[feoren]

> In what way is even our modern scientific secularism not ultimately the same kind of faith that the author thinks is "dumb"?

In literally hundreds of ways; if you took the effort to read almost any atheist forum you'd find them. I'll give you what I think is most important one:

Scientific secularism is obsessed with proving itself wrong; religion is obsessed with proving itself right.

[beepbooptheory]

I dont understand how this is an argument for what we are talking about? We aren't talking about scientific secularism or religion in themselves, but how a person can relate to either of them. Science itself isnt walking around trying to prove themselves wrong, people do science and have a belief of what its supposed to be.

[feoren]

Some people have a belief that they have five fingers on their right hand. Some people have a belief that 1 + 1 = 2. Some people have a belief that the world is flat and worldwide governments are conspiring, for shits and giggles apparently, to deceive you. Are all these beliefs equal?

I can count the fingers on my hand. I can understand the definitions of "1", "+", "2", and "=", and verify to my own satisfaction why that statement is true. I, and anyone else, can challenge these beliefs, and I personally commit to changing them if the challenge is successful.

That's not what happens when flat-earthers or the religious have their beliefs challenged. It's completely the opposite. They refuse to change their beliefs even when their own experiments prove them wrong. They usually refuse to challenge their beliefs at all.

You're choosing to use this word "belief" in very different ways, and then pretending it means the same thing. It doesn't.

[beepbooptheory]

I dont understand. I have found that when you argue with a flat earther or an atheist, they typically argue the same way. Flat-earthers have tons of "scientific evidence" they want to show you, same for conspiracy theory people, they always have lots of evidence and painstakingly construct rational arguments around possibly faulty assumptions. Athiests are not special in this way! Even in particular I find conspiracy theory people and athiests share a lot of rhetorical devices.

And further, I have never ever ever met an "athiest" in the world that would even think about questioning their own beliefs, why would they? Wouldnt it be irrational for them too? What could ever make an atheist change their mind? God could come down and tell everyone in the world she is real, and I bet atheists would pick it apart, going over the footage, proving how it wasn't really God. How could they not, it would mean throwing away so much of their work and existential commitments (I would be like this I think).

It is you that are not telling me how these beliefs are different, im not trying to ambiguate, I'm being serious each time I say "belief."

Edit: Also think about the math one a little more. That is a good one! The belief in "1+1=2" involves understanding things like cardinality or summation, or you can just remember from school. But either way what you believe about it is that it is self-evident insofar as there is a shared understanding of the rules for those symbols. That "1" is a certain kind of thing, and so is "+" and "=". But in reality there is nothing about this situation that precludes that someone else could understand "1+1=2" differently. They could have been taught for some terrible reason that there is an exception in the rule of addition which means whenever you add 768 to 406, you get "potato". And yet, you wholly agree that 1+1=2. How could we verify our shared understanding without going through all the rules and making sure we are the same. But there is nothing in experience or in science that can justify that we are on the same page, so to speak, as those we communicate with. Its a belief because we always find ourselves among people and we strive for agreement, or already find ourselves in agreement.

Kripke does a better job of explaining this than me :)

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

[feoren]

It honestly just sounds like you're not very steeped in the subject. You're re-hashing very simple arguments that have been covered many many times by prominent atheists, if you're interested. If you're not interested, that's fine, but I'd stop arguing about it online.

> I have found that when you argue with a flat earther or an atheist, they typically argue the same way. Flat-earthers have tons of "scientific evidence" they want to show you.

Sure, lots of people argue by presenting evidence. Evaluating the quality of that evidence is something humanity has gotten much better at in general, but it does take some work. The fact that scientists and crackpots both claim to present evidence doesn't mean that the act of presenting evidence is flawed.

> I have never ever ever met an "athiest" in the world that would even think about questioning their own beliefs. Wouldnt it be irrational for them too?

It sounds to me like you've literally never met an atheist. Talk to one. And no, questioning your own beliefs is almost the defintion of rationality. Why would it be irrational to question your own beliefs?

> What could ever make an atheist change their mind?

Evidence.

> God could come down and tell everyone in the world she is real, and I bet atheists would pick it apart, going over the footage, proving how it wasn't really God.

"Footage?" It's not clear whether your hypothetical is "Clouds open and God appears before you, speaking in a divine voice" -- evidence! -- or "someone comes out with grainy footage of something that could maybe kinda look a bit God-ish". Details matter!

> How could they not, it would mean throwing away so much of their work and existential commitments (I would be like this I think).

I have done literally no work being an atheist. It takes none of my time, except for the occasional pointless online discussion like this. I have literally no "existential commitments". It's not an important part of my identity. It's literally the lack of all of those things.

How much work has it been for you not believing in Zeus?

Honestly, we're trodding the same exact path that has been trodden a million times. Literally read any prominent atheist and you will have the answers to most of your questions.

[beepbooptheory]

Haha I guess you are right, I am just out of my depth here, I'm sorry to waste your time. :)

Definitely happy for you that you could have steeped yourself with "prominent athiest thinkers" but also have not spent any work at all on it. Quite an accomplishment! I am glad you are as unbothered as I am, its good to just to talk it out sometimes.

And just for the record, I am in fact an athiest! I know I don't necessarily get my atheist badge for that, but gotta count for a little right?

[olddustytrail]

It rather obviously isn't or you wouldn't have competing factions within religions (and I think you'll accept you often do).