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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

Which is why I mention Lewis who outlines his reasons for disregarding Baldur and Krishna as the final expressions or most comprehensive representations of divinity. Theists have gone through that process. What you are saying is the aim of atheists in 'educating' and 'challenging' theists is both therefore ignorant of the theist experience and inadequate.

That some gods are obviously wrong therefore all are, I have noted, is not a very good argument but it seems to be where you are heading in your argument.

[Outrider]

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.

I can't see the appeal of Gervais myself, either.  In particular, for me the most irritating thing about this argument is that if the entire point is that you can count how many gods you do or don't believe in then surely it should be 'you just believe in one god fewer' not 'one god less' ... so irritating!

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?

As a rhetorical device, the question is for everyone; the purpose is to get them to think about why they believe what they believe.  For theists it's about them realising that their 'special' belief in a god is exactly the same as the special belief that other people have for their god that is so easily dismissed in your devotion to yours.  For atheists it's about realising that they are closer to most believers than they probably realise.

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.

'Atheists get moist about it'? You're probably hanging around with the wrong atheists, then. Maybe you should try hanging around with some good old-fashioned anti-theists, then - I hear Jimmy Carr has an opening.

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.

I wasn't aware anyone though it was a 'devastating argument' - as an 'atheist argument' it's a cute rhetorical device to try to get believers to realise that their chosen belief system is exactly as valid as anyone else's, but it's not a standalone argument.  As a social device, it's a way of showing that we aren't all that different, regardless of whether we believe in just one of the hundreds of possible gods or none of them.  Probably doesn't work on the Shintoists or Hindus, though, they have way more than (n-1) gods to start with...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What if you never started believing in the first place?

Then we are either talking about intellectual /experiential vacuum or starting with disbelief.

[BeRational]

Then we are either talking about intellectual /experiential vacuum or starting with disbelief.

Of course you start with disbelief!

Did you start with a belief in Thor?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course you start with disbelief!

Then the question for many atheists is how they started to believe and the reasons for then disbelieving what they believed in.

It sounds like you regressed to a baby state.

[Outrider]

Then the question for many atheists is how they started to believe and the reasons for then disbelieving what they believed in.

It sounds like you regressed to a baby state.

I didn't believe in Father Christmas, until as a credulous child someone showed me the presents he'd brought to my house; then I believed.  Then, when more information became available and I matured enough to analyse it dispassionately, I realised that MAGIC WASN'T REAL, and suddenly the more prosaic explanation for it all became apparent.

It sounds like regression, yes, but it's really about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't believe in Father Christmas, until as a credulous child someone showed me the presents he'd brought to my house; then I believed.  Then, when more information became available and I matured enough to analyse it dispassionately, I realised that MAGIC WASN'T REAL, and suddenly the more prosaic explanation for it all became apparent.

It sounds like regression, yes, but it's really about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

O.

Ah, a reason for disbelief. How refreshing.

[Gordon]

Then we are either talking about intellectual /experiential vacuum or starting with disbelief.

Why does not having an involvement in religion imply an "intellectual/experiential vacuum"? After all, it is quite possible to learn about religion(s) without having had any active involvement as a participant.

I never started to belief nor began from a position of disbelief.

[Outrider]

Ah, a reason for disbelief. How refreshing.

Not exactly, more of a reason to see that the justification for belief was unfounded, and a revertion to the default position of non-belief.

I don't believe in pixies because I've never seen sufficient evidence of them.
I don't believe in Thor because, despite the films, I've not seen sufficient evidence.
I don't believe in the Christian god because I've not seen sufficient evidence.
I don't believe in Santa because, although I was credulous once, I realise now that the evidence was insufficient.

Disbelief is the natural state, belief requires evidence, and for that evidence to be examined.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not exactly, more of a reason to see that the justification for belief was unfounded, and a revertion to the default position of non-belief.

I don't believe in pixies because I've never seen sufficient evidence of them.
I don't believe in Thor because, despite the films, I've not seen sufficient evidence.
I don't believe in the Christian god because I've not seen sufficient evidence.
I don't believe in Santa because, although I was credulous once, I realise now that the evidence was insufficient.

Disbelief is the natural state, belief requires evidence, and for that evidence to be examined.

O.

But isn't disbelief believing there aren't pixies, there isn't Thor, There isn't the Christian god and there isn't Santa so to me this 'insufficient evidence for' is a bit of a slight hint of a dodge avoiding what you are really trying to say for whatever reason.

[Outrider]

But isn't disbelief believing there aren't pixies, there isn't Thor, There isn't the Christian god and there isn't Santa so to me this 'insufficient evidence for' is a bit of a slight hint of a dodge avoiding what you are really trying to say for whatever reason.

Disbelief could be believing there aren't pixies, or it could be not believing there are pixies.  I started off not even being aware of the concept of pixies, and I've never gone through a place of believing there were pixies to arrive at the current position of not believing there are pixies.  Given a specific definition of pixies that made sense I might be able to take a strong position on disbelieving that particular idea of pixies, but given that there are a range of interpretations of pixie I just await sufficient evidence to change my position and continue about my life.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Disbelief could be believing there aren't pixies, or it could be not believing there are pixies.  I started off not even being aware of the concept of pixies, and I've never gone through a place of believing there were pixies to arrive at the current position of not believing there are pixies.  Given a specific definition of pixies that made sense I might be able to take a strong position on disbelieving that particular idea of pixies, but given that there are a range of interpretations of pixie I just await sufficient evidence to change my position and continue about my life.

O.

Mmmmm, I wonder then how Santa managed to slip through your Siegfried line of never believed.

[ProfessorDavey]

That some gods are obviously wrong ...

In what way are some gods obviously wrong Vlad - which ones, and why. Please make sure that you aren't using confirmation bias by assuming the ones that are obviously wrong are just the ones you've already decided not to believe in. Also please recognise that you spend hours on this site claiming that gods may work outside of the natural and therefore may not produce evidence in the natural world. So how do you know that a god you claim to be obviously wrong isn't just really good at hiding and not being detectable by natural means (as you claim for your god).

[Outrider]

Mmmmm, I wonder then how Santa managed to slip through your Siegfried line of never believed.

Probably because it was 'sold' to me by people I trusted - my parents - backed up by pretty much every information outlet available to me as a child at the time in the form of nurseries/schools and the media, in a way that the others weren't.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In what way are some gods obviously wrong Vlad

Do I mean wrong? Dunno, probably.
Wrong enough for disbelief to come easy.
For example the ease of ascending Mount Olympus and not finding the Gods feasting means that we cannot really take a literal view of the greek pantheon.

[Outrider]

Do I mean wrong? Dunno, probably.
Wrong enough for disbelief to come easy.
For example the ease of ascending Mount Olympus and not finding the Gods feasting means that we cannot really take a literal view of the greek pantheon.

That was just a metaphor, didn't you hear?  That's 'Theology', that is.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Probably because it was 'sold' to me by people I trusted - my parents - backed up by pretty much every information outlet available to me as a child at the time in the form of nurseries/schools and the media, in a way that the others weren't.

O.

Yeah but I'm sorry but i'm finding what I see as your presentation of your self as a savvy prodigy proto atheist youth a bit unconvincing. I think that all have instances of things they believed in confronted with reasons not to believe it any more.

[ProfessorDavey]

Do I mean wrong? Dunno, probably.
Wrong enough for disbelief to come easy.
For example the ease of ascending Mount Olympus and not finding the Gods feasting means that we cannot really take a literal view of the greek pantheon.

But they could just make themselves invisible to human eyes and detection by natural means when anyone looks. Apparently your god is everywhere so you don't even need to go to Greece, yet there seems to be no evidence of the sort.

I think your god falls foul of the same problem with all sorts of claims in the bible just as risible if considered form a 'literal view'.

I think 'wrong enough for disbelief to come easy' simply means confirmation bias as to plenty of others your god is similarly just as 'wrong enough for disbelief to come easy' - in other words, implausible claims and no evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But they could just make themselves invisible to human eyes and detection by natural means when anyone looks. Apparently your god is everywhere so you don't even need to go to Greece, yet there seems to be no evidence of the sort.

I think your god falls foul of the same problem with all sorts of claims in the bible just as risible if considered form a 'literal view'.

I think 'wrong enough for disbelief to come easy' simply means confirmation bias as to plenty of others your god is similarly just as 'wrong enough for disbelief to come easy' - in other words, implausible claims and no evidence.

Modern atheisms tragedy and that of all you little wizards running about servicing it is that it is largely based on an extreme literalistic take on the bible but that just takes us back to the charge that many atheists are a) obvious b) take an unsophisticated view of that they are against.

[ProfessorDavey]

Modern atheisms tragedy and that of all you little wizards running about servicing it is that it is largely based on an extreme literalistic take on the bible but that just takes us back to the charge that may atheists are a) obvious b) take an unsophisticated view of that they are against.

Thanks for the complete non-answer Vlad.

Please explain why:

1. A literal view of the Greek gods (e.g. hanging around on Mt Olympus) is obviously wrong but a literal view of you god isn't obviously wrong (parting Red Seas and countless other implausible claims). And if you can't (or won't)

2. Why you should adopt a literal position in respect to claims of Greek god but not for your god. Or

3. Why you seem content to accept that your god is fantastic at hiding - so is undetectable by physical methods etc, yet the Greek gods are unable to do the self same thing, so may be standing right behind you but you'd never know.

[Outrider]

Yeah but I'm sorry but i'm finding what I see as your presentation of your self as a savvy prodigy proto atheist youth a bit unconvincing. I think that all have instances of things they believed in confronted with reasons not to believe it any more.

You just need to have faith in me, surely?  Which bit about that is not believable?  That I believed in Santa once but don't now? Or that I came from a not particularly religiously observant family so wasn't immersed in religion the way I was in the Father Christmas myth?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You just need to have faith in me, surely?  Which bit about that is not believable?  That I believed in Santa once but don't now? Or that I came from a not particularly religiously observant family so wasn't immersed in religion the way I was in the Father Christmas myth?

O.

Yes but even if you didn't you must have come across religion for the first time. What was it that that made you conscious of your disbelief and conscious of the reasons why some people believed and you didn't ……..in short when did you discover you were somehow speshul?

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes but even if you didn't you must have come across religion for the first time. What was it that that made you conscious of your disbelief and conscious of the reasons why some people believed and you didn't ……..in short when did you discover you were somehow speshul?

I think the interesting element of the Santa - don't believe, believe, don't belief arc is that we only come to believe in Santa (for a while) because we are taught to do so and our cultural heritage support that learned belief. No tiny baby inherently believes in Santa and no child growing up in a culture where Santa is never a thing (not even thought of) would come to believe in Santa organically. We are dealing entirely with learned belief, driven by societal norms.

And so it is with theism too - strange how people in the UK tend to gravitate toward belief in the gods that their parents believe in and is culturally appropriate - while in India people will do the same, meaning that the christian god tends to be the most popular learned belief in the UK, while in India it it the hindu gods etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the interesting element of the Santa - don't believe, believe, don't belief arc is that we only come to believe in Santa (for a while) because we are taught to do so and our cultural heritage support that learned belief. No tiny baby inherently believes in Santa and no child growing up in a culture where Santa is never a thing (not even thought of) would come to believe in Santa organically. We are dealing entirely with learned belief, driven by societal norms.

And so it is with theism too - strange how people in the UK tend to gravitate toward belief in the gods that their parents believe in and is culturally appropriate - while in India people will do the same, meaning that the christian god tends to be the most popular learned belief in the UK, while in India it it the hindu gods etc.

I think that segues quite nicely into where, then did the first societal norm cultural belief come from.

[ippy]

I think that segues quite nicely into where, then did the first societal norm cultural belief come from.

I've yet to see any of the religionists that post on this forum post any viable evidence that supports their belief they're always on about, including you Vlad.

Oh yes Vlad, why do you always always go around in ever decreasing circles just because you haven't got an answer? You remind me of the typical politician when asked about the weather answers with something like how do we find the answer to the problem of night time low flying aircraft in Guatemala keeping the residents awake?   

Yes that kind of not answering is ridiculous! 

ippy.