What is BELIEF ? (page 8)

Viviane

I want to distance myself from atheists who are on a mission and I am quite happy to entertain neologisms like absentheist to see where it takes us

I would appreciate that as well. Kthnxbye!

Viviane

I'm under no obligation to define it in your terms, as I'm not here to oblige to your activism. I've given you some common traits that theists attribute to their deities. Stop asking for further definition or it becomes clear that you're debating in bad faith

As I said, you've defined nothing. Much like the absentheism thread, it seems you want to seem like you're saying something without doing any of the work that goes into it.

So far you've:

- attempted to use a ridiculous an untrue platitude and call it logic

- make sweeping generalizations about how people think

- complained that I addressed what you wrote rather than what you meant to write

- attempted to tell others what they they and why

- Commonly mistaken objective for subjective and vice versa

I should add to that list "confuse actual debate with agreed upon terms" for "acting in bad faith".

Seriously, until you decide to understand and clearly tell us what you are saying, no real debate or discussion can happen and you are going to continue to think people are acting in bad faith when it's really just a lack of preparedness on your part to discuss your idea.

Viviane

Again, you seem to be taking upon yourself to be the spokesperson for the entire body of atheists.

Of course not. That would be ridiculous and I am frankly shocked that you would even try to make such a childish and ridiculous assertion. That's just comically bad to suggest that. I've no idea how you claiming to know how people feel, people you've never met, and me pointing out how that is impossible, means I am speaking for that person.

I mean, you aren't even getting the PoV correct of who WOULD be speaking for who since you've the person claiming knowledge of other people.

Seriously, is this your first debate with people that don't believe in invisible sky people, one you know, where facts, definitions and reality matter? Or are you trolling your own thread?

I've met enough atheists and read enough material to be sufficiently informed about what atheism stands for.

And only get to speak for exactly one person, yourself. You also have consistently attempted to conflate several points of view and gotten it wrong, so clearly you are NOT in ANY WAY sufficiently informed.

You construct what I debate as an attack on atheism, but you're wrong. I'm questioning what I perceive to be a misleading definition of what atheism is.

It's an attack on "making sense":

Anyway, you're hardly going to convince people to re-define a broad concept with many facets based the bad, very bad, ridiculous, silly and comical arguments you've presented here.

Viviane

You know damn well what I meant and you're simply carrying on a tactic of subversion. At least now others can plainly see what you do. You don't merit my explanation.

Bingo. We get to the root of the problem. You're asking people to assume they they what you mean. When they refuse and ask that you plainly and explicitly define exactly what you mean, you get very upset.

Why?

cofty

Being as vague as possible is a tactic.

When somebody refutes your point you can claim that wasn't what you meant. Then there is always the possibility that somebody will be impressed by your impenetrable prose.

I prefer clear, succinct, honest communication.

Jonathan Drake

Followed by yet another Ad Hominem:
Cofty: stop trying to sound like Deepak Chopra.

Your example here is not an ad hominem. Ad hominem would only be if somebody said something that attacked your character and then used that attack as reason to not listen to you.

Example here:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Ironically what you've done in trying to assert a fallacy is commit one yourself:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

You've done it several times I believe.

If you read some of your posts you also appear to be making broad statements regarding what is or is not (such as regarding radicalism) without backing it up. I think I get where you are coming from with radicalism, but the problem is it's an observably wrong opinion. While you could argue that there are many in such religions that radicalize as Islam who defend it and make distinctions between radical and moderate; you can just look at the Quran. What is the average person going to think when they read it? I mean the normal everyday middle eastern man or woman who isn't a scholar or a professor or teacher. theyll see a book telling them they should kill oppressive unbelievers > they'll see their homes and land that have been obliterated for many years by the western world for various reasons > the west is the oppressor > here's a group of Islam brothers and sisters who agree > jihad.

you can't just form uneducated opinions on things as facts. Books aren't enough. 60% of the Islamic community in the world is illiterate. So what do you think is making them radicalize? It's not just the book they can't read, and it isn't just the leader they don't necessarily trust. It's their FAITH (THEIR BELIEF) and what they see around them. Because it's all they have to make them radicalize.

EdenOne

Viviane: And only get to speak for exactly one person, yourself.

Agreed. So do you.

Viviane: Anyway, you're hardly going to convince people to re-define a broad concept

You clearly miss the point of what is a “debate”. A debate is, by definition, “to discuss (something) with people whose opinions are different from your own”. That’s what we’ve been doing here. Since no one informed me that a voting will follow this debate, it seems that, of us two, only you appear to think that the purpose here is to “convince people” of something. That tells me that you have an agenda, a mission to accomplish. I, personally, don’t.

Viviane: You're asking people to assume they [know] what you mean

Not at all. First, turns out that the person who asked did it as a personal insult. Second, the sentence is in no way hard to understand. I was merely saying that radicalism is different than conviction or passion because it goes beyond ardent defense of one’s points of views versus the point of views of others; it is intolerant in nature, and attempts to uproot from other people’s minds, and from existence itself, competing or non-conforming ideas, often by violent means, going to great lengths to do so. Radicalism aims to change more than values at surface level, it demands change in the fundamental and deeper levels of human thinking, personality and will, and goes to great lengths to achieve that goal, from relentless propaganda to indoctrination to intimidation, to outright violence. Now, the person who asked knows all this, but had no interest in clarification, so his question wasn’t honest.

Viviane: until you decide to understand and clearly tell us what you are saying, no real debate or discussion can happen

No true Scotsman fallacy. We are debating and I have clearly told my ideas. For example, Ruby understood what I was trying to say, agreeing or not with it. But because I point out some things that you don’t find either convincing or convenient, you claim that this can’t be a true debate, and dismiss it.

Viviane: It's really just a lack of preparedness on your part to discuss your idea.

I admit that I’m relatively new to this side of the fence. So what? Do I have to take a Master’s degree before I can start debating any of my ideas? If I had set myself up to teach others, you might rightfully accuse me of lack of preparedness. But this is a public forum, not the academia, and you’re no Bertrand Russell either. Like I said before, I’m here to learn, but not to be lectured.

Viviane: the bad, very bad, ridiculous, silly and comical arguments you've presented here

Your resort to inflammatory, derogatory language and minimization gets tiring, but I think you do it by design, so I won’t reply to you in the same fashion. All I can say is that you’re an expert in Strawman, Red Herring, Declare Victory, Reductio ad Absurdum, use of sarcasm and patronizing techniques in debate. I really can’t compete. You win – because no other result is admissible in your way of debating.

Simon

Eden: either state your case or shut the hell up. Stop squirming like a worm on a hook - either debate the issue or don't, whatever you do though please don't simply debate the debate.

Simon

There is a fundamental falw in your original question. You treat "belief' as it pertains to 'recognizing something is true based on the knowledge of some facts' as the same as 'imagining some supernatural story may be true. They don't deserve equal billing by any means.

I think they are completely different usages of the word. Typical of "believers" to intentionally confuse them.

Belief when it comes to religion and the supernatural should be replaced with 'imagine'.

No one believes that there is a got because there are no facts to base any real belief upon. People imagine there is a god.

We believe that the earth revolves around the sun and that the earth is round because there are facts and evidence that those beliefs are correct.

We can believe things that are debated - some facts may be unclear. Maybe power-lines cause cancer ... that's a belief some people have. There is some data that shows they do and others that show they don't. It's hard to prove a "doesn't" though.

But trying to extend this into religious evidence and suggest that "believing" there is or is't a god is in no way the same. There is no evidence at all for god, simply invented 'facts' from twisted interpretations.

There is no nobility in religious belief - it is based on mental leaps and delusion, nothing more.

I believe that.

Ruby456

eden, radicalism only has a bad name because at the moment it is associated with ISIS. But radicalism apart from ISIS seeks to go the root and often by means of reason. The fact that radicals go too far shouldn't be confused with radicality itself when it is equated with conviction and its root like vitality.

As to agnosticism,atheism and absentheism - I think for those who wish to put atheism on a more affirmative footing agnosticism and absentheism would be a bit namby pamby.

What is BELIEF ?

Share this