Personally, I can't offer you any evidence for either belief or disbelief, and I doubt very much if you can, either. — Bitter Crank

But we do have evidence. After thousands of years of investigation and dialog led by some of the best minds among us, we have compelling evidence that we have no compelling evidence to support either belief or disbelief. That is, we have strong evidence of our ignorance.

1) We had a huge investigation.
2) We uncovered an important fact.
3) We don't like that fact.
4) So we keep doing the same thing (God debate) over and over again expecting different results, ie. the definition of stupidity.

There is an alternative to this stupidity.

1) Have a huge investigation.
2) Discover our ignorance.
3) Accept what the investigation has revealed.
3) Continue the investigation and look for ways to put what we've found to constructive use.

When you meet the conditions I set, so probably never. :smile: — Jake

What conditions would they be?

Blessedly, no. — StreetlightX

I'm a Jedi. We're friends, aren't we? Wait, don't answer that.

serious — ProbablyTrue

Oh, nevermind @StreetlightX.

1) hasn't happened because most of the stuff around "God exists" hasn't defined the state or the evidence we would see if God exists.

We cannot investigate whether an atom exists without the terms of how it appears. The same with (a) God. Before we begin 1), we need understanding how (a) God would appear if (a) God existed.

:blush:

But we do have evidence. After thousands of years of investigation and dialog led by some of the best minds among us, we have compelling evidence that we have no compelling evidence to support either belief or disbelief. That is, we have strong evidence of our ignorance.

1) We had a huge investigation.
2) We uncovered an important fact.
3) We don't like that fact.
4) So we keep doing the same thing (God debate) over and over again expecting different results, ie. the definition of stupidity.

There is an alternative to this stupidity.

1) Have a huge investigation.
2) Discover our ignorance.
3) Accept what the investigation has revealed.
3) Continue the investigation and look for ways to put what we've found to constructive use. — Jake

There's compelling evidence that we're only ignorant to the extent that it's possible that there's a God that is no different in practical terms to no God whatsoever, which, in my opinion, isn't any God which merits believing in or worshiping or following rituals, commandments, and so on and so forth. That religious shtick might have some merit - might - but if so, it has nothing to do with this useless God, who may as well not be there.

Only true atheism is: 'God? What's that?' 'Never heard of it' 'Lets get on with it then'.

This sounds more like curiosity than indifference. Unfortunately, it is the kind of response that is much too rare among atheists. They are so very sure of knowing the answers that they no longer feel the need to ask the questions.

No doubt the Mayans said the same of the decline in the belief of Quetzalcoatl.

Which is not to say curiosity isn't relavent. I'm curious about Quetzalcoatl. The stories are cute and of course sometimes gruesome. The social and anthropological dimensions of belief are interesting. Theology is a grand exercise, well worth studying. Lots of fun to be had with artefacts.

Let a thousand flowers bloom; they just don't have to take root in me.

True faith is mystical union with our Creator, where light from His grace shines onto and off of a true believer's face. It's not proselytizing or philosophical theology. So in that much I agree with you, the god of the philosopher is a stuffed animal. — Modern Conviviality

I’m writing this because you so far strike me as a warm soul and because your comments are of some interest to me. And I’ve wanted to enquire into this matter for some time.

Some background:

Broadly speaking, I find that this is what a good deal of the whole theism v atheism debate is about—with some reservations, here stated vulgarly so as to better make my intended point: Is there an omnipotent creator of everything whose ass I must both politely and sincerely kiss in order to not loose “grace” / be punished or, otherwise, is there no such thing? The latter being a belief that doesn’t like the proverbial bathwater of authoritarian deities/religions and finds that to fully eliminate this wrong the baby must be thrown out as well—the proverbial baby here being any rationally consistent system of thought which is not a soulless materialism/physicalism.

To be fair, as a disclosure, I’m a disbeliever in both Theist and Atheism thus understood. Yup, I uphold both these types of theists and atheists are plain wrong. And this conviction, fully independent of anything else, makes me a very liked guy everywhere I go (My sarcasm, if it’s not clear. No, both hardcore theists and atheist detest any such belief as an abomination to be spit upon—this for gutturally emotive reasons rather than reasoning itself). At any rate, these are my beliefs/non-beliefs laid bare.

To address some concrete examples, here are some philosophers’ notions of divinity: Aristotle’s principle teleological cause as “unmoved mover”, Neo-Platonic notions of the “the One”, Spinoza’s understanding of Nature as being Divinity and vice versa, many an Eastern philosophical notion of, roughly expressed, a perfect (and non-hypocritical) state of non-duality wherein all suffering and impermanence eternally cease, this being what is professed as our ultimate reality … I’ll stop short, but there are other examples to be found.

To be again explicit: None of these reasoning-supported notions of divinity imply or encourage the kissing of the behind pertaining to some absolute and authoritarian psychological power—be this hypothetical psyche one of love, of hate, or of both. I phrased it this way to make clear what I take to be at least one of the typical atheist’s dislikes when it comes to notions of divinity. However, reverence, for example, is something that can well be found in many, if not all, of the philosophical notions of God/divinity … Spinoza’s much included.

I sincerely hope I have not been upsetting with the brash means in which I’ve expressed myself. No need to answer, but, with the aforementioned as background, my earnest questions:

Is the intrinsic lack of a bowing down to a superlative, authoritarian, psychological power that which makes philosophers’ notions of divinity nothing other than “stuffed animals”? Otherwise, do you find reasoning about the nature of reality which, in the process, addresses non-materialistic facets of what is real—aspects which materialists would address as “spiritual” or as reeking of divinity—to be proselytizing? If "no" to both questions, what other motive do you hold for saying that philosophers’ notions of divinity are “stuffed animals”?

Thanks in advance if you decide to reply. I’m just curious.

The God of the philosophers is the only interesting God. He functions simply as a productive constraint on thought, an intellectual rough ground or limit that is wonderful to work with and through, if one is open to that sort of thing. It may be a stuffed animal, but then, they all are.

Can you explain that a bit more? Not surevwhat you mean.

No doubt the Mayans said the same of the decline in the belief of Quetzalcoatl

Cute. But wholly imaginary.

Quips are the best that atheists can come up with. Not that this is their exclusive fault -- theists can be very annoying with their own quips. But the clash of memes is hardly interesting or illuminating.

I'm serious though. Of the multitude of artefact Gods, the majority of which, presumably, you don't give due consideration to either, I simply feel the same about one extra God than you. Presumably, the question of the existence of Naga doesn't move you either (happy to be corrected on this). Don't see why you get to think you're sincere and believers of Quetzalcoatl 'cute'. You're just culturally and historically in the most convenient time to take your sincerity for granted.

I'll try to later. Pushed for time atm.

Vou are assuming that I am lamenting a decline in belief, and in reaction to that vou are indulging in Internet clichés.

If I was lamenting something, it was the scarcity of true curiosity about this subject. (It is not exclusive of atheists, note). You are one of the best thinkers of this forum, and even your reaction does nothing but prove the point.

Incidentally, although you assume otherwise for no particular reason, I am very curious about the reasons for the substitution of polytheism by monotheism -- this being the quite interesting subject that you brought up as a, let's be frank, red herring -- but the question of "what is God" precedes it, logically and historically. Polytheists everywhere did not react to monotheistic expansion by asking what that God (of monotheism) was. They were not theologians or philosophers, and, being polytheists, they had the advantage (over modern theists) of being sufficiently acquainted with the instrumental use of the word "god" to focus on the salient (and too real) disagreements.

This handicap of modern atheists is not even realized by them (and no wonder, if even their smartest representatives try stuff like "just one extra god" rather that engaging the subject).

Note, though, that the handicap is not exclusive of modern atheists. Modern theists are also representatives of it in large numbers.

So, there you have it. That's a summary of my position. Have at it. Any questions, ask away. — S

I see no reason to criticise your position, because in the OP, you do not suggest that people are mistaken if they have a different position.

Taken literally, the OP just says - I don't believe in god(s) and here's why. Tell me if you think you have an objective criticism of that.

As a devout pluralist, my response is Absolutely Not. It seems from some of the posts since, that some have interpreted your post as implying that you think people are being unreasonable if they do not share your position. I don't get that sense from reading the OP. Did you mean to imply that, or are others just over-interpreting your post?

This handicap of modern atheists is not even realized by them (and no wonder, if even their smartest representatives try stuff like "just one extra god" rather that engaging the subject). — Mariner

But I don't understand what gives you licence to dismiss my own nonchalance as 'quips' or 'not taking it seriously'. Why is the default position that religious ought to be taken seriously? Why is this the baseline from which discussion ought to proceed? It's easy - much too easy - to call my own position arrogance - which, sure, for the sake of ease of discussion, I'll take. But I don't see why it isn't equally arrogant to assume that taking religion seriously simply is the default? As if religion is a position that a priori is owed any dignity of engagement. Call it a tu quoque if you like. But I don't see why your God or Gods are owed anything more than the anthropological interest owed to Zeus or Naga. What makes you special? What makes your belief exempt from being just one in a long line or other curious beliefs, that, like all other belief, will be seen as a mere historical artefact in the light of time? Call it an 'internet meme argument'. That's no less arrogant dismissal as far as I'm concerned.

1) hasn't happened because most of the stuff around "God exists" hasn't defined the state or the evidence we would see if God exists. — TheWillowOfDarkness

All this kind of logic dancing has been going on for at least the last 500 years, including by many brilliant minds, and still nobody on any side has proven anything. There's really little if anything that can be said on the God debate subject that hasn't already been said a million times, with no useful result.

The God debate is like a children's merry-go-round. There are lots of blinking lights and carnival music which simulate movement, but when we look a little closer we see the merry-go-round is going eternally round and round and round in the same small circle to nowhere.

So we might ask ourselves, do we wish to get off the merry-go-round, or keep going round and round in the same small circle? To each, their own.

What conditions would they be? — S

That you go look up the conditions which have already been stated a couple of times.

I'll note that @Mariner has at least espoused polytheist views. I don't know where he is at now of course, but I've always read his posts on religion with interest because he is an honest soul who was searching through the questions of religion in a way that I find enlightening.

As to why: I suppose I would say, just to speak for myself for once rather than interpret others, that it is interesting. Isn't that the sort of thing philosophers really grab after?

It may not be universal. But then the truth conditions of propositions isn't interesting to all philosophers.

And so on. I don't think it's necessary to continue elaborating that point.

Then there is the fact that people do, in fact, believe such and such because of religion. Perhaps it is not of philosophic merit in the sense that these questions have been asked and talked about long enough that anyone interested can investigate the history -- but most people will not investigate the history. However, they will listen to arguments given and at least consider them, even if only to reject the arguments.

As an apatheist I wouldn't say that your nonchalance is dismissable. That would kind of defeat the point. I'm just trying to go some way as to show why the question might be interesting.

that it is interesting. — Moliere

Interest doesn't make engagement with religion a baseline. I'm not arguing that you (or anyone) shouldn't be interested in religion. One can be interested all one likes. I'm just saying, one shouldn't pretend that interest is, or ought to be, some kind of default, from which deviation is some kind of intellectual dishonesty or unseriousness. That's self-serving bullshit. Curiosity and intellectual openness is not owed to every position. It's self-aggrandising crap to say, without clear motivation, that 'oh, look at you, if you don't care, then you're closed minded'. Every-two bit conspiracy theorist ever has argued along the same lines. Religion doesn't get to claim intellectual defaultness by fiat. To speak of indifference as a handicap is just self-serving waff. I mean really - how is the refusal of engagement any more arrogant than the demand for it? - along with the subsequent attempt at intellectual shaming.

I too like Mariner's posts on religion, which are generally thoughtful and interesting. But claiming the intellectual baseline - "engage with me/religion or you're 'handicapped'" - is the equivalent of intellectual blackmail, and it's a load of hogwash. If religion has no bearing on one's life, and if one is equally not trying to engage the religious, then one has every right to ignore wholesale the entire enterprise without being blackmailed into the idea one is thus unserious. I don't give a flying hoot about Hathor, and I imagine most who claim to believe in some religion or another today don't either. And that's perfectly fine. Your God - whoever 'you' is, and whichever God is in question - ought to be subject to the same standard of utter indifference. Entirely and completely ignorable.

The comparison to Mayan Gods was dismissed as a cliche. Why? Because one's own personal God-pick is somehow arrogated to a status of not-cliche, the real-deal-God; "'My' God is not like those primitive Gods, and cannot be spoken about in the same breath. That's silly talk. My God is special - not like those Gods - and is deserving of non-cliche engagement". Well, no. They're all the same, and it's a failure of imagination to think comparisons to other God artefacts is just some kind of cheap-shot. It's only a cheap-shot if one really thinks those other Gods really are cheap to begin with, in comparison to yours. If it's ridiculous and cliche to invoke Quetzalcoatl - and of course it is - I don't see how any other God or Gods is miraculously exempt from the self-same ridiculousness. It is no more arrogance to not care about every other backwater unheard-of religion than it is one's favoured God artefact.

That you go look up the conditions which have already been stated a couple of times. — Jake

:roll:

I'll pass.

I'll pass. — S

Thanks what I was looking for, a clear straightforward unambiguous answer. Thank you! Huge time saver.

Why should Catholics declaring that Muslims go to hell be taken more seriously than Hindus saying you'll be reincarnated? They shouldn't.
This stuff isn't epistemic, it's highly elaborate superstitious faith. Fabulation and creative story-telling upheld as if literal truth, which is why others keep pointing out the lack of justification.
Holding such faith is fine, declaring it the be-all-end-all truth applicable to all less so. It's too bad that the doctrinators aren't listening.



Might be worth mentioning that a majority of non-theists out there are ex-theists.

If I genuinely and honestly thought that some population group were bound for hell due to their (non/dis)belief, then I'd be rather busy trying to tell them that and how I'd arrived at that.
Analogous to how I'd try talking someone out of jumping off a tall building.

You are talking about religion. The word was not used by me in this thread, and it is not what I'm talking about.

What makes you special? What makes your belief exempt from being just one in a long line or other curious beliefs, that, like all other belief, will be seen as a mere historical artefact in the light of time? — StreetlightX

Nothing. I never said it was exempt. You are still rehashing the meme battles rather than engaging on what is being said.

The subject is the discussion of your (paraphrase) statement that a "true atheist would show indifference rather than antagonism". Without going into "true scotsman" territory, I pointed out that your examples of reactions denoting (presumably) indifference would be more adequate as expressions of curiosity, and I said that this is a sentiment that is lacking in many atheists.

And since then you have referred to irrelevant, stock "internet atheist" pseudo-arguments which are not (at all!) pertinent to the theme as a way to avoid engaging it. After all, I did not defend "religion" (as you presume in your latest post), nor did I "exempt" any belief from scrutiny (on the contrary, I was commending curiosity! While pointing out that lack of curiosity is a non-denominational shortcoming, affecting people on all sides of all divides). I did not say that belief in Quetzalcoatl is wrong. I did not say, basically, any of the stuff that you are putting into my mouth in order to refute it and then pat yourself in the back (complete with suggestions of my "arrogance").

This "indifference" of yours sounds harder than it looks. Antagonism has its attractions, apparently :D.

I don't give a flying hoot about Hathor, and I imagine most who claim to believe in some religion or another today don't either. And that's perfectly fine. — StreetlightX

Sure. It is perfectly fine. But it is not a stance informed by curiosity (even though it is perfectly fine). And if a forum member started to talk about Hathor and how it is important to do some stuff because of Hathor and how Hathor's wisdom is important for your life etc. etc., you can dismiss it out of hand (which would be perfectly fine -- our resources are limited after all), but you cannot do it while claiming that your stance is informed by curiosity.

I'm defending curiosity here, not any specific belief or religion.

The comparison to Mayan Gods was dismissed as a cliche. Why? Because one's own personal God-pick is somehow arrogated to a status of not-cliche, the real-deal-God; "'My' God is not like those primitive Gods, and cannot be spoken about in the same breath. That's silly talk. My God is special - not like those Gods - and is deserving of non-cliche engagement". Well, no.

Well, no. I had nothing like that in my mind when I called it a cliché. I called it a cliché because I have seen it dozens (hundreds?) of times in these discussions. After all, this is what makes something a cliché; not whether it is right or wrong, but whether it is referred to without any hint of reflection and adaptation to the dialogue at hand. As the "just one extra God" argument. etc. A cliché may even be right, but it will still be a cliché.

Now I'm curious (:D). Why did you presume that this "real-deal-God" stupidity was the motivation for the cliché comment?

Why should Catholics declaring that Muslims go to hell be taken more seriously than Hindus saying you'll be reincarnated? They shouldn't. — jorndoe

Just FYI, your theology is bad, that is not a Catholic belief.

Just FYI, your theology is bad, that is not a Catholic belief. — Rank Amateur

Right, I seem to recall the current Pope has declared a less stringent admission to heaven. :)
That said, there are people on this forum that has declared the above, thoughtful people if you will.

I'm wondering, though, why wouldn't Catholics (and Hindus) make such declarations...?
There's no arbiter around to set the record straight, they can only go by some scripture reading.
Surely it's not a matter of some personal moral sentiments or preferences?

Well I'm antagonistic to the suggestion that atheism - at least an atheism for whom religion and God means nothing - ought to be more curious about religion. I think that's self-serving and unnecessary. It's very easy to claim curiosity as a virtue, but that's just the thing - anyone who has an interest in anything whatsoever and who would not like it dismissed would say the same. That was the only point I was trying to make with Quetzalcoatl. 'Be curious' - you may as well say 'don't be indifferent'. What kind of counter-point is that?

And to be clear, theological debates are great and even fascinating. I think they have alot of value, and have alot of lessons to teach (primarily about how not to think...). I'm indifferent in the same way I'm indifferent about the present king of France. You can wring alot of great philosophical points with some sustained attention to the topic - as Russell did - without actually thinking you're talking about the present king of France. Or to use a nice distinction - I'm curious and think it's healthy to be curious about God and religion de dicito and not de re. And not caring about religion or God de re - that's the indifference I think is worthy of a healthy atheism. One that isn't 'invested' in debates about God's existence, while perfectly able to entertain such debates as the cultural artefacts and intellectual curiosities they are.