4 ms·

>I don't make my decisions based on the presumption that a deity will intervene, and I do believe in God. Ok... > In fact, making such a decision is called a

by Retra 8y ago

>I don't make my decisions based on the presumption that a deity will intervene, and I do believe in God. Ok... > In fact, making such a decision is called a leap of faith, and they're not to be taken lightly. Here you're formulating an argument which presumably states that it is good to take a leap of faith, indirectly claiming that "a deity will intervene" is a valid assumption one should take when making decisions. This is distinctly not what an atheist would do. This is exactly the kind of decision that one would make only if they thought a deity can intervene. >most of the time, I act the same way anybody would. "Anybody" includes atheists. So when I say "act like an atheist", you do understand that the word "like" implies a comparative analogy, yes? You don't act like an atheist sometimes. (Like when you made this comment.) You do other times. Not sure what's being misrepresented about your beliefs here. In fact, I feel as though I said "to be an X, you must jump off a bridge", and you shout up "I never jumped off a bridge, but I am an X!" as you plummet into the river below me. Like... you just literally did what I said you had to do to be the thing you said you are. I'm not sure how there's anything wrong with what I said just because you are unaware of what assumptions you are making.

vinceguidry 8y ago
> Here you're formulating an argument which presumably states that it is good to take a leap of faith, indirectly claiming that "a deity will intervene" is a valid assumption one should take when making decisions. One doesn't have to presume, you could just ask. God can intervene, or not. Assuming intervention is not normally done. When it happens, it's usually for the better, and in a way that one didn't expect. This is generally called serendipity. Assuming serendipity will happen is a good way to get it to never happen, most believers will tell you that. I personally find serendipity all the time, but never where I assume or expect. Assuming it will happen is a leap of faith and is not necessarily a good thing. God may decide not to intervene and leave you to your fate. Nonbelievers simply describe such things as luck, but believers ascribe agency to what others consider to be random events. That is the difference you're looking for, and if you don't want to be accused of misrepresenting theism, you should just stick to that. Let's put this in D&D terms. God is the dungeon master, I am a player character. What you're saying is tantamount to saying I'm expecting the DM to just save me from the consequences of every stupid decision I make. I'm saying, no, I just ascribe agency to the DM's actions. The difference might not mean much to you, but it's very important to a believer. You are making a false equivalence here in equating belief with assumption of intervention. > "Anybody" includes atheists. So when I say "act like an atheist", you do understand that the word "like" implies a comparative analogy, yes? > You don't act like an atheist sometimes. (Like when you made this comment.) I think anybody, atheists included, would want to explain their position. I'd be curious as to exactly in what way I'm not acting like an atheist by responding here. I have a position, I am explaining it. An atheist would have a position and they would want to explain it. Even though the position is not shared, the underlying impetus to action is the same. Therefore I am acting like anyone, including an atheist. The specific position, atheist or theist, only affects specifics, not essence. I'm acting like an atheist, in that the essence of what we're doing is similar, but the specifics differ because of the necessary difference in position. > In fact, I feel as though I said "to be an X, you must jump off a bridge", and you shout up "I never jumped off a bridge, but I am an X!" as you plummet into the river below me. Like... We don't need to concoct a silly hypothetical analogy, we can simply use your words. You said theists assume God will intervene, and that's how they make decisions. This misrepresents how theists operate. I am explaining that difference. Atheists act the same way all the time, when theists misrepresent their views.
- Retra 8y ago
  You're nitpicking that I said "a deity will intervene" instead of "a deity might intervene," which is really very irrelevant to what I'm getting at. (Especially when talking about it as an assumption which is used to justify some behavior.) I'm not trying to have a religious argument, I'm trying to have an argument about how to practically classify and understand humans and their beliefs. >I think anybody, atheists included, would want to explain their position. I'd be curious as to exactly in what way I'm not acting like an atheist by responding here. I have a position, I am explaining it. An atheist would have a position and they would want to explain it. An atheist would not explain the position that you're explaining. The existence of a commonality doesn't preclude any differences. I'm simply arguing that the differences exist and are very important when understanding what people believe. When I said "act like an atheist" I meant it. I meant act exactly like an atheist -- make the decisions they would be expected to make -- up to and including the decision of what specific positions they might take up defense of.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - vinceguidry 8y ago
    I'm glad you edited your response. > An atheist would not explain the position that you're explaining. The existence of a commonality doesn't preclude any differences. I'm simply arguing that the differences exist and are very important when understanding what people believe. Now it's you that's nitpicking. The specifics only matter when you want them to matter. When they're inconvenient to you, you simply say you don't want to have a religious discussion. If you want to say what theists do and why, you're having a religious discussion. Because the reasons are important. Me saying I'm acting like anyone would is right in line with how everybody else would use that phrase. If I get mad at something, it's just like everyone else getting mad at something, even if the reasons why I'm getting mad are different. Acting like someone is not doing exactly the same thing. Postgres has a LIKE operator, and it's not the equivalence operator.
    - Retra 8y ago

by Retra 8y ago

vinceguidry 8y ago

> Here you're formulating an argument which presumably states that it is good to take a leap of faith, indirectly claiming that "a deity will intervene" is a valid assumption one should take when making decisions. One doesn't have to presume, you could just ask. God can intervene, or not. Assuming intervention is not normally done. When it happens, it's usually for the better, and in a way that one didn't expect. This is generally called serendipity. Assuming serendipity will happen is a good way to get it to never happen, most believers will tell you that. I personally find serendipity all the time, but never where I assume or expect. Assuming it will happen is a leap of faith and is not necessarily a good thing. God may decide not to intervene and leave you to your fate. Nonbelievers simply describe such things as luck, but believers ascribe agency to what others consider to be random events. That is the difference you're looking for, and if you don't want to be accused of misrepresenting theism, you should just stick to that. Let's put this in D&D terms. God is the dungeon master, I am a player character. What you're saying is tantamount to saying I'm expecting the DM to just save me from the consequences of every stupid decision I make. I'm saying, no, I just ascribe agency to the DM's actions. The difference might not mean much to you, but it's very important to a believer. You are making a false equivalence here in equating belief with assumption of intervention. > "Anybody" includes atheists. So when I say "act like an atheist", you do understand that the word "like" implies a comparative analogy, yes? > You don't act like an atheist sometimes. (Like when you made this comment.) I think anybody, atheists included, would want to explain their position. I'd be curious as to exactly in what way I'm not acting like an atheist by responding here. I have a position, I am explaining it. An atheist would have a position and they would want to explain it. Even though the position is not shared, the underlying impetus to action is the same. Therefore I am acting like anyone, including an atheist. The specific position, atheist or theist, only affects specifics, not essence. I'm acting like an atheist, in that the essence of what we're doing is similar, but the specifics differ because of the necessary difference in position. > In fact, I feel as though I said "to be an X, you must jump off a bridge", and you shout up "I never jumped off a bridge, but I am an X!" as you plummet into the river below me. Like... We don't need to concoct a silly hypothetical analogy, we can simply use your words. You said theists assume God will intervene, and that's how they make decisions. This misrepresents how theists operate. I am explaining that difference. Atheists act the same way all the time, when theists misrepresent their views.

Retra 8y ago
You're nitpicking that I said "a deity will intervene" instead of "a deity might intervene," which is really very irrelevant to what I'm getting at. (Especially when talking about it as an assumption which is used to justify some behavior.) I'm not trying to have a religious argument, I'm trying to have an argument about how to practically classify and understand humans and their beliefs. >I think anybody, atheists included, would want to explain their position. I'd be curious as to exactly in what way I'm not acting like an atheist by responding here. I have a position, I am explaining it. An atheist would have a position and they would want to explain it. An atheist would not explain the position that you're explaining. The existence of a commonality doesn't preclude any differences. I'm simply arguing that the differences exist and are very important when understanding what people believe. When I said "act like an atheist" I meant it. I meant act exactly like an atheist -- make the decisions they would be expected to make -- up to and including the decision of what specific positions they might take up defense of.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- vinceguidry 8y ago
  I'm glad you edited your response. > An atheist would not explain the position that you're explaining. The existence of a commonality doesn't preclude any differences. I'm simply arguing that the differences exist and are very important when understanding what people believe. Now it's you that's nitpicking. The specifics only matter when you want them to matter. When they're inconvenient to you, you simply say you don't want to have a religious discussion. If you want to say what theists do and why, you're having a religious discussion. Because the reasons are important. Me saying I'm acting like anyone would is right in line with how everybody else would use that phrase. If I get mad at something, it's just like everyone else getting mad at something, even if the reasons why I'm getting mad are different. Acting like someone is not doing exactly the same thing. Postgres has a LIKE operator, and it's not the equivalence operator.
  - Retra 8y ago