Atheists: What Do Gods Do?

[Little Dragon]

Even so, if a person is to be judged, that judgement should always be on the basis of their actions not their beliefs.

Fair enough. I am swayed. With reservations.

 

[LuisDantas]

Double think is the only illogical solution to that predicament.

Not sure you understood what I meant, to be sincere.

Doublethink is a typical characteristic - and a typical danger - that we all should ward ourselves against.

That it is sometimes treated as "important religious belief" changes nothing.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What would you consider the proper way to deal with actions and behaviours that attempt to present themselves as justifiable due to obedience to beliefs that are central tenets of aggressively proselitistic doctrines, though?

Actions and behaviours which require “dealing with” are generally those which impact negatively on the wellbeing of others. In which case, societies have laws to protect the interests of citizens.

I am unable to parse the second half of your sentence btw.

 

[Little Dragon]

Not sure you understood what I meant, to be sincere.

Doublethink is a typical characteristic - and a typical danger - that we all should ward ourselves against.

That it is sometimes treated as "important religious belief" changes nothing.

Double think, is holding two mutually contradicting belief systems. Therefore, in reference to your post, if one believes that their God instructs them to oppose a way of life or self expression, like homosexuality for example, yet at the same time they know that in a secular nation, homosexuality is legitimate and acceptable, how else do you think, they can reconcile those two opposing viewpoints? Exactly?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Nope. Quite the opposite; belief, when taken as a central element of so-called religion, is actually anathema to tolerance and many other desirable qualities - including IMO proper religiosity.

Proper religiosity being only that which conforms to your personal credo?

 

[LuisDantas]

Actions and behaviours which require “dealing with” are generally those which impact negatively on the wellbeing of others. In which case, societies have laws to protect the interests of citizens.

I quite agree.

Which is a big part of why I consider "religious" belief to be not worthy of legal exceptions and protections.

Secularism, perhaps surprisingly to some, is in the best interest of religious groups and movements.

I am unable to parse the second half of your sentence btw.

The short of it is that there are so-called religions that attempt to sustain themselves on the proud belief of the reality of their gods... and that is both risible and a serious, dangerous distortion.

What are we supposed to do about that?

 

[LuisDantas]

Proper religiosity being only that which conforms to your personal credo?

Don't expect me to be sorry for exercising discernment and expecting others to do the same.

I have overcome that level of naiveté long, long ago. Belief is no excuse for anything.

 

[LuisDantas]

Double think, is holding two mutually contradicting belief systems. Therefore, in reference to your post, if one believes that their God instructs them to oppose a way of life or self expression, like homosexuality for example, yet at the same time they know that in a secular nation, homosexuality is legitimate and acceptable, how else do you think, they can reconcile those two opposing viewpoints? Exactly?

Hopefully they will at some point realize that they are responsible for their beliefs and the effects of those beliefs and therefore simply learn better than to hold to homophoby and other mistakes of their inherited beliefs.

It is much better if that can be made without breaking away from their traditions, but some traditions do need to die of irrelevance or simply disfunctionality.

Religion is not supposed to be respectable and purposefully disfunctional at the same time.

 

[Stevicus]

Why not? He's pretty awesome. I mean, what a role model. That's the kinda dude that gets **** done.

He uses The Force, just like the Jedi Knights. But then, "The Force" would be a kind of "god," wouldn't it?

 

[LuisDantas]

Even so, if a person is to be judged, that judgement should always be on the basis of their actions not their beliefs.

Why exactly?

How does that apply to situations of people telling us outright how they will behave and explaining that their beliefs make those actions necessary?

And one should always be wary of judging others; those who rush to do so, are frequently pointing out defects they recognise but refuse to acknowledge in themselves.

Often enough we have duties that override that concern, though. That is just part of life.

 

[Little Dragon]

He uses The Force, just like the Jedi Knights. But then, "The Force" would be a kind of "god," wouldn't it?

It would be magic, until we discovered a physical phenomena and mechanism to explain it. To logically reduce it to a mathematical description.

 

[MikeF]

Is psychosoma or its effects fiction?

No, and so this is a point of common ground for us both. However, the pro’s and con’s of these effects and their limits in utility would be a separate discussion.

While gods might be fiction to you, to the believer, they are not.

I would rephrase this as follows: “While gods are fiction, to the believer, they are not.” Here, I would agree that for *some* we might safely say that their belief is held confidently as fact, however, human beings overall are rather complex, and have the capacity to hold beliefs with a wide range of confidence or even ways. For some, it may be as clinical as Pascal’s wager. Or better yet, how about George Orwell’s concept of DoubleThink:

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic … to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word—doublethink—involved the use of doublethink." Doublethink - Wikipedia​

They and their effects are quite real. This is why it's an affront to the believer to dismiss that which is a very real part of their lives. This is the point of this thread. It's important for an atheist to understand exactly what they're dismissing.

Well of course it’s harder to maintain an illusion in the presence of that which highlights the illusion as illusion. The question here of course is whether a fiction is required in the first place or more specifically a ‘gods’ fiction. Much of the dependency upon such fictions was induced by religious institutions to begin with. Religious education literally trains children to form a dependency on a particular belief set. No, you have a long way to go to make the case that belief in ‘gods’ myths, and ‘gods’ myths alone, is a necessary imperative.

Not all gods share the qualities of the God of Abraham.

This seems rather obvious as the realm of fiction is quite literally boundless. Granted, we as fiction creators have limits to our capacity to be boundless in our imaginings but less than infinite can still be quite a lot.

So, going back to this post of yours:

I think they're significant, especially for the strong atheist. If one is going to reject all gods, shouldn't one at least have a working understanding of what they are or what they do beyond the Abrahamic paradigm?

I think you may be conceding that what ‘gods’ beliefs *are* is abstract constructs of thought. As to what they (fictional ‘gods’ constructs) *do* is obviously nothing in and of themselves, rather, it is how people behave (what *people* do) if some degree of veracity is assigned by them to such fictional beliefs. As has been shown, the specifics of the belief are immaterial, so going beyond the Abrahamic paradigm is not required, as the effect is dependent upon the attitude of the believer toward the belief, whatever that belief may be.

Let's take this tack. What are the universal properties or characteristics that qualify something as belonging to the set 'gods'? How are each of those universal properties or characteristics apparent to science?

I still think this question of mine has yet to be adequately addressed.

 

[LuisDantas]

I still think this question of mine has yet to be adequately addressed.

Is there any particular reason why you won't just conclude that "god" is a freestyle concept?

 

[MikeF]

Double think is the only illogical solution to that predicament.

Ha, seems you beat me to the introduction of DOUBLETHINK into the conversation.

That's the risk of being slow to compose, I suppose.

 

[Stevicus]

It would be magic, until we discovered a physical phenomena and mechanism to explain it. To logically reduce it to a mathematical description.

Yes, that makes sense. If one can suggest the possibility that magic is just a science that we may not yet understand, then a "god" could be just a scientist from some advanced alien race.

 

[Little Dragon]

Ha, seems you beat me to the introduction of DOUBLETHINK into the conversation.

That's the risk of being slow to compose, I suppose.

Well your post was very elucidating nonetheless. I sacrificed detail for brevity.

 

[MikeF]

Is there any particular reason why you won't just conclude that "god" is a freestyle concept?

I am unfamiliar with the phrase "freestyle concept". What does it mean?

 

[Little Dragon]

Yes, that makes sense. If one can suggest the possibility that magic is just a science that we may not yet understand, then a "god" could be just a scientist from some advanced alien race.

I can roll with that. That is entirely logically consistent and physically possible, that is, it is not prohibited by the known laws of physics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You think falsifiability is an appropriate standard for every facet of human experience? Why on earth would you believe that?

We are talking about the existence of entities / things / phenomenon independent of human experience. Or humans, for that matter.

So yeah, I think falsifiability is a very appropriate standard for that type of claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would suggest that intolerance of beliefs which differ from our own, is the greater danger.

Not that that's the point of this topic nor the topic of discussion in any way, shape or form, off course.

Nobody here is talking about "tolerance" or "intolerance" of any and all god beliefs.


Having said, no - beliefs don't get to earn "tolerance" by default.
It very much depends on what it is exactly that is being believed.