Oldskeptic wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:You should layoff asking JayJay to explain what atheist ideology is. He's explained it very simply and succinctly as a set of rational attitudes that make it difficult to believe in gods. I can get fully on board with that definition, but then I have to ask him what fault he can really find in that? By JayJay's definition of atheist ideology I suppose that theist ideology could be explained as a set of irrational attitudes that make it easy to believe in gods.

Did I say the atheist ideology is a set of RATIONAL belief?

No, you said, "...atheist ideology is a set of attitudes that make it difficult for a rational person to see how there could be a god."

Good Grief. I didn’t mean to say that.

More like you regret saying it.

I do regret my incaution. I didn’t appreciate that you could very easily read that as atheist ideology is a set of RATIONAL attitudes that make it difficult for a rational person to see how there could be a god. And why shouldn’t you interpret it that way? After all a rational person is one who has rational attitudes.

You used that to make out that I would prefer my set of irrational (according to you) attitudes prevail over a set of rational (according to you) attitudes. That couldn’t have been my intention. To prevent that word game I’ll adapt the definition:

Atheist ideology is a set of self-serving attitudes that make it difficult for a reasonablee person to see how there could be a god.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:JayJay's complaint is that this set of rational attitudes leads to the undermining of belief in creation by something greater than ourselves. JayJay would rather have his set of irrational set of attitudes prevail over a set of rational attitudes. The point of his in this thread isn't that atheist ideology messed up the human origin story; It's that rational attitudes interfere with creationism.

JayJay wrote:

That passage would be about right if you everywhere changed “rational” to “irrational” and “irrational” to “rational”.

But then it wouldn't match how you described atheist ideology.

Not how I have now reframed it, to stop you from making out that my position is the opposite of what it is.
Another point I want to bring out is that the self-serving attitudes that make up an ideology are made up by a group of believers over time, so that the “reasonable person” inherits them and swims in them. There is also inevitably some institutional/economic/political interest involved.

You ignored my bringing up that an ideology becomes visible when it’s wrong. It should be possible to demolish part of an ideology by showing that some attitude is held by s bunch of believers and is wrong.

Jayjay4547 wrote:To prevent that word game I’ll adapt the definition:

Atheist ideology is a set of self-serving attitudes that make it difficult for a reasonablee person to see how there could be a god.

In what way is it self-serving to refuse blind faith? Even from your perspective, the operation of a deity is no more than an interpretation of the observations you make, what you call 'seeing how there could be a god'. You don't point to the god, and say, here, fella, here's your evidence. No. Instead you say, 'this tells you there could be a god'.

In point of fact, many atheists (and most members of RatSkep who have articulated their positions in detail to me) admit that there could be a god, but as they have no evidence for this, they lack faith in such a god. All you're saying now is that this position is 'self-serving'. Until you explain in what way it is so, that's simply you delivering a milquetoast playground insult.

You probably mean to indicate someone like me, who says that the concept of a deity is nothing but a story inherited from ignorant goat roasters who lacked a germ theory of disease, and who simply made shit up in the face of that ignorance. To figure they were somehow capable of discovering god and to take their invention as an object of faith is at best an exercise in ancestor worship. To someone like me, the fabrication of all these rationalizations you have erected around the goat roasters' invention to make it seem to you like a modern conclusion from facts you observe is just so much wasted motion. You're not justifying your faith to me; you're justifying it to yourself.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
It is true that any particular biological explanation using the scientific method has no place for divine magic, because it works with that part of the world we can experiment with and own. But a human origin story told in terms of self-creation is structured that way so as to imply something about that part of the world we can’t experiment with and owns us.

Here’s an example of owning us. It’s possible to entertain the idea that the world would be better if humanity were to just die out, if we just left it to the elephants and the bats, all we are doing is turning the place into a trash heap. I’m not saying that’s true or that one thinks it all the time, but one can. And one couldn’t think that unless one knew that the world is psychologically bigger than the human is; it’s a sacrificial notion. You can’t “sacrifice” yourself to a tin can you find in the road, you sacrifice to something greater, in an affirmation of its worth, of what owns us.

In what way are you exhibiting self-sacrifice by proselytizing your faith anonymously in an internet forum? The fact that your audience is unreceptive to your message is not enough to produce the suffering necessary to call it 'self-sacrifice'. That notion is just another article of your faith. To someone like me, it appears self-serving of you to imply that preaching before an unreceptive audience is enough to call it 'self-sacrifice'. You make the statement that whatever we cannot control 'owns' us, but you haven't attempted to justify that position. Looks like that's just another article of your faith. Preach on, Brother.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Atheist ideology is a set of self-serving attitudes that make it difficult for a reasonablee person to see how there could be a god.

What are these attitudes?

Jayjay4547 wrote:You used that to make out that I would prefer my set of irrational (according to you) attitudes prevail over a set of rational (according to you) attitudes. That couldn’t have been my intention. To prevent that word game I’ll adapt the definition:

Atheist ideology is a set of self-serving attitudes that make it difficult for a reasonablee person to see how there could be a god.

Self-serving attitudes. That is a list. Could you please write out the list?

I've noticed that abstract labels are used to bad mouth people. By way of example, in the US people care called "a liberal". Not what that person is doing wrong. So, you label atheists self-serving (and we apparently deserve that label more than other people). But you're not specifying what we're doing wrong. But we'll get your list, I assume.

Here's how it works for me.
1) Religions have contradictory views. So they can't all be right (but they can all be wrong).
2) None of the religions has a majority (counted by number of followers of that religion). So, even if there is a true religion, the majority of the religious people is wrong (and statistically that could well include you).

Am I being unreasonable? In what sense is this self-serving?

I continue:
3) Where religious people are wrong, it is crap created by humans. In other words, humans are capable of coming up with religious nonsense.

Are you still with me?

It is possible to think rationally (reasonably?) about religion:

Case one: How do souls work?
If we split a fertilised egg that has just divided, this results in two human beings (so, can we tell god when to provide another soul to the petri dish). The following options exist (which have interesting consequences in abortion discussions):
a) The cells don't have a soul
b) One cell has a soul and the other one doesn't.
c) Each cell has a soul (or half a soul).

In the latter case, are the souls of your dandruff (dead skin cells) already in heaven? Or is my dandruff already screaming in agony, suffocating in the brimstone.

Case two: The number of gods can be only in one of the following categories:
a) zero
b) one
c) more than one.

I can look for each of the options which one has the most support. I can't see how a reasonable person can disagree with another person about his religion being right about the number of gods in contrast to another person's religion. I can't see how it can be justified for one group of people to make life of another group miserable. But hey, I'm an atheist. I'm not reasonable. I'm self-serving.

Case three: The afterlife. I think there are two exclusive options

a) There is an afterlife.
b) There is no afterlife (be it pleasant or not, whether it is depending on how you lived or not).

My view: We know there is the current life, let's make at least that one pleasant. I can only see that religiously motivated groups make other groups life difficult. So, yes I've developed some resentment against it. And you can call that political if you want to. I wouldn't give a damn about religion if people just kept it to themselves. I would bet that goes for the majority of atheists. It is not a matter of principle or something. I don't think there is an agenda.

There is also inevitably some institutional/economic/political interest involved.

Well, there could be some pot-kettle-black here. But given that atheism isn't institutionalised (when I studied at the university (biochemistry), I didn't have to take vows or something), I doubt that atheism is blacker. It is not that atheism can make a fist.

Political: Of course, I want anyone to live a happy life (be they gay or whatever) without suffering from the hate from other people. Call that political, if you wish. But just calling something political, is an abstract bad-mouthing label, again.

Bert

Jayjay4547 wrote:To prevent that word game I’ll adapt the definition:

Atheist ideology is a set of self-serving attitudes that make it difficult for a reasonablee person to see how there could be a god.

What attitudes and why are they intrinsically atheistic?
Stop dodging Jayjay.

Just why should there be a god? For what purpose?

The purpose of hate? I see no other.

I have no problem seeing how there could be a god. One of the ways is if a bunch of humans made one up. I also accept I don't know everything and accept there is a very very slim chance that is as close to zero it might as well be zero that there is a god. Sadly none of the believers on Earth have ever managed to wrangle up any evidence for that god being their god or for it being any god at all. So then I guess atheist that I am I don't subscribe to this ideology JayJay made up.

Theist ideology is a set of indoctrinated attitudes that make it difficult for a (maybe otherwise) reasonable person to see how there could be no god and instead encourage them to lie about the actualy facts of the matter.

That's more the reality of the current situation.

Speaking to a muslim and asked for evidence of his god.
Answer: "If you look into your heart you will see god". It sounded almost like a threat.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Atheist ideology is a set of self-serving attitudes that make it difficult for a reasonablee person to see how there could be a god.

The fuck does this mean?

Sendraks wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:Atheist ideology is a set of self-serving attitudes that make it difficult for a reasonablee person to see how there could be a god.

The fuck does this mean?

Dont ask him. He has not got a clue.

Oh it's just a thinly veiled insult.

Thinly?

Yes, it's a thinly veiled insult, meaning that the insult is barely disguised.

Did you mean to say 'veiled'?

I dont consider "thinly" or "veiled". It is just an insult to all members here who are atheists.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I dont consider "thinly" or "veiled". It is just an insult to all members here who are atheists.

Atheists aren't people, so they can't be offended.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:I dont consider "thinly" or "veiled". It is just an insult to all members here who are atheists.

Atheists aren't people, so they can't be offended.

What are they then?

Scot Dutchy wrote:I dont consider "thinly" or "veiled". It is just an insult to all members here who are atheists.

Clear as mud. Thanks.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:I dont consider "thinly" or "veiled". It is just an insult to all members here who are atheists.

Atheists aren't people, so they can't be offended.

What are they then?

Agents of Satan. Lucifer. Old Nick. The Devil. Beelzebub. The trickster: those who use evidence and reason. [Hey, don't shoot me, i am just the messenger]!

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:I dont consider "thinly" or "veiled". It is just an insult to all members here who are atheists.

Atheists aren't people, so they can't be offended.

What are they then?

Agents of Satan. Lucifer. Old Nick. The Devil. Beelzebub. The trickster: those who use evidence and reason. [Hey, don't shoot me, i am just the messenger]!

Yeah, we serve the dark one.
But, in an utterly self-serving way.....