Vote.. on this atheistic position

[varit]

My point was not that I find any one of these more or less probable. It was that if the meaning of the word "god" (or, if you insist, "deity") is so amorphous as to describe all of these, then it's not clear in what sense the word even has a meaning. And if the word is meaningless, how can we possibly discuss whether or not the thing it describes exists?



That said, my money would be on Yog-Sothoth - or something like it. Just because of the alienness of it, if there were to be something that might be called a god, I suspect that it wouldn't be anthropomorphic, nor have motives accessible to our intellects.

ok "an Outer God and is coterminous with all time and space yet is supposedly locked outside of the universe we inhabit. " "The being is said to take the form of a conglomeration of glowing spheres"

This thing we'll call a deity, I want to make it a bit less unlikely by making it more generic. So it could have no appearance at all. it could be invisible.. or it could look just very alien..
or if that description is no good for you then let's leave it as "Yog-Sothoth - or something like it. "

of course, you don't believe it exists and you see no reason to believe it iexists..

do you believe it doesn't exist?

and if so, then how would you describe the strength or lack of strength, of that belief..

are you "sure"?
low confidence?
only suspect it doesn't exist?

or could you not even say that you believe it doesn't exist?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Well in the case of Yog-Sothoth specifically I believe it does not exist, as it self-consciously a work of fiction. Only in the unlikeliest of scenarios where Lovecraft was somehow a knowing or unknowing harbinger of real beings which he outlined in a fictional setting, could there be room for this thing to exist.

I was referring more to a genre of Lovecraftian style deities which are, to expand on what I said earlier, alien, unfathomable, non-anthropomorphic, and either uninterested in us, or - if interested - not for the reasons we might imagine they ought to be. Beings whose mentality is inaccessible to our intuition, and who operate on some bizarre inhuman logic.

I should state however that I only find this sort of deity more probable in the sense that is less obviously anthropogenic. I still do not believe them likely to exist, as they strike me as being similar to old myths of sea monsters and demons in the dark - the anthropogenic nature of which is only too well know.

I suppose then I would have to say, that I "only suspect it doesn't exist"

But my suspicion is a strong one. I would think akin to a naturalist in, say, 1900, remarking on the possibility of there being true sea monsters. The state of science in those days was, as yet, insufficient to preclude the possibility (in some ways it still is), but who would take it seriously.

This youtuber does a good job at articulating the sentiment I am stumbling around:

 

[Dean]

@Anachronous Rex
(Bold red highlights added by me)

[. . .] I was referring more to a genre of Lovecraftian style deities which are, to expand on what I said earlier, alien, unfathomable, non-anthropomorphic, and either uninterested in us, or - if interested - not for the reasons we might imagine they ought to be. Beings whose mentality is inaccessible to our intuition, and who operate on some bizarre inhuman logic.

[. . .] I suppose then I would have to say, that I "only suspect it doesn't exist"

But my suspicion is a strong one. I would think akin to a naturalist in, say, 1900, remarking on the possibility of there being true sea monsters. The state of science in those days was, as yet, insufficient to preclude the possibility (in some ways it still is) [. . .]

I share this sentiment, to some extent. And of the more exotic religious ideas that you cite in your first paragraph ... I, personally, don't find that more humanistic, and naturalistic accounts of religious belief such as those found in some (rather common) schools of the Buddhist Doctrines are at all incompatible with an enthusiastic embrace of scientific naturalism. I think the entire scientific enterprise is very profoundly (distressingly so!) misunderstood and misapprehended. It is a precision tool that can bring naturalism or simply atheism into some light.

Ann Druyan wrote this exceptional passage in her introduction to Carl Sagan's "The Varieties of Scientific Experience" ...

• "Science has carried us to the gateway of the universe. And yet our conception of our surroundings remains the disproportionate view of the still-small child. We are spiritually and culturally paralyzed, unable to face the vastness, to embrace our lack of centrality and find our actual place in the fabric of nature. We batter this planet as if we had someplace else to go. That we even do science is a hopeful glimmer of mental health. However, it is not enough merely to accept these insights intellectually while we cling to a spiritual ideology that is not only rootless in nature, but, in many ways, contemptuous of what is natural. Carl believed that our best hope of preserving the exquisite fabric of life on our world would be to take the revelations of science to heart."

And to my knowledge, it is this understanding of science that is a core tenet to Phil Hellenes' many videos on this topic, such as the one you posted below this section of quote.

And similarly to your own remarks, this is part of my larger "belief"; as well. I am a "strong" or positive atheist, as I have elucidated multiple times before.

And on the wider semantics of this issue; I just came across this blog entry posted by noted philosopher Colin McGinn in January of this year. I think he has some salient observations on atheism that I think bare mentioning.

Colin McGinn - Why I am an Atheist. Some excerpts ...

[. . .] an atheist disbelieves in the existence of God , he believes that there is no God. He doesn't merely lack belief in a divinity; he positively believes in the absence of a divinity. Moreover, he takes his negative belief to be rational, to be backed by reasons. He doesn't just find himself with a belief that there is no God; he comes to that belief by what he takes to be rational means , that is, he takes his belief to be justified.
[. . .]
It would be quite wrong, then, to describe an atheist as a "non-believer". He does not merely lack beliefs; he has many beliefs, among them that there is no God. It is not that the atheist is somehow shy of belief or afflicted with pathologically high standards for belief formation; he is not a skeptic, one who shuns belief. He is as much a believer as the theist; he just believes different things. It is not that there is a big hole in his belief system while the theist is bursting with robust beliefs; his beliefs are as numerous and sturdy as anyone's , just different, that's all.
[. . .]
I count myself an atheist in the strong sense outlined--so am I guilty of going out on an epistemic limb, of claiming to know what cannot be known? Am I being unreasonable? I don't think I am, because there are many propositions affirming the nonexistence of things that most sensible people unhesitatingly accept. Take Santa Claus: what is your state of belief about him? [. . .]

I don't entirely accept what MacGinn says here. I think there is room for many different interpretations of atheism. Nonetheless, I share his interpretation, and part of Rex's. This is pretty much it. However, there is still one question left. I note that many popular atheist thinkers tend to note many different mythical and distinctly anthropocentric beings and deities throughout history (not unlike some of the definitions you listed) to support their case. I don't disagree, mostly. However, take the example of Santa Claus, as I have highlighted in bold red. This shows a point that has eluded me for some time: Is God, as an entity, really epistemologically comparable to Santa Claus? Does anyone here agree?

Hint: don't answer with "Yes! Both are nonexistent!".

-- Dean.

 

[varit]

If you have a strong suspicion that there is no deistic god, is that enough to say you believe there is no deistic God?


If it's just a strong suspicion, then you can't say you are sure in your belief, that there is no deistic God, or can you?

Is it just a strong suspicion or is it being sure?

It looks Dean, like you take just a strong suspicion to be being sure.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

an atheist disbelieves in the existence of God , he believes that there is no God. He doesn't merely lack belief in a divinity; he positively believes in the absence of a divinity.

Wrong.

I'm annoyed when people fiddle with definitions.

 

[varit]

an atheist disbelieves in the existence of God , he believes that there is no God. He doesn't merely lack belief in a divinity; he positively believes in the absence of a divinity.

Wrong.

I'm annoyed when people fiddle with definitions.

Well Dean when he put that in his post, was quoting "Colin McGinn" to make some point, but he said he disagreed on that aspect of it. It might've been clearer had he not quoted it at all. And I think Dean if i'm not mistaking him for somebody else, has written quite broadly about types of atheist. I don't think anybody in this thread is taking that line of Colin's seriously. Fortunately there's no need for us to go on a big diversion on that issue.

 

[nemesiss]

an atheist disbelieves in the existence of God , he believes that there is no God. He doesn't merely lack belief in a divinity; he positively believes in the absence of a divinity.

Wrong.

I'm annoyed when people fiddle with definitions.

let me extend on that for our little friend.
the definition mentioned above, only accounts for those who had a believe in God, yet could not continue with believing.
this accounts for ex-christians, ex-muslims, etc. but not for those who didn't believe in a god in the first place.

also, the definition makes the bold assertion that the person knows there is no god.
the only point that can be made about it is there is no explanation for the presence of a deity.
but there you run into the problem of "abscence of evidence isn't evidence for abscence".

the best description i think matches the best with atheism would be:
"Atheism is the NULL-postion on the subject on the existence of a god or gods"

your opinions?

 

[varit]

let me extend on that for our little friend.

Who is your "little friend"? Me? Cosmic?

As is known already, some believe there is no god, some only don't believe in any god. The lowest common denominator would be yes what you say the null position. Or anybody that couldn't honestly say yes if asked if he believed in God.

Do you realise the person who gave the definition that Cosmic said is wrong, is not anybody on this forum, and that the person quoting the bad definition said it was wrong when he quoted it. Are you trying to attribute that quote to somebody here and say they are your "little friend"? Maybe your attempt at patronizing somebody should be rethought?

 

[nemesiss]

let me extend on that for our little friend.

Who is your "little friend"? Me? Cosmic?

As is known already, some believe there is no god, some only don't believe in any god. The lowest common denominator would be yes what you say the null position. Or anybody that couldn't honestly say yes if asked if he believed in God.

Do you realise the person who gave the definition that Cosmic said is wrong, is not anybody on this forum, and that the person quoting the bad definition said it was wrong when he quoted it. Are you trying to attribute that quote to somebody here and say they are your "little friend"? Maybe your attempt at patronizing somebody should be rethought?

its was pointed out to cosmic, where "little friend" was ment figuratively.
the point i wanted to make,which i wanted to work towards but couldn't because i didn't notice the time and had to rush to work, was that it unintentionally opens the possibility for a strawman argument, due to the poor choice of word.
(note to self: do not hit the submit button when in a hurry)

as for the strawman argument ( and i've seen it been used in such a way), focusses on the word "disbelieve", where to argument goes something like "the atheist knows in his/her heart that god exist, but doesn't want to. so he tries to stop believing and want to sin and...[insert nonsense rant, like no morals, etc.] ".
it's really difficult to correct people when they really want to equate atheists as an immoral, god denying monster...

 

[Deleted member 619]

OK, I'll play:

How are we defining 'deistic god'? Do we mean 'creator of all existence'? In that case, no, this entity does not exist, as this idea is logically absurd. If we mean something else, please specify.

 

[varit]

OK, I'll play:

How are we defining 'deistic god'? Do we mean 'creator of all existence'? In that case, no, this entity does not exist, as this idea is logically absurd. If we mean something else, please specify.

no..I wouldn't use such a definition.

But how about for a deity that always existed and caused the rest?

We don't believe in it. It has no practical ramifications..I understand being unwilling to say you believe it doesn't exist..

But do you have any disbelief beyond the null position, and how would you describe it?

Similarly, with a clever alien type thing, that created the galaxy we are in, or just a portion of the universe that we are in. Do you have any disbelief beyond absence of belief, and how would you describe that or the strength of it?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Similarly, with a clever alien type thing, that created the galaxy we are in, or just a portion of the universe that we are in. Do you have any disbelief beyond absence of belief, and how would you describe that or the strength of it?

I don't see what our being atheists has to do with this question. Do you disbelieve it?

 

[Dean]

Similarly, with a clever alien type thing, that created the galaxy we are in, or just a portion of the universe that we are in. Do you have any disbelief beyond absence of belief, and how would you describe that or the strength of it?

I don't see what our being atheists has to do with this question. Do you disbelieve it?

Quite. If there were extraterrestrial scientists with supertechnological know-how, they wouldn't be supernatural or divine beings but members of a very highly developed natural species. To say that all atheists don't believe in gods is certainly not to say that all atheists don't believe in extraterrestrial natural species more highly developed than homo sapiens. Atheists may well believe that such beings exist, but it's in no discernible way on a par with ... "God" ...

 

[varit]

OK fair enough, (and correct I don't believe in any deity.. or techno-alien creating a portion of the universe that we inhabit)

Also, just to clarify, would anybody -deny- a thiestic biblical/quranic/hindu god?

I understanding saying denial makes a claim to knowledge..they'd leave it as just believing it doesn't exist..(and that's fine, makes sense).

but would anybody deny it?

If so, why?

 

[Thomas Doubting]

I would, because it is rectally extracted with no basis in reality.
all those god's are self refuting, their stories are too stupid and concepts mutually exclusive, it is really sad to see so many people buy it.. or giving it a really good chance.

If i had to leave the door open for all idiotic claims people make up for whatever reasons, i would still wait for Santa to show up every year, consider the possibility that micro-pixies are pulling everything towards the earth and that gravity isn't real, that everything is possible if you just believe strong enough (preferably if you pray for it to some invisible maggot buffet), that Jesus visited America on his Homeric journeys, that moths are creatures who came straight from hell, that bats can turn into vampires, that He-Man is the master of the universe, that red riding hood really spent some time in the wolf's belly, together with her grandma (cmon, the bible says it's possible!), that you can make gold out of feces if you add the right amount of pee and heat it properly, and soooooo many more things.

After thousands of years of arguments pulled straight from people's asses, i take myself the right to say i don't buy it, furthermore, i don't even see a reason to give it a chance to be true before whoever makes the claim provides the evidence or at least a really good reason for his belief.

If you don't deny all of those gods or some of them, care to explain why not? Also do you leave the door open for all claims people make or only some that you believe are possible or would like to be true?

 

[varit]

I would, because it is rectally extracted with no basis in reality.
all those god's are self refuting, their stories are too stupid and concepts mutually exclusive, it is really sad to see so many people buy it.. or giving it a really good chance.

If i had to leave the door open for all idiotic claims people make up for whatever reasons, i would still wait for Santa to show up every year, consider the possibility that micro-pixies are pulling everything towards the earth and that gravity isn't real, that everything is possible if you just believe strong enough (preferably if you pray for it to some invisible maggot buffet), that Jesus visited America on his Homeric journeys, that moths are creatures who came straight from hell, that bats can turn into vampires, that He-Man is the master of the universe, that red riding hood really spent some time in the wolf's belly, together with her grandma (cmon, the bible says it's possible!), that you can make gold out of feces if you add the right amount of pee and heat it properly, and soooooo many more things.

After thousands of years of arguments pulled straight from people's asses, i take myself the right to say i don't buy it, furthermore, i don't even see a reason to give it a chance to be true before whoever makes the claim provides the evidence or at least a really good reason for his belief.

If you don't deny all of those gods or some of them, care to explain why not? Also do you leave the door open for all claims people make or only some that you believe are possible or would like to be true?

Well, as far as leaving a possibility.. Even Dawkins says something along the lines of, there's a 99.99999% chance God doesn't exist.

You are talking about being completely closed minded. That's not skepticism.

Once you don't just have an absence of belief, but are very certain in a belief something is false, 99.999% then you needn't entertain the 0.00001% , if it's totally obvious to you by reason and common sense, that it's false, but you can remember that there's a negligible 0.00001% that you wouldn't act on, or that wouldn't cause you to seriously think maybe.

I'm inclined to define deny the way of the guy that said he'd use the word Deny for knowledge claims. And so he wouldn't deny it (perhaps even an implausible unverifiable theistic god ).

I suppose Knowledge requires that we trust our senses.. and their accuracy.. Knowledge is purely what are considered Facts. Observable things.. Science does distinguish certain things as Facts..


And even in relation to knowledge, we don't have 100% there's a possibility what we perceive is not reality. e.g. the Matrix. Or that the world was created 5 seconds ago and everything more than 5 seconds ago is just a memory implant.

The implausibility and thousands of arguments unconvincing arguments for it, as well as whatever arguments are against it, are good reasons to believe it is false

There is perhaps one 100% certainty.. and i'm therefore gnostic about.. the fact that there is a reality!

Remember that for a deity, a timeless first cause with a great mind and power greater than a human.. How many said they Believe it is false? The last person asked, said they'd only strongly suspect it to be false. That's not even going as far as Believing it is false.

Nobody was willing to state the strength of their belief that it is false. Sure or Low confidence e.t.c.

People ask What type of God.. That determines what their position on it is.. So it wouldn't just be a blank statement that they believe with sureness that it's false.

Powerful aliens they say don't count (understandable) e.g. one that created or caused a portion of the universe that we inhabit.. doesn't count.

So for theistic ones Bible, Hinduism, Quran.. They believe it is false, with sureness..

But when it comes to Deistic ones.. (timless first cause with great mind and power) , they're not as forthright, one said he only strongly suspects it doesn't exist. And if they'd say they believe it is false..

How many say with -sureness-

If many, then it really shouldn't matter what type of God it is. It wouldn't depend..

It could be that people believe with sureness that there is no God, regardless of what type, any type that they'd consider a God or deity.. But i'm not sure that that has been stated. Mostly questions suggesting it depends on the God or deity.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

I'd like to hear your opinion about that, not "theirs".
Whatever version(s) of God(s) people talk or even just think about, that is merely a product of imagination, as such it has no basis in reality, which gives me reason enough to not only not believe it, but not even consider it's possibility before it is made plausible, and none of them ever was.. in my opinion.
I say Yahweh is possible as much as Ice-melting-gnomes and Polluting-trolls as the reason for global warming, same goes for Allah and company.
A deistic god might be a bit more believable since it doesn't rape logic as much as others, however it is still merely a product of imagination and before somebody presents any evidence for their existence i will sure deny it or better, not plague myself thinking about it.
When it comes to brain-in-a-jar theory and DNA manipulating aliens.. it is not much different.. we don't really have any reason to believe it to be true, so.. why should we even think about it?

 

[varit]

I'd like to hear your opinion about that, not "theirs".
Whatever version(s) of God(s) people talk or even just think about, that is merely a product of imagination, as such it has no basis in reality, which gives me reason enough to not only not believe it, but not even consider it's possibility before it is made plausible, and none of them ever was.. in my opinion.
I say Yahweh is possible as much as Ice-melting-gnomes and Polluting-trolls as the reason for global warming, same goes for Allah and company.
A deistic god might be a bit more believable since it doesn't rape logic as much as others, however it is still merely a product of imagination and before somebody presents any evidence for their existence i will sure deny it or better, not plague myself thinking about it.
When it comes to brain-in-a-jar theory and DNA manipulating aliens.. it is not much different.. we don't really have any reason to believe it to be true, so.. why should we even think about it?

I believe it is not true, and I don't entertain the possibility of it being true.

Would I deny ice melting gnomes causing global warming? I'm not sure about this denial thing..

Believing it's false with great certainty, yes..


But I thought what "australopithecus" said about not denying the Abrahamic deity seemed good..since it's a knowledge claim.. and I suppose that would apply to any unverifiable entity..

There are what appear to be factual reasons why ice melting gnomes have nothing to do with it..So if one answered with some stupid unverifiable explanations, and made some good excuses for them.. I suppose i'd say I can't deny it. But if one didn't come up with any ridiculous excuses.. and one flatly denied facts and made it falsifiable, and facts falsify it, then i'd say I deny it exists. Also i'm not sure with global warming what are facts and what are hugely strong theory..

The question of the ice melting gnomes would be an interesting question for australopithecus, or anybody else that refuses to deny certain deities and even theistic ones.

Personally.. I don't know..

Perhaps the rather poor argument, that people have believed it for generations, and huge numbers of people believe it, including very clever people.. and debate it.. The concept they believe is implausible but doesn't have the added implausibility of sitting down trying to think of something ridiculous.. We -know- as knowledge, that we came up with it via our imagination.. we don't just believe, we -know- because we are doing it and aware of it. What's the probability of something ridiculous we make up being reality. Miniscule.. If somebody was sincere and came up with a concept just as ridiculous, I think it's still miniscule, but I think there's more chance that their one is true.
If we sit there trying to think of something ridiculous, and we do, it's almost verifiably false. It's closer to knowledge we know to be false..than if somebody that might be mad, claims receiving messages from heaven, and he also has the support of some arguments making it logically consistent but unverifiable. . then it seems to not be as necessarily wrong.

If it was belief in a God that snatched hearts out of bodies and that's how people die.. and then he put in an illusion of a heart.. then maybe there since it actually required denying reality, making reality an illusion, then i'd deny it.. maybe..
But if it was a god of the gaps type one, that caused an organ to fail.. then it doesn't require denial of reality.. I might leave it as believing it was false with a lot of certainty. So in both cases I wouldn't entertain the possibility of it being true. In one case i'd deny, the other I would just believe it was false.

Infact, scratching some of that, i'm inclined to think that I don't believe something is true or believe it is false. There are things I know.. and other than that, it's just things I think are likely, and things I think are unlikely.. propositions like X exists.. or a proposition that X doesn't exist.. may be likely or unlikely..
I might just leave it as strong suspicions that X doesn't exist. Even for a theistic God.. And some suspicions that X doesn't exist, for a deistic God..(in addition to an absence of belief). That doesn't mean that I entertain their existence.

I'm still undecided on some of these things related to Skepticism. So just probing others a bit.

 

[varit]

So Thomas, i'm still evaluating things..

I'd be interested in what australopithecus says about the ice melting gnomes.. would he deny it..

The Abrahamic God, I would consider to be self contradictory and as I've said in another thread today, vastly implausible if not impossible. I would reject claims of those descriptions of a God, and I would deny the plausibility of said God, but I could not honestly deny it's existence as that would be making a claim of knowledge, if by deny you mean claiming it does not exist.

I suppose in my case.. my opinion... if I knew somebody invented it, then yes. Like on a skeptic forum..

But if lots of people sincerely believed it and it didn't involve denying reality, and was just unverifiable and implausible.. I perhaps wouldn't deny it.

I wouldn't entertain the possibility at all.. once my suspicions are so strongly against it. Once deciding that it's so likely to be wrong/false.. As I have.. but denying it, well, see what australopithecus said, but i'd deny your ice melting gnomes. If I didn't know you were making it up, and if it didn't contradict facts(things we can observe) or deny reality, then I wouldn't deny it..

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Meh, I "deny" the Abrahamic God - it's impossible. It's self contradicting, for fick sake.
I deny a magical space fairy who lives in Venus and controls the universe using a dildo as a wand - in that, although I can't be 100% secure about it (do not question the holy Fetish Fairy), I think it's so ridiculous, and there is such a lack of evidence that I can completely dismiss it. As simple as that.

And I deny any personal deity, for that matter. 99.9999% is enough for me. Remember, it's the same as 100%.