- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Jun 16
Originally posted by KellyJay
I've argued my position on this topic more times than I care to count as well.
From my perspective we are talking about 1 God, 2 gods, and 3 no gods.
This means our views of everything is colored by the acceptance or rejection of any of the
3 above. To accept, reject, or deny any of those stances no matter how you word it the
universe will either:
1. ...[text shortened]... is discussion has any meaning is if the answer to God being real carries
with it a consequence.
I've argued my position on this topic more times than I care to count as well.
Yes, this is because you have been consistently wrong all of those times.
From my perspective we are talking about 1 God, 2 gods, and 3 no gods.
This means our views of everything is coloured by the acceptance or rejection of any of the
3 above. To accept, reject, or deny any of those stances no matter how you word it the
universe will either:
1. Have God who has done, doing, and will do what God will in the universe.
2. Have gods who have done, doing, and will do what they want in the universe.
3. No God or gods have done, doing, are about to do anything in the universe.
And here you are making the same mistake that you always make.
I will try to explain again why you are wrong.
The question is about the direction of causation.
For event B to be effected by event A, event A must come first and be causally linked to event B.
If event A comes before and is a cause of event B, then event B cannot be a cause of event A.
Causality only goes one way.
You are arguing that a persons belief, or lack thereof, in the existence of a god or gods is the CAUSE
of the rest of their world view. That ALL peoples world-views are 'coloured' by whether or not they believe
in a god or gods, and must necessarily be so.
However that is not the case and easily demonstrated as such. To which end, here is a repeat of a post from
a current thread where I explained this in detail... [And while it was not written to you in that thread, I had
you very much in mind as to me you are the very embodiment of the error I was describing]
I have a hypothesis that a significant factor in theists not understanding atheists and
atheism [specifically irreligious atheists] stems from exactly the error you have just made.
We all have foundational beliefs, things we in the normal course essentially just accept as true,
as being axiomatic... And these foundational beliefs are what we build our worldview upon.
To change one of these beliefs will typically radically change a persons outlook and other
beliefs. They are also typically some of the most personal and vehemently held beliefs we have.
Also included with these tends to be core beliefs about our identities, who we believe ourselves
to be. We tend to be protective of these and get upset when they get challenged, which is why
religion and politics generate such emotional and fierce battles.
We also have all kinds of lesser beliefs, beliefs that spring from those central core beliefs or
just beliefs about the world that exist in semi-isolation not really resting on anything else.
We tend to be less bothered about these, and they are consequently easier to change and
have less repercussions when this occurs.
You, as a religious theist, likely have your religion and it's foundational beliefs at the very core of
your worldview and your identity. Your religion contains the most fundamental beliefs [you believe]
that you have. And everything else flows from that or is interpreted in it's light.
This is common with many/most religious people and so when you are looking at other religious
people you look to their religious beliefs to get a feel for what their morality and worldview is.
Naturally you then try to do the same thing with non-religious atheists... And that is where you
come unstuck, because atheism is not a belief system. And is almost always the product of,
and not the foundation of, whatever belief system [or systems] that that person holds.
I will use myself as an example here because I know what my beliefs are, but be aware I am
speaking for my beliefs and not those of all other atheists.
My worldview, my foundational beliefs, are based on a belief in the power, virtue, and utility, of
rationality and scientific skepticism and in objective wellbeing based morality.
So a foundational belief for me might be something like "Only true beliefs are useful, and thus
I should believe as few false things and as many true things as possible".
Another might be something like "Scientific skepticism and methodology are the best known ways
of determining the truth or falsity of a claim."
Another might be something like "Morality is about the promotion of wellbeing amongst a society
of sentient beings [humans]".
Now, because we live in a world where we have no evidence for the existence of gods or afterlives or
anything supernatural, my foundational beliefs and worldview naturally lead to me not believing that
the supernatural exists, or that there are any gods, and thus I am a non-religious atheist.
But, I could equally imagine being in a universe where there is clear evidence for the supernatural
and/or gods etc, [A D&D universe where magic is common and gods show up and do stuff for example]
and holding the same worldview. Except that now I am a theist, because the evidence has led me to believe
that these gods exist [although I am still not religious because I don't worship any god or gods].
My worldview hasn't changed, I have the same foundational beliefs, but other non-foundational beliefs
are different.
Now you mention morality in particular, so I will too...
making clear that this is a major simplification because this is not the topic of this thread
As I said I believe in a "objective wellbeing based morality", which means that I believe in using
'wellbeing' [a term analogous to health] as the yardstick for objectively comparing different moral
systems/choices with the choices that produce the best outcomes [highest wellbeing] to determine
what the 'right' or most moral choice is. As such, it doesn't really matter if a god or gods exist or not.
While the humans [or other sentient species] are still the same, the same things will promote wellbeing
regardless.So it doesn't matter for my morality if I live in a universe with no god, the Christian god, or the
D&D universe with many gods.
Similarly it makes no difference to my morality if the universe started entirely naturally with no intelligent
intervention ~13.8 billion years ago and we evolved from primitive life forms over the last ~4.5 billion years
OR if we were created by a god is a splurge of supernatural creation 10,000 years ago, 6,000 years ago,
or last Thursday. Because the metric I believe in using for making moral determinations is unaffected by
such concerns.
Now for a person that believes in a morality that stems from a god and divine authority, whether you
continue to believe that that god exists absolutely has a barring on your moral compass.
However just because those issues are important for you, and many other religious theists, does not mean that
those issues are important for determining the morality of all others, especially non-religious atheists.
Originally posted by KellyJayWhether you like it or not, I know some people who never give the question of whether God, or a god, or gods, exist a moment's thought other than when they are asked about it, and when they are, they honestly answer that they have no view on it, for the simple reason that they consider the question is entirely irrelevant to their lives and not worth bothering about.
I've argued my position on this topic more times than I care to count as well.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Jun 16
Originally posted by KellyJay
If you ask if I have stopped beating my wife my response would be I have never started.
To be confronted with something if it is factual or not takes away the ability to say you
have no views or opinion on the topic.
The rejection due to not accepting God is real, or having no belief is different I agree. The
trouble you have is that once confronted w ...[text shortened]... have an opinion one way or another you
have now made a choice and have formed a belief/opinion.
If you ask if I have stopped beating my wife my response would be I have never started.
Which was not one of the options given, which proves that it was a false dichotomy,
which was the point I was making.
To be confronted with something if it is factual or not takes away the ability to say you
have no views or opinion on the topic.
No it doesn't. If you ask me a question I have never considered before and to which I do not have the
information to answer or form an opinion my answer will be "I DON'T KNOW".
The only thing that will have changed is whether I have heard of the question, not my position on it.
It is absolutely not true that one MUST take a position on any issue that one is presented with.
Neither logically nor cognitively is that true.
Originally posted by googlefudge"You are arguing that a persons belief, or lack thereof, in the existence of a god or gods is the CAUSE of the rest of their world view"I've argued my position on this topic more times than I care to count as well.
Yes, this is because you have been consistently wrong all of those times.
From my perspective we are talking about 1 God, 2 gods, and 3 no gods.
This means our views of everything is coloured by the acceptance or rejection of any of the
3 above. T ...[text shortened]... important for determining the morality of all others, especially non-religious atheists.
No not even close, what I'm saying is that because there is this view about God one way
another the universe is viewed with God, gods, or without God, gods in it. The cause of
the universe is a separate topic much like evolution and abiogenesis the universe as it
is looked at the default position of with or without. All events in the universe as it, either
has some cause with or without a purpose, and as soon as you apply your view about
God the answer to purpose is answered.
Evidence for God is a funny topic, if the whole universe isn't evidence than nothing in it
is for many.
Much of what you are talking about I have no idea why your bringing them up. My points
were simple and to the point they didn't touch on morality and so on.
02 Jun 16
Originally posted by Rank outsiderMy likes or dislikes have nothing to do with this question one way or another. I'm quite
Whether you like it or not, I know some people who never give the question of whether God, or a god, or gods, exist a moment's thought other than when they are asked about it, and when they are, they honestly answer that they have no view on it, for the simple reason that they consider the question is entirely irrelevant to their lives and not worth bothering about.
sure there are a lot of people who don't give God a moment's thought, that doesn't mean
that they never had or that they have not made up their mind on the matter and just don't
go back to it.
For those that have never given God a thought, and never even heard of Him, those I
would agree are the pure atheist, but as soon as they get confronted with God that
pureness of lack of belief goes away and a choice is made. How often they go back to
it will doesn't matter.
02 Jun 16
Originally posted by googlefudgeI agree that options were limited and yes or no questions can be quite loaded withIf you ask if I have stopped beating my wife my response would be I have never started.
Which was not one of the options given, which proves that it was a false dichotomy,
which was the point I was making.
[quote]To be confronted with something if it is factual or not takes away the ability to say you
have no views or opinion on t ...[text shortened]... sition on any issue that one is presented with.
Neither logically nor cognitively is that true.
meaning one way or another. The truth of the subject matter will have to be laid out and
sometimes a limited yes or no does not give the full breath of any topic.
Rejecting God being real means a choice has been made, not having a thought on the
topic means it is a topic that has never been given a thought. Once a choice is made you
are not running around with meaningless thoughtless regard for any topic.
It is no different than the subject "nothing" in programming you can have a place holder
for a variable with nothing in it, but it isn't nothing because there is a place holder for
something to go in. Nothing would be a complete lack of anything at all, which is not what
you have when it comes to God, you've an opinion about the reality of Him, one in which
you reject Him.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116952
02 Jun 16
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeI have always liked your profile and have read it several times over that last few years.
They might say all kinds of things.
My response would be to point out that that is a false dichotomy.
Those are not the only two options.
However while the classifications may stand up to the scrutiny of logical segmentation, the cognitive processes involved with acceptance or rejection of a premise cannot be denied.
let's suplose you had never heard of the idea of a god or gods. And lets suppose I was a good friend of yours and you trusted me. And let's say that one day I sat with you and gave you a heart-to-heart on why I believed what I did about a god or gods; you may not agree with me, but like it or not you would have been engaged with the premise "a god or gods exist". You would have thought about the various aspect of what I was saying, dismissed them either one by one, or collectively, either over a period of time or instantly. And you will decided that you did not accept what I was saying as being truth. You would have rejected the premise as being false. From that point you are a different person. You were originally a person who had never rejected the premise that there was a god or gods, and now you would forever be a person who had rejected the premise of a god or gods existing.
02 Jun 16
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeester
I have always liked your profile and have read it several times over that last few years.
However while the classifications may stand up to the scrutiny of logical segmentation, the cognitive processes involved with acceptance or rejection of a premise cannot be denied.
let's suplose you had never heard of the idea of a god or gods. And lets suppos ...[text shortened]... s, and now you would forever be a person who had rejected the premise of a god or gods existing.
02 Jun 16
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeester
I have always liked your profile and have read it several times over that last few years.
However while the classifications may stand up to the scrutiny of logical segmentation, the cognitive processes involved with acceptance or rejection of a premise cannot be denied.
let's suplose you had never heard of the idea of a god or gods. And lets suppos ...[text shortened]... s, and now you would forever be a person who had rejected the premise of a god or gods existing.
02 Jun 16
Originally posted by divegeesterNo, that's not the way it works. As an atheist, I do not, and cannot, know whether any gods exist or not. But as the theist's claims have been woefully unsubstantiated, I have no choice but to withhold belief from them and treat them as though they were false. That is not the same as claiming they are false. I do not give any credence to claims for any god(s) existence, but likewise, I do not claim any knowledge of god's non-existence.
I have always liked your profile and have read it several times over that last few years.
However while the classifications may stand up to the scrutiny of logical segmentation, the cognitive processes involved with acceptance or rejection of a premise cannot be denied.
let's suplose you had never heard of the idea of a god or gods. And lets suppos ...[text shortened]... s, and now you would forever be a person who had rejected the premise of a god or gods existing.
The situation you're describing is the difference between an implicit atheist and an explicit atheist. An implicit atheist is someone who has never heard of a god, or who is incapable of conceptualizing of one (as with an infant). An explicit atheist is someone who has been made familiar with the concept of gods, but who finds the claim unconvincing. It should be noted that finding the claim unconvincing is not the same as finding it to be false.
02 Jun 16
Originally posted by rwingettWhat do my claims have to do with you believing or disbelieving in God, since God is
No, that's not the way it works. As an atheist, I do not, and cannot, know whether any gods exist or not. But as the theist's claims have been woefully unsubstantiated, I have no choice but to withhold belief from them and treat them as though they were false. That is not the same as claiming they are false. I do not give any credence to claim ...[text shortened]... t should be noted that finding the claim unconvincing is not the same as finding it to be false.
not "mine" He is a stand alone fact in the universe or not. The best you could get from one
of us in my opinion is a muddled view on what God is like because our inability to describe
Him properly. You on the other hand would be living within a universe that God created
according to what was written about God would be exposed to the truth of Him being real.
If you let someone else hinder you from grasping that which is real about God that is all
on you.
02 Jun 16
Originally posted by KellyJaySince no gods have seen fit to send any personal revelations my way, all I know about them is what their adherents tell me.
What do my claims have to do with you believing or disbelieving in God, since God is
not "mine" He is a stand alone fact in the universe or not. The best you could get from one
of us in my opinion is a muddled view on what God is like because our inability to describe
Him properly. You on the other hand would be living within a universe that God created ...[text shortened]... you let someone else hinder you from grasping that which is real about God that is all
on you.