Atheists and theists are the same.

[Atomic Shrimp]

I think all we're disagreeing on is whether it is appropriate to describe something as general as 'believes in supernatural' as a consensus, in support of an assertion that there is some phenomenon to be addressed by athesits.

To go back to a previous analogy...

Four people spend some time in a room together, when they come out, they're all interviewed - they are asked to describe what happened during the time they were all present.

Joe says: "Here's what happened: at two O'clock, a large blue elephant entered the room, leaving again at half past"

Jim says: "Here's what happened: At half past three, a man riding a pogo stick entered the room. shouting at the top of his voice. He fell over twice, then left, cursing, after maybe three minutes"

Jerry says: "About three minutes after we all went in, the room was filled with glowing, multicoloured clouds of mist or gas - this remained until we all groped our way out of the room, just now"

Jack says: "I don't know what the other three are smoking. Nothing happened. Nobody or nothing entered, or otherwise appeared in the room at any point. I have no idea if the others are lying, hallucinating, joking, or just being obtuse, but I did not see, hear or otherwise experience anything that any of them claim"

At this point, is it valid for the interviewer to reply "But Jack, you have to concede that they are all in agreement - that something happened, at some point in time."

Jack's assertion is that nothing happened.

Do Joe, Jim and Jerry possess a consensus view that *something* happened, *somewhen*?, or is it actually the case that all four people disagree with each other?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Is there any religion that would suit an atheist?

From a personal friendship with a Buddhist, the answer is Buddhism, if the atheist was only a "there is no God" type and not a "there is no spirit that can separate from the body" type. The search for enlightenment requires rebirth but not through the intervention or supervision of a God character. Extreme atheists who even deny existence of your consciousness after death would not be happy with Buddhism.

I'm not quite to that extreme, though still skeptical.

As to the discussion about "there are only two animals - dogs and something else" ...

It is exactly this statement that lets us see that making improperly categorized distinctions leads to situations that cannot be analyzed very well. When we look for properties of dogs, we can come to a consensus of things like "relatively large ears when compared to the size of its head, furry (with variations of hair length), four feet with no thumbs, has scratchy nails, teeth like a carnivore, rarely verbal though often noisy." Wne we look for common properties of not-dogs, that gets trickier because the above-mentioned dog properties also match up to other animals - like cats, which are not-dogs.

So I'm inclined to agree that you can say "Believes in the supernatural or doesn't" but saying it doesn't provide a useful taxonomy of your supernatural beliefs. It is a statement that is true but not productive.

 

[Rabbie]

Ask Alisa, Rabbie and the others is a particular religion or god they don't believe exists or is it a lack of believe in a supernatural or supernaturals.

To clarify my position I do not believe in a supernatural/supernaturals and as a consequence I therefore do not believe a god/gods/God exist.

 

[Alc]

To clarify my position I do not believe in a supernatural/supernaturals and as a consequence I therefore do not believe a god/gods/God exist.

I concur with this.
(Ditto was considered 'too short a response')

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

So I'm inclined to agree that you can say "Believes in the supernatural or doesn't" but saying it doesn't provide a useful taxonomy of your supernatural beliefs. It is a statement that is true but not productive.

The point is though, that 'lots of people believe in some kind of supernatural' shouldn't be presented as 'lots of people agree about the supernatural, and atheists should find this significant'

 

[Alc]

The point is though, that 'lots of people believe in some kind of supernatural' shouldn't be presented as 'lots of people agree about the supernatural, and atheists should find this significant'

Once again, agreed.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mike, I fully concur that the statement 'lots of people agree about the supernatural' is not worthy of being considered significant, precisely because of the woefully inadequate taxonomy associated with such a statement.

 

[Adam Caramon]

I read this thread, and it was interesting in the beginning, but that last several pages have all been analogies and shoddy logic.

From what I am gathering (summarizing the thread):

Theists (anyone who believes in a sentient being/force/thing that has Creator-like powers) think that since the existence of such being/force/thing cannot be disproved, it must be or should be considered reasonable.

Atheists (anyone who believes there is no sentient being/force/thing that has Creator-like powers) think that since the existence of such being/force/thing cannot be disproved, it must automatically be considered unreasonable.


I'm with the atheists on this one. And being more specific, if a theist were to believe in a specific god (say a typical Christian's belief in God, father of Jesus, etc), I'm often blown away by their narrow-mindedness. In choosing to believe in God and the Bible, you must accept as fact that every other religion is wrong. All of the thousands of religions that have existed through time were wrong. And your religion in particular just happens to be the correct one.

This is where oftentimes you'll see the educated atheists versus uneducated theist argument. If you study religion and history (I'm a pretty big history and religion studier), you'll see that religions have sprung up as a result of a civilizations way of life. Religion was used as a way of explaining that which the people of that time could not explain.

For further discussion, I think that a poster should say "I think that ____________, and this is why I think it." That's something that can be debated with some rational application of logic.

Also, I think perhaps we should not use the word 'believe' as in the context of this thread it seems to be synonymous with 'think'. I believe it will rain tomorrow versus I think it will rain tomorrow.

In a thread about religion using believe in this context is vary misleading.

Adam

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Theists (anyone who believes in a sentient being/force/thing that has Creator-like powers) think that since the existence of such being/force/thing cannot be disproved, it must be or should be considered reasonable.

I'm not sure that is what they think - I believe they may tend to think that it hasn't been disproven, without necessarily acknowledging that it is formulated in such a way that it cannot be disproven, and therefore consider it the atheists' burden to try to disprove it, or shut up.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mike G: In other forums where I participate, many theists know enough (or parrot it enough) to discourse regarding the logical impossibility of proving a categorical negation over an unenumerable set. (There exists no xxxx in all yyyyy).

They make it a point to rub that fact in atheist noses: "You can't disprove God's existence." Which is a true statement. You cannot prove the absence of something in a (presumably) finite but (probably) uncountable set.

Adam C., you bring up two very good points:

First, why is the Christian God the right choice and, say, the Norse pantheon wrong? (Or pick your favorite deity or deities). From the outside, ALL religions are equally screwy.

Second, the word "believe" is so intangible that its use in an argument is about as useful as the song "I Believe" performed by Larry the Cable Guy et al. that appears on the CMT network special about the Jeff Foxworthy Comedy Tour. Which is to say, ludicrously and outrageously funny but otherwise ineffective.

 

[Alisa]

The only thing that keeps me hanging around these largely pointless threads is the possibility that some day a theist might explain why it is reasonable to think that god exists, when a) there is no evidence that god exists and b) it is logically impossible to prove that god does not exist.

 

[Adam Caramon]

I'm not sure that is what they think - I believe they may tend to think that it hasn't been disproven, without necessarily acknowledging that it is formulated in such a way that it cannot be disproven, and therefore consider it the atheists' burden to try to disprove it, or shut up.

I want to say that most theists aren't this aggressive, but my experience leads me to think you are correct.

First, why is the Christian God the right choice and, say, the Norse pantheon wrong? (Or pick your favorite deity or deities). From the outside, ALL religions are equally screwy.

Exactly. Especially once you begin to analyze Christianty from its roots, why its 'holy' days are on certain dates, the positions and then later refutations of those positions by the churches, etc, it becomes obvious to a questioning mind that this religion is man-made and not divinely-inspired.

The only thing that keeps me hanging around these largely pointless threads is the possibility that some day a theist might explain why it is reasonable to think that god exists, when a) there is no evidence that god exists and b) it is logically impossible to prove that god does not exist.

I think being able to converse with religious persons provides an excellent opportunity to get a glimpse of their mind.

I can't put a whole-hearted argument for theism being reasonable, as I don't agree with it, however, here's one take on it.

When I was a kid I was told to believe in Santa (even though my family was not religious). I actually believed that this jolly rotund gentlemen was so great of a person, cared so deeply about people that he went to every single person's home and gave them gifts for free.

Think how great of a world it would be if Santa was real. I remember how devastating it was the day I learned he wasn't real. It was as if something very significant in my life was whisked away.

Now I present to you, God is to adults (theists) as Santa is to children. He's this amazing figure who cares so much about all the people in the world. He has even created a world where good people get to go and be happy forever!

Now, logically speaking, if you believed in God, wouldn't you want to fight against ideas/thoughts/evidence that he couldn't exist? Think of what you are giving up by accepting the fact that God doesn't exist. It would be horrifying.

Adam

 

[Alisa]

I think being able to converse with religious persons provides an excellent opportunity to get a glimpse of their mind.

I can't put a whole-hearted argument for theism being reasonable, as I don't agree with it, however, here's one take on it.

When I was a kid I was told to believe in Santa (even though my family was not religious). I actually believed that this jolly rotund gentlemen was so great of a person, cared so deeply about people that he went to every single person's home and gave them gifts for free.

Think how great of a world it would be if Santa was real. I remember how devastating it was the day I learned he wasn't real. It was as if something very significant in my life was whisked away.

Now I present to you, God is to adults (theists) as Santa is to children. He's this amazing figure who cares so much about all the people in the world. He has even created a world where good people get to go and be happy forever!

Now, logically speaking, if you believed in God, wouldn't you want to fight against ideas/thoughts/evidence that he couldn't exist? Think of what you are giving up by accepting the fact that God doesn't exist. It would be horrifying.

Adam

Some religions say that if you "sin" (whatever that entails during the particular era that you live in), then you will bun in hell forever. THAT is horrifying.

If you believe in a "good god", then the only way to explain the millions of innocent lives that are lost to disease, starvation, wars, and natural disasters, is to say that we don't understand why god acts as he does. Isn't that kind of like having an alcoholic parent, and no matter how hard you try to please them, they still go into a rage and beat you? THAT is horrifying.

Accepting that we do not currently understand, and may never understand the origin of this magnificent universe we inhabit? How is that the slightest bit horrifying? It sounds like simple humility to me . . .

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Mike G: In other forums where I participate, many theists know enough (or parrot it enough) to discourse regarding the logical impossibility of proving a categorical negation over an unenumerable set. (There exists no xxxx in all yyyyy).

They make it a point to rub that fact in atheist noses: "You can't disprove God's existence." Which is a true statement. You cannot prove the absence of something in a (presumably) finite but (probably) uncountable set.

True, but they must think that actually means something significant in terms of supporting their position, rather than it just being a expression of the futility of certain categories of inquiry (or they wouldn't bother saying it).

 

[Adam Caramon]

Some religions say that if you "sin" (whatever that entails during the particular era that you live in), then you will bun in hell forever. THAT is horrifying.

And being logical thinkers, why would such a religion say this? To scare everyone into believing in it. They are perpetuating the myth.

If you believe in a "good god", then the only way to explain the millions of innocent lives that are lost to disease, starvation, wars, and natural disasters, is to say that we don't understand why god acts as he does. Isn't that kind of like having an alcoholic parent, and no matter how hard you try to please them, they still go into a rage and beat you? THAT is horrifying.

haha that's good. I think it depends on the religion, really. If a person believes that every action is a direct manifestation of god's will, then yeah, that god is one messed up mfer.

If a religion says that god created the world and put us here as sort of a testing grounds, but that free will really truly exists, then it is not as horrifying. The assumption that such a god would intervene and stop all bad things from occurring would really take away the learning experience.

Accepting that we do not currently understand, and may never understand the origin of this magnificent universe we inhabit? How is that the slightest bit horrifying? It sounds like simple humility to me . . .

I agree. I think the religious view on this is that true death is terrifying. To simply be snuffed out, no longer having thoughts or feelings, not existing, that terrifies people. Then someone comes along and says that if you live a certain way and do certain things you'll live forever.

Keep in mind too that when most modern religions got their start people were a lot more gullible than they are today. We know how a lot more things work, and we wouldn't easily subscribe to the idea that a woman became pregnant without having sex (or AI), or that a man gathered 2 of every single type of creature and put them all on a boat.

Adam

 

[ColinEssex]

or that a man gathered 2 of every single type of creature and put them all on a boat.

That story in itself is a logistical nightmare. Imagine you live somewhere and this voice from the sky tells you to build a boat - then when you've done that you have to get two of every animal, insect and reptile to live in the boat with you. But, not just two, they must be one male and one female.

Sexing some birds and reptiles can be difficult, some animals eat specialised food (like Pandas only eat bamboo) so obviously you know all the dietry needs of everything.

Not all the creatures live in a 10 mile radius of where you build the boat, how do you get them from far and wide?

And the biggest question is - how do you know when you have two of everything?

Col

 

[Alc]

And the biggest question is - how do you know when you have two of everything?

...and, lo, did God create the first Access database, to allow accurate trackiing of all the beasts of the field and birds of the sky. And did He create an entry form for said data. And the Lord God did apply the rule that 'if the number of each species > 2, then error, else if sex of each species <> (1 male and 1 female), then error.

And Noah did see the Access database and based on his previous experience with Microsoft, he was very afraid.

 

[Rabbie]

More importantly how did he store enough food for the animals?? and how did he stop the carnivores from eating other animals?. And with several species of ant-eater on board did he take extra ants?

 

[Adam Caramon]

...and, lo, did God create the first Access database, to allow accurate trackiing of all the beasts of the field and birds of the sky. And did He create an entry form for said data. And the Lord God did apply the rule that 'if the number of each species > 2, then error, else if sex of each species <> (1 male and 1 female), then error.

And Noah did see the Access database and based on his previous experience with Microsoft, he was very afraid.

haha. That's very good. God must have provided Noah with a massive comma delimited file of all types of creatures .

 

[Alisa]

I agree. I think the religious view on this is that true death is terrifying. To simply be snuffed out, no longer having thoughts or feelings, not existing, that terrifies people. Then someone comes along and says that if you live a certain way and do certain things you'll live forever.

Adam

But how can you be terrified of something you will never experience? At the moment of your death, you simply stop experiencing anything, you cease to exist. How is this state of nonexistence any different than the state of nonexistence that went on for an eternity before you were born? Nobody laments the years before their birth, because they accept that they didn't exist yet, so there is no suffering. Likewise, there is no reason to lament the years AFTER your death. Because you don't exist, you are not capable of suffering, so what is there to be scared of?