Is there a God of atheism?

[SIB]

It may be alive. That is a very reasonable stance.

Well, maybe. It is, of course, predicated on our having a sound working definition of "alive" - which most people think we have, but which we actually haven't.

"alive" vs "not alive" seems to be a reflection of humanity's need to pigeonhole everything; Like many such categorisations, it's superficially obvious that it's a reflection of a real dichotomy - but when we look at the details, we find that it really isn't.

Reality is more complex than that. We can easily place most things into one of the two boxes; But there are plenty of edge cases, and when we try to deal with those, we discover that any criteria we use cause problems - they put at least some things into the box we know they don't belong in.

This implies that the entire concept is flawed - that is, it doesn't reflect a factual characteristic of the universe.

The idea that complex systems might be "alive" is entertaining, but cannot be edifying without a detailed and accurate definition of "alive", and no such definition exists (or can be agreed upon). All attempts to define "life" have failed.

Mostly people get around this problem in typical human fashion, by ignoring it and pretending that the edge cases are unimportant and therefore nonexistent. It's possible that they might be the former, but not that they might be the latter.

We can compare what we do not know to what we do know. Detailed? how detailed? for most of us a simple high school text book of "life" is good enough. All people make up stuff (Philosophy) to self justify themselves. Some us just say "Hey, lets use what we know to self justify ourselves."

Alive vs not alive. Its a basic classification. Even a broad one. But its good enough here. I personally do not go universal. But I can make a case for it. We need to understand powers of ten to do that. But it's not testable and speculation so I drop it. I stick to the biosphere. Its big enough that a human might/would think its endless and all powerful. Like my kids thought about me when they were young.

For me, I don't do "its a reflection" or "human nature". "Detailed", for a literal thinker nothing can be detailed enough ... unless they say so. I use "compare it to things we classify as alive and not alive." What does the biosphere more closely align to?

You take the measurement.

 

[bilby]

Detailed? how detailed? for most of us a simple high school text book of "life" is good enough.

Detailed enough to describe reality at the level and in the context under discussion.

And no, simple high school text books are not enough; They're necessarily massive oversimplifications of what is known, and frequently are just "lies to children" - placeholder concepts that the authors know to be untrue, but which are a useful placeholder for things too complex to explain at that level.

The first thing you learn when you arrive at a university is that much of what you've learned so far is wrong, incomplete, or obsolete.

If you want to understand the reality in which we live, high school studies are a necessary first step, but they are just one step - on a journey of thousands of miles, which nobody has ever completed.

Knowing everything isn't possible, but that's not a good excuse from knowing very little and then failing to learn any more, on the specious basis that what you know is adequate.

If you're going to make proclamations about reality that require advanced knowledge to test (eg "It may be alive. That is a very reasonable stance."), then you're going to need to acquire more than a high school textbook level of knowledge if you are to avoid looking the fool.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

But getting back to the topic, here's your Goddess of Atheism.

You're better at bullshitting yourself than anyone else.

Most nontheists don't even know who she is. Personally, I never liked her because I thought her bitchiness lowered the tone of the entire conversation. And she gave people like you someone to hate on. I will give her props for tenacity, that's about it.
Tom

Yes, Tom, I agree that "bitchiness lowers the tone of conversations." That's why I must protest your own snarky insult directed at me.

Anyway, if you're looking for salvation from atheists regarding your being gay, then I strongly recommend you look elsewhere. It's bizarre that you like this group of atheists.

 

[DBT]

Perhaps if I lived in the US I would be more familiar with her.

doubtful.

She is not famous and wouldn’t even merit a “Pope” of atheism let alone a goddess.

Yet another strawman…

How do all the different versions of God or gods rate on your scale of probablity?

 

[DBT]

...

 

[bilby]

if you're looking for salvation from atheists regarding your being gay

Salvation?

Why would anyone who doesn't subscribe to a foolish and outdated religious philosophy think that anyone needs to be saved from their sexuality?

In my experience, homophobia is endemic in humans, but it's far more concentrated, commonplace, and virulent in religious people. If someone is looking for acceptance, or even apathy, towards any sexual preference they may gave, atheists would be a good place to look. But salvation? I'm not sure how salvation could even be a coherent thing to seek "regarding being gay".

I'm doubtful that salvation is a coherent thing to seek at all, unless one is currently in serious physical danger. When religious people talk about salvation, it's usually the soul that they consider to be endangered and in need of a saviour; But as the soul is a purely fictional thing, it's salvation is a non-issue.

Regardless, I (and I suspect most of the members of this board) couldn't care less about the sexuality or sexual preference of people we don't want to have a sexual relationship with. I know @TomC is gay, but as I don't want to fuck him, I really don't care. And unless he wants to fuck me, I can't see that he would want me to care, either.

 

[TomC]

Why would anyone who doesn't subscribe to a foolish and outdated religious philosophy think that anyone needs to be saved from their sexuality?

As a 60 something, 30 years into a gay relationship, being "saved" from homosexuality would be darned inconvenient really.
Tom

 

[southernhybrid]

I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anyone here say anything remotely like, “Dawkins said it, I believe it, that settles it.” In other threads I know I’ve quoted Dawkins and extensively referenced his material to back up the points I was making.

And it depends on what he's talking about. But he's not an authority on my views.
Frankly, I found The God Delusion trite and stopped bothering a dozen or so pages into the book. I understood why other people would find it amazing and freeing, but it was old news to me.
But that's me.
Tom

I read that book, but it was disappointing and since I read it a long time ago, and my memory isn't as good as it was when I was younger, I don't remember a thing about the book. I gave it to our local library and have wondered if the book is still there, considering how the extremists are banning books these days.

Dawkins true character came out a few years later. The New Atheist movement was short lived, but perhaps it at least let people know that there are a lot more of us than was previously thought. Some of that angry atheist thing was in response to the way that atheists are often treated or judged by theists, especially the conservative Christians. It seems to have faded away by now.

 

[Rhea]

The relevant point, though, is that Unknown Soldier thinks atheists all worship Madalyn Murray O’Hair as a Goddess, and you know if US says it, it must be true, because of the compelling power of his argumentation.

When Christians raise people like O’Hair up as some beacon of an atheist institution, it makes me ponder their view of reality. That a belief requires a leader. That an outspoken person can be named as a leader regardless of whether they actually have any followers. And that the face of the group they fear/disdain was someone who died decades ago.



Unkown Soldier, no one cares about O’Hair. Few people ever did. She was only the “face of atheism” to people who hated atheism. People who diminished us into cartoons of their own fears.

And, apparently, still do.

.

On that I have to disagree.

There have been atheists on the forum who quote Dawkins like theists quote Jesus. Organized theism is on a par with organized Christianity, albeit on a smaller scale.

Conservative Evangelicals can be strongly anti government. The RCC has long belved they alience is to a higher power than civil law.

As I see it all human social groups exhibit the same tendemcy to hierarchical structures.

agreed. They are religion-ist mind sets. Some of us atheist have blind faith. We can't think past what we are told or what happened to us. We can't strike the offender so we strike everything to do with the offender. The shame is the some of us stand around and let them reek havoc.

But their is no deity type god. well, at least the ones I know of anyway. Dawkins is their savor, true enough, but Dawkins isn't ready to send us to hell if we don't believe in him. lmao, although some atheist will kill us if we don't.

I love when some atheist argue from "practical" stances and not "observation". yeah, they aint my type of theist. they are religious and just fighting another religion and forcing theirs on me too.

Are you trying to say that people listened to Dawkins speak, and took on his view, about seeking evidence for things, without evidence?


I don’t understand what you are saying. Are you maybe confusing belligerence with blind adherence? I do think a lot of atheists who have been bullied by religionists have heard people like Dawkins and pointed to him as having expressed their views more successfully that they could and so they repeat his words because their were hard to underdstand. Is that “blind faith” or is that the same as people who quote Shakespeare or Lincoln? “There’s a gr4eat way of expressing what I’m trying to say!”

I just don’t think you’ve built a case for how these atheists “have blind faith.” You’ll need to elaborate more for it to make sense enough to discuss. What exactly do they do besides say, “yeah, that guy said it well!” Anything?

 

[pood]

It’s true that a lot of atheists believe stupid stuff. The sole common factor among all atheists is non-belief in any god or gods, but that doesn’t mean all atheists are rational thinkers when it comes to non-god stuff. Maybe the more useful distinction is between theists and skeptics. Most and maybe all skeptics are atheists, but not all atheists are skeptics.

 

[steve_bank]

It’s true that a lot of atheists believe stupid stuff. The sole common factor among all atheists is non-belief in any god or gods, but that doesn’t mean all atheists are rational thinkers when it comes to non-god stuff. Maybe the more useful distinction is between theists and skeptics. Most and maybe all skeptics are atheists, but not all atheists are skeptics.

The voice of reason.

I'll add that IMO no matter how logical and rational one is, we are all susceptible to the illogical and irrational.

 

[pood]

Unkown Soldier, no one cares about O’Hair. Few people ever did. She was only the “face of atheism” to people who hated atheism. People who diminished us into cartoons of their own fears.

And, apparently, still do.

.

He picked O’Hair because he found a pic of her making a mean, nasty, scowling face, ergo, you see, she’s the “face” (mean, nasty and scowling) of atheism, and so, because atheism is mean, nasty and scowling, Christianity is true.

This is how he “reasons.”

 

[TomC]

It’s true that a lot of atheists believe stupid stuff. The sole common factor among all atheists is non-belief in any god or gods, but that doesn’t mean all atheists are rational thinkers when it comes to non-god stuff. Maybe the more useful distinction is between theists and skeptics. Most and maybe all skeptics are atheists, but not all atheists are skeptics.

The voice of reason.

I'll add that IMO no matter how logical and rational one is, we are all susceptible to the illogical and irrational.

Both of you are quite correct.
Here's a distinction I find useful, given that we humans aren't really all that smart.

It's a bit idiomatic and vague. There aren't clear bright lines.

Individual people believe a ton of different things. With varying degrees of certainty, and importance, and for different reasons. Some beliefs we hold because the objective evidence is strong. Some beliefs we hold because we prefer to live in a world where the belief is true. Beliefs held on the strength of the evidence is Knowledge. Beliefs held due to preferences is Faith.

I find that distinction useful for more than just theological issues. There are otherwise rational people who firmly believe that Trump won the 2020 election in a landslide. People often believe things simply because they prefer that it were true.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

It’s true that a lot of atheists believe stupid stuff. The sole common factor among all atheists is non-belief in any god or gods, but that doesn’t mean all atheists are rational thinkers when it comes to non-god stuff. Maybe the more useful distinction is between theists and skeptics. Most and maybe all skeptics are atheists, but not all atheists are skeptics.

The voice of reason.

I'll add that IMO no matter how logical and rational one is, we are all susceptible to the illogical and irrational.

Both of you are quite correct.
Here's a distinction I find useful, given that we humans aren't really all that smart.

It's a bit idiomatic and vague. There aren't clear bright lines.

Individual people believe a ton of different things. With varying degrees of certainty, and importance, and for different reasons. Some beliefs we hold because the objective evidence is strong. Some beliefs we hold because we prefer to live in a world where the belief is true. Beliefs held on the strength of the evidence is Knowledge. Beliefs held due to preferences is Faith.

I find that distinction useful for more than just theological issues. There are otherwise rational people who firmly believe that Trump won the 2020 election in a landslide. People often believe things simply because they prefer that it were true.
Tom

That nicely summarizes it.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

But getting back to the topic, here's your Goddess of Atheism.

You're better at bullshitting yourself than anyone else.

Most nontheists don't even know who she is. Personally, I never liked her because I thought her bitchiness lowered the tone of the entire conversation. And she gave people like you someone to hate on. I will give her props for tenacity, that's about it.
Tom

Tom, you've worked so hard at earning this graphic I've created to honor you.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That nicely summarizes it.

IOW People believe the darndest things.

It's fascinating, and revealing how some people can take unevidenced and irrational claims as fact. Whatever is going on upstairs to cause a person to believe in souls and devils must be identical to a child believing in the tooth fairy and Santa. An unevidenced claim is an unevidenced claim. That a person doesn't question an unevidenced claims says a lot about the cognitive operating system in said individual.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

if you're looking for salvation from atheists regarding your being gay

Salvation?

Why would anyone who doesn't subscribe to a foolish and outdated religious philosophy think that anyone needs to be saved from their sexuality?

In my experience, homophobia is endemic in humans, but it's far more concentrated, commonplace, and virulent in religious people. If someone is looking for acceptance, or even apathy, towards any sexual preference they may gave, atheists would be a good place to look. But salvation? I'm not sure how salvation could even be a coherent thing to seek "regarding being gay".

I'm doubtful that salvation is a coherent thing to seek at all, unless one is currently in serious physical danger. When religious people talk about salvation, it's usually the soul that they consider to be endangered and in need of a saviour; But as the soul is a purely fictional thing, it's salvation is a non-issue.

Regardless, I (and I suspect most of the members of this board) couldn't care less about the sexuality or sexual preference of people we don't want to have a sexual relationship with. I know @TomC is gay, but as I don't want to fuck him, I really don't care. And unless he wants to fuck me, I can't see that he would want me to care, either.

This one's for you!

 

[pood]

Wow, that’s so clever! With devastating comebacks like that, we’ll know better next time than to hurt your fee-fees!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I've often heard the religious, Christians in particular, refer to a "God of atheism."

That is funny, because there is no "God" of theism. There are god(s) to different religions but there is no Theism god.

Atheists can defend their faith with tenacity at least as fierce as theists defend their beliefs. Atheists have some unproved ideas that are upheld not with valid reason or strong evidence but with anger, abuse, and if possible, forced silence.

This has nothing to do with gods, but ideals and how they apply them. Being an atheist doesn't crown anyone with anything, but a complimentary basket of kittens. How they found or defend their beliefs is a completely different aspect.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Atheists can defend their faith with tenacity at least as fierce as theists defend their beliefs. Atheists have some unproved ideas that are upheld not with valid reason or strong evidence but with anger, abuse, and if possible, forced silence.

This has nothing to do with gods, but ideals and how they apply them. Being an atheist doesn't crown anyone with anything, but a complimentary basket of kittens. How they found or defend their beliefs is a completely different aspect.

This doesn't make sense. Can you reword it?