Wall Street Journal Opinion Piece: If You're an Atheist, Lie to Your Kids

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I disagree wholeheartedly with your summation that atheist or agnostics can't provide or get the benefits you mention. Not that I am atheist, but I believe atheists don't shut the door completely on there being zero chance of there being a God. They possibly see the wrong done in the name of God. 

ETA: I will do some searching and see if this is isolated data.

An agnostic doesn't know if there is a god.  An atheist has decided that there is no god.  Atheism is a firm theory, a belief about the nature of reality, just as much as religion is.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Disagree with what?  Lying to your kids about your belief they will be decomposing bodies if they die?  What do you suggest an atheist tell their kids about death?

Or with the claims atheism may be contributing to depression, etc in children?  If so, Based on what?

How about Santa and the Tooth Fairy?  Is there an age-limit on this lying we're supposed to do?

[Calm]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

I know it has no meaning because that is the definition I am using.  If there was meaning to the creation, it was created by God, by definition.

So in essence is your answer to my previous question below that you skipped over is more or less ‘in the first case there is meaning/love because I say so and in the second there isn’t because I say so’ because that is the only way it makes sense to you?
 

Quote

If a parent experiences intense feelings when they look at their newborn babe and know without a doubt in their mind the rest of their life is for the purpose of caring for and protecting their child, is that experience somehow real meaning if there is a God, but even if identical in every way save one, that love and knowledge is not real [and is meaningless] if there is no God?

If that is an accurate interpretation, can you see how that might be seen as nonsense by someone who refuses to accept your definition because they think it is the same as you insisting all forms of grey must be labeled and treated as if they are either black or white simply based on your personal desire to label them that way because you define the world as black or white, no grey....possible reasoning: all pure (no browns or other color added) greys are actually mixes of black and white; definition:  all colors consisting of only black and white pigments have 50% or greater are defined as black, less than 50% are defined as white.  
 

“Why do you divide at 50% instead of 4 divisions of 25% creating two greys along with black and white?  Or at 10 intervals or 100?
“Because that is not how I define it, my definition is the only reasonable one in my view.”

“Fine, you look at the world as blacks and whites and I will enjoy my greys.“

”Go ahead, but it is meaningless to think in greys”

”And yet it has beauty and fun when I mix and paint my greys.”  
“You just think you are having fun, it is an illusion”

”Have a nice black and white life, buddy; I am off to revel in my greys”

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

If I am limited to reason, it is the only reasonable argument to me.  

Reason once declared all celestial objects rotate around the earth.  Feel free to see this as your position ’if there is meaning, there is a God’ or the position ‘there is both meaning and no God‘. 

There is a big difference between saying “all celestial objects rotate around the earth” and saying “it doesn’t makes sense to me to believe anything but all rotate around the earth”.  You have been using the first type of formulation to dismiss others’ interpretations of their existence.   This is somewhat understandable when so many things appear to be the only possible answer just as this above belief was likely the only apparent reasonable argument to most of earth’s inhabitants for much of humanity’s history. 

But when we reach a point where we have testable additional information that shows there are other reasonable possibilities besides the one an individual personally holds, then suddenly it isn’t such an rational choice anymore. It becomes a position of faith. 

We are at the point where——excluding personal experience——either position of declaring there is a God or there is no God may be analogous to the ‘earth is the center of the universe’ because the question is untestable with our current technology There may come a time when discussion on the definitive answer to the existence of God moves past ‘these are my assumptions/definitions so I am right and you are wrong’, but right now belief in God or belief there is no God are positions of faith.

Which is a glorious experience for me imo though a source of discomfort and even pain for many. 

[Calm]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

is about as absurd as creation ex-nihlo.

Which is a religious position that condenses down for many to “ because God would do it that way”, or iow “because I define God as someone who uses creation ex-nihlo”.  One, btw, that most atheists I know disagree with and hold instead with the standard scientific position of what existed before the Big Bang is currently undefinable as in not “nothing” but “nothing that we now know of”.  Unfortunately the former gets sloppily substituted for the latter at times (understandable when it is assumed the other defines words the same as one does), which leads to confusion. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

To an atheist it requires belief in super-nature.  It’s not based in reason. 

Are you saying atheists must believe in creation ex nihlo which means they have a belief in super-nature or that atheists see it as not based in reason?

[Calm]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

will, and have argued that without God, the self is an illusion.  

Please frame/present your argument because this statement of faith. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

Notice from the article the claim isn’t really the universe sprang from nothing as defined by absence of anything, there isn’t even a void to be filled because that is space, but this:

Quote

Quantum mechanics tells us that "nothing" is inherently unstable, so the initial leap from nothing to something may have been inevitable. Then the resulting tiny bubble of space-time could have burgeoned into a massive, busy universe, thanks to inflation. As Krauss puts it, "The laws of physics as we understand them make it eminently plausible that our universe arose from nothing - no space, no time, no particles, nothing that we now know of

"Nothing that we know of now" is very different than "nothing". 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How about Santa and the Tooth Fairy?  Is there an age-limit on this lying we're supposed to do?

Ask someone else as I don’t believe all forms of atheism inherently leads to nihilism or no something that continues to exist after death.  Plus I was responding to Tacenda’s strong disagreement asking for more info as she hadn’t explained what she disagreed with, so I was neither supporting or rejecting lying to your kids in that comment. 
 

I don’t believe in lying to one’s kids, but I also recognize they lack the mental capacity to understand things in the way I do in many areas, so I have to explain using less than accurate terms at times or leave out important information.

How do I explain how the sun shines to a three year old?  Do I include the part where it is constantly exploding (she understands explosions) held together by forces like gravity (she might understand that things fall to the ground, but she has seen fireworks fly up from the ground and explode, so why should she trust that gravity and other things will keep the sun from exploding apart and therefore disappearing...at least during her lifetime)...or does a wise parent use simple ideas attached to safe things to explain how the sun works so the child has a better, if very incomplete idea and also isn’t frightened. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which is a religious position that condenses down for many to “ because God would do it that way”, or iow “because I define God as someone who uses creation ex-nihlo”.  One, btw, that most atheists I know disagree with and hold instead with the standard scientific position of what existed before the Big Bang is currently undefinable as in not “nothing” but “nothing that we now know of”.  Unfortunately the former gets sloppily substituted for the latter at times (understandable when it is assumed the other defines words the same as one does), which leads to confusion. 

Yes, and everyone is faced with the same issue, be they atheist or theist or other: What happened before? Did the universe spring into existence from nothing? If not, then from what? Did it always exist, then how? If God created the universe, then what created God? If God always existed, then how?

No ideology or lack thereof that I know of escapes these questions.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

An atheist has decided that there is no god.  Atheism is a firm theory, a belief about the nature of reality, just as much as religion is.

Strong/positive atheism is a faith position in my view, a belief based on untestable assumptions. 

Weak/negative atheism is absence of a belief in deity.  No assumptions involved.

 

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

An agnostic doesn't know if there is a god.  An atheist has decided that there is no god.  Atheism is a firm theory, a belief about the nature of reality, just as much as religion is.

Did you hear the one about the agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac?  He stays up all night wondering if there's a dog.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Strong/positive atheism is a faith position in my view, a belief based on untestable assumptions. 

Weak/negative atheism is absence of a belief in deity.  No assumptions involved.

 

 

 

Thanks for pointing out the differences Calm, there are variables.

Also, many atheists have been damaged through loss of loved ones, in a horrific way perhaps, and blame God, or many other things and may come around eventually. When people make assumptions about atheists and wonder how they're going to be good people anymore without belief in God it makes me wonder about the person saying it. It makes me think they wouldn't be or do good without the knowledge or belief in God. I don't like how some think atheists couldn't be moral as much if they don't believe in God, as if there's no reason to anymore. I know a lot of atheists on different boards that are not changing their minds on if they should still be moral, some in fact, are far more moral than they use to be. Because it comes from within or internally, not externally. 

I've loved reading your once again, voice of reason on this thread.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Tacenda

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It makes me think they wouldn't be or do good without the knowledge or belief in God.

Restored Gospel doctrines states the light of Christ is available to all, so ignorance does not exclude the possibility of doing good, otherwise no one would convert.  The reason for doing good might be misattributed, however, due to ignorance.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Calm

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Strong/positive atheism is a faith position in my view, a belief based on untestable assumptions. 

Weak/negative atheism is absence of a belief in deity.  No assumptions involved.

 

 

 

Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in deity.  What you are describing is the level of dogmatism in an atheists view--there is no strong/positive vs weak/negative.  

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in deity.

Agreed

Quote

  What you are describing is the level of dogmatism in an atheists view

Agreed.  This can range from stating there is no God to having simply no belief about gods because there is no reason to think about the concept. For example, if someone was brought up without any awareness that people believed in deity, they would be classified as atheist. 

Quote

--there is no strong/positive vs weak/negative.  

Some have chosen to qualify atheism with the level of dogmatism attached to it:  hard/strong/positive (there is a belief present) for the stronger level of dogmatism and soft/weak/negative (there is no belief) for the lower level with it being on a continuum or multiple continuums as someone might hold strong beliefs in one aspect of atheistism,  it have less definite opinions about another. The example of being a strong atheist in terms of a Christian God existing, but weak in terms of other types is, imo, a good one, as some may withhold making a decision until they know more about other conceptions of deity. 
 

Others have variations on the theme.  The terms have been in use a long time and debated as well and in my opinion are highly useful to avoid monolithic treatment of atheists, such as claiming they all have to be nihilistic. 
 

“Because of flexibility in the term god, it is possible that a person could be a positive/strong atheist in terms of certain conceptions of God, while remaining a negative/weak atheist in terms of others. For example, the God of classical theism is often considered to be a personal supreme being who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, caring about humans and human affairs. One might be a positive atheist for such a deity, while being a negative atheist with respect to a deistic conception of God by rejecting belief in such a deity but not explicitly asserting it to be false.

Positive and negative atheism are frequently used by the philosopher George H. Smithas synonyms of the less-well-known categories of implicit and explicit atheism, also relating to whether an individual holds a specific view that gods do not exist.^[4]"Positive" atheists explicitly assert that it is false that any deities exist. "Negative" atheists assert they do not believe any deities exist, but do not explicitly assert it is true that no deity exists. Those who do not believe any deities exist, but do not assert such non-belief, are included among implicit atheists. Among "implicit" atheists are thus included the following: children and adults who have never heard of deities; people who have heard of deities but have never given the idea any considerable thought; and those agnostics who suspend belief about deities, but do not reject such belief. All implicit atheists are included in the negative/weak categorization.^[6][7]

Under the negative atheism classification, agnostics are atheists. The validity of this categorization is disputed, however, and a few prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins avoid it. In The God Delusion, Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between "very high" and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong atheist" for those who claim to know there is no God. He categorizes himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "strong atheist" on this scale.^[8]Within negative atheism, philosopher Anthony Kenny further distinguishes between agnostics, who find the claim "God exists" uncertain, and theological noncognitivists, who consider all talk of gods to be meaningless.^[9]“

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

Edited January 31, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

Forgive me if I can't respond to all the posts directed at my comments (10 and counting!) 

I unwisely opened a can of worms that I don't have the mental capacity or energy today to try and debate.  I have argued this point several times on these boards in the past.  If you are unfamiliar with my position, you can search for my posts on "nihilism" or "the self is an illusion".  These arguments seem to go on for ever, and I just don't have it in me today.  Sorry!

[smac97]

12 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

I have recognized that I quoted from a website associated with Richard Dawkins, not from Richard Dawkins.  Sorry.  @smac97  seemed to figure that out before me.

I will try to respond to your other question later with whatever words I can muster.

Charity, TOm

Actually, I think I made a mistake.  I think what you quoted was attributable to Dawkins himself.  You had three paragraphs in your post that were in a different, larger font, but only the first of those paragraphs was the Dawkins quote, a you even had it in quotation marks.  I missed that, and so thought that you were attributing the second and third paragraphs (written by you) to Dawkins.  Hence my request for a reference.  I've since detected my error.  I apologize for the confusion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

I think agnosticism is necessarily distinguishable from atheism.  The former says "I don't know, and cannot know, if God exists," and the latter says "I affirmatively reject the existence of God."

Atheism isn't necessarily that, it can simply be the lack of belief in God.

Only if you conflate "belief" with "worship."

"Belief in God" necessarily requires belief in His existence, I think.  That's the premise.

If a person says "I don't believe in Bigfoot," or "I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster," he is rejecting the existence of Bigfoot and Nessie.  Similarly, a person who says "I don't believe in God" is rejecting the existence of God.

I suppose a person could say "I am utterly indifferent about the existence of God."  But I don't think that fits within the parameters of "atheism."  There is a neologism that I think captures this concept better: Apatheism.

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Agnosticism distinguishes itself by being more about the epistemological process preventing the conclusion.

Yes.  The existence of God is unknown and unknowable.  

Atheism, on the other hand, does in fact reach a "conclusion" about the existence of God.  

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That is why I say I am an agnostic atheist.

I don't think that works.

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I lack a belief in God, not out of apathy, by the way, but for the mindful reason that I think God's existence is now unknowable.

Then you are an agnostic, not an atheist.

Atheists affirmatively deny the existence of God.  Agnostics do not.

I think atheists are, by definition, mutually exclusive from agnostics.  The latter sits on the fence, and the former stands on one side of the fence.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Actually, I think I made a mistake.  I think what you quoted was attributable to Dawkins himself.  You had three paragraphs in your post that were in a different, larger font, but only the first of those paragraphs was the Dawkins quote, a you even had it in quotation marks.  I missed that, and so thought that you were attributing the second and third paragraphs (written by you) to Dawkins.  Hence my request for a reference.  I've since detected my error.  I apologize for the confusion.

Thanks,

-Smac

With respect, the quote is attributed to an anonymous user (with the moniker "Happy Nihilist") posting into a "discussion" thread on Dawkin's website. It's not attributable to Dawkins.

 

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Strong/positive atheism is a faith position in my view, a belief based on untestable assumptions. 

Weak/negative atheism is absence of a belief in deity.  No assumptions involved.

I'm not sure this distinction is tenable.

Atheism deals with the existence of God, not worship.  So "weak/negative atheism" only works if we conflate "belief" with "worship."  I don't think such a conflation is appropriate.

Perhaps "apatheism" should get more attention in discussions like this.  It seems sufficiently distinguishable from both atheism and agnosticism.

The Agnostic: "The existence of God is unknown and unknowable."

The Atheist: "I reject the existence of God."

The Apatheist: "I take no position on the existence of God, as I just don't care."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 31, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

With respect, the quote is attributed to an anonymous user (with the moniker "Happy Nihilist") posting into a "discussion" thread on Dawkin's website. It's not attributable to Dawkins.

Ah!  You are quite correct.  Thank you for the correction.

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Only if you conflate "belief" with "worship."

"Belief in God" necessarily requires belief in His existence, I think.  That's the premise.

If a person says "I don't believe in Bigfoot," or "I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster," he is rejecting the existence of Bigfoot and Nessie.  Similarly, a person who says "I don't believe in God" is rejecting the existence of God.

I suppose a person could say "I am utterly indifferent about the existence of God."  But I don't think that fits within the parameters of "atheism."  There is a neologism that I think captures this concept better: Apatheism.

Yes.  The existence of God is unknown and unknowable.  

Atheism, on the other hand, does in fact reach a "conclusion" about the existence of God.  

I don't think that works.

Then you are an agnostic, not an atheist.

Atheists affirmatively deny the existence of God.  Agnostics do not.

I think atheists are, by definition, mutually exclusive from agnostics.  The latter sits on the fence, and the former stands on one side of the fence.

Thanks,

-Smac

To me it comes down to credence (in a statistical sense). What level of credence is required to consider oneself a believer or non-believer. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but my credence in this proposition is not 100%. Perhaps the earth will be hit by a passing black hole tonight. That said, my credence is high enough in the proposition that I have no contingency plans for the sun not rising. If you told me that there was a teacup orbiting Jupiter, my credence in the statement would not be 0%, but it would be low enough that it would have no impact on my life. Similar to bigfoot or Loch Ness or Thor, I have seen no evidence that would cause me to give a significant level of credence to the idea that your personal God exists. My credence in your God is very small, but non-zero. That said, I am very much open to further evidence should someone wish to enlighten me. Does that make me an atheist or an agnostic? What level of credence would you say is the threshold for each label?

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

To me it comes down to credence (in a statistical sense). What level of credence is required to consider oneself a believer or non-believer.

I'm not sure about that.  That a proposition cannot be defined with specifically delineated boundaries, and with mathematical precision, does not mean the proposition cannot be defined at all.

Quote

I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but my credence in this proposition is not 100%.

And yet you still label yourself a "believer."  You have staked out a position.

Quote

Perhaps the earth will be hit by a passing black hole tonight. That said, my credence is high enough in the proposition that I have no contingency plans for the sun not rising. If you told me that there was a teacup orbiting Jupiter, my credence in the statement would not be 0%, but it would be low enough that it would have no impact on my life.

I would likewise be indifferent to the question.  "Apatheism" becomes a helpful descriptor (though I question the wisdom of the position itself).

Quote

Similar to bigfoot or Loch Ness or Thor, I have seen no evidence that would cause me to give a significant level of credence to the idea that your personal God exists.

For me, I think the existence of Bigfoot and Nessie is within the realms of plausible empiricism, such that a person can reasonably conclude that they do not exist.

The existence of God, on the other hand, is not really empirically testable.  There is plenty of room for theism, atheism, agnosticism, and apatheism.  

Quote

My credence in your God is very small, but non-zero.

Sorites Paradox comes to mind.  One grain of rice sitting on a tale is not a pile, but 1,000 grains of rice is.  What is the precise number at which the non-pile becomes a pile?

Quote

That said, I am very much open to further evidence should someone wish to enlighten me.

I encourage you to meet with the missionaries.  Read the Book of Mormon, ponder it, pray about it.  Exercise faith (see Alma 32).  

Quote

Does that make me an atheist or an agnostic?

I'm not sure.  Which would you choose?  And does it matter?

Quote

What level of credence would you say is the threshold for each label?

I'm not sure there is a specifically defined threshold.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 31, 2020 by smac97

[The Nehor]

I would like to see some stats on people raised by those with an insincere belief in God they pretend to have to see how that helps. Most kids are not stupid enough to fall for that.