with it. I'm not claiming that religious beliefs are rational, but I certainly disagree that most people are "bonkers" just because they maintain a religious faith. I've addressed this topic elsewhere, so I don't want to go into details here, but my view of human cognition is that it is fundamentally irrational. We all believe a lot of things that will turn out to contradict other beliefs we have or not be based on very solid reasoning. That is quite normal. We don't have time to work out all of the contradictions, but the role of logic is largely to clean up the inconsistencies. Intelligent people aren't necessarily just good at defending correct conclusions. They are also good at defending incorrect ones. Usually, the real differences are about assumptions that serve as premises, and these can be very different for atheists and theists.

In conclusion, I want to reemphasize that I have never called god-belief rational, but it is also very much within the realm of normal human belief systems. What makes someone a theist is not the specific god or gods that (s)he believes in, but the fact that (s)he believes in the plausibility of gods generally. One doesn't even have to believe in any specific god to believe that they exist. What makes someone an atheist is the opposite. Picking away at the details of a particular god-belief is a fool's errand, IMO, but, by all means, have at 'em.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Isn't that weird! They think the analogy is an equivalence of the two entities. When all along the only equivalence is that the rules of reason should apply to any entity.

I suppose the idiotic idea of this thread, that atheists define believer's gods, is similar? Maybe atheists disbelieve the wrong god? As if different rules apply with different gods...

Help me understand your point here.

I'm equating tooth fairies and gods like I would equate dandelions and oak trees. Oak trees and dandelions are certainly different but they are made up of the same things, just like gods and tooth fairies are made up of the same thing, supernatural woo stuff. It's just a matter of arrangement.

Also, we outgrow tooth fairy belief just like many of us outgrow god belief. If tooth fairies can't be real anymore in a person's life, how can gods? If you go around in your adult life seriously proclaiming tooth fairies to other adults it won't work. Gods work, however, only because other adults proclaim them too.

 

[abaddon]

Isn't that weird! They think the analogy is an equivalence of the two entities. When all along the only equivalence is that the rules of reason should apply to any entity.

I suppose the idiotic idea of this thread, that atheists define believer's gods, is similar? Maybe atheists disbelieve the wrong god? As if different rules apply with different gods...

Help me understand your point here.

I'm equating tooth fairies and gods like I would equate dandelions and oak trees. Oak trees and dandelions are certainly different but they are made up of the same things, just like gods and tooth fairies are made up of the same thing, supernatural woo stuff. It's just a matter of arrangement.

Also, we outgrow tooth fairy belief just like many of us outgrow god belief. If tooth fairies can't be real anymore in a person's life, how can gods? If you go around in your adult life seriously proclaiming tooth fairies to other adults it won't work. Gods work, however, only because other adults proclaim them too.

"I'm equating tooth fairies and gods like I would equate dandelions and oak trees." IOW, not equating them. Equating the entities could only be a mistake.

An analogy cannot equate. It has to show the similarities (for you it's God and a fairy are both "made of woo stuff").
But isn't the difference more the ultimate point? One is widely accepted as a child's tale, but the other is not though it should be if we apply the SAME skepticism to both.

What I meant when I wrote "all along the only equivalence is that the rules of reason should apply to any entity" is basically what you meant in saying dandelions, oak trees, fish, air, everything can be observed to see what they're made of. When done to God the result (for you) is "supernatural woo stuff" (by which I guess you mean it's unexplained or explained poorly) and that's unbelievably improbable; as people already know regarding tooth fairies. They go in the same class but aren't the same thing.

It may seem an over-fine point, but I don't think it is. I'm trying to understand a thought process that says in effect "they're not the same, you have to apply different rules!" So where anyone makes their comparisons of similarities and differences matters.

 

[skepticalbip]

It may seem an over-fine point, but I don't think it is. I'm trying to understand a thought process that says in effect "they're not the same, you have to apply different rules!" So where anyone makes their comparisons of similarities and differences matters.

Indeed. "Applying different rules" when evaluating very similar mental concepts is called special pleading, a common logical fallacy.

 

[steve_bank]

As I have said before, I see all human social organizations as the same vrrying only in the specific. Atheists can be just as ideological as theists.

Unions develop an ideology and the primary goal is to keep power. parties. Belief in supernatural is not only Abrahamics. We all have the same brains.

 

[DBT]

You only have to look at the state of the World to understand how human beings think, what we believe and value, our societies, economic systems and politics....our actions being reflections of our thoughts and feelings, making the World the way it is.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You only have to look at the state of the World to understand how human beings think, what we believe and value, our societies, economic systems and politics....our actions being reflections of our thoughts and feelings, making the World the way it is.

Slight derail, but I always liked that scene in Waterloo where the British soldier leaves his ranks and is screaming at everyone, "Stop killing each other! Why are we killing each other?"

 

[Underseer]

Isn't that weird! They think the analogy is an equivalence of the two entities. When all along the only equivalence is that the rules of reason should apply to any entity.

I suppose the idiotic idea of this thread, that atheists define believer's gods, is similar? Maybe atheists disbelieve the wrong god? As if different rules apply with different gods...

Help me understand your point here.

I'm equating tooth fairies and gods like I would equate dandelions and oak trees. Oak trees and dandelions are certainly different but they are made up of the same things, just like gods and tooth fairies are made up of the same thing, supernatural woo stuff. It's just a matter of arrangement.

Also, we outgrow tooth fairy belief just like many of us outgrow god belief. If tooth fairies can't be real anymore in a person's life, how can gods? If you go around in your adult life seriously proclaiming tooth fairies to other adults it won't work. Gods work, however, only because other adults proclaim them too.

"I'm equating tooth fairies and gods like I would equate dandelions and oak trees." IOW, not equating them. Equating the entities could only be a mistake.

An analogy cannot equate. It has to show the similarities (for you it's God and a fairy are both "made of woo stuff").
But isn't the difference more the ultimate point? One is widely accepted as a child's tale, but the other is not though it should be if we apply the SAME skepticism to both.

What I meant when I wrote "all along the only equivalence is that the rules of reason should apply to any entity" is basically what you meant in saying dandelions, oak trees, fish, air, everything can be observed to see what they're made of. When done to God the result (for you) is "supernatural woo stuff" (by which I guess you mean it's unexplained or explained poorly) and that's unbelievably improbable; as people already know regarding tooth fairies. They go in the same class but aren't the same thing.

It may seem an over-fine point, but I don't think it is. I'm trying to understand a thought process that says in effect "they're not the same, you have to apply different rules!" So where anyone makes their comparisons of similarities and differences matters.

Why are you so hung up on how similar or dissimilar the faeries and gods are?

Both are equally non-falsifiable. We have exactly as much evidence for one as the other.

For the purposes of illustrating the relationship between truth claims and the burden of proof, they are functionally and logically identical. The only thing that matters is that both claims are non-falsifiable and both claims are not supported by evidence. I don't know what difference any other difference between the two fanciful, non-existent beings is going to make.

Does anyone think the fact that God uses verbal incantations to cast magic spells while fairies have wings is going to change who gets stuck with the burden of proof?

 

[Learner]

I have had experience of ghosts.

I think it's a safe bet that you haven't.
As with many subjects, science is starting to poke holes in so-called paranormal experiences....

https://www.livescience.com/62888-paranormal-experiences-sleep-paralysis.html

Generally for a particular group of that experience type the link would apply too... maybe. One of the atheists I knew, had an experience, also said himself, he would not at all doubt it was his imagination, but only if he was by himself. His wife saw the same apperition at the same time and he discovered later that it was fairly common in the old hotel. On a case by case :not all experiences are quite the same.

He still called himself an atheist even though he believes it was not his imagination.

 

[DBT]

You only have to look at the state of the World to understand how human beings think, what we believe and value, our societies, economic systems and politics....our actions being reflections of our thoughts and feelings, making the World the way it is.

Slight derail, but I always liked that scene in Waterloo where the British soldier leaves his ranks and is screaming at everyone, "Stop killing each other! Why are we killing each other?"

Not a derail. Nicely embodies what I said.

 

[steve_bank]

You only have to look at the state of the World to understand how human beings think, what we believe and value, our societies, economic systems and politics....our actions being reflections of our thoughts and feelings, making the World the way it is.

Science tries to determine if chimps are aware. The question is if we are aware of what we are doing.

 

[DBT]

You only have to look at the state of the World to understand how human beings think, what we believe and value, our societies, economic systems and politics....our actions being reflections of our thoughts and feelings, making the World the way it is.

Science tries to determine if chimps are aware. The question is if we are aware of what we are doing.

Maybe we are so focused on our own interests, goals, objectives, family, social status, tribe, nation, state, etc, that the big picture becomes fuzzy and seemingly unimportant.....''there is nothing we can do about it'' - even while we contribute our activity in building and maintaining the World at Large.

 

[steve_bank]

You only have to look at the state of the World to understand how human beings think, what we believe and value, our societies, economic systems and politics....our actions being reflections of our thoughts and feelings, making the World the way it is.

Science tries to determine if chimps are aware. The question is if we are aware of what we are doing.

Maybe we are so focused on our own interests, goals, objectives, family, social status, tribe, nation, state, etc, that the big picture becomes fuzzy and seemingly unimportant.....''there is nothing we can do about it'' - even while we contribute our activity in building and maintaining the World at Large.

Lppking back, myself included, over time we loose awareness to routine and habit. How many Americans are aware on what O2 comes from and what happens if plankton dies off? Trump is emblematic, educated and sucesful but apparently nor aware of circumstances of existense, how we got to this point of afluence, and on what our physical existenxcce depemds.