Non Believers: I'm What's Called a Pessimist

[HexMachina]

I have brought this up before and see, to recall others saying it was common elsewhere in the U.K., but my non-faith primary school had us singing hymns and reciting prayers and having bible stories read out to us in assembly. I think your parents could request you were taken out of these (well, I know for a fact that one boy was allowed to skip them because he was a Jehovah’s Witness) but it struck me as unfair even back then that I had to go to these stupid things (I did not believe even as a child and was stubbornly righteous as only a 10 year old can be - “But why do I have to go? I don’t believe any of this rubbish!”)

no idea if this still happens in (non-religious) U.K. schools now. I’m now feeling angry all over again

[BigFatCoward]

20 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I have brought this up before and see, to recall others saying it was common elsewhere in the U.K., but my non-faith primary school had us singing hymns and reciting prayers and having bible stories read out to us in assembly. I think your parents could request you were taken out of these (well, I know for a fact that one boy was allowed to skip them because he was a Jehovah’s Witness) but it struck me as unfair even back then that I had to go to these stupid things (I did not believe even as a child and was stubbornly righteous as only a 10 year old can be - “But why do I have to go? I don’t believe any of this rubbish!”)

no idea if this still happens in (non-religious) U.K. schools now. I’m now feeling angry all over again

That was my experience as well, but i started primary school in 1980, no idea if its still the same now.

[Dr. Pepper]

6 hours ago, mankytoes said:

 

Is that because they actively showed an interest, or because their parents/previous carers were religious? If the latter, that's totally unacceptable. There was this big controversy in the UK recently about a "Christian" girl getting fostered with Muslims, and how they were "forcing their culture on her". It basically turned out to be a load of hate stirring bollocks, but it's an interesting issue, what are the rights of a foster parent in this area? Maybe one for its' own thread.

Yeah, I mean even a hardline atheist like me can understand why people feel yoga and meditation are spirtual experiences, because they do alter your consciousness.

I don't think it's unacceptable.  Even parents who have had their children removed from their custody should have a say in the culture of their child.  That includes a lot of stuff like dress or hair, but also includes religion.  In the US foster parents are allowed to practice their own culture and generally the bio parents can't ask a judge to discriminate against them and have children removed*, but foster parents are supposed to not impede the culture of children in their care.  We can't cut hair without permission, we have to make sure they get to whatever religious thing their parents have put forth, etc.  I hate the religious aspect, but I do think other parents of the requirement are absolutely necessary.  You get a bunch of white foster parents, for example, that don't realize how important hair is in other cultures and they start cutting and doing their own thing and it becomes the start of erasing a child's identity.  We have a long history of that.  

*Of course in practice discrimination happens.  Usually towards gays and muslims.  When you get super christian judges on the bench who are basically dominionists, they do whatever the fuck they want.

[Seli]

On 25/11/2017 at 10:51 AM, Jo498 said:

...

My other main puzzzlement (although I admit that I had phases where I tended similarly) is how widespread "apatheism" is. How can it be not of supreme importance if there is a right way to live and a wrong way and that there will be some kind of judgement/reincarnation/whatever or if it does not matter at all in the long run?

...

That one seems simple. Even accepting there is a Divinity there is no way of knowing which of the hundreds if not thousands of religions that have appeared on this world told (a big part) of the true story. So why commit?

This gets even more sensible in view of the huge universe we live in. Human religions focus on humans, and as such cannot tell the whole story and are flawed from the beginning in view of the near infinite options in time and space.

 

[Jo498]

20 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

They're both beings of significant power capable of impossible feats via the use of magic. What exactly is the difference between them?

This shows that you don't know what you are talking about and seem content bashing a straw man, so I doubt that I will want to continue this but I will give a few clarifications.

- Probably nobody ever beyond the age of 9 seriously believed in Santa Claus, but almost everybody in the history of mankind believed in God or gods. That is a historical/sociological difference and it shows that atheism is not a default position (as is often claimed).

- God is very different from gods. God is not another thing in the universe with a few uncommon features (like St. Claus or an angel would be). God in the tradition of monotheism common to pagan philosophers like Plato or Plotinus, the abrahamitic religions, at least some schools of Vedic religion (and probably a whole bunch more religions like Zoroastrism I don't know a lot about) is the Ground of everything that not only made the world but keeps the world in existence in every moment (that's why Big Bang or eternal universe is largely irrelevant for theistic cosmological arguments). While one can of course debate all of these points, God explains why there is anything at all, why the (natural) world is lawfully ordered, not chaotic, why humans are capable of rational thought and can to some extent know the order of the natural world (note that these last two points are not results but presuppositions of doing science), why humans are moral beings and can know what is right and wrong and why they should act accordingly (again, this is not the claim for a particular revealed set of moral rules but for the existence and foundation of any sphere of moral evaluation at all) etc. All this is mostly independent from any particulars of these religions or revelations.

- The point here is not that God is the best way to get explanations or foundations for all these things (although for materialism they are all mysterious, therefore many simply try to explain them away or claim that one should simply accept them as brute facts) but that he has a role in some such explanations for fundamental features we have to presuppose to do any epistemology or science. (That's why "magic" is also a silly strawman here.) This is not only a clear difference to St. Claus but also to the Germanic or Olympian Gods who don't provide such a kind of explanative closure. They are just magical superhumans. God is neither, but totally different from anything created. (I am completely aware and accept that this strangeness can be the basis of an argument that God is not a coherent notion at all. But the strawman-similarity to St. Claus is not the beginning of an argument, just a misunderstanding, to put it charitably.)

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Jo498 said:

This shows that you don't know what you are talking about and seem content bashing a straw man, so I doubt that I will want to continue this but I will give a few clarifications.

- Probably nobody ever beyond the age of 9 seriously believed in Santa Claus, but almost everybody in the history of mankind believed in God or gods. That is a historical/sociological difference and it shows that atheism is not a default position (as is often claimed).

 

Yeah, because we tell our kids that santa isn't real while god people fail to tell their children that god isn't real.  The fact that kids stop believing one and not the other doesn't make them different.  

Quote

- God is very different from gods. God is not another thing in the universe with a few uncommon features (like St. Claus or an angel would be). God in the tradition of monotheism common to pagan philosophers like Plato or Plotinus, the abrahamitic religions, at least some schools of Vedic religion (and probably a whole bunch more religions like Zoroastrism I don't know a lot about) is the Ground of everything that not only made the world but keeps the world in existence in every moment (that's why Big Bang or eternal universe is largely irrelevant for theistic cosmological arguments). While one can of course debate all of these points, God explains why there is anything at all, why the (natural) world is lawfully ordered, not chaotic, why humans are capable of rational thought and can to some extent know the order of the natural world (note that these last two points are not results but presuppositions of doing science), why humans are moral beings and can know what is right and wrong and why they should act accordingly (again, this is not the claim for a particular revealed set of moral rules but for the existence and foundation of any sphere of moral evaluation at all) etc. All this is mostly independent from any particulars of these religions or revelations.

You're basically saying "god is real and magical because I say so" in the same way parents tell their children that "santa is real and magical because i say so."  So yeah, still basically the same thing.

Quote

- The point here is not that God is the best way to get explanations or foundations for all these things (although for materialism they are all mysterious, therefore many simply try to explain them away or claim that one should simply accept them as brute facts) but that he has a role in some such explanations for fundamental features we have to presuppose to do any epistemology or science. (That's why "magic" is also a silly strawman here.) This is not only a clear difference to St. Claus but also to the Germanic or Olympian Gods who don't provide such a kind of explanative closure. They are just magical superhumans. God is neither, but totally different from anything created. (I am completely aware and accept that this strangeness can be the basis of an argument that God is not a coherent notion at all. But the strawman-similarity to St. Claus is not the beginning of an argument, just a misunderstanding, to put it charitably.)

Again, you're just saying god isn't the same magical imaginary being like santa clause.  This doesn't make it true.  It makes you a person who sells stories about magical imaginary beings same as parents who sell their children stories about magical imaginary santa.

[LongRider]

40 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

While one can of course debate all of these points, God explains why there is anything at all, why the (natural) world is lawfully ordered, not chaotic, why humans are capable of rational thought and can to some extent know the order of the natural world (note that these last two points are not results but presuppositions of doing science),

God of the gaps argument.   Hear it, didn't buy then, don't buy it now.

[Eggegg]

4 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

God of the gaps argument.   Hear it, didn't buy then, don't buy it now.

Exactly. 

[TrueMetis]

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

This shows that you don't know what you are talking about and seem content bashing a straw man, so I doubt that I will want to continue this but I will give a few clarifications.

- Probably nobody ever beyond the age of 9 seriously believed in Santa Claus, but almost everybody in the history of mankind believed in God or gods. That is a historical/sociological difference and it shows that atheism is not a default position (as is often claimed).

Only because people admit that Santa isn't real.

I mean plenty of adults believe in crazy bullshit, that one set of crazy bullshit is more readily believed than other sets of crazy bullshit does not make those crazy sets of bullshit different.

Quote

- God is very different from gods. God is not another thing in the universe with a few uncommon features (like St. Claus or an angel would be). God in the tradition of monotheism common to pagan philosophers like Plato or Plotinus, the abrahamitic religions, at least some schools of Vedic religion (and probably a whole bunch more religions like Zoroastrism I don't know a lot about) is the Ground of everything that not only made the world but keeps the world in existence in every moment (that's why Big Bang or eternal universe is largely irrelevant for theistic cosmological arguments). While one can of course debate all of these points, God explains why there is anything at all, why the (natural) world is lawfully ordered, not chaotic, why humans are capable of rational thought and can to some extent know the order of the natural world (note that these last two points are not results but presuppositions of doing science), why humans are moral beings and can know what is right and wrong and why they should act accordingly (again, this is not the claim for a particular revealed set of moral rules but for the existence and foundation of any sphere of moral evaluation at all) etc. All this is mostly independent from any particulars of these religions or revelations.

So god is different cause his magical powers are what created everything. Not that there's any evidence for these magical powers creating everything, but since his magical powers were used for different reasons than Santa (and Odin, Zeus, etc apparently even though they did plenty of the thing the christian god did because that's what religions are) this god is different.

Also, since there's not any actual evidence involved, god doesn't explain jack shit. If were just going to throw out religious explanation like they count than I'll take Old Man Coyote or Turtle island. They're bullshit of course, but at least they're entertaining bullshit.

No, not buying it. The god you're talking about is still nothing but a being of significant power capable of impossible feats via the use of magic.

Quote

- The point here is not that God is the best way to get explanations or foundations for all these things (although for materialism they are all mysterious, therefore many simply try to explain them away or claim that one should simply accept them as brute facts) but that he has a role in some such explanations for fundamental features we have to presuppose to do any epistemology or science. (That's why "magic" is also a silly strawman here.) This is not only a clear difference to St. Claus but also to the Germanic or Olympian Gods who don't provide such a kind of explanative closure. They are just magical superhumans. God is neither, but totally different from anything created. (I am completely aware and accept that this strangeness can be the basis of an argument that God is not a coherent notion at all. But the strawman-similarity to St. Claus is not the beginning of an argument, just a misunderstanding, to put it charitably.)

Actually from a materialist point of view none of what you attribute to god is particularly mysterious. Morality for example is simply a product of being a social animal, hence why we see other social animals act morally.

How is magic a strawman here? Magic is a force that allows the user to ignore or alter the laws of physical reality. That is exactly what a god is doing. "Let their be light" is literally an incantation.

The god you're talking about is not different from Santa or the more limited gods, it's simply more powerful.

 

ETA: And I find your 1st point hilarious since in your 2nd and 3rd you try to put up an artificial divide between big g god and little g gods, placing the little g gods into the same box as Santa. I'm betting this is because you realize if you don't include little g gods in "almost everybody in the history of mankind believed in God or gods" than you can't actually say that, because big g god hasn't been believe by almost everybody in the history.

So nice try, but you can't change your definition like that. Either the little g gods aren't the same, and than for most of human history people have not believed in big g god, not that it would matter because how long a thing has been believed has no bearing on the facts, or little g gods are the same, and the fact that big g god created everything is irrelevant. Though that would already be true, since the scale of their magical powers isn't really important.

None of this really changes that your arguments make no sense, but at least then you wouldn't have the very obvious fallacy in your argument where you switch what group the little g gods are in when it's convenient.

[BigFatCoward]

God people are hilarious.

[maarsen]

6 hours ago, Seli said:

That one seems simple. Even accepting there is a Divinity there is no way of knowing which of the hundreds if not thousands of religions that have appeared on this world told (a big part) of the true story. So why commit?

This gets even more sensible in view of the huge universe we live in. Human religions focus on humans, and as such cannot tell the whole story and are flawed from the beginning in view of the near infinite options in time and space.

 

David Wolpert has offered up a proof of the non existence of any being that can be all knowing and all powerful. Unless some person can show where the math or the science is wrong I am more inclined to accept his theorem than I am willing to accept theological or philosophical nonsense. Any god talk is pure and simple nonsense. We might as well debate the idea that pi should be equal to 3.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/limits-on-human-comprehension/?page=1

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

- The point here is not that God is the best way to get explanations or foundations for all these things (although for materialism they are all mysterious, therefore many simply try to explain them away or claim that one should simply accept them as brute facts) but that he has a role in some such explanations for fundamental features we have to presuppose to do any epistemology or science. (That's why "magic" is also a silly strawman here.) This is not only a clear difference to St. Claus but also to the Germanic or Olympian Gods who don't provide such a kind of explanative closure. They are just magical superhumans. God is neither, but totally different from anything created. (I am completely aware and accept that this strangeness can be the basis of an argument that God is not a coherent notion at all. But the strawman-similarity to St. Claus is not the beginning of an argument, just a misunderstanding, to put it charitably.)

Any belief in God, or gods, or reincarnation, is clearly magic by the usual definition. If I google-

the noun- "the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces."

That's the first result. That's seems to describe exactly how religious people feel about God.

the adjective- "having or apparently having supernatural powers."

Again, doesn't that describe your God very clearly?

How do you define magic? This is a good example of something that is hard to discuss, because I can't really express myself without saying something that sounds offensive. I think religious people sometimes find it hard to accept that they believe in magic.

[Martell Spy]

4 hours ago, Seli said:

That one seems simple. Even accepting there is a Divinity there is no way of knowing which of the hundreds if not thousands of religions that have appeared on this world told (a big part) of the true story. So why commit?

This gets even more sensible in view of the huge universe we live in. Human religions focus on humans, and as such cannot tell the whole story and are flawed from the beginning in view of the near infinite options in time and space.

 

Right, but to even get to this step, you would have to accept that something supernatural exists out there. Many people posting here have yet to accept that. But yes, if you did get to that step you'd have the enormous problem of sifting through all the world's religions and spiritual teachings, if you were truly serious about getting to the "truth." Most people just meekly accept the religion their parents practiced, however. I would guess this is mostly because it's convenient and has community advantages. It would seem a poor method of getting to the "truth" of existence, however, if that was your goal.

And if you did get to the step of accepting Christianity in full, one problem you run into is various problems of fairness. One thing that struck me is that their are various individuals in the Bible that witnessed miracles. Now supposedly our eternal existence is on the line here and most of us must make the correct answer or suffer in some way on a permanent basis. (Witnesses don't believe in Hell, but they do believe that non believers will die and not live eternally like those that chose the correct path) However, these few lucky ducks that actually saw things such as Jesus literally raising some dude from the dead were basically given an answer cheat sheet for the biggest test of all.

[Seli]

1 hour ago, maarsen said:

David Wolpert has offered up a proof of the non existence of any being that can be all knowing and all powerful. Unless some person can show where the math or the science is wrong I am more inclined to accept his theorem than I am willing to accept theological or philosophical nonsense. Any god talk is pure and simple nonsense. We might as well debate the idea that pi should be equal to 3.

Oh nice I missed that.

23 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Right, but to even get to this step, you would have to accept that something supernatural exists out there. Many people posting here have yet to accept that. ..

True. But there is a large amount of people out there that belief in something, but don't adhere (deeply) to any religion. And for that class the vagueness of religions and the immenseness of choice as well as the rigidity of many existing religious groups seems a reason not to commit. An attitude that Jo498 was amazed about.

[Seli]

3 hours ago, Jo498 said:

...

- God is very different from gods. God is not another thing in the universe with a few uncommon features (like St. Claus or an angel would be). God in the tradition of monotheism common to pagan philosophers like Plato or Plotinus, the abrahamitic religions, at least some schools of Vedic religion (and probably a whole bunch more religions like Zoroastrism I don't know a lot about) is the Ground of everything that not only made the world but keeps the world in existence in every moment (that's why Big Bang or eternal universe is largely irrelevant for theistic cosmological arguments). ...

That isn't actually the god of those religions though (those are much more human and vindictive usually), but a weird black box philosophical construct meant to stop discussion while explaining nothing at all.

[Dr. Pepper]

 

Bringing this over here because it violates the disclaimer of the christian folks thread and @Rorshach insists.

Basically I pointed out that translations and interpretations differ and likened it to the simple game of telephone.  The rebuttal was (paraphrasing) 'even though i understand there are different languages and different denominations that say different things and that people behave differently across different cultures and groups, I believe it's untrue that people interpret the bible differently, so you need to prove it and by the way I have a master's degree."

And this is a prime example why I stopped discussing atheism with people.  It's a bit like arguing with a person who insists the flying spaghetti monster is true and that adherents to it only eat tomato based sauce and there's no one in the world who could possibly eat pesto based sauce and still be a flying spaghetti monster worshipper because the books said eat the sauce and that's that.

I could calmly explain all day long that self-professed devout christians (or other religion) interpret and at in different ways, but if often matters little.  The response tends to be "well they aren't doing it right".  Ted Cruz thinks he does it right when he votes to take away food from poor children while Hillary Clinton interprets her religious texts to compel her to bring food and healthcare to those less fortunate.  I mean, this is obvious taht there are different interpretations.  It's maddening that this has to be explained and then when it's explained, someone will say "oh, but she's/he's really not a true christian".  Or muslim or jew or whatever.  

I feel like for any devout person, this lack of 'one true whatever' for a supposed 'one true god' should be where it falls apart for them.  There wouldn't be different churches, their wouldn't be different sects, their wouldn't even be different languages or translations if there were a one true whatever, if it wasn't all just a giant game of telephone (more complex than the children's game, of course, but still an apt comparison).  

 

 

[Rorshach]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 

Bringing this over here because it violates the disclaimer of the christian folks thread and @Rorshach insists.

Basically I pointed out that translations and interpretations differ and likened it to the simple game of telephone.  The rebuttal was (paraphrasing) 'even though i understand there are different languages and different denominations that say different things and that people behave differently across different cultures and groups, I believe it's untrue that people interpret the bible differently, so you need to prove it and by the way I have a master's degree."

And this is a prime example why I stopped discussing atheism with people.  It's a bit like arguing with a person who insists the flying spaghetti monster is true and that adherents to it only eat tomato based sauce and there's no one in the world who could possibly eat pesto based sauce and still be a flying spaghetti monster worshipper because the books said eat the sauce and that's that.

I could calmly explain all day long that self-professed devout christians (or other religion) interpret and at in different ways, but if often matters little.  The response tends to be "well they aren't doing it right".  Ted Cruz thinks he does it right when he votes to take away food from poor children while Hillary Clinton interprets her religious texts to compel her to bring food and healthcare to those less fortunate.  I mean, this is obvious taht there are different interpretations.  It's maddening that this has to be explained and then when it's explained, someone will say "oh, but she's/he's really not a true christian".  Or muslim or jew or whatever.  

I feel like for any devout person, this lack of 'one true whatever' for a supposed 'one true god' should be where it falls apart for them.  There wouldn't be different churches, their wouldn't be different sects, their wouldn't even be different languages or translations if there were a one true whatever, if it wasn't all just a giant game of telephone (more complex than the children's game, of course, but still an apt comparison).  

 

 

You’re paraphrasing me wrong. 

I was asking for a good faith discussion, but if you don’t try to understand what I read even after a rephrasing, it’s simply not worth the bother.

[Dr. Pepper]

5 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

You’re paraphrasing me wrong. 

I was asking for a good faith discussion, but if you don’t try to understand what I read even after a rephrasing, it’s simply not worth the bother.

You asked for specific text.  It's a stupid request because it has nothing to do with what I stated.  I can show you a hundred texts and a hundred people that utilize it differently.  I've given two examples right here.  How about you try to explain why two people cannot interpret and utilize a text differently.

[Rorshach]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

You asked for specific text.  It's a stupid request because it has nothing to do with what I stated.  I can show you a hundred texts and a hundred people that utilize it differently.  I've given two examples right here.  How about you try to explain why two people cannot interpret and utilize a text differently.

Your claim stated that the text could be used to defend a «fuck everyone else»policy. It is therefore not stupid at all to ask for a text translated as to be able to defend that. 

Also, please do rephrase people better in the future. Having people speaking derogatory about you on the basis of them not understanding you is bad manners. 

[Seli]

3 hours ago, Rorshach said:

Your claim stated that the text could be used to defend a «fuck everyone else»policy. It is therefore not stupid at all to ask for a text translated as to be able to defend that. 

Also, please do rephrase people better in the future. Having people speaking derogatory about you on the basis of them not understanding you is bad manners. 

As a basic first approach this a nonsensical discussion anyway. The bible (in all its textual flux) is not the only basis of christianity, tradition is just as important.