Calling All Atheists and Interested Parties

[Triskadecamus]

@Revenant Threshold

It’s catsix you’re arguing with.

OK.

@catsix

How would this be different if you said Thor instead?

Logically, it would not.

Would I be any more or less justified in saying that it sounds to me like you’re having difficulty providing evidence for the existence of a figment of your imagination?

From your perspective, there is no difference.

Should I automatically lend more creedence to your statement because you said ‘god’ not ‘Thor’?

No.

My point isn’t that you don’t actually believe in the things you’re saying. It’s that your beliefs deserve no more respect or consideration or validation from me than they would if you were carrying on about Zeus and Mount Olympus being real.

Well, while I take some objection to the term “carrying on” the rest of what you say is entirely reasonable.

Because I want a reason why the Big Three should be different. I want a reason why my answer of ‘it’s absurd’ is good enough for refuting a scientologist, a thorist, an astrologist, a demon-in-a-dog believer, but not a Big Three follower.

Your answer is entirely good enough for you. I disagree. So do a very large number of other people. I happen to be entirely aware that my disagreement is not based on logic. Some Christians wish to contend on the basis of logic.

I want to know why this ridiculous bias that permeates society and this forum.

Because this forum runs on equipment primarily used by members of an historically Christian society. The existence of the bias is not proof, or disproof.

And now the opposite case. Is there a reason why I should show respect for your emotions, or whichever of your opinions are not based on hard peer reviewed experimental evidence? Like perhaps your politics? Your sexual preferences? Should I sneer at your desire for this or that social change if I happen to want another? You have no proof. Your opinion is entirely based on your socially reinforced learned attitudes. Should I feel free to call an idiot for believing them?

Tris

[Polycarp]

You know, people who equate belief in, on the one hand, a particular entity of apparently illimitable power and wisdom, who appears to have some interest in and ability to affect human affairs, and whose activities are documented in anecdotal data from an enormous number of people and in writings that are freely admitted to be of debatable provenance but nonetheless to reflect some real influence in the lives of those who wrote them and their culture, with, on the other hand, a random character from children’s fantasy literature not accepted by anyone beyond the age of reason, dismissively holding that all evidence in favor of the claims of the religionists is invalid and all arguments in favor of their views is delusional, are certainly not demonstrating very good adherence to the principles of rationality to which they claim allegiance.

Suppose us, for the sake of argument, to be on Diskworld, where all these figures do in fact exist. What significance would a quite real, extant Tooth Fairy, capable of being interviewed by Katie Couric and writing her memoirs for Doubleday, have in people’s lives? As far as I can tell, the sole impact would be on children, who have found a market for no-longer-needed decicuous teeth that have been replaced – and includes a very minor economic effect provided that the proper ritual is followed. The Demon Moon Raccoons who secretly plotted to disguise their lair by faking the moon landings have very little impact on the rest of the world, except insofar as they foster the moon-landing-was-real delusion. (Don’t laugh; someone actually proposed this one seriously some years back; Opal linked to it.) And so on.

First off, “belief” in God is not parallel to “I believe in the Loch Ness monster” or “I believe in flying saucers” – unless you believe that the beneficient aliens are going to land and bring the superscientific solutions to all life’s problems, which is a bizarre form of religious belief. A person who “believes in God” puts his faith and trust in Him in exactly the same way as “I believe in you” means that I trust you to be square with me and do the right thing, that I know I can count on you for the truth and to stand by me. It is a personal relationship as opposed to an intellectual credence in the reality of something. When you hear the stupid line “Christianity is not a religion but a relationship” that is what they are alluding to.

I don’t believe in the Devil. Nobody with those characteristics is someone I could trust. If you want to know whether there is any reason to grant intellectual acceptance to the existence of a figure abstracted from Job, Milton, Dante, Faust, and whothefuckknowswhatelse, I’ll take a rain check; I have other issues of far more interest to me than in weighing the evidence for and against various characterizations of the above.

I don’t believe in unicorns or magic sky pixies. The God whom I know and in whom I put my trust has as little to do with Der Trihs’s concept of God as magic sky pixie as Artorius Riothamus, warlord of Celtic Britain, has to do with the character Richard Harris played in the movie based on T.H. White’s book.

Evidence needs to be evaluated and weighted, to be sure. And that is something each individual does. To take something mildly controversial but without the penchant for polarization of most other “unproven” arguments, there is still a controversy over whether the thylacine is extinct. A minority of people believe that the putative sightings of some years back and various debatable spoors and such suggest that it may survive in a small isolated area. They have weighed the evidence and found it suggestive of survival. The majority have weighed much the same evidence and found it suggestive of extinction. But neither party is delusional – they have simply drawn different conclusions from the degree of value they place on the same evidence.

I have been on record in religious debates here in the past in noting that the evidence adduced by Freyr and Sister Coyote the posters in favor of the tutelary deities whose names they have assumed as board usernames, truly needs to be dealt with. Almost precisely the same sorts of experience that Lib, Tris, myself, and a few others have testified to as having happened in our lives (which by the way is far different than the derisive sneer Badchad has referenced it with) is also the sort of experience of their gods that those two experienced. This does need to be accounted for, by some means or another.

[catsix]

Polycarp said:
A person who “believes in God” puts his faith and trust in Him in exactly the same way as “I believe in you” means that I trust you to be square with me and do the right thing, that I know I can count on you for the truth and to stand by me.

Except that my existence is a fact, whereas god is every bit as much a myth as zeus.

It is a personal relationship as opposed to an intellectual credence in the reality of something. When you hear the stupid line “Christianity is not a religion but a relationship” that is what they are alluding to.

And if you said you had a personal relationship with zeus, it would be assumed that your friend is imaginary. I just see no reason to consider god any different.

If you want to know whether there is any reason to grant intellectual acceptance to the existence of a figure abstracted from Job, Milton, Dante, Faust, and whothefuckknowswhatelse, I’ll take a rain check; I have other issues of far more interest to me than in weighing the evidence for and against various characterizations of the above.

Other than Job, who doesn’t exactly have a big bibliography and therefore might not even exist unless you take the bible’s word for it, the other people on your list are just famous authors. The ‘famous guys believe in it’ argument wouldn’t hold water in any other debate, and it certainly holds none here. Why should that argument work for the Big Three when everywhere else it’s considered to be a rhetorical fallacy?

I have been on record in religious debates here in the past in noting that the evidence adduced by Freyr and Sister Coyote the posters in favor of the tutelary deities whose names they have assumed as board usernames, truly needs to be dealt with. Almost precisely the same sorts of experience that Lib, Tris, myself, and a few others have testified to as having happened in our lives (which by the way is far different than the derisive sneer Badchad has referenced it with) is also the sort of experience of their gods that those two experienced. This does need to be accounted for, by some means or another.

People have dreams and hallucinations all the time. People hear voices. Some of them claim that it’s god, and some of them claim the neighbor’s dog is possessed by a demon. It doesn’t need to be ‘dealt with’ any differently than we would ‘deal with’ a person hearing a voice or seeing something that isn’t there when they don’t claim it’s god.

But again, you’re still starting with the assumption that the Big Three are somehow different from every other illogical claim of faith.

I suppose the next argument will be that the majority takes it seriously. Another logical fallacy.

[xenophon41]

Except that my existence is a fact…

Uh oh! Can you prove it?

[catsix]

Yes.

There is quite enough evidence, particularly evidence not generated by me, to prove that I exist.

Every bit as much as there is evidence that you exist, and you’d consider that proof of your existence wouldn’t you?

I don’t subscribe to Zoe’s irrational religious theories or whoisreadingthis’s pseudo-intellectual philosophy.

Why are you asking me to defend their position?

[xenophon41]

Every bit as much as there is evidence that you exist, and you’d consider that proof of your existence wouldn’t you?

Are you saying my acceptance of my existence is proof enough for you?

[catsix]

No. I’m saying you’re piling up ridiculous crap that other people said and asking me to defend it.

But I suppose if you really wanted to prove that you exist you would send the evidence for my inspection. Birth certificate, social security card, driver’s license, passport, photographs, newspaper clippings, notarized letters from your mother, etc.

You might even choose to show up in person with those things so that I could match the photographs to your face.

But I don’t care who you are.

[xenophon41]

And you would find that evidence as reasonable proof that you were talking to xenophon41? Frankly, I would require more proof than that that catsix exists as a unique living person. Fortunately I’m not looking for you to prove that, but I wouldn’t find such evidence as you’re suggesting to be reasonable proof that you exist.

[Dead_Badger]

@Polycarp

You know, people who equate belief in, on the one hand, a particular entity of apparently illimitable power and wisdom, who appears to have some interest in and ability to affect human affairs, and whose activities are documented in anecdotal data from an enormous number of people and in writings that are freely admitted to be of debatable provenance but nonetheless to reflect some real influence in the lives of those who wrote them and their culture, with, on the other hand, a random character from children’s fantasy literature not accepted by anyone beyond the age of reason, dismissively holding that all evidence in favor of the claims of the religionists is invalid and all arguments in favor of their views is delusional, are certainly not demonstrating very good adherence to the principles of rationality to which they claim allegiance.

I have to say, I don’t find the intellectual appeal of a particular posited supernatural entity to be a great argument in favour of its existence. Nor do I particularly agree with your argument that the corpus of “evidence” should really sway me; after all, there are many different cultures with equally well “documented” claims to supernatural exclusivity, and they can’t all be right. I agree that the IPU argument is rather cliched and facile, but to claim that your belief is more plausible because more people have written about it seems weak in the extreme.

Indeed, your later examples seem merely to reinforce the point; generic “religious” experiences are commonplace, yet tend to be explained by people in whatever context they find most comfortable. You seem to want us to take the existence of pan-cultural religious experiences as evidence for the existence of a God. I look at these and feel that the “God” is the least common element; the part of the account most conveniently and commonly mutated to whatever the subject finds most acceptable. It doesn’t astound me in the slightest that people from different backgrounds are prone to what they choose to characterise as divine contact. After all, tonight I’m likely to go comatose, experience vivid hallucinations and then maybe suffer amnesia about the whole thing. Yet if I go out tomorrow and act amazed at this, people will think I’m some sort of freak. Why should we be surprised that our brain chemistry lends itself to another sort of shared experience? Why should we assign this some sort of probative value in the question of an omnipotent deity? After all, you interpreted your experiences in different ways; what’s the common factor here? It’s not God, as far as I can see; it’s your head.

Finally, to address the OP: as a former Christian, now committed agnostic (of the strong variety), I have to say that the very idea that atheists are persecuted on this board makes me giggle involuntarily. As I recently opined in the “liberal media” pit thread, it never ceases to amaze me how some people can perceive bias and persecution in the most ludicrous of circumstances.

[Find_Friends]

@catsix

No. I’m saying you’re piling up ridiculous crap that other people said and asking me to defend it.

But I suppose if you really wanted to prove that you exist you would send the evidence for my inspection. Birth certificate, social security card, driver’s license, passport, photographs, newspaper clippings, notarized letters from your mother, etc.

You might even choose to show up in person with those things so that I could match the photographs to your face.

But I don’t care who you are.

Reminds me of a wonderful story, Cat, one probably apocryphal, as many of the best stories are.

A college student was presented a single question for her Philosophy final. It challenged her to prove her existence. She was consternated for a while, and then a flash of inspiration came across her face.

She checked her purse and was happy to find that she had kept in it a copy of her latest credit card bill, as she thought. She simply paper-clipped it to the exam sheet.

Naturally, she received an A on the final.

---

True Blue Jack

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Dead Badger

I have to say that the very idea that atheists are persecuted on this board makes me giggle involuntarily.

You’re misstating what some people (I, at least) are saying: I’m maintaining that this board, which recognizes admirably high standards of evidence for almost any assertion, relaxes those high standards where the arguments for God (and more specifically for a Xian God) are being made.

This might be seen as “persecution” in the sense that Scientologists and Baal-worshippers are treated rudely while Xians are protected from rude inquisition, but it’s not to say that this Board persecutes atheists and promotes Xians any more than our culture does generally. But by his own high standard, it’s selectively applying standards of inquiry in favor of Xian beliefs.

In misstating the argument, you’re creating a straw man. If that gives you the giggles, you are very easily amused.

[Dead_Badger]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

In misstating the argument, you’re creating a straw man. If that gives you the giggles, you are very easily amused.

Funny, I thought I was answering the question posed by the OP (the hint was where I said, “Finally, to address the OP”); I don’t believe I even mentioned you or that other dickhead you seem to enjoy defending. But then, it’s clear to me that you’re an irredeemable idiot who hasn’t even been blessed with the self-awareness God gave the average cauliflower, so it’s utterly unremarkable that you were seemingly unable to read even the first post in this thread. Others might say supernatural herrings prevented you from comprehending; I think you’re just a twat.

@The OP

Atheists: Do you feel that your views are oppressed here on the Dope?

Oops.

[Liberal]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

You’re I’m maintaining that this board, which recognizes admirably high standards of evidence for almost any assertion, relaxes those high standards where the arguments for God (and more specifically for a Xian God) are being made.

It isn’t a matter of the height of the standard, but of what the standard is. You apparently cannot imagine any standard other than a scientific test. You would apply that standard — wrongly — to arguments about whether 1 + 1 is equal to 2. It’s almost as though you don’t know that there’s anything else out there besides science, or else as though you define science as everything conceivable plus everything that isn’t.

An argument for God (or for cardinality of infinity, or for the axioms of Special Relativity, or for the aesthetics of language, or any number of other things) is not and ought not to be scientific in nature. These incessant demands for examining faith in the same way you would examine nature are clarion calls of ignorance. You should either learn the applicable tools for examining analytical things or else stick to commenting on things like rocks, trees, and stars.

[Sarahfeena]

@Liberal

It isn’t a matter of the height of the standard, but of what the standard is. You apparently cannot imagine any standard other than a scientific test. You would apply that standard — wrongly — to arguments about whether 1 + 1 is equal to 2. It’s almost as though you don’t know that there’s anything else out there besides science, or else as though you define science as everything conceivable plus everything that isn’t.

An argument for God (or for cardinality of infinity, or for the axioms of Special Relativity, or for the aesthetics of language, or any number of other things) is not and ought not to be scientific in nature. These incessant demands for examining faith in the same way you would examine nature are clarion calls of ignorance. You should either learn the applicable tools for examining analytical things or else stick to commenting on things like rocks, trees, and stars.

You are so right, Liberal, many, if not most, of the things worth thinking about and investigating in this world are not scientific in nature at all. The entire study of Philosophy is inherently one in which things cannot be “proven” (certainly not scientifically), and yet many of the greatest minds in history have dedicated themselves to its pursuit. Something as basic to our existence as what makes us human (vs. just another mammal) has not been and probably will never be explained by science. Yet, we all strive to understand and put meaning to our human-ness every day. Some choose to attribute our human-ness to god. Why not? It’s as plausible an explanation as any science can come up with, and more satisfying than saying “it just is.”

[Dead_Badger]

@Sarahfeena

Some choose to attribute our human-ness to god. Why not? It’s as plausible an explanation as any science can come up with, and more satisfying than saying “it just is.”

So? It might be even more satisfying to take an egocentric view of the universe, and believe that the entire artifice has been created entirely for my own edification. What on earth does an idea’s personal appeal have to do with its factual nature?

[Liberal]

@Dead Badger

So? It might be even more satisfying to take an egocentric view of the universe, and believe that the entire artifice has been created entirely for my own edification. What on earth does an idea’s personal appeal have to do with its factual nature?

What on earth does a thing’s “factual nature” have to do with its truth? Correspondence theories about truth and Socratic theories about knowledge are fine for high school, but beyond that plane there are many theories about truth and knowledge. At the level of factual truth, how do you prove you love your wife? Brain activity scans? For that matter, why would you love her? What fact necessitates that you spend your last dollar to buy her a gift that she adores? And at a factual level, how does the quantum world of abstract mechanical descriptions emerge into a perceptible reality? Jesus, this constant abuse of science is tiresome. People are making science into something almost religious. And that’s terrible.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Sarahfeena

more satisfying than saying “it just is.”

Here’s where we differ. I find “it just is” infinitely more satisfying, in that I don’t need to posit or invent entities, or in any way lie to myself, to reach that conclusion.

[Hogwash]

Sarahfeena, I’m curious. What exactly do you mean by our unique human-ness (Self-awareness? Love? Art? Morality?), and what aspects do you feel will probably never be explained by science?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Liberal

An argument for God (or for cardinality of infinity, or for the axioms of Special Relativity, or for the aesthetics of language, or any number of other things) is not and ought not to be scientific in nature. These incessant demands for examining faith in the same way you would examine nature are clarion calls of ignorance. You should either learn the applicable tools for examining analytical things or else stick to commenting on things like rocks, trees, and stars.

I disagree, to a certain extent. Certainly the existence of gods must be argued philisophically, but there are cases when a scientific argument may be appropriate. If I believe that my god created the universe with the Earth at the centre, that’s something that can be argued against through science, and in turn is an argument against that god’s existence (or at least that I have misunderstoof him). Gods may be purely supernatural in nature, but when they interact (or are thought to interact) on the physical plane, it isn’t unreasonable to try and study those interactions in a scientific manner as well as philisophical.

@Liberal

And that’s terrible.

Could be worse. At least we still have our pies.

[Liberal]

@Revenant Threshold

If I believe that my god created the universe with the Earth at the centre, that’s something that can be argued against through science, and in turn is an argument against that god’s existence (or at least that I have misunderstoof him).

Any statement that a metaphysical God did anything is a nonscientific statement. Science tests only physical things. Now, a claim that the universe was or was not created (as opposed to, say, existing eternally) can theoretically be tested scientifically if a falsifiable hypothesis can be formulated about a physical causality agent (like a sub-quantum flux in some brane or something). But God is off-limits to science, just as gravity is off-limits to faith.

Now, you can say that you don’t trust nonscientific claims, but unless you get more specific than that, it would mean that you don’t trust predicate logic or Peano arithmetic. They’re analytical too. You need some reason to single out faith in God as particularly to your disliking even if it’s just arbitrary. That’s why I said earlier that “There is no evidence of God” is a misstatement of fact, while “There is no evidence of God that I find acceptable” is a valid statement of opinion.

Could be worse. At least we still have our pies.

Hmm… Egg custard…