Ideas, Beliefs, Doctrines, Ontologies, and Pardigms

Debate Room
21

Not at all. I think that you are so full of yourself that you do not realize you are just shoveling tons of shit and getting nowhere.

Don’t use a big word when a singularly loquacious diminutive expression will satisfactorily accomplish the contemporary necessity. See, I can shovel shit too. And do you see the irony in my statement?

That is how theists work, using complex concepts and arguments because they are unable to provide proof of god, either philosophically or with reasonable evidence. They know they can not offer a simple proof. So they shovel tons of manure instead.

They are unable to make a simple reply or provide sufficient evidence. And you are playing into their hands, attempting to match then step by step.

I do not play their game, I just request they prove their god, and they slink away.

22

His utterances lead me to suspect he is a theist. He is defending theism and distorting atheism.

23

THANK YOU, Now I don’t have to sound like the jerk and say it!

3 Likes
24

And to use the methods we believe they work and give us the best understanding of the world around us. WTF are you on about? You operate according to your beliefs. People who do not believe in the utility of the scientific method or who are unaware of the scientific method do not use it. In my belief system, the importance of independent verification is at the pinnacle of reality testing. (THAT IS A BELIEF) It is believed so strongly as to be held as truth. To alter this belief would be life altering. I might even believe in a god if you were to successfully challenge it. (Hint: Philosophical woo woo will not do the trick. We still live and function in a real world with real consequences for real behavior that occurs because of real thoughts and understandings about the surrounding things we interact with.

25

Yes, his posts are increasingly suggesting this to me as well. Either way he is wrong about a great many claims, and other claims simply seem so trivially true as to be meaningless.

For example that theists start from a position of belief in a deity or deities is trivially true, that atheists start from a position of not believing also, but then implying atheism involves doctrine dogma or belief is simply wrong, though of course atheists can and do adhere to such ideas.

1 Like
26

I agree, beliefs can be facts or they can be pure supposition, but we could not function without forming beliefs about the world, now whether they have to be valid in order to help us function is another matter, but scientific methods certainly have demonstrated their reliability in validating ideas. Now yes this is a belief I hold, but it is a belief for which ample objective evidence can be demonstrated in the quantifiable successes of those methods. @CyberHiker seemed to be implying that beliefs are all equally unreliable, unless of course I misread the claim.

2 Likes
27

I get a lot of Black and White thinking from the guy. It seems to me that he regards “Belief” as an all or nothing proposition. Basic “Theist” thinking. If you believe in something it is 100% The idea that belief is alocated to the degree of the evidnce is foreign to him. He is using an extremely narrow definition of belief, "Dogmatic, Unevidenced, acceptence of a claim. " This of course is not the only type of believe out there. In fact it is a very small percent of the possible ways to believe.

I believe he is just stupid. I support that remark with the fact that he can look evidence in the face and still deny that he is seeing evidence. Show him a white rabbit and say “Look, this is a white rabbit.” And you will get, “Well, philosophically it is a cow.” He is dishonest and not willing to have an actual conversation.

2 Likes
28

This is the only area of exchange he and I have had and I strongly disagree with his definition.

Clearly, worship involves a devotion to a belief.

I agree with David Hume that “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”.
From my observations of other conversations held with @CyberHiker demonstrated his bold, unevidenced assertions and declarations. The breathtaking arrogance of “why am I the only one” or “I would think you would want to be a part of the next big thing” statements pretty much speak for themselves.
I am also taken by @CyberHiker repeatedly mentioning how others here get hearts from others or the support from their “buddies”.
@CyberHiker you seem to be very needy and require validation and endorsement. Either that or you are (1) dull as a post or (2) an under-bridge dweller.
Apparently the original thread got too contentious so you created another to continue the firehose of arrogant pronouncements.
I have yet to see the relevance to atheists in general, of the majority of your diatribe(s).
If indeed you are as insightful as you clearly believe you are, you should publish your “musings” and reap the rewards of which you are so richly deserving.

Edit: I believe therefore I worship

1 Like
29

Which is an interesting concept, but how about polytheistic religions?

One could believe in gods. But did they worship each and every god?

1 Like
30

The belief in magic I think is not a good one because of what happen in saida arabia you could be killed for it right?

31

Welcome to Atheist Republic James. Pull up a seat, get comfy, and please ignore the occasional shenanigans.

As far as any society killing or punishing anyone for magic, heck, there were the Salem Witch Trials.

32

WRONG. You could be killed for believing in the 'Wrong Kind of Magic."
If you believe an illiterate man was inspired by angels in a cave to write the Quaaran. Youir belief in magic is justified by Islam.

If you believe the Quaran itself is a magical book that expresses scientific data well before any of the data could have possibly been known to man, Your magical thinking is justified by the religion of Islam, just not by history.

If you believe Muhammad magically split the moon into two parts, your magical thinking is the good magical thinking and not the bad magical thinking that could get you killed.

If you believe assians can be magically blinded by the sprinkling of dust and the recitation of the 9th verse of [SurahYa Sin (Ya-Sin - Wikipedia) Then you are wise in the ways of good magic.

If you believe Muhammad could magically heal the sick and cure the blind by touching them, you believe in the magic of Muhammad and will be blessed in the magical afterlife.

If you believe, as does Ali ibn Sahl Rabban al-Tabari, (Ali ibn Sahl Rabban al-Tabari - Wikipedia), that all of Muhammads milatary success was due to the magical intervention and blessings of a magical god, then your belief in magic will be rewarded and you will not be stoned to death and then burned.

If you believe that the day Muhammad came to Medina everything began to shine with a magical glow, you will not be killed for your belief in magic.

If you believe Muhammad could look at Suraqa and cause his horse to sink into the earth, you are a fucking idiot, OOP! Sorry! I forgot we were talking about magic. Then you believe in magic that is accepted by Islam and you will not be punished.

If you believe Muhammad made many magical prophecies, then you believe in magical foresight and your magical thinking will be praised by the religion of Islam. All you need do is agree that Muhammad predicted…

*Muhammad told his companion, Ammar ibn Yasir, that an unjust party would kill him. (Ammar ibn Yasir - Wikipedia)

*That Muhammad magically foretold to Suraqa bin Malik that he would wear the bracelets of Kosroe.

*That Muhammad magically fortold of killing Ubay ibn Khalaf, an enemy of Islam, which he achieved at the Battle of Uhud, (Battle of Uhud - Wikipedia)

*And that before the Battle of Badr, Muhammad magically predicted exactly where each of the enemy chiefs would be killed, you would be believing in magic sanctioned by the religion of Islam.

If you believe Muhammad could make water magically pour forth from the earth and quench the thirst of thousands of soldiers, you would be justified in your magical belief according to Islam.

If you believe Muhammad could waggle his fingers and magically move trees from his path, you believe in magic that is justified by Islam.

Once again, a favorite magic trick of Muhammad, if you believe he could sprinkle magic dust into the eyes of his enemy at the battle of Hunain (Quaaran Q8:17) then your magical thinking is supported by the religion of Islam and you will not be punished.

If you believe Muhammad magically convinced a ewe who had no milk to suddenly begin producing milk, your insight and acceptance of magic will be praised by Islam.

If you believe Muhammad spit in Ali’s eye and cured him of blindness, you certainly believe in the right kind of magic.

If you believe Muhammad could cause the rain to fall as he did in Madina, your magical belief is justified in Islam.

If you believe Muhammad was an ancient version of Dr, Doolittle, and had the ability to converse with the animals and get them to do his will, well obviously your magical belief is supported by the glorious religion of Islam.

If you believe Muhammad walked the earth without casting a shadow, you need to grow the fuck u… oops! Slipped again. Sorry. You would be justified in your magical belief by the religion of Islam.

If you believe Muhammad hopped on a magical winged horse one day and flew to the moon, you would only be held in esteem for your insight into the magical world of Islam.

I am getting really bored with this. I think I have sufficiently made my point. Islam is Magic. It is not belief in magic that gets you killed but belief in the wrong kind of magic. Islam, like Christianity, “IS” belief in magic.

5 Likes
33

I am not defending theism. I am trying to explain to you, critical thinkers, that there are some errors in the definitions of words that are significant to atheists. These words and the subsequent definitions form the atheist doctrinaire that most atheists deny exists. Atheists use these words to distinguish from theists.

Beginning with “belief.” You are giving belief the magical component that theists claim is connected with the existence of gods.

You, highly intelligent independent critically thinking atheists, are refusing to associate doctrine with “belief.”

34

You are the ones doing that. You believe that atheism and theism are polar opposites, because of the “Black and White” definition of “belief” used in the definitions of the terms. You are forgiving the necessity of doctrine in the definitions for belief to “work.”

What are you trying to reason, here???

Okay, how about you prove that? I notice nobody else is challenging your claim, so it must be true. Prove it - what are all the other types of belief that makes up the spectrum - is there visual aid for this? That would help me understand.

You are refusing to see the evidence. Atheist organizations are devoted to opposing theist based doctrine in public policy. It is not a coincidence. It is because that is all they can do, because atheism is a political doctrine.

35

Huh? Please help me understand…which atheist organizations? What do you mean by they oppose theist doctrine in public policy because it’s all they can do?

36

Belief is supporting a doctrine. In the instance of a supposition, the person is forming a doctrine, and then championing it until convinced otherwise.

Now yes this is a belief I hold, but it is a belief for which ample objective evidence can be demonstrated in the quantifiable successes of those methods. @CyberHiker seemed to be implying that beliefs are all equally unreliable, unless of course I misread the claim.
[/quote]

37

That is where I stopped reading.

3 Likes
38

There is no atheist doctrine. Words are used to describe the surrounding word. If you have an issue with a specific word, perhaps you could list it, share your definition and then see where atheists differ. The way to get clarity is to explore, not to make assertions.

Can you show me this Doctrine you speak of? I can show you the Doctrine of any religion on the planet. They are well-defined, written out, and members of congregations even swear elegance to these doctrines. No such thing exists in Atheism.

You are confusing humanism, skepticism, and probably some other things with Atheism. Most atheists are also humanists or skeptics. Now skepticism, far from being an actual doctrine, does have a very specific attitude. Skeptics typically want to believe as many true things as possible and challenge or disbelieve false claims. In doing this they rely on (whether they know it or not) philosophies of physicalism (materialism) of which there are many. I personally prefer methodological naturalism, but I think I also fit the philosophy of Stoicism to a degree. None of this has anything at all to do with Atheism. You are confounding world views with Atheism and making an equivocation error. Most of the people on the site, who call themselves atheists, are “Rationalists” ‘skeptics’ or “physicalismists” to some degree. They follow these philosophies whether they know it or not. Not all atheists even concern themselves with the underlying philosophy of their personal belief system. They don’t care. But these belief systems (WORLD VIEWS) have nothing whatsoever to do with Atheism. Atheism is the rejection of god claims. THAT’S IT. NOTHING MORE. If you are going to attack an atheist based on a ‘world view’ you are going to need to know the epistemology they are using to draw conclusions. Atheism is also not an epistomology. You are like a lost child in a forest who does not even recognize a tree for being a tree. You don’t know what in the fuck you are talking about.

2 Likes
39

My participation here was suspended because I challenged the definitions of atheism, theism, and belief; and I was accused of being a theist.

I was challenging your doctrinaire. Wake up.

40

BULLSHIT: You could not possibly be banned from this site for challenging such things. You are a liar, or you are swimming in delusion. If you don’t want to be mistaken as a theist, the best thing to do is stop talking like one. I am already counting you as a theist. Your arguments are from a theistic perspective. Do you not think we have not heard them before? Your ineptitude at using logic and reason are astounding. You will be removed from the site for arguing dishonestly. No one here is going to put up with your inane, un-evidenced assertions and blind bullshit.