Atheists: Why does theism still exist?

[essentialsaltes]

The activity of the applied set of principles is different than the set of principles which come together to form its application.

The principles of science are ideas. They exist in the same sense any idea exists. Science exists.

Geometry is built on principles and axioms as well. You can't point to a living breathing Euclidean line, because they don't exist as real objects. But the idea of the line itself exists, and is part of the cluster of ideas that is geometry. Geometry exists.

You can't point to the principle of isotropy. It's not a thing made of matter. But it's an idea with a perfectly coherent meaning. The principle exists. So do all the other principles of science. Therefore, science exists.

If you want your god to exist in the same way that ideas exist, that's fine with me. That is in fact exactly what I believe. Gods are ideas with no actual existence.

 

[Received]

If you have come to "necessary qualities" of omnipresence, timelessness and spacelessness... it only shows that in your attempt to remove your concept of God from all reasoning, you have managed to remove him from all reason.

Christians who do that want to eat their cake and keep it as well. They want to define an unreasonable God, a God of pure conceptionality. But they also want to keep the God as a loving, sex-obsessed, vengeful, mercyful, rational, emotional, personal creator, ruler, judge, father, friend.

Guess what, I almost agree with you on the pure conceptionality of timeless, spaceless, everything-lessness. But the FSM is a version of the superhuman God that even the philosophical Christians cannot get rid of - not the conceptual principle they still want to call "God".

And the superhuman God here, which I'm assuming is the rational, emotional, etc. dude you mentioned above, is nonsense, at least if we take many of the terms above as literal.

 

[Received]

Look here... Yahweh is an immaterial, supernatural, atemporal, aspacial, transcendent mind that hates gay people, impregnates virgins and loves the smell of burning goat flesh. Why is this so hard to believe in?

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.

 

[Freodin]

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.

Sadly, the unserious theologians outnumber the serious ones by a wide margin.

As for the serious theologians... you have to wonder why they keep using such a burdened term like "god" - or even worse "God" - at all. You might think that with all the unserious theologians around hijacking the serious theology for their own unseriousness, they would have come up with a better term.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

And this is an example of what I call atheistic fundamentalism,

Well, that wouldn't be the first imaginary concept you believe to exist.

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),

Actually, that is the entire purpose and history of theology - inventing excuses out of thin air for a 'god' that is purportedly self-evident, causally integrated in the natural world, concrete and discernible in his emotions, actions, intentions etc. and is intimately involved in the affairs of humans, yet is also utterly nebulous, so as to retreat into the magical obscurity of 'spiritual' language whenever it's time to escape scrutiny.

The 'serious' ones are just better at it than the crappy ones.

and if he's something else, well then...that just can't be the case.

You're welcome to be the first person in history to provide a coherent definition of 'god', as well as a means by which information about him may be demonstrably and reliably gleaned.

Until then, I'm left having to react only to the concepts put forth by believers, because that is all you have ever offered - concepts, with no indication of their existence anywhere outside your imagination.

 

[Received]

Sadly, the unserious theologians outnumber the serious ones by a wide margin.

As for the serious theologians... you have to wonder why they keep using such a burdened term like "god" - or even worse "God" - at all. You might think that with all the unserious theologians around hijacking the serious theology for their own unseriousness, they would have come up with a better term.

True story all the way.

 

[Received]

Well, that wouldn't be the first imaginary concept you believe to exist.



Actually, that is the entire purpose and history of theology - inventing excuses out of thin air for a 'god' that is purportedly self-evident, causally integrated in the natural world, concrete and discernible in his emotions, actions, intentions etc. and is intimately involved in the affairs of humans, yet is also utterly nebulous, so as to retreat into the magical obscurity of 'spiritual' language whenever it's time to escape scrutiny.

The 'serious' ones are just better at it than the crappy ones.



You're welcome to be the first person in history to provide a coherent definition of 'god', as well as a means by which information about him may be demonstrably and reliably gleaned.

Until then, I'm left having to react only to the concepts put forth by believers, because that is all you have ever offered - concepts, with no indication of their existence anywhere outside your imagination.

So because I'm not a fundamentalist literalist who believes in some sort of finite godism anyone could get by a literal reading of the Bible, I'm the only person in history to advocate a coherent definition of God?

 

[Received]

I'd go further with your idea, Freodin. Athiests respond to God emotionally negatively, not because they're specially emotional, but because any term previously seen as ridiculous or incoherent, especially when welded to people whose behaviors are overall such, means the term has a negative emotional flavor.

So what happens? God becomes associated with a negative emotion, a kneejerk reaction along the lines of ridiculousness. So then the atheist posits an analogy to God, and what does he use as a comparison? Something else ridiculous. Enter the FSM. There are plenty of other less emotionally (i.e., ridicule-instilled) images to use that are closer to the epistemological problems the FSM analogy attempts to capture, but we're left with a ridiculous one. Because God is seen as ridiculous because of an emotional association with "God" and previous experiences with bad theologies or practitioners of bad theologies, or both.

So we need a new term, but the moment we use a new term that doesn't have negative emotional associations (say, Void rather than God), we're left parting with the vast majority of theology, which will only confuse people, and plenty of them will rightfully refuse to adopt such a change in terminology.

A mess. I just say atheists should be aware of their emotional connections, of the psychological influence that runs parallel to, and influences, reason. That there's no such thing as "just reason" with virtually any reason, given that any concept associated with reason has a history with either good or bad arguments and therefore runs the risk of positive emotional pairing with the concept in question or bad emotional pairing. Just like theists are accused of being emotional, and of having their emotional connections blur up an otherwise objective consideration of reasons, so it goes with certain atheists. To say otherwise means you're exempt from psychological influences.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So because I'm not a fundamentalist literalist who believes in some sort of finite godism anyone could get by a literal reading of the Bible, I'm the only person in history to advocate a coherent definition of God?

Nowhere, anywhere, did I say or even imply any of that.

What I said was this,

You're welcome to be the first person in history to provide a coherent definition of 'god', as well as a means by which information about him may be demonstrably and reliably gleaned.

I don't actually care what your pet definition of 'god' is. Non-existent entities are ontologically equivalent, whether you derive them from a 'holy book' or a Cracker Jack box.

What I do care about is whether you can provide a coherent account for your 'god' concept, whatever it may be, and a means by which to apprehend information about it and from it. In that order. If you can - and no theologian or lay believer ever has - I'll be compelled to take you seriously.

Otherwise, I treat your assertions regarding this non-entity as I do all other theological assertions - dismissing them out of hand as ontologically and epistemologically vacuous.

 

[stevevw]

To a Christian the concept of God is through Jesus Christ. This is what gives God meaning. Afterall Jesus was God incarnate and that was the whole idea. We can see a clear example of His life and teachings. Jesus was the fulfillment of the old testament and is what all the old testament stories and prophesies were about and were leading to.

 

[Received]

Nowhere, anywhere, did I say or even imply any of that.

What I said was this,



I don't actually care what your pet definition of 'god' is. Non-existent entities are ontologically equivalent, whether you derive them from a 'holy book' or a Cracker Jack box.

What I do care about is whether you can provide a coherent account for your 'god' concept, whatever it may be, and a means by which to apprehend information about it and from it. In that order. If you can - and no theologian or lay believer ever has - I'll be compelled to take you seriously.

Otherwise, I treat your assertions regarding this non-entity as I do all other theological assertions - dismissing them out of hand as ontologically and epistemologically vacuous.

I feel so intimidated.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I feel so intimidated.

You should. You've saddled yourself with an immense burden of proof, and you don't even have an epistemology yet with which to address it.

I'd be intimidated, too, which is why I'm sure glad these aren't my problems.

 

[Received]

Do you have a sense of humor, EFM?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I possess both a sense of humor and the ability to discern when it is actually appropriate to use it.

 

[Freodin]

I'd go further with your idea, Freodin. Athiests respond to God emotionally negatively, not because they're specially emotional, but because any term previously seen as ridiculous or incoherent, especially when welded to people whose behaviors are overall such, means the term has a negative emotional flavor.

So what happens? God becomes associated with a negative emotion, a kneejerk reaction along the lines of ridiculousness. So then the atheist posits an analogy to God, and what does he use as a comparison? Something else ridiculous. Enter the FSM. There are plenty of other less emotionally (i.e., ridicule-instilled) images to use that are closer to the epistemological problems the FSM analogy attempts to capture, but we're left with a ridiculous one. Because God is seen as ridiculous because of an emotional association with "God" and previous experiences with bad theologies or practitioners of bad theologies, or both.

So we need a new term, but the moment we use a new term that doesn't have negative emotional associations (say, Void rather than God), we're left parting with the vast majority of theology, which will only confuse people, and plenty of them will rightfully refuse to adopt such a change in terminology.

A mess. I just say atheists should be aware of their emotional connections, of the psychological influence that runs parallel to, and influences, reason. That there's no such thing as "just reason" with virtually any reason, given that any concept associated with reason has a history with either good or bad arguments and therefore runs the risk of positive emotional pairing with the concept in question or bad emotional pairing. Just like theists are accused of being emotional, and of having their emotional connections blur up an otherwise objective consideration of reasons, so it goes with certain atheists. To say otherwise means you're exempt from psychological influences.

I see your point, but I cannot agree with it. It is exactly for the reasons you mentioned that the continued use of the term "god", deprived of any connection to the historical connotations, is a bad idea.

Yes, atheists should be aware of the emotional background of their general position as well the distinct reactions to posited god-concepts. But they cannot do away with this background as long as the theists keep bring it on.

You can see it in action here: every time you start talking about "God", in whatever context, someone will come and tell you that is all about Jesus and stuff.

We need to part "with the vast majority of theology", because the vast majority of theology is useless baggage, which "no serious theologian holds".

 

[JGG]

Which God concepts should we generally not consider ridiculous? What characteristics would you say are ridiculous and should be stripped away?

 

[quatona]

I'd go further with your idea, Freodin. Athiests respond to God emotionally negatively, not because they're specially emotional, but because any term previously seen as ridiculous or incoherent, especially when welded to people whose behaviors are overall such, means the term has a negative emotional flavor.

So what happens? God becomes associated with a negative emotion, a kneejerk reaction along the lines of ridiculousness. So then the atheist posits an analogy to God, and what does he use as a comparison? Something else ridiculous. Enter the FSM. There are plenty of other less emotionally (i.e., ridicule-instilled) images to use that are closer to the epistemological problems the FSM analogy attempts to capture, but we're left with a ridiculous one. Because God is seen as ridiculous because of an emotional association with "God" and previous experiences with bad theologies or practitioners of bad theologies, or both.

So we need a new term, but the moment we use a new term that doesn't have negative emotional associations (say, Void rather than God), we're left parting with the vast majority of theology, which will only confuse people, and plenty of them will rightfully refuse to adopt such a change in terminology.

A mess. I just say atheists should be aware of their emotional connections, of the psychological influence that runs parallel to, and influences, reason. That there's no such thing as "just reason" with virtually any reason, given that any concept associated with reason has a history with either good or bad arguments and therefore runs the risk of positive emotional pairing with the concept in question or bad emotional pairing. Just like theists are accused of being emotional, and of having their emotional connections blur up an otherwise objective consideration of reasons, so it goes with certain atheists. To say otherwise means you're exempt from psychological influences.

Yes, atheists - just like everybody - can be influenced by their emotions, and they should be aware of this fact and how it can possibly corrupt their reasoning abilities. If this would have been all you "just say", we´d be in complete agreement.

Unfortunately, it wasn´t all you "just said" - beyond this you started playing proactive shrink (without any of us being your clients) and reducing a completely rational argument to the emotions you insinuate as being at its core. In fact, it is you who doesn´t differenciate between the (potentially existing) emotional content and the rational argument. Even if your analysis of the emotional part were accurate for some/many/all atheists, this wouldn´t help invalidating the force of the argument (by which I don´t mean to anticipate that the argument is solid - I just mean that despite its potentially emotional roots its rational validity can and must be addressed and discussed rationally).

As for me personally, the God I was brought up with was a very positive part of my life in the years that shape a person most, and I am aware that I owe It a lot. Even though there is certainly a negative emotional response to certain other god concepts, there is no way that "God" per se is a negatively connotated term for me.

The thing that really concerns me is the fact that you still do not understand the point of the analogy. The point is not "God is as ridiculous as the FSM" - the point is: there is as little chance to determine that which you prefer to call the "truth value" of "God exists" as there is for "The FSM exists", by virtue of the fact that declaring something "supernatural" exempts it from being accessible to any epistemological or ontological method.
Please note: I am not (yet) saying that this point is irrefutable (and I have been continuously inviting you to provide your idea of such methods, or to refute the point in any other way). What I am saying that this is the point that it is being made and that needs to be addressed. Misrepresenting this point and then pathologizing those who make it means dodging it. I am sure you know the technical term for this fallacy.
A concept or idea involving the "supernatural" could be totally attractive to me, it could be anything but ridiculous to me, it could make sense to me, it could be plausible to me, it could be consistent and coherent, I might even believe it to be true - this wouldn´t change my argument: By virtue of the fact that it is declared "supernatural" we have removed it from the realm of determining its "truth value" any better than any other "supernatural" claim.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'd go further with your idea, Freodin. Athiests respond to God emotionally negatively, not because they're specially emotional, but because any term previously seen as ridiculous or incoherent, especially when welded to people whose behaviors are overall such, means the term has a negative emotional flavor.

So what happens? God becomes associated with a negative emotion, a kneejerk reaction along the lines of ridiculousness. So then the atheist posits an analogy to God, and what does he use as a comparison? Something else ridiculous. Enter the FSM. There are plenty of other less emotionally (i.e., ridicule-instilled) images to use that are closer to the epistemological problems the FSM analogy attempts to capture, but we're left with a ridiculous one. Because God is seen as ridiculous because of an emotional association with "God" and previous experiences with bad theologies or practitioners of bad theologies, or both.

I can only disagree with this.
I don't view gods as being ridiculous because of an "emotional" thing. Just like I don't view alien abduction as being ridiculous because of "emotional" thing.

I view it as ridiculous because that's how it comes accross to me. The "reasons for belief" I get from theists is in essence and substance not different from any other beliefs I see as being equally ridiculous.

Again, this has nothing to do with emotion and everything with how the beliefs are perceived by me.

A more interesting subject might be to try and answer the question why it is that theists have a tendency to try and "accuse" atheists of emotional reasoning. I can't even count the amount of times theist's told me that the only reason that I'm an atheist is "because I hate god".
Your post (cfr: emotional reasoning) is just another variation thereof.

So we need a new term, but the moment we use a new term that doesn't have negative emotional associations (say, Void rather than God), we're left parting with the vast majority of theology, which will only confuse people, and plenty of them will rightfully refuse to adopt such a change in terminology.

The only confusing thing here, is why theists insist on pulling emotions into this.

A mess. I just say atheists should be aware of their emotional connections, of the psychological influence that runs parallel to, and influences, reason. That there's no such thing as "just reason" with virtually any reason, given that any concept associated with reason has a history with either good or bad arguments and therefore runs the risk of positive emotional pairing with the concept in question or bad emotional pairing. Just like theists are accused of being emotional, and of having their emotional connections blur up an otherwise objective consideration of reasons, so it goes with certain atheists. To say otherwise means you're exempt from psychological influences.

The difference is that we can actually make a good and solid case for why certain theists hold on to their religious beliefs because of emotional reasoning.
You cannot do the same with atheism.

And no, atheists aren't exempt from psychological influences.
However, it doesn't follow that "therefor, they don't believe in god(s) because of emotional reasons", nore is it an emotional response to consider theistic beliefs ridiculous.

If I compare homeopathy to voodoo or magical fairies, does that then mean that I don't by into homeopathy because of "emotion"? I'm pretty sure that homeopathy believers would heavily object to a comparision with magical fairies or voodoo as well. That doesn't make my comparision invalid or emotional.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'd go further with your idea, Freodin. Athiests respond to God emotionally negatively,

We respond to irrational arguments negatively. That is what you are seeing.

So then the atheist posits an analogy to God, and what does he use as a comparison? Something else ridiculous. Enter the FSM.

Do you find the FSM to be ridiculous because of negative emotions?

 

[quatona]

We respond to irrational arguments negatively. That is what you are seeing.

I´d like to add: If the claim is irrational and doesn´t allow for scrutinizing its accuracy - how else could one possibly respond to it than by checking: Do I like the idea or do I not?

Do you find the FSM to be ridiculous because of negative emotions?

Received must have been exposed to bad FSMology, and therefore generally responds to the use of the term "FSM" with negative emotions.