The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[mikkel_the_dane]

To "form cognition" simply reinforced non-belief.
There was no "choice" involved. Believing in a
religion was no more a choice than believing in
Easter Bunnies, Santa Claus, & fiscally responsible
politicians.
BTW, I grew up around Christians. Back in my
day, we still had teacher led prayer in public school.

Well, cognitive science seems to disagree with you. But what is science anyway? You don't use it yourself and don't make claims based on it. So why should science get in your way?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, cognitive science seems to disagree with you. But what is science anyway? You don't use it yourself and don't make claims based on it. So why should science get in your way?

You can't just say "science" at me to prove that belief
in gods is natural, & that disbelief is un-natural.
(I suspect that I've more of a background in science
than doth thou.)
I am one data point that refutes your claim of natural
universality of belief in deities. As soon as I learned
of religion's existence, it struck me as utterly loony.
The more I learned, the loonier it looked. Totally natural.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can't just say "science" at me to prove that belief
in gods is natural, & that disbelief is un-natural.
(I suspect that I've more of a background in science
than doth thou.)

Both are natural, and both require a belief to be held. That is the science.

 

[Revoltingest]

Both are natural, and both require a belief to be held. That is the science.

Atheism doesn't require belief.
Un-belief is a popular option, like heated leather seats.

Are you using the Purex definition that doesn't
allow atheism to include agnosticism?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Atheism doesn't require belief.
Un-belief is a popular option, like heated leather seats.

Are you using the Purex definition that doesn't
allow atheism to include agnosticism?

No, @Augustus made a post a while back and gave a link to a scientific study.
You do know, that science moves on and that includes that is a study, how people believe.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, @Augustus made a post a while back and gave a link to a scientific study.
You do know, that science moves on and that includes that is a study, how people believe.

Those "scientists" never contacted me for my personal history.
Reminds me of the old joke that scientists have proven that
the bumblebee cannot fly.

It does appear to me that some people are naturally inclined
to believe in higher powers. It's in their personality...their
needs, connection with others, the way they think.
But some of us aren't that way. Aspies, in particular are
more likely than the general population to be atheists.
So don't faux science me, dude.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Those "scientists" never contacted me for my personal history.
Reminds me of the old joke that scientists have proven that
the bumblebee cannot fly.

It does appear to me that some people are naturally inclined
to believe in higher powers. It's in their personality...their
needs, connection with others, the way they think.
But some of us aren't that way.

Yeah, we disagree. All science is false, because of the bumblebee.

 

[PureX]

No they don't, some do, many do not, as you must know by now.

And many are lying, so you really have no idea about it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, we disagree. All science is false, because of the bumblebee.

You've not presented any science for me to consider.
But the point remains that science can be wrong.
Ever heard of George Box? He agrees with me.

 

[PureX]

If only theists dedicated some time and thought to explaining their beliefs and why they are real. Oh, wait a minute? I have no bias against theism, I treat their claims exactly as I treat all other claims, why would I not.

If only you could understand that all beliefs are real. But you can't or won't so you're never going to understand theism.

 

[Revoltingest]

And many are lying, so you really have no idea about it.

If you say that we might be lying, then
it could be said that you are lying.
That is not a productive line of discussion.
And it flirts with violating the rules on RF.

 

[PureX]

The word real has no objective refenent.

He thinks he IS the objective reverent. His reality IS reality, in Sheldonworld.

 

[PureX]

As many atheists do of course. Do you believe all unfalsifiable claims? You never have addressed that one.

No atheists do, or they would be agnostics, not atheists. This is what I mean by atheists lying. So many of them are lying, now, that it's becoming rare to find one that isn't. If you are spouting that rationale that you are an atheist because you have no evidence of gods existing, then you are not agnostic. If you really do accept that you don't and can't know that gods exist or not, because you can't even determine what "evidence" for gods existing would even look like, then you aren't an atheist. You are agnostic.

You can be both, but not based on an expectation of "evidence", or on it's lack. To claim both, then, is to lie.

 

[Revoltingest]

He thinks he IS the objective reverent. His reality IS reality, in Sheldonworld.

Sheldonworld looks much more rational
& peaceful than Purexworld.
The latter reminds me of Westworld.

 

[Augustus]

Those "scientists" never contacted me for my personal history.
Reminds me of the old joke that scientists have proven that
the bumblebee cannot fly.

It wasn't actually about atheism, but about how we process verbal information.

Do we:

a) remain neutral on information until we choose to believe, disbelieve or something else (are we unaffected by exposure to information until we allow it to affect us)
or
b) does comprehension necessitate acceptance of that information as true unless we reclassify it intuitively or consciously as something other than true (does exposure to information we comprehend always impact us to some degree)

b) seems much better supported by the evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

It wasn't actually about atheism, but about how we process verbal information.

Do we:

a) remain neutral on information until we choose to believe, disbelieve or something else (are we unaffected by exposure to information until we allow it to affect us)
or
b) does comprehension necessitate acceptance of that information as true unless we reclassify it intuitively or consciously as something other than true (does exposure to information we comprehend always impact us to some degree)

b) seems much better supported by the evidence.

Put me in the <b> camp.
Some things proffered to me as true did not ring so, eg, religions.
Others did, eg, math. I like a priori truth, limited though it may be.

 

[PureX]

Okay, let's "believe" that God exists. Fine, now let's see what effect God has on the world -- and sure enough, what do we find? Nothing.

Okay, so God exists, but to no purpose whatsoever. Whoopee!

Actually, we find an enormous effect resulting from our choosing to believe that gods exist. Both positive and negative. I'm sure you, yourself, have whined about it many times. The belief is in many ways far more crucial and effecting than the thing being believed in. You keep missing the point of theism by focusing on a very narrow concept of what does or doesn't exist. And you keep overlooking the enormous effect and potential of trusting in the idea of gods existing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And many are lying, so you really have no idea about it.

You know, one gets tired of being called a liar so often. Let us be a little clear, here: theism means belief in (not knowledge of) a god or gods. Atheism simply means lacking that belief.

As an atheist, I have repeatedly said I do not KNOW that there is no god, but rather that I do not believe there is or are not. This is not a knowledge claim, it is stating a simple lack of belief. I do not, as it happens, believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor that Elvis is still alive and fatter than ever. I can't prove either, and don't have any need to -- I am quite satisfied with not believing.

So when I call myself an atheist, this is not a lie because it is not a knowledge claim. "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist." (Atheism - Wikipedia)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Actually, we find an enormous effect resulting from our choosing to believe that gods exist. Both positive and negative. I'm sure you, yourself, have whined about it many times. The belief is in many ways far more crucial and effecting than the thing being believed in. You keep missing the point of theism by focusing on a very narrow concept of what does or doesn't exist. And you keep overlooking the enormous effect and potential of trusting in the idea of gods existing.

You are not describing an "effect caused by God." You are describing an effect caused by something some humans believe. Humans have believed that other humans were witches, and killed them for it. Their deaths were not caused by witchcraft or magic, but by mistaken beliefs.

 

[Sheldon]

And many are lying, so you really have no idea about it.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Tell us again about atheist bias, it is getting funnier each time.