Shifting more towards atheism

[Augustus]

I had the same thought.

I would say the mental process goes something like: I scan the sentence (about the invisible truck) to determine its meaning. I hit the word "invisible" and that triggers a definition that includes "invisible is non existent" and then my judgment becomes "the claim is false".

There is so much information presented to us all the time that we store pre-processed answers to a lot of things, so we don't have to actually evaluate them again. That doesn't mean that at some time we didn't think enough about "invisible' to decide that it is not possible.

I agree in general. We automate responses to save effort with things we are familiar with. We don't need to calculate 2+2=5 to know it's wrong, and a mechanic might be able to tell you what is wrong with your car based on the sound it makes as you drive in. We have to learn these initially, but they become automated with repetition.

We are also biased towards assuming things said to us make sense though, which adds another layer.

So if someone says "watch out for the invisible truck" then I'd probably think it was a truck with the logo of a company called "Invisible", or perhaps that it was hyperbole and the truck was hard to see in the light, or even that it was a joke and there was just an army truck with camo paint so "we couldn't see it".

And when you get a nonsense sentence like "colourless green ideas sleep furiously" it actually requires more cognitive effort to process than something than needs to be responded to like "can you pass the salt, please" as the collocations are uncommon.

 

[Augustus]

A person knowing what a truck is, and that they aren't invisible, isn't making any sort of judgment. A person claiming otherwise is dead wrong.

If I have a friend who is delusional and keeps telling me to watch out for invisible trucks though, I learn to dismiss it without effort. We are predisposed to assuming things said to us make some kind of sense in context though.

So, if someone says "watch out for the invisible truck" then I'd probably think it was a truck with the logo of a company called "Invisible", or perhaps that it was hyperbole and the truck was hard to see in the light, or even that it was a joke and there was just an army truck with camo paint so "we couldn't see it".

We automate responses to save effort with things we are familiar with. We don't need to calculate 2+2=5 to know it's wrong, and a mechanic might be able to tell you what is wrong with your car based on the sound it makes as you drive in. We have to think about/learn these initially, but they become automated with repetition.

If you get an unfamiliar nonsense sentence like "colourless green ideas sleep furiously" it actually requires more cognitive effort to process than something than needs to be responded to like "can you pass the salt, please" as the collocations are uncommon.

Only in the sense that certain parts of the brain activate to process language.

An atheist judging whether or not they believe gods exist is not simply an automatic, intuitive process at first. It may become intuitive and automatic, but so do countless effortful and skilled activities that we are familiar with.

We still believe no gods exist, and any time circumstances require us to process something to do with god's existence, we activate that belief and apply it to the situation.

This is true about most beliefs, they only matter when brought to mind by specific circumstances.

 

[blü 2]

Bible tells God is love. Do you really think love doesn't exist? Have you not experienced love?

Love exists. It's the result of our biochemistry since various kinds of bonding are important to our survival and breeding. Perhaps the most obvious is male-female bonding, made necessary because human infants take perhaps five years to become independent even at the most basic levels. Likewise parent-child bonding is found in all mammals, and elsewhere. Sibling bonding can be stronger or weaker. Child-parent bonding is generally relevant until the child has some kind of independence. And so on. Versions of all of these are found throughout nature.

I'd guess that saying God loves particular people is a way of portraying [him] as father-like. It's not however a very practical love, in that it adds nothing to the individual believer's good or bad fortune, doesn't warn him or her not to catch flight 77 next Thursday, doesn't protect against disease, or the death of children, or prevent war, or increase the survival chances of combatants.

The question then might be whether religious groups having this belief are more supportive of their members than other groups including non-religious ones. or more benevolent generally.

 

[1213]

Love exists. It's the result of our biochemistry since various kinds of bonding are important to our survival and breeding. Perhaps the most obvious is male-female bonding, made necessary because human infants take perhaps five years to become independent even at the most basic levels. Likewise parent-child bonding is found in all mammals, and elsewhere. Sibling bonding can be stronger or weaker. Child-parent bonding is generally relevant until the child has some kind of independence. And so on. Versions of all of these are found throughout nature.

I'd guess that saying God loves particular people is a way of portraying [him] as father-like. It's not however a very practical love, in that it adds nothing to the individual believer's good or bad fortune, doesn't warn him or her not to catch flight 77 next Thursday, doesn't protect against disease, or the death of children, or prevent war, or increase the survival chances of combatants.

I think God has helped me a lot. But, I also understand that you could say it is all by chance.

I don't think the love in the Bible is the result of biochemistry.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think God has helped me a lot. But, I also understand that you could say it is all by chance.

Chance?!?!? Our choice of religion or belief system is not the result of chance. It is the result of the chain of cause and effect events and choices such as our culture, education, information available to make alternate choices, peers, family which results in the rational justification of our belief. By far most people choice some variation of belief within their culture, family and peer group.

The problem remains that in the tribal context humans deine love in termos their own tribal relationships and have difficulty understanding love in terms of the universal context of those that believe differently,

Some Christians may say they "love atheists," but in reality this is only limited concern with the hope that by prayer they may convert, There view toward atheists is negative.

I don't think the love in the Bible is the result of biochemistry.

This is based on your belief. Many people believe in love, and express love in many ways and do not believe in the Bible.

Actually the relationship between love our biochemistry and evolved nature of love and relationships can be objectively measured. Love and social bonding are necessary for the survival of our species regardless of what we believe. If you believe in God, God is responsible for our natural attributes of our existence in cluding love.

I believe from a more universal level there is the potential of Compathic love. Compathy is the belief in unconditional love without "conditions," expectations, or rewards. Compathy is sort od a new word needed for defining love in a more universal perspective.

 

[F1fan]

If I have a friend who is delusional and keeps telling me to watch out for invisible trucks though, I learn to dismiss it without effort. We are predisposed to assuming things said to us make some kind of sense in context though.

What is there to learn? Don't you already know trucks aren't invisible? Are you the "friend"?

So, if someone says "watch out for the invisible truck" then I'd probably think it was a truck with the logo of a company called "Invisible", or perhaps that it was hyperbole and the truck was hard to see in the light, or even that it was a joke and there was just an army truck with camo paint so "we couldn't see it".

You're making it way too hard on yourself. If someone was to say that I'd ask what they mean. I'm not going to bother guessing.

We automate responses to save effort with things we are familiar with. We don't need to calculate 2+2=5 to know it's wrong, and a mechanic might be able to tell you what is wrong with your car based on the sound it makes as you drive in. We have to think about/learn these initially, but they become automated with repetition.

Right, we learn with experience.

If you get an unfamiliar nonsense sentence like "colourless green ideas sleep furiously" it actually requires more cognitive effort to process than something than needs to be responded to like "can you pass the salt, please" as the collocations are uncommon.

Right. And we also apply patterns of language. For example we have heard Christians claim "Jesus saves" and have asked for evidence, and we have learned there is none. We hear about What Muslims claim God to be, and Mormons, and we learn the pattern of religious claims followed by a lack of evidence. So if a new guy comes along and says that the real God is Zanobo, and it does XYZ, and the answers to questions are much like any other religious claim, baeless, then we can quickly dismiss Zanobo as being any more credible as a God that any other.

A critical thinker will dismiss the claim, they won't believe "Zanobo does not exist" because that was never an idea that the critical thinker had, he only responded to the claim "Zanobo exists" and dismissed it. There was never the idea "Zanobo does not exist" introduced, nor thought by the skeptic.

An atheist judging whether or not they believe gods exist is not simply an automatic, intuitive process at first. It may become intuitive and automatic, but so do countless effortful and skilled activities that we are familiar with.

Atheists who have been around long enough have learned the patterns of religious belief and their claims in debate. Since 1996 I have encountered hundreds of believers who believe in claim one sort of God or another, and I can say under questioning none have ever been able to support their belief or claims of truth. We do encounter new believers and we can quickly assess whether their claims are new or not, or if we have seen them before. Experienced skeptics will recognize the same old justifications and assumptions and quickly realize there's nothing new here. The only new thing is the believer who has their own level of confidence, level of knowledge, degree of belief, etc. The only new challenge is how to engage with the new personality, and if they have better language skill.

We still believe no gods exist, and any time circumstances require us to process something to do with god's existence, we activate that belief and apply it to the situation.

What believers assert "no gods exist"? How often do atheists start threads that assert "no gods exist" and then defend that broad claim? Why would any atheists want to assert the claim "no gods exist" when they know they then have to prove that there are no gods existing anywhere in the universe?

As an atheist I can admit that some sort of phenomenon could exist that falls roughly into the category of a "god". I don't see there any possibility of consciousness given the categorical absurdity of that claim, much like invisible trucks. As a critical thinker I believe we have to honestly concede the possibility that something could exist to avoid being like the rigid believers that we debate.

This is true about most beliefs, they only matter when brought to mind by specific circumstances.

As an atheist I never think "no gods exist" even if that position is implied by the massive failure of theists to demonstrate any plausibility in their religious beliefs. The idea "no gods exist" is rare in debate, and I don't see how atheists believe it as their primary position.

 

[Augustus]

What is there to learn?

You understand language can be used in many different ways, and we generally expect people to make sense in one way or another.

If it’s raining and cold and someone says “great summer day” most people work out the incongruity is sarcasm, but some folk might miss the joke and reply “you like rain and cold?”

You're making it way too hard on yourself. If someone was to say that I'd ask what they mean. I'm not going to bother guessing.

You are misunderstanding how frequently we have to interpret non literal usages of language and that in almost all cases we try to resolve the incongruity before asking.

You’d be very strange sort if you said “whatever do you mean? I’m not guessing!” every time some used sarcasm or an unfamiliar metaphor.

Right. And we also apply patterns of language. For example we have heard Christians claim "Jesus saves" and have asked for evidence, and we have learned there is none. We hear about What Muslims claim God to be, and Mormons, and we learn the pattern of religious claims followed by a lack of evidence. So if a new guy comes along and says that the real God is Zanobo, and it does XYZ, and the answers to questions are much like any other religious claim, baeless, then we can quickly dismiss Zanobo as being any more credible as a God that any other.

A critical thinker will dismiss the claim, they won't believe "Zanobo does not exist" because that was never an idea that the critical thinker had, he only responded to the claim "Zanobo exists" and dismissed it. There was never the idea "Zanobo does not exist" introduced, nor thought by the skeptic.

Of course they hold that belief when presented with the information. They aren’t processing it as anything other than an incorrect statement, and this neural process is a belief.

Same as we don’t need to know the name of the unicorn before deciding if we believe in it, but if asked whether flossy the unicorn is real we believe it is not.


We are only conscious of most beliefs when they are explicitly brought to mind, and many of them we’ll never think of again unless someone else brings it up.

We have all kinds of memories that are only reactivated by friends reminding us, but we still believe these events happened (sometimes we are even wrong and make up false memories that we believe happened).

That’s the entire point, it is a belief we hold not the absence of some other belief.

What believers assert "no gods exist"?

You.

You just did it above which is why you can dismiss gods so easily.

Why would any atheists want to assert the claim "no gods exist" when they know they then have to prove that there are no gods existing anywhere in the universe?

I assert it because it’s what I believe. I may be wrong, but that is unimportant to whether I believe it to be the most likely explanation of our reality. You also seem to believe as I do, you just want to describe it differently for whatever reason.

There is no need to prove to others what you believe, and basing a belief on probability does not require absolute proof to be rational anyway.

Your assumption, unless provided with reasons to believe otherwise, is that no gods exist.

You just want to call this stance something other than a belief.

As an atheist I can admit that some sort of phenomenon could exist that falls roughly into the category of a "god". I don't see there any possibility of consciousness given the categorical absurdity of that claim, much like invisible trucks. As a critical thinker I believe we have to honestly concede the possibility that something could exist to avoid being like the rigid believers that we debate

Me too.

Hence we both believe no gods exist subject to a degree of philosophical doubt.

There is no requirement beliefs must be held with absolute certainty before they count as beliefs.

 

[1213]

Chance?!?!? Our choice of religion or belief system is not the result of chance.

I agree, nothing happens by chance. I choose to believe the Bible, because I think it is good, wise and truthful. And I also believe God answers prayers. But, even if things go as I have asked, some could say that it was by chance, or because of some other reason than God listening.

Some Christians may say they "love atheists," but in reality this is only limited concern with the hope that by prayer they may convert,

In that case it seems the Biblical concept of love is not clear to them.

This is based on your belief. Many people believe in love, and express love in many ways and do not believe in the Bible.

Maybe so, it seems many people have a different definition for love than Bible has.

Love and social bonding are necessary for the survival of our species regardless of what we believe.

It seems to me that you have not the Biblical definition for love.

 

[joelr]

We aren’t talking about Romulus. Anyone can create a scenario that supports their thoughts but has nothing to do with their thought.

I cannot make any sense of this comment?

a-theism is the belief that there isn’t a god, plain and simple

In your mind. We are talking about in the real world. Language is dynamic and evolves.

Weak and strong atheism

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social | Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology | Philosophy Index: Aesthetics · Epistemology · Ethics...

psychology.fandom.com

Strong atheism is the belief that deities do not exist, while weak atheism is the absence of belief in deities, not belief that deities don't exist.

Agnosticism is distinct from weak atheism, though most weak atheists may be agnostics, and most agnostics may be weak atheists.

Weak atheism (also called negative atheism) is the absence of belief in the existence of deities, without the belief that deities are non-existent. Weak atheism contrasts with strong atheism, which is the belief that no deities exist, and with theism, which is the belief that there is at least one deity. Weak atheism may either be a form of explicit atheism, that is, a conscious rejection of belief in deities, or implicit atheism, an absence of belief in deities without a conscious rejection of theism.

This isn’t weak atheism… this is an agnostic.

"Weak atheism is also similar to agnosticism, but weak atheism is not the same as agnosticism."


Why is this so difficult for you to accept? Technically an agnostic feels knowledge about god can never be known. I do not hold that belief.



"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."



I don't believe we can never know and I do hold disbelief in Zeus, Krishna, Yahweh and many other gods.

You can’t believe their is no supernatural god but believe it is possible for their to be a god and still be an atheist.

agnostic /ăg-nŏs′tĭk/

noun​

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Ah, so now we can use definitions, when they line up with what you want them to say!

1) I do not believe it's impossible to know whether there is a God.

2) I don't profess hard atheism

3) I am extremely certain that Yahweh is as mythical as any other God, Jesus is a Persian/Hellenistic borrowing made for a Jewish religion and the Gospels are historical fiction. The lines of evidence are far to many and decisive and is why all historians went from fundamentalist to atheist like Ehrman, David Litwa, Richard Miller, Josh Bowden, Kipp Davis and so on.

 

[Kenny]

1) I do not believe it's impossible to know whether there is a God.

great

2) I don't profess hard atheism

ok

3) I am extremely certain that Yahweh is as mythical as any other God, Jesus is a Persian/Hellenistic borrowing made for a Jewish religion and the Gospels are historical fiction. The lines of evidence are far to many and decisive and is why all historians went from fundamentalist to atheist like Ehrman, David Litwa, Richard Miller, Josh Bowden, Kipp Davis and so on.

OK… I honestly support you to have a position contrary to mine. We should be able to live together in harmony and yet disagree on YHWH

 

[joelr]

great

ok

OK… I honestly support you to have a position contrary to mine. We should be able to live together in harmony and yet disagree on YHWH

My list was in response to the definition of agnostic:

agnostic /ăg-nŏs′tĭk/

noun​

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

demonstrating I am not agnostic but in fact , weak atheist.




There is no issue about living together in harmony, that isn't a problem. Some evidence would be nice also.

 

[F1fan]

So what would you call a person who doesn’t know whether a God exists or not since atheism doesn’t cover it?

Kenny.

You are agnostic. So am I.

I consider everyone agnostic since no believer can show they know a God exists, and critical thinkers understand this to a point where they reject the social pressure to adopt religious beliefs. We shouldn't confuse believers who claim to know their version of God exists as knowing anything definitive. They know the idea of God, but can never demonstrate they actually know a God exists outside of their imagination.

 

[F1fan]

You understand language can be used in many different ways, and we generally expect people to make sense in one way or another.

If it’s raining and cold and someone says “great summer day” most people work out the incongruity is sarcasm, but some folk might miss the joke and reply “you like rain and cold?”

Language has a sort of learned complexity that we have to consider. We read each others texts and have to sort out meanings if there is sarcasm.

But back to your invisible truck reference, if it's your girlfriend who you know writes poetry that uses strange metaphors, OK, you ponder what she means by it. If it's your delusional friend who is often on drugs, well, that just Jim speaking more nonsense because he's stoned, and you don't think anything about what he said.

There's a lot of different categories that are established or that are new that we place phrases and meanings into as experience. We might have a category of dumb things Jim says, and when he says things we just turn off. It can be the boy who cries wolf scenario, a person has a history of saying things that aren't true and he gets dismissed out of habit. We do that with many true believers on this forum, and we can ignore these members. I don't have anyone on ignore, but there are few members whose posts I just scroll past because they write consistently false claims, and won't discuss with any critic.

 

[PureX]

Kenny.

You are agnostic. So am I.

I consider everyone agnostic since no believer can show they know a God exists,

But nor can you know that they don't. If you can't accept their judgments based on agnosticism, you can't accept yours, either.

... and critical thinkers understand this to a point where they reject the social pressure to adopt religious beliefs.

Lot's of people reject this pressure for lots of reasons. And again, this rejection will also logically apply to the belief that no gods exist. Yet somehow these "critical thinking" atheists you do admire can't seem to recognize that bit of bias.

We shouldn't confuse believers who claim to know their version of God exists as knowing anything definitive.

Nor should we confuse atheists claiming that the belief that no gods exist is some how the logical default to not believing that they do. As the latter is just as biased, unfounded, and illogical as the former.

They know the idea of God, but can never demonstrate they actually know a God exists outside of their imagination.

That, of course, does not demonstrate that God does not exist outside their imagination, either.

 

[F1fan]

You understand language can be used in many different ways, and we generally expect people to make sense in one way or another.

If it’s raining and cold and someone says “great summer day” most people work out the incongruity is sarcasm, but some folk might miss the joke and reply “you like rain and cold?”

Language has a sort of learned complexity that we have to consider. We read each others texts and have to sort out meanings if there is sarcasm.

But back to your invisible truck reference, if it's your girlfriend who you know writes poetry that uses strange metaphors, OK, you ponder what she means by it. If it's your delusional friend who is often on drugs, well, that just Jim speaking more nonsense because he's stoned, and you don't think anything about what he said.

There's a lot of different categories that are established or that are new that we place phrases and meanings into as experience. We might have a category of dumb things Jim says, and when he says things we just turn off. It can be the boy who cries wolf scenario, a person has a history of saying things that aren't true and he gets dismissed out of habit. We do that with many true believers on this forum, and we can ignore these members. I don't have anyone on ignore, but there are few members whose posts I just scroll past because they write consistently false claims, and won't discuss with any critic.

 

[F1fan]

But nor can you know that they don't.

It's their burden of proof when they claim to know a God exists. I ask these believe if they are special, or have extra sensory ability to sense a God that others don't have and they say no. So as ordinary mortals they should be able to explain how they know what they claim. They can't. So their claim is rejected.

Those are the rules of logic.

If you can't accept their judgments based on agnosticism, you can't accept yours, either.

This makes no sense.

 

[Kenny]

Kenny.

You are agnostic. So am I.

I consider everyone agnostic since no believer can show they know a God exists, and critical thinkers understand this to a point where they reject the social pressure to adopt religious beliefs. We shouldn't confuse believers who claim to know their version of God exists as knowing anything definitive. They know the idea of God, but can never demonstrate they actually know a God exists outside of their imagination.

opinion.

What really happens is that we both see the same evidence but simply don’t agree to our arrived conclusions.

 

[PureX]

It's their burden of proof when they claim to know a God exists. I ask these believe if they are special, or have extra sensory ability to sense a God that others don't have and they say no. So as ordinary mortals they should be able to explain how they know what they claim. They can't. So their claim is rejected.

Those are the rules of logic.

This makes no sense.

That's a very handy bias you have there, but logically it makes no sense at all. I guess your critical thinking skills aren't as strong as you like to tell yourself they are.

 

[dfnj]

Strong atheism is the belief that deities do not exist, while weak atheism is the absence of belief in deities, not belief that deities don't exist.

You make a good distinction between strong and weak. However, although you cannot prove a negative, that is, you cannot prove God does NOT exist, you can draw a strong conclusion based on induction. Since there has not been any clear and decisive evidence for the existence of God, then by induction, there will continue not to be any clear and decisive evidence for the existence of God.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree, nothing happens by chance. I choose to believe the Bible, because I think it is good, wise and truthful. And I also believe God answers prayers. But, even if things go as I have asked, some could say that it was by chance, or because of some other reason than God listening.

Your neglecting the fact that your choice was directly influenced by your culture, family and peers within a limited range of choices. You claim to have the freedom of choice, but fail to realize it is limited by documented deterministic factors

In that case it seems the Biblical concept of love is not clear to them.

Maybe so, it seems many people have a different definition for love than Bible has.

It seems to me that you have not the Biblical definition for love.

The problem with the Biblical concept of love is by the evidence it is limited by the tribal constraints to not extend beyond the tribe, This is overwhelmingly obvious by factual evidence of history.

Tribal war, persecution, ethnic cleansing, prejudice, anti-semitism, purges and the exclusive beliefs are clearly described in the Bible, and witness of history concerning those that believe differently and accept one of the conflicting variations the Christian. Even today the aggressive condemnation of atheists and LGBT communities reflect a rather limited concept of compassionate love for those who are different. Violent give no ground or compassion of Abrahamic tribal wars continue unabated.