"Lack of belief"

[Demonslayer]

For example, there are plenty of Pagans who believe in the Greek pantheon, but relatively few who believe in gods literally residing on top of a mountain. For this reason, I wouldn't be shocked to encounter a Pagan who believed in leprechauns, but would be surprised if they believed they literally live at the end of rainbows. Does that make sense?

It makes sense in that I understand what you're saying. My issue with this is, the Greek Gods lived on top of Mt. Olympus. That's the story. To back off of that detail makes the Greek Gods slightly less Greek God-y. Now say Poseidon didn't really have a giant pitchfork, or that he was just a spirit and not a physical being, and we're backing further and further away from the vibrant, specific story of the Greek Pantheon. Eventually if you disbelieve enough of the details, are we really still talking about the Greek Gods?

If a Leprechaun doesn't live at the end of a rainbow, doesn't protect pots of gold, can't grant wishes...are we still talking about a Leprechaun at all?

So that's the thing, what makes a belief "absurd?" Each belief is really a subset of many details, is it not? The most robust version of the Greek Gods says they live on Mt. Olympus. For the folks you know who believe in the Greek Gods, but not the mountain top lair, presumably they don't believe in the mountain top part because they find that detail too absurd. But how many absurd details of a thing that someone believes in can we eliminate before we're not really talking about that thing anymore?

 

[ArtieE]

You've never answered, just avoided answering by claiming they are both not theists. That doesn't explain how one gets to be a subset of the other.

The definition of subset is "A set whose members are all contained in another set." The smaller set "atheists who in addition to being atheists believe gods don't exist" is contained in the bigger set "atheists."

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I actually managed to drive through the end of a rainbow one day. No pot of gold.

 

[Demonslayer]

I actually managed to drive through the end of a rainbow one day. No pot of gold.

Well of course, that's because just before you got there the Leprechaun stashed it away! They wouldn't be doing a very good job protecting the gold if everyone who drove through the end of the rainbow could plainly see it.

This is evidence for Leprechauns!

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Maybe it wasn't a drive through.

 

[Willamena]

The definition of subset is "A set whose members are all contained in another set." The smaller set "atheists who in addition to being atheists believe gods don't exist" is contained in the bigger set "atheists."

The set of people who believe god/gods doesn't exist also have no belief one way or the other? Doesn't sound right to me.

 

[Augustus]

[To make it clear, none of these are arguments in favour of the existence of gods, simply arguments as to why it is less preposterous to hold a personal belief in gods than it is to hold a belief in pink unicorns or other example chosen specifically for being ludicrous]
--------------------------

Sorry I don't know how to quote something that is already in a quote box. This is directed at the text above. /\

So it's less preposterous to believe in Poseidon and his great pitchfork and seaweedy beard, because millions have believed in him, than it is to believe in Big Foot because relatively few people believe in him?

Or is it equally preposterous because no one TODAY believes in Poseidon?

It is less preposterous to believe in something ingrained in your society than something not ingrained in your society.

That should be pretty obvious to anyone with a basic familiarity with human psychology.

Also something that is ingrained in society is more likely to have some kind of tangible benefit, regardless of its objective truth value.

 

[PackJason]

The set of people who believe god/gods doesn't exist also have no belief one way or the other? Doesn't sound right to me.

You don't seem to be paying attention.

 

[ArtieE]

The set of people who believe god/gods doesn't exist also have no belief one way or the other? Doesn't sound right to me.

Because in this context we define the bigger set as atheists (not theists) and the smaller set as not theists who believe gods don't exist. Stop mixing different separate ways of explaining the same thing!

 

[Erebus]

It makes sense in that I understand what you're saying. My issue with this is, the Greek Gods lived on top of Mt. Olympus. That's the story. To back off of that detail makes the Greek Gods slightly less Greek God-y. Now say Poseidon didn't really have a giant pitchfork, or that he was just a spirit and not a physical being, and we're backing further and further away from the vibrant, specific story of the Greek Pantheon. Eventually if you disbelieve enough of the details, are we really still talking about the Greek Gods?

If a Leprechaun doesn't live at the end of a rainbow, doesn't protect pots of gold, can't grant wishes...are we still talking about a Leprechaun at all?

So that's the thing, what makes a belief "absurd?" Each belief is really a subset of many details, is it not? The most robust version of the Greek Gods says they live on Mt. Olympus. For the folks you know who believe in the Greek Gods, but not the mountain top lair, presumably they don't believe in the mountain top part because they find that detail too absurd. But how many absurd details of a thing that someone believes in can we eliminate before we're not really talking about that thing anymore?

I can see what you're saying, but at the same time, should we stop calling our planet "Earth" now that we know it isn't the centre of the universe? Is a chameleon still a chameleon now that we know it doesn't subsist off air? I would argue that gods and spirits are much the same in that we can learn more about them and decide that some previously established details don't really hold up. Besides, have you seen what happens when religious people insist the ancient ideas are 100% accurate? Yikes!

Now, the idea of what is or isn't absurd is an interesting and very messy area. What makes something more wildly unreasonable than something else? I'm not sure I'm qualified to properly answer that one, nor am I sure we can establish an objective framework. It seems to me that much of what can be considered absurd becomes a largely subjective affair. What's absurd to me may not be to you and vice versa. Suffice it to say, I could tell you when I consider a thing so wildly unreasonable as to be considered absurd. However, the exact cause of that reaction may vary from thing to thing.

 

[Quintessence]

I can see what you're saying, but at the same time, should we stop calling our planet "Earth" now that we know it isn't the centre of the universe? Is a chameleon still a chameleon now that we know it doesn't subsist off air? I would argue that gods and spirits are much the same in that we can learn more about them and decide that some previously established details don't really hold up. Besides, have you seen what happens when religious people insist the ancient ideas are 100% accurate? Yikes!

It's also fairly likely that these ancient ideas were understood as story and narrative, rather than taken literally. They're paintings, not science dissertations. Mythopoetic. It confuses me that people think our ancestors literally thought of the gods as human-like beings. Mythological literalism is a relatively novel invention, that unfortunately has loud obnoxious voices in American culture to the point that many are under the mistaken impression that this is normal.

 

[Erebus]

It's also fairly likely that these ancient ideas were understood as story and narrative, rather than taken literally. They're paintings, not science dissertations. Mythopoetic. It confuses me that people think our ancestors literally thought of the gods as human-like beings. Mythological literalism is a relatively novel invention, that unfortunately has loud obnoxious voices in American culture to the point that many are under the mistaken impression that this is normal.

An excellent point

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's also fairly likely that these ancient ideas were understood as story and narrative, rather than taken literally. They're paintings, not science dissertations. Mythopoetic. It confuses me that people think our ancestors literally thought of the gods as human-like beings. Mythological literalism is a relatively novel invention, that unfortunately has loud obnoxious voices in American culture to the point that many are under the mistaken impression that this is normal.

How new is "novel" supposed to be?

 

[Willamena]

Because in this context we define the bigger set as atheists (not theists) and the smaller set as not theists who believe gods don't exist. Stop mixing different separate ways of explaining the same thing!

So the one group is "not 1" who happens to also be 0, and the other group is "not 1" who also happens to be -1. I still don't see how one group is a subset of the other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So the one group is "not 1" who happens to also be 0, and the other group is "not 1" who also happens to be -1. I still don't see how one group is a subset of the other.

Maybe if you tried to understand what he's saying instead of strawmanning it you'd have an easier time comprehending.

 

[Willamena]

Maybe if you tried to understand what he's saying instead of strawmanning it you'd have an easier time comprehending.

I'm not making a strawman, I'm keeping the duscussion in context. The question remains.

 

[atanu]

Like having an all knowing Father figure who exists in another dimension and who may change the unchangeable future in your favor if you ask nicely via silent thoughts/brainwaves.

Yes. That may be nice, if we could turn the dream and sleep into friendly place.

Or you may encounter the demons to slay.

 

[atanu]

If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine.

Very telling ...

I answered you that you were making up the dragon story. How much more direct I can be? He he.

 

[ArtieE]

So the one group is "not 1" who happens to also be 0, and the other group is "not 1" who also happens to be -1. I still don't see how one group is a subset of the other.

Stop mixing up and combining different separate explanations that make sense on their own of course they don't make sense when you just throw them together in one big mess. You are supposed to understand the point of each separate explanation not throw words from each different separate explanation together and then expect the mess you make to make sense.

 

[atanu]

Because in this context we define the bigger set as atheists (not theists) and the smaller set as not theists who believe gods don't exist. Stop mixing different separate ways of explaining the same thing!

Who are these we?

You earlier agreed, that if a person says "I lack belief in love" we can presume that the person knows what love is. So, how this set is different from the set of people who clearly say "There is no deity'?