Atheists and Theists don't exist.

EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheists and Theists don't exist.

This is unusual to post my believe that there is no such thing as an Atheist or Theist on a forum for called "Atheist vs. Theist".

I have a difficult time explaining my views on things because it is just assumed that because that because the labels "Atheist" and "Theist" are thrown around so much that everyone assumes such people actually exist and this is a proper way to categorize people. I don't believe anyone fits either of these catagories. Since they don't exist, I'm going to stop using these terms to label people. I'm going to use my on terms base on how I see the reality of things. Here is how I will categorize people's religious positions:

Liars About Beliefs(LABs) - Religious People that lie and say they believe in a god and holy book, even though the really don't. These people were indoctrinated with religion, made to feel fear and guilt if they ever expressed doubt and are suckers for Pascal's wager. Also includes religious leaders who use religion for money and power. If you hooked these people up to a lie detector, it would show their "belief" is untrue. This is 99% of very religious people. Since they don't really believe in a God and only say they do, they can't be called Theists.

Delusional About Beliefs(DABs) - Religious People that are delusional about there being a God. I think this is a small minority of adult religious people. These people either have the mental capacity of a child or have a mental disorder like schizophrenia. Indoctrinated children who "believe" would also fit into this category since they could also be made to believe in Santa Claus. Adults that are this delusional would require medical treatment, they should not own a gun or drive a car, many should be institutionalized to protect society. It's ridiculous to call these people theists, just as it's ridiculous to call a small child a Democrat or Republican.

Don't Care(DCs) - People who sometimes claim to believe in God(when it's convenient) but are not very religious, don't know much about what any holy book, pastor or Rational Responder has to says. Cultural Christians. The unwashed masses. The morons in the middle. Ignorance is Bliss for these people. To call these people Theists is like calling a dog or a parrot a Theist.

Honest About Beliefs(HABs) - People that only assign probabilities of things being true based on evidence not fear or feelings. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be given any validity. Truth must be based on repeatable scientific experiments. These people can say we don't know, there is not enough evidence to make claims about the many mysteries of life and the universe. They don't need to say "God is the explanation" for every mystery that science does not yet have an answer.

Technically you can't assign a 0% probability to any Theist proposition. The probability of Jesus, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster myths being true is infinitesimally small, but it's not exactly zero. So you can't technically be an atheist. The term agnostic is bad because it often assumes that you assign a 50% probability of a Christian god existing, when the reality is something infinitesimally small.

 I'm not going to use the term atheist to describe myself anymore since the LABs have successfully associated this term with having no morals. I'm a HAB. If someone ask my religion I will say "I'm honest with myself about what I believe to be true".

I'm posting what I believe here, so that in the future, I can point people to this post so they know how I label people and they don't think I'm crazy when I say "Theists and Atheists don't exist".

 

P.S. I still may be crazy though.Smile

 

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
This thread is another

This thread is another example of pure semantic bullshit.

Hey, if it makes you feel important I don't give a fuck if you change or reject the definition of every god damned word in the dictionary.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 Interesting (semantic)

 

Interesting (semantic) thread this is. Lots of good points.(smile)

I mentioned early "Karma" for the reason of what I felt happening here in this thread. I re-skimmed and re-read EXC 's OP. None of it this thread seems crazy or dangerously wrong, so why so much tension I'm feeling ? (falls out chair crying)

Maybe I need to read this whole thing again. (nah)

Sometimes I wish RRS had a personal account "spam this thread" button. (belly laughs) Yeah a spam "I AM GOD..." button I can hear some shouting. (grits teeth)

I'm often too quick to bare my indignation, but shit what's the big rub here ? (giggle)

I do feel EXC's frusturation with all the religion crap and word labels dividing and fucking with us all. That is why, for the kids, we must carry on .... (sigh)

I know most won't, .... but I recommend saying these words very slowly. I did not invent them. (they own me)

i am god, (breath out), as you. (inhale) i am god (exhale) as you, keep going slower, relax .....concentrate on relaxing into your breathing only, (passes out)

(wakes up) says, I am learning, let's try again ....

, but first a guitar computer game you might also like, some fake guitar playing,

( this thread made me think of this song, and so I found this game ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Jqgx8bZhE

THIS SMOKES ! Guitar Hero 3 - Devil Went Down to Georgia expert complete! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_znMI5hRxKY

lots more fun guitar songs, http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=corporalgregg&p=r

Buy game here, $ 80 http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=5192826 WOW people love it ..... just wanted ya to know ....

Thanks RRS, now I too know , guitar is GOD ! .... amazing .... Surprised


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Shorter form of all of the

Shorter form of all of the above:

 

I believe that I believe what I believe I believe, and I don't believe that you know what I believe. In fact, I will go so far as to say that I know that you don't know what I believe. Until you can prove that you know what I believe that I believe, and further prove that you know that I don't believe what I believe I believe, then at best you believe you know what I believe, but you don't know that you know what I believe.

 

Longer form of the below:

You needlessly and aggressively segregate your audience based on the premise that they are at best apathetic about their own beliefs, and at worst aggressively self-decieving. Your aggressive and isolating approach will make people more, not less, resistant to your premise, which is one they will be deeply resistant to to begin with because of the simple fact that the beliefs we hold ourselves to hold form very deep and important parts of who we hold ourselves to be.

Show me the path to realize my own mistakes and correct them, and you offer me growth.

Attempt by blunt force trauma to change my beliefs, and thus, who I am, and you in effect threaten to kill me, and I will do my best to kill you first.

Man is not so removed from the savage garden as to be placid in the face of threats to the 'self' he has developed. 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  turn it up BMcD, LOUDER

  turn it up BMcD, LOUDER ,

who is YOU ? Smile 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Atheist wrote: Let me

Mr. Atheist wrote:

Let me throw this out there EXC...

Why should I give your belief more respect than I do religious beliefs?

Because it's a hypothesis based upon anecdotal evidence. If there is anecdotal evidence to support the hypothesis, this should raise the probability that it's true. It's not 100% belief as religious people claim. It is something I am willing to modify or abandon based on new evidence. Creationist Theists are not willing to change or abandon their belief when new scientific evidence is discovered. If you examine the Theist evidence, you will always find it false or unable to support the hypothesis.

Understanding what faith really is. It is believing something for which there is no credible evidence. It is an oxymoron. It's believing the unbelievable. So because of this, you are going to find logical contradictions in the words and actions of non-delusional self professed Theists.

 What they do is hold two set of beliefs in their minds (keep two sets of books). Sam Harris talks about this in his books. They hold one set of believes on Sunday in church. But then come Monday they have to have another set of rules to be able to function in the working world. A construction engineer believes on Sunday in church he can move mountains with faith. Then Monday morning he must be believe he can only move them with construction equipment in order to do his job.

Since we don't have mind reading machines to be near 100% sure we have to rely on other evidence demonstrate this. Just like if you were on a jury, to determine if someone is credible, you ask are their actions and other words consistent with their testimony of "belief"?

So, I've given you all these examples(The pope, Mother Theresa, Rick Warren, the Pastor debating Christopher Hitchens). They demonstrate inconsistency in people who truly "believe". It's pretty obvious they keep two set of beliefs. They change these beliefs depending on the situation. Here's two more Ted Haggard and Jimmy Swagart, they have one belief in the pulpit another with their prostitutes. I've seen this same pattern repeated over and over with dozens of religious people I've known. 

 Now I like to call a spade a spade, so I call it lying to oneself. Richard Dawkins I think was being diplomatic in calling it self-delusion. Daniel Dennet said they believe in a belief but the don't really believe. Christopher Hitchens says the keep two sets of books. So, if you agree with them, maybe the problem is just the semantics of lying. I think to you, lying implies a malicious act of a bad person. To me, not necessarily. Their intent is not malicious, they just want what they want (heaven, answered prayers) really bad, so they try really really hard to force themselves to believe it.

I don't think delusion is the proper word to describe most religious people. Delusional religious people would have a difficult time surviving and functioning in the real world.  Look at Banazir Bhutto, she was told by many security agencies that religious fanatics would try to assassinate her if she returned to Pakistan. She said she put her faith in God, so she didn't have much security or bullet proof glass. She would be alive if she was non-delusional like the Pope or President Bush who change their "beliefs". They say God protects them when they are speaking in public. Bullet proof glass protects them when they arrange their security.

Do you need more examples? What would constitute good proof short of reading peoples' minds? 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:

EXC wrote:

Because it's a hypothesis based upon anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is usually worse than none at all. Anecdotal evidence depends directly on the perception of those providing it, and direct perception w/out empirical evidence is usually flawed.

Quote:
Understanding what faith really is. It is believing something for which there is no credible evidence. It is an oxymoron. It's believing the unbelievable.

No, it's not believing the unbelievable. If it were truly unbelievable, no-one could believe it. Say rather that faith is actually belief in oneself. You see, faith is the belief in the unprovable, which only has value through faith. (ex. God has no positive or uplifting value to atheists.) Thus, it is belief in the ability of one's own belief to provide value, and so, to have value in oneself to begin with.

Quote:
So, I've given you all these examples(The pope, Mother Theresa, Rick Warren, the Pastor debating Christopher Hitchens). They demonstrate inconsistency in people who truly "believe". It's pretty obvious they keep two set of beliefs. They change these beliefs depending on the situation. Here's two more Ted Haggard and Jimmy Swagart, they have one belief in the pulpit another with their prostitutes. I've seen this same pattern repeated over and over with dozens of religious people I've known.

I'll point out that all of your examples are people who, by profession, dwell on these matters and so are more likely to have reached the point where they a)can't deny their doubt, and b)have a vested interest in deluding themselves. Rank and file folks are neither, and tend to exist in a default state of 'its what I was raised to believe, why should I doubt it?'

Quote:
Now I like to call a spade a spade,

I really, really hate that expression, probably due to its origins and racist connotations. Just sayin'.

Quote:

Look at Banazir Bhutto, she was told by many security agencies that religious fanatics would try to assassinate her if she returned to Pakistan. She said she put her faith in God, so she didn't have much security or bullet proof glass. She would be alive if she was non-delusional like the Pope or President Bush who change their "beliefs".

Benazir Bhutto repeatedly requested additional security from Musharref. Repeatedly. In addition, when she was assassinated, there were (from news accounts) 'hundreds' of police guarding all the access points to the area. There is quite a bit of circumstantial (not anecdotal) evidence that points to the assassins having some degree of connection to the Pakistani ISF, though not directly to Musharref. Say what you want about religious beliefs, but do not try to make it out that this woman killed herself with her own foolishness.

Quote:
They say God protects them when they are speaking in public. Bullet proof glass protects them when they arrange their security.

Lemme tell you a story I got off The West Wing:

A man in the midwest is watching the news, and they're predicting massive flooding, and telling people they should evacuate. He thinks to himself, "God will protect me."

A short time later, the sherriff comes around, getting people to evacuate. He refuses, telling the sherriff, "God will protect me."

The floods come, and he's trapped in the second floor of his house. A boat comes by getting people out. He refuses to leave, saying, "God will protect me."

The waters rise, and he's up on the roof. A helicopter comes, dropping a ladder. He waves them off, shouting up, "God will protect me."

The man drowns.

He gets up to heaven, and comes before God, saying, "Why didn't you protect me?"

God replies, "I sent warnings, the sherriff, a boat, and a helicopter. What more did you want??"

 

The moral here? Yes, they say God protects them, and yes, their security detail uses all the latest technology to keep them safe. In their perspective, God is acting through their security detail. God is usually believed to act through humanity and the natural world. Why should they expect direct divine intervention when there are so many easier agencies for Him to act through?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Because it's a

Quote:
Because it's a hypothesis based upon anecdotal evidence. If there is anecdotal evidence to support the hypothesis, this should raise the probability that it's true.


There is tremendous amounts of anecdotal evidence to support theist claims.

Quote:

It's not 100% belief as religious people claim.


Many religious people don't even neccessarily believe 100%, they believe it is extremly likely.


Quote:

It is something I am willing to modify or abandon based on new evidence.


If science could disprove god, they would likely abandon their belief as well.  Sadly this is impossible.

Quote:

Creationist Theists are not willing to change or abandon their belief when new scientific evidence is discovered. If you examine the Theist evidence, you will always find it false or unable to support the hypothesis.


Creationists have changed their story many times over the years in an attempt to contradict science.  This flexibility is a dishonest in nature, but many people buy into it's results.  There are also a great many theists that are not creationists so the cration argument isn't global to the categorization.

Quote:

Understanding what faith really is. It is believing something for which there is no credible evidence.


No scientific evidence, but often the evience does meet up to the standards of the person holding the belief.  And we must also remember the reinforcement that faith in spite of evidence is a virtue tought to people their whole lives so they are able to compartmentalize this information and rationalize it to suit thier faith.

Quote:

It is an oxymoron. It's believing the unbelievable.

I disagree with this.  It is believable because they are believing.  Belief in something is self-evident that it is believable.  It's believing the unprovable.  That said, I understand your intent but I just don't believe it's an oxymoron but rather it is just illogical.

Quote:

So because of this, you are going to find logical contradictions in the words and actions of non-delusional self professed Theists.


Correct, you will find logical contradictions in unsubstantiated faith in things that are illogical to believe in.

Quote:

 What they do is hold two set of beliefs in their minds (keep two sets of books). Sam Harris talks about this in his books. They hold one set of believes on Sunday in church. But then come Monday they have to have another set of rules to be able to function in the working world. A construction engineer believes on Sunday in church he can move mountains with faith. Then Monday morning he must be believe he can only move them with construction equipment in order to do his job.


I don't think many people believe 'they' can move it, but they believe that if there was a great purpose and justification for their prayer of moving a mountain it would be answered by their deity if it was in his plan.  Also note that this moving of mountains and answering pleas is not global to all theist beliefs.

Quote:

Since we don't have mind reading machines to be near 100% sure we have to rely on other evidence demonstrate this. Just like if you were on a jury, to determine if someone is credible, you ask are their actions and other words consistent with their testimony of "belief"?


This is one of the reasons why the term theist is better as a global term.  It doesn't associate any of the beliefs other than the stance on a deity.  Even without the answering of prayers, proof of god, evolution, etc many people still believe that their deity is just too complicated to understand and beyond our capabilities.  With even great amounts of information many people still believe in some form of a deity because it seems like a sensible explaination for things that we can't explain.

It is fair to question if someone honestly believes in the teachings of their religion and all of it's teachings, but I think it's extreme to assume that they have a reason to be deceitful about a parent reason to believe in a deity as a creator or an originator of the universe.

Quote:

So, I've given you all these examples(The pope, Mother Theresa, Rick Warren, the Pastor debating Christopher Hitchens). They demonstrate inconsistency in people who truly "believe". It's pretty obvious they keep two set of beliefs. They change these beliefs depending on the situation. Here's two more Ted Haggard and Jimmy Swagart, they have one belief in the pulpit another with their prostitutes. I've seen this same pattern repeated over and over with dozens of religious people I've known.


Same as my last note.  I agree that the majority of people do not follow their own religion.  But I don't think this applies to the parent belief in a deity of some form.

Quote:

 Now I like to call a spade a spade, so I call it lying to oneself.


The problem with the term lie is that it implies intent.  I don't believe there is intent.

Quote:

Richard Dawkins I think was being diplomatic in calling it self-delusion.


I actually find that most people see this term as quite offensive.  I personally rather like the term.

Quote:

Daniel Dennet said they believe in a belief but the don't really believe.


Correct.  And people do often question their religious belief, but it's still a minority that question the existance of a deity they rather just question the face taht is being put on their deity.

Quote:

Christopher Hitchens says the keep two sets of books.


Agreed.

Quote:

 So, if you agree with them, maybe the problem is just the semantics of lying. I think to you, lying implies a malicious act of a bad person.


To me it's not about being 'bad' or 'malicious' it's concious intent to deceive.

Quote:

 To me, not necessarily. Their intent is not malicious, they just want what they want (heaven, answered prayers) really bad, so they try really really hard to force themselves to believe it.


And I believe they are successful.  Even more than the belief in heaven and prayers, I don't think most people can accept a world without a deity of some form because it is just opens up too many questions about our importance, why we are here, etc.  Science does not have firm answers for these questions and there will always be more questions.  People who do question their faith, often question it's teachings first and accept the existance of a deity.  In my own example even though I swayed away from the church, it took a lot years for me to sway away from the concept of a deity just because it seems sensible.

I think part of the problem here is that you're focused on the terms atheist and theist when it seems to me that you should be focusing on Christian/Muslim/etc and Agnostic.  Your arguments seem to be purely religous based rather than generically theism based, yet your OP targeted the term theism and atheism.

Quote:

I don't think delusion is the proper word to describe most religious people. Delusional religious people would have a difficult time surviving and functioning in the real world.  Look at Banazir Bhutto, she was told by many security agencies that religious fanatics would try to assassinate her if she returned to Pakistan. She said she put her faith in God, so she didn't have much security or bullet proof glass. She would be alive if she was non-delusional like the Pope or President Bush who change their "beliefs".


I believe she asked for more security and was denied it.  Her only options were to go back with her security or not go back at all.  I think the putting her "faith in god" at that point was more "I have no other choice anyways".

Quote:

They say God protects them when they are speaking in public. Bullet proof glass protects them when they arrange their security.


I think there are delusions on a smaller scale.  People say they believe in heaven, yet fear death.  This is a contradiction of faith as well.  But I don't believe this directly applies to the beleif in a deity.

Quote:

Do you need more examples? What would constitute good proof short of reading peoples' minds?


That's really the problem.  I would agree with you if you said this was about religion, but you took it to the level of theism as a whole and I don't believe your arguments are generic enough to apply to the masses of people in all situations of all possible theistic beliefs.

In the end, the terms atheist and theist still apply.  If you want to suggest that the majority of Christians dont' truly believe their religion, then I'm right there with you because I believe that is evidenced in the daily acitivity of poeples lives, crime records, poverity, wealth. I just don't tie these things in with the general belief in a deity when talking about those two words and that's where the semantics come in.

I also don't believe these people intentually lie about their religious faiths I just don't think they apply any amount of thought to what they are doing.  They would likely realize that they don't follow the teachings of thier faith if they did.  And for those that do, they often are able to justify it by god being forgiving or some other load.

I believe people are not being honest with themselves, but I don't believe they are being dishonest when they say "i bleieve in a deity/god" outwardly.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

turn it up BMcD, LOUDER ,

who is YOU ? Smile

Just to clarify, I AM, that was directed toward EXC, though the point about confrontational, aggressive, and often insulting tactics could be made toward some of the regulars, too. :/ 

I just think it's better to try to start with each individual from a position of respect and try for understanding and thought-provocation first... once they reveal themselves to be, well, Beatz or his ilk, then we should try for understanding and thought-provoking blunt force trauma as we grind them into the dirt with the loose ends and contradictions they gloss over in their tortured attempt to make an M.C. Escher drawing out of what should be the world's simplest circular logic.

I mean, hell, when they get to the point of having to go through gyrations that would give a snake triple lumbago just to avoid admitting their logic is 'God exists because some guy told me God exists, and I trust him because he told me to trust him', then it's time to just drop the smeggin' hammer.

In an understanding and thought-provoking manner, of course. 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Atheist wrote:There is

Mr. Atheist wrote:

There is tremendous amounts of anecdotal evidence to support theist claims.

When you look at the Theist evidence, it's all junk science and irrational conclusions.

Mr. Atheist wrote:

Many religious people don't even neccessarily believe 100%, they believe it is extremly likely.

The religious one's are required to have 100% belief. The rest should just say it's a feeling or a theory.

Mr. Atheist wrote:

deceitful about a parent reason to believe in a deity as a creator or an originator of the universe.

Science keeps disproving the explanation of many things(like disease, origin of species) is any god. God is just whatever science doesn't yet explain.

Mr. Atheist wrote:

but I think it's extreme to assume that they have a reason to be deceitful about a parent reason to believe in a deity as a creator or an originator of the universe.

What they are often dishonest about is that it is their individual belief. It's really the belief of their parents, social groups and society. I think any moderately intelligent adult that knows a bit about the world is being dishonest if they claim their Theist belief wasn't influenenced by parental and peer preassure.

Most so-called Theist don't really think about it that much so they kind of fall into the Don't Care category. Whatever the beliefs of the tribe is also their belief.

Mr. Atheist wrote:

The problem with the term lie is that it implies intent.  I don't believe there is intent.

 

I think if you're around religious people enough, you can tell in their heart of heats they know it's all BS. Just like the diary of Mother Teresa reaveld what's really going in her head on all the while she put on a very pious act.

Pehaps there is categrory for people who lie to themselves enough that they believe the lie. I've never met one, every Theist I've ever know always reveals something that shows they really don't believe what the claim.

Mr. Atheist wrote:

I would agree with you if you said this was about religion, but you took it to the level of theism as a whole and I don't believe your arguments are generic enough to apply to the masses of people in all situations of all possible theistic beliefs.

 

These non-religious Theists. Many of them claim they don't know for sure, so shouldn't they be called agnostic?

Shouldn't what they "believe" be called a feeling or theory instead of a belief? They are lieing if they say the know personally that something is 100% true if they don't have any evidence.

They borrow much of what they "believe" from the holy books yet they have no rational explanation for what they cherry pick. No rational explanation for what to believe or not believe. It's just whatever they are comfortable with at the moment. This shows extreme intellectual dishonesty.

Mr. Atheist wrote:

In the end, the terms atheist and theist still apply. 

Yes, people will continue to use them and label people with them. But I think it's a terrible way to explain what's really going on inside people's heads when they "believe" or don't believe something.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: When you look at the

Quote:

When you look at the Theist evidence, it's all junk science and irrational conclusions.

Agreed, but this is the nature of anecdotal evidence.

Quote:

The religious one's are required to have 100% belief. The rest should just say it's a feeling or a theory.

Required by whom? I don't know anyone that hasn't at some point questioned their belief to some degree. Just because you believe something to be true, that does not mean that you can't question if it's true. People trust their spouses and believe that they would not cheat, but that doesn't mean the idea doesn't cross their mind when they don't come home one night.

Quote:

Science keeps disproving the explanation of many things(like disease, origin of species) is any god. God is just whatever science doesn't yet explain.

For the great majority of people, I agree. God of the gaps is by far the most dominant and believed in god.

Quote:

What they are often dishonest about is that it is their individual belief. It's really the belief of their parents, social groups and society. I think any moderately intelligent adult that knows a bit about the world is being dishonest if they claim their Theist belief wasn't influenenced by parental and peer preassure.

Most so-called Theist don't really think about it that much so they kind of fall into the Don't Care category. Whatever the beliefs of the tribe is also their belief.

I think most people are aware and will freely admit that their religion is their religion due to their culture. They just also happen to believe that they are right which is 100% absurd to not correlate the two.

I think the DC's are actually by far the most prominant. Sadly, I think that your HABs and DCs actually intersect as there are many people that Don't Care about alternatives, but they are very religious. Alternativly they Don't Care about alternatives but are moderatly or minorly religious.

I would see these people as being ones that would say that they honestly have not looked at anything else, they are honest about this intentional avoidance due to fear.

I see these as the majority (HAB/DC hybrids) and by far the most dangerous. You could also say these people are DABs, but I don't think they are liars, they just refuse to challenge their beliefs.

Quote:

I think if you're around religious people enough, you can tell in their heart of heats they know it's all BS. Just like the diary of Mother Teresa reaveld what's really going in her head on all the while she put on a very pious act.

Pehaps there is categrory for people who lie to themselves enough that they believe the lie. I've never met one, every Theist I've ever know always reveals something that shows they really don't believe what the claim.

I think people doubt and question, but I don't know many people that just think it's BS that hasn't already proudly claimed agnosticism or atheism. That said, it's a very different culture here where it is very easy to use those terms.

I haven't read the diary of Mother Teresa so I don't know exactly what all it says. I know that she doubted and at times perhaps disbelieved, but she did also return to her deity.

I think many theists don't believe what they claim or are supposed to believe. These are the people that just don't care to or intentionall avoid challenging their own faith.

Quote:

These non-religious Theists. Many of them claim they don't know for sure, so shouldn't they be called agnostic?

No, because agnostic doesn't reflect god belief. All agnostics are either theists or atheists. And just because someone is not certain, that does not mean they don't lean in one direction or the other.

Quote:

Shouldn't what they "believe" be called a feeling or theory instead of a belief? They are lieing if they say the know personally that something is 100% true if they don't have any evidence.

I do not know that evolution is 100% true, but I believe that it is true.

If I answer a question on a high school test I may believe my answer was sufficient but still be uncertain that it was.

Belief does not need to equate to certainty.

Quote:

They borrow much of what they "believe" from the holy books yet they have no rational explanation for what they cherry pick. No rational explanation for what to believe or not believe. It's just whatever they are comfortable with at the moment. This shows extreme intellectual dishonesty.

Deists don't take anything from any holy books. They just believe that a god created the universe and then abandoned it. It is there conclusion as to how the unviverse was created. Others believe that a god was destroyed in the creation of the universe so the universe is the product of its destruction (I don't know how common this belief is).

I don't think this is intellectual dishonesty at all. It is just an idea that seems to them to be a realistic explanation to the origin of all things.

Quote:

Yes, people will continue to use them and label people with them. But I think it's a terrible way to explain what's really going on inside people's heads when they "believe" or don't believe something.

It is a terrible way to define people. But I think that is also why there are the categories of religious extremists, fundamentalists, moderates etc.

People do read too much into the terms atheist and theist, but the problem there is misuse of the words not a problem with the actual words themselves I don't believe.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Atheist wrote:Belief

Mr. Atheist wrote:

Belief does not need to equate to certainty.

When people say they believe something, there seems to be different types:

People say "I believe my team will win the Super Bowl this year". It's a fanatic wish thinking belief, but they don't go to a sports book and bet all their money on it.

Then there is high probability belief like you drive your car cause you believe the brakes work and it's unlikely you'll be in an accident. But ever time you drive, in the back of your mind you know shit could happen, but you take the risk anyway.

Then there the absolute certainty believe. This would be like, I'm not jumping out of an 11 story building because I believe the laws of gravity are constant or believing that 2+2 = 4.

Ever Theist I've ever met with their initial words lead you to believe they have the absolute certainty or at least high probability belief. But then when you probe them or look at their actions, it's at best the fanatic wish thinking belief.

Mr. Atheist wrote:

I see these as the majority (HAB/DC hybrids) and by far the most dangerous. You could also say these people are DABs, but I don't think they are liars, they just refuse to challenge their beliefs.

I think they refuse to challenge their beliefs cause deep in their psyche they know they are lying to themselves.

My classification system is like personality types. People usually are not all on thing or the other. And people can change. But just like the psychologist needed to create multiple categories to describe the complexity of human behavior, so to I think it is necessary to describe how people believe something.

My big problem with the term atheist is that people like Hitchens, Dawking, Harris and Dennet are lumped into the same category are lumped in with all non-religious people like criminals like Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahlmer, Hitler and Stalin. I would say the former are all HAB while the later are DCs, LABs or DABs. Then when you have church going Christian man that turns out to be a serial killer like the BTK killer, the Christians will say Oh he was not a true Christian, he was just doing what a person that doesn't believe in Heaven and Hell would do. But, I would say the BTK killer was a really a LAB.

I don't think this new "atheist" movement can get any traction in the population at large as long as religions people can continue to define things this way. We need to refuse to be labeled this way and lumped in with all these bad people. To succeed, it needs to not be primarily about being against Theism,  it needs to be about being honest with yourself. Getting people who claimed to "believe" out of fear, ignorance and childhood indoctrination to come out of the closet.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca