I believe there's no rhinoceros in my coat closet

[StregaModerator]

Oddly, I think fear has a lot to do with the levels of religiosity any community might display.  If you are in America, your first fear is that your health will not be protected.  Many Americans live one accident/illness away from bankruptcy- an insidious fear that permeates everything and having a pal in authority, or praying to a god if you prefer, is an understandable reaction.

If you are fortunate enough to live in a country that has public health services, you do not know this fear.

Now we have hurricane fear, and also Trump/North Korea fear to add to the bucket.  I contend that without such fear, there would be a whole lot less religiosity.

[StregaModerator]

@bellerose Atheists just want to look like they have elite knowledge?  Wow that’s a weird position to take!  Is that really how you view all atheists?  That’s a bit tragic really.  When you thought you were an atheist, did that make you feel you had elite superiority?

Personally, I think all the god stuff is just bum fluff – I don’t think of it as superior or inferior – just irrelevant.  I do, however, feel quite strongly that personal religion is just that – personal.  I take issue with anyone that tries to impose their religiosity on others not of their sect.

I moderate here to help give those atheists who suffer from overreaching religiosity some kind of refuge, or place of safety to express themselves, or even just to read others opinions that help them feel less isolated.

When non-atheists post to an atheist forum, I watch their posts very carefully – not to bash religion, simply to help keep one of the few safe places for atheists, safe.  If someone comes here to express their love of their god, or other religious devotion, I wonder to myself why they aren’t on one of the hundreds of thousands of religious forums, where such comments would be welcome.

We promote tolerance of people here, but not tolerance of opinions – and in particular, of those that conflict with the purpose of our atheist forum.

Having said that, we also understand that some who purport to carry religious views, may actually be struggling with them in some way, and exploring other thought processes.

Everyone is welcome, but not if they want to bash atheists.  That’s not happening on my watch.

 

• This reply was modified 7 years, 1 month ago by  Strega.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 1 month ago by  Strega. Reason: to address the usual typos

[Dang MartinParticipant]

Belle Rose wrote:

@regthefronkeyfarmer

“I believe in God” they are informing us that they have giving their cognitive assent to the proposition that “I understand that (a specific) God exists”. They are making a knowledge based claim because they are, by default, asserting that their statement is “True”.

It’s the same thing when you say you see no evidence for any gods. You are also making a knowledge claim by asserting your statement to be true, and yet you cannot define what you mean by “evidence.” So no matter how you slice it – if you “believe” in God or you don’t, we are all deciding that based on our subjective opinions. Atheists just want to look like they have some sort of elite knowledge of the subject but really – NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE. So therefore all we ALL have is our subjective evidence based on OUR personal life knowledge and experiences.

Elite knowledge? Unless someone outright declares that they know, for a fact, that there is absolutely no god of any kind, I don’t think it’s a declaration of knowledge.

I’ll try to put you in my shoes, since I can only speak for myself.

Suppose you’re walking down the street, just minding your own business. I approach and say that I need to ask you a very important question. “Do you believe in Gezcabr?”

Now, you’ve never even HEARD of Gezcabr before. You don’t know what this might be, so you ask me to explain it. I then proceed to tell you a story that actually requires lots of “teaching” as a child in order to believe. In other words, it’s not something that just anyone is capable of believing.

After considering this, you tell me, “No, I do not believe in Gezcabr.”

QUESTIONS:

1. Are you declaring absolute knowledge?

2. Are you making a knowledge claim?

3. Are you behaving in an elite manner?

 

Again, I cannot speak for anyone else, but that summarizes my experience. I had NO prior knowledge of this god named Yahweh, Christianity, or the bible. I was approached with it and presented it. I initially said no, I do not, for I have not ever HEARD of this before. I looked into it, by reading the bible and observing how the Christians in my community were behaving.

With that, I concluded that I see NO REASON why I should believe it.

Is this a claim of absolute knowledge? No, it is not. I just don’t see why I should buy the claims that are presented by Christians, as well as those claims that are in the bible. A talking snake is a hard sell for someone who has not been indoctrinated.

Is this elite behavior? Not really, although it was unique where I lived. Those who were “elite” were those who sincerely believed that they had a personal connection with the creator of the universe, and that this being was in an eternal struggle with the ultimate evil, battling to the end of time for ownership of THEIR souls.

Do I know that there is no god? No. All I have is probability. I do not know that Unicorns do not exist, and I cannot prove that they do not exist, even though I do not hold the burden of proof, for I am not making the positive claim.

Am I open to being wrong? Absolutely. The probability, however, shrinks with every day. Christians have had almost 53 years to convince me of why I should believe what they believe. They’ve told me of eternal damnation if I do not believe, but I don’t hold a belief in any of these supernatural worlds, so that threat does not motivate me.

They’ve told me that I should “believe, just in case,” which is Pascal’s Wager, but I do not see how this should work. They offer this up, with the assumption that THEIR god is the ONLY god, and that I have only two options. However, I recognize that there are thousands of other religions on the planet, as well as over 50,000 brands of Christianity available for purchase. What if the person asking me to make the wager is WRONG? What if the Mormons are correct? The Catholics? Protestants? Four Square? Evangelicals? The list is never-ending, and it is impossible to give all of them the proper consideration in order to make an educated decision.

Anyone who declares to have knowledge in either direction is GNOSTIC. At best, they are dishonest. At worst, they’re bat-shit crazy. Nobody can KNOW. The Theist believes. The Atheist does not believe.

I can only speak for me, in that I have never made a positive claim. I have no belief. There is no “elite” nature to my position. As for others on here, maybe I’ve missed something, but I don’t see anyone carrying on with their elite knowledge, or declarations of that kind.

[.Spectator]

RE: Wow that’s a weird position to take! Is that really how you view all atheists? That’s a bit tragic really.

I guess I should specify that of course not ALL atheists. But prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris….Yeah they all have giant chips on their shoulders. Calling theists as if suffering from some kind of mental disorder. They even blatantly say it! Fuck that.

[.Spectator]

Now, you’ve never even HEARD of Gezcabr before. You don’t know what this might be, so you ask me to explain it. I then proceed to tell you a story that actually requires lots of “teaching” as a child in order to believe. In other words, it’s not something that just anyone is capable of believing.

I don’t buy it. That sort of ridiculous argument is not an apples to apples comparison. You live in America and have some semblance of an education as to what Christians believe. You don’t believe it. That’s fine. But trying to wrap it up in this sort of twisted word game is just a way to evade and deflect.

[Dang MartinParticipant]

Belle Rose wrote:

Now, you’ve never even HEARD of Gezcabr before. You don’t know what this might be, so you ask me to explain it. I then proceed to tell you a story that actually requires lots of “teaching” as a child in order to believe. In other words, it’s not something that just anyone is capable of believing.

I don’t buy it. That sort of ridiculous argument is not an apples to apples comparison. You live in America and have some semblance of an education as to what Christians believe. You don’t believe it. That’s fine. But trying to wrap it up in this sort of twisted word game is just a way to evade and deflect.

Not really evading or deflecting.

The first time I heard of this god, who they said was named “god,” I had NOT heard of this god. I had never been to church. I did not know of the bible. I had never seen prayer, until they decided to pray before lunch, and that was the most confusing thing ever. So please DO NOT assume that I had some kind of education as to what Christians believed.

I was a kid in first grade. I knew NOTHING. Absolutely nothing.

What I presented was not a word game. It was an attempt to put you in my shoes, where someone is making a claim that there’s this “god,” and you put your hands together and talk to it, and it’s watching you all the time. It sounded foreign to me, and I wanted you to try to understand how it felt for me to hear this for the first time.

To be clear, again, I was COMPLETELY lacking in childhood indoctrination. My parents did not tell me it was good or bad. My family never brought it up at all.

I have not evaded or deflected anything. I’m attempting to get you to understand. Unfortunately, it has become VERY clear that you are not capable of understanding, and that you have unfounded assumptions and a misguided image of what Atheists are, or what they’re about, even though you’ve been spending time here, and should have an understanding.

Conversely, when I was in first grade in the early 70s, there WERE no forums. There was no readily-available information. Nobody sat me down and explained it. The other kids presented it, and when I did not understand it, they judged me before casting me out.

I took THEIR abuse, but I will not take any from you.

If I am evading or deflecting, then you may ask me to CLARIFY.

I’m going to do that now. I want you to CLARIFY what I am evading, and what I am deflecting.

Until you do that, we have nothing more to discuss.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

It’s the same thing when you say you see no evidence for any gods. You are also making a knowledge claim by asserting your statement to be true, and yet you cannot define what you mean by “evidence.”

Nonsense. I am not claiming to have knowledge because I don’t see any evidence. I am saying the exact opposite. I am saying I have no knowledge of any god, including your one, which you cannot even define and that is why I do not believe it. Your claim that your God exists implies it is a statement of truth. My claim not to know of any evidence does not imply no gods exists.

My “opinion” is based upon the complete lack of evidence for the claim that “God(s) exist”. I have no knowledge, elite or otherwise of any of the gods mentioned by mankind. Yours is personal opinion which you have admitted is based upon your interpretation of a subjective experience.

So therefore all we ALL have is our subjective evidence based on OUR personal life knowledge and experiences.

What do you consider “knowledge” to be? Was my definition wrong. My understanding of how the world works is based upon objective evidence.

Have you still not been able to work out what we mean by evidence? Why is it such a problem for you? If any theist can show me their evidence and it leads me to their God then I will accept it. They don’t have any to make their extraordinary claim justifiable.  Your personal opinion is not objective evidence.

Regard “prominent atheists” what are the “giant chips” that they carry on their shoulders? You have made this assertion before but failed to explain how or where. Is it just your opinion or can you justify your claim?

This is an atheist website. We consider claims to be in telepathic communication with the Creator of the Universe or claims to be an immortal to be extraordinary claims. As theists cannot justify why we should believe them, we can only conclude that their belief is delusional. Can you not understand why?

but really – NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE.

I agree. Nobody has claimed to know for sure. That would be a knowledge based claim. We just don’t believe there are any gods and we don’t believe what you believe. I am glad you say that you don’t know for sure. That means you are open to listening to your own doubt and maybe you are willing to reason your way towards working out why you have those doubts.

Objectivity will award beliefs with respect. If that objective process does not happen then “I believe in God” remains a report on ones state of mind. Theists (or political commentators) who cannot justify their beliefs or get annoyed when we subject them to critical analysis, then they should keep them to themselves.

I stand by that.

[.Spectator]

@Dang Martin – forget what I said to you. I’m sorry. This actually isn’t about you and isn’t personal at all. It’s a storm that’s been brewing for the past 5 years and I didn’t mean to catch you up in the middle of it. Just forget it. My issue is not with you but with similar arguments like yours that I am now really angry about.

I understand everything you said and I was in your shoes too so I get it.

[Nerdy KeithParticipant]

Honestly belief is just means accepting something without evidence. It’s really not that loaded at all. No need to think too deeply into the word belief.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Not really Keith. Take these 2 scenarios.

Me: I believe the moon is travelling away from the Earth at a rate of 2.5 inches per annum.

Anon: That is an extraordinary knowledge based claim (that is how Anon speaks). Can you justify it with independent evidence that I can look at?

Me: Yes, Apollo 11 left mirrors on the moon and scientists at Texas University fired laser beams at it. They measured the return times (under 2 seconds) for over 40 years and discovered that the moon was indeed travelling away from us. I can get you more evidence if you wish and also peer reviewed evidence that supports my belief.

Second Scenario:

Theist: I believe God exists.

Me: That is an extraordinary knowledge based claim (that is how I doth speak). Can you justify it with independent evidence I can look at?

Theist: I had a personal revelation or experience. I heard gods voice. I believe it could only be God.

Me: Ok, but that is only your personal opinion. It does not justify being called knowledge. It will never be anything more than your subjective opinion.

Theist. I don’t care. I know it to be true for me so I believe it.

Now I know people will say “That’s not the same thing”. They can say whatever they want but they need to stop insisting that “all beliefs are equally valid” just because they are beliefs or that their belief is justified to be called “knowledge” when they have only made assumptions about a personal experience.

In common parlance the word “belief” is used to express an opinion – I believe the sun will shine later”, to express a preference – I believe I will have a beer, to express ones understanding of something – I believe the moon is moving away from Earth and to declare a statement of cognitive assent to a proposition – I believe a particular god exists.

It is easy to see that they are not the same. The belief the sun will rise tomorrow is objectively testable. The belief that a human has become an immortal is not.

[UnseenParticipant]

Nerdy Keith wrote:

Honestly belief is just means accepting something without evidence. It’s really not that loaded at all. No need to think too deeply into the word belief.

No, you’re actually defining “faith,” which is the KIND of belief which isn’t evidence- or logic-based. In the case of the rhinoceros, it’s both evidence- and logic-based. The evidence is what we know about the laws of the universe. By applying logic, I can with full justification disbelieve in the rhino.

Of course, our belief in the laws of the universe is partly faith-based. We assume the universe is regular and predictable and consistent with known physical laws. We believe this because the alternative—that the universe isn’t regular and predictable and lawful (the one religious people seem to favor)—makes real knowledge impossible. In the sense that there’s no rational alternative, our belief is unavoidable. That isn’t real faith, if you ask me.

I guess my point is this: While you can maintain that you have never thought about the existence of God and really have no opinions on the matter, fine. It feels disingenuous and I think most folks assume that you’re life in which you are acting as if God doesn’t exist speaks louder than your words, because if you really believed in God, you’d have duties like evangelizing, tithing, attending church services, prayer, etc. (BTW, by that standard many people who claim to be religious don’t truly believe in God, either.)

There is nothing wrong with disbelieving in God as long as, as with the rhinoceros, you have good reasons for doing so.

Sure, someone could claim that my disbelief in the rhinoceros is a belief based on faith, but what’s wrong with having faith in physical laws and logic? One needn’t be defensive about disbelieving in magic.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 1 month ago by  Unseen.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 1 month ago by  Unseen.

[Dang MartinParticipant]

The word “believe” is more destructive than one might think. Not looking more deeply into it will produce deadly consequences.

I was reminded of how destructive it can be last night, watching a video of Bill Maher, where he’s talking about Conservatives who “do not believe in climate change.”

When he says it that way, it puts things like climate change into the realm of belief, where one can have a belief, and that belief MUST be respected, because it’s just as valid as the other person’s belief.

This achieves nothing.

This gets combined with the misleading “fair and balanced” discussions, such as what Fox News promotes. On the surface, “fair and balanced” sounds good. However, what it really means is that they take the 99%+ of science that supports the facts of climate change, then they take the -1% that does not support it, and they present it in a way where both sides carry equal weight. This is highly dishonest.

When this happens, it’s like a coin toss, or a 50/50 scenario where there is nothing important really happening, and it all comes down to what you believe. So if you’re on this side that believes X, then you are stupid. But if you’re on that side that believes Y, then you have an evil political agenda. Both sides of this argument, which should not be happening in the first place, is all about whether or not someone is stupid, or whether or not someone has some kind of political agenda. This does NOTHING to answer important questions, and does NOTHING to address a serious issue.

This bullshit needs to be called and it needs to be stopped.

The hard truth of the matter is that there is scientific evidence that goes back to 1820, when a correlation between climate and CO2 was discovered. Scientific facts, which are literally life or death in nature, are being disregarded in favor of what a certain group of people BELIEVES.

Scientific facts DO NOT CARE about what a person believes. These facts do not change based on a vote, or a committee decision.

So either this global warming IS scientifically happening, and something serious needs to be done about it NOW, OR there is NO scientific proof that this is happening, and we can go about business as usual.

To bring this around to RELIGIOUS concerns, there are those American Christians who declare that they BELIEVE that climate change CANNOT possibly be real, for their god declared that he would not flood the earth again. This might make them feel good, but we have no evidence that the earth was flooded like that in the first place, let alone that a god of ANY kind did it.

In essence, it appears that Mankind will keep moving forward as usual, marching to their collective grave, with the BELIEF that climate change is not happening, combined with the BELIEF that there is a god who will not let it happen anyway, so why worry? Just pray.

THIS IS THE CHALLENGE PRESENTED BY THE WORD “BELIEVE.”

What we need to do about this is simple.

1. Tell the religious that we have to do what is right, even if they are praying, and even if they believe something.

2. Take the word “BELIEVE” out of the discussion completely, because the presence of the word allows for belief to be deemed important.

3. Look at hard scientific evidence, and make the proper decisions based on this evidence.

It is BELIEF that is allowing this game to continue, in the name of increased profits.

Can Mankind overcome belief? Can Mankind put human life on earth over profits?

I do not have the confidence that the right decisions will be made in time. By the time talk of BELIEF stops, it might be too late.

My final request, before I die, would be to create a tombstone for all of Mankind. It would read:

“THEY BELIEVED”

They didn’t think. They didn’t discuss the issues properly. They didn’t respect peer-reviewed scientific data. They didn’t take action quickly enough. They allowed corporate profits, religious beliefs, and opinions to get in the way of time-sensitive action. In the end, like Jews in the death camps, they used their final breaths to beg their god of choice to save them.

If you want me to trust that YOUR god will NOT allow this mass-extinction to take place, then understand that I will need HARD PROOF that this is true. Pointing to a bible verse is not good enough, for the bible is not proof. It is the claim.

I know this is a lot to take in. THE POINT of this is to show how the word BELIEVE should not be dismissed. It is a powerfully destructive word, and its mere presence in some discussions is all that it takes to completely derail those discussions. For certain things, such as climate change, the word BELIEVE should NOT be used or allowed. It muddies up the discussion, to the point that things may not get addressed in time.

Scientific claims are peer-reviewed, and are based on the NATURAL world.

Religious claims are unfounded, and are based on the SUPERNATURAL world.

They should have nothing to do with each other, at all.

It is, or it is not. What someone believes does not matter.

[Dang MartinParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

but what’s wrong with having faith in physical laws and logic? One needn’t be defensive about disbelieving in magic.

I just wrote a long rant about this, before seeing this.

What’s wrong with having faith in physical laws and logic is that faith is not required.

Why muddy the waters by introducing faith or belief into these areas?

[UnseenParticipant]

Dang Martin wrote:

Unseen wrote:

but what’s wrong with having faith in physical laws and logic? One needn’t be defensive about disbelieving in magic.

I just wrote a long rant about this, before seeing this. What’s wrong with having faith in physical laws and logic is that faith is not required. Why muddy the waters by introducing faith or belief into these areas?

But we do believe in physical laws with a kind of faith, in much the same way we have faith that our day-to-day experiences are not a dream or an artificially-induced illusion  (as in the Matrix movies). There’s always that possibility of Descartes’ Evil Genius.

We believe in physical laws not because we know them to be true to a certainty, but because of the mountain of evidence behind them and because you need to believe something in order to get off the dime. Our understanding (best guess) is that the physical laws we know today weren’t always in effect. They evolved at some time after the big bang. In other words, it’s a faith-held belief that they are regular and always in operation, even though, since they came to us after a change, the future may hold changes as well.

Then you have certain phenomena which seem to defy what we know of physics. Interaction between particles over an astronomical distance. Particles seeming to travel faster than light.

When you calculate a trajectory, you don’t figure in the possibility of a blip in the operation of physical laws, and to what else can you attribute that confidence other than having faith/trust that such variations won’t happen?

[BryceParticipant]

The reason why I agree with the dictionary definition of atheism is because I don’t have a positive belief, or an actively held disbelief in all the possible things one could imagine. I don’t disbelieve in The Great Big Gig in the Sky just as I don’t disbelieve in the next imagined deity or supernatural being that someone else supposes to exist. Were not believing in something the same as believing a thing to not be real (hence forth a disbelief) I would have a disbelief (believing a thing not to be) in all the various imaginations possible. Do I have a belief that Carl Sagans Garage Dragon does not exist? Of course not! I don’t have any reasons for not believing in this dragon because I don’t need to maintain why I don’t hold the positive belief in it. I don’t believe in magical Hermitages, Dryads, or the Lochness monster, either. If I had a belief that these things are not real, wouldn’t I have a clearer conception of each thing is disbelieve in? The various imaginations of Big Foot is a good example. Would I not disbelieve in each version of the same myth? I don’t believe in the Volcano god form of Jahovah, just as I don’t believe in the extra-universal, personal saviour version. I don’t have a belief for each of these things not existing, and I don’t need to have fully fleshed out evidences or arguments against them because the default position is not believing in them. Just as Reg posited, I’m not a non-stamp collector; it’s the default position. Were most people engaged in the collecting of stamps, however, I might then identify as a non-stamp collector, but it still wouldn’t be my hobby and collecting stamps wouldn’t not-be-a-hobby.

[Author]

Posts