How I Feel About Atheists

[PureX]

It is not fair to use the term 'existence' in a different manner from pretty much everyone else and then proceed to say the others are fools. When we say something exists ( or not ), we don't mean that it exists conceptually ( since that is a given ), we mean that it exists apart from our minds.

It is not logical to ignore the interdependent web of cause and effect regarding cognition, and not of everything else. To do so would be a blatant and unreasonable bias. The idea of "God" is being generated within a biological phenomena that was designed by natural forces to do so. And it has been generated as a direct response to the cognitive mind's interactions with the rest of the physical world. It doesn't matter how many people do it; to claim that "ideas are not real" is illogical. And to maintain this illogical assumption out of habit or 'groupthink' is an unsupportable bias.

Two points here.
First one is that if I find sufficient reason to believe that something is true, then I believe in it. If I don't find sufficient reason, then I don't believe in it. I refrain from wishful thinking as much as I can. Whether something is beneficial to me won't change my judgment about its truth value. If you are any different that's entirely up to you.
The second point is that people aren't really taught how to cope with life. The benefit I see coming from religion is the solace that is offered at times of need, but it is possible to provide solace without religion.

I know you believe all of this, but in actuality you don't even know that you'll wake up, tomorrow. Or that if you do wake up, gravity will still be in effect and the Earth's atmosphere will still be breathable. Or a million other things that are essential to your everyday existence. So that in actuality, you are living by "wishful thinking" the great majority of time and to some degree or other. You just ignore that you're doing it until you find yourself unable to establish any reasonable probability that your "wishful" presumptions will actually manifest. And in fact, most of what you believe to be true, you believe to be true because it has turned out, via your previous experience, to have manifested as you'd hoped and presumed it would. So that this myth that you sit down and reason out the truth of things, prior to and opposed to acting on them in faith, is just that: a myth. In actuality we are all acting on faith most of the time. And what we eventually deem "true" is simply what worked out as we hoped and trusted that it would. And that's called an 'acting on faith'.

 

[PureX]

Change the word "God" to "Harry Potter" or "Winnie the Pooh" you have the same argument.
It makes no sense

They are not the same idea, not even the same kind of idea, so of course they are not interchangeable.

 

[PureX]

I used to be an atheist for most of my life, it was never an ideology for me as presented.

Perhaps you were merely indifferent. I don't consider atheism to be indifferent. Atheism is a specific theological proposition: that no gods exist.

As a philosophical taoist you could think about this:

"When there is no peace within the family,
Filial piety and devotion arise.
When the country is confused and in chaos,
Loyal ministers appear." - Lao Tzu​

Is it more preferable than honest criticism? I think it's not.

I invite honest criticism. But such requires that the critic understands the matter being posed. Or at least wants to.

 

[PureX]

No, they don't exist. In no way does a living, breathing unicorn exist in the same manner that a cat or dog exists.

"Living and breathing in the same manner as a cat or dog" is not the criteria by which any rational human determines existence. Neither is "thingness" (as was proposed in someone else's response).

 

[Willamena]

It seems to me that you have a difficult time distinguishing fiction from reality.

If it's a thing, it exists.

Things exist. It's basic ontology.

It seems to me that you are mocking reality rather than existence.

 

[Willamena]

No, they don't exist. In no way does a living, breathing unicorn exist in the same manner that a cat or dog exists.

Existence and reality are two different things.

And, actually, actuality is a third different thing.

 

[Koldo]

It is not logical to ignore the interdependent web of cause and effect regarding cognition, and not of everything else. To do so would be a blatant and unreasonable bias. The idea of "God" is being generated within a biological mind sub-phenomena that was designed by natural forces to do so. And it has been generated as a direct response to the cognitive mind's interactions with the rest of the physical world. It doesn't matter how many people do it; to claim that "ideas are not real" is illogical. And to maintain this illogical assumption is an unsupportable bias.

It is not illogical simply because the word 'real' doesn't mean to you the same thing it means to others. You need to accept this and move on.

I know you believe all of this, but in actuality you don't even know that you'll wake up, tomorrow. Or that if you do wake up, gravity will still be in effect, and the Earth's atmosphere will still be breathable. Or a million other things that are essential to your everyday existence. So that in actuality, you are living by "wishful thinking" the great majority of time, to some degree or other. You just ignore that you're doing it until you find yourself unable to establish any reasonable probability that your "wishful" presumptions will actually manifest. And in fact, most of what you believe to be true, you believe to be true because it has turned out, via your previous experience, to have manifested as you'd hoped and presumed it would. So that this myth that you sit down and reason out the truth of things, prior to acting on them in faith, is just that: a myth.

I haven't said I need to be certain about the truth value of everything to act. But this is distinct from believing in something just because I find it beneficial which is what you propose.

 

[Mister Silver]

"Living and breathing in the same manner as a cat or dog" is not the criteria by which any rational human determines existence. Neither is "thingness" (as was proposed in someone else's response).

Of course, I could point to a rock. It exists, and it does just about as much as this god theists seem to believe in.

 

[PureX]

It is not illogical simply because the word 'real' doesn't mean to you the same thing it means to others. You need to accept this and move on.

The word "real" has various definitions, as most words do. If your philosophical position on existence rests on the particular use of a word, I'd say it's a pretty weak position.

I haven't said I need to be certain about the truth value of everything to act. But this is distinct from believing in something just because I find it beneficial which is what you propose.

You believe that you will be alive, tomorrow, even though you don't know this to be so. And you believe it because it's beneficial for you to do so. We re all living on faith most of the time.

 

[Altfish]

They are not the same idea, not even the same kind of idea, so of course they are not interchangeable.

Why not, they are both fictional characters with a devoted following, just like gods

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The idea of God exists in everyone's mind. So, "God exists", as an idea, and ideas exist in the same way everything else, exists: as patterned expressions of energy. So lets end the childish foolishness about "God" not existing, right now.

Does God in its entirety exist in your head, or is the thing in your head a concept or image of God?

I'd be especially impressed if an omniscient God existed in your head, since this would imply that all knowledge is in your head, too.

BTW: one implication of your ridiculous position: we could conclude that monotheism is absolutely, unequivocally false. Are you a monotheist?

 

[Willamena]

The idea of God exists in everyone's mind. So, "God exists", as an idea, and ideas exist in the same way everything else, exists: as patterned expressions of energy. So lets end the childish foolishness about "God" not existing, right now.

The next question, then, is; does "God" exist apart from our intellectual conception of 'it'? And I think it's pretty clear by now that we humans will not be able to ascertain an answer to that question. We simply don't have the capabilities required to do so.

And that leaves us with the final, and most pertinent question: is there a positive functional reason for us to presume that "God" exists apart from our intellectual conceptions of 'it'? And we each will have to determine that for ourselves. But, being that billions of humans have obviously found some positive benefit in presuming that their conception of God exists as more than just their own conception, I would say that is very good reason to investigate this possibility, for ourselves.

God is not the image of god.

 

[Willamena]

Does God in its entirety exist in your head, or is the thing in your head a concept or image of God?

I'd be especially impressed if an omniscient God existed in your head, since this would imply that all knowledge is in your head, too.

BTW: one implication of your ridiculous position: we could conclude that monotheism is absolutely, unequivocally false. Are you a monotheist?

There is no "in the head" for ideas to exist (in entirety or not) there. To separate the mind from the physical world in that way is irrational.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no "in the head" for ideas to exist (in entirety or not) there.

Speak for yourself. I have a head. Ideas reside there.

To separate the mind from the physical world in that way is irrational.

It's not irrational at all to point out that the map is not the territory.

 

[Willamena]

Speak for yourself. I have a head. Ideas reside there.

It's not irrational at all to point out that the map is not the territory.

The map is not even the map, if you make it territory.

 

[Koldo]

The word "real" has various definitions, as most words do. If your philosophical position on existence rests on the particular use of a word, I'd say it's a pretty weak position.

If it has various definitions then why do you insist on saying that 'ideas are not real' is illogical ?

You believe that you will be alive, tomorrow, even though you don't know this to be so. And you believe it because it's beneficial for you to do so. We re all living on faith most of the time.

I don't believe I will be be alive tomorrow because it is beneficial to do so.
I believe I will be alive tomorrow because I consider the likelihood of me dying tomorrow to be rather small. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether such a belief is beneficial to me.

 

[Polymath257]

They are not the same idea, not even the same kind of idea, so of course they are not interchangeable.

No, it is *exactly* the same idea. The idea of Harry Potter is not Harry Potter. The idea of a unicorn is not a unicorn. The idea of a God is not a God.

It is not logical to ignore the interdependent web of cause and effect regarding cognition, and not of everything else. To do so would be a blatant and unreasonable bias. The idea of "God" is being generated within a biological phenomena that was designed by natural forces to do so. And it has been generated as a direct response to the cognitive mind's interactions with the rest of the physical world. It doesn't matter how many people do it; to claim that "ideas are not real" is illogical. And to maintain this illogical assumption out of habit or 'groupthink' is an unsupportable bias.

And, clearly, the *idea* of God or Gods is a very powerful idea in human society. But that doesn't mean that God actually exists. That is a *very* different thing.

So, for example, the idea of Harry Potter is one that arises in a complex web of cognition. That doesn't mean that Harry Potter exists.

Ideas are real. But that doesn't mean the referent of the ideas is real. Do you see the difference?

 

[Polymath257]

If it's a thing, it exists.

Things exist. It's basic ontology.

It seems to me that you are mocking reality rather than existence.

Exactly. And to exist is to be a thing. So, ideas exist (they are things). But unicorns do not exist (they are not things).

The question of God's existence is whether God is a thing that exists outside of our minds (is God simply an idea?).

 

[Polymath257]

The word "real" has various definitions, as most words do. If your philosophical position on existence rests on the particular use of a word, I'd say it's a pretty weak position.

And if yours rests on unicorns existing, then yours is weaker still.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly. And to exist is to be a thing. So, ideas exist (they are things). But unicorns do not exist (they are not things).

Why do you disqualify unicorns from being something? They are fiction. They are fantasy.

Why disqualify any part of the world from being? Is it just to suit a confirmation bias?

The question of God's existence is whether God is a thing that exists outside of our minds (is God simply an idea?).

Why would any thing not be a thing?

The issue is absurd.