Skepticism And Atheism As Default

[Vigile]

 

 

What is the difference between the crazy idea and the non-crazy idea? I would say the only objective difference is that one idea conforms to conventional wisdom and the other does not. Of course conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong.

 

No, the difference is evidence.

 

You like to discuss probabilities, so let's run with that.  Made up shit has such improbable odds of being true, I doubt the human mind is capable of appreciating just how thin the odds are. 

 

If you define atheism as metaphysical naturalism

 

Why would you want to define an 'a-' position as anything other than it's relationship to the thing it doesn't accept? 

 

Maybe I'm sensitive to this issue, because I have seen the same thing on the UFO question. In one case a UFO was sighted outside a building where astronomers were meeting. The astronomers refused to even walk outside to take a look. That shows how ridiculous people can be IMO

 

What's ridiculous about it?  Should a think tank full of scientists look out the window if the janitor tells them there's an elf walking down the street?

 

I suspect that a group of scientists is less likely to investigate the elf sighting than an individual scientist. Success in science depends on respect from peers. Many scientists who investigate UFOs are very careful to keep their interest confidential.

 

If it was me I would check out the elf.

 

 

Humans are prone to peer pressure, but they are also competitive and the scientific process is a competitive one.  At some point we have to draw a line between those things yet undiscovered and those things that belong in the playground.  If not, we'd all just be running around like lunatics following rabbit trails of the imagination. 

[mymistake]

I have always felt that Occam's razor is just a fuzzy heuristic that is hard to define and justify precisely. 

 

 

Perhaps this it the core reason you are misunderstanding atheism.  I find O.R. to be simple and clear.

 

 

Simple explanations are superior.  You can tell when an idea is simpler when it doesn't generate unanswered questions.

 

 

Consider two ideas.  M and ~M.

 

M is "A monster lives under my bed"

~M is "There are zero monsters living under my bed"

 

~M implies that I am imagining a monster that isn't there.  But when people suggest this I point out that the monster is invisible when you look.  

 

In contrast M raises all kinds of questions.  Well how did the monster get that power?  Do monsters of this type even exist?  Why would the monster live there instead of somewhere better?  What does the monster eat and how often?  Why doest the monster make no noise?

 

Which idea is simpler?

 

 

 

Now imagine that you are a busy astronomer and you have work to do.  A janitor tells you that a UFO is outside right now.  What are the possibilities?

 

1)  This could be the defining moment in human history when aliens contact us.  Aren't you special to be the one they choose?

2)  The janitor is mistaken

3)  The janitor is pulling a prank of some kind

 

Does O.R. eliminate any of these options?

[directionless]

O.k., everybody, let me give those arguments some thought (Occam's razor, Invisible Xanadu Honkers, etc.)

 

I know I might be missing the point on some of those things, and I feel like I'm arguing more for the sake of defending my current ideas instead of for learning better ideas.

 

I especially need to understand the invisibility point that Florduh has been mentioning, because that is going in one ear and out the other right now.

 

(Also I need to focus on paying some bills today. )

[midniterider]

 

Maybe I'm weird but there are lots of far-out theories rattling around in my head even though I assign them low probabilities - not every theory I have ever heard, but quite a few. I don't totally dismiss the possibility that Bigfoots are a species of furry space alien that enjoy vacationing on Earth.

 

In general though, it isn't possible to have no theory about the consequences of various actions when you must choose an action. You can't simply disbelieve in the theories that someone else presents, you must have your own theories. If you have your own theories then you ought to explain them and defend them when you are debating - just like everybody else. You shouldn't just sit back and snipe at other people who stick their necks out to present their theories. Nobody can claim to have "the default theory" that doesn't need to be defended. Nobody can claim to have "no theory" either - not if that person must choose between actions.

You should use occam's razor. It is a very powerful tool for cutting through nonsense. Yes, there is a default that doesn't need to be defended. This is how logic works. I think you are projecting your own struggles on to the general population.

 

We see people have bad beliefs all the time. Take traffic. Yesterday I saw the car of a guy who thought "It will be safe for me to turn left now". Boy, was he wrong. We don't need to assign probabilities to his belief. People entertain wrong beliefs all the time. They usually don't think it through. Often they don't even realize they didn't think it through.

People are born with the thought "I lack belief in Gods" ? Or are people born lacking awareness of the idea of god? Along with lacking awareness of every other concept.

 

A position is someone's asserted point of view on a topic. Someone here mentioned he has no opinion on heaven or hell because it doesnt exist. He is without a position on that topic. Should he be called an a-heavenorhellist? Was he born with this thought in his head? No and no. Applying a label in this case is silly.

 

Atheism is an asserted position that someone doesnt believe in god. A baby is born without belief in god (we presume) but does not really think about it or assert that position. This is my logic about why people are not born atheists. They are not aware of the concept of god/no god and therefore do not assert a position one way or the other.

 

I agree that atheism (or any other concept) does not need to be defended. Is a concept the thing that is defended or is it really someone's personal adoption of that concept that is what's really being defended?

 

Are atheists in this thread simply presenting unbiased facts about atheism or defending their point of view? Or more likely a little of both? I know my own logical reasoning is colored by my biases. I admit that. And I'll say that the more messages I post about my own personally adopted position is an indicator that I have an emotional attachment to it and so I'm defending it. 

[midniterider]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just to clarify my position as an apatheist:  I couldn't care less if a god or gods existed or not.  You may still accuse me of having an opinion, but unless you can demonstrate that indifference is a belief system, then you're simply wrong (and I forgive you).

I would say that apatheism demonstrates a very low confidence in any of the jealous God, heaven and hell types of religion. You really can't be apathetic if Christianity or Islam are plausible possibilities to you.

 

So apatheism does imply a low opinion of Christianity, Islam, and any other "my way or the highway"-type religion.

 

Also apatheism implies a high confidence in metaphysical naturalism. How could the question of deities be uninteresting to you unless you believe metaphysical naturalism is true almost all the time?

 

"You really can't be apathetic if Christianity or Islam are plausible possibilities to you."

 

Why not? Prof can simply not care about Xtianity or Islam. Not caring is an option.

 

I would say that the possibility of eternal torment versus eternal happiness is so great that a sensible person couldn't be apathetic. Even if there are multiple heaven and hell Gods to choose from (Christianity and Islam), it would still be better to choose one of them and hope you get lucky instead of choosing nothing. Choosing nothing will certainly land you in hell if any of those religions are true.

 

So if a person is apathetic about religion it can only mean that person doesn't have any confidence in the heaven and hell religions IMO. (Of course some denominations of Christianity are universalists and an apatheist might believe in them as possibilities.)

 

Patently untrue.  I could also care less if there's a heaven or a hell.  This leaves me in the distinct position of not having to force a choice in hopes of being right.

 

I would argue that it is impossible to not care about the possibility of heaven vs hell. The only rational explanation for your behavior is that you assign an extremely low probability to the possibility that heaven and hell exist, and you assign a very large but non-infinite utility to reaching heaven instead of hell (that way you can multiply the two values and get a negligible expected utility for trying to escape hell).

 

Of course Orbit suggested that you might not be a sensible decision maker. Or maybe you completely devalue the future. For example if you are in the middle of a light sable duel with Darth Vader then you might be too busy to think about anything else.

 

So atheism is more than simply a lack of belief in theism. Atheists are confronted with religious theories and have alternative theories that they think are better for making decisions. Usually the alternative theory is metaphysical naturalism. Atheism is more than simply a lack of belief in all forms of theism.

 

You are showing naive realism (when you assume your view must be everyone's view) in the bolded statement above. I too don't care about heaven and hell--the terms carry no more emotional weight than Valhalla or pink unicorns. I just wasn't as heavily indoctrinated as you, so I think differently. Hell only bothers you if you think there is a possibility that it's real. I don't. Same with Heaven--just another fairy tale. You are trying to make ideas that you think are true into universal definitions which are not true for others and hence invalid. They don't universally apply.

 

Your use of probability here is nothing more than assigning numbers to your own biases. Both heaven and hell have a probability of zero to me.

 

 

I agree. It is quite possible to not care about heaven or hell. Care means thought. I rarely think about either one so I don't care about them.

[midniterider]

But it isn't fair to simply say that atheism is "lack of belief in theism" therefore it is the default therefore atheists can simply sit back and snipe at theists.

 

Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god, sir. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Atheism certainly does not have a membership:

 

Just ask anyone in this 'huge list' of non-theist organizations:

http://www.atheismunited.com/wiki/Huge_list_of_atheist_agnostic_skeptic_humanist_websites

 

Atheism does not have tenets or doctrine:

 

You'll discover that when you read any of these books containing thousands of words about the non-doctrine of atheism:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=atheism

 

Nor are there any local gatherings to present any of this non-doctrine.

See here for a growing list of places where atheist thought does not take place:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/14/the-atheist-church-could-be-coming-to-your-city/

 

To recap, atheism aint a thing...and certainly not an organized thing...and certainly not a heavily written about thing...nor a thing where people gather and discuss simply not believing in God. :-) There are no parallels between religion and atheism whatever. Apples and oranges. LoL.

[Orbit]

 

But it isn't fair to simply say that atheism is "lack of belief in theism" therefore it is the default therefore atheists can simply sit back and snipe at theists.

 

Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god, sir. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Atheism certainly does not have a membership:

 

Just ask anyone in this 'huge list' of non-theist organizations:

http://www.atheismunited.com/wiki/Huge_list_of_atheist_agnostic_skeptic_humanist_websites

 

Atheism does not have tenets or doctrine:

 

You'll discover that when you read any of these books containing thousands of words about the non-doctrine of atheism:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=atheism

 

Nor are there any local gatherings to present any of this non-doctrine.

See here for a growing list of places where atheist thought does not take place:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/14/the-atheist-church-could-be-coming-to-your-city/

 

To recap, atheism aint a thing...and certainly not an organized thing...and certainly not a heavily written about thing...nor a thing where people gather and discuss simply not believing in God. :-) There are no parallels between religion and atheism whatever. Apples and oranges. LoL.

 

The nature of atheist organizations is completely different from religious organizations. I joined American Atheists specifically to support their legal work in maintaining separation of church and state. It wasn't because I would have a negative consequence if I didn't, which is exactly why people join religious organizations. I didn't join because I don't believe. I joined because my lack of belief has real-world consequences like civil rights issues that need to be addressed. The books written about atheism are simply reasoned explanations for lack of belief, and the gatherings are social in nature, with likeminded non theists. 

 

You can have organizations, books, and gatherings without being a religion. Look at Harry Potter-dom--is that a religion? It's an interest group. Atheists belong to interest groups in order to preserve their rights in a theist society, and to interact with those who don't want to base their social interactions on religion.

 

Look at ex-C. We don't have much in common except that being ex-C gives us a certain perspective on xtianity and introduces certain challenges to us living in an xtian society. It's not a simple equivalence with theism.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just to clarify my position as an apatheist: I couldn't care less if a god or gods existed or not. You may still accuse me of having an opinion, but unless you can demonstrate that indifference is a belief system, then you're simply wrong (and I forgive you).

I would say that apatheism demonstrates a very low confidence in any of the jealous God, heaven and hell types of religion. You really can't be apathetic if Christianity or Islam are plausible possibilities to you.

 

So apatheism does imply a low opinion of Christianity, Islam, and any other "my way or the highway"-type religion.

 

Also apatheism implies a high confidence in metaphysical naturalism. How could the question of deities be uninteresting to you unless you believe metaphysical naturalism is true almost all the time?

"You really can't be apathetic if Christianity or Islam are plausible possibilities to you."

 

Why not? Prof can simply not care about Xtianity or Islam. Not caring is an option.

I would say that the possibility of eternal torment versus eternal happiness is so great that a sensible person couldn't be apathetic. Even if there are multiple heaven and hell Gods to choose from (Christianity and Islam), it would still be better to choose one of them and hope you get lucky instead of choosing nothing. Choosing nothing will certainly land you in hell if any of those religions are true.

 

So if a person is apathetic about religion it can only mean that person doesn't have any confidence in the heaven and hell religions IMO. (Of course some denominations of Christianity are universalists and an apatheist might believe in them as possibilities.)

Patently untrue. I could also care less if there's a heaven or a hell. This leaves me in the distinct position of not having to force a choice in hopes of being right.

I would argue that it is impossible to not care about the possibility of heaven vs hell. The only rational explanation for your behavior is that you assign an extremely low probability to the possibility that heaven and hell exist, and you assign a very large but non-infinite utility to reaching heaven instead of hell (that way you can multiply the two values and get a negligible expected utility for trying to escape hell).

 

Of course Orbit suggested that you might not be a sensible decision maker. Or maybe you completely devalue the future. For example if you are in the middle of a light sable duel with Darth Vader then you might be too busy to think about anything else.

 

So atheism is more than simply a lack of belief in theism. Atheists are confronted with religious theories and have alternative theories that they think are better for making decisions. Usually the alternative theory is metaphysical naturalism. Atheism is more than simply a lack of belief in all forms of theism.

You are showing naive realism (when you assume your view must be everyone's view) in the bolded statement above. I too don't care about heaven and hell--the terms carry no more emotional weight than Valhalla or pink unicorns. I just wasn't as heavily indoctrinated as you, so I think differently. Hell only bothers you if you think there is a possibility that it's real. I don't. Same with Heaven--just another fairy tale. You are trying to make ideas that you think are true into universal definitions which are not true for others and hence invalid. They don't universally apply.

 

Your use of probability here is nothing more than assigning numbers to your own biases. Both heaven and hell have a probability of zero to me.

To agree with and bolster Orbit's point, I was heavily indoctrinated into the heaven-hell myth and they now carry no more emotional weight for me. I actually stopped believing in hell on my own prior to becoming an atheist. It simply isn't logically possible that an all loving god would send any one to such a place, especially for the crime of simply being honestly skeptical about something. If there is a non-all loving god who would send some to hell, then there is nothing I can do about it. I can't just choose to believe something, so sending me to hell would be a conviction based on judging me for something I can't control. Therefore, the probability of me being sent to hell is out of my control. Therefore, it's not worth worrying or caring about.

[directionless]

To agree with and bolster Orbit's point, I was heavily indoctrinated into the heaven-hell myth and they now carry no more emotional weight for me. I actually stopped believing in hell on my own prior to becoming an atheist. It simply isn't logically possible that an all loving god would send any one to such a place, especially for the crime of simply being honestly skeptical about something. If there is a non-all loving god who would send some to hell, then there is nothing I can do about it. I can't just choose to believe something, so sending me to hell would be a conviction based on judging me for something I can't control. Therefore, the probability of me being sent to hell is out of my control. Therefore, it's not worth worrying or caring about.

I guess this is another splitting of hairs, but IMO it is not actually possible to be apathetic about something that theoretically should matter greatly. I can be apathetic about chocolate vs vanilla, but I can't be apathetic about heaven vs hell. However, I can think that the probability that I or anybody I care about will go to hell is incredibly small and therefore I don't worry about hell.

 

So the argument I was trying to make is that apatheism is actual beliefs - not simply apathy.

 

I need to go back and reread everybody's posts. I know there are some important points that I am not understanding such as Florduh's distinction between saying "no thank you" to chocolate chip cookies vs "no thank you" to invisible unicorn cookies.

 

I don't want to be arguing when I should be agreeing.

[Orbit]

 

To agree with and bolster Orbit's point, I was heavily indoctrinated into the heaven-hell myth and they now carry no more emotional weight for me. I actually stopped believing in hell on my own prior to becoming an atheist. It simply isn't logically possible that an all loving god would send any one to such a place, especially for the crime of simply being honestly skeptical about something. If there is a non-all loving god who would send some to hell, then there is nothing I can do about it. I can't just choose to believe something, so sending me to hell would be a conviction based on judging me for something I can't control. Therefore, the probability of me being sent to hell is out of my control. Therefore, it's not worth worrying or caring about.

I guess this is another splitting of hairs, but IMO it is not actually possible to be apathetic about something that theoretically should matter greatly. I can be apathetic about chocolate vs vanilla, but I can't be apathetic about heaven vs hell. However, I can think that the probability that I or anybody I care about will go to hell is incredibly small and therefore I don't worry about hell.

 

So the argument I was trying to make is that apatheism is actual beliefs - not simply apathy.

 

I need to go back and reread everybody's posts. I know there are some important points that I am not understanding such as Florduh's distinction between saying "no thank you" to chocolate chip cookies vs "no thank you" to invisible unicorn cookies.

 

I don't want to be arguing when I should be agreeing.

 

Just because you personally can't be apathetic about heaven and hell doesn't mean other people can't. To me neither heaven nor hell is important at all. You need to understand this crucial point. Why do you think hell is important? Why do you assign it any probability at all? Other people don't do so.

[directionless]

^ Using the cookie analogy, the apatheist is a person who claims to have no interest in cookies.

 

The apatheist walks down the street. An Episcopalian has some sugar cookies that he says are very tasty. The apatheist says "no thanks, I'm not interested in any kind of cookies".

 

Later the apatheist meets a fundamentalist Christian who say, "You're not aware of this but the whole world is infected with an invisible deadly virus. Luckily, I have some invisible unicorn cookies that will cure you. Won't you please have one of my cookies?"

 

I would argue that rejecting the fundamentalist Christian's cookies is more than simply apathy about cookies; it is assigning a low probability to his claims.

[florduh]

I know there are some important points that I am not understanding such as Florduh's distinction between saying "no thank you" to chocolate chip cookies vs "no thank you" to invisible unicorn cookies.

 

I mean rejecting or accepting a cookie that obviously exists is a simple choice. If you're not sure how you feel about it, the cookie's right there, try it.

 

How does one evaluate someone's request to try his cookie when he extends you his empty hand and exclaims his invisible cookie is good if you just believe it is good? It is not the same thing at all. There is nothing to taste.

[Orbit]

^ Using the cookie analogy, the apatheist is a person who claims to have no interest in cookies.

 

The apatheist walks down the street. An Episcopalian has some sugar cookies that he says are very tasty. The apatheist says "no thanks, I'm not interested in any kind of cookies".

 

Later the apatheist meets a fundamentalist Christian who say, "You're not aware of this but the whole world is infected with an invisible deadly virus. Luckily, I have some invisible unicorn cookies that will cure you. Won't you please have one of my cookies?"

 

I would argue that rejecting the fundamentalist Christian's cookies is more than simply apathy about cookies; it is assigning a low probability to his claims.

Why are the Episcopalian cookies any more interesting to the apathist than the Fundamentalist cookie? Because the Fundamentalist cookie is delivered with a threat? For people who don't believe in hell, the apathy is the same. We don't care about the threat because we don't believe the threat. It's still apathy.

[directionless]

Just because you personally can't be apathetic about heaven and hell doesn't mean other people can't. To me neither heaven nor hell is important at all. You need to understand this crucial point. Why do you think hell is important? Why do you assign it any probability at all? Other people don't do so.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I know from personal experience that a person can not care about heaven and hell. I grew-up in the Episcopal church and there is little discussion of heaven and hell. I always assumed that practically everybody including non-Christians would go to heaven. I didn't even know what "saved" or "born-again" meant. I had never heard those words in church.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that a person can't truly "not care" about heaven and hell. You can believe that hell probably doesn't exist or that it probably won't have too many residents. That's not the same as apathy.

 

As long as at least one religion claims that heaven and hell exist, it is impossible to truly be an apatheist. The apatheist must dismiss the heaven and hell claims.

[Orbit]

 

Just because you personally can't be apathetic about heaven and hell doesn't mean other people can't. To me neither heaven nor hell is important at all. You need to understand this crucial point. Why do you think hell is important? Why do you assign it any probability at all? Other people don't do so.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I know from personal experience that a person can not care about heaven and hell. I grew-up in the Episcopal church and there is little discussion of heaven and hell. I always assumed that practically everybody including non-Christians would go to heaven. I didn't even know what "saved" or "born-again" meant. I had never heard those words in church.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that a person can't truly "not care" about heaven and hell. You can believe that hell probably doesn't exist or that it probably won't have too many residents. That's not the same as apathy.

 

As long as at least one religion claims that heaven and hell exist, it is impossible to truly be an apatheist. The apatheist must dismiss the heaven and hell claims.

 

You ARE, in your 2nd paragraph doing exactly what I said. I don't care about heaven and hell. It's not that it "probably" doesn't exist, it's that I know it doesn't exist. Redneck Prof doesn't care if it exists or not. These things are possible, because look, here we are, and look, we don't care!

[mymistake]

Huh?  Directionless it seems to me that you are over generalizing.  Why do you make these proclamations about what cannot exist?  When there are people who will testify they are the very thing you say can't exist it makes it seem like you didn't look hard enough.

[directionless]

Why are the Episcopalian cookies any more interesting to the apathist than the Fundamentalist cookie? Because the Fundamentalist cookie is delivered with a threat? For people who don't believe in hell, the apathy is the same. We don't care about the threat because we don't believe the threat. It's still apathy.

I highlighted your sentence that makes my point. You don't care because you dismiss the threat. That's subtly different from not caring even if the threat is true.

 

That's really all I'm trying to say. It is splitting hairs I suppose.

[Orbit]

 

Why are the Episcopalian cookies any more interesting to the apathist than the Fundamentalist cookie? Because the Fundamentalist cookie is delivered with a threat? For people who don't believe in hell, the apathy is the same. We don't care about the threat because we don't believe the threat. It's still apathy.

I highlighted your sentence that makes my point. You don't care because you dismiss the threat. That's subtly different from not caring even if the threat is true.

 

That's really all I'm trying to say. It is splitting hairs I suppose.

 

I dismiss the threat. Redneck Prof, if I understood him correctly, simply doesn't care.

[midniterider]

 

I guess this is another splitting of hairs, but IMO it is not actually possible to be apathetic about something that theoretically should matter greatly. I can be apathetic about chocolate vs vanilla, but I can't be apathetic about heaven vs hell. However, I can think that the probability that I or anybody I care about will go to hell is incredibly small and therefore I don't worry about hell.

 

 

 

If the probability of something is nil then it does not matter greatly...imo.

 

I don't fear anything from other religions but I bet those other religions have something in their bibles to fear.

[Orbit]

Directionless, it seems to be hard for you to realize that some people just don't care about your religion. Or any religion. It just shows how deeply you were indoctrinated--you can't even imagine your religion being completely irrelevant to someone. This has all gone pretty far afield. What was it that you were trying to figure out?

[directionless]

 

I know there are some important points that I am not understanding such as Florduh's distinction between saying "no thank you" to chocolate chip cookies vs "no thank you" to invisible unicorn cookies.

I mean rejecting or accepting a cookie that obviously exists is a simple choice. If you're not sure how you feel about it, the cookie's right there, try it.

 

How does one evaluate someone's request to try his cookie when he extends you his empty hand and exclaims his invisible cookie is good if you just believe it is good? It is not the same thing at all. There is nothing to taste.

 

That is a good point. Also it reveals a difference in the way I am visualizing atheism.

 

You guys are arguing that all you need to do is say "no thanks" whenever a theist offers you a cookie. The invisible cookie that requires faith before it satisfies your hunger is analogous to many types of Protestantism. Not all religions offer only invisible unicorn cookies. Christianity has the concept of sanctification that a believer should experience during this life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctification).

 

I realized something though. I have been thinking of religion as "a model of reality". Therefore I've been arguing that atheists need to bring forth their own model of reality instead of simply sniping at theistic models. Everybody needs a model of reality to make decisions.

 

However, you guys are defining religion as "a model of the gaps in the conventional wisdom model of reality". You argue that you can disbelieve every religious "model of the gaps" without having a replacement because conventional wisdom model of reality is complete enough to make decisions.

 

You are saying the religious person believes metaphysical naturalism (science) plus some extra things that can't be evaluated scientifically.

 

I think that explains some of the differences in the discussion.

 

Using the cookie analogy I have been imagining that cookies are the only food available so atheists have a responsibility to share their cookie recipe instead of simply finding fault with other cookie recipes.

 

Most people have been imagining that cookies are simply a dessert and not everybody wants to eat dessert.

[florduh]

Using the cookie analogy I have been imagining that cookies are the only food available so atheists have a responsibility to share their cookie recipe instead of simply finding fault with other cookie recipes.

 

Atheists certainly have no cookies or recipes, but theists believe they have cookies (and the best recipe, of course) though nobody can see, touch or taste them.

 

Most people have been imagining that cookies are simply a dessert and not everybody wants to eat dessert. 

 

 

Or perhaps they would like a dessert but can't find any. In some cases they pretend, like at a little girl's imaginary tea party. It can be fun for a childish mind, but there are still no fucking cookies.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Directionless, allow me to explain my indifference to hell for you.  I don't care if hell is real.  If someone offers me peer-reviewed, definitive proof that hell exists, I would accept that hell is real; but I still wouldn't care.  Even if someone presented me with solid, empirical evidence that my lifestyle will ultimately mean that I will go to hell post mortem, it still would not make slightest difference to me.

 

The reason I don't care whether hell exists or not is because if the christian doctrine of hell is true, then I am going to hell either way.  If I remain true to my honest doubts, my honest lack of belief, and true to myself, then god will throw me into hell (for being honest).  Contrariwise, if I betray myself, recant my doubts and my unbelief, then I will be forced to spend eternity with the very same god who forced me through threats of violence into betraying myself.  Moreover, I would be expected to worship that god and call him good.

 

You need to understand that the most important moral value I hold is my personal integrity.  For me to confess that jesus is lord cannot be anything other than a lie; because not only do I know it to not be true, I cannot truly believe it in my heart ever again.  Assuming then, that god is omninscient, it should be fairly easy for him to figure out that my confession of the lordship of jesus is not the truth.  Would he be willing to let me into heaven anyway, knowing that I have lied?  If so, I'm still no better off than I would be had I remained honest and went to hell.

 

Furthermore, the most important skill I have is my intellect, which is far from dazzling, but it works well enough for me to muddle through this life.  My intellect allows me to use logic in determining which arguments I will accept and which to reject.  My intellect allows me to employ reason in making sound decisions.  It allows me to objectively analyze all sides of a situation before determining which course of action to take.

 

god would have me betray all of that, just to have the priviledge of spending eternity in heaven.  And it would truly be an eternity for me, because I would be there with the sound knowledge that I only got there by betraying myself and the things I hold most dear.  I would know that I was worshipping a god who extorted my best qualities, stole them from me, simply because he couldn't bring himself to tolerate the integrity and intellect of one honest man.  Again, how would this eternity be any different from eternal separation from god in hell?  If I am to spend eternity in torment either way, why would I not stay true to who I am?

 

Physical separation in hell somehow feels more right to me than emotional separation in heaven. 

 

Thus, since hell really is the only option I have, I really don't care.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

To agree with and bolster Orbit's point, I was heavily indoctrinated into the heaven-hell myth and they now carry no more emotional weight for me. I actually stopped believing in hell on my own prior to becoming an atheist. It simply isn't logically possible that an all loving god would send any one to such a place, especially for the crime of simply being honestly skeptical about something. If there is a non-all loving god who would send some to hell, then there is nothing I can do about it. I can't just choose to believe something, so sending me to hell would be a conviction based on judging me for something I can't control. Therefore, the probability of me being sent to hell is out of my control. Therefore, it's not worth worrying or caring about.

I guess this is another splitting of hairs, but IMO it is not actually possible to be apathetic about something that theoretically should matter greatly. I can be apathetic about chocolate vs vanilla, but I can't be apathetic about heaven vs hell. However, I can think that the probability that I or anybody I care about will go to hell is incredibly small and therefore I don't worry about hell.

 

So the argument I was trying to make is that apatheism is actual beliefs - not simply apathy.

 

I need to go back and reread everybody's posts. I know there are some important points that I am not understanding such as Florduh's distinction between saying "no thank you" to chocolate chip cookies vs "no thank you" to invisible unicorn cookies.

 

I don't want to be arguing when I should be agreeing.

Just because you personally can't be apathetic about heaven and hell doesn't mean other people can't. To me neither heaven nor hell is important at all. You need to understand this crucial point. Why do you think hell is important? Why do you assign it any probability at all? Other people don't do so.

I am apathetic about heaven and hell because I do not believe they exist. Now, I agree with directionless that one cannot be apathetic about the idea of heaven and hell if we imagine they do exist. Obviously, I cannot be emotionally neutral about the idea of being burned forever (I have suffered a third degree burn before, so I definitely cannot be apathetic about the idea of being burned). Every one would cringe at the IDEA of hell. But in real life (dealing with things I am sure exist), I am not at all emotionally moved by the idea of hell because I do not believe it exists. It may be splitting hairs as you say. Directionless, I maybe misinterpreting, but you seem to imply that everyone has some level of a fear of hell because it COULD exist. I disagree with that. I have no fear of hell just like I have no fear of Freddie Krueger.

[mymistake]

 

 

I know there are some important points that I am not understanding such as Florduh's distinction between saying "no thank you" to chocolate chip cookies vs "no thank you" to invisible unicorn cookies.

I mean rejecting or accepting a cookie that obviously exists is a simple choice. If you're not sure how you feel about it, the cookie's right there, try it.

 

How does one evaluate someone's request to try his cookie when he extends you his empty hand and exclaims his invisible cookie is good if you just believe it is good? It is not the same thing at all. There is nothing to taste.

 

That is a good point. Also it reveals a difference in the way I am visualizing atheism.

 

You guys are arguing that all you need to do is say "no thanks" whenever a theist offers you a cookie. The invisible cookie that requires faith before it satisfies your hunger is analogous to many types of Protestantism. Not all religions offer only invisible unicorn cookies. Christianity has the concept of sanctification that a believer should experience during this life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctification).

 

I realized something though. I have been thinking of religion as "a model of reality". Therefore I've been arguing that atheists need to bring forth their own model of reality instead of simply sniping at theistic models. Everybody needs a model of reality to make decisions.

 

However, you guys are defining religion as "a model of the gaps in the conventional wisdom model of reality". You argue that you can disbelieve every religious "model of the gaps" without having a replacement because conventional wisdom model of reality is complete enough to make decisions.

 

You are saying the religious person believes metaphysical naturalism (science) plus some extra things that can't be evaluated scientifically.

 

I think that explains some of the differences in the discussion.

 

Using the cookie analogy I have been imagining that cookies are the only food available so atheists have a responsibility to share their cookie recipe instead of simply finding fault with other cookie recipes.

 

Most people have been imagining that cookies are simply a dessert and not everybody wants to eat dessert.

 

 

This is getting too complicated.

 

I know I have been using the "cookie" analogy to mean all the empty promises Christians make about the next life.  It doesn't exist.  You have to die in this life to find out you got cheated only you won't because by then you will be dead.

 

 

As for "a model of reality" your five senses give you that.  As you go about your business you eat and drink and use things you can use.  People quickly learn the things they can see, touch and hear are real.  It's a perfect model of reality.