are you an atheist?

I would be fine with atheists making the claim that they find most religious beliefs to be improbable, if they stopped there.

It would, of course, help, if they showed much familiarity with those beliefs. In the western world, they mostly seem familiar with the most literalist of Christian fundamentalist beliefs and any attempt to shift the grounds of the discussion to other sets of beliefs falls into realms they would prefer not to explore, as it would require an effort they are not prepared to make.

In contrast to theists, well-known for their desire to investigate belief systems other than their own.

it's inductive reasoning btw

You're inductive reasoning.

:p

That is not "faith," it's deductive reasoning. I mean, come on.

― Ian from Etobicoke (Phil D.), Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:14 AM (1 hour ago)

faith isn't some dirty word, nor is it exclusively religious. i have faith that gravity will keep my shoes stuck to the ground, but religion isn't involved. we could zoom in really close and hash out distinct, thread-specific definitions for "religion", "spirituality", "faith", "knowledge", "belief", "awareness" and "perception", but i don't see the point, tbh.

my point was that i have a fair amount of faith that my perceptions more-or-less accurately model the reality i inhabit. this faith is taken with a large grain of salt and contingent on many things, of course, but i find that it serves me fairly well. if a perception of the presence of the divine were an equally consistent and seemingly reliable part of those perceptions, i'd probably trust it, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iRFv-QBft0

faith isn't some dirty word, nor is it exclusively religious. i have faith that gravity will keep my shoes stuck to the ground, but religion isn't involved.

Again, not "faith," not as most people understand the word.

Like, even when you account for all of its non-religious meanings and implications, it's not "faith" to expect something to happen when you quite literally have absolutely no reasons to expect otherwise.

yeah, okay, i agree that "faith" does more accurately describe belief backed by strong conviction. mea culpa on the imprecise usage.

since that word wasn't essential to my point, pls to sub "believe". i believe that gravity will keep my shoes stuck to the ground. if i perceived god in some consistent and useful way (and felt myself to be otherwise free of debilitating manias), i would probably believe that god existed.

Why wouldn't you first look for corroboration for your hypothetical perception of god, even if it was internally consistent?

In contrast to theists, well-known for their desire to investigate belief systems other than their own.

This is merely an argument from prejudice combined with an obvious ad hominem against a group as a whole. Theists as a category are actually quite diverse and, if you were to notice, you'd see that some of them are intellectually curious and rationally disciplined. I should think you'd want to engage with that open-minded subset rather than simply stand apart and scorn them for what they are not.

If scientists engaged in their internal debates using the same undisciplined methods and rhetoric that atheists often use when they engage with religion, then science would quickly degenerate into a bar fight and accomplish nothing at all. A good example of this is the conflation of "faith" with "religion", "religion" with "theism", "theism" with "monotheism", "monotheism" with "Christianity", and "Christianity" with "fundamentalism", as if all these terms amounted to the same idea.

Intellectually, it is quite easy to separate these categories from one another, which leads me to think that, when they are consistently lumped together by otherwise capable thinkers, those thinkers are mistaking the sameness of their emotional reaction to all these things for a categorical sameness. iow, they've stopped thinking and are only reacting in a reflexive manner.

btw, I am not a theist in this argument, which subtlety seems lost on most of those who are fiercely arguing for what they take to be "atheism".

Kind of odd to take someone to task for making an ad hominem attack against a group as a whole and then talk broadly about how atheists make bad arguments.

If you reject the bad arguments (the badness of which I have pointed out), then the shoe does not fit and there is no need for you to wear it. If you read what I said once more, you'll see I did not categorically place all atheists into this group. Inclusion in the group making bad arguments was awarded only to those who use them.

in many contexts those terms are roughly interchangeable (and I would lump things like herbalife into the mix as well), but it would be interesting to introduce the punnett square of religion without faith, because I think that more accurately describes the larger body of "the enemy" -- people and institutions who accrue local, temporal benefits at the cost of the welfare of others, and ultimately themselves. For people and institutions who have strongly intertwined faith and religion, it is a simple matter of shaking that faith to cleave membership, but it seems to me these are not the important players, just as in herbalife, it is the large institutional players with the greatest accumulation of resources that matter.

Surely that's implicit within the anti-theist statements as well?

xpost

This is merely an argument from prejudice combined with an obvious ad hominem against a group as a whole. Theists as a category are actually quite diverse and, if you were to notice, you'd see that some of them are intellectually curious and rationally disciplined. I should think you'd want to engage with that open-minded subset rather than simply stand apart and scorn them for what they are not.

Uh the lack of self-awareness and assumption-making here is kinda staggering.

But if it makes you feel better there are all kinds of non-Christian, non-western beliefs I'm prepared to call irrational and silly as well.

On the other hand, many theists retreat very quickly into deism with their arguments. It's good to keep in mind the starting point of the theists position, though sometimes it seems like things are conflated because theist beliefs are often not clearly defined in the first place.

Are their stated beliefs ultimately what determine their political support, though?

Surely that's implicit within the anti-theist statements as well?

This time I will be even more explicit. I am not a theist.

Insofar as my knowledge of anything must ultimately be based on personal experience, and my experience cannot be construed in such a way as to include a god or gods, as I understand those terms, I would categorize myself as an atheist. I think the qualifications and clarifications I made in the preceding sentence are very important nuances that ought not to be cast aside, but when you sift it down to its essence, what I just said was: I am an atheist.

As an atheist myself, it ill-behooves me to make appeals to prejudice or categorical ad hominems against all atheists.

But the fact that I am an atheist, as I understand the term, does not align me with the sort of atheism widely expressed in this thread. I also identify myself as religious, with Zen Buddhism being the religion most nearly embodying my faith. As such, it annoys me that so many self-identified atheists, of which there are many in this thread, display so much ignorance of religion, and turn the mere fact of believing that a god or gods do or don't exist as the sine qua non of religion and a sort of Procrustean bed that all arguments about religious faith must be made to fit. According to this sort of atheist, a belief in diety is attended by a whole train of ills, by definition, and nothing can convince them otherwise, including evidence or testimony.

I will continue to point out this reductive tendency as based on pure ignorance and prejudice, which it is. Atheism is not a tribal identification and despite my own atheism I'm happy to call out atheists when they are being ignorant or prejudiced in this way.

I usually identify as "a skeptical person" because I think it says more about where I'm coming from.

Lol theists tho

"the mere fact of believing that a god or gods do or don't exist as the sine qua non of religion and a sort of Procrustean bed that all arguments about religious faith must be made to fit"
i think people here are uncomfortable, for example, with transcendental meditation, too, at least when it comes up with regards to David Lynch. I don't think the collective ilx discomfort with magical thinking rests solely on whether gods do or don't exist.

I would suggest that the collective ilx discomfort with magical thinking rests mainly on the exploitation of magical thinking for political ends which then injects magical thinking into the formation of social policy and justifications for wars. Magical thinking that confines any harm that it does to the individuals who employ it usually gets played on ilx for lols.

As such, it annoys me that so many self-identified atheists, of which there are many in this thread, display so much ignorance of religion, and turn the mere fact of believing that a god or gods do or don't exist as the sine qua non of religion and a sort of Procrustean bed that all arguments about religious faith must be made to fit. According to this sort of atheist, a belief in diety is attended by a whole train of ills, by definition, and nothing can convince them otherwise, including evidence or testimony.

A million kinds of strawmanning, at least regarding posters in this thread, going on here. But color me also shocked that a threat titled "Are you an atheist?" appears to center largely and inexplicably around the question of belief in a deity. Inexcusable ignorance, that.

ilx lols at david lynch??

The thread title does indeed promise a discussion of belief in diety. I'm not expressing any shock over that, Phil. So, what does a belief in diety imply, beyond a the simple fact of a belief in diety? Anything? My beef, such as it is, revolves around the answers to that question, as given in the prior 1570-and-change posts.

But you may feel free to answer that question, if you wish, so as to clarify your position.

lol deity

concise

It doesn't *necessarily* imply anything at all. It also doesn't just exist in a vacuum. Does that help?

xp well you did type "diety" like four times.

diety worms

diety? horrors!

This was linked from the Michael Robbins thread but could be relevant here as well:

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/book-reviews/he-who

Sample quote:

The central folly of scientism is the assumption that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a question for science--whose proper field is, after all, "something"--or, even more perniciously, that it isn't a question worth bothering about, isn't really a question at all.

Don't think science reckons it's not worth bothering with by any means. Science just realises we are far far far off having the theoretical tools or intellectual framework to properly deal with that question.

imho part of what establishes those theoretical tools + intellectual frameworks have historically been theology + discourses w/ infinity

I don't get this part at all (Robbins quoting Hart in the quoted paragraph):

Here he is on Dawkins’s vacuous concept of the “meme”:

'Genetic materials are propagated by physical transactions because they themselves are physical realities; at their level, no conscious acts need be present. Whatever else “memes” might be, however, if such things really did exist, they would most definitely be composed of intentional content and would exist only as objects of mental representation. They would not therefore be metaphorically “selected” by nature, in the way the units of biological evolution are said to be, but would literally be chosen (even if often a little passively) by a conscious mind.'

What’s astonishing isn’t that Dawkins can’t see that the meme is merely a metaphor, but that he doesn’t realize it’s a metaphor that presumes intelligent design.

How does he manage to bring intelligent design into it? I don't see the argument at all.

I think they've conflated intentionality w/ intelligent design.

this sentence makes me smile - A badger cannot understand differential equations, but that tells us something about badgers, not equations. - but I think it's wrong

Alien vs Badgers
Et tu, Bruce Lee?
I'll chop your socks into suey
said Woody to Soon-Yi
Game over, man, game over.

A+

I think the main thing frustrating me lately is how in debates about religion, Christians love to trot out that their beliefs cannot be disproven. An obvious point, to be sure, but a large part of the reason it is so is because they themselves have purposefully made it that way!

They'll tout the Bible as God-breathed (citing scripture from I think Timothy?), then when you point out some of the more serious discrepencies, such as the multiple ways Judas dies, differing accounts of the Crucifixion, etc, they always have some meta-explanation for it that they themselves invented. Many sects of Judaism were apocalyptic in nature around the time the religions split, and many Early Christians believed that the End Times were near in their lifetime. When the end times didn't come, the story changed - oh, he's coming back LATER! This "generation" will not pass didn't mean the literal generation! It meant the Jewish race (no matter that the Hebrew word used did not translate to "race" but "generation"). Or the other explanation - 1 minute to God is like a thousand years, etc, etc.

The other thing that bugs me is I have yet to see a good Christian explanation of why Jesus is indeed the Messiah, as he does not meet the definition as defined in the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The ancient Jews did not define the coming Messiah as a "suffering figure", the word actually meant "anointed one". He was supposed to be a great military leader that was supposed to overthrow Rome and return it to the Jews, and Jesus was an insurrectionist that was easily stifled and killed by the Romans. He was supposed to be a descendent of David which he technically could not have been as he was, according to Christians, not Joseph's natural born son. He was supposed to build the Third Temple and usher in an era of World Peace. Didn't happen and I always see the latter skirted around in discussions.

The common response I see that 'proves' he met the criteria of Messiah is Psalms and Isaiah. But most Old Testament scholars have pointed out the passage of "piercing hands and feet" is based on a mistranslation of the original Hebrew, which was "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet". Isaiah was not referring to Jesus but the Jewish people. And most Biblical scholars contend that Psalms was a generic collection of Jewish folks describing their persecution, not a reference to a coming Messiah.

It seems airtight enough that I can only assume most of the people I talk to don't know about it, but some of the apologia crowd seems to have skirted the issue by saying "oh that other stuff? He'll do that the second time around.". Again, circular by their OWN DESIGN. We can't disprove it because it is continually redefined.

Oi...I think I'm reading too much about this lately.

no you're exactly right. "you can't disprove this thing that inherently unable to be proven, therefore it's true". people who use bad logic aren't logical enough to be aware of their own bad logic, it's maddening.

a good Christian explanation of why Jesus is indeed the Messiah

in terms of the OT, there isn't one. which is why Jews aren't Christians.

Why exactly is it maddening? What precedent causes you to expect something different?

when you see something clearly, can see why something is flawed or not, yet someone you're discussing it with is simply incapable of seeing the flaws...maddening. this is different from me wanting someone else to see things MY way; it's that they are incapable of following the logical paths that lead merely to the contemplation of "my way".

xp

Why exactly is it maddening?

The absence of logic as a methodology removes a particularly solid underpinning for successful communication between individuals, and a failure to communicate to another person what is extremely clear to you is a rich source of frustration. As you point out, it is illogical to try to adjust the thinking of someone who is incapable of understanding you, so it is wiser to adjust one's own expectations, which strategy is entirely in one's own power.

The contradictions and inconsistencies are entirely compatible with a conception of all-powerful omnipotent deity, who must be able to partake in both 'good' and 'bad' and a 'good/bad' sort of Schrodinger's cat-style duality. If you are yearning for logical consistency or insist on the value of narrative above all else then you are reading the Bible wrong, and have much in common with Creationists.

^^ This at least shows an understanding of what logical consistency is and an informed idea of where it is most applicable. I think Granny Dainger can appreciate a difference between a response of this nature and the sort of response that maddens him.

yep absolutely. Which is why I say I don't wish or expect all to arrive at the same conclusion as me ("my way"). There are good, logically sound ways to arrive at a belief in a supernatural creator; it's poorly thought-out, deeply flawed ones which show a near total lack of critical thinking skills that are maddening.

I would kinda hope that an allpowerful supernatural deity could give rise to a book about itself that wasn't so prone to misinterpretation/misuse by its most special creations though.