Is religion inferior to logic ?

[Valjean]

Is atheism in reference to an existent thing or an idea? If god or gods refer to existent things, then an atheistic position would be counter to the facts.

If God exists, atheism would be irrelevant to the facts. It would not counter them inasmuch as it makes no claims in regard to them.

If god or gods does not refer to existent things, but to an idea or concept, then the atheistic position is again counter to the facts, for the ideas or concepts do exist in the minds of those who hold them.

But atheists have no "position." We have no ideas about God at all, any more than you have ideas about the bugblatter beast of Traal.

 

[Valjean]

So, it refers to nothing. No counter-position: like gods don't exist. It's just an empty, meaningless, negation with and for no reason. And yet repeated every time anyone else expresses a belief in God.

I don't buy it for a minute.

Empty? Meaningless? It certainly seems to have meaning amongst theists. Without the theists the idea of God would probably never enter our heads.
No reason?! "Reason" is its very foundation! Lack of belief in unevidenced and unfalsifiable claims is the only rational position. It's the epistemic default.

 

[Audie]

Empty? Meaningless? It certainly seems to have meaning amongst theists. Without the theists the idea of God would probably never enter our heads.
No reason?! "Reason" is its very foundation! Lack of belief in unevidenced and unfalsifiable claims is the only rational position. It's the epistemic default.

Our friend just says things.

 

[MikeF]

We [atheists] have no ideas about God at all, any more than you have ideas about the bugblatter beast of Traal.

Seems quite contradictory to claim one can hold an idea or concept in one's head and have no thoughts about it. In your example, I have never heard of a bugblatter beast of Traal but I get the idea that it is meant to refer to some sort of creature that may be unpleasant or unsophisticated (implication of being referred to as a beast) and that the creature hails from Traal, whereever that may be. I can also form the idea that it is most likely fictional as I have never heard reference to the place or the beast before. Now, if Traal is a location on earth and bugbladder beast is the coloquial name for some taxinomic creature native to that location, then my idea that it is likely fictional would be incorrect.

 

[Audie]

Seems quite contradictory to claim one can hold an idea or concept in one's head and have no thoughts about it. In your example, I have never heard of a bugblatter beast of Traal but I get the idea that it is meant to refer to some sort of creature that may be unpleasant or unsophisticated (implication of being referred to as a beast) and that the creature hails from Traal, whereever that may be. I can also form the idea that it is most likely fictional as I have never heard reference to the place or the beast before. Now, if Traal is a location on earth and bugbladder beast is the coloquial name for some taxinomic creature native to that location, then my idea that it is like fictional would be incorrect.

I'd semi agree.

Ive heard about all sorts of " gods"
from other people, though it's all made
up, so my ideas about God's are really about
other peoples fantasy.

The thing that amazes me us the level of
precise detail "believers" claim to know about
something undetectable, with all the signs of
being non existent.
Like knowing all the street addreses and roof colors in Atlantis.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Now you've got it!
Finally -- we've been explaining this since RF began.

To contrast it with the various beliefs of the theists?
...

Stop doing that. It is irrational and against evidence. Why are you lying!!! I am neither an atheist or theist. Do you have problems learning?

 

[ratiocinator]

The lack of something is nothing.

No, it's (potentially) everything that's left when you take it away.

Theism is not a substance that you can have or not have. It's an idea that you either accept or reject.

It's a claim that you either accept or reject. You don't have to claim to opposite in order to show that you haven't backed up the claim well enough to persuade.

Evidence is not defined by the conclusion reached.

I didn't say it was.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why self-identify in relation to a narrow category of non-existent things?

I'm not just an atheist. It refers specifically to my attitude to religious claims.

Why not other things like a-unicorn, or a-spagetti monster, or a-little green men from Mars?

I'm all those too but most people are. Not really sure what point you're trying to make.

 

[Valjean]

Then atheism is specific to a specific set of claims about reality.

No. It exists in contradistinction to the specific claims of theists

The atheism is defined by the positive set of claims of the belief holder in a 1 to 1 relationship. A different set of claims would require a separate atheism, and so on.

Atheism, per se makes no claims whatever. Subvariants that do are distinguished by modifiers, denoting a 'separate atheism'.

Atheism seems to be a religios term that contains the set of those who do not share a specific set of beliefs about reality.

Religious?! Religious how?
The only thing shared is a lack of belief.

In this sense, to a Catholic priest, all Budhist, Hindu's, Muslims, and really, other Christian denomination that vary in the specific properties, expectations, and requirements of an entity would be atheists, those who do not believe in the specific set of claims about reality.

No, they're only atheists if they lack a belief in God or gods. Any other 'specific set of claims about reality' is irrelevant.

I see a non-believer in fictional religious claims about reality self-identifying as an atheist as legitimizing the framework and premesis of the religious.

So rational thinking legitimizes the premises of the religious?
Legitimizes how?

By arguing against theistic constructs in theistic terms, the non-bleiver creates a confirmation bias in the believer that there is really something there to argue about.

The confirmation bias exists whether the theist has heard of atheism or not.
If we use theistic terms, it's in an effort to relate to or clarify the issue for theists, who use a whole different currency of belief, as It Aint Necessarily So aptly puts it.
If theists can't relate to our usage of reason, logic, critical analysis, or evidenced facts, we're forced to cast about for some other idiom.

Why self-identify as not believing in some small subset of non-existent or impossible things of the infinite set of non-existent or impossible things. I believe doing so lends counter-productive legitimacy to that small set of non-existent things, and hampers the effectiveness in the arguments against such beliefs.

Self identity? Atheism isn't part of my "self identity," it just is. The only time the thought comes up is when I'm posting here on RF.

ETA: I also see it as self-defeating for the non-believer to lump many different claims about reality together as if they all refer to the same thing, same fact claims. It creates another opportunity for eliciting confirmation bias in the believers by creating the false sense that they are all arguing in support of same thing, when if fact they are not. It would be in the intrest of a non-believer aruing against a set of reality claims to highlight the many differences, not mask them.

Any 'different claims about reality are your own. We just respond to whatever claims our interlocutors bring up. If the claims don't include a belief in God or gods, atheism isn't likely to come up.

And again, the confirmation bias is already there, it's just activated when your beliefs are challenged.

 

[MikeF]

It refers to a fairly broad category of claims: the various versions of theism.

I would also suggest that lumping such a wide diversity of claims together creates a false sense of equivalency in the eyes of believers. It creates in them the notions that they are all really talking about the same thing, when in fact, they are not. If one is arguing against theistic claims, to me, it would create more cognitive dissionance to emphasis the very real differences instead of creating cover for those differences and allowing them to be masked in a generalized theist/atheist debate.

As an example, when a Christian asks, “Do you believe in God”, and an atheist says, “No, I’m an atheist”, the Christian hears, “No, I don’t believe in Him.” There is really no challenge to the basic premises or frame of reference of the believer, of a universe with gods in it. Now if there was another word that referred to the entire set of imagined and non-existent things, it would challenge even the premises that allow for the conception of the preferred entity. For example, if the response was, “No, I’m a non-fictionalist”, you have immediately created some cognitive dissonance between the reference frame the Christian began the exchange in and the one that has been shifted to by declaring one’s self a non-fictionalist and placing the Christians question under the framework of all that is imagined and non-existent.

 

[F1fan]

Seems quite contradictory to claim one can hold an idea or concept in one's head and have no thoughts about it. In your example, I have never heard of a bugblatter beast of Traal but I get the idea that it is meant to refer to some sort of creature that may be unpleasant or unsophisticated (implication of being referred to as a beast) and that the creature hails from Traal, whereever that may be. I can also form the idea that it is most likely fictional as I have never heard reference to the place or the beast before. Now, if Traal is a location on earth and bugbladder beast is the coloquial name for some taxinomic creature native to that location, then my idea that it is likely fictional would be incorrect.

I think this issue gets overblown and misinterpreted between theist and atheist. I was recently accused of holding beliefs about the Abraham of God only because I was offering an alternative was more rational than what the believer believed. I don’t believe in the Abraham of God, I was only offering a more rational alternative to what was believed by a theist. The atheist does not have to believe any given God exists just because we are talking about it, or thinking about it, or making comments about it. Atheists are emotionally detached from the gods of others just as believers are detached from the gods of others. It seems apparent that even many believers have a sense that their god doesn’t exist but they like being a believer so continue with that behavior.

I remember watching the end of the Lord of the rings series and actually being out sad that Frodo succummed to injuries from the quest he was on. So here I am a person who knows Frodo as a fictional character and the fiction of him in the story and movie was fictional, yet I have an emotional bond to this character. So this is an interesting conundrum because although we humans can understand that any given idea is fictional we can still be attached emotionally to the idea and react to what happens to these characters and stories and movies. I think many believers get attached to the characters of god they invest in, and they like being part of the drama this character is part of.

 

[Valjean]

Why self-identify in relation to a narrow category of non-existent things? Why not other things like a-unicorn, or a-spagetti monster, or a-little green men from Mars?

We're not self-identifying. We're addressing atheism as defined.

Why not? A -unicornism or a-spaghetti monsterism are apt analogies, they just never come up as subjects for discussion. Apperently there are no unicornists or pastafarians here to argue for them.

Why play into the religious paradigm and create a positive bias in the belief-holder by playing within their rules, accepting the premise that there is something there to talk about?

The bias is already there, and the religious paradigm is brought up by theists, not us. It's the only idiom they're usually conversant in.

The premise? Do you mean God, or the subject itself?

Why not strip religious content and refer to "claimed entity" instead of "God", where "God" points to an innumerable number of claims?

OK, fine. Call it what you will, we'll still question a belief in whatever unevidenced and unfalsifiable thing you bring up.

I couild see a self-indentifying term that represents the boroader category, the idea of rejecting all claims for which there is no evidence or sound reasoning, as being very useful, for then, by identifying as such and arguing against some specific entity claim, you are automatically grouping that entity, not with the category "God", but within the category of all imagined and impossible things, like unicorns and little green men from Mars.

Bravo! Finally we see eye-to-eye. We're questioning the epistemic methodology you apply to any and all unevidenced and unfalsifiable claims.

Instead of creating a positive confirmation bias, you are creating cognitive dissonance.

I think any cognitive dissonance is a product of your own, existing confirmation bias being challenged.

 

[MikeF]

No. It exists in contradistinction to the specific claims of theists

Atheism, per se makes no claims whatever. Subvariants that do are distinguished by modifiers, denoting a 'separate atheism'.

Without theistic ideas or theistic claims there can be no atheism, it would be incoherent. Atheism is a claim that denies theistic existence claims.

Religious?! Religious how?
The only thing shared is a lack of belief.

Atheism exists because theism exists. They inhabit the same paradigm. I am not saying atheists are religious, I am simply saying the term and the concepts are born out of a religious context.

No, they're only atheists if they lack a belief in God or gods. Any other 'specific set of claims about reality' is irrelevant.

And that brings me back to my other point, that if anyone can define "god" in any way they see fit, then it becomes an ill-defined concept that is essentially meaningless. Conflating all the varied belief claims and treating them as if they are all speaking of the same thing only plays into the theistic paradigm. That's fine for theists, but if one is trying to counter theistic claims, their cause is not helped by going along with such an ill-defined moving target.

So rational thinking legitimizes the premises of the religious?
Legitimizes how.

Poor wording here on my part. Legitimizes in the eyes of the believer. Creates positive confirmation bias.

The confirmation bias exists whether the theist has heard of atheism or not.
If we use theistic terms, it's in an effort to relate to or clarify the issue for theists, who use a whole different currency of belief, as It Aint Necessarily So aptly puts it.
If theists can't relate to our usage of reason, logic, critical analysis, or evidenced facts, we're forced to cast about for some other idiom.

Yes, confirmation bias already exists. What is the objective in the discussion? To simply speak past each other in an atheist/theist debate, or make some headway? If speaking in a particular way *exacerbates* the confirmation bias, would it be prudent to explore other methods, or simply keep on keep'n on in the same old fashion?

Self identity? Atheism isn't part of my "self identity," it just is. The only time the thought comes up is when I'm posting here on RF.

Wording on my part. It is meant to refer to those who self-identify as atheist or include themselves in the group "atheist".

Any 'different claims about reality are your own. We just respond to whatever claims our interlocutors bring up. If the claims don't include a belief in God or gods, atheism isn't likely to come up.

And again, the confirmation bias is already there, it's just activated when your beliefs are challenged.

Not sure what you mean by different claims about reality being my own. My comments referred to the wide variety of theistic claims.

And again, if an alternative approach can interfere with confirmation bias, why would one not choose it over a method that exacerbates it?

 

[Valjean]

You did. You said ["God" is invariably conceived as a personage; a conscious, willful being, with emotions, likes, dislikes, &c."]
The definition of "invariable" being:

invariable: not changing or capable of change : constant

This to me means you where saying there is only one unchanging conception of "God".

I'm not saying god/s are invarient, I'm saying the concept of a supernatural personage we refer to as a god is invariant or universal

So, now there is no singular "God" entity, but many god entities. "God" is a label for a category of entities then.

Yes.
It's not a label I particularly like, given the huge number of claimed supernatural beings, but it's the only taxonomic label generally used by theists.

Belief in the existence of which claimed entity is unknowable. You have used the singular "God" here instead of the plural "gods". Is agnosticism, in your view, something specific to a particualr god claim?

No, it's applicable to any unfalsifiable claim of unevidenced, supernatural beings.

Should this not read: "Atheism: Lack of belief in gods."? Why the singular reference?

Convenience. It's lack of belief in any unevidenced entities being referred to as God or gods. Lack of belief in other unevidenced entities, unicorns, for instance, might be labeled a-unicornism.

Regardless, my point stands. The label "god" points to an extremely diverse array of entity and non-entity claims.

Diverse, yes, but what non-entity claims are commonly referred to as "god?" Brahman, for instance, is not referred to as God.

It certainly could not be applied to a single entity without a lot of contextual background to make it clear which of the countless entites are being referred to. This diversity in claims has made the label "god" meaningless as a pointer to a specific thing as opposed to simply representing a very broad and ill-defined category.

I agree. It's an overly broad category, but it's the term generally used in theological apologetics. We're kinda stuck with it.

 

[MikeF]

I think this issue gets overblown and misinterpreted between theist and atheist. I was recently accused of holding beliefs about the Abraham of God only because I was offering an alternative was more rational than what the believer believed. I don’t believe in the Abraham of God, I was only offering a more rational alternative to what was believed by a theist. The atheist does not have to believe any given God exists just because we are talking about it, or thinking about it, or making comments about it. Atheists are emotionally detached from the gods of others just as believers are detached from the gods of others. It seems apparent that even many believers have a sense that their god doesn’t exist but they like being a believer so continue with that behavior.

I remember watching the end of the Lord of the rings series and actually being out sad that Frodo she come to injuries from the quest he was on. So here I am a person who knows Frodo as a fictional character and the fiction of him in the story and movie was fictional. I’m so emotional bond to this character. So this is an interesting conundrum because although we humans can understand that any given idea is fictional we can still be attached emotionally to the idea and react to what happens to these characters and stories and movies. I think many believers get attached to the characters of god and they like being part of the drama this character is part of.

My position is not that an atheist has to believe in the claimed entity to talk about it. I'm not sure if that is what you inferred. I am saying that but for the claimed entity there would be nothing to be anti-entity about.

My hypothesis is that we all can be vulnerable to confirmation bias to varying degrees. The more strongly the belief is held or emotionally regarded, the stronger the confirmation effect. If the goal in a discussion is to get past the bias, or highlight it in such a way as to make it more apparrent to the bias holder, then we should evalute the ways in which we communicate in order to accomplish that. Find methods that create cognitive dissonance between what is being said and the bias that is held., such that what is being said doesn't get filtered automatically by the bias filter.

If arguing within a theistic paradigm about the existence of a claimed entity fails to create sufficient cognitive dissonance to disrupt the bias filter, is it not reasonalble to try an explore ways to create the neccessary cognitive dissonance?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not saying god/s are invarient, I'm saying the concept of a supernatural personage we refer to as a god is invariant or universal

Yes.
It's not a label I particularly like, given the huge number of claimed supernatural beings, but it's the only taxonomic label generally used by theists.

You are doing it again. Gods are not unique to theists.

 

[Valjean]

Without theistic ideas or theistic claims there can be no atheism, it would be incoherent. Atheism is a claim that denies theistic existence claims.

This is a good point. It's actively debated in academic fora.
Me, I'm kind of a strict semantic constructionist, whether the term has any current utility or not.
I'd say, for strict clarity, that atheism is a lack of belief in strict, theistic existence claims, rather than an outright denial. Inasmuch as there's an active theism/atheism debate, I'd say the term is useful and legitimate.

Of course, I also consider a-unicornism legitimate, even if currently, apologetically inactive.

Atheism exists because theism exists. They inhabit the same paradigm. I am not saying atheists are religious, I am simply saying the term and the concepts are born out of a religious context.

No argument, here.

And that brings me back to my other point, that if anyone can define "god" in any way they see fit, then it becomes an ill-defined concept that is essentially meaningless.

None here, either. The term must be understood in context.

Conflating all the varied belief claims and treating them as if they are all speaking of the same thing only plays into the theistic paradigm. That's fine for theists, but if one is trying to counter theistic claims, their cause is not helped by going along with such an ill-defined moving target.

OK, so who's going to volunteer to develop a lexicon of terms for the myriad supernatural beings we might prefix an "a-" to?
Not me.

Yes, confirmation bias already exists. What is the objective in the discussion? To simply speak past each other in an atheist/theist debate, or make some headway? If speaking in a particular way *exacerbates* the confirmation bias, would it be prudent to explore other methods, or simply keep on keep'n on in the same old fashion?

I suspect anything challenging the faith of a believer would elicit a strong response, fueled by confirmation bias, since there are no facts or rational fundament supporting his position.
How would you suggest we challenge a theist's epistemic methodology, without triggering him? Faith is all he has. His house is built on sand.

Wording on my part. It is meant to refer to those who self-identify as atheist or include themselves in the group "atheist".

Understood, thanks.

Not sure what you mean by different claims about reality being my own. My comments referred to the wide variety of theistic claims.

We're making only one claim: that your epistemic methodology is invalid. The many different theistic and reality claims were not generated by us.

And again, if an alternative approach can interfere with confirmation bias, why would one not choose it over a method that exacerbates it?

Because we can't think of any other approach that wouldn't elicit a threat response from the faithful.
I'm open to suggestions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is a good point. It's actively debated in academic fora.
Me, I'm kind of a strict semantic constructionist, whether the term has any current utility or not.
I'd say, for strict clarity, that atheism is a lack of belief in strict, theistic existence claims, rather than an outright denial. Inasmuch as there's an active theism/atheism debate, I'd say the term is useful and legitimate.

Of course, I also consider a-unicornism legitimate, even if currently, apologetically inactive.

No argument, here.

None here, either. The term must be understood in context.

OK, so who's going to volunteer to develop a lexicon of terms for the myriad supernatural beings we might prefix an "a-" to?
Not me.


I suspect anything challenging the faith of a believer would elicit a strong response, fueled by confirmation bias, since there are no facts or rational fundament supporting his position.
How would you suggest we challenge a theist's epistemic methodology, without triggering him? Faith is all he has. His house is built on sand.

Understood, thanks.

We're making only one claim: that your epistemic methodology is invalid. The many different theistic and reality claims were not generated by us.

Because we can't think of any other approach that wouldn't elicit a threat response from the faithful.
I'm open to suggestions.

Do you have any positive claims about the world/universe and all that?

 

[Valjean]

My position is not that an atheist has to believe in the claimed entity to talk about it. I'm not sure if that is what you inferred. I am saying that but for the claimed entity there would be nothing to be anti-entity about.

I'm able to talk about all sorts of things I don't believe in, nor am I anti-entity, I'm an-entity.

My hypothesis is that we all can be vulnerable to confirmation bias to varying degrees. The more strongly the belief is held or emotionally regarded, the stronger the confirmation effect. If the goal in a discussion is to get past the bias, or highlight it in such a way as to make it more apparrent to the bias holder, then we should evalute the ways in which we communicate in order to accomplish that. Find methods that create cognitive dissonance between what is being said and the bias that is held., such that what is being said doesn't get filtered automatically by the bias filter.

So how does one question the foundational world-view that someone's ego-identity is invested in, without triggering him?
Again, I'm open to suggestions.

If arguing within a theistic paradigm about the existence of a claimed entity fails to create sufficient cognitive dissonance to disrupt the bias filter, is it not reasonalble to try an explore ways to create the neccessary cognitive dissonance?

That would be great, non-threatening cognitive dissonance, while your whole world is being disassembled under you. What approach might achieve this?

 

[Valjean]

You are doing it again. Gods are not unique to theists.

It's a term of convenience. What alternative would you suggest?