Bad faith of the agnostic

[Ross Dolan]

Why do Christians think everyone who thinks differently is wrong?

Because goddam near all humans think that everyone who thinks differently is wrong.

That is one of the difficulties of our world right now.

 

[Ross Dolan]

For me, it’s not a matter of faith. It’s a matter of evidence. And I see zero evidence of the Christian concept of their god.

Well...once again we are dealing with the Christian god (the Jewish god)...and that has little to do with what most atheists have to say about GODS. That is one of the reasons I so dislike descriptors. They just do not do the job.

Seems to me best to put out one's position succinctly and just drop the descriptor stuff.

Here, once again, is mine:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Dormer...can you tell me what yours is?

 

[Litmus]

Ok, I think we might be on the same page.

People get PhDs in religious studies precisely because it is not true to state that the world's religious and ethical traditions are basically the same, and that Jesus, Plato, and the Bhudda basically had the same program and priorities

there are similarities between some. very basic moral things.

but mostly people get PhD so they can tell everyone what everything means and destroy the actual moral teachings, like Masonic fuckjobs always always do.

 

[Litmus]

Commonsense dictates that religion is an invention of men.

because men come to see the value of a high trust moral society over time, but its hard to explain that to the passionate and stupid youths. so they come with a set of narratives with moral themes in them.

it's called mytholgy and folklore, but if people are killing you over it, it's probably called a religion.

 

[Cypress]

there are similarities between some. very basic moral things.

but mostly people get PhD so they can tell everyone what everything means and destroy the actual moral teachings, like Masonic fuckjobs always always do.

You can give a child a list of "very basic moral things".

Lists are fine for children.

But a list provides neither understanding nor awareness.

You actually have to read Aristotle, Confucius, the Gospels, and understand their historical context to grasp the metaphysical basis, meaning. and purpose underlying their programs of ethics, values, and virtues.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

For me, it’s not a matter of faith. It’s a matter of evidence. And I see zero evidence of the Christian concept of their god.

It seems to be human nature to take things they don't understand and tell stories about them. Those stories can grow into myth, legends or religions. That's nothing to laugh at, ridicule or disregard. Science helps reveal facts, the truth about the Universe. Understanding people is more elusive.

That said, understanding that there's no evidence of the Abrahamic god, the Hindu gods, Tibetan beliefs, or anything else beyond the physical is logical, but turns a blind eye to understanding human beings.

IMO, the evidence indicates that human beings have a spiritual side; a side that is intangible, but certainly there in over 95% of them. Hardcore "when you're dead, you're dead" atheists are rare and not necessarily smarter by turning a blind eye to a natural phenomenon.

 

[domer76]

Well...once again we are dealing with the Christian god (the Jewish god)...and that has little to do with what most atheists have to say about GODS. That is one of the reasons I so dislike descriptors. They just do not do the job.

Seems to me best to put out one's position succinctly and just drop the descriptor stuff.

Here, once again, is mine:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Dormer...can you tell me what yours is?

Some nondescript god that you fail to describe does not interest me. Until you can tell us its attributes are, you’re merely blowing wind.

Now, we all know the attributes of the Christian god. In this country, it’s been pounded into us since birth.

That god, the Christian god as we know him? ZERO evidence a god with those attributes exists. In fact, just the opposite. All evidence points to his non-existence.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I was talking more "bigger picture" than just the follies of religion. We, as humans with functional brains, have no conscience control over what we are convinced by and, therefore, believe. I currently have no interest in learning to speak Chinese, so there is basically no chance that I'm going to put in the time, money and effort to learn Chinese. If I read an article tomorrow that completely change my views on that, and suddenly learning Chinese was among the most important things in my life, I would have no control over that.

Disagreed about control. Even if, hypothetically, we are meat robots with 90% of our actions controlled by biochemically and 5% by the actions of others, that leaves 5% that is within our individual control. While I confess to not knowing the actual numbers, I do know that I make choices every day and consider people who believe they have to no control to be out of control. Either they are stupid, mentally ill or lying to themselves.
I could be wrong.

 

[domer76]

It seems to be human nature to take things they don't understand and tell stories about them. Those stories can grow into myth, legends or religions. That's nothing to laugh at, ridicule or disregard. Science helps reveal facts, the truth about the Universe. Understanding people is more elusive.

That said, understanding that there's no evidence of the Abrahamic god, the Hindu gods, Tibetan beliefs, or anything else beyond the physical is logical, but turns a blind eye to understanding human beings.

IMO, the evidence indicates that human beings have a spiritual side; a side that is intangible, but certainly there in over 95% of them. Hardcore "when you're dead, you're dead" atheists are rare and not necessarily smarter by turning a blind eye to a natural phenomenon.

That’s all fine and good, but when one’s myth starts to influence everything from law to foreign policy in our country, it goes beyond understanding the universe.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Some nondescript god that you fail to describe does not interest me. Until you can tell us its attributes are, you’re merely blowing wind.

Now, we all know the attributes of the Christian god. In this country, it’s been pounded into us since birth.

That god, the Christian god as we know him? ZERO evidence a god with those attributes exists. In fact, just the opposite. All evidence points to his non-existence.

You're hatred of "the Christian god" is an emotional reaction, Domer, not a logical one. Such strong emotional reactions have a basis, usually a painful experience.

What was your painful experience that makes you more emotional than logical?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That’s all fine and good, but when one’s myth starts to influence everything from law to foreign policy in our country, it goes beyond understanding the universe.

Agreed. Like the Founders, I support a separation of Church and State. That doesn't mean I hate "the Christian god". Your response doesn't comport with your obvious hatred of the Christian religion.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

"wouldn't consider themselves agnostic about OTHER unevidenced claims. '

True. We rarely know anything with 100% certainty because we almost never experience things first hand. We are always trying to establish likelihood that something is/isn't true.

There is nothing people invest in more, with less evidence, than religion.

While I can't speak for you or everyone, I know for a fact that I don't live in a bubble. Yes, there are a lot of things I don't experience firsthand, but there are a lot things I have. Ergo, I can't honestly say I almost never experience things firsthand. YMMV

Disagreed on people investing in religion since, in America at least, a lot of people invest in materialism. Specifically, money. Look at Trump who is a very transactional person who measures people by what they can do for him and the size of his wallet. He's a billionaire, yet he's milking his sheeple for money. Do you consider Trump, Melania and most of the Trump family to be religious? I don't. I suspect none of them are religious. Same goes for most of their fans.

 

[Kafka]

Some nondescript god that you fail to describe does not interest me. Until you can tell us its attributes are, you’re merely blowing wind.

It is a philosopher's type of god. A construct meant to serve the role of housing that which we don't yet know (or possibly can't know) and it carries no real explanatory value or informational value.

Some "philosophers" like Cypress look at the universe and are rightfully awed. No answer is forthcoming as to what caused all this so they create "God" as the placeholder.

But unlike the Believer's God it lacks any firm attributes which could be questioned or tested for. It is, effectively unfalsifiable and as such, again, of no real explanatory or informational value.

That god, the Christian god as we know him? ZERO evidence a god with those attributes exists. In fact, just the opposite. All evidence points to his non-existence.

That's why so many of our local agnostics here prefer the "Philosopher's Type of God", the placeholder with no features because features are the first step to confirmation.

 

[ZenMode]

Disagreed about control. Even if, hypothetically, we are meat robots with 90% of our actions controlled by biochemically and 5% by the actions of others, that leaves 5% that is within our individual control. While I confess to not knowing the actual numbers, I do know that I make choices every day and consider people who believe they have to no control to be out of control. Either they are stupid, mentally ill or lying to themselves.
I could be wrong.

The problem is, there's no scientific basis for a self that would give you the ~5% your looking for. Nowhere in your brain or body is there a separate "self" thing. There's no thinker of thoughts, believer of beliefs, feeler of feelings, etc.

People don't want to believe that, especially the most religious who believe in an eternal soul that can be punished for eternity for believing the wrong things.

 

[ZenMode]

While I can't speak for you or everyone, I know for a fact that I don't live in a bubble. Yes, there are a lot of things I don't experience firsthand, but there are a lot things I have. Ergo, I can't honestly say I almost never experience things firsthand. YMMV

I was thinking about all of the discussions that are had on this forum. We are discussing things that are based on opinion and then we are discussing things for which NONE of us has first-hand experience. The claims of a stolen election, the goings on in Gaza, the goings on in Ukraine, the goings on (behind the scenes) of every governmental event. We are all trying to piece together information, figure out what we believe happened and how certain we are.

That's why the Internet, especially social media is so dangerous. More and more people truly believe a Tweet, with no source and no context, is news!

Disagreed on people investing in religion since, in America at least, a lot of people invest in materialism. Specifically, money. Look at Trump who is a very transactional person who measures people by what they can do for him and the size of his wallet. He's a billionaire, yet he's milking his sheeple for money. Do you consider Trump, Melania and most of the Trump family to be religious? I don't. I suspect none of them are religious. Same goes for most of their fans.

True. I should have said the MOST religious...

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The problem is, there's no scientific basis for a self that would give you the ~5% your looking for. Nowhere in your brain or body is there a separate "self" thing. There's no thinker of thoughts, believer of beliefs, feeler of feelings, etc.

People don't want to believe that, especially the most religious who believe in an eternal soul that can be punished for eternity for believing the wrong things.

Wrong again, but I'm not seeing a scientific basis for your claim that we are 100% meat robots with no choice in our actions. The fact you feel like a meat robot sounds more like schizophrenia than it does logic....and that's not an insult, that is an evaluation. Schizophrenics can feel like their dog, the television or a Beatles' record is dictating their actions.

Freewill vs Determinism In Psychology

The free will vs. determinism debate revolves around how our behavior results from forces over which we have no control or whether people can decide to act or

www.simplypsychology.org

As a science, psychology attempts the same thing – to develop laws, but this time to predict behavior. If we argue against determinism, we are, in effect, rejecting the scientific approach to explaining behavior

Mental illnesses appear to undermine the concept of free will. For example, individuals with OCD lose control of their thoughts and actions, and people with depression lose control over their emotions.

Clearly, a pure deterministic or free will approach does not seem appropriate when studying human behavior. Most psychologists use the concept of free will to express the idea that behavior is not a passive reaction to forces but that individuals actively respond to internal and external forces.

The term soft determinism is often used to describe this position, whereby people do have a choice, but their behavior is always subject to some form of biological or environmental pressure.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I was thinking about all of the discussions that are had on this forum. We are discussing things that are based on opinion and then we are discussing things for which NONE of us has first-hand experience. The claims of a stolen election, the goings on in Gaza, the goings on in Ukraine, the goings on (behind the scenes) of every governmental event. We are all trying to piece together information, figure out what we believe happened and how certain we are.

That's why the Internet, especially social media is so dangerous. More and more people truly believe a Tweet, with no source and no context, is news!

True. I should have said the MOST religious...

Disagreed since I'm arguing from a position of both education and experience, which often bears out my education and training. If 75% of what I was taught/trained turns out to be true in life experience, is it logical for me to presume that the remaining 25% is likely to be true? Yes, IMO, it does. Again, YMMV

Notice that the main people being heavily influenced by the Internet are the young (inexperienced and ignorant) and the truly stupid.

Most religions are composed of adults, not college kids.

 

[ZenMode]

Wrong again, but I'm not seeing a scientific basis for your claim that we are 100% meat robots with no choice in our actions. The fact you feel like a meat robot sounds more like schizophrenia than it does logic.

Freewill vs Determinism In Psychology

The free will vs. determinism debate revolves around how our behavior results from forces over which we have no control or whether people can decide to act or

www.simplypsychology.org

As a science, psychology attempts the same thing – to develop laws, but this time to predict behavior. If we argue against determinism, we are, in effect, rejecting the scientific approach to explaining behavior


Clearly, a pure deterministic or free will approach does not seem appropriate when studying human behavior. Most psychologists use the concept of free will to express the idea that behavior is not a passive reaction to forces but that individuals actively respond to internal and external forces.

The term soft determinism is often used to describe this position, whereby people do have a choice, but their behavior is always subject to some form of biological or environmental pressure.

Like everyone, I DO feel like there is a self floating around somewhere behind my eyes, riding inside my body. I feel like I'm REALLY making choices when I decide to mow or not mow the yard.

The more you continue to remind yourself that there is no self, the more it just becomes apart of your everyday existence. When someone cuts you off in traffic, you are almost instantly reminded that they had no choice and the anger dissipates more and more quickly each time it happens.
And yes.... determinism is 100% true

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Like everyone, I DO feel like there is a self floating around somewhere behind my eyes, riding inside my body. I feel like I'm REALLY making choices when I decide to mow or not mow the yard.

The more you continue to remind yourself that there is no self, the more it just becomes apart of your everyday existence. When someone cuts you off in traffic, you are almost instantly reminded that they had no choice and the anger dissipates more and more quickly each time it happens.

Yet you really believe that someone else or something else is driving that decision according to your earlier posts.

I think you are taking only part of Buddhist philosophy and twisting it to your own ends. Another perspective on the "self is an illusion" philosophy is that we are all one. That our separation from one another is an illusion. In that regard, there is a greater "self" from which we, as individual mortals, are only temporarily split off from. None of which has anything to do with the decisions we make at present.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Some nondescript god that you fail to describe does not interest me.

I described what I mean by a god in detail. If the thing we humans call "the universe" was created (rather than always existed)...whatever created it or caused it to be created...is what I mean.

If you want toga size, you are being silly.

Until you can tell us its attributes are, you’re merely blowing wind.

The attribute of a god for me...is that the god created or caused to be created this thing we humans call "the universe."

Now, we all know the attributes of the Christian god. In this country, it’s been pounded into us since birth.

Okay.

That god, the Christian god as we know him?

I am only interested in the question of whether ANY gods (as I defined them or it) exist.

The Christian god, which is actually the Jewish god, may exist, but the people describing the attributes of that god may have fucked up royally.

ZERO evidence a god with those attributes exists.

If that god exists...EVERYTHING WE SEE IN THIS THING WE CALL THE UNIVERSE IS EVIDENCE.

By the same token...IF NO GODS EXIST AT ALL...EVERYTHING WE SEE IN THIS THING WE CALL THE UNIVERSE IS EVIDENCE OF THAT.

There is no way to tell.

In fact, just the opposite. All evidence points to his non-existence.

Horse shit. There is no meaningful evidence that points to any gods not existing.

But you are correct that there is no meaningful evidence that points to any god actually existing.