are you an atheist?

Would you accept non-traditional definitions of God? Or do they have to prove the traditional God exists and nothing else can be tolerated?

Pascal's Wager is the classic example of not starting at neutral.

yeah was just gonna say. his bet-hedging started not just with an assumption of God, but an assumption of the Judeo-Christian one at that.

btw guys this movie will end all these arguments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMjo5f9eiX8

final scene is Gary Gutting sobbing and tearing up his decades of publications.

I think there are plenty of decent argments for belief in god that are irrespective of any evidence of its existence.

I Think where most of this falls down is the supposition that an argument is needed in the first place.

that's the whole reason I don't get the apologetic movement. Well, I mean I 'get' it but I think it's the wrong angle. In the end, nobody's stance on religion is going to be wholly based on holistic data (shaky or not). I get that it's a response to the 'yay science' crowd but like, I have plenty of intelligent believer friends who present arguments that are internally sound (just not for me, personally).

anthony flew went from hardcore atheist to theist if we're still looking for examples

the fine tuning argument is p crazy, memorably dissed as being "like being amazed that the holes in a cat's fur line up perfectly with its eyes"

ha

kinda glossed over this part of Christianity, missed its hilarity amongst all the details/weirdness thrown at me since this basic one: God had a son! Where did he meet Ms God? Did he have any daughters? And aw man total bummer, he had to have him killed. If only he could create things or something...

First, if materialism is true, human beings, naturally enough, are material objects. Now what, from this point of view, would a belief be? My belief that Marcel Proust is more subtle that Louis L’Amour, for example? Presumably this belief would have to be a material structure in my brain, say a collection of neurons that sends electrical impulses to other such structures as well as to nerves and muscles, and receives electrical impulses from other structures.

But in addition to such neurophysiological properties, this structure, if it is a belief, would also have to have a content: It would have, say, to be the belief that Proust is more subtle than L’Amour.

In order for this thing we label to be a belief, it must be a belief. uh ok?

i think he's saying belief has to have two components - a neurophysiological property and the interpretive content. obv there aren't any proust neurons

both of those reside in the brain's structure/activity, idgi

i think what he's saying is that there is no theoretical technology that could distinguish between a proust is more subtle neuron and a fellini is more boring neuron - the neurons create a condition in which such beliefs can be framed but they exist in this more metaphysical dimension that aligns w/ neurology

a) that's a very simplistic way to view the brain, and b) yeah I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that their must be a metaphys dimension to them.

fwiw my belief in the singularity compels me to believe all brain data is ultimately upload-able. i don't think this is a problem re belief in god.

to me just sounds like more of the old "we don't quite understand how this all works exactly...so must be some ~magic~ involved"

the "god of gaps" as I heard a rabbi once describe it

i.e., "Now we know that the earth revolves around the sun, but we still don't understand X, so...GOD"

they'll just about always have the "yeah sure ok humans can explain the ins and out of things, but God put it all in motion"

"...that was before he decided to settle down and have a lil god of his very own..."

My main defense against the inerrancy crowd (which is shrinking) is the pure number of differing Christian sects. For a divinely inspired book (their words), it's a lil telling that several billion believers can't come to a consensus on some pretty significant things like WHETHER HELL IS REAL

In my mind atheism has a kind of "origin myth" of the moment when an early ocean traveler had been to enough different islands to realize that people believed a variety of different things equally fervently

i am starting to think that being an atheist is psychologically harder than having faith in some sort of spiritual something, especially vis a vis coping with loneliness and loss.

Def is for me

I have had this fascination for a while with the modern idea of "belief" as separate from knowledge, which seems to be the level on which a lot of "theistic scientists" (i.e. actual scientists who are religious, not intelligent design people) believe. I imagine there was a time when this kind of "belief" virtually did not exist, because if your religion was the only knowledge game in town, it was as literally true as anything else you knew to be literally true.

So today, perhaps to maintain the kinds of spiritual comforts that you're referring to, Treeship, we have this category of "belief" that exists outside of verifiable knowledge for the skeptical who still want religion. Yet I find sort of a paradox in that kind of belief for me, because for me to truly believe I feel like I have to let go of my skepticism, but I can't fully let go of my skepticism without some kind of empirical evidence. So even though I rationally understand the idea of accepting religion without taking it as literally true, I can't put myself into it. Also because that kind of "belief" requires you to choose a faith, but when all faiths seem equally untrue in the literal sense and true in the metaphysical sense, I have a hard time committing to one faith.

A.P.: The most important ground of belief is probably not philosophical argument but religious experience. Many people of very many different cultures have thought themselves in experiential touch with a being worthy of worship. They believe that there is such a person, but not because of the explanatory prowess of such belief. Or maybe there is something like Calvin’s sensus divinitatis. Indeed, if theism is true, then very likely there is something like the sensus divinitatis. So claiming that the only sensible ground for belief in God is the explanatory quality of such belief is substantially equivalent to assuming atheism.

This is the line of argument that contends that since many cultures independently and almost without exception have created some concept of god or gods, there must be some validity to them? I just don't know how someone schooled in logic can arrive at this conclusion.

Many species all over the globe respond to their own reflections as though they were other creatures.

I dig the conceptual comforts of faith (I had it growing up) but damn if I don't feel like I'd have to lie to myself an awful lot to roll with it.

yeah that's basically what I was trying to say with my pretentious post, in many fewer words

ha I kinda forgot about this til now...being 11 and having a very religious best friend, going to his church a couple times due to sleepovers, then going bowling with him and his fam and testing out prayer by asking the Lord for a strike or 2. Didn't help my score at all, so that was the end of that.

...the modern idea of "belief" as separate from knowledge...

Where mysticism comes in handy is that it rests on personal experience, rather than some system of belief acquired through tradition, teaching or intellect. It doesn't so much confirm anything you can point to as it does disrupt, disconnect from and evade tradition, teaching and intellect. Which experience has positive value, even if it is hard to express apart from negatives.

Doesn't say spit about god, though.

hurting i saw something on the history of the word 'believe' which i can't recall properly which i think maintained that the old, original sense of belief was as in "i believe in you" & that the empirical sense is modern & this was to inform yr reading of ancient texts &c.

The idea of God as default is alien to me cos even as a seven year old i was grilling my mom about why people believed. Not out of skepticism but due to genuine curiosity.

I was raised religious and was also skeptical early, but even into my late teens or early twenties I think I had a sense of God as "default" where even my skepticism was against the backdrop of a possible God figure out of the old testament. I think it just takes a long time to overcome the emotional weight of that concept when you are raised with it. But now that I (think) I have, it's very hard to go back to that state.

I had it briefly due to being forced to go to Fundie church and i have "whats it all mean" moments now and then...having it rubbed in your face does make it harder to eradicate.

I think a big turning point is when you realize you don't ALWAYS auto-pray when there's turbulence on a plane.

i think something like prayer would be really good for me, but i'm not sure i could force myself to believe even if i was sure that's what i wanted. also, what God would i believe in? i was raised catholic and have an affection for the rituals and imagery but ideologically it's not an institution i see eye to eye with. i think it's tough.

one of the main things that pisses me off about the "new atheists" is that they disparage god as an "imaginary friend", implicitly accusing people who look there for solace of weakness and disdaining them for it. fuck that. people want to feel connected to something. i think that belief in god is a way for people to feel connected to humanity in general, to be one link away from everyone else. i guess this is like what feuerbach and later marx said, that god is just man's alienated essence and after the revolution, when society is a harmonious, cohesive totality, there will be no need for him.

I Think where most of this falls down is the supposition that an argument is needed in the first place.

― tsrobodo, Monday, February 10, 2014 6:29 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that's the whole reason I don't get the apologetic movement. Well, I mean I 'get' it but I think it's the wrong angle. In the end, nobody's stance on religion is going to be wholly based on holistic data (shaky or not). I get that it's a response to the 'yay science' crowd but like, I have plenty of intelligent believer friends who present arguments that are internally sound (just not for me, personally).

― Lesbian has fucking riffs for days (Neanderthal), Monday, February 10, 2014 6:30 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

These are pretty obvious defense mechanisms though. If rational justification doesn't suffice to ground your beliefs, it's highly convenient to be able ground them somewhere else where arguments can't affect them. Apologetics at least makes itself open to discussion.

What's wrong with a simple admission of "this is not rational, but I believe it anyway"? Why does that have to be a "defense mechanism"?

^This. I would say this right away. I wouldn't have it any other way. God shouldn't be a rational thing imo. If he was, then he would be part of science.

How do you judge whether the concept is legitimate?

What do you mean by "legitimate"?

Well that's up to each individual person. Here's where the "personal God" comes in. It doesn't mean God is a person you talk to, it means it's a personal experience.

How can a particular explanatory concept of our universe not be part of science?

It's not explanatory.

Unless you are a Young Earth Creationist.

What do you mean by "legitimate"?

― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:04 AM (1 minute ago)

As in what would drive you to subscribe to it.