7 ms·

The problem with Atheism is no one will agree on the basic ground rules for a conversation. For example if I say I'm not an Atheist because I don't care to subs

The problem with Atheism is no one will agree on the basic ground rules for a conversation. For example if I say I'm not an Atheist because I don't care to subscribe to a specific definition of god upon which to focus my lack of belief, I get accused of propping up a Straw Man. It's clear that religion exists, it's impossible to find a human culture that lacks it. But the minute you try to put the discussion on a more rigorous footing the process seems to fall apart, hence the term pseudophilosophy. Carl Sagan was described as not wanting to be called an Atheist because that already requires knowledge that has not been introduced into the conversation. I guess that makes him an epistemological agnostic but even that choice of terminology can be challenged. So where is one expected to go with this apparent dilemma?

anthk 6y ago
There is no dillema. Probe it, or GFTO. It works with anything: science, self-called "engineers" applying for a job, trials in order to be guilty or not... easy. If someone says "gold cures cancer", everyone and his mom would think he is a nut, unless that's true there's no proof that gold cures anything. The same with religion. >It's clear that religion exists, it's impossible to find a human culture that lacks it. So what. A lot of tribes had chamans too, and no magic did work, ever. Look up for "cargo cult" in order how religions works, that's the biggest slap to arrogant American Christian ever, because it works like a huge reality mirror, kinda like: hey, look at that bullshit these Australians are believeing, think for a while on your own bullshit from the Stone Age, because these people with no knowledge of the world (no one in China have heard of Jesus until very recent times (relatively) in the late Middle Ages, so maybe it's religion and god wasn't as Universal as they tought). The same with Native Americans, no matter North of South. No one have heard of crazy world-wide floods, or whatever. Also, Bible's great flood was a rehash from the Mesopotapian tales, whose legend maybe date back to the end of the Ice Age. Ditto with Roman/Greek Gods: if you believe in Zeus/Iupiter, most people will tell you to head an asylum, yet the Judeo-Christian God looks "right". It's just hypocrisy. And fear.
- bslorence 6y ago
  It seems like this is your argument: 1) If some religions are false, then all religions are false 2) Pacific-tribe cargo cults and ancient Greek mythology are clearly false, plus there are some stories in the Bible that are hard to swallow 3) Therefore God doesn't exist Is that right?
  - anthk 6y ago
    No, but most proof look the Bible as implausible, biased, full of contradictions and then contrary to what science have been told since millenia.
- RichardCA 6y ago
  Religion is an aspect of the human condition. The question of whether any particular religious belief can be thought of as "true" needs to be unpacked in a careful way. As soon as someone claims that a thing "exists" in a way that can't be demonstrated, I can choose to be polite but ignore the claim. That's trivial. What's more complicated is the entire idea of substance dualism, and how human consciousness can apprehend an idea that has nothing tangible to back it up. These questions matter, and are worth unpacking, regardless of how you happen to feel about religion. Does that make sense?

anthk 6y ago

There is no dillema. Probe it, or GFTO. It works with anything: science, self-called "engineers" applying for a job, trials in order to be guilty or not... easy. If someone says "gold cures cancer", everyone and his mom would think he is a nut, unless that's true there's no proof that gold cures anything. The same with religion. >It's clear that religion exists, it's impossible to find a human culture that lacks it. So what. A lot of tribes had chamans too, and no magic did work, ever. Look up for "cargo cult" in order how religions works, that's the biggest slap to arrogant American Christian ever, because it works like a huge reality mirror, kinda like: hey, look at that bullshit these Australians are believeing, think for a while on your own bullshit from the Stone Age, because these people with no knowledge of the world (no one in China have heard of Jesus until very recent times (relatively) in the late Middle Ages, so maybe it's religion and god wasn't as Universal as they tought). The same with Native Americans, no matter North of South. No one have heard of crazy world-wide floods, or whatever. Also, Bible's great flood was a rehash from the Mesopotapian tales, whose legend maybe date back to the end of the Ice Age. Ditto with Roman/Greek Gods: if you believe in Zeus/Iupiter, most people will tell you to head an asylum, yet the Judeo-Christian God looks "right". It's just hypocrisy. And fear.

bslorence 6y ago
It seems like this is your argument: 1) If some religions are false, then all religions are false 2) Pacific-tribe cargo cults and ancient Greek mythology are clearly false, plus there are some stories in the Bible that are hard to swallow 3) Therefore God doesn't exist Is that right?
- anthk 6y ago
  No, but most proof look the Bible as implausible, biased, full of contradictions and then contrary to what science have been told since millenia.
RichardCA 6y ago
Religion is an aspect of the human condition. The question of whether any particular religious belief can be thought of as "true" needs to be unpacked in a careful way. As soon as someone claims that a thing "exists" in a way that can't be demonstrated, I can choose to be polite but ignore the claim. That's trivial. What's more complicated is the entire idea of substance dualism, and how human consciousness can apprehend an idea that has nothing tangible to back it up. These questions matter, and are worth unpacking, regardless of how you happen to feel about religion. Does that make sense?