Fed up of non believers

[mjw47]

Because, if we are going to use somebody's learned opinion as a basis for the meaning of a word, it would make sense to use that of the person who came up with said word, surely. In this case, we are lucky that we are able to identify that person and quote him.

 

Interestingly, his opinion of the meaning of the word he invented differs somewhat from that of the mighty Professor Rowe who appears to have added a bit of his own.

 

So, which one's opinion should we assume to be the "correct" one?

 

Not really, and don't call me Shirley .

 

As you're well aware things progress and additional work is carried out on ideas and theories whether scientific or philosophical.

 

Huxley died in 1895, Rowe came up with his definition sometime in the 70s or 80s.

 

Not that either definition is that far apart.

 

You said earlier that you were in the military, what did they tell you about obeying orders and instructions?

 

Always obey the last order.

[Waldo]

If you can't describe it, then you can't believe or not believe in it.

 

I agree.

 

I think it's the same with this god business. It's trying to stick a label on something, which people do not really have a clear distinct concept of what it is in the first place.

 

People who believe clearly have some concept in mind that they believe in and when they describe it you can then either believe as well or not believe. (Or I suppose not understand the description). Or fail to come to a conclusion and suspend judgement.

 

I imagine there are as many conceptions of 'god' as there are people.

 

How can you know something yet not believe in it? What is this 'act of belief' surely belief is an internal state, no action is necessary.

 

This is another interesting point. What exactly is belief?

 

You could look on it as an internal (mental) state, like a mental model of how we think 'reality' is. I am suggesting that it requires activity to keep such a state persistent; i.e. to reinforce it we keep mentally repeating it, and telling ourselves it is true.

 

Incidentally, another meaning to the word 'religious' is to do something over and over again. We do something religiously etc ... anyhow ...

 

I am also suggesting it may be possible, for individuals with very high levels of self awareness and control over their own mental faculty, not to engage the mental activity that is required to perpetuate beliefs. Not to keep telling themselves stories of how they think reality is.

 

So, someone may have direct experience of something, yet at the same time, have enough mental control, not to engage in telling oneself stories about the reality of that thing.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 14:27 ----------

 

This all assumes that the dragon with pink feathers is a God.

 

There are important distinctions between 'god' and 'dragon with pink feathers'.

 

Dragon with Pink Feathers, is:

 

1. A clear and specific definition.

2. Something we can mentally grasp.

3. Something that is (perhaps) on the other side of the wall.

 

Whereas, with god:

 

1. Could mean different things to different people.

2. It may not be something we can cognitively grasp.

3. It may well not be limited to residing on one side of the wall. It could be both sides. It could be the wall itself. It could be the observer. It could simultaneously be nothing and everything.

 

So the analogy is something of a misleading comparison.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 14:30 ----------

 

Also, another point on the knowing vs believing point. Doesn't knowing preclude believing?

 

You can only believe something is or isn't true, if you do now have knowledge of that thing being true (or false). Or am I conflating belief with the religious concept of faith?

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 14:31 ----------

 

I need to go do some work now...

Edited March 3, 2014 by Waldo

[salsafan]

Is that because our very nature causes us to ask questions, and when we can't find the answer to those questions our imagination fills in the gaps. Its much easier to imagine a God than it would be to imagine the complexities of how the universe and organisms developed.

Whose very nature ?

 

May I refer you to "Please understand me II by David Keirsey". You are born with an instinct which asks you to question things in a rational manner. I was born with an instinct to go with my spirituality, and idealistic manner. (Although some rational people marginalise this as story telling, but it is an importance to preserve humanity, and integrity.)

 

You talk of knowledge in relation to people.

I talk of people in relation to knowledge and the heart.

 

By rational term, you think that an "imagination" comes out of nowhere or that it has no validity in the current world of knowledge and progress. But to many who are spiritual, these imagination, or images that comes out, when you have never been exposed to such things are a natural phenomena itself. As it is a true part of yourself also. In order to nurture this to grow in strength, most spiritualists will indeed meditate. Some ensure they sleep well. As our brain has a great connection to what we do not know. Nurture from our environments actually affects how we develop as humans.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 15:08 ----------

 

...

 

One can be more certain in their beliefs, so one can be a strong theist, or weak atheist etc. But nobody can be without belief and without disbelief simultaneously.

 

Not in the same actual second, but between the thinking, and the typing and analytically quantifying, there is a moment of uncertainty, yes, and even when confirmed what you think is what you feel, is quite harsh, and you could make a split second mistake!

[Cyclone]

I agree.

 

I think it's the same with this god business. It's trying to stick a label on something, which people do not really have a clear distinct concept of what it is in the first place.

 

 

 

I imagine there are as many conceptions of 'god' as there are people.

 

 

 

This is another interesting point. What exactly is belief?

 

You could look on it as an internal (mental) state, like a mental model of how we think 'reality' is. I am suggesting that it requires activity to keep such a state persistent; i.e. to reinforce it we keep mentally repeating it, and telling ourselves it is true.

I disagree, I believe in gravity. But most of the time I don't think about it at all. I certainly don't do anything in order to persist my belief. I also believe in things that don't affect me on a day to day basis, for example I believe that Jupiter is orbit around the sun, I definitely don't think about that very often, and when I do think about it I take no action to reaffirm my belief. It's just part of my welstgung, it's a thing that I 'know', knowledge that I have and thus something that I believe.

 

Incidentally, another meaning to the word 'religious' is to do something over and over again. We do something religiously etc ... anyhow ...

 

I am also suggesting it may be possible, for individuals with very high levels of self awareness and control over their own mental faculty, not to engage the mental activity that is required to perpetuate beliefs. Not to keep telling themselves stories of how they think reality is.

I don't think it's possible to think without holding a mental model of the world, in fact a large part of our brain is dedicated to modelling the world and things in it (particularly animate things). That modelling is vital to interacting with the world.

 

So, someone may have direct experience of something, yet at the same time, have enough mental control, not to engage in telling oneself stories about the reality of that thing.

I don't think that's possible.

 

There are important distinctions between 'god' and 'dragon with pink feathers'.

 

Dragon with Pink Feathers, is:

 

1. A clear and specific definition.

2. Something we can mentally grasp.

3. Something that is (perhaps) on the other side of the wall.

 

Whereas, with god:

 

1. Could mean different things to different people.

So could 'dragon'. All you're doing is saying that a description is required in order to have a conversation about the same thing.

2. It may not be something we can cognitively grasp.

If you can agree on a definition then you've grasped it.

3. It may well not be limited to residing on one side of the wall. It could be both sides. It could be the wall itself. It could be the observer. It could simultaneously be nothing and everything.

You're being told it's on the other side of the wall. Where else you think it might be is irrelevant. The point is that someone is telling you it's over there. But they lack evidence.

Also, another point on the knowing vs believing point. Doesn't knowing preclude believing?

No, claiming that you 'know' is just a stronger form of claiming that you 'believe'.

 

You can only believe something is or isn't true, if you do now have knowledge of that thing being true (or false). Or am I conflating belief with the religious concept of faith?

 

Possibly you are. I don't see why a belief in things that you have experienced or 'know' would be unusual... In fact, I'd suggest the opposite. Not believing in things that you have experienced or have knowledge of would be very strange.

Like not believing in gravity, whilst being under it's influence...

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 15:20 ----------

 

Not really, and don't call me Shirley .

 

As you're well aware things progress and additional work is carried out on ideas and theories whether scientific or philosophical.

 

Huxley died in 1895, Rowe came up with his definition sometime in the 70s or 80s.

 

Not that either definition is that far apart.

 

You said earlier that you were in the military, what did they tell you about obeying orders and instructions?

 

Always obey the last order.

 

From your legal chain of command. Not from some randomer who starts shouting about what you should do.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 15:23 ----------

 

Atheism means without belief, or disbelieving, because I think they are the same.

 

What atheism doesn't mean is belief that there is no god, although it is a subset of disbelief, and somebody who claimed to believe there is no god is certainly an atheist.

 

Belief is a binary position, so there is only a need for two words.

 

One can be more certain in their beliefs, so one can be a strong theist, or weak atheist etc. But nobody can be without belief and without disbelief simultaneously.

 

You're saying that "not believing there is a god" is not the same as "believing there is no god".

 

If I don't believe that you have any apples, then I believe that you have no apples.

 

There is no middle ground where I can not believe you have apples, but not also believe that you have no apples...

 

To be an atheist is to believe that there is no god.

 

Not having considered the concept and thus neither believing nor disbelieving does not make you an atheist.

[ivanava]

Technically, I guess you are correct here. But I was using agnostic in the a(without), gnostic(knowledge) sense of the word.

 

Gnostic means relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.

Esoteric means intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest: esoteric philosophical debates

 

That would mean only a small percentage of theists are Gnostic, it would be a reasonable assumption that the pope is a Gnostic theist.

 

Which would mean someone that is Agnostic would have no esoteric mystical knowledge, yet they claim to believe that nothing can be known of the nature of God. So their belief isn't based on knowledge, it is based on lack of knowledge.

Edited March 3, 2014 by ivanava

[salsafan]

Gnostic means relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.

Esoteric means intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest: esoteric philosophical debates

 

That would mean only a small percentage of theists are Gnostic, it would be a reasonable assumption that the pope is a Gnostic theist.

 

Which would mean someone that is Agnostic would have no esoteric mystical knowledge, yet they claim to believe that nothing can be known of the nature of God. So their belief isn't based on knowledge, it is based on lack of knowledge.

 

But do you also not see that by you forcing knowledge upon them that you are also marginalising them and changes their beliefs too? This is the danger and why others react back emotively.

 

As much as I do not break your worldview by discrediting your rational mind, others have an idealistic mind, and it is communicated in a different way.

 

Previously you stated directly that language is a form of communication, but in reality, a language limits a person's thoughts and feelings. You already groomed yourself, and your brain also by using a particular language and it moulded your neural network a particular way. Whereas I mentioned the Japanese scientist is because Japanese as a language is very different to English itself. In knowing that a scientist of another language writes and interpret science in another method is quite enlightening to see.

 

People may think that they are not influenced by the previous generation and the culture, but they do, and are. Whether it is inherited through DNA or not. Even some scientists state that cells have memories. The question is whether they also hold memories of previous generation or the previous experience of the person or not.

 

I like to ask you, can you phantom the idea that "knowledge" can exists within you as a person biologically and not through books ?

[ivanava]

That's not the logical answer. Lacking any evidence or prove for a pink dragon, you should conclude that there is no pink dragon.

You will of course be open minded enough to accept any future evidence they might produce, but in the meantime, don't go around accepting the possibility of things that don't fit in with the world as we can observe it and have no evidence or proof to support them.

 

Why would you conclude that there isn't a dragon, if you haven't been behind the wall?

You would simply not know if there is a pink dragon behind the wall, unless you was off the opinion that such things are impossible and then you could conclude that there isn't a dragon behind the wall, simply based on the opinion that it isn't possible. To claim there isn't one but accept that its possible that there could be one is contradictory.

Edited March 3, 2014 by ivanava

[milquetoast1]

You're saying that "not believing there is a god" is not the same as "believing there is no god".

 

If I don't believe that you have any apples, then I believe that you have no apples.

 

There is no middle ground where I can not believe you have apples, but not also believe that you have no apples...

 

To be an atheist is to believe that there is no god.

 

Not having considered the concept and thus neither believing nor disbelieving does not make you an atheist.

 

So, do you believe I have any apples?

 

If you don't know, then you neither believe that I do or believe that I don't.

 

I don't believe there is no god, but I am still an atheist.

Edited March 3, 2014 by milquetoast1

[Waldo]

Oh god. Quote fest! Will just address your first bit. (am really trying hard to do some work, think am going to have to router block SF for the day).

 

I disagree, I believe in gravity. But most of the time I don't think about it at all.

 

Are you though? Are you believing in something when you are not thinking of, or otherwise being aware of that thing?

 

When a person is having an internal mental dialog and telling themselves (even without conscious intent) "I believe in god", they are doing something (mentally).

 

When a person is not giving it any thought or attention one way or the other, they are not engaging the 'belief muscle' of the mind.

 

I suspect out disagreement revolves around the definition of the word 'believe'?

Edited March 3, 2014 by Waldo

[ivanava]

 

 

There are important distinctions between 'god' and 'dragon with pink feathers'.

 

Dragon with Pink Feathers, is:

 

1. A clear and specific definition.

2. Something we can mentally grasp.

3. Something that is (perhaps) on the other side of the wall.

 

Whereas, with god:

 

1. Could mean different things to different people.

2. It may not be something we can cognitively grasp.

3. It may well not be limited to residing on one side of the wall. It could be both sides. It could be the wall itself. It could be the observer. It could simultaneously be nothing and everything.

 

So the analogy is something of a misleading comparison.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 14:30 ----------

 

Also, another point on the knowing vs believing point. Doesn't knowing preclude believing?

 

You can only believe something is or isn't true, if you do now have knowledge of that thing being true (or false). Or am I conflating belief with the religious concept of faith?

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 14:31 ----------

 

I need to go do some work now...

I have no idea, its all very confusing.