How did you change paradigm?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Skepdick »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:44 pm Non religious to extremely religious to atheist.
Humour me please. How does one rationally arrive at atheism? I can't seem to work myself into that position.

Is it just that you are using Classical logic (which mandates the law of excluded middle) and so because you can't be convinced of God's existence you've taken the only other option available e.g God's non-existence?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Well I think there are layers to the trains of thought about why I'm an atheist. The first layer, and the most important layer, is just rejecting religious thought. Once I got past that layer, at that point I'm already an agnostic atheist - no reason to believe or disbelieve.

The layers after that involve a lot of subtleties that are not easy to compress into one post, but that all compile down into me thinking, is there a conscious creator? Probably not.

Maybe, I guess, but probably not.

I can go into detail with you if you want, maybe in another thread. Let me know.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Skepdick »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:57 pm Well I think there are layers to the trains of thought about why I'm an atheist. The first layer, and the most important layer, is just rejecting religious thought. Once I got past that layer, at that point I'm already an agnostic atheist - no reason to believe or disbelieve.
Ah, OK. You call an "agnostic atheist" what I call an "agnostic".

To me an atheist holds a positive belief for God's non-existence; and an agnostic is somebody who thinks both theists and atheists have gone to far.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:57 pm The layers after that involve a lot of subtleties that are not easy to compress into one post, but that all compile down into me thinking, is there a conscious creator? Probably not.
Well, if you blow the expression out of proportion - there probably isn't a supernatural one.

But if you shrink the expressiont to some reasonable interpretation then - every human is a conscious creator.

And the entire God-business has always been about self-resemblance.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:57 pm Maybe, I guess, but probably not.

I can go into detail with you if you want, maybe in another thread. Let me know.
Sure. If you want to get into it...
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:00 pm
But if you shrink the expressiont to some reasonable interpretation then - every human is a conscious creator.

I don't think the disagreement between atheists and theists is based on a disagreement of if humans exist, or are conscious, or create.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Skepdick »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:11 pm I don't think the disagreement between atheists and theists is based on a disagreement of if humans exist, or are conscious, or create.
Yeah... The disagreement is mostly over the vocabularies used for justifying their moral conclusions.

Atheist says: Murder is wrong - the laws are made up (we created them)
Theist says. Murder is wrong - it was revealed to us (by God)

They actually agree on the wrongness of murder, but they bicker over inconsequential stuff. If you replace the word "God" with the phrase "moral intuition" they are saying exactly the same damn thing.

In both cases they are appealing to their own moral authority.

It's fucking stupid.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:49 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:44 pm Non religious to extremely religious to atheist.
Humour me please. How does one rationally arrive at atheism? I can't seem to work myself into that position.

Is it just that you are using Classical logic (which mandates the law of excluded middle) and so because you can't be convinced of God's existence you've taken the only other option available e.g God's non-existence?
No, it's more like I just haven't been convinced of God's existence because the term, "god", hasn't been consistently defined in a way that puts any meat on the bone to chew on.

We have the same amount of evidence for the existence of Hercules, Hobbits, Dragons and Santa Claus as we do for God. Given the same amount of evidence, should we not hold all of these beliefs on the same level of skepticism? What reason would you have to believe one over the others given the same amount of evidence that we have for them all? How does one become a believer in the Christian or Muslim god, but an atheist when it comes to the existence of Zeus and Odin?

I used to be a Christian. I was "saved", baptized, joined the Teens for Christ group at my school, etc. When I got into my late teens, I began to question my beliefs because the inconsistencies became to obvious for me to ignore, and the answers provided by the preachers seemed to just cover up those inconsistencies with phrases like, "you must have faith" or "asking those questions is evidence that Satan is getting into your mind". This coupled with the fact that others around the planet hold many different beliefs and those beliefs seem to be dictated by where you were born and raised, got me thinking that this religious stuff was all a mass delusion. I began to read more about evolution and logic (the domains of Satan). I was already a huge astronomy buff, which my understanding of may have also been a catalyst for my beginning to question my beliefs. After all, why all this empty space and a dangerous universe that seems intent on trying to kill you, if a loving, purposeful God exists?
Last edited by Trajk Logik on Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Skepdick »

Trajk Logik wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:30 pm
Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:49 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:44 pm Non religious to extremely religious to atheist.
Humour me please. How does one rationally arrive at atheism? I can't seem to work myself into that position.

Is it just that you are using Classical logic (which mandates the law of excluded middle) and so because you can't be convinced of God's existence you've taken the only other option available e.g God's non-existence?
No, it's more like I just haven't been convinced of God's existence because the term, "god", hasn't been consistently defined in a way that puts any meat on the bone to chew on.

We have the same amount of evidence for the existence of Hercules, Hobbits, Dragons and Santa Claus as we do for God. Given the same amount of evidence, should we not hold all of these beliefs on the same level of skepticism? What reason would you have to belief one over the others given the same amount of evidence?

I used to be a Christian. I was "saved", baptized, joined the Teens for Christ group at my school, etc. When I got into my late teens, I began to question my beliefs because the inconsistencies became to obvious for me to ignore, and the answers provided by the preachers seemed to just cover up those inconsistencies with phrases like, "you must have faith" or "asking those questions is evidence that Satan is getting into your mind". This coupled with the fact that others around the planet hold many different beliefs and those beliefs seem to be dictated by where you were born and raised, got me thinking that this religious stuff was all a mass delusion. I began to read more about evolution and logic (the domains of Satan). I was already a huge astronomy buff, which my understanding of may have also been a catalyst for my beginning to question my beliefs. After all, why all this empty space and a dangerous universe that seems intent on trying to kill you, if a loving, purposeful God exists?
You don't seem to understand how evidence works in epistemology. You keep entertaining only one part of the equation.

You haven't been convinced of God's existence - fine. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so have you also been convinced of God's non-existence?

I have exactly the same amount of evidence for God's existence; and for God's non-existence - zero.

So I am not convinced either way. Neither atheism; not theism are evidence-based positions - which is why I am an agnostic.
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:32 pm I have exactly the same amount of evidence for God's existence; and for God's non-existence - zero.

So I am not convinced either way.
Then I assume you say the same thing when it comes to the existence of unicorns?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Skepdick »

Trajk Logik wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:37 pm Then I assume you say the same thing when it comes to the existence of unicorns?
Why does every sophist go for this silly remark? Obviously - the reasoning is universal. Absence of evidence for unicorns is not evidence for the non-existence of unicorns. It is possible that unicorns exist - it's a big universe.

Now address the steelman.

Why are you an atheist if there's no evidence against God's existence?
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:39 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:37 pm Then I assume you say the same thing when it comes to the existence of unicorns?
Why does every sophist go for this silly remark?

Address the steelman.

Why are you an atheist if there's no evidence against God's existence?
I'm trying to show you but you won't answer the question to move the conversation forward, which is so typical of you. Are you just as agnostic about Zeus as you are about the Christian god? It seems that you live your life not believing in much of anything because most of what we know can't be proven either. I have as much evidence that you are agnostic as I do for the existence of God, so prove to me that you are actually agnostic. Words don't do any good, as we have words that describe the existence of Hobbits as much as we have words describing the existence of some god.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:32 pm

I have exactly the same amount of evidence for God's existence; and for God's non-existence - zero.

So I am not convinced either way. Neither atheism; not theism are evidence-based positions - which is why I am an agnostic.
How does being an agnostic make you behave any differently than if you were an atheist? Now how about the difference in your behaviors if your were an actual believer vs. being agnostic? If there's not much of a difference between acting like a agnostic vs an atheist and a world of difference between acting like an agnostic and a Christian, what do you think that means?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Skepdick »

Trajk Logik wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:48 pm I'm trying to show you but you won't answer the question to move the conversation forward, which is so typical of you. Are you just as agnostic about Zeus as you are about the Christian god? It seems that you live your life not believing in much of anything because most of what we know can't be proven either. I have as much evidence that you are agnostic as I do for the existence of God, so prove to me that you are actually agnostic. Words don't do any good, as we have words that describe the existence of Hobbits as much as we have words describing the existence of some god.
You are avoiding the issue with irrelevant nonsense.

My principle applies in general. To anything. Absence of evicence for X is not evidence for the non-existence of X.

Where X is a free variable. Unicorns. Fairies. Dragons. Gods. Flying donkeys.
Trajk Logik wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:48 pm How does being an agnostic make you behave any differently than if you were an atheist?
My thinking patterns are different.

I understand how evidence-based reasoning works. Whereas neither theists nor atheists do beyond simply reacting to each other in dialectical fashion.

I don't do default positions on zero evidence.
Trajk Logik wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:48 pm Now how about the difference in your behaviors if your were an actual believer vs. being agnostic? If there's not much of a difference between acting like a agnostic vs an atheist and a world of difference between acting like an agnostic and a Christian, what do you think that means?
It means fuckall. It's just different vocabularies for different identities. I know that.

I can speak like an atheist. I can speak like a theist. I can speak like an agnostic.

But people who don't know how to think don't understand that, so they protect their narrative and their identity from attack.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:53 pm
It means fuckall. It's just different vocabularies for different identities. I know that.

I can speak like an atheist. I can speak like a theist. I can speak like an agnostic.

But people who don't know how to think don't understand that, so they protect their narrative and their identity from attack.
But when you speak like an atheist or theist, do you actually mean it? What about speaking like an agnostic?

Can you speak like you believe in unicorns? How is that different than speaking like you are a theist? If you are not a theist and not a believer in unicorns (because you are an agnostic in both) then you don't actually believe what you are saying.

How can I make any judgement on the existence of something that has not been consistently defined?

What if I, and others, told you that Darkmeflarb exists? Do you need to know what Darkmeflarb is before asserting whether or not you believe, not believe, or just don't know if it exists? Would you bother asking what a Darkmeflarb is? And if you did and you received different answers from different people, how would that affect what you believe - how would you receiving different answers to your question be any different than you never asking what a Darkmeflarb is? Would you still assert that there is no evidence either way? How is that any different than simply finding no use in my claims and going on about your life as if I had never said anything at all?
Last edited by Trajk Logik on Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by bahman »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:28 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:33 am For example my belief in God. I was Muslim first. Reading through Koran and discussing it with other people I had some doubts while I was still a believer. I hold on to both belief and doubt. I then tend to believe in Christianity. I then found an argument against Omniscient God. Later I found an argument against the act of creation from nothing. So I left Christianity aside. I refine my argument by discussing it with people here and there. So now, I found a foundation that I can stand on. So I am an atheist. No need to say I still believe in God/Gods who can create humans from something, or at least I have no argument against it yet. Well, if you think about it, if humans can be the by-product of evolution which is a random process that takes billions of years then how come a super-intelligent being with magnificent knowledge cannot create humans from something?
Oi vei! You too have fallen into the trap of ambiguous language - that loaded phrase "believe in". Let me land a helping hand.

Do you believe in democracy?
Yes and no. It depends on how well-educated are the people.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:28 pm Do you believe in love?
Yes, as I believe in hate.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:28 pm Do you believe in justice?
Yes, sure. Justice is about realizing what is right to do, good, or evil depending on the situation.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:28 pm Do you believe in fairness?
Sure. Fairness is about doing things in the right amounts. It requires proper judgment.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:28 pm Do you believe in morality?
Sure. Morality is about treating each other and yourself just and fair.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:28 pm Notice how the phrase "believe in" could be construed as something like "Do you want to mainifest democracy, love, justice, fairness, morality into the world?"

Notice how the phrase "Do you believe in God?" is construed to mean something entirely different. That's just idiosyncratic in my view.

Interpret the question in the exact same way you interpret it for democracy, justice, fairness, morality etc.
ALL of those ideas are abstract human constructs invented from nothing. That is how all creation/invention works. That is how ideation works.

To believe in God is to hold the desire to manifest God into existence.
To believe in God is to posess the desire to reify your understanding of God.
When I say that I believe in God I mean that I have faith that God exists. When I say that I don't think that God exists I mean that I have a reason against God.

Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:28 pm
reification : the act of changing something abstract (existing as a thought or idea) into something real
God is not an ontological thing! Not yet anyway.
God is an abstract idea. Like democracy, love, justice, fairness etc. God is something we constantly strive for not something we already have.
Well, when I say I don't think that God exists I mean that God is not an ontological thing.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:28 pm And who doesn't want to reify God?
I don't. It is either real or not.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:28 pm It's just humanity's deep desire to reify Morality in a universe that has none.
That is good practice.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:28 pm The theist/atheist/agnostic game is all fucking nonse. The God we all believe in is not ontological. Not yet anyway. Not until the reification is completed (which is never - because it's an unattainable ideal).

If you are talking about the ontological god then the only rational position is agnosticism. The atheists are wrong in this regard. We don't know and we can't know. It's all speculation. If you want to play the ontological game - The SImulation hypothesis is all the fad now! God is the programmer of the simulation.

Once you land at this perspective you should have no problem realising that atheists and theists is merely a difference in vocabulary, but not a difference in belief.
Of course, they are different in belief.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:28 pm Atheists believe in God in exactly the same everyone else does. Atheists want to bring about a moral society - everybody does! The work is slow but progress is happening.

As to which denomination/ideology you choose - it doesn't matter. Pick the denomination of your community. If you are surrounded by atheists - be an atheist. If you are surrounded by Muslims - be a Muslim. If you are surrounded by Christians - be a Christian.
I disagree. I follow my own way that I think is right.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:28 pm Or choose the God whose temperament and traits most closely resembles your own personality, and become absolutely unapologetic for holding that belief. Don't even feel the need/desire to defend it.

Philosophy has sure fucked everything up with this silly notion of justifying and arguing for one's beliefs and positions. Get the fuck out of here - I am no more going to justify my use of concepts than I am going to justify my use of a tooth brush. Freedom of thought is the only absolute right we have.

And lastly: make sure you read all of the scriptures metaphorically and not literally. Least you turn into a fundamentalist.
Apply the principle of charity gratuitously to everything you read in scripture and see the humanity of it all.
Metaphorically? What does stoning people to death mean metaphorically?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by bahman »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:22 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:33 am For example my belief in God. I was Muslim first. Reading through Koran and discussing it with other people I had some doubts while I was still a believer. I hold on to both belief and doubt.
OK, thanks for the specifics. So, in the first place it sounds like you were a quasi believer. You have mixed beliefs. Then perhaps you got more doubts in conversation with others.
Yes.
Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:22 pm
I then tend to believe in Christianity. I then found an argument against Omniscient God.
So, you actually changed you mind based on reasoned argument. I think this is rare with paradigmatic beliefs, but it does happen. 'Omniscient' and the other omni words aren't in the Bible. One could be Christian, think of God as vastly more powerful than we are or even than can be imagined, but not more powerful than limits that are logically proscribed, for example. The omni stuff is the game of theologians and only some of them.
I agree.

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:22 pm
Later I found an argument against the act of creation from nothing.
I think there's also interpretive swingroom on this one also. But I see again that arguments led to no longer believing.
Yes.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by bahman »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:32 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:33 am No need to say I still believe in God/Gods who can create humans from something
This point is super subtle! Creating humans is a metaphorical expression, not a literal one. It's about constructing the mind of a human, not constructing the physiology of a human.

Before you became "human" you were just an animal. A product of nature and biology - subject to survival of the fittest. Wild, uncultured, rude, uncivilied, unsophisticated, violent, aggressive etc. An animal.

You made yourself a human. Because "human" is just a concept. Still - you humanised yourself in accord with the ideal.
You became civil, reasoned, moral, just etc. etc. etc. - In God's image.

That's why Philosophy is called the "humanities". Perhaps it should be called "the humanisations".

Either way - it's about making humans.
What does creating human in metaphorical mean? People used to believe in the creation of humans literally. Now that we know about evolution they say the verses are metaphorical!
Post Reply