"Lack of belief"

[Willamena]

How would it be more "accurate" for him to say he doesn't know there is a Santa, than for him to say he denies Santa's actual existence?

What is more "accurate" is whatever the best description of his attitude is. If he truly denies, and feels internally certain, that Santa is simply a myth and no such entity exists, that is more accurate in this case than saying he doesn't know.

If he's affirming Santa as a myth, and if that means that Santa is non-actual, then denial is a foregone conclusion.

 

[ArtieE]

Do you lack believe in the invisible fire-breathing dragon that I keep in my garage?

I have managed to not believe in the invisible fire-breathing dragon in your garage all my life even though I've never heard of it before now.

 

[Willamena]

Incorrect. The agnostic says "the existence of gods is unknowable." He denies that theists have valid justification for their beliefs.

Or affirms some justification for an unknowable god.

(Note, technically he says, "the truth of the proposition is unknowable.")

 

[Augustus]

I don't feel this is relevant in any way. Belief in Gods is completely irrelevant to my worldview nor do Gods give meaning to my existence.

Whether or not you believe in god does not change the fact that our society has been shaped by belief in gods. You cannot escape this influence even if you are unaware of it. Your worldview has been shaped by other people's belief in gods. Your worldview hasn't been shaped by other people's belief in pink unicorns.

Humanism for example is an offshoot of the 'Judaeo-Christian' tradition and even without god it relies on many concepts that are ultimately 'religious' in nature and grew out of belief in god.

Many atheists hold that belief in god is ridiculous, yet they don't hold it ridiculous to believe that there is such a thing as 'humanity'. No other animal is considered to exist 'collectively', what makes us special? Humanity is just some made concept based on the human exceptionalism that came out of various creation myths and religious belief systems. It is in no way a universal concept, and would be incomprehensible in many traditional societies.

Most atheists tend to replace belief in god with something else equally fictitious, or at least no more 'objectively' true. This alone makes belief in gods less 'preposterous', it's very hard to make meaning in life based purely on objective truth after all.

It comes down to a 'my fiction is entirely reasonable, but yours is ridiculous' type argument.

This is basically saying belief in a God is more valid because many people believe in Gods.

Of course it is. That is exactly my point. We are products of our genetics and societies after all, and belief in god serves a social/psychological function with tangible effects (many seemingly beneficial). It makes it no more objectively true of course, but certainly more valid. The fact that gods have been ubiquitous throughout human history and pink unicorns haven't clearly marks them as being different.

Why is it ridiculous for somebody to believe in god simply because it is integral to their worldview, they find it beneficial and think it 'works for me'?

It depends whether or not you view the value of belief in god as resting on some objective truth standard rather than a personal preference.

[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]

 

[Willamena]

Hi atanu,



I have a bit more isatheist an a basic knowledge of Hinduism, so I must agree as to its complexity. And Buddhism, though it strives for something simple, has certainly acquired a vast and complex array of scriptures and schools throughout Asia and beyond to achieve that end.

But back to your main point. I agree that atheists understand what it means to believe. We can believe in friends, in loved ones, and in a better future. Some atheists believe in supernatural facets that are not deities (e.g. an atheist Buddhist might still believe in rebirth). So I would say that belief in a god or gods is not a requirement to understanding belief more generally. As someone who believed for a very short time in my childhood in the Catholic beliefs I was taught, and who was a pantheist in my early 20's after having a special experience, I happen to understand very well what it means to believe in a deity or deities. But I've met atheists who have never believed in a single deity their entire lives, so it varies. I do not see a problem with calling a lack of belief disbelief, though it is with the understanding that disbelief is a lack of belief rather than some kind of anti-belief.

Numerically, we could say that theism is a positive integer (e.g. 1 for monotheists, 2+ for dualists/polytheists, perhaps the set of all positive integers for pantheists). By comparison, the atheist would be represented as the number 0. In this analogy, it would not be applicable to have negative integers. So with this analogy, it's not opposites we are talking about with respect to atheism vs theism, but rather the presence (i.e. positive integer) or absence (i.e. zero) of belief.

But there are also atheists who believe there is no god or gods (-1), hence the atheist is better represented by saying "not 1."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't believe I did cite leprechauns as an example?

Sorry - I thought you had, but when I went back, it turns out another poster brought them up. I misremembered.

I consider genuine folkloric creatures different to things made up for the express purpose of being ridiculous. Why decide that the unicorn cited be invisible and pink if not to make it seem more silly than its folkloric counterpart?

I think that was intended to make a point about the contradictions in how the "omnimax" god is defined.

Why not just stick with folkloric beings or even other gods to make the same point? I would argue it's because the invisible pink unicorn and flying spaghetti monster were designed to be absurd. Do you disagree?

They're intended to be satire, so there's an element of ridicule, but satire doesn't work unless it's a valid reflection of the thing being satirized.

In the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it was originally created to make a point about non-scientific ideas being taught in science classes.

They can, but that's beside the point isn't it? There are people who consider both the belief in gods AND gods themselves absurd.

But do you think that everyone who finds theism ridiculous falls into this category?

My justification is that they were designed from the get go to parody theism. Could the person doing it have accidentally guessed right? I suppose so. Does that acknowledgement have any bearing on how I actually feel about the idea of a flying spaghetti monster? No, not really.

Why not? How can you be sure that there isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster out there somewhere beyond our ken?

 

[Willamena]

I'm going to assume this is just poorly worded and not completely insane.

It's neither. Rest assured.

 

[ArtieE]

But there are also atheists who believe there is no god or gods (-1), hence the atheist is better represented by saying "not 1."

Those are strong atheists and are a subset of atheists and therefore don't represent all atheists.

 

[Willamena]

Those are strong atheists and are a subset of atheists and therefore don't represent all atheists.

Oh, I forgot. Strong atheists aren't atheists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle. The point is these things do exist, and there are reasons why they exist. You also assume the value of gods rests in some objective truth standard.

No, I don't. If you want to appreciate God as a metaphor or take mythology as an expression of meaning, or do anything else that isn't founded in the belief in the literal existence of an actual god, go nuts. That's not what this is about.

The belief in pink unicorns is irrelevant to our world and worldview whereas the belief in gods is not. Pink unicorns don't figure in mythologies that give meaning to our existence. We don't exist in a world shaped by belief in pink unicorns. This is why people don't study the cognitive science of pink unicorns. This is why they are not the same.

Again: that's the whole point. We can consider the justification for belief in the *literal* existence of gods by considering the justification for belief in the *literal* existence of something similar, only with the social and emotional aspects stripped away.

Believing in gods is in no way the same as believing in pink unicorns unless you want to completely ignore any wider context.

They're EXACTLY the same in the context of justification of belief in their LITERAL existence. The message of parody religions like these is to say that the reason why people believe that gods really exist but not other fantastic beings with similar levels of support has to do with things like social conditioning and emotion, not better rational justification for gods.

It is cod 'rationalism' to say 'why should they be different?' The point is they are 'because humans and human history'.

That's right: because of humans and human history... and NOT because of evidence and rational justification.

 

[Demonslayer]

Whether or not you believe in god does not change the fact that our society has been shaped by belief in gods.

And Greek society was shaped by belief in the Gods of Mt. Olympus...a fact that has absolutely no relevance to the factual truth of, nor the validity of belief in, those Gods. Societies who were shaped by belief in Wendigo do not suggest that it's more valid to believe in Wendigo than it is to believe in Big Foot, a creature whom no society has been shaped by.

The number of people who believe in a thing does not alter the validity of belief in that thing. The townsfolk in the Emperor's New Clothes belief in the invisible clothing was not valid, despite the overwhelming number who believed.

What makes a belief more valid than another belief is the support that belief has. What can I point to that supports my belief? If a billion people believe banana cream pie cures cancer, it does not make that belief valid. If you give 100 cancer patients banana cream pie and 70% of them are cured, now the belief becomes more valid.

 

[PackJason]

It's neither. Rest assured.

Ok, I guess I'll go with "insane" then. Thanks.

 

[ArtieE]

Oh, I forgot. Strong atheists aren't atheists.

LOL they are atheists who in addition to being atheists believe gods don't exist. This has been explained to you many times so what is the reason you pretend you don't understand it yet?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe this will help.

You can also find no shortage of people on the internet claiming that Christianity isn't a religion.

 

[PackJason]

Oh, I forgot. Strong atheists aren't atheists.

Strong atheists represent a small minority of all atheists.

 

[Augustus]

And Greek society was shaped by belief in the Gods of Mt. Olympus...a fact that has absolutely no relevance to the factual truth of, nor the validity of belief in, those Gods. Societies who were shaped by belief in Wendigo do not suggest that it's more valid to believe in Wendigo than it is to believe in Big Foot, a creature whom no society has been shaped by.

The number of people who believe in a thing does not alter the validity of belief in that thing. The townsfolk in the Emperor's New Clothes belief in the invisible clothing was not valid, despite the overwhelming number who believed.

What makes a belief more valid than another belief is the support that belief has. What can I point to that supports my belief? If a billion people believe banana cream pie cures cancer, it does not make that belief valid. If you give 100 cancer patients banana cream pie and 70% of them are cured, now the belief becomes more valid.

[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]

 

[Demonslayer]

I misremembered.

OK Mr. Clemens.

 

[Demonslayer]

Strong atheists represent a small minority of all atheists.

Strong atheists are atheists with special shoes for weightlifting.

 

[Willamena]

Strong atheists represent a small minority of all atheists.

And, yet... atheists.

 

[ArtieE]

You can also find no shortage of people on the internet claiming that Christianity isn't a religion.

Is this supposed to be a relevant comment on the validity of what I posted or is it just another attempt to divert attention from the fact that what I posted is perfectly logical?