Check Mate Atheists, You're All Wrong
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-07-2014, 07:05 AM
RE: Check Mate Atheists, You're All Wrong
(14-07-2014 09:30 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(14-07-2014 09:20 PM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  Math is a beautiful thing that has gotten a bad rap for no reason.

I try and try and it still eludes me beyond basic math. (Says the bookkeeper.)

You've missed the poetry that is algebra! I'm surprised that with a Criminal Justice degree you haven't latched on to solving the mystery of "What is x?" The little bugger hides in different disguises and it's up to you to find out whodunit. If you apply your forensic tools and follow protocol you can track down the little darling and nail his butt to the wall. Big Grin

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2014, 07:10 AM
RE: Check Mate Atheists, You're All Wrong
Shit! I totally forgot to go to Chess tonight. God damn it, second week in a row.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2014, 07:54 AM
RE: Check Mate Atheists, You're All Wrong
(14-07-2014 06:42 PM)elconquistador Wrote:  ...
What did you think?

I think you should go for a cross-hair diagram representation plotting belief/non-belief against certainty/doubt.

I would be a variation on this one but with more granularity:

[Image: Agnostic-v-Gnostic-v-Atheist-v-Theist.png]

The extra factor you have is 'sincerity', so you would probably need a third axis.

Something like:

Sincere ..... l ..... Sincere
/ ... l ... /
/ . l . /
/ l /
Believer -------------- l/ --------- Non-Believer
/ l /
/ . l . /
/ ... l ... /
Fake ..... l ..... Fake

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
15-07-2014, 10:48 AM
RE: Check Mate Atheists, You're All Wrong
(14-07-2014 06:42 PM)elconquistador Wrote:  "You're all faking it...because Jesus."

All jokes aside, I have been thinking a lot about this quote both in it's obvious form of satire, but also in the form of the thought process that it is satirizing.

And when I say I have been thinking a lot about this issue, I don't mean upon waking up in the morning, eating, pooping, showering, and sleeping...I mean constantly. Almost like an unhealthy obsession, and obsession over the abyss cause my the schism between the believer and the non-believer.

As as believer, I would think "why don't they(atheists) get it?"

And now as a non-believer I think the same thing in vice versa. "Why don't they get it?"

It is also my argument that many believers and non-believers, besides myself, ask the same relative questions to each other as well.

I've been thinking a lot about this question and my relation to it as a "de-converted" post/ex Mormon, atheist, human secularist, and science enthusiast, and after further review and nearly seven months of internal angst and familial controversy through my journey I have decided to concur with Neil deGrasse Tyson: there must be some sort of asymptote among the population regarding belief and non-belief.

Further more, it is my argument that people may fall into five distinct categories: non-believer, non-believer hopeful, belief dissonant, belief opportunist, believe-doubter, and believer. What determines these categories, I have not thoroughly thought out, but it is my hypothesis that with a specific culture, environment, family genetic history, life event patterns, choice, and specific timing one will be subject to one belief or another regardless of opposition and even, sufficient evidence to debunk the belief.

My definitions and causes for the following categories goes as follows:

Non-Believer: Has no belief or rejects beliefs, such as atheism. Or refuses to believe either way entirely such as agnostic.

Non-believer hopeful: A non-believer in a constant state of "soul searching" or spirituality whether it be compulsive or impulsive.

Belief dissonant: This is the umbrella term for those who bounce between belief and non-belief, and those with a "melting pot," "cafeteria/buffet" conglomerate of diverse belief but never self identifies as anything, but good easily identify with other superstitious persons. Also, this may include social chameleons.

Belief Opportunist: This person is normally self centered and apathetic and may even have a narcissistic personality disorder and because of the ego-driven personality, the person will hold no interest in the certainty or validity of any belief, but chose one where he/she can take personal advantage, substantial gain, power, or leverage.

Believe-Doubter: This is an individual that has either been given the culture, environmental, and parental guidance or specific life even pattern that has edged this person into a specific belief in which he/she identifies but is still not satisfied with. This person, like the non-believer hopeful, may be compulsive or impulsive in his/her search for higher knowledge.

Believer- This individual may have times of frequent or infrequent doubt or critique, but will never take the leap to make the cultural plunge or to be involved in further investigation. Granted certain circumstances, this individual may never be confronted with doubt or critical thought, but may without resistance, live fully immersed in belief and belief culture.

Given these definitions, I will argue, that upon the pre-existing conditions such as those previously mentioned (culture, genetics, life events, ect.) that one's beliefs will be involuntary and unwavering, even in the face of extreme opposition or empirical evidence that debunks the belief.

Now, what shall we say is the equation to creating a personality from one sub-type? Well, I have no idea. But I say starting at something very simple pre-algebra would be quite nice to put it into simple numbers.

Let's say each parent is x and y or 0x and 0y and the product of x and y (or 0,0) will be xy or 0 (a.k.a. our offspring or [personality sub-type].

We'll start with non-believers, non-believing parents would be represented as (0)x or (0)y, only because they have "0" belief.

Non-believer hopeful parents would be represented by 1x or 1y, since there is a chance that belief will be higher than 0. Hence x(y) is greater or equal to 0.

Belief dissonant parents can be represented by +or-2x or +or-2y, since this person is often unsure or has a placement on either side of the belief/non-belief spectrum depending on life event patterns.

Belief opportunist parents can be represented by (i)x or (i)y, since there is no belief, or specifically their belief is imaginary or contrived, it would be safe to say that their belief is imaginary in accordance to their egotistical motives.

(Okay, I lied, now we are dipping a bit into Alg. I or II since the introduction to imaginary numbers.)

Belief doubting parents can be represented as either +or-2x or +or-2y since they can share the characteristics of the non-believer hopeful and belief dissonant depending on belief in the marital status, I see this happen all the time in the Mormon faith.

Then there is the believing parents that can be represented by 2x or 2y.

Now, obviously, peoples emotions and feelings are never constant, so the mathamatical coefficience are not a measurement of constants, or concrete personalities, but they are measurements of hypothetical persons being assessed regarding their feelings and emotions about belief right now and overall.

So for example:

If someone assessed me three years ago, I would measure at a 2x because I was a believing mormon, had a strong mormon back ground and firgured I would always be mormon. I was more of a +or-2x but I would have lied and pretended like the 2x.

If someone assessed me two years ago I would probably start to self identify as the +or-2x because though I had a strong background, certain life events propelled me to be unstable, and I was often on both sides of the spectrum like day and night.

If someone assessed me nine months ago I would self identify as (0)x since my life events propelled me toward disbelief and I had given up the idea of "religious devotion" and shifted towards "religious hate. So even then I may be a +or-x because of my extreme dissonance.

If some one assessed me now, I would be a content (0)x since I have had nine months to settle into myself and come to reason reality and get comfortable here.

So as you can see, the personality belief sub-types are a fluid concepts, dependent upon the time in which the sub-type is determined. It is not meant to be a constant.

So now, let's talk more about the coefficients so clarify. (Oh gosh, I sincerely hope my readers can still follow me, I'm really excited about this idea and want someone to get on this with me or at least understand my theory.)

So no belief would warrant the (0) coefficient. Simple enough, no belief.

No belief hopeful would warrant the (1) coefficient because this person is starting to edge toward belief, or playing with the idea. So it's directly half of the whole believer who is (2).

Belief dissonant is a +or-(2) coefficient because belief is easy so they can easily blend with the whole believer, but when this person is in disbelief it shifts to a -2. It is not (0) like the non-believer because this shift in mood is often impulsive, or emotionally driven and this person has probably not looked into emperical just yet. The religious-ity of this person is also emotion driven, but that is all religion is, so hence the regular +(2) coefficient like the whole believer. Hence, this person needs some cool off time to acheive homeostasis at (0) non-believer status.

Belief opportunity is (i) coefficient because, like mentioned before, the belief is fluid, or imaginary to suite the needs of the benefactor.

Belief doubting is +or-2 coefficient for similar reasons in parallel with belief dissonant and further, it is my argument that no one comes out of religion as a level (0) status. The event to propel the disbelief often entices emotional excitement and it takes some time to shift from and angry/belligerent -2 non-believer to a level headed (0) non-believer.

And last but not least...the whole believer is 2 because, well, they believe because...Jesus!

So let's try this equation out!!!! Simply determine what variables your parents identify with either now, or at the time that you became independent in thought, regardless of the beliefs of your parents.

So I will do it first and you post yours and tell me if my silly idea comes up with something that can be interpreted and identified with your situation.

For my, I am going to say my dad was a belief doubter for most of my younger life: +or-2x. His faith was mostly shaken and unstable growing up, in a good way. Unfortunately he didn't follow through is is more of a solid 2x right now, but for the equation we will use the first coefficient.

For my mom, she would definitely be a 2y. She's believer all the way, despite her curiosity with my doubt.

So my equation looks something like this:
+or-2x + 2y =0


1) 2y + (2x) = 0

2) 2y + (-2x) = 0

(oh! I forgot! We will set a constant, the constant is (y) because we are solving for (x). so use [y=x+2] to solve for x. Why? Just for shits and giggles. I literally just pulled it out of thin air.]

This is my solution:

First set for positive coefficient: (-1,1)

Second set for negative: no solution.

-------Well, that didn't work, but if I over rationalize I can make it work. Sometimes I am a non-believer hopeful. Sometimes I really miss believing in something greater than myself who I could talk to.

And the negative one? Will I suppose I will always be a little emotionally driven in my non-belief and may never level out at a true (0).

I don't know. Something fun! What did you think?

Let me sum it up for you all in layman terms, as I pointed out to a creationist last week in my evolution class....."the answer to what is 2+2 isn't jesus...or spongebob, or zeus...its 4." Yes

point being you cant apply faith to answer science and math questions...or vice versa Consider


"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2014, 11:01 AM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2014 01:09 PM by kim.)
RE: Check Mate Atheists, You're All Wrong
(15-07-2014 07:54 AM)DLJ Wrote:  The extra factor you have is 'sincerity', so you would probably need a third axis.

Something like:

Sincere ..... l ..... Sincere
/ ... l ... /
/ . l . /
/ l /
Believer -------------- l/ --------- Non-Believer
/ l /
/ . l . /
/ ... l ... /
Fake ..... l ..... Fake

Oooh. Wink ^^I like that. ^^

The perfect calculation for the mind's own flim-flam man ... Pope ... politician ... toss in some egomaniacal narcissism and you've got ... god. Angel

Man's true aspiration, of course.
That's why deep down man's desire is to kill each other/self ... might not seem all that far fetched.

In the beginning, (psychologically) we humans often detest ourselves ... religion logically supports this (man is sin) and continues to reinforce this notion by making man jump through hoops to possibly become something worthy of love.

Frankly, the most logical step after being an accomplice to all this, is to take one's self out of the equation... rather, make a new equation ...

I am adult
I am Human
I am worthy of love
I am atheist

No, I have no idea what I just wrote, either.
Just thinking out loud. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: