Correct.
-
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!
"Lack of belief"
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
[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?
--------------------------
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?
That -1 is a subset of 0 makes sense to you is okay with me, but don't expect it to make sense to me.
Don't worry. Very little of what you post makes sense to me or some others here I'm getting used to it. I only answer your posts that actually make sense.
Glad to hear it. So how do you make sense of -1 being a subset of 0? Of people who have a stance being a subset of people distancing themselves from belief by having no stance?
PackJason
I make up facts.
What is this supposed to mean?
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.
LOL don't mix two different ways of explaining the same thing. You are supposed to understand each explanation separately on it's own terms.
I'm fine with them being two distinct atheists, but I'm just curious how you figure a subset.
Or "the same thing," for that matter.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
No problem
Sure, I can understand that they're meant to satirize certain things. For what it's worth, I think they largely succeed as a satire of those things. Incidentally, I have a copy of the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster knocking about somewhere and it's probably about time I re-read it.
However, they're not used solely for those purposes now. There are plenty of people who do use them as a direct parallel for gods. In this case, the ridiculousness of the IPU or FSM (got sick of typing those out
) is basically the point of using them over obscure gods or folkloric beings.Not at all. Earlier I believe you mentioned how somebody who considers the existence of gods unknowable could justifiably consider theism ridiculous. I can certainly understand that.
On the flip side, there are those who do fall into the category I described. People for whom the very idea of gods is as absurd as the FSM. Of those people, there are some who will use "I lack belief" in what I perceive to be little more than an evasion. That's what my original post was criticizing.
Now, just to be clear, I don't think there's any inherent problem with people considering gods absurd. I don't agree with it myself and I don't always appreciate how somebody might express such a view. I can accept it though. The bit I struggle with is when those people use "I lack belief" to avoid having those opinions challenged.
I can't be absolutely 100% certain, I'll admit that much. However, for all practical purposes that sliver of uncertainty is effectively meaningless to me. I still consider the idea absurd. As such, I don't feel that saying "I lack belief in the FSM" accurately conveys my stance on it.
I'll use the leprechaun example to illustrate where I'm coming from. I don't know a great deal about leprechauns, I don't give them much thought at all really. If somebody told me they believe in leprechauns my response would probably be something along the lines of "OK, cool." There are plenty of Pagans who believe in all manner of spirits and so I don't find the idea absurd, even though I personally don't actively believe in leprechauns. In this sense, I would be happy to say that I lack belief in leprechauns. I know there are atheists who view gods similarly. I don't begrudge them claiming lack of belief.
On the other hand, if somebody told me that they have a pet spaghetti monster who created the entire world, my instinct would be to stare in disbelief. I find such an idea utterly absurd. No matter how I may rationalize that I can't be certain it doesn't exist, my gut feeling stays the same. There are atheists who view gods in a similar way. I don't see how "lack of belief" can be said to adequately express their opinion on the matter in anything other than a purely technical (perhaps even pedantic) manner. If somebody did describe such a feeling as "lack of belief" I for one would be suspicious of their reasons for doing so.
Exactly.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Hmmm, really? Maybe the definition of absurd is important here. Leprechauns supposedly protect pots of gold that exist at the 'ends' of rainbows, and can grant wishes if captured to secure their freedom.
The idea that something can grant a wish...that's not an absurd idea? What about the idea that a rainbow has an "end" as if it were a physical thing like a multi-colored slip-n-slide? Not absurd?
I believe that you are making up facts.
PackJason
I make up facts.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
In my experience, people who believe in folkloric spirits tend not to believe every aspect of the folklore. So, no I wouldn't find belief in Leprechauns absurd, nor would I find it absurd if somebody believed wishes can be granted.
Now the idea that a rainbow has an end? Yes, I'll grant you, I would find that particular detail absurd. I could easily see somebody believing in leprechauns, but interpreting the rainbow thing as "you'll never catch them" though.
I believe you are making up facts. Of course, if invisible fire breathing dragon is an animal that you own in your dream, it is okay. Anything can happen in dream, you know?
PackJason
I make up facts.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Thought one: I find it interesting that you feel the notion of the end of a rainbow is more absurd than the notion of granting wishes. When I was younger and didn't understand the nature of a rainbow, I didn't think the "end" of it was absurd at all. Looking at it, it appears it could very well have an end, anchored to the ground On the other hand from as early as I can remember I understood that wish granting was not real...even as a small child with my parents telling us to wish on stars and the breaking of a wishbone, etc.
Thought two: The less detail you insist on with Leprechauns, the less absurd belief in them would be, IMO. The full fledged Pot-O-Gold protectors with the shiny belt buckles and wish granting capabilities have the highest level of absurdity. Now if you back this off and say the rainbow part is only a metaphor for "you'll never catch them" now we have something decidedly less absurd. Back off from the belt buckle detail and the wish-granting detail and heck, you could be talking about a particularly dexterous lizard.
But that thing would not be a Leprechaun. It would be something that perhaps shared some similarities with a Leprechaun, but it would not be a Leprechaun. Belief in a fast lizard is not absurd. Belief in a miniature wish-granting shiny buckle wearing end of the rainbow doubloon protector: absurd.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
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.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
The first point is an interesting one. I don't recall ever thinking that a rainbow had an end (though i could well be forgetting having done so) but I do recall believing that wishes could be granted. Some part of me still thinks "be careful what you wish for" to this day. I'm not sure what caused that difference between us to be honest. As you say though, it's interesting.
Now onto thought two. A lot of this is probably because I'm more used to Pagan ways of thinking. It's common enough to believe in various gods and spirits, while simultaneously holding that some details were a product of misinterpretation or metaphor. 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?
Now I should probably mention that I haven't encountered somebody who believes in leprechauns (or at least, nobody who's told me so) but I have encountered people who believe in various woodland spirits and fairies. This is easy for me to accept, but I can understand why some people would have a hard time with it.