Why stop at brains in a vat? Let's just say that if anyone states any belief in anything, they are the equivalent of a theist. As long as there is some epistemological uncertainty, nothing is certain and thus probably similar to many theists amirite? Probably shouldn't tell your kids the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist because, who knows, maybe it does!

The simple reality is that, for practical purpose, we shall speak and operate as if certain ideas are true and others are not. The kicker here is that nobody brings this objection up unless it is about religion. Nobody objects when I say my toast is burnt with "how do you know your toast exist! oh you toastist you!". But it is representative of the privileged status of religion that if someone dares to say that zeus is a made up figment of long dead human's imagination, they must be the equivalent of theists.

I was going to ask him if he teaches his kids not to touch a hot stove or they will get burned and qualifies it with, he is not certain either way and they should make up there own mind. But that would just be a distraction.

Ya that is a good example. Someone who teaches there kids not to touch hot stoves is more or less the same as the theist amirite.

No that was never my point.


My point was that Mightyboosh level of disbelief in God is about the same as the avg theists level belief is. They are both for all practical purposes pretty certain in their respective level of disbelief and belief. But both will acknowledge they could be wrong. Both will acknowledge they could be the proverbial brains is a vat.


He seems to think theists are wrong for teaching their belief in God. So he gos to the extreme of not teaching his kids Zeus is nonsense in order to not be a hypocrite and still be able to call them out. I call bs. He for one does teach it by saying he doesn't believe. For two he thinks Zeus is nonsense but hides in the vat.

This is simply untrue. Most people on the earth believe in a supreme being. Statistics will put that % around 90, give or take. I believe 20% of those are straight lying because of the stigma against atheists, so lets put it at 75%.

I'm 99% certain there is no God. That doesn't put me on the same level as the theists at all.

If the theist is 99% certain there is a God it puts you at the same level of certainty as a theist when it comes to your level of certainty in your respective beliefs about God.

Its like im talking another language again. Must be my fault...

batair, the burden of proof is on the theists, not the atheists.

sigh

Btw this is why i inserted the vat thing but then decided not to go that way. To see if its only religion that gets put in it and not the hot stove. If MB isnt certain Zeus is nonsense so he tells his kids to make up their own minds does that hold for a hot stove.

This woman needs to move on her kids are old enough to make up their own minds now. All her objections can be answered by saying that God is non-interventionist.

Wow, that went smashingly.

As something of an aside, I'm pretty sure mighty is actually a strong atheist, but would never admit it (either because he feels it would make him a hypocrite, or because he has some incorrect epistemological views, with the latter being far more likely).

Are you saying that Bugs Bunny isn't real?

You might ask yourself the question of why you think the christian god is 'more real' than Zeus.

Of course I think they're nonsense, worse, I think they represent a fundamental weakness in the human mind. I try not to influence my kids either way, if they grow up worshiping Zeus, well, frankly I'd take that over the current crop of gods.

What do you think... Maybe you can help me out here. How would you describe the difference between the above, a life skill, and a belief system like a religion? Why is it ok to teach a child how to cross the road safely but not ok to tell them god is definitely real?

How do you know Zeus is nonsense? Millions of people once worshiped him, were they wrong? We know they weren't deluded ... so they must just have been wrong, right?

So, you tell your children that Bugs Bunny might exist, right?

Are you serious with this line? lolz. Bugs is a cartoon character, not the basis for a global religion.

The only people who think Bugs is real are deluded, in the clinical sense

or children

What do you know about children and how they regard cartoon characters? My feeling is that children young enough to believe them real are unlikely to be old enough to ask the question. Then there's the difference between the possibility that Bugs is real vs the possibility that any of the gods are real.

I never really understood the answer to my question in the 'deluded' thread about the threshold number for this, perhaps asdfasdf can help out. How many people would have to believe that Bugs is real and made the universe and etc etc before they would cease to be considered deluded in the clinical sense?

I wasn't being entirely serious so I'm not getting into a discussion with you about delusion when there are people far better qualified than I to explain that.

Then you inadvertently made a serious point. However, I want to see where asdf was going with it before continuing.

I dont.

Right you think Zeus is nonsense but wont teach your kids your true view so you can criticize the theist who teaches their kids about God.

Ill ask again. If they were to ask you directly if Zeus is nonsense how would you answer them?

There was a reason i didn't want to bring this up. Its a distraction to my posts which you are already dogging mostly.


Doesn't matter. My view is Zeus is nonsense and i see no problem teaching a child this. Why am i wrong and why are you right in not expressing this view and letting kids make up their own mind?

And again i dont think you are letting them make up their own mind when you will tell them you disbelieve as they will be influenced by that belief. But since you think thats what you are doing why is it wrong to teach them Zeus is not real?

Lighten up a little man it's Friday afternoon

Then I'd be criticising them for doing what I'm doing, can anyone say 'hypocrisy'? I tell my kids what I think, what I don't do is say 'you will think this too'. Can you see the difference?

I thought I'd answered this but here ya go "I don't believe so but I don't know for sure, what do you think?'

Dogging? I don't know what that means.

I don't think it's a distraction, I think it's the crux of the issue.

Then you are saying 'believe my belief over their belief'. I won't do that on the subject of religion, it's the principle of the matter.

If there's inadvertent influence, I can't help that.

Urk. I was lightening up, then I felt like I was getting set up....

Thing is as much as I may disagree with you I respect that you've adapted your approach so nah I won't be looking to set you up any time.

Thanks but I didn't actually mean you, it's asdfasdf that I'm waiting for. I can't wait to see where this Bugs bunny thing is going, which is a sentence I never thought I'd use..

Yeah i think thats why you pretend you are not influencing them with your expressed belief Zeus is not real even though you are.
Kids will be influenced by the beliefs you hold and express even if you dont say they have to believe. Not that, you will think this, is how all theism works.

I think you got your dont wrong. You do believe Zeus is nonsense but you dont know for sure.

Well for all practical purposes nonsense is knowing for sure. At least as sure as we can know anything.

And this is where i think you're hiding in that vat so you can feel righteous in your criticism of religion. You want to say hey theist you shouldn't influence your kid to believe in God because you're not certain. I dont influence my kids to disbelieve since im not certain so you shouldn't influence them either.

Well some of theists are not certain. You do influence your kids. And really you are as certain as one can be the Gods are not real.


There is influence by you and the theist. There really cant not be.

It's questioning how you're actually going about your way of life despite having a somewhat contradictory epistemological position (e.g. the hot stove example), but this time dealing with a character's ontology. In simpler terms, you are (presumably) telling your children Zeus might exist (even though you don't believe he does) because you can't know with complete certainty that he doesn't. Now, although I would agree that Bugs Bunny is perhaps many orders of magnitude less likely to exist than "God-X" due to a myriad of reasons, i.e. specificity, we think we know how Bugs Bunny was "really" created, etc. you are still in this exact same position of not knowing with complete certainty that he doesn't exist.

Additionally, the quasi-argument "Bugs is a cartoon character, not the basis for a global religion" is a non-starter. It puts you in the position of telling your children that Bugs doesn't exist until such a time as enough people believe in him.