Jump to content

"Belief"


Recommended Posts

strongnrelaxed

In many threads here and elsewhere we hear that "disbelief" is a belief.

 

Atheists respond to this all the time in a similar way. In fact, there is a blogger/vlogger named "non-stamp collector" in reference to this debate.

 

Once and for all: "Disbelief is the opposite of belief so they cannot be the same"

 

Can hot be another form of cold? Can evil be another form of good?

 

Please, let's put this one to rest once and for all.

 

Can I get a witness?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way to live in the midst of inharmonious influences is to strengthen the will power and endure all things, yet keeping fineness of character and nobility of manner together with an everlasting heart full of love.

Bowl of Saki, September 13, by Hazrat Inayat Khan

 

 

]Bowl of Saki

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
BetheButterfly
In many threads here and elsewhere we hear that "disbelief" is a belief.

 

Atheists respond to this all the time in a similar way. In fact, there is a blogger/vlogger named "non-stamp collector" in reference to this debate.

 

Once and for all: "Disbelief is the opposite of belief so they cannot be the same"

 

Can hot be another form of cold? Can evil be another form of good?

 

Please, let's put this one to rest once and for all.

 

Can I get a witness?!

 

According to Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com ,

 

the following are various definitions for Atheism: (Please note that the first definition given includes the word "belief.")

 

"

a·the·ism

 

   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA

noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

 

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

...

 

 

n

rejection of belief in God or gods ...

 

atheism [( ay -thee-iz-uhm)]

 

Denial that there is a God. "

 

So, which would you prefer: doctrine or belief that there is no God, disbelief in supreme being(s), rejection of belief in God or gods, or denial that there is a God?

 

Regardless, they all mean the same thing, just described with different words.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
strongnrelaxed
According to Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com ,

 

the following are various definitions for Atheism: (Please note that the first definition given includes the word "belief.")

 

"

a·the·ism

 

   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA

noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

 

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

...

 

 

n

rejection of belief in God or gods ...

 

atheism [( ay -thee-iz-uhm)]

 

Denial that there is a God. "

 

So, which would you prefer: doctrine or belief that there is no God, disbelief in supreme being(s), rejection of belief in God or gods, or denial that there is a God?

 

Regardless, they all mean the same thing, just described with different words.

 

Disbelief is the opposite of belief - not another form of belief. Period.

 

I cannot believe we are still doing this!

 

Wow! This is amazing! Its like calling the US Military the "ministry of peace"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
strongnrelaxed
According to Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com ,

 

atheism [( ay -thee-iz-uhm)]

 

Denial that there is a God. "

 

I find this one intriguing. It is basically stating that there is most certainly a god and that atheists just deny its existence.

 

Now that I know I can get away with this sort of crap, I can go nuts!

 

If you do not believe in pink floating unicorns that sprinkle sugar on your Frosted Flakes in the middle of the night, then you are just in denial.

 

Would that make you an Acornist?

Link to post
Share on other sites
BetheButterfly
Maybe the people who insist that atheism itself is a belief should do some reading beyond a dictionary entry. I'd be interested to see if their opinions change, or if they're only interested in reinforcing their preconceptions.

 

They should at least be familiar with the variations, what some call "strong" or "weak" atheism, the difference between atheism, anti-theism and agnosticism, the history of atheism and atheists.

 

There is simply only so far you can get with fancicul analogies to argue your case. Sometimes you just have to make the effort to understand something before you comment on it.

 

Dictionaries serve a purpose: to define words.

 

If you and others have a problem with a dictionary's definitions, it might be good to write the authors?

 

I didn't write the dictionary. :) According to teachers, it's important to use the dictionary. That is understandable, in my opinion.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
BetheButterfly
I find this one intriguing. It is basically stating that there is most certainly a god and that atheists just deny its existence.

 

Now that I know I can get away with this sort of crap, I can go nuts!

 

If you do not believe in pink floating unicorns that sprinkle sugar on your Frosted Flakes in the middle of the night, then you are just in denial.

 

Would that make you an Acornist?

 

Could it be that for much of recent English history, English words were influenced by Theists?

 

It would be a good idea for you to study Etymology.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
BetheButterfly
Unless you're suggesting that a dictionary definition is sufficient to understand everything, then you don't really believe the point you're making.

 

Like I said, look at an encyclopedia entry on atheism and notice that it's several thousand words long. Read some of those words, and you will quickly realise that a single-sentence definition doesn't even scratch the surface. It might give you a basic idea, but it doesn't close to definitive or authoritative.

 

There are many encyclopedias. Below is a quote from one of my favorites: Britannica. People can read all of what Brtannica says about Atheism if they want.

 

atheism -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

 

"atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."

 

 

If, on the other hand, you don't want to do this, then just come out and say so. Then I know who to put on ignore.

 

You do not need to threaten me. You can put me on ignore anytime you desire. If I have offended you, I apologize.

 

Peace

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, atheism is by definition ends in "ism" which is defined as:

 

a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

 

However, it is correct that to say you do not believe in something does not mean that this is a belief. It can be restated that way:

 

"My belief is that God does not exist."

 

But if one says that "I do not believe that God exists", then it is just as easy to say that this is not a belief.

 

Personally, this can be stated either way. And I agree with the OP. I would be just as frustrated. I think that the word atheism is incorrect. If atheists do not believe that their disbelief is a belief, then perhaps there should be a new word used for the (besides the word "Bright" coined by Dawkins. :rolleyes:)

 

Oddly though, I don't go around arguing with those who believe that Santa Claus exists or that the world may be flat. It is not worth my time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Another poster has already pointed out that church groups have tried to block life-saving stem cell research based on ignorance. Some people are alive today only because they thankfully lost that argument.

 

Actually, "they" block the aborting of human babies which are to be used for stem cell research. And seriously, do you have a link that shows that ending the life of an embryo to use his or her stem cells actually saved another life? I am aware of adult stem cell research being successful, but I am not aware of embryonic stem cell research saving a life.

 

Read: Pro-life groups and others (not just church groups) have been against ONLY embryonic stem cell research and NOT against adult stem cell research. In fact, most of them urge more research into adult stem cell research.

 

Beliefs have very real consequences.

 

True. Some good and some bad. The question then is not "Does God exist" but "Is a belief in God dangerous?"

 

The existence of God has nothing to do with the consequences of a belief in God. He exists or he doesn't.

 

I am sure that you are well aware of this distinction...at least I assume so.

 

Seriously, this distinction would get pointed out to you nearly every time you trotted out this "LOL ATHEISTS ARGUE WITH SOMETHING THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN LOLOLOL!" nonsense. I've had to point it out close to half a dozen times here already.

 

I am well aware of "you people's" argument against it. It kinda goes along with the Flying Spaghetti Monster nonsense. :D

 

Why don't you people learn? How hard is it for you to realise that this is a silly thing for you to say, and that maybe you should withdraw it from your arsenal of pithy one-liners in future?

 

I understand. Every time I hear such condescension regarding God is a fairytale and can be compared to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and to pink unicorns, then I wonder if perhaps the individual has no better argument.

 

My apologies. I will attempt to refrain from such attempts at humor as I see it gets you a little angry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
strongnrelaxed
There are many encyclopedias. Below is a quote from one of my favorites: Britannica. People can read all of what Brtannica says about Atheism if they want.

 

atheism -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

 

"atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."

 

 

 

 

You do not need to threaten me. You can put me on ignore anytime you desire. If I have offended you, I apologize.

 

Peace

 

Ok. So it is settled then - Atheism is NOT a belief, but a "critique and denial of" it.

 

Thank you BeTheB! Finally we have resolution.

 

Whew. That was harder than it needed to be, but hey - we got here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
strongnrelaxed
Actually, "they" block the aborting of human babies which are to be used for stem cell research. And seriously, do you have a link that shows that ending the life of an embryo to use his or her stem cells actually saved another life? I am aware of adult stem cell research being successful, but I am not aware of embryonic stem cell research saving a life.

 

Read: Pro-life groups and others (not just church groups) have been against ONLY embryonic stem cell research and NOT against adult stem cell research. In fact, most of them urge more research into adult stem cell research.

 

 

 

True. Some good and some bad. The question then is not "Does God exist" but "Is a belief in God dangerous?"

 

The existence of God has nothing to do with the consequences of a belief in God. He exists or he doesn't.

 

I am sure that you are well aware of this distinction...at least I assume so.

 

 

 

I am well aware of "you people's" argument against it. It kinda goes along with the Flying Spaghetti Monster nonsense. :D

 

 

 

I understand. Every time I hear such condescension regarding God is a fairytale and can be compared to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and to pink unicorns, then I wonder if perhaps the individual has no better argument.

 

My apologies. I will attempt to refrain from such attempts at humor as I see it gets you a little angry.

 

Enough of the jumping on Quick Joe. He and I and people like us are sick of listening to people making preposterous claims about spirits and the like and when we ask people to "prove it" all these attacks come out.

 

As easy as it is for me to avoid feeling non-defensive about this, I have not found a way to avoid the "arrogance" or "condescension" attacks.

 

It is like asking someone to read about astronomy to get a better understanding of planetary motion only to be accused of being "snotty" or arrogant, condescending, etc.

 

This is how you look from the outside. Afraid of truth. Afraid to look things up. Afraid to let go of your myths.

 

And we still have not yet had on iota of even an attempt to "prove it" The challenge still stands. So until you prove your belief system, you should refrain from attacking one of the few real critical thinkers in your life and respect the guy.

 

People who believe as you do have been responsible for murdering people like me for ages. Your church no longer has that power and so we can finally speak out. It must be disconcerting, but the attacks are unnecessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
strongnrelaxed

 

The question then is not "Does God exist" but "Is a belief in God dangerous?"

 

The existence of God has nothing to do with the consequences of a belief in God. He exists or he doesn't.

 

 

How did you come to this conclusion James? I am stunned by how blatantly you are ignoring history. I guess this is the way it all works. "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain - the great Oz has spoken"

 

I am the sort of person who would walk over to the curtain and tear it down. It appears that you are the sort of person who would try to stop me from doing so.

 

There have been MAJOR and significant consequences to all things related to religion, beliefs in dieties, and what you call god. I will not spell these things out again - let's not play games You know damned well what your faithful brethren have done over the centuries.

 

The worst damage of all is the damage to a young child's psyche. Think about this. The most basic gift given to humans is our intellect. Our ability to think rationally and critically and to civilize ourselves. Religion kills this.

 

Belief in a god says to children - hey all the reality and beauty around you is a scam. What is REALLY happening is ghosts, invisible men, flying crosses with dead corpses, etc etc. It is sick and perverted and deeply insulting to me. This stuff is twisted and I know you cannot see or acknowledge that.

 

But you will not get away with saying this stuff has no consequences.

 

This is a blatant lie. Since your belief system has no problem with lies, then I will assume that you have no problem with it. But I do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly though, I don't go around arguing with those who believe that Santa Claus exists or that the world may be flat. It is not worth my time.

 

 

I need more patience, apparently... Or a re-evaluation of what my time is worth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
florence of suburbia

But human atrocity isn't limited to crimes committed in the name of religion. Mass murder has been committed in the name of the State, as well as for no good reason beyond a person's urge to dominate others, as with the BTK killer. People look for reasons to do things, before and after the fact. It's human nature, not something with religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
florence of suburbia
Religion is also the product of human nature

 

I completely agree with you there. I see the problem this way:

 

The sacredness is in story itself, not one particular story.

 

People of faith often insist on taking a story literally and thereby miss all the true power of it. For instance, the Christ story is about sacrifice, which is a concept peculiar to human experience and has lots of magic in itself. It isn't about whether or not Jesus was really the son of God, whether his birthday was in December or June, whether he was born of a virgin, etc.

 

Killing in the name of whether the details of a story are literally true or not comes about when cultures and therefore stories overlap, and people start insisting on their version. Christ is particular but sacrifice is universal. The focus is wrong.

 

Then there's the other side of the coin with atheists who say, it's just a story and therefore it has no meaning. "Just a story?" Story is everything. The stories that have survived centuries are snapshots of who we are. So saying it's a story shouldn't make it smaller but should make it bigger.

 

The problem with the atheist side is that it's denying an aspect of the human condition. You get things like Stalinism where you're killing for an idea that's just as poisonous as any religion. You can't eliminate this stuff because you can't jetison story -- humans wouldn't be human without it.

 

It's almost like you have to be in a constant state of cognitive dissonance where you embrace the story that speaks to you the most, but at the same time you understand that it isn't the only one, and there are lots of stories that glorify the best things about humanity and those need to be nurtured. And the stories that glorify the worst things about humanity need to be smacked down.

Edited by florence of suburbia
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow I think my point was missed.

 

There are two issues here....

 

1. Does God exist?

 

He does or doesn't.

 

2. Irrelevant of the first question, is religion dangerous?

It is or it isn't.

 

Let me rephrase it...

 

1. Does Barak Obama exist?

He does.

 

2. Is he a good president?

 

He is or isn't depending on the person.

 

Whether he is a good president or a bad president has absolutely nothing to do with whether he exists.

 

Giving examples of how religion is and belief screw up the world in your opinion has nothing to do with whether there is a Supreme Being who created the world. It simply shows that the belief has caused problems in the world.

 

I never said that the consequences of religion have all been good. I simply said that saying "God does not exist because there is evil in the world" is a faulty conclusion. I can see that religion has been used for evil. I can read that the name of God has been used to justify murder and the goals of evil people.

 

But even still, I know that this does not determine the existence or non-existence of God. It could be that he exists and there is evil in the world, or it could be that he does not exist and there is evil in the world.

 

Please reread my post as even strongandrelaxed quoted.

 

Except it wasn't humour and we both know it. What gets me angry is people making obtuse statements despite ample reason not to.

 

Actually, it was ironic humor. It was never intended to be a serious argument. I guess I am surprised that you thought it was.

 

And pardon me if it appears that I am jumping all over you. My first post was simply to point out this distinction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Enough of the jumping on Quick Joe.

 

 

My apologies as that was not my intention, but please feel free to quote the parts of my post that are arrogant and snotty. I am glad to rephrase any comments to be more respectful. And yes, I mean that. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
How did you come to this conclusion James? I am stunned by how blatantly you are ignoring history.

 

There have been MAJOR and significant consequences to all things related to religion, beliefs in dieties, and what you call god. I will not spell these things out again - let's not play games You know damned well what your faithful brethren have done over the centuries.

 

But you will not get away with saying this stuff has no consequences.

 

This is a blatant lie. Since your belief system has no problem with lies, then I will assume that you have no problem with it. But I do.

 

What lie did I say? I say that with curiosity and not anger. I think I can agree that men have used religion and the name of God to commit atrocities. I think we can also say that many good things have been done because of religion and a belief in God.

 

What you may have missed is that I simply said: atrocities done by those calling themselves Christians don't prove or disprove the existence of a God.

 

Again, please don't consider any comments less than respectful. None are intended to put myself above you. If we met in real life, I think you would see that I enjoy a good discussion and do respect those who differ from my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In that case, they block a fiction, because aborted fetuses cannot be used to harvest embryonic stem cells. These are embryos which are going to be discarded anyway. It's immoral and pig-headed to insist they are wasted simply over subjective inferences taken from religious texts.

 

One quick comment. I do know that embryos are not aborted fetuses. I do know that human embryos are one of the first stages of a human. I do know that as of now, these embryos would have been discarded.

 

I suspect that in the future, embryos would be made for use in stem cell research.

 

As for IVF and making embryos to be discarded, that is another topic, but I cannot agree with IVF when so many children need homes.

 

But I am aware that this is off-topic, so I won't continue this discussion and you are free to respond if the OP doesn't mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...