What is BELIEF ? (page 22)

Viviane

Either you can't read or won't read, Viviane. Go back and read that it wasn't me that was asking for a definition of "god".

I never said it was. Have you tried actual reading?

That is the sort of thing that should be asked to a theist. It's nonsensical to be insistingly asking to a non-theist like me to define a god. It's stupid and obtuse. For the empth time, I don't know.

Exactly. That's my point. You can't possibly assert anything about evidence or knowledge regarding a thing you can't define.

Why are you still going round in this circle?

You need a definition given by a theist so you can then debunk it.

I see you've started pretending to know what other people think again, despite you saying you wouldn't.

But when a non-theist asks you to logically explain how come your so-called absence of belief in deities that stems from lack of evidence for their existence is in itself different than a belief proper, what I observe is some sort of broken record, headless chicken attitude.

Because you can't define "not having money" as "having money". You're attempting to say "!A = A".

And by the way, that's a GREAT use of weasel words, "so-called". It's used by the WT quite often when they are also about to say something utterly absurd.

I understand the need that rationalists have to jump at anything that resembles theism. As put by Jeffrey Tayler in an article in Salon, rationalists feel they no longer should keep quiet about religious nonsense:

"nonbelievers are no longer keeping mum about the rank stupidity embodied in Christianity. A virgin birth? A rib-come-woman? A man walking on water? The vicarious redemption of “sin” through a cruel and unusual act of human sacrifice? All these fantasticalities offend thinking, sane individuals. No one should expect us to accept the truth of such fantasticalities or to allow dogma arising from them to determine discourse on how we live, which laws pass, and whom we marry, without fierce resistance."

Agreed. However, there are limits. Just as there should be intolerance to religious hate speech, there shouldn't be room for anti-religion hate speech. Plus, because rationalists tend to value education, exactitude and ethicals in higher regards than their religious fellow humans, they should be the ones that set a better track record when discussing these matters in a civil, thoughtful way.

Look! The proponent of this thread isn't attempting to tell you or anyone else how to live life; it's not about to pass any law that will affect your life; isn't indoctrinating anyone into a religion; isn't doing anything to discriminate people on the basis of religious belief. He's not even a theist, of all sins! So, tell me why the heck you feel so self-entitled to be rude to other people just because they hold a different view from yours? If you feel some crime is being committed against reason, the remedy is to reason, not to insult. If you feel that the discourse isn't honest, correct it with honesty. If you detect dogmas that don't merit immunity to disproof, fight dogmas with open-mindedness, not scorn. And surely, pick your opponents more wisely.

If reason is used to advance the enjoyment of life, I'm a rationalist. But if reason is but a flag, used merely to win debates and an excuse to be insulting to others, you're a disgrace to your own cause.

cofty

Evade the question as much as you want. The question stands. Do you refuse to answer? - Eden1

No I don't refuse to answer I just need to know what the question is first.

My assertion was that every god that is or ever has been worshipped can be shown to be a delusion.

Just tell us about your god and watch it get destroyed by reason and evidence.

Now you are talking about something else - "a higher power" - some sort of non-personal god."

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that. What is a "non-personal god"? It sounds like a square circle.

If it is non-personal then it has no consciousness, it can't hear prayers, doesn't interact in any way with humans or with the world. It doesn't know anything, it has no thoughts or likes or plans.

How is that different from not existing at all?

But then you propose that this "non-personal god rules over the universe and the physical laws".

How can something that has no conscious existence "rule over the universe and the physical laws"?

You are proposing an entity that is logically impossible and asking me if I believe in it. Then you accuse me of being evasive.

Do you have a more sensible question you would like to ask?

EdenOne

You can't possibly assert anything about evidence or knowledge regarding a thing you can't define.

Except belief?

It's used by the WT quite often

Ah, the ex-JW flavor of ad hitlerium fallacy!

Eden

EdenOne

Ok, got it, thanks for finding that out, Cofty.

I'm reposting with that part of the quote edited out:

I understand the need that rationalists have to jump at anything that resembles theism. As put by Jeffrey Tayler in an article in Salon, rationalists feel they no longer should keep quiet about religious nonsense:

"nonbelievers are no longer keeping mum about the rank stupidity embodied in Christianity. A virgin birth? A rib-becomes-woman? A man walking on water? The vicarious redemption of “sin” through a cruel and unusual act of human sacrifice? All these fantasticalities offend thinking, sane individuals. No one should expect us to accept the truth of such fantasticalities or to allow dogma arising from them to determine discourse on how we live, which laws pass, and whom we marry, without fierce resistance."

Agreed. However, there are limits. Just as there should be intolerance to religious hate speech, there shouldn't be room for anti-religion hate speech. Plus, because rationalists tend to value education, exactitude and ethicals in higher regards than their religious fellow humans, they should be the ones that set a better track record when discussing these matters in a civil, thoughtful way.

Look! The proponent of this thread isn't attempting to tell you or anyone else how to live life; it's not about to pass any law that will affect your life; isn't indoctrinating anyone into a religion; isn't doing anything to discriminate people on the basis of religious belief. He's not even a theist, of all sins! So, tell me why the heck you feel so self-entitled to be rude to other people just because they hold a different view from yours? If you feel some crime is being committed against reason, the remedy is to reason further, not to insult. If you feel that the discourse isn't honest, correct it with honesty. If you detect dogmas that don't merit immunity to disproof, fight dogmas with open-mindedness, not scorn. And surely, pick your opponents more wisely.

If reason is used to advance the enjoyment of life, I'm a rationalist too. But if reason is but a flag, used merely to win debates and an excuse to be insulting to others, you're a disgrace to your own cause.

Eden

cofty

I answered your question, when you're finished with the polemics.

done4good

Not sure all of what has been said over 45 pages, (could Cofty possibly be here? :-)

In the epistemological sense, belief is to accept something as true. It infers that no empirical evidence is used to support stated "truth".

d4g

nicolaou

Belief fills the gaps knowledge hasn't reached . . yet. Belief isn't a bad thing necessarily, it can motivate research and stimulate the quest for real answers.

It's the starting line from which most reasonable people launch themselves. Curiously, many (not all) religious folks are happy to stay at belief and never run forward into the lands of discovery.

Your loss.

galaxie

There are mountains, trees and people...they exist I need no belief that this is so.

There are no unicorns, fairies or supernatural gods...I need no belief that this is so.. they quite simply don't exist now or ever.

The idea formed in the human brain that unicorns,fairies or supernatural gods exist is a belief held by individuals for reasons best known to themselves.

If someone tried to convince you of the reality of the existence of unicorns,fairies or supernatural gods...which would you dismiss as fantasy?

cofty

Eden both of your recent threads were basically the same.

You started off by trying to assert that atheism is just as irrational as belief in a god.

When you finally realised how daft that was you fell back on what it is really about.

You think atheists should be nicer to superstitious people.

Is that a fair summary?

What is BELIEF ?

Share this