To Believe or Not to Believe - Is that the question?

[punshhh]

I think you have two problems here. One is, as I have mentioned before, the question of whether belief, in all cases, can be called irrational. You never really addressed the question of how belief, in the sense of an inductive conclusion, differs in substance from faith, even though the same word is used for both.

The problem with belief is that once it is reached the enquiry stops and it is taken as fact.

The second recurs frequently here, and that is the equation of non-belief with a sort of belief. No matter how stupid, trivial, or imaginary a notion may be, once it's suggested, if it cannot be definitively disproven, its mere existence makes it an article of belief both for those who accept it and those who reject it. You have yet to find a way to explain how the mere mention of an irrational idea makes rejection of it irrational.

We are animals evolved to deal intellectually with our local surroundings. To be impartial all this should be screened out and the default, or starting position is an I don't know about anything other than my local conditions.

This might at first appear to be a cop out, or a kind of solipsism. It is not it is in fact a liberation, one can at last experience open mindedness.

All one needs to do to see the advantage of this position is to look around you at all the other living organisms. Apart from other primates and perhaps dolphins and the like, all the rest are in this position of open mindedness and they get on with being, in the moment, free of any distractions.

Of course some of this is the pitfall of language again too. Is it the same thing to say one does not believe in God as to say one believes there is no god? Does the absence of a belief in god mean that one must accept the existence of god in order not to fall into the irrationality of belief? Is it even possible simply not to believe something if that something has ever been discussed? There are those who would say that proposing anything for which no evidence can be presented and no disproof offered is itself an irrational thing to do, and yet here we are with the paradox that irrationality is claimed to consist in the rejection of those very irrational ideas.

To say one does not believe in something and to mean it is the healthiest attitude. It is the act of belief and its use in conflation with to know something which is the problem. If one knows something, belief in it is irrelevant.

I suspect you do not believe, as astonishingly many do, that there once was an alien intergalactic emperor named Xenu who planted atom bombs in volcanoes and used a three dimensional movie to plant false memories of Jesus in the millions. But wait? The idea has been proposed. You cannot now just "not believe" in Xenu. The story exists in a time and space where proof and disproof cannot follow. If you do not accept Xenu, you must believe there was no Xenu. Now, regardless of what I think of many of your ideas, I hope you will forgive me if I presume that you reject Xenu, and that this rejection, at least, is a rational one.

This is about imaginary situations, just like the IPU*, imaginary constructions are known to be such and to believe in them is not the same as to believe in something which is not imaginary.

*invisible pink unicorn.

 

[bruto]

The problem with belief is that once it is reached the enquiry stops and it is taken as fact.
We are animals evolved to deal intellectually with our local surroundings. To be impartial all this should be screened out and the default, or starting position is an I don't know about anything other than my local conditions.

This might at first appear to be a cop out, or a kind of solipsism. It is not it is in fact a liberation, one can at last experience open mindedness.

All one needs to do to see the advantage of this position is to look around you at all the other living organisms. Apart from other primates and perhaps dolphins and the like, all the rest are in this position of open mindedness and they get on with being, in the moment, free of any distractions.
To say one does not believe in something and to mean it is the healthiest attitude. It is the act of belief and its use in conflation with to know something which is the problem. If one knows something, belief in it is irrelevant.
This is about imaginary situations, just like the IPU*, imaginary constructions are known to be such and to believe in them is not the same as to believe in something which is not imaginary.

*invisible pink unicorn.

I would certainly agree that, as far as I am concerned, Xenu is imaginary as well as flamboyantly silly, but a Scientologist would dispute this. That is why I used that example. You may well consider the beliefs of Scientology not worthy of serious consideration, and you'll get no argument from me there, but Xenu is not "known to be" imaginary for some. Not only are we dealing with a religious belief, but a religious belief that explicitly contradicts more commonly held ones. Like it or not, I think that once this belief is on the table, the alternatives are limited. One must either accept it, consider it a possibility, or reject it. With regard to Xenu, you are either a believer, an agnostic or an unbeliever.

And once again, I would question whether enquiry ends with the declaration of belief. It might. It likely does when the belief is that of faith, but I am not yet convinced that it does.

We are not dolphins. You can say that simply ignoring and saying "I don't know" about things not immediately relevant is the best solution, and well it might be, but properly to stop there is not to discuss even the possibilities of those things. If you so much as speculate "there might be a god," you have stepped out of dolphinhood into humanity, and the game is afoot.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I can't figure out what "god" means. I don't think theists can do this, either. They just pretend to. Certainly none of them is able to communicate such figuring-out.

Everybody makes up their own god. They cherry pick out of the available god-mess and put together one they like. This does make it impossible to define "god" because you'd need billions of definitions.

 

[tsig]

The problem with belief is that once it is reached the enquiry stops and it is taken as fact.
We are animals evolved to deal intellectually with our local surroundings. To be impartial all this should be screened out and the default, or starting position is an I don't know about anything other than my local conditions. This might at first appear to be a cop out, or a kind of solipsism. It is not it is in fact a liberation, one can at last experience open mindedness.

All one needs to do to see the advantage of this position is to look around you at all the other living organisms. Apart from other primates and perhaps dolphins and the like, all the rest are in this position of open mindedness and they get on with being, in the moment, free of any distractions.
To say one does not believe in something and to mean it is the healthiest attitude. It is the act of belief and its use in conflation with to know something which is the problem. If one knows something, belief in it is irrelevant.
This is about imaginary situations, just like the IPU*, imaginary constructions are known to be such and to believe in them is not the same as to believe in something which is not imaginary.

*invisible pink unicorn.

We're supposed to wake up in a brand new world every day?

 

[tsig]

Everybody makes up their own god. They cherry pick out of the available god-mess and put together one they like. This does make it impossible to define "god" because you'd need billions of definitions.

God means, "That big invisible being that agrees with me".

 

[Navigator]

I think you have two problems here. One is, as I have mentioned before, the question of whether belief, in all cases, can be called irrational. You never really addressed the question of how belief, in the sense of an inductive conclusion, differs in substance from faith, even though the same word is used for both.

The second recurs frequently here, and that is the equation of non-belief with a sort of belief. No matter how stupid, trivial, or imaginary a notion may be, once it's suggested, if it cannot be definitively disproven, its mere existence makes it an article of belief both for those who accept it and those who reject it. You have yet to find a way to explain how the mere mention of an irrational idea makes rejection of it irrational.

Of course some of this is the pitfall of language again too. Is it the same thing to say one does not believe in God as to say one believes there is no god? Does the absence of a belief in god mean that one must accept the existence of god in order not to fall into the irrationality of belief? Is it even possible simply not to believe something if that something has ever been discussed? There are those who would say that proposing anything for which no evidence can be presented and no disproof offered is itself an irrational thing to do, and yet here we are with the paradox that irrationality is claimed to consist in the rejection of those very irrational ideas.

I suspect you do not believe, as astonishingly many do, that there once was an alien intergalactic emperor named Xenu who planted atom bombs in volcanoes and used a three dimensional movie to plant false memories of Jesus in the millions. But wait? The idea has been proposed. You cannot now just "not believe" in Xenu. The story exists in a time and space where proof and disproof cannot follow. If you do not accept Xenu, you must believe there was no Xenu. Now, regardless of what I think of many of your ideas, I hope you will forgive me if I presume that you reject Xenu, and that this rejection, at least, is a rational one.

My focus is more on the default position of the newborn human being, in relation to god(s) ideas.
This is how I understand the process so far, in relation to belief.

The argument about whether belief, in all cases, can be called irrational leaves us worrying about posts being left on stoves etc.
It moves away from the focus of held beliefs, and whether these are rational or not.
So 'in all cases' where the word belief is used, for things which are not held fast to, (as Myriad pointed out the argument could go on) - (and that is irrational in itself) - did I turn the pot off? Did I leave it on? Get up check the stove - remember that you don't even own a pot, go back to bed...wonder if you turned the stove off etc...is belief necessary? I don;t think so. It is irrational regardless.

Even if it serves some seemingly rational purpose, the external world is too unpredictable to form beliefs. Those short term decisions a made thought processes similar to belief but there are enough words to describe them without using the words "I believe"

Going back to Myriad's examples.

Will I wake up in the morning?

I suppose so.

Will I meet you tomorrow?

I suppose so.

"I suppose so." does not have to be seen as 'belief' and certainly not held onto beliefs, such as beliefs evolved through the ideas of god(s) whether for or against.

That something cannot be definitively disproven, does not mean one has to form beliefs about that something.

An idea is proposed ( such as the idea of Xenu).

One does not have to believe the idea is either true or false.

I have been and still am addressing the question of how belief, in the sense of an inductive conclusion, differs in substance from faith, even though the same word is used for both.

Belief is the result of faith which is formed and held to be true. Faith becomes belief through that process.

The same word for inductive conclusion needn't be belief, unless the conclusion turns into faith and the well held belief.

Using the word belief for concepts etc that have not formed into held onto beliefs does more to add to the confusion (wrought through how language is used) rather than making things clearer.

 

[bruto]

My focus is more on the default position of the newborn human being, in relation to god(s) ideas.
This is how I understand the process so far, in relation to belief.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=859&pictureid=9622[/qimg]

The argument about whether belief, in all cases, can be called irrational leaves us worrying about posts being left on stoves etc.
It moves away from the focus of held beliefs, and whether these are rational or not.
So 'in all cases' where the word belief is used, for things which are not held fast to, (as Myriad pointed out the argument could go on) - (and that is irrational in itself) - did I turn the pot off? Did I leave it on? Get up check the stove - remember that you don't even own a pot, go back to bed...wonder if you turned the stove off etc...is belief necessary? I don;t think so. It is irrational regardless.

Even if it serves some seemingly rational purpose, the external world is too unpredictable to form beliefs. Those short term decisions a made thought processes similar to belief but there are enough words to describe them without using the words "I believe"

Going back to Myriad's examples.

Will I wake up in the morning?

I suppose so.

Will I meet you tomorrow?

I suppose so.

"I suppose so." does not have to be seen as 'belief' and certainly not held onto beliefs, such as beliefs evolved through the ideas of god(s) whether for or against.

That something cannot be definitively disproven, does not mean one has to form beliefs about that something.

An idea is proposed ( such as the idea of Xenu).

One does not have to believe the idea is either true or false.

I have been and still am addressing the question of how belief, in the sense of an inductive conclusion, differs in substance from faith, even though the same word is used for both.

Belief is the result of faith which is formed and held to be true. Faith becomes belief through that process.

The same word for inductive conclusion needn't be belief, unless the conclusion turns into faith and the well held belief.

Using the word belief for concepts etc that have not formed into held onto beliefs does more to add to the confusion (wrought through how language is used) rather than making things clearer.

Well, it seems you have made a distinction between belief and faith which ends up as little more than a redefinition of the word "belief."

I would propose that if I make plans for what I will do tomorrow I am acting on some form of belief, which is not irrational. I would contend that acting as if the uncertainty outweighs the evidence would itself be irrational even if, occasionally, a person dies during the night with plans unrealized. Belief may be based on faith that is held to be true, but it is not by that definition either unchangeable or absolute. I think it's more reasonable to consider faith as a sub-category of belief, the belief in things for which evidence is too weak for rational belief. Of course this leaves a blurry boundary, but I think that's the case. Trying to be more precise is a nice try, but I don't think it must be the case.

In any case, I clearly disagree with the idea that an idea once proposed can be declared neither true nor false without the unnecessary burden of allowing the possibility of a huge array of stupid ideas whose very nature exempts them from the ability to address them scientifically.

I think your diagram illustrates your point well enough, but I simply do not agree with it, because I think the central position is agnosticism, not atheism, even if it ends up functionally similar. What you seem to be recommending is that certain areas of inquiry, being un-knowable, should be simply ignored and declared irrelevant. I won't judge it because I won't think about it. That's not such a bad idea, and I think a logical positivist would like it up to a point, but I would contend that declaring theism irrelevant carries with it a judgment whether you admit it or not, at least regarding some aspects of theism. Most theists demand that the god they believe in be believed to interact with the universe. If you decline to consider that interaction as relevant, then you have made a judgment. You cannot be an agnostic or a default atheist without rejecting the ideas of those who insist that that position is wrong, even if you do so with silence.

 

[Navigator]

Well, it seems you have made a distinction between belief and faith which ends up as little more than a redefinition of the word "belief."

Good lordy! Is that possible!



Well you brought the word faith into your argument. If by using it you are really saying 'belief' why not just say belief?

I would propose that if I make plans for what I will do tomorrow I am acting on some form of belief, which is not irrational.

Sure. Which form of belief would that be? Which word related to 'belief' would you use to describe this?

I would contend that acting as if the uncertainty outweighs the evidence would itself be irrational even if, occasionally, a person dies during the night with plans unrealized.

I agree.

Belief may be based on faith that is held to be true, but it is not by that definition either unchangeable or absolute. I think it's more reasonable to consider faith as a sub-category of belief, the belief in things for which evidence is too weak for rational belief. Of course this leaves a blurry boundary, but I think that's the case. Trying to be more precise is a nice try, but I don't think it must be the case.

Well at first I had written faith is the result Belief of which is formed and held to be true.
But I decided it might be argued the other way.
So I changed it around, and yet is is still argued the other way.
What this informs me is that there are too many words describing the same thing or that the different words describe different types of how belief can be expressed.

In any case, I clearly disagree with the idea that an idea once proposed can be declared neither true nor false without the unnecessary burden of allowing the possibility of a huge array of stupid ideas whose very nature exempts them from the ability to address them scientifically.

Sure. No argument there.

As long as what is found through scientific research is not used to create belief or used to argue the belief created.

Science is not about creating beliefs.

The idea of god(s) isn't addressed scientifically. Nor is the idea of pink unicorns. Both ideas are similar in that they are not addressed scientifically.

The Sun can be addressed scientifically.

There is no need for belief or lack of belief as to the existence of the Sun.

The idea of god(s) is something else entirely. Lack of belief in god(s) is fine. Once that shifts to belief that god(s) cannot exist, the position has shifted from the default.
One still lacks belief in god(s) but now also believes god(s) don't exist.

Is the belief irrational? I say it is when it is held. It is irrational to argue from a position of belief against another opposing position of belief.

One can look at the idea that god(s) don't exist and form no belief for that being the case.

I think your diagram illustrates your point well enough, but I simply do not agree with it, because I think the central position is agnosticism, not atheism, even if it ends up functionally similar.

Well ynot might not agree with that. The claim in that thread is that Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

The first line in the threads OP says.
"To say it can't be known whether gods actually exist or not is to be an atheist. "

You don't seem to have contributed any opinion to that thread. Do you disagree with ynot's claim?

What you seem to be recommending is that certain areas of inquiry, being un-knowable, should be simply ignored and declared irrelevant. I won't judge it because I won't think about it.

The unknown is not irrelevant. It is just unknown. One cannot be sure that it is forever un-knowable but one is sure that is is unknown.

Even when something which was unknown becomes known, there is no need for belief about that thing.

I don't need to judge. I don;t need to make a judgement about it one way or another.

It is what it is. An idea. Okay it is more complex than an idea of pink unicorns, and certainly there is no harm in engaging rather than ignoring the idea, and seeing where it takes the imagination and thought processes, but developing beliefs about the idea is something else entirely.

That's not such a bad idea, and I think a logical positivist would like it up to a point, but I would contend that declaring theism irrelevant carries with it a judgment whether you admit it or not, at least regarding some aspects of theism. Most theists demand that the god they believe in be believed to interact with the universe. If you decline to consider that interaction as relevant, then you have made a judgment.

One can consider whatever is posited from either opposing positions of belief. No harm in doing that and it can be very interesting even.

You cannot be an agnostic or a default atheist without rejecting the ideas of those who insist that that position is wrong, even if you do so with silence.

Do you believe this to be the case? What you are saying sounds like 'you cannot reject one without accepting the other. You cannot sit on the fence here. You have to actually believe one or the other.'

What I can be is someone who has no beliefs formed. If that means I cannot be 'agnostic or default atheist' without rejecting any belief, either for or against, then what is it that I can be?
Judgement is a product of belief, in relation to what you are suggesting. It has no bearing on my position.
If I remove the labels to do with atheism and just call that position "no beliefs form regarding god(s)" this is not a judgement on those who believe god(s) exist nor a judgement on those who believe god(s) don't exist.

The judgement I give has to do with the way the beliefs are strongly expressed in nasty derogatory manners, irregardless of which positions of belief the nasty derogatory expressions are coming through.

Such expression from beliefs are irrational.

If a nasty Christian and a nasty Islamic and a nasty non believer in god(s) were ignored for what they say they believe, and simple observed for how they express themselves, they are all the same. Their expressions alone verify this to be the case. The beliefs are just their way of making the nastiness seem different. A costume to hide the actual intent which is simply to be nasty.

My judgement comes from my position of having no beliefs form in relation to god(s) and being strong about it.

If I were to take away the common labels and substitute these with words representing the process of the evolution of consciousness from the default position, I can say the same thing as my last chart without adding the confusing words which obviously mean different things to different individuals.
No direct reference to 'atheists', 'agnostics', 'theists', or subsets of those labels.

 

[bruto]

Well, it seems you have made a distinction between belief and faith which ends up as little more than a redefinition of the word "belief."

I would propose that if I make plans for what I will do tomorrow I am acting on some form of belief, which is not irrational. I would contend that acting as if the uncertainty outweighs the evidence would itself be irrational even if, occasionally, a person dies during the night with plans unrealized. Belief may be based on faith that is held to be true, but it is not by that definition either unchangeable or absolute. I think it's more reasonable to consider faith as a sub-category of belief, the belief in things for which evidence is too weak for rational belief. Of course this leaves a blurry boundary, but I think that's the case. Trying to be more precise is a nice try, but I don't think it must be the case.

In any case, I clearly disagree with the idea that an idea once proposed can be declared neither true nor false without the unnecessary burden of allowing the possibility of a huge array of stupid ideas whose very nature exempts them from the ability to address them scientifically.

I think your diagram illustrates your point well enough, but I simply do not agree with it, because I think the central position is agnosticism, not atheism, even if it ends up functionally similar. What you seem to be recommending is that certain areas of inquiry, being un-knowable, should be simply ignored and declared irrelevant. I won't judge it because I won't think about it. That's not such a bad idea, and I think a logical positivist would like it up to a point, but I would contend that declaring theism irrelevant carries with it a judgment whether you admit it or not, at least regarding some aspects of theism. Most theists demand that the god they believe in be believed to interact with the universe. If you decline to consider that interaction as relevant, then you have made a judgment. You cannot be an agnostic or a default atheist without rejecting the ideas of those who insist that that position is wrong, even if you do so with silence.

Highlighted portion above mis-written, for which I ask forgiveness. It is indeed easy to trip over ones linguistic feet here. I did mean it the other way around. Faith is belief held to be true despite lack of evidence. What I meant to say is that I do not count belief based on evidence to be unchangeable or absolute.

 

[bruto]

Good lordy! Is that possible!



Well you brought the word faith into your argument. If by using it you are really saying 'belief' why not just say belief?




Sure. Which form of belief would that be? Which word related to 'belief' would you use to describe this?



I agree.



Well at first I had written faith is the result Belief of which is formed and held to be true.
But I decided it might be argued the other way.
So I changed it around, and yet is is still argued the other way.
What this informs me is that there are too many words describing the same thing or that the different words describe different types of how belief can be expressed.



Sure. No argument there.

As long as what is found through scientific research is not used to create belief or used to argue the belief created.

Science is not about creating beliefs.

The idea of god(s) isn't addressed scientifically. Nor is the idea of pink unicorns. Both ideas are similar in that they are not addressed scientifically.

The Sun can be addressed scientifically.

There is no need for belief or lack of belief as to the existence of the Sun.

The idea of god(s) is something else entirely. Lack of belief in god(s) is fine. Once that shifts to belief that god(s) cannot exist, the position has shifted from the default.
One still lacks belief in god(s) but now also believes god(s) don't exist.

Is the belief irrational? I say it is when it is held. It is irrational to argue from a position of belief against another opposing position of belief.

One can look at the idea that god(s) don't exist and form no belief for that being the case.



Well ynot might not agree with that. The claim in that thread is that Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

The first line in the threads OP says.
"To say it can't be known whether gods actually exist or not is to be an atheist. "

You don't seem to have contributed any opinion to that thread. Do you disagree with ynot's claim?





The unknown is not irrelevant. It is just unknown. One cannot be sure that it is forever un-knowable but one is sure that is is unknown.

Even when something which was unknown becomes known, there is no need for belief about that thing.

I don't need to judge. I don;t need to make a judgement about it one way or another.

It is what it is. An idea. Okay it is more complex than an idea of pink unicorns, and certainly there is no harm in engaging rather than ignoring the idea, and seeing where it takes the imagination and thought processes, but developing beliefs about the idea is something else entirely.



One can consider whatever is posited from either opposing positions of belief. No harm in doing that and it can be very interesting even.



Do you believe this to be the case? What you are saying sounds like 'you cannot reject one without accepting the other. You cannot sit on the fence here. You have to actually believe one or the other.'

What I can be is someone who has no beliefs formed. If that means I cannot be 'agnostic or default atheist' without rejecting any belief, either for or against, then what is it that I can be?
Judgement is a product of belief, in relation to what you are suggesting. It has no bearing on my position.
If I remove the labels to do with atheism and just call that position "no beliefs form regarding god(s)" this is not a judgement on those who believe god(s) exist nor a judgement on those who believe god(s) don't exist.

The judgement I give has to do with the way the beliefs are strongly expressed in nasty derogatory manners, irregardless of which positions of belief the nasty derogatory expressions are coming through.

Such expression from beliefs are irrational.

If a nasty Christian and a nasty Islamic and a nasty non believer in god(s) were ignored for what they say they believe, and simple observed for how they express themselves, they are all the same. Their expressions alone verify this to be the case. The beliefs are just their way of making the nastiness seem different. A costume to hide the actual intent which is simply to be nasty.

My judgement comes from my position of having no beliefs form in relation to god(s) and being strong about it.

If I were to take away the common labels and substitute these with words representing the process of the evolution of consciousness from the default position, I can say the same thing as my last chart without adding the confusing words which obviously mean different things to different individuals.
No direct reference to 'atheists', 'agnostics', 'theists', or subsets of those labels.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=859&pictureid=9626[/qimg]

I would agree that belief is not a rational position with regard to something you know, except in a vernacular sense. I do not believe that I am typing this on a computer keyboard, clearly. I know it. You, on the other hand, cannot absolutely know it, though you might have so good a reason to believe it that the difference is trivial.

You may well be able to be an atheist or agnostic without believing anything at all about the existence of gods, but if someone comes up to you and asserts that God is a necessary part of everyone's life including yours, then you cannot be an agnostic if you allow that assertion to be true.

But I don't know if there's much point slicing away at this. Anyway, it's getting too late tonight.

It's all well and good to sit on the fence, but you cannot sit on the fence about sitting on the fence.

 

[Donn]

Rational belief = Relief. I relieve the sun will rise tomorrow. Phew, that's a relief! It was 50/50 there for a while, but I relieve I feel photons hitting my face.

 

[Navigator]

I would agree that belief is not a rational position with regard to something you know, except in a vernacular sense. I do not believe that I am typing this on a computer keyboard, clearly. I know it. You, on the other hand, cannot absolutely know it, though you might have so good a reason to believe it that the difference is trivial.

That is also why I understand subjectivity is the default position of every human being.



When all is said and done, subjectivity is the default position of consciousness.

It is not necessary for me to believe you typed your reply on a keyboard, or even to believe YOU when you tell me that you did.

You may well be able to be an atheist or agnostic without believing anything at all about the existence of gods, but if someone comes up to you and asserts that God is a necessary part of everyone's life including yours, then you cannot be an agnostic if you allow that assertion to be true.

Hey Last time a JW knocked on my door I just asked her if she knew Jehovah personally.
She replied that she had never met him.

I asked her how come she was being a witness for someone she had never met? What gave her the right to speak on his behalf?

She replied that the Bible was Jehovah's word.

I replied that I thought it more likely that the bible was created by human beings who wanted to control other people through their beliefs.

That was about the end of the discussion. She offered me some pamphlets but I declined.

Besides which, all one has to do really is say that you don't know whether god exists or not but you love your neighbor as yourself and try not to do things which hurt others.

If they insist that is not enough, I just ask them why they call god a 'he' - that of course swings back to the bible - that since god calls himself a he then he must be a he, so then I ask if they think that is literal - that god has a penis rather than a vagina and if they can work with that without stammering, they usually reply that god is 'figuratively' a male.

So then I can say, something like 'well perhaps HE is figuratively a god as well, and the bible was written by men who liked the idea of god being a male.

I mean - one doesn't have to be offensive to be accused of being offensive but I would draw the line at calling these folk 'disillusion', or being abusive towards them.

If god(s) is a necessary part of everyone's life including mine, then I have found god in my self. End of story.

It's all well and good to sit on the fence, but you cannot sit on the fence about sitting on the fence.

Compared to believing one way or another, the fences represent the arguments the believers (for and against) sit behind and the 'grey area' is a vast and colorful landscape between the two extremes.
Far, far to interesting to arrest myself and confine myself behind some fence.

All I am doing is climbing up onto the top of the fences and saying 'come and play!' to those who are otherwise occupied behind their fences and don't understand how much their beliefs (and the language created around those beliefs) suppresses them and causes them to try and suppress others.

 

[Navigator]

Rational belief = Relief. I relieve the sun will rise tomorrow. Phew, that's a relief! It was 50/50 there for a while, but I relieve I feel photons hitting my face.

We could do with a little rain around these parts. Actually quite a bit...

 

[asydhouse]

Rational belief = Relief. I relieve the sun will rise tomorrow. Phew, that's a relief! It was 50/50 there for a while, but I relieve I feel photons hitting my face.

Nice one!

 

[Donn]

Nice one!

Thankyew. I relieve you geddit!

 

[punshhh]

I would certainly agree that, as far as I am concerned, Xenu is imaginary as well as flamboyantly silly, but a Scientologist would dispute this. That is why I used that example. You may well consider the beliefs of Scientology not worthy of serious consideration, and you'll get no argument from me there, but Xenu is not "known to be" imaginary for some. Not only are we dealing with a religious belief, but a religious belief that explicitly contradicts more commonly held ones. Like it or not, I think that once this belief is on the table, the alternatives are limited. One must either accept it, consider it a possibility, or reject it. With regard to Xenu, you are either a believer, an agnostic or an unbeliever.

Well you could be indifferent to Xenu, ie have no position on it. You can still discuss it, consider it etc, while not passing judgement.

And once again, I would question whether enquiry ends with the declaration of belief. It might. It likely does when the belief is that of faith, but I am not yet convinced that it does.

Yes I agree, this is something I struggled with when I did briefly believe in God as a youngster. The other use of belief, which is not religious, can be enquired about. But personally I have rid my vocabulary of it. I see it as archaic and ambiguous and entirely unnecessary.

We are not dolphins. You can say that simply ignoring and saying "I don't know" about things not immediately relevant is the best solution, and well it might be, but properly to stop there is not to discuss even the possibilities of those things. If you so much as speculate "there might be a god," you have stepped out of dolphinhood into humanity, and the game is afoot.

When I say "I don't know", I am thinking of religious issues, or questions of existence, or metaphysics. This does not prohibit one from being pragmatic or practical about ones local conditions.

 

[bruto]

Well you could be indifferent to Xenu, ie have no position on it. You can still discuss it, consider it etc, while not passing judgement.
Yes I agree, this is something I struggled with when I did briefly believe in God as a youngster. The other use of belief, which is not religious, can be enquired about. But personally I have rid my vocabulary of it. I see it as archaic and ambiguous and entirely unnecessary.

When I say "I don't know", I am thinking of religious issues, or questions of existence, or metaphysics. This does not prohibit one from being pragmatic or practical about ones local conditions.

Well, it seems to me you've made my point here. If you can be indifferent to Xenu without passing judgment, you're agnostic on the subject. While that skirts the issue and keeps you out of trouble in a sense, I think it's a copout. I doubt you're seriously agnostic, and would find yourself needing to face your denial if for some reason indifference became impossible. Agnosticism in this sort of case is just the luxury of ignoring nonsense without intellectual responsibility.

As to whether you have rid your vocabulary of belief that is not faith, that's fine, but that has not rid everyone else's vocabulary of it. Knowing that you're limiting the use of the word takes care of the argument each time it comes up, but it would be more economical, I think, to make the distinction at the start.

 

[Donn]

Knowing that you're limiting the use of the word takes care of the argument each time it comes up, but it would be more economical, I think, to make the distinction at the start.

He'd need a word for "I am about to launch my verbal ship upon this eloquence which needs-must prepare you, my good audience, for a singular use of a particular word — to whit, belief; hereafter used in its rational form and so, peeled of its husk, lies without substance under any sun."

But shorter.

 

[punshhh]

Well, it seems to me you've made my point here. If you can be indifferent to Xenu without passing judgment, you're agnostic on the subject. While that skirts the issue and keeps you out of trouble in a sense, I think it's a copout. I doubt you're seriously agnostic, and would find yourself needing to face your denial if for some reason indifference became impossible. Agnosticism in this sort of case is just the luxury of ignoring nonsense without intellectual responsibility.

As I am new to the thread, I might not have grasped your point yet. I don't see a copout, unless there is some social or cultural involvement with the believers of Xenu. I disagree that one cannot be truly agnostic and do intellectual justice to a belief simultaneously. The only way this could make sense to me is if it is necessary to believe in a god to do it intellectual justice.
I have tried this, when I was younger I realised that to do justice to the ideas of religion, I should give it a go and actively believe. I did this for more than one religion over the years and found afterwards that intellectually it was unnecessary to have done it in terms of cold philosophical analysis. I do not regret it though and found it enriching in my life experience.

As to whether you have rid your vocabulary of belief that is not faith, that's fine, but that has not rid everyone else's vocabulary of it. Knowing that you're limiting the use of the word takes care of the argument each time it comes up, but it would be more economical, I think, to make the distinction at the start.

I come up against this difficulty all the time here with numerous words. I always make distinction where it seems necessary.

 

[Belz...]

To Believe or Not to Believe

<lights cigar, church explodes behind.>

Not to believe.