I caught something today on VJack's blog, the issue of how to respond to the question, "do you believe in god(s)?" I find the awkwardness for atheists trying to respond to this question one of semantics, due to how you define "belief".
If you find claims for the existence of gods unwarranted to accept, then it's reasonable to assume there aren't any gods. I think most atheists are hesitant to say they believe there are no gods because that word "believe" means something different to religionists than it does to non-religionists.
For religionists, belief is unmovable. Once you believe, that's it, and nothing can change or destroy such a position. For the non-religionist, belief is temporary, a position held as long as it's viable.
So due to these contrasting views of belief, we atheists most certainly don't believe there are any gods, but if we were to say we don't believe in gods, a religionist would hear that as we are dogmatic and faith based like them, and this misinterpretation leads to bullshit like "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist".
Any apparent unease or waffling by an atheist in light of the question "do you believe in god?" should not then be seen as an attempt to deceive or obfuscate, but rather as an attempt to convey "belief" in a way that won't be misunderstood, and thus exploited by religionists. It's VERY difficult to speak openly for religionists will, either by choice or by ignorance, misinterpret your words if you're not careful (or even if you are).
Personally, I think it's always a good idea to choose your words wisely, regardless of what you're talking about. Speaking in a plain, direct, and not needlessly verbose manner should generally help guarantee that whatever you're trying to convey will be understood, and also limit the opportunities for those who'd like to deliberately misrepresent your views.
2009-06-12
The word 'belief', and avoiding misinterpretation
Give this post a thumbs up
I dig this post
Vote up on The Atheist Spot
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
That's an important distinction to draw, thanks for posting this.
I was asked by a Christian recently, "What was it in your heart that led you to believe the [non-theist] interpretation of that part of the bible?" And I had to do some of the same unpacking you describe in your post, basically explaining it was what I thought of the evidence, not what I wished to believe. Which the Christian to his credit accepted, however it was interesting that the question was initially framed the way it was.
"For religionists, belief is unmovable. Once you believe, that's it, and nothing can change or destroy such a position."
I guess that is because they think the belief is God given, rather than humanly derived? If so, I still wonder about the connection they then make between belief and the immorality they associate with disbelief in their god.
Based on the continuing lack of reliable evidence for the existence of a god, I cannot affirm my belief in such an entity right now.
In other words, Christians: Don't fuck with me about semantics.
"What was it in your heart that led you to believe the [non-theist] interpretation of that part of the bible?".
I would think the first response would be, "nothing, since I don't think with my heart"
or you could just say what Ex said
So the question is whether to dismantle the symbolic pavlovian mine with a dictionary or to avoid triggering the reaction while leaving it up to somebody later to dismantle or set it off.
"Do you believe in god?"
I don't accept any proposition in which faith is a necessary requirement.
JohnEvo, the unfortunate thing is that atheists have tried to redefine the word "faith" as a countermine to the religious. What is the problem? Can't an atheist have faith in something too?
Here is the thing, I have faith in Capitalism even though I have insufficient data to go on. I also, depending on my own evaluation, choose to or not to have faith in certain other things or processes too. If a something looks too flimsy, I don't have much faith that it will support a lot of weight, I won't sit on a flimsy chair or drive over a flimsy bridge or get in a flimsy looking boat on the high seas even though I know that was what they were designed to do. I wouldn't have faith in a government bid nuclear reactor in my own backyard or a car that has the gas tank directly in front of the rear bumper....I also don't have faith in religion, it just is too flimsy and it isn't supported by evidence, merely self-proclaimed authorities that gain instant power over other gullable people.
QF - I don't think there is a problem here. I have "faith" in capitalism (which doesn't mean I don't see a myriad of problems with it) but my faith is not fundamentally required in order for it to function. Indeed, I can see that it has sufficed (for the most part) in a number of societies for hundreds of years.
On the other hand, how do I accept the proposition of anything supernatural without faith? It seems to me that the whole notion of god(s) falls to pieces the moment that you remove faith.
Am I missing something?
To clarify my position:
"Never accept any proposition in which faith is an indispensable prerequisite."
From my YouTube channel.
The religious lack faith in the scientific method to reveal the truth, especially when it disproves their authorities of which they place complete faith in. Sure, they say they have faith in God, but what they really have faith in is superstition.
They believe that if they live their lives according to some code of morality that it will bring them success and rewards, which is partially true. Obeying the 10 Commandments, regardless of the reason why, will increase their odds of impressing employers or making friends in the community, sure. The whole problem is that they fundamentally misunderstand causality. They percieve that the rewards are coming from praying to the imaginary guy-in-the-sky, and not their own actions. Of course, this superstition becomes a severe limit to their further success in life, they keep on doing more and more of the superstitious things and yet it's not helping them anymore because there is no causal link between the activity they participate in and the results that occur elsewhere in their lives. This superstition is why religious followers often times have problems with learning math and science, it's essentially a disorder, a superstition disorder.
I think many of the religious, at least among American Christians, treat the terms "belief" and "faith" as interchangeable, or at least closely related. To believe is to have faith; for them, belief (particularly of the religious kind) has little or nothing to do with reason. This, of course, is not the way that many atheists use the term "belief." We usually use the term "belief" in connection with reason; we believe in something based on reasons, probabilities, etc.
Even in those instances in which nonbelievers exercise some sort of faith, i.e., in capitalism or a democratic republican form of government, we do so on the basis of reason. As John Evo noted, we know those things are flawed, but, for the most part, they've generally served humankind better than many of the alternatives. We also continually examine these systems and seek to improve them. Religionists who dare to do likewise are often branded as heretics by their more conservative co-religionists.
As usual, in order to avoid misinterpretation, we have to be careful not to let the religionists suck us into using their terms in their ways.
"It's VERY difficult to speak openly for religionists will, either by choice or by ignorance, misinterpret your words if you're not careful (or even if you are)."
Funny... I find that with atheists, too! How they warp and twist everything you say into something totally unrecognizable from the original.
Chief, all you have to say to any Christian is I don't want God in my life, so go chase yourself. That is a statement that cannot be refuted or misunderstood.
I only bother with you, because, you're just a fun guy to be around!
;-)
"As usual, in order to avoid misinterpretation, we have to be careful not to let the religionists suck us into using their terms in their ways."
That's right, Chumplain, we're bad!
And, we're under every child's bed, in every old woman's cellar, your broom closet, the public toilet... we're a fucking plague on society, and we're not going away!
That's how ridiculous you sound, with your 'it's-them-against-us' baloney. Your moral values came from us, yet you attribute them to evolution. No, Christianity hasn't done a damned thing for society... in your view.
Stunted, as it is.
"... but what they really have faith in is superstition."
Like the superstition of man evolving from tidal suds in some primordial dugout?
Have you ever heard any spirits talking to you Gideon?
Just you.
In your spirit fantasies, what exactly is my perfect voice saying then?
You're saying: "Don't listen to me... I'm a moron!"
I would again trot out "reasonable expectation" rather than "faith"
When I fly in an aircraft, get on a boat, go through a tunnel, cross a bridge, etc, I have a reasonable expectation that the vessel will dock, the plane land safely, and I will get to the opposite ends of the tunnel or bridge without incident. I have evidence that these things are by no means a given, but the odds favor a successful completion for me.
I know a commercial painter who tells me that they no longer put up "Wet Paint" signs because they wind up with fingerprints and smears all around them from people checking.
You could come to my blog every few days with the belief that there will be something new to see and read. Why? Well, you could call it faith, but I don't see it that way. If you're familiar with my blog or if you simply look at the archives you'll see the frequency in which new posts appear, so then you can reason that should you check every few days, there will be something new to read based on experience. In other words, you'll have a reasoned belief (or perhaps more aptly put by Sarge, a "reasonable expectation") that every few days you'll find something new. Likewise, you can believe in the scientific method because it's born fruit. It's simply the best way to discover and understand reality.
Belief in Capitalism could be viewed similarly, for we've seen (for the most part) economic success with it globally that far exceeds anything else, so again, that's a reasoned belief based on experience. The same can be said of belief in a chair's ability to support your ass, or a boat or a bridge or even in believing food from China isn't safe to eat.
Belief in the religionist's view is synonymous with faith, which I see as not reasoned, and often held not just without examination of the facts or experience but often in opposition to them. For instance, you may believe in Capitalism but if you believe that it must be free of regulation, then that's a faith based position for it completely ignores recent events which show otherwise. Seeing a flimsy chair and choosing to plop your ass onto it anyway is a faith based belief in the chair's ability to support you.
That's right, I have a reasonable expectation that there will be some new form of infidelity on this blog, every time I visit it. I also noticed that your comment count goes up whenever I show up, because everyone loves a good Christian-thrashing, don't they? I've noticed that on many other blogs I've commented on.
You all, of course, do not see any correlation between that which you accept 'on faith' (apart from what you may observe, directly) in secular humanism, and that which we as Christians exhibit in our faith in Christianity. It is only we that are the deluded ones, in your view.
I'll admit that there was a long time that I wasn't sure. Then, at least, I didn't dogmatically exclude alternative views, not until I'd researched them for myself. My secular schooling did not allow for any other alternative thinking, you either accepted their dogma or you failed... and were laughed at! Granted, some so-called Christian faiths can be that way, too, but it doesn't negate the truth of the original gospel.
I also noticed that your comment count goes up whenever I show up....
Personally, I prefer quality over quantity.
Yeah, it's never about size, is it?
Well, let's see here Gideon, you don't believe in spirits I take it, do you believe in or have you ever held a conversation with Satan or demons?
I never said I don't believe in spirits, Quiff, I just said that I don't hold conversations with them. Get your facts straight.
The Bible doesn't encourage such practice, because it leaves one open to all manner of suggestiveness. It doesn't pay to fool around with powers that are far greater than your own.
You'll never enter into conversation with a good spirit, only those of the dark side. That's their mode of expression, and it sucks in many Christians who have bought into the 'life after death' lie.
You don't believe in any kind of afterlife Gideon?
Only that which God can give. There is no consciousness in the grave, where we all go. In the end of days, at Christ's second advent, all of those that have died in Christ will be raised, along with those still alive, to join Him and return to Heaven. The unrighteous dead will stay in their graves. They aren't in hell, nor are the righteous already in Heaven. The unrepentant living ones will be destroyed by "the brightness of His coming." Sin cannot abide in the presence of divine glory, therefore, those not saved will die.
After 1000 years, Christ and His redeemed will return to a dead world to execute judgment on those same unrepentant ones, now dead, and also the unrepentant dead that were in their graves at His second, previous advent. Both are raised from the dust to receive the penalty for self-aggrandizement. It is an act of mercy on God's part, as this group will be the only defect in an otherwise perfect universe. However, the primary reason for their death is that they are a threat to the peace of the universe, just as when Adam fell.
The wages of sin have always been death, but, that sentence was commuted, so that Christ could stand in place of the sinner, and offer salvation to all that wish it. The penalty cannot be fully abrogated, as sin is simply a foreign element - virus, if you will - in an otherwise perfect universe. The executive action is necessary for the aforementioned reason.
Bottom line: except for some very exceptional cases, no one has gone anywhere but six feet down after death.
What happens to the cremated then?
Or those eaten by animals/fish? Blown to smithereens in war? Ground to hamburger in industrial and motor vehicle accidents?
Same thing. They arise at the appointed time to receive their reward/judgment.
Their life force, or innervating energy, returns to the Life-giver. The body disintegrates, returning to it's elemental state. Really, creation in reverse, though at a much slower rate.
Genesis records that there is only sentience when the two components are combined. There is no consciousness that ascends to Heaven (or descends to hell) apart from it's corporeal shell.
That blows apart the pagan notion that ghosts of deceased relatives/enemies/friends, etc, are aware of, or even moving about us. Most of so-called Christianity has sold out to paganism's farces... eternal hellfire, disembodied spirits, Purgatory, etc.
Proof of what the Bible says about the last days, when men would pay heed to seducing spirits that "peep and mutter."
I sense we're getting into another round of Twenty Questions, so here's something you can work on:
The Naked Gravity-Driven Universe?
This is only a sample of the complexity of the universe that you naysayers say just happened along by chance.
Although natural beauty and the ability to appreciate it seems to completely escape you infidels as something totally unnecessary for any evolving 'accident' to exist and/or thrive upon, perhaps you'll see some evidence of a divine signature in the significance of those forces that we interact with every day, but never really notice.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
Why, do dead people not have control over their motor skills or something? Why can't dead people, plants, animals, etc fly their ghosts wherever they want to go? Does your religion not believe in freedom for dead people Gideon? Does your God just keep people confined to a coffin for thousands of years until they are raised from the dead by Zombie Jesus? Why can't the soul leave the body?
Furthermore, Gideon, where does the soul of a cremated person stay confined? Are they stuck like some kind of Genie in a Bottle? What if the cookie jar gets smashed too? Or if the coffin were to completely rot? What about fossilized people, how are they reanimated?
The unrepentant living ones will be destroyed by "the brightness of His coming." Sin cannot abide in the presence of divine glory, therefore, those not saved will die.
Uh oh... kind of sounds like Jesus is going to go O.T. on us - AGAIN, ferchissakes! That bastard just can't quit on the killing, can he? I thought we broke him of that when we stuck sweet bloody Jesus on a cross.
Christ and His redeemed will return to a dead world to execute judgment on those same unrepentant ones, now dead, and also the unrepentant dead that were in their graves at His second, previous advent. Both are raised from the dust to receive the penalty for self-aggrandizement.
Isn't that a little like the cat playing with the mouse before he kills it? Think about it, Gideon. What's the point? They didn't follow Herr Christ's rules, they fucked up, they're dead, they would only fuck up the universal harmony if they were allowed to live - leave it alone, already. What, you just *have* to wake them up and let them know how fucked they are before killing them again?
Ahhh, it all sounds very fascistic to me, Gideon. I'll take the eternal death over the privilege of singing that Nazi Christ's praises for a trillion, trillion, trillion to the power of 10 years.
"Isn't that a little like the cat playing with the mouse before he kills it?"
John, cats don't "play" with anything. As you should know by your superior training in evolutionary biology, cats are animals. They are governed by instinct, which makes them the closest thing to machines there is in the natural world.
When cats 'play', it is actually a rehearsal of the skills needed to kill something. Cats practice and hone their killing skills this way. Animals don't play... humans play. Even a colt spiriting in the pasture is gaining strength for eventual mating and survival needs. Instincts are kicking in, and the animal merely responds to those impulses without thinking.
Animals do not think or reason, they simply act upon their programming. They don't get any twisted pleasure from torturing other animals, like man does, with them or his own kind.
If you have a cat, and you die, leaving your body and the cat locked up in your house, rest assured, your carcass won't go wasted! That animal knows it must eat, and you'll be the main course in short order. Animals do not reason if it's morally acceptable, they simply do what they have to do to survive. This is why the higher emotions are useless in the evolutionary paradigm.
Am I making a case for Evolution? No, because the very presence of higher emotions in man plainly shows that Evolution is not in charge, God is.
Your hatred is beginning to show through that thin veneer of coolness. I figured the gay posts would bring you out of the closet. Gays have always presented the most virulent hatred toward Christianity, and are the most emotional. That's why they can do the things that they do.
Quiff, your questions are moronic, and you know it. You're boring me.
Blah, Blah, Blah.
Gideon, I have to throw the flag several more times on you for "logical fallacies". You just spent about 500 words in reply to my comment without addressing my questions! The old adage "if you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" might work on some of your fundie friends, but it doesn't get you anywhere here.
OK - cats aren't literally "playing", they're "practicing". That's nice. Want to *now* talk about what Jesus is up to and why *he* isn't just being a mass murderer and then a total dick?
Believe me, Gideon... I no more "hate" Jesus than I "hate" zombies and vampires. Which is - not in the least. Though I suppose if I were talking to someone who believed in either, they would think I *sounded* hateful.
Do I really come across like I'm gay? That's kind of a compliment in my crowd, you know? (Logical fallacy pre-alert - spending more than 10% of your next answer on this "throw away" question gets you penalized again. You are already backed up close to your own end-zone).
How does Jesus reanimate a fossil?
Stuart Brown says play is more than fun
I had a gander at your site, Masterson. I'd say your commentary of my comments is not without certain application there. I'd probably add pointless to the mix, as well.
John... if you're not gay, well, it was just an assumption on my part, but, as for everything else, it doesn't seem to matter what evidence or logic I present, you're saying it will never be enough. So much for your scientific way of analysis. Truth could present itself in a myriad of ways before your very eyes, and if it didn't match your predetermined view and prejudice, you'll simply blink and go to denial.
Quiff, the same for you, but add immature goof to the mix. I'll indulge your stupid question and tell you that the God that formed matter isn't limited in anything, and can reanimate that which He initially created from nothing from whatever state it might currently be in.
Neither one of you checked out that link I provided... hell, would it matter? Not a whit! You've already decided you're right, and even if God, Himself, came down and stood on your toes, yelling in your arrogant faces, you'd just blink stupidly and ask; "Is there somebody here? Charles Darwin, perhaps?"
Actually, I'm wrong on two counts... I originally thought that you guys had some cranial capacity, but, that was my biggest error.
That ought to be good for a fifty yard return, huh?
Did I use up my 10 percent, Ref?
LOL!
Some entertainment for all you "little tools"... enjoy!
;-)
Giddyup says "the God that formed matter isn't limited in anything".
QF: How conveniently magical, almost like an all powerful genie, that still doesn't quite explain how God reanimates fossils though. I think that your response to my valid question is immature because it's vague and doesn't explain anything. Remember, you are the one who believes in the garbage Gideon, I'm just entertaining it.
You couldn't entertain a wet dream, Quiff, much less your back-alley whores.
If I could explain how God created anything, you'd be bowing before me instead of Him, dumpkopf! And, make no mistake, you WILL be bowing before Him! (Rev. 20:12)
Maybe YOU would like to answer MY question, that I asked you weeks ago, but, I'M STILL WAITING...
HOW WAS MATTER FORMED?
Dawkins doesn't know... help him out, Einstein!
E=MC^2 .... matter was formed from energy, in fact that is the mass-energy equivalencey. A high enough energy photon can disintegrate into a positron and an electron. My personal hypothesis is that not everything about antimatter and black holes is understood, that antimatter constitutes bound tachyons which, when it collides with the corresponding matter particle will yeild the energy and momentum of gamma ray particles. As for, say, the collision of antiparticles that don't correspond to their particles but that collide with other particles, that might create something else. Any way you cut it, creation and annihilation of any waveparticles is fully explainable by scientific means. I'd wait for the supercollider experiments to yeild new discoveries in this field of matter creation/annihilation before saying anything definant though.
I'll bet Google's being rung off the hook, right about now, with ol' Quiffy's IP being the prominent feature in his quest for the lost farce!
LOL!
"I'd wait for the supercollider experiments to yeild new discoveries in this field of matter creation/annihilation before saying anything definant though.
How long will that take? Two... maybe three million years? LOL!
You might use that time to work on your spelling.
BTW, what is the source of this energy you speak of?
This black hole you speak of... is that the name of some biracial whorehouse you've taken an interest in, as of late?
Did Jesus teach you to talk that way Gideon?
Awwww... hurt your feelings, Bunky?
Wassa matter? It's okay when YOU do it, but no one else?
You dish it out, you better be able to take it, boy.
Think about what I told you.
I don't have to entertain your religion Gideon. Good luck with your beliefs there.
Luck doesn't enter into it, Quiff. Save your advice for yourself, 'cause you're going to need it.
"Do you believe in god?"
"No."
"But what do you believe in?"
"You getting off my property right now."
Do you believe in God, humpinglions?
Nice fill someone in on and this mail helped me alot in my college assignement. Thank you as your information.
Post a Comment