Atheism and nihilism

[Ken-1122]

So I ask: How can something exist independently from your mind (or head) when what you 'believe' vs 'know' is based on what's going on inside your head?

There is often a difference between what you believe/know exists; vs what exists. IOW you can know, yet still be wrong.

Whatever 'tests' you're applying to rule out religion, clearly aren't also up to the task of assessing the truth or falsity of your claim of the existence of some mind independent reality then.

How can you say that without knowing the tests I’ve applied? The problem with many religions is that they will make the claim that if you do “X”, “Y” will happen. So if someone does “X” over and over, day in and day out, and “Y” never happens, it would be completely reasonable to rule that religion out.

Do you see the problem you've created for yourself here?

No. Please explain.

Umm .. feel free to share .. but after the dilemma you just presented, please don't expect me to understand it, if that same thinking is involved. (All will be cool by me if you accept that).

Fair enough. My position is that atheism is the rejection of religious belief; not that God does not exist. I see a lot of agnostics who claim it is impossible to know if God exists or not; but they seem to assume God = the God of the bible/Koran/Torah. But atheism is the rejection of all God/deities not only the Abrahamic ones. There are those who worship the Sun, Nature, or even people as human as you or I. There are Rastafarians who believe Haile Selassie (former president of Ethiopia) as God, Kumari of Nepal is worshipped as God by a sect of Hinduism (Kumari is alive today but Haile Selassie died in the 1970’s) now wouldn’t it be absurd for an atheist to claim the Sun, Nature, or even people as real as you or I don’t exist because some choose to call them God? In theory I even believe it possible the God of the Bible, Koran, or Torah could have actually been evolved alien beings from another planet traveling to Earth at a time when mankind was primitive and the stories mankind passed down from one generation to the next evolved into Gods visiting Earth.
I guess my point is, I’m not atheist because what people choose to call God doesn’t exist, it might exist but I just don’t call it God; there is nothing that exist that I call God or a deity. Does this make sense to you?

Where 'God' exists as some kind of mind independent 'thing' there, I presume you to mean?

Yes. Assuming anything mind dependent is just a figment of the imagination

Sure .. and to be fair to them, I don't think they'd be saying that either. They said it was very personal to them .. and I get that.

I was directing that at you, not them.

 

[SelfSim]

There is often a difference between what you believe/know exists; vs what exists. IOW you can know, yet still be wrong.
…
How can you say that without knowing the tests I’ve applied? The problem with many religions is that they will make the claim that if you do “X”, “Y” will happen. So if someone does “X” over and over, day in and day out, and “Y” never happens, it would be completely reasonable to rule that religion out.
…
No. Please explain.
…
Fair enough. My position is that atheism is the rejection of religious belief; not that God does not exist. I see a lot of agnostics who claim it is impossible to know if God exists or not; but they seem to assume God = the God of the bible/Koran/Torah. But atheism is the rejection of all God/deities not only the Abrahamic ones. There are those who worship the Sun, Nature, or even people as human as you or I. There are Rastafarians who believe Haile Selassie (former president of Ethiopia) as God, Kumari of Nepal is worshipped as God by a sect of Hinduism (Kumari is alive today but Haile Selassie died in the 1970’s) now wouldn’t it be absurd for an atheist to claim the Sun, Nature, or even people as real as you or I don’t exist because some choose to call them God? In theory I even believe it possible the God of the Bible, Koran, or Torah could have actually been evolved alien beings from another planet traveling to Earth at a time when mankind was primitive and the stories mankind passed down from one generation to the next evolved into Gods visiting Earth.

I guess my point is, I’m not atheist because what people choose to call God doesn’t exist, it might exist but I just don’t call it God; there is nothing that exist that I call God or a deity. Does this make sense to you?

Ok .. so you have a method for reaching a conclusion of ‘a religious belief’ and whenever you reach that conclusion, your position of atheism calls for you to reject that particular belief.

What specifically distinguishes a ‘religious belief’ from any belief, which then causes you to specifically reject it, and not the others? You gave one example where “Y” never happens. But the claim “Y” NEVER happens is an Absolutist belief .. and that’s the problem you have created for yourself. If your rejection is based on grounds of reason and, perhaps, the rules of logic, you’ve run into philosophical logic’s problem of induction .. you cannot know with absolute certainty that “Y” will NEVER happen just because it hasn’t yet .. and thus, your basis of that rejection is not knowable for certain.

There are now only two possibilities left: either science, or belief. A scientific test can’t run forever and so its outcomes will be constrained by uncertainty and so science cannot rule out this ‘religious belief’ on the basis of ‘NEVER happens’.

The only remaining option is that you are ruling out ‘religious belief’, by way of your own belief (and appealing to others' sense of 'reasonableness') .. and that is the problem you’ve created for yourself (which I was referring to).

Yes. Assuming anything mind dependent is just a figment of the imagination

Why are you assuming that? Would you say Bohr’s or Rutherford's testable description of an atom were assumptions? How about Einstein’s Special Relativity? How about a virus? What about Newtonian gravity? Try something less complex: say a description of a rock? Are they assumptions? If not, then at what point do those things cease being assumptions and start becoming ‘mind independent things’ and why do/did all of the reality statuses of those ‘things’ change so dramatically throughout history after they were ‘discovered’?

I was directing that at you, not them.

Ok then I will respond .. why might it be on a par with religion for the other atheist, (who said what I quoted), and yet you say it isn’t that way for other atheists (or yourself), if that isn’t just because you both see atheism slightly differently, because different minds perceive things slightly differently, just as Bohr and Rutherford did .. when it came to atoms?

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok .. so you have a method for reaching a conclusion of ‘a religious belief’ and whenever you reach that conclusion, your position of atheism calls for you to reject that particular belief.

What specifically distinguishes a ‘religious belief’ from any belief, which then causes you to specifically reject it, and not the others?

There is no distinction. Whether it be religion, science, or any other claim; my standards for rejecting/accepting are the same

You gave one example where “Y” never happens. But the claim “Y” NEVER happens is an Absolutist belief .. and that’s the problem you have created for yourself.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. If I try “Y” 10 times and it doesn’t happen any of those 10 times, for me “Y” never happened; even if it may happen for everybody else.

If your rejection is based on grounds of reason and, perhaps, the rules of logic, you’ve run into philosophical logic’s problem of induction .. you cannot know with absolute certainty that “Y” will NEVER happen just because it hasn’t yet .. and thus, your basis of that rejection is not knowable for certain.

If the 10 times is all it takes for me to become 100% certain, then as far as I am concerned I have reasonable reason to reject it.

There are now only two possibilities left: either science, or belief. A scientific test can’t run forever and so its outcomes will be constrained by uncertainty and so science cannot rule out this ‘religious belief’ on the basis of ‘NEVER happens’.

I’ve never used science to reject religion,

The only remaining option is that you are ruling out ‘religious belief’, by way of your own belief (and appealing to others' sense of 'reasonableness') .. and that is the problem you’ve created for yourself (which I was referring to).

For me that is not a problem

Why are you assuming that? Would you say Bohr’s or Rutherford's testable description of an atom were assumptions? How about Einstein’s Special Relativity? How about a virus? What about Newtonian gravity? Try something less complex: say a description of a rock? Are they assumptions?

Rocks can be experienced using our 5 senses.

If not, then at what point do those things cease being assumptions and start becoming ‘mind independent things’ and why do/did all of the reality statuses of those ‘things’ change so dramatically throughout history after they were ‘discovered’?

How has the status of rocks change throughout history?

 

[SelfSim]

There is no distinction. Whether it be religion, science, or any other claim; my standards for rejecting/accepting are the same

Can you then perhaps give me another example to illustrate your rejection principle in operation for some non-religious belief?
(Its hard to see exactly what this principle is, without such an example).

Perhaps you misunderstood me. If I try “Y” 10 times and it doesn’t happen any of those 10 times, for me “Y” never happened; even if it may happen for everybody else.

Ok .. so then all those other people are just wrong then, in your view, and how they see that trial evolve, should just be rejected as not being real then?
Was Newton wrong about his law of gravitation, or was Einstein wrong when he made the case for a more generalised principle of gravity (GR)?

If the 10 times is all it takes for me to become 100% certain, then as far as I am concerned I have reasonable reason to reject it.

Do you accept that other people might still be 'right', even though you can't convince yourself of their ideas through your using this criterion of yours?
Also what use is your 'reasonable reason' to the broader population in the case where no-one else agrees with it?

I’ve never used science to reject religion,

Ok .. that's very nice to hear .. and strikes on my reason for my campaigning to clarify how science works. Atheism, also, isn't a prerequisite for doing science, (although many Theists?) seem to think it is).

(It's also a complete misunderstanding that science is a logical process that starts by assuming its theories are 'true' (or 'right', or 'correct') and that's what science is testing for .. that's how logic works. But logic never does anything but find the tautological equivalences of its predicates and postulates. Science isn't like that at all!)

For me that is not a problem

Maybe not .. (thanks for sharing that) .. but for the other people in the world I can almost guarantee it will be.

Rocks can be experienced using our 5 senses.

I missed a post you made about that, (way back) .. about the notion of how our senses produce our perceptions .. which are still models fomed by our minds.
When people say they can tell a rock 'exists', (meaning independently from their minds), when they kick one, and it hurts, (as if that's somehow evidence of it existing independently from their minds), they are inexplicably ignoring the fact that it is their mind that's telling them 'it hurts'!
I never really get how they can completely ignore parts of their own argument(?)

How has the status of rocks change throughout history?

Of course! Some rocks were magma or lava, some were fragments of minerals and organisms, (etc). Some rocks were even revered as sacred objects .. worshipped as such also, I think(?) Even some walls made of rock are still worshipped and prayed to!

 

[Ken-1122]

Can you then perhaps give me another example to illustrate your rejection principle in operation for some non-religious belief?
(Its hard to see exactly what this principle is, without such an example).

If my neighbor told me they were selling their chickens that on average lays 3-4 eggs per day, I would likely take their word for it and if I were in the market of buying chickens, would probably purchase them because I find such a claim believable..
However if my neighbor told me they had a chicken that laid golden eggs; eggs of solid gold, now their word is not good enough; I will at least require personal observation of one of these golden eggs, and will probably insist on a personal demonstration under observed conditions because I don’t find such a claim believable.

Ok .. so then all those other people are just wrong then, in your view, and how they see that trial evolve, should just be rejected as not being real then?
Was Newton wrong about his law of gravitation, or was Einstein wrong when he made the case for a more generalised principle of gravity (GR)?

I know all those people who tell me that if I do “X”, “Y” will happen, are wrong because my personal experience proved them wrong to my satisfaction.

Do you accept that other people might still be 'right', even though you can't convince yourself of their ideas through your using this criterion of yours?

No because the criteria of mine is based on my personal experience; something others don’t have access to

Also what use is your 'reasonable reason' to the broader population in the case where no-one else agrees with it?

IMO the broader population is not qualified to speak on my personal experiences that they had no part of.

Maybe not .. (thanks for sharing that) .. but for the other people in the world I can almost guarantee it will be.

With those people I would be more than happy to explain why.

I missed a post you made about that, (way back) .. about the notion of how our senses produce our perceptions .. which are still models fomed by our minds.
When people say they can tell a rock 'exists', (meaning independently from their minds), when they kick one, and it hurts, (as if that's somehow evidence of it existing independently from their minds), they are inexplicably ignoring the fact that it is their mind that's telling them 'it hurts'!
I never really get how they can completely ignore parts of their own argument(?)

If all humans died tomorrow and our brains ceased to function, the rock would still be there because the existence of the rock is not dependent on the human mind, only the ability for humans to recognize the rock is dependent on the human mind.

Of course! Some rocks were magma or lava, some were fragments of minerals and organisms, (etc). Some rocks were even revered as sacred objects .. worshipped as such also, I think(?) Even some walls made of rock are still worshipped and prayed to!

Sooo you say some people began to pray to and worship rocks only after they discovered rocks??? Okaaaay!!!!