When you break it down: is atheism unappealing?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Come on. You did actually say it and now you are saying that you don't believe what you say.

No, I didn't say that.
You may have interpreted something I as meaning that, but I didn't say it.

I'm pretty sure the problem is that you've got a theological world view that you filter everything through. So you change the meaning of which people say to match.

It's not a new thing, I'm used to this sort of thing from theological purists. Hard atheists to evangelical Christians, it's not very different.
Tom

You did actually say it. But I understand how brains work in that not everyone's works the same way so we're probably at an impasse. It's not unlike two computers with different hardware and software unable to interface.

 

[TomC]

This is why I find atheism unappealing. It's a belief for which there is no evidence.

You are correct. An absence of evidence for gods is atheism. We're in agreement.

Find me a quote, from me, for "An absence of evidence for gods is atheism".

Not something I said that you didn't understand, and so misinterpreted.
Where did I say that.
I don't think you can. I expect a bunch of dodging and strawman nonsense.
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is why I find atheism unappealing. It's a belief for which there is no evidence.

You are correct. An absence of evidence for gods is atheism. We're in agreement.

Find me a quote, from me, for "An absence of evidence for gods is atheism".

Not something I said that you didn't understand, and so misinterpreted.
Where did I say that.
I don't think you can. I expect a bunch of dodging and strawman nonsense.
Tom

It's right there. Read what you said in the nested quote.

 

[TomC]

This is why I find atheism unappealing. It's a belief for which there is no evidence.

You are correct. An absence of evidence for gods is atheism. We're in agreement.

Find me a quote, from me, for "An absence of evidence for gods is atheism".

Not something I said that you didn't understand, and so misinterpreted.
Where did I say that.
I don't think you can. I expect a bunch of dodging and strawman nonsense.
Tom

It's right there. Read what you said in the nested quote.

That's what I figured.
You reinterpreted something I said to suit you.

Have a Nice Day.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

In fact I’m saying “Nope, that shit ain’t real. I don’t know if some creator entity beyond our understanding might exist, but that ain’t it.”

Now my question would be that even if this universe was created by a sentient being, what would make such being a god?

Why, the same thing that makes anything a god: believers.

Some people say that mountains and forests are gods. What makes them gods and not just mountains and forests?.

People.
People make the gods that make people.

If a god is whatever I want a god to be than the word is meaningless

Not exactly … it can be imbued with meaning, just like any other term that refers to the non-existent.
But you can’t simply manufacture a god of convenience. A “real” god needs at least one actual believer.
At least that’s what my religion says, and by god, I’m sticking to it faithfully.

 

[bilby]

This is why I find atheism unappealing. It's a belief for which there is no evidence. Agnosticism is the only rational belief. Atheism is as unevidenced as theism.

Less evidenced, really. There is absolutely no evidence for atheism. While the evidence for any particular version of theism is extremely weak, at least there is some. Like me, you may find people's visions or whatever incredibly weak evidence. But there is some. Atheism has nothing whatever in the way of evidence.

Well, as long as you discount all of physics, I guess you are right.

It amazes me how many people are both utterly ignorant of the hard evidence for atheism, and absolutely confident that it doesn’t exist at all; That’s not surprising in itself (it’s just basic ignorance, and nobody can be expected not to be ignorant of things they have never encountered), but this ignorance is astonishingly able to survive having the evidence presented by experts in the field.

You might as well confidently claim that we have no evidence that perpetual motion is impossible, as claim that we have no evidence that gods are impossible. We have hard evidence for both facts.

https://www.preposterousuniverse.co...s-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/

https://www.preposterousuniverse.co...eryday-life-really-are-completely-understood/

My expectation, based on experience, is that if you read and understand these two articles, you will simply reject them (or at least, reject their inescapable conclusions) and return to claiming that there’s weak evidence for theism, and none at all for atheism. I sincerely hope that you will surprise me, but I don’t hold out much hope.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Not exactly … it can be imbued with meaning, just like any other term that refers to the non-existent.
But you can’t simply manufacture a god of convenience. A “real” god needs at least one actual believer.
At least that’s what my religion says, and by god, I’m sticking to it faithfully.

I get all that. I was attempting to be very matter-of-fact in my discussion with TomC. Was being very mechanical, reacting to sensory data, not thinking too much about it, not imparting any woo or motive, trying not to judge, simply taking the language and dealing with it as information.

I do have one quibble with your response above, and that would be that the believer and the god are the same thing, even if you call a mountain a god. The believer is projecting themselves, projecting their beliefs. But beliefs and believers are not evidence of gods. Even the mountain is still a mountain whether or not there is a believer with beliefs calling it something else. But I get where you are coming from. I wish I could see exactly what the brain is doing. We have a pretty good idea, it's just another complex mechanical device, it's not magic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In fact I’m saying “Nope, that shit ain’t real. I don’t know if some creator entity beyond our understanding might exist, but that ain’t it.”

Now my question would be that even if this universe was created by a sentient being, what would make such being a god?

Ever consider the possibility that god isn't a sentient being? The possibility that "The Creator", "Original Source", "Ground of Being", whatever, isn't limited by sentience?
Or any other human characteristics?
Tom

What happened to the importance of evidence? Or do people have those "weak" experiences with the non-sentient being?

Seriously, the whole no evidence to support atheism sounds like a cheap parlour philosophical trick.

1) No evidence for atheism (can't prove a negative)
2) Tiny itty bitty evidence for theism.
3) Therefore agnosticism is right.

There are a couple issues here. Firstly, if magnitudes matter (as implied here), then theism has to be right, not agnosticism. Secondly, it is presumption that presume that some bit of religious experience is legitimate, while apparently delegitimizing all the rest. It provides a dishonest appearance of indifference on the evidence.

Look, most religious experience is bullshit, but a tiny bit is legit (despite being the exact same as all the other experiences), therefore, there is more likely a creator.

 

[rousseau]

I'm going to preface this thread with the fact that these comments aren't an attack on atheism. Whenever something looking like a critique of atheism is presented at this forum, we seem to get a few defensive responses. So to be clear this thread isn't intended to promote religiosity by any means. It's just a quick thought experiment for your consideration.

A few months ago I was reading a title called The Sociobiological Imagination which discussed, in part, why the field of Sociology was hesitant to integrate hard evolutionary theory into it's own theories. I found the answer interesting, and I think it is very relevant to why religiosity survives in our world:

The argument went something like this:

Acceptance of evolutionary theory

• The world and your life is intrinsically meaningless other than what you assign to it
• Anything negative that happens to you is primarily random and indifferent
• Your well-being is entirely up to you, and if you fail it's because you failed / aren't skilled enough
• When you die you will cease to exist. When your friends die they will cease to exist

Belief in God

• Everything you see and feel was designed / has purpose
• Anything negative that happens to you happened for a reason and can be justified
• Your well-being is in someone else's hands, and failure is ok
• You'll never lose your life or friends and family

Although a little more nuanced, that was it in a nutshell. Between the two worldviews it's obvious which one would appeal to more people. So as Atheists, we're all obviously invested in the lack of God because it appeals to us, but when you break the problem down to it's basic elements we're trying to sell the religious a bit of a shithole. Their religion shields them from what is a cruel and indifferent world, they do not want to accept materialism because it isn't much of a cakewalk.

As a Gallup survey demonstrated, 47% of people report having religious experiences. Spontaneous altered states of consciousness. Here is an often overlooked reason religion lingers on. Whether it is some religious manifestation like "The Toronto Blessing" or an episode of Maslow's "Peak Experience", one must understand the great power of religious brain facts. NDEs, OOBEs, and other things of this type can be powerful experiences to hang religion on. Some known powerful religious experiences. known to history were experiences of Pascal and Thomas Aquinas. L. Ron Hubbard created an entire religion based on his ability to induce brain facts in his cult members. This aspect of the phenomena of religion does not get the attention it deserves.

This is a good point, and likely has something to do with it's inception too.

 

[TomC]

1) No evidence for atheism (can't prove a negative)
2) Tiny itty bitty evidence for theism.

Here's the thing.
Both theism and atheism are opinions held with little or no evidence on the subject. They're opinions about god or the supernatural or something.
Agnosticism is extremely different. So different I put it in another category. There's tons of evidence on that subject.

3) Therefore agnosticism is right.

Agnosticism isn't really about god or whatever. It's a belief about humans, and our delusions.

We like to think that we're smart, perceptive, and rational. We're able to understand everything important. But the fact is that we're not. We're extremely prone to mistakes and very ignorant. Prone to illusions, including our own capabilities. When we have an important question, for which we have little evidence, we're inclined to make up an answer. Then stick to it, even if some evidence comes up that contradicts our beliefs.

I don't see agnosticism as a midpoint between theism and atheism. I see it as recognition of human limitations. On that subject, there's mountains of evidence.
Tom

 

[abaddon]

Agnosticism isn't really about god or whatever. It's a belief about humans, and our delusions.

We like to think that we're smart, perceptive, and rational. We're able to understand everything important. But the fact is that we're not. We're extremely prone to mistakes and very ignorant. Prone to illusions, including our own capabilities. When we have an important question, for which we have little evidence, we're inclined to make up an answer. Then stick to it, even if some evidence comes up that contradicts our beliefs.

I don't see agnosticism as a midpoint between theism and atheism. I see it as recognition of human limitations. On that subject, there's mountains of evidence.

I agree with this. But not with your view of atheism. It isn't the claim that there are no gods so it isn't itself a belief, but a self-description: "I'm not a theist". Whatever the reasons for that are knowledge-claims with entirely different labels - positivism, naturalism, materialism, secularism, or other.

"There are no gods" is antitheism, which is a small subset of atheism. To confuse the antitheist's positivist and absolutist stance for atheism is a logical fallacy -- like thinking all blondes are ditzy because some are.

That there's so little evidence of gods leads me, an agnostic, to withhold belief in gods. I don't see enough evidence for any god to justify belief in any. So therefore I'm an atheist as well as an agnostic and thus an agnostic atheist. The agnosticism is what leads to the atheism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

1) No evidence for atheism (can't prove a negative)
2) Tiny itty bitty evidence for theism.

Here's the thing.
Both theism and atheism are opinions held with little or no evidence on the subject.

You need to make up your mind here, is it little evidence or no evidence and for which. Though, for atheism, one can't prove something doesn't exist.

They're opinions about god or the supernatural or something.

Atheism would be the observation that there have been no observations of god(s) on Earth, where as theism is the belief that inertia is enough to justify believing what people believed 2500 years ago.

Agnosticism is extremely different. So different I put it in another category. There's tons of evidence on that subject.

There is no evidence that supports agnosticism. Indeterminacy is the foundation of agnosticism. Agnosticism is the belief that it is okay to stop trying.

 

[Elixir]

I don't believe in magic.
So I must be an atheist.
I do believe there are things we don't know.
So I must be agnostic.
I suspect the existence of a transcendent sentience.
So I must be a theist.

I believe humans are full of shit, so whatever label anyone wants to pin on me is of zero consequence.

 

[skepticalbip]

...

1) No evidence for atheism (can't prove a negative)
2) Tiny itty bitty evidence for theism.

Here's the thing.
Both theism and atheism are opinions held with little or no evidence on the subject.

You need to make up your mind here, is it little evidence or no evidence and for which. Though, for atheism, one can't prove something doesn't exist.

They're opinions about god or the supernatural or something.

Atheism would be the observation that there have been no observations of god(s) on Earth, where as theism is the belief that inertia is enough to justify believing what people believed 2500 years ago.

Agnosticism is extremely different. So different I put it in another category. There's tons of evidence on that subject.

There is no evidence that supports agnosticism. Indeterminacy is the foundation of agnosticism. Agnosticism is the belief that it is okay to stop trying.

The difference between theists and atheists is that theists evoke a god or gods to explain and understand reality and atheists don't. I think the word 'agnostic' was invented by philosophers just so they would have something to argue about.

ETA:
And then anti-theists are people that are pissed that there are theists.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think I've figured out the agnostic mindset. Bear with me.

A gentleman sits down beside me when I'm at a local park. He seems so happy to see me but I don't recognize him. He knows my name and proceeds to tell me about a time when he lent me ten-thousand dollars. When this loan was given, he says, I told him that I would pay it back whenever I could and we sealed the deal with a handshake.

He tells me where it happened, when it happened, what I needed the money for, provides a lot of information and try as I might I can't recall a single detail that might confirm his story. I just have no memory of anything he says regarding the $10K. He even asks me if I might be suffering from amnesia, had any events that might be associated with the condition and is generally a charming, friendly, sincere, honest and affable guy. It's all damn interesting.

Being the rational person I am I consider that he might be entirely correct and that everything he says happened actually did happen. Maybe I really am suffering from amnesia. But because I think myself a pretty good observer and make decisions rationally and not emotionally, have no empty spots in my lifetime of memories, I'm as honest as I can be and tell him that he must have the wrong person or that maybe he is suffering some kind of mental condition himself. I even ask him if we're being recorded for some kind of candid camera show simply because he seems so sincere.

But in the end we part ways. He's not terribly upset just disappointed that he's not going to get his $10K.

For me his story is not true and therefore I am certain I do not owe him ten-thousand dollars. In that moment I am certain that I do not owe him ten-thousand dollars even though I hold out the possibility that given new information that is convincing and verifiable I may change my mind. But when I leave the conversation I have decided that I owe him nothing and am very comfortable with that decision based on everything I have observed and experienced.

Were I an agnostic on the other hand I will maintain that I'm not entirely certain about the ten-thousand dollars but for now have decided not to pay, leaving open the possibility however that I might change my mind based on the information provided thus far, and may decide to contact the gentleman in order to pay up.

Of course if I believe him we're headed off so I can pay him his ten-thousand dollars.

Theism, atheism and agnosticism are not differences in evidence or information but rather how I personally perceive the information and evidence.

 

[TomC]

The difference between theists and atheists is that theists evoke a god or gods to explain and understand reality and atheists don't.

I don't think so.
I think atheists and theists both have an inflated opinion about their ability to discern the truth. The term "illusions of grandeur" comes to mind.

You and W L Craig might have different opinions on the subject. But you both have a foundation in common. You both believe that you understand reality better than most of us.

I don't think so.
Tom

 

[skepticalbip]

The difference between theists and atheists is that theists evoke a god or gods to explain and understand reality and atheists don't.

I don't think so.
I think atheists and theists both have an inflated opinion about their ability to discern the truth. The term "illusions of grandeur" comes to mind.

You and W L Craig might have different opinions on the subject. But you both have a foundation in common. You both believe that you understand reality better than most of us.

I don't think so.
Tom

Whether someone is theist or atheist has nothing to do with their opinion of their ability. It only defines their method used to reach their conclusions on a matter.

ETA:
Why the personal attack? Addressing the content of the post itself would be preferable.

 

[TomC]

Theism, atheism and agnosticism are not differences in evidence or information but rather how I personally perceive the information and evidence.

That's not how I see it.

You think that the important question is whether or not you borrowed, and now owe, $10K.

I'd be thinking, "Dang, another human with an agenda but no evidence of importance."
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The difference between theists and atheists is that theists evoke a god or gods to explain and understand reality and atheists don't.

I don't think so.
I think atheists and theists both have an inflated opinion about their ability to discern the truth. The term "illusions of grandeur" comes to mind.

This is false. Theism has an eroded record of importance. Stuff that was attributed to gods and demons have weathered away to show natural causes. Atheism has yet to have its singular centerpiece weathered.

You and W L Craig might have different opinions on the subject. But you both have a foundation in common. You both believe that you understand reality better than most of us.

I don't think so.
Tom

This ignores one problem, the lack of evidence that god(s) (or even a spark) exist. The relevance of this lack of evidence doesn't control ultimate origins, but the whole eternal god solution doesn't present any actual solution better than an eternal universe... it just provides an arbitrary solution.

And agnosticism seems to suggest that atheists are right, there is no evidence of god, but wants to interject that their is no evidence of no god. To which an atheist replies, "fallacy".

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Theism, atheism and agnosticism are not differences in evidence or information but rather how I personally perceive the information and evidence.

That's not how I see it.

You think that the important question is whether or not you borrowed, and now owe, $10K.

I'd be thinking, "Dang, another human with an agenda but no evidence of importance."
Tom

What is "evidence of importance?" The phrase can be taken several ways at least. What is your meaning.