Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
#26

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-09-2019, 02:06 PM)Kimdal Wrote:
(08-09-2019, 01:57 PM)DLJ Wrote: It's induction not deduction but we do know that all myths, legends and folklore are products of human imagination. 

How do we know? Maybe I'm ignorant on this and you know better.
...

Mainly... anthropology.  Also information theory.

Folklore goes:  Wisdom > Knowledge > Information > Data 
The scientific method is the reverse: D > I > K > W

[Image: DIKW-model-on-a-Cartesian-plane-Source-a...d-2014.png]

(08-09-2019, 02:06 PM)Kimdal Wrote:
(08-09-2019, 01:57 PM)DLJ Wrote: We also know about the power of tradition as a comforter, the misinformation effect, confirmation bias, the sharp-shooter fallacy etc. ... people often believe what they want to believe. 

Reality can be a scary place. 

I agree. In my previous post I tried to explain that sometimes I wish I could be atheist, but I'm not able to.

I understand the fear of hell.  It stems from the fear of death / fear of the dark etc.

But it's a reification error, or more accurately, an appropriation error ... appropriating an unknowable-unknown into a known-unknown.  

[Image: Natural-vs.-supernatural.jpg]
The following 6 users Like DLJ's post:
  • Alan V, SYZ, Szuchow, Deesse23, skyking, Gwaithmir
Reply
#27

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-09-2019, 01:36 PM)Kimdal Wrote: It's a fact that spaghetti is made by man. It's an unproven claim that all gods are made by man. That's the difference. I admit that more than 99.9% of gods are not real gods. I'm not sure they are exactly man-made, though, but if we excluded spiritual entities, then I would agree that they are man made.

I don't merely claim that gods are man-made;  I state it as fact.  I also state that gravity exists,
but I can't observe it or feel it or hear it.  But... I can easily confirm its existence by its replicable,
consistent effects.  As far as the existence of any/all gods goes, there is not one single consequence
that can be observed or replicated in order to prove their existence.

I'm also intrigued that your atheism* is so selective;  you believe in some gods (0.1%) but disbelive
in the existence of others.  How do you make this selection?  What defines a "real" god?


* "I contend we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
—Stephen F Roberts
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#28

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-09-2019, 01:29 PM)Kimdal Wrote:
(08-09-2019, 12:17 PM)Deesse23 Wrote: The concept is internally inconsistent from A to Z. The scripture makes loads of claims that are verifiably wrong. Starting with Genesis´ first verses. Most of it is either wrong or cant be confirmed to be right.
For the record: Even if the abrahamic god would be proven to be existent, i wouldnt worship it, since it is a monster.

Thank you for explaining. I really was curious. I try to reply to some of your questions, but I need to filter things - too much to reply. if you really want to know something I didn't answer, please emphasize it.
Take your time.
So far you have been the most honest and reasonable theist i met on this board for a very long time. I may not agree with your reasoning or your belief, but i respect your good faith (no pun intended) in this conversation.

(08-09-2019, 01:29 PM)Kimdal Wrote:
(08-09-2019, 12:17 PM)Deesse23 Wrote: Not meaning to be disrespectful, but maybe you are just not educated enough for  aproper evaluation?

No offense taken. I think we both agree that many, way too many Christians (and Muslims, Hindues etc) are poorly educated and ignorant.
Atheists too! There are also lots of people who think gods dont exist ("hard" or gnostic atheists) who do so for bad reasons. Bad reasoning is not limited to the religious.
(08-09-2019, 01:29 PM)Kimdal Wrote:
(08-09-2019, 12:17 PM)Deesse23 Wrote: Again: if you cant explain something you experience. What is the most honest answer?

It depends. Let me show some different cases:
A) Magican makes some nice trick. I can't explain exactly, but I'm confident he used some psychology to made me focus in things he wanted me to focus, making me miss the trick.
B) Gravitation works even though there is a big obstacle between the objects. E.g. gravitation between sun and moon is unchanged during lunar eclipse, although common sense could suggests that earth would disturb gravitation forces between sun and moon. My response in this case: We don't yet understand gravitation well enough, even though we have very good physical models. We know how, but not why (when digging deep enough).
C) My grandmother died decades ago in old age. If she came back alive after decades and showed much younger that she was when she died and was buried, I would say that it's a supernatural miracle - after talking with her and realizing that she is really her. 
Dont know if i understood correctly, so please do correct me if necessary:
B) Gravitation
How do you know there must be a "why" at all? "Why" somehow hints at a hidden "persona", which is not necessarily true.
I work in the automotive industry. Toyota is famous for a method of identifying root problems with their cars (Japanese, they pay lots of attention to quality, those nitpickers :eyerollSmile
The method is called "5 why". The idea is that after peeling off 5 levels of your problem, you have most probably dug out the root problem (which then can be properly adressed). Why assume that somewhere deeper than the 5th "why" is a persona or intention? Assuming that there must be a "why" to gravitation is a (unwarranted) presupposition.

C) Your grandmother coming back from the dead
Why assume its a miracle? Just because you havent seen anything like that yet? To whom or what do you want to attribute this miracle (that you dont know anything about)?
If my mother pops up after years of rotting, i would say "i dont know why" and not "look, its a miracle". I would try to find out how and why she was raised, i would certainly not fall to my knees and shout "praise the lord". Look, thousands of years ago some guy like may have wondered where lightning comes from and if his grandmother got hit (while standing under a very tall tree) and killed, he would also have claimed it to be a miracle.


(08-09-2019, 01:29 PM)Kimdal Wrote:
(08-09-2019, 12:17 PM)Deesse23 Wrote: Personal evidence is a smoke screen. If you cant share your evidence with others, its worthless. Otherwise lots of real Napoleons are sitting in  mental hospitals. Thats not how proper reasoning works.


We live in a reality we share with each other. In this reality a god either exists or not. Its impossible for god to exist for you but not for me. So how do we decide what is real and what not? Only by the evidence we can share. How do we stop believing in false things? By being sceptical, by having the highest standards possible, certainly not by trading "i dont know" for "God!" or by attributing any random, mental or possibly drug induced experience to something supernatural.

I see your point and I agree objectivity should be used in most cases. But there is also a problem. Assuming A) there is a god and B) he does not want to share bullet proof objective evidence about him, and C) we dismiss everything that can not be objectively proven, then it's impossible to find the truth.
Thats TWO (imho) unwarranted assumptions. First you need to give me good reasons they might be true before we continue....
What you just did is presupposing that god exists and tries to "hide". Well, Assumption B) is redundant as soon as we accept A), right? So we wouldnt need any reasoning at all once we accept god exists. We just could aceept he does. But of course that is very bad reasoning imho.

If he does exist, and if he does like to play hide and seek.....he would be an asshole, right? Winking  I mean, does he expect me to not use this brain he gave me, and believe in him for bad reasons? Thumbsdown What kinda god would do that?

(08-09-2019, 01:29 PM)Kimdal Wrote: I admit that allowing subjective evidence makes it very difficult for humankind to get rid of false and dangerous beliefs.
Thumbs Up
cetero censeo religionem esse delendam 
The following 2 users Like Deesse23's post:
  • DLJ, skyking
Reply
#29

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-09-2019, 02:02 PM)Kimdal Wrote: I think the evidence strongly points to Christian God.
Ok, what evidence? Tell us what is the most compelling evidence to you.
cetero censeo religionem esse delendam 
The following 3 users Like Deesse23's post:
  • SYZ, Jenny, skyking
Reply
#30

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-09-2019, 02:20 PM)DLJ Wrote:
(08-09-2019, 02:06 PM)Kimdal Wrote:
(08-09-2019, 01:57 PM)DLJ Wrote: It's induction not deduction but we do know that all myths, legends and folklore are products of human imagination. 

How do we know? Maybe I'm ignorant on this and you know better.
...

Mainly... anthropology.  Also information theory.

Folklore goes:  Wisdom > Knowledge > Information > Data 
The scientific method is the reverse: D > I > K > W

[Image: DIKW-model-on-a-Cartesian-plane-Source-a...d-2014.png]

Very interesting lecture. Thank you, I learnt something new. I would say that in most cases your explanation is true, just like I admitted that most gods are false, imagination. I see the pattern, but how do we know that this pattern applies to 100% of cases, not only 99.99999% of cases? It seems like that, but how do we know?

I mean, a lot of people play lottery. I don't personally know anybody who has became rich by playing lottery, but there is objective evidence that in some cases it happens, although my experience (=my limited study within the group I know, if I may say so) shows pattern of no-one getting rich. Do you have proof that the pattern you showed have no exceptions?

How we know for a fact what is a legend? Most (but not all) historic scholars think that King Arthur is just folklore. There are good reasons why the story of King Arthur is hard to believe and questionable. But how do we know for sure it's just a legend? On the other hand, there are some reasons to believe that King Arthur might actually be a historic person. AFAIK, no-one has proof, only conflicting evidences. A bit similar case as the question of resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
Reply
#31

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
Some people keep themselves in the belief by gish galloping instead of realizing the simple truth of reality that if there was evidence for the existence of any god, faith would not be needed.
Reply
#32

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-09-2019, 12:46 PM)Kimdal Wrote:
(08-09-2019, 11:32 AM)Mark Wrote:
(08-09-2019, 03:48 AM)Kimdal Wrote: My work mate is hindu and she believes hindu gods. She has shown pictures of how the gods look like. I don’t see much evidence in believing in hindu gods, so I have I decided not to believe in it, after brief examination of claimed "evidence".


You say "I don’t see much evidence in believing in hindu gods" in spite of having spent a "brief examination of claimed "evidence"".  So apparently you feel that is an adequate response to god beliefs you don't already hold.  In relation to hindu gods you are content to declare yourself an atheist. 

Correct. I think all atheists agree that all gods are man made. For me god can not be man made. Looking at the image of one of the hindu god, and hearing the attributes of that god, I didn't need to examine more. That god was man-made clearly.

And it makes perfect sense to me that atheists think that my God (from the Bible) is not only man-made but insane, killing his son etc. I'm not ignorant. I have read atheistic literature, e.g. from Dawkins. I would also consider Bart Ehrman as atheistic author, although I'm not sure about his standpoint except that he claims in his books that Bible is not reliable source. I have also read blogs from atheists, so I understand that my beliefs seem silly to them.

Here's kind of a weird thing for you to think about.  I grew up in a very isolated area in the mountains.  We had no neighbors, no tv, no radio.  It was literally a cabin in the woods.  My parents were non religious and god wasn't a subject that came up, so essentially until about the age of 10 I had no god concept.    I didn't know there was something to believe didn't exist or did exist.  One couldn't even call it atheism.
                                                         T4618
The following 1 user Likes Dancefortwo's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#33

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-09-2019, 02:54 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:
(08-09-2019, 02:02 PM)Kimdal Wrote: I think the evidence strongly points to Christian God.
Ok, what evidence? Tell us what is the most compelling evidence to you.

Sorry, but I really don't want to waste time on that discussion. Have you ever seen that in any discussion forum that kind of discussion has radically changed the faith or lack of faith of anybody? If you have, please share a link and I might reconsider.

For example, the resurrection of Jesus. Atheistic position is that there are 5 conflicting stories, possible folklore, not worth of believing. I have read those claims and critics. But it's only one, biased side. There is also another side, refuting atheistic critics at least partially. After a lot of digging, it seems to be that you can't know for sure, and everybody (christians and non-christians) believes what he wants to believe. I see and admit that people, especially me and other christians usually believe what we want to believe. I try to remember that always when seeking the truth. But I have to say that I was a bit surprised that atheists are no better: they believe what they want to believe, too. I thought they are very rational. I'm curious, do atheists see that they also often chooses to believe scientific research that supports their world view? For example, some well known scientists didn't want to believe several decades ago when it became evident that universe has a beginning. It was unpleasant scientific result for many.
 
I'm no trying to convince anybody because I don't believe I can convince anybody. I just wanted to understand the question in the subject, and I have gotten answer: the burden of proof.
Reply
#34

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-09-2019, 02:57 PM)Kimdal Wrote: ...
Very interesting lecture. Thank you, I learnt something new. I would say that in most cases your explanation is true, just like I admitted that most gods are false, imagination. I see the pattern, but how do we know that this pattern applies to 100% of cases, not only 99.99999% of cases? It seems like that, but how do we know?

I mean, a lot of people play lottery. I don't personally know anybody who has became rich by playing lottery, but there is objective evidence that in some cases it happens, although my experience (=my limited study within the group I know, if I may say so) shows pattern of no-one getting rich. Do you have proof that the pattern you showed have no exceptions?

How we know for a fact what is a legend? Most (but not all) historic scholars think that King Arthur is just folklore. There are good reasons why the story of King Arthur is hard to believe and questionable. But how do we know for sure it's just a legend? On the other hand, there are some reasons to believe that King Arthur might actually be a historic person. AFAIK, no-one has proof, only conflicting evidences. A bit similar case as the question of resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

Exactly.  

We don't (and perhaps can't) know with 100% certainty because it's inductive not deductive.  

It's a question of 'burden of proof' but there's a risk of the 'Black Swan Fallacy'.  

At the least, using the 'outsider's test', one can start to question one's own traditions and assumed conclusions in the same way that one would question those from other traditions. 

And of course, not everyone will question it.  Evolution / survival does not depend upon truth, after all.  It depends upon usefulness and value (outcomes, preferences and perceptions). 

Staying in one's 'comfort zone' is all that many desire.  

Such is life. 

Hmm
The following 2 users Like DLJ's post:
  • Alan V, skyking
Reply
#35

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-09-2019, 03:16 PM)Kimdal Wrote:
(08-09-2019, 02:54 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:
(08-09-2019, 02:02 PM)Kimdal Wrote: I think the evidence strongly points to Christian God.
Ok, what evidence? Tell us what is the most compelling evidence to you.

Sorry, but I really don't want to waste time on that discussion. Have you ever seen that in any discussion forum that kind of discussion has radically changed the faith or lack of faith of anybody? If you have, please share a link and I might reconsider.

For example, the resurrection of Jesus. Atheistic position is that there are 5 conflicting stories, possible folklore, not worth of believing. I have read those claims and critics. But it's only one, biased side. There is also another side, refuting atheistic critics at least partially. After a lot of digging, it seems to be that you can't know for sure, and everybody (christians and non-christians) believes what he wants to believe. I see and admit that people, especially me and other christians usually believe what we want to believe. I try to remember that always when seeking the truth. But I have to say that I was a bit surprised that atheists are no better: they believe what they want to believe, too. I thought they are very rational. I'm curious, do atheists see that they also often chooses to believe scientific research that supports their world view? For example, some well known scientists didn't want to believe several decades ago when it became evident that universe has a beginning. It was unpleasant scientific result for many.
 
I'm no trying to convince anybody because I don't believe I can convince anybody. I just wanted to understand the question in the subject, and I have gotten answer: the burden of proof.

You should probably leave science out of the discussion until you understand science better. (see your post referencing gravity)
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 1 user Likes brewerb's post:
  • Szuchow
Reply
#36

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
There is really only one difference between the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Praise His Noodly Appendage) and any other god.  IN the case of the FSM we know exactly who created Him and when and why.   This in no way alters the fact that every other god dreamed up by humans was also created but  they are shrouded by the mists of time.  In 1,000 years, the FSM will be similarly situated and the food at the communal meals is so much better.


FSM
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 3 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Szuchow, Deesse23, Gwaithmir
Reply
#37

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-09-2019, 03:16 PM)Kimdal Wrote:
(08-09-2019, 02:54 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:
(08-09-2019, 02:02 PM)Kimdal Wrote: I think the evidence strongly points to Christian God.
Ok, what evidence? Tell us what is the most compelling evidence to you.

Sorry, but I really don't want to waste time on that discussion. Have you ever seen that in any discussion forum that kind of discussion has radically changed the faith or lack of faith of anybody? If you have, please share a link and I might reconsider.

It's a fair question, and one which deserves a fair answer.  You can't simply say you don't want "to waste" time
responding to it, at least briefly.  As an atheist, I see that as a real cop-out, and indicative that you don't actually
possess any evidence.  So... at least 2 or 3 points of proof please.

Quote:For example, the resurrection of Jesus.

This is another (typical) Christian non sequitur.  You have no empirical evidence that a man named Jesus
ever existed, beyond millennia-old, third-party hearsay (Paul?  Josephus?).  So you need, first of all, to prove that
Jesus was a real man.  Then, and only then, can we debate his purported "resurrection" from the dead.  Which,
incidentally, raises another question; assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus existed, can you prove
that rather than rising from the dead, he was merely temporarily unconscious from blood loss and/or sensory shock
when he was entombed?

Quote:Atheistic position is that there are 5 conflicting stories, possible folklore, not worth of believing. I have read those claims and critics. But it's only one, biased side. There is also another side, refuting atheistic critics at least partially.

So you're claiming that atheists are inevitably biassed, but Christians never are?  You also need to understand that
atheists have no "beliefs" or "theories" that need refuting.  Atheism is simply a singular, personal state of mind. It's
apparent that as a theist, you have no intimate knowledge of atheism.  Nor would I expect you to, as you're blind-sided
by your acceptance of the supernatural and the paranormal.

Quote:After a lot of digging, it seems to be that you can't know for sure, and everybody (christians and non-christians) believes what he wants to believe.

Nope.  Christians believe what they've been told by their parents or their teachers, or their preachers, none of which
is an unimpeachable source of knowledge.  Atheists attest to the sciences, observation, theorising, and replication.
Any schoolkid can show you gravity at work, oxidation, magnetism and electricity, or a caterpillar turning into a butterfly.
Ask that same schoolkid to prove that God exists, and all you'll get is a blank face.  Or ask him to explain exactly how
transubstantiation works in the Catholic church.

Quote:I see and admit that people, especially me and other christians usually believe what we want to believe.

And this is precisely one of the major drawbacks of theism.  Theists simply believe what they believe regardless, and
despite any evidence to the contrary.  That prayer actually works; that miracles occur; that a place called hell exists;
that a man can be reborn; or that some invisible supernatural entity actually speaks to them.

Quote:I thought they are very rational.

Yep, you thought correctly.  Atheists are also very skeptical.     Nod
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 3 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Szuchow, julep, Gwaithmir
Reply
#38

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
The Christian "god" originally was Yahweh Sabaoth, the Hebrew god, whom they got from the Babylonian pantheon. Yahweh was the seventieth son of the chief Babylonian god, El Elyon.
Through a LONG historical human process, (including the divinization of Jesus, which you can read about in the proceedings of the Councils, available on Forham University's web site) the "trinity" was cooked up by the church. The idea that "Christians" / Jews in the First Century, actually considered Jesus equivalent to Yahweh, even while they continued going to the temple and synagogues at least as late as the end of the First Century, is preposterous.

"When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the LORD's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share." Deuteronomy 32:8-9. (Actually it was the other way around ... the Hebrews chose Yahweh ... he was the god of war, ("the Lord of hosts" ... a "host" is an army in battle array/formation). They wanted help in battle.

There were many "divine beings" in the Hebrew "heavenly host", and through a long cultural process, they eventually came to *say* they agreed to worship only one god.

Yahweh was "the Father" Jesus, as a Jew speaks about. A "son of god" for a Jew, simply meant a "righteous man".
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...son-of-god

For Christians, "belief" is not about a 'reasoned" position. Faith is one of the "gifts of the Spirit", and is not arrived at by reasoning or evidence.
"For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, it is not from works, so that no-one may boast".
Ephesians 2:8-9

Quote:How do we know? Maybe I'm ignorant on this and you know better.

Comparative Mythology, Comparative Religion, Archaeology, etc etc .... we know the origins and development of pretty much every single god in human history.
The following 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • Szuchow, Gwaithmir, TheGulegon
Reply
#39

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-09-2019, 03:53 PM)brewerb Wrote:
(08-09-2019, 03:16 PM)Kimdal Wrote: ...I'm no trying to convince anybody because I don't believe I can convince anybody. I just wanted to understand the question in the subject, and I have gotten answer: the burden of proof.

You should probably leave science out of the discussion until you understand science better. (see your post referencing gravity)

Yes.  Kimdal said "Gravitation works even though there is a big obstacle between the objects.
EG gravitation between sun and moon is unchanged during lunar eclipse" —which is not true.  
Varying distances and relative locations equals varying gravitational forces.

An interesting bit of trivia...

The influence of the gravitational force on a human body during a solar eclipse:  the pull of the
sun on one is about 0.0603% of the pull of the Earth on one. The pull of the moon is about
0.0003% of the Earth's gravitational pull. So if one weighed 68kg, at noon during a solar eclipse
—or during any new moon—they'd weigh 0.6 grams less than they would at noon when it's a full
moon, although they're mass of course would be constant.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#40

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-09-2019, 02:52 PM)Deesse23 Wrote: Take your time.
So far you have been the most honest and reasonable theist i met on this board for a very long time. I may not agree with your reasoning or your belief, but i respect your good faith (no pun intended) in this conversation.

Thank you!  Smile  I also respect the way you think and reason, although I usually don't agree with you.

(08-09-2019, 02:52 PM)Deesse23 Wrote: Dont know if i understood correctly, so please do correct me if necessary:
B) Gravitation
How do you know there must be a "why" at all? "Why" somehow hints at a hidden "persona", which is not necessarily true.
I work in the automotive industry. Toyota is famous for a method of identifying root problems with their cars (Japanese, they pay lots of attention to quality, those nitpickers :eyerollSmile
The method is called "5 why". The idea is that after peeling off 5 levels of your problem, you have most probably dug out the root problem (which then can be properly adressed). Why assume that somewhere deeper than the 5th "why" is a persona or intention? Assuming that there must be a "why" to gravitation is a (unwarranted) presupposition.
Good question and I don't have a good answer, but at least you helped me think in a new perspective: Why there must be "why". I don't have better answer and I admit this is very unsatisfying for me and everyone else: People usually have "Why"-questions and want to know why, sometimes very badly, especially if something tragical happens.

I'm delighted that you mentioned "5 why", the root problem analysis, because I try to apply that quite often in my life. Surely not always, so please try not to analyze my posts in order to prove that I'm never using root cause analysis.  Big Grin
Reply
#41

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-09-2019, 05:36 PM)SYZ Wrote: Kimdal said "Gravitation works even though there is a big obstacle between the objects. 
EG gravitation between sun and moon is unchanged during lunar eclipse" —which is not true.  
Varying distances and relative locations equals varying gravitational forces.

An interesting bit of trivia...

The influence of the gravitational force on a human body during a solar eclipse:  the pull of the
sun on one is about 0.0603% of the pull of the Earth on one. The pull of the moon is about
0.0003% of the Earth's gravitational pull. So if one weighed 68kg, at noon during a solar eclipse
—or during any new moon—they'd weigh 0.6 grams less than they would at noon when it's a full
moon, although they're mass of course would be constant.

Thank you for this interesting piece of information, but I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing.

Ofc gravitational force vectors vary, and weight (not mass) varies accordingly. According to your figures, the gravitational force of sun affects max 40g weight change to that person, so in the night that person should weigh 40g more and in the day 40g less, provided earth blocks the gravitation force of sun affecting to the person. But to my knowledge, earth is not blocking the gravitation force of sun affecting to the person during the night. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This in interesting things and doesn't really change this discussion in any way what ever it is. I may be wrong, as I often am.
The following 1 user Likes Kimdal's post:
  • SYZ
Reply
#42

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-09-2019, 05:16 PM)SYZ Wrote: So you're claiming that atheists are inevitably biassed, but Christians never are?  

I'm claiming that everybody is biased. I used to think that atheists are less biased (because they want to be so rationalistic), but I have learned to see that they are just as biased as everybody else, not even slightly less.

I reply to your other questions later when I have time. During this weekend.
Reply
#43

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-09-2019, 03:48 AM)Kimdal Wrote: I have considered atheism, but I don’t have enough evidence to not believe in God. If I did, though, I couldn’t see the difference in not believing in god or lacking belief in god. So, why is it so important for Barker and some others that they lack belief rather they don’t believe in god?

You don't need any evidence to not believe in God. When evidence FOR God's existence does not pass rational scrutiny, atheism becomes the default position.  Consider
The following 2 users Like Gwaithmir's post:
  • SYZ, Minimalist
Reply
#44

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-10-2019, 06:19 AM)Kimdal Wrote:
(08-09-2019, 05:16 PM)SYZ Wrote: So you're claiming that atheists are inevitably biassed, but Christians never are?  

I'm claiming that everybody is biased. I used to think that atheists are less biased (because they want to be so rationalistic), but I have learned to see that they are just as biased as everybody else, not even slightly less.

I reply to your other questions later when I have time. During this weekend.

The specific question here is a belief or lack of belief in the Abrahamic god.  It's of course a double-barrelled
question, as it firstly posits that this god actually exists, and subsequently asks for belief or non-belief.  And this
is where biasses appear.  Theists are strongly biassed into believing—without any introspection or empirical
evidence—that their god unquestionably exists.  Without that belief, of course, they wouldn't be theists.

On the other hand, atheists have no requirement at all to need something specific to define themselves as atheists.
Nobody defines themselves primarily as someone who doesn't collect stamps or doesn't run marathons.
Theists have to "defend" their beliefs in supernatural entities and paranormal phenomena, as they have lots—maybe
their entire raison d'être—invested in this belief.  This factor alone obviously creates a huge bias.

So you need to define specifically the subject of a person's alleged bias in order to evaluate it.  Any theist will have
a much stronger inherent  bias in the god question than any atheist.  It's inevitable and unavoidable.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#45

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-10-2019, 10:18 AM)Gwaithmir Wrote: You don't need any evidence to not believe in God. When evidence FOR God's existence does not pass rational scrutiny, atheism becomes the default position.  Consider

I have evidence for God, not any god but the God of the Bible. I need enough counter-evidence to become atheist. I have read atheistic literature, and while atheistic reasoning is quite good, it hasn’t convinced me.

There are some problems in rationalism and science. They assume that everything has naturalistic explanation. I have reason to believe that that’s not the case, and if I’m right, rationalism and naturalism can never find the truth.

While objectivity and scientific method are good things, it seems to me that atheists have too much faith in them: They are not objective about objectivity  Smile
Reply
#46

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
The illogical theist always states I have evidence for god. The issue has always been that personal evidence is not evidence for anyone except that one single individual. I could say I have personal evidence for the purple dragon breathing fire in my living room, but we both know that kind of personal evidence is merely a personal delusion masquerading as evidence. God, religious faith, personal evidence in god, is all merely delusion disguising reality.
The following 2 users Like Phaedrus's post:
  • Deesse23, Szuchow
Reply
#47

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-10-2019, 12:04 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: The illogical theist always states I have evidence for god. The issue has always been that personal evidence is not evidence for anyone except that one single individual. I could say I have personal evidence for the purple dragon breathing fire in my living room, but we both know that kind of personal evidence is merely a personal delusion masquerading as evidence. God, religious faith, personal evidence in god, is all merely delusion disguising reality.

A less combative way of saying something similar is that anecdotes don't rise to the level of evidence.  You not only need enough evidence to evaluate it statistically, you have to do cross-cultural studies as well to eliminate artifacts of cultural conditioning in perceptions in cases where human psychology may bear on the results.  Kimdal and others may claim that this eliminates evidence, but it does assure that conclusions are not manipulated by personal and cultural preferences.  

One useful area theists could study is human psychology, and how often our assumptions guide both our interpretations and even our perceptions.  Seeing may be believing for theists, but it isn't for people who know better, since a much wider range of possible interpretations is open to people with more background information.
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • Phaedrus
Reply
#48

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-10-2019, 10:54 AM)SYZ Wrote: So you need to define specifically the subject of a person's alleged bias in order to evaluate it.  Any theist will have 
a much stronger inherent  bias in the god question than any atheist.  It's inevitable and unavoidable.

This is interesting point of view that depends on how do you look at it. I would say that you are right if we investigated the Bible Belt (southern US) only. Christians who have christian parents are biased in the way you say, I agree strongly. But me living close to former Soviet Union, and having worked with a lot of russian people, tend to say that children of (formerly) atheistic country has as strong bias against theism.

I have secular parents. I found faith unexpectedly. I had very strong subjective experience, that could be explained naturalistically. However, that experience made me biased, not my parents or not my culture. I was biased, and now I see that bias better, and try to take it into account nowadays. 

The atheistic bias I talked about is clearly visible for example in the Dan Barker's book. What happened for him is quite understandable and very human: When he became atheist, he began to look many Bible stories in different, atheistically biased way. God seems very cruel, even sadistic, in humanistic (Barker is humanist, not only atheist) point of view. I understand why they see it like that, but it's also very biased way of thinking. In Barker's case, he must have had very different point of view earlier. Even if he believed that all Bible is just folklore, that doesn't explain why he read the Bible stories so differently now. My explanation is that every person wants to defend his view for himself, and atheism is easier for him if he thinks that God of the Bible is horrible god, even if that's just a made-up story.
Reply
#49

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
(08-10-2019, 12:31 PM)Kimdal Wrote: I had very strong subjective experience, that could be explained naturalistically. 

Could or could not be explained naturalistically?

I would be interested to hear your experience, but if it is like mine, I ultimately found more probable explanations -- a few decades later.

And by the way, while I'm thinking of this point, I should inform you that atheists also have personal experiences which confirm for us that atheism is correct, just as religious people of different cultures have experiences which they interpret in accordance with the ideas available to them.  Such anecdotes do tend to cancel each other out.
Reply
#50

Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?
Looks like Kimdal's last name should be Apologist.
The following 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post:
  • Szuchow
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)