Argument against "lacktheism"

[Revoltingest]

While I see the risk and the evidence supports it (believers are more likely to fall for scams and believe conspiracy theories), there is no simple causal connection. E.g. enough scientists are perfectly able to compartmentalise. They have different thresholds for evidence based on their work or their belief.

Double post.

 

[1137]

So why do some children not come up with an invisible friend? (lackinvisiblefriendism)

Probably similar but opposite reasons right? Like they have many friends, or their parents get violent at imagination talk.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Precisely. I was raised in an atheist household, and was never exposed to any religious indoctrination, our community was very sparsely populated and made up of people in the same organisation my father worked for. Not at all religious, although our home was located in an anglican christian diocese.

It's easy for me to sit outside the box of experience of religious study and church etc.. and judge.
We did not celebrate easter or christmas. No baptisms, no sunday school, none of all that!

I studied Asterix and Obelisk and Tintin comics or played with my computers, on sundays.
I learned more about christianity when I went to comprehensive school, in my RE classes and meeting kids from religious backgrounds.

I don't care too much for militant positions on atheism or theism in equal measure and often find proponents express personal visions of superiority and hostility rather than some high-minded ideals that are claimed for each position.

Many of the subjects I'm interested in are of interest to atheists and I have affable relationships with them in science discussions. I find atheists in those discussion often have a wealth of knowledge, answer questions, don't tend to take illogical positions of belief that defy reason, etc.

It is difficult to have a rational discussion with anyone that ignores evidence, claims that something is untrue out of personal incredulity or claims that fish are still fish.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Double post.

I double-liked it.

 

[ChristineM]

I supported my claim in the op

Jolly good. I hope your misrepresenting atheism makes you feel better

So do you have evidence to back up your claim?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It was a direct quote man. This was my entire point: Atheists may instead suggest various hypothesis for why people do believe in God(s). Which if they wish to prove, they will need evidence.

What about a person that sees no reason to believe in something, since they have not been presented evidence they find compelling for the belief.

If a man tells me he is Napoleon, are you suggesting I should believe him based solely on the claim? That's going to find objection from the other guys that claim they are Napoleon, if no one else.

 

[Quintessence]

What makes the subject of these experiences worthy of worship?

That's up to each individual and culture to decide for themselves as is the case for all assessments of value and relationships... as mediated by learned experiences whether personal or from cultural/familial traditions. It's not dissimilar from asking "what makes someone's birthday worth celebrating?" or "why should I marry that person?" I

 

[crossfire]

Probably similar but opposite reasons right? Like they have many friends, or their parents get violent at imagination talk.

Are the causal mechanisms for imagination traceable? Is it possible to trace down the exact causal mechanisms as to why someone comes up with a specific original idea? Can you trace the reasons why others don't come up with that same idea? Can you trace why some others come up with a parallel idea?

 

[Heyo]

Yes. A simple illustration I think would be:

"Theists believe in god because they were indoctrinated." This is a positive claim. If one makes this claim they must defend it, same as one who says "Theists believe in gods because they objectively interacted with them."

Thanks for the explanation. I'm a fan of Hanlon's Razor so I usually don't question the reasons for belief, I just question the validity of their epistemology.

 

[Quintessence]

I think that applies to a more developed form of religion that requires those that have the leisure to think about such things. I'd like to run another explanation past you to see what you think.

I believe primitive religion is a response to fear and lack of control over the environment. Someone sees a lightning strike and notes its power and destructive ability. Maybe he sees a person actually killed by lightning. The natural reaction is to determine how to avoid the danger. A little reflection establishes that there is no physical defense possible. So he tries to relate it to something familiar. It's like someone throwing a spear at someone else. That brings in the ideas of a conscious thrower and selection of the target. So maybe there is some powerful being that is throwing the lightning at people he doesn't like. Now he has an approach. Maybe he can make friends with this being so it doesn't throw the lightning at him! Based on powerful humans, flattery and gifts seem to work. And so it goes.

That's certainly a popular narrative. It plays into various myths that are popular in modern, Western culture - ethnocentric myths that place modern Western culture as a pinnacle of human achievement that is inherently better than other ways of living and being, the larger myth of progress that considers things of the past "primitive" and everything new more "developed" by default, that sort of thing. While academia has moved away from those mythic narratives - judgmental notions of "primitive" and "developed" religions or cultures - mainstream culture seems to have not done so.

Not to discount the role of fear and lack of control in the narrative, though. It's definitely there. But it is also equally there for "developed" or "modern" practices. I mean, why do we even build houses, anyway? It's a response to fear, and a desire to control. Why do we even care about climate change, anyway? Fear and control. Why do we even care about food shortages? Whether our partners are cheating on us? About mass shootings? Yeah, it pretty much all boils down to fear and control. That isn't a "primitive" thing relegated to the past, it is a constant thing that is with us now. And back then, as now, it also is not the only thing that explains why we do what we do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. A simple illustration I think would be:

"Theists believe in god because they were indoctrinated." This is a positive claim. If one makes this claim they must defend it, same as one who says "Theists believe in gods because they objectively interacted with them."

What about theists believing in a particular god or theism?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm so tired of people here literally denying what they posted in writing.

Welcome to the internet.

 

[Heyo]

Double post.

Happens often lately with RF having difficulty to process posts. I usually delete them but these have both been frubed.

 

[Little Dragon]

I don't care too much for militant positions on atheism or theism in equal measure and often find proponents express personal visions of superiority and hostility rather than some high-minded ideals that are claimed for each position.

For me. It's not really about believing in that which cannot be tested, that is the problem, although it can be problematic.

Instead, with theism, I don't mind what people believe in, I don't even have to like what people believe in, but as long as they don't pretend some Bible or other Holy book is divinely inspired and infallible. I'd prefer an anecdotal reason. That at least is better, since I can ask questions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are the causal mechanisms for imagination traceable? Is it possible to trace down the exact causal mechanisms as to why someone comes up with a specific original idea? Can you trace the reasons why others don't come up with that same idea? Can you trace why some others come up with a parallel idea?

I doubt that is possible, they it may be possible to gather the evidence for a propensity toward certain ideas.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For me. It's not really about believing in that which cannot be tested, that is the problem, although it can be problematic.

Instead, with theism, I don't mind what people believe in, I don't even have to like what people believe in, but as long as they don't pretend some Bible or other Holy book is divinely inspired and infallible. I'd prefer an anecdotal reason. That at least is better, since I can ask questions.

I am not a biblical literalist and my conclusion is that those that are, are not truly literalists either, but pick and choose and interpret on their own slant. Literalism looks too much like worship of the book being interpreted and not about the messages of the book.

From my perspective on Christianity, the literalists have added a laundry list of things that are required of a person to claim Christianity, when the book claims only one thing is needed.

Everything is pretty cool until more people get involved.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For me. It's not really about believing in that which cannot be tested, that is the problem, although it can be problematic.

Instead, with theism, I don't mind what people believe in, I don't even have to like what people believe in, but as long as they don't pretend some Bible or other Holy book is divinely inspired and infallible. I'd prefer an anecdotal reason. That at least is better, since I can ask questions.

If you and I get into an in depth discussion of biology, our personal religious beliefs or lack of any is irrelevant. What either of us believe personally isn't evidence for insect ecology or arrhenotoky.

In fact, denial of evidence does seem to come up often when theists become involved in science discussions and that seems directly related to their theism, given that the evidence exists and they can't offer rational alternative explanations for it.

 

[Little Dragon]

Literalism looks too much like worship of the book being interpreted and not about the messages of the book.

The priests, by defining their Gods and humanity's relationship to them, have caged their Gods within paper cells ...

 

[LuisDantas]

Nope, @1137

You are attempting to present theism as a rational stance, when it never was.

True theism is an aesthetical inclination. As is atheism.

 

[Little Dragon]

If you and I get into an in depth discussion of biology, our personal religious beliefs or lack of any is irrelevant.

Unless one of us subscribes to the Gae/Gai hypothesis? I dunno...