Atheism

I've never really got this distinction...

the only way "there is no god" is any more fallacious than "I believe there is no god" is if you are of the opinion that human knowledge can be separated from belief, which seems silly

Interesting take, in. So in saying something like "there is no God" you're sort of tacitly saying "I believe there is no God" because of the nature of human knowledge, even if you don't admit it to yourself?

The only reason I'm beating this to the ground is because dudemon seems to think people, and intellectuals to boot, are saying "there is no God," as though it's an objectively defensible statement, which it's not. My point is that few actually espouse that way of thinking. Normally I'd be more concerned with societal implications of non-belief, not exact descriptions of those beliefs, but it's a pet peeve of mine that apparently everyone I talk to thinks that atheism is tantamount to saying "I know there is no God." Even Penn Jillette's admission that he's "beyond atheism" is still qualified as a statement of belief, not as an absolute statement of fact, which is where the preceding debate led to.

Originally posted by Digi
Interesting take, in. So in saying something like "there is no God" you're sort of tacitly saying "I believe there is no God" because of the nature of human knowledge, even if you don't admit it to yourself?

and vice versa, yes. What a person believes to be true or not isn't based on any connection they have with something beyond their own experiences and ideas. If a person holds something to be true, it is by definition a belief. Sure, our brain can distinguish between what we as individuals see as facts versus opinions, but outside of our own psychological space, they are all subjective beliefs.

Originally posted by Digi
The only reason I'm beating this to the ground is because dudemon seems to think people, and intellectuals to boot, are saying "there is no God," as though it's an objectively defensible statement, which it's not. My point is that few actually espouse that way of thinking. Normally I'd be more concerned with societal implications of non-belief, not exact descriptions of those beliefs, but it's a pet peeve of mine that apparently everyone I talk to thinks that atheism is tantamount to saying "I know there is no God." Even Penn Jillette's admission that he's "beyond atheism" is still qualified as a statement of belief, not as an absolute statement of fact, which is where the preceding debate led to.

I guess my position is more that this distinction between atheist or beyond atheist or whatever seems entirely moot, like, a debate that only exists because people make it, not because it actually reflects some nuanced philosophical position.

In theory, the distinction of "beyond atheism" wouldn't really be in terms of someone's disposition toward God, but rather their position on the subjective nature of human experience. The fallacy being more that an individual thinks it is possible for humans to know something in a way that it is not influenced by the neuroarchitecture that processes that information, not that they have an indefensible position on the divine.

I'd also challenge you on whether saying "there is no god" is a fallacy or not. I certainly see no intellectual issue with saying there is no god, period. In fact, it takes mental cartwheels to even come up with a definition of god so ambiguous that it isn't immediately at odds with even basic contemporary logic and science.

If someone says to me, "There is no God," she's really saying she doesn't believe God exists, whether she wishes or not to acknowledge it as a belief. Simple, imo.

what else could it be acknowledged as though?

Originally posted by inimalist
what else could it be acknowledged as though?

Originally posted by Digi
As to the natural/supernatural thing, I get your point about there not really being something that's "supernatural." My point is just that, if you identify "force x" eventually, and it's a known aspect of the physical universe, there's literally no way to know if or how God interacts with it. As soon as it's a natural part of the universe, it functions of itself, like gravity, and doesn't need a Prime Mover. it seems like however far back you try to take the logic, there comes a point where you have to accept that God manipulates these natural forces, but without ever being able to say how.

You leave yourself a possible out in saying that we could also possibly one day learn how God interacts with the universe. But then, we haven't done this yet, so you're operating from a premise that would be logical if it came to be, but for which we have no evidence.

Awesome. 👆

It's for people like you that I hope there is a God and some form of Transcendent reality. You deserve it more than most.

But, to address your concern, you have to believe there is an objective truth in order to believe that God and his attributes are knowable. Prime mover works in a naturalistic sense (if you consider how He created the universe just to be a higher truth or knowledge than what we can know in our present consciousness). If we can ascend to such a point, it ceases to be "supernatural". I consider the entire set of physics to be God's "objective" tools of interaction in this universe. I also, contrary to many Christians, think God is limited in what he can/will do. He is not truly omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. Keep in mind that Mormons think God is a personage...not some pantheistic "universal" presence. Believing that automatically limits God but some measures. Christians believe that to, they just don't realize that: else the Holy Ghost be necessary?

I do not view naturalism and God to be mutually exclusive: God is part of this universe. Now, there could definitely be aspects of God that exist outside this universe and those aspects would be supernatural in the most philosophical sense. But we could understand how he is part of places or realities that are not this universe (God could have multiple 11-dimensional creations, not just this one...which is mind-blowing), it still ceases to be "supernatural" to me. God is a naturalist, through and through. He's believes in evolution, science, reason, logic, order, math, etc. That's his way. If God were to interact with us, directly, He would be most "at home" with agnostic scientists that are genuinely interested and curious about the universe around them. This is my idea of God that I feel is a personal fact for me but it is quite a subjective opinion...like all interpretations of God. I'm sure the God I believe in would be okay if I get a few things wrong about Him, though. 😄

If not, I don't like that God. For instance, what if God is like the wrathful, mean, and petty God upon which many Evangelicals believe? If so...I may become antitheistic in the next life. 😐 He would represent every single good argument atheists have had about God and the problems with Him. That's never been "my" God nor a God I could truly worship with sincerity. I am quite certain that you and I would be "cast out" together as there's no way I would expect someone like you to feel obliged to worship that God. I would still be thankful to such a being for my existence and the existence of all the things I hold dear, of course. But nothing beyond that.

Originally posted by Digi
"there is no God," as though it's an objectively defensible statement, which it's not.

We both agree, here. In fact, I think we both have agreed here from the beginning. There really are some atheists who think it is an objective truth that "there is no God". As disturbing as that is for people like you and I, on a purely intellectual level, some people are like that.

Originally posted by inimalist
In fact, it takes mental cartwheels to even come up with a definition of god so ambiguous that it isn't immediately at odds with even basic contemporary logic and science.

I would say that opposite: it takes mental cartwheels to even come up with a definition of the universe so ambiguous and intangible that is isn't immediately at odds with even basic contemporary logic and science. String Theory, for example. "Prime Mover" is still a legitimate concept.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So how can certain atheists ever be convinced that God exists? What would it take for you to start believing in God? Anyone can answer. And by "God", I mean the generic "benevolent and loving" Creator of the universe that cares about "His/Her" children and creation. Doesn't have to be, specifically, the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian, Vishnu, etc. God. Just the ultimate for all of reality.

Originally posted by King Kandy
This attitude has always puzzled me. What is the point in believing in a generic God? It has no predictive power. At least for say YHWH, you know he will be pleased if you don't eat pork because it says so in his book. With a deist God, it seems hardly worth bothering.

I disagree. The God I defined wants you to be good. Knowing that that God exists (it's not a deist God an an apathetic God) would require certain things to have to be...known.

For an atheist, what would those things be? Digi outlined things that would move him along that path and I thought his reasoning was fairly sound. Sure, it can be faulted, but it is at least an honest and scientific approach to "how can God prove his existence". Performing seeming supernatural miracles that can be tested and replicated in a lab seems like a good start.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. The God I defined wants you to be good. Knowing that that God exists (it's not a deist God an an apathetic God) would require certain things to have to be...known.

For an atheist, what would those things be? Digi outlined things that would move him along that path and I thought his reasoning was fairly sound. Sure, it can be faulted, but it is at least an honest and scientific approach to "how can God prove his existence". Performing seeming supernatural miracles that can be tested and replicated in a lab seems like a good start.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But you have no way of determining what the good God considers good.

Yeah: prayer.

Also, since I defined that God by a list of religions, the "good" would also be defined as the generally as "virtue ethics" and genuine altruism: hardly things we have not defined.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The good God of the Catholics desires you to have many children and wants the human population to multiply, while the good God of the Cathars desires you have no children at all, and wants the human population to decrease. The good God of the Jews desires that his name never be spoken, while the good God of the Vaishnavas desires that his many names be endlessly repeated in mantras. I can ceaselessly bring up examples of "good" in one religion being "bad" in another. From this, how can we distill generic ethics for a generic God? And if you do perform such a feat, could you not have simply done it through your own intellect, discarding the generic deity?

These are all rites and highly individualized beliefs, not the over-reaching "perfect yourself" morals I was obviously referring to. Additionally, and you'll sh*t yourself, those beliefs may all be valid ways of perfecting yourself: it's subjective on how you can perfect yourself. Your own "beliefs" are what you progress by. If you have to say all those chants to become a better person, then that religion works for you.

It is when you inject things into religion that we start to entertain not-so "good" such as slaughtering infidels and pagans. That's hardly "good" no matter the twisted definition you try to apply to a 'benevolent' God.

You'll argue moral relativism, of course, of which I will reject on scientific grounds, not religious at all. Sure, some things can be argued as morally relativistic but there are some things that are much easier to define as "evolution" such as genuine altruism being a necessary trait for our species' success (and one of the primary reasons our species has thrived so well).

Originally posted by dadudemon
We both agree, here. In fact, I think we both have agreed here from the beginning. There really are some atheists who think it is an objective truth that "there is no God". As disturbing as that is for people like you and I, on a purely intellectual level, some people are like that.

Ok, sure, I'll concede that. I think really we're just disagreeing on the percentages, with me maintaining it's still nothing approaching a majority.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Awesome. 👆

It's for people like you that I hope there is a God and some form of Transcendent reality. You deserve it more than most.

Awwww. But yeah, I do.

uhuh

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, to address your concern, you have to believe there is an objective truth in order to believe that God and his attributes are knowable. Prime mover works in a naturalistic sense (if you consider how He created the universe just to be a higher truth or knowledge than what we can know in our present consciousness). If we can ascend to such a point, it ceases to be "supernatural". I consider the entire set of physics to be God's "objective" tools of interaction in this universe. I also, contrary to many Christians, think God is limited in what he can/will do. He is not truly omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. Keep in mind that Mormons think God is a personage...not some pantheistic "universal" presence. Believing that automatically limits God but some measures. Christians believe that to, they just don't realize that: else the Holy Ghost be necessary?

I do not view naturalism and God to be mutually exclusive: God is part of this universe. Now, there could definitely be aspects of God that exist outside this universe and those aspects would be supernatural in the most philosophical sense. But we could understand how he is part of places or realities that are not this universe (God could have multiple 11-dimensional creations, not just this one...which is mind-blowing), it still ceases to be "supernatural" to me. God is a naturalist, through and through. He's believes in evolution, science, reason, logic, order, math, etc. That's his way. If God were to interact with us, directly, He would be most "at home" with agnostic scientists that are genuinely interested and curious about the universe around them. This is my idea of God that I feel is a personal fact for me but it is quite a subjective opinion...like all interpretations of God. I'm sure the God I believe in would be okay if I get a few things wrong about Him, though. 😄

If not, I don't like that God. For instance, what if God is like the wrathful, mean, and petty God upon which many Evangelicals believe? If so...I may become antitheistic in the next life. 😐 He would represent every single good argument atheists have had about God and the problems with Him. That's never been "my" God nor a God I could truly worship with sincerity. I am quite certain that you and I would be "cast out" together as there's no way I would expect someone like you to feel obliged to worship that God. I would still be thankful to such a being for my existence and the existence of all the things I hold dear, of course. But nothing beyond that.

Ok fine. You do a good job of justifying the universe with your God. The problem is still that you don't have reason to believe in your God, imo. With nothing outside natural, causal influences, there's no way to differentiate the universe from God. The way you assert that God uses causal forces seems an almost a priori assumption.

I'll only concede that your God is hypothetically more logical than traditional theism, but still not likely.

...

As it is, inamilist's little philosophical bomb made me rethink the "types of atheism" argument, and I can't bring myself to be worked up over it right now. We might be done with that particular discussion.

Originally posted by Digi
Ok, sure, I'll concede that. I think really we're just disagreeing on the percentages, with me maintaining it's still nothing approaching a majority.

They are only anecdotes: personal, real world experiences. Sure, maybe they are the exception. Maybe they are just reactionary in their position because of how "evangelized" they are in the bible belt, which you have commented on in the past. I fully believe you: the extreme majority of atheists are probably better defined as agnostics (I view agnosticism as being either a sliding scale or a four point plot: there are strong "there probably is a God" agnostics and "there probably is not God" agnostics". Most atheists would fall into the latter and deists would fall into the former. They are called agnostic atheists, I believe.)

Originally posted by Digi
Ok fine. You do a good job of justifying the universe with your God. The problem is still that you don't have reason to believe in your God, imo. With nothing outside natural, causal influences, there's no way to differentiate the universe from God. The way you assert that God uses causal forces seems an almost a priori assumption.

I have a perfectly valid reason to believe in that God: I am weak, limited, and ignorant and I need His knowledge to ascend. Keep in mind that I would love to spend 100 billion years creating my own universe and having hundreds of trillions of spirit children that are born and live on their own planets so that they could ascend and become God-like, as well.

Maybe this is the natural progression of consciousness? Maybe reincarnation IS what happens until we "get it right" and can ascend to the next existential challenge? I hope so: there's no way I could grow enough in this life to justify that I can become "like God" with only 90 or so years in which to do so. I would think that would take hundreds of lifetimes or at least thousands of years to reach a very-low-level of God-like consciousness...and that assumes my capacity of "cognition" is expanded exponentially.

Originally posted by Digi
I'll only concede that your God is hypothetically more logical than traditional theism, but still not likely.

I can agree here for the most part. It's that the God I believe in is more likely than not because it is a realization I have come to through personal prayer...something I find quite lame at times because of how much I loathe faith.

Originally posted by Digi
As it is, inamilist's little philosophical bomb made me rethink the "types of atheism" argument, and I can't bring myself to be worked up over it right now. We might be done with that particular discussion.

I still think you're right. I don't think there's a philosophical conundrum to be considered. You already stated, and this is key to your point, "if pressed."

Meaning, no true-intellectual atheist will ever say, "yes, God factually does not exist" when entertaining such ideas in detail.

Edit - By the way, I am probably best defined as a strong agnostic theist. I'm pretty sure God exists but I have no way to be sure.

Double Edit - And I have come under criticism by my theistic peers (one was even Hindu...) that I cannot be agnostic in any form because God is "knowable". I cannot explain the extreme subjectiveness of the "experience" of God to them as they hold it (the experiences) to be closer to "self-evident" and tangible.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah: prayer.

Also, since I defined that God by a list of religions, the "good" would also be defined as the generally as "virtue ethics" and genuine altruism: hardly things we have not defined.

I have defined those indeed, and I have defined them without any need of recourse to a good God. Are you saying you could not be virtuous without God? It is a frightening thought, if so.

Originally posted by dadudemon
These are all rites and highly individualized beliefs, not the over-reaching "perfect yourself" morals I was obviously referring to. Additionally, and you'll sh*t yourself, those beliefs may all be valid ways of perfecting yourself: it's subjective on how you can perfect yourself. Your own "beliefs" are what you progress by. If you have to say all those chants to become a better person, then that religion works for you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is when you inject things into religion that we start to entertain not-so "good" such as slaughtering infidels and pagans. That's hardly "good" no matter the twisted definition you try to apply to a 'benevolent' God.

You'll argue moral relativism, of course, of which I will reject on scientific grounds, not religious at all. Sure, some things can be argued as morally relativistic but there are some things that are much easier to define as "evolution" such as genuine altruism being a necessary trait for our species' success (and one of the primary reasons our species has thrived so well).

Slaughtering makes some level of sense. Obviously, if the being is the real deal good God, there must be something i'm missing to call it immoral.

Denying the attribution of the words is fine; however, to simply deny the portions you object to is another thing entirely. If you pick and choose from scripture, then you might as well become an atheist, because you have more trust in your own judgment than in your scriptures; in which case, you may as well live life on your own strength entirely.

Denying the being is God (relegating to a demonic role) again falls short. If you have scriptures explaining such, and you believe them, well OK. But if this was just your own judgment, again you may as well become an atheist, since though you read the texts in fact you are relying entirely on your own mentality.

I am in 100% agreement with you that altruism may have a biological basis. But this seems to benefit my argument, not yours. For, if altruism is based in human biology, then there is no need to attribute it to anything divine.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I can agree here for the most part. It's that the God I believe in is more likely than not because it is a realization I have come to through personal prayer...something I find quite lame at times because of how much I loathe faith.

lol, ok. I swear you're just a really high-functioning troll, who is actually atheist but enjoys tormenting other atheists.

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing most Mormons aren't like you, yeah?

Originally posted by Digi
lol, ok. I swear you're just a really high-functioning troll, who is actually atheist but enjoys tormenting other atheists.

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing most Mormons aren't like you, yeah?

I swear I'm sincere. lol

And, yes, most Mormons are not like me. However, I find there are more Mormons like me than in any other religion...but that may be simply a numbers game and I have a subconscious confirmation bias towards my own "tribal association", if you will.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But maybe the good God hates prayer.

Then He/She/It would reveal such a truth if they cared about their creation.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Or maybe when you pray, the one answering is actually a malevolent demiurge bent on leading you astray.

Perfectly reasonable assumption until you weigh the answer against the notion "is this truly an altruistic and virtue ethics approach?" If you also consider that I believe we have built in "this is right" mechanisms, then the argument of demiurge or devil becomes one of futility: you would not get that "warm fuzzy" feeling when getting your answer.

It is hard for me to view Hitler (I will automatically go to Godwin's law) as humbly, meekly, and pray-fully approaching God and then asking for guidance on what to do about "those damned Jews". In fact, you would expect an "evil one" to prevent you from supplecating him or herself in thoughtful and sincere prayer because they would not want you to get a genuine answer from God: you would be lifted up into pride and arrogance to the point of not needing to make such an attempt. "I don't need God: the answer is simple."

However, I think that we should be asking God for very few things. We should be thanking Him, mostly, and asking for strength to do the right things: NOT be asking for food, shelter, protection, etc.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It seems like hardly a sound method to me. I would never consider prayer a valid way of gaining knowledge on mundane matters of fact, let alone the prime mover of reality.

I don't consider the creation of the universe and the existence of God to be "mundane matters of fact". In fact, they would be the ultimate matters of fact.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I have defined those indeed, and I have defined them without any need of recourse to a good God. Are you saying you could not be virtuous without God? It is a frightening thought, if so.

Ah yes...the atheists often stated argument about "ZOMG! if you would not be virtuous without God, you must be teh evilz!"

Come, now: there's no reason to be dogmatic on me. I've heard it all, already.

But I addressed this point already and will address it again.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I am hardly shitting myself over it. I can believe, if it is proven, that the ceaseless recitation of mantra can be beneficial to your mental health; however, if so it is far more likely to have to do with the brains architecture, not the intervention of some deity. I agree indeed that there is subjective value in some religious practices; but arguing backwards from this to the necessity of some prime mover is preposterous. All the efficacy of these techniques would prove is that they are efficient techniques of mental training, not that they are god-given.

I find it preposterous that you are arguing it backwards when it should be argued forwards.

God exists.

He wants you to be good.

What is good? Probably genuine altruism.

If you need to pray a bunch or forsake sexuality (no kids), so bet it: as long as it helps you become genuinely altruistic and progress in your understanding of the universe and those around you.

How you worked out that we should be "working it backwards" from the rites is beyond me. That's an impossible thought to entertain. The rites are for the individual, not God. You think God REALLY needs his children to be baptized or for them to pray to the east/west at certain times of the day?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Moral relativism is actually the furthest argument from my mind. If a good God wants me to slaughter infidels, then I must choose one of three recourses: Getting out the guns, denying that the being who suggested such is the good God, or denying that those words are his.

Slaughtering makes some level of sense. Obviously, if the being is the real deal good God, there must be something i'm missing to call it immoral.

And this is the argument many make but it fails the "all-loving, benevolent, Creator" test. I reject some of the actions of the God of the old-testament as being truly attributable to God. I get that luxury because I'm Mormon. 🙂 We think all works by man are instantly corrupted the moment it processes through our minds from God.

Originally posted by King Kandy
...because you have more trust in your own judgment than in your scriptures; in which case, you may as well live life on your own strength entirely.

Funny you should say that: that's the ultimate "form" of Mormonism. We must progress to the point to where we no longer rely on God for our own perfection but we are our own-light and righteous entity. It is comparable to the state of nirvana.
That can lead to arrogance, for sure.

So, yes, an individual SHOULD progress beyond the point of relying on scriptures AND God. They should be their own righteous entity without need of either to become gods themselves.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I am in 100% agreement with you that altruism may have a biological basis. But this seems to benefit my argument, not yours. For, if altruism is based in human biology, then there is no need to attribute it to anything divine.

If you consider that I believe God blessed us with a propensity (for the most part) towards altruistic behaviors, then you can see why I hold it (even if purely biological...our spirits should be rather agnostic towards this) as a supporting argument. It is simply a tool that God blessed us with to become better eternal beings.

I think the reason for pointing out the "If you're saying God makes you good, would you be evil without God?" is more to make the person aware of the flaws in their own reasoning, not because it's a bulletproof argument. Not sure how it's being used in your conversation there, but that's generally why I use it.