Believe:

[Pippy]

Hey,

Thank you for replying, and for welcoming me Athoughtfulman.

---

I appreciate your taking the time to chat. I enjoyed reading your response. I hear and understand your definition of evidence, and of course I agree. I speak a lot in rhetoric, it's the poet coming out. I meant it more from the angle of the 'individual' or 'interpretive realities' point. And I honor your want to live as real a life as possible. "The most reliable view of the world" I think you put it, and well put! Could I assume that that is similar to the most 'honest' or 'real' or 'true' world? I have nothing but support for anyone striving for 'truth'.

The concluding point is the you have to not waste time with anything unprovable. I also agree, but with an exception. In short, I think God (gods, Goddess, goddesses...) exists in the realm of thought. Of idea. And anything that exists only as an idea, thought or interpretation cannot be proven or unproven. It, to me, is another type of thing which only can be believed. It can seem provable to me, and unprovable to you, and we haven't actually gone anywhere.

But that does tie in strongly with personal realities, and you said that you found such idea idiotic. That is fine, and I appreciate that, but it is a very solid underpinning of my world-view. It seems very real to me (hehe get it?). I think you may have, in a small way, agreed by disagreeing. Whether or not we all live in our own little world, separate from one another (only as misinterpretations of the One Real World that we cannot fully comprehend) is an idea. It cannot be literally proven or dis-proven. It can seem 100% to me one way, but that does not make it real, in the sense that the screen I am looking at is real.
That, too me, is an example of interpretive realities. That you and I can disagree on interpretive realities.
I do agree though, that it does leave us with nothing, in a sense. But I think it is honest.

All evidence, regardless of it's simplicity or obviousness, has to pass through the veil of personal reality.

I completely understand atheism as you defined it, I spent years as an agnostic atheist. The only part I really don't understand is the concept of non-belief. I am not sure if you can add 'non' as a prefix and say it's wholly the opposite of the prior word (good/ungood). I only see belief. And disbelief, which is a semantic clarification, but still literally belief. I can't see that atheists have a black spot in their heads where others have belief. Please, if you would, explain the concept more.

I read the post you suggested, and I understand all of those points as well. I don't think atheists are ALL rude or immoral or anything. That would be silly. The only thing that stood out at me was "...but a good understanding of science does tend to lead people to disbelief,". I agree that it tends to lead people, but if I may, for the record, state that I went the route of understanding science (and philosophy and history and politics) and came to the conclusion of belief. Even if I am the only one, please allow me to be the exception.

---

Thank you again for sharing your time.
"I don't trust cats"
Pip

---

Kyuuketsuki,

Hello, thank you for replying.
It is a difficult subject, yes.
I saw the debate forums, and was very impressed. I have never seen that on a forum, and I forum a lot.
I look forward to watching on.

Thanks,
"Those cats..."
Pip

[Kyuuketsuki]

I think God (gods, Goddess, goddesses...) exists in the realm of thought. Of idea. And anything that exists only as an idea, thought or interpretation cannot be proven or unproven.

Yet there is a group in Japan (as I recall) who has managed to get images from peoples brains, from their thoughts ...granted the technology is very primitive as yet but one might venture to suggest that what you say above is wrong (only subject to technological limitations). There is nothing magical about thought, about brain function and about mind ... indeed, that a few thousand scientific periodicals are published on mind/brain to relevant scientists, rather implies we know a great deal more than some would like to admit.

Whether or not we all live in our own little world, separate from one another (only as misinterpretations of the One Real World that we cannot fully comprehend) is an idea. It cannot be literally proven or dis-proven. It can seem 100% to me one way, but that does not make it real, in the sense that the screen I am looking at is real.

Er, I'm sorry ... this "one real world" ... what is it? Can you be more specific?

All evidence, regardless of it's simplicity or obviousness, has to pass through the veil of personal reality.

Perhaps, but some evidence isn't validatable, some is incompatible with the assertion made and some is just fictional.

I completely understand atheism as you defined it, I spent years as an agnostic atheist.

Not trying to be funny here Pippy but this is something frequently claimed by theists and I've always found somewhat suspicious because it's thrown out almost like a weapon e.g. I was once like you and then I saw the truth. In essence it's just another non-validatable claim, pointless and meaningless in a forum such as this.

The only part I really don't understand is the concept of non-belief. I am not sure if you can add 'non' as a prefix and say it's wholly the opposite of the prior word (good/ungood). I only see belief. And disbelief, which is a semantic clarification, but still literally belief. I can't see that atheists have a black spot in their heads where others have belief. Please, if you would, explain the concept more.

It's simple enough.

Theist: I believe in or am with god/gods
Atheist: I'm not!

Nothing about the atheist statement says he/she specifically says there are no gods, just that he/she doesn't accept claims to their existence.

In essence the person who claims there are no gods is every bit as wrong as the person who claims there are ... neither has any validatable evidence.

I read the post you suggested, and I understand all of those points as well. I don't think atheists are ALL rude or immoral or anything. That would be silly. The only thing that stood out at me was "...but a good understanding of science does tend to lead people to disbelief,". I agree that it tends to lead people, but if I may, for the record, state that I went the route of understanding science (and philosophy and history and politics) and came to the conclusion of belief. Even if I am the only one, please allow me to be the exception.

No one is stopping you believing whatever you want but it is worth pointing out that you have chosen to come to this, an atheism forum, and you have chosen to say what it is you believe ... from my POV (and I suspect others are much the same) I respect your wish to believe what you want but what I cannot respect is the belief itself as it has no greater merit than the belief there is a cream cake at the core of the Earth.

Kyu

[Giff]

I respect your wish to believe what you want but what I cannot respect is the belief itself as it has no greater merit than the belief there is a cream cake at the core of the Earth.

Kyu

There is a cream cake! It was I who created it But of course I got great help from Tor and Zeus. Great guys by the way, Zeus is however a little bit kinky. He like to be a white bull and pick up girls and such. But otherwise a cool guy.

[g-mark]

If something is untrue, is it a belief? Even though we 'believe' it is true?

If something isn't true, then I would hold that it is non-belief, not a negative belief.

Can you explain please teacher. Because you stated:

belief - any cognitive content held as true
source: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=belief

If we take the above definition as true, then every single thing that we understand and recognize as true, is counted as a belief. So everyone is a believer in something, but being a believer does not mean you have faith.

Or is this just your opinion. Who is to say your opinion is correct?

It's not an opinion, I am quoting the dictionary. Read the definition - belief - any cognitive content held as true. If you want to dispute the truth of the dictionary, take it up with them. I am merely using it because you asked.

And the definition of cognitive content is - the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned

If we accept the above definitions, then anything that has been perceived, discovered, or learned is a belief, which means that anything we hold as true is a belief. As for what is not true, the correct way to describe it would be non-belief.

Ok thank you. Your definitions are good. I think I needed that. My strong suit wasn't grammer, more maths and science.

This is true when talking in terms of nouns. Very interesting actually.

With regards to faith: I found this.

be⋅lief
   /bɪˈlif/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bi-leef] Show IPA
–noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
Origin:
1125–75; earlier bile(e)ve (n. use of v.); r. ME bileave, equiv. to bi- be- + leave; cf. OE gelēafa (c. D geloof, G Glaube; akin to Goth galaubeins)

What do you think of point 3?

[Pippy]

Kyuuketsuki,

Thank you for your response. I am happy to discuss this with you, even if we disagree.

---

I think the experiments you first mention were an attempt to build a machine modeled after the human pineal gland. I am familiar with those experiments, and find them fascinating. The amount of periodicals aside, I think it is rash to assume we have a very complete view of the mind at all. What separates us from people of the past who would have said the very same? They were all proven wrong as our understanding grew through time. I think there are still things we will learn about our minds inner workings.

Of course,, I would be happy to explain more of what I meant by One True World. The capitalization is a jest. Silliness is important. It is a term I have coined (as of yesterday) to describe reality. Not the reality we think we know, but all of it. The entirety of the processes and functions that make reality possible. It is what is used in a court case. Provable reality aside from anyone's concept of it. (If a tree falls in the woods...)

If I say we all have our own reality, then there must be a real reality we all reference. I just think we don't reference it too perfection, and thus unknowingly create slightly false personal realities.
You said, "Perhaps, but some evidence isn't validatable, some is incompatible with the assertion made and some is just fictional,". I could not agree more. But I don't know if the debate over higher powers can be held to the same rules as forensics. As the physical world.

I understand and apologize about "I was blind but now I see..." thing. That is absolutely not at all what I meant for you to get from it, but I understand that you hear that from everyone. I am, unfortunately, not like everyone. I only meant that I do not need to have atheism defined for me. I am not as alien as you think, I have been known in the past to have similar views on this subject as yourselves. Can not any of you say "I was a believer, and then I became an atheist"? I mean it in the same way. With no offense, please.

You also said "In essence the person who claims there are no gods is every bit as wrong as the person who claims there are ... neither has any validatable evidence,". Again I literally could not agree more. That is a point I was trying to make with the first post I made. That this is a debate of theory, of ideas. There is no solid evidence, only what we (choose too) interpret of what evidence there is. Thank you for summing it up so well yourself.

Finally, you also said "from my POV (and I suspect others are much the same) I respect your wish to believe what you want but what I cannot respect is the belief itself as it has no greater merit than the belief there is a cream cake at the core of the Earth,". I appreciate that summation, as it helps me better understand the community here. I picked this thread to join, in fact joined the forum after reading it. I did not, and still don't understand the concept of non-belief. I think I am making progress though, and I appreciate your help. If I may, it is not that you believe in not-god. It is only that you do not believe in god? Although it is contradictory to what I wrote earlier, I think I now kind of get it. Oh yeah, and my belief, to me, has much, much more merit than a twinkie planet. Your personal reality: it's a stupid idea, my personal reality: the only thing that makes sense (my beliefs, that is). So i acknowledge your opinion, and only say that I too have one.

---

Then, my friends, we are not as different at all. Not at all. I only wanted to say (in this thread I have hijacked) that I think you choose not-god, or not-belief in the same sense that I admit i choose god. It is a kind of decision, although it can feel very out of our control.
This is only what I think, and I might very well be wrong.
Again, thank you for your time.
"If not for love, then what for?",
-Pip

[g-mark]

What about hate?

[Kyuuketsuki]

I think the experiments you first mention were an attempt to build a machine modeled after the human pineal gland. I am familiar with those experiments, and find them fascinating. The amount of periodicals aside, I think it is rash to assume we have a very complete view of the mind at all. What separates us from people of the past who would have said the very same? They were all proven wrong as our understanding grew through time. I think there are still things we will learn about our minds inner workings.

As far as I know this research is not based on pineal modelling ... apparently the research was reported in the US journal "Neuron", December 11

Of course,, I would be happy to explain more of what I meant by One True World. The capitalization is a jest. Silliness is important. It is a term I have coined (as of yesterday) to describe reality. Not the reality we think we know, but all of it. The entirety of the processes and functions that make reality possible. It is what is used in a court case. Provable reality aside from anyone's concept of it. (If a tree falls in the woods...)

OK, maybe you need to be a bit more careful on that kind of stuff because I (and I doubt anyone else part from Frodo who will naturally pop up and say he did) had no idea it was jest ... thank you for explaining anyway.

You said, "Perhaps, but some evidence isn't validatable, some is incompatible with the assertion made and some is just fictional,". I could not agree more. But I don't know if the debate over higher powers can be held to the same rules as forensics. As the physical world.

I'm in the Dawkins camp on this and I see no reason why ANYTHING cannot be held to the normal evidential standards and to claim that something is somehow excepted from them enters the arena of special pleading.

I understand and apologize about "I was blind but now I see..." thing. That is absolutely not at all what I meant for you to get from it, but I understand that you hear that from everyone. I am, unfortunately, not like everyone. I only meant that I do not need to have atheism defined for me. I am not as alien as you think, I have been known in the past to have similar views on this subject as yourselves. Can not any of you say "I was a believer, and then I became an atheist"? I mean it in the same way. With no offense, please.

I am cynical about those who claim to have once been atheist and now are not ... the problem is in part the nature of this place, this forum. We (atheists) are hear for a reason, we want to speak out we want to tell our stories to each other and get support from the fact that there are other atheists around us. That isn't true of a theist who comes here and it seems to me that when a theist in such an environment claims to have once been an atheist it is more likely being used as some kind of bludgeon to force a specific agenda. It's hard to confirm this but from time to time you will notice me challenging theists, in essence, to prove it and usually they can't so all we end up with is another non-validatable claim.

You also said "In essence the person who claims there are no gods is every bit as wrong as the person who claims there are ... neither has any validatable evidence,". Again I literally could not agree more. That is a point I was trying to make with the first post I made. That this is a debate of theory, of ideas. There is no solid evidence, only what we (choose too) interpret of what evidence there is.

So if there's no evidence we can assume there is no god and pour scorn on the claims of those who do.

If I may, it is not that you believe in not-god. It is only that you do not believe in god? Although it is contradictory to what I wrote earlier, I think I now kind of get it.

Er ... I think you got it

Oh yeah, and my belief, to me, has much, much more merit than a twinkie planet. Your personal reality: it's a stupid idea, my personal reality: the only thing that makes sense (my beliefs, that is). So i acknowledge your opinion, and only say that I too have one.

Opinions are like assholes ... everyone has one

Then, my friends, we are not as different at all. Not at all. I only wanted to say (in this thread I have hijacked) that I think you choose not-god, or not-belief in the same sense that I admit i choose god.

Seems to me you don't quite get the idea of rational atheism ... we don't choose not to believe, we don't believe because there is no evidence. In essence I could no more choose to believe in your god (or any other) than I could cut myself in half with a scalpel.

Kyu

[Pippy]

Hey Kyu,

Thank you for responding again. This is an interesting and pleasing conversation. If I may make a couple small points...
You said "I'm in the Dawkins camp on this and I see no reason why ANYTHING cannot be held to the normal evidential standards and to claim that something is somehow excepted from them enters the arena of special pleading,". I have to come out and say I am pretty unimpressed with Dawkins. He is very rude, and while I agree that religious control is bad, relationship with a higher power should not be lumped into the same category. I know my god, but I am not religious. I feel that Dawkins doesn't make the distinction clear enough, saying instead that belief is the problem, or believers are dangerous. My only point, from my humble beginnings is that there is no difference in my mind between belief of god and belief that there is (or may not be) god. The lines must be clearer. If you 'act right' (call it cultural moral standards, or whatever) then it doesn't matter why. and if you can't 'act right' it also doesn't matter why not. Dawkins acts like an asshole, so regardless of his message I am not impressed.

The only reason I assume that arguments in the realm of idea and not physical reality cannnot be held to the same black-and-white standards, is because of the nature of ideas. We cannot produce evidence that god does or does not exist that will be irrefutable. The argument of god is not yet fully understood. So we can't hold it to the same forensic standards...
I do my very best not too do that. Not too see the world as I would like it, since that is untrue. I try my very best to see the world as it is, aside from my wants and views. I just won't fool myself into thinking I have succeeded.

I do understand the nature of this forum, and of the many shcools of atheism. What you are describing could be more agnostic, since it is only an admitted lack of knowledge. 'We don't know,'. I am trying to debate these concepts, that is why I am questioning.

Finally, you mentioned "So if there's no evidence we can assume there is no god and pour scorn on the claims of those who do,". That, I think is where you decide. If there is no evidence FOR god, then you would be right. But I challenge that there is no evidence for NOT god either. In fact there is much in both categories, but it is all interpreted to fit what we want. Can I pour scorn on people who say there is not god? What about people who say they don't know? Or canI pour scorn on those who pour scorn on other for disagreeing?

It all comes down to whether or not you act like an asshole, regardless of creed or color.
I try my best to not, and I hope to show that there is at least one theist who tries to conduct himself with respect and honor.

Thank you for your time,
"The eternal/internal battle of good and evil",
-Pip

PS: G-mark, yes that is the rhetorical answer. Always check why you are doing things, and if it's not out of love, than what is your motivator? I use that quote to square myself up, but thank you for answering it.

[Giff]

But I challenge that there is no evidence for NOT god either

Why should we have to prove that there isn't a god when there isn't any proof a such things exitence?

Have you heared for Rusell's teapot?

If you haven't here it is:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

[Kyuuketsuki]

Pip,

Firstly I don't think Dawkins is rude at all, I think he dismisses stupid ideas and with very good reason ... people don't like that because people cherish their beliefs but that doesn't make then any less stupid. Dawkins is somewhat intolerant of such stupidities and, IMO, quite rightly so.

I also believe that religion is about control.

I know my god, but I am not religious.

Sorry? You mean you associate with no particular religion? That the beliefs of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, the Aztecs, The Norse, The Roman and so are all of equal merit to you? If so I'm impressed because (despite the claims of most theists) they always seem to end up quoting extensively from one set of scriptures thus revealing their true bias.

I feel that Dawkins doesn't make the distinction clear enough, saying instead that belief is the problem, or believers are dangerous.

And the problem with that is what?

My only point, from my humble beginnings is that there is no difference in my mind between belief of god and belief that there is (or may not be) god.

Between believing there is and believing there isn't a god maybe but not in dismissing current claims which is where virtually all the atheists in this forum stand. There are very, very good reasons to dismiss your god and any other so far claimed on the simple basis that there is no evidence and as Stephen Roberts said, "once you understand why you dismiss all other gods you will understand why we dismiss yours".

The lines must be clearer.

Exactly what must be clearer?

If you 'act right' (call it cultural moral standards, or whatever) then it doesn't matter why. and if you can't 'act right' it also doesn't matter why not. Dawkins acts like an asshole, so regardless of his message I am not impressed.

I strongly disagree ... not only am I a moral relativist so don't accept there is any specific "right" way to behave but I think it's important to understand and validate your own reason for behaving the way you do. I do that and if you are acting in accordance with the will of another you are not (cannot be).

The only reason I assume that arguments in the realm of idea and not physical reality cannnot be held to the same black-and-white standards, is because of the nature of ideas. We cannot produce evidence that god does or does not exist that will be irrefutable. The argument of god is not yet fully understood. So we can't hold it to the same forensic standards...

Well you can claim that but the fact remains that no one can support such ideas so therefore I am entitled to reject such ideas and consider them idealistic fairytale hogwash.

I do my very best not too do that. Not too see the world as I would like it, since that is untrue. I try my very best to see the world as it is, aside from my wants and views. I just won't fool myself into thinking I have succeeded.

I'm sorry but I think you are deluding yourself ... the very fact that you believe in a god without evidence rather implies you ARE believing what you would like to rather than the harsh cold reality of what is. I suspect few on the rational atheist side are fooling themselves with anything, they are simply adherents of science and following where the evidence leads.

I do understand the nature of this forum, and of the many shcools of atheism. What you are describing could be more agnostic, since it is only an admitted lack of knowledge. 'We don't know,'. I am trying to debate these concepts, that is why I am questioning.

Many schools of atheism? Curious, as far as most here are concerned atheism means one thing and one thing alone ... that you don't believe in gods.

Finally, you mentioned "So if there's no evidence we can assume there is no god and pour scorn on the claims of those who do,". That, I think is where you decide. If there is no evidence FOR god, then you would be right. But I challenge that there is no evidence for NOT god either. In fact there is much in both categories, but it is all interpreted to fit what we want. Can I pour scorn on people who say there is not god? What about people who say they don't know? Or canI pour scorn on those who pour scorn on other for disagreeing?

And as I say above (and indeed as I have said to you before but you don't quite seem to get) belief that there is no god is, in principle, as illogical as belief that there isn't (although to be fair to the former that there is no evidence is a rather large clue) ... most of us here assume there is no god for the same reason we assume there is no cream cake at the Earth's core, because there is no evidence and because of the problems a creator/miracle-performing/circus-monkey god would cause for science, logic & reason.

It all comes down to whether or not you act like an asshole, regardless of creed or color. I try my best to not, and I hope to show that there is at least one theist who tries to conduct himself with respect and honor.

I agree and believing in fairytale creatures without (and often in spite of the) evidence is one step closer to being one.

Kyu