Atheists: Why does theism still exist?

[Archaeopteryx]

And this is an example of what I call atheistic fundamentalism, where God can only be a set of ridiculous things like the above (ascertained by a literal reading of the Bible cover to cover, which no serious theologian holds), and if he's something else, well then...that just can't be the case.

Why should we care what "serious theologians" think? Are they better able to demonstrate their supernatural claims than the non-serious theologians?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Should we include science with the FSM, given that there's no way to validate its existence either along positivist or empirical lines?

I don't understand the point of the question.
Science is kind of big on rational evidence. Which is why supernatural shenannigans isn't part of science. And the same goes for the FSM. So, what is the point here?

And what are the metaphysical qualities of the FSM? Is he, I don't know, omnipresent, eternal, occupying no space, etc?

My undetectable 7-headed multi-dimensional dragon is all of those things.
I can dream up arbitrary definitions as well, you know?

All I'm seeing is a physical entity who exists in a completely different way than any necessary conception of God given his role as a creator.

Again, using arbitrary definitions is not impressive in my book.

They are arbitrary because nobody has ever seen a god to study. It's necessarily entirely dreamed up by people sitting down "thinking" about it. Using "revelations" and "visions" and "dreams" and stuff.

I'll happily attribute all those arbitrary propreties to my undetectable hyper dimensional 7-headed dragon if that makes you feel better.

 

[DogmaHunter]

FSM is a pagan figure, God is not an idol, God is the Mind that created the Universe, He exists before the physical Universe and that makes Him transcendental

And you know this how exactly?

I know that the stupidity of new atheists is unbeatable

Thank you. I think you are stupid too.

but i want you to answer me a question , if nothing is a separate entity that creates Universes on its will isn't exactly the same as God?

Unlike you, I don't pretend to know what kickstarted the universe.

Allow me to rephrase your question to something I can answer:

"If something created the universe, isn't that something exactly the same as God?"

Answer: no. Explanation: 'something' creates thunder. That 'something' isn't exactly the same as Thor.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why should we care what "serious theologians" think? Are they better able to demonstrate their supernatural claims than the non-serious theologians?

A "Modest Proposal", so to speak :

Dear Fellow Atheists, STOP Saying Christians Believe God is a Bearded Man in the Sky. They Don’t.

 

[quatona]

A "Modest Proposal", so to speak :

Dear Fellow Atheists, STOP Saying Christians Believe God is a Bearded Man in the Sky. They Don’t.

 

[Received]

Why should we care what "serious theologians" think? Are they better able to demonstrate their supernatural claims than the non-serious theologians?

Yeah, that's why we call them serious. I.e., what makes a person worthy of "serious" is his ability to think critically and more maturely than a non-serious person. And all I'm seeing here is atheism that implicitly supports a non-serious theology and attempts to reduce any conception of God to an arbitrary emotionally-laden image, such as the FSM. Which means the atheists who do this are no more mature and sophisticated than the backwoods fundamentalists whose God concept they attack, or there is some other motive going on (more on that later).

But my point is very simple (and serious): if God exists as a creator, then by definition he has qualities that aren't commensurate with any FSM or related image we analogously consider God to be. This is because the FSM and other atheist-supported analogies to God presuppose an arbitrary set of qualities about God, like he's no better than an imaginary thing with any randomly chosen quality, like the qualities a child chooses his imaginary friend to have. Let me respond to DogmaHunter to further this point.

My undetectable 7-headed multi-dimensional dragon is all of those things.
I can dream up arbitrary definitions as well, you know?

This presupposition of arbitrary definitions is exactly what's the problem. Again, if God exists as a creator, there are no arbitrary definitions; a creator of space and time is by definition spaceless and timeless, at least intrinsically (which means in relation to the universe he might have different modes or qualities, but the real gist of the argument is on intrinsic qualities and definitions), and from here you're already on your way to having a completely non-arbitrary epistemology regarding God. (Yeah, that's the Western conception, but the Eastern, pantheism, is just as simple in non-arbitrarily delineating.)

And gee, if something is not worth considering because you can't find a specific definition, which would make something arbitrary, then science itself fits the same camp, given the plethora of different philosophical considerations of what science even is and how it functions.

So no, it's not about arbitrary definitions at all. The qualities of a creator deity (i.e., Western God) limit other qualities of this deity to a handful of possibilities, which isn't arbitrary at all.

So let me take another provocative step forward. Unless we're rationalist children who don't consider non-rational influences on potentially any argument, we have to admit the possibility that something must be motivating atheists to view God as totally arbitrary, no better than a seven-headed dragon or a flying spaghetti monster despite the consistent claims of serious theologians and philosophers (no single person in the philosophy of religion field would touch the arbitrary claiming arguments on these boards with a ten foot pole). What is it?

Well, I think it's more than not having a good reason for God. We're not psychologically just passive receptors of information; we also determine which arguments we consider seriously. The rest of the answer is that some atheists simply don't want a God to be around to bother with. Enter Thomas Nagel (another fantastic philosopher):

I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind …. This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.​

No, he's not the only atheist in the history of the cosmos to hold such an explicit statement. And there's nothing wrong with this opinion. I just wish more atheists would be aware of their preconscious processing on this point. And if your response here is, "golly, Received, nobody closes themselves off to arguments because they don't like imagining an argument being true," you're living in a fantasy land where people are magical robots who automatically calculate the best and adapt themselves automatically to these calculations.

 

[Davian]

Yeah, that's why we call them serious. I.e., what makes a person worthy of "serious" is his ability to think critically and more maturely than a non-serious person. And all I'm seeing here is atheism that implicitly supports a non-serious theology and attempts to reduce any conception of God to an arbitrary emotionally-laden image, such as the FSM.

But my point is very simple (and serious): if God exists as a creator, then by definition he has qualities that aren't commensurate with any FSM or related image we analogously consider God to be. This is because the FSM and other atheist-supported analogies to God presuppose an arbitrary set of qualities about God, like he's no better than an imaginary thing with any randomly chosen quality, like the qualities a child chooses his imaginary friend to have.

The FSM is a particularly poor example, as it was specifically (and successfully) conceived as tool to counter the placement of religious dogma into the science (or as a science topic in the) classroom.

Let me respond to DogmaHunter to further this point.

My undetectable 7-headed multi-dimensional dragon is all of those things.
I can dream up arbitrary definitions as well, you know?

This presupposition of arbitrary definitions is exactly what's the problem. Again, if God exists as a creator, there are no arbitrary definitions; a creator of space and time is by definition spaceless and timeless,

Meaningless words make for poor definitions. Just sayin'.

at least intrinsically (which means in relation to the universe he might have different modes or qualities, but the real gist of the argument is on intrinsic qualities and definitions), and from here you're already on your way to having a completely non-arbitrary epistemology regarding God. (Yeah, that's the Western conception, but the Eastern, pantheism, is just as simple in non-arbitrarily delineating.)

I do not see (with few exceptions) panetheistic deities being promoted here. The gods (God) that I am being told of can walk, and talk, make decisions, and answer prayers. Some claim to have two-way communication in some strange form or another.

And gee, if something is not worth considering because you can't find a specific definition, which would make something arbitrary, then science itself fits the same camp, given the plethora of different philosophical considerations of what science even is and how it functions.

I am unaware of any unfalsifiable scientific concepts that are used for a basis for morality, law, or taught as fact. Contrast that with religion.

So no, it's not about arbitrary definitions at all. The qualities of a creator deity (i.e., Western God) limit other qualities of this deity to a handful of possibilities, which isn't arbitrary at all.

What are these qualities, and how did you derive them?

So let me take another provocative step forward. Unless we're rationalist children who don't consider non-rational influences on potentially any argument, we have to admit the possibility that something must be motivating atheists to view God as totally arbitrary, no better than a seven-headed dragon or a flying spaghetti monster despite the consistent claims of serious theologians and philosophers (no single person in the philosophy of religion field would touch the arbitrary claiming arguments on these boards with a ten foot pole). What is it?

Spend some time in the Physical and Life Sciences forum on this site.

Well, I think it's more than not having a good reason for God. We're not psychologically just passive receptors of information; we also determine which arguments we consider seriously. The rest of the answer is that some atheists simply don't want a God to be around to bother with.

Or, they simply do not want religions to be around, to be bothered by.

Enter Thomas Nagel (another fantastic philosopher):

I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind …. This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.​

No, he's not the only atheist in the history of the cosmos to hold such an explicit statement. And there's nothing wrong with this opinion. I just wish more atheists would be aware of their preconscious processing on this point.

I have never seen any god concept as anything other than a wholly human fabrication, so I do not fathom Nagel's position at all. Why should he care about something that he does not believe to exist?

 

[Received]

The FSM is a particularly poor example, as it was specifically (and successfully) conceived as tool to counter the placement of religious dogma into the science (or as a science topic in the) classroom.


Meaningless words make for poor definitions. Just sayin'.


I do not see (with few exceptions) panetheistic deities being promoted here. The gods (God) that I am being told of can walk, and talk, make decisions, and answer prayers. Some claim to have two-way communication in some strange form or another.


I am unaware of any unfalsifiable scientific concepts that are used for a basis for morality, law, or taught as fact. Contrast that with religion.

What are these qualities, and how did you derive them?

Spend some time in the Physical and Life Sciences forum on this site.



Or, they simply do not want religions to be around, to be bothered by.

I have never seen any god concept as anything other than a wholly human fabrication, so I do not fathom Nagel's position at all. Why should he care about something that he does not believe to exist?

No, the FSM is not used this way, so appealing to some assumed historical intention doesn't wipe off how it's used on these forums.

Timeless and spaceless aren't meaningless, unless you're going to assume all of our concepts, ideas, and mathematics and anything else symbolic is meaningless. Just sayin'.

I've mentioned multiple times in this thread how the qualities are derived, Davian.

And needs are different than evidence. People should care a whole lot about things they might not have a good reason to believe in if the alternative is a darker universe for them in particular. If a person has no need for God, of course he's going to have no inclination to consider him seriously, and this is basic psychology.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Well, I think it's more than not having a good reason for God. We're not psychologically just passive receptors of information; we also determine which arguments we consider seriously. The rest of the answer is that some atheists simply don't want a God to be around to bother with. Enter Thomas Nagel (another fantastic philosopher):

I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind …. This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.​

No, he's not the only atheist in the history of the cosmos to hold such an explicit statement. And there's nothing wrong with this opinion. I just wish more atheists would be aware of their preconscious processing on this point. And if your response here is, "golly, Received, nobody closes themselves off to arguments because they don't like imagining an argument being true," you're living in a fantasy land where people are magical robots who automatically calculate the best and adapt themselves automatically to these calculations.

This quote made the rounds on a bunch of different religious forums a few years ago. I got tired of seeing it used as an apologetic point, so I took the liberty of e-mailing Nagel about it...

---------------------------------------------

Dylan ***** <***********@gmail.com>
6/16/10
to <thomas.nagel@nyu.edu>

Professor Nagel,

I was wondering if you could clarify something for me. I am an atheist. I've been in discussion with some Christian apologists online and it seems they are fond of quoting a line from one of your essays, "I don&#8217;t want there to be a god; I don&#8217;t want the universe to be like that." It's used as support for the claim that atheists simply don't want "god" to exist, which is why they don't believe.

Just how true is this claim, though? Reading the quote in context, it seems you're merely relating a personal preference, not giving an actual reason for why you don't believe.

Could you clear this up for me? I appreciate your time.

Sincerely,

Dylan *****

Nagel, Thomas <thomas.nagel@nyu.edu>
6/17/10

to me
I'm just speaking for myself, but I suspect I'm not alone. And it wasn't offered as a reason.

Dylan ***** <***********@gmail.com>
to <thomas.nagel@nyu.edu>
6/17/10

Thank you, professor.

-----------------------------------------------------------

There you have it. Find some other way to make your point. Nagel is not on your side.

 

[Davian]

No, the FSM is not used this way, so appealing to some assumed historical intention doesn't wipe off how it's used on these forums.

Particularly by you.

Timeless and spaceless aren't meaningless, unless you're going to assume all of our concepts, ideas, and mathematics and anything else symbolic is meaningless. Just sayin'.

I do not equate symbolic with meaningless. Equivocation is your gig.

I've mentioned multiple times in this thread how the qualities are derived, Davian.

I was hoping for more than religious presupposition.

And needs are different than evidence. People should care a whole lot about things they might not have a good reason to believe in if the alternative is a darker universe for them in particular.

<blinks>

So I should care about things that, by all objective measures to date, appear to be complete fabrications, because it might make some people feed bad to point out that they are not observed in reality?

Is this this Philosophy forum, or Basket Weaving and Comfort Blankets forum?

I suppose then you are averse to more accurate descriptions of the world around us and how it works, as a goal of philosophy?

If a person has no need for God, of course he's going to have no inclination to consider him seriously, and this is basic psychology.

I do not take gods, goblins, fairies, pixies, leprechauns, or rumors of extraterrestrial aliens visiting earth seriously, because the existence of these things is not evidenced.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yeah, that's why we call them serious. I.e., what makes a person worthy of "serious" is his ability to think critically and more maturely than a non-serious person. And all I'm seeing here is atheism that implicitly supports a non-serious theology and attempts to reduce any conception of God to an arbitrary emotionally-laden image, such as the FSM. Which means the atheists who do this are no more mature and sophisticated than the backwoods fundamentalists whose God concept they attack, or there is some other motive going on (more on that later).

You haven't answered the question, Received. Why should we care what "serious theologians" think? Are they better able to demonstrate their supernatural claims than the non-serious theologians?

What makes one a "serious" theologian? Is it the dismissive attitude toward the "non-serious" theologies that the majority of religious people actually adhere to? Is it adherence to a concept of God that renders him little more than a vague "principle"? By this standard, was Augustine a "serious" theologian?

Come on Received, this distinction between "serious" and "non-serious" theologians is just a self-serving one. I guarantee you that fundamentalist theologians take their theology just as seriously as the "serious" (read: snobbish) theologians who dismiss them. Yet neither fare well when asked to demonstrate their supernatural claims.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yeah, that's why we call them serious. I.e., what makes a person worthy of "serious" is his ability to think critically and more maturely than a non-serious person. And all I'm seeing here is atheism that implicitly supports a non-serious theology and attempts to reduce any conception of God to an arbitrary emotionally-laden image, such as the FSM. Which means the atheists who do this are no more mature and sophisticated than the backwoods fundamentalists whose God concept they attack, or there is some other motive going on (more on that later).

But my point is very simple (and serious): if God exists as a creator, then by definition he has qualities that aren't commensurate with any FSM or related image we analogously consider God to be.

There goes the God of the Bible then...

This is because the FSM and other atheist-supported analogies to God presuppose an arbitrary set of qualities about God, like he's no better than an imaginary thing with any randomly chosen quality, like the qualities a child chooses his imaginary friend to have. Let me respond to DogmaHunter to further this point.

This presupposition of arbitrary definitions is exactly what's the problem.

Yes, the problem with religion.

Again, if God exists as a creator, there are no arbitrary definitions; a creator of space and time is by definition spaceless and timeless, at least intrinsically (which means in relation to the universe he might have different modes or qualities, but the real gist of the argument is on intrinsic qualities and definitions), and from here you're already on your way to having a completely non-arbitrary epistemology regarding God. (Yeah, that's the Western conception, but the Eastern, pantheism, is just as simple in non-arbitrarily delineating.)

Okay, but is God just a creator of space and time? Is that its only role? Are those the only properties you ascribe to it? If that's the case, given such a limited role, and no clear indication on whether it is even supernatural, why call it 'God'?

So let me take another provocative step forward. Unless we're rationalist children who don't consider non-rational influences on potentially any argument, we have to admit the possibility that something must be motivating atheists to view God as totally arbitrary, no better than a seven-headed dragon or a flying spaghetti monster despite the consistent claims of serious theologians and philosophers (no single person in the philosophy of religion field would touch the arbitrary claiming arguments on these boards with a ten foot pole). What is it?

Yeah, I wonder what that is... Could it be that the majority of the religious present God concepts that include an amalgam of other properties, such as a particular sex, personality, intentions, etc?

 

[quatona]

dp

 

[quatona]

Yeah, that's why we call them serious. I.e., what makes a person worthy of "serious" is his ability to think critically and more maturely than a non-serious person. And all I'm seeing here is atheism that implicitly supports a non-serious theology and attempts to reduce any conception of God to an arbitrary emotionally-laden image, such as the FSM.

No, the point of the analogy is a different one, and it has been explained numerous times.

Which means the atheists who do this are no more mature and sophisticated than the backwoods fundamentalists whose God concept they attack, or there is some other motive going on (more on that later).

No, of course this doesn´t follow. Refuting a stupid argument doesn´t make you stupid. After all, it´s not like those God concepts didn´t exist or weren´t seriously presented here.

But my point is very simple (and serious): if God exists as a creator, then by definition he has qualities that aren't commensurate with any FSM or related image we analogously consider God to be. This is because the FSM and other atheist-supported analogies to God presuppose an arbitrary set of qualities about God, like he's no better than an imaginary thing with any randomly chosen quality, like the qualities a child chooses his imaginary friend to have.

Again, this is not the point of the analogy.
But now that you have brought it up: What you seem to be saying is that there are differences between god concepts and the FSM concept [which, however, doesn´t render them incomparable in their communalities], and the most important one is: If (!) God existed, It would be of greater relevance or significance than the FSM if(!) it existed.
For the time being, I´ll give you that (although this difference will become increasingly doubtful in view of your following definitions of "God").
In any case, the hypothetical relevance of significance of the existence of an entity doesn´t have any bearing on the question whether it exists or not. That is the point of the FSM-analogy, and that´s exactly the reason why it is so ridiculous: It doesn´t matter how serious or ridiculous the entity of your concept is for the question whether It exists or not.

This presupposition of arbitrary definitions is exactly what's the problem. Again, if God exists as a creator,

Well, this definition is in itself arbitrary. You don´t get to define stuff into existence.

there are no arbitrary definitions; a creator of space and time is by definition spaceless and timeless,

Yes, this would indeed follow from the first arbitrary definition (creator entity).
Terms like "spaceless" and "timeless" don´t derive any intelligible meaning from being forced by an arbitrary assumption (i.e. that time and space have to be created by an entity).

at least intrinsically (which means in relation to the universe he might have different modes or qualities, but the real gist of the argument is on intrinsic qualities and definitions), and from here you're already on your way to having a completely non-arbitrary epistemology regarding God.

Even though it may be a good start, I don´t think it will get you anywhere near a meaningful, relevant or significant God concept - unless you add arbitrary qualities.
And that appears to be the very problem with those "serious" God concepts replacing the traditional "stupid" God concepts: While the latter Gods (if they existed) would indeed have had strong relevance, significance and implications for our lives (after all, They could send us to heaven or hell for the way we conduct, They could interfere with our lives, They were seeing our every thought etc. etc.), the former - proportionally to the degree They are stripped off arbitrary qualities - are losing Their relevance, significance, implications. A "(timeless, spaceless) first cause" (and for purposes of this argument I am assuming that a first cause were even necessary - which I don´t think)? Ok, let It have been at the beginning of the universe, and move on - It´s completely irrelevant for anything that religion tried and tries to have the answers for or the monopoly on.
So make no mistake: It is the very arbitrary add-ons that make Gods attractive (or feared or opposed to), relevant, significant.
And that´s why those God concepts are vehemently discussed (because they actually affect people rationally and emotionally) and the "timeless, spaceless first cause" isn´t (why would it even help raising someone´s eyebrows?).

And gee, if something is not worth considering because you can't find a specific definition, which would make something arbitrary, then science itself fits the same camp, given the plethora of different philosophical considerations of what science even is and how it functions.

Oh no, not THAT again!

So let me take another provocative step forward. Unless we're rationalist children who don't consider non-rational influences on potentially any argument, we have to admit the possibility that something must be motivating atheists to view God as totally arbitrary, no better than a seven-headed dragon or a flying spaghetti monster despite the consistent claims of serious theologians and philosophers (no single person in the philosophy of religion field would touch the arbitrary claiming arguments on these boards with a ten foot pole). What is it?

That´s simple: It´s what pretty much all God concepts have been traditionally introduced to us as.

Well, I think it's more than not having a good reason for God. We're not psychologically just passive receptors of information; we also determine which arguments we consider seriously.

Unfortunately, oftentimes arguments that I can´t even take seriously are presented time and again, and there are attempts to make them not only acceptable, but also the basis for societal matters. That´s reason enough to put up with them even though considering them stupid. It doesn´t make me stupid.

The rest of the answer is that some atheists simply don't want a God to be around to bother with.

Well, not even shrinks get to tell me what my motives are.
But even if this were true and e.g. the (arbitrary) Ultimate Moral Judge God were bothersome to me (and this would indeed be the reason I don´t believe in It - as opposed to e.g. the mere fact that there´s as little evidence for Its existence as the for the FSM´s) - your "timeless, spaceless first cause" certainly isn´t. In order to evoke any emotional response with me, you would have to add some arbitrary properties to it, in the first place.

No, he's not the only atheist in the history of the cosmos to hold such an explicit statement. And there's nothing wrong with this opinion. I just wish more atheists would be aware of their preconscious processing on this point. And if your response here is, "golly, Received, nobody closes themselves off to arguments because they don't like imagining an argument being true," you're living in a fantasy land where people are magical robots who automatically calculate the best and adapt themselves automatically to these calculations.

It seems that you yourself have strong inclinations to this rational "fantasy land" - after all, you are the one who tries to score points for the existence of God by stripping Him off all those arbitrary characteristics that used to evoke emotional responses and polarize.
You are striving for a more rational God concept, and you end up with "spaceless, timeless first cause" - which merely evokes indifference with me.

 

[quatona]

And something else, Received: As long as you use the pronoun "He" for the God of your concept, I don´t believe for one second that you are actually out to promote a non-arbitrary God. Your belief is deeply founded in those "not serious" traditional concepts (that you complain atheists keep addressing), as far as I can tell.
If you want to start from a non-arbitrary "timeless, spaceless first cause", you would do well to call it "it" or "It" in order to prevent the impression that you are actually believing in and arguing for something else than this non-arbitrary God.
It´s almost like with W.L.Craig (and his epigones like your tag team partner Elioenai/Walker ) who think that the cosmological argument would help their stance where not to put your naughty bits.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, of course this doesn´t follow. Refuting a stupid argument doesn´t make you stupid. After all, it´s not like those God concepts didn´t exist or weren´t seriously presented here.

I don't understand what issue Received takes with us addressing the particular theistic concepts that have been presented to us. Are we supposed to address something other than the claims being made? Are we supposed to merely dismiss those claims as "non-serious" theology, ignoring that many people take this "non-serious" theology very seriously?

Well, this definition is in itself arbitrary. You don´t get to define stuff into existence.

Yes, this would indeed follow from the first arbitrary definition (creator entity).
Terms like "spaceless" and "timeless" don´t derive any intelligible meaning from being forced by an arbitrary assumption (i.e. that time and space have to be created by an entity).

Even though it may be a good start, I don´t think it will get you anywhere near a meaningful, relevant or significant God concept - unless you add arbitrary qualities.
And that appears to be the very problem with those "serious" God concepts replacing the traditional "stupid" God concepts: While the latter Gods (if they existed) would indeed have had strong relevance, significance and implications for our lives (after all, They could send us to heaven or hell for the way we conduct, They could interfere with our lives, They were seeing our every thought etc. etc.), the former - proportionally to the degree They are stripped off arbitrary qualities - are losing Their relevance, significance, implications. A "(timeless, spaceless) first cause" (and for purposes of this argument I am assuming that a first cause were even necessary - which I don´t think)? Ok, let It have been at the beginning of the universe, and move on - It´s completely irrelevant for anything that religion tried and tries to have the answers for or the monopoly on.
So make no mistake: It is the very arbitrary add-ons that make Gods attractive (or feared or opposed to), relevant, significant.
And that´s why those God concepts are vehemently discussed (because they actually affect people rationally and emotionally) and the "timeless, spaceless first cause" isn´t (why would it even help raising someone´s eyebrows?).

"Serious" theology is centred on a God concept that, ironically enough, few people are driven to take seriously, except for "serious" theologians. As you rightly point out, "serious" theology merely inspires indifference.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, the FSM is not used this way, so appealing to some assumed historical intention doesn't wipe off how it's used on these forums.

Timeless and spaceless aren't meaningless, unless you're going to assume all of our concepts, ideas, and mathematics and anything else symbolic is meaningless. Just sayin'.

I've mentioned multiple times in this thread how the qualities are derived, Davian.

And needs are different than evidence. People should care a whole lot about things they might not have a good reason to believe in if the alternative is a darker universe for them in particular. If a person has no need for God, of course he's going to have no inclination to consider him seriously, and this is basic psychology.

Timeless and spaceless aren't exactly concepts I understand Received, while I've asked time and again for explanations of them, I get none. I'm asking you, please, in all seriousness... could you just explain them in a way that would make sense in the context of something living as timeless and spaceless? If that's not within your ability, I'd ask you to stop throwing them around so casually or at least acknowledge that perhaps they are meaningless (again, in the context of a living being)

I've also gathered from your last few posts that maybe it is your emotional reaction to FSM that seems to be if not your only problem to it being used as a god analogy...at least it seems a big problem. Honestly, I get that. If the only analogies that were used in reference to something I held sacred were somewhat silly, whimsical, and childish...it would probably bother me on an emotional level too. I thought about what a better alternative for a god analogy would be before I created this post....but frankly, I don't know if I can come up with one. Can you? What would be a preferable analogy "creature"? Even the old traditional Christian visual of the old bearded man who had the body of a 32 year old bodybuilder seems extraordinarily childish...but maybe it seems less disrespectful to you. Perhaps it's a problem that's just inherent in a god concept. If it's something outlandish like the FSM, it comes off silly and tasteless. If it's something like the buff white haired geezer...it comes off infantile and silly. You might have to consider that any analogous creature will invariably seem insulting to something you hold in such high esteem.

 

[quatona]

So to cut a previous post short with reference to the topic "Why does theism still exist?" I tend towards the answer:
It still exists (and consequently is attacked) due to the very emotional content of its "silly" (arbitrary) parts. Were it for the post-hoc attempts to justify it "seriously" (i.e. reduced to non-arbitrary theological mental gymnastics), IOW the parts that nobody can even relate to - "timelessness", "spacelessness", "first cause" - and which actually don´t even explain anything, theism would have long gone.

It strikes me as somewhat ironic, Received, that while always pointing to the importance of the beauty in narration that is so convincing, and to the priority of an "intuitive" approach to metaphysical questions, OTOH you now want us to forget about all that, and pretend that religion at its core is nothing but about a non-explanatory, non-emotive, non-relatable, non-intuitable, completely abstract "timeless, spaceless" whatever. They are not only not intellectually intelligible, they also don´t contain any of the "beauty" and "intuitive" qualities you often like to appeal to.

I´d even go out on a limb and posit that nobody ever became a believer because of these pseudo-intellectual post-hoc theological explanations - people come to believe in Gods for the very arbitrary (in your words: "silly" or "non-serious") parts.

You really have to dig deep in order to come up with an entity nobody would believe in - and that is the very purpose of the FSM. There´s hardly any metaphysical entity that won´t find its followers, be it as silly as it may be. If you want - instead of the FSM - something from the real world of beliefs, we could as well pick Scientology´s Thetans. Not any less silly than the FSM, yet believed in.
The problem of the FSM is not that it is ridiculous (being ridiculous doesn´t prevent people from believing in a claim) - the problem of the FSM is that it doesn´t even attempt to address existential questions.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I was reading some of the replies to madaz's thread "Ex-believers - what once convinced you of God's existence" and I didn't want to derail so I'll make my own thread.

I was struck by how many atheists responded by essentially saying, "Because my parents told me." Correct me if I'm over-simplifying, but it seems that most atheists on this site have never had anything that they would consider an "experience of God". They believed only because that's what their parents told them and, once reaching an age when they began to think for themselves, they didn't see any evidence for it and so gave it up. Is that a decent synopsis?

So, my question for atheists is then, why does theism still exist?

Everyone I know has had a similar trajectory: when you are a kid, you generally believe what you're told. During your teenage and young adult years, you question what you were told and reach your own, independent conclusions. Out of this questioning comes two groups: theists and atheists.

What is it that the theists did wrong to reach what is, in your view, the incorrect conclusion?

I'm in the "Because my parents told me" camp, with no experience of God. I left because I read the bible, and found it to be a book of fairy tales describing an immoral God.

Some reasons why theism still exists:

I think the biggest reason by far is that giving up God means giving up family, friends, job opportunities, etc. For many Christians, their social life revolves around their church, and that is obviously gone when they give up God. I think this ties into the more educated tending to be less theistic, as they have a wider world to find an accepting social group.

A supernatural being who "has your back" must be a reassuring thought for many people.

The carrot and the stick. Heaven and Hell. Many Christians buy into Pascal's wager.

Indoctrination at a very early age.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Believers of Nothingness Randomness and Luck (atheists) don't know that they just replaced God with a Pagan figure, they returned to the Paganistic Era.

If you are talking about the Big Bang and Evolution, they certainly aren't a "Pagan figure".