A-believerism or A-deism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2013, 07:32 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
This forum has had multiple polls/threads on the subject and many would identify themselves as agnostic to deism. I'm not sure if that is an actual majority but it seems a strong trend in secular/rational atheists communities is "agnostic-atheism." It's a lot of statements on believing there is no God, believing the religions in the world are irrational/unfounded/wrong, but not saying they have an utmost certainty of knowledge to know that no God, such as a deistic one, exists.

If someone told me they were deist and believed God was a prime mover but not effecting life in anyway since... I would tell them they have no reason to believe that concept of God or any other; but I wouldn't be worried that they have such beliefs. The Carl Sagan type of response from The Pale Blue Dot of saying, Why not go just one step further, and see that the universe is what it is as we know of it to this point.. and that there is no evidence for or reason for a being to have existed to create it or other universes if they exist.(This same case goes for pantheists)

As for the Russell tidbit.. I don't see the point. Commenting on something from a renowned philosopher being beneath him from when he was 18? Of course it was, he was just a young adult at that stage. Not all great minds flower at early stages of life, it's a bizarre petty point.

I would say you are right to your whole point though... because I don't see the reason in proclaiming A-deism nor think that it's an actual issue that is in need of addressing at this stage.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like ClydeLee's post
19-02-2013, 07:35 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
I see two kinds of "believing":
The kind that causes issues and holds societal evolution back, and the kind that doesn't really affect anything but the believer.
The former is what people refer to as "fundies", the latter may look crazy to me, but it doesn't really cause any issues and hence I have no problems with it.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
19-02-2013, 07:52 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(19-02-2013 07:35 AM)Dom Wrote:  I see two kinds of "believing":
The kind that causes issues and holds societal evolution back, and the kind that doesn't really affect anything but the believer.
The former is what people refer to as "fundies", the latter may look crazy to me, but it doesn't really cause any issues and hence I have no problems with it.
I see two kinds of believing also...
Im a more hardcore atheists...I would call myself a antireligionists if that was a word.

Fundamentalism is the main problem, yet moderate believers can also be...most moderate would rather side with the fundamentalists over issues then with an atheist or another minority group. They are the ones enabling the rise of fundamentalism.

Example: Middle East, you hardly ever hear protest of suicide bombers or stoning of children..yet most Muslims
would consider themselves moderate.

There is a lot more examples of this, even in western societies.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 08:54 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(19-02-2013 07:52 AM)StorMFront Wrote:  ...
They are the ones enabling the rise of fundamentalism.

Example: Middle East, you hardly ever hear protest of suicide bombers or stoning of children..yet most Muslims
would consider themselves moderate.

There is a lot more examples of this, even in western societies.

Perhaps, but we also have many examples of outcry from the moderates.
Examples:
9/11
The shooting of Malala Yousufzai


But not enough, maybe.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 09:03 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(19-02-2013 01:01 AM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  Atheists seem more interested in being a-believerists than a-deists. Am I right?
No, at least not in my case.

My personal interests don't play much of a role in my choice of non-belief. It all comes down to the amount of supporting evidence and as far as I know, there ain't any for both theistic and deistic deities.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
19-02-2013, 09:44 AM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2013 11:08 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...t-is-faith

I can't stand faith. It is a useless and outdated concept that the world would be better off without.

Having said that, I do not care what the individual beliefs of any person are. As long as they leave me out of it and do not ask for their beliefs to be given precedent over anyone else's or that any laws/rules/regulations be specially adapted so as to accommodate their beliefs.

I can no more refute the claim deists make than most other religious zealots. But it too is irrelevant. The Deist has the burden of proof and until such time as they demonstrate it, they are a slightly more rational version of a theist.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
19-02-2013, 11:11 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(19-02-2013 01:45 AM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  So you're saying that, for example, you have no problem with "faith" per se, just with the irrational extremes some people take it to?
I too will avoid speaking for all atheists (because I am unable to), but many atheists I know share DLJ's sentiments; in that they couldn't care less what a person believes, so long as those beliefs are not negatively effecting society as a whole. To an extent, I agree with this. However, to a slightly greater extent, I don't. I am not merely anti-fundamentalism; I am anti-irrationality in general. If a person believes with full sincerity that drinking a bottle of homeopathic water makes them healthier, I take issue with that, and will attempt to convince them that their belief is irrational. That's not because I'm some intellectual nazi who wants everyone to think the way I do (although, wouldn't it be easier if we all thought alike? Not as interesting, but much easier). It's because irrationality - in any form and to any varying extreme - is just as its name would suggest: irrational. It is not reasonable. It is a mental disease. Of course, in the realm of mental diseases, drinking homeopathic water is a simple bout of the common cold when compared to the Cancer of religious fundamentalism. And generally, not too many people get upset about the fact that the cold is so common. Instead, they focus all their time on Cancer research.

But me; I'd rather there were no sicknesses out there at all. I'd rather people didn't go around sniffling and sneezing as a common but still very malicious virus attacks their upper respiratory system. I'd rather do away with disease altogether. It's the same with irrationality. Even the kinds that are kept to one's self are still irrational. What's more, much like viruses, irrationality has repeatedly demonstrated its potential to mutate and become something much, much worse.

To summarize: irrationality (faith, religious belief, superstitious behavior, homeopathic pursuits or any other irrationality you can think of) is a disease, and I believe it must be treated as such. I'm much like Dawkins in that way. (Though, some may not look at that as a good thing. lol)

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Misanthropik's post
19-02-2013, 11:17 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(19-02-2013 11:11 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 01:45 AM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  So you're saying that, for example, you have no problem with "faith" per se, just with the irrational extremes some people take it to?
I too will avoid speaking for all atheists (because I am unable to), but many atheists I know share DLJ's sentiments; in that they couldn't care less what a person believes, so long as those beliefs are not negatively effecting society as a whole. To an extent, I agree with this. However, to a slightly greater extent, I don't. I am not merely anti-fundamentalism; I am anti-irrationality in general. If a person believes with full sincerity that drinking a bottle of homeopathic water makes them healthier, I take issue with that, and will attempt to convince them that their belief is irrational. That's not because I'm some intellectual nazi who wants everyone to think the way I do (although, wouldn't it be easier if we all thought alike? Not as interesting, but much easier). It's because irrationality - in any form and to any varying extreme - is just as its name would suggest: irrational. It is not reasonable. It is a mental disease. Of course, in the realm of mental diseases, drinking homeopathic water is a simple bout of the common cold when compared to the Cancer of religious fundamentalism. And generally, not too many people get upset about the fact that the cold is so common. Instead, they focus all their time on Cancer research.

But me; I'd rather there were no sicknesses out there at all. I'd rather people didn't go around sniffling and sneezing as a common but still very malicious virus attacks their upper respiratory system. I'd rather do away with disease altogether. It's the same with irrationality. Even the kinds that are kept to one's self are still irrational. What's more, much like viruses, irrationality has repeatedly demonstrated its potential to mutate and become something much, much worse.

To summarize: irrationality (faith, religious belief, superstitious behavior, homeopathic pursuits or any other irrationality you can think of) is a disease, and I believe it must be treated as such. I'm much like Dawkins in that way. (Though, some may not look at that as a good thing. lol)
I concur. Which is why religion is something I loathe. If left to the individual, rationality will secede irrational beliefs. People will stop using their religion as justification for why they do something or believe something, and will have to rely on that loathsome and meaningless word, faith. People don't really want to believe something on faith. They want evidence. They want rational thought. They want logical proofs. Faith is none of those. Remove the system supporting their irrationality through education, and you will erode away at the core of faith until it collapses into an obscure concept from the infancy of our species.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
19-02-2013, 11:58 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(19-02-2013 01:01 AM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  I'm especially interested in exploring some aspects of atheist thought that seem notoriously unexamined.

Bertrand Russell's 1959 BBC interview is a great example of one. After considering "Christian dogmas" and having "discarded the last of them" at 18, he decided that there was no reason to believe in a god. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQJ3sqkdCRE @ 1:53 into the video)

Really Bertrand? You ruled out an existential possibility by discarding irrational human fabrications? That's beneath a great logician like you.

Atheists seem more interested in being a-believerists than a-deists. Am I right?

Deism is a belief, an irrational belief. A-deism falls into the same category as A-believerists (as you stated)
But really Atheists are A-irrational believerists.

If you have a rational belief and by rational, I mean that you can justify that belief with evidence, then I'm sure most of us can agree that rational justified belief is a good thing.
It's when you have irrational beliefs that's when the problem begins.

If you have any belief that you can't rationally justify, then it's a false belief, until such a time comes when enough evidence has been presented to justify having that belief.

I like to have as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as I can. And discerning which of my beliefs are true and which are false is a matter of examining the justification for holding those beliefs.

As far as existential possibilities go, there are billions of possibilities and they all fall under the title "irrational human fabrications".

If I invent the idea that my mind is subconsciously connected to an infinite wall of knowledge and that this is where inspiration comes from, then that is an irrational human fabrication. It's irrational because there is nothing to justify believing such a thing. It's a fabrication because I made it up. But as time goes on and I'm actually able to produce evidence that this wall of knowledge exists and that I'm connected to it, then at that point it becomes rational to hold that belief because it's justified and backed up by evidence.

So to conclude, Atheists simply want people to justify their beliefs. We are A-irrational believers. A-superstitionalists.

If you don't have a good rational justified reason to believe something, then don't believe it.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
19-02-2013, 12:09 PM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(19-02-2013 11:58 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  So to conclude, Atheists simply want people to justify their beliefs. We are A-irrational believers. A-superstitionalists.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that.

Not all atheists are non-believers for rational reasons. Likewise, not all atheists oppose superstition. Believe it or not, there are even those who still believe in a "secular" form afterlife such as reincarnation.

The one and only thing all of us share is the non-belief in supernatural deities. I'd prefer if we'd leave it at that.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: