Best Part of Atheism

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think of my unbelief as any part of the primary description of myself. I didn't become an atheist, and then an igtheist, with the intention of feeling good about it.

I'm an igtheist simply because igtheism in my view is the most accurate interpretation available of the data regarding gods.

If a real god shows up, I'll rethink the question.

That is unknowable, because it could be, that you could be in a computer simulation.
Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia

If you are skeptical, you accept the limitations of the most accurate interpretation available of the data regarding what the world really is.
And please don't use ontological solipsism this time.

 

[blü 2]

That is unknowable, because it could be, that you could be in a computer simulation.

But of course there's not the slightest evidence that this is the case, and the claim is not expressed in falsifiable terms, so there's no basis for being further concerned about it.

Still, if it's a view you like to hold, don't let me stop you.

Don't forget to add that the Tron Game we're unknowingly part of exists only in the dream of a superbeing, who only exists because you've solipsistically imagined her into existence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But of course there's not the slightest evidence that this is the case, and the claim is not expressed in falsifiable terms, so there's no basis for being further concerned about it.

Still, if it's a view you like to hold, don't let me stop you.

Don't forget to add that the Tron Game we're unknowingly part of exists only in the dream of a superbeing,

That bold part is subjective in you. It is cognitive evaluation in you, where you can't use reason, because there is no objective standard. You either accept the limits of knowledge or "cheat". I.e. you use a subjective standard to make an objective claim.

You are in effect subjective in that it makes sense to you to believe as you do. I accept that, but you are unable to understand that it is as subjective as my position. That is the problem with your - reason is a valid tool. It is not, because you can't use it to decide such cases. You always subjectively choose one or another.

 

[blü 2]

That bold part is subjective in you. It is cognitive evaluation in you, where you can't use reason, because there is no objective standard.

The difference between our points of view, it appears, is, that in my view the total lack of evidence and the absence of a falsifiable claim mean there's nothing I need bother about, whereas you want to proceed by absolute statements about reality, which in my view don't exist. By all means go ahead.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The difference between our points of view, it appears, is, that in my view the total lack of evidence and the absence of a falsifiable claim mean there's nothing I need bother about, whereas you want to proceed by absolute statements about reality, which in my view don't exist. By all means go ahead.

Yeah, you can't as a skeptic doubt that the methodology of falsification has a limit and that is false, that it can be applied on everything.
You are not a skeptic, because you don't doubt the limitations of the methodology of falsification. It is that simple.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Hey, I don't want you guys to feel left out.

What brings you the greatest satisfaction with identifying as atheist? Having your Sunday mornings free? Something else?

What would you feel your worldview could stand to improve upon?

When I was an atheist, the best part, and what I enjoyed the most, was ridiculing religionists.

Now, as a religionist, I’m being paid back in full, with interest!

 

[ChristineM]

Actually, in the US, it's called the Mazda MX-5 Miata.

View attachment 46593

Maita seems to be the name of the American company who import both Mazda and Honda.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't know you were an aphilatelist as well.

I had to look up that word.

So what does bring you the greatest satisfaction in not collecting stamps as a hobby?

I don't have to collect stamps.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, you can't as a skeptic doubt that the methodology of falsification has a limit

I pointed out that the claim is not expressed in falsifiable terms and is supported by zero evidence, hence it doesn't require any further action.

So what further action do you intend to take regarding the claim?

Or are you just complaining about having to agree with me?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I pointed out that the claim is not expressed in falsifiable terms and is supported by zero evidence, hence it doesn't require any further action.

So what further action do you intend to take regarding the claim?

Or are you just complaining about having to agree with me?

You haven't pointed out as pointing to. You subjectively think. You are doing it again.
Only that which I can see is relevant(that can't see that) and I think(not seeing) that only that I can see, is relevant. The relevance is a non-observational subjective process in you and not true.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I had to look up that word.



I don't have to collect stamps.

True. So it's kind of a relief to not have to go out in search of stamps, or take all that time sorting and cataloguing them, yes? Gives you time to do other things, like get on on an internet forum to tell others how nonsensical their questions are, no?

 

[blü 2]

You haven't pointed out as pointing to. You subjectively think. You are doing it again.

Everyone "subjectively thinks". The aim is to maximize your objectivity, which scientific method aims to do.

Only that which I can see is relevant

How about what you know. Isn't that relevant?

But either way, you're not going to bother further with the proposition you put, any more than I'm going to bother.

So what does your example claim to show that's relevant to the procedures of reasoned enquiry?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Everyone "subjectively thinks". The aim is to maximize your objectivity, which scientific method aims to do.
How about what you know. Isn't that relevant?

But either way, you're not going to bother further with the proposition you put, any more than I'm going to bother.

So what does your example claim to show that's relevant to the procedures of reasoned enquiry?

You have to doubt if reason is universal or limited. And you can only that by understanding your own cognition, because reason is in your brain. It is not true as per objective observation. So you can't use an objective method on it.
You have to learn to use another method.

 

[blü 2]

You have to doubt if reason is universal or limited.

One look at Trump will answer that.

And you can only that by understanding your own cognition

Do you understand your own cognition? I learn something new every day about mine.

reason is in your brain. It is not true as per objective observation.

No, of course not. Reason is a tool for giving sound answers to questions and solving problems effectively.

So you can't use an objective method on it.

You can have a method that's less dependent on subjectivity than other methods. That's what reasoned enquiry and its subset scientific method are about.

You have to learn to use another method.

What other method? Tossing a coin? Dropping bricks on your foot? Ringing four hundred numbers and asking for Betty? What, exactly?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True. So it's kind of a relief to not have to go out in search of stamps, or take all that time sorting and cataloguing them, yes? Gives you time to do other things, like get on on an internet forum to tell others how nonsensical their questions are, no?

That would be true for everything that one doesn't do.

A celibate doesn't have to worry about looking appealing to the opposite (or same?) sex, finding a date, deal with relationship problems, have pointless "emotional talks" with the other half, get into fights you know you will never win anyway,....

So to say that someone who doesn't collect stamps, doesn't have to collect stamps, is kind of a pointless tautology and merely stating the obvious.


I'll go ahead and assume that merely having people state the obvious, was not your goal in this thread.

It IS a nonsensical question.
A sensical question would be to ask people who DO do certain things, why they do it / what satisfaction they get from it.

What satisfaction do you get from not believing in Thor? Or Quetzalcoatl? Or alien abduction?

Having said that.... even the positive question is kind of bizar to me... because it seems to imply that believing something is about satisfaction rather then about thinking something is actually true.

For example, if I were to be diagnosed with a cancer, I'ld believe it based on the evidence that I have a cancer. It would not bring me any satisfaction.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
No, of course not. Reason is a tool for giving sound answers to questions and solving problems effectively. You can have a method that's less dependent on subjectivity than other methods. That's what reasoned enquiry and its subset scientific method are about.
...

One step at a time. Can you answer all questions using reason? Are you willing to learn to answer that? I mean it! You have to want to learn it, because it is very simple to confuse reasoning with other forms of cognition.

Here is how it works in the formal sense:
Two humans:
One: I can with reason show X is Y and I don't doubt that.
The other: No, you can't. I can with reason show X is not Y and I don't doubt that.

Now it follows that one for them is not using reason OR both are, but X is Y or not Y is subjective.
That is the trick. To learn with the reasoning is about something subjective or objective. It involves the limitation the law of non-contradiction.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
For example, if I were to be diagnosed with a cancer, I'ld believe it based on the evidence that I have a cancer. It would not bring me any satisfaction.

Well, for me it would be good, because then I can if need be take steps in regards to my wife.
You are subjective and I am subjective. We just do it differently.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That would be true for everything that one doesn't do.

A celibate doesn't have to worry about looking appealing to the opposite (or same?) sex, finding a date, deal with relationship problems, have pointless "emotional talks" with the other half, get into fights you know you will never win anyway,....

So to say that someone who doesn't collect stamps, doesn't have to collect stamps, is kind of a pointless tautology and merely stating the obvious.


I'll go ahead and assume that merely having people state the obvious, was not your goal in this thread.

It IS a nonsensical question.
A sensical question would be to ask people who DO do certain things, why they do it / what satisfaction they get from it.

What satisfaction do you get from not believing in Thor?

No concern about some dude hurling a bolt of lightning at me.

Or Quetzalcoatl?

I'm not sure what Quetzalcoatl was known for doing, as I haven't researched the deity previously. I do thank you for giving me something to research though. But I'm afraid I'll have to get back to you on this.

Or alien abduction?

No unsolicited anal probing.

Having said that.... even the positive question is kind of bizar to me... because it seems to imply that believing something is about satisfaction rather then about thinking something is actually true.

For example, if I were to be diagnosed with a cancer, I'ld believe it based on the evidence that I have a cancer. It would not bring me any satisfaction.

Most other atheists that commented here didn't mention they found the question nonsensical or bizarre, so maybe it's you and not me.

 

[Vinayaka]

True. So it's kind of a relief to not have to go out in search of stamps, or take all that time sorting and cataloguing them, yes? Gives you time to do other things, like get on on an internet forum to tell others how nonsensical their questions are, no?

Because of Covid, and the fact I was out of stamps, I ordered some from Canada Post on-line on December 7th. They arrived on December 28th. 21 days! The stuff from Amazon, of it's even close to local, gets here in 2 or 3 days. I found it somewhat ironic ... stamps?

 

[Mock Turtle]

My first answer was a bit flippant perhaps, though recognised and felt, but I do feel that having no such beliefs - gods and/or spirituality - does tend to allow for more freedoms for oneself, and which, for me at least, is more essential for living a life where one at least gets the impression that one is in control, even if lack of free will arguments intrude on such so as to make this less likely. That perhaps is my main contention against such beliefs (and the religious beliefs which usually follow from believing in a god), that one is less an autonomous being but more a slave to some belief system or to those who instigate, perpetuate, and control such beliefs. I don't know if there is some creative force that accounts for all that we see and experience, but believing in such, for me again, tends to produce the multitude of different religious beliefs (and/or related beliefs), and all such not answering satisfactorily what they seem to be answering - especially when they often contradict each other - and often merely attempt to control one.

So, if feeling subservient is your bag, don't let me stop you - although you might be prone to other such abuse - but it's not mine.