TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Atheophobia

Go To

Corvidae It's a bird. from Somewhere Else Since: Nov, 2014 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
It's a bird.
#101: Dec 15th 2015 at 4:21:17 AM

[up] If some people want to reduce their deities to artificial constructs that don't exist outside their minds, that's all fine with me.

But if they claim that a deity exists regardless of whether people believe in it or not, and that it has some kind of actual influence over the physical universe, they're gonna need some proof. And if they can't find any because their god of choice is ''beyond logic" or whatever, that's on them.

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.
Elfive (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#102: Dec 15th 2015 at 4:29:29 AM

Yeah, I never understood this comparison. We're talking social contracts and ideals versus an actual being that is actually supposed to exist. That's not the same thing at all.

edited 15th Dec '15 4:29:38 AM by Elfive

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#103: Dec 15th 2015 at 5:02:20 AM

Right. If you want to noodle about intangible, ineffable, ethereal beings, that's up to you; knock your socks off. But as soon as you claim that said beings have tangible effects on the physical world, such as "miracles", then it's up to you to provide some evidence of that that can be weighed, measured, and compared. Otherwise I am under no obligation to give you credence.

Morality, truth, love... those are concepts framed in language; obviously they do not exist out there as something that can be studied under a microscope*. Claiming that as some kind of proof of theism is so illogical that I can barely parse it in my mind.

* We do have evidence of the brain chemistry that gives rise to emotions, including love.

edited 15th Dec '15 5:38:00 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Bense Since: Aug, 2010
#104: Dec 15th 2015 at 6:43:45 AM

A true rationalist must be always ready to throw away theories when new contradictory evidence arises. Too many atheists seem to say "no contrary evidence will or can ever arise." That is fundamentally an irrational attitude. The agnostic takes the more moderate path of being willing to be proven wrong if the evidence ever appears.

Likewise a theist, if he takes a rational approach, should be ready to engage and investigate with evidence that appears atheistic rather than dismiss it of hand simply because it appears to be atheistic. He may have faith that his opinion will eventually be proven correct on closer examination, but he can't jump to that conclusion - he has to do the work to get there.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#105: Dec 15th 2015 at 6:50:14 AM

It is possible to be both atheist and agnostic, of course, but many on the hard atheism side will say that the probability of God being proven is so remote that there's no point wasting intellectual energy on it.

Even the most hardcore atheist will, if they are being honest, offer to consider any credible evidence of supernatural phenomena that may arise in the future. However, the issue is so fraught with fraudulent claims that it's like the white noise between analog radio stations. If you waste your time listening to every second of it in the hopes that there might be an intelligible message buried within, you'll never get anything useful done.

edited 15th Dec '15 7:12:06 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#106: Dec 15th 2015 at 6:55:04 AM

This is why the best is to be an apatheist.

While you guys discussed about 3 pages worth of fancy ass quotes and drained your brains into philosophical questions I answered with "Meh" and already hoarded the fuzziest warmest side of the blanket to take a nap in.

TAKE THAT, FANCYPANTS

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#107: Dec 15th 2015 at 6:57:56 AM

Stated another way. Most atheists aren't saying "God doesn't exist". They're saying "God may exist but the possibility is so remote that it's simpler to assume he doesn't".

Corvidae It's a bird. from Somewhere Else Since: Nov, 2014 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
It's a bird.
#108: Dec 15th 2015 at 7:00:29 AM

[up][up][up][up] Agnosticism is "I don't know know" and sometimes "I can't know". It's not incompatible with atheism. (Or theism for that matter.)

You seem to view agnosticism as some kind of "soft" atheism, but that's not what it's about at all. Atheism covers both "Eh, I'm not really sold on this "God" thing", "There is no God! Period." and everything in between. There's no need to throw unrelated words into the mix.

edited 15th Dec '15 7:01:19 AM by Corvidae

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#109: Dec 15th 2015 at 7:12:12 AM

Put another way, there are no new arguments under the sun in favor of theism. Anything you might offer as a "Yeah, but" is something we've heard a thousand times already. We're a bit tired of it.

I'm not going to say with absolute certainty that there is nothing "beyond reality" that might possess attributes that we could describe as sapience and agency. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, though.

edited 15th Dec '15 7:13:20 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Bense Since: Aug, 2010
#110: Dec 15th 2015 at 7:52:57 AM

There are no new arguments under the sun in favor of atheism either.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#111: Dec 15th 2015 at 7:55:31 AM

What a lie. Every bit of evidence we discover in favor of the idea that our universe operates on purely naturalistic principles pushes back the boundaries of the unknown and reduces the magisterium for religion to operate within.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#112: Dec 15th 2015 at 7:56:35 AM

our universe operates on purely naturalistic principles

Human behavior and human society don't.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#113: Dec 15th 2015 at 7:57:19 AM

Arguably they do since our ability to think and reason derives from those principles.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#114: Dec 15th 2015 at 7:58:06 AM

[up][up] Disputed. We are herd animals with an inflated sense of self-awareness. That doesn't mean we don't operate on basic biological and psychological principles that can be deduced, all of it founded in chemistry and physics.

Hell, ask any professional marketing department.

edited 15th Dec '15 7:58:28 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#115: Dec 15th 2015 at 7:59:00 AM

[up][up]Where they come from is one thing. The how is another. Anthropological studies are fascinating, as is archaeology and others but they fall short to explain other things of our society.

Religion fills that niche.

I am not saying it is right, I am just saying that it fills that niche.

[up] Predictability of human behavior is not as advanced as you purport it to be.

Or even possible.

edited 15th Dec '15 8:02:06 AM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Bense Since: Aug, 2010
#116: Dec 15th 2015 at 8:01:08 AM

New evidence that the universe operates in a naturalistic fashion is not a new philosophical argument. It is the same argument that theists have dealt with for thousands of years.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#117: Dec 15th 2015 at 8:02:04 AM

[up][up]I'm not sure I understand the distinction. They come from various chemical processes. That's the where. The how would just be that our bodies evolved to behave in that specific way to these processes.

This entire thing is just the God of Gaps argument.

[up]If the universe operates perfectly fine without the intervention of a deity then the simplest explanation is that there isn't one.

edited 15th Dec '15 8:04:32 AM by Kostya

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#118: Dec 15th 2015 at 8:04:12 AM

I am not saying "there is a god because there is some stuff we cannot explain".

I am saying "Religion will fill the niche of certain things science cannot explain"

Or since we are going back to fundamental proceses and quoting the hell out of Nothing New Under The Sun, "nature herself has imprinted on all our minds the idea of god".

Notice it is the idea of god. Not the certainty.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#119: Dec 15th 2015 at 8:04:13 AM

[up][up][up] Theological studies never add any new information to the body of human knowledge. It's all ancient arguments rehashed ad nauseam.

[up] Disputed. Our predisposition to belief in the supernatural is a direct result of our ability to make associations; it's part of the process of gaining knowledge. Our brains are wired to make links between things, but unfortunately lack a built-in BS filter. And the sensation of spiritual awe has been reproduced in laboratory settings via brain stimulation.

edited 15th Dec '15 8:06:27 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
DrDougsh Since: Jan, 2001
#120: Dec 15th 2015 at 8:04:24 AM

Isn't this thread supposed to be about instances of discrimination against the non-religious? I don't think this is supposed to be a debate for or against atheism.

Bense Since: Aug, 2010
#121: Dec 15th 2015 at 8:08:25 AM

"Theological studies" are largely responsible for the university system and the scientific method. You might argue "but that was not their intent," but saying "theological studies" have never added to human knowledge would still be incorrect.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#122: Dec 15th 2015 at 8:10:00 AM

It would be entirely correct. Scientific inquiries, in a religious setting or otherwise, give rise to new knowledge. The main reason these inquiries were conducted under the aegis of theology is that, for a long time, those were the only settings that provided sufficient leisure.

It is rather unfortunate that modern theology has largely divorced itself from science.

edited 15th Dec '15 8:10:39 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
purplefishman Misanthrope Supreme from Ganzir Since: Feb, 2011 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
Misanthrope Supreme
#123: Dec 15th 2015 at 8:15:05 AM

Gotta go with DrDougsh there : what does your little debate about the merits or lack of atheism have to do with the initial intent of this thread ?

This is getting tiresome, guys.

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#124: Dec 15th 2015 at 8:17:31 AM

Disputed. Our predisposition to belief in the supernatural is a direct result of our ability to make associations; it's part of the process of gaining knowledge. Our brains are wired to make links between things, but unfortunately lack a built-in BS filter. And the sensation of spiritual awe has been reproduced in laboratory settings via brain stimulation.

Not sure what you are disputing, given that you are simply repeating what I am saying. What I sa, and what I meant with quoting Cicero is that since the human mind will always have questions, it will also fill in the questions it cannot answer with religion, or any other nebulous explanation. Luck, for example. Whimsy. Plots. Conspiracy theories.

The fact we can recreate and know this is absolutely useless pragmatically speaking. It is exactly the same as knowing we are made of stardust or whatever. It does not give a cure for cancer. It does not give a sense of peace that the rituals or mantras of religion gives, it does not give an answer to what lies beyond death (Even if we know the answer is "prolly nothing").

Religion, and religious ideas, will prevail because it is in our very human nature to attribute stuff we cannot explain to other stuff we cannot explain. Logic has no bearing into it. Reason has no bearing into it.

Science is practical. Science gains no practicality getting into arguments with the harmless bits of religion like "is there a god" or not and how it is handled.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Quag15 Since: Mar, 2012
#125: Dec 15th 2015 at 8:24:25 AM

[up][up]Tiresome? There's so much bad philosophy and bad theology going on, that I'm not gonna bother anymore. In fact, I'm gonna just sit back and grab the popcorn.

Though, yeah, this thread has lost its purpose a couple of pages ago.


Total posts: 545
Top