Funny things Atheist say:

[Earthtank]

Then atheists do not make the claim that you said that they did.

Many that I have seen have. Not saying 100% of them do but, many have and do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree with what you said here but, it seems we are both taking about 2 different things.

Possibly, because your quote of me made no sense at all.

 

[Earthtank]

Possibly, because your quote of me made no sense at all.

sorry if misquoted you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many that I have seen have. Not saying 100% of them do but, many have and do.

The problem was that they were probably using a different definition of "nothing" than you were. It is incorrect to assume that there is only one meaning for words, and it is even worse to assume that others are using the same meaning as you were. Context matters. Try quoting one in context and see if they have the same definition that you have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

sorry if misquoted you.

The quote was fine. It appeared that you did not understand the post since there was no word play in it. You might have too shallow of an understanding of words and how they are used.

 

[Earthtank]

The problem was that they were probably using a different definition of "nothing" than you were. It is incorrect to assume that there is only one meaning for words, and it is even worse to assume that others are using the same meaning as you were. Context matters. Try quoting one in context and see if they have the same definition that you have.

I will try and find the video for you but, the definition of nothing was agreed to by the 2 Atheists and Theist that the nothing = the absence of literally everything (then the theist named a bunch of stuff, kinda like i did) and both Atheists still said that something could come from nothing (the definition they agreed to). Again, as i said, not 100% of Atheists think that way but some do. Same exact way not all Christians agree on everything but many do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will try and find the video for you but, the definition of nothing was agreed to by the 2 Atheists and Theist that the nothing = the absence of literally everything (then the theist named a bunch of stuff, kinda like i did) and both Atheists still said that something could come from nothing (the definition they agreed to). Again, as i said, not 100% of Atheists think that way but some do. Same exact way not all Christians agree on everything but many do.

I would like to see it.

And as to something coming from nothing you might want to Google search the Casimir Effect. Here is just one article that mentions it:

Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light

 

[Ponder This]

Atheism is not a belief.

Nice one! Yeah, I've seen atheists use that funny argument many times as well. It's subtle, but there is a difference between believing there are no gods and not having a belief in gods. People who define atheism to include agnosticism may fall into the trap of using agnostic arguments as affirmations of their beliefs. The agnostic makes no claim to faith or disbelief. But atheists can and often do have beliefs. Agnostic arguments don't actually work as affirmations of those (atheist) beliefs.

 

[Willamena]

Nice one! Yeah, I've seen atheists use that funny argument many times as well. It's subtle, but there is a difference between believing there are no gods and not having a belief in gods. People who define atheism to include agnosticism may fall into the trap of using agnostic arguments as affirmations of their beliefs. The agnostic makes no claim to faith or disbelief. But atheists can and often do have beliefs. Agnostic arguments don't actually work as affirmations of those (atheist) beliefs.

So subtle that it's non-existent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice one! Yeah, I've seen atheists use that funny argument many times as well. It's subtle, but there is a difference between believing there are no gods and not having a belief in gods. People who define atheism to include agnosticism may fall into the trap of using agnostic arguments as affirmations of their beliefs. The agnostic makes no claim to faith or disbelief. But atheists can and often do have beliefs. Agnostic arguments don't actually work as affirmations of those (atheist) beliefs.

You are quite wrong. Agnosticism is based on not having any beliefs. Agnostics will absolutely declare that they have no faith or no beliefs. I take it that you are a Christian. I guess that you have no objection if I define what Christianity is.

 

[McBell]

So subtle that it's non-existent.

Except that there is, in fact a difference between believing there are no gods and not having a belief in gods.
One is an active belief.
One is not a belief at all.

 

[lukethethird]

Funny things Atheist say:

When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.

Emo Philips

 

[joelr]

3 My brain is a product of random variation + natural selection, but I am a rational person, (if your brain is a product of natural selection, why would rational people evolve?)

The irrational individuals are running around being irrational. Sticking their heads in tigers mouth, jumping off waterfalls, scaring mates away with their crazy. They die and don't get to reproduce. Meanwhile rational individuals get along with others in the tribe and avoid needless danger. They pass their rational genes on.
Not that hard.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nice one! Yeah, I've seen atheists use that funny argument many times as well.

It's neither funny nore an argument.
It's just a fact.

Atheism is not a belief.
Theism is the belief.
Atheism is when you don't hold theistic beliefs.

Whatever else you do believe, is irrelevant to the "atheist" label.

It's subtle, but there is a difference between believing there are no gods and not having a belief in gods.

Indeed.

People who define atheism to include agnosticism may fall into the trap of using agnostic arguments as affirmations of their beliefs.

//facepalm

Agnosticism is, insofar as it is related to beliefs, a qualifier of beliefs. Not some "alternative" position.

Hi, I'm an agnostic atheist.

The agnostic makes no claim to faith or disbelief.

Indeed it does not. It pertains to knowledge - not beliefs.
Which is why it's not some "alternative" to the question of belief.
You either believe in god or you don't. It's a pretty binary question. Yes / no. Theist / atheist.

But atheists can and often do have beliefs.

Off course atheists have beliefs. We, like all people, believe many things.
None of which however is defacto included in atheism. Atheism only means that in the great set of things an individual believes - gods aren't part of it.

The set might or might not include the claim that no gods exist. That won't affect the atheist label.
What affects the atheist label is not believing theistic claims. That's it.

Agnostic arguments don't actually work as affirmations of those (atheist) beliefs.

No arguments do, because there are no affirmations to support.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If God is part of the equation then, survival and reproduction might not be all there is, if God exist then it seems reasonable to say that maybe* the human brain has some other purpose.

This is just you speculating.

From my experience, the vast majority of theists that accept evolution, accept evolution as is.
Like the vatican priest that explicitly acknowledged in a science lecture that if one would be able to turn back time and "reset" evolution, humans would almost certainly not exist.(*) Because there is no "pre planning" going on at all. There is just the circumstances of the moment, guiding it all.

(*) saw it on a youtube video a while ago. don't have time to go dig that up now, but it's just an example

But if atheism is true, then “survival and reproduction” is all there is, so why assuming that the brain in reliable?

I already addressed this in the post you just replied to. Perhaps read and quote those parts and paste them below your question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so how do you tell the difference between delusion and truth?

1. learn that humans are easily fooled and excel at fooling themselves, that humans are prone to be blinded by bias, to be superstitious and to engage in type 2 cognition errors and alike.

2. come up with ways to test ideas and claims in such a way that the results aren't easily misunderstood due to the human weaknesses listed in 1

3. test your ideas and claims



(3 effectively means that untestable ideas can't be validated and therefor they rationally shouldn't be believed)

I mean if it weren’t for the of the 1% population that are atheist ….God would be a delusion universally accepted as truth….. why couldn’t be there be other delusions ?

There could and there are, off course. As you certainly know.

Take the whole QAnon hype, for example.
That's certainly a delusion. And a mass delusion at that.
Doesn't involve any gods. Or even any magic.

Some people believe this so strongly, they were dug in in their basement during Biden's inauguration, scared to death that all hell was gonna break loose and erupt in civil war.


When it comes to the weaknesses of human psychology, people are extremely easily fooled into all kinds of things.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What sort of environment do you have in mind? I am curious.

There are lots of scenarios, but consider these figures from history;

Michael Servetus
Giordano Bruno

Or consider all the situations where rationalism really has no impact on survival, including war.
There are also studies...which I'm too lazy to look up...suggesting in certain scenarios involving physical reaction, rationalism or thought are more likely to lead to negative outcomes.

A soccer goalkeeper was an example in terms of testing. The extrapolation of that was that in fight or flight situations an instinctive reaction could lead to better outcomes than a rational one (despite it being a crapshoot) simply due to speed of action being more important than planning.

Hadn't overthought it, but rationalism doesn't help survival in many scenarios. I wish it did!!

 

[Koldo]

There are lots of scenarios, but consider these figures from history;

Michael Servetus
Giordano Bruno

Isn't the lack of rationality the source of the problem though?

Or consider all the situations where rationalism really has no impact on survival, including war.
There are also studies...which I'm too lazy to look up...suggesting in certain scenarios involving physical reaction, rationalism or thought are more likely to lead to negative outcomes.

A soccer goalkeeper was an example in terms of testing. The extrapolation of that was that in fight or flight situations an instinctive reaction could lead to better outcomes than a rational one (despite it being a crapshoot) simply due to speed of action being more important than planning.

Hadn't overthought it, but rationalism doesn't help survival in many scenarios. I wish it did!!

Negative outcome as in what...?
Also, are you argumenting from an individual or a collective frame of reference, or both?

Just to explain what I mean: My death is definitely a negative outcome in my own perspective, but from a collective perspective this might not be the case. For instance, I could be, in the future, responsible for the death of a billion people.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Isn't the lack of rationality the source of the problem though?

Yes. Or at least a big part of it. But that doesn't change the fact that having a rational opinion...and more particularly voicing it...has not been the path to the longest possible life in certain situations (which is all I'm stating). In other situations it has helped. And in an evolutionary sense, it often seems 'neutral', and much less impactful than other traits or behaviours.

Negative outcome as in what...?
Also, are you argumenting from an individual or a collective frame of reference, or both?

Negative outcome in an evolutionary sense. Reduced life expectancy, reduced likelihood of procreation, reduced outcomes for progeny.

Rather than both, I might say 'either'. It's very circumstantial.
Being Jewish in 1940 Germany was impactful on my likelihood to die young much more than rationality, and I wouldn't be convinced rationality added anything to my life expectancy, nor to the sort of outcomes my children may have, assuming I had any.

Just to explain what I mean: My death is definitely a negative outcome in my own perspective, but from a collective perspective this might not be the case. For instance, I could be, in the future, responsible for the death of a billion people.

Completely agree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For instance, I could be, in the future, responsible for the death of a billion people.

It's nice to have a goal in life.