[General Battuta]

Religion: made by a guy hearing a voice telling him to burn a sheep while walking through the desert
Atheism: made after giving all evidence a fair examination and finding it unconvincing.

Made by what your parents teach you and the environment you grow up in.

>>it is maintained the same way
Religion: god works in mysterious ways and you will go to hell if you question it
Atheism: constantly challenged by the majority and often reevaluated by the individual.

Maintained by self-confirmation bias and social echo chambering. Sure, you can argue one is empirically better, but that's not why we really believe things is it?

>>it is expressed in the same fashion
Religion: fish emblems on bumpers
Atheism: fish emblems on bum..p...er ok, so you have a point here

Quite so.  And in lively internet arguments.

"But we shouldn't hoodwink ourselves into believing that we atheists are somehow free, unshackled minds."
no, confirmation bias is the bane of intellectuals everywhere, and most atheists who came to the position via a scientific mindset are well aware of this because they had to overcome it to get were they are. we know we are still subject to it, hence forcing ourselves to give any new argument a fair chance.

Sure, but it doesn't make us good at it - we're still battling our hardwiring. At least we give it a shot, though (sometimes).

[Ravenholme]

Example: when we have a debate about religion, there's no question the prototype of 'religion' we're deploying, the phantom we gesture to in all our arguments, is based on the available examples we can recruit tossed together into a big glut. It's not a balanced look at all the world's faiths; it's a chimera made of religious people we've encountered, religious things we've heard, religious services we've attended. For me, it's heavily Christian. My prototype of 'religion' is bad for discussing Suangodon's Buddhism or another member's Zen Islam.

Atheism is a matter of faith/belief, so, yes, it's as much as a religion as any theist or spiritual stance. It's the faith/belief in the absence of a higher power etc.

On other days I've argued heatedly against this - I don't necessarily think that should be considered a religious belief, in just the same way that I don't think not having an opinion on the existence of the tooth fairy is a religious position.

But I suppose there's no denying that most atheists do not so much blink in incredulity at the notion of supernatural powers as they do actively reject the existence of certain, defined powers, which is in a sense a religious statement.

In terms of institution, I would argue vehemently against atheism being a religion, and with apathetic atheism it's not so much of a religion in the way I state it is. However, for a good deal of Atheists (certainly, in my experience), that reistance of any form of higher power is a matter of faith/belief, and therefore has a core similarity with religion. In that it is an *unproveable belief in something, even if it is a lack/absence.

* Currently, I eagerly await the day that science gives us as near a definitive answer as we can ever expect (Being as we never 'prove' things in such a way that they become immutable fact)

[Bobboau]

Made by what your parents teach you and the environment you grow up in.

AFAIK most atheists were born into religious families, I personally went to a Catholic highschool, my upbringing was no more endorsing of atheism than it was Stalinism



Maintained by self-confirmation bias and social echo chambering. Sure, you can argue one is empirically better, but that's not why we really believe things is it?

I personally an constantly on the lookout for ghosts or other supernatural things, I rarely find anything that gets past my first level evidence filter, but I am actively seeking out evidence to falsify my position. Atheism is after all a rather unhappy position, I would very much like to be wrong, I would very much like to have an eternal soul and exist forever. Atheism is not a cohesive body so I cannot speak for others but I would assume they engage in similar activities.




Sure, but it doesn't make us good at it - we're still battling our hardwiring. At least we give it a shot, though (sometimes).

at least we are trying at all, as opposed to all religions in the world that actively encourage it and set up an environment that sexually selects for the trait.

[NGTM-1R]

All beliefs eventually become self-justifying.

I think this is an interesting statement, because it implies that all beliefs require continual rejustification. They only require rejustification when presented with new evidence.

In this particular case, it does not seem likely; part of the problem of religion and atheism is the inability to deploy substantive evidence to prove or disprove either concept, due to the unproveable nature of the topic discussed.

Of course this means neither is really a rational position...

[General Battuta]

It's not so much that justification is required as that justification is constantly recruited in a passive sense. Once a belief is accepted, it becomes part of the filter we use to process incoming information. The very fact that confirmatory evidence is easier to process than disconfirmatory evidence means that a belief will accumulate supporting evidence while tipping the scales against contradiction.

[Luis Dias]

Yep, this is what I mean by belief being eternal. The fundamental wiring that produces and perpetuate religion is also responsible for most other human attitudes. Just as I don't really have a rational reason for most of the things I do - I just recruit reasons aftewards - Luis Dias doesn't have an array of evidence which converge to the conclusion that religion and science are incompatible. He begins from that belief and recruits reasons to believe it, just as selectively as Goober's belief that his religion is the only one with objective backing.

That could well be true, except that it isn't. The schism between science and religion is a profoundly philosophical one, one of attitude and reasoning. It is reflected upon the silliness that religion gets into with their factoids and proclamations, but those are symptoms, not the actual schisms between science and religion. Battuta believes in a kumbaya world where irrationality and rationality not only are able to live peacefully and harmoniously, but that they are actually compatible with one another.

Mind you, I'm not even making the case that humans would be better off without religion, not in this thread at least. I'm just making the obvious statement that religious thinking runs counter to scientific thinking.

And if you can't even agree with that, I'm sorry you have been drinking the "sophisticated religious shenanigan's" kool-aid.

Which I don't mind too. It's a minor, nerdy problem after all.

Most of us haven't even thought most of our attitudes out until we're pressed on them. We satisfice, because we're cognitive misers.

This is irrelevant.

Most atheists I meet are deeply religious. Atheism is their religion; it shapes their worldviews as powerfully as Christ or Mohammed or what have you, and it shuts down rational thought just as effectively. In an ideal world, we'd be able to think rationally, apply the tools of empirical investigation to our own cognition - but we can't do it. We all hit affective death spirals and come to believe we, of all people, have won the great belief lottery and stumbled on the correct worldview.

According to this bull**** of a position, the truth is just an opinion, rationality is just one of many forms of dealing with things, and religion is just as authoritive as anyone deems it to be, because no one can say otherwise. What a ****ing ridiculously relativistic take on the world and its views. Why can't people be assertive about their beliefs, specially when they are fully justified, without being stupidly tainted as "religious" themselves?

You sir, confuse assertiveness with dogmatism. It's your own ****ing problem, and it's quite ironic, giving the whole size of the ego you espouse here.

Until we hit the transhuman stage, religion is the fundament our minds are based upon, and we've got to rely on clumsy prosthesis to think scientifically.

Pure crap. Religion is a symptom of the human disease you are referring to, it's not the disease itself. Perhaps this is something incredible that will never get through you, something that you find impossible to believe, but my mind is utterly irreligious. Whenever I state something more provocative is not because of "faith", or my allegiance with some or other tribe, it is because I happen to have reasons to believe in that statement.

Yes, it's true, many times these reasons aren't still written out, sometimes they are still intuitional, with all the problems that arise from that. Many times still, the reasons I point out don't get through the arena of ideas, for they are poor. This is what happens, with all the random noise that accompanies it (a byproduct of human cognition), we do get some progress.

To call all those caveats and issues evidence for our "religious mindset" is ****ing ridiculous and fallacious on your part.

[Luis Dias]

And because we're all misers, and we dislike effortful cognition (because it is expensive), in the end we're never very good at it. You can see it in internet arguments; rare is the post that asks 'Is this what you are saying? Have I understood it? I have processed it; allow me to resynthesize it from my own perspective'. Instead you see reflexive deflections and selective hunts for weakness.

Beautifully ironic. Quite true though. Never heard you saying to me that I got a point or two right.

But I suppose there's no denying that most atheists do not so much blink in incredulity at the notion of supernatural powers as they do actively reject the existence of certain, defined powers, which is in a sense a religious statement.

Yeah sure and of course you will find such people, but this blanket statement about atheists is just pure demagogery on your part, you are effectively hitting a strawman here for I have yet to see anyone here making such silly and irrelevant claims about the nature of the universe.

There is a rational case of atheism to be made that simply evaporates that kind of rhetoric, and it has to do with how people talk about things, what is legitimate as a source of knowledge and what isn't, what kind of epistemological thinking should we allow ourselves to wander through, and what to think about unfalsifiable fictions about the *real* nature of the universe. It doesn't have to do with gods and what not. It has to do with humbleness of what is possible for the human mind to capture and share.

And to anyone who calls that religious, I just say **** that.

[Luis Dias]

However, for a good deal of Atheists (certainly, in my experience), that reistance of any form of higher power is a matter of faith/belief, and therefore has a core similarity with religion. In that it is an *unproveable belief in something, even if it is a lack/absence.

Call it tribalism and I'll accept it. Call it religious and it's just ****ing obnoxiously and ironically offensive.

No, it's not the same thing if someone comes to you and tells you that you are gonna burn in hell if you don't accept jesus f christ, and then you reply back, no, that's just not gonna happen because that's bull****.

And if you think that's symmetrical, wow.

All beliefs eventually become self-justifying.

... And is that itself a belief? Do you believe in that?

IOW, if you believe that all your statements are shenanigan, why should we listen to you at all?

[Ghostavo]

All beliefs eventually become self-justifying.

I think this is an interesting statement, because it implies that all beliefs require continual rejustification. They only require rejustification when presented with new evidence.

In this particular case, it does not seem likely; part of the problem of religion and atheism is the inability to deploy substantive evidence to prove or disprove either concept, due to the unproveable nature of the topic discussed.

Of course this means neither is really a rational position...

Weak atheism IS a rational position.

Unless you mean to say that people who don't believe there's a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars are not being rational.

[General Battuta]

All beliefs eventually become self-justifying.

I think this is an interesting statement, because it implies that all beliefs require continual rejustification. They only require rejustification when presented with new evidence.

In this particular case, it does not seem likely; part of the problem of religion and atheism is the inability to deploy substantive evidence to prove or disprove either concept, due to the unproveable nature of the topic discussed.

Of course this means neither is really a rational position...

Weak atheism IS a rational position.

Unless you mean to say that people who don't believe there's a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars are not being rational.

Yes, this is why I'd normally argue that atheism is not a religion (distinct from the fact that for many atheists is their religion).

[NGTM-1R]

Unless you mean to say that people who don't believe there's a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars are not being rational.

The teapot can be rationally proved, though why anyone would bother is a pretty good question. Most of the time when you bring in a deity or deities that are either individually or collectively omnipotent, definitive proof of any sort in either direction is impossible.

So atheism regarding the Greek/Roman pantheon probably is a rational position. Atheism regarding the Abrahamic God, not so much. Agnosticism is. Weak atheism is simply an attempt to lump more schools of thought into the atheist camp with semantics. We already had a word and if it's too hard for you to pronounce, **** off.

[Luis Dias]

But an argument can be made that the precise characteristics developed and maintained by the christian (or others) mythologies of the entity we call "God" are not exactly "innefable" or "insurmountable", in the sense that they are pretty darn specific and concrete.

In this sense, can't we say that, for instance, Yawhe is an easily dismissable god by a rational person who is sufficiently read on the basics of the history of the creation of the bible itself?

Sure we can. Such a case can and indeed is made every day, and for that we do not require any leap of faith.


I say this because I notice a double standard in these questions. For once, atheists cannot dismiss god (or else they are being religious), because god is "unknowable", but at the same time we should allow the religious state pretty darned specific and concrete things about their metaphysical entity, because, hey, it's religion. This happens in christianity and in any type of con. Whenever something is useful to portray as God's will, because it's so positive (and casts a good light upon the guy) it is god's will. Whenever it isn't, we say feel-good things like "It's the divine plan and we can't understand it, it's so mysterious you know".

There's a short circuit in this thinking proccess, which is also used by that peculiar group of people who plainly or subtly start their shenanigans with the usual "I'm an atheist but", and it's a loophole of the rational dialogue from which all the irrationality floods the otherwise intelligent discussion like a virus.


IOW, I'll accept that God is innefable and unknowable and etc. and everything, thus admitting that I cannot say it "doesn't exist" (I've always been technically an agnostic, like most atheists are), if the religious play by the same rule and stop making **** up about God's nature.


Hear that noise? That's the sound of religion either disappearing or failing to meet my standard, take your pick.

[Turambar]

So atheism regarding the Greek/Roman pantheon probably is a rational position. Atheism regarding the Abrahamic God, not so much.

What makes the big God any less of a silly idea than the small Gods?

[General Battuta]

:words:

Your whole argument is predicated on the notion of a fundamental incompatibility between empirical and religious thought. But there are areas of knowledge impenetrable to empirical investigation and falsification. So long as religious belief confines itself to those areas, no conflict is necessary.

You argue that all religion must dictate firm secular principles which will be overturned when science dictates them, somehow 'destroying' the religion. But this argument requires all religious people to be nutty fundamentalists slaving over scripture, and it ignores the fact that most scriptural obligations are basically harmless ritual and behavioral suggestions (go to Mecca, tithe to the poor, yadda yadda) that will never come into conflict with any kind of empirical investigation.

It's a manufactured conflict.

[Ghostavo]

Unless you mean to say that people who don't believe there's a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars are not being rational.

The teapot can be rationally proved, though why anyone would bother is a pretty good question. Most of the time when you bring in a deity or deities that are either individually or collectively omnipotent, definitive proof of any sort in either direction is impossible.

So prove that there's a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars. Go on, we'll wait.

So atheism regarding the Greek/Roman pantheon probably is a rational position. Atheism regarding the Abrahamic God, not so much.

What makes the big God any less of a silly idea than the small Gods?

Weak atheism is simply an attempt to lump more schools of thought into the atheist camp with semantics. We already had a word and if it's too hard for you to pronounce, **** off.

Because there is only one way to disbelieve in deities. 

[NGTM-1R]

Luis, get out of these sort of discussions for your own good. You are unable or unwilling to have a rational discourse on them. If God can create the world/universe from void in the Abrahamic tradition, he can sure as hell erase or alter all evidence of his existence. There's really no way around it. He is an utterly unproveable assertion.

What makes the big God any less of a silly idea than the small Gods?

Falsifiability and the ability to deny such. I can make provable statements about the Greek and Roman pantheons that they lack the powers and abilities to deny according to their own lore/supporters/whateverwecallit.

Because there is only one way to disbelieve in deities. 

Only one rational way, which was the subject of discussion. Forgive me for not cottoning to your efforts to newspeak up a plurality?

[Ghostavo]

What makes the big God any less of a silly idea than the small Gods?

Falsifiability and the ability to deny such. I can make provable statements about the Greek and Roman pantheons that they lack the powers and abilities to deny according to their own lore/supporters/whateverwecallit.

Wait, what?

Proof to back up that claim?

Because there is only one way to disbelieve in deities. 

Only one rational way, which was the subject of discussion. Forgive me for not cottoning to your efforts to newspeak up a plurality?

So, which is this rational way you speak of, since according to you, weak atheism isn't it?

Also, I note that you didn't prove there's a teapot between Earth and Mars...

[Luis Dias]

:words:

Your whole argument is predicated on the notion of a fundamental incompatibility between empirical and religious thought. But there are areas of knowledge impenetrable to empirical investigation and falsification. So long as religious belief confines itself to those areas, no conflict is necessary.

1. What areas of "knowledge" that are "impenetrable" to empirical investigation and falsification. Name me one "knowledge" that isn't born out of the empirical. I mean, even mathematics arise from counting bananas, ffs;

2. Since when does religion "confine itself" to these metaphysical areas? Their teachings related to everything that is concrete, from psychological, to social, to, yes, astronomical, geological, biological, etc. They preach morality. Since when is morality something "innefable"?

99% of religious talk is *not* about the innefable, unless they are excusing their failures for God is mysterious.

You argue that all religion must dictate firm secular principles which will be overturned when science dictates them, somehow 'destroying' the religion.

Why do I bother even to reply to someone who really can't care less to read what I actually write? I'm bored, that's what.

But this argument requires all religious people to be nutty fundamentalists slaving over scripture, and it ignores the fact that most scriptural obligations are basically harmless ritual and behavioral suggestions (go to Mecca, tithe to the poor, yadda yadda) that will never come into conflict with any kind of empirical investigation.

My argument requires none of that, therefore this is all meaningless drivel by you. Your reduction of religion to a bunch of "practices" is silly and ignorant.

It's a manufactured conflict.

Are you accusing me of having an opinion? LOL

Luis, get out of these sort of discussions for your own good. You are unable or unwilling to have a rational discourse on them.

Wait, what? That's the level of debate we are in now?

If God can create the world/universe from void in the Abrahamic tradition, he can sure as hell erase or alter all evidence of his existence. There's really no way around it. He is an utterly unproveable assertion.

Of course such an omnipotent being *can* do such a thing. The fact is that he allegedly *hasn't*, he even went to big trouble trying to die for us as a martir. So, in theory, a *theoretical* god could do such a thing, but Yawhe *allegedly* hasn't.

And that's the point, since it is the christians who preach a very wide and concrete net of very specific "knowledge" of what this god did, say and wants, without providing anything other than "faith".

So the "ultimate" question of whether god exists or not is rather not the point, but the amazing quantity of affirmations that the believers do have about this entity, for which atheists can and do argue about its probability, its (lack of) believability, etc.

Falsifiability and the ability to deny such. I can make provable statements about the Greek and Roman pantheons that they lack the powers and abilities to deny according to their own lore/supporters/whateverwecallit.

Ok, so a litmus test. For instance, can we say that christian prayers do not work?

If so, is this testable? Would you consider it a test of whether Yawhe exists or not?

[NGTM-1R]

Wait, what?

Proof to back up that claim?

None of them possess sufficient powers to prevent me from climbing Mount Olympus and looking around for their house (and seeing it's not there), or using satellite imagery to do so, or searching for the entrance to Hades in its specified location and not finding it, or soforth. The problem of the Greco-Roman pantheon is that it really, really liked to interact with people, and it wasn't very good at hiding because of this; none of them have the sort of masterful powers of illusion required to conceal themselves from prying eyes, as evidenced by the supposed poor bastards who saw some of them bathing and suffered horribly for it.

So, which is this rational way you speak of, since according to you, weak atheism isn't it?

No, I challenge your use of "weak atheism" as a loaded term, attempting to create an atheistic plurality with bad terminology.

Also, I note that you didn't prove there's a teapot between Earth and Mars...

Why should I? It's a red herring. Unless you're challenging my assertion that it is physically possible to conduct a search for the teapot? The volume is vast, but not infinite, and the tools required in many ways already existent. It is something that could be done, and thus an unsuitable metaphor for the task at hand.

Of course such an omnipotent being *can* do such a thing. The fact is that he allegedly *hasn't*, he even went to big trouble trying to die for us as a martir. So, in theory, a *theoretical* god could do such a thing, but Yawhe *allegedly* hasn't.

Alleged by who? The concept of faith and works is central to Christian teaching; faith is defined as the belief in things unseen. It would thus behoove him to remove his fingerprints. Indeed one of the greatest divides in modern Christianity is whether you are saved by faith (Protestant) or faith and works (Roman Catholic, Orthodox to some extent). A Protestant version of YHWH would need to remove his fingerprints.

Ok, so a litmus test. For instance, can we say that christian prayers do not work?

If so, is this testable? Would you consider it a test of whether Yawhe exists or not?

Is this testable? Certainly. Does it prove anything? It cannot. Sincerity is a required component to effective prayer, supposedly, so confirmation bias and/or self-fulfilling prophecy will bite you in the ass hard. Similarly, there are built-in Biblical instances that state trying to call God to accounts in this fashion annoys him and he will not respond.

[Luis Dias]

A segway, but the ridiculous notion that we have the "tools" to search and not only search but falsify the hypothesis that there is a golden teapot orbiting between venus and mercury is mind-gobblingly ignorant. Hint, no no you haven't, and you won't have for another century, at least.

Alleged by who? The concept of faith and works is central to Christian teaching; faith is defined as the belief in things unseen. It would thus behoove him to remove his fingerprints. Indeed one of the greatest divides in modern Christianity is whether you are saved by faith (Protestant) or faith and works (Roman Catholic, Orthodox to some extent). A Protestant version of YHWH would need to remove his fingerprints.

It is alledged by the christians. The facts are stated and affirmed. There was a virgin birth (way to parse a mistranslation), there was a man who ascended to the heavens, there were a legion of ressurections (a banality in those times, it seems), there is a whole bunch of "things" that have alledgedly happened to be the work of a living god.

The fact that these claims are believed to be true by the believers through faith is not something, that prima facie, should make you proud of, but traditionally and historically, this "characteristic" which would be painted as "gullibility" in any other area than religion, is now considered to be a religious virtue, a social fact that is astonishingly atrocious to me.

No, you shouldn't take anything on faith, specially when it comes to matters as delicate such as your own after life, you shouldn't trust an hearsay of an hearsay of a bronze age illiterate mythology.

Is this testable? Certainly. Does it prove anything? It cannot. Sincerity is a required component to effective prayer, supposedly, so confirmation bias and/or self-fulfilling prophecy will bite you in the ass hard

What are you saying, that prayers cannot be externally controlled? As a matter of fact, many studies have been made to study this precise effect by prayer, without any of the problems you enunciate and are rather easy to avoid. They do point to a zero effect by the practice (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html), but still alledgedly smart people deny the obviousness of it and still say shenanigan things like "You hear tons of stories about the power of prayer, and I don't doubt them.", or more subtle hints that the reality of god is more "mysterious" like "The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion,", which is the usual cop out, not coincidently also performed by chiropractists, acunpuncturists, herbal medicin preachers, magic tricksters, and all kinds of hucksters.


Prayer does not work. And albeit many people would consider this as evidence for atheism (at least with regards to a god that does answer prayers), theists will never accept any kind of empirical evidence of this type. And so we are back to my thesis that religion is completely incompatible with science. People won't ever accept the obvious, even when it's peer-reviewed with rigorous testing.

Yeah, it's "faith" and it really undermines reason.