amyonyango wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

amyonyango wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

Ingenuity Gap wrote:Behaviour is influenced by what one believes not by what one doesn't believe.

False, if I don't believe I have any money, I will act as though I am penniless. If I don't believe the escalator is working, I will act as though they are stairs. If I don't believe that alcohol can kill me, I will have fewer compunctions about binge drinking drinking.

How can you "believe" you have no money. You "know" you're penniless and act accordingly.
How can you "believe" the escalator isn't working? You can see it's out of order and act accordingly.
To not belive in alcohol poisoning means you are ignorant of the facts and therefore your actions are based on the belief that binge drinking does you no harm.

You aren't addressing my comments. I was specifically referring to things people "don't believe". You brought up not believing, let's not get off track, shall we?

I don't believe I have money the same way I do believe I have money. I look in my wallet, I look at the numbers of my bank account, and I form my beliefs, and/or lack thereof, on the evidence at hand. If that's a zero in my bank account and an apparently empty wallet, I don't believe I have any money. Correspondingly, I also believe I have no money, but if you'd like to get into that you should probably talk about it in another thread.

If I look in my wallet and see a £20 note, I don't "believe" I have it, I know I have it.

That's the difference. Belief requires a degree of faith to bridge the gap between the known and the assumed. Atheism is a non-belief as atheists use knowledge and proof to form judgements. It is knowledge and proof that we act upon, not pre-supposed belief or faith.

So in your brain, it would be accurate for you to look inside your wallet, see a £20 note, and say "I don't believe I have any money". That confluence of events and mental states makes sense to you. You don't believe that your mother is your mother, you don't believe you have eyes and teeth.

It would make sense for you to say any of that, according to your brain because you don't have beliefs about such things.

See, I disagree. I think you do believe, when you see evidence for something, in that proposition. When you don't see evidence for a proposition, you don't believe. It's how we work. I also believe that you are mistaking your perceptions of evidence for concrete, 100% knowledge. Realistically, you have no way of "knowing" that you aren't just a brain in a vat experiencing an artificial reality.

What you are doing is assuming that your senses are not lying to you. And you know what you say about assumptions.

Loren Michael wrote:So in your brain, it would be accurate for you to look inside your wallet, see a £20 note, and say "I don't believe I have any money". That confluence of events and mental states makes sense to you. You don't believe that your mother is your mother, you don't believe you have eyes and teeth.

It would make sense for you to say any of that, according to your brain because you don't have beliefs about such things.

See, I disagree. I think you do believe, when you see evidence for something, in that proposition. When you don't see evidence for a proposition, you don't believe. It's how we work. I also believe that you are mistaking your perceptions of evidence for concrete, 100% knowledge. Realistically, you have no way of "knowing" that you aren't just a brain in a vat experiencing an artificial reality.

What you are doing is assuming that your senses are not lying to you. And you know what you say about assumptions.

I know the difference between belief and knowledge.

If you want to twist my argument round in circles to suit your philosophical meanderings then that's up to you.

Belief and Knowledge.
In the context of the following a Belief is a Belief System brought about by an interpretation of the causes of events that occur in the physical world and an assumed spiritual world external or internal to ourselves. In some Belief Systems the causes of some events are attributed to an ‘Other-worldly or Supernatural Being’ who must be appeased or appealed to in order to prevent or cause an event to happen in the material world.
Knowledge arises from understanding the true causes of these events by observation and deduction carried out in a logical and rational manner and divorced from an alleged ‘whim’ of an assumed external supernatural agent or deity. Therefore:

a) Belief precedes Knowledge.
b) Belief relies not on Knowledge for its perpetuation.
c) Knowledge relies not on Belief for its acquisition.
d) Knowledge can change Belief.

All Belief Systems are closed Belief Systems to a greater or lesser degree.
A closed Belief System is self-perpetuating by denying or suppressing the existence of Knowledge that would change the premise of the Belief. Such a Belief System would cause the destruction of Knowledge storage or the means of acquisition of such Knowledge in order to preserve the status quo of the Belief System. For example, in the extreme, burning books and killing thinkers.
Dogma and undeviating adherence to the written word are external manifestations of a closed Belief System.
A closed Belief System will justify itself by coercion and manipulation of individuals to conform to the system dogma and will treat people with different Beliefs with suspicion and sometimes hostility.
A closed Belief System will foster the concepts of superiority and inferiority in relation to other Closed Belief Systems and their followers.
People in a closed Belief System tend to be inward looking (Belief-centred) and to reject external ideas.
The acquisition and storage of Knowledge is selective and subservient to the Belief in a closed Belief System.

The theist relies upon belief and emphasises its use in decision making at the expense of knowledge.
The atheist relies upon knowledge and rejects the influence of non-contributive irrational belief.

amyonyango wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:So in your brain, it would be accurate for you to look inside your wallet, see a £20 note, and say "I don't believe I have any money". That confluence of events and mental states makes sense to you. You don't believe that your mother is your mother, you don't believe you have eyes and teeth.

It would make sense for you to say any of that, according to your brain because you don't have beliefs about such things.

See, I disagree. I think you do believe, when you see evidence for something, in that proposition. When you don't see evidence for a proposition, you don't believe. It's how we work. I also believe that you are mistaking your perceptions of evidence for concrete, 100% knowledge. Realistically, you have no way of "knowing" that you aren't just a brain in a vat experiencing an artificial reality.

What you are doing is assuming that your senses are not lying to you. And you know what you say about assumptions.

I know the difference between belief and knowledge.

If you want to twist my argument round in circles to suit your philosophical meanderings then that's up to you.

If that were true you wouldn't make claims like how can you "believe" you have no money. You "know" you're penniless and act accordingly and how can you "believe" the escalator isn't working? You can see it's out of order and act accordingly.

You're positively oozing assumptions here.

Anyways, to rewind back to the topic, we're influenced by things we believe and things we don't believe, and sometimes (possibly) neither influences us (I can't recall any time that I was ever motivated by my belief that the moon is not made of cheese). And... Actually, I have no idea why Ingenuity Gap made the claim in the first place. His entire post seems like a non-sequitur.

Alan B wrote:Belief and Knowledge.
In the context of the following a Belief is a Belief System brought about by an interpretation of the causes of events that occur in the physical world and an assumed spiritual world external or internal to ourselves. In some Belief Systems the causes of some events are attributed to an ‘Other-worldly or Supernatural Being’ who must be appeased or appealed to in order to prevent or cause an event to happen in the material world.
Knowledge arises from understanding the true causes of these events by observation and deduction carried out in a logical and rational manner and divorced from an alleged ‘whim’ of an assumed external supernatural agent or deity. Therefore:

a) Belief precedes Knowledge.
b) Belief relies not on Knowledge for its perpetuation.
c) Knowledge relies not on Belief for its acquisition.
d) Knowledge can change Belief.

All Belief Systems are closed Belief Systems to a greater or lesser degree.
A closed Belief System is self-perpetuating by denying or suppressing the existence of Knowledge that would change the premise of the Belief. Such a Belief System would cause the destruction of Knowledge storage or the means of acquisition of such Knowledge in order to preserve the status quo of the Belief System. For example, in the extreme, burning books and killing thinkers.
Dogma and undeviating adherence to the written word are external manifestations of a closed Belief System.
A closed Belief System will justify itself by coercion and manipulation of individuals to conform to the system dogma and will treat people with different Beliefs with suspicion and sometimes hostility.
A closed Belief System will foster the concepts of superiority and inferiority in relation to other Closed Belief Systems and their followers.
People in a closed Belief System tend to be inward looking (Belief-centred) and to reject external ideas.
The acquisition and storage of Knowledge is selective and subservient to the Belief in a closed Belief System.

The theist relies upon belief and emphasises its use in decision making at the expense of knowledge.
The atheist relies upon knowledge and rejects the influence of non-contributive irrational belief.

Thanks, Alan! You did my work for me!

Doubt it'll do much good tho, but I appreciate your post for its clarity and logic!

Loren Michael wrote:

Agrippina wrote:The point that theists don't get about the perpetrators of genocide is that these people are not driven by their lack of belief.

Who is this directed to? Are you saying that I believe otherwise?

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, it was just general commentary on what had previously been said i.e. that people like Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists first but they ween't anymore than Robert Mugabe has ever been an atheist or that Idi Amin was an atheist, they were (and are) all power freaks first, Their dismissal of religion was just part of the policy they followed, not an ethical stance against religion. My comment was directed at you or any of your posts.

Alan B wrote:In the context of the following a Belief is a Belief System brought about by an interpretation of the causes of events that occur in the physical world and an assumed spiritual world external or internal to ourselves.(...)

A belief doesn't need to have a component of an assumed spiritual world. It seems you make the distinction/definition in order to arrive at the conclusion that theists rely on beliefs and atheists on knowledge. Both groups rely both on beliefs and on knowledge.

A belief is a much more general concept:

Merriam-Webster wrote:1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

And, a bit more specific:

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy wrote:Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term "belief" to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term "belief", in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it's the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology. The "mind-body problem", for example, so central to philosophy of mind, is in part the question of whether and how a purely physical organism can have beliefs. Much of epistemology revolves around questions about when and how our beliefs are justified or qualify as knowledge. (...)

One subset of beliefs is called "religious beliefs". A belief system might be roughly equivalent to an ideology, which can exist without religious references as well.

Agrippina wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

Agrippina wrote:The point that theists don't get about the perpetrators of genocide is that these people are not driven by their lack of belief.

Who is this directed to? Are you saying that I believe otherwise?

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, it was just general commentary on what had previously been said i.e. that people like Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists first[...]

That was not said. I noted that they were atheists. I was perhaps not "charitable to the atheist cause", but my point in offering the commentary was to demonstrate a point. As I suspected, sadly people acted as though I was suggesting some terrible thing, as you yourself suggest. I wasn't. I was stating facts.

I suggest people take it easy, and don't put your beliefs so close to your heart. Being easily offended just looks terrible.

RichardPrins wrote:

Alan B wrote:In the context of the following a Belief is a Belief System brought about by an interpretation of the causes of events that occur in the physical world and an assumed spiritual world external or internal to ourselves.(...)

A belief doesn't need to have a component of an assumed spiritual world. It seems you make the distinction/definition in order to arrive at the conclusion that theists rely on beliefs and atheists on knowledge. Both groups rely both on beliefs and on knowledge.

Yeah.

Loren Michael wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

Agrippina wrote:The point that theists don't get about the perpetrators of genocide is that these people are not driven by their lack of belief.

Who is this directed to? Are you saying that I believe otherwise?

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, it was just general commentary on what had previously been said i.e. that people like Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists first[...]

That was not said. I noted that they were atheists. I was perhaps not "charitable to the atheist cause", but my point in offering the commentary was to demonstrate a point. As I suspected, sadly people acted as though I was suggesting some terrible thing, as you yourself suggest. I wasn't. I was stating facts.

I suggest people take it easy, and don't put your beliefs so close to your heart. Being easily offended just looks terrible.

I'm not offended at all by the allegations of 'atheism' that people make about despots, tyrants and dictators. It's a very fair observation that perhaps the people who've committed and who continue to atrocities may be driven by their disdain for the 'god' of the people they seek to eradicate, but when you look at the dictator from a psychological point of view, the lack of empathy and the narcissism that leads them to incite violence against innocent people has more to do with a power trip than a feeling of anti-religious arrogance. I know that it's not atheism that drove Idi Amin to put the heads of his enemies in his freezer or Robert Mugabe to bankrupt his country while living in the lap of luxury, so no, I'm not offended when people don't understand the psychology behind the mind of a psychopath.

Loren Michael wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

Agrippina wrote:The point that theists don't get about the perpetrators of genocide is that these people are not driven by their lack of belief.

Who is this directed to? Are you saying that I believe otherwise?

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, it was just general commentary on what had previously been said i.e. that people like Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists first[...]

That was not said. I noted that they were atheists. I was perhaps not "charitable to the atheist cause", but my point in offering the commentary was to demonstrate a point. As I suspected, sadly people acted as though I was suggesting some terrible thing, as you yourself suggest. I wasn't. I was stating facts.

I suggest people take it easy, and don't put your beliefs so close to your heart. Being easily offended just looks terrible.

Thank you for your projected concern. As you so trenchantly put it in your profile, 'Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding.' I think you are too modest: in your case there's no maybe about it.

RichardPrins wrote:

Alan B wrote:In the context of the following a Belief is a Belief System brought about by an interpretation of the causes of events that occur in the physical world and an assumed spiritual world external or internal to ourselves.(...)

A belief doesn't need to have a component of an assumed spiritual world. It seems you make the distinction/definition in order to arrive at the conclusion that theists rely on beliefs and atheists on knowledge. Both groups rely both on beliefs and on knowledge.

One subset of beliefs is called "religious beliefs". A belief system might be roughly equivalent to an ideology, which can exist without religious references as well.

And the following sentence in my post reads:

In some Belief Systems the causes of some events are attributed to an ‘Other-worldly or Supernatural Being’ who must be appeased or appealed to in order to prevent or cause an event to happen in the material world.

Or did you deliberately miss that?

Alan B wrote:And the following sentence in my post reads:

In some Belief Systems the causes of some events are attributed to an ‘Other-worldly or Supernatural Being’ who must be appeased or appealed to in order to prevent or cause an event to happen in the material world.

Or did you deliberately miss that?

No, the ellipse covers the rest of your post, yet the point remains, which is mostly about belief. Taking belief or even the larger belief systems (I don't see the need for capitals either) to have some inherently religious connotation is just wrong. Everyone has beliefs.

Shaker wrote:
Secondly, and more importantly, I thought it was a feature of the approach of all the so-called "New Atheists" that it isn't so much atheism per se that they want to encourage but - Dawkins is especially hot on this - reason: critical thinking, scepticism, evidence-based thought, rationalism, evidentialism. Atheism is a logical consequence of those things and comes at the end of the process, not the beginning.

No, what Dawkins and all are 'hot on' is sacredizing rationality, critical thinking, skepticism. They have no clue how to make individuals as such, in fact they don't even posses the qualities they expound. Most of these new atheist suffer a great deal of confirmation bias. Their own views of religion are fueled by resentful delusions.

What I mean by sacredizing, is that they get everyone shouting how much they value rationalism and scientific thinking. Then they get around to believing that by getting people to value it, that this magically makes them more rational and better critical thinkers than those who don't go around calling themselves rationalist. Their solution to irrationality is to get people to go around and wear a badge announcing how rational they are.

It's utter stupidity. If you foster the value as rationalism as such, it doesn't get people to critically think, its get them to call their delusions rational.

Even the creationist value critical thinking. It's why they want to place stickers on science text books, asking students to think critically about the ToE. The North Koreans, and even Ahmadinejad promote the need for rational and scientific thinking. Then you have the folks of the French Revolution, whose thinking our atheist seem to be the children of, whose desire to spread rational and scientific thinking led to the Reign of Terror, and a mob marching around with the heads of priest and nuns on sticks.

When any of these New Atheist dimwits, and their supporters figures out a cure for the basic irrationality of human life, that plagues their own thinking as well, let me know. Or I'm just going to put the whole lot of them, in league with tea party folks, and creationist.

Even the creationist value critical thinking. It's why they want to place stickers on science text books, asking students to think critically about the ToE

Paul G wrote:

Even the creationist value critical thinking. It's why they want to place stickers on science text books, asking students to think critically about the ToE

Of course it's funny:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/oried.htm

Critical Thinking about Evolution
(and intelligent design & creationism)
Worldviews and Education in Public Schools

Can we improve Scientific Integrity and Educational Responsibility
by using critical thinking about Origins Questions (regarding Evolution,
Intelligent Design, Young-Earth Creationism) in an effort to achieve our goals
of Quality in Science Education and Balanced Neutrality in Worldviews and Religion?

All getting people to wear a badge proudly claiming themselves as critical thinkers does, is get people to say their delusions are a product of critical thinking.

Agrippina wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:That was not said. I noted that they were atheists. I was perhaps not "charitable to the atheist cause", but my point in offering the commentary was to demonstrate a point. As I suspected, sadly people acted as though I was suggesting some terrible thing, as you yourself suggest. I wasn't. I was stating facts.

I suggest people take it easy, and don't put your beliefs so close to your heart. Being easily offended just looks terrible.

I'm not offended at all by the allegations of 'atheism' that people make about despots, tyrants and dictators. It's a very fair observation that perhaps the people who've committed and who continue to atrocities may be driven by their disdain for the 'god' of the people they seek to eradicate, but when you look at the dictator from a psychological point of view, the lack of empathy and the narcissism that leads them to incite violence against innocent people has more to do with a power trip than a feeling of anti-religious arrogance. I know that it's not atheism that drove Idi Amin to put the heads of his enemies in his freezer or Robert Mugabe to bankrupt his country while living in the lap of luxury, so no, I'm not offended when people don't understand the psychology behind the mind of a psychopath.

Maybe you're not offended, but you're still engaging in a queer misdirection. Rather than simply acknowledging what was said: "they were atheists", you're continuing to argue against "...the people who've committed and who continue to atrocities may be driven by their disdain for the 'god' of the people they seek to eradicate..." That, and formulations of that, were never voiced by me or, to my understanding, anyone else here. In fact I said their motivations are irrelevant to the point I was making. As such, I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth so you can make underhanded and crude jabs at my purported lack of "understanding" of something I haven't even talked about.

theidiot wrote:

Shaker wrote:
Secondly, and more importantly, I thought it was a feature of the approach of all the so-called "New Atheists" that it isn't so much atheism per se that they want to encourage but - Dawkins is especially hot on this - reason: critical thinking, scepticism, evidence-based thought, rationalism, evidentialism. Atheism is a logical consequence of those things and comes at the end of the process, not the beginning.

No, what Dawkins and all are 'hot on' is sacredizing rationality, critical thinking, skepticism. They have no clue how to make individuals as such, in fact they don't even posses the qualities they expound. Most of these new atheist suffer a great deal of confirmation bias. Their own views of religion are fueled by resentful delusions.

What I mean by sacredizing, is that they get everyone shouting how much they value rationalism and scientific thinking. Then they get around to believing that by getting people to value it, that this magically makes them more rational and better critical thinkers than those who don't go around calling themselves rationalist. Their solution to irrationality is to get people to go around and wear a badge announcing how rational they are.

It's not one or the other given what I've heard from Dawkins et al--promoting respect of rationality and encouraging rationality in general--so in that respect I think you're wrong. But that's a very good point about "sacredizing" things that I hadn't really thought of before, at least in those terms. I know that one point that gets brought up a lot about religious people is that they don't understand the doctrine they claim to adhere to (I also believe this to be true), but I think it's likely that a not-insignificant number of "new atheists", "freethinkers", etc and people who claim to be of that ilk don't fully grasp what they're talking about as well, which is kind of a tragedy.

Some good points, but doesn't the concluding idea of the 'atheist approach' clash somewhat with the initial 'objective' definition? Assuming that 'atheism' (as a movement or approach) conforms to a specific set of attitudes, behaviour, etc. is to fall into the same trap that is being warned against.
The 'reality' of everyday atheism (if I might be permitted to speculate in such general terms) is one of immense diversity. Within that range, the fixation on religion and its negative attributes seems understandable. Personally I would also question the apparently positive features of religion, as these can be understood as positive social impulses more generally (like morality, which is entirely unrelated to religion)...

Sigmund, your words are a little vague for your first two sentences and I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to. Which concluding idea are you talking about and what is the "objective" definition... of what, atheism?