What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne 233 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  EdenOne

  You've not defined it.

  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.

  to attack atheism

  Is that how you construct my threads? Attacks to atheism? In Cofty's words, you have some more thinking to do.

  your arrogant and wrong attempt to tell me what I think (...) You should seriously take his advice and stop trying to tell others what they believe

  Your wholesale resort to straw man arguments is tiring. I'm not telling you or any one else what you think or what you believe. You're articulate enough to be able to read and know the meaning of what I'm saying, but you simply chose to distort what I write so that you can argue against the distortion. That's below honesty. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine. Opinions are like asses, everybody has one. As for arrogance, well, your level of contempt indicates that you really should take a good look in the mirror.

  You are pretending to know what people think and how they feel, about people that you've never met, which is not an objective fact and is often only knowable AFTER talking to them

  Again, you seem to be taking upon yourself to be the spokesperson for the entire body of atheists. I've met enough atheists and read enough material to be sufficiently informed about what atheism stands for. And, just in case you missed the news flash, in the other thread "Defender of Truth" pointed out, and I agreed, that "agnostic atheist" is what more closely defines my ideas nowadays. 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.

  Eden
• 

  EdenOne

  Ruby: I'm not against controversy but am against belief systems that are held so tightly as to be suffocating.

  I think you nailed it in the head. This combination of activism, demagogy, arrogance and relentless pig-headed stiffness is derogatory to reason, and does nothing to help theists to snap out of the emotional shell regarding their belief and start using their abilities to reason. To many of them, to think they'll become like this is frightening. As you say - suffocating.

  Eden
• 

  Ruby456

  nic

  Lets face it atheists who are on a mission do have a system [of] beliefs that are connected to theology or that have theological roots.

  This atheist doesn't. If I have an absence of belief or interest in astrology does that mean I have a connection to astrology? Nope.

  an example: If you are compulsively obsessed with disputing astrology and saying that it stands in the way of progress and needs to be eradicated for real progress to occur in the globe then one can see the theological roots of the argument. But lots of great thinkers acknowledge the theological roots of their thinking, so I don't think having theological roots are bad in itself. It is the mission aspect that imo would put such ones amongst those who are speaking from the pistis aspect of belief (or conviction, faith, confidence, trust) rather than doxa (or opinion).
• 

  Ruby456

  nic

  The proof is that when another atheist comes along and seems to be questioning a particular belief system of theirs even in a small way then emotions do seem to get in the way of achieving a balanced and realistic perspective.

  That constitutes proof in your view? Really? I'd call it spirited debate.

  I like spirited debate but raw emotion is just that raw emotion. It s only spirited and there is no debate
• 

  Ruby456

  nic

  yes controversy is fine and there is the added bonus that it helps people become independent thinkers. I am also pushing for more balanced and realistic perspectives because these can help us keep strong emotions from harming ourselves and those we talk to.

  edit: thank you eden
• 

  EdenOne

  I am also pushing for more balanced and realistic perspectives

  Radicalism of any kind results in exacerbated emotions and in vitriolic bigotry. If taken to its ultimate consequences, the result isn't good for humanity. The 20th century was an experiment in secularism, and as a result we found that evil can also rise from secularism just as it can rise from theism, perhaps even more spectacularly. All it takes is to radicalize the ideas. Just because some system of belief is firmly grounded on reason, doesn't entitle its proponents to excuse themselves from humility.

  Eden
• 

  Ruby456

  but edenOne, wouldn't you agree that radicalism stems from conviction and that conviction is healthy at least in some respects even if it stems from beliefs? wouldn't you defend some convictions?
• 

  EdenOne

  Conviction and even passion are one thing. Radicalism is a different animal altogether, because it presupposes the annihilation of its nemesis through the deep, and often cohersive change of its fundamentals. Radicalism isn't concerned with persuasion. It needs to trump, conquest, crush and vaporize any idea that doesn't fit it's tight belief system. Ridiculing the adversary from the onset instead of getting to know what he thinks and why he thinks that way is but a sign of radicalized thinking.

  A prominent atheist, Ed Brayton, wrote that "ridicule may lawfully be employed where reason has no hope to success", and some in this forum seem to wholeheartedly agree with this proposition. However, they should first consider what law allows them to ridicule, and, second, if they have tried hard enough to use reason to conclude that its hopeless to keep using it. Usually they are too lazy, and it doesn't take long for the ridiculing to start. That laziness is also a sign of radicalized thinking.

  Let me give you a small but tragic example of the connection between radical thinking and laziness. In Cambodja, during the Khmer Rouge regime, the government arrested, tortured and executed anyone suspected of not strictly conforming to their rules. One of those rules was that everyone should be forcefully moved to the countryside and live and work in farming communities. Professionals and intellectuals were, thus, automatically considered "enemies of the state". Anyone found requiring glasses was summarily considered a traitor, because, as the government considered, they likely spent too much time reading books instead of working. No government official would consider investigating if such person needed glasses for other sort of reason other than "reading too much and working too less". The result was execution. Radical thinking leads to lazy.

  Eden
• 

  EdenOne

  Because, Cofty, with one sentence you have proven the point I had made previously:

  Eden: Ridiculing the adversary from the onset instead of getting to know what he thinks and why he thinks that way is but a sign of radicalized thinking. (...) Usually they are too lazy, and it doesn't take long for the ridiculing to start. That laziness is also a sign of radicalized thinking.

  And, sure enough, your next post was:

  Cofty: I wonder what that sentence would sound like in English.

  Followed by yet another Ad Hominem:

  Cofty: stop trying to sound like Deepak Chopra.

  And then playing dumb:

  Cofty: I have not got a clue what that sentence is supposed to mean.

  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.

  Eden
• 

  cofty

  You know damn well what I meant

  I have not got the slightest clue what you meant. If sounding profound is more important to you than communicating then carry on talking to yourself.