Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Atheism is a belief fueled by jealousy

#31
Syne Offline
(May 26, 2018 01:41 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Everyone has absentee fathers. He goes to work all day while you stay home with your mom for the first 6 most formative years of your life. Then when he gets home from work he just wants to watch TV and relax.  There was never enough time with dad no matter who you are. Hence the longing for Skydaddy.

Quote:Wow. That's one hell of an insight into your childhood. Your dad's emotional distance sounds like it really did a number on you.
Again, just projection.

Everyone has absentee fathers. I just pointed that out.

No, they don't.

An absent parent refers to non-custodial parent who is obligated to pay partial child support and who is physically absent from the child's home. The term also refers to a parent who has abandoned his or her child, and failed to maintain contact with the child.
- https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/absent-parent/


Quit projecting.
Reply
#32
Magical Realist Offline
(May 26, 2018 02:23 AM)Syne Wrote:
(May 26, 2018 01:41 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Everyone has absentee fathers. He goes to work all day while you stay home with your mom for the first 6 most formative years of your life. Then when he gets home from work he just wants to watch TV and relax.  There was never enough time with dad no matter who you are. Hence the longing for Skydaddy.

Quote:Wow. That's one hell of an insight into your childhood. Your dad's emotional distance sounds like it really did a number on you.
Again, just projection.

Everyone has absentee fathers. I just pointed that out.

No, they don't.

An absent parent refers to non-custodial parent who is obligated to pay partial child support and who is physically absent from the child's home. The term also refers to a parent who has abandoned his or her child, and failed to maintain contact with the child.
- https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/absent-parent/


Quit projecting.

I just pointed out how everyone's dad is absent--by having to work all day while the child is with their mother. I'm not repeating the same point over and over again while you try to change the subject.
Reply
#33
Syne Offline
(May 26, 2018 02:38 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(May 26, 2018 02:23 AM)Syne Wrote:
(May 26, 2018 01:41 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Everyone has absentee fathers. I just pointed that out.

No, they don't.

An absent parent refers to non-custodial parent who is obligated to pay partial child support and who is physically absent from the child's home. The term also refers to a parent who has abandoned his or her child, and failed to maintain contact with the child.
- https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/absent-parent/


Quit projecting.

I just pointed out how everyone's dad is absent--by having to work all day while the child is with their mother. I'm not repeating the same point over and over again while you try to change the subject.

No, you'll just continue to ignore what "absentee father" actually means. Rolleyes

By your made up definition, children of two working parents have two absentee parents.
Reply
#34
Magical Realist Offline
Quote:By your made up definition, children of two working parents have two absentee parents

LOL..Right..both parents would be absent from the child during the day, just like dads are in single income families. WTF does that have to do with anything?
Reply
#35
Yazata Offline
(May 26, 2018 01:30 AM)Syne Wrote:
(May 25, 2018 11:50 PM)Yazata Wrote:
(May 25, 2018 02:53 AM)Syne Wrote: No, you just dismissed your grade school notion of "an invisible magical person existing somewhere unknown" and that the people who wrote the books and teach it do believe they see and/or hear god.

I'm not convinced that those are "grade school notions". I do agree that the theological traditions provide us with what are (in my opinion) more sophisticated ways of imagining the divine (assuming that one is motivated to do that), but they aren't all that widespread in the 'Abrahamic' religions or even in popular Hinduism. They are more prevalent among intellectuals and mystics of various sorts.

Most believers in God seem to believe that God is a person in some fundamental psychological sense, a personality to which it makes sense to attribute human-like goals, purposes and emotions. God is typically referred to with personal pronouns. God isn't typically imagined in a non-personal Neoplatonic manner (the ineffable 'One') or in the manner of non-personalistic Vedanta's Brahman.
Why would a more mature, nuanced, or sophisticated notion of god be mutually exclusive with one that has fathomable goals, purposes, and emotions (but isn't a man with a long beard on a thrown in the clouds)? A deistic god is not a very sophisticated notion, but a neoplatonic god is akin to the Abrahamic god in its lack of amoral characteristics displayed by many polytheistic gods. Why would such a notion of god preclude personal pronouns? The saguṇa Brahman is a personal god.

You were attacking MR for (in your words) "your grade school notion of 'an invisible magical person existing somewhere unknown' and that the people who wrote the books and teach it do believe they see and/or hear god."

I was arguing that the idea of a personal God or God conceived of as a person isn't a "grade school notion" at all. It's what most theists believe. But if you believe that you are privy to a more sophisticated conception of God, feel free to expand on it a bit. (I don't mean to be baiting you. I really am interested, for reasons that I get to down below.)

I proceeded to suggest that God is traditionally thought of as possessing supernatural powers (capable of creating entire universes), that God is thought of a being invisible to the human eye, that God isn't believed to exist at any location in space and time, and that the writers of the Bible (or the Quran or the inspired Shruti writings of Hinduism) are believed to have had some kind of direct contact with the divine that guarantees the revelatory content of the textual traditions they gave rise to.

I do personally think that it's exceedingly unlikely that the ultimate explanation for reality itself will turn out to be a "person" with a psychology analogous to our own. I find that idea (psychologically) anthropomorphic, as unlikely in its own way as talking about the size of God's nose.

But making that point wasn't my intention in what you quoted. I was defending MR from your charge that he has "grade school notions" of God.

I am exceedingly skeptical that any human has any real knowledge of ultimate things, so I'd argue that an agnostic approach to these things is intellectually most defensible. That's why if I was more theistic I'd lean towards apophaticism or perhaps a more nirguna sort of Brahman. My motive for doing that would be preserving and emphasizing God's transcendence and keeping the content of my belief within what I take to be the epistemological limits of the human condition.

But that's just my personal preference in these matters and I'm not willing to denounce, insult or belittle those who think otherwise.
Reply
#36
Syne Offline
(May 26, 2018 05:18 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:By your made up definition, children of two working parents have two absentee parents

LOL..Right..both parents would be absent from the child during the day, just like dads are in single income families. WTF does that have to do with anything?
Just you making up your own definitions.
(May 26, 2018 05:43 AM)Yazata Wrote:
(May 26, 2018 01:30 AM)Syne Wrote:
(May 25, 2018 11:50 PM)Yazata Wrote:
(May 25, 2018 02:53 AM)Syne Wrote: No, you just dismissed your grade school notion of "an invisible magical person existing somewhere unknown" and that the people who wrote the books and teach it do believe they see and/or hear god.

I'm not convinced that those are "grade school notions". I do agree that the theological traditions provide us with what are (in my opinion) more sophisticated ways of imagining the divine (assuming that one is motivated to do that), but they aren't all that widespread in the 'Abrahamic' religions or even in popular Hinduism. They are more prevalent among intellectuals and mystics of various sorts.

Most believers in God seem to believe that God is a person in some fundamental psychological sense, a personality to which it makes sense to attribute human-like goals, purposes and emotions. God is typically referred to with personal pronouns. God isn't typically imagined in a non-personal Neoplatonic manner (the ineffable 'One') or in the manner of non-personalistic Vedanta's Brahman.
Why would a more mature, nuanced, or sophisticated notion of god be mutually exclusive with one that has fathomable goals, purposes, and emotions (but isn't a man with a long beard on a thrown in the clouds)? A deistic god is not a very sophisticated notion, but a neoplatonic god is akin to the Abrahamic god in its lack of amoral characteristics displayed by many polytheistic gods. Why would such a notion of god preclude personal pronouns? The saguṇa Brahman is a personal god.

You were attacking MR for (in your words) "your grade school notion of 'an invisible magical person existing somewhere unknown' and that the people who wrote the books and teach it do believe they see and/or hear god."

I was arguing that the idea of a personal God or God conceived of as a person isn't a "grade school notion" at all. It's what most theists believe. But if you believe that you are privy to a more sophisticated conception of God, feel free to expand on it a bit. (I don't mean to be baiting you. I really am interested, for reasons that I get to down below.)
I assume you do realize the difference between a personal god and a god conceived of as a person. The former acknowledging the potential for a personal relationship with the divine, the latter tending toward a bearded man in the clouds, much like a holdover from Greek mythology in Olympus. I don't really think I need to point out which is more child-like. Yes, actual children are taught simpler ideas, and maybe MR left religion before becoming aware of its common adult form. Children cannot be expected to understand things like omnipresence, immanence, and transcendence, so we teach them about a guy up in the clouds. Similarly, we teach them about Santa, only for that to become a feeling of nostalgia that motivates them spreading season cheer as adults.
Quote:I proceeded to suggest that God is traditionally thought of as possessing supernatural powers (capable of creating entire universes), that God is thought of a being invisible to the human eye, that God isn't believed to exist at any location in space and time, and that the writers of the Bible (or the Quran or the inspired Shruti writings of Hinduism) are believed to have had some kind of direct contact with the divine that guarantees the revelatory content of the textual traditions they gave rise to.  
And I addressed that, with the analogies of human creations and invisible mundane things. To the right person, simple sleight of hand appears legitimately supernatural, and from our perspective, we have pretty good reason to think that "magic" is just a knowledge we don't understand yet. Whether you believe said knowledge will eventually preclude a god is your prerogative.
Quote:I do personally think that it's exceedingly unlikely that the ultimate explanation for reality itself will turn out to be a "person" with a psychology analogous to our own. I find that idea (psychologically) anthropomorphic, as unlikely in its own way as talking about the size of God's nose.

But making that point wasn't my intention in what you quoted. I was defending MR from your charge that he has "grade school notions" of God.
Again, a "person" with a psychology akin to the Greek pantheon (i.e. analogous to our own) isn't espoused, at least by Christianity. That overly anthropomorphic ("Skydaddy") is exactly the grade school notion I'm talking about. That is a child-like idea compared to the adult understanding of even omnipresence alone, which is taught in the Bible.
Quote:I am exceedingly skeptical that any human has any real knowledge of ultimate things, so I'd argue that an agnostic approach to these things is intellectually most defensible. That's why if I was more theistic I'd lean towards apophaticism or perhaps a more nirguna sort of Brahman. My motive for doing that would be preserving and emphasizing God's transcendence and keeping the content of my belief within what I take to be the epistemological limits of the human condition.

But that's just my personal preference in these matters and I'm not willing to denounce, insult or belittle those who think otherwise.
Everyone is free to have their own opinions. What they are not free to do with utter impunity is ascribe false beliefs only to ridicule or malign. I have shown his straw man to be naive or uninformed.

Understanding some things puts a person beyond a need for the most defensible justification. Most people don't understand QM, but I don't feel a need to find the most defensible explanation for the uninformed. They must be willing to challenge their own understanding of things, if they really want to comprehend. Nor do I care for the boredom of the easily defensible. I like to be at the border, facing some very hard questions head on, where failure is often the greatest teacher. I'm just optimistic about what knowledge is attainable. Only the dusty thoughts of others are truly the most defensible.
Reply
#37
Magical Realist Offline
Quote:What they are not free to do with utter impunity is ascribe false beliefs only to ridicule or malign. I have shown his straw man to be naive or uninformed.

Bullshit you have. Yazata and i have both shown the belief I describe to be the prominent belief of most theists today. Invisible magical being who protects you and loves you and who lives some place not locateable in physical reality. That is the teaching of the three monotheistic religions. I don't know what you claim God to be, but your ignorance of billions of followers' belief in God is appalling. Why don't you tell us what the proper belief in God is that you keep alluding to and quit ad homing me for change. Even Yazata is getting tired of your insults.
Reply
#38
Syne Offline
(May 26, 2018 07:14 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:What they are not free to do with utter impunity is ascribe false beliefs only to ridicule or malign. I have shown his straw man to be naive or uninformed.

Bullshit you have. Yazata and i have both shown the belief I describe to be the prominent belief of most theists today. Invisible magical being who protects you and loves you and who lives some place not locateable in physical reality. That is the teaching of the three monotheistic religions. I don't know what you claim God to be, but your ignorance of billions of followers' belief in God is appalling. Why don't you tell us what the proper belief in God is that you keep alluding to and quit ad homing me for change. Even Yazata is getting tired of your insults.

Wow. You mean an atheist and agnostic know more about what theists actually believe than theists themselves? Nonsense. You only understand what is taught to children, as I've demonstrated. But hey, while he's at it, perhaps Yaz would like to defend your idiosyncratic definition of "absentee father" too. Come on, you can tell us. Is Yaz your forumdaddy?
Reply
#39
Magical Realist Offline
Quote:You only understand what is taught to children, as I've demonstrated.

I understand what billions of theists believe when they say God. My original statement stands:

It doesn't take an extraordinary act of will or reason to not believe there is an invisible magical person existing somewhere unknown but who watches over you and protects you. It's a simple and natural inference of human experience. God is never seen or heard from, and all we have is books talking about him and what he wants from us by religious men and women. It's basic common sense. Someone is pulling the wool over our eyes, because the world just doesn't match up to the theistic narrative handed down to us since ancient times. Not believing in God is as easy as not believing in Santa Claus.


Quote:Come on, you can tell us. Is Yaz your forumdaddy?

Insulting Yazata as well as me now. Same old shit again..
Reply
#40
Syne Offline
(May 26, 2018 08:29 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:You only understand what is taught to children, as I've demonstrated.

I understand what billions of theists believe when they say God. My original statement stands:

It doesn't take an extraordinary act of will or reason to not believe there is an invisible magical person existing somewhere unknown but who watches over you and protects you. It's a simple and natural inference of human experience. God is never seen or heard from, and all we have is books talking about him and what he wants from us by religious men and women. It's basic common sense. Someone is pulling the wool over our eyes, because the world just doesn't match up to the theistic narrative handed down to us since ancient times. Not believing in God is as easy as not believing in Santa Claus.
Keep telling yourself that.
Quote:
Quote:Come on, you can tell us. Is Yaz your forumdaddy?

Insulting Yazata as well as me now. Same old shit again..
So now you're claiming that "Skydaddy" was an insult? O_o
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Towards Shattering the Illusion of Atheism Ostronomos 4 203 Aug 23, 2023 08:54 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Does atheism lead to nihilism? Magical Realist 3 154 Feb 21, 2023 07:20 PM
Last Post: C C
  On the nature of belief Ostronomos 3 166 Oct 1, 2022 10:35 PM
Last Post: Yazata
  Distinguishing Fact, Opinion, Belief, and Prejudice Magical Realist 1 213 Feb 8, 2020 10:42 PM
Last Post: Leigha
  Distinguishing Fact, Opinion, Belief, and Prejudice Magical Realist 0 131 Feb 8, 2020 08:42 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  (UK) Ethical veganism declared protected philosophical belief at tribunal C C 1 311 Jan 5, 2020 05:27 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  The nature of belief Magical Realist 5 1,531 Nov 2, 2015 10:32 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)