Yes. The climate is warming.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is religion inferior to logic ?
- Thread starter zerogain
- Start date
I suspect the conscious mind is not in control of what we believe. Trying to cause someone to become an atheist by triggering an cognitive dissonance event, I'm not sure that is possible.
Though we try to anyway.
It ought to be easy to rationally/logically explain reality. Maybe that'd be true if the conscious mind was in charge.
The sub conscious mind filters everything so we consciously only understand what has sub consciously be approve for us to understand.
I didn't choose to be an atheist. It just happened. Though I can justify the situation I'm in, I didn't myself choose it.
Being an theist/atheist makes sense because my subconscious mind said it is so.
So good luck in trying to create cognitive dissonance in someone else's mind i.e. trying to defeat someone else's subconscious mind when it seems impossible to defeat our own.
Why we argue? Maybe more the attempt to justify our own position to ourselves.
If the concept of gods didn't exist,
I'd still be an atheist. But the term
would likely not exist.
I'd still be an atheist. But the term
would likely not exist.
You lacked a belief in the bugblatter beast, and you also never had a thought in your head about it. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Someone who's never had a thought in his head about god/s, can also be an atheist.
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal is a vicious wild animal from the planet of Traal, known for its never-ending hunger and its mind-boggling stupidity. One of the main features of the Beast is that if you can't see it, it assumes it can't see you. Due to this it has been considered one of...
I was addressing PureX.
Why would that be a problem for the theist or atheist? And even were it some type of problem for the theist, if he is inappropriately generalizing in some way and it's having some sort of adverse consequence whatever that might be, isn't that his responsibility to deal with? These discussions frequently trigger the faithful, and the emotional posting begins. Should we not make our arguments lest we spoil somebody's moment because he chooses to see debate as disrespect for or hatred of his god? You can't convince them that your motives are not what they impute to them. How about if an argument a creates a crisis in faith? Should the philosopher stifle lest somebody be made uncomfortable reading carefully considered opinions sincerely believed and constructively offered?
Why is that a problem? These threads are rife with critical thinkers writing clear, simple sentences and believers misunderstanding what they read? How many can define atheist properly? How many understand the difference between unbelief (agnostic atheism) and disbelief (gnostic atheism)? This is the way it is in faith world. This is the kind of thinking we see commonly.
The verb I would use is rejects, since it implies personal unbelief rather than being a positive statement about the reality of gods.
Not convincing a faith-based thinker of anything. I know better. If that's your purpose on RF, go find another activity. You have zero chance of changing such minds, because all you have is evidenced, sound argument, and that's not how such people come to their theistic beliefs and is powerless to budge them from it.
I'm answering the believer in my replies, but writing for the other critical thinkers - the only people here interested in what other critical thinkers have to say.
The term atheism wasn't useful before people began believing in gods.
They can and do. Likewise with the apologist's use of the word religion to mean any ideology or even a single idea like atheism. But again, is that the skeptic's concern? There's an ocean of confused, emotionally sensitive people here, but they want to be here and keep coming back for more conversation. I really don't know why unless it's to get a peek into a world they see nowhere else, which is a major reason of mine for being here.
Where else can one have protracted discussions with the same several dozen people over protracted periods of time at one's convenience and with strangers enjoying anonymity? Nowhere that I know of. Imagine a discussion like these occurring at the Thanksgiving table or in the lunchroom at work. It would last about two minutes and might well cause problems afterward at work or in the family.
Digression: This is atheistic humanist school for me. It's where I learn what others like me think and where we share ideas with one another. It's where I read what the scientists and the scientifically sophisticated posting here have to say about the science in their fields. We can call that the lecture section. But it's also where I see the distribution of religious types by denomination. This is the lab section. And this broad view helps me understand the effect faith and religious teaching has on minds, the atheistic humanists serving as the control group. I've come to understand that I have much in common with theistic humanists and polytheists like the Dharmics and pagans.
I've come to understand what a disaster in the cultural evolution of man the removal of the sacred from nature and casting it out of the universe and depicting it as a person with commands and the ability to hold you hostage in the afterlife because it inserted an immortal soul into you and woke it up so now it can never sleep again. Look what that kind of religion has done to the world. Look at these threads? Who are the most adversely affected by religion? The Abrahamics who aren't also humanists.
And I learned what Dunning-Kruger actually is. It's not an inflated sense of one's own competence, but an underestimate of the competence of others. If these sound the same, one is seeing oneself as being a lofty thinker and the other doesn't recognize that such a thing is possible. I recognize that when I read, "That's just your opinion" in response to a sound argument. They're telling you that they are only aware of one way of coming to opinions - guessing like they do, and all guesses are equivalent for that reason. Where else was I going to get the data that led to this insight if not discussions like this, and where else could one have them except anonymous message boards?
Bird123
Well-Known Member
If I want you to believe, then I must convince you in some way. In that case the burden to convince you would be mine. Since I do not work wanting you to believe then your choice of what you seek is yours. The only way to Discover anything is to Discover the proof for yourself. Religion is in the belief system. The best I can do is point to where you can Discover the Truth for yourself.A "belief" remains a belief whether it's rational or not; whether it's true of not.
The burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim.
"If God exists then God can be found?" This doesn't follow. Show your work.
Please explain "...add up perfectly."
Ah! -- The pointillist school of philosophy.
In this time-based causal universe, God's actions can be seen. When you understand God's actions, you will understand God. Put enough of the pieces together and you start to see what God is doing with people and this world. Open one door and it leads to more knowledge and more doors that can be opened. At a certain level of understanding, you might just get a visit from God. At this point God will no longer be a belief. You will know.
Add up perfectly? Math!! Cold calculating math with no bias. What will be what is. Religion and people use feelings and emotions with respect to God. Let's not forget a Being capable of creating all this has a High Intellectual and Reason working as well. See how and why things fit together.
All the secrets of God and the universe stare us all in the face. How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how? Is God's duty burden of proof? Those who Seek must Discover the proof and the answers for themselves. This is an action of God. God's genius: This works so much better than mankind talking til their blue in the face trying to convince others to believe. Are you starting to see?
You speak of Logic. I see very little advanced thinking with a wide view around. God has an IQ off the charts. It's going to take above and beyond the limited thinking and view mankind carries.
That's what I see. It's very clear!!
The category of "atheist" is forced by the existence of theists as a category. If you aren't a "theist" then you default ionto the category "atheist". Of course atheists can debate and form arguments against what theists claim is true. These are sub-categories.
No. Atheism actually DOES deny the claims made by theists. And not only are there good reasons to reject the claims, to reject an unsubstantiated claim is the logical default. If you claimed to be Santa Claus the logiocal default is doubt and rejecting your claim, until you can demonstrate you ARE Santa Claus.
Bird123
Well-Known Member
There are an unlimited number of facts not Discovered yet. One can state a fact without proof. It will be a belief to all who have not Discovered the proof for themselves.
Burden of proof rests solely on the one who seeks. On the other hand, convincing another to believe rests on the one trying to convince.
Don't you Understand? Understanding this world, yourself, and the universe is the study of God.
That's what I see. It's very clear!!
That's a safe assumption.
By accident, perhaps.
Belief means uncertainty, it's not truth. What do you mean by "proof"? Valid evidence? Facts?
Theists have many assumptions they never think twice about, so they might believe they have found a "truth" that they "seek", but it isn't a rational approach. Get rid of the religious assumptions and then you can seek truth.
Why assume a God exists? There's your bias that takes you off the path to truth.
This of course depends on your definition of atheist, and well, almost like gods, it seems folks are going to nuance it in a way that feels right for them. You include ignorance as a qualifier, others see it as a denial of claims presented. I won't quibble since we understand each other.
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal is a vicious wild animal from the planet of Traal, known for its never-ending hunger and its mind-boggling stupidity. One of the main features of the Beast is that if you can't see it, it assumes it can't see you. Due to this it has been considered one of...hitchhikers.fandom.com
Ah Ha. I was right on both both counts: unpleasant and unsophisticated.
I think I would phrase my intent differently. I do not see what I am suggesting as causing someone to become an atheist by triggering a cognitive dissonance event. What I am suggesting, is that in an honest exchange of ideas, if one party holds a strong confirmation bias (we all have bias to varying degrees depending on subject) it would seem in the interest of the one trying to get ideas to be considered (past the automatic filtering generated by the bias), to explore ways of presenting the material in such a way that the filter doesn't handle the information automatically. I am suggesting that perhaps if there is cognitive dissonance created by presenting the material in an unexpected or non-standard way, the brain has to take that extra time to process and think about how to handle what is being said. Is it utterly impossible to accomplish this? Perhaps, but why not try? Isn't that what critical thinkers do?
Yes, I agree, especially for things that have a strong emotional component. But people do change their minds on things. It is not impossible.
Some do though. And for other, it may not be atheism as their final position, but something that is much less scripturally literal and instead, more tolerant of other flavors of belief or non-belief. No change occurs if one remains in a closed echo chamber, though. How can one choose to think differently if there is no awarness of other options?
I will say that there very well may be personality types that for whatever pschological reasons, need some type of theistic belief. I am in no way discounting that. The hope there would be that it could be a belief that can incorporate current scientific understanding into the belief system.
Certainly that can be all of it or part of it for some. For me it is about giving people options and learning how to express myself clearly in that process.
I've explained the definition several times on this very thread, this very day. Folks who choose to nuance it or make up their own definitions are not participating in a serious discussion.
I need some clarification here. When you refer to "We're", I assume you mean atheists, is that correct?
When you refer to "you", are you referring to me, MikeF? If so, could you summarize my invalid epistemic methodology? I am curious as to what you might think that is.
Yes, you have. Thank you. My first quick reference had the definition as "One who denies the existence of God, or of a supreme intelligent being." But looking more indepth I see the distinction between implicit and explicit atheism. My comments pertain to explicit atheism and should be taken as such.
- Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive categories.
- A reasonable person will recognize that "the justification for your conclusion is crap" does not imply "your conclusion is necessarily wrong."
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
IMHO, Conscious Mind is like a die-hard soldier. Once, it has taken a position, logical or illogical, it will never retreat, come whatever.
I meant you and me.
You're right. I wasn't clear. Let's say I'm referring to atheists in general responding to theistic apologists in general.
Common arguments tend to revolve around personal feelings emotions or, false analogies or invalid comparisons,or erroneous facts and logical errors.
More specifically I see ad pop/bandwagon arguments, circular/question-begging arguments, post hocs, hasty generalizations, equivocation, burden shifting, correlation-causation arguments, arguments from incredulity and from ignorance, false dilemmas, and other non-sequiturs. These come up over and over in these threads. People are simply not reasoning rationally or logically.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Traal is a town in Kashmir. It used to be a hot-bed of terrorism in the State.
Read about it here: Tral - Wikipedia
Photographs here: Traal, KASHMIR - Google Search
Marsar Lake
Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia
A definition involves a preferably single feature unique to the thing being defined. There is only one feature shared by all flavors of atheism: lack of belief. Lack of belief, therefore, is the definitive meaning of atheism. All the various iterations need to be distinguished by modifiers or different terms.
"One who denies the existence of God" is an antiquated, colloquial, ambiguous understanding of the term. It's not the assumed meaning in formal discussions.
In serious discussion participants need to agree on definitions. Lack of belief is the received definition. Someone referring to explicit atheism will make it clear that s/he is referring to a special feature, not just atheism. It's also the default of most of the atheists here on RF.
What is Atheism?