Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[Leumas]

...

The Dragon applies to unfalsifiable claims, ad hoc reasoning, and burden of proof.

Exactly... i.e. God-claims.

It does not apply to speculating into the unknown. Here:

That is not the god-hypotheses ... all the god-hawkers make claims that are known.

"What, if anything, existed before time and space?"

See... that is not "speculating into the unknown".... is it.

You know time... you know space and you are speculating that there is a LIMIT to them and that there is a beyond which implies a container for them and speculating about that also containing something that most god-hawkers attribute all sorts of known things to.

"Hurr durr, there's no absence of time and space in my garage! QED!"

There is a wormhole in my garage from which a dragon keeps poking its head and roasting my pot-roast for me every Saturday and doing me the favor of being able to keep the Shabbat and still having a hot freshly cooked meal... and he wears a Kippah too... QED!!!

 

[Thermal]

No I do not... you might... but I... do not.

And if you do it then you must have been fleeced so many times over.





I do not affirm disbelief... it is the belief that needs affirming.

Every time I delete a spam email or swipe to delete a spam text without ever looking at it or opening it I am assuming the null hypothesis and relying on it to not get screwed.

When I look to the left and right when I cross a pedestrian crossing I am using my eyes to NEGATE the null hypothesis that there is a car that will kill me if I just carry on walking.

Then your disagreement is only semantic. When I go to cross street, I do not adopt the null hypothesis that no car is coming if I have not detected one. I adopt the purely agnostic view that I don't know yet, and remain open to whatever possibility presents itself, including a rabid put bull racing towards me, however unlikely that might be. There is no null in the day to day experience, some strawmen excluded. Agnosticism, with differing degrees of doubt and confidence, rules the day.

And interestingly, that's exactly what keeps me from being fleeced. I make few unwarranted assumptions, so am harder to fool via misdirection or capitalizing on wrong beliefs.

I think you are totally misunderstanding the Dragon-in-the-garage parable... it has nothing to do with the proven gravity and all to do with the blind-faith of god-hawking.

I get it, having read it along with its follow up fleshing out in the rest of the chapter and all. That's where a lot here fall flat. They get the "invisible = nonexistent" thing, but that's not at all what it is about. Read it again, without projecting meanings. Ask yourself why he phrased it the way he did, with the claimant repeating "good idea, but," over and over. Why do you think he worded it that way?

 

[Leumas]

Yes, speculating about universal First Causes is nothing whatsoever like wondering if you have any beer in the fridge.

Nope... if the speculation about a first cause then proceeds to tell us that there is a first causer and that he is the causer of earth and humans then it is exactly like asserting there is beer in the fridge when there is none... exactly like it.

If the first cause speculation does not proceed to asserting the above fallacy then it is a meaningless naval gazing for nothing and no purpose and thus is like a stoned person who never goes to the fridge and never opens it to see if there is a beer but reclines on the sofa arguing vehemently about the merits of speculating about where beer comes from and how it is possible to have some in the fridge still.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes, speculating about universal First Causes is nothing whatsoever like wondering if you have any beer in the fridge.

Again "First Cause" is not god, it's an excuse to keep talking about god.

Nobody actually worships or believes in a vague vaguey vague "First Cause."

That god only exists to use as an excuse to keep the overall god debate going.

 

[Leumas]

Then your disagreement is only semantic. When I go to cross street, I do not adopt the null hypothesis that no car is coming if I have not detected one.

You have not read my post properly.... when it comes to the pedestrian crossing the null hypothesis is that THERE IS a car coming and would kill you if you blindly have faith that there is not one and carry on crossing without looking.

So to negate the null hypothesis I used my SENSES to verify whether or not there is a car and only crossed once the null hypothesis that there is a car has been negated by evidence as evinced by my observations.

 

[Thermal]

Come on, Thermal, seriously?

No reason why there should be a prime mover at all. That logic's nonsensical.

To me, it's all nonsensical. But that doesn't change anything about the nature of the question. Most here deal with that by just changing the nature of the question into something simpler and sillier to make it easier to attack. Like saying it's like checking the fridge for beer. There's a term for that.

You could just as well say there is no reason why there would have been anything before time and space. No reason why the Big Bang happened. No reason the speed of light is constant, or what the big deal about 186,000 mps being carved in stone is. Still interesting to kick it around.

As for not smuggling in attributes. Say you go with quantum fluctuations. Say you now refer to the quantum fluctuations as God. What now? Where do you go from here?

You add that to the body of knowledge and keep right on going. Why do you ask?

Also, not to forget: No religion thinks of its God as lifeless quantum fluctuations. That's ...crazy, why the **** call it God of all things? Aquinas was merely pulling off a semantic legerdemain, is all his first argument was.

St Tommy doesn't interest me that much, except historically. St Auggy was more up my alley.

 

[Thermal]

You have not read my post properly....

*Thermal slams on brakes and violently swerves away from that phrase*

 

[Thermal]

Again "First Cause" is not god, it's an excuse to keep talking about god.

Nobody actually worships or believes in a vague vaguey vague "First Cause."

That god only exists to use as an excuse to keep the overall god debate going.

Serious question: do you really not think a significant percentage of people think of a god in that way? Not religious people. Just garden variety people who do not get involved in debates on forums or go to churches. Do you seriously think they just like...don't exist?

When someone poses a question like "is there a god?", I start at the most basic level, not assuming anything about specific or even general organized religion. You think when someone asks that, they are trying to recruit you into their chosen faith?

 

[Leumas]

The null hypothesis is not a slam dunk conclusion. You reject it constantly, every day, in favor of "not proven", or "don't know yet", which is off to the side of that...

The above statement does no at all agree with the one below

...
And interestingly, that's exactly what keeps me from being fleeced. I make few unwarranted assumptions, so am harder to fool via misdirection or capitalizing on wrong beliefs.
...

If many times every day you FAVOR the unproven and not known... then by definition you are making numerous unwarranted assumptions...

 

[Thermal]

The above statement does no at all agree with the one below




If many times everyday you FAVOR the unproven and not known... then by definition your are making numerous unwarranted assumptions...

Conceded, worded poorly. Would have been clearer to say "I come to few unwarranted conclusions", not assumptions. And I'd bet $20 that everyone here, you included, could pick that up in context.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Again "First Cause" is not god, it's an excuse to keep talking about god.

Nobody actually worships or believes in a vague vaguey vague "First Cause."

That god only exists to use as an excuse to keep the overall god debate going.

My issue with the first cause: theist will usually go like this: everything has a cause .. so what caused the first thing ever happened ? Ha ! Room for a creator ! Need for one, even.
To which I would say .. to accept everything has a cause means the universe has no beginning, so there is actually no room for creator at all.

 

[Olmstead]

Serious question: do you really not think a significant percentage of people think of a god in that way? Not religious people. Just garden variety people who do not get involved in debates on forums or go to churches. Do you seriously think they just like...don't exist?

When someone loses a question like "is there a god?", I start at the most basic level, not assuming anything about specific or even general organized religion. You think when someone asks that, they are trying to recruit you into their chosen faith?

If anyone is seriously pondering the question of god, they do it to assuage their existential angst. God is a very specific thing for them with very specific attributes. Some abstract thing won't do.

Anyone seriously pondering the beginning of the universe and what came before who doesn't do it to assuage their existential angst won't ponder god. They will read up on the Big Bang, do some browsing on quantum uncertainty, and then go to bed in a bad mood because they will come to the realisation that it might be impossible to discover even the first turtle.

What, are you telling me god is holding that turtle up? Ridiculous.

 

[Leumas]

Serious question: do you really not think a significant percentage of people think of a god in that way?

Not religious people. Just garden variety people who do not get involved in debates on forums or go to churches. Do you seriously think they just like...don't exist?

People you describe above... as you stated... are not on this forum... so did they appoint you as their spokesperson on this forum?

When someone loses a question like "is there a god?", I start at the most basic level, not assuming anything about specific or even general organized religion.

Why... how many people do you think are totally a-god-ly at all compared to the ones who have been steeped and pickled all their childhood in a version of their god???

What is the probability that you will have an a-god-ly person asking you that question as opposed to the ones who have been utterly infused to the core with the version of their culture's god???

You think when someone asks that, they are trying to recruit you into their chosen faith?

Whether or not they are, is immaterial to the fact that they are still carrying all the pickling juices in their mid of the particular concentration of brine they had their mind and soul pickled in throughout their helpless childhood.

Even if they have managed to TOTALLY sober up out of the pickling imposed upon them... they would still recollect at the very least all the flavor of the stupefying juices and thus they would be very unlikely to think of "god" as a naval gazing nothing but academic ruminations and chewing the cud about ¿gods?.

 

[Thermal]

An essential part of the invisible dragon analogy is that the dragon always avoids detection, no matter what. Until we have some way to completely thwart its anti-detection technology, the analogy remains apt.

What I'm reading is the claimant saying "I have a dragon", then every time a proof is requested, what a "dragon" is changes in substance, till there is no longer a dragon at all. I see that as a criticism of bad argumentation, which is what I'm levelling at it's proponents here.

But to be fair, I'm not too attached to that analogy. In fact, as a Lovecraft fan, I'd much prefer the analogy of Azathoth floating "beyond time and space" as analogous to any god.

Somehow, I don't believe Azathoth exists beyond time and space. Yes, Azathoth is a specific creature invented by an author, but so is any god. The moment one postulates an entity creating the universe, one has already imagined a completely fictional character, vague as it may be.

Fair point. I guess I'm too comfortable with personifying things. Like, talking about what a piece of hardwood wants to do. I know the American Cherry doesn't have dreams and aspirations. It's just a way of speaking. By the same token, I'm very interested in people's claimed spiritual experiences, and am comfortable using "god" to attribute them too much. If as Chanakya suggested, some level of "god" turns out to be quantum fluctuations, I don't feel like the rug was pulled out from under me. I'm feeling like I got a better handle on how people work.

 

[Leumas]

What I'm reading is the claimant saying "I have a dragon", then every time a proof is requested, what a "dragon" is changes in substance, till there is no longer a dragon at all. I see that as a criticism of bad argumentation, which is what I'm levelling at it's proponents here.

Eureka... by Jove you got it... that is why the Dragon-In-The-Garage argument is a perfect metaphor for the God-hawking argumentation.

You finally get it... "every time a proof is requested, what a "dragon" "god" is changes in substance, till there is no longer a dragon god at all" is precisely to a tee what the god-hawkers do.

And you "see that as a criticism of bad argumentation" is exactly what the Garage-Dragon parable is meant to make you see in analogy to the hawkers of the ethereal-nebulous-esoteric-naval-gazing god.




.

 

[Thermal]

People you describe above... as you stated... are not on this forum... so did they appoint you as their spokesperson on this forum?

No.

Why... how many people do you think are totally a-god-ly at all compared to the ones who have been steeped and pickled all their childhood in a version of their god???

What is the probability that you will have an a-god-ly person asking you that question as opposed to the ones who have been utterly infused to the core with the version of their culture's god???

Whether or not they are, is immaterial to the fact that they are still carrying all the pickling juices in their mid of the particular concentration of brine they had their mind and soul pickled in throughout their helpless childhood.

Even if they have managed to TOTALLY sober up out of the pickling imposed upon them... they would still recollect at the very least all the flavor of the stupefying juices and thus they would be very unlikely to think of "god" as a naval gazing nothing but academic ruminations and chewing the cud about ¿gods?.

On this forum? A skeptic's forum? Wouldn't expect too many pickled in the brine types at all, no. Would kind of expect...you know...skeptics, who would take such a discussion in stride.

What are you expecting here? Not "out there", but here, where there is no one talking about bombing abortion clinics or tithing your income and stuff. Right ******* here, on this board, why exactly would you not expect the kind of thread I am talking about?

 

[junkshop]

PIt's very unfair of atheists to say they don't believe that gods are real, just because theists haven't yet managed to provide convincing evidence of the existence of any god.

Give them a chance, they've only had all of human history.


Any day now, i'm sure.

 

[Leumas]

...When someone poses a question like "is there a god?"...

What are you expecting here? Not "out there", but here, where there is no one talking about bombing abortion clinics or tithing your income and stuff. Right ******* here, on this board, why exactly would you not expect the kind of thread I am talking about?

I would expect a coherent and detailed definition of what is this "god" they want me to answer if it exists or not.

And if they start obfuscating and doing special pleading... I would remind them of the Garage-Dragon parable as an apt description of the fallacies used to befuddle and waft red herrings about this nebulous ethereal esoteric naval gazing "god" they are trying to not define but yet want to know if it exists or not.

And also I might even use the Beer-In-The-Fridge analogy too about this undefined Lite-Maybe-Or-Ale Beer-Or-Wine.
.

 

[theprestige]

Could there be something out there that could reasonably considered a god, if we but knew about it? I'm agnostic.

Is it Odin Allfather, familiar to us from Norse mythology? I'm an atheist.

 

[pzkpfw]

Could there be something out there that could reasonably considered a god, if we but knew about it? I'm agnostic.

Is it Odin Allfather, familiar to us from Norse mythology? I'm an atheist.

Do you mean super-powerful alien (tech so advanced it looks like magic), or actually supernatural (against laws of physics)?