Is Atheism a Belief System? (split from the Political Views thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeh, sure, its just a conversation. What happens in the real world doesn't matter.

Sure it does, but to place a burden of solving the world's problems on every conversation would seem a bad, and very tiresome, way to go about life. I don't discuss my beliefs, not because I don't think beliefs like mine matter in the real world but because I assume that throwing them into every conversation about football would be really fricking annoying...even to people with similar beliefs.
 
The old 'mere humans can't possibly understand God's mysterious ways' argument is bunk. Humans are self-aware and have language to deal with complicated concepts. A God who can't explain themselves to the average Joe is a silly one to posit.
 
The old 'mere humans can't possibly understand God's mysterious ways' argument is bunk. Humans are self-aware and have language to deal with complicated concepts. A God who can't explain themselves to the average Joe is a silly one to posit.

LOL...the hubris in this is hysterical. I wish I knew an appropriate field for you, but I guess I'll have to use one of mine as an example and let you try it yourself.

When confronted by this concept I always picture myself explaining the construction of a nuclear submarine using nothing beyond third grade vocabulary to an eight year old that has never seen the ocean.

Substitute appropriately, then get back to me on how it's all god's fault how the humans keep coming up with these wild religions.
 
Sure it does, but to place a burden of solving the world's problems on every conversation would seem a bad, and very tiresome, way to go about life. I don't discuss my beliefs, not because I don't think beliefs like mine matter in the real world but because I assume that throwing them into every conversation about football would be really fricking annoying...even to people with similar beliefs.
OK so we have reached a state of agreement in saying that my and your beliefs are not necessarilly more meaningful than each others. Lets reach a state where the state treats each other equally
 
OK so we have reached a state of agreement in saying that my and your beliefs are not necessarilly more meaningful than each others. Lets reach a state where the state treats each other equally

Well, before we try anything so grand perhaps we should try for just actually we treat each other's beliefs equally.

When someone goes off on one of their "these doorknockers are persecuting me for my atheism!!!!" riffs, do you respond the same way that you do when the usual suspects gather around to ridicule the "terminally stupid believer lacking proof" who had the temerity to bring up their beliefs, or are you one of the usual suspects?
 
Thing is, you keep falling into the "without evidence" trap. The evidence may not be of a form that can be handed off from person to person, but assuming that all believers are misguided clowns believing without evidence is grossly biasing your results...if you are actually seeking useful information.

The ability to pass something relevant to empirical reality person to person is kind of crucial to having something function as evidence.

I'm not going to bother name-calling people for making a common mistake that I can easily make in other contexts simply by not being vigilant.
 
Ahhhh...but you do in fact communicate with the rats. You aren't explaining the experiment to them or qualifying them as experts in neuroscience, but there are certainly some points being made. You are a long long way from clear, not necessarily by intent, but you aren't totally ineffable either.

I'm not. But again, I am deliberately choosing to experiment on thinking organisms that I know I cannot communicate with. Keep in mind, I could also knowingly conduct experiments on people who can communicate with me, they just usually object.

Either way, constraint is a function of my inability
 
The ability to pass something relevant to empirical reality person to person is kind of crucial to having something function as evidence.

In a group context, sure. But personal experience doesn't occur in a group context. What someone believes, based on their experience, is not invalidated for them just because you have a different bank of experiences.

I'm pretty sure that when you want a rat to get out of its cage you are fully capable of getting the idea across. You are communicating everything to the rat that you deem it necessary for them to know, plus maybe some other stuff that they pick up along the way and discuss among themselves.
 
The old 'mere humans can't possibly understand God's mysterious ways' argument is bunk. Humans are self-aware and have language to deal with complicated concepts. A God who can't explain themselves to the average Joe is a silly one to posit.

But would a being who could be fully understood by the average Joe be a god? Wouldn't it be a sub-Joe?
 
But would a being who could be fully understood by the average Joe be a god? Wouldn't it be a sub-Joe?

This seems accurate, since the average Joe doesn't really appear to fully understand himself, and understands the next average Joe even less. I consider myself well above average, and I don't fully understand much of anything.
 
I've done a bit of Googling since I posted: "questions that half the population gets wrong." I wanted to add to my post an illustration of kinds of things the average Joe doesn't know. I haven't found anything that breaks it out that way yet. But if I do, I think it will be something shy of "the full nature of the divinity."
 
Just like when someone says "well, such never happened to me so it can't have happened to you either" in reply they are most likely wrong.

An old coworker of mine tried to convince me that he was capable of running what math'd out to be a 3:45 mile. (the original claim was that he ran x amount of miles in y minutes). That would be an impressive boast under any circumstances, but he also weighed around 300 pounds. His brother, who was also present, got extremely upset when I scoffed at this claim. He said "You weren't there, so you can't say whether or not it happened," a pretty direct parallel to your quote here. Additionally, he stated that it was infuriating when people who didn't experience thing questioned someone else's experience of thing. This also seems to be a narrative in your posts here.

Regardless, his obese brother could not, and therefore did not, run a sub-4-minute-mile. We don't need to be present at this race to conclude such. We have ample evidence of the physicality required to accomplish this feat. The same holds true for supernatural claims.

You (the general you) cannot hold other people hostage to your perverted perceptions of reality.
 
An old coworker of mine tried to convince me that he was capable of running what math'd out to be a 3:45 mile. (the original claim was that he ran x amount of miles in y minutes). That would be an impressive boast under any circumstances, but he also weighed around 300 pounds. His brother, who was also present, got extremely upset when I scoffed at this claim. He said "You weren't there, so you can't say whether or not it happened," a pretty direct parallel to your quote here. Additionally, he stated that it was infuriating when people who didn't experience thing questioned someone else's experience of thing. This also seems to be a narrative in your posts here.

Regardless, his obese brother could not, and therefore did not, run a sub-4-minute-mile. We don't need to be present at this race to conclude such. We have ample evidence of the physicality required to accomplish this feat. The same holds true for supernatural claims.

Why in the world would he have any inclination to convince you of such a thing? Not that it is really relevant to the subject at hand, but certainly curious.

What makes it irrelevant is the core issue of "convincing." I don't try to convince anyone of my beliefs. To do so based on my own experiences would be stupid, since I don't expect anyone else to have my experiences somehow transmit into being their experiences. I know plenty of people with seemingly similar experiences and similar beliefs, but my experiences are still alien and irrelevant to them. How a fat guy that can't tell time fits into the discussion I have no idea.
 
LOL...just because you feel like your point of view is being threatened don't get mad at me. Maybe you are just too emotionally invested in your point of view to participate in a civil conversation here. If so, there is an obvious solution.
The irony is thick as stone here.
Though knowing you, that might simply be trolling.
Regardless, it's showing completely pointless, so, well, have fun I guess.
 
Last edited:
It's hysterical that you think it would be difficult to explain what a submarine is to an eight year old.

Man, it sure would be if that's what I had said. But thanks for the demonstration that even with a theoretically educated grown man simple communication can go so wildly astray.
 
Well, before we try anything so grand perhaps we should try for just actually we treat each other's beliefs equally.

When someone goes off on one of their "these doorknockers are persecuting me for my atheism!!!!" riffs, do you respond the same way that you do when the usual suspects gather around to ridicule the "terminally stupid believer lacking proof" who had the temerity to bring up their beliefs, or are you one of the usual suspects?

As I've said before I don't care about your beliefs so long as you keep them out of schools.
Unfortunately theists are rarely happy to do so.
 
Moderator Action: Closed for review.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom