Proof and evidence will always equal Science

[The Architect Of Fate]

I get the sense that some athiests think that all thiests believe that God is just another thing in a universe of things. I remember writing about this pernicious category error in a thread called " tooth fairy bullshit".

It's not bullshit simply you don't like it 

---

Playing word games and engaging in theological makebelieve will never make god real nor will it make belief in it reasonable

[polymath257]

I get the sense that some athiests think that all thiests believe that God is just another thing in a universe of things. I remember writing about this pernicious category error in a thread called " tooth fairy bullshit".

I skimmed that thread, but don't see your argument there.

Some theists do see God in the way you describe. My grandmother certainly did.

I think most theists don't think too deeply about the matter at all.

But no, I don't think that intelligent theists usually say that God is an object in the universe. But I have yet to see what they think the word *does* signify. That's one reason I am, on alternate days, an ignostic: I just don't think the term 'God' is meaningful at all. The other days I think it is (barely), but still see no evidence for such.

So, yes, I am one of those 'douchbag' atheists that see God as equivalent to the tooth fairy. The only difference is that adults believe in God and grow out of believing in the tooth fairy and we have a society that promotes God-belief.

[Neo-Scholastic]

So Ten is making an argument that if there was evidence for God then God would be part of science and not part of religion...and what he is also saying is that that other stuff that falls out of the domain of science has no practical use.

Thank you for the clarification. I can respect that position while at the same time it seems very counter-intuitive to me. Kinda of like if-the-only-tool-you-have-is-a-hammer kinda way. Most of life's experiences are outside the domain of science, such as the obligations we have to future generations and also only to ourselves, the honor we have for our ancestors, etc. The world of meaning and significance is closed to atheists, though I can tell that some of you still see the Light :-)

I mean, the "no evidence" bromide is so lame. I don't believe most of you are such sticklers about evidence for everything else in your lives. Something about other people believing in God, which is something normal and basic to many people,...something about people believing in God really bothers a "no evidence" heckler. There's a whole host of basic concepts that most normal people take for granted (like "the Past exists" and "Numbers are immaterial.") and for which there isn't the level of "evidence" equal to the one demanded by sticklers about evidence for God. Let me tell you what I consider evidence. Evidence is that which is evident. And there are lots of things that are evident about the world...such as the multiple-realizability of meaning...that suggest a totality...a Cosmos, if you will (although the Gnostics called it the Pleroma),...that is much richer, and meaningful than mundane reductionist thinking allows. :-P

[Foxaèr]

We tend to over complicate things, especially philosophically.

In the end, philosophy is not science. Philosophy is merely an extension of our imaginative what-ifs that rarely finds its way into empiricism.

As much as it remains a truth that science does not involve itself in religion, it remains equally true that religion will always be reasonably considered a mythology until it can be scientifically shown to be otherwise a natural aspect of our reality.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I skimmed that thread, but don't see your argument there.

You're right. This was the post of which I was thinking...

https://atheistforums.org/thread-47154-p...pid1486079

Some theists do see God in the way you describe. My grandmother certainly did...I think most theists don't think too deeply about the matter at all.

How, may I ask, do you feel about your grandmother and the place of faith in her life??

But no, I don't think that intelligent theists usually say that God is an object in the universe. But I have yet to see what they think the word *does* signify.

So concepts such as Ground-of-Being or Being-Itself or The Totality have no interest for you? I can respect that. Is it necessary to disrespect those do find them interesting? Is there more that one way to experience being human?

So, yes, I am one of those 'douchbag' atheists that see God as equivalent to the tooth fairy.

Indeed. I Apologize for my "pre-Exodus" behavior. I do still harbor many of the same feelings but am making every effort to interact with other people online with both genuine curiousity and good intentions, if that means anything to you.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I get the sense that some athiests think that all thiests believe that God is just another thing in a universe of things. I remember writing about this pernicious category error in a thread called " tooth fairy bullshit".

I skimmed that thread, but don't see your argument there.

Some theists do see God in the way you describe. My grandmother certainly did.

I think most theists don't think too deeply about the matter at all.

But no, I don't think that intelligent theists usually say that God is an object in the universe. But I have yet to see what they think the word *does* signify. That's one reason I am, on alternate days, an ignostic: I just don't think the term 'God' is meaningful at all. The other days I think it is (barely), but still see no evidence for such.

So, yes, I am one of those 'douchbag' atheists that see God as equivalent to the tooth fairy. The only difference is that adults believe in God and grow out of believing in the tooth fairy and we have a society that promotes God-belief.

 About 40 years ago, I concluded that religion for most people is an accident of birth.  Religious beliefs and world views are usually absorbed uncritically before the age of reason.

That as general principle, relatively few people ever seriously think about either their religious beliefs or world view. If they did, atheists would outnumber theists.  Further,  the broad principles generally seen as conservative or right wing would be in the minority. This is because imo, such  world views are designed for the ruling elites and bourgeoisie not for the canon fodder and those at the coal face so to speak.


Thoughts for today:  "Give me the child until he is even and I will show you the man" (Aristotle)

"If you could reason with religious people there wouldn't be any' (Greg House)

[Belacqua]

I don't think that intelligent theists usually say that God is an object in the universe.

That's right.

I am one of those 'douchbag' atheists that see God as equivalent to the tooth fairy.

So you acknowledge that your view of God is not that of intelligent people.

---

"Give me the child until he is even and I will show you the man" (Aristotle)

Unless he's odd.

[polymath257]

I skimmed that thread, but don't see your argument there.

You're right. This was the post of which I was thinking...

https://atheistforums.org/thread-47154-p...pid1486079

Some theists do see God in the way you describe. My grandmother certainly did...I think most theists don't think too deeply about the matter at all.

How, may I ask, do you feel about your grandmother and the place of faith in her life??

She used it as a bludgeon to keep her children under control.

But no, I don't think that intelligent theists usually say that God is an object in the universe. But I have yet to see what they think the word *does* signify.

So concepts such as Ground-of-Being or Being-Itself or The Totality have no interest for you? I can respect that. Is it necessary to disrespect those do find them interesting? Is there more that one way to experience being human?

It's more that I don't see those phrases as being meaningful at all.

What does 'Ground of Being' even mean? What *could* it even mean?

How is 'Being Itself' different than 'Being'? I see 'existence' as an adjective, not a noun.

So those two just seem to be meaningless phrases to me. Maybe, if someone could define what they mean and show they exist, then they *might* be interesting.

As for 'The Totality', that just seems like an overblown way of saying 'the Universe'.

So, yes, I am one of those 'douchbag' atheists that see God as equivalent to the tooth fairy.

Indeed. I Apologize for my "pre-Exodus" behavior. I do still harbor many of the same feelings but am making every effort to interact with other people online with both genuine curiousity and good intentions, if that means anything to you.

Yes, it does. It means we might be able to have a conversation, if we can find some common definitions to use.

[The Architect Of Fate]

So you acknowledge that your view of God is not that of intelligent people.

Apologists are not intelligent people 

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, there are lots of people who stumble through their lives being a stickler for evidence, Neo.

I think it would be stranger to find people who weren't. The faithful...yourself included, insist that they do have evidence of their silly gods. This entire board is chock full of claims to that effect. It doesn't seem like I'm doing anything different than you or the next nut, at least on that count.

It's almost as if people tend to believe that their beliefs are well evidenced, or something.