Why do sceptics and atheists post on this and other (perspective, eternal)

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by trobesmom

Today I'm more of a pantheist or deist.

With my new stove, Rangy Lil, I'm more of a pan friedian.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by gabfest

Once one has decided (regenerating) nature is not evidence, there's nothing anyone can say that's going to suffice... then there's the slight of hands used to place the onus on theist only, where some get to make the unsubstantiated claim there's no God(s) all the while saying no atheist on earth has ever made such a claim.

It is not that I have decided it is not evidence. It is that I see no reason why it should be considered evidence. If I were to have the following conversation:

Person 1) There is a god.
Person 2) What is the evidence there is a god please?
Person 1) Nature
Person 2) Ehhhhhhh how is that evidence exactly?

I fear the conversation would indeed be over quite quickly. As for claims other atheists have made - by all means take it up with them. I can only answer for claims I make. I will neither answer for the claims of others nor - as you mention - claim them not to have made them.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by monumentus

That is _one_ mediation point sure - happy to acknowledge that. But religion in and of itself tends to be an evidence devoid world view that does not map onto reality.

Only when it adheres to specific doctrines. And when something has to come with something else for it to be "harmful", it shouldn't be said that the first thing is harmful. Not if you're being responsible with your language.

Cancer is harmful. Things known to cause cancer are harmful. Therefore it is linguistically correct to call Bacon harmful.

Well I explained why I wouldn't do this. Basically, you can be accurate and still mislead people with the words you've chosen. And I think that's happening on a small scale when people say "this food is harmful" and a larger scale when they say "religion is harmful" (partly because as I said earlier "religion" is only a collection of doctrines which may be harmful or helpful).

But religion does cause harm at individual and global levels. The divisions caused between religions - or even between adherents of variations on the same religions - in our world are an example of this. The parents who watched and allowed their own children to die of relatively treatable illnesses for purely and solely religious reasons - are an example of this. The hindrance of useful and beneficial scientific progress because of messed up and otherwise unjustifiable religious nonsense such as with stem cell research is an example of this.

No, those are examples of specific doctrines being harmful.

Religion _is_ harmful precisely because there is no evidence for it's core claims and it is divorced from the reality in which it resides.

Not necessarily, no. For example, if someone is a Christian but does not hold any false beliefs (and yes, I mean if Christianity is true), then where is the harm? Do we pull a reverse No True Scotsman and deny that they're religious at that point?

Except I made no such implication. Exactly the opposite in fact in that I explicit said I would continue to eat it. So not only did I not imply it - I explicitly stated the opposite of it.

Oh I know you're careful to not make that implication when it comes to the bacon, which is something you value

So? The two are not mutually exclusive even a little - let alone to the point of "cant be" as you claim. It is perfectly possible to be in principle against claims without evidence while mistakenly making some of your own. Nothing at all precludes that.

Well then! Shall we go tell the Christians they can say that atheism/secularism is harmful, so long as they clarify that what they mean is just that they're opposing claims made without evidence?

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Only when it adheres to specific doctrines. And when something has to come with something else for it to be "harmful", it shouldn't be said that the first thing is harmful. Not if you're being responsible with your language. Well I explained why I wouldn't do this. Basically, you can be accurate and still mislead people with the words you've chosen. And I think that's happening on a small scale when people say "this food is harmful" and a larger scale when they say "religion is harmful" (partly because as I said earlier "religion" is only a collection of doctrines which may be harmful or helpful). No, those are examples of specific doctrines being harmful.

I do not see you failing to understand my language as being the same thing as me being irresponsible or misleading with it. Two entirely different things.

However it can be without the above too. For example since the claims of a religion tend to be without evidence - then this automatically creates a division between those who believe those claims and those who do not. Creating divisions in our world is not a good thing.

Worse though they are - again due to the lack of evidence for the claims - divisions that are generally not reconcilable. Irreconcilable differences are almost never a good thing. You only have to look around this very forum to see what happens when people enter into a back and forth conversation and are unable to resolve their difference of opinion. Very often it escalates to nastiness quickly.

So yes I see many potential harms as being linked to specific doctrines for sure. I agree. Just not all of them! Many potential harms are independent of the specifics of any given doctrine. Evidence devoid claims of any kind have the same potential. Religion is one important and prevalent subset of this - not the totality of it.

Worse though religion tends not just to create these irreconcilable differences - but elevates their importance too. Sometimes to the most supreme importance. That further compounds the problem.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Not necessarily, no. For example, if someone is a Christian but does not hold any false beliefs (and yes, I mean if Christianity is true), then where is the harm? Do we pull a reverse No True Scotsman and deny that they're religious at that point?

As I said my issue is with claims that there is no evidence for. Many things can be true that we currently have no evidence for. That would still be an issue. Even if Christianity and the claims of Christianity were 100% true - the fact we have _zero_ evidence for those claims _now_ is what the problem is and where the potential for divisions and harms come from.

If the evidence comes in tomorrow and the claims turn out to be true - great - many of those issues will go away entirely and that will be a good thing.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Well then! Shall we go tell the Christians they can say that atheism/secularism is harmful, so long as they clarify that what they mean is just that they're opposing claims made without evidence?

By all means do. But again this is not an issue you should take up with me. If you want to pull _me_ up on claims I have made without evidence then do it! That is how conversation works! If you want to talk to me about the claims of other atheists or secularists however I fear you are on your own.

You will find if I make a claim and you demand evidence for the claim - I will either offer the evidence or retract the claim. That is how I work. I would not - for example - run away from the thread entirely and the forum for three years because I could not stand by my own rhetoric.

What I will not and have never done is answer for the claims - or how the claims were presented or made - by people who are not me who just happen to identify with the same labels I do. Nor - I hasten to add - should I.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by monumentus

I do not see you failing to understand my language as being the same thing as me being irresponsible or misleading with it. Two entirely different things.

I understand what you believe. I'm just pointing out that "Religion is harmful" suggests something more. Namely, that it in and of itself is harmful regardless of which doctrines are adopted.

For example since the claims of a religion tend to be without evidence - then this automatically creates a division between those who believe those claims and those who do not. Creating divisions in our world is not a good thing.

I think "division" is misleading too! These are merely disagreements; they need not divide us in any way. And surely you're not saying disagreements are bad...

Worse though they are - again due to the lack of evidence for the claims - divisions that are generally not reconcilable. Irreconcilable differences are almost never a good thing. You only have to look around this very forum to see what happens when people enter into a back and forth conversation and are unable to resolve their difference of opinion. Very often it escalates to nastiness quickly.

Well internet conversations in general tend to lead to nastiness (See what I did there?) You and I are in a debate right now, and neither of us are religious. We're both atheists, as best I can tell.

Evidence devoid claims of any kind have the same potential. Religion is one important and prevalent subset of this - not the totality of it.

Is it beliefs/claims without evidence or without reason that you are saying is harmful? Because I would agree that one needs a reason to justify their beliefs/claims, but evidentialism is invalid and self-refuting.

Worse though religion tends not just to create these irreconcilable differences - but elevates their importance too. Sometimes to the most supreme importance. That further compounds the problem.

I would agree except I don't attribute it to "religion". I still think this is a bad habit to get into. Sure, we understand what each other believes because we've been discussing it. But you won't always have the opportunity to clarify.

By all means do. But again this is not an issue you should take up with me. If you want to pull _me_ up on claims I have made without evidence then do it! That is how conversation works! If you want to talk to me about the claims of other atheists or secularists however I fear you are on your own.

Let me just ask the question directly then. Would you say that positive atheism in and of itself "tends to be an evidence devoid world view that does not map onto reality"? And if not, why not?

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I understand what you believe. I'm just pointing out that "Religion is harmful" suggests something more. Namely, that it in and of itself is harmful regardless of which doctrines are adopted.

And it is, and I explained how when where and why But I also explained that by harm I do not mean every time in every person in every place. Rather I am talking about potentials for harm and damage above that of those with no religion.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I think "division" is misleading too! These are merely disagreements; they need not divide us in any way. And surely you're not saying disagreements are bad... Well internet conversations in general tend to lead to nastiness (See what I did there?) You and I are in a debate right now, and neither of us are religious. We're both atheists, as best I can tell.

But again, like what I said above about potential, no one here is saying they "need" divide us in any way. The fact is however they often do. Religious creates massive divisions in our culture and our world. And I explained why. First because seeing as the differences are without evidence they are irreconcilable by definition. Secondly religion often elevates the importance of those divisions. They can impact the well being of your eternal soul for example.

So yes disagreements can lead to divisions but do not have to. Religion can be harmful but does not have to be. But the potentials for both are higher which is what I mean when I talk of the harm of religion. But the lack of evidence is a huge factor. You and I could disagree on the chemical composition of water for example. We can go and get the evidence and resolve the difference rather easily. Hell I only did that experiment with my 8 year old daughter last month.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Is it beliefs/claims without evidence or without reason that you are saying is harmful?

I would say both separately and together have that potential yes. When putting forward claims there is no evidence or reason to support - the concern I am highlighting comes into play.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I would agree except I don't attribute it to "religion".

Again I do not attribute it to religion so much as I see religion as a large subset, but not the entirety, of what I am talking about here. Religion specifically tends to deal with the after life and eternity and death and so forth however. And therefore the context of religion is very much an issue we can attribute this problem to. It almost by definition has a tendency to not just produce these irreconcilable differences but to elevate them to monumental importance while doing so.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Let me just ask the question directly then. Would you say that positive atheism in and of itself "tends to be an evidence devoid world view that does not map onto reality"? And if not, why not?

It is not a label/term I use, see utility for, or even really understand all that much. so I am not sure what you are asking me. Rather than give me the label for the claim could you perhaps give me the exact meaning and ask me about that instead? Then I would feel safer answering the question. However I feel once again you are asking me to defend world views I do not myself hold. Which is as I said likely to go nowhere.

I would also caution however as a slight tangent but a useful one about the absolutist tendency of language. That is we tend to speak in absolutes we do not mean. For example if I say "There is no X" I am not 100% literally saying I am 100% proven there is no X. Rather what I mean is that the weight of the evidence powerfully points in that direction and I speak and operate under the relevant assumption.

An example of this is the weird guy in the last few days on here claiming drugs made his consciousness leave his body and enter another plane. Now I believe that is nonsense. Not because there is 100% proof he is wrong but because 100% of the evidence we have says he is wrong. The evidence we have is not complete, granted. But 100% of it goes in one way. And so I will talk in absolutes in that regard.

So if you have an issue with the people going around saying "There is no god" - then it is a cautioary note not to automatically take the most pedantic and literalist interpretation of their statement in a world where language has us tend to speak in absolutes we often do not actually mean. It pays to dig deeper before reacting in the same way as when someone tells me they believe there is a god my first move is to ask _them_ what _they_ mean by god. Not what I assume they mean by it.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by monumentus

And it is, and I explained how when where and why But I also explained that by harm I do not mean every time in every person in every place. Rather I am talking about potentials for harm and damage above that of those with no religion.

Yeah but the problem is that there isn't even the potential for harm without certain doctrines or mindsets. If you start with just religion, there isn't anything but a collection of beliefs which can, again, be harmful, helpful or neutral.

But again, like what I said above about potential, no one here is saying they "need" divide us in any way. The fact is however they often do.

I wish you would think just a little more critically here. How do you get from "We disagree" to "We are divided"? Is there anything inherent in disagreement that causes the latter?

Religion can be harmful but does not have to be.

Which is hard to square with "Religion is harmful", yes?

Again I do not attribute it to religion so much as I see religion as a large subset, but not the entirety, of what I am talking about here.

Okay then, if religion isn't actually the thing causing the harm, that's all the more reason to hold off on saying it's harmful. And I would encourage you instead to consider that whatever the aforementioned positive atheists and religious fundamentalists who perpetuate the divide have in common might be what's harmful. "Religion is harmful" also has the tendency to translate into "The opposite must be the cure!" And I think we've both agreed (at least), in contrast to that very popular conclusion, that both sides have this tendency to "be harmful". And that's by way of making unevidenced claims, just to be clear.

It is not a label/term I use, see utility for, or even really understand all that much. so I am not sure what you are asking me. Rather than give me the label for the claim could you perhaps give me the exact meaning and ask me about that instead?

Positive atheism would be the belief/claim that there is no god.

Then I would feel safer answering the question. However I feel once again you are asking me to defend world views I do not myself hold. Which is as I said likely to go nowhere.

I've been operating on the assumption that you do not hold this belief or make this claim, actually. And I'm certainly not asking you to defend it, but implying that the criteria you're using to say something is harmful could be used against positive atheism as well. And that might not be a result you like; I don't know, that's why I asked.

I would also caution however as a slight tangent but a useful one about the absolutist tendency of language. That is we tend to speak in absolutes we do not mean. For example if I say "There is no X" I am not 100% literally saying I am 100% proven there is no X. Rather what I mean is that the weight of the evidence powerfully points in that direction and I speak and operate under the relevant assumption.

If you believe there's evidence for that proposition, I'd be curious to see what that is.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Yeah but the problem is that there isn't even the potential for harm without certain doctrines or mindsets. If you start with just religion, there isn't anything but a collection of beliefs which can, again, be harmful, helpful or neutral.

Except there is. The potential for harm, as I said multiple times now, exist whenever irreconcilable differences arise. Religion is for the most part in the business of producing claims for which there is zero evidence. Therefore while it is not the totality of this issue in our world - it is a massive and unnecessary source of it.

I say the same thing about anything that produces evidenceless claims that cause similar divisions. But religion is a large portion of that subset. It is not about any "certain doctrines" at all. Those certain doctrines certainly are much worse than others in that issue.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I wish you would think just a little more critically here. How do you get from "We disagree" to "We are divided"? Is there anything inherent in disagreement that causes the latter?

Irreconcilible differences almost invariably lead to a break down in communication. Breakdowns in communication lead to all kinds of things and divisions. Including in many cases to violence. One only has to look at the divisions, schisms and even outright violence between various forms of Christianity and Islam and other religions for examples of this. What started out as mere disagreements ultimately escalated to divisions, schisms, violence and even deaths.

It is where communication breaks down that humans go seriously awry. Therefore anything that can cause communication to break down is a harm and a risk. Some things, like religion, foster that more than other things.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Which is hard to square with "Religion is harmful", yes?

Nope. I did it multiple times already, including but not limited to using an analogy to bacon.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Okay then, if religion isn't actually the thing causing the harm, that's all the more reason to hold off on saying it's harmful.

Not really. It is not _the_ thing causing harm it is _one_ of them. Therefore it is perfectly fine to call it harmful. I am identifying things that are the causes _and_ sources of the harms in question. And I am classifying them accordingly and correctly.

To return to an earlier analogy - bacon. Bacon is a class A carcinogen. As are cigarettes. The fact they are both class A does not mean they cause cancer at the same rate or effectiveness however. That is not what Class A means in this context. Class A refers to our certainty that they are a carcinogen, not the depth to which they are one. Which is why I earlier said the media was massively irresponsible for calling Bacon as carcinogenic as cigarettes.

Similarly I am classifying the "harm" here based on a few things, including both the certainty that religious is a source of the harm in question _and_ the effectiveness of it at doing so. In the analogy therefore religion is - say - cigarettes while the bacon is - say - adherence to a Football Team.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

"Religion is harmful" also has the tendency to translate into "The opposite must be the cure!"

Not necessarily. To stick to our beloved analogy someone might stop eating bacon and have salad instead, and stop smoking and take up karate instead. They might still die horribly of cancer. We are talking - or at least I am - relative potentials here. Not the absolutes that would tend to lead to you or others assuming the opposites.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Positive atheism would be the belief/claim that there is no god.

Then as I said in my cautionary monologue above you need to ask such people what they are actually saying. Which I can not speak to for you. Only they can. I can happily on occasion say "there is no god". I know I have said it on rare occasion on this very forum in fact. However I can unpack what I mean by it in pretty much the _exact_ same way I did above when talking about absolutes in speech and balance of the evidence.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I'm certainly not asking you to defend it, but implying that the criteria you're using to say something is harmful could be used against positive atheism as well.

I see no reason why not. But that does not mean the potentials are equal either. There are many variables in play there. For example few of the claims made by such atheists are all that important nor does anything raise their relative importance. Because it is not dealing with things like their eternal well being, after lives, or any other claims without substance. Nothing about saying there is no god leads to any assumptions on how one should or should not live for example. One has to import other things like Humanism to get there. There is also a dearth of attributes of this no-god to disagree over so the potential for disagreement is much lessened.

Contrast this to the claims of religion which by definition deal with issues, even without any specific doctrines, that are self elevating in terms of contextual importance. They very much do feel compelled to lead from any given religion to how to live, how to better oneself in the after life, what might harm your after life. The moment one claims there is a god the potential for further attributes presents itself. What form does this god have. What characteristics. What agendas. What design. What power. What plan. What intentions. How does it affect us? What does it want from/of us? The potential divisions and disagreements and tangents are endless.

So yes I decry with equality all claims made without evidence. But I do not evaluate as equal the potentials for harm between claims. Each is very different to the next. And when I say "Religion is Harmful" or "Bacon is harmful" it is not an isolated statement but a relative one.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

If you believe there's evidence for that proposition, I'd be curious to see what that is.

Well for a start I do not believe the assertion theists often make that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I just do not see it as conclusive proof of it. But evidence for it it most certainly is, however small.

But I would also respond the same way I did about the consciousness guy above. We simply do not have conclusive evidence about our universe, its explanation or any of that. But we do have much data. And not some, not most, but all of that data works without a god and is indicative of natural processes working without an external hand.

Again this is not conclusive proof. But when 100% of evidence points one way and 0% of it posts another way then I am more forgiving than normal (which is already very forgiving) of people who speak in absolutes. I would be as happy to claim there is no god in _that_ context as I was to tell the guy above his consciousness did not actually leave his body.

We simply talk in absolutes in this way all the time. Linguistic pedantry might lead someone to take exception to that in particular, usually religious, contexts. But that is their issue really.

Finally a different linguistic point is indeed actually worth making. If the linguistics here can mean anything at all - rather than pedantry rendering them meaning nothing - we have to look at all the other seemingly non-existent things. Leprechauns and fairies and the FSM. I could make up a beast right now and give it all kinds of weird and wonderful and even comical attributes. Like the Sentient Walking Luggage in Discworld. I think we can assume you will operate under relative near certainty that these things do not exist.

Yet there is no more (or less given the number is zero) evidence that those things do not exist than any god you might name. Unless we render much language simply meaningless we have to account for being able to say these things do not exist that goes beyond mere linguistic absolutist literalist pedantry.

And the moment anyone admits of anything not existing - and can with any certainty or confidence or comfort say "X does not exist" then that someone has created a Set of which anything else - god included - is a valid element. To do otherwise is to simply use pedantry to change how most of us use language most of the time. Which I am all for sometimes do not get me wrong - but as valiant as the attempt may be I think it will fail.

All of that said I am afraid at this point I am leaving my desk and heading to the airport. Myself Aileen and Eilise are going on a romantic and hopefully massively sexual week away together without the kids. You can expect replies from me between now and Monday week to be somewhere between sparse and non-existent but thread locks aside, I will return if you respond below.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by monumentus

... nipped for space ....

And the moment anyone admits of anything not existing - and can with any certainty or confidence or comfort say "X does not exist" then that someone has created a Set of which anything else - god included - is a valid element. To do otherwise is to simply use pedantry to change how most of us use language most of the time. Which I am all for sometimes do not get me wrong - but as valiant as the attempt may be I think it will fail. ...

exactly. describe how the universe works and let beliefs sort themselves out. When data is used in forming beliefs, beliefs tend to self correct themselves. although sometimes it takes to long.

That is the base line,

"no-religion" and "my religion only" is not a sound base line. it ignores the reality situation. it ignores the opposite set of, sometimes very valid, rules.

enjoy your trip.

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by Mr5150

Religious forums? Seems like a waste of time and electrons. Why post on a forum of which is devoted to a subject of which holds no relevance to one. I don’t knit or fly airplanes. I don’t visit knitting or airplane forums. So why all the none-spiritual people on this forum? Uncertain about one’s belief system? Perhaps.

If I’ve asked this question before, forgive me. I am simply perplexed.

Aversion and Ivory Towers is a quality of the weak. The sceptics and atheists think they have the upper hand intellectually and evidently. And believe there are reasons such as needing to shed light on the situations, understanding the opposition, and needing to increase their group-support and thus status.