What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?

[Lacewing]

It''s none of your business to reject an idea whose utility you don't understand.

So, according to you, people who reject the god-idea don't understand the utility of it.

I don't "reject" any ideas - rejection is an active behaviour.

And you don't reject anything.

[Skepdick]

So, according to you, people who reject the god-idea don't understand the utility of it.

Well do you? What is it that you are rejecting and what is its utility?

And you don't reject anything.

What experiment would I have to perform to determine whether I do or don't?

What's the empirical/behavioural consequence of "rejecting" or "accepting" an idea"?

[uwot]

Agnosticism is the default position - anybody who falls off the wagon and rationalises their belief OR disbelief is "stupid" from an epistemic viewpoint.

I dunno; I reckon I could make a case for atheism being the default position - agnostic atheism, as per the cartoon you posted if you prefer. I don't think anyone would have to make a point of not believing in something for which there is no evidence were it not for others insisting such a creature exists.

[Skepdick]

I dunno; I reckon I could make a case for atheism being the default position - agnostic atheism, as per the cartoon you posted if you prefer.

The default epistemic position is the principle of maximum entropy - all hypotheses are equally probable.

That aside, agnostic atheism os only half of atheism. The other half is gnostic atheism.
Much like half of theism is agnostic theism and the other half is gnostic theism.

In both camps (theism and atheism) the gnostics are idiots, because the god-idea is neither testable nor falsifiable. Neither belief nor disbelief is possible.

That is: I would side with an agnostic theist before I side with a gnostic atheist, which is completely expected given my over-index on epistemology.

I don't think anyone would have to make a point of not believing in something for which there is no evidence were it not for others insisting such a creature exists.

OK. I don't know if I believe in God or not. How would I find out?

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for "belief" anyway?

[Lacewing]

So, according to you, people who reject the god-idea don't understand the utility of it.

Well do you? What is it that you are rejecting and what is its utility?

My understanding is that it varies for everyone who finds utility in it. One person's utility is not another's. And some people don't find utility in it at all. It's like ANY idea or belief in life.

And you don't reject anything.

What's the empirical/behavioural consequence of "rejecting" or "accepting" an idea"?

You tell me. You're the one who claimed that people who reject the god-idea are stupid.

If you don't reject anything (as you say), then does that mean you accept everything? Or are you perpetually floating in some in-between state and spewing out your nonsense claims from pure mindlessness?

[Sculptor]

"Atheist Philosophy", is whatever philosophy a particular atheist has. Could be almost anything as long as it includes some kind of skepticism enough to have thought about the idea of god and rejected it.

It's not the rejection of the god-idea that makes atheists stupid. By rejecting the God-idea they also reject agnosticism.

It's always nice, once in a while, to check to see why I put you on ignore.

It's that epistemically, they shoot themselves in the face with a shotgun.

https://unvarnishedveritas.wordpress.co ... inference/

[Skepdick]

My understanding is that it varies for everyone who finds utility in it. One person's utility is not another's. And some people don't find utility in it at all. It's like ANY idea or belief in life.

Ok but there is a distinct difference between indifference to an idea and a rejection of an idea.

I am indifferent to archeology, but I don't reject it.

If you don't reject anything (as you say), then does that mean you accept everything?

Well, I can't tell you because you can't tell me what it means to accept or reject an idea.

Do you accept or reject The Universe?

Or are you perpetually floating in some in-between state and spewing out your nonsense claims from pure mindlessness?

I am perpetually pointing out arguments that aren't even wrong.

[uwot]

... I would side with an agnostic theist before I side with a gnostic atheist, which is completely expected given my over-index on epistemology.

You and me both and, as I keep pointing out, the term agnosticism was created by Thomas Huxley, who would also agree with you:
"On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not."
— Thomas Henry Huxley (From the wikipedia page on agnosticism as it happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism )

...I don't know if I believe in God or not. How would I find out?

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for "belief" anyway?

I don't see the need for any conditions. If there is nothing to reject in flying elephants, as in

Flying elephants? Cool! What is there to "reject"?

what is there to reject in theism?

[Skepdick]

It's that epistemically, they shoot themselves in the face with a shotgun.

Because I violently assault your religion?

Yeah! Both theists and atheists hate that.

[Skepdick]

I don't see the need for any conditions. If there is nothing to reject in flying elephants, as in

I wasn't asking about god-belief (in particular), I was asking about belief (in general).

what is there to reject in theism?

Inversely, what is there to accept in atheism?

Heck, what is there to accept in elephants? Even if they weren't flying.

I don't know if I believe in God; or elephants. How do I find out if I believe in either?

[uwot]

... what is there to accept in atheism?

Nothing. My atheism is simply that I don't accept what theists say there is to accept about their theism.

I don't know if I believe in God; or elephants. How do I find out if I believe in either?

Well, knowing whether you believe sounds like the gnostic position, theist or atheist, that you would rather not support. You could just do what most people do: believe p or not p and then get into interminable arguments with people who take the opposite view.

[Skepdick]

Nothing. My atheism is simply that I don't accept what theists say there is to accept about their theism.

And what empirical change might one observe if you were to accept the theistic narrative?

Well, knowing whether you believe sounds like the gnostic position , theist or atheist, that you would rather not support.

The testable/falsifiable kind of knowledge is not the type that offends my sensibilities ,and I can sure test/falsify hypotheses about myself...

You could just do what most people do: believe p or not p and then get into interminable arguments with people who take the opposite view.

Well, I more than believe that I like ice-cream. I know I like icecream. You would know I like icecream too if you saw how much of it I eat.

But I don't know whether I believe in God or not, and I have no idea how to test.

[Gary Childress]

Nothing. My atheism is simply that I don't accept what theists say there is to accept about their theism.

And what empirical change might one observe if you were to accept the theistic narrative?

Well, knowing whether you believe sounds like the gnostic position , theist or atheist, that you would rather not support.

The testable/falsifiable kind of knowledge is not the type that offends my sensibilities ,and I can sure test/falsify hypotheses about myself...

You could just do what most people do: believe p or not p and then get into interminable arguments with people who take the opposite view.

Well, I more than believe that I like ice-cream. I know I like icecream. You would know I like icecream too if you saw how much of it I eat.

But I don't know whether I believe in God or not, and I have no idea how to test.

You have no idea how to test if you believe in God or not or do you mean you have no idea how to test if there is a God?

[Skepdick]

You have no idea how to test if you believe in God or not or do you mean you have no idea how to test if there is a God?

The former.

Abstract beliefs lead to concrete actions/behavior.

What sort of actions/behaviour would indicate that I do believe in God?
What sort of actions/behaviours would be absent if I didn't?

[Gary Childress]

You have no idea how to test if you believe in God or not or do you mean you have no idea how to test if there is a God?

The former.

Abstract beliefs lead to concrete actions.

What sort of behaviour would empirically indicate that I do believe in God?
What sort of behaviours would be absent if I didn't?

I suppose if you believe in God you might do things like pray, offer homage to or say things out loud when no one else was listening which you think God is listening to. Or you might abstain from certain behaviors due only to fear of divine retribution or something.