And don't forget the atheist contributions in this regard - the FSM, the celestial teapot, the invisible pink unicorn and the dragon in the garage
What do atheists think that "to know God" means?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
Of course, because they are only seriously advocated by atheists.
Hence they are valuable tools for discerning what atheists think god is and other contingent issues like what "to know god" means to them.
then you don't have the tools to appreciate parody and satire on the subject
almost as funny as a guy who declares something as parody and who then says in his next breath he doesn't even know what it is.
@LG --
I don't know what it is, I only know what theists claim it is and what I once believed. I can work with those concepts as readily as I could any knowledge, which is a good thing because there's not one theist in the world who can demonstrate any knowledge of god.
I don't know what it is, I only know what theists claim it is and what I once believed. I can work with those concepts as readily as I could any knowledge, which is a good thing because there's not one theist in the world who can demonstrate any knowledge of god.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Wynn said:
I think that Wynn was just suggesting that if some of the atheists are going to speak with such seeming assurance about "God", "reality" and "existence", some kind of underlying theory that justifies that assurance is implied.
The thing is, our atheists have been insisting that atheism is simply the absence of belief in God. They insist that atheism doesn't imply any other views in addition to that.
But as soon as a heretic dares to express some kind of religious belief on Sciforums, they pounce. (Or at least a few of the more aggressive ones do.) Not lightly, and not in a friendly way.
That suggests to me that these atheists hold a whole set of additional views alongside the simple lack of belief that they are willing to acknowledge. There's views about what religion is. There's views about the evidence that supposedly justifies religious ideas. There's epistemological views about what is and isn't good evidence. There's ontological views about the kind of things that do and don't exist. There's views about religion's role in history. There's views about religious individuals personally. And there's a variety of sometimes scathing value judgements about all of these things.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
They are parodies but they are most definitely meant to be taken seriously.
They are designed to show the similarities between two ostensibly ridiculous* things: FSM and God.
*personally, I do not hold to this tactic of ridicule. While I do not subscribe to the existence of God, I do believe other people have the right to, and they do not deserve to be ridiculed. (However, bad behavior for whatever reason can be criticized, which is where many theists - and atheists - go awry.)
@Dave --
I will never argue that people don't have a right to believe as they wish, however the freedom from ridicule that you extend to them disappears the instant any inane prattle leaves their mouths, in my view that is.
I agree with Jefferson on this, ridicule is our only weapon against unintelligible ideas. And what is the theistic concept of god if not an unintelligible idea?
I will never argue that people don't have a right to believe as they wish, however the freedom from ridicule that you extend to them disappears the instant any inane prattle leaves their mouths, in my view that is.
I agree with Jefferson on this, ridicule is our only weapon against unintelligible ideas. And what is the theistic concept of god if not an unintelligible idea?
JDawg
A curiously political statement, don't you think? I think it was inserted in Jesus's dialog for religious reasons by those trying to tie the OT and NT together for the purpose of giving the new religion gravitas. Elsewhere Jesus himself repudiated the "Eye for an eye" meme of the OT, so someone is lying(they are all human, after all).
Are we talking about what Paul said Jesus said, or are we talking about Jesus's philosophy? You can find lots of incoherent non-sense in the NT(especially from Paul), that doesn't mean Jesus actually said what he is said to have said. In fact, these words could be taken from the OT god, not Jesus, it is not congruent with almost everything else he ever said or did. What did Jesus say to the adulterous woman and those who had come to stone her? "Ye who is without sin cast the first stone" is the exact opposite meme to the passage above. Here's what Jesus said about the commandments...
"You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Notice whats missing? Notice what's new?
Adultery was punishable by death, doesn't it strike you as strange that Jesus would throw a fit in one case(according to Paul in Matthew)and stop a stoning in another when both were punished in exactly the same way?
That's just non-sense, Jesus revolutionized religious thought, a paradigm shift comparable to Einstein's in physics. This is ignorance and bias on your part. A new religion formed around Jesus's philosophy BECAUSE it was so revolutionary and different, going from the authoritarian and cruel god to a loving and forgiving one(neither exists but the ideas are the thing).
Denying the reality does not change that reality. The OT god certainly fits your description, Jesus does not, he was about forgivness, not punishment. And whether you admit it or not our modern morality is based in some degree to the ideas Jesus espoused. Thomas Jefferson, a lifelong atheist, admired Jesus's philosophy so much he gathered his sayings together, stripped of the religious non-sense, into his own "Bible". I don't think you or I are wiser than he was and Jesus's philosophy influenced the founding of our country through TJ's writings.
The near total lack of reason in your position is plain to see, enjoy your religious atheism but don't expect others to give those views any regard as they do not deserve such regard.
Grumpy
A curiously political statement, don't you think? I think it was inserted in Jesus's dialog for religious reasons by those trying to tie the OT and NT together for the purpose of giving the new religion gravitas. Elsewhere Jesus himself repudiated the "Eye for an eye" meme of the OT, so someone is lying(they are all human, after all).
Are we talking about what Paul said Jesus said, or are we talking about Jesus's philosophy? You can find lots of incoherent non-sense in the NT(especially from Paul), that doesn't mean Jesus actually said what he is said to have said. In fact, these words could be taken from the OT god, not Jesus, it is not congruent with almost everything else he ever said or did. What did Jesus say to the adulterous woman and those who had come to stone her? "Ye who is without sin cast the first stone" is the exact opposite meme to the passage above. Here's what Jesus said about the commandments...
"You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Notice whats missing? Notice what's new?
Adultery was punishable by death, doesn't it strike you as strange that Jesus would throw a fit in one case(according to Paul in Matthew)and stop a stoning in another when both were punished in exactly the same way?
That's just non-sense, Jesus revolutionized religious thought, a paradigm shift comparable to Einstein's in physics. This is ignorance and bias on your part. A new religion formed around Jesus's philosophy BECAUSE it was so revolutionary and different, going from the authoritarian and cruel god to a loving and forgiving one(neither exists but the ideas are the thing).
Denying the reality does not change that reality. The OT god certainly fits your description, Jesus does not, he was about forgivness, not punishment. And whether you admit it or not our modern morality is based in some degree to the ideas Jesus espoused. Thomas Jefferson, a lifelong atheist, admired Jesus's philosophy so much he gathered his sayings together, stripped of the religious non-sense, into his own "Bible". I don't think you or I are wiser than he was and Jesus's philosophy influenced the founding of our country through TJ's writings.
The near total lack of reason in your position is plain to see, enjoy your religious atheism but don't expect others to give those views any regard as they do not deserve such regard.
Grumpy
Yazata
It does not imply that such views do not exist, only that nothing is indicated simply by being an atheist. The exact same thing is true about knowing nothing about the world view of theists. The only information contained in the theism or lack thereof is the acceptance or non-acceptance of a god.
Of course we have worldviews, the point is that on either side such worldviews can not be deduced simply by knowing only if one is a theist or an atheist, except for the single point of god's existence or non-existence. Why is that so hard for you to admit? The OP was "What does the atheist think to "know god" means". To which we responded by asking which god, what do you mean by "know" and other questions with the intent to find out what particular theist view we are responding to.
Example: To know Spinoza's god(or a Deist one) means learning all you can about the Universe or Nature, your knowledge of god is exactly congruent with your knowledge of that Universe.
But something tells me that would not be the answer the OP was looking for. Few such questions are asked without the questioner having a good idea of an acceptable answer. But until he gives the questionee an idea of what he means he can receive answers that just do not have anything at all to do with the intent of the question.
lightgigantic
So we can safely add parody and satire to the long list of things you have shown no understanding of? Like "guesses".
And the concept of tongue-in-cheek as well? They are simply illustrations of the irrationality in believing in unevidenced things and the impossibility of disproving such absurdities. No one takes them seriously, though they are good illustrations of the point.
wynn
It certainly follows that you should stop worrying about the thing(god)that probably doesn't exist. And it is not meant to convey the idea that you should stop worrying about everything.
Your analogy assumes we needed a pilot in the first place, it also assumes that pilots actually exist. There probably are no pilots(metaphysically speaking, of course)and your aircraft is in your control, so quit worrying about non-extant pilots and get on with your life.
Total lack of valid evidence and total implausability of all god concepts yet presented(apart from Spinoza, that is).
Ah, the stealth theist peeks out of her shell.
Grumpy
It does not imply that such views do not exist, only that nothing is indicated simply by being an atheist. The exact same thing is true about knowing nothing about the world view of theists. The only information contained in the theism or lack thereof is the acceptance or non-acceptance of a god.
Of course we have worldviews, the point is that on either side such worldviews can not be deduced simply by knowing only if one is a theist or an atheist, except for the single point of god's existence or non-existence. Why is that so hard for you to admit? The OP was "What does the atheist think to "know god" means". To which we responded by asking which god, what do you mean by "know" and other questions with the intent to find out what particular theist view we are responding to.
Example: To know Spinoza's god(or a Deist one) means learning all you can about the Universe or Nature, your knowledge of god is exactly congruent with your knowledge of that Universe.
But something tells me that would not be the answer the OP was looking for. Few such questions are asked without the questioner having a good idea of an acceptable answer. But until he gives the questionee an idea of what he means he can receive answers that just do not have anything at all to do with the intent of the question.
lightgigantic
So we can safely add parody and satire to the long list of things you have shown no understanding of? Like "guesses".
And the concept of tongue-in-cheek as well? They are simply illustrations of the irrationality in believing in unevidenced things and the impossibility of disproving such absurdities. No one takes them seriously, though they are good illustrations of the point.
wynn
It certainly follows that you should stop worrying about the thing(god)that probably doesn't exist. And it is not meant to convey the idea that you should stop worrying about everything.
Your analogy assumes we needed a pilot in the first place, it also assumes that pilots actually exist. There probably are no pilots(metaphysically speaking, of course)and your aircraft is in your control, so quit worrying about non-extant pilots and get on with your life.
Total lack of valid evidence and total implausability of all god concepts yet presented(apart from Spinoza, that is).
Ah, the stealth theist peeks out of her shell.
Grumpy
"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which the unskilled suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1]
Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others"
/.../
The hypothesized phenomenon was tested in a series of experiments performed by Justin Kruger and David Dunning, both then of Cornell University.[2][5] Kruger and Dunning noted earlier studies suggesting that ignorance of standards of performance is behind a great deal of incompetence. This pattern was seen in studies of skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis.
Kruger and Dunning proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:
1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they can be trained to substantially improve.
/.../
Dunning, Kruger, and coauthors' 2008 paper on this subject comes to qualitatively similar conclusions to their original work, after making some attempt to test alternative explanations. They conclude that the root cause is that, in contrast to high performers, "poor performers do not learn from feedback suggesting a need to improve."
/.../
Regardless of how pervasive the phenomenon is, it is clear from Dunning's and others' work that many Americans, at least sometimes and under some conditions, have a tendency to inflate their worth. It is interesting, therefore, to see the phenomenon's mirror opposite in another culture. In research comparing North American and East Asian self-assessments, Heine of the University of British Columbia finds that East Asians tend to underestimate their abilities, with an aim toward improving the self and getting along with others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
It very well may have been, but it is not presented as such, and to say definitively that it is not "Jesus's philosophy" is false.
So we're just going to pick and choose what came from Jesus and what didn't? Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with questioning the authenticity of biblical verse, but you only differentiate true from false by how positive the message is.
No more strange than the same person who says to turn the other cheek demanding that his enemies be brought before him and slaughtered. We both see the contradictions, but the difference is that you arbitrarily choose to believe that only the positive parts are true.
I'm sorry, that is a load of crap. Christianity began as a death cult and propagated its message through indoctrination and mysticism, incorporating various pagan mythologies along the way. There was nothing revolutionary about it, at least not in its philosophy.
Oh, so now America was founded on Christian values? I knew your knowledge of history was superficial, but this proves that it's through a Christian lens. Interesting. I smell a closet theist in our midst.
Jefferson, for the record, did not simply omit the supernatural elements from the Bible for his own book. He also dismissed the "bad" Jesus as a misrepresentation--just as you have, and neither of you have any warrant to do so, except for your desire to warp the faith into something it is not. Granted, this is a noble cause, and Christianity would be a much better religion if only the good stuff was incorporated, but this is not reality.
You're left to parrot my own criticisms and throw them back at me. I'll take that as your white flag.
Do you forget that its only atheists who advocate the FSM et al or do you simply ignore that fact?
clearly not unintelligible enough to prevent formulating a parody (which has at its core, definitions and characteristics representing the proponents estimation of the subject .... much like any other parody, political, social or religious, you care to mention)
:shrug:
Theists advocate god, which is just as silly as FSM.
JDawg
“ Originally Posted by Grumpy
A curiously political statement, don't you think? I think it was inserted in Jesus's dialog for religious reasons by those trying to tie the OT and NT together for the purpose of giving the new religion gravitas. Elsewhere Jesus himself repudiated the "Eye for an eye" meme of the OT, so someone is lying(they are all human, after all). ”
QUOTE]
It wouldn't be, would it? It does not fit in with the things throughout Jesus's other words and seems an add on by later religionists.
Yes, as we do with the statements and claims about other historical figures. George Washington did not chop down his father's cherry tree, it is a complete fiction.
Yes, and I reject those things with a negative effect, even if it was actually Jesus who said them. He was just a man, and like all men, not everything he said or is said to have said is either true or of value. Taking something as true because of who said it is unthinking, religious thinking. Taking something as true based on your own reasoning is thoughtful discrimination.
That's the point, Jesus's story and words have been manipulated and changed. The very first book we have about his story and teachings(generally thought to be Mark)was written over 50 years after the events. There were literally hundreds of gospels about Jesus of which all but four were suppressed by the Catholic Church.
The first fits in with the bulk of his words and teachings, the second does not. And even if it could be shown that he said both(which I doubt), I accept the first and reject the second as wisdom. I incorporate the first within my philosophy and dismiss the second as unworthy and not truthful(whatever it's source). The second sounds like the Old Testament attitude, maybe added by conservative influences in the church(like Paul)for political reasons(there is quite a bit of incongruous things in the New Testament that are obviously political/religious in nature and a big struggle between the leaders of the early church, Paul won).
I don't BELIEVE anything, I accept as philosophically true based on my own judgement. And it makes no difference to me whether it is true that Jesus said both, one is wise, one is crap...one wheat and the other chaff to me in forming my own philosophy.
Is that what I said? Or is that a complete distotion of what I said?
Jefferson, for the record, did not simply omit the supernatural elements from the Bible for his own book. He also dismissed the "bad" Jesus as a misrepresentation--just as you have, and neither of you have any warrant to do so, except for your desire to warp the faith into something it is not. Granted, this is a noble cause, and Christianity would be a much better religion if only the good stuff was incorporated, but this is not reality.
Thomas Jefferson had much the same attitude about Jesus as I do, he admired the central message and deleted the things said about Jesus being divine. IT INFORMED HIS ATHEIST PHILOSOPHY. And he was a Father of the country, so there was some influence by Jesus(who lived and died a Jew)in the founding of our country. A much bigger influence was the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Religious liberty was not a Christian idea and in no way can it be said that this country was founded on the Christian Religion(as Washington stated plainly).
And I could give a hoot about the Christian faith. This is not support for any institution, it is about the search for wisdom and the only warrant I(or Jefferson)need is reason. Jefferson rejected the same type of things as not in character for the majority of Jesus's teachings for the same reasons I have been posting, they just don't fit and seem later additions for political purposes of the church. I think the RCC is the greatest source of evil in this world, not least because of their distortions and misuse for purpose of control of the things Jesus said, not to mention the rampant, murderous antisemitism they promoted for centuries culminating in the Holocaust just 70 years ago. Hitler was a Catholic and was inculcated with that antisemitism from the pulpit
You are still conflating the words and philosophy of Jesus with the behavior and actions of the Christian church, something Jesus had not one thing to do with creating or leading. Jesus's philosophy was revolutionary, a huge paradigm shift from the OT god of fire and vengence(a totalitarian asshole), to the new paradigm of a loving god and forgiveness. Neither god is real, but at least the second ficticious god is a nicer one.
The church is everything you say it is and more. It is an institution of power over others and corrupt and rotten to the core, no question. And despite the lip service they give to the philosophy of Jesus, they are only about controlling this world, not improving it. Yes, they do some good works, but so did Al Capone.
You are projecting, it is you who would be wise to conceed I have carried my points. You need to give this more thought than you so far seem to have done. What I have argued is reasoned and nuanced, yours are more like a sledgehammer which you fling about without discrimination at all.
Grumpy