Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[Leumas]

So some ides of god(s) are still not falsifiable.....

Yes, just like some ideas of vampires and many other products of human imagination refined into evasive immaterial inconsequential and pointless ethereal out of space-time myths dreamt up by wily manipulation of semantics and language as a last refuge for Cognitive Dissonance Assuaging Casuistry.

 

[Navigator]

OK I'm going to start out by apologising if I've been creating any insulting metaphors. I'm so far away from understanding your position that I'm likely to get it wrong a few times when I try to go 'if this is what you're saying...'


It's because the evidence leads me to believe that both dragons and gods were dreamed up by humans in a very similar way, even though they have different roles in human cultures. In this thread a lot has been made of the fact that lots of people genuinely believe in gods but nobody genuinely believes in Harry Potter. I honestly straight up do not understand why that is supposed to be meaningful. Creation myths, for example, are considered to be clearly fiction by many, many people and to be absolutely true by many, many others. The properties of the creation myth itself don't change depending on whether everyone believes it or nobody believes it. And more to the point, people are credulous. A charismatic person can attempt to start a religion or a cult just by telling people an interesting story and asserting that it is true (and throwing in a few other bells and whistles) and it will work.

Myths are not always about trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes. They are like metaphor.
Certainly I can take the biblical myth of creation and understand it as a way of trying to explain an irrational position.
Consciousness is trying to explain its position in relation to the universe.
I have big doubts that these stories were ever intended to become what they have become.
they became that way through how - as you say - 'charismatic' individuals used these stories, added to these stories and subjugated individual human consciousnesses through this process. However, by all accounts they were not charismatic. They were cold blooded killers. Bullies whom people feared to contradict.
To be sure, that is one use of organised religion. It is not to say that bullies have not used other things in order to control and direct the fearful.

This type of behavior can even be seen as an attempt (by human consciousness) at being rational in an irrational situation. A reflex of sorts only one that stretches over a large period of time. (but not so long relative to the universe).

Right. The main thing I actually object to is the 'superhuman ability/desire to judge/punish/reward humans' part.

Do you object to these attributes [apart from the superhuman bit] in relation to humans doing these things to one another?

Also, is it the superhuman bit which disturbs you the most, especially if you can agree that humans judging, and punishing and rewarding are okay thing to do?

Here's another example of me losing your thread. It's not important, it just looks to me like it follows. It makes sense. By the same rules I use for everything else in my life I get to this. And I'm not in opposition so much as I don't at all understand it.

But isn't something that looks to you as making sense, therefore important to you?
If I see that making a belief out of what evidence is available and how that evidence is chosen to be interpreted, doesn't make a lot of sense (I understand the compulsion to believe but it still doesn't make sense) I am able to decide that this is important. Important enough not to be influenced by being bullied or otherwise coerced into joining the ranks of those who believe the evidence is ample enough to form beliefs and therefore have license to ridicule and otherwise pass judgement.

It looks to me like I've run across a cattle grate and you've stopped at the edge of it and proceeded to tell me that my running across it is too presumptuous.

But are we cattle?

Are we simply meat to be owned and herded and sorted into categories?

No we are not. (well maybe we are in a materialist world but whatever).

No. Your use of cattle grate is inappropriate. It definitely implies that you see my position as one of a sheep who is part of the flock of fearful and that you have stopped being one of the mob and shown that the cattle grate is an illusion.

But that is not how it really is. That is how you believe it to be.

If it doesn't involve presuming superhuman powers and just is referring to our ability to reshape the world and each other as per normal then sure, but again, I wouldn't understand why anyone's choosing the word 'gods.'

Why not? Are we not all god(s)? How do we move mountains? How do we fly? How do we do what we do with what we have? Are these thing not a form of 'super human' ability. No of course not. At least not in the way you are suggesting. But they are definitely examples of human achievement that in some ways even perhaps out perform some idea of god(s).

Yet at the same time, they can be as reckless and thoughtless as some of the ideas of god(s) so far.

So why not call humans 'gods'?

I'm not an atheist because I have a thing about gods, I'm an atheist because I have a thing about implausible things in general.

Well I am only saying that being an atheist is about lacking belief in god(s) rather than implausible things in general.

But then, if human beings are the nearest things to actual god(s) that are evident, then lack of belief would no longer apply. We would simply know.

So in one sense, [it can be argued] the idea of god(s) is a natural enough thing and human consciousness has been using these ideas to project itself onto/into as a way of eventually coming to the understanding that it - at the very least - Human consciousness is a god in the making. An idea of god.

If your idea of god is plausible then you've literally defined yourself out of the equation as far as I'm concerned.

Please do explain your assertion.

 

[Leumas]

So the implicit atheist is closets to the default position.

Indeed! "Implicit atheists" are obviously closeted.... if only they could finally face reality and come out of the closet and declare to the world whether they are real atheists or just pretend ones.

 

[Navigator]

Do you mean every explicit (strong/positive) atheist, or some?

The way you've worded it, it could sound as if you mean every one or that it's a part of the definition. Needless to say, that's not true. Some are that way, some aren't.

The way I explained it is that since there exists different types of atheists, that the explicit are in the business of trying to convert all atheists to become explicit atheists.

This (as I explained) includes those who are quietly explicit atheists. They simply let the more verbal/vocal members of their group to do the majority of the speaking. Thus they are supportive of these more verbal brethren of their ranks, through their silence.

So in that sense when you say "Some are that way, some aren't." what is really being said is that some are more vocal than others, but all are equally explicit and support one another in selling the explicit atheist beliefs.

 

[Leumas]

The way I explained it is that since there exists different types of atheists, that the explicit are in the business of trying to convert all atheists to become explicit atheists.

Why do you keep repeating this slanderous Straw Man fallacy?

Do you think that by repeating a fallacy over and over again it might somehow become truth?

That kind of propaganda works well on theists but it does not work in a forum full of skeptical atheists.

In case you have not noticed this is a forum for debating with skeptical atheists... no one is trying to convert anyone to anything.

It is a theistic mentality to think that debating between atheists on a forum for skeptical atheists is a conversion campaign since theists are the ones always trying to sell their religions and convert and proselytize.

This (as I explained) includes those who are quietly explicit atheists. They simply let the more verbal members of their group to do the majority of the speaking. Thus they supportive of these more verbal brethren of their ranks, through their silence.

So in that sense when you say "Some are that way, some aren't." what is really being said is that some are more vocal than others, but all are equally explicit and support one another in selling the explicit atheist beliefs.

It is theists who tend to herd together in flocks and let shepherds guide and fleece them.

Skeptical Atheists are by nature questioning nonconformist individualists who question everything and everyone.

 

[ehcks]

The way I explained it is that since there exists different types of atheists, that the explicit are in the business of trying to convert all atheists to become explicit atheists.

Theists want to convert people. Atheists tend to not care.

I'd generally be happier if people based their beliefs on facts and evidence, but I'm not offended when people disagree with me. Religions tell followers to kill nonbelievers.

 

[Navigator]

The last sentence contradicts the next to last sentence, so I have no idea what you're trying to convey there.

Nah. You think it is a contradiction but it is not. Cause and Effect are natural properties of this universe. This does not mean that the existence of the universe is logical.

But yes, the explicit atheist is using the same cause-and-effect exploration of the world as the theist. He's just being more careful to avoid biases that lead to magical thinking.

We should attempt to keep this focused on the OP. Not all idea of god(s) are held by theists to be true. It can be argued that this does not matter because if people believe any idea of god(s) then they are theists.
But we are specifically speaking about people who understand that ideas of god(s) (whether held to be true by theists or not) are not necessarily all able to be either believed or not believed. I lack belief in all ideas of god(s). I do not believe that god(s) therefore necessarily do not exist. That makes me an implicit atheist. I just lack belief in any of them. Furthermore I lack belief. Furthermore if I discover some belief I hold, then I dump it.

Yes. You're hung up on the bullies aspect.

No. I am keenly aware of the roll bullies have do and will continue to play in relation to - not just religion, but darn near every aspect of the human experience. It literally shapes the course of history and the future of humanity.

Let's say she does well on tests, or finds pennies, or it's sunny, or her favorite team wins, or any occurrence essentially unconnected to carrying the pebble.

She thinks it's a case of cause-and-effect due to carrying the penny. In fact, it's random, but if it happens a few times by coincidence, or she can add extra factors (the pebble was in the wrong pocket so it didn't work that day), or she can overlook the times it doesn't work, she can convince herself she's got a "real" lucky charm that works.

Petitional prayer to a diety, same thing. And other parallels between magical thinking and religion, too long to go into here.

Sure. But my question was, wouldn't it be more logical to think that some humans choose to be bullies (and choose to support bullies) in order to control and direct the weaker ones and that this would have more to do with why god idea(s) were invented?
Then because the god ideas threatened the bullies because the weak learned how to use the god ideas to deal with the bullies in a way which took some of the control away from those bullies, that the bullies then realized the only way to beat that was to infiltrate the beliefs and subtlety and not so subtlety bully their way to a position whereby they could dictate the god idea to their advantage and thus resume control?

IOW Organised Religion.

So if you are saying that there is a far better way to deal with bullies than praying to ideas of god(s) and partitioning them to deal with the bullies, I sure am interested. Not that I don't have a few ideas myself which seem to work but not always. And these ideas are not about ideas of god(s) although some of them might be found within some religious text.


More to the point, a bully will - if SHe thinks it necessary, use maximum force to get their way. Even murder. Laws can be written to help prevent this, but laws are kind of like that lucky pebble/penny. They don't work unless something can enforce them.

So again. Ideas of god(s) are reflective of needs. In one sense they appeal to the conscience to protect and provide for the weaker of the community. due to the fact that everyone is free to do whatever they want to, such appeal does not always work. Therefore, something arises from the idea of god(s) which is more on hand because it is apparent that god(s) do not respond - at least in matters where humans are capable of accomplishing the same thing that god(s) are partitioned to do.

When such human help is not available, then too bad, the bullies get what they want free from the threat of some other human force which can stop them.

Thus, without that other force, weaker humans resort to belief in ideas of god(s) not because they refuse to be logical and discard such silly notions, but because that is all that is left to them. That gives them at least the illusion that their illogical existence is not happening in vain, and that something cares about them. Would you rather they simply got along with the business of understanding that nothing cares for them, because that is the truth, scientifically speaking.

Because the science of the matter shows us plainly that nothing in the universe actually gives a toss for them or their predicament.

That's the belief you're selling: that not believing is better than being an explicit atheist.

That is contradictory. One cannot say that one has no beliefs while believing in anything.
besides which, I am defending the right to acknowledge and be in the position of the middle ground, having no beliefs either way. another handy thing about this position is that one is better able to understand the opposing sides.

I'd saying you're selling it no more or less than I am--well, you're selling it a bit more, based on the total number of posts arguing your position and the don't you think it would be better... suggestions.

In truth dear Pup, I cannot even give this idea away, let alone sell it. What I can and will do is defend it as the best position to be in. It is not something I need to be blamed for that other positions call my position whatever derogatory thing they can come up with. My position does not mean that i have to shut my mouth and say nothing.

But we need to define selling, because I think you're using it too broadly, in the hopes that the negative connotations will spill over elsewhere. Everyone has positions that they think are true and would defend in a mutually agreeable discussion or if challenged, from subective things like what's the best music, to political/social views like racism or anti-racism, to perhaps obscure evidence-based things in a scientific field that can be based on a lifetime of careful research.

"Selling" could range from defending a PhD thesis to engaging in polite debate to ranting on the streetcorner that everyone is going to hell or posting angry comments on Youtube. If all those things are equally "selling," any connotation of "selling" is lost; it's part of virtually all human interaction.

I am fairly sure you yourself introduced the word 'sell' into the argument. It really doesn't matter though. If one can accept other positions without hassling those who have other positions, the world would be a better place anyway. But if one sits back and lets others of different position crap on ones own position, when the opportunity to protest logically why their reasons for doing so are incorrect - for giving their selves the right by virtue of the 'rules' of that position which allow them to behave in that manner...well lets all just roll over and play dead shall we?

I don't think so.

 

[Navigator]

In case you have not noticed this is a forum for debating with skeptical atheists... no one is trying to convert anyone to anything.

I can be forgiven for thinking that a thread topic called "Positive vs. Negative Atheism" and the OP and in particular YOUR posts, are about looking down ones nose, slurring and name-calling against those who are not explicit atheist like you are.

I am skeptical that you are not trying to convert me. But perhaps that is my misunderstanding. Perhaps rather you know you cannot convert implict atheists so all that is left to you is to use expressions which are obviously derogative towards those positions you see as being beneath/inferior to your own.

Irrelevant haughtiness.

Whatever.

 

[Leumas]

I can be forgiven for thinking that a thread topic called "Positive vs. Negative Atheism" and the OP and in particular YOUR posts, are about looking down ones nose, slurring and name-calling against those who are not explicit atheist like you are.

I am skeptical that you are not trying to convert me. But perhaps that is my misunderstanding. Perhaps rather you know you cannot convert implict atheists so all that is left to you is to use expressions which are obviously derogative towards those positions you see as being beneath/inferior to your own.

Irrelevant haughtiness.

Whatever.

[imgw=450]http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/bcf6a53b82badb9a8503facb73b2a45d_zps8558b72f.jpg[/imgw]

[imgw=450]http://spagmonster.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/christian-persecution.jpg[/imgw]

 

[Navigator]

Religions tell followers to kill nonbelievers.

Can you think of any non religious institutions which tell their supporters to kill non supporters?

Or for that matter, can you think of any non religious groups which tell their supporters that it is okay and acceptable to use any manner of derogatory expression to spread hate and disunity and conflict into the human community?

Or for that matter, can you think of any religions which specifically do not encourage the followers to kill others who don't believe what they believe?

I think if you could be honest and a bit more insightful you would realize that your statement "Religions tell followers to kill nonbelievers." is far too generalized and sweeping to be useful for anything other than propaganda.

 

[Navigator]

Lemus the cartoons you posted have nothing to do with and does not address my argument in relation with yours or the OP.

Specifically it involves argument between what I regard as a Fundy Christian and an Atheist. Our argument is about your position as an explicit atheist in relation to mine as an implicit atheist.

The only thing it does show me is how you as an explicit atheist gets mixed up, and that this has everything to do with your beliefs.

 

[Leumas]

I think if you could be honest and a bit more insightful you would realize that your statement "Religions tell followers to kill nonbelievers." is far too generalized and sweeping to be useful for anything other than propaganda.

Except that in today's world the three religions followed by almost 5 Billion people (i.e. the majority of humanity) do tell people to kill non-believers and dehumanize them and that if the believers are too weak to kill them to pray to their god to do so and to rest assured that this god will eventually make them roast for eternity in a pit of fire and gnashing teeth.

So it is NOT too generalized nor sweeping since the GOD followed by the majority of humanity does "tell followers to kill nonbelievers".

 

[ehcks]

Can you think of any non religious institutions which tell their supporters to kill non supporters?

Or for that matter, can you think of any non religious groups which tell their supporters that it is okay and acceptable to use any manner of derogatory expression to spread hate and disunity and conflict into the human community?

Or for that matter, can you think of any religions which specifically do not encourage the followers to kill others who don't believe what they believe?

I think if you could be honest and a bit more insightful you would realize that your statement "Religions tell followers to kill nonbelievers." is far too generalized and sweeping to be useful for anything other than propaganda.

Maybe I could, but the important question is: Can you?

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

I'd get yellowcarded for spamming if I posted each time just Christianity told its followers to kill non-Christians. I've never seen any atheist organization say anything like that. "You will die in the non-name of not-god!"

 

[marplots]

(some snipped)

Really. Personal experience is the most powerful form of evidence you can think of.

Yes, certainly. I will entertain examples that contradict this of course.

We are obviously justified by centuries of recognition of the frailty of human perception in deciding that recordings which can be examined and re-examined, carefully analyzed, etc., are fundamentally better evidence than fleeting perceptions. Surely, every full-growed person knows that they have mistakenly believed they heard someone call their name, thought they saw something in a sports game and realized they were mistaken on viewing the instant replay, etc.

You're not seriously suggesting that any reasonable, mature person could possibly stand steadfast in his belief even after watching a slow-motion replay that proved it wrong.

But you demonstrate my case. The reason we alter our views and identify false perceptions is by way of other perceptions. The slow motion replay is an excellent example of just this. I believe one experience until another changes my mind. But they are both the same currency.

What I do not commonly do (if ever) is believe all my experiences are suspect because experience is bad evidence. In fact, experienced "evidence" is usually apodictic. "Show me" is quite a powerful thing.

 

[marplots]

I assume you are speaking of the Jewish/christian/Muslim idea of god. Would that be correct?

Yes, that's the style I have in mind - a gift of my culture and upbringing.

 

[Navigator]

Except that in today's world the three religions followed by almost 5 Billion people (i.e. the majority of humanity) do tell people to kill non-believers and dehumanize them and that if the believers are too weak to kill them to pray to their god to do so and to rest assured that this god will eventually make them roast for eternity in a pit of fire and gnashing teeth.

So it is NOT too generalized nor sweeping since the GOD followed by the majority of humanity does "tell followers to kill nonbelievers".

Yes it is. You are saying that 5 billion people are being told to kill each other. The fact is that if this were the case, we would be living in a far more volent world than we actually are living in.

So yes, It is generalization. Also, do you know why you never answered these questions from the same post?

Can you think of any non religious institutions which tell their supporters to kill non supporters?

Or for that matter, can you think of any non religious groups which tell their supporters that it is okay and acceptable to use any manner of derogatory expression to spread hate and disunity and conflict into the human community?

Or for that matter, can you think of any religions which specifically do not encourage the followers to kill others who don't believe what they believe?

It is because your beliefs prevent you from being able to do so.

 

[marplots]

I have been thinking about what the difference may be between elves, vampires, Leprechauns and God, even if all those things are imaginary. Here's what I came up with as an analogy:

In mathematics we can have the concepts of really vast numbers, like a googleplex. We also have the concept of infinity. They are similar in that neither concept fits well in our heads - in the sense that they aren't "real" and are hard to manipulate. But although a googleplex is nearly/just as inconceivable as infinity, it's still limited. There's a googleplex plus one.

In that way, all the other mythical beings, while magical, are limited in some fashion. The slot reserved for "unlimited magic" goes to God. It's as if the element of mystery is an essential property. If you understand God, He's no longer God.

Which is why, I think, believers don't accept the "super-powerful alien" as equivalent to God. Give an alien all the powers of God we care to name, and it's still not God - because God isn't supposed to be captured in that way. God's a placeholder for "something beyond all the limits I can conceive." Which is a problem when we want to then say God exists, because everything we know that exists has some limit or other, the very property God is allergic to.

 

[ehcks]

Yes it is. You are saying that 5 billion people are being told to kill each other. The fact is that if this were the case, we would be living in a far more volent world than we actually are living in.

And yet we are. Muslims killing people in the middle east because of their religion.

Christians in far east Asia killing people because of their religion.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I say Christians? I meant Buddhist monks. I'm not sure how I got that confused. I'm also not sure how that's even a thing. But ok.
Instead, we get Christians in America bombing hospitals because of their religion.

And while the Jewish people are few in number, they're still killing Palestinians because their religion says that land is theirs, and they have a long lasting spat with Iran both threatening to nuke each other. Because of their religion. (Even though they both say they have no nukes.)

What atheist group wants to kill people because of their lack of belief?

 

[marplots]

What atheist group wants to kill people because of their lack of belief?

Although I'm not keen on the premise, even as an hypothetical, it's still flawed.

All those groups you mentioned are examples. It is the lack of a shared belief in the other parties' God that allows them to fight each other. A Jew is an atheist as far as Allah and the Koran goes. So all that's required for a dispute is a difference in beliefs, just as you'd get when the U.S. intervenes with ISIS. We lack a belief in their religious calling to form a caliphate - if we didn't we'd aid them in establishing it.

It isn't the fact that one side has a belief that drives the bus, it's the fact that the belief isn't shared by the opposing party. (At least if we grant religion as the driver in this.) Atheism is just another type of contradictory stance, performing the same function. To the Muslim, a Jew is a non-believer, just as an atheist is.

 

[Navigator]

Maybe I could, but the important question is: Can you?

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

I'd get yellowcarded for spamming if I posted each time just Christianity told its followers to kill non-Christians. I've never seen any atheist organization say anything like that. "You will die in the non-name of not-god!"

Well my point was that it isn't just religion which holds sway over followers in relation to opinions regarding others not of the same ilk.

As to your bible quotes, you specifically are quoting the Jewish version of the idea of god(s). I wouldn't even venture to say that the Jewish religion compels its adherents to kill all non Jews.

Part of the problem with your argument is that is is not recognizing that that was another time and place and peoples ideas of that god have also changed.

You seem to believe that all Jews and Christians and Muslims believe in an idea of god which promote killing anyone who does not believe what they believe. Looking around I see that this perception you have isn't at all actually what is going on.