like why consciously be an atheist and join atheist movements and listen to atheist podcasts
I don't believe in God but I don't really get that part of it
this is a sincere question, I have some preconceptions about this but I kind of want to set them aside and think it through again from the beginning
In some areas, being an atheist can be really really uncomfortable. In a college philosophy class I took, some girl broke down crying during class because she found out I didn't believe in Jesus. In earlier years, in coastal California, I had theist kids get all huffy about it. There is also the overall concern with theocracy harming the whole of society, atheist or otherwise, by trying to establish their own belief system as the law of the land, like all of those attempts to get evolution out of schools.
As such, like any minority group, atheists will seek each other out, and sometimes they will try to change things. Sometimes they do good, sometimes they are Dawkins.
In some areas, being an atheist can be really really uncomfortable. In a college philosophy class I took, some girl broke down crying during class because she found out I didn't believe in Jesus. In earlier years, in coastal California, I had theist kids get all huffy about it.
To me that sounds like something out of a bad film or a satire, it's so foreign to what I've experienced on the other side of the Atlantic. When I was at university (Faculty of Humanities), if anything it was being openly religious (except in the most milquetoast way) that would be met with mild derision from other students, by and large. I don't remember many strident atheists, but for most people religion simply didn't figure much in their lives.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Question for atheists: is your atheism falsifiable? Say a guy appears and claims to be the returned Jesus Christ; what evidence would convince you OK this guy really is Jesus Christ Lord of Lords, King of Kings?
I feel like I would dismiss that guy as a nut, and if I saw him perform "miracles" I would more readily doubt my sanity and that of everyone around me rather than admit to the sudden, unprecedented intrusion of the truly supernatural into what I thought was hithero a purely material world.
Unfalsifiable belief is a problem for me. So, theoretically, what would convince you guys?
In some areas, being an atheist can be really really uncomfortable. In a college philosophy class I took, some girl broke down crying during class because she found out I didn't believe in Jesus. In earlier years, in coastal California, I had theist kids get all huffy about it.
To me that sounds like something out of a bad film or a satire, it's so foreign to what I've experienced on the other side of the Atlantic. When I was at university (Faculty of Humanities), if anything it was being openly religious (except in the most milquetoast way) that would be met with mild derision from other students, by and large. I don't remember many strident atheists, but for most people religion simply didn't figure much in their lives.
And now you know why I start acting slightly off-hinge when people suggest I move back there!
It gets better each generation, as mystical stuff gets nudged aside by education, but good freaking luck getting an open atheist into the White House. It's been a few decades since atheists have been rounded up and slaughtered in the Western world, but yeah it's happened. These days atheists mostly just have to deal with people who assume that we are all sociopaths, or who want to convert us, but that shit gets annoying.
Question for atheists: is your atheism falsifiable? Say a guy appears and claims to be the returned Jesus Christ; what evidence would convince you OK this guy really is Jesus Christ Lord of Lords, King of Kings?
I feel like I would dismiss that guy as a nut, and if I saw him perform "miracles" I would more readily doubt my sanity and that of everyone around me rather than admit to the sudden, unprecedented intrusion of the truly supernatural into what I thought was hithero a purely material world.
Unfalsifiable belief is a problem for me. So, theoretically, what would convince you guys?
Sure.
You can't prove a negative (and atheism is a negative position), but you can test against a positive!
Now, granted, you have the problem of agreeing on a definition of "god," which is.... tricky.
But if you can do so, and if you can TEST godhood, then you can test godness like you can test for any other sort of category.
Sorry about this silly analogy but its the best I can do at expressing my stance.
A man flips a coin in secret and asks everyone if they think it is heads or tails.
Some people saw the head of Jesus in a waffle and therefore believe it to be head.
Some people didn't agree with that line of reasoning and therefore believe it to be tails.
Some people believe it was actually an alien coin and if you give them all your earth coins then they will tell you what symbols were on it.
And finally some people find the entire exercise pointless and ignores the man.
Maybe agnostic isn't the right term for the last group but then what is?
Sorry about this silly analogy but its the best I can do at expressing my stance.
A man flips a coin in secret and asks everyone if they think it is heads or tails.
Some people saw the head of Jesus in a waffle and therefore believe it to be head.
Some people didn't agree with that line of reasoning and therefore believe it to be tails.
Some people believe it was actually an alien coin and if you give them all your earth coins then they will tell you what symbols were on it.
And finally some people find the entire exercise pointless and ignores the man.
Maybe agnostic isn't the right term for the last group but then what is?
Sorry about this silly analogy but its the best I can do at expressing my stance.
A man flips a coin in secret and asks everyone if they think it is heads or tails.
Some people saw the head of Jesus in a waffle and therefore believe it to be head.
Some people didn't agree with that line of reasoning and therefore believe it to be tails.
Some people believe it was actually an alien coin and if you give them all your earth coins then they will tell you what symbols were on it.
And finally some people find the entire exercise pointless and ignores the man.
Maybe agnostic isn't the right term for the last group but then what is?
If you want to use aliens in the analogy, say instead that a theist believes lizard people control the government. The atheist says that that's ridiculous, and believes that there's no such thing as lizard people. The agnostic says that barring evidence of lizard people, she'll assume that there are no lizard people and the idea isn't worth considering or taking into account when making decisions, but acknowledges that it is not totally impossible that the President is in fact a lizard person.
Alternatively, the theist says that the Texans will win the Super Bowl this year, the atheist says that there's no possible way that that's the case, the agnostic says "eh, it's really unlikely, but unlikely isn't the same as impossible."
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Sorry about this silly analogy but its the best I can do at expressing my stance.
A man flips a coin in secret and asks everyone if they think it is heads or tails.
Some people saw the head of Jesus in a waffle and therefore believe it to be head.
Some people didn't agree with that line of reasoning and therefore believe it to be tails.
Some people believe it was actually an alien coin and if you give them all your earth coins then they will tell you what symbols were on it.
And finally some people find the entire exercise pointless and ignores the man.
Maybe agnostic isn't the right term for the last group but then what is?
People who refuse to participate.
Perhaps, but its not that I refuse to express my belief. I am just unable to, given binary options.
Baalor on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
like why consciously be an atheist and join atheist movements and listen to atheist podcasts
I don't believe in God but I don't really get that part of it
this is a sincere question, I have some preconceptions about this but I kind of want to set them aside and think it through again from the beginning
Well, I don't join atheist movements because I am not a joiner.
But as to being actively an atheist:
I actively argue and participate in discussions of a religious nature because that is what I believe and the truth is valuable. I note that "why do you atheism" is a weird question in this regard - we have had hundred page threads full of very strident exchange on things such as "whether a Star Trek teleporter kills you", free will, cosmology, alcohol, appropriate ways to drive, whether we should hate anti-vaxers or whether we should REALLY HATE anti-vaxxers, evolutionary psychology, literary theory, the philosophy of aesthetics, strong AI and its plausibility, the movie AI, THE MOVIE Godzilla 2014, Harry Potter, sport, philosophy in general and no end of other things. It is only of atheism that we have the question asked "why do you care?" or "why are you actively prosecuting this case"
If you believe, as I do, that religion has a pernicious effect on politics and the national and global discourse then it is both of interest and important to keep abreast in a critical fashion.
Religion, as a whole, speaks to my interests - I am particularly interested in biblical criticism and historicity (it is a mess in a very interesting way), the atheism/theism divide is in many ways an exemplar case in the philosophy of science and rationality (which is one of the things in which I undertook a degree while at university)
I listen to selected atheist podcasts because it is nice to hear measured reflection upon current events, issues in philosophy etc... That reflect my views rather than causing me to wonder why they didn't mention X or Y or Z. In some ways this. Because it is nice to have one's choir preached to, in others it is a more sophisticated reason. For example. When religious people in interviews often spout nonsensical, incoherent and contradictory platitudes* and in the face of religious intrusion into the public life mainstream sources do similar things - these are things that ought be spoken about and we ought not let them go unaddressed, but it is an exercise in frustration when it goes unaddressed.
I am also strongly allergic to bad, uninformed or pointless atheist-targeted content.
I also think that atheist is an unfortunate term and unfortunate group to identify with, but that's the context in which we currently exist.
* by which I don't mean simply references to faith, I mean rambling incoherent world salad ignored or even encouraged because it falls under the umbrella of faith.
like why consciously be an atheist and join atheist movements and listen to atheist podcasts
I don't believe in God but I don't really get that part of it
this is a sincere question, I have some preconceptions about this but I kind of want to set them aside and think it through again from the beginning
Part of it? Political organization to push back against theists who seek to force others to follow their beliefs.
If you want examples of these political actions by theists at any particular level of government or proof that they act specifically through their faith groups because their religions/and religious leaders tell them to, I can provide them.
redx on
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
+5
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Sorry about this silly analogy but its the best I can do at expressing my stance.
A man flips a coin in secret and asks everyone if they think it is heads or tails.
Some people saw the head of Jesus in a waffle and therefore believe it to be head.
Some people didn't agree with that line of reasoning and therefore believe it to be tails.
Some people believe it was actually an alien coin and if you give them all your earth coins then they will tell you what symbols were on it.
And finally some people find the entire exercise pointless and ignores the man.
Maybe agnostic isn't the right term for the last group but then what is?
If you want to use aliens in the analogy, say instead that a theist believes lizard people control the government. The atheist says that that's ridiculous, and believes that there's no such thing as lizard people. The agnostic says that barring evidence of lizard people, she'll assume that there are no lizard people and the idea isn't worth considering or taking into account when making decisions, but acknowledges that it is not totally impossible that the President is in fact a lizard person.
Alternatively, the theist says that the Texans will win the Super Bowl this year, the atheist says that there's no possible way that that's the case, the agnostic says "eh, it's really unlikely, but unlikely isn't the same as impossible."
What do you mean by "not totally impossible" and why is that incompatible with the atheistic analogue? Possibility is a complicated concept.
Question for atheists: is your atheism falsifiable? Say a guy appears and claims to be the returned Jesus Christ; what evidence would convince you OK this guy really is Jesus Christ Lord of Lords, King of Kings?
I feel like I would dismiss that guy as a nut, and if I saw him perform "miracles" I would more readily doubt my sanity and that of everyone around me rather than admit to the sudden, unprecedented intrusion of the truly supernatural into what I thought was hithero a purely material world.
Unfalsifiable belief is a problem for me. So, theoretically, what would convince you guys?
It really depends on your definition of God. I could probably be convinced I'm a figment of intelligence with a lot of storage. A messenger appears offers me fairly concrete proof that the universes is mailable and under the control of an external power, I'd recognize that.
I'd have a really hard time believing it was omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenificent(sp), and desrves worship, without it and I sitting down and having a very long conversation. But, if God exists, the poor dear has got to just go on living, forever and ever and ever without getting a break, without an equal or peer. Poor fucker is probably bored and lonely, so it would probably do him some good.
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Question for atheists: is your atheism falsifiable? Say a guy appears and claims to be the returned Jesus Christ; what evidence would convince you OK this guy really is Jesus Christ Lord of Lords, King of Kings?
I feel like I would dismiss that guy as a nut, and if I saw him perform "miracles" I would more readily doubt my sanity and that of everyone around me rather than admit to the sudden, unprecedented intrusion of the truly supernatural into what I thought was hithero a purely material world.
Unfalsifiable belief is a problem for me. So, theoretically, what would convince you guys?
A) no proposition is falsifiable in a strict sense - given every test is in fact testing the target proposition with bundles of auxiliary hypotheses it is always possible to discard an auxiliary hypothesis rather than sacrifice a target hypothesis.
atheism isn't a belief per se, but a lack thereof. It's not really clear what it being falsifiable would mean - it isn't the same thing as could I be convinced there were a deity.
C) as to whether I could be convinced there were a deity. It depends upon the deity. A tri-omni (knowing, powerful loving) deity? No, for the same reasons I couldn't be considered a four sided triangle exists in Euclidean space. A more modest conception of a deity? Possibly, but they are quite implausible and unparsimonious - but there are hypothetically situations in which the alternatives are even less parsimonious, so that would be an uphill struggle.
like why consciously be an atheist and join atheist movements and listen to atheist podcasts
I don't believe in God but I don't really get that part of it
this is a sincere question, I have some preconceptions about this but I kind of want to set them aside and think it through again from the beginning
Trying to wrangle with your personal beliefs about God, religion, your purpose on Earth, etc can be terrifying for some people, and it can be comforting to seek out others who are also trying to figure it out, or others who have already figured it out. Many people live in areas where being an atheist isn't exactly favorable, so they seek out others who feel the same way they do to gain a sense of community.
Part of my experience as an atheist is that I have no clue whatsoever what so many people see in theism. I can sort of see some of the appeal behind the principles, but the facts seem so clearly, obviously wrong to me that I can't understand how someone could truly believe them and yet still function as a rational being in other parts of their lives.
It's really weird looking back at people I've interacted with, people who seemed perfectly reasonable, and realizing that most of them believe in some sort of religion that's been clearly falsified. And that they probably believe in much of the evidence that falsified it. And that they don't even realize the issue there.
Question for atheists: is your atheism falsifiable? Say a guy appears and claims to be the returned Jesus Christ; what evidence would convince you OK this guy really is Jesus Christ Lord of Lords, King of Kings?
I feel like I would dismiss that guy as a nut, and if I saw him perform "miracles" I would more readily doubt my sanity and that of everyone around me rather than admit to the sudden, unprecedented intrusion of the truly supernatural into what I thought was hithero a purely material world.
Unfalsifiable belief is a problem for me. So, theoretically, what would convince you guys?
A) no proposition is falsifiable in a strict sense - given every test is in fact testing the target proposition with bundles of auxiliary hypotheses it is always possible to discard an auxiliary hypothesis rather than sacrifice a target hypothesis.
atheism isn't a belief per se, but a lack thereof. It's not really clear what it being falsifiable would mean - it isn't the same thing as could I be convinced there were a deity.
If you're convinced there is a deity, aren't you automatically no longer an atheist?
I guess my question could be rephrased as: could you be convinced that a deity exists, and if so how? If it matters, I'm thinking specifically of the case where this deity claims to be the Abrahamic God.
C) as to whether I could be convinced there were a deity. It depends upon the deity. A tri-omni (knowing, powerful loving) deity? No, for the same reasons I couldn't be considered a four sided triangle exists in Euclidean space. A more modest conception of a deity? Possibly, but they are quite implausible and unparsimonious - but there are hypothetically situations in which the alternatives are even less parsimonious, so that would be an uphill struggle.
So for a more modest deity--what would need to be done to convince you that this entity was a deity?
I'm not sure this gets to the pith of it but I think my question is also asking: how do you know what to believe when what you're seeing violates everything about how you thought the universe worked? Do you doubt your own sanity? Assume what you're seeing is a trick? When do you believe you own lying eyes and what would they have to see to get you to change your belief/non-belief/negative-belief into positive belief in a deity?
Question for atheists: is your atheism falsifiable? Say a guy appears and claims to be the returned Jesus Christ; what evidence would convince you OK this guy really is Jesus Christ Lord of Lords, King of Kings?
I feel like I would dismiss that guy as a nut, and if I saw him perform "miracles" I would more readily doubt my sanity and that of everyone around me rather than admit to the sudden, unprecedented intrusion of the truly supernatural into what I thought was hithero a purely material world.
Unfalsifiable belief is a problem for me. So, theoretically, what would convince you guys?
It really depends on your definition of God. I could probably be convinced I'm a figment of intelligence with a lot of storage. A messenger appears offers me fairly concrete proof that the universes is mailable and under the control of an external power, I'd recognize that.
You wouldn't think: "I'm lucid dreaming, or going crazy, or this is a hoax or a prank?" How do you tell the difference?
I'd have a really hard time believing it was omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenificent(sp), and desrves worship, without it and I sitting down and having a very long conversation. But, if God exists, the poor dear has got to just go on living, forever and ever and ever without getting a break, without an equal or peer. Poor fucker is probably bored and lonely, so it would probably do him some good.
Omnipotent isn't too hard to demonstrate if you believe what you're seeing
Omniscient maybe have it calculate a prime number that you can then check later on. There's a lot of possibilities here. I'm interested in any specifics you guys can think of.
Omnibeneficent? Well. I'm sort of out of ideas on that one as well. Any thoughts?
like why consciously be an atheist and join atheist movements and listen to atheist podcasts
I don't believe in God but I don't really get that part of it
this is a sincere question, I have some preconceptions about this but I kind of want to set them aside and think it through again from the beginning
I've heard it put more than once, "Organizing atheists is like herding cats." And not without reason--statistically, in the United States (and other nations--it could be said throughout the Americas with very few exceptions), where there's a very clear, demonstrable trend for newborn children to be exposed to religious assembly at the same time and with the same consistency as being inducted into pre-kindergarten/kindergarten education, if you are an atheist you are deliberately going against a strong tends societal orthodoxy and may have a disposition towards "free thought" or other radical notions (in fact, it's that, rather than than the metaphysical conviction, that I've seen make atheism attractive to a lot of people my age or younger). Compared even the smallest religious lobbies, American atheists have consistently failed to have any sort of meaningful organized clout (especially if you believe in the high-end estimates for how many there probably are), and are a pretty much nonexistent political force. I've heard it suggested there are as many avowed atheists in America as there are avowed Jews (I've also heard there are many times that, but I'm less inclined to believe as such)--I don't think anyone doubts that a Jewish president will predated an avowedly atheist, and comparing the political mobilization and influence of American Jews to American Atheists is more like a combine harvester going over a field mouse.
Even with that political failure, people like to associate with the like-minded. This is true about bowlers and it's true about atheists--if bowling received a fraction of the scorn and suspicion that is socially-acceptable to direct at atheists in the public sphere, you can bet bowlers would be substantially more motivated to assemble too. And since that scorn or even insults in extreme cases are not actively legally impeding atheists from socially acknowledging each other, all the more reason. Atheism's not a theology, and shouldn't be treated as one--the absence of belief is not a perfect analog for some other narrowly-defined faith anymore than you can equate a group of strict vegans with a community of LDS fundamentalist: those ideologies are addressing very different aspects of life (even if they do govern some aspect of moral behavior). In my own observation, atheism doesn't really seek to replicate itself the way monotheism does (and being in Georgia, I have no exposure to polytheism without exaggeration). Sure, somewhere, there are a pair of atheists who are raising children with the same philosophical starting ground as they possess--that's a thing parents do, intentionally or otherwise. I've just yet to see such a thing in the United States, because avowedly atheistic married couples with children (or without) are incredibly rare where I live.
It's not the same everywhere. In Taiwan, where Abrahamic montheists, almost all Christian, are much less numerous than people who would generally be called non-religious atheists (not including Buddhists or Taoists, whom some argue are atheists under a different name), the non-religious are almost a fifth of the population (and Christians almost a twenty-fifth). A nonreligious upbringing--an a general disbelief in God, rather than an apathy towards the idea--isn't uncommon (it's probably where I got mine--living in a Christian community just didn't change my opinion). This means there's probably even less motivation for the apathetic to assemble, since the likelihood of scorn or alienation goes down to practically zero (and it turns such assembly into an almost literal requirement for Taiwanese Christians, as a very small minority who, sure enough, have turned that into a disproportionate political influence in government).
So there's multiple reasons why atheists don't often organize into large, meaningful movements (at least, compared to other groups of the same size roughly), and where there's less reason to do so (because atheism is mainstream, at least compared to clearly, open faiths like Christianity) you'll tend to see it less. But both those can't necessarily overwhelm the general condition that people like to associate with the like-minded.
Question for atheists: is your atheism falsifiable? Say a guy appears and claims to be the returned Jesus Christ; what evidence would convince you OK this guy really is Jesus Christ Lord of Lords, King of Kings?
I feel like I would dismiss that guy as a nut, and if I saw him perform "miracles" I would more readily doubt my sanity and that of everyone around me rather than admit to the sudden, unprecedented intrusion of the truly supernatural into what I thought was hithero a purely material world.
Unfalsifiable belief is a problem for me. So, theoretically, what would convince you guys?
If it is really a deity, it should already know what would convince me of it's authenticity (by virtue of it's nature). All I should have to do is ask to be convinced, and it should perform the requisite task.
If it can't do that, it's not a deity; just another trickster.
Question for atheists: is your atheism falsifiable? Say a guy appears and claims to be the returned Jesus Christ; what evidence would convince you OK this guy really is Jesus Christ Lord of Lords, King of Kings?
I feel like I would dismiss that guy as a nut, and if I saw him perform "miracles" I would more readily doubt my sanity and that of everyone around me rather than admit to the sudden, unprecedented intrusion of the truly supernatural into what I thought was hithero a purely material world.
Unfalsifiable belief is a problem for me. So, theoretically, what would convince you guys?
If it is really a deity, it should already know what would convince me of it's authenticity (by virtue of it's nature). All I should have to do is ask to be convinced, and it should perform the requisite task.
If it can't do that, it's not a deity; just another trickster.
Clever, but are you saying that you don't know what would convince you? Your answer is almost tautological: I will be convinced of this deity's existence if it convinces me. OK? How would it do that exactly? Torture you like Big Brother in 1984? Rewire your brain? Talk to you for as long as it takes? Produce a miracle?
Question for atheists: is your atheism falsifiable? Say a guy appears and claims to be the returned Jesus Christ; what evidence would convince you OK this guy really is Jesus Christ Lord of Lords, King of Kings?
I feel like I would dismiss that guy as a nut, and if I saw him perform "miracles" I would more readily doubt my sanity and that of everyone around me rather than admit to the sudden, unprecedented intrusion of the truly supernatural into what I thought was hithero a purely material world.
Unfalsifiable belief is a problem for me. So, theoretically, what would convince you guys?
If it is really a deity, it should already know what would convince me of it's authenticity (by virtue of it's nature). All I should have to do is ask to be convinced, and it should perform the requisite task.
If it can't do that, it's not a deity; just another trickster.
Clever, but are you saying that you don't know what would convince you? Your answer is almost tautological: I will be convinced of this deity's existence if it convinces me. OK? How would it do that exactly? Torture you like Big Brother in 1984? Rewire your brain? Talk to you for as long as it takes? Produce a miracle?
A deity (according to contemporary descriptors, anyway; the ancient idea of deity was substantially different) should have such mastery over physical laws that it would be trivial for it to, say, zip me to the cretaceous period and give me a grand tour of the prehistoric world, safely show me the genesis of the universe, safely tour me around the inside of Jupiter, the sun, a low mass star, a black hole, safely show me how the universe ends, what (if anything) exists outside of the universe's horizon, how many other civilizations exist in the universe (if any), etc.
This would compel me to believe that, yes I am dealing with a deity - or something so close to it that it may as well be called a deity.
EDIT: If you wanted a specific test:
A deity should be able to bring together myself and my One True Love (TM) and wisk us away to dance on Saturn's rings to the tune of Train's Drops of Jupiter.
Question for atheists: is your atheism falsifiable? Say a guy appears and claims to be the returned Jesus Christ; what evidence would convince you OK this guy really is Jesus Christ Lord of Lords, King of Kings?
I feel like I would dismiss that guy as a nut, and if I saw him perform "miracles" I would more readily doubt my sanity and that of everyone around me rather than admit to the sudden, unprecedented intrusion of the truly supernatural into what I thought was hithero a purely material world.
Unfalsifiable belief is a problem for me. So, theoretically, what would convince you guys?
If it is really a deity, it should already know what would convince me of it's authenticity (by virtue of it's nature). All I should have to do is ask to be convinced, and it should perform the requisite task.
If it can't do that, it's not a deity; just another trickster.
Clever, but are you saying that you don't know what would convince you? Your answer is almost tautological: I will be convinced of this deity's existence if it convinces me. OK? How would it do that exactly? Torture you like Big Brother in 1984? Rewire your brain? Talk to you for as long as it takes? Produce a miracle?
If God made you in his own image than clearly he would know what it would take to convince you, even if you personally did not.
Part of my experience as an atheist is that I have no clue whatsoever what so many people see in theism. I can sort of see some of the appeal behind the principles, but the facts seem so clearly, obviously wrong to me that I can't understand how someone could truly believe them and yet still function as a rational being in other parts of their lives.
It's really weird looking back at people I've interacted with, people who seemed perfectly reasonable, and realizing that most of them believe in some sort of religion that's been clearly falsified. And that they probably believe in much of the evidence that falsified it. And that they don't even realize the issue there.
Oh, I know lots of people, myself included who believe in a deity, but know a good amount of the stuff about that religion is utter bullshit. Like for me, I know that Noah didn't build a boat to house 2 (or 7) of each animal on the earth, or that there was a mystical box that could kill you by accidentally looking at it. But the lessons, the traditions, and the comfort it brings is what attracts these people.
The Bible, despite all its flaws does have a substantial amount of good advice, or outdated advice that would have been applicable in those times.
Christmas, Easter, Ramadan, Yom Kippur are all great celebrations that have permeated our culture, allowing even the non-theists to enjoy Pumpkin Pie on Thanksgiving, dressing up as Donald Trump on Halloween, or celebrating excess on Mardi Gras. I know a lot of people who love the weekly services as well.
And finally, having faith gives you comfort with the questions that can't be answered (at this time). Why am I here? Where do I go when I die? Does this unit have a soul? I give atheists much credit in being able to come to terms that perhaps nothing happens after death, or that we are just a product of a billion years of some amino acids reproducing. Perhaps in time, science will be able to answer these questions, and many more will drift away from their faith.
Note, I have nothing against Atheism, I see it as more of a different way of looking at life. What I don't like is when a small percentage of vocal atheists demean me and others like me for having a different viewpoint. Focus your anger at schools who teach creationism, slut-shame women, and claim that LTGBQ people do not deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Question for atheists: is your atheism falsifiable? Say a guy appears and claims to be the returned Jesus Christ; what evidence would convince you OK this guy really is Jesus Christ Lord of Lords, King of Kings?
I feel like I would dismiss that guy as a nut, and if I saw him perform "miracles" I would more readily doubt my sanity and that of everyone around me rather than admit to the sudden, unprecedented intrusion of the truly supernatural into what I thought was hithero a purely material world.
Unfalsifiable belief is a problem for me. So, theoretically, what would convince you guys?
Thing is, even if Osiris walks up and taps me on the shoulder, I see no reason to worship him.
Question for atheists: is your atheism falsifiable? Say a guy appears and claims to be the returned Jesus Christ; what evidence would convince you OK this guy really is Jesus Christ Lord of Lords, King of Kings?
I feel like I would dismiss that guy as a nut, and if I saw him perform "miracles" I would more readily doubt my sanity and that of everyone around me rather than admit to the sudden, unprecedented intrusion of the truly supernatural into what I thought was hithero a purely material world.
Unfalsifiable belief is a problem for me. So, theoretically, what would convince you guys?
Thing is, even if Osiris walks up and taps me on the shoulder, I see no reason to worship him.
That's the other half of it:
A deity would also know that I respect deeds, not just power, and that I do not have a bi-chromatic view of things. It shouldn't expect me to worship it.
Question for atheists: is your atheism falsifiable? Say a guy appears and claims to be the returned Jesus Christ; what evidence would convince you OK this guy really is Jesus Christ Lord of Lords, King of Kings?
I feel like I would dismiss that guy as a nut, and if I saw him perform "miracles" I would more readily doubt my sanity and that of everyone around me rather than admit to the sudden, unprecedented intrusion of the truly supernatural into what I thought was hithero a purely material world.
Unfalsifiable belief is a problem for me. So, theoretically, what would convince you guys?
If it is really a deity, it should already know what would convince me of it's authenticity (by virtue of it's nature). All I should have to do is ask to be convinced, and it should perform the requisite task.
If it can't do that, it's not a deity; just another trickster.
Clever, but are you saying that you don't know what would convince you? Your answer is almost tautological: I will be convinced of this deity's existence if it convinces me. OK? How would it do that exactly? Torture you like Big Brother in 1984? Rewire your brain? Talk to you for as long as it takes? Produce a miracle?
If God made you in his own image than clearly he would know what it would take to convince you, even if you personally did not.
This. If asked this question literally, I have a vague notion of what it would take. I've changed my mind on deep-rooted matters before (most recently, acceptance of polyamorous relationships in the wake of the Supreme Court's marriage rulings, but that is neither here nor there). But I'm not obligated to know exactly how my own ideological conditioning and convictions work down to the minute details.
I'm not omniscient. The Abrahamic God is--it's a pretty damn big part of what makes it the Abrahamic God, in fact. And that's before going into omnipotence (technically speaking, the Abrahamic God should be able to literally rewire my brain into speaking a language I don't know, or more relevantly, thinking I always believed in its existence). Omniscience probably isn't even the bare minimum.
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
The problem with proving a deity is partly to do with definitions, and partly to do with incredulity. Simply being incredulous isn't necessarily a reasonable thing but there are just so many other possible explanations other than "deity" for a being that could do improbable or seemingly impossible things, and there's also the issue that I don't really accept the existence of supernatural things (that is to say, things which can not be explained or reasoned, which are impossible according to all known and unknown laws of reality) If some being were able to do something which I believed was not physically possible given all human knowledge of physics and the universe, I would think it far more likely it is simply utilizing some law or fact of reality that we don't yet understand than to believe it were impossible to understand or replicate.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Question for atheists: is your atheism falsifiable? Say a guy appears and claims to be the returned Jesus Christ; what evidence would convince you OK this guy really is Jesus Christ Lord of Lords, King of Kings?
I feel like I would dismiss that guy as a nut, and if I saw him perform "miracles" I would more readily doubt my sanity and that of everyone around me rather than admit to the sudden, unprecedented intrusion of the truly supernatural into what I thought was hithero a purely material world.
Unfalsifiable belief is a problem for me. So, theoretically, what would convince you guys?
If it is really a deity, it should already know what would convince me of it's authenticity (by virtue of it's nature). All I should have to do is ask to be convinced, and it should perform the requisite task.
If it can't do that, it's not a deity; just another trickster.
Clever, but are you saying that you don't know what would convince you? Your answer is almost tautological: I will be convinced of this deity's existence if it convinces me. OK? How would it do that exactly? Torture you like Big Brother in 1984? Rewire your brain? Talk to you for as long as it takes? Produce a miracle?
A deity (according to contemporary descriptors, anyway; the ancient idea of deity was substantially different) should have such mastery over physical laws that it would be trivial for it to, say, zip me to the cretaceous period and give me a grand tour of the prehistoric world, safely show me the genesis of the universe, safely tour me around the inside of Jupiter, the sun, a low mass star, a black hole, safely show me how the universe ends, what (if anything) exists outside of the universe's horizon, how many other civilizations exist in the universe (if any), etc.
This would compel me to believe that, yes I am dealing with a deity - or something so close to it that it may as well be called a deity.
Why would you believe that was happening and not doubt the evidence of your senses? People have claimed to go on all sorts of vision quests, and had all kinds of transcendental, revelatory spiritual journeys where they were granted epiphanies by a deity; but we don't believe them. Why would you believe yourself? I mean surely your first hypothesis would be one of: this is an elaborate prank, I'm in a simulation, I'm dreaming, I'm going crazy, etc. What is the thing the deity says to you that convinces you to believe it-i.e. convinces you to believe the evidence of your lying eyes?
I don't know myself, but I'm trying to come up with a specific answer: a way to differentiate a genuine deity from a psychotic break, hallucination, or prank. I suppose this generalizes to any supernatural phenomenon really. We don't believe people who say they saw Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, a vampire, an elf, or a dryad in their backyard. So--if you really saw one--what would make you believe yourself? If everyone around you also believes in this supernatural event? If it's on the news? If an article in Science or Nature confirms it "actually" happened?
I can get as far as near omniscience--ask it to read your thoughts, or perform a checkable calculation that could only be performed by an omniscience (a calculation whose correct answer is currently unknown to humanity but can be checked natch). I guess maybe once I believe omniscience, I would be more likely to believe in omnipotence and then omnibenevolence last. From there, I guess I'm pretty much on board and I suppose convincing me of its specific identity (YHWJ, Odin, whoever) would be a piece of cake.
To be clear, I don't expect any of this to ever happen; but that doesn't get me out of the bind I'm in, which is that I don't want to say my mind is completely closed on this topic. Ok, for all practical intents and purposes it is, but I should still have a theoretical piece of evidence that would make me reconsider my beliefs, or I'm just a fanatic. I mean I never expect the Theory of Evolution to be disproved, but there are specific pieces of evidence--like the archetypal pre-Cambrian rabbit fossils--which, if they appeared, would make me go: "well shit, evolution was wrong." I don't have any such ready disproofs for my disbelief in God/the supernatural. If I cannot be convinced by new evidence--however unlikely its appearance--how am I any better than a blind fanatic?
It's really weird looking back at people I've interacted with, people who seemed perfectly reasonable, and realizing that most of them believe in some sort of religion that's been clearly falsified.
Could you elaborate on this?
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Why would you believe that was happening and not doubt the evidence of your senses? People have claimed to go on all sorts of vision quests, and had all kinds of transcendental, revelatory spiritual journeys where they were granted epiphanies by a deity; but we don't believe them. Why would you believe yourself? I mean surely your first hypothesis would be one of: this is an elaborate prank, I'm in a simulation, I'm dreaming, I'm going crazy, etc. What is the thing the deity says to you that convinces you to believe it-i.e. convinces you to believe the evidence of your lying eyes?
I can get as far as near omniscience--ask it to read your thoughts, or perform a checkable calculation that could only be performed by an omniscience (a calculation whose correct answer is currently unknown to humanity natch). I guess maybe once I believe omniscience, I would be more likely to believe in omniscience and then omnibenevolence last. From there, I guess I'm pretty much on board and I suppose convincing me of its specific identity (YHWJ, Odin, whoever) would be a piece of cake.
There is no precedent for a human brain being able to provide a compelling, memorable, linear simulation or hallucination of the sort described (say, going back in time to watch the K-Pg impact). Narcotics tweak your sensory input, for example - they can't totally replace it. Dreams are the closest we get, but they occur in a very specific state, are fuzzy to recall in memory and very rarely follow any clear logic or linearity. Despite the hypothetical Platonic question, after you wake up, you immediately recognize the difference between real sensory input and a dream state.
Sufficiently smooth, high fidelity simulations have entirely different computational & energy problems which I doubt are surmountable.
At any rate, I honestly find these kind of questions to be dull. Without a coherent descriptor of what a deity even is, and with no compelling reason to think that some form of this yet-to-be-coherently-described thing exists, I think asking what kind of tests would be appropriate for identifying it is silly.
Dreams can feel disturbingly real in the moment, leading to the famous butterfly quote.
The question of whether the senses can be believed is what Descartes was addressing when wrote cogito ergo sum.
I would however hold that simply rewiring you to believe would be an inherently evil act, and any entity that did that should be annihilated with extreme prejudice.
A deity is ultimately just an entity with X features and Y capabilities, and generally are either spirits with special powers or meat creatures with special powers; they're basically just pumped up monsters and aliens.
The implications of any supernatural being are pretty significant because holy shit it means that some form of magic is real. But magic use is a kind of technology, no matter how weird and confusing it is. Gods just have the best wizard nukes and wizard 3D printers.
But yeah, after that, okay, so there are super wizard aliens.
I would however hold that simply rewiring you to believe would be an inherently evil act, and any entity that did that should be annihilated with extreme prejudice.
Wiring someone to believe something is pretty common right here on Earth. Information from parents or clergy might as well carry the same weight to a child as the literal word of God would to an adult.
I would however hold that simply rewiring you to believe would be an inherently evil act, and any entity that did that should be annihilated with extreme prejudice.
Wiring someone to believe something is pretty common right here on Earth. Information from parents or clergy might as well carry the same weight to a child as the literal word of God would to an adult.
Er... no. It's not quite the same thing. There's a difference, as a matter of agency. You can choose to ignore the word of god.
I should mention that Heinlein's The Puppet Masters is a little horrifying.
Why would you believe that was happening and not doubt the evidence of your senses? People have claimed to go on all sorts of vision quests, and had all kinds of transcendental, revelatory spiritual journeys where they were granted epiphanies by a deity; but we don't believe them. Why would you believe yourself? I mean surely your first hypothesis would be one of: this is an elaborate prank, I'm in a simulation, I'm dreaming, I'm going crazy, etc. What is the thing the deity says to you that convinces you to believe it-i.e. convinces you to believe the evidence of your lying eyes?
I can get as far as near omniscience--ask it to read your thoughts, or perform a checkable calculation that could only be performed by an omniscience (a calculation whose correct answer is currently unknown to humanity natch). I guess maybe once I believe omniscience, I would be more likely to believe in omniscience and then omnibenevolence last. From there, I guess I'm pretty much on board and I suppose convincing me of its specific identity (YHWJ, Odin, whoever) would be a piece of cake.
There is no precedent for a human brain being able to provide a compelling, memorable, linear simulation or hallucination of the sort described (say, going back in time to watch the K-Pg impact).
Aside from the fact that you chose "The K-Pg impact" and not "vision of heaven" I don't see how your experience would be any more compelling, memorable, or linear than the bog-standard "I went to heaven and saw God and all his angels" vision that religious people feel proves their belief in a deity correct. Here's just one example:
Then, just to make sure I was flooded with evidence, I received three visions like Scrooge being visited by three ghosts. I was not drugged or semiconscious, I was perfectly alert and in my right wits.
It was not a dream. I have had dreams every night of my life. I know what a dream is. It was not a hallucination. I know someone who suffers from hallucinations, and I know the signs. Those signs were not present here.
Then, just to make even more sure that I was flooded with overwhelming evidence, I had a religious experience. This is separate from the visions, and took place several days after my release from the hospital, when my health was moderately well. I was not taking any pain-killers, by the way, because I found that prayer could banish pain in moments.
During this experience, I became aware of the origin of all thought, the underlying oneness of the universe, the nature of time: the paradox of determinism and free will was resolved for me. I saw and experienced part of the workings of a mind infinitely superior to mine, a mind able to count every atom in the universe, filled with paternal love and jovial good humor
Millions of people have "compelling, memorable, and linear" conversion experiences/divine visions all the time. And they're all bullshit, right?
I dunno I think "calculate a confirmable but as yet unknown prime" or "solve an NP problem that we can validate" is a better check than "show me a slightly different vision than the standard one religious people get all the time." But I think I am misunderstanding why you think a vision of the K-Pg impact is strong proof.
Narcotics tweak your sensory input, for example - they can't totally replace it. Dreams are the closest we get, but they occur in a very specific state, are fuzzy to recall in memory and very rarely follow any clear logic or linearity. Despite the hypothetical Platonic question, after you wake up, you immediately recognize the difference between real sensory input and a dream state.
Sufficiently smooth, high fidelity simulations have entirely different computational & energy problems which I doubt are surmountable.
At any rate, I honestly find these kind of questions to be dull. Without a coherent descriptor of what a deity even is, and with no compelling reason to think that some form of this yet-to-be-coherently-described thing exists, I think asking what kind of tests would be appropriate for identifying it is silly.
Dreams can feel disturbingly real in the moment, leading to the famous butterfly quote.
The question of whether the senses can be believed is what Descartes was addressing when wrote cogito ergo sum.
I would however hold that simply rewiring you to believe would be an inherently evil act, and any entity that did that should be annihilated with extreme prejudice.
There's also the whole thing, where if you are dreaming and think, "hey, is this a dream?" you can typically figure it out pretty quick. At least in my personal experience.
Having your OWN experience is going to be a lot more meaningful than someone feverishly describing their experience. Deities that rely on word of mouth are pretty goosed up.
Simulation argument will go nowhere because anything you can think of could be handled by a simulation of sufficient absurdity. You don't even know if the simulating universe has gravity.
As Star Trek has shown us, even the appearance of godlike beings doesn't mean there is a truly supernatural force out there. Atheism could be disproven but only if you demonstrated something which existed and functioned purely or partially outside of all scientific possibility. A super-evolved individual or species could meet criteria for omnipotence and/or omniscience, and do so within realms that were explicable, albeit in an exhaustively complex way.
Perhaps a god could be able to exhibit a logical paradox.
Posts
In some areas, being an atheist can be really really uncomfortable. In a college philosophy class I took, some girl broke down crying during class because she found out I didn't believe in Jesus. In earlier years, in coastal California, I had theist kids get all huffy about it. There is also the overall concern with theocracy harming the whole of society, atheist or otherwise, by trying to establish their own belief system as the law of the land, like all of those attempts to get evolution out of schools.
As such, like any minority group, atheists will seek each other out, and sometimes they will try to change things. Sometimes they do good, sometimes they are Dawkins.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I feel like I would dismiss that guy as a nut, and if I saw him perform "miracles" I would more readily doubt my sanity and that of everyone around me rather than admit to the sudden, unprecedented intrusion of the truly supernatural into what I thought was hithero a purely material world.
Unfalsifiable belief is a problem for me. So, theoretically, what would convince you guys?
And now you know why I start acting slightly off-hinge when people suggest I move back there!
There have been people on this forum who have told their stories about being disowned by their parents for being atheist. Atheists tend to fly under the radar, but we still have to deal with periodic hateful bullshit: http://news.nationalpost.com/holy-post/religious-people-do-not-believe-in-atheists-study
It gets better each generation, as mystical stuff gets nudged aside by education, but good freaking luck getting an open atheist into the White House. It's been a few decades since atheists have been rounded up and slaughtered in the Western world, but yeah it's happened. These days atheists mostly just have to deal with people who assume that we are all sociopaths, or who want to convert us, but that shit gets annoying.
Sure.
You can't prove a negative (and atheism is a negative position), but you can test against a positive!
Now, granted, you have the problem of agreeing on a definition of "god," which is.... tricky.
But if you can do so, and if you can TEST godhood, then you can test godness like you can test for any other sort of category.
A man flips a coin in secret and asks everyone if they think it is heads or tails.
Some people saw the head of Jesus in a waffle and therefore believe it to be head.
Some people didn't agree with that line of reasoning and therefore believe it to be tails.
Some people believe it was actually an alien coin and if you give them all your earth coins then they will tell you what symbols were on it.
And finally some people find the entire exercise pointless and ignores the man.
Maybe agnostic isn't the right term for the last group but then what is?
People who refuse to participate.
If you want to use aliens in the analogy, say instead that a theist believes lizard people control the government. The atheist says that that's ridiculous, and believes that there's no such thing as lizard people. The agnostic says that barring evidence of lizard people, she'll assume that there are no lizard people and the idea isn't worth considering or taking into account when making decisions, but acknowledges that it is not totally impossible that the President is in fact a lizard person.
Alternatively, the theist says that the Texans will win the Super Bowl this year, the atheist says that there's no possible way that that's the case, the agnostic says "eh, it's really unlikely, but unlikely isn't the same as impossible."
Perhaps, but its not that I refuse to express my belief. I am just unable to, given binary options.
Well, I don't join atheist movements because I am not a joiner.
But as to being actively an atheist:
I am also strongly allergic to bad, uninformed or pointless atheist-targeted content.
I also think that atheist is an unfortunate term and unfortunate group to identify with, but that's the context in which we currently exist.
* by which I don't mean simply references to faith, I mean rambling incoherent world salad ignored or even encouraged because it falls under the umbrella of faith.
Part of it? Political organization to push back against theists who seek to force others to follow their beliefs.
If you want examples of these political actions by theists at any particular level of government or proof that they act specifically through their faith groups because their religions/and religious leaders tell them to, I can provide them.
It really depends on your definition of God. I could probably be convinced I'm a figment of intelligence with a lot of storage. A messenger appears offers me fairly concrete proof that the universes is mailable and under the control of an external power, I'd recognize that.
I'd have a really hard time believing it was omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenificent(sp), and desrves worship, without it and I sitting down and having a very long conversation. But, if God exists, the poor dear has got to just go on living, forever and ever and ever without getting a break, without an equal or peer. Poor fucker is probably bored and lonely, so it would probably do him some good.
A) no proposition is falsifiable in a strict sense - given every test is in fact testing the target proposition with bundles of auxiliary hypotheses it is always possible to discard an auxiliary hypothesis rather than sacrifice a target hypothesis.
C) as to whether I could be convinced there were a deity. It depends upon the deity. A tri-omni (knowing, powerful loving) deity? No, for the same reasons I couldn't be considered a four sided triangle exists in Euclidean space. A more modest conception of a deity? Possibly, but they are quite implausible and unparsimonious - but there are hypothetically situations in which the alternatives are even less parsimonious, so that would be an uphill struggle.
Trying to wrangle with your personal beliefs about God, religion, your purpose on Earth, etc can be terrifying for some people, and it can be comforting to seek out others who are also trying to figure it out, or others who have already figured it out. Many people live in areas where being an atheist isn't exactly favorable, so they seek out others who feel the same way they do to gain a sense of community.
tl;dr - the same reason there is active theism.
It's really weird looking back at people I've interacted with, people who seemed perfectly reasonable, and realizing that most of them believe in some sort of religion that's been clearly falsified. And that they probably believe in much of the evidence that falsified it. And that they don't even realize the issue there.
OK?
If you're convinced there is a deity, aren't you automatically no longer an atheist?
I guess my question could be rephrased as: could you be convinced that a deity exists, and if so how? If it matters, I'm thinking specifically of the case where this deity claims to be the Abrahamic God.
So for a more modest deity--what would need to be done to convince you that this entity was a deity?
I'm not sure this gets to the pith of it but I think my question is also asking: how do you know what to believe when what you're seeing violates everything about how you thought the universe worked? Do you doubt your own sanity? Assume what you're seeing is a trick? When do you believe you own lying eyes and what would they have to see to get you to change your belief/non-belief/negative-belief into positive belief in a deity?
---
You wouldn't think: "I'm lucid dreaming, or going crazy, or this is a hoax or a prank?" How do you tell the difference?
Omnipotent isn't too hard to demonstrate if you believe what you're seeing
Omniscient maybe have it calculate a prime number that you can then check later on. There's a lot of possibilities here. I'm interested in any specifics you guys can think of.
Omnibeneficent? Well. I'm sort of out of ideas on that one as well. Any thoughts?
I've heard it put more than once, "Organizing atheists is like herding cats." And not without reason--statistically, in the United States (and other nations--it could be said throughout the Americas with very few exceptions), where there's a very clear, demonstrable trend for newborn children to be exposed to religious assembly at the same time and with the same consistency as being inducted into pre-kindergarten/kindergarten education, if you are an atheist you are deliberately going against a strong tends societal orthodoxy and may have a disposition towards "free thought" or other radical notions (in fact, it's that, rather than than the metaphysical conviction, that I've seen make atheism attractive to a lot of people my age or younger). Compared even the smallest religious lobbies, American atheists have consistently failed to have any sort of meaningful organized clout (especially if you believe in the high-end estimates for how many there probably are), and are a pretty much nonexistent political force. I've heard it suggested there are as many avowed atheists in America as there are avowed Jews (I've also heard there are many times that, but I'm less inclined to believe as such)--I don't think anyone doubts that a Jewish president will predated an avowedly atheist, and comparing the political mobilization and influence of American Jews to American Atheists is more like a combine harvester going over a field mouse.
Even with that political failure, people like to associate with the like-minded. This is true about bowlers and it's true about atheists--if bowling received a fraction of the scorn and suspicion that is socially-acceptable to direct at atheists in the public sphere, you can bet bowlers would be substantially more motivated to assemble too. And since that scorn or even insults in extreme cases are not actively legally impeding atheists from socially acknowledging each other, all the more reason. Atheism's not a theology, and shouldn't be treated as one--the absence of belief is not a perfect analog for some other narrowly-defined faith anymore than you can equate a group of strict vegans with a community of LDS fundamentalist: those ideologies are addressing very different aspects of life (even if they do govern some aspect of moral behavior). In my own observation, atheism doesn't really seek to replicate itself the way monotheism does (and being in Georgia, I have no exposure to polytheism without exaggeration). Sure, somewhere, there are a pair of atheists who are raising children with the same philosophical starting ground as they possess--that's a thing parents do, intentionally or otherwise. I've just yet to see such a thing in the United States, because avowedly atheistic married couples with children (or without) are incredibly rare where I live.
It's not the same everywhere. In Taiwan, where Abrahamic montheists, almost all Christian, are much less numerous than people who would generally be called non-religious atheists (not including Buddhists or Taoists, whom some argue are atheists under a different name), the non-religious are almost a fifth of the population (and Christians almost a twenty-fifth). A nonreligious upbringing--an a general disbelief in God, rather than an apathy towards the idea--isn't uncommon (it's probably where I got mine--living in a Christian community just didn't change my opinion). This means there's probably even less motivation for the apathetic to assemble, since the likelihood of scorn or alienation goes down to practically zero (and it turns such assembly into an almost literal requirement for Taiwanese Christians, as a very small minority who, sure enough, have turned that into a disproportionate political influence in government).
So there's multiple reasons why atheists don't often organize into large, meaningful movements (at least, compared to other groups of the same size roughly), and where there's less reason to do so (because atheism is mainstream, at least compared to clearly, open faiths like Christianity) you'll tend to see it less. But both those can't necessarily overwhelm the general condition that people like to associate with the like-minded.
If it is really a deity, it should already know what would convince me of it's authenticity (by virtue of it's nature). All I should have to do is ask to be convinced, and it should perform the requisite task.
If it can't do that, it's not a deity; just another trickster.
Clever, but are you saying that you don't know what would convince you? Your answer is almost tautological: I will be convinced of this deity's existence if it convinces me. OK? How would it do that exactly? Torture you like Big Brother in 1984? Rewire your brain? Talk to you for as long as it takes? Produce a miracle?
A deity (according to contemporary descriptors, anyway; the ancient idea of deity was substantially different) should have such mastery over physical laws that it would be trivial for it to, say, zip me to the cretaceous period and give me a grand tour of the prehistoric world, safely show me the genesis of the universe, safely tour me around the inside of Jupiter, the sun, a low mass star, a black hole, safely show me how the universe ends, what (if anything) exists outside of the universe's horizon, how many other civilizations exist in the universe (if any), etc.
This would compel me to believe that, yes I am dealing with a deity - or something so close to it that it may as well be called a deity.
EDIT: If you wanted a specific test:
A deity should be able to bring together myself and my One True Love (TM) and wisk us away to dance on Saturn's rings to the tune of Train's Drops of Jupiter.
If it can't do that, it's not a deity.
If God made you in his own image than clearly he would know what it would take to convince you, even if you personally did not.
Oh, I know lots of people, myself included who believe in a deity, but know a good amount of the stuff about that religion is utter bullshit. Like for me, I know that Noah didn't build a boat to house 2 (or 7) of each animal on the earth, or that there was a mystical box that could kill you by accidentally looking at it. But the lessons, the traditions, and the comfort it brings is what attracts these people.
The Bible, despite all its flaws does have a substantial amount of good advice, or outdated advice that would have been applicable in those times.
Christmas, Easter, Ramadan, Yom Kippur are all great celebrations that have permeated our culture, allowing even the non-theists to enjoy Pumpkin Pie on Thanksgiving, dressing up as Donald Trump on Halloween, or celebrating excess on Mardi Gras. I know a lot of people who love the weekly services as well.
And finally, having faith gives you comfort with the questions that can't be answered (at this time). Why am I here? Where do I go when I die? Does this unit have a soul? I give atheists much credit in being able to come to terms that perhaps nothing happens after death, or that we are just a product of a billion years of some amino acids reproducing. Perhaps in time, science will be able to answer these questions, and many more will drift away from their faith.
Note, I have nothing against Atheism, I see it as more of a different way of looking at life. What I don't like is when a small percentage of vocal atheists demean me and others like me for having a different viewpoint. Focus your anger at schools who teach creationism, slut-shame women, and claim that LTGBQ people do not deserve the same rights as everyone else.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
Thing is, even if Osiris walks up and taps me on the shoulder, I see no reason to worship him.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
That's the other half of it:
A deity would also know that I respect deeds, not just power, and that I do not have a bi-chromatic view of things. It shouldn't expect me to worship it.
This. If asked this question literally, I have a vague notion of what it would take. I've changed my mind on deep-rooted matters before (most recently, acceptance of polyamorous relationships in the wake of the Supreme Court's marriage rulings, but that is neither here nor there). But I'm not obligated to know exactly how my own ideological conditioning and convictions work down to the minute details.
I'm not omniscient. The Abrahamic God is--it's a pretty damn big part of what makes it the Abrahamic God, in fact. And that's before going into omnipotence (technically speaking, the Abrahamic God should be able to literally rewire my brain into speaking a language I don't know, or more relevantly, thinking I always believed in its existence). Omniscience probably isn't even the bare minimum.
Why would you believe that was happening and not doubt the evidence of your senses? People have claimed to go on all sorts of vision quests, and had all kinds of transcendental, revelatory spiritual journeys where they were granted epiphanies by a deity; but we don't believe them. Why would you believe yourself? I mean surely your first hypothesis would be one of: this is an elaborate prank, I'm in a simulation, I'm dreaming, I'm going crazy, etc. What is the thing the deity says to you that convinces you to believe it-i.e. convinces you to believe the evidence of your lying eyes?
I don't know myself, but I'm trying to come up with a specific answer: a way to differentiate a genuine deity from a psychotic break, hallucination, or prank. I suppose this generalizes to any supernatural phenomenon really. We don't believe people who say they saw Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, a vampire, an elf, or a dryad in their backyard. So--if you really saw one--what would make you believe yourself? If everyone around you also believes in this supernatural event? If it's on the news? If an article in Science or Nature confirms it "actually" happened?
I can get as far as near omniscience--ask it to read your thoughts, or perform a checkable calculation that could only be performed by an omniscience (a calculation whose correct answer is currently unknown to humanity but can be checked natch). I guess maybe once I believe omniscience, I would be more likely to believe in omnipotence and then omnibenevolence last. From there, I guess I'm pretty much on board and I suppose convincing me of its specific identity (YHWJ, Odin, whoever) would be a piece of cake.
To be clear, I don't expect any of this to ever happen; but that doesn't get me out of the bind I'm in, which is that I don't want to say my mind is completely closed on this topic. Ok, for all practical intents and purposes it is, but I should still have a theoretical piece of evidence that would make me reconsider my beliefs, or I'm just a fanatic. I mean I never expect the Theory of Evolution to be disproved, but there are specific pieces of evidence--like the archetypal pre-Cambrian rabbit fossils--which, if they appeared, would make me go: "well shit, evolution was wrong." I don't have any such ready disproofs for my disbelief in God/the supernatural. If I cannot be convinced by new evidence--however unlikely its appearance--how am I any better than a blind fanatic?
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
There is no precedent for a human brain being able to provide a compelling, memorable, linear simulation or hallucination of the sort described (say, going back in time to watch the K-Pg impact). Narcotics tweak your sensory input, for example - they can't totally replace it. Dreams are the closest we get, but they occur in a very specific state, are fuzzy to recall in memory and very rarely follow any clear logic or linearity. Despite the hypothetical Platonic question, after you wake up, you immediately recognize the difference between real sensory input and a dream state.
Sufficiently smooth, high fidelity simulations have entirely different computational & energy problems which I doubt are surmountable.
At any rate, I honestly find these kind of questions to be dull. Without a coherent descriptor of what a deity even is, and with no compelling reason to think that some form of this yet-to-be-coherently-described thing exists, I think asking what kind of tests would be appropriate for identifying it is silly.
The question of whether the senses can be believed is what Descartes was addressing when wrote cogito ergo sum.
I would however hold that simply rewiring you to believe would be an inherently evil act, and any entity that did that should be annihilated with extreme prejudice.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The implications of any supernatural being are pretty significant because holy shit it means that some form of magic is real. But magic use is a kind of technology, no matter how weird and confusing it is. Gods just have the best wizard nukes and wizard 3D printers.
But yeah, after that, okay, so there are super wizard aliens.
Wiring someone to believe something is pretty common right here on Earth. Information from parents or clergy might as well carry the same weight to a child as the literal word of God would to an adult.
Er... no. It's not quite the same thing. There's a difference, as a matter of agency. You can choose to ignore the word of god.
I should mention that Heinlein's The Puppet Masters is a little horrifying.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Aside from the fact that you chose "The K-Pg impact" and not "vision of heaven" I don't see how your experience would be any more compelling, memorable, or linear than the bog-standard "I went to heaven and saw God and all his angels" vision that religious people feel proves their belief in a deity correct. Here's just one example:
Millions of people have "compelling, memorable, and linear" conversion experiences/divine visions all the time. And they're all bullshit, right?
I dunno I think "calculate a confirmable but as yet unknown prime" or "solve an NP problem that we can validate" is a better check than "show me a slightly different vision than the standard one religious people get all the time." But I think I am misunderstanding why you think a vision of the K-Pg impact is strong proof.
That sort of simulation which you doubt is possible? We might already be in it: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
OK I don't actually believe that, but I am bullish on the idea of a singularity, so those computational and energy problems don't bother me so much.
There's also the whole thing, where if you are dreaming and think, "hey, is this a dream?" you can typically figure it out pretty quick. At least in my personal experience.
Simulation argument will go nowhere because anything you can think of could be handled by a simulation of sufficient absurdity. You don't even know if the simulating universe has gravity.
Perhaps a god could be able to exhibit a logical paradox.