Challenging preconceived ideas of atheists

El_Duderino 09

katydid wrote: »

I didn't mean everyone on this forum has pre-conceived ideas. But some do - they have decided that the only way to think is a logical one, and there is no room for other angles, such as accepting that not everything fits into handy explicable formulae. Even that myths, that have been told and written for millennia as a way to try to understand the world, are "useless" because they are not factually true.

I want acceptance from atheists about believing something illogical because to refuse to believe that everything that is not explicable by logic and reason is, in my opinion, a very limited way of seeing the world. A world like that would have no creativity, no music, no art, no literature. Human nature needs and has the ability to look beyond that is visible and provable.

I think you're veering towards social constructionist viewpoint here.

You see effects in reality and ascribe those effects to a 'God'. Therefore god exists because god exists for you as an explanation for, as yet unexplained effects.

The second paragraph is way off the deep end. Can you think of any other realms of reality which do not conform to logic? If you can mention any I would be open to learning about them. If you can't, and your god is the only thing outside the realm of formal logic, then your argument is a simple case of special pleading.

As for creativity... this is silly. We can all be creative and use our imagination, The difference between you and most of the people on this forum is that most people know that things they make up in their imagination are not real. We can all make up stories but the trick is knowing not to believe the story you just made up.

RikuoAmero

Saying 'I believe God exists but I can't provide any evidence to support my position', as Katydid has done, is a subjective opinion.Saying 'I believe God exists but I can't provide any evidence to support my position', as Katydid has done, is a subjective opinion.

I disagree. As Mark said, saying "I believe God exists" is something entirely different than saying "I like this painting but I can't explain why". The belief that a God exists is a belief about shared objective reality, something that the believer believes impacts literally everyone. On the other hand, someone who likes a painting but can't explain why...that impacts only that one person.
What Katy is doing is saying her subjective opinion about objective reality...which is what every single thinking entity does, including you and me.

I take Katydids stance as 'I believe God exists, I would like you to consider this belief to be valid, and I would like you therefore to respect this belief'. I've looked at the belief, don't consider it valid, and hence don't respect it. I respect her entitlement to hold the belief, and to argue it, but that is about as far as it goes.

Same here. For me, valid = true, and = possible to be shown to be true. Her stance of "It hasn't been disproven, and can't be disproven" is for me invalid, and thus, I cannot respect it. I respect her right to have that belief, but I don't respect the belief in and of itself. I think it fallacious and potentially harmful.

swampgas

Shrap wrote: »

My Dad was explaining about scales just the other day! Maths has to be the highest art form, even though it's the one I understand the least.

Just don't tell the mathematicians, their egos are big enough as it is :pac:

smacl

Shrap wrote: »

My Dad was explaining about scales just the other day! Maths has to be the highest art form, even though it's the one I understand the least.

Off topic, but I tend to think of maths like language, more of a medium than an art. Sometimes used to beautiful effect, sometimes fugly and poorly expressed, regularly taught quite badly. I enjoyed Conrad Wolfram's talk on how we should be teaching it.

Shrap

smacl wrote: »

Off topic, but I tend to think of maths like language, more of a medium than an art. Sometimes used to beautiful effect, sometimes fugly and poorly expressed, regularly taught quite badly. I enjoyed Conrad Wolfram's talk on how we should be teaching it.

It just seems to me that (in it's highest form) the leaps of lateral thinking involved in even coming up with the questions that have since been answered and proven through mathematics (thereby enhancing our understanding of the universe, and how to use it), is closer to art than any other scientific discipline!

Yes, it's a medium ...through which artistic questions can be explored!

robindch

katydid wrote: »

[...] I am still being told I am being confrontational - for example, for pointing out my belief that the mod in question is being dishonest in misquoting me. [...] This post will probably be deleted so my side of the story can't be put forward, so I will send it to you in a PM as well. It's probably the last you'll hear of me, since it will no doubt be considered "anti-social", "confrontational", even "reprehensible" - all words used by said mod to describe my posts...

Several points here which you might wish to consider:

• You didn't say it was your belief that another poster was being dishonest, you said directly that another poster was displaying "dishonesty" and "shameless bias". There is a difference between stating something as a fact and something as a belief and I would expect somebody with an advanced university qualification in literature to appreciate the difference.
• You were not misquoted since your text was text precisely. You may have been misinterpreted, which is a different thing. In the case of misinterpretation, which is especially likely when the source prose is ungrammatical, you are free to clarify the misinterpretation. Again, I would expect somebody with an advanced university qualification in literature would appreciate the difference between a misquote and a misinterpretation.
• The only text which has been deleted (and which was returned to you by PM) was text which violated general boards.ie rules on inthread/inforum complaints on moderation, for which you were referred to teh feedback + DR forums, repeatedly. Your comments on everything else have not been touched.
• Your willingness to feel persecuted here, and your unwillingness to discuss topics peacefully, doesn't do your points of view much credit.

Pherekydes

swampgas wrote: »

Just don't tell the mathematicians, their egos are big enough as it is :pac:

Ahem:

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

Not necessarily. I can like something without having to analyse why I like it. Similarly I can have a passion for something, without need or desire to underpin it with logic. Some things I like or find humour in precisely because they are nonsensical. We all act and make decisions purely on a whim from time to time.

Just because we don't always examine the logic behind our tastes doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

smacl wrote: »

Saying 'I believe God exists but I can't provide any evidence to support my position', as Katydid has done, is a subjective opinion.

No, it is still an objective claim as she is making a prediction about reality. If she said "I would like it if God exists" then she would be offering a subjective opinion.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Just because we don't always examine the logic behind our tastes doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Logic simply lets us ask why, which may have no significant value. For example, I like riding my bike. Knowing why doesn't alter this, it just wastes time that I could better spend riding my bike.

No, it is still an objective claim as she is making a prediction about reality. If she said "I would like it if God exists" then she would be offering a subjective opinion.

I would suggest any personally held belief is a subjective opinion that can't be considered objectively until supporting evidence is provided. For example, I might say that I believe that Ireland will win the next rugby world cup. This is a faith based subjective opinion that makes a prediction about a possible future reality. Once I try to convince you that Ireland will win, you will ask me why, I will give my reasons, and we can consider why my subjective opinion carries any merit when viewed objectively.

robindch wrote: »

There is a difference between stating something as a fact and something as a belief

challengemaster

smacl wrote: »

Logic simply lets us ask why, which may have no significant value. For example, I like riding my bike. Knowing why doesn't alter this, it just wastes time that I could better spend riding my bike.

May have no significant value to you, perhaps. That doesn't mean it's insignificant to everyone.

Lets replace "riding my bike" with the "use of narcotics". Similarly, knowing why people like it doesn't alter how much they like it. It all goes back to basic neurotransmitters.

However, knowing why people like it has allowed things like methadone to be developed as an opioid-dependency treatment. Similarly with nicotine patches/vaping/etc. Multi-million or billion euro industries all based on something that holds no significant value to an end user.

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

Logic simply lets us ask why, which may have no significant value. For example, I like riding my bike. Knowing why doesn't alter this, it just wastes time that I could better spend riding my bike.

That's not the same thing as logic not applying, which is my point. Logic applies, but for subjective situations (our personal tastes) we tend not to consider the logic in favour of just enjoying our tastes.

smacl wrote: »

I would suggest any personally held belief is a subjective opinion that can't be considered objectively until supporting evidence is provided. For example, I might say that I believe that Ireland will win the next rugby world cup. This is a faith based subjective opinion that makes a prediction about a possible future reality. Once I try to convince you that Ireland will win, you will ask me why, I will give my reasons, and we can consider why my subjective opinion carries any merit when viewed objectively.

It is not a subjective opinion, it is an objective claim about an external entity. You believe Ireland will win the world cup regardless of observer. Saying "I would like Ireland to win" is subjective, as the only observer is you, so the claim is subjective to you.

You can put "I believe" in front of any claim, but it does not change the claim from objective to subjective or vice-versa.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You can put "I believe" in front of any claim, but it does not change the claim from objective to subjective or vice-versa.

Prefixing a statement with 'I believe...' exactly places what follows as subjective opinion until better qualified. Saying I believe God exists is a statement of subjective opinion (faith), saying God exists is an assertion (fact).

smacl

challengemaster wrote: »

Lets replace "riding my bike" with the "use of narcotics". Similarly, knowing why people like it doesn't alter how much they like it. It all goes back to basic neurotransmitters.

However, knowing why people like it has allowed things like methadone to be developed as an opioid-dependency treatment. Similarly with nicotine patches/vaping/etc. Multi-million or billion euro industries all based on something that holds no significant value to an end user.

You've just replaced something of negligible value with something of significant value and then gone on to explain why that thing is valuable. What exactly is that supposed to prove?

challengemaster

smacl wrote: »

You've just replaced something of negligible value with something of significant value and then gone on to explain why that thing is valuable. What exactly is that supposed to prove?

It's not of negligible value though. That may be your perception, which is why I substituted it.

Understanding why people enjoy cycling is of significant value to bicycle manufacturers, psychologists & sport psychologists, scientists....etc etc.

Similarly going back to art - understanding the logic behind why people like certain art pieces is of significant value. Again, maybe not to the end user - but to the artist and the manufacturers involved in producing the canvas or the paints. Do you think paintings would contain red if it evoked no response?

Just because you choose not to analyse why you like something, does not mean it's not linked to a subconscious response being evoked.

smacl

challengemaster wrote: »

It's not of negligible value though. That may be your perception, which is why I substituted it.

Understanding why people enjoy cycling is of significant value to bicycle manufacturers, psychologists & sport psychologists, scientists....etc etc.

Similarly going back to art - understanding the logic behind why people like certain art pieces is of significant value. Again, maybe not to the end user - but to the artist and the manufacturers involved in producing the canvas or the paints. Do you think paintings would contain red if it evoked no response?

Just because you choose not to analyse why you like something, does not mean it's not linked to a subconscious response being evoked.

Fair enough if you're in marketing, though I sometimes fear that type of analysis leads to Simon Cowel's next boy band, and a McDonalds on every street corner.

In terms of art, I think the subconscious response evoked by a given piece might vary hugely between individuals and also be something very different from what the artists was hoping to convey, if in fact it was even their intention to elicit such as response in the first instance. For me, it is enough just to like a piece, rather than agree with a consensus understanding of the deeper meaning of the piece arrived at by the more fashionable art critics of the day.

I love Messerschmidt's Variation of A Cheeky Nitpicky Mocker, no idea why

Turtwig

swampgas wrote: »

I also find great beauty and elegance in maths and science - Euler's equation blew me away the first time I saw it,

This was you wasn't it? :P

endacl

Pherekydes wrote: »

Ahem:

So.... There wasn't enough room over on the right hand side for all the musicians, eh...? They're off-screen?

:pac:

Turtwig

endacl wrote: »

So.... There wasn't enough room over on the right hand side for all the musicians, eh...? They're off-screen?

:pac:

Indeed they were so far right they ended up back on the left. :pac:

katydid

smacl wrote: »

I take Katydids stance as 'I believe God exists, I would like you to consider this belief to be valid, and I would like you therefore to respect this belief'. I've looked at the belief, don't consider it valid, and hence don't respect it. I respect her entitlement to hold the belief, and to argue it, but that is about as far as it goes.

No, I don't expect anyone to respect my belief, and more than I respect theirs. I expect those who don't believe what I believe to respect that the fact that I believe what I do does not make me stupid.

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

For me, valid = true, and = possible to be shown to be true. Her stance of "It hasn't been disproven, and can't be disproven" is for me invalid, and thus, I cannot respect it. I respect her right to have that belief, but I don't respect the belief in and of itself. I think it fallacious and potentially harmful.

No more than I respect your belief that simply because something can't be proven, it can be determined not to exist. But I don't consider you stupid or deluded for holding that belief.

looksee

Looks like an impass so! Moving on...

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

Prefixing a statement with 'I believe...' exactly places what follows as subjective opinion until better qualified.

Prefixing a claim with "I believe" does not change the subject of the claim so it does not make an objective claim into a subjective one.

Overall, what you are arguing is that admittedly un-qualified claims about reality shouldn't be examined like qualified claims about reality because they are un-qualified claims about reality. Which is circular logic.

smacl wrote: »

Saying I believe God exists is a statement of subjective opinion (faith), saying God exists is an assertion (fact).

Saying I believe God exists is an assertion supported by subjective opinion (faith), saying God exists is an assertion (supported by some facts, presumably). Both are assertions though. The only difference between opinion, claim, assertion, statement etc. is the amount and/or type of evidence which is usually offered with them, not the way that evidence should examined.

Mark Hamill

katydid wrote: »

No more than I respect your belief that simply because something can't be proven, it can be determined not to exist. But I don't consider you stupid or deluded for holding that belief.

But if you don't respect our non-belief then how do you not think negatively of us for having it? Why do you think we have our non-belief?

jank

Gbear wrote: »

Have you considered that those "good" atheists would act exactly the same when posting on a forum like this?

No, because they wouldn't need to chew the fat and talk random $hite to other 'like-minded' atheists in the first place. They just get on with their lives.....

Gbear wrote: »

There's a somewhat monolithic (but far from completely) sociopolitical left wing bent on this forum and any place with a large contingent of more or less like-minded people will create some self-reinforcement but I certainly don't think it's any worse or even as bad as most other places.
I think there can certainly be an element of getting ganged up on but if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

I have seen plenty of threads on Feedback and by other long time posters on boards commenting on the hostility of this forum to certain scared cows (and we are not talking religion per say here). The place would be a good example of the echo chamber effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Prefixing a claim with "I believe" does not change the subject of the claim so it does not make an objective claim into a subjective one.

I believe... is a subjective statement, where I am the subject and believe is the verb. What follows is the subjective belief about the statement that follows.

subjective
səbˈdʒɛktɪv/Submit
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
synonyms: personal, personalized, individual, internal, emotional, instinctive, intuitive, impressionistic; More
antonyms: objective, impartial
dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.
2.
GRAMMAR
relating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence.

Overall, what you are arguing is that admittedly un-qualified claims about reality shouldn't be examined like qualified claims about reality because they are un-qualified claims about reality. Which is circular logic.

Semantics aside, a statement starting with I believe... leaves room for discussion, typically prompting the question Why do you believe..?. This is very different from presenting something as a fact.

Saying I believe God exists is an assertion supported by subjective opinion (faith), saying God exists is an assertion (supported by some facts, presumably). Both are assertions though. The only difference between opinion, claim, assertion, statement etc. is the amount and/or type of evidence which is usually offered with them, not the way that evidence should examined.

Saying I believe God exists is offering a subjective personal opinion about the existence of God. Saying I believe in God in no way implies that you or anyone else believe in God, and is hence a personal subjective stance. Saying God exists implies that God exists to you and everyone else as well, and is hence an assertion that attempts to be objective.

jank

smacl wrote: »

Maybe ask yourself why someone would change their opinion from a face to face environment versus a more anonymous one. If someone would not dare to express themselves to you in the flesh as they would in this forum, does that imply a degree of intimidation to conform in the former instance?

Sorry but that is a cop out. Are you saying then that people who troll the $hit out of dead people on twitter or whatever are 'intimidated' by general society to conform in public.

No, they do it because they are assholes and keyboard warriors. 30 years ago, pre-internet, they would probably be secretly drowning the next door neighbors cat or something.

smacl

katydid wrote: »

No, I don't expect anyone to respect my belief, and more than I respect theirs. I expect those who don't believe what I believe to respect that the fact that I believe what I do does not make me stupid.

Cool. I accept that what you believe does not make you stupid. I don't respect the belief itself, because I consider it entirely unsupported. I find your belief to be misguided, but then most religious people would take my lack of belief to be the same. Hows that?

(I still wonder at what brings you to an atheist forum to ponder your beliefs. If it includes an element of prosletysation, evangelising or plain ol' fashioned missionary work, I have zero respect for that, though I'm starting to doubt that it does).

MrPudding

katydid wrote: »

No more than I respect your belief that simply because something can't be proven, it can be determined not to exist. But I don't consider you stupid or deluded for holding that belief.

Has anyone actually called you stupid? I know you have already been asked this question, but I don't recall an answer. Or are you just assuming that people think you are stupid because you beleive they are stupid and feel they must think the same way?

I think this is what Mark is getting at above. I don't know you, so all I have to go on is what you say here. From what you are saying you are apparently reasonably well qualified and this makes it seem reasonable to assume that you are reasonably intelligent and probably not, in general terms, stupid. However, some of the stuff you beleive is, IMO, stupid. Really, really stupid. Now that does not mean I think you are stupid, we have already established that, assuming you are being truthful, you are reasonably intelligent. The world is full of clever people beleiving really stupid things, so there is noting unique there.

In summary, I am not sure what you are getting annoyed about. We are perfectly entitled to think what you beleive is really, really stupid, cos it is, but that does not say anything about you really. At worst it might suggest that you are stupid in certain areas, but I don't even think that is the case. I don't think people are, necessarily, stupid in certain areas, simply that in certain areas they are less prone to analyse beliefs using the same and critical thinking they might use elsewhere. Which is pretty much exactly what you have said you do.

I am guessing that if you thought about it, your view of us would likely be broadly similar.

MrP

smacl

jank wrote: »

Sorry but that is a cop out. Are you saying then that people who troll the $hit out of dead people on twitter or whatever are 'intimidated' by general society to conform in public.

Never used twitter, but yes, I imagine so. If someone behave like a dick while anonymous, chances are they're a repressed dick in a face to face environment. Of course they could just be a common or garden dick there too. Similarly, if someone more openly discusses their personal feelings, beliefs, sexuality etc... on-line they may be using anonymity to be more honest. If they can't do this while not being anonymous, perhaps they feel intimidated.

No, they do it because they are assholes and keyboard warriors. 30 years ago, pre-internet, they would probably be secretly drowning the next door neighbors cat or something.

Terrible them and us argument. Referring to a group of people you've never met as assholes places you in the illusory them camp of your own making. I find I can avoid a lot of needless confrontation by assuming there is only an 'Us'.

Not sure where you're going with the cat. I was going to suggest putting it back in the bag, but wouldn't want to be taken up wrong

Shrap

smacl wrote: »

If it includes an element of prosletysation, evangelising or plain ol' fashioned missionary work, I have zero respect for that, though I'm starting to doubt that it does).

I doubt that very much that she's evangelising. In fairness, I've seen nothing said by katy that implies she thinks she's more right in her beliefs. We don't claim to be right either but the difference being I think (and as far as I can work out), we do claim to be more right because there is no evidence to support otherwise. Hence her problem with atheist belief.

Problem is for her that we in fact are more right, as the facts support our view that there are no gods. As people who cannot be convinced that an unsupported claim is right unless it is supported by evidence, we come to the age old clash between the faithless and the faithful. Never the twain shall meet.