Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[jeremyp]

600 years since Aquinas and "The Watchmaker" is still the best excuse. Can we get some new apologeitcs.

Also the dragon in my garage is also the first mover, because I say so. There he now meets the same criteria as god with the exact same amount of actual reason behind it.

If the dragon in your garage is the "first mover", then he is God. I think it becomes quite important to determine if he really exists, especially if he has any particular fixed ideas about which consenting people I should be allowed to sleep with.

 

[jeremyp]

"You're only allowed in the thread if you agree with me."

No. Deal with it.

People can ask whatever question they like. I can point out the question is bad. Deal with it.

I didn't say that. What I said was that, if you are not interested in whether there is a god or not, you don't have to read threads that discuss the question.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If the dragon in your garage is the "first mover", then he is God.

Yes and there is no dragon in my garage and nobody pitches a hissy fit if I say that. But people pitch a huge hissy fit if I say "There is no god" instead of "It's my opinion that my personal belief is that I believe that I hold the personal opinion that I consider it likely that there is not blah blah blah."

I'm so sick of explaining this.

Nobody is mad at me for not continually asking if there is a dragon in my garage. There's no reason to be looking for one so I'm not looking for one and this causes zero issues.

People, like you, are mad and huffy that I'm not joining them in looking for a god that is exactly, exactly, exactly, read that again so you can't pretend you didn't read it, as likely as the dragon in my garage.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I didn't say that. What I said was that, if you are not interested in whether there is a god or not, you don't have to read threads that discuss the question.

Stop being obtuse.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Also we're back to our old friend "The god that literally nobody actually believes in and exists only in arguments because he's nothing but a vague, undefined collection of special pleadings."

I give a **** about the god that is telling people to bomb abortions clinics and teach that evolution is just a theory, not a philosophical thought experiment that nobody really believes in and only exists as an apologetic in arguments.

 

[MRC_Hans]

If the dragon in your garage is the "first mover", then he is God. I think it becomes quite important to determine if he really exists, especially if he has any particular fixed ideas about which consenting people I should be allowed to sleep with.

You seem to be missing the point you are making, here. You say that the importance of a god is which properties humans assign to it. I beg to differ: The importance is how you conduct yourself towards those people, not which god they assign properties to, because all gods have the same objective properties, namely none.

Hans

 

[bruto]

If the dragon in your garage is the "first mover", then he is God. I think it becomes quite important to determine if he really exists, especially if he has any particular fixed ideas about which consenting people I should be allowed to sleep with.

While I think, as a basic philosophical pursuit, that it's of some interest and usefulness to speculate on whether there is a god, why one might consider a god necessary, what that means to the pursuit of truth, and so forth, I would also suggest that this can be done without ever touching on the question of whether that god is a personal one with fixed ideas about our conduct.

While it's true enough that asserting there is no god at all puts paid to all further speculation about the properties and actions of gods, the reverse is not the same. To jump from "the universe might have a prime mover" to divine declarations about whom you can sleep with or what you can put on your dinner plate is at about the same level as suggesting that because I have determined there are ducks in my pond I must wear a tinfoil hat to keep them from reading my mind.

 

[JoeMorgue]

In most conversation we define what we are looking for and THEN start looking for it. We don't built the track while the train is already on it.

But with god this kind ambiguity that feeds on itself to keep the discussion going is a feature, not a bug.

 

[Thermal]

600 years since Aquinas and "The Watchmaker" is still the best excuse. Can we get some new apologeitcs.

First Causes and the Watchmaker are not the same argument. And you damn well know it.

Also the dragon in my garage is also the first mover, because I say so. There he now meets the same criteria as god with the exact same amount of actual reason behind it.

You can claim whatever you like. It doesn't change that some kind of god is an independently arrived at possible explanation for others.

You rely heavily on the Invisible Dragon to make your point. Ya might want to recall what the originator of that analogy had to say about atheism.

 

[Thermal]

In most conversation we define what we are looking for and THEN start looking for it.

Lol. That's not the way most things work. We observe first, then interpret what we see and build from there. Come up with hypotheses, test for them, etc. Exploration, by it's very nature, means NOT defining what you are looking for up front.

 

[wareyin]

You rely heavily on the Invisible Dragon to make your point. Ya might want to recall what the originator of that analogy had to say about atheism.

Carl Sagan appears to have used a similarly odd definition of atheism as the OP: "An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God."

They're both wrong. An atheist is someone who does not have a belief in any god or gods.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Actually there is a very good reason to be asking "is there a god?" and that is that many people believe the answer to be yes and claim to have rules that they got from this god and that we all need to follow those rules and, in some cases, if we don't follow the rules, we need to be put to death.

That's really not a reason to ask "is there a God". Rather it's a good reason to avoid antagonising people who believe there is, and won't tolerate dissent. So it probably indicates it would be a safer idea not to ask such a dangerous question.

Violent intolerance doesn't increase their likelihood of being right.

 

[Chanakya]

Again, I repeat.

"There's no reason to be asking it. And no historical inertia and appeals to popularity aren't reasons. And no a vague, glib "Well people can ask whatever questions they want you aren't the boss of them" is not a reason either."

I remember having gone through this with you already. That thread was a long time back, certainly before the pandemic.

As was evident from that past discussion, you don't actually understand the appeal-to-popularity fallacy. An appeal to popularity is fallacious only if that popularity is being posited to claim something is true. That some question should demand one's attention, or even in some cases one's urgent attention, and require one to take a position on it, because a great many people seem to wrongly believe it is true, that is certainly an "appeal to popularity", but it isn't a fallacy, it is a perfectly valid appeal to popularity. Simply saying something is an "appeal to popularity" does not automatically make it fallacious: critical thinking isn't about simply sticking labels on things

In this you're a bit like these woo peddler types. In general your ideas are sound, but some things, including this one, you seem incapable of understanding, no matter how clearly this is explained to you; and one finds you back, like clockwork, every few weeks or months repeating the same nonsense as if those past discussions never happened.

Appeal to popularity is indeed a valid reason to be considering the God question, and taking a position on it. As has been said, it can even be a life and death question.

I'm with you on all the rest of what you've said here, all the way. Except for this one thing. And I'm commenting on it because, like I said, I find it very weird, and exactly like the fringe reset thing of the woo peddlers, how you keep repeating this nonsense every time this comes up, as if those past exchanges keep getting erased from your memory.

 

[Thermal]

Carl Sagan appears to have used a similarly odd definition of atheism as the OP: "An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God."

They're both wrong. An atheist is someone who does not have a belief in any god or gods.

I doubt either you, I or Sagan is the authority on what a word objectively means. Words are often used loosey goosey and different definitions will have different nuances. Atheism is a perfect example.

The Sagan comment you were referring to was IIRC directed at what we often call gnostic atheists. Pretty sure that's the group he was referring to when he said that for certain definitions, atheism is stupid.

Agnostic atheism is an intellectually honest position, no matter how unlikely you take the possibility of a god. Once (g)you punk out to the null hypothesis and declare knowledge when you actually have none, you are shutting the door tight to accepting any new evidence. There will always be an excuse, even when reduced to muttering "it's just a coincidence" to maintain the foregone conclusion.

 

[Chanakya]

To everyone that took the time to reply to my comment: The reason I find it funny that some ridicule God as something unproven is that they're just as likely to grasp at something else that's unproven, like aliens.

There seems to be a disconnect regarding what is acceptable that as of yet is unproven and what is not acceptable that is yet unproven. Maybe it's just my sense of humor, but to me that is hilarious.

"You can't believe in God, it's just a made up story."
"It's likely we are not alone in the Universe."

One of these beliefs is exactly like the other...

One of those things is NOT exactly like the other. Not even close.

 

[wareyin]

I doubt either you, I or Sagan is the authority on what a word objectively means. Words are often used loosey goosey and different definitions will have different nuances. Atheism is a perfect example.

That's been my point as well, thanks. Those like Sagan and psionl0 who say atheism is not a lack of belief but a positive belief that there is no god are wrongly trying to impose a very, very narrow part of a definition of a much broader concept on everyone else.

The Sagan comment you were referring to was IIRC directed at what we often call gnostic atheists. Pretty sure that's the group he was referring to when he said that for certain definitions, atheism is stupid.

There seem to be multiple variations out there, so this seems like a sticking point for him that he repeated often. But every one is some variation of "An atheist is someone who knows there is no god" which is only a subset of atheists rather than all atheists.

Agnostic atheism is an intellectually honest position, no matter how unlikely you take the possibility of a god. Once (g)you punk out to the null hypothesis and declare knowledge when you actually have none, you are shutting the door tight to accepting any new evidence. There will always be an excuse, even when reduced to muttering "it's just a coincidence" to maintain the foregone conclusion.

Agreed. But an agnostic atheist (as I am) is still an atheist. Despite Sagan and psionl0's claims to the contrary.

 

[Thermal]

That's been my point as well, thanks. Those like Sagan and psionl0 who say atheism is not a lack of belief but a positive belief that there is no god are wrongly trying to impose a very, very narrow part of a definition of a much broader concept on everyone else.

Agreed. Kind of weird that on a skeptic's forum we would have to explain how differing definitions work.

There seem to be multiple variations out there, so this seems like a sticking point for him that he repeated often. But every one is some variation of "An atheist is someone who knows there is no god" which is only a subset of atheists rather than all atheists.

IIRC, Sagan was close with some very religious people, so I get the impression that he was showing deference to people he valued by focusing more ire on the gnostic brand. It may only be a vibe, but I feel like his public opinions were tempered with a "with respect to my reverential colleagues" kind of thing.

Agreed. But an agnostic atheist (as I am) is still an atheist. Despite Sagan and psionl0's claims to the contrary.

Yeah, it was on one of these threads that I realized I was an atheist, as opposed to an agnostic. Still feeling pretty comfortable with not slamming a door shut that I have no reason to slam. I might not knock on that door, but I won't make excuses to ignore knocking on it either.

 

[Darat]

Lol. That's not the way most things work. We observe first, then interpret what we see and build from there. Come up with hypotheses, test for them, etc. Exploration, by it's very nature, means NOT defining what you are looking for up front.

And there's no longer any evidence (of course there never was actual evidence for them, it was our hypotheses that failed) for any of the defined gods folk claim exist.

 

[Darat]

I doubt either you, I or Sagan is the authority on what a word objectively means. Words are often used loosey goosey and different definitions will have different nuances. Atheism is a perfect example.

The Sagan comment you were referring to was IIRC directed at what we often call gnostic atheists. Pretty sure that's the group he was referring to when he said that for certain definitions, atheism is stupid.

Agnostic atheism is an intellectually honest position, no matter how unlikely you take the possibility of a god. Once (g)you punk out to the null hypothesis and declare knowledge when you actually have none, you are shutting the door tight to accepting any new evidence. There will always be an excuse, even when reduced to muttering "it's just a coincidence" to maintain the foregone conclusion.

No it isn't - agnostic in that sense means you can never know if a god exists or not. Despite its persistent misuse agnostic is a statement about limits of knowledge.

 

[Thermal]

And there's no longer any evidence (of course there never was actual evidence for them, it was our hypotheses that failed) for any of the defined gods folk claim exist.

Agreed. I don't find any compelling evedence to entertain the existence of a literal Jehova or Allah or Thor.

But when the subject broadens beyond those defined and meticulously described beings, becoming "might there be A god?", it's a different question. One that is only very dishonestly approached with invoking Zeus for the umpteenth time.

"Might there be something we call a god" is a very abstract question. "Is there an invisible dragon in my garage" is very concrete and specific. They are, as I believe Sagan intended, not in the same playing field.