The God Helmet

[Hayabusa Rider]

He is implicitly adopting the fallacy that "atheism" is a belief system in some way paraellel to religious belief.

As as dictionary definition there is no fault with your reasoning, however for something which is not there is a fair bit of proselytizing and intolerance by those who have a different belief about a deity.

If the difference is that to be theistic is to have a belief in a god, then believing there there is none is still something which is preached, and shunning the non-believer in that POV is acceptable.

For something which isn't a religion there are a great many practical similarities in theism and atheism and how things are in fact practiced.

 

[Moonbeam]

Indeed, and by his logic, every time a single person decides thats/he believes in a particular thing, no matter what it is, the moment that person decides to broadcast his or her belief to other people, each person who does not agree is now apparently adhering to a new "belief system," defined as the antithesis of the original belief. He is implicitly adopting the fallacy that "atheism" is a belief system in some way paraellel to religious belief.

- wolf

And what do you say to the dictionary that implies that very thing. This notion that a belief system is created every time somebody doesn't believe in some new belief strikes me as silly. The non belief in Mogogo, the invisible one, and only ever seen by me simply makes you uninformed because you lack loetic vision. You will never know or care about it.

But the subject of gods is a big and prominent one and it would seem that those who believe and those who do not have been given names precisely based on what they believe on the subject, not what they don't and only because the matter is debated endlessly.

 

[totalnoob]

You believe you are correct and you believe that people who do not believe as you do are somehow defective and inferior, not based on how they live their lives, how competent they are, not if they are scholars or floor washers.

lolol Where the frak did you get that from? All I said is that believers have failed to make their case..and that supernatural/magical beliefs in the absence of evidence is irrational. If you believe in magic, you are irrational in that particular belief. Saying that I have no respect for your crazy belief in that area does not mean I'm calling you a reprobate. I know some very intelligent people who keep their "faith box" compartmentalized and can live quite normal, rational lives..while still clinging to those beliefs. The fundamentalists who believe the bible is inerrant are where the big problem lies.

 

[woolfe9999]

And what do you say to the dictionary that implies that very thing. This notion that a belief system is created every time somebody doesn't believe in some new belief strikes me as silly. The non belief in Mogogo, the invisible one, and only ever seen by me simply makes you uninformed because you lack loetic vision. You will never know or care about it.

But the subject of gods is a big and prominent one and it would seem that those who believe and those who do not have been given names precisely based on what they believe on the subject, not what they don't and only because the matter is debated endlessly.

The dictionary definition is only necessary in the first place because there is a word for it, and the dictionary then must dutifully define the word. Dictionaries variously define atheism as "one who believes there is no god" or "disbelief in the existence of god." Dictionary.com seems to cover both variants:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

Dictionaries reflect how people in the real world define words by usage. Accordingly, the dictionaries show both senses of how the word is used. The two definitions are similar, but the shade of meaning is a little different. One implies affirmative belief in the non-existence of something; the other, the lack of belief in something. Both are technically valid because the word is used variously. That, however, is not really the point.

You used the mogogo. I'll take the real world example of "cold fusion." Based on my reading, I happen to think cold fusion is bunk. In other words, I don't believe in it. Yet some people do. However, in this case there is no word for someone like me, someone who does not believe in cold fusion. That is because in this case the belief in cold fusion is uncommon. Yet if belief in cold fusion were common, there might well be a word for those who don't believe in it, and you can bet the definitions would be similar as in the case of "atheism" except you'd be replacing "God" with "cold fusion."

You are falling into the trap of concluding that "atheism" is a special case, to be distinguished from not believing in the mogogo, or cold fusion, because theism is such a commonly held belief. That, implicitly, is an appeal to popular opinion. You are saying that theism is so darn common that atheism must therefore be a special case: a full blown "belief system," where non-belief in other things apparently is not. And you are doing something else: you are permitting theists to define atheism by implicitly assuming a parralelism between the two. Since theists began all this by believing in God and broadcasting that belief, if there is a paraellelism, then theists drive the definition of atheism. I think that is rather problematic.

Not believing in a thing is the baseline condition. We are not born with "beliefs" in things, and presumably there were always times in human history where people did not yet believe the things that many now belief. Atheism of an infant or pre-religion homo sapien requires no definition, but then theists come along and somehow can convert this baseline, natural state of being into an active belief system? Nope, not buying it.

- wolf

 

[Moonbeam]

totalnoob: lolol Where the frak did you get that from? All I said is that believers have failed to make their case..and that supernatural/magical beliefs in the absence of evidence is irrational.

M: But that's completely insane? Where did you come up with such an irrational belief. In the first place, nobody believes in the supernatural or magical who hasn't experienced it and every sane person knows there are limits to reason. If you had to reason your way though a battle field you'd be dead. That's why we have instincts and feelings. We are in action way before we know what to do. You should learn to ride that great big wave of joy that vibrates down from heaven, eh?

t: If you believe in magic, you are irrational in that particular belief. Saying that I have no respect for your crazy belief in that area does not mean I'm calling you a reprobate.

M: Of course, not only am I irrational, to you I'm totally insane. Of course that doesn't mean I don't pity you in living in your box.

t: I know some very intelligent people who keep their "faith box" compartmentalized and can live quite normal, rational lives..while still clinging to those beliefs.

M: Yeah, I pity them too.

t: The fundamentalists who believe the bible is inerrant are where the big problem lies.

M: And that would be you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

lolol Where the frak did you get that from? All I said is that believers have failed to make their case..and that supernatural/magical beliefs in the absence of evidence is irrational. If you believe in magic, you are irrational in that particular belief. Saying that I have no respect for your crazy belief in that area does not mean I'm calling you a reprobate. I know some very intelligent people who keep their "faith box" compartmentalized and can live quite normal, rational lives..while still clinging to those beliefs. The fundamentalists who believe the bible is inerrant are where the big problem lies.

Then why do you jump in and make generalities? I find the idea of pushing Creationism in a science class unacceptable, and have always said so. When someone tells me the Universe was created in 7 days, I don't by it, but whatever. When the line is crossed and it's sought to be taught as scientifically credible, it's a no go.

Personally I don't know what the ultimate answers are to a great many questions, but then I know I have some three pounds of organic material making judgments on things which are beyond my comprehension. I therefore allow others to think what they will and express it in the proper venue. I could be like Dawkins and attack people because of their beliefs, or perhaps it's that they don't agree with him and his monstrous ego. Hell we've had people say that well respected scientists with proven track records could not be scientists, because they held some religious beliefs.

That's what I object to, just as if you were to bring up NAMBLA in regards to homosexuals on a regular basis, then say that you don't have a problem with gays. It stretches credulity.

Next thing we'll be treated to is "some of my best friends are Christians".

You don't need to agree with anyone, however when sincere disparaging generalities are made about any group of people, be it for religion or race, it's not to be admired, at least that's my opinion.

I'm far more impressed with those who do good in the name of anything or none at all than those who dance on the head of a dogmatic pin. Therein lies the true value of a person.

 

[Moonbeam]

woolfe: The dictionary definition is only necessary in the first place because there is a word for it, and the dictionary then must dutifully define the word. Dictionaries variously define atheism as "one who believes there is no god" or "disbelief in the existence of god." Dictionary.com seems to cover both variants:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

Dictionaries reflect how people in the real world define words by usage. Accordingly, the dictionaries show both senses of how the word is used. The two definitions are similar, but the shade of meaning is a little different. One implies affirmative belief in the non-existence of something; the other, the lack of belief in something. Both are technically valid because the word is used variously. That, however, is not really the point.

You used the mogogo. I'll take the real world example of "cold fusion." Based on my reading, I happen to think cold fusion is bunk. In other words, I don't believe in it. Yet some people do. However, in this case there is no word for someone like me, someone who does not believe in cold fusion. That is because in this case the belief in cold fusion is uncommon. Yet if belief in cold fusion were common, there might well be a word for those who don't believe in it, and you can bet the definitions would be similar as in the case of "atheism" except you'd be replacing "God" with "cold fusion."

You are falling into the trap of concluding that "atheism" is a special case, to be distinguished from not believing in the mogogo, or cold fusion, because theism is such a commonly held belief. That, implicitly, is an appeal to popular opinion. You are saying that theism is so darn common that atheism must therefore be a special case: a full blown "belief system," where non-belief in other things apparently is not. And you are doing something else: you are permitting theists to define atheism by implicitly assuming a parralelism between the two. Since theists began all this by believing in God and broadcasting that belief, if there is a paraellelism, then theists drive the definition of atheism. I think that is rather problematic.

Not believing in a thing is the baseline condition. We are not born with "beliefs" in things, and presumably there were always times in human history where people did not yet believe the things that many now belief. Atheism of an infant or pre-religion homo sapien requires no definition, but then theists come along and somehow can convert this baseline, natural state of being into an active belief system? Nope, not buying it.

- wolf[/QUOTE]
M: But is is my point and the only one I am making. I began this discussion with the notion that atheism is not a belief but a lack of one. Then somebody called somebody else stupid for saying it was an active belief. I thought unnecessary because it takes some familiarity with the definition of atheist to gather that point and that confusion in the real world over the definition is natural since so many atheist actually deny there is a god. But when I looked the word up for the first time, the very first definition said exactly that, that Atheism is the active disbelief in gods.

Therefore, not only is it wrong to say somebody is stupid for making that claim, it is made right in the dictionary. Now it happens there are two classes of atheism, strong and weak, which one gets into by looking deeper, but the notion that atheism means only disbelief where disbelief means lack of belief is splitting hairs. It also means in every day use people who actively believe there is no god.

So I am not confusing anything with anything else. The existence of two shades of meaning for one word makes my case. Nobody is wrong who says that atheists have the belief that god does not exist because that is a valid definition of the word. It has everything to do with popularity because words mean what we use them to mean.

And non belief, of course, is not the base line condition. You were born in the image of God and you will always be His image. That fact you do not now remember because that God you were was murdered long ago and the pain of your death would kill you to remember because, to know, you would have to die all over again as you remembered.

This is known to those who have done it and to no others.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

And non belief, of course, is not the base line condition. You were born in the image of God and you will always be His image. That fact you do not now remember because that God you were was murdered long ago and the pain of your death would kill you to remember because, to know, you would have to die all over again as you remembered.

This is known to those who have done it and to no others.

I died.....laughing. Does that count?

Sheesh. People who claim to have "special" knowledge that others can't comprehend generally fall into one (or more) of a few categories - deluded crazies, charlatans, or truthers. More than likely the rational people in P&N can easily guess which one applies to you.

 

[Red Dawn]

Atheists allow their faith in their beliefs to shape their lives.

How so? I don't believe in any religion or gods, aside from saying that when asked I don't see how it shapes my life.

 

[woolfe9999]

M: But is is my point and the only one I am making. I began this discussion with the notion that atheism is not a belief but a lack of one. Then somebody called somebody else stupid for saying it was an active belief. I thought unnecessary because it takes some familiarity with the definition of atheist to gather that point and that confusion in the real world over the definition is natural since so many atheist actually deny there is a god. But when I looked the word up for the first time, the very first definition said exactly that, that Atheism is the active disbelief in gods.

Therefore, not only is it wrong to say somebody is stupid for making that claim, it is made right in the dictionary. Now it happens there are two classes of atheism, strong and weak, which one gets into by looking deeper, but the notion that atheism means only disbelief where disbelief means lack of belief is splitting hairs. It also means in every day use people who actively believe there is no god.

So I am not confusing anything with anything else. The existence of two shades of meaning for one word makes my case. Nobody is wrong who says that atheists have the belief that god does not exist because that is a valid definition of the word. It has everything to do with popularity because words mean what we use them to mean.

And non belief, of course, is not the base line condition. You were born in the image of God and you will always be His image. That fact you do not now remember because that God you were was murdered long ago and the pain of your death would kill you to remember because, to know, you would have to die all over again as you remembered.

This is known to those who have done it and to no others.

That's very interesting, but infants do not have the capacity for "belief" because they don't have the cognition for it. They perceive; they desire; they experience emotion. They do not "believe." They are all atheists, because they lack a belief in God, whether they are in "God's image" as you say, or not.

When we acquire cognition, some of us will continue to be atheists, the diffference being that our cognition has produced reasons for the lack of belief. Those reasons don't necessarily constitute an active belief system, though they may in some cases.

I will close my comments in this thread with the following. Someone earlier in the thread said that religion can incline people to do good or ill, but atheism doesn't incline people one way or the other. Strictly speaking, I tend to agree with that. The question then becomes, has religion, on balance, been a force for good or ill in this world. In my opinion, it has on balance been a force more for ill than good, and I think it is more dangerous to have it amongst humans than not. This doesn't mean that I don't think other belief systems: nationalism, tribalism, political ideologies, aren't also dangerous. It just means I think that religion, while causing substantial amounts of both harm and good, causes more harm than good. That is how I feel about religion.

So far as actual religious people, that is a different issue. Religious people I take as individuals, just as with any people. I want to make this dictinction because sometimes criticism of religion is taken as generalizations about all religious people, but that is not always the case. It certainly isn't in my case.

- wolf

 

[Moonbeam]

TastesLikeChicken: I died.....laughing. Does that count?

You wouldn't have to ask if it did.

TLC: Sheesh. People who claim to have "special" knowledge that others can't comprehend generally fall into one (or more) of a few categories - deluded crazies, charlatans, or truthers. More than likely the rational people in P&N can easily guess which one applies to you.

M: Hehe, still looking outside for fellow supporters I see, those rational extras you bullies need to play to least you climb out on a limb all alone and find you and you alone have sawed it off.

Me, I know what I know and I know that I know it and it makes me sad. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain. Time to die.

 

[Moonbeam]

woolfe: That's very interesting,

M: I am glad you think so;

w: but infants do not have the capacity for "belief" because they don't have the cognition for it. They perceive; they desire; they experience emotion. They do not "believe." They are all atheists, because they lack a belief in God, whether they are in "God's image" as you say, or not.

When we acquire cognition, some of us will continue to be atheists, the diffference being that our cognition has produced reasons for the lack of belief. Those reasons don't necessarily constitute an active belief system, though they may in some cases.

M: Tabula rasa, yes I know. This is the ordinary rational point of view, the one anybody who can't remember and is rational would have. But let me repeat. You were genetically programmed to have capacities you do not imagine because you have been programmed. We are birds in a cage, our song but one of millions that might have been. We are like pacing animals that will pace forever even if the bars are taken away.

w: I will close my comments in this thread with the following. Someone earlier in the thread said that religion can incline people to do good or ill, but atheism doesn't incline people one way or the other. Strictly speaking, I tend to agree with that. The question then becomes, has religion, on balance, been a force for good or ill in this world. In my opinion, it has on balance been a force more for ill than good, and I think it is more dangerous to have it amongst humans than not. This doesn't mean that I don't think other belief systems: nationalism, tribalism, political ideologies, aren't also dangerous. It just means I think that religion, while causing substantial amounts of both harm and good, causes more harm than good. That is how I feel about religion.

M: I myself, do not feel qualified to have an opinion. I do not know.

w: So far as actual religious people, that is a different issue. Religious people I take as individuals, just as with any people. I want to make this dictinction because sometimes criticism of religion is taken as generalizations about all religious people, but that is not always the case. It certainly isn't in my case.

- wolf

You are a good person. I understand what you are saying.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

M: Hehe, still looking outside for fellow supporters I see, those rational extras you bullies need to play to least you climb out on a limb all alone and find you and you alone have sawed it off.

I'm merely reflecting you.

 

[soccerballtux]

Because people of faith insist on imposing their opinions on others via authoritarian laws on social issues, by pushing creationism in schools..and of course...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-pray-instead-of-calling-for-medical-aid.html

It just makes people stupid.

they're just doing what they think is best for you. You liberals love doing what you think is best for them. They're just returning the favor.

 

[The Sauce]

Um...so the point of this thread is that the ultimate religious experience - receiving the word of god... as in the teachings of the prophets... as in the basis for most modern religions is a reproducible hallucination involving overactivity of an area of the non-dominant temporal lobe...essentially destroying the validity of all modern religious belief systems. Not necessarily proving or disproving that there is a god, although making the belief even more dubious than it already was. Essentially making the case that most theological systems are actually based on a human, biochemical phenomenon and not the divine intervention or word of some god. So...your bible, Koran, etc was written by hallucinating people, and not god after all. Your prophet was actually someone who likely had temporal lobe overactivity and nothing more.

This is ironic since, as someone who works in an ER, when someone comes in claiming to have heard the voice of god and received a prophecy, we (even the most religious among us) diagnose them as psychotic, medicate them and commit them for psychiatric treatment. But we kneel, pray, daven, blow up people and other things and change the way we live our lives based on the words of similar, apparently insane people from the past. As if we really needed more proof that they were just crazy. And that, my friends, is just another item in a long list of reasons why believing this nonsense is completely barking mad.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm merely reflecting you.

I'm sorry. Showing you up for the childish and churlish bully you are, I mean that I really am, isn't a very nice thing to try to do to you and I apologize profusely. I therefore beg and plead that nobody take my side in this absurd game of oneupmanship necessitated by my gigantic though imbecilic ego against our dear and sweet TLC. I withdraw all other similar calls for this that I am incessantly want to make in nearly every thread, this being my true reflected nature, and I call on all to point to me as the fool and see in TLC a real beacon of light.

I hope this helps as there are, I am sure, many who would if they were to stumble on this.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I'm sorry. Showing you up for the childish and churlish bully you are, I mean that I really am, isn't a very nice thing to try to do to you and I apologize profusely. I therefore beg and plead that nobody take my side in this absurd game of oneupmanship necessitated by my gigantic though imbecilic ego against our dear and sweet TLC. I withdraw all other similar calls for this that I am incessantly want to make in nearly every thread, this being my true reflected nature, and I call on all to point to me as the fool and see in TLC a real beacon of light.

I hope this helps as there are, I am sure, many who would if they were to stumble on this.

Troll on, Moonie. Keep trollin' on.