Question for Atheists

[Sunstone]

And if you're going to posit that Set derives from mathematics, you have a burden to prove two things:
1--Your posit
2--That Egyptians understood your posit as you do.

I'll take that as your very clever way of saying you're entirely ignorant of set theory in mathematics, and would be much too put out to google it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

How many of you (atheists) genuinely believe that the belief in God is the same thing as belief in SET? Do you honestly believe in your heart that belief in God is the same thing as belief in SET?

More or less. The problem is that there is a cultural norm to believe in god rather than being discouraged to. I think that SET is more believable as its less fantastic than the concept of god especially the Christian one. I mean one guy just lives on the north pole with flying reindeer while god can part seas, raise the dead, turn water into wine, rivers into blood, ect ect ect.

Now, in my opinion, I don't see how any reasonable human being can believe in SET, and if any reasonable human being does actually believe in the real existence of SET, I would think the person has a mental disability...and it is common knowledge that children that once believed in SET typically abandoned this belief as they matured with age.

I feel the same way with religion. But many people don't agree. I think it goes back to that cultural reinforced mechanism we have going on.

 

[McBell]

Curious question.
I don't believe it can be answered.

Atheists by definition can't possibly have an understanding of something they don't believe exists. You're asking them to parse the difference between two things they don't believe exist.

:biglaugh:

So it is your belief that understanding can not be had if the something in question is not "believed in"?

Hmmmm....
Taking into account all the nonsense put forward by creationists in the Evolution vs Creation subforum....

 

[steeltoes]

Once again, I personally believe that anyone that actually believes in the existence of SET is mentally challenged, but what I want to know is when atheists/naturalists look at those that believe in theism, do you look at them as mentally challenged people who would dare to believe in such a "super-being" like God?

I appreciate everyone's thoughts.

I don't think that those that believe in theism are mentally challenged nor do I think that believing in God is much of a "dare," it's just a commonly shared belief.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

God is an incredibly nebulous term with myriad claims ranging from plausible to implausible which are accepted by various adherents. Set is a concept similar to God though somewhat less nebulous (because of more specific attribution) with similar claims accepted by various adherents. They appear to be on a similar level of implausibility; that said, due to the more nebulous nature and therefore the capacity to interpret claims more widely God would seem to be a concept that would be more easily accepted.

On the other hand unicorns would be far far far more plausible due to the far less nonsensical claims asserted about them (a horse with a horn does not seem a particularly large claim). Its just that they should also be far easier to detect and we have not been able to do so - making them seem far more implausible. Were Unicorns claimed to be undetectable - then belief in undetectable unicorns would be a more defensible position than belief in a god.

 

[Zantiax]

I don't consider them stupid.

Huge amounts of people believe in God and it's contagious. You mention common knowledge, and that common knowledge just isn't there yet in the case of god.

 

[Avi1001]

Personally, as a non-theist (not the same as an atheist), I don't make such statements or judgments as with the above. To me, there's simply insufficient evidence one way or the other to make a theistic or atheistic determination. I spent most of my life as a theist, but eventually came to my position when I began to put this issue of faith under a scientific microscope about a dozen years ago.

However, since I was a theist most of my life, I certainly don't scoff at that in any way. I now mostly take the position of "whatever was, was; whatever is, is", and I pretty much leave it at that. Meanwhile, life goes on, and Buddhist dharma has very much helped me to make the transition that I was terrified to make.

Hey Metis, so as a non-theistic JuBu, do you mean that you do not believe in a personal G-d ?

How do you feel that differs from a theistic JuBu ?

I am sorry if you already answered this question on another post. If you did I missed it .

 

[cottage]

I don't have a history of actually starting threads on here, but here is one. I have a question for atheists. Now before I ask the question let me start off by saying this isn't necessarily a debate thread...it is more geared towards general discussion, because I want to get your (atheists) insight on this, and I hope to get honest opinions instead of people responding in ways to make them look good as opposed to what they feel in the heart. But nevertheless, here we go..

I've noticed that throughout my apologetic journey, I've heard many times atheists say things like "I don't believe in God; I also don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the tooth fairy". (For simplicity reasons we will call Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the tooth fairy ---> SET).



Of course, when atheists say this they are implying that the belief in God is the same as the belief in famous folklores or fantasy stuff. Now my question is simple:

How many of you (atheists) genuinely believe that the belief in God is the same thing as belief in SET? Do you honestly believe in your heart that belief in God is the same thing as belief in SET?

Now, in my opinion, I don't see how any reasonable human being can believe in SET, and if any reasonable human being does actually believe in the real existence of SET, I would think the person has a mental disability...and it is common knowledge that children that once believed in SET typically abandoned this belief as they matured with age.

Now, I am asking this question because although the statement "I don't believe in God; I also don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the tooth fairy" (or any statements like this) may be said from time to time on the popular level, when I engage in discussions/debates/conversations with atheists, it doesn't appear that they actually put God on the same level as SET....so I wanted to get opinions on this.

Once again, I personally believe that anyone that actually believes in the existence of SET is mentally challenged, but what I want to know is when atheists/naturalists look at those that believe in theism, do you look at them as mentally challenged people who would dare to believe in such a "super-being" like God?

I appreciate everyone's thoughts.

This is how I see it. On one level the Tooth Fairy etc and the biblical God are to be treated in exactly the same way, since both involve the magical or the miraculous. A fairy that spirits away a child’s tooth in the night is in the same league as talking serpents, a donkey that questions its owner (Numbers 22: 27-30), dead bodies that spring to life (2 Kings 18:20, 21), water being turned to wine, pigs possessed by the Devil, and the 600 year-old Noah, to give just a few examples.

The difference is that while nobody, not the atheist or the biblical theist, believe that Tooth Fairies exist, the theist doesn’t simply believe that God exists but also happens to believe-in him. But despite the evident absurdities in the Bible I don’t think anyone is seriously saying that believers are mentally ill. It is my view that the thinking theists have to suspend their more rational inclinations at times and may have to work quite hard at their faith. The deist believer by comparison faces fewer dilemmas.


So, yes, the God of the Bible, the Tooth Fairy, Santa, and the Easter Bunny are all much of a muchness due to their dubious existence and fantastically supposed practises; and I for one see no reason to believe that the former is any less fictional than the others. In the final analysis, something A that doesn’t exist is no different from something B that doesn’t exist.

 

[Alceste]

This is how I see it. On one level the Tooth Fairy etc and the biblical God are to be treated in exactly the same way, since both involve the magical or the miraculous. A fairy that spirits away a child’s tooth in the night is in the same league as talking serpents, a donkey that questions its owner (Numbers 22: 27-30), dead bodies that spring to life (2 Kings 18:20, 21), water being turned to wine, pigs possessed by the Devil, and the 600 year-old Noah, to give just a few examples.

The difference is that while nobody, not the atheist or the biblical theist, believe that Tooth Fairies exist, the theist doesn’t simply believe that God exists but also happens to believe-in him. But despite the evident absurdities in the Bible I don’t think anyone is seriously saying that believers are mentally ill. It is my view that the thinking theists have to suspend their more rational inclinations at times and may have to work quite hard at their faith. The deist believer by comparison faces fewer dilemmas.


So, yes, the God of the Bible, the Tooth Fairy, Santa, and the Easter Bunny are all much of a muchness due to their dubious existence and fantastically supposed practises; and I for one see no reason to believe that the former is any less fictional than the others. In the final analysis, something A that doesn’t exist is no different from something B that doesn’t exist.

I agree with all of this. I'd just add that although I don't believe in imps or dragons, I still understand that a dragon could totally take out an imp in one to one combat. So I do understand that God, despite being imaginary, is a Really Big Deal on the "things that don't exist" circuit.

 

[cottage]

I agree with all of this. I'd just add that although I don't believe in imps or dragons, I still understand that a dragon could totally take out an imp in one to one combat. So I do understand that God, despite being imaginary, is a Really Big Deal on the "things that don't exist" circuit.

Yes, indeed. Myths and legends have their internal (analytic) truths. “The Supreme Being is not omnipotent” would be false, quite regardless of any demonstration to such a being’s existence.

 

[Alceste]

Yes, indeed. Myths and legends have their internal (analytic) truths. “The Supreme Being is not omnipotent” would be false, quite regardless of any demonstration to such a being’s existence.

Exactly. I think that might be kind of what the OP was getting at. I think he wants to know that we understand that the Occidental God / Yahweh / Allah is the most important and powerful member of the imaginary being SET, at least as far as patriarchal monotheists are concerned. I do understand that.

 

[bobhikes]

I actually believe in Santa but not in God.

Santa is a seasonal spirit that effects a large group of people across the world and across beliefs.

I know Atheists, Jews, Muslims and you pick that celebrate the spirit of Santa. I have told my kids since birth that Santa is a spirit that causes others to act. I doubt you can prove otherwise. Yes there are some that don't feel the spirit or act on the spirit but that doesn't mean the spirit doesn't exist.

Now as to God. I don't think that God can be proven or disproven except on a personal level. Personally I have proven to myself that God dosen't exist.

 

[metis]

Hey Metis, so as a non-theistic JuBu, do you mean that you do not believe in a personal G-d ?

How do you feel that differs from a theistic JuBu ?

I am sorry if you already answered this question on another post. If you did I missed it .

I don't believe in deities, but that doesn't mean that they cannot exist-- I just don't know if they do or not. OTOH, there are some JuBu's that use some of dharma but retain their beliefs in a deity or deities.

Where it tends to differ is that if I believe in a deity, then I'll likely take the position that I must follow what that deity supposedly tells me I must do. But if I don't in such a deity, then I'm free to try and ascertain what I should or should not be doing in another way.

As I was losing my belief in a creator-god that I had for decades believed in, I was literally worried if there was any basis for morality other than just living, and here's where HHDL and dharma very much helped out. Like with so many in Judaism, HHDL states that compassion and justice are the two main approaches, and that we learn that as little children.

We learn that if we're loved and treated well, we feel good-- anything else, we feel bad. How much more basic could that be? And since we're social animals, we need to extend this approach to others otherwise, not only will they not likely enjoy life, our lack of compassion and justice may come right around and bite us right in the rump-- "what goes around, comes around".

Hope you had a great Shabbos.

 

[dust1n]

How many of you (atheists) genuinely believe that the belief in God is the same thing as belief in SET? Do you honestly believe in your heart that belief in God is the same thing as belief in SET?

I wouldn't equate to God to SET, but I would equate God to Allah, or Shiva, or Zeus, or The Great Spirit. SET isn't a deity, but my other examples are.

Once again, I personally believe that anyone that actually believes in the existence of SET is mentally challenged, but what I want to know is when atheists/naturalists look at those that believe in theism, do you look at them as mentally challenged people who would dare to believe in such a "super-being" like God?

I don't view theists as mentally challenged, at least not any more than I am mentally challenged, but I do tend to regard them with suspicion. I mean, they have dictates from something I don't believe, and in that, grants permission as to who is either good (on the side of the eternal God) or evil (on the side of the Devil and enemy to all things holy). The Bible specifics who can be killed and for what superfluous reason with near certainty. There is no reason to take that lightly.
I appreciate everyone's thoughts.[/quote]

 

[Avi1001]

I don't believe in deities, but that doesn't mean that they cannot exist-- I just don't know if they do or not. OTOH, there are some JuBu's that use some of dharma but retain their beliefs in a deity or deities.

Very cool ideas, thanks. So instead of deities, you prefer dharma ?

The more I think about it, I feel the idea of deities is too abstract. It can be viewed in so many differing perspectives. More important to me, and I believe more practical, is how man relates to man.

Where it tends to differ is that if I believe in a deity, then I'll likely take the position that I must follow what that deity supposedly tells me I must do. But if I don't in such a deity, then I'm free to try and ascertain what I should or should not be doing in another way.

How could a deity tell you what to do ? Isn't that sort of a non-starter ? Unless of course, the deity arranges the residual tea leaves in your tea cup to read - "Dont feel bad, but the Tigers are going to lose next year"

As I was losing my belief in a creator-god that I had for decades believed in, I was literally worried if there was any basis for morality other than just living, and here's where HHDL and dharma very much helped out. Like with so many in Judaism, HHDL states that compassion and justice are the two main approaches, and that we learn that as little children.

Yes, that is a very nice lesson. But you are back to man to man, aren't you ?

We learn that if we're loved and treated well, we feel good-- anything else, we feel bad. How much more basic could that be? And since we're social animals, we need to extend this approach to others otherwise, not only will they not likely enjoy life, our lack of compassion and justice may come right around and bite us right in the rump-- "what goes around, comes around".

Hope you had a great Shabbos.

You are just a big, old, tree hugger, aren't you ?

 

[outhouse]

Exactly. I think that might be kind of what the OP was getting at.

I have not seen OP ever engage in as deep a subject as you have described, I wouldn't hold my breath.


Ill be surprised if this isn't just another hit and run

 

[metis]

Very cool ideas, thanks. So instead of deities, you prefer dharma ?

Thanks, but I very much cherry-pick dharma, which is a right that even die-hard Buddhists have. IOW, the teachings can and should be tested to see if they actually work or are logical based on what we experience and learn.

The more I think about it, I feel the idea of deities is too abstract. It can be viewed in so many differing perspectives. More important to me, and I believe more practical, is how man relates to man.

I agree, along with how man relates to our environment.

How could a deity tell you what to do ? Isn't that sort of a non-starter ? Unless of course, the deity arranges the residual tea leaves in your tea cup to read -

As in the Law, which supposedly comes from God. I don't know if it does or whether there is even a "God", but I still do find much wisdom in much of the Law.

"Dont feel bad, but the Tigers are going to lose next year"

Only in your most delusional dreams.

Yes, that is a very nice lesson. But you are back to man to man, aren't you ?

Yes, and nature, broadly defined.

You are just a big, old, tree hugger, aren't you ?

No-- a somewhat overweight "mature" respecter of that which given us life and a chance to enjoy it. :yes: