Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[marplots]

Illogical fallacy of Equivocation on top of another called Argumentum ad populum.


Extraordinary does not mean by what people think.... it means by standards of science i.e. physics, biology, chemistry, etc. etc.... you know those things that define REAL knowledge.

In my opinion, words serve people, not the other way around. So if a word "doesn't mean what people think," then we ought to find a more accurate word for what we mean.

Your argument about the MAJORITY opinion is rejected by those same majority.

The majority of people reject the god delusion that is not theirs.

But atheism isn't arguing against any particular God, it's a position against all Gods simultaneously. For that reason, it is appropriate to have an atheist camp and a theist camp, regardless of further nuances. We could, if we wanted to, distinguish ourselves into different brands of atheist: anti-Christian, or anti-Islam, but we generally don't.

So if we go by the majority opinion which is by the way another illogical fallacy called Argumentum ad populum, we find that all god delusions are false since any one god is rejected by the majority of humans who do not share that same delusion.

I'm not arguing that God exists - I'm an atheist. I'm arguing that the belief in God is not extraordinary, as measured by what's ordinary. This is not a fallacy, it's a straight-up measurement of popular opinion.

Putting aside the logical fallacies, we also know that the majority of people used to think that lightening used to be a physical manifestation of their god's anger until Benjamin Franklin proved otherwise.

Does that mean that up until the majority of the people stopped thinking that lightening came out of the derrieres of gods that it in fact did up until that point?

The majority of people used to think that demonic possession was the cause of lunacy.... does that mean it was true and then it became false when the majority of people started believing in psychology?

You make my case with your examples. For them to even be popular delusions, they have to first be popular and ordinary concepts for their time. I am sure opinions will change once we've demonstrated to others' satisfaction that no God exists at all. Until then, the false belief will continue to be the mainstream belief and quite common, usual, and ordinary.

Labeling something an extraordinary belief has no probative value whatsoever. There are many amazing things in the world and many mundane things. One cannot separate the two entirely by way of what smacks us as abnormal. It's a place to start, and spawns good questions, but it's hardly much more than an argument from incredulity and a lack of imagination.

 

[Leumas]

[snip]

....but it's hardly much more than an argument from incredulity and a lack of imagination.

Well done.... that is exactly what the God-did-it hypotheses are.... nothing more than lack of imagination of the power of NATURAL REALITY and utter incredulity of REALITY.

On the other hand the God delusion is the product of a hyperactive child-like imagination and wishful thinking and child-like fear of the unknown and child-like need for love and support and comforting and child-like wish for vengeance and "justice" and protection against the meanies.

This infantile psychological condition was and is viciously and cynically and predatorily exploited by clever brigands and wily poltroons to huckster and bamboozle the quivering shivering sheep. Much like all the other cons, scams and hoaxes discovered or invented by numerous hoodwinkers and mountebanks throughout the ages and are still being utilized even today despite all available knowledge.

People are willing to delude themselves and let others dupe them because mentally they are frightened pathetic wretched children. They are trembling lumps of insignificant debris floating on the waves of space-time trying to construe by any self-delusion a significance for their fleeting moment of existence punctuated by terror, and inexorable calamities.

Impotent to exact justice or to stem the currents of time, they raise their arms up like children begging in supplication to an imagined sky daddy to lift them up and give them a comforting hug and to beat up the neighboring children.

It is a shame upon humanity that in the 21st century people are still willing to fool themselves with the God-did-it tomfoolery.

But what is a bigger shame is that people who claim to be not deluded by the God-did-it hogwash are willing to argue its validity because it is a popular delusion, and call people who argue against the gods claptrap incredulous and unimaginative.

 

[marplots]

Wow, what a hornet's nest! I didn't realize I would start the day as an iconoclast.

Just to try and address this seriously, if we wish to apply the dictum, how do we decide if a claim is ordinary or extraordinary?

For example, is: "I won the lottery" extraordinary or ordinary?
How about, "God gave me peace of mind?"

What, besides my own credence, which I understand might really be a delusion, should I use to decide whether the principle applies?

 

[marplots]

Well done.... that is exactly what the God-did-it hypotheses are.... nothing more than lack of imagination of the power of NATURAL REALITY and utter incredulity of REALITY.

(snipped for space)

If I rewrote your post from a theist perspective, claiming it was delusional, would it have any force to convince? I doubt it.

Am I the only one who sees the symmetry on offer in these arguments? It's question begging. Something is extraordinary and requires better evidence because it doesn't have enough evidence because it's extraordinary. And I can accept ordinary things without much evidence because they are ordinary, which means I already accept them.

 

[Leumas]

If I rewrote your post from a theist perspective, claiming it was delusional, would it have any force to convince? I doubt it.

Am I the only one who sees the symmetry on offer in these arguments? It's question begging. Something is extraordinary and requires better evidence because it doesn't have enough evidence because it's extraordinary. And I can accept ordinary things without much evidence because they are ordinary, which means I already accept them.

Have you studied and understood the Scientific Method?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

For example, is: "I won the lottery" extraordinary or ordinary?
How about, "God gave me peace of mind?"

People win the lottery all the time. Ordinary event. Having a god or gods so anything is extraordinary. You can say "My belief in God gave me peace of mind", but you'll have to prove any god or gods exist to take that much farther.

 

[marplots]

Have you studied and understood the Scientific Method?

Yes, but I don't find it relevant to this discussion. Unless... are you saying that the extraordinary vs. ordinary is part of the method? That bit I am unfamiliar with.

ETA: The word "extraordinary" doesn't appear on the page you linked to.

 

[marplots]

People win the lottery all the time. Ordinary event. Having a god or gods so anything is extraordinary. You can say "My belief in God gave me peace of mind", but you'll have to prove any god or gods exist to take that much farther.

People pray to God all the time. Ordinary event. They claim God directs their lives - another ordinary event.

Just because something isn't ordinary for me, do I get to claim it's extraordinary across the board?

 

[Leumas]

Yes, but I don't find it relevant to this discussion. Unless... are you saying that the extraordinary vs. ordinary is part of the method? That bit I am unfamiliar with.

ETA: The word "extraordinary" doesn't appear on the page you linked to.

Look for supernatural, religious, mythological .... which is what the word extraordinary means in the case of the god delusion if you stop equivocating it.

History

The development of the scientific method is inseparable from the history of science itself. Ancient Egyptian documents describe empirical methods in astronomy,[112] mathematics,[113] and medicine.[114] The ancient Greek philosopher Thales in the 6th century BCE refused to accept supernatural, religious or mythological explanations for natural phenomena, proclaiming that every event had a natural cause. The development of deductive reasoning by Plato was an important step towards the scientific method. Empiricism seems to have been formalized by Aristotle, who believed that universal truths could be reached via induction.​

 

[asydhouse]

marplots, it's so obvious to me that you and Leumas are talking about two different things in this discussion of "extraordinary" vs "ordinary" that I'm bemused that neither of you has said this:

The belief in a god is widespread, and therefore an ordinary aspect to living in the mundane world, as you say.

The extraordinary claim is not "I believe in God". The extraordinary claim is that a god exists at all. That claim has nothing to do with belief or personal taste. And it's that claim which requires evidence, extraordinary or not.

I hope this can help to cut short a lot of wasted time and effort quibbling over a disconnect in your communications.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

People pray to God all the time. Ordinary event. They claim God directs their lives - another ordinary event.

And do they prove any god or gods exist or are you just be obtuse?

Just because something isn't ordinary for me, do I get to claim it's extraordinary across the board?

No, and nobody did that.

 

[Leumas]

marplots, it's so obvious to me that you and Leumas are talking about two different things in this discussion of "extraordinary" vs "ordinary" that I'm bemused that neither of you has said this:

The belief in a god is widespread, and therefore an ordinary aspect to living in the mundane world, as you say.

The extraordinary claim is not "I believe in God". The extraordinary claim is that a god exists at all. That claim has nothing to do with belief or personal taste. And it's that claim which requires evidence, extraordinary or not.

I hope this can help to cut short a lot of wasted time and effort quibbling over a disconnect in your communications.

I said it right from the start

Illogical fallacy of Equivocation on top of another called Argumentum ad populum.


Extraordinary does not mean by what people think.... it means by standards of science i.e. physics, biology, chemistry, etc. etc.... you know those things that define REAL knowledge and use proofs to validate that knowledge.... you know that thing called the Scientific Method.

If only you understood what it actually means you would have understood that it is quite useful as will as pithy.

Have you heard of the Scientific Method?
Science is not just pithy but extremely useful too.... but I understand ....it seems the more a person's mindset is based upon the god delusion the less familiar they are wih science and its usefulness.

Have you studied and understood the Scientific Method?

Look for supernatural, religious, mythological .... which is what the word extraordinary means in the case of the god delusion if you stop equivocating it.

 

[marplots]

Existence is not a scientific question. It predates science. Science is an attempt to discover, categorize, and explain things that exist. But you have to start with things that exist to do science, not the other way around.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Existence is not a scientific question. It predates science. Science is an attempt to discover, categorize, and explain things that exist. But you have to start with things that exist to do science, not the other way around.

Yeah, and you can prove any god or gods exist?

 

[marplots]

marplots, it's so obvious to me that you and Leumas are talking about two different things in this discussion of "extraordinary" vs "ordinary" that I'm bemused that neither of you has said this:

The belief in a god is widespread, and therefore an ordinary aspect to living in the mundane world, as you say.

The extraordinary claim is not "I believe in God". The extraordinary claim is that a god exists at all. That claim has nothing to do with belief or personal taste. And it's that claim which requires evidence, extraordinary or not.

I hope this can help to cut short a lot of wasted time and effort quibbling over a disconnect in your communications.

My whole point is that extraordinary is simply a measure of my own ignorance and previous experience. It has no probative value. The dictum is hogwash.

If I claim I washed my jeans last night, I think most would say that was an ordinary claim. Why? Because they are familiar with jeans and washing them. They've either seen it done, heard about it enough times not to care, or they've washed their own jeans.

Now, consider a young lady of my acquaintance. She was raised in a family that prayed and read the bible. She attended church and Sunday school regularly. Although she went to public school for awhile, she ended up graduating from a christian high school and a christian university. She listens to christian radio and married a man who became a preacher in a Baptist church.

How is it, that from her perspective, the claim that God exists is anything other than ordinary? It is so much a part of her worldview and experiences that the question never really comes up. There's no debate at all. It's so ordinary, it's not worth talking about - akin to 2 + 2 = 4. Well, duh. Of course.

 

[marplots]

Yeah, and you can prove any god or gods exist?

No. I don't think God does exist. The real question though, is whether or not it's a question worth asking at all. Does the existence of God need to be proved, other than to an individual believer through prayer and contemplation?

I don't want to dredge up all those other "unprovables" apologists bring up, but I don't think they are being disingenuous when they do so. What stronger proof could an individual have for the existence of God than their own direct experience?

 

[Leumas]

My whole point is that extraordinary is simply a measure of my own ignorance and previous experience. It has no probative value. The dictum is hogwash.

If I claim I washed my jeans last night, I think most would say that was an ordinary claim. Why? Because they are familiar with jeans and washing them. They've either seen it done, heard about it enough times not to care, or they've washed their own jeans.

Now, consider a young lady of my acquaintance. She was raised in a family that prayed and read the bible. She attended church and Sunday school regularly. Although she went to public school for awhile, she ended up graduating from a christian high school and a christian university. She listens to christian radio and married a man who became a preacher in a Baptist church.

How is it, that from her perspective, the claim that God exists is anything other than ordinary? It is so much a part of her worldview and experiences that the question never really comes up. There's no debate at all. It's so ordinary, it's not worth talking about - akin to 2 + 2 = 4. Well, duh. Of course.

__

Illogical fallacy of Equivocation on top of another called Argumentum ad populum.

Extraordinary does not mean by what people think.... it means by standards of science i.e. physics, biology, chemistry, etc. etc.... you know those things that define REAL knowledge and use proofs to validate that knowledge.... you know that thing called the Scientific Method.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No. I don't think God does exist. The real question though, is whether or not it's a question worth asking at all. Does the existence of God need to be proved, other than to an individual believer through prayer and contemplation?

If they keep their damn gods to themselves I couldn't care less. But when they start trying to control me because of their deluded ideas the trouble starts.

I don't want to dredge up all those other "unprovables" apologists bring up, but I don't think they are being disingenuous when they do so. What stronger proof could an individual have for the existence of God than their own direct experience?

That's not proof.

 

[Leumas]

No. I don't think God Nosferatu the vampire does exist. The real question though, is whether or not it's a question worth asking at all. Does the existence of God Nosferatu the vampire need to be proved, other than to an individual believer through prayer and contemplation?

I don't want to dredge up all those other "unprovables" apologists bring up, but I don't think they are being disingenuous when they do so. What stronger proof could an individual have for the existence of God Nosferatu the vampire than their own direct experience?

Would you think it is better to sit on the fence regarding the existence of Leprechauns? Would you call people who require evidence for Vampires incredulous and unimaginative?

In all of the above substitute the word God with Gremlins or Elves or Vampires or Satyrs or Leprechauns or Tooth Fairies.

Now read it again CAREFULLY....Now do you see how credulously imaginative you are being?

Would you be so adamant at debating the "middle ground" of dis/believing in Hobbits and Elves? Would you call people who require proof for Elves incredulous and unimaginative?

Do you think a person who is a non believer in Vampires who is also not a believer in the non existence of Vampires is a PRACTICALLY RATIONAL person with his feet firmly fixed in REALITY but yet also credulously imaginative?

Would you really... seriously... come to a forum and debate any people who say the claim of vampires is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof and try to show them how they are incredulous and unimaginative?

Could all this tortured neutrality and equivocating and appeal to majority be just another Cognitive Dissonance Alleviation Casuistry?

You might continue on with your CDAC and say that God is not on par with vampires or elves.

Well, that is just anther CDAC.... people have believed wholeheartedly and adamantly in all sorts of claptrap throughout the existence of humankind. Why are those ideas now relegated to the annals of human folly while the more pernicious folly of believing in gods is given special pleading?

 

[Stee]

The extraordinary claim is not "I believe in God". The extraordinary claim is that a god exists at all. That claim has nothing to do with belief or personal taste. And it's that claim which requires evidence, extraordinary or not.

This is what I said to myself several times when reading through this thread.

I could pray to a Teacup everyday and believe it created the world and it would become ordinary to me but that is neither here nor there. The problem comes from the idea of the Teacup actually having supernatural powers...now that is an extraordinary claim by any definition of the word and would need some bloody good evidence!

For me the arguments raised from the OP come from the declaration 'there is no god'. I am an athiest as far as the definition of the word goes and feel no need to make such a proclamation. In the same way I feel no need to state 'there are no dragons' 'there is no red cladded fairy living behind my shed' because it is a nonsense, the same as declaring 'circles taste like cinnamon!'.

If someone started saying red cladded fairies existed and had some awesome powers I would just ignore them and wonder about their sanity or genuine interest in the truth of the world they live in rather than start making my own claims about their non-existence.

The problem as highlighted by an earlier poster is that religion and in particular, claims about a supernatural, omnipotent 'creator' have been around for so long and believed by so many with absolutely no credible evidence that they are given a free pass into discussions. It is as if they already hold some weight with regards to deep questions about how everything came to be.

People like Richard Dawkins who have done much needed work bringing the brilliant light of science as a candle in the darkness of supersitious nonsense are claptrapped down by people saying he isn't a theologian, as if that weakens his position somehow. He isn't a dragonoligian (a specialist in dragonology obviously) either but it doesn't make his deductions any less credible.