are you an atheist?

or maybe a better example is someone who doesn't believe in vaccination. this person benefits by everyone else getting vaccinated if enough of them do.

the one who gains the most is the rational actor

Perceptions of gain differ. Each actor will need to apply their own idea of "gain" to their actions. There's this famous quote about gaining the whole world, but losing one's soul. Not everyone views the wisdom of this quote in the same light, but they apply in according to their own view of it.

In which case, objectively determining who "gains the most" is not a slam dunk.

there's an implicit ceteris paribus assumption in that example, so their idea of gain is the same. in real world situations, you would average out the idea of gain, such as in the herbalife situation, where you measure the gain as perceived by those who have gained from herbalife to the gain (or loss avoidance really) of those from herbalife being abolished.

States of mind are difficult to measure, but I happen to find certain mental states to be extremely valuable and I try to maximize my chances of experiencing those states. For me, this is the most meaningful measurement of "gain" in the majority of life situations. I am not sure how herbalife fits into that reality, but I'll Ctl-F around and see what you're referencing.

herbalife is a company that sells nutritionally dubious products through a multi-level marketing scheme. I've once heard that the underlying principle behind law is to manage incentives/disincentives to optimize the welfare of the most people, and where the law tends to make the practices that embody herbalife illegal, I tend to agree that on balance, that principle is served, even if the minority of adherents who do perceive a gain from herbalife existing perceive it most profoundly.

In my own case, actual physical health is highly conducive to those mental states I spoke of. The anticipation of health, therefore, is also valuable. It would seem that herbalife was selling people the anticipation of health, without selling them the means to meet that expectation (apart from the marginal health benefits of lowered stress caused by the assurance of future health - a tricky bit there).

Going back to "whoever gains most" and averaging that gain among a group, I would also have to point out that such averaging must occur over time as well, in that short-term gains could quickly skew one's results in a direction that might not coincide with long term gains. So, you can't really arrive at a measurement until all the results are in.

(waits)

Nope. This could take a very long time. I guess we'll just have to settle for a heuristic approach at first and make mid-course corrections as new data arrive.

(knits brow)

This heuristic thing is good for actually getting on with living and getting some acceptable results, but it is a bear for arriving at Absolutely True Answers. Maybe there's a place for religion in the ongoing mess of just trying to get on with it.

don't categorically reject all beliefs i don't share - or all beliefs that can't be scientifically verified. some i scoff at, some i ignore, some i file for future study.

so your problem is the beliefs you scoff at isn't the exact same set of beliefs that I scoff at. And since you scoff at less beliefs than I do, you're ~open-minded~, while I'm condescending. Again, break, give me.

are you assuming I categorically reject all beliefs I don't share or can't be scientifically verified? cause I don't. spiritualism I scoff at to some degree. Not as much as alien-brained Clinton, but there's some scoff there. You don't. Goody for you! So open minded!

the scoffing is relative to how one was come to their belief in spirituality. "I feel like I've spoken to God"=snickers, "I'm not really sure, but I think there's probably some supernatural/spiritual forces in the universe"=no snickers.

i'm not gonna tell you how to do your thing, but you might try being a little less cartoonishly reductive, a bit more open to subtleties. just a suggestion...

good thing you're never condescending

H8 theists omg just, no, wow

so your problem is the beliefs you scoff at isn't the exact same set of beliefs that I scoff at. And since you scoff at less beliefs than I do, you're ~open-minded~, while I'm condescending. Again, break, give me.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:16 PM (Yesterday)

my problem is that you're kind of being a dick. and yes, it's a good thing that i'm never condescending. thank you for noticing, as it's not always easy.

if i look outside and see that it's raining, i'm probably gonna place faith in the wetness of things out there. i'm habituated to placing faith in my perceptions (with a grain of salt, of course), and have a fair amount of experience w precipitation.

That is not "faith," it's deductive reasoning. I mean, come on.

I would be fine with atheists making the claim that they find most religious beliefs to be improbable, if they stopped there.

It would, of course, help, if they showed much familiarity with those beliefs. In the western world, they mostly seem familiar with the most literalist of Christian fundamentalist beliefs and any attempt to shift the grounds of the discussion to other sets of beliefs falls into realms they would prefer not to explore, as it would require an effort they are not prepared to make.

In contrast to theists, well-known for their desire to investigate belief systems other than their own.

it's inductive reasoning btw

You're inductive reasoning.

:p

That is not "faith," it's deductive reasoning. I mean, come on.

― Ian from Etobicoke (Phil D.), Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:14 AM (1 hour ago)

faith isn't some dirty word, nor is it exclusively religious. i have faith that gravity will keep my shoes stuck to the ground, but religion isn't involved. we could zoom in really close and hash out distinct, thread-specific definitions for "religion", "spirituality", "faith", "knowledge", "belief", "awareness" and "perception", but i don't see the point, tbh.

my point was that i have a fair amount of faith that my perceptions more-or-less accurately model the reality i inhabit. this faith is taken with a large grain of salt and contingent on many things, of course, but i find that it serves me fairly well. if a perception of the presence of the divine were an equally consistent and seemingly reliable part of those perceptions, i'd probably trust it, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iRFv-QBft0

faith isn't some dirty word, nor is it exclusively religious. i have faith that gravity will keep my shoes stuck to the ground, but religion isn't involved.

Again, not "faith," not as most people understand the word.

Like, even when you account for all of its non-religious meanings and implications, it's not "faith" to expect something to happen when you quite literally have absolutely no reasons to expect otherwise.

yeah, okay, i agree that "faith" does more accurately describe belief backed by strong conviction. mea culpa on the imprecise usage.

since that word wasn't essential to my point, pls to sub "believe". i believe that gravity will keep my shoes stuck to the ground. if i perceived god in some consistent and useful way (and felt myself to be otherwise free of debilitating manias), i would probably believe that god existed.

Why wouldn't you first look for corroboration for your hypothetical perception of god, even if it was internally consistent?

In contrast to theists, well-known for their desire to investigate belief systems other than their own.

This is merely an argument from prejudice combined with an obvious ad hominem against a group as a whole. Theists as a category are actually quite diverse and, if you were to notice, you'd see that some of them are intellectually curious and rationally disciplined. I should think you'd want to engage with that open-minded subset rather than simply stand apart and scorn them for what they are not.

If scientists engaged in their internal debates using the same undisciplined methods and rhetoric that atheists often use when they engage with religion, then science would quickly degenerate into a bar fight and accomplish nothing at all. A good example of this is the conflation of "faith" with "religion", "religion" with "theism", "theism" with "monotheism", "monotheism" with "Christianity", and "Christianity" with "fundamentalism", as if all these terms amounted to the same idea.

Intellectually, it is quite easy to separate these categories from one another, which leads me to think that, when they are consistently lumped together by otherwise capable thinkers, those thinkers are mistaking the sameness of their emotional reaction to all these things for a categorical sameness. iow, they've stopped thinking and are only reacting in a reflexive manner.

btw, I am not a theist in this argument, which subtlety seems lost on most of those who are fiercely arguing for what they take to be "atheism".

Kind of odd to take someone to task for making an ad hominem attack against a group as a whole and then talk broadly about how atheists make bad arguments.

If you reject the bad arguments (the badness of which I have pointed out), then the shoe does not fit and there is no need for you to wear it. If you read what I said once more, you'll see I did not categorically place all atheists into this group. Inclusion in the group making bad arguments was awarded only to those who use them.

in many contexts those terms are roughly interchangeable (and I would lump things like herbalife into the mix as well), but it would be interesting to introduce the punnett square of religion without faith, because I think that more accurately describes the larger body of "the enemy" -- people and institutions who accrue local, temporal benefits at the cost of the welfare of others, and ultimately themselves. For people and institutions who have strongly intertwined faith and religion, it is a simple matter of shaking that faith to cleave membership, but it seems to me these are not the important players, just as in herbalife, it is the large institutional players with the greatest accumulation of resources that matter.

Surely that's implicit within the anti-theist statements as well?

xpost

This is merely an argument from prejudice combined with an obvious ad hominem against a group as a whole. Theists as a category are actually quite diverse and, if you were to notice, you'd see that some of them are intellectually curious and rationally disciplined. I should think you'd want to engage with that open-minded subset rather than simply stand apart and scorn them for what they are not.

Uh the lack of self-awareness and assumption-making here is kinda staggering.

But if it makes you feel better there are all kinds of non-Christian, non-western beliefs I'm prepared to call irrational and silly as well.

On the other hand, many theists retreat very quickly into deism with their arguments. It's good to keep in mind the starting point of the theists position, though sometimes it seems like things are conflated because theist beliefs are often not clearly defined in the first place.

Are their stated beliefs ultimately what determine their political support, though?

Surely that's implicit within the anti-theist statements as well?

This time I will be even more explicit. I am not a theist.

Insofar as my knowledge of anything must ultimately be based on personal experience, and my experience cannot be construed in such a way as to include a god or gods, as I understand those terms, I would categorize myself as an atheist. I think the qualifications and clarifications I made in the preceding sentence are very important nuances that ought not to be cast aside, but when you sift it down to its essence, what I just said was: I am an atheist.

As an atheist myself, it ill-behooves me to make appeals to prejudice or categorical ad hominems against all atheists.

But the fact that I am an atheist, as I understand the term, does not align me with the sort of atheism widely expressed in this thread. I also identify myself as religious, with Zen Buddhism being the religion most nearly embodying my faith. As such, it annoys me that so many self-identified atheists, of which there are many in this thread, display so much ignorance of religion, and turn the mere fact of believing that a god or gods do or don't exist as the sine qua non of religion and a sort of Procrustean bed that all arguments about religious faith must be made to fit. According to this sort of atheist, a belief in diety is attended by a whole train of ills, by definition, and nothing can convince them otherwise, including evidence or testimony.

I will continue to point out this reductive tendency as based on pure ignorance and prejudice, which it is. Atheism is not a tribal identification and despite my own atheism I'm happy to call out atheists when they are being ignorant or prejudiced in this way.

I usually identify as "a skeptical person" because I think it says more about where I'm coming from.

Lol theists tho

"the mere fact of believing that a god or gods do or don't exist as the sine qua non of religion and a sort of Procrustean bed that all arguments about religious faith must be made to fit"
i think people here are uncomfortable, for example, with transcendental meditation, too, at least when it comes up with regards to David Lynch. I don't think the collective ilx discomfort with magical thinking rests solely on whether gods do or don't exist.

I would suggest that the collective ilx discomfort with magical thinking rests mainly on the exploitation of magical thinking for political ends which then injects magical thinking into the formation of social policy and justifications for wars. Magical thinking that confines any harm that it does to the individuals who employ it usually gets played on ilx for lols.

As such, it annoys me that so many self-identified atheists, of which there are many in this thread, display so much ignorance of religion, and turn the mere fact of believing that a god or gods do or don't exist as the sine qua non of religion and a sort of Procrustean bed that all arguments about religious faith must be made to fit. According to this sort of atheist, a belief in diety is attended by a whole train of ills, by definition, and nothing can convince them otherwise, including evidence or testimony.

A million kinds of strawmanning, at least regarding posters in this thread, going on here. But color me also shocked that a threat titled "Are you an atheist?" appears to center largely and inexplicably around the question of belief in a deity. Inexcusable ignorance, that.

ilx lols at david lynch??

The thread title does indeed promise a discussion of belief in diety. I'm not expressing any shock over that, Phil. So, what does a belief in diety imply, beyond a the simple fact of a belief in diety? Anything? My beef, such as it is, revolves around the answers to that question, as given in the prior 1570-and-change posts.

But you may feel free to answer that question, if you wish, so as to clarify your position.

lol deity

concise

It doesn't *necessarily* imply anything at all. It also doesn't just exist in a vacuum. Does that help?

xp well you did type "diety" like four times.

diety worms

diety? horrors!

This was linked from the Michael Robbins thread but could be relevant here as well:

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/book-reviews/he-who

Sample quote:

The central folly of scientism is the assumption that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a question for science--whose proper field is, after all, "something"--or, even more perniciously, that it isn't a question worth bothering about, isn't really a question at all.

Don't think science reckons it's not worth bothering with by any means. Science just realises we are far far far off having the theoretical tools or intellectual framework to properly deal with that question.

imho part of what establishes those theoretical tools + intellectual frameworks have historically been theology + discourses w/ infinity