Be a good little atheist...

[qayak]

Hasty Generalization. Not all theists are the same. It's like saying that generally, the push for abortion to be illegal comes from mostly white men. It kinda does. But that doesn't *say* anything.)

In the context of the article cited it definitely says a lot. The claim is that atheists and theists are the same in their day to day lives. The fact that, as an atheist, I have never tried to have a law changed to fit any religious belief while many theists have, is evidence that we are not the same.

Bokonon isn't a theist. Also, agnosticism is not weak atheism.

Not sure if this is directed at me because I have never said Bokonon was a theist and I have never said agnosticism is weak atheism. My believe is that agnosticism is a position held only briefly by anyone trying to decide if there is, or is not, a god. It is like the point where your foot is over the brake of your vehicle as you approach an intersection because you do not know what colour the light is. However, as soon as you examine the light, or the evidence for god, you make your choice. Holding the position of agnostic for any length is like sitting at a traffic light for several cycles because are busy texting on your iphone.

I also don't believe there is such a thing as weak atheism, only weak/indifferent atheists. There are only three psoitions, theist, agnostic, atheist.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Your definition of agnostic is not well informed. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief of whether a god exists or not. It's a position as to whether or not a person can KNOW or prove that one exists or not.

 

[marplots]

"As long as the context was appropriate" teaching critical thinking to kids is "Pushing one's belief" and, "makes you a jerk"?

I need a clarification here. Is that what you meant?

Sure, I'll make some up... You are sitting next to your nephew at your grandfathers funeral and someone is singing Amazing Grace. This might be your only opportunity to explain religious mythology to the kid, you rarely see him...

Or, you may be getting lucky tonight. The girl is into you, willing and you just need a quick bite on your way back to your apartment and heavenly delights. You notice she makes the sign of the cross before she starts eating her hamburger...

Mostly what I meant was situations where you probably wouldn't make a big deal out of some faux pas, where driving home your views doesn't match the discussion or the circumstances. But I'm a "good little atheist" in the same way I might be a "good little liberal" or a "good little mathematician" -- I wouldn't feel pressed to explain probability to someone buying a lottery ticket.

I'm not advocating anything more than civility and politeness.

 

[qayak]

Your definition of agnostic is not well informed. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief of whether a god exists or not. It's a position as to whether or not a person can KNOW or prove that one exists or not.

I agree with you. The only difference is I think there is, in fact, sufficient evidence to decide. (There is at least as much evidence as we require to make other important life decisions.)

The people who claim agnosticism, in my opinion, have either not examined the evidence because they have not had time, or because they couldn't be bothered. Now, one can say there is nothing wrong with sitting on the fence on such a decision which is why I equated it to sitting at a light, texting on your iphone, while it cycles. You are indifferent, or inattentive, to what the light is doing.

However, it is probably more accurate to say it is like coasting through all lights whether green, amber, or yellow, with your eyes closed so you can honestly say you didn't have enough evidence to decide what colour the light was.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

In the context of the article cited it definitely says a lot. The claim is that atheists and theists are the same in their day to day lives. The fact that, as an atheist, I have never tried to have a law changed to fit any religious belief while many theists have, is evidence that we are not the same.

Not sure if this is directed at me because I have never said Bokonon was a theist and I have never said agnosticism is weak atheism. My believe is that agnosticism is a position held only briefly by anyone trying to decide if there is, or is not, a god. It is like the point where your foot is over the brake of your vehicle as you approach an intersection because you do not know what colour the light is. However, as soon as you examine the light, or the evidence for god, you make your choice. Holding the position of agnostic for any length is like sitting at a traffic light for several cycles because are busy texting on your iphone.

I also don't believe there is such a thing as weak atheism, only weak/indifferent atheists. There are only three psoitions, theist, agnostic, atheist.

The last bit was not aimed at you.

 

[qayak]

Thank you.

 

[MontagK505]

I agree with you. The only difference is I think there is, in fact, sufficient evidence to decide. (There is at least as much evidence as we require to make other important life decisions.)


<snip>
However, it is probably more accurate to say it is like coasting through all lights whether green, amber, or yellow, with your eyes closed so you can honestly say you didn't have enough evidence to decide what colour the light was.

Poor analogy. The evidence for traffic lights and color is much stronger than evidence for god. Driving while being unsure of the color of the traffic lights will likely get you killed.

Being unsure about god is unlikely to get a visit from an Archangel with a flaming sword. (You might get killed by a true believer but that has nothing to do with the existence of god.)

 

[qayak]

Poor analogy. The evidence for traffic lights and color is much stronger than evidence for god. Driving while being unsure of the color of the traffic lights will likely get you killed.

Being unsure about god is unlikely to get a visit from an Archangel with a flaming sword. (You might get killed by a true believer but that has nothing to do with the existence of god.)

Well analogies are never perfect.

I disagree about the evidence for god though. I think it is plenty sufficient to make a decision.

 

[MontagK505]

Well analogies are never perfect.

I disagree about the evidence for god though. I think it is plenty sufficient to make a decision.

I see your point.

But, an agnostic could make the argument that's it's impossible to acquire knowledge if an invisible being. To me, this argument sounds like a variant of Pascal's wager.

I do not believe the supernatural exists. (If it can be perceived in a manner that leaves evidence then it's not supernatural)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since evolution is not a belief, no.

Teaching that critical thinking will make you not a theist because all theists are wrong? Yes.

(Incidently, re another thing:

Bokonon isn't a theist. Also, agnosticism is not weak atheism.

And finally,



Hasty Generalization. Not all theists are the same. It's like saying that generally, the push for abortion to be illegal comes from mostly white men. It kinda does. But that doesn't *say* anything.)

What if one were to teach a class on myths throughout human history. Does that teacher need to pretend current god beliefs are not also myths to be politically correct even though the scientific evidence is overwhelming that ALL god are mythical beings?

And if one is supposed to avoid the obvious lest it offend theists, should one also teach that we cannot be certain Zeus is a mythical being any more than we can be certain Yahweh is?

The problem is you are suggesting a double standard be applied to some god beliefs that one does not apply to other conclusions based on scientific evidence. How is a teacher supposed to make this unwarranted apology?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sure, I'll make some up... You are sitting next to your nephew at your grandfathers funeral and someone is singing Amazing Grace. This might be your only opportunity to explain religious mythology to the kid, you rarely see him...

Or, you may be getting lucky tonight. The girl is into you, willing and you just need a quick bite on your way back to your apartment and heavenly delights. You notice she makes the sign of the cross before she starts eating her hamburger...

Mostly what I meant was situations where you probably wouldn't make a big deal out of some faux pas, where driving home your views doesn't match the discussion or the circumstances. But I'm a "good little atheist" in the same way I might be a "good little liberal" or a "good little mathematician" -- I wouldn't feel pressed to explain probability to someone buying a lottery ticket.

I'm not advocating anything more than civility and politeness.

So your answer was backward. If the context is appropriate, like in a classroom, one is not being a jerk to teach critical thinking even if it results in challenging someone's god beliefs. I certainly wasn't advocating proselytizing atheism on street corners (billboards excepted).

 

[qayak]

I see your point.

But, an agnostic could make the argument that's it's impossible to acquire knowledge if an invisible being. To me, this argument sounds like a variant of Pascal's wager.

I do not believe the supernatural exists. (If it can be perceived in a manner that leaves evidence then it's not supernatural)

If a supernatural being exists, they are not inside this universe and they do not interact with it. If they were, or did, it would be detectable. it would be the only place in the universe where laws don't apply. Quite easy to detect.

If they exist outside this universe, and don't interact with it, then for all intents and purposes, they don't exist.

And that is what I said about the tiny bit of doubt that an atheist has. It is possible that a god exists outside and doesn't interact but there is no doubt one doesn't exist within the universe.

To top it off, theists are looking for the god described in the bible, q'uran, talmud, or other religious text of their choice. Look at what is attributed to those gods. These gods were easily detected by bronze aged people and yet for the past several thousand years, nothing. Those gods just aren't powerful enough to hide from anyone. In fact, they aren't even powerful enough that naive, unsophisticated humans couldn't hide from them. (Adam and Eve in the garden.)

In this light, how much doubt can there be that gods don't exist? Close to zero by my calculation.

 

[marplots]

So your answer was backward. If the context is appropriate, like in a classroom, one is not being a jerk to teach critical thinking even if it results in challenging someone's god beliefs. I certainly wasn't advocating proselytizing atheism on street corners (billboards excepted).

Yeah, that's pretty much it. And I see nothing wrong with competing billboards. I kinda wish we atheists had a building with one of those signs we could rework weekly with pithy sayings.

The strange thing for me is that I am rather more pedantic when it comes to skepticism and critical thinking than I am for the particular application to religion. In that, I admit I'm being a bit disingenuous in favor of getting along with people.

I can only say that I have been down the rabbit hole with more than a few preachers who thought me worth saving and the conversations largely go nowhere once they realize I'm serious and willing to answer their (to them) tough questions.

It might come down to a matter of standing. I don't have much in the way of authority with these folks, so they see it as a clash of opinions. As an aside, I think they really suffer from the argument from authority fallacy. Maybe, in some small fashion, my 30 year marriage to a believer might clue them in that atheism isn't all about lusting after your own desires and escaping from a God you know in your heart exists.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

To top it off, theists are looking for the god described in the bible, q'uran, talmud, or other religious text of their choice. Look at what is attributed to those gods. These gods were easily detected by bronze aged people and yet for the past several thousand years, nothing. Those gods just aren't powerful enough to hide from anyone. In fact, they aren't even powerful enough that naive, unsophisticated humans couldn't hide from them. (Adam and Eve in the garden.)

They're easily spotted these days, you just have to get your stupid on.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

At least our billboards make sense. http://suginoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Jesus-Billboard.jpg

While theirs can be unintentionally funny. http://www.cherrybombed.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/JesusBeefyBillboard.jpg

 

[amb]

If a supernatural being exists, they are not inside this universe and they do not interact with it. If they were, or did, it would be detectable. it would be the only place in the universe where laws don't apply. Quite easy to detect.

If they exist outside this universe, and don't interact with it, then for all intents and purposes, they don't exist.

And that is what I said about the tiny bit of doubt that an atheist has. It is possible that a god exists outside and doesn't interact but there is no doubt one doesn't exist within the universe.

To top it off, theists are looking for the god described in the bible, q'uran, talmud, or other religious text of their choice. Look at what is attributed to those gods. These gods were easily detected by bronze aged people and yet for the past several thousand years, nothing. Those gods just aren't powerful enough to hide from anyone. In fact, they aren't even powerful enough that naive, unsophisticated humans couldn't hide from them. (Adam and Eve in the garden.)

In this light, how much doubt can there be that gods don't exist? Close to zero by my calculation.

I doubt they exist in any universe, in fact especially so. If there are a species that evolved without blowing themselves up for millions of years with a technology millions of years old as well, then to us they would be gods.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I doubt they exist in any universe, in fact especially so. If there are a species that evolved without blowing themselves up for millions of years with a technology millions of years old as well, then to us they would be gods.

True, they would give the appearance of gods, but their "powers" would be based on technology rather than supernatural gifts. So we still wouldn't have gods.

 

[MontagK505]

I doubt they exist in any universe, in fact especially so. If there are a species that evolved without blowing themselves up for millions of years with a technology millions of years old as well, then to us they would be gods.

It wouldn't even take a million years. We do things now that would look like magic to a bronze-age goat herder.

(Clarke's third law)

 

[qayak]

They're easily spotted these days, you just have to get your stupid on.

I'll drink to that!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
The strange thing for me is that I am rather more pedantic when it comes to skepticism and critical thinking than I am for the particular application to religion. In that, I admit I'm being a bit disingenuous in favor of getting along with people.

I don't have a double standard. I don't tell people their chiropractors are glorified physical therapists if the context is not appropriate. (I do mention neck adjustments are dangerous if I can.) I think the difference is theists and wrong context situations just occur much more often.

...
I can only say that I have been down the rabbit hole with more than a few preachers who thought me worth saving and the conversations largely go nowhere once they realize I'm serious and willing to answer their (to them) tough questions.

Oh, I have fun if I have time and someone initiates the proselytizing. Usually these are the people who knock on my door. I repeat the story of Lot to them with a dose of reality they aren't used to hearing.

Lot to the mob: "here rape my worthless daughter not these strangers".
God to Lot's wife: "even though many many people have sinned way worse, I think I'll wipe you out for a minor disobedient infraction".
The version of the story where Lot's daughters supposedly get him drunk and have sex with him? No way, that's a story by some man excusing his incest.
I go on to point out how few women rate a name in the Bible, how they are portrayed as property and that they should look up how many times Jesus says some sinner should be killed because it is a myth that Jesus was all love and no wrath.

By this time the people who started it generally make the claim of how wonderful they feel because God or Jesus is in their heart. Then they squirm a bit and end the interaction.

...It might come down to a matter of standing. I don't have much in the way of authority with these folks, so they see it as a clash of opinions. As an aside, I think they really suffer from the argument from authority fallacy. Maybe, in some small fashion, my 30 year marriage to a believer might clue them in that atheism isn't all about lusting after your own desires and escaping from a God you know in your heart exists.

Applying my door knocker response to one's spouse, or to the preacher at one's spouse's church, .... not recommended.