Is religion inferior to logic ?

[Valjean]

Do you have any positive claims about the world/universe and all that?

Yes. The climate is warming.

 

[Nakosis]

My position is not that an atheist has to believe in the claimed entity to talk about it. I'm not sure if that is what you inferred. I am saying that but for the claimed entity there would be nothing to be anti-entity about.

My hypothesis is that we all can be vulnerable to confirmation bias to varying degrees. The more strongly the belief is held or emotionally regarded, the stronger the confirmation effect. If the goal in a discussion is to get past the bias, or highlight it in such a way as to make it more apparrent to the bias holder, then we should evalute the ways in which we communicate in order to accomplish that. Find methods that create cognitive dissonance between what is being said and the bias that is held., such that what is being said doesn't get filtered automatically by the bias filter.

If arguing within a theistic paradigm about the existence of a claimed entity fails to create sufficient cognitive dissonance to disrupt the bias filter, is it not reasonalble to try an explore ways to create the neccessary cognitive dissonance?

I suspect the conscious mind is not in control of what we believe. Trying to cause someone to become an atheist by triggering an cognitive dissonance event, I'm not sure that is possible.
Though we try to anyway.
It ought to be easy to rationally/logically explain reality. Maybe that'd be true if the conscious mind was in charge.
The sub conscious mind filters everything so we consciously only understand what has sub consciously be approve for us to understand.

I didn't choose to be an atheist. It just happened. Though I can justify the situation I'm in, I didn't myself choose it.

Being an theist/atheist makes sense because my subconscious mind said it is so.
So good luck in trying to create cognitive dissonance in someone else's mind i.e. trying to defeat someone else's subconscious mind when it seems impossible to defeat our own.

Why we argue? Maybe more the attempt to justify our own position to ourselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the concept of gods didn't exist,
I'd still be an atheist. But the term
would likely not exist.

 

[Valjean]

Seems quite contradictory to claim one can hold an idea or concept in one's head and have no thoughts about it.

You lacked a belief in the bugblatter beast, and you also never had a thought in your head about it. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Someone who's never had a thought in his head about god/s, can also be an atheist.

In your example, I have never heard of a bugblatter beast of Traal but I get the idea that it is meant to refer to some sort of creature that may be unpleasant or unsophisticated (implication of being referred to as a beast) and that the creature hails from Traal, whereever that may be. I can also form the idea that it is most likely fictional as I have never heard reference to the place or the beast before. Now, if Traal is a location on earth and bugbladder beast is the coloquial name for some taxinomic creature native to that location, then my idea that it is likely fictional would be incorrect.

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal

The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal is a vicious wild animal from the planet of Traal, known for its never-ending hunger and its mind-boggling stupidity. One of the main features of the Beast is that if you can't see it, it assumes it can't see you. Due to this it has been considered one of...

hitchhikers.fandom.com

 

[Valjean]

Stop doing that. It is irrational and against evidence. Why are you lying!!! I am neither an atheist or theist. Do you have problems learning?

I was addressing PureX.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would also suggest that lumping such a wide diversity of claims together creates a false sense of equivalency in the eyes of believers. It creates in them the notions that they are all really talking about the same thing, when in fact, they are not.

Why would that be a problem for the theist or atheist? And even were it some type of problem for the theist, if he is inappropriately generalizing in some way and it's having some sort of adverse consequence whatever that might be, isn't that his responsibility to deal with? These discussions frequently trigger the faithful, and the emotional posting begins. Should we not make our arguments lest we spoil somebody's moment because he chooses to see debate as disrespect for or hatred of his god? You can't convince them that your motives are not what they impute to them. How about if an argument a creates a crisis in faith? Should the philosopher stifle lest somebody be made uncomfortable reading carefully considered opinions sincerely believed and constructively offered?

As an example, when a Christian asks, “Do you believe in God”, and an atheist says, “No, I’m an atheist”, the Christian hears, “No, I don’t believe in Him.” There is really no challenge to the basic premises or frame of reference of the believer, of a universe with gods in it.

Why is that a problem? These threads are rife with critical thinkers writing clear, simple sentences and believers misunderstanding what they read? How many can define atheist properly? How many understand the difference between unbelief (agnostic atheism) and disbelief (gnostic atheism)? This is the way it is in faith world. This is the kind of thinking we see commonly.

Atheism is a claim that denies theistic existence claims.

The verb I would use is rejects, since it implies personal unbelief rather than being a positive statement about the reality of gods.

if one is trying to counter theistic claims, their cause is not helped by going along with such an ill-defined moving target.

What is the objective in the discussion? To simply speak past each other in an atheist/theist debate, or make some headway?

Not convincing a faith-based thinker of anything. I know better. If that's your purpose on RF, go find another activity. You have zero chance of changing such minds, because all you have is evidenced, sound argument, and that's not how such people come to their theistic beliefs and is powerless to budge them from it.

I'm answering the believer in my replies, but writing for the other critical thinkers - the only people here interested in what other critical thinkers have to say.

Atheism exists because theism exists.

The term atheism wasn't useful before people began believing in gods.

if anyone can define "god" in any way they see fit, then it becomes an ill-defined concept that is essentially meaningless.

They can and do. Likewise with the apologist's use of the word religion to mean any ideology or even a single idea like atheism. But again, is that the skeptic's concern? There's an ocean of confused, emotionally sensitive people here, but they want to be here and keep coming back for more conversation. I really don't know why unless it's to get a peek into a world they see nowhere else, which is a major reason of mine for being here.
Where else can one have protracted discussions with the same several dozen people over protracted periods of time at one's convenience and with strangers enjoying anonymity? Nowhere that I know of. Imagine a discussion like these occurring at the Thanksgiving table or in the lunchroom at work. It would last about two minutes and might well cause problems afterward at work or in the family.

Digression: This is atheistic humanist school for me. It's where I learn what others like me think and where we share ideas with one another. It's where I read what the scientists and the scientifically sophisticated posting here have to say about the science in their fields. We can call that the lecture section. But it's also where I see the distribution of religious types by denomination. This is the lab section. And this broad view helps me understand the effect faith and religious teaching has on minds, the atheistic humanists serving as the control group. I've come to understand that I have much in common with theistic humanists and polytheists like the Dharmics and pagans.

I've come to understand what a disaster in the cultural evolution of man the removal of the sacred from nature and casting it out of the universe and depicting it as a person with commands and the ability to hold you hostage in the afterlife because it inserted an immortal soul into you and woke it up so now it can never sleep again. Look what that kind of religion has done to the world. Look at these threads? Who are the most adversely affected by religion? The Abrahamics who aren't also humanists.

And I learned what Dunning-Kruger actually is. It's not an inflated sense of one's own competence, but an underestimate of the competence of others. If these sound the same, one is seeing oneself as being a lofty thinker and the other doesn't recognize that such a thing is possible. I recognize that when I read, "That's just your opinion" in response to a sound argument. They're telling you that they are only aware of one way of coming to opinions - guessing like they do, and all guesses are equivalent for that reason. Where else was I going to get the data that led to this insight if not discussions like this, and where else could one have them except anonymous message boards?

 

[Bird123]

A "belief" remains a belief whether it's rational or not; whether it's true of not.
The burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim.

"If God exists then God can be found?" This doesn't follow. Show your work.

Please explain "...add up perfectly."

Ah! -- The pointillist school of philosophy.

If I want you to believe, then I must convince you in some way. In that case the burden to convince you would be mine. Since I do not work wanting you to believe then your choice of what you seek is yours. The only way to Discover anything is to Discover the proof for yourself. Religion is in the belief system. The best I can do is point to where you can Discover the Truth for yourself.

In this time-based causal universe, God's actions can be seen. When you understand God's actions, you will understand God. Put enough of the pieces together and you start to see what God is doing with people and this world. Open one door and it leads to more knowledge and more doors that can be opened. At a certain level of understanding, you might just get a visit from God. At this point God will no longer be a belief. You will know.

Add up perfectly? Math!! Cold calculating math with no bias. What will be what is. Religion and people use feelings and emotions with respect to God. Let's not forget a Being capable of creating all this has a High Intellectual and Reason working as well. See how and why things fit together.

All the secrets of God and the universe stare us all in the face. How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how? Is God's duty burden of proof? Those who Seek must Discover the proof and the answers for themselves. This is an action of God. God's genius: This works so much better than mankind talking til their blue in the face trying to convince others to believe. Are you starting to see?

You speak of Logic. I see very little advanced thinking with a wide view around. God has an IQ off the charts. It's going to take above and beyond the limited thinking and view mankind carries.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[F1fan]

Without theistic ideas or theistic claims there can be no atheism, it would be incoherent.

The category of "atheist" is forced by the existence of theists as a category. If you aren't a "theist" then you default ionto the category "atheist". Of course atheists can debate and form arguments against what theists claim is true. These are sub-categories.

Atheism is a claim that denies theistic existence claims.

No. Atheism actually DOES deny the claims made by theists. And not only are there good reasons to reject the claims, to reject an unsubstantiated claim is the logical default. If you claimed to be Santa Claus the logiocal default is doubt and rejecting your claim, until you can demonstrate you ARE Santa Claus.

 

[Bird123]

The faith-based thinker and the critical thinker use different methods to determine what is true about the world. All I have to offer him is reasoned, evidence argument, which is not his currency for belief, and all he can offer the critical thinker are unfalsifiable claims, which have no persuasive power the critical thinker.

Listen to what? People's unfalsifiable beliefs about gods or afterlives? Why?

As for "speaking the language of the heart," that's a euphemism for expressing thoughts that arise from outside the cortical centers that allow us to reason using language and rules of inference. It's where hunches and gut feelings and hopes and dreams live. None of those is appropriate for determining what is true about the world, just what is true about ourselves. They are necessary and valuable experiences, an important species of conscious content for determining what makes us happy, but not for deciding how the world outside of our bodies and brains works. We need analytical neocortex for that.

And of course, your de rigueur, gratuitous demeaning of rigorous thinkers. Tell the thread how offended you are to have your special way of knowing rejected by critical thinkers without using those words.

I wouldn't call that a fact. For me, facts are demonstrably correct statements, meaning that they accurately map some aspect of our reality. Did you mean something that was would later be shown to be a fact?

The burden of proof arises when one wants one's claim to be believed and is dealing with a critical thinker capable of recognizing a sound argument and willing to be convinced by one. Absent either of those, there is no burden to support any claim.

I seek to understand the world and myself, not gods. Why would one seek for a god? And how? Praying? Reading holy books? Some believers tell me that they sense a god directly, but I don't accept their interpretation of what they are experiencing, nor that they can sense a god not apparent to all who have the same detection apparatus.

There are an unlimited number of facts not Discovered yet. One can state a fact without proof. It will be a belief to all who have not Discovered the proof for themselves.

Burden of proof rests solely on the one who seeks. On the other hand, convincing another to believe rests on the one trying to convince.

Don't you Understand? Understanding this world, yourself, and the universe is the study of God.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[F1fan]

There are an unlimited number of facts not Discovered yet.

That's a safe assumption.

One can state a fact without proof.

By accident, perhaps.

It will be a belief to all who have not Discovered the proof for themselves.

Belief means uncertainty, it's not truth. What do you mean by "proof"? Valid evidence? Facts?

Burden of proof rests solely on the one who seeks. On the other hand, convincing another to believe rests on the one trying to convince.

Theists have many assumptions they never think twice about, so they might believe they have found a "truth" that they "seek", but it isn't a rational approach. Get rid of the religious assumptions and then you can seek truth.

Don't you Understand? Understanding this world, yourself, and the universe is the study of God.

Why assume a God exists? There's your bias that takes you off the path to truth.

 

[MikeF]

You lacked a belief in the bugblatter beast, and you also never had a thought in your head about it. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Someone who's never had a thought in his head about god/s, can also be an atheist.

This of course depends on your definition of atheist, and well, almost like gods, it seems folks are going to nuance it in a way that feels right for them. You include ignorance as a qualifier, others see it as a denial of claims presented. I won't quibble since we understand each other.

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal

The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal is a vicious wild animal from the planet of Traal, known for its never-ending hunger and its mind-boggling stupidity. One of the main features of the Beast is that if you can't see it, it assumes it can't see you. Due to this it has been considered one of...

hitchhikers.fandom.com

Ah Ha. I was right on both both counts: unpleasant and unsophisticated.

 

[MikeF]

I suspect the conscious mind is not in control of what we believe. Trying to cause someone to become an atheist by triggering an cognitive dissonance event, I'm not sure that is possible. Though we try to anyway.

I think I would phrase my intent differently. I do not see what I am suggesting as causing someone to become an atheist by triggering a cognitive dissonance event. What I am suggesting, is that in an honest exchange of ideas, if one party holds a strong confirmation bias (we all have bias to varying degrees depending on subject) it would seem in the interest of the one trying to get ideas to be considered (past the automatic filtering generated by the bias), to explore ways of presenting the material in such a way that the filter doesn't handle the information automatically. I am suggesting that perhaps if there is cognitive dissonance created by presenting the material in an unexpected or non-standard way, the brain has to take that extra time to process and think about how to handle what is being said. Is it utterly impossible to accomplish this? Perhaps, but why not try? Isn't that what critical thinkers do?

It ought to be easy to rationally/logically explain reality. Maybe that'd be true if the conscious mind was in charge.
The sub conscious mind filters everything so we consciously only understand what has sub consciously be approve for us to understand.

Yes, I agree, especially for things that have a strong emotional component. But people do change their minds on things. It is not impossible.

I didn't choose to be an atheist. It just happened. Though I can justify the situation I'm in, I didn't myself choose it.

Some do though. And for other, it may not be atheism as their final position, but something that is much less scripturally literal and instead, more tolerant of other flavors of belief or non-belief. No change occurs if one remains in a closed echo chamber, though. How can one choose to think differently if there is no awarness of other options?

Being an theist/atheist makes sense because my subconscious mind said it is so.
So good luck in trying to create cognitive dissonance in someone else's mind i.e. trying to defeat someone else's subconscious mind when it seems impossible to defeat our own.

I will say that there very well may be personality types that for whatever pschological reasons, need some type of theistic belief. I am in no way discounting that. The hope there would be that it could be a belief that can incorporate current scientific understanding into the belief system.

Why we argue? Maybe more the attempt to justify our own position to ourselves.

Certainly that can be all of it or part of it for some. For me it is about giving people options and learning how to express myself clearly in that process.

 

[Valjean]

This of course depends on your definition of atheist, and well, almost like gods, it seems folks are going to nuance it in a way that feels right for them. You include ignorance as a qualifier, others see it as a denial of claims presented. I won't quibble since we understand each other.

I've explained the definition several times on this very thread, this very day. Folks who choose to nuance it or make up their own definitions are not participating in a serious discussion.

 

[MikeF]

Bravo! Finally we see eye-to-eye. We're questioning the epistemic methodology you apply to any and all unevidenced and unfalsifiable claims.

We're making only one claim: that your epistemic methodology is invalid. The many different theistic and reality claims were not generated by us.

I need some clarification here. When you refer to "We're", I assume you mean atheists, is that correct?

When you refer to "you", are you referring to me, MikeF? If so, could you summarize my invalid epistemic methodology? I am curious as to what you might think that is.

 

[MikeF]

I've explained the definition several times on this very thread, this very day. Folks who choose to nuance it or make up their own definitions are not participating in a serious discussion.

Yes, you have. Thank you. My first quick reference had the definition as "One who denies the existence of God, or of a supreme intelligent being." But looking more indepth I see the distinction between implicit and explicit atheism. My comments pertain to explicit atheism and should be taken as such.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I know. But then they immediately and repeatedly proclaim that they refuse to believe that any gods exist because they have not been given any evidence (that they will recognize as such) to convince them otherwise. So that out of one side of their mouths they claim they are agnostic, while out of the other side of their mouth they proclaim their atheism. And they try to justify this double-speak by hiding it behind some semantic nonsense about "unbelief".

• Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive categories.
• A reasonable person will recognize that "the justification for your conclusion is crap" does not imply "your conclusion is necessarily wrong."

 

[Aupmanyav]

I suspect the conscious mind is not in control of what we believe.

IMHO, Conscious Mind is like a die-hard soldier. Once, it has taken a position, logical or illogical, it will never retreat, come whatever.

 

[Valjean]

I need some clarification here. When you refer to "We're", I assume you mean atheists, is that correct?

I meant you and me.

When you refer to "you", are you referring to me, MikeF? If so, could you summarize my invalid epistemic methodology? I am curious as to what you might think that is.

You're right. I wasn't clear. Let's say I'm referring to atheists in general responding to theistic apologists in general.

Common arguments tend to revolve around personal feelings emotions or, false analogies or invalid comparisons,or erroneous facts and logical errors.
More specifically I see ad pop/bandwagon arguments, circular/question-begging arguments, post hocs, hasty generalizations, equivocation, burden shifting, correlation-causation arguments, arguments from incredulity and from ignorance, false dilemmas, and other non-sequiturs. These come up over and over in these threads. People are simply not reasoning rationally or logically.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have never heard of a bugblatter beast of Traal but I get the idea that it is meant to refer to some sort of creature that may be unpleasant or unsophisticated (implication of being referred to as a beast) and that the creature hails from Traal, whereever that may be. I can also form the idea that it is most likely fictional as I have never heard reference to the place or the beast before. Now, if Traal is a location on earth and bugbladder beast is the coloquial name for some taxinomic creature native to that location, then my idea that it is likely fictional would be incorrect.

Traal is a town in Kashmir. It used to be a hot-bed of terrorism in the State.
Read about it here: Tral - Wikipedia
Photographs here: Traal, KASHMIR - Google Search
Marsar Lake

 

[Valjean]

Yes, you have. Thank you. My first quick reference had the definition as "One who denies the existence of God, or of a supreme intelligent being." But looking more indepth I see the distinction between implicit and explicit atheism. My comments pertain to explicit atheism and should be taken as such.

Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A definition involves a preferably single feature unique to the thing being defined. There is only one feature shared by all flavors of atheism: lack of belief. Lack of belief, therefore, is the definitive meaning of atheism. All the various iterations need to be distinguished by modifiers or different terms.

"One who denies the existence of God" is an antiquated, colloquial, ambiguous understanding of the term. It's not the assumed meaning in formal discussions.
In serious discussion participants need to agree on definitions. Lack of belief is the received definition. Someone referring to explicit atheism will make it clear that s/he is referring to a special feature, not just atheism. It's also the default of most of the atheists here on RF.
What is Atheism?