Is "lack of belief" a "kind of belief?"

[Typist]

This rather silly debate about whether the latter is a belief or not, comes down to whether you consider "disbelief" a kind of belief or not.

In fairness to atheists, we can agree there are many different kinds of atheists, just as there are theists.

Some people don't believe in god, but they never give it a thought. The subject just doesn't matter to them one way or the other. I would be more open to saying this form of disbelief doesn't carry most of the characteristics of a belief system. Technically, there are beliefs that lead to their disbelief, but they aren't really acting like a believer.

Another kind of atheist is the type who spends every day on forums vehemently expressing a long list of opinions on the subject. It seems truly absurd to say that this flavor of atheist has no atheist beliefs.

Ironically, the quiet kind of atheist would likely agree they have atheist beliefs, while the adamant variety of atheist insists they have no atheist beliefs.

We human beings are endlessly entertaining!

[Arising_uk]

Another kind of atheist is the type who spends every day on forums vehemently expressing a long list of opinions on the subject. It seems truly absurd to say that this flavor of atheist has no atheist beliefs. ...

Theres only been one of those upon this forum to my knowledge and he was more concerned with why humanists were agnostics not with theists. Otherwise you won't find any atheists expressing their opinions other than in response to a theists claims.

[Typist]

Otherwise you won't find any atheists expressing their opinions other than in response to a theists claims.

Ha, ha, ha! LOL! You've achieved a state of perfect delusion!! Congrats, job well done!!!

[Arising_uk]

Otherwise you won't find any atheists expressing their opinions other than in response to a theists claims.

Ha, ha, ha! LOL! You've achieved a state of perfect delusion!! Congrats, job well done!!!

I stand corrected, it should have been "Otherwise you won't find any atheists expressing their opinions here other than in response to a theists claims.".

If you think this not the case then please show me the posts.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Let's just say that when I use the term "believe," as I've said many times, I mean in the sense of actively taking a position which informs my actions.

You have been actively taking positions on this topic for some time, here and elsewhere, as you yourself report.

These positions inform your actions, posting on this subject almost daily.

You have atheist beliefs, and they inform your actions, just as theist beliefs inform their actions.

You are desperately struggling to maintain a difference between yourself and theists that doesn't exist.

You have to keep declaring yourself different, because unless you can make that case, you can't achieve your over riding number one goal, the declaration of fantasy superiority.

It's the same problem some theists get in to when their passion for declaring themselves "saved", in comparison to you who is not "not saved", drives them in to ever more silly statements.

This is why it always comes back to the "theism vs. atheism" debate for you, over and over and over again for years. You need somebody to be superior to, and the traditional target groups have been taken off the table by political correctness etc.

Thought is inherently divisive.

You ain't my shrink, and you do not know what motivates me. Can we begin there?

Second, there are many who believe that it is wrong to do many things (steal, lie, kill, etc.) because they are against God's express commandments. I do not believe that. And yet I do no more stealing, lying or killing than the very best CHristian or Muslim that exists. Now, if my lack of belief in God's commandment somehow "informed" my behaviour on those issues -- rather than some other consideration having nothing whatever to do with God -- would one expect me to be at least somewhat, and more likely a great deal more likely to do those things?

Are you heterosexual only because you believe homosexuality wrong? That would be a strange sort of admission, wouldn't it?

As to your rather bold-faced comment in another post: "Atheists believe that human reason is in a position to analyze the possibility of a God's existence." I have already answered that. In the absolute sense, I said, I am agnostic. That does not make your claim true at all. On the other hand, what of the belief held by certain meso-american natives (Inca, Maya, etc.) who believed with great certainty that it was necessary to sacrifice humans as blood-offerings so that their gods would bring rain or crops, or cause the sun to rise? Well, obviously in the case of the sun, it always works, doesn't it? So it must be true! If the rains or crops fail, however, that is not proof that the sacrifice wasn't necessary -- they rather thought perhaps they hadn't done it right, or there weren't enough hearts ripped from chests or young people drowned in the pool.

But you know what? I think that human reason is absolutely in a position to analyze the possibility of those gods and those requirements. If it were not, then we are crazy, absolutely crazy, not to be sacrificing right up the present moment. After all, those gods could just be holding their fury in reserve!

[Typist]

You ain't my shrink, and you do not know what motivates me. Can we begin there?

This is a public internet forum, and if we're gonna say stuff in public, other folks are gonna say stuff back. Each of us can take responsibility for our own experience of the forum We can begin there.

[evangelicalhumanist]

To continue my rantus interruptus.

The late Cardinal Josef Ratzinger (now the extant Pope Benedict XVI) wrote a long letter, when he was Prefect of the Congration for the Doctrine of the Faith (once called "The Inquisition") called "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons." It is, while trying to sound caring, pretty disgusting to those very homosexual persons that it makes less than acceptable in the eyes of the Church, and therefore presumably the Bishops and their flocks to whom the letter was addressed (it wasn't addressed to homosexuals, of course).

Now, I think it is becoming more and more a matter of reasoning and science to establish that homosexuality, being a perfectly natural, though not terribly common, aspect of human sexuality, must be compassed in the natural order of things. That means, by the way, if you are a believer in God, it must be compassed within that God's plan. So again, I think it perfectly reasonable to conclude -- on the basis of reason alone -- that those like Ratzinger who act on their beliefs, informed by their beliefs, can and do harm others. And Typist, like it or not, it is that which I argue against, and has always been that. I don't care whether dead martyrs for the faith get 72 virgins (not to mention half a dozen boys, when they need a change). If that belief can be used by some to pursuade others to kill themselves while blowing up others, then it is clearly a wrong belief and worthy of as much diatribe as anyone cares to bestow.

Now, it is an interesting fact that many Christians have managed to pursuade themselves that the passages that informed Ratzinger's letter must be human error or ignorance, because they've come to see that that which is perfectly natural cannot, since they believe in a benevolent God, be anathema to Him. And they do that, oddly, using their reason! Against the express word of the book that informs their belief!

[Typist]

And Typist, like it or not, it is that which I argue against, and has always been that.

And EH, like it or not, I will remind you for the 93.45 billionth time that you only write about hateful things when they being done by theists. Therefore, it's fair for us to reason it's not hate you are against, but theism.

Ok, let the back pedaling waffle dancing begin!

[Arising_uk]

You ain't my shrink, and you do not know what motivates me. Can we begin there?

This is a public internet forum, and if we're gonna say stuff in public, other folks are gonna say stuff back. Each of us can take responsibility for our own experience of the forum We can begin there.

In point of fact its a public internet philosophy forum which you keep mistaking for a public internet chatroom or a public internet psychology forum or just a public internet 'new-age' 'mystic' waffle forum.

[Arising_uk]

And EH, like it or not, I will remind you for the 93.45 billionth time that you only write about hateful things when they being done by theists. Therefore, it's fair for us to reason it's not hate you are against, but theism.

Ok, let the back pedaling waffle dancing begin!

Since you'll be the man for this, please tell us what hateful things are being done by the atheists in atheisms name?

[zimmer80203`]

It would have been nice if the author of this post would have included the word GOD in the title. My question for the author of this post is this:

Why believe in anything?

Excuse me, but here is another one:
Is it better to remain in the unknown than to believe? Why?

Finally, is there the possibility that "belief" is an artificial substitute for understanding?

It amazes me how many fundamentalists call someone who doesn't believe as they do an Atheist. Although I consider myself to be spiritual, whenever I challenge any fundamentalists belief I am labeled an Atheist. That's stupid. No wonder so many people have been killed in the name of God as opposed to learning how to get along with one another regardless of their beliefs.

[Typist]

Wow, these are great questions! Well done David.

Why believe in anything?

Indeed, in regards to gods etc, why believe in anything? Why believe for gods? Why believe against gods? Why?

Is it better to remain in the unknown than to believe? Why?

I would argue it is, and here's why. Thousands of years of trying to address this topic through knowing have utterly failed. So, if one wishes to continue the investigation, it's time to try something else. Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, is the definition of stupidity.

Finally, is there the possibility that "belief" is an artificial substitute for understanding?

There sure is. Belief is a way to avoid contact with the real world.

[Arising_uk]

... Belief is a way to avoid contact with the real world.

Is this a belief?



"... Beliefs have to do with the future. The function of belief has to do with the activation of capabilities and behaviours. ..."

"The thing to realise about beliefs is that they are not intended to match exisiting reality. They are intended to provide a motivation and a vision so that your actual behaviour can begin to develop and rise to meet them. ..."
R. Dilts.

The also support ones Identity, which in turn can inform ones beliefs and values.

[Notvacka]

I really should let go of this discussion, but this claim here, makes no sense to me:

Being an agnostic is a sub category of atheism.

I am an agnostic, most certainly, first and foremost, not only about God, but about a lot of things, because in most cases I don't believe true knowledge is possible in reality. But I'm also a theist, because I believe in (a version of) God.

To me, it makes more sense to view both theism and atheism as (possible) sub categories of agnosticism.

Outside of that, we have those (naive) theists who believe they know that God exists, and those (also naive) atheists who believe they know that God doesn't exist.

[Typist]

I really should let go of this discussion, but this claim here, makes no sense to me:

If you learn how, please give a seminar on it! I'm thinking of asking my wife to hit me upside of the head with a frying pan. If your system hurts less than that, I'm in!

Outside of that, we have those (naive) theists who believe they know that God exists, and those (also naive) atheists who believe they know that God doesn't exist.

Really? Who knew??