Atheism and the VT Massacre

[karrie]

I know that. In spite of my troubles conveying exactly what mean, I'm still trying. If I thought you were rattling my chain, I'd quit. I'm actually liking this because it is a challenge.

Superstitions are gibberish; nonsense. The cognitive content is imaginary. Therefore it cannot be true.
Uerhffgts is gibberish; nonsense. It popped outta my mind into a post; it is imaginary and therefore cannot be true.
So what's the difference between a leprachaun and the Christian god (besides spelling, character, etc)? Why is it that the leprachaun is imaginary and this god isn't? What's the difference between the cat in the hat and this god? Both are written about. Yet one is imaginary and the other real? A lot more people believe in one and not the other? Why? I can't accept a significant difference between these superstitions.

LOL... See, it still comes out meaning the same thing as "I've given thought to the issue, and decided you all are deluded, because I believe there is no god." I think it's beyond explaining to this mind of mine.

I think what you're trying to say is that the idea of a god is beneath you even needing to ponder. But, I know you haven't been living in an intellectual vacuum, as we're talking about spirituality and the concept of god right now. So, it's a concept and an aspect of the human psyche that has been given cognitive space in your brain. It has been mulled over, and discarded as not true. Much as you believe that humanity evolved, because you've mulled over theories (some based on fancy and superstition), discarded some, and formed a belief. You believe that there is no god, because you've been shown theories and books, mulled them over, and discarded what did not fit for you.

 

[L Gilbert]

LOL... See, it still comes out meaning the same thing as "I've given thought to the issue, and decided you all are deluded, because I believe there is no god." I think it's beyond explaining to this mind of mine.

Oh, well.

I think what you're trying to say is that the idea of a god is beneath you even needing to ponder. But, I know you haven't been living in an intellectual vacuum, as we're talking about spirituality and the concept of god right now. So, it's a concept and an aspect of the human psyche that has been given cognitive space in your brain. It has been mulled over, and discarded as not true. Much as you believe that humanity evolved, because you've mulled over theories (some based on fancy and superstition), discarded some, and formed a belief. You believe that there is no god, because you've been shown theories and books, mulled them over, and discarded what did not fit for you.

Um, Obviously the idea of pondering superstitions is a waste of time. Pondering methods of chatting about them isn't. (I once had an argument with a friend whether Plutonians with a highly advanced state of technology could invade Earth with its population of wizards. Pure nonsense but it was fun. Magic doesn't exist and neither does a highly advanced civilisation on Pluto).
Anyway, if you wish to believe that not believing is a belief, it's up to you. I give up trying to hesplain.

 

[karrie]

Anyway, if you wish to believe that not believing is a belief, it's up to you. I give up trying to hesplain.

It's not that I believe that not believing IS a belief (phew!). It's that, by its very nature, it creates a secondary belief. Thus, a belief exists BECAUSE of the non-belief.

If I don't believe it's a good idea to shoot myself in the foot, then conversely, I believe it's a good idea to not point a gun at my foot.

If I don't believe that pigs can fly, then by consequence, I believe pigs are earthbound.

You can go ahead and not believe in god. But, consequently, it creates a belief, even if it's just that science exists.

Does any of that make sense, even if you don't agree? lol.

 

[L Gilbert]

It's not that I believe that not believing IS a belief (phew!). It's that, by its very nature, it creates a secondary belief. Thus, a belief exists BECAUSE of the non-belief.

Yeah, others have the belief and I don't.

If I don't believe it's a good idea to shoot myself in the foot, then conversely, I believe it's a good idea to not point a gun at my foot.

Why? The simple solution to that is not to squeeze the trigger if the firearm is actually loaded and cocked..

If I don't believe that pigs can fly, then by consequence, I believe pigs are earthbound.

I know, on the other hand, that pigs are eathbound. No need for belief.

You can go ahead and not believe in god. But, consequently, it creates a belief, even if it's just that science exists.

But I already said I do believe in your god. I also believe in leprachauns and Zeus, Isis, werewolves, faeries, Kali, Loki, etc. What more wouldja like?

 

[karrie]

But I already said I do believe in your god. I also believe in leprachauns and Zeus, Isis, werewolves, faeries, Kali, Loki, etc. What more wouldja like?

Perhaps the fact that I don't want or expect you to believe in god is why I find it so odd that the term gets such weight put to it.

 

[L Gilbert]

Because it implies faith. Simple. And to me knowledge beats faith seven ways from Sunday (s'cuse the pun).

 

[karrie]

Because it implies faith. Simple. And to me knowledge beats faith seven ways from Sunday (s'cuse the pun).

Ah, so it's not because of the direct meaning, but what it implies. Now that makes some sense. I guess, being a psych student, belief doesn't imply the same thing to me. It implies a cognitive conclusion surrounding a theory. Faith and belief aren't interchangable words to me. Faith implies you reached a conclusion with nothing to support it. Religion is faith based. Atheism, to my way of definition, is not, but rather is based on beliefs achieved through deduction. Far cry from the same things.

 

[Kreskin]

Ah, so it's not because of the direct meaning, but what it implies. Now that makes some sense. I guess, being a psych student, belief doesn't imply the same thing to me. It implies a cognitive conclusion surrounding a theory. Faith and belief aren't interchangable words to me. Faith implies you reached a conclusion with nothing to support it. Religion is faith based. Atheism, to my way of definition, is not, but rather is based on beliefs achieved through deduction. Far cry from the same things.

If I look at a green light I guess I could believe it's not red. More accurately though, when I look at a green light I don't spend much time thinking about what colour it isn't.

 

[gc]

If I look at a green light I guess I could believe it's not red. More accurately though, when I look at a green light I don't spend much time thinking about what colour it isn't.

Has anyone ever asked you if the light was red?

 

[karrie]

If I look at a green light I guess I could believe it's not red. More accurately though, when I look at a green light I don't spend much time thinking about what colour it isn't.

Well see, to me, the green light would be the exact same as god. It's just there, it just is. I may spend time considering the implications of the religion surrounding my belief in god, but, god in and of himself just is, no real thought or effort required, no thought to what he isn't. Yet you would say I hold a belief as to the existence of god. So where is the difference? I still don't see it.

 

[Kreskin]

Well see, to me, the green light would be the exact same as god. It's just there, it just is. I may spend time considering the implications of the religion surrounding my belief in god, but, god in and of himself just is, no real thought or effort required, no thought to what he isn't. Yet you would say I hold a belief as to the existence of god. So where is the difference? I still don't see it.

I don't mind people believing in anything. I don't mean to sound disrepectful by using extreme examples, but if some people felt there was blue cheese growing on the moon based on pure faith, that's ok with me too. Why would I have to rationalize the non-existance of blue cheese on the moon if the claim is based on faith alone? It's not a matter of believing or not believing. Someone is making an incredibly wild guess. I don't have an issue with them believing it, but to have them knock on my door to question me about blue cheese theory..they just have the wrong guy. :wave:

 

[karrie]

Why would I have to rationalize the non-existance of blue cheese on the moon if the claim is based on faith alone? It's not a matter of believing or not believing. Someone is making an incredibly wild guess. I don't have an issue with them believing it, but to have them knock on my door to question me about blue cheese theory..they just have the wrong guy. :wave:

The problem is, you don't exist in a vaccuum. The instant they brought up the issue of a blue cheese moon, your brain tested theories given your relevant knowledge of

a) the moon

b) blue cheese

c) the likelihood of one existing near the other

And you then formed an opinion that there is no blue cheese moon... aka, a belief.

I hardly find it likely Kreskin, that a man as smart as you, given a theory regarding something, no matter how far fetched, can merely turn his brain off and not come up with an opinion pertaining to that theory. No matter how much you seem to think this brain functioning is beneath you. :wave:

 

[Kreskin]

The problem is, you don't exist in a vaccuum. The instant they brought up the issue of a blue cheese moon, your brain tested theories given your relevant knowledge of

a) the moon

b) blue cheese

c) the likelihood of one existing near the other

And you then formed an opinion that there is no blue cheese moon... aka, a belief.

I hardly find it likely Kreskin, that a man as smart as you, given a theory regarding something, no matter how far fetched, can merely turn his brain off and not come up with an opinion pertaining to that theory. No matter how much you seem to think this brain functioning is beneath you. :wave:

I wouldn't suggest that one can stop thinking all together, although I try a lot :smile: . But I look at part of the original post and someone is wondering where all the atheists are to denounce the VT massacre or something to that effect. I would suggest that simply because one doesn't believe in something that they don't automatically join another group. Simply not seeing any rationality to one position or interest does not require one to write the antithesis or join an anti-whatever organized support group. Perhaps those who don't follow religion don't announce an official non-religious position when they attend a funeral or do anything else in their lives.

 

[karrie]

I wouldn't suggest that one can stop thinking all together, although I try a lot :smile: . But I look at part of the original post and someone is wondering where all the atheists are to denounce the VT massacre or something to that effect. I would suggest that simply because one doesn't believe in something that they don't automatically join another group. Simply not seeing any rationality to one position or interest does not require one to write the antithesis or join an anti-whatever organized support group. Perhaps those who don't follow religion don't announce an official non-religious position when they attend a funeral or do anything else in their lives.

Okay, so you're broadening the definition of belief to include belief systems and religions. Gilbert was apparently broadening it to include the faith it takes to come to these conclusions. I'd agree that one belief system, religion, or faith need not be replaced with another. But actual beliefs are cognitive functions, opinions surrounding all number of issues, be they the reality of a god, or the blue cheese moon. Thus my confusion.

All these smart men, who clearly have an opinion, a belief, trying to say they don't. Working from my understanding of the term, it was truly perplexing!

Working from your broad applications of the term, it makes more sense.

And I agree.... who rounded up the crowds showing up to console, and took an atheist vs religious headcount? I think people like D'Sousa probably look at a crowd, see someone consoling someone else, and assume they must be religious, because they're acting exactly the same as any other human being, which doesn't fit with his odd ideas surrounding atheism.

 

[karrie]

Thanks for the discussion around this topic guys. I have to bow out now, as I have a life which requires some attending to. It's been sadly ignored while I rushed through school assignments, and discussions on belief. lol. Take care.

 

[talloola]

Very interesting group of posts, far too persnickity for me, but getting back
to the original post. If the person who suggested that because one is an athiest, they don't have
the thoughfulness or compassion, etc etc etc., to react in just as helpful a manner to a situation such as the shooting at the virginia college,with the same sensitivity as someone who believes in a god, is a person who doesn't have thoughtfulness or compassion, etc etc etc.,
but more so, a person with very little connection to, and familiararity with human behavior, as,
we are all human beings, with many different reactions to events, which has nothing to do with
ones connection to a god, or not.

 

[Pangloss]

talloola,

I'm not sure, but I think I agree with what you wrote. Sorry to say, but your post is a little unclear to me.

Pangloss

 

[SVMc]

First let me apologize for dredging this thread up, but I'm horribly addicted to threads like this, and after reading all 137 posts, well.... can't help myself.

The problem with the argument as to if atheism is a belief system or is the absence of a belief system and should therefore not be classified as a belief system is not how the atheists believe or do not believe, it's in how people use the word "belief" itself.

Or, for a little irony it's a persons belief in the word belief. (I'm sorry, I had to).

Atheists generally use the word belief as a verb. A belief is an action, like running. One must choose and act to believe, therefore to not believe is simply not an action. Just like we would not say "he is non-running" when he is sitting, it seems redundant classification to Atheists to say "he is non-believing" and classify a system of belief as non-believing. Just like classifying any other thing as "non-running". We don't generally describe the actions that we are not doing.

The problem is that belief is not only an action word / verb, it is also a noun. Person / Place / Thing. Belief is a thing in the same way that politics, customs, art, philosophy are things. They are not tangible but enough people act around and accordingly to these things that they are a real part of our world even if they are not tangible, or agreeable.

In this way when someone says "I don't believe in that thing" or "I believe that thing does not exist" they are reacting to a thing. They are taking a firm position, in relation to something that exists - let me be clear here, what exists is not God, but a widespread belief in God.

If there were not a widespread belief in God then belief as a word would not be a noun, and it would be an action only and it would indeed be redundant to classify people as non-believers. Since there would be no wide spread (noun) belief system there would be no need to classify people's positions in relation to that belief system.

The basic problem that atheists face is that they are classified in direct relation to a socially common thing, that they actively (verb) do not believe in, which by virtue of the action of others practicing the action (belief) the other have made the action of belief a noun (thing). So atheists are in a prediciment, because in order for there to really be a system where it is truly redundant for them to be classified as non-believers they have to not only practice their system of non-belief, but when confronted with the (noun) of belief they have to practice the (verb) of non-believing and thereby are then imposing their (noun) belief system on the society.

It's such a lovely paradox!

(Let's all blame the inadequacy of the English Language now).

 

[Pangloss]

SVMc:

Wow - cogent and thorough post. Atheists are struggling with nomenclature and have been for decades.

I prefer the philosophical terms "Humanist" or the more technical term "material positivist." Skeptic or Free Inquiry magazines usually devote a column or two to the ongoing resolution to this issue.

Pangloss

 

[SVMc]

SVMc:

Wow - cogent and thorough post. Atheists are struggling with nomenclature and have been for decades.

I prefer the philosophical terms "Humanist" or the more technical term "material positivist." Skeptic or Free Inquiry magazines usually devote a column or two to the ongoing resolution to this issue.

Pangloss

Without submitting my resume to become the resident word nerd, it is absolutely critical that if "atheists" are to remove themselves from the belief / non-belief paradox that the word "atheism" get less air play.

The very nature of the word defeats itself, buy it's root in "theism".