Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[acbytesla]

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


.

I remember going to Sunday School as a kid and hearing the stories about the snake that tempted Eve. Noah building a huge boat and gathering two of every species and then the flood. And Jonah and the Whale as well as other Bible stories. At first I thought they were fables. You know, stories made up simply to teach us important life lessons.

Then I remember questioning the adults and realizing that these adults were saying these stories were actually true. In fact, they were insisting they were true. Which made me think some adults were nuts.

Now maybe science doesn’t have down pat how life was generated on this planet. Still, it seems they are more likely to get it right then bronze age men with silly stories.

 

[arthwollipot]

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

To be fair, it's such a persistent claim that Dawkins wrote a whole book about it.

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

Only inasmuch as it is important to determine whether anything exists. I happen to think that this is an important question and that it applies to gods exactly as much as it applies to anything else.

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

I can acknowledge that one can never know for certain that a god can exist, but also firmly believe that one doesn't. Because if a god does exist, I think it would logically follow that one could know for certain that it did. Otherwise what does "exist" even mean? A god that one cannot know whether it exists or not is fundamentally, logically, and philosophically indistinguishable from one that doesn't exist.

Hence, I think that atheism is the logical conclusion of agnosticism.

 

[Leumas]

I'm not interested in formal god hawking. I think their argument is self-defeating. I'm talking about the simple "might there be something" and concluding "insufficient data for a meaningful conclusion".

But you at the very least have to know what this ¿something? is so as to know what ¿data? you need to look for... and if you do not know what it is you are looking for nor what ¿data? will constitute a successful search... then no wonder the only conclusion is that there is no sufficient ¿data? that you don't know what it is and what is the ¿something? it is supposed to bolster or how or why.

And thus this is even worse than a stoner speculating about whether or not there is a beer in his fridge without being sober enough to get up and open the fridge, all the while contending that his failure to find the beer is because the non-stoners have defined beer too stringently and narrowly for his liking.

 

[arthwollipot]

Since we've established that Sagan was using "atheism" wrong, then whether or not he didn't think the Dragon was an argument for atheism or not means dick all, doesn't it?

No, Sagan wasn't using "atheism" wrong, he was using it narrowly, as shorthand to refer to what is commonly known as strong atheism. Strong atheism is still atheism.

Also, as I said, the dragon in the garage metaphor was an illustration of the logical fallacy of special pleading. It was not an argument for or against anything.

 

[theprestige]

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

Either way.

ETA: Does it actually matter, to any argument you care to make? Or are you JAQing off?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Like seriously do you hear yourself? "There might be a god" is not a claim.

No statement is a claim in and of itself. What makes something a claim is the bid for your audience's agreement, the unspoken ["amirite?"] at the end of the statement.

All this stuff about burden of proof, IMO, really just boils down to the idea that one is never entitled to agreement, and that, if you desire assent from your audience, you must be prepared to earn it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can acknowledge that one can never know for certain that a god can exist, but also firmly believe that one doesn't. Because if a god does exist, I think it would logically follow that one could know for certain that it did. Otherwise what does "exist" even mean? A god that one cannot know whether it exists or not is fundamentally, logically, and philosophically indistinguishable from one that doesn't exist.

Hence, I think that atheism is the logical conclusion of agnosticism.

Close to my POV, maybe just worded differently.

A god one cannot detect the existence of is no different from a god that doesn't exist. Consider the failure of researchers to find any effect of prayer unless it is a placebo effect when the person being prayed over or doing the praying is aware of the intervention.

I've posted my position before: the only evidence gods exist comes from people's imagination they do. No actual evidence exists that gods exist.

So we have a good explanation for god beliefs: the evidence supports the conclusion people made gods up. And we have no evidence supporting the conclusion gods do exist. Have some evidence, go for the MDC even though I believe the cash reward has been suspended.

So what are people basing their god beliefs on? Childhood indoctrination and related situations.


My brother, a serious god believer though I don't know if he attended church regularly in the last decade or so, died last Jan. He had a serious illness that came on rapidly and killed him unexpectedly less than 2 months later. It was a shock given he was the youngest of we 3 siblings and as my older brother noted, the only one that didn't partake in all the damaging drug behaviors the other 2 of us did.

But I digress. After he died my sister-in-law said, "He was good with his God," by which I think she meant he was off to heaven and we shouldn't be that sad. Totally weird concept in my mind. I'm happy the folks on that side of his life find comfort in that.

If you believe then maybe it comforts you as you are dying. If your loved ones believe I'm sure it comforts them. But me, I just find it weird. Maybe at the end believing in life after death is comforting. I doubt sincerely that it comforts a person's sadness/devastation with the loss of a loved one. I can't see that being convinced you'll see the person in the afterlife actually dampens the pain of loss by much. It didn't help me decades ago when I lost the person I loved very much in a car accident.

And what about the decades of life before that, what did you give up nurturing that belief? And one might have to overcome some manufactured guilt if one goes on to love again if the person lost was one's partner.

I'm fine with the fantasy my molecules will be recycled into the Universe.

 

[psionl0]

But if you follow the thread that's been linked to you will see psionIO objects to people saying their undefined god doesn't exist. We have to make a special case for them to have some kind of undefined, vague nothingness that we aren't allowed to say doesn't exist, which is why I penned the p-god - they are claiming we can't say p-god doesn't exist therefore we can't say gods don't exist. Despite no one even claims p-god exists.

You are SO dishonest!

I have demonstrated over and over that the Abrahamic God has all of the properties of a god that I described (including creator of the universe) but you are so in awe of your "p-god" cleverness that you constantly pretend that those posts don't exist.

 

[Thermal]

No, Sagan wasn't using "atheism" wrong, he was using it narrowly, as shorthand to refer to what is commonly known as strong atheism. Strong atheism is still atheism.

Also, as I said, the dragon in the garage metaphor was an illustration of the logical fallacy of special pleading. It was not an argument for or against anything.

I don't see it as special pleading. The protagonist doesn't say that the dragon is subject to a unique interpretation. He simply redefines what a dragon is on the fly till it becomes nothing meaningful at all.

I take it in the same way as the rest of the book: think critically and you will see through the bs (baloney, I think he called it).

 

[Chanakya]

I can acknowledge that one can never know for certain that a god can exist, but also firmly believe that one doesn't. Because if a god does exist, I think it would logically follow that one could know for certain that it did. Otherwise what does "exist" even mean? A god that one cannot know whether it exists or not is fundamentally, logically, and philosophically indistinguishable from one that doesn't exist.

Hence, I think that atheism is the logical conclusion of agnosticism.

Fair point, very well reasoned.

I'm not sure I agree with Darat's take on agnosticism. In fact, I'm sure I don't! I think all agnosticism means it is so far unknown --- it may or may not be known in future, but so far we don't know.

Because, sitting here, how the **** can you determine that something will necessarily be unknown in future also, no matter how long in the future? That's nonsensical.

But agreed, should we go with Darat's terminology, then atheism would seem to follow from agnosticism. Nicely argued!

 

[Chanakya]

No statement is a claim in and of itself. What makes something a claim is the bid for your audience's agreement, the unspoken ["amirite?"] at the end of the statement.

All this stuff about burden of proof, IMO, really just boils down to the idea that one is never entitled to agreement, and that, if you desire assent from your audience, you must be prepared to earn it.

I would disagree. A claim is a claim, even if you have no audience at all, and no one's agreement is sought other than your own self. If you found yourself marooned on an island, all by yourself, even then, the rules of rationality and evidence and burden of proof etc would still apply.

It isn't as if it is rational to believe all manner of nonsense if only you kept it to yourself. A woo-believer's beliefs are woo, and nonsensical, even if he makes no effort to peddle those beliefs.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't see it as special pleading. The protagonist doesn't say that the dragon is subject to a unique interpretation. He simply redefines what a dragon is on the fly till it becomes nothing meaningful at all.

That's literally what special pleading means.

 

[arthwollipot]

Fair point, very well reasoned.

I'm not sure I agree with Darat's take on agnosticism. In fact, I'm sure I don't! I think all agnosticism means it is so far unknown --- it may or may not be known in future, but so far we don't know.

Because, sitting here, how the **** can you determine that something will necessarily be unknown in future also, no matter how long in the future? That's nonsensical.

But agreed, should we go with Darat's terminology, then atheism would seem to follow from agnosticism. Nicely argued!

Just like "strong" atheism (I believe gods can't exist) differs from "weak" atheism (I don't believe gods exist), I distinguish strong agnosticism (we cannot know) from weak agnosticism (I don't know).

I think weak agnosticism is a wishy-washy excuse to avoid answering a question, so I don't subscribe to it. I like my philosophy to be strong!

 

[Thermal]

That's literally what special pleading means.

Um...no?

Special pleading is demanding that something be an exception to the rule, without justifying the exception. The dragon protagonist does neither. You could charge him with moving the goalposts, as he started by claiming he had a dragon, then changed what he meant by dragon ad hoc, but he never demands his dragon be an unjustified exception to...dragon rules.

 

[pzkpfw]

Either way.

ETA: Does it actually matter, to any argument you care to make? Or are you JAQing off?

I'm genuinely interested in why people make the distinctions they do.

ChrisBFRPKY equated belief in god with belief in * aliens. Seemed to me that ignored any concept of plausibility, so I asked a follow-up.

You presented your agnostic vs atheist thing. I was interested to see why "reasonably considered a god" is different to "Odin Allfather" for you. (Further follow-up, do you class the common or garden biblical "God" the same as "Odin Allfather"?)


(* what most people see as the possibility of ...)

 

[arthwollipot]

Um...no?

Special.lleadkng is de.anding that something be an exception to the rule, without justifying the exception. The dragon protagonist does neither. You. Could charge him with moving the goalposts, as he started by claiming he had a dragon, then changed what he meant by dragon as hoc, but he never de.ands his dragon be an exception to...dragon rules.

That's literally what the original Dragon in the Garage metaphor does. Here, let me show you:

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle — but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Literally the definition of special pleading, right from the author's pen. That's the whole point of the metaphor - to illustrate what special pleading is.

Extracted from The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan

 

[Thermal]

That's literally what the original Dragon in the Garage metaphor does. Here, let me show you:

Literally the definition of special pleading, right from the author's pen. That's the whole point of the metaphor - to illustrate what special pleading is.

Extracted from The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan

Well I guess it was an oversight that Sagan forgot to mention that In the subsequent pages, although he went to lengths to write about what the problems were.

Man that Carl is one knucklehead, isn't he? Doesn't even understand what he is writing. SMH.

 

[jeremyp]

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.

I’m not asking you to join me in a search for a non existent entity. I’m merely asserting that it’s ok for people to discuss the possibility or not that a god exists and it’s a valid question. It’s a valid question to ask if there is really a dragon in your garage even if the answer is obviously no and it doesn’t do you any harm to allow people to discuss it, provided they don’t try to break down the door.

The problem is that people tell me I’m breaking their god’s rules but, if I tell them their god doesn’t exist, it leads to exactly this question.