Shifting more towards atheism

[shunyadragon]

Lol...aren't we all silly humans.
In the words of Frost...."round and round we go and suppose while the secret sits in the middle and knows."
Theists insisting Atheists believe there is no God and Atheists insist they have no beliefs concerning such things.
One could intimately investigate the etymology on the word Atheist until heck wont have it while the important arguments get glossed over so no one gets anywhere except to the land of wasted time.
Theists are those that believe in the existence of a God (particular) or gods (general). Atheists insist they have no beliefs concerning such things but often engage Theists in debate. What are they debating? Usually they are debating that no "proof" of Gods existence has been shown. Occasionally they will stray into reasoning why no God is likely to exist.
It seems to me people forget that these arguments -due to the very nature of the subject matter in relation to our human limitations- cannot be about "proving". They can only be about "probabilities" or likelihoods.
But even modern physics has inadvertently strayed into the metaphysical with its theories. The strange theories of the Quantum have unexpectedly evened the scientific playing field with Theists in what inevitably cannot be proven.
It also seems to me that Atheists are using a system of beliefs to circularly prove that they have no beliefs.
I would ask then. What beliefs do Atheists approach the subject with when debating Theism?

It is doubtful that atheists argue there is no "proof" of the existence of Gods. They are are mostly smart enough to understand the proper use of "proof." I find two themes or subjects. First is the lack of objective evidence for the existence of Gods, and second is the ancient texts are dominated by anthropomorphic 'hands on' Gods, and miracles that are not relevant to anything happening today and lack science. The prevalent rejection of science by Fundamentalists and Muslims does not help their case.

I find nothing circular about the argument presented by atheists. It is rather simple and straight forward, Though I find many circular arments among Theists.

I will reserve the proper use of "probabilities" to the statistical use in scientific research. Probabilities do not apply to subjective beliefs such as Intellight Design,.

 

[setarcos]

an attempt to give some extra respect for claims that do not have otherwise no additional rational justification whatsoever, as compared to fairies and co., and they should therefore be treated according to the same intellectual standards.

Oh but there are probabilistic reasons for believing "not proving" that some sort of Godlike being may exist. Its mostly a matter of how your willing to interpret the data.

Therefore some sensitive people prefer "agnosticism". So that theists do not feel to too hurt, and they can still have the additional hope that even rational people still keep a door open for whatever imaginary they believe in,

In my opinion agnosticism is just an irrational fear of engaging in the debate. Oooh I feel like, or it seems to me, but I don't want to commit to something I may find out I was wrong about. I think most Theists are more resilient than you give them credit for. When it comes to who will raise the ante to insults or violence there's no distinguishing between the various parties involved. Theists, Atheists, or Agnostics.

 

[setarcos]

By formulating a worst case scenario from a non-factual circumstance.

You mean formulating the "possibility" of a worst case scenario from "possibly" factual circumstances don't you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It also seems to me that Atheists are using a system of beliefs to circularly prove that they have no beliefs.

That is incorrect. No atheist says he has no beliefs. That's what theists say about them.

Most atheists are humanists, which entails a worldview full of values and beliefs. That makes them skeptics. They believe that nothing should be accepted as settled fact just because some claims it is. They are also empiricists. They believe that reason properly applied to evidence is the only path to knowledge. The are generally utilitarians and Golden Rule proponents. Some are antitheists and all are secularists. They believe that organized, politicized religion is a net harm to society and should not be permitted to make laws.

how do you describe the flaw in Pascal's Wager?

Pascal assumes that there is no cost to guessing wrong about his god. That's clearly not always the case. Many seem quite harmed by it, and the more zealously religious they are, the more the harm both to themselves and their neighbors. And if there is an afterlife, especially if man was created by some transcendent race, they may be judged harshly for rejecting reason and conscience and choosing something else. If we have creators, those two faculties were put there for a purpose, not to be suppressed and replaced by faith and flawed received morals.

 

[Koldo]

I wonder...how do you describe the flaw in Pascal's Wager?

I didn't mention any flaw... But... The huge flaw is that the underlying premise holds only one god concept as a real possibility... But there is no grounds for doing that.

It is possible that God Z is the one that actually exists and happens to send people to hell on exactly the same circumstance a Christian would expect to be sent to heavens.

This entails that first we must establish that one god is more probable than the other.

 

[setarcos]

It is doubtful that atheists argue there is no "proof" of the existence of Gods.

Correct...as I said the arguments are generally against specific proofs imagined or believed that have been offered for the existence of God or gods.

First is the lack of objective evidence for the existence of Gods

As I've said...all objective evidence is probabilistic in its nature of necessity. However that goes for relevant scientific evidence as well.
There are brilliant contemporary scientists who have theistic leanings. Including some Nobelists.

second is the ancient texts are dominated by anthropomorphic 'hands on' Gods, and miracles that are not relevant to anything happening today and lack science.

This depends on what texts and how those texts are received. Anthropomorphism when it comes to God is inevitable with mankind's attempt at making sense of such concepts. Its a symptom of our limitations not Gods. I cannot see how one can claim no miracle is relevant to anything happening today. One would have to be aware of any and all miracles that happened if they did and any and all relevance to anything happening today if there were any. That's a pretty big potato to swallow. That miracles lack science is patently obvious. That fact alone does not preclude their possibility. It would be irrational to think an irrational event were impossible.

The prevalent rejection of science by Fundamentalists and Muslims does not help their case.

I don't think this is quite accurate. I think it is more about how they interpret the data not about rejecting science...generally.
I do acknowledge there are groups who reject the obvious as being obvious.

I find nothing circular about the argument presented by atheists. It is rather simple and straight forward, Though I find many circular arments among Theists.

Its true...circular arguments abound among theists...mostly due to their overzealous desire to prove their points. But no group is immune to such things. An atheist that argues their point from a foundation of claiming no belief is a circular argument.

I will reserve the proper use of "probabilities" to the statistical use in research. Probabilities do not apply to subjective beliefs.

I disagree. That a subjective belief is a true belief is as dependent on probability as any scientific proposal or statistical research.

 

[F1fan]

You mean formulating the "possibility" of a worst case scenario from "possibly" factual circumstances don't you?

it’s unnecessary guesswork. The only people who would take the Wager seriously are those who believe the threat of hell is plausible.

The funny thing is that the Wager implies God isn’t omnipotent because otherwise God will know the unsure believer is trying to swindle him. So it fails either way.

 

[setarcos]

That is incorrect. No atheist says he has no beliefs. That's what theists say about them.

You aren't correct here. You being too definitively all inclusive. I have debated Atheists who have said that verbatim. Whether or not they misspoke is irrelevant here.
But what is relevant is how you define what you believe. If that incudes being an atheist with beliefs then so be it.
I may have discussed this with you before...there is no significant epistemological difference between
"lacking a belief in..." and "having no belief concerning..." many atheists claiming the latter definitionally.

Most atheists are humanists, which entails a worldview full of values and beliefs.

That may be true but what would be relevant is how they define their beliefs concerning atheism not humanism since one does not have to be an atheist to be a humanist.

That makes them skeptics.

Theists aren't barred from being skeptical if that's what you implying.

They believe that nothing should be accepted as settled fact just because some claims it is.

Again this doesn't bar some Theists from believing the same.
There are good and bad theists as far as beliefs and explanations of those beliefs go but that goes for atheists as well.

They are also empiricists. They believe that reason properly applied to evidence is the only path to knowledge.

Yeah well, as I've pointed out above elsewhere, and science is showing us, the foundations of our reality seem to have little to do with our ability to make it reasonable.

The are generally utilitarians and Golden Rule proponents.

I'm not sure your not stretching your assumptions a bit here. We could just as easily describe "them" as simply objectionists or confrontationists without due regard for the oppositions arguments.
But that may just be my experiences which have little to do with the majority. Point being...we should tread lightly when generalizing specifics about groups of people. Were better off dealing with who we are currently dealing with. I would guess that what your describing suits you quite accurately.

They believe that organized, politicized religion is a net harm to society and should not be permitted to make laws.

Reality begs to differ. Secularism has had the upper hand in politics for centuries now and while our ability to think up new technologies which allow us to subjugate more and more of nature for the benefit of the fortunate few while at the same time finding more creative ways to hide the consequential damages being inflicted over all, but it hasn't done any better at leading humanity to a moral/ethical or even pragmatic paradise. By some metrics secularist politics has done far worse.

If we define religion as "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." I don't think politics is possible without it.
We are all religious at some level whether or not that religion includes sentient beings.

Pascal assumes that there is no cost to guessing wrong about his god.

I disagree. Pascal had a particular God in mind and the accompanying beliefs that come with that God. And while guessing wrong may very well have damning consequences there isn't a belief system on the planet, secular or otherwise that doesn't have the potential for good and bad consequences of guessing right or wrong.
Pascals flaw is in thinking that one can gain benefit from feigning belief in something that they cannot or do not believe in when the benefits themselves require true belief in order to gain them.

Many seem quite harmed by it, and the more zealously religious they are, the more the harm both to themselves and their neighbors.

This goes for secularism as well. How many have died at the hands of communist ideologies for instance? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? No. Closer to hundreds of millions. (estimated)

if there is an afterlife, especially if man was created by some transcendent race, they may be judged harshly for rejecting reason and conscience and choosing something else.

I agree. I'd say its not reasonable to presume true belief will follow from feigning convictions about something.
Christian scripture incidentally promotes reason for ones faith.
1 Peter 3:15
"...but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you,..."

 

[setarcos]

I didn't mention any flaw

No...you didn't. I did, and asked your opinion on what you think it might be. I was under the impression that you at one time were leaning towards being a theist but now are leaning away from that belief system. Since Pascals wager involves such systems of belief and you mentioned that you at one time considered his wager I hope you can forgive me for presuming you had found fault in his reasoning.

The huge flaw is that the underlying premise holds only one god concept as a real possibility... But there is no grounds for doing that.

Yes, he is presuming a particular God and setting that for axiomatic consideration. However all else being equal its the flawed reasoning about that God that one must consider. One could reasonable apply the general principals of his wager to any belief system involving reward/punishment.

It is possible that God Z is the one that actually exists and happens to send people to hell on exactly the same circumstance a Christian would expect to be sent to heavens.

As I've said...all systems of belief are subject to the possibility of unknown negative consequences. Pascals wager deals with what is known or axiomatically assumed about a particular God. The method could just as easily be applied to God Z providing we have working knowledge about God Z or set initial axiomatic assumptions about such a God.
Whatever flaws you find with Pascals wager, those flaws should be found within the givens of that wager. Otherwise its apples to oranges.

This entails that first we must establish that one god is more probable than the other

That's not the purpose or point of his wager. Pick any god you wish with the accompanying "maximum expected utility".

 

[setarcos]

The only people who would take the Wager seriously are those who believe the threat of hell is plausible.

Of course. Its a thought experiment with unproven premises.

it’s unnecessary guesswork.

Everything for humans is guesswork...until it isn't. And that's usually after the fact.

The funny thing is that the Wager implies God isn’t omnipotent because otherwise God will know the unsure believer is trying to swindle him.

I don't know why that's funny but you've hit on Pascals wager's major flaw.

 

[Koldo]

No...you didn't. I did, and asked your opinion on what you think it might be. I was under the impression that you at one time were leaning towards being a theist but now are leaning away from that belief system. Since Pascals wager involves such systems of belief and you mentioned that you at one time considered his wager I hope you can forgive me for presuming you had found fault in his reasoning.

Yes, he is presuming a particular God and setting that for axiomatic consideration. However all else being equal its the flawed reasoning about that God that one must consider. One could reasonable apply the general principals of his wager to any belief system involving reward/punishment.

As I've said...all systems of belief are subject to the possibility of unknown negative consequences. Pascals wager deals with what is known or axiomatically assumed about a particular God. The method could just as easily be applied to God Z providing we have working knowledge about God Z or set initial axiomatic assumptions about such a God.
Whatever flaws you find with Pascals wager, those flaws should be found within the givens of that wager. Otherwise its apples to oranges.

That's not the purpose or point of his wager. Pick any god you wish with the accompanying "maximum expected utility".

If every single instance of it freely allowed changing up the axioms concerning god, we would be none the wiser on how to behave. And this is the crux of the issue.

The axioms concerning God, in Pascal's Wager, were never meant to be freely changed in accordance to every single god concept one could come up with. Pascal simply never presumed that other gods were even worthy of consideration. This is how he ends up with a conclusion on how we should behave.

 

[Augustus]

Depends on what you mean by 'consideration'. I am favor of considering all possibilities, but only to the extent they seem likely.

And based on our current knowledge, there is a non-trivial chance of other life forms existing in the universe.

We already do factor this into our decision making, do you think we are wrong to do so?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

what would be relevant is how they define their beliefs concerning atheism

There are no beliefs that derive from rejection of god claims other than maybe that there is little to no value in praying, studying holy books, regular church attendance, and the like.

This is exactly analogous to avampirism or aleprechaunism. Each is also the rejection of an existential claim for lack of sufficient supporting evidence to believe those claims, and there are no other beliefs apart from things like not needing garlic to repel vampires and searching for lucky pots of gold that derive from that unbelief.

Reality begs to differ.

That was in response to the comment that antitheistic atheists, "believe that organized, politicized religion is a net harm to society and should not be permitted to make laws." The comment is correct. That describes what antitheists believe that makes them antitheists, at least as I use the word, which is not meant to mean being in opposition to theists or to religion in general. Perhaps you want to argue whether the belief is correct, but that's a different topic.

Pascal had a particular God

Yes, his god, which is why I wrote that, "Pascal assumes that there is no cost to guessing wrong about his god"

Pascals flaw is in thinking that one can gain benefit from feigning belief in something that they cannot or do not believe in when the benefits themselves require true belief in order to gain them.

That's yet another refutation of his argument. I gave you two others. Here's a scholarly treatment of the flaws in Pascal's argument, although it doesn't include my argument of the opportunity cost of being a Christian if Christianity is a false religion: Pascal’s Wager about God | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

How many have died at the hands of communist ideologies for instance?

Irrelevant to a discussion of the beliefs that come from atheism or any harm that comes from atheism. Being an atheist doesn't make one want to kill, and being an Abrahamic monotheist doesn't prevent that desire in people.

Christian scripture incidentally promotes reason for ones faith.
1 Peter 3:15
"...but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you,..."

Giving a reason is not promoting reason. The reasons given are believed by faith, not derived from the application of reason to evidence.

 

[Koldo]

And based on our current knowledge, there is a non-trivial chance of other life forms existing in the universe.

We already do factor this into our decision making, do you think we are wrong to do so?

Depends on what you are talking about. It is one thing if you are talking about UFO investigations and yet another if you are talking about reptilians.

I legit wonder how this line of conversation relates to our initial conversation though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Absolutely. It's called an irrational bias.

There's certainly an irrational bias going on here, but you're a bit off on who's committing it.

By definition, "an atheist" adheres to the antithetical position to theism.

By the definition you pulled out of your ***?

Who or how many they are is compltly irrelevant. You really just cannot seem to grasp this simple fact.

Oh, I'm fully aware that you see no need for your wild-*** opinions to be rooted in reality.

There is only one theist proposition: that God/gods exist. This has nothing at all to do with who believes whatever about it.

Well, no.

A typical Christian or Muslim is not making the claim that gods exist. A typical polytheist is not making the claim that God exists.

Again: there is no single "theistic proposition." Every variation of gods and their characteristics is a separate, distinct proposition.

None of this matters in the least to what theism is. Just as your version of atheism has nothing at all to do with what atheism is.

Ha! "The beliefs of real-world atheists have nothing to do with what atheists believe!"

Listen to yourself. You're not even pretending to be rational any more.

It's completely obvious what you're trying to do: "Atheism is the COMPLIMENT to theism". C'mon! You're not fooling anybody.

Complement. Spelling matters here.

 

[1213]

This illustrates the negative influence of evangelical Christianity on education. The anti-science rhetoric by creationists still has a negative influence on society and I think it immoral to indoctrinate children on this bad idea.

So, if people don't accept your pseudoscience, because it has nothing substantial supporting it, you blame the church?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So, if people don't accept your pseudoscience, because it has nothing substantial supporting it, you blame the church?

The church is why you don't know that the science that contradicts biblical mythology is correct. It's why you call that science pseudoscience. They told you that the wisdom of the world was foolishness and that believing the Bible instead was wisdom, and you have accepted that.

They've done you and society in general harm by disseminating such ideas. They teach that faith is preferable than reason. Yeah, it's better for them, but not for you.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I do not pretend.

We all do. To ourselves, as much as to others. All the world’s a stage, after all; the men and women merely players.

You pretend to be a person who does not pretend; and maybe you believe that of yourself. But who are you, really? I doubt any of us can answer that truthfully and accurately.

 

[shunyadragon]

We all do. To ourselves, as much as to others. All the world’s a stage, after all; the men and women merely players.

You pretend to be a person who does not pretend; and maybe you believe that of yourself. But who are you, really? I doubt any of us can answer that truthfully and accurately.

I do not pretend to be be and believe something I am not as referenced. It is your problem if you like to play games and pretend..

 

[shunyadragon]

So, if people don't accept your pseudoscience, because it has nothing substantial supporting it, you blame the church?

This reflects your clinging mindlessly to an ancient tribal worldview and rejecting science., It is a very said state of affairs of many who give up their Fre Will to understand the nature of our physical world simply as it is.

As per the subject at hand. Can you present objective verifiable independent evidence for Noah's flood?