The 'I believe in one less god than you' schtick.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I recently saw a clip of antitheist 'comedian' Ricky Gervais on the Stephen Colbert Show using the I believe in one less God' schtick. When he said it he made that 'laugh now' facial gesture at the audience.

But the question is this....who is his audience since to a theist the statement is a) obvious and b) an unsophisticated and indeed ignorant statement about religion and comparative religion?

Atheists though get moist about it so I would move that Gervais is playing to the gallery and making a horse laugh argument which as it seems passes as fair comment in the whacky world of Celebrity Atheism.

If any atheists here 'get it' would they please inform us how this is a 'devastating argument which reduces monotheists to gibbering wrecks' and atheists to gibbering post orgasmic wrecks.

[ProfessorDavey]

I recently saw a clip of antitheist 'comedian' Ricky Gervais on the Stephen Colbert Show using the I believe in one less God' schtick. When he said it he made that 'laugh now' facial gesture at the audience.

But the question is this....who is his audience since to a theist the statement is a) obvious and b) an unsophisticated and indeed ignorant statement about religion and comparative religion?

Atheists though get moist about it so I would move that Gervais is playing to the gallery and making a horse laugh argument which as it seems passes as fair comment in the whacky world of Celebrity Atheism.

If any atheists here 'get it' would they please inform us how this is a 'devastating argument which reduces monotheists to gibbering wrecks' and atheists to gibbering post orgasmic wrecks.

The main point isn't, of course, that if there are 'n' purported gods that I do not believe in n and you don't believe in n-1. That is the starting point.

The really point about this 'schtick' as you call it is to challenge the theist on why he or she does no believe in the n-1 gods, yet somehow criticises the atheist for not believing in n - and often (as you regularly do) demands that atheists provide proof for the non-existence of god. If that is reasonable then you also need to provide proof for the non existence of Thor, Odin, Vishnu etc etc.

The point is, Vlad, that in relation to Thor, Odin, Vishnu and thousands of other purported gods you act in exactly the same manner as atheists. You choose not to believe in their existence due lack of any credible evidence that they exist. Further you'd (rightly) reject any notion that you have the onus of proof in relation to your lack of belief in Thor, Odin, Vishnu and thousands of other purported gods, placing the onus of proof on those who make a positive claim for their existence. So if those arguments are OK for n-1 gods for you they are just as valid for n gods for an atheist.

That's the point.

There is also the further obvious point that when a theist challenges an atheist for not believing in god (often in a higher-than-though and patronising manner) the response should be 'which one' and for mono-theists the point is that except for one god ... well ... neither do you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The main point isn't, of course, that if there are 'n' purported gods that I do not believe in n and you don't believe in n-1. That is the starting point.

The really point about this 'schtick' as you call it is to challenge the theist on why he or she does no believe in the n-1 gods, yet somehow criticises the atheist for not believing in n - and often (as you regularly do) demands that atheists provide proof for the non-existence of god. If that is reasonable then you also need to provide proof for the non existence of Thor, Odin, Vishnu etc etc.

The point is, Vlad, that in relation to Thor, Odin, Vishnu and thousands of other purported gods you act in exactly the same manner as atheists. You choose not to believe in their existence due lack of any credible evidence that they exist. Further you'd (rightly) reject any notion that you have the onus of proof in relation to your lack of belief in Thor, Odin, Vishnu and thousands of other purported gods, placing the onus of proof on those who make a positive claim for their existence. So if those arguments are OK for n-1 gods for you they are just as valid for n gods for an atheist.

That's the point.

After my opening post tipping atheists potentially contributing here that the 'one less god' schtick might very well be treated by monotheists as obvious and lacking theological sophistication....Professor Davey immediately offers an explanation which is a) obvious and b) lacks theological sophistication.

[BeRational]

After my opening post tipping atheists potentially contributing here that the 'one less god' schtick might very well be treated by monotheists as obvious and lacking theological sophistication....Professor Davey immediately offers an explanation which is a) obvious and b) lacks theological sophistication.

So why don't you believe in Thor or Vishnu?

[Gordon]

After my opening post tipping atheists potentially contributing here that the 'one less god' schtick might very well be treated by monotheists as obvious and lacking theological sophistication....Professor Davey immediately offers an explanation which is a) obvious and b) lacks theological sophistication.

An example of "theological sophistication" would be what, exactly?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An example of "theological sophistication" would be what, exactly?

Well for a start the atheist using the 'schtick' equates his disbelief in any with the reasons a monotheism has chosen to stick with the divine but a certain iteration of the divine. Secondly where as monotheists have differing views on theology they all believe in one God rather than zero gods.
Thirdly theists are able to see elements of divinity in other faiths.
A reading of say, Lewis's journey to Christianity sees other iterations of the divine distinguished by Lewis as being overlaid by different levels of mythology. In Lewis he finds the divine expressed in both Baldur and Krishna but they are signs on the way to Christ.

And finally and predictably the atheist just digitally disbelieves in all of this divinity stuff and sees his own simplistic take on the issue as definitive...….on the grounds no doubt that it is 'obvious'.

[BeRational]

Well for a start the atheist using the 'schtick' equates his disbelief in any with the reasons a monotheism has chosen to stick with the divine but a certain iteration of the divine. Secondly where as monotheists have differing views on theology they all believe in one God rather than zero gods.
Thirdly theists are able to see elements of divinity in other faiths.
A reading of say, Lewis's journey to Christianity sees other iterations of the divine distinguished by Lewis as being overlaid by different levels of mythology. In Lewis he finds the divine expressed in both Baldur and Krishna but they are signs on the way to Christ.

And finally and predictably the atheist just digitally disbelieves in all of this divinity stuff and sees his own simplistic take on the issue as definitive...….on the grounds no doubt that it is 'obvious'.

So why don't you believe in Thor or Vishnu?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So why don't you believe in Thor or Vishnu?

Too much obvious local mythos to be a helpful, useful comprehensive picture of the greatness of the divine.

Why don't you believe in them?

[Nearly Sane]

Well for a start the atheist using the 'schtick' equates his disbelief in any with the reasons a monotheism has chosen to stick with the divine but a certain iteration of the divine. Secondly where as monotheists have differing views on theology they all believe in one God rather than zero gods.
Thirdly theists are able to see elements of divinity in other faiths.
A reading of say, Lewis's journey to Christianity sees other iterations of the divine distinguished by Lewis as being overlaid by different levels of mythology. In Lewis he finds the divine expressed in both Baldur and Krishna but they are signs on the way to Christ.

And finally and predictably the atheist just digitally disbelieves in all of this divinity stuff and sees his own simplistic take on the issue as definitive...….on the grounds no doubt that it is 'obvious'.

It would appear 'theological sophistication' is using words that one does not appear to understand to create something that is meaningless

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It would appear 'theological sophistication' is using words that one does not appear to understand to create something that is meaningless

Sad to see a reasonable intellect as yours reach such a low level of debate.

[BeRational]

Too much obvious local mythos to be a helpful, useful comprehensive picture of the greatness of the divine.

Why don't you believe in them?

What does that even mean?

I don't currently believe in them, as they have not provided sufficient evidence to convince me.

Do you not believe in them for a different reason?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sad to see a reasonable intellect as yours reach such a low level of debate.

Sorry......it's not even debate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What does that even mean?

I don't currently believe in them, as they have not provided sufficient evidence to convince me.

Do you not believe in them for a different reason?

Yes....I have expressed reasons for not believing in them. You just talk about being convinced and  about sufficient reasons to belief.

[Outrider]

After my opening post tipping atheists potentially contributing here that the 'one less god' schtick might very well be treated by monotheists as obvious and lacking theological sophistication....Professor Davey immediately offers an explanation which is a) obvious and b) lacks theological sophistication.

What's 'theological sophistication'?  You have nothing, you make elaborate excuses for why you have nothing, and then claim a degree in not being able to not disprove there is nothing (sometimes with hymns).  Theology is the Emperor's New Clothes of learning - there's nothing really there.

O.

[BeRational]

Yes....I have expressed reasons for not believing in them. You just talk about being convinced and  about sufficient reasons to belief.

You posted some word salad, but you did not explain why you do not believe in them.

Why don't you believe in Thor?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You posted some word salad, but you did not explain why you do not believe in them.

Why don't you believe in Thor?

Answered. If you cannot get your head round it then it just emphasises the difference between atheism and theism.

Insufficient reasons to belief does not answer the question of why you disbelieve. Why do you start with disbelief?

[Nearly Sane]

Sad to see a reasonable intellect as yours reach such a low level of debate.

Your post wasn't debateable. It was vacuous.

[BeRational]

Answered. If you cannot get your head round it then it just emphasises the difference between atheism and theism.

Insufficient reasons to belief does not answer the question of why you disbelieve. Why do you start with disbelief?

You have avoided and not answered. You just posted meaningless words thinking it was a deepity.

I will answer your question. The time to believe anything is when there is sufficient evidence to convince you. The default position is to not believe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

OK Be Rational lets not beat about the bush. As a child you would have believed all sorts of things but then you would have come to disbelief in them. This would involve reason. Not insufficient reason so stop bullshitting and give us straight the reasons you disbelieve. I have given a reason for disbelieve you?....haven't.

[Outrider]

Answered. If you cannot get your head round it then it just emphasises the difference between atheism and theism.

Insufficient reasons to belief does not answer the question of why you disbelieve. Why do you start with disbelief?

I've not heard of god, so I don't believe.  Someone says 'there's a god', and I say 'where' and he says 'oh, i have insufficient evidence' so I still don't believe... it's not a difficult path.

In the absence of any evidence, I have no awareness of the concept in order to even consider it, let alone believe.  Then you introduce the concept, and I await sufficient grounds to upgrade my world view - that's still not happened.

O.

[BeRational]

OK Be Rational lets not beat about the bush. As a child you would have believed all sorts of things but then you would have come to disbelief in them. This would involve reason. Not insufficient reason so stop bullshitting and give us straight the reasons you disbelieve. I have given a reason for disbelieve you?....haven't.

When I was born I believed nothing. Then I believed what my parents told me as this is an efficient way to not die.
As you grow some people learn to question.
In the words of Matt Dillahunty "I want to believe as many true things, and as few false things as possible".

That means that I am sceptical and need convincing non fallacious reason and evidence to conclude that something is likely to be true.

That's why I do not believe in your god, nor Thor and Vishnu.

Why don't you believe in them?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your post wasn't debateable. It was vacuous.

Then sadly, I have to announce my membership to the apparently increasing roll of the ''Sadly Nearly Sane has descended into talking wank''club.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well for a start the atheist using the 'schtick' equates his disbelief in any with the reasons a monotheism has chosen to stick with the divine but a certain iteration of the divine. Secondly where as monotheists have differing views on theology they all believe in one God rather than zero gods.

No you are missing the point and turning it back around to why you believe in the one god.

The whole point of this argument is to challenge theists (including monotheists) to focus on the reasons why they do not believe in n-1 (for monotheists) or n-x (for multi theists) gods rather than why they believe in 1 or x gods.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When I was born I believed nothing.

Completely irrelevant. You stop believing for reasons. The ''insufficient reason'' schtick comes later after exposure to the likes of Dillahunty.

[Gordon]

Completely irrelevant. You stop believing for reasons. The ''insufficient reason'' schtick comes later after exposure to the likes of Dillahunty.

What if you never started believing in the first place?