Strong Atheism doesn't exist

[Bunyip]

How so?

Originally Posted by*Alceste*

"Therein lies the rub. I find the tendency of many atheists to invent or appropriate a specific god definition to not believe in intellectually lazy."

Well because it is absurd.

It is incomprehensible word salad.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yup. I have few if any quibbles with deism, animism and pantheism. If you can't shake the sense that when you look at the universe, the universe looks back at you, these descriptions are among the most rational of our available options.

I personally still prefer a psychoanalytic approach to understanding that sensation, but I don't hold it against anyone to pick the vaguest possible conception of deity to believe in and wash their hands of the whole thing.

Not so very different from my thoughts. But I can't frubal you at the moment.
So...err...have a random smilie...

*closes eyes and selects smilie*

:franken:

Errr...not exactly relevant. But I did say random.

 

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by*Alceste*

"Therein lies the rub. I find the tendency of many atheists to invent or appropriate a specific god definition to not believe in intellectually lazy."

Well because it is absurd.

It is incomprehensible word salad.

Try going back and reading the entire post instead of just the first sentence.

 

[Bunyip]

Try going back and reading the entire post instead of just the first sentence.

Tried that.

 

[Alceste]

Tried that.

Any questions? If you don't understand what I'm saying in that post I'd be happy to flesh it out a little.

 

[Alceste]

When I use the term 'god' I am not referring to a concept, but to a specific god. The term 'god' MUST be tied to a specific concept to have any meaning.

Therein lies the rub. I find the tendency of many atheists to invent or appropriate a specific god definition to not believe in intellectually lazy*. Arguments stemming from that custom are the least persuasive of all possible arguments and the most easily rebutted.

atheist: "If God exists, why is there evil in the world?"

theist: "Because MY God tolerates evil!"

/debate.

I'm just going to elaborate anyway.

You said your approach is to first embrace somebody's specific definition of god in order to have something "meaningful" to not believe in. I know I'm paraphrasing, but I hope I got the gist of it.

My approach is more empirical than philosophical in comparison. I am curious about what causes the phenomenon of theistic belief in the human psyche. IOW, I am curious about what caused 200,000 years worth of humanity to believe in all the gods they've ever concocted. When I say I'm an atheist, I mean I don't believe the psychological phenomenon of theistic belief represents an ontological reality. Nor has it ever, anywhere. That goes for ALL the gods, not just one god.

So to me, to require a specific definition of "god" to not believe in seems kind of arbitrary. I find arguments based on this approach particularly weak and easily dismissed by believers. All they need to do is say that the god you've picked to argue against isn't their god, so all your points are moot.

(* the sentence construction has been colour coded to combat the "word salad" effect of long sentences on modern readers).

 

[s2a]

This has nothing to do with what you call the "atheistic perspective" since even an agnostic theist can say "I have zero evidence to suggest that any "god(s)" are necessary to explain the natural world or cosmos as we understand it but I believe in "god(s)" anyway."Or unsure theists who said "I don't know if god(s) exist but I believe they do".

As an unprofessional psychiatrist, I would label that perspective as ..."denial".

I don't expect fair monetary recompense for that assessment.

Forgive me...you were rambling...

 

[s2a]

Because a knowledge claim has nothing to do with atheism or theism. Claiming to 'know' is not a requirement for either. So if you believe in a deity you are a theist. If you do not, you are an atheist.

Adding agnostic to either is entirely unnecessary - and in the case of theism, it contradicts the secondary definition of agnostic. As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary: "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." A theist does claim faith or belief in a god. It is a contradiction.

The definition in its entirety (not espousing faith or unfaith plus not claiming to know one way or the other) is a term for someone who is unsure of their worldview regardless of what it is. It is for someone that cannot rightfully respond whether they have faith or not - typically after deeper discussion they turn out to be an insecure atheist, but regardless the definition is the description of someone without belief or unbelief. It is a sort of limbo. As I said, I will not tell people to stop using the term for themselves - it is none of my business - but using it in the manner of 'agnostic theist' is ignoring part of the definition.

Regrettably (and as you suggest) the "question" is indeed moot until "asked" of another. Maybe, just maybe, a society predicated upon man-made laws... and not prevailingly popularized religious beliefs/dogma/preachings is best left unto itself, and not unleashed as some "better order" of truth or revelation as superior insight over what is obvious or readily observable.

As an "atheist", I don't care one whit whatever you "believe". Not at all. Belief is the very worst available explanations ever provided as to what may be discovered or explained...ever. Over and over, again and again. The WORST.

Can smart people say, do, claim, and/or insist upon failed explanations of existence? SURE. Welcome to the club.

Shall we all then seek the remaining alternative of mysticism, magic, and super-naturalistic outcomes as preferable solutions?

That's your call.

Just leave the rest of us to search without your "help". OK?

 

[Bunyip]

I'm just going to elaborate anyway.

Thanks, I would have asked but was offline.

You said your approach is to first embrace somebody's specific definition of god in order to have something "meaningful" to not believe in. I know I'm paraphrasing, but I hope I got the gist of it.

Yes, because atheism only has meaning in response to a specific claim. It relates to belief in thenexistence of whatever god is in question.

My approach is more empirical than philosophical in comparison. I am curious about what causes the phenomenon of theistic belief in the human psyche. IOW, I am curious about what caused 200,000 years worth of humanity to believe in all the gods they've ever concocted. When I say I'm an atheist, I mean I don't believe the psychological phenomenon of theistic belief represents an ontological reality. Nor has it ever, anywhere. That goes for ALL the gods, not just one god.

So to me, to require a specific definition of "god" to not believe in seems kind of arbitrary. I find arguments based on this approach particularly weak and easily dismissed by believers. All they need to do is say that the god you've picked to argue against isn't their god, so all your points are moot.

(* the sentence construction has been colour coded to combat the "word salad" effect of long sentences on modern readers).

It's not at all arbitrary -it's just that atheism is a response to a specific claim. There are many conceptions of god and many gods that I can believe exist without that conflicting with my atheism.

If it is not 'their god' god as you put it, then unless they tell you what their god is you can not know if you are atheist in regard to it or not. No argument can be meaningful in regard to an unidentified deity.

 

[Alceste]

Thanks, I would have asked but was offline.
Yes, because atheism only has meaning in response to a specific claim. It relates to belief in thenexistence of whatever god is in question.

It's not at all arbitrary -it's just that atheism is a response to a specific claim. There are many conceptions of god and many gods that I can believe exist without that conflicting with my atheism.

If it is not 'their god' god as you put it, then unless they tell you what their god is you can not know if you are atheist in regard to it or not. No argument can be meaningful in regard to an unidentified deity.

I can know, because I believe all god constructs that have ever been dreamed up are a purely psychological phenomenon. One need not even describe a god for me to be able to say with conviction I strongly believe s/he doesn't really exist.

I think a biological / psychological approach to theistic belief is a meaningful argument. No amount of debating the nature of god will undermine the beliefs of your average theist - they tend to adapt their god concept on the fly to dodge your points. I think if it can be shown that the root cause of theistic belief is something other than the actual existence of gods, it might be a different story.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My approach is more empirical than philosophical in comparison. I am curious about what causes the phenomenon of theistic belief in the human psyche. IOW, I am curious about what caused 200,000 years worth of humanity to believe in all the gods they've ever concocted. When I say I'm an atheist, I mean I don't believe the psychological phenomenon of theistic belief represents an ontological reality. Nor has it ever, anywhere. That goes for ALL the gods, not just one god.

So to me, to require a specific definition of "god" to not believe in seems kind of arbitrary. I find arguments based on this approach particularly weak and easily dismissed by believers. All they need to do is say that the god you've picked to argue against isn't their god, so all your points are moot.

This.

Atheism via rationalism is more about understanding psychology and sociology, and very little about understanding theology, and is why I often say that I'm an atheist not because of what I believe about gods, but because of what I believe about people.

 

[Alceste]

This.

Atheism via rationalism is more about understanding psychology and sociology, and very little about understanding theology, and is why I often say that I'm an atheist not because of what I believe about gods, but because of what I believe about people.

Not allowed to frubal you any more for now, but that's a great way to put it.

 

[Bunyip]

I can know, because I believe all god constructs that have ever been dreamed up are a purely psychological phenomenon. One need not even describe a god for me to be able to say with conviction I strongly believe s/he doesn't really exist.

I don't believe that you have thought that through. Are you really saying that you do not believe the universe exists? (the pantheist god). Or that any of the self proclaimed gods, like the infamous Mexican Jesus exist?

I think a biological / psychological approach to theistic belief is a meaningful argument. No amount of debating the nature of god will undermine the beliefs of your average theist - they tend to adapt their god concept on the fly to dodge your points. I think if it can be shown that the root cause of theistic belief is something other than the actual existence of gods, it might be a different story.

 

[Alceste]

I don't believe that you have thought that through. Are you really saying that you do not believe the universe exists? (the pantheist god). Or that any of the self proclaimed gods, like the infamous Mexican Jesus exist?

The universe exists, but the notion that it is conscious is caused by the same psychological misfire as other forms of theism, IMO. People proclaim themselves to be gods all the time, usually due to schizophrenia. Doesn't mean they are gods.

 

[Bunyip]

The universe exists, but the notion that it is conscious is caused by the same psychological misfire as other forms of theism, IMO. People proclaim themselves to be gods all the time, usually due to schizophrenia. Doesn't mean they are gods.

Sure, so what?

 

[Alceste]

Sure, so what?

So my lack of theism applies to both people who claim the universe is god, and to people who think they are gods, based on exactly the same reasoning as my lack of theism vis a vis Thor, Kali, Coyote and Jehovah.

I don't need to debate the non-existence of any individual god any more than I need to debate the non-existence of each of the seven dwarves individually.

 

[Bunyip]

So my lack of theism applies to both people who claim the universe is god, and to people who think they are gods, based on exactly the same reasoning as my lack of theism vis a vis Thor, Kali, Coyote and Jehovah.

I don't need to debate the non-existence of any individual god any more than I need to debate the non-existence of each of the seven dwarves individually.

What would be the point of ever holding such a debate unless you have specified the god in question?

You would be wasting your breath. As you said earlier - your opponant could just dismiss whatever you say with: "Oh, but that is not my god!"

Debating the existence of an unspecified amorphous entity is pointless.

 

[Alceste]

What would be the point of ever holding such a debate unless you have specified the god in question?

You would be wasting your breath. As you said earlier - your opponant could just dismiss whatever you say with: "Oh, but that is not my god!"

Debating the existence of an unspecified amorphous entity is pointless.

Debating the existence of a specific non-existent entity is more pointless.

My arguments are about human psychology and the underlying reasons we have managed to be wrong about nearly everything nearly all of the time for at least 200,000 years. Theism is an interesting footnote to that discussion, but not the main event.

 

[Bunyip]

Debating the existence of a specific non-existent entity is more pointless.

How so? How is debating the existence of an entity your opponant believes to exist MORE pointless than debating the existence of something neither of you have even identified?

My arguments are about human psychology and the underlying reasons we have managed to be wrong about nearly everything nearly all of the time for at least 200,000 years. Theism is an interesting footnote to that discussion, but not the main event.

Sure, I can see that. You are intelligent and being very charming.

 

[Alceste]

How so? How is debating the existence of an entity your opponant believes to exist MORE pointless than debating the existence of something neither of you have even identified?

No two believers have the same conception of god, and every theist's conception very quickly adapts to dodge any form of criticism regardless of where they begin.

I have been at this for a long time. Ask any two theists, even from the same sect of the same religion, to describe God. REALLY describe him or her. Once you get past the rote recitation of scripture and the trite bumper stickers and get them expressing their own unique thoughts on the subject in their own words, you'll be amazed by all the differences you find.

Adding a conception of your own into the mix only adds to the confusion. And even if you luck out and nail the exact same god they happen to believe in fair and square, that's only one down, seven billion to go.

Sure, I can see that. You are intelligent and being very charming.

Aw shucks. :flirt: