Do you wish there's a god?

[Belacqua]

I dont' see why a small child can't reject God without rationally evaluating the concept.

I've been clear all along that I'm not talking about small children. I'm NOT talking about babies, rocks, lizards, children raised by wolves, or people in a persistent vegetative state. 

I'm talking about adult people, who are part of a society, who are capable of language. I assume that includes most of the people posting here. 

As an adult, I assume you have

1) heard the claims made by religious people, 
2) evaluated those claims, 
3) rejected those claims. (Because if you had accepted the claims you wouldn't be an atheist anymore.

Now, I'm pretty sure that to evaluate and reject claims, you need some standard(s) of evaluation. These might be better standards (e.g. science, not revelation, gives us reliable data) or worse (e.g. the nuns were mean to me). But they are standards, adults have them and babies don't. 

Now as good and obvious as those standards may be, they are still things that we hold to be true -- what I call beliefs. These beliefs led us to reject religious claims, and therefore we are, despite having heard those claims, atheists. 

Therefore, we have beliefs, things we hold to be true, epistemological or metaphysical commitments, call them what you will, which have resulted in our adult, non-lizard, non-baby atheism. If someone was an atheist as a baby, that isn't relevant to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about now. 

The reason this caught my attention is that some people claim they, as atheists, have nothing to defend and nothing to explain. They merely lack belief. It's true that the only thing all atheists have in common is this lack. But those standards of evaluating evidence are nonetheless something. 

Bucky Ball said that he needed no reasons at all to reject the existence of dragons. But that's silly. There are all kinds of reasons to reject the existence of dragons, and if he doesn't know them he's not thinking very much. 

When Christians present what they call evidence, and we hear, evaluate, and reject it, we have something to defend and explain. It may seem trivially easy to us, but it is a standard or set of standards for how we hold the world to be and what kind of evidence we accept. 

Pure Lackists are what I've been calling people who claim their atheism is the same as that of a rock or a lizard -- pure lack, with no intellectual commitments involved. I honestly don't understand why this position is difficult to accept or controversial at all, but it's made people surprisingly mad.

[Abaddon_ire]

Why do you continue to lie about this when you have been corrected?

It's always nice to hear from you. I hope you're well.

How about you grow a pair and edit your profile to replace the "Um.." with the truth.

[Belacqua]

It's always nice to hear from you. I hope you're well.

How about you grow a pair and edit your profile to replace the "Um.." with the truth.

You can't be mad, it's cherry blossom season!

[Alan V]

The reason this caught my attention is that some people claim they, as atheists, have nothing to defend and nothing to explain. They merely lack belief. It's true that the only thing all atheists have in common is this lack. But those standards of evaluating evidence are nonetheless something. 

Atheists push back when theists try to shift the burden of proof for their own claims.

Certain atheists feel no responsibility for explaining themselves, especially over and over again. They don't think they should be on the defensive at all.

Meanwhile, atheists often do provide reasons and explanations for our ideas, if others catch us on a good day. Sure we have reasons.

So I guess this problem is about why atheists say what we do when we say it.

[Angrboda]

I accept that you view morality through the lens of what you find aesthetically pleasing.  I specifically laid out both that and how I'm human just like you and that subjectivity is just as much a part of who I am as it is who you are. 

I just don’t elevate that to the status of my moral framework.

That’s because you’re delusiona, and try to imagine yourself as something other than the biological creature you are, as a man living outside his body.  You lack the basic self awareness needed to recognize the nonsense even from purely atheistic perspective regarding your moral views.

Generally speaking, accusing your opponent of being delusional is not a productive debate strategy and generally indicates a lack of serious thought on your part. Your mileage may vary.

[Belacqua]

Sure we have reasons.

So I guess this problem is about why atheists say what they do when they say it.

To me, the problem has been the denial that we have reasons. 

(Though it's also been kind of funny. I've been insisting that the atheists posting here are thinking people whose brains are not baby-brains. And for this, I'm accused of being anti-atheist. As if some people want to claim that we are NOT thinking people and we DO have baby-brains.)

[Foxaèr]

Generally speaking, Religious faith is delusion disguising reality.

[Angrboda]

For one thing, despite all of our cognitive biases, we've managed to make them work, using some method or other.

What real cognitive biases did we have to work against to invent computers? Did we have to work against cognitive biases to invent the wheel, or figure out how to make a fire?

Yes. Cognitive biases are active in everything we do. Regarding computers, the bias towards realism is at odds with the conclusions of quantum mechanics, the understanding of which, and the rejection of our bias toward realism, were required in order to create computers and to productively design and improve them. The fact that you are unaware of this simply makes you an ignorant twat.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Wait?

What 'Cognitive biases' did we have to work against in regards to computers?

Oh the jaded youth of today.

Those who were never asked by their 1940's educated grandparents the unanswerable question back in the late 1970's early 1980's of;

"What poseible good is this 'Thing' going to be?"

When we, now, of thirty years hind sight take the internet and emerging self piloting vehicles for granted.

Heck, check back into even further history of Charles Babbage and the Lady Lovelace in regards to the potential analog computing possibilities missed in the 1800's.


What biases indeed.

[Acrobat]

What real cognitive biases did we have to work against to invent computers? Did we have to work against cognitive biases to invent the wheel, or figure out how to make a fire?

Yes. Cognitive biases are active in everything we do. Regarding computers, the bias towards realism is at odds with the conclusions of quantum mechanics, the understanding of which, and the rejection of our bias toward realism, were required in order to create computers and to productively design and improve them. The fact that you are unaware of this simply makes you an ignorant twat.

Perhaps, people have have a variety of marginal biases, the sort they can easily set aside, if need be. Sort like a slight preference, like I slightly wanted a boy rather than a girl for our first kid. Or at work I might slightly preferred a conclusion to match my hypothesis, but it’s not the methods of the investigation that caused me to set aside my bias. It’s that these sort of bias are they type we can set aside prior to our evaluations, we don’t hold them strongly enough, but rather quite weakly, that we can set them off on the side.

It’s not the scientific methods that actually corrects for biases, but rather the very nature of the biases themselves.

---

At work.

Wait?

What 'Cognitive biases' did we have to work against in regards to computers?

Oh the jaded youth of today.

Those who were never asked by their 1940's educated grandparents the unanswerable question back in the late 1970's early 1980's of;

"What poseible good is this 'Thing' going to be?"

When we, now, of thirty years hind sight take the internet and emerging self piloting vehicles for granted.

Heck, check back into even further history of Charles Babbage and the Lady Lovelace in regards to the potential analog computing possibilities missed in the 1800's.


What biases indeed.

That’s like the other day, I picked a fancy tapas spot for dinner for a bunch of guy friends, and some of them were complaining about “how good could tapas be? The portions are so small, and not filling, and don’t taste that good” And they tried it was the best food experience they ever had, they were surprised by how good it was.

Scientific method to the rescue! Thanks science.