Posted: Jul 25, 2018 9:45 pm
Here we go again ...
Quite simply, god type entities are asserted to exist, the assertions in question usually arising from mythologies. Treating assertions about a particular god type entity as true, simply because said assertions are presented in a particular mythology, is in effect what supernaturalist belief consists of.
I am an atheist because I treat those assertions, like all other assertions, with suspicion. That is it. I take the position that these assertions should be treated like all other assertions, and regarded as discardable, until a proper, rigorous test of those assertions informs me otherwise. I don't regard those assertions as possessing a special, privileged status, the way supernaturalists do, with regard to the need for a proper, rigorous test, or the discardability of those assertions in the absence thereof.
This does not mean that I "reject" the requisite god-type entity, so let's get that piece of duplicitous supernaturalist mischief out of the way and tossed into the bin right at the start. What it means is that I regard the assertions in question, at the point of presentation, as possessing the status "truth value unknown", just like every other assertion at the point of presentation.
If I alight subsequently upon data informing me that the assertions in question are either collectively inconsistent, or involve manifest absurdities, then this is a separate issue. But accepting the conclusions from that data does not equate to the supernaturalist misrepresentation of "you reject my god". I could hold the view that said entity does indeed exist, but that the assertions about this entity are wrong. This isn't rejection of the entity, it's rejection of the assertions. I do wish supernaturalists would learn this elementary distinction.
Indeed, I'm on public record here as stating that I regard mythologies as woefully incompetent, with respect to the matter of answering the question "does a god type entity exist?". That's because mythologies are little more than collections of blind assertions on the matter. They have no substance to offer. That doesn't mean I dismiss summarily the idea that a god type entity could exist. I simply think mythologies are a waste of time, if one wants proper, substantive answers to the requisite questions, questions which I currently regard as unanswered in the general case. The only useful information mythologies provide, at bottom, is data on the nature of the various fantasies the authors thereof entertained. If you want actual data, you look elsewhere. In the case of assertions involving purportedly 'historical' events, you look for a properly trained archaeologist, or, in the case of prehistory, a properly trained palaeontologist. If your interest lies in such matters as the origin of life, then the biology and chemistry departments are that way. Origin of the universe? Physics department.
That's the distinction supernaturalists routinely fail to make - the distinction between their beloved magic entities, and the assertions presented about said entities. Tossing the assertions into the bin doesn't mean "rejecting" those entities, because, wait for it, those entities could actually exist, but the assertions presented about them could be completely wrong. I advise supernaturalists to read that last sentence repeatedly, slowly if necessary, until the requisite elementary concepts sink in.
Quite simply, god type entities are asserted to exist, the assertions in question usually arising from mythologies. Treating assertions about a particular god type entity as true, simply because said assertions are presented in a particular mythology, is in effect what supernaturalist belief consists of.
I am an atheist because I treat those assertions, like all other assertions, with suspicion. That is it. I take the position that these assertions should be treated like all other assertions, and regarded as discardable, until a proper, rigorous test of those assertions informs me otherwise. I don't regard those assertions as possessing a special, privileged status, the way supernaturalists do, with regard to the need for a proper, rigorous test, or the discardability of those assertions in the absence thereof.
This does not mean that I "reject" the requisite god-type entity, so let's get that piece of duplicitous supernaturalist mischief out of the way and tossed into the bin right at the start. What it means is that I regard the assertions in question, at the point of presentation, as possessing the status "truth value unknown", just like every other assertion at the point of presentation.
If I alight subsequently upon data informing me that the assertions in question are either collectively inconsistent, or involve manifest absurdities, then this is a separate issue. But accepting the conclusions from that data does not equate to the supernaturalist misrepresentation of "you reject my god". I could hold the view that said entity does indeed exist, but that the assertions about this entity are wrong. This isn't rejection of the entity, it's rejection of the assertions. I do wish supernaturalists would learn this elementary distinction.
Indeed, I'm on public record here as stating that I regard mythologies as woefully incompetent, with respect to the matter of answering the question "does a god type entity exist?". That's because mythologies are little more than collections of blind assertions on the matter. They have no substance to offer. That doesn't mean I dismiss summarily the idea that a god type entity could exist. I simply think mythologies are a waste of time, if one wants proper, substantive answers to the requisite questions, questions which I currently regard as unanswered in the general case. The only useful information mythologies provide, at bottom, is data on the nature of the various fantasies the authors thereof entertained. If you want actual data, you look elsewhere. In the case of assertions involving purportedly 'historical' events, you look for a properly trained archaeologist, or, in the case of prehistory, a properly trained palaeontologist. If your interest lies in such matters as the origin of life, then the biology and chemistry departments are that way. Origin of the universe? Physics department.
That's the distinction supernaturalists routinely fail to make - the distinction between their beloved magic entities, and the assertions presented about said entities. Tossing the assertions into the bin doesn't mean "rejecting" those entities, because, wait for it, those entities could actually exist, but the assertions presented about them could be completely wrong. I advise supernaturalists to read that last sentence repeatedly, slowly if necessary, until the requisite elementary concepts sink in.