Is It Reasonable to Believe Gods Don't Exist?

[lukethethird]

Where is the militancy in anything that people who are prone towards fanaticism find? It's not atheism itself, nor Christianity, nor any other cause that is the issue. But it's the individuals themselves.

Certainly there are fantantical atheists. Einstein himself said so....

“fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who — in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium for the people’ — cannot bear the music of the spheres.”​

​

Ask yourself what is it he was looking at to say that. And then ask yourself what is it that those who refer to militant atheists are seeing. They are not saying that atheism itself is fanatical. It's not. But you certainly do have those individuals who are fanatical atheists, just as you have fanatical Christians. You have fundi Christians, and you have fundi atheists.

I put this way all the time. It's not you believe, but how you believe it that makes you a fundamentalist or not.

No, I do not call that fanaticism. His book "The God Delusion" is saying that anyone who believe in God is delusional. That's what is his own ill-founded personal grudge, which I'd say makes his cause overboard, or fanatical if you wish.

Opposing Creationism isn't fanaticism. It's pretend science, and shouldn't be considered science. That's reasonable. Calling all religious beliefs from top to bottom "delusional" however, is something altogether different. You don't hear me say atheism is fanatical, or delusional. I don't say that about religions either. However, you have those who are fanatics who adhere to both positions. It's not what you believe in, but how you believe in it that matters. This really isn't hard to understand.

I already commented on the Einstein quote. I know what your little game is, you are trying to equate non-belief with religious belief so you can say non-believers are as fanatical and as militant as believers, when there simply is no equivalence to be had. Nazis, neo-nazis and the KKK are fine examples of Christian fanaticism and militancy within our societies, so if you are going to apply those nouns to atheists then you are going to have to come up with something comparable, and the fact that you can't means you have lost this debate. BTW, what is it that people don't believe in that makes them "fanatical," Vishnu, Krishna, Zeus, Leprechauns, ghosts, or whatever supernatural entity it is that you happen to believe in? Which supernatural entity is it and why that one?

 

[lukethethird]

Militant's a loaded term. A compelling and well reasoned defense of one's position doesn't equate with violent extremism, but calling it militant can certainly imply it.

As for radical action, I don't see any violence of compulsion from the non-believers. It's those with something to loose, an ego-investment to defend, or a position built on sand who are likely to resort to violence.
The non-believing dissenters fight with words. Their position is defensible intellectually.

Exactly, that pretty well sums it up.

 

[Audie]

Where is the militancy in anything that people who are prone towards fanaticism find? It's not atheism itself, nor Christianity, nor any other cause that is the issue. But it's the individuals themselves.

Certainly there are fantantical atheists. Einstein himself said so....

“fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who — in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium for the people’ — cannot bear the music of the spheres.”​

​

Ask yourself what is it he was looking at to say that. And then ask yourself what is it that those who refer to militant atheists are seeing. They are not saying that atheism itself is fanatical. It's not. But you certainly do have those individuals who are fanatical atheists, just as you have fanatical Christians. You have fundi Christians, and you have fundi atheists.

I put this way all the time. It's not you believe, but how you believe it that makes you a fundamentalist or not.

No, I do not call that fanaticism. His book "The God Delusion" is saying that anyone who believe in God is delusional. That's what is his own ill-founded personal grudge, which I'd say makes his cause overboard, or fanatical if you wish.

Opposing Creationism isn't fanaticism. It's pretend science, and shouldn't be considered science. That's reasonable. Calling all religious beliefs from top to bottom "delusional" however, is something altogether different. You don't hear me say atheism is fanatical, or delusional. I don't say that about religions either. However, you have those who are fanatics who adhere to both positions. It's not what you believe in, but how you believe in it that matters. This really isn't hard to understand.

What belief in the supernatural is not
delusional?
This would be very important information.

 

[Hold]

What belief in the supernatural is not
delusional?
This would be very important information.

De·lu·sion·al
/dəˈlo͞oZH(ə)nəl/

adjective

• 1.characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, typically as a symptom of a mental condition:"hospitalization for schizophrenia and delusional paranoia"

 

[leroy]

It is less likely to be true, inasmuch as it's based on nothing but a whim, and supported by fantasy.

Ok but you are making the claim that the hypothesis is supported by fantásy...
The burden proof is on you

 

[leroy]

I understand the reaction as being surprised and offended by what is understood as insolence, blasphemy, and an unprovoked, mean-spirited attack:

"The problem with being privileged your whole life is that because you have had that privilege for so long, equality starts to look like oppression." - Mark Caddo

What it shows is that you still don't understand parsimony in this context. You seem to think it has something to do with the number of words you use. It doesn't.

Learn what that word means and demonstrate that you have, and then we can have this discussion. That's not too much to ask, and if you won't or can't, then there is nothing more I can say to you on that matter that you haven't seen before. If you disagree with any of that, please explain why you think it's wrong - not merely THAT you think it's wrong, but what part of it is incorrect in your estimation and WHY you think that, that is, your falsification of the claim.

Maybe you think you already understand Occam's razor and how to apply it. If so, I disagree. Study the topic and return with a new and correct understanding, and then we can continue.

Maybe you think that if we go through this a few more times, you'll eventually understand. Once again, I disagree. The material went by you and you missed it more than once, and it had no impact on your subsequent posting.

Maybe you think you can't learn this independently. I told you where to go for answers and suggested search parameters. I don't need to ask whether you did that or not.

I have interacted with you for years, Leroy. You ask a lot of questions, but you're not really paying attention to or interested in the answers enough to focus on them. You don't engage. I don't know if you know what I mean by that - what I'm looking for and not getting - and because of this habit of not engaging, I expect that I still won't after your reply to this.

Let me illustrate with an example response:

"Sorry you think that I don't pay attention to your words and am unaffected by them. Let me prove you wrong with this reply. Yes, I think I understand and know how to apply the razor. What do you think is wrong with my definition of parsimony, which is [...]? How does that differ from yours or the ones on the Internet I studied at your recommendation, which are [...]? And you're wrong (or correct) about my not paying attention to your answers or learning anything from them. This is what you said: [...]. Ane here is where and why I disagree: [...]. "

This would be the kind of reply that lets me know that we are having the same discussion. What I'm more used to is something like another ghost example and the same questions previously asked and answered.

Wow I guess I'll have to apologize for calling you a lier in the past,

Now I understand that you are not a lier, you are just too arrogant to admit your mistakes.

I proved to you clearly and unabigouslly that supernatural hypothesis are not *necesairly* less parsimonious that natural hypothesis, and you refused to learn this and add this to your list of "new knowledge "

 

[leroy]

I don't. Any natural explanation that takes all known facts into account is better than magic

That is not necesairly true.
The hypothesis
"Poncious pilate caused the resurection of Jesus using alien technology, is a "natural explanation " but it is obviously worst as an explanation than God did it (supernatural)


But Granted, that is usually true. (Lets say it is allways true for the sake of the argument)

You still haven proposed a natural hypothesis that accounts for all that facts.

. And my favourite explanation does that with no assumption to make, I don't have to look any further.

None of the explanations that you have proposed account for all the facts.

 

[Audie]

De·lu·sion·al
/dəˈlo͞oZH(ə)nəl/
View attachment 83283
adjective

• 1.characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, typically as a symptom of a mental condition:"hospitalization for schizophrenia and delusional paranoia"

De·lu·sion·al
/dəˈlo͞oZH(ə)nəl/
View attachment 83283
adjective

• 1.characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, typically as a symptom of a mental condition:"hospitalization for schizophrenia and delusional paranoia"

Are you religious or perchance a creationist?
The dim attempt to negate what I said by
selectively choosing the portion of a definition that
suits your purpose is the kind of dishonesty we
expect from fundys.

 

[Windwalker]

I already commented on the Einstein quote.

And I agreed with that. But where you did not address this is that fanaticism in atheism is no different than fanaticism in Christianity, and that "militant" in its common use does not mean the same as armed militias, but denonets the same thing Einstein was speaking of as fanaticism. You didn't address any of that.

I know what your little game is, you are trying to equate non-belief with religious belief so you can say non-believers are as fanatical and as militant as believers, when there simply is no equivalence to be had.

There is no game whatever here. I have not, am not, and will not ever equate all believers or non-believers as fanatical. That is your thing. I have clearly, concisely, and repeatedly said again and again, that there are fanatics in religion and in atheism, but that religion and atheism are not in themselves fanatical or militant. I never once said that atheism is fanatical.

Here's what I'm seeing here. It is in fact you who imagines that religious people are all blind fanatics, and you worry that by me, or anyone else suggesting that you have individuals that are fanatics in atheism, that in your mind that means that we are trying to say atheism is as ****ed up as you see religion in your mind. In other words, you are projecting. You are projecting what you are unfairly doing with religion, and worrying that others seeing your new chosen belief of atheism in the same way you see religion.

This is classic projection. You fear others are doing what you are doing, but don't wish to acknowledge to yourself you are doing. "How dare you say all atheists are fanatics!" No one has ever said that. Why is it you hear that then?

Nazis, neo-nazis and the KKK are fine examples of Christian fanaticism and militancy within our societies

Actually, no they are not. The KKK is other Christian Militias are examples of Nationalism. They are not Christianity.

Did you ignore what I posted about the common use of militancy, and just repeat your view without support? Why are you ignoring clearly evidenced support of the use of militant in which everyone but you agree to understand how it is clearly being meant and used? Please explain this: Militant - Wikipedia

The English word militant is both an adjective and a noun, and it is generally used to mean vigorously active, combative and/or aggressive, especially in support of a cause, as in "militant reformers"​

​

The current meaning of militant does not usually refer to a registered soldier: it can be anyone who subscribes to the idea of using vigorous, sometimes extreme, activity to achieve an objective, usually political. A "militant [political] activist" would be expected to be more confrontational and aggressive than an activist not described as militant.​

​

Militance may or may not include physical violence, armed combat, terrorism, and the like. The Trotskyist Militant group in the United Kingdom published a newspaper, was active in labour disputes, moved resolutions in political meetings, but was not based on violence. The purpose of the Christian Church Militant is to struggle against sin, the devil and ". . . the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12), but it is not a violent movement.​

​

Militant can mean "vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause" as in 'militant reformers'.[1] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, defines militant as "Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause". The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines militant as "aggressively active (as in a cause)".[2] It says that the word militant might typically be used in phrases such as 'militant conservationists' or 'a militant attitude'.[2]​

I mean seriously, how is it you are ignoring all of this? Please explain yourself to us?

, so if you are going to apply those nouns to atheists then you are going to have to come up with something comparable, and the fact that you can't means you have lost this debate.

You have already lost the debate by ignoring the common use of the word, and trying to force it against evidence to mean those like the KKK. Unless you can support that that is what that word means, throw away all the dictionaries and all the common uses and limit it to your idea alone, then in fact you have lost the debate already.

BTW, what is it that people don't believe in that makes them "fanatical," Vishnu, Krishna, Zeus, Leprechauns, ghosts, or whatever supernatural entity it is that you happen to believe in? Which supernatural entity is it and why that one?

It's what they do believe in, and how they believe in it, how they hold that belief that makes them fanatics, or militants. "All God beliefs are woo-woo delusions!" That is a statement of belief. That is what they believe to be true, that God belief is delusional. And that is what is an issue in all of this.

Can you acknowledge any of what I have said above, or is the only truth your own truth and you get to just ignore and not respond to the supporting arguments that others raise when they disagree with your beliefs, the way Creationists ignore the evidences from science. That is what I am seeing as the familiar pattern share in common. It's not what you believe, but HOW you believe, which includes dodging and weaving and ignoring evidence.

 

[Heyo]

None of the explanations that you have proposed account for all the facts.

True.
All of the explanations that I have proposed account for all the facts.
Also true.
Because I haven't proposed any explanations yet.

 

[lukethethird]

And I agreed with that. But where you did not address this is that fanaticism in atheism is no different than fanaticism in Christianity, and that "militant" in its common use does not mean the same as armed militias, but denonets the same thing Einstein was speaking of as fanaticism. You didn't address any of that.

There is no game whatever here. I have not, am not, and will not ever equate all believers or non-believers as fanatical. That is your thing. I have clearly, concisely, and repeatedly said again and again, that there are fanatics in religion and in atheism, but that religion and atheism are not in themselves fanatical or militant. I never once said that atheism is fanatical.

Here's what I'm seeing here. It is in fact you who imagines that religious people are all blind fanatics, and you worry that by me, or anyone else suggesting that you have individuals that are fanatics in atheism, that in your mind that means that we are trying to say atheism is as ****ed up as you see religion in your mind. In other words, you are projecting. You are projecting what you are unfairly doing with religion, and worrying that others seeing your new chosen belief of atheism in the same way you see religion.

This is classic projection. You fear others are doing what you are doing, but don't wish to acknowledge to yourself you are doing. "How dare you say all atheists are fanatics!" No one has ever said that. Why is it you hear that then?


Actually, no they are not. The KKK is other Christian Militias are examples of Nationalism. They are not Christianity.

Did you ignore what I posted about the common use of militancy, and just repeat your view without support? Why are you ignoring clearly evidenced support of the use of militant in which everyone but you agree to understand how it is clearly being meant and used? Please explain this: Militant - Wikipedia

The English word militant is both an adjective and a noun, and it is generally used to mean vigorously active, combative and/or aggressive, especially in support of a cause, as in "militant reformers"​

​

The current meaning of militant does not usually refer to a registered soldier: it can be anyone who subscribes to the idea of using vigorous, sometimes extreme, activity to achieve an objective, usually political. A "militant [political] activist" would be expected to be more confrontational and aggressive than an activist not described as militant.​

​

Militance may or may not include physical violence, armed combat, terrorism, and the like. The Trotskyist Militant group in the United Kingdom published a newspaper, was active in labour disputes, moved resolutions in political meetings, but was not based on violence. The purpose of the Christian Church Militant is to struggle against sin, the devil and ". . . the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12), but it is not a violent movement.​

​

Militant can mean "vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause" as in 'militant reformers'.[1] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, defines militant as "Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause". The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines militant as "aggressively active (as in a cause)".[2] It says that the word militant might typically be used in phrases such as 'militant conservationists' or 'a militant attitude'.[2]​

I mean seriously, how is it you are ignoring all of this? Please explain yourself to us?


You have already lost the debate by ignoring the common use of the word, and trying to force it against evidence to mean those like the KKK. Unless you can support that that is what that word means, throw away all the dictionaries and all the common uses and limit it to your idea alone, then in fact you have lost the debate already.

It's what they do believe in, and how they believe in it, how they hold that belief that makes them fanatics, or militants. "All God beliefs are woo-woo delusions!" That is a statement of belief. That is what they believe to be true, that God belief is delusional. And that is what is an issue in all of this.

Can you acknowledge any of what I have said above, or is the only truth your own truth and you get to just ignore and not respond to the supporting arguments that others raise when they disagree with your beliefs, the way Creationists ignore the evidences from science. That is what I am seeing as the familiar pattern share in common. It's not what you believe, but HOW you believe, which includes dodging and weaving and ignoring evidence.

I certainly don't equate all believers with fanaticism and militancy. You have failed to show how atheists can be militant or fanatical within the common usage of the terms, terms that can and do apply to some of the religious we know of. You have failed to provide any examples of militant and fanatical atheists within our societies that are comparable to Nazis or the KKK, and BTW, I wouldn't want to be you should you tell klan members to their face that they are not Christian. You have to concede and move on. If you continue to claim that atheists such as Dawkins are militant and fanatical, well, you will be viewed as delusional, up to you.

 

[Hold]

Are you religious or perchance a creationist?
The dim attempt to negate what I said by
selectively choosing the portion of a definition that
suits your purpose is the kind of dishonesty we
expect from fundys.

I am someone who feels the word, 'delusional' to describe 'faith' is poorly chosen. I am not religious. Creationism defies common knowledge.

 

[Bthoth]

Creationism defies common knowledge.

Creationism is understood as common but most definitely not accepted as true or good knowledge.

I knew of a strange acceptance in the sciences that bridges into society. The calorie. Lavoisier's caloric had been long past discounted and left for dead in the scientific community but still used constantly in modern society as a tool to measure with.

 

[Audie]

I am someone who feels the word, 'delusional' to describe 'faith' is poorly chosen. I am not religious. Creationism defies common knowledge.

I suppose you would be correct if
someone drscribed faith that way.
I didn't, tho, so why mention it.

You otoh knowingly and with intent
did choose a semantics game, substituting
" faith" and "religion" for the word I used,
and, selecting a definition for "delusion"
you could use to appear to negate what i
actually did say.

Why you find this meaningful, idk.
Seems silly to me. Cease, I will read nor
respond to more of the same.

 

[Audie]

Creationism is understood as common but most definitely not accepted as true or good knowledge.

I knew of a strange acceptance in the sciences that bridges into society. The calorie. Lavoisier's caloric had been long past discounted and left for dead in the scientific community but still used constantly in modern society as a tool to measure with.

What are you talking about?
You seem confused.

 

[Bthoth]

What are you talking about?
You seem confused.

Please be specific.

Edit: I see the problem, the words 'defies'.

 

[Valjean]

Ok but you are making the claim that the hypothesis is supported by fantásy...
The burden proof is on you

It's still your "hypothesis."
Show your objective evidence, otherwise, subjective 'fantasy'.

 

[Valjean]

That is not necesairly true.
The hypothesis
"Poncious pilate caused the resurection of Jesus using alien technology, is a "natural explanation " but it is obviously worst as an explanation than God did it (supernatural)

Neither a hypothesis nor explanation, just an assertion, based on fantasy.

But Granted, that is usually true. (Lets say it is allways true for the sake of the argument)

You still haven proposed a natural hypothesis that accounts for all that facts.


None of the explanations that you have proposed account for all the facts.

By "the facts" do you mean the religious narrative? That hasn't been established as factual. Using it as a premise is just going in circles.

 

[Valjean]

Creationism is understood as common but most definitely not accepted as true or good knowledge.

I knew of a strange acceptance in the sciences that bridges into society. The calorie. Lavoisier's caloric had been long past discounted and left for dead in the scientific community but still used constantly in modern society as a tool to measure with.

??? -- But it is. It's a unit of heat.

 

[Valjean]

I am someone who feels the word, 'delusional' to describe 'faith' is poorly chosen. I am not religious. Creationism defies common knowledge.

How does faith depart from the definition of "delusion?"