What Atheists Believe

[therealUT]

I believe that hippies are smelly.
I don't hang out with any hippies.
Absent any evidence in support or opposition to this belief - and in my decision not to seek any means of testing my theory - isn't my belief in smelly hippies a choice?

I choose to believe that Tennessee's football team will be better next year - I can make an equally strong and valid case that it will not - don't I choose to believe the former instead of the latter (note, I am not speaking to the correctness of the belief itself, only its choice)?

I choose to believe that both atheists, theists and everyone in-between have an important perspective to offer in this dialogue - nothing suggests that this should be true, and yet, I am free to believe it or not - my choice.

I choose to believe that people can love and be loved.

If belief is not a choice, their is nothing to debate, really. Some are born believers, and others are not - and its beyond all control as to which we are, without exception.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

These "beliefs" appear to be no more than delusions based on desire.

Beliefs, IMO, are solid, stable, and take a major, life altering event to change.

Beliefs form premises; inferences taken logically from premises are not belief, although they may be founded upon belief.

As I stated earlier, I believe the material, mechanical world exists. From there, I logically deduce many other things.

 

[therealUT]

Ok. We’ll utilize your example. You believe that faith and or belief in an idea or doctrine is inherent. However, as a rational, thinking being, you are constantly interpreting incoming information through your five senses (assuming one of your senses is not impaired). Therefore, the rational frontal lobe of your brain is constantly rationalizing any and all inputs. This can be conscious thought (reading Volnation) or subconscious thought. Conscious rational thought is the basis for all of your beliefs, views, opinions, etc. Our rational thought processes are outlines by the experiences we have had and more importantly our interpretation of those experiences. Since we all have different a priori experiences, we will inevitably have our own unique interpretations of similar experiences. How we choose to interpret our experience is our choice. If you believe that faith/belief is inherent, then I am assuming you consider humans to posse innate knowledge. Innate knowledge is the corner stone of Descartes infamous ontological argue for the existence of God. To apply this to your example, you cannot honestly argue that your disbelief in the spaghetti monster is innate. Rather, your comprehensive life experiences have outweighed the very slim possibility (since you cannot logically prove the actual nonexistence a mythical creature) of that there is indeed a spaghetti monster. That is a rational choice you have made whether you realize it or not. Innate knowledge would not play a role in your decision making.

I agree with you that we choose our actions. However, rational beings choose/influence/make their own interpretations of their experiences.

What definition of "belief" are you working off of? For someone who is speaking in very philosophical terms, I would assume you would be working off of the belief offered in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

Is this correct?

Or, are you working off the Merriam-Webster definition:

a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

If you are working off the latter, then your argument is logical, yet, IMO, unsound, since we do not start with the same basic premise, i.e. the definition of "belief".

 

[emainvol]

What definition of "belief" are you working off of? For someone who is speaking in very philosophical terms, I would assume you would be working off of the belief offered in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:



Is this correct?

Or, are you working off the Merriam-Webster definition:


If you are working off the latter, then your argument is logical, yet, IMO, unsound, since we do not start with the same basic premise, i.e. the definition of "belief".

I think we are working from the first, and many are working from the second.

 

[emainvol]

If belief is not a choice, their is nothing to debate, really. Some are born believers, and others are not - and its beyond all control as to which we are, without exception.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I don't think the last part is necessarily true. Many of the accounts I have read of atheists becoming Christians are essentially quick changes. Take Francis Collins whose story involved something like a waterfall being frozen into three streams that reminded him of the Trinity, and in that he knew that God existed, Jesus died for his sins and he was filled with the Holy Spirit. It wasn't a choice, it was a sudden feeling if he is to be believed. I have close family members who have gone the other direction, and they cannot pinpoint when they had that epiphany, they just realized that they did not believe in God (at least in this form). I just don't think that a choice can be subconscious. If it can, it is certainly not the type of choice we are talking about here.

 

[PKT_VOL]

What definition of "belief" are you working off of? For someone who is speaking in very philosophical terms, I would assume you would be working off of the belief offered in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:



Is this correct?

Or, are you working off the Merriam-Webster definition:


If you are working off the latter, then your argument is logical, yet, IMO, unsound, since we do not start with the same basic premise, i.e. the definition of "belief".

I think I get your point. We are probably just talking right past one another. I assume you are referring to a rational being’s natural/inherent instinct to accept a “psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.” In layman’s terms, an individual cannot possibly believe something in which he/she is aware that the premise of the argument or belief is false. That would be absolutely against human nature (thus being “inherent” to humans). However, the premise of any argument or doctrine is built upon thoughts outlined by your second definition. Premises are built upon individual human experiences and our interpretation of these experiences.

 

[therealUT]

I think I get your point. We are probably just talking right past one another. I assume you are referring to a rational being’s natural/inherent instinct to accept a “psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.” In layman’s terms, an individual cannot possibly believe something in which he/she is aware that the premise of the argument or belief is false. That would be absolutely against human nature (thus being “inherent” to humans). However, the premise of any argument or doctrine is built upon thoughts outlined by your second definition. Premises are built upon individual human experiences and our interpretation of these experiences.

If you can consciously choose how you wish to interpret all of your experiences, then more power to you.

However, as our "interpretation of our experiences" begins so early, when most are for all intents and purposes "pre-cognizant", we never possessed the conscious ability to decide our earliest premises. So, in the very least, the premise of our premises was not decided by "choice".

Second, as much as I would like to interpret things in certain ways, as much control as I would like to exert over my thoughts and feelings, the only real control I have is how I wish to act on or display those thoughts and feelings.

Maybe you are different.

 

[Tenacious D]

These "beliefs" appear to be no more than delusions based on desire.

Beliefs, IMO, are solid, stable, and take a major, life altering event to change.

Beliefs form premises; inferences taken logically from premises are not belief, although they may be founded upon belief.

As I stated earlier, I believe the material, mechanical world exists. From there, I logically deduce many other things.

But what about when a belief is formulated or held in absence of or in opposition to contradictory information - when facts are either silent or suggest the alternative?

What about those times that I don't want to believe, and the only thing that sustains my action(s) are those times when make a conscious choice to continue doing so, often in spite of logic, circumstance or feeling? As an example (although maybe a poor one) - giving money to a homeless person. All of the evidence in the world says that it not only won't help the person, but in fact, might actually cause them greater harm (i.e. buying alcohol / drugs). So, why do I do it? Because I choose to believe that it may provide some benefit, however small or transitory it may be, and while it may seem counter-intuitve, even to my own thoughts and feelings, I give.

I'm not trying to split hairs - but its a point of some importance, I believe (no pun intended).

I agree that some beliefs are deeply rooted, and that's often how they are sustained in the face of evidences to the contrary, but not all - some are much more easily made, amended and held, than others.

There are times when a person chooses to believe or not - I can't agree that its an entirely involuntary process that lies beyond or is necessarily confined within the bounds of either reason or choice. I could be grossly in error, and in fact, I am certain that there are any number of ways to philosophically prove that I am, but that's been my experience, at least thus far.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

I don't think the last part is necessarily true. Many of the accounts I have read of atheists becoming Christians are essentially quick changes. Take Francis Collins whose story involved something like a waterfall being frozen into three streams that reminded him of the Trinity, and in that he knew that God existed, Jesus died for his sins and he was filled with the Holy Spirit. It wasn't a choice, it was a sudden feeling if he is to be believed. I have close family members who have gone the other direction, and they cannot pinpoint when they had that epiphany, they just realized that they did not believe in God (at least in this form). I just don't think that a choice can be subconscious. If it can, it is certainly not the type of choice we are talking about here.

Not saying you're wrong, by any means, but in the case of C.S. Lewis, his conversion took a number of years - from atheism to theism, and only later, to Christianity.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

If you can consciously choose how you wish to interpret all of your experiences, then more power to you.

However, as our "interpretation of our experiences" begins so early, when most are for all intents and purposes "pre-cognizant", we never possessed the conscious ability to decide our earliest premises. So, in the very least, the premise of our premises was not decided by "choice".

Second, as much as I would like to interpret things in certain ways, as much control as I would like to exert over my thoughts and feelings, the only real control I have is how I wish to act on or display those thoughts and feelings.

Maybe you are different.

All that you've come to believe was adopted early on, and all that wasn't is now lost forever - and each is now irreversible?

I respectfully disagree.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

Who are you to decide what constitutes perfection?

I believe that he was referencing the universally accepted definition, and not one of his own creation or limits.

But I'll defer to RDJ, who needs no help from me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

All of the evidence in the world says that it not only won't help the person, but in fact, might actually cause them greater harm (i.e. buying alcohol / drugs). So, why do I do it? Because I choose to believe that it may provide some benefit, however small or transitory it may be, and while it may seem counter-intuitve, even to my own thoughts and feelings, I give.

Do you actually believe that it helps, or do you want to believe that it helps?

 

[Tenacious D]

Do you actually believe that it helps, or do you want to believe that it helps?

I choose to believe that there is a chance that it can help - despite innumerous and unavoidable evidences to the contrary.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[PKT_VOL]

If you can consciously choose how you wish to interpret all of your experiences, then more power to you.

However, as our "interpretation of our experiences" begins so early, when most are for all intents and purposes "pre-cognizant", we never possessed the conscious ability to decide our earliest premises. So, in the very least, the premise of our premises was not decided by "choice".

Second, as much as I would like to interpret things in certain ways, as much control as I would like to exert over my thoughts and feelings, the only real control I have is how I wish to act on or display those thoughts and feelings.

Maybe you are different.

I agree with you as far as age is concerned. Our youngest experiences and interpretations are excluded from our consciousness due to the limitation of our memories. As we mature, we are able interpret our experiences in a more effective manner; hence the reason why many people of forced religious upbringing tend renounce or refine their religious beliefs once they are independent of their family’s sphere of influence. Most of our experiences are so routine and elementary that they are automatically processed in a subconscious manner. For example, when you see an apple, your brain immediately recognizes the image as an apple. If we consider a more conscious thought such as the thought of the spaghetti monster, we can analyze that objectively. It may not seem like you have control over the spaghetti monster concept because the thought is preposterous considering all of your previous experiences. The overwhelming support for your experiences makes for a rather quick judgment. Quick judgments are not equivalent to not having control over your rationalization even though it may seem that way. I’m sure that you exert control over your analysis of various experiences including the political forum here on Volnation. I imagine you still experience (read new arguments) which makes your rethink your original idea on the subject matter. That would a prime example of your exerting your control over your interpretation of a given experience. I could be wrong, but I assume from reading your posts for a long time that you are not as close-minded as many other posters on here. Therefore if you change or refine your thoughts on various subjects, you have to be able to realize that you consciously exert control of your perception of current experiences.

 

[rjd970]

I'll attempt to answer multiple posts.

First, the universe is perfectly random, which is to say, it isn't perfect. The notion of God/Creator is an attempt to assign order to this notion. I really don't see how that can't be understood, and I really can't see how that is spiritual or metaphysical in the least. It is human, and a reasonable solution as to how the creator myths originated. People used to consider the sun as a God, for goodness sake. Same as then, today the only thing missing is the scientific explanation of what is happening (beginnings of the universe, etc). If we are taking history as a model, I am putting my chips in the bin that says rational inquiry will be able to explain these "ultimate" type questions. To write this off as not possible, or even unlikely, is as short-sighted as the creationist pre-Darwin and constitutes a refusal to use history as an example when contemplating these mysteries.

Second, I have posted this before. But we live in a supremely random and capricous universe. We reside in a galaxy that is located in a random location in the known universe, of which we can't comprehend the size or age of (if it even has an "age" or "size", we are, afterall, talking about the origin of time and space itself). On the edge of this galaxy is a common star in a common constellation of planets orbiting around it. On this planet, life can survive on some of its surface, some of the time. We as humans have not even lasted the blink of an eye for the total age of this tiny planet. And the whole thing is set to end in a violent instant when said random star dies out and explodes, if we aren't taken out by random asteroids, comets, etc.

...now to me (or any reasonable person), that is not in the least bit perfect and is nothing but a random occurance, which given the size of the universe is completely reasonable to happen by sheer chance, somewhere (and probably a lot other places as well). This conclusion is not a priori, it is calculated based on our place in the universe when put in perspective...and I find it infinitely more true than that of a prime mover or creator making or knowing this to happen the way it did. Look around, observe, put in perspective what and who we are. I think you will find Ockam beautifully applies when honest about your observation.

Do I wish a creator exists? Sure, it would make things much easier to explain (and argue, since arguments against can be waved off by declarations of how he must behave). However, the universe works just fine without that assumption.

This is very worth the 6 minutes it takes to watch.

YouTube - The Known Universe by AMNH

 

[Tenacious D]

I'll attempt to answer multiple posts.

First, the universe is perfectly random, which is to say, it isn't perfect. The notion of God/Creator is an attempt to assign order to this notion. I really don't see how that can't be understood, and I really can't see how that is spiritual or metaphysical in the least. It is human, and a reasonable solution as to how the creator myths originated. People used to consider the sun as a God, for goodness sake. Same as then, today the only thing missing is the scientific explanation of what is happening (beginnings of the universe, etc). If we are taking history as a model, I am putting my chips in the bin that says rational inquiry will be able to explain these "ultimate" type questions. To write this off as not possible, or even unlikely, is as short-sighted as the creationist pre-Darwin and constitutes a refusal to use history as an example when contemplating these mysteries.

Second, I have posted this before. But we live in a supremely random and capricous universe. We reside in a galaxy that is located in a random location in the known universe, of which we can't comprehend the size or age of (if it even has an "age" or "size", we are, afterall, talking about the origin of time and space itself). On the edge of this galaxy is a common star in a common constellation of planets orbiting around it. On this planet, life can survive on some of its surface, some of the time. We as humans have not even lasted the blink of an eye for the total age of this tiny planet. And the whole thing is set to end in a violent instant when said random star dies out and explodes, if we aren't taken out by random asteroids, comets, etc.

...now to me (or any reasonable person), that is not in the least bit perfect and is nothing but a random occurance, which given the size of the universe is completely reasonable to happen by sheer chance, somewhere (and probably a lot other places as well). This conclusion is not a priori, it is calculated based on our place in the universe when put in perspective...and I find it infinitely more true than that of a prime mover or creator making or knowing this to happen the way it did. Look around, observe, put in perspective what and who we are. I think you will find Ockam beautifully applies when honest about your observation.

Do I wish a creator exists? Sure, it would make things much easier to explain (and argue, since arguments against can be waved off by declarations of how he must behave). However, the universe works just fine without that assumption.

This is very worth the 6 minutes it takes to watch.

YouTube - The KnownUniverse by AMNH

Excellent post, RJD.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

I'll attempt to answer multiple posts.

First, the universe is perfectly random, which is to say, it isn't perfect. The notion of God/Creator is an attempt to assign order to this notion. I really don't see how that can't be understood, and I really can't see how that is spiritual or metaphysical in the least. It is human, and a reasonable solution as to how the creator myths originated. People used to consider the sun as a God, for goodness sake. Same as then, today the only thing missing is the scientific explanation of what is happening (beginnings of the universe, etc). If we are taking history as a model, I am putting my chips in the bin that says rational inquiry will be able to explain these "ultimate" type questions. To write this off as not possible, or even unlikely, is as short-sighted as the creationist pre-Darwin and constitutes a refusal to use history as an example when contemplating these mysteries.

Second, I have posted this before. But we live in a supremely random and capricous universe. We reside in a galaxy that is located in a random location in the known universe, of which we can't comprehend the size or age of (if it even has an "age" or "size", we are, afterall, talking about the origin of time and space itself). On the edge of this galaxy is a common star in a common constellation of planets orbiting around it. On this planet, life can survive on some of its surface, some of the time. We as humans have not even lasted the blink of an eye for the total age of this tiny planet. And the whole thing is set to end in a violent instant when said random star dies out and explodes, if we aren't taken out by random asteroids, comets, etc.

...now to me (or any reasonable person), that is not in the least bit perfect and is nothing but a random occurance, which given the size of the universe is completely reasonable to happen by sheer chance, somewhere (and probably a lot other places as well). This conclusion is not a priori, it is calculated based on our place in the universe when put in perspective...and I find it infinitely more true than that of a prime mover or creator making or knowing this to happen the way it did. Look around, observe, put in perspective what and who we are. I think you will find Ockam beautifully applies when honest about your observation.

Do I wish a creator exists? Sure, it would make things much easier to explain (and argue, since arguments against can be waved off by declarations of how he must behave). However, the universe works just fine without that assumption.

This is very worth the 6 minutes it takes to watch.

YouTube - The Known Universe by AMNH

Is the universe perfectly random? Or, does it just appear random to us?

 

[rjd970]

Is the universe perfectly random? Or, does it just appear random to us?

People see what they want, it doesn't change what it actually is though. The second law of thermodynamics says it is. That, and common sense, works well enough for me.

 

[therealUT]

People see what they want, it doesn't change what it actually is though. The second law of thermodynamics says it is. That, and common sense, works well enough for me.

Entropy is counterintuitive, though; ergo, it is not common sense. One cannot place faith in both thermodynamics and common sense.

 

[rjd970]

Entropy is counterintuitive, though; ergo, it is not common sense. One cannot place faith in both thermodynamics and common sense.

I don't understand your statement? The universe isn't an isolated system. Entropy takes hold and randomness ensues. Conversly, the earth is an isolated system with constant energy input from the sun, so order ensues (and life, and evolution, etc, etc).

 

[therealUT]

1. Any law that states that something will be disordered is a paradox. If it follows the law, then it follows an order; if it does not, then the law is not law. Basically, the same as saying, "This statement is a lie".

2. I think that the entire concept of entropy is just as intellectually lazy and ignorant as the seven day creation myth. What happens when science advances to a point where all forces and particles, even the most minute can be measured? I think "entropy" will then go the way of the way of the dinosaurs.

 

[fl0at]

Conversly, the earth is an isolated system with constant energy input from the sun, so order ensues (and life, and evolution, etc, etc).

Not sure I agree with... almost any of that. What you mean when you say the earth is an isolated system? Does the earth not release chemicals and heat and interact with space? I do believe it does.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[rjd970]

I don't think you fully understand the second law.

1. Randomness does not equal order. Are you really saying that it does?

2. First sentence is just plain silly, and the rest is speculation that you couldn't possibly know. Certainty is very rare in these matters, and it would take some mega evidence and breakthroughs to prove the second law is inaccurate.

 

[fl0at]

I don't think you fully understand the second law.

1. Randomness does not equal order. Are you really saying that it does?

2. First sentence is just plain silly, and the rest is speculation that you couldn't possibly know. Certainty is very rare in these matters, and it would take some mega evidence and breakthroughs to prove the second law is inaccurate.

I didn't understand what he meant at first, either. It is an interesting position, but basically it boils down to: if the tendency toward disorder is always occuring, then the tendency itself is displaying order, even if the outcome is disorder.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

I don't think you fully understand the second law.

1. Randomness does not equal order. Are you really saying that it does?

No. I am saying that a law equals order. Anything following that law is, by definition, ordered. Even if it is "random". Like I said, it is a paradox. "This statement is a lie".

2. First sentence is just plain silly, and the rest is speculation that you couldn't possibly know. Certainty is very rare in these matters, and it would take some mega evidence and breakthroughs to prove the second law is inaccurate.

Mega evidence and breakthroughs will occur, as history has proven. At one point, the minute particles and forces that led scientists to rest with "entropy" will be measurable and, most likely, their actions will then be predictable.

 

[rjd970]

Not sure I agree with... almost any of that. What you mean when you say the earth is an isolated system? Does the earth not release chemicals and heat and interact with space? I do believe it does.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

According to thermodynamics you're correct, I meant the earth is a closed system. However, constant imput from the sun is the reason we have order. Not sure how you can disagree with that.

Thanks for the sanity check. :hi: