What is BELIEF ? (page 6)

EdenOne

I blew my budget for e-books, and have a few still to finish. Next batch maybe.

Eden

Finkelstein

A true avowed atheist doesn't believe in anything.

Accept love

Viviane

I see you're also perfectly capable of bag arguments. No they're not. They're often vaguely defined, that's entirely different. Several common traits of deities: Superhuman, immaterial, intelligent, powerful beings who somehow take interest in human affairs and are capable of influence them. That's certainly vague, but not "undefined".

Of course I am. This isn't an example of course, but it's possible.

Anyway, the traits you've given scream "undefined" and are contradictory. What do you mean by "superhuman"? Xray vision? Can fly? Super speed? You've not defined it.

What is immaterial? Not made of matter? Energy? You've not defined that what means. Made of spirit? Now you need to define spirit.

Intelligent? The requires a brain, so now it's NOT immaterial? Humans are intelligent. Does that make them a deity? Undefined.

Powerful? In what way? Strength? That implies a material body. Energy? That implies made of matter. You've defined nothing here.

Interested in human affairs and capable of influencing them? That means they can observe, which means senses which means a corporeal body. Influencing them means they can exert energy in this universe and corporeal. Which is it? Immaterial or not? You've not defined or decided.

So far you've 100% NOT defined anything.

The fact that you identify yourself as atheist and you think it is because it meets certain criteria doesn't automatically makes the definition of atheism logically sound. What you believe or don't believe isn't in discussion here.

You've tried to tell me what I think. You've attempted to conflate, confuse and mistake terms to attack atheism, but that's not addressing your arrogant and wrong attempt to tell me what I think. It IS under discussion because YOU decided to declare what people you don't know and haven't talked to think.

So, why do you think you are qualified to tell people what they think?

False analogy. I meant nothing like that.

The analogy is perfectly parallel to what you wrote. If what you wrote isn't what you meant, then try writing what you mean.

You're contradicting your own statement. You said that, in spite of not having evidence that I wasn't a zebra, you could confidently know that I wasn't a zebra. By the same logic, I could assert knowledge about others feelings and ideas.

Of course I didn't. I actually think things through before I write them.

The difference is that zebras are a real thing with specifically designated properties regardless of opinion. Zebras cannot type, cannot speak human languages, etc., so it's perfectly rational and true to say you are NOT a zebra.

You are pretending to know what people think and how they feel, about people that you've never met, which is not an objective fact and is often only knowable AFTER talking to them, which you didn't do and why there is no contradiction.

Objective vs. subjective.

Viviane

While the author points, with justice, to creationists and their disbelief in evolution, I also contend that atheism can become likewise a form of rationalized belief, subject to become def and blind to contrary arguments, not based of their merits, but simply because they go against their deeply engrained biases.

You should seriously take his advice and stop trying to tell others what they believe with faulty reasoning, bad logic and false definitions.

If you have a valid argument, I am all ears.

Viviane

Seems to me that what you're saying describes the loss of theist belief, not the same thing as atheism.

In what way is "no belief in spirits, gods or theism" any different from "no belief in spirits, gods or theism?

The intention is merely to point out what I perceive to be a logical flaw on the definition of atheism, that makes it somehow misleading.

Perception often isn't reality.

Hold Me-Thrill Me

I see the Sun rise. I "believe" the sun has risen. I believe it because I have seen it. Belief must be attached to solid evidence. Now, that "evidence' may be from our own eyes or from the eyes of those we trust. Either way "evidence" must be attested to.

Ruby456

outlaw what you said is worth repeating below as I want to distance myself from atheists who are on a mission and I am quite happy to entertain neologisms like absentheist to see where it takes us

atheists when they say they do not believe in God are saying that they do not have thoughts and images of God that impact their lives in their minds....Ruby456
That`s not always the case,although I`m sure there are some..
God has a Great Impact on the lives and minds of some who claim to be atheists..
They`re visibly,Compulsively Obsessed with Disproving the Existence of God..
.
If It wasn`t for The Fact they say "They Don`t Believe in God"..
...You Would Think They were "On a Mission From God"...
.............................

Ruby456

Lets face it atheists who are on a mission do have a system beliefs that are connected to theology or that have theological roots. The proof is that when another atheist comes along and seems to be questioning a particular belief system of theirs even in a small way then emotions do seem to get in the way of achieving a balanced and realistic perspective. I'm not against controversy but am against belief systems that are held so tightly as to be suffocating.

Ruby456

eden said

Simply put, a belief defines an idea or principle which we judge to be true.
To a theist, "belief" in a deity means that he judges his thoughts and images and stories about God to be true. The lack of belief of the atheist comes from the fact that the doesn't share the same judgement as the theist. But his lack of belief isn't the direct result of the lack of evidence. That lack of evidence results in lack of knowledge. Only then, based on the lack of knowledge, he judges that absence of knowledge as grounds to not share the belief of the theist. But that judgement he makes is in itself a belief.
What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be an illogical proposition to say that lack of belief is a direct consequence of lack of evidence. The logical consequence of lack of evidence is lack of knowledge. The direct consequence of lack of evidence about the existence of God is agnosticism.

Okay I see.

nicolaou

Lets face it atheists who are on a mission do have a system [of] beliefs that are connected to theology or that have theological roots.

This atheist doesn't. If I have an absence of belief or interest in astrology does that mean I have a connection to astrology? Nope.

The proof is that when another atheist comes along and seems to be questioning a particular belief system of theirs even in a small way then emotions do seem to get in the way of achieving a balanced and realistic perspective.

That constitutes proof in your view? Really? I'd call it spirited debate.

I'm not against controversy but am against belief systems that are held so tightly as to be suffocating.

Agreed.

What is BELIEF ?

Share this