Atheism

[Harbal]

I don't know about you guys, but for me, logical arguments for the existence or non existence of gods always seem immensely unsatisfying. Like, I've never read a logical argument either direction and been satisfied by it.

I've read logical arguments about the non existence of specific gods and thought they were maybe a little reasonable, at best, but never gods in general. To me, I suppose it seems like more of an empirical question than a logical one. What should we expect to see if there was a god or god's? What should we expect to see if there wasn't? What do we in fact see?

I would try to approach it as a Bayesian. There's little bits of evidence in both directions, and some people interpret some of that evidence strongly in one direction while other people think it shouldn't be considered that strong of evidence.

But regardless of the disagreements we might have about what each piece of evidence means, I think the bayesian approach seems ultimately more fruitful and satisfying.

It seems to me that the only arguments for the existence of God come from there being religious texts. It is their existence that is the supposed evidence, rather than their content. Without them, the inexplicable things some people seem to encounter during the course of their lives could be explained by any number of imaginative theories. All religious texts were written by human beings, and we know how fallible, biased and dishonest human beings can be, so, if you must have a story, why not just write your own?

[Dontaskme]

We cannot know absolutely anything about what reality IS, we can only speculate, or hypothesize something about what is ISNESS.

From the The New God Argument. ATHEISTS ON THE SIMULATION HYPOTHESIS

https://new-god-argument.com/support/at ... hesis.html

"Many people have noticed that there seem to be no new arguments for the truth of any of the world's religions. I recently stumbled upon one, however, and it has given me a moment's pause...

"Given these premises - that human consciousness is purely the product of computation; that our computing power will continue to grow; and that our descendants will build simulated worlds - it seems tempting to conclude that simulated people will eventually outnumber all the real people who have ever lived. Statistically, therefore, it is more likely that we are simulated ancestors, living in a simulated world, rather than real ancestors of the real, supercomputing people of the future.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't know about you guys, but for me, logical arguments for the existence or non existence of gods always seem immensely unsatisfying. Like, I've never read a logical argument either direction and been satisfied by it.

I take a similar view. As an atheist or ar agnostic or whatever, I don't see any very good args with the conclusion "therefore there is/are no god(s) at all". They are all ok if you are primed to accept them, but the counters are fine for anyone primed to accept those, none of these args has any persuasive power. That's why Immanuel Can thinks he's full of great arguments but everyone who reads any of them cannot believe he's satisfied with that idiot shit.

Lesser stuff about the specific details of some particular religion are probably fine, Hume on the subject of miracles for instance or Strawson on the afterlife are perfectly ok, but the deity itself is protected with plot armour that renders it impossible to investigate unless it does indeed exist and happens to choose to actively assist your efforts.

The problem with arguments that say the world should be different than it is if there was a god is that the God hypothesis is there to explain exactly this world that is all around you, not those imaginary other worlds.

• If you look at it as Gary does and complain that a better God would have made you happier, and given fewer children cancer, the guy on the other side will give you back some version of Leibniz's theodicy "the best of all possible worlds". Any tweaks to the problem only require tweaks to the same answer format and only ever will.

• If you try one of those science based arguments that Evolution is a better explanation for the structural weakness of the human bum hole than a creator with a design (a real arg, I know that looks like one I would make up, but I didn't! The argument from hemorrhoids is real I tells ya), or any other evolution arg, it just comes down to whether evolution is the tool that God chose to use.

Ultimately these all devolve without exception in my experience, to a competition over the argument to best explanation for this world we see around us. But arguments to best explanation are invariably, in strict logical terms, just disposable. You beat that form of argument by simply not being persuaded, there's never a good reason why you are wrong to do so, otherwise a stronger form of argument would have been used.

I'm not sure about that Bayesian thing. I just think that if God is not an investigatable entity (not without its direct assistance anyway) that just makes it a matter of belief. I find the whole idea quite stupid and I don't believe a word of the Bible or the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita, let alone the notion that I should pick some particular one of those to worship.

Immanuel Can however has given his life away to this stuff, there's nothing else going on for him, so in his version of the world that is being explained by the stuff above, atheism is some grand rejection of the world and of life or something. He has the power of fanaticism and with that he assumes your life is as absorbed with the thing he obssesses over as his is, which is how he gets to that argument he is wielding about atheists not belkieving their own atheism*, he really thinks that Harbal and I spend our days trying hard not to believe in God and then our nights cursing God for annoying us by existing. For him, that's the best explanation for how all this came about .



* it's alkso, and I am not making this up either .... why he thinks that Pascal's Wager is serious philosophy. Like, genuinely, he believes that is a killer argument because for his purposes you can take it for granted that "All humans need to have some belief about God" is a self evidently true proposition, and he doesn't understand at all that you would need to believe in God first before that becomes an actual need. The idea that for my purposes God is idle and entirely optional speculation does not compute for that poor guy.

[Dontaskme]

What actual evidence convinces you that you know what other people can or cannot know?

Never mind. I know the answer: none. Typical Atheist reasoning: "If I haven't experienced it, nobody else is allowed to, either."

How are you even conscious at all? Who exactly experiences the experience of ''being conscious'' except consciousness alone.

Answer properly, before you go piping on about a God whom can only be assumed to know all the answers to life's questions.
How can physical matter like a brain be conscious of itself? Doesn't a brain behave like a computer, albeit a biological computer?
Scientists are still arguing about how a man-made computer made in the image of a machine, much like a human brain would go about acquiring consciousness.
In order to truly determine the possibility,scientists would have to be able to fully define what makes a human be considered as conscious and how their brain applies conscious thought to their life and decision making. Remember all that is seen is the physical image And never the invisible. So yeah, all things seen are known to be of the same one cloth so to speak.

Until you can answer how you are conscious at all IC.. you have no actual credible substance behind your personal God reasoning, except as a silly fanciful whimsical thought induced hypothesis.

We wait for the answer, but know it never comes, because you only hear what you want to hear, and see what you want to see. And that's fine. We're all doing the same.

[Dontaskme]

All religious texts were written by human beings, and we know how fallible, biased and dishonest human beings can be, so, if you must have a story, why not just write your own?

Stories are nothing more than suppositions appearing as many as there are authors identified with them.
Even so, the author is inseparable from the story, just as every story is inseparable from the book.

And books are not real, except as believed. . in this conception.

That's all there is to know, and all that can be known.





From belief to clarity.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't know about you guys, but for me, logical arguments for the existence or non existence of gods always seem immensely unsatisfying. Like, I've never read a logical argument either direction and been satisfied by it.

Yes, and how many theists based their beliefs on logical arguments? For that matter how many atheists have as the foundation of their lack of belief or disbelief some logical argument they read?

Experiences and their lacks, communities and subcultures, parenting and peer groups...these things, it seems to me have much more to do with belief and lack of belief.

I've read logical arguments about the non existence of specific gods and thought they were maybe a little reasonable, at best, but never gods in general. To me, I suppose it seems like more of an empirical question than a logical one. What should we expect to see if there was a god or god's? What should we expect to see if there wasn't? What do we in fact see?

There are many things we have to take a pragmatic approach to. I think this is one.

[Flannel Jesus]

There are many things we have to take a pragmatic approach to. I think this is one.

What does the pragmatic approach look like?

[Iwannaplato]

It seems to me that the only arguments for the existence of God come from there being religious texts. It is their existence that is the supposed evidence, rather than their content. Without them, the inexplicable things some people seem to encounter during the course of their lives could be explained by any number of imaginative theories. All religious texts were written by human beings, and we know how fallible, biased and dishonest human beings can be, so, if you must have a story, why not just write your own?

I've rarely met a theist that says someone else who doesn't believe in God should believe in God because it says so in [name of scripture]. It does happen, but I think it's pretty rare. At the next level up you get some pretty poor arguments about where did it come from or not very good versions of the anthropic principle (though it's not called that). But I think most religious people think that experience plays a key role in their own beliefs and want non-theists, those theists that are interested in getting people in, to join and try it out. IOW what happens when you join a religious community, pray, contemplate, participate in the rituals. And while the theist may believe in some rapid conversations and religious epiphanies, I think they realize that for such a change a lot of time is likely necessary. IOW I think there is a big experiential component for theists. But if one looks online in philosophical forums, it may seem like arguments are the source of belief. Or faith is the core of any religious person's like. Faith as distinct from belief and knowledge. But when you get into what the religion is for the person it is both ongoing not so dramatic positive and at least felt as needed experiences with occasional dramatic experiences that keep them as believers. And, of course, some people are just going through the motions.

[Iwannaplato]

There are many things we have to take a pragmatic approach to. I think this is one.

What does the pragmatic approach look like?

You start participating. What happens? Do you like that? You ask questions. Try some ritual. Engage with religious leaders in discussions. Engage in practices. Ask more questions. What's it feel like? What have you experienced. You've put in some time, does it seem worth it? What is your intuition saying about more time? Raise doubts with other participants and experts, if there are those? More engagement or not. That's not some set of rules, but that's an idea about a pragmatic approach.

You may find that you believe after some time. You may find you do not. You may like the changes/experiences in yourself. You may not. And since it's likely not binary, you may find yourself more open than you were. Or less. You may think you like the feelings of this part of the religion, and so you want to continue, but you still think God or whatever is unlikely. There may be all sorts of analogue shifts up and down over time about the the whole thing and various parts of the thing. You may want to continue because of or despite your answers/evaluations to/of these things.

I think often in discussions like this it's like some words on a screen should convince you or would convince you. And you would shift from a state of non-belief to belief. I think that's crazy (not that you've said this, I just think it's often sort of implicit in these discussions).

You could compare it to making friends with someone. Or learning some rather ornate expertise. And many religions/spiritual practices see practices as skills that need to be trained. But in any case it is something that comes from experience and one evaluates.

You meet a guy named Bob. You decide to meet Bob. This happens more times. Finally you notice you trust Bob. You go to Bob when you are in pain or want to connect with yourself. (or you decide Bob isn't for you. Or you just see each other once in a blue moon for a specific activity, but he's never a close friend). Or maybe you marry Bob. Who knows.

You can't prove to someone online that Bob is a great guy. You can tell stories, but he's your friend and what you feel and believe has to do with some long period of experiencing Bob.

And in my hasty analogy Bob is not quite God. Bob is the religion/spiritual practice.

Many things we cannot know without getting at least our feet wet.

None of this implies one should do these things. If you're not interested, we'll what's the point?

It could also be thought of as a kind of apprenticeship - and maybe you decide that carpentry or counseling is not for you and you jump off. Or you may think you need a different teacher/boss.

Again, the metaphor is not something like master = priest/shaman, apprentice = you. More like, in the classical apprenticeship the religion = master and you are the apprentice. Though you might end up in a real apprentice type relationship, in shamanism, say, or with a guru (God forbid) etc.

In a sense the argument approach to conversion is more a less like religion is an idea. You get it or you don't. You don't really have to change. It's like one of those cards to test if you are color blind or not. You see it or you don't. You don't need to change the way you relate to anything.

But what if engaging in a religion entails a change in yourself and this takes time?

[Flannel Jesus]

There are many things we have to take a pragmatic approach to. I think this is one.

What does the pragmatic approach look like?

You start participating. What happens? Do you like that? You ask questions. Try some ritual. Engage with religious leaders in discussions. Engage in practices. Ask more questions. What's it feel like? What have you experienced. You've put in some time, does it seem worth it? What is your intuition saying about more time? Raise doubts with other participants and experts, if there are those? More engagement or not. That's not some set of rules, but that's an idea about a pragmatic approach.

You may find that you believe after some time. You may find you do not. You may like the changes/experiences in yourself. You may not. You may want to continue because of or despite your answers to these things.

While I see the appeal to this approach, I know both empirically and from first hand experience that this approach in general does not and cannot be highly correlated with literal truth. Maybe that's not the point of the pragmatic approach, but it's philosophically the thing id be interested in.

I know both empirically and from first hand experience that, in taking this approach, it's remarkably easy for anyone to come to believe ANY religion. As an approach, it doesn't distinguish between religions very well, because we are primed as humans with certain biases that give this approach a high probability of positive results for reasons that are completely disconnected with the literal truth claims of the belief systems in question.

If I spent a half year in a Hindu community, I would find myself filled with positive emotions and I'd see all sorts of positive results and I'd be primed to interpret those as "Hinduism is true". And if instead I had spent that half year within Scientology, I'd have exactly the same story to tell. You know what I mean? But those experiences don't actually mean Krishna is real, or that we're full of body thetans.

[Iwannaplato]

While I see the appeal to this approach, I know both empirically and from first hand experience that this approach in general does not and cannot be highly correlated with literal truth.

I don't know how you can know that unless we can know things like there is a God or not. And what is the truth that one looks for in a religion or spiritual practice. I think it tends to be many. Do I feel better? Do I feel connected to myself and other people and perhaps a deity in ways I prefer?

Maybe that's not the point of the pragmatic approach, but it's philosophically the thing id be interested in.

Right now, sure. You say the approach has appeal. Does that mean you find the idea of doing what I suggested appealing in relation to some religion/spirituality? If it does, I can't see a good reason not to try it? If it isn't appealing like that, then I am not sure in what way it is appealing.

A

I know both empirically and from first hand experience that, in taking this approach, it's remarkably easy for anyone to come to believe ANY religion

Do you think it would be remarkably easy for you to believe a religion?

. As an approach, it doesn't distinguish between religions very well, because we are primed as humans with certain biases that give this approach a high probability of positive results for reasons that are completely disconnected with the literal truth claims of the belief systems in question.

I'm not sure how true that is for people coming from being non-believers. People raised in religions are quite a different category.

If I spent a half year in a Hindu community, I would find myself filled with positive emotions and I'd see all sorts of positive results

I did not. I got good at meditating, yes. I liked the chanting, but found it better to sing rock later when I dared. But I found I did not like the religion and the answers I got and the changes I felt blooming in me.

And, then if you'd feel positive emotions and get positive results, why not do it but withhold belief in Krishna or whichever deity it was?

and I'd be primed to interpret those as "Hinduism is true".

I think you gotta have a bit more faith in yourself, man.

And if instead I had spent that half year within Scientology, I'd have exactly the same story to tell.

I don't know you, but I truly doubt that. I went as far with them - as part of an academic study - as I could without losing a lot of money or putting myself in situations that I felt unsafe in. I truly doubt you would find yourself loving Scientology. But, man, if you did, why not do it then?

You know what I mean? But those experiences don't actually mean Krishna is real, or that we're full of body thetans.

And just because I have a nice time with Bob, it doesn't mean he's not going to betray me some day, or turn out to be a dick.

But if you are interested in having friends or interested in seeing what it would be like, then you go into things as the fallible human we are. And sure, maybe you never get proof.

[Flannel Jesus]

While I see the appeal to this approach, I know both empirically and from first hand experience that this approach in general does not and cannot be highly correlated with literal truth.

I don't know how you can know that unless we can know things like there is a God or not.

It's independent of that question. It has to do with the fact that mutually exclusive belief systems both have adherents that by all accounts went through this type of process.

[Gary Childress]

Oy veh ist mir.

Why are you in woe, AJ? Please share. I hope it wasn't something I said. If it was, then feel free to explain how my words have given you woe?

[Iwannaplato]

While I see the appeal to this approach, I know both empirically and from first hand experience that this approach in general does not and cannot be highly correlated with literal truth.

I don't know how you can know that unless we can know things like there is a God or not.

It's independent of that question. It has to do with the fact that mutually exclusive belief systems both have adherents that by all accounts went through this type of process.

Sure, but what does that entail? One can still test for oneself and see if one comes to believe/appreciate. There are many ways to meet a mate (either sense of that word). I can just choose the ways that appeal/suit me. Even if adherents say only one way is the right way, while in fact there and religious and spiritual people and groups who speak about there being many valid paths. Ken Wilber considers the mystical traditions in most religions to have very similar steps and states, and see the specific 'local' details and cultural tweaks to suit people in an area or certain personality types. IOW many adherents do not think the different religions are mutually exclusive - and that was certainly my experience of Hinduism in the extremely large group I joined for a while. Again, if there was strong interest and confidence that you would be happier, I'm not sure what the problem is. You could continue with philosophical or other investigations on the side. If there isn't much interest, well, that's another story.

And one more thought about Hinduism. It is very unclear, especially in many Hindu subgroups, if there is a deity in the Abrahamic sense. It can be a panpsychism. But even less supernatural than that Vishnu or whichever deity can be conceived as a non-dual state, rather than some supernatural creature. IOW if you really think you would be happy joining Hinduism but your concern is that you would become brainwashed into believing in a deity or be forced to choose, it's actually not the case. Many parts of Hinduism are very much like Buddhism, especially for serious practitioners. And this could be something one could ask while trying it out or at any point. Kashmir Shaivism would be one suggestion. It wasn't for me, but that's...me.

[phyllo]

If I spent a half year in a Hindu community, I would find myself filled with positive emotions and I'd see all sorts of positive results and I'd be primed to interpret those as "Hinduism is true".

Perhaps those positive emotions and positive results are evidence of an authentic religion and a god at work.

Saying you'd "be primed" makes it sound like some sort of trick or manipulation.