Not a matter of belief

[swarm]

When people characterize atheism they often do something like:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
"What is atheism?"
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.

While that is the traditional approach I don't feel it really captures the true essence of the situation as there is a linguistic implication that we are discussing whether or not to believe in something.

No reasonable person disbelieves things which actually exist or believes things which don't exist do.

Belief and gods both are just red herrings in this discussion.

The real question here is can a person declare existence by fiat or is existence purely a matter of fact which can only be resolved by the actual existence of the object in question.

These last few gods are the last holdout of the existence-by-fiat crowd and they are generally going the way of Zeus and Thor. When you go through what they supposedly believe about their god, I find all but the most rabid start to get dubious. Most religious people I encounter have rationalized the understanding of god into something they find comfortable, despite it not being what their religion dictates.

I feel this loss of central control over the deity is a first step in the realization that the deity is wholly arbitrary to begin with. A deity that could mean anything really means nothing.

Unfortunately "god" is also really a red herring in religion itself (for example Buddhism often does away with it completely) and atheists get wrapped up in this incidental question to the detriment of what I see as the real issue which has been playing out on three main fronts (religious, political and commercial):despotic rule vs cooperative rule.

 

[swarm]

Hmm, Either you guys completely agree with my position or its only interesting if I say "god sucks."

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Patience my son/daughter/transwhatever.

 

[Simon Anders]

No reasonable person disbelieves things which actually exist or believes things which don't exist do.

Then there are probably very few reasonable people. It seems more than likely that what I just said is true from a scientific viewpoint. That entities we think exists are merely illusory is likely to be proven later one. And also that things we think do not will also be shown to exist. Then in the political realm, i am quite sure each of us would be surprised to find out a wide variety of things about events, people and their real opinions and allegiences, etc. And without getting into any conspiracies.

These last few gods are the last holdout of the existence-by-fiat crowd and they are generally going the way of Zeus and Thor.

But this is not true. They are not going the way of Zeus and Thor. Christianity, for example, increases members every year. Can I now conclude, since you believe in a phenomenon that does not exist - the fading of Gods - that you are not reasonable?

 

[swarm]

Simon Anders Then there are probably very few reasonable people. It seems more than likely that what I just said is true from a scientific viewpoint.

I don't see what point you are trying to make here. I made no claims about the prevalence of reasonable people nor do I see that how numerical scarcity is "more than likely that what I just said is true from a scientific viewpoint." Perhaps you could go into more detail if its actually a point critical to what you are trying to get across?

Simon Anders That entities we think exists are merely illusory is likely to be proven later one. And also that things we think do not will also be shown to exist.

If I'm understanding you here, your objection is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you discover you were mistaken. A reasonable person corrects their beliefs to reflect the most accurate understanding of reality they are privy to. If god shows up tomorrow, I have no problem with that and would be the first to admit I was mistaken. That hasn't happened though and to declare god simply because bronze age sheep herders thought it was a good idea is as ridiculous as declaring Thor or Zeus or any number of gods the current theists choke on the notion of worshiping.

Simon Anders Then in the political realm...

Again irrelevant. It is the desire to cleave to what is true and actual and to correct one's own error which is the mark of reason, not some impossible omniscience.

Simon Anders But this is not true.

Interesting claim. I've not found it to be the case.

Simon Anders They are not going the way of Zeus and Thor.

Ah, but he is. He is increasingly vague and abstract instead of concrete and anthropomorphic. The US and Islamic fundies yell a lot, but the average xtian or Muslim has great difficulties with the traditional personified deity, much like the changes in how Zeus was seen as his worship defocused during the Athenian golden age. JHVH is quickly becoming entirely irrelevant to many Jews for example. The UUs have ditched the xtian moniker. Western Europe is becoming increasingly secular.

Simon Anders Christianity, for example, increases members every year.

Not in western nations and I'm not convinced the actual base is increasing. Catholics becoming protestants and vis versa isn't really "growing." The exception would be in Asia. But they'll learn eventually.

However the social club of xtianity is not the same as the perception of the xtian deity.

Simon Anders Can I now conclude, since you believe in a phenomenon that does not exist - the fading of Gods - that you are not reasonable?

Funny that this of all I said is what you've latched on to and strickly on the xtian side of things. Why not defend Krishna? I'm guessing the actual meat of the piece eluded your single issue focus.

 

[Simon Anders]

I don't see what point you are trying to make here. I made no claims about the prevalence of reasonable people nor do I see that how numerical scarcity is "more than likely that what I just said is true from a scientific viewpoint." Perhaps you could go into more detail if its actually a point critical to what you are trying to get across?

To me the statement implied a kind of hubris. I doubt anyone no earth is reasonable given the implicit definition in that sentence.

Simon Anders That entities we think exists are merely illusory is likely to be proven later one. And also that things we think do not will also be shown to exist.

If I'm understanding you here, your objection is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you discover you were mistaken. A reasonable person corrects their beliefs to reflect the most accurate understanding of reality they are privy to. If god shows up tomorrow, I have no problem with that and would be the first to admit I was mistaken. That hasn't happened though and to declare god simply because bronze age sheep herders thought it was a good idea is as ridiculous as declaring Thor or Zeus or any number of gods the current theists choke on the notion of worshiping.

If I make the argument that you close with here, feel free to point out its ridiculousness.

Again irrelevant. It is the desire to cleave to what is true and actual and to correct one's own error which is the mark of reason, not some impossible omniscience.

Which is also possible for people who are working with experience and believe in things that are not currently testable by empirical study - I believe pretty much everyone falls in this category, though some have humbler beliefs based on personal experience than others. Omnicience was implicit in your implied definition of reasonable. It also seemed to me to confuse current knowledge - primarily, I assume, scientific, with final knowledge. To think anyone does not posit entities that are not real seems ludicrous to me, further since it is implicit that you are reasonable - correct me if I am wrong - I wanted to press you to consider that this is probably not true GIVEN YOUR OWN VERY RESTRICTIVE DEFINITION.

Simon Anders But this is not true.

Interesting claim. I've not found it to be the case.

Simon Anders They are not going the way of Zeus and Thor.

Ah, but he is. He is increasingly vague and abstract instead of concrete and anthropomorphic. The US and Islamic fundies yell a lot, but the average xtian or Muslim has great difficulties with the traditional personified deity, much like the changes in how Zeus was seen as his worship defocused during the Athenian golden age. JHVH is quickly becoming entirely irrelevant to many Jews for example. The UUs have ditched the xtian moniker. Western Europe is becoming increasingly secular.

So by fading away you mean less anthropomorphic. A better case can be made for that, but I think primarily in the West, and even there mostly amongst certain groups. I still think that there are more Christians today who believe in a guy with a beard in the sky then there were 100 years ago, and perhaps even 20.

Simon Anders Christianity, for example, increases members every year.

Not in western nations and I'm not convinced the actual base is increasing.

You'll need to back that up with some data.

However the social club of xtianity is not the same as the perception of the xtian deity.

No, but the mystics of most religions have had much more subtle versions of their Gods and do not fit your model. I do not think they are decreasing either.

Simon Anders Can I now conclude, since you believe in a phenomenon that does not exist - the fading of Gods - that you are not reasonable?

Funny that this of all I said is what you've latched on to and strickly on the xtian side of things. Why not defend Krishna? I'm guessing the actual meat of the piece eluded your single issue focus.

Bad guess. I am not Christian. I think a montheism like Christianity is one of the harder ones to 'defend', so I start there.

There is some merit to your idea that there are more members of some religions that do not anthropomorphize in traditional ways. However, the lay believers have always latched onto the easiest most culturally dependent language related to gods, etc.

 

[Leo Volont]

Atheists insisting upon a Material Existence of God is like the Russians in the 1960's saying that there orbiting spaceships encountered no God. It seems to be a matter of looking in the wrong places.

God should be considered as a Psychological Reality. In that sense, if there is evidence that a significant number of people dream of God, or have psychological experiences, whether through Spirituality, Meditation or even Insanity, then, in that particular dimension, God exists.

Why would there be a Psychological God? Well, like the way a Flock of Birds can all turn at once, no one discerning any one particular Leader, the birds acting en mass, well, People might be developing the same kind of Organizational Ambiance, a Collective Consciousness. So that Humanity will finally be able to all go in the same direction. No Leader, but just everybody turning at the same time, like those birds. Unfortunately we can see that the Process is not yet complete. Its ironic here to say, but God is Evolving.

 

[swarm]

Simon Anders I doubt anyone no earth is reasonable given the implicit definition in that sentence.

Well let's see.

Do you consider your self a reasonable person?

If so, do you go around disbelieving thing you know to exist, like say the keyboard you are typing on?

Do you go around trying to believe things you know don't exist, like pink pegacorns?

Did my theory bear fruit?

Simon Anders Which is also possible for people who are working with experience and believe in things that are not currently testable by empirical study - I believe pretty much everyone falls in this category, though some have humbler beliefs based on personal experience than others.


If you are actually working on direct experience, then it can be examined empirically.

Simon Anders Omnicience was implicit in your implied definition of reasonable.

Not in the least.

Simon Anders It also seemed to me to confuse current knowledge - primarily, I assume, scientific, with final knowledge.

No confusion, no final knowledge exists.

Simon Anders To think anyone does not posit entities that are not real seems ludicrous to me, further since it is implicit that you are reasonable - correct me if I am wrong - I wanted to press you to consider that this is probably not true GIVEN YOUR OWN VERY RESTRICTIVE DEFINITION.

To what purpose should I posit unreal entities and then claim they are real? That would seem a crass deception or worse if I should start to believe it myself.

Simon Anders You'll need to back that up with some data.
http://pewforum.org/events/051805/global-christianity.pdf

The real question here is can a person declare existence by fiat or is existence purely a matter of fact which can only be resolved by the actual existence of the object in question?

Also "god" is also really a red herring in religion itself (for example Buddhism often does away with it completely) and atheists get wrapped up in this incidental question to the detriment of what I see as the real issue which has been playing out on three main fronts (religious, political and commercial):despotic rule vs cooperative rule.

 

[swarm]

Leo Volont God should be considered as a Psychological Reality.

Few atheists would argue against god being a concept since that is actually true.