Purgatory

small axe said:

Here's the thing: I'm too intelligent to rule out the existence of Bigfoot. Some folks say they've observed Bigfoot. Giant primates are KNOWN to have existed in the past, and could still survive today. That's your Bigfoot.

I'm too much the open-minded scientist type to not say "Let's GO LOOK for evidence of Bigfoot"

I don't pretend to hold a position that I know I do not have evidence to support about Bigfoot, that Bigfoot cannot or does not exist.

*shrug*

Click to expand...

I missed this bit, distracted by boldings and underlinings.

You're almost there with this bit. I'm open minded and intelligent enough to not rule out the existence of god. I just don't see any evidence that supports the god hypothesis, so I find it sensible to live my life as if it is false.
And now we're about back on topic, because my definition of atheism is it's original one - ie, 'a-' meaning without, and '-theism' meaning a belief in god.
Without a belief in god. Not a positive belief in no god, just a lack of positive belief in god.

I don't see Atheists being as open-minded about GOD as I can intelligently be about BIGFOOT.

Click to expand...

I hope my comments above may go some way to alleviating you of this condescending preconception.

The Unseen Moon said:

So a lack of belief in something, make that anything, has be factually valid before it can be a lack of belief or it can not be a lack of belief and therefore must be a belief instead?

???

Click to expand...

In terms of ordinary perceptions, it doesn't make much sense to prioritize any imperceptible thing over any perceptible thing. In this sense any weak belief (as in I don't dodge invisible trees when running because I can't see them and they aren't there anyway) is much, much, much stronger than any strong belief (the world of fantasy facts that need to be underlined and so on).

The Unseen Moon said:

So a lack of belief in something, make that anything, has be factually valid before it can be a lack of belief or it can not be a lack of belief and therefore must be a belief instead?

???

Click to expand...

I don't believe in Santa. I can't prove there is no Santa, though. There is a ton of evidence that Santa exists. There are countless stories, songs, images, and even sightings of him. Little children believe in him with their pure, pure, hearts. Legend and lore of Santa goes back a long way.

Still, I don't believe in him. Is my lack of belief in Santa "factually valid"? Logic tells me that no one person could visit millions of homes in the wee hours of a single night. Logic tells me that "Santa" only leaves gifts the parents approve of and can afford. Logic tells me there is no such thing as flying reindeer. But there are mammals that can fly! And their are reindeer! So shouldn't I remain open to the possibility that flying reindeer exist? Isn't it narrow minded of me to declare Santa and his reindeer a sweet fantasy?

Nah, I don't think so. And I don't think I have to prove Santa doesn't exist in order to feel confident in my disbelief of him.

Devil Ledbetter said:

I don't believe in Santa. I can't prove there is no Santa, though.

Click to expand...

In terms of cultural anthropology, there's no need at all to prove or disprove anything about a cultural object.

Santa would become a more typical religious object if people left their sick children out in the snow waiting for
Santa power to cure them or if people smeared themselves with ashes to appear to be on the naughty list and get
naughty power.

Could you disprove any of that? Would you need to? Isn't the very concept of "naughty power" inherently extremely lame to the point of being either insane or idiotic or both? Doesn't "naughty power" make more sense than your average religious idea?

Maxx said:

In terms of cultural anthropology, there's no need at all to prove or disprove anything about a cultural object.

Santa would become a more typical religious object if people left their sick children out in the snow waiting for
Santa power to cure them or if people smeared themselves with ashes to appear to be on the naughty list and get
naughty power.

Could you disprove any of that? Would you need to? Isn't the very concept of "naughty power" inherently extremely lame to the point of being either insane or idiotic or both? Doesn't "naughty power" make more sense than your average religious idea?

Click to expand...

There is no need to disprove anything. My disbelief in Santa is intellectually no different than my disbelief in God, yet no one ever demands I provide an explanation for my disbelief in Santa, or declares me narrowminded for not "remaining open to the possibility of Santa's existence."

This is because they don't believe in Santa either.

Are you saying Santa is a culteral object but God is not? I don't see a substantive difference between the two: supernatural, all-knowing, benevolent being bestowing or witholding gifts based on the behavior of the receivers. Santa is a lesser god than say, Jesus, to be sure, but a god nonetheless.

Devil Ledbetter said:

Are you saying Santa is a culteral object but God is not? I don't see a substantive difference between the two: supernatural, all-knowing, benevolent being bestowing or witholding gifts based on the behavior of the receivers. Santa is a lesser god than say, Jesus, to be sure, but a god nonetheless.

Click to expand...

God seems to be a somewhat more complex cultural construct than Santa. Just the work of delineating what cultural objects God can be associated with would be pretty difficult. Are all eastern Mediterreanan storm gods among his prototypes? Are the Elohim Him or just his associates? And so on. Not easy in cultural terms.

MacAllister said:

?

Did these posts get split off from another thread? Why does the first post start with a quote from another member, apparently in an entirely different thread, but with no link and no context? That seems both rather deliberately provocative and more than a little antagonistic, honestly.

I'm confused.

Click to expand...

The original quote is one of several provocative and antagonistic derailing questions Small Axe posited in the Atheists vs. Nonbelievers thread. I suppose the OP wanted to respond but was following Veinglory's request not to continue the derail within that thread.

I mean to lock this thread but forget to, will do so now.