The “consensus” view among atheists seems to be that atheism is reasonable and that religious beliefs are not.
So why are atheists angry at God?
We can become incensed by objects and creatures both animate and inanimate. We can even, in a limited sense, be bothered by the fanciful characters in books and dreams. But creatures like unicorns that don’t exist ”that we truly believe not to exist” tend not to raise our ire. We certainly don’t blame the one-horned creatures for our problems.
The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.
I’m trying to remember the last time I got angry at something which did not exist. It’s been a while since I last played World of Warcraft, but that might be a candidate.
But atheists angry at God? That’s absurd. Assertions that there are empirical studies to that effect? Simply ludicrous. By definition, atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods. It is simply a matter of logical impossibility that atheists should be angry at God.
keiths:
fifth:
Do tell. Then we can compare it to competing hypotheses.
That is simply incorrect. I constantly test my presuppositions that is what I’m doing right now when I ask you how you know things. I want to know if my trust is justified
Your inability to give a response reaffirms my conclusion that you have no firm basis for knowelege. If you had a presupposition that could lead to knowelege (ie justified true belief) I would love to hear it so I could compare it to mine.
so far it’s been crickets
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Other people can observe your wife and her behavior towards you.
No one can observe Jesus because, if he ever existed in a form you would recognize, he’s long dead.
You are not comparing like with like. Your faith in your religion is exactly “belief absent evidence or in spite of evidence.”
fifthmonarchyman,
I don’t. It is, however, not an hypothesis worth considering until the existence of demons is demonstrated. Would you care to do that?
And what are those alleged atheist positions?
Can you ever get the fact that we don’t know that demon possession isn’t a causal factor, but that we simply lack any reason to suppose that it is?
Look, it’s absurd to ask me to try to encapsulate all of the interacting factors that lead to sound conclusions, since there are so many. Learn about science.
The main thing is that you don’t have evidence for demon possession, and we do have evidence for neurologic problems causing schizophrenia. Just as you don’t have evidence for your God, and we have evidence for causal interactions.
What a stupid thing to write. Empiricism is the entire reason for rejecting demons as sufficiently-evidenced causal factors.
Thought. Try it.
Glen Davidson
sure I would but you need to tell me how I could demonstrate the existence of a non-material being to you if you deny the existence of anything that is not material a priori
That is an honest question. I want to know how you know that the only source of knowelege is materiel demonstration and how do you test this assumption?
peace
I don’t. What I do know, is that the medical/psychiatric account seems to work pretty well, while casting out demons does not seem to work. So I go with the best explanation available.
So you begin with the presupposition that only phyiscal things count as evidence and then conclude that a nonphysical thing does not exist. then you call yourself skeptical.
Is that about right?
Peace
So you begin with the presupposition that apparent utility is the standard by which an explanation is judged.
Then you conclude that an explanation that is not apparently useful is invalid. Then you call yourself skeptical
Is that about right?
peace
fifth,
I am perhaps more sympathetic to your plight than you realize. If you are like many fundamentalists, your life is largely circumscribed by the church, and you have a network of family and friends who share your beliefs. Your wife is likely a believer, and you are probably raising your kids in the faith.
To question your beliefs is a scary thing under those circumstances, and the consequences could potentially reverberate throughout your life. It was easier for me because I jettisoned the faith early, and I never doubted that my immediate family and my friends (at least the most important ones) would stick with me, even if they disapproved.
I’ve read wrenching accounts from folks (including pastors and priests) who have lost their faith but still pretend to believe in order to avoid severe repercussions in their lives. It’s no way to live.
I came across a list, compiled by a palliative care nurse, of the top five regrets expressed by her dying patients. Number one was:
No, that’s an absurd strawman, you making things up yet again.
I conclude that we have good reason to believe in only properly evidenced things, which is what I discuss, not the idiotic nonsense about “physical things.”
Why don’t you deal with what I write, rather than with your imaginings of what I think?
Why can’t you get anything right? Is it because you’ve never really questioned your own beliefs, including your baseless beliefs about atheists?
Glen Davidson
fifthmonarchyman,
You can start by explaining exactly what you mean by “non-material” and how we can distinguish between material and non-material things. An operational definition, if you will.
That much is obvious given your apparent level of understanding of Christianity.
I on the other hand was much older when I seriously evaluated the evidence so I could evaluate it more objectively and not be swayed by youthful passions
peace
fifth,
I gave you a response. Are you even reading my comments?
fifth:
keiths:
what counts as evidence in your worldview?
peace
what counts as evidence in your worldview?
I’m being serious this is not a debate tactic
peace
Not only that, but fifthmonarchyman’s religious BFFs have killled thousands of people over the years while believing their victims to have been demon-possessed and believing themselves to be trying in god’s name to remedy it.
Even if demon-possession could be proven to be a real thing, proven to be really the cause of (at least some) cases of schizophrenia, we would be morally obligated to prohibit any attempt to exorcise the demon by any christian practice on the grounds that we could never justify the lethal risk from the christians. Just as we prohibit any attempt to cure heart disease by Aztec priests who think god wants them to remove the heart.
Christians who admit they believe demons are real cannot be trusted in decent society. You can never know when one of them is going to snap and try to strangle some innocent child, claiming the child was possessed by a demon and they were just trying to get it out. Believers in the existence of demons are not crazy by any medical definition. But believe me, an entire city full of medically-diagnosed schizophrenic patients is better than a city full of demon-believers.
fifth,
I never stopped evaluating the evidence. It’s part of being a skeptic, and It’s one of the reasons I debate folks like you at TSZ and UD — to make sure they’re not uncovering weaknesses in my position that I’ve overlooked.
You, meanwhile, presuppose the truth of Christianity and declare it “non-negotiable”.
fifth,
Lots of things. Even revelation would count if it were ever shown to be reliable.
So do you.
We have a useful explanation for why your car runs. We say that chemical energy is transformed by combustion into piston mechanical movement which in turn is transferred to the mechanical drive train, and blah blah blah.
Alternatively, there is an explanation which says that car engines are possessed by demons and work iwhen the angry demons are confined to the cylinders where they push the pistons (immaterially, of course, just as the schizophrenia demons immaterially push brain chemicals and neuronal impulses). When your car engine doesn’t work right, well, that’s the demons, too, maybe one of ’em was even angrier than usual and punched the wrong thing inside the engine … you don’t need a car-engine demon exorcism but maybe you need a demon stabilizing ceremony …
So, apparent utility is obviously the standard by which YOU personally judge an explanation.
And YOU personally conclude that an explanation that is not apparently useful (demon car-engine possession) is invalid.
No doubt, you’re a hypocrite.
Too bad you’re worthless as a skeptic.
It’s how I judge explanations. That’s not a presupposition. It’s a choice.
As to the standard by which an explanation is judged — I have no idea whether there even is such a standard. If there were a standard, I would probably ignore it. Whether to accept an explanation is always a personal choice.
I’m not sure that it even means anything, to say that an explanation is invalid. I think you just made that up out of thin air so that you could make a bogus argument about presuppositions.
Really, is that a reasonable question? Ever taken a philosophy course, sat on a jury, or considered Koch’s postulates?
It’s complex–as I noted (iow), I can hardly cover epistemology in a comment–although the overall matter is to rely upon the senses, which includes using the senses to produce and interpret instrument readings.
The real issue is that evidence is not something different for theists and atheists, at least if they really care about truth. Some theists do carve out exceptions for their religion, it’s true, but that is the unwarranted exception, not the rule that sound thinkers use. Taking Logos as the basis for knowing the world matters not a whit when one is considering whether someone is responsible for an accident, or what the double-slit experiments indicate.
We do presuppose, tacitly or otherwise, many things, but so long as our presuppositions can be–and are in some venues–questioned, that is not something that seriously undercuts one’s conclusions (so long as the unknowns are not assumed to be truly known). But that’s true both of theists and atheists, while you simply hold an extra unquestionable (or at least one that you evidently are not questioning) presupposition that does nothing to help us to understand the world at all, although it does yeoman work to uphold the unevidenced religious view that you hold.
Glen Davidson
No. I agree that it’s extremely weird. I’ve said that about this place almost since my first day here. I think that, to a significant extent it’s a sanctuary for former xtians who like to hang with a bunch of others who agree with their shift.
And sometimes, when I haven’t sung in complete harmony with that team, I’ve felt like there’s a concern that I might be on the other (UD sympathist) team. I really don’t care very much about religious dogmas, and I think that you (and/or mung) are right that it’s almost an obsession here.
It’s been remarkably easy for you two to almost completely take over this site just by quoting from the Bible on occasion. The sensitivity to that stuff here is weird to me, maybe because I wasn’t brought up in a religious environment and, except for suffering from “White Noise” for much of my life, don’t really give a shit.
I think most people here are treating this particular argument as entertainment.
Empiricism simply is what works and if it works it simply must be empiricism.
When did you have that epiphany?
walto,
I’m a skeptic. I express skepticism toward the things I’m skeptical of — including Christianity — at a site called The Skeptical Zone. Why should that surprise you or strike you as ‘weird’?
Yes. Yes. You were what, 13?
I don’t know why you think that’s something worth bragging about.
So now you believe in ghosts.
I guess when I read what you wrote, since it’s too stupid ever to have been my position.
Making up others’ positions seems to be typical for IDists.
Glen Davidson
keiths:
fifth:
Says the guy who declared his presupposition to be “non-negotiable”.
😉
let that one sink in
Peace
I think you are misunderstanding me here.
I test my presuppositions often when I compare them with other folk’s presuppositions. That is what I’m doing when I ask you how you know things.
If I was to find that you had a way to justifiably claim to know something then I would see which worldview had a better approach to knowelege. Preferably I’m looking for presuppositions that did not assume the conclusion before the outset
So far no one on your side has been able to provide any sort of coherent frame work for me to evaluate evidence that does not assume that Christianity is false from the outset.
That sort of comparison is how I test my presuppositions
On the other hand I am consistent. Once I settle on a set of presuppositions when I evaluate evidence I don’t change them mid stream. It’s at that point they are nonnegotiable.
To change presuppositions in the middle of an argument would be like changing axioms in the middle of a math problem. It’s a recipe for incoherence
I hope that helps
peace
Because you seem obsessed with stuff that’s basically ridiculous. Why wouldn’t that strike anyone who hasn’t any particular interest in Christianity as weird.
BTW, responding to every criticism that is ever leveled at you by mentioning the name of this site isn’t really that persuasive either. I think if you soiled yourself and someone mentioned it you’d likely respond with “Hey, I frequent the Skeptical Zone, so why shouldn’t I have?”
I dunno. Almost every thread eventually devolves into Bible arguments. It’s like some kind of Nebraska dinner confab, circa 1957.
walto,
Hey walto
Just to let you know I appreciate your attitude.
I would bet that we could have a few laughs and some interesting conversations over some lemonade or sweet iced tea.
However I would bet we would not spend a lot of time discussing the fine art of Biblical exegesis. 😉
peace
walto,
Skepticism — including of religion — is encouraged here. Get used to it.
fifth,
I see. So your presuppositions are non-negotiable, except when they’re negotiable.
fifth,
Yet you’re presupposing the truth of Christianity. Wouldn’t it make more sense to look at the evidence first and then decide whether Christianity was a viable hypothesis?
Dunno if you’ve noticed, but that’s pretty much ALL that takes place here. Sadly, I AM used to it.
You are correct, sir.
walto,
Um, no.
Mung,
It’s always seemed to me that this site was set up primarily in response to UD and IDism and also in order to discuss religion in general. Lizzie in “About this site…”:
While other subjects are mentioned, clearly the religious issues dominate there. Not saying that it should be so, or that the forum was especially aptly named, there’s simply nothing new about the typical focus here–for better or worse. I doubt it’ll change any time soon, either.
Glen Davidson
He couldn’t possibly be absolutely certain that he had soiled himself though. Give him credit for at least that much. otoh, he might act as if he was absolutely certain he had soiled himself. But that’s no problem either. After all, he frequents the Skeptical Zone!
Subjective keiths.
walto is absolutely correct.
Disparagement of religion in general, and of Christianity in particular, is rampant here at TSZ. Voices of moderation are present but ignored.
My own experience is that even if I try to avoid such debates I am mocked and ridiculed and taunted anyways.
For example:
Indeed. My refusal to attempt to answer all the ignorant nonsense from a person who never advanced beyond some belief they adopted in their “early teens” is to my everlasting shame.
Meanwhile, keiths, who defends his positions, claims Christianity is false. This is, he claims, a conclusion he has reached. One would hope it’s a rational conclusion.
The actual argument upon which the conclusion was reached?
“Hi, my name is keiths and I frequent The Skeptical Zone!”
Mung:
Honestly, Mung, your complaint rings hollow, as much of your recent manic output concerns religion and/or issues challenges “to the atheists.”
Titles of some of your recent
trolling effortsposts:– Angry at God (“So why are atheists angry at God?”)
– Testimony to Miracles
– A Minimal Materialism (addressed “to the atheists”)
– The Cosmological Argument (for the existence of God)
– Is Religious Belief Natural?
Then you call the waaaambulance when your religious views are challenged.
Take a little responsibility, Mung.
I agree that OPs like Angry at God are just silly. But does a tweak like that really justify 400 thousand replies?
The Gary Gaulins of the world seem to attract crowds.
What I find to be odd is how quickly these posts move from the original generic god topic to debates on obscure Biblical references.
Like I said it just appears that atheists are obsessed at convincing themselves that they were right to reject the storybook version of Christianity that they found unappealing as children.
I just find that odd and telling
peace