If I were an Atheist

[Angrboda]

A poll that I ran seems to suggest that only 15% of atheists consider atheism to require being of your 'hard' variety.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-14681.html

One of the most important rules of logic is that just because the majority of a group claims something to be true does not mean that that concept is true. An important difficulty of opinion polling is pining down whose opinion is relevant. It has been shown that group animals follow their "leaders", so to speak, and elections are decided more by the opinions of certain relevant personages who influence the majority, rather than the majority itself. Therefore, one ought, theoretically, to merely ask those who opinions are most influential in deciding elections. But pollsters rarely, if ever, do that, because it is well near impossible to decide who is most influential. As a consequence of the impossibility of deciding whose opinion is relecant, opinion polls do not and should not decide questions pertaining to truth. Even if one successfully forecasts the defeat of an incumbent government, one will never be able to decide whose decisions were decisive in making the overturning of the incumbent a reality and, even more importantly, the opinion poll says absolutely nothing about whether voters actually chose wisely. Opinion polls, in short, are not and shall never be arbiters of truth.

Whoah, look at them goalposts move!

[robvalue]

But what the fuck is a divine being? A god? If I ask anyone to define them, all I generally get is a list of things it is not, in other words it exists less and less so that wherever science may find it, it's not there either.

Some people say the sun is God. And the sun exists. So I'm a theist in regard to those people. That's answered the question, some gods do exist. The problem is that there appears to be no restrictions on what is and isn't a god, is and isn't a divine being, is and isn't a deity, and so forth. Until it's defined to the point where it actually means anything at all, it's not a coherent claim. Who has the authority to decide what is and isn't an acceptable idea of a god? Since we have no experience of or data about one, except putting that label onto things we know exist, how can we agree that what someone says is a "God" or not?

Just the vague concept of "God" will vary from each person to the next. And the problem is that even if the God they think they are imagining turned up in front of them, they wouldn't be able to pick it out from a very powerful alien. They can just point at either and go, "That's my god!". I can't say they are right or wrong, because their definition is so vague as to cover whatever they want. But usually their definition would actually stop them being able to see it or in fact detect it in any way at all without using special pleading. Which is weird considering Eve had him actually standing in front of her staring at her tits.

[AdamLOV]

But what the fuck is a divine being? A god? If I ask anyone to define them, all I generally get is a list of things it is not, in other words it exists less and less so that wherever science may find it, it's not there either.

Some people say the sun is God. And the sun exists. So I'm a theist in regard to those people. That's answered the question, some gods do exist. The problem is that there appears to be no restrictions on what is and isn't a god, is and isn't a divine being, is and isn't a deity, and so forth. Until it's defined to the point where it actually means anything at all, it's not a coherent claim. Who has the authority to decide what is and isn't an acceptable idea of a god? Since we have no experience of or data about one, except putting that label onto things we know exist, how can we agree that what someone says is a "God" or not?

Just the vague concept of "God" will vary from each person to the next. And the problem is that even if the God they think they are imagining turned up in front of them, they wouldn't be able to pick it out from a very powerful alien. They can just point at either and go, "That's my god!". I can't say they are right or wrong, because their definition is so vague as to cover whatever they want. But usually their definition would actually stop them being able to see it or in fact detect it in any way at all without using special pleading. Which is weird considering Eve had him actually standing in front of her staring at her tits.

Exactly the same question may be asked of abstract scientific concepts such as bioassays. What constitutes a statistically valid bioassay? Whatever the leading scientists in the field claim constitutes a valid bioassay. It all depends on who is making the claim. Therefore your question seems to be a broader one that is not exclusive to God, although you have admitted the existence of a plurality of deities. The question would be what constitutes God as such. If I understand correctly, your claim is that the haziness of the concept "God" prevents us from deciding which entity is God. My argument would be that the doubtfulness and haziness of a concept need not mean that one cannot utilize that concept. Despite the difficulty of deciding what is a statistically relevent bioassay, biology has utilized such methods of testing successfully. Similarly, adherents of monotheistic religions have contructed viable cosmologies even though "God" as such is a shadowy, empirically unverifiable idea. The central concept of an assemblage need not be clear-cut or straightforward.

[robvalue]

OK, I have no idea what a bioassay is so I can't comment there!

Basically God can mean absolutely anything. That is the problem. So the question becomes, "Does anything exist?" Yeah, it seems so. But that's not a very useful question.

Defining what you mean, as accurately as possible, is the important thing. So what exactly words mean may vary from person to person, and that's fine as long as they are clear. My atheism is more of a pre-emptive stance against the most common God claims, but as I've said I'm actually a theist in regard to some claims. So technically I'm undecided until I hear the claim. But since no one argues about whether stuff that exists does exist, that's kind of a lame caveat.

Bottom line, I will kick any God in the nuts, if he shows up and if he has nuts.

[pocaracas]

huh?! "abstract scientific concept"?

Bioassay (commonly used shorthand for biological assay or assessment), or biological standardization is a type of scientific experiment. A bioassay involves the use of live animal or plant (in vivo) or tissue or cell (in vitro) to determine the biological activity of a substance, such as a hormone or drug. Bioassays are typically conducted to measure the effects of a substance on a living organism and are essential in the development of new drugs and in monitoring environmental pollutants.

[robvalue]

Hmm. That could be cleared up pretty quickly with "So which experiment in particular?"

Try that with God, and see if you get the same level of detail.

"Well you can't see him, or hear him, or touch him, he's not part of time, not part of space... he's not physical..."

"I don't give a fuck what you can't do to him and what he isn't! Tell me where his balls are so I can kick them!"

"Oh, except I do see him and hear him. In personal experiences, you wouldn't understand."

"Sign me up."

[AdamLOV]

Hmm. That could be cleared up pretty quickly with "So which experiment in particular?"

Try that with God, and see if you get the same level of detail.

"Well you can't see him, or hear him, or touch him, he's not part of time, not part of space... he's not physical..."

"I don't give a fuck what you can't do to him and what he isn't! Tell me where his balls are so I can kick them!"

"Oh, except I do see him and hear him. In personal experiences, you wouldn't understand."

"Sign me up."

The process of manufacturing bioassays, let alone interpreting the data obtained via this method, is just as esoteric as the process of interpreting religious-mystical-ecstatic experiences. A brilliant analysis of the scientific process and how scientific facts are constructed is contained in Latour-Woolgar's Laboratory Life. Highly recommended reading, the example of uncertainty relating to bioassay validity may be found in that book.

[downbeatplumb]

Hmm. That could be cleared up pretty quickly with "So which experiment in particular?"

Try that with God, and see if you get the same level of detail.

"Well you can't see him, or hear him, or touch him, he's not part of time, not part of space... he's not physical..."

"I don't give a fuck what you can't do to him and what he isn't! Tell me where his balls are so I can kick them!"

"Oh, except I do see him and hear him. In personal experiences, you wouldn't understand."

"Sign me up."

The process of manufacturing bioassays, let alone interpreting the data obtained via this method, is just as esoteric as the process of interpreting religious-mystical-ecstatic experiences. A brilliant analysis of the scientific process and how scientific facts are constructed is contained in Latour-Woolgar's Laboratory Life. Highly recommended reading, the example of uncertainty relating to bioassay validity may be found in that book.

Lets assume that I can't bothered to read a whole book to check this.

What are the bullet point facts.

[AdamLOV]

The process of manufacturing bioassays, let alone interpreting the data obtained via this method, is just as esoteric as the process of interpreting religious-mystical-ecstatic experiences. A brilliant analysis of the scientific process and how scientific facts are constructed is contained in Latour-Woolgar's Laboratory Life. Highly recommended reading, the example of uncertainty relating to bioassay validity may be found in that book.

Lets assume that I can't bothered to read a whole book to check this.

What are the bullet point facts.

The point is that scientific and religious "facts" alike are constructed by the truth-building activities of specialists. What becomes truth is what has gone through officially sanctioned channels of translation. (This in no way implies that there is no reality outside of human cognition, merely that our own decisions about what is true are relative).

We may take the example of lab rats. For a member of, say, a tribe that believes in animism, dissecting lab rats and inputing the data into computers is meaningless. Various biological concepts are not sources of knowledge for the Inca. Similarly, one who is not a molecular biologist has no idea about what is going on when lab rats are dissected, and data is obtained from their entrails and uploaded into computers. What constitutes relevant evidence is decides by scientists. Similarly, among the Inca, priests decides what constituted evidence of, say, a dog having mystical properties. The two systems of knowledge are different, but neither may be considered any less true. Because truth (and truth criteria) are social constructs does not make them invalid. Every assemblage, including truth assemblages (religion, science) are constructed by human and/or nonhuman actants. In a nutshell, this is the basic kernel of Latour-Woolgar's argument.

[Hatshepsut]

The point is that scientific and religious "facts" alike are constructed by the truth-building activities of specialists. What becomes truth is what has gone through officially sanctioned channels of translation...[A]mong the Inca, priests decides what constituted evidence of, say, a dog having mystical properties. The two systems of knowledge are different, but neither may be considered any less true. Because truth (and truth criteria) are social constructs does not make them invalid...

I thoroughly subscribe to this point of view. Without absolute truth standards to say that "science is true while religion is false" makes no sense. However, it's also true that you can't do a bioassay using Inca methods. I don't want my doctors to get stupid and prescribe religious healing for my leg abscess when religion isn't the appropriate tool. We can say objectively that Inca healing tools were much less effective than modern medicine when it comes to prolonging life and physiological health.