Questions for Atheists

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I guess the short answer to that question is "you don't" with the long answer being "you try to empathize and bring other perspectives into your own."

only that your perspective on what other perspectives are is built by experiences with your current perspective, etc.

🙂

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, probably. Beliefs should ideally be something that you develop as you learn new things about the world rather than something that is dictated to you. Although, I don't doubt that still happens, besides cosmetic changes that people make when they convert the principles they stand on tend to remain broadly similar. Hence the old point that atheists don't flip put and go on killings sprees due to their beliefs changing.

oh, totally. I'm not trying to claim that people undergo huge shifts at conversion, or even why people convert in the first place.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hopefully they're assuming that people will think critically and assume that critical thinking inherently leads to atheism (which is a different discussion altogether).

totally, and it is an important one imho. Regardless of what I believe, I can't deny that someone else could look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. I feel a lot of people on both sides of the vocal "god" debate could learn this, though anyone I normally talk to about it, present company included, seem to have way more nuanced and tolerant views, even compared to the dreaded 4 horsemen of atheism.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was listening to Harris' speech

sick!

I gave it another listen as well. So good. I wish I had been in the audience to ask him stuff...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
and he makes an interesting point about how an "atheist" world would be one where the idea of atheism is non-existent. Which made me thing about a story I'm working on which (among other things) contains physically present deities that have always been around.

Besides setting up parts of the story I also eventually figured out that their existence would result in a totally atheist (from our perspective) society. Not out of incompetence, I'm trying to avoid that particular cliche, but by fundamentally altering the meaning of the word "god" so that atheism does not exist outside of thought experiments.

The presence of something that people can point to and say "that's a god" totally erases religious debate and effectively religion by forcing it entirely into philosophical terms (or, for the kids, "my favorite god could totally beat up yours!"😉.

interesting idea. I was first reminded of like the Greek Pantheon and such, but I get why that isn't the right interpretation.

do people in this world have access to the wills of their god? are these "one god" type gods, or more pantheistic?

lol, I get this stuff can be personal, but I'd love to give it a read if you get anything solid.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Heh, now I get why you write so much.

I've even been trying to cut back 🙁

Originally posted by inimalist
totally, and it is an important one imho. Regardless of what I believe, I can't deny that someone else could look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. I feel a lot of people on both sides of the vocal "god" debate could learn this, though anyone I normally talk to about it, present company included, seem to have way more nuanced and tolerant views, even compared to the dreaded 4 horsemen of atheism.

In some ways they're justified in taking extreme stances. Making the world "us" and "them" is unifying in the short term and makes their beliefs easier to defend (no one can target them with "well if this aspect of religion is okay then . . ." arguments). It's something of a slippery slope on either side.

Originally posted by inimalist
interesting idea. I was first reminded of like the Greek Pantheon and such, but I get why that isn't the right interpretation.

do people in this world have access to the wills of their god? are these "one god" type gods, or more pantheistic?

lol, I get this stuff can be personal, but I'd love to give it a read if you get anything solid.

The only access to the will of the gods is if they bother to tell people something. Then again they're hardly above lying to get what they want and no one has to pay attention, even if it's probably a good idea.

The individual gods are representations of singular or various concepts and are only differentiated from humans and such by their ability to draw power from that (ie if you light a fire the God of Fire becomes objectively and measurably more powerful). So I suppose they're a very loose pantheon.

Originally posted by inimalist
I've even been trying to cut back 🙁

I'm trying to cut back on using "of course" and "though" when I write responses. 🙂

Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: I mean, 1) evolution has nothing to do with atheism and 2) evolutionary theory does not predict we should be able to build humans from single cullular organisms. Your question is not about either evolution or atheism...

co-signed. What a stereotyped thread.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Atheism is not any sort of salvation from "thought control." Rationalism is.

Also co-signed. Aside from unfortunate cases like those mentioned by inamilist earlier, the fact that certain people are atheists is usually just a by-product of the fact that they are free thinkers.

...

I want to hear this Greek Pantheon discussion too, but I don't have time atm. Will be back, probably with comments.

lol, in, who are the 4 horsemen of atheism? Dawkins is clearly one of them. But I'm curious about the rest. Chris Hitchens (sic?) is the only other name that pops to mind.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then again (from a theistic perspective) they would be atheists. It's interesting actually, just about everyone has a version of "god" (deity, philosophy, economic model, emotion) that they follow. I've always wondered why that would be, there doesn't seem to be much of a benefit from it except perhaps as a way of focusing one's self.

Interesting observation. I'm not sure I agree. The desire to marginalize religious beliefs (and, indeed, humans in general) by assigning labels is a functional one. It allows us to gain a certain amount of knowledge without needing to go terribly in-depth. I need a brief label for my religious beliefs, for example, since I rarely get the chance to talk at length with people about the nuances of my opinions.

But I honestly think that the people who "need" to associate themselves with something are in a minority. The attraction to groups (religious or otherwise) is strong, but that's a social thing, not an intrinsic desire to label oneself.

But so long as you include "deity, philosophy, economic model, emotion, etc. etc." in a definition of "god" then I suppose you can't be entirely wrong. But it's rarely one thing. We might only see the "economic model" god of a person, for example, but I guarantee that a closer inspection of that person will reveal several strong interests, or "gods." But once you start diversifying like that, they cease to become gods imo. If a person has several strong interests, one must stretch the definition of "god" so far that it ceases to have meaning...at that point it would simply be deforming the definition to attempt to make a point.

So yeah, some people need a religious label for themselves. They're also the same people who exist on the fringes of mainstream religion, yet receive an inordinate amount of attention simply because they deviate from the norm.

Though as a slightly apologetic bone thrown Sym's way, he does have a point with some, but only with those who become so fixated on a single aspect of their life that it becomes dominant over all others. A "god" as it were. Nietchze's "state is the new idol" could be a pertinent quote to back such thinking, though I'll just refer to it instead of actually working it into the point. It would also have to be taken as metaphor for any idol, but the point would remain.

Originally posted by Digi
lol, in, who are the 4 horsemen of atheism? Dawkins is clearly one of them. But I'm curious about the rest. Chris Hitchens (sic?) is the only other name that pops to mind.

Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. Gotta keep track of them. I wonder who the two fire breathing guys in burlap sacks (seriously) of the Apocalypse will be hmm

Originally posted by Digi
Interesting observation. I'm not sure I agree. The desire to marginalize religious beliefs (and, indeed, humans in general) by assigning labels is a functional one. It allows us to gain a certain amount of knowledge without needing to go terribly in-depth. I need a brief label for my religious beliefs, for example, since I rarely get the chance to talk at length with people about the nuances of my opinions.

I think we agree actually. In fact I can't really understand people that feel one should eschew labels in day to day life, it would make communication almost impossible.

Originally posted by Digi
But I honestly think that the people who "need" to associate themselves with something are in a minority. The attraction to groups (religious or otherwise) is strong, but that's a social thing, not an intrinsic desire to label oneself.

Isn't the desire to socialize intrinsic in the first place?

Originally posted by Digi
But so long as you include "deity, philosophy, economic model, emotion, etc. etc." in a definition of "god" then I suppose you can't be entirely wrong. But it's rarely one thing. We might only see the "economic model" god of a person, for example, but I guarantee that a closer inspection of that person will reveal several strong interests, or "gods." But once you start diversifying like that, they cease to become gods imo. If a person has several strong interests, one must stretch the definition of "god" so far that it ceases to have meaning...at that point it would simply be deforming the definition to attempt to make a point.

Yeah it would make for a pretty meaningless definition of god. I was simply trying to extrapolate the parts of people's lives that are roughly equivalent to the place that god (theoretically) holds in the lives of deeply religious people.

Originally posted by Digi
So yeah, some people need a religious label for themselves. They're also the same people who exist on the fringes of mainstream religion, yet receive an inordinate amount of attention simply because they deviate from the norm.

I don't think I understand. Most people have a identifier for their beliefs.

Or do you mean people who automatically would identify themselves as Shintoist rather than as someone who follows Shinto? (SC diversifying examples of religion since 2009)

Bill Maher might work better than Dennett (who I have never heard of).

((Of whom I have never heard? Maybe?))

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Bill Maher might work better than Dennett (who I have never heard of).

((Of whom I have never heard? Maybe?))

Me neither, I just put "four horsemen of atheism" into google.

Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris did a roundtable discussion called the 4 horsemen. Its pretty good, and available on youtube.

Dennett is actually pretty amazing. I find him particularly interesting.

Nice double article in New Scientist this month about the so called "2nd genesis" and "shadow biosphere" which looks at 2 alternative routes of new life. One that it is being created in the lab and the fact that were are on the edge or creating new life based on the construction of current life as well as a completely human designed form of life that will function with an entirely different make up from DNA double helix based life.

The shadow biosphere deals with the idea that we may find an alternate strain of life that evolved seperate from that in the common ancestor pathway. i.e one with an entirely unconnected genetic make up that any species currently known.

Dennett's Philosophy of Mind work is fascinating. I'm friends with a professor of philosophy who does similar work (though his focus is more on ethics, which overlaps some with philosophy of mind) who turned me onto Dennett. He lurks about the pages of Skeptic magazine as well, which I'm an occasional fan of. I haven't read any of his work that blends philosophy with religion, but I'm sure it's equally interesting.

And it seems we're mostly in agreement Sym. Your point is a valid one. You just took it a bit too far, without qualifying the exact circumstances and meanings behind the desire to label one another.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
These sound like questions for scientists, not atheists.

Atheists in all my experience are nothing more than hateful and ignorant liberal pessimists who have no idea what they're talking about. The atheists I've seen on YouTube know as much about science as does a garden gnome lawn ornament. After seeing these people, I severely doubt they have a degree in anything other than being unemployed, living in their single mothers' basements and dressing up as furries.

Originally posted by UKR
Atheists in all my experience are nothing more than hateful and ignorant liberal pessimists who have no idea what they're talking about. The atheists I've seen on YouTube know as much about science as does a garden gnome lawn ornament. After seeing these people, I severely doubt they have a degree in anything other than being unemployed, living in their single mothers' basements and dressing up as furries.

Sure, judge a whole demographic based on Youtube videos. And saying things like Mohammad single handedly started terrorism shows your idiocy.

Originally posted by UKR
Atheists in all my experience are nothing more than hateful and ignorant liberal pessimists who have no idea what they're talking about. The atheists I've seen on YouTube know as much about science as does a garden gnome lawn ornament. After seeing these people, I severely doubt they have a degree in anything other than being unemployed, living in their single mothers' basements and dressing up as furries.

Wasn't sure if I should dignify this with a response.

Most people who rant on youtube are sad, atheist or not. But the fact that you're pidgeon-holing "atheists" based on what you've seen on youtube is sadder in my opinion. That's like me saying "Hey, all Christians are prude, close-minded bigots who have no idea why they even believe in God. By the way, I'm basing my opinion on some video I saw on the internet."

You don't need a degree, a job or scientific knowledge to believe or disbelieve in God (or any higher power). That was kind of my point in my first post. So yeah, I really just don't see the point of your post, except of course to showcase your apparent disdain for youtubing atheists. 🙄

No, I'm pointing out that atheists think themselves scientific geniuses when I doubt most of them know anything more about science than I do. Yes, I'm aware that there could be those who have a real degree in some scientific field, hence why I used "most".

Originally posted by UKR
No, I'm pointing out that atheists think themselves scientific geniuses when I doubt most of them know anything more about science than I do. Yes, I'm aware that there could be those who have a real degree in some scientific field, hence why I used "most".

No you weren't. "hateful and ignorant liberal pessimists who have no idea what they're talking about"... how does that translate to "atheists think themselves scientific geniuses when I doubt most of them know anything more about science than I do".

How about not offending a whole lot of people by making generic comments...

Originally posted by UKR
Atheists in all my experience are nothing more than hateful and ignorant liberal pessimists who have no idea what they're talking about. The atheists I've seen on YouTube know as much about science as does a garden gnome lawn ornament. After seeing these people, I severely doubt they have a degree in anything other than being unemployed, living in their single mothers' basements and dressing up as furries.

I'd recommend reporting you for trolling, but I'm sure that would only feed your martyr complex

Originally posted by UKR
No, I'm pointing out that atheists think themselves scientific geniuses when I doubt most of them know anything more about science than I do. Yes, I'm aware that there could be those who have a real degree in some scientific field, hence why I used "most".

Generalizations like the one about are generally wrong.

Originally posted by UKR
No, I'm pointing out that atheists think themselves scientific geniuses when I doubt most of them know anything more about science than I do. Yes, I'm aware that there could be those who have a real degree in some scientific field, hence why I used "most".

Their are many people of religion that have degrees in the sciences and some that even believe in evolution, it is the hard core "the Bible is word for word true" believers that from my experience do not know diddly squat about science other than what some religious site has told them.

Glad you guys saved me the time of dealing with his idiocy. Stereotypes of any kind, in my experience, usually spring from a small minority in any demographic, but that minority just happens to be far more visible than the others. Thus, for example, all of Christianity often getting lumped in with evangelicals, all Muslims being grouped with terrorists, or in this case all atheists being vehement youtube trolls.

I seriously want a youtube account so I can make a video call "Angry Atheist Rant" then just sit there with a smile and a toy horse saying things like "I luv u! tee-hee!"