k_trout
Member
Nietzsche writes alot about the epileptic/saint involved in the spread of christianity through europe
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How to bring rituals to atheism??
- Thread starter FoxSpirit
- Start date
- Status
Nietzsche writes alot about the epileptic/saint involved in the spread of christianity through europe
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
I have learnt today that you, sir, are good people.
The Big N also believed that Christianity, with its promises of rewards in the after-life, was inherently nihilistic.
Because having no hair is a new hair color.
Let's paint it into a concrete example.
I toss a coin without anyone seeing which way it falls, and cover it so that it can't be seen.
I then ask the question: do you believe the coin is showing heads?
"Yes." is one possible answer, obviously.
Why do you believe the coin is showing heads?
"No good reason. I just believe that it is. It's always heads."
This is not a good reason.
"No." is another posdsible answer.
Why do you not believe the coin is showing heads?
"Because I believe it's tails. All hail the tail!"
Bad reason.
"Because I've no reason to believe that it's showing heads. I don't believe that it's not showing heads either. Unless there's some actual evidence either way, there's no reason to believe that it's showing heads over tails or vice versa."
Good reason. But this same person, for the same reasons, doesn't believe the coin is showing tails either.
I would argue its possible, but very hard to express given how nature functions. I think there are people who can envision being a deity, but there's enough doubt where they aren't all the way. That's why I don't like that chart that gets thrown around in these threads. I think Dawkins 7- point guide is a closer representation of how belief works.
Or maybe it is binary, but beliefs function sporadically, sometimes you believe sometimes you don't.
just why
There's so many different schools of philosophy that don't believe in the existence of a god and completely contradict each other, but somehow they'll all unite in the name of the good fight against the god-believers? It's weird how popular this blanket atheism vs theism narrative is.
There's so many different schools of philosophy that don't believe in the existence of a god and completely contradict each other, but somehow they'll all unite in the name of the good fight against the god-believers? It's weird how popular this blanket atheism vs theism narrative is.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Ah, I can see that now. Clearly, I'm in over my head XD
You know what you should do? Learn a bit more before blatant assumptions, generalizations and even suggesting what you just suggested. You believe in yourself? Great. Now believe in your power to inform on a matter before condemning it. You might find religious that affirm to your view. But you might find religions that do not. At that point, it is time to either be more specific or just dropping stuff like the bolded.
I've learned to be more stand off-ish toward other people calling themselves atheists. That label doesn't make them my friend nor enemy out of hand. We're different people and there's countless other ways another atheist could still be a total fucking wacko or a douche that have nothing to do with being an atheist.
In this case the OP's idea is benign to me. Go ahead and do what you want (not like my permission was needed). It won't change atheism around the world and the only way you can fail at being an atheist is to believe in a god.
In this case the OP's idea is benign to me. Go ahead and do what you want (not like my permission was needed). It won't change atheism around the world and the only way you can fail at being an atheist is to believe in a god.
Televator, is that a Wolf's Rain avatar?
I found a god with that show, tbh....!
It sure is.
Some dark and twisted part of me sympathizes or rather resonates with Darcia. He sure knows how to dress for dramatic entrances too. lol
But yeah, the show does evoke a sense of rapture. Not just literally in its narrative, but in the feels.
I don't really believe in god like others do but I don't consider myself an "Atheist" either.
What am I then? Someone who just doesn't care all that much about religion and all. I don't like the fact you are supposed to be an atheist the moment you say you don't fully believe etc
I mean, if god does end up being real and heaven does exist etc etc, I wouldn't mind. It might be cool. But I don't believe in praying your entire life and going to church etc just because god might be real.
In my opinion, religion is something that really divides humanity. I mean, you have all these different kinds of religion and there's always groups of people that use religion as an excuse to do horrible things. In the past, you had holy crusades and what not, but to this say people still murder and fight for the sake of religion. Even goes as far as suicide bombing etc, I just don't understand that.
What am I then? Someone who just doesn't care all that much about religion and all. I don't like the fact you are supposed to be an atheist the moment you say you don't fully believe etc
I mean, if god does end up being real and heaven does exist etc etc, I wouldn't mind. It might be cool. But I don't believe in praying your entire life and going to church etc just because god might be real.
In my opinion, religion is something that really divides humanity. I mean, you have all these different kinds of religion and there's always groups of people that use religion as an excuse to do horrible things. In the past, you had holy crusades and what not, but to this say people still murder and fight for the sake of religion. Even goes as far as suicide bombing etc, I just don't understand that.
archnemesis
Member
You're likely an agnostic atheist that doesn't want to associate himself with anti-religion Atheists on the internet.
Edit: Or a deist or something if you believe in a more vague and undefined god that created the universe.
Could you specify what your beliefs are or aren't? Your language in this part of the statement still leaves the possibility that you could believe in something thing in some way...
Hah, how many forms of atheism are there? Ugh
Well, let's put it this way. I'm not actively believing in any specific god or anything, but I can't tell myself it's not possible. It's like... part of me knows there might be something like that. I mean, you can never truly know something like a god doesn't exist, can you? But the fact every religion believes in a different god or something (and that's not even including the many older civilizations with sun gods etc) makes me not want to believe either of them. I'd like to believe there is something though, but I don't think any of our current religions portray it well
archnemesis
Member
That's the most common one. It's where you don't believe in gods, but you're open to the possibility that you're wrong.Hah, how many forms of atheism are there? Ugh
Sutton Dagger
Member
I wrote this earlier, I think you're right, unless someone can correct this line of thinking?
"The question of 'do you believe in a God' is a dichotomy though, so by definition you're either a theist (you believe in Gods) or you're an atheist (you don't believe in Gods)". Being 'unsure' would technically mean you don't believe and thus you're an atheist.
Technically, you are not sure that you do not believe, so it would not make you an atheist.
The position on that is natural agnostic maybe?
Edit: yep, "pure agnosticism".
k_trout
Member
I don't understand what being 'not sure that you do not believe' is. Isn't that just believing? I feel like it's too many negatives and it's confusing me. Can we move this to a non-god example, something simple and clear?
Like, another example from "you can't halfway believe" camp:
fake edit: I tried writing it out, and I couldn't really articulate it well - I think this image probably explains my position on it more - I'd love to hear some counter arguments though, I feel like the problem is my brain can't picture it working any other way.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Where does "there is a 75% probability that dogs exist" fall?
IHaveCandy
Banned
Is believing in dogs a choice?
Sutton Dagger
Member
I'm not seeing it, definitely not agnosticism though considering agnosticism is about knowledge not belief.
There are two positions.
1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.
"Disbelief" means lack of belief. If someone reserves judgment, then clearly they don't believe and thus they disbelieve, which is position 2.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Your brother and sister were alone at home for an hour. When you get back, your cookies have all been eaten. You know at least one of them ate them, but you aren't sure who did it. Do you disbelieve either of them did it just because you aren't sure which did it?
@Kinitari, Sutton Dagger:
I am not sure why we would need to throw every neutral position into the "non-believer" camp. Is that some respect points, is that a "win" for that team? Because honestly, If I have a scale of "Sure Belief" and "No belief at all", it seems obvious that there is a middle position, a border.
And since it can easily be described (you both did it for me: " I am not sure a God exists, I am not sure any God exists, I am not sure that no God exists, I am not sure that no Gods exists"), why would it be automatically labeled as disbelief? That is not logical.
Especially in binary logic, that deals with clearly true or false statements, whether you are sure/unsure - and therefore, considering your viewpoint, it is a subjective territory -, then the statement
"I do believe in a God" is either TRUE or FALSE.
The "I do not know" option that is clearly a valid position renders the question incompatible with binary logic, the same way saying "In a cloudy village in Italia, this morning a penny was found behind a staircase" is incompatible if you have no way of knowing whether the answer is true or not.
But since we are human beings, and can operate outside the binary logic, we can conclude that an unsure position is just that: an unsure position. Not a disbeliever position, and not a believer position. And besides, still using logic, if saying "I am not sure I believe" puts you in the non-belief camp, by simple negation, the "I am not sure that I DO NOT believe" will HAVE TO put you in the belief camp.
I bolded this part not because of shouting, but because it is quite conclusive, imho
I am not sure why we would need to throw every neutral position into the "non-believer" camp. Is that some respect points, is that a "win" for that team? Because honestly, If I have a scale of "Sure Belief" and "No belief at all", it seems obvious that there is a middle position, a border.
And since it can easily be described (you both did it for me: " I am not sure a God exists, I am not sure any God exists, I am not sure that no God exists, I am not sure that no Gods exists"), why would it be automatically labeled as disbelief? That is not logical.
Especially in binary logic, that deals with clearly true or false statements, whether you are sure/unsure - and therefore, considering your viewpoint, it is a subjective territory -, then the statement
"I do believe in a God" is either TRUE or FALSE.
The "I do not know" option that is clearly a valid position renders the question incompatible with binary logic, the same way saying "In a cloudy village in Italia, this morning a penny was found behind a staircase" is incompatible if you have no way of knowing whether the answer is true or not.
But since we are human beings, and can operate outside the binary logic, we can conclude that an unsure position is just that: an unsure position. Not a disbeliever position, and not a believer position. And besides, still using logic, if saying "I am not sure I believe" puts you in the non-belief camp, by simple negation, the "I am not sure that I DO NOT believe" will HAVE TO put you in the belief camp.
I bolded this part not because of shouting, but because it is quite conclusive, imho
Sutton Dagger
Member
@Kinitari, Sutton Dagger:
I am not sure why we would need to throw every neutral position into the "non-believer" camp. Is that some respect points, is that a "win" for that team? Because honestly, If I have a scale of "Sure Belief" and "No belief at all", it seems obvious that there is a middle position, a border.
And since it can easily be described (you both did it for me: " I am not sure a God exists, I am not sure any God exists, I am not sure that no God exists, I am not sure that no Gods exists"), why would it be automatically labeled as disbelief? That is not logical.
Especially in binary logic, that deals with clearly true or false statements, whether you are sure/unsure - and therefore, considering your viewpoint, it is a subjective territory -, then the statement
"I do believe in a God" is either TRUE or FALSE.
The "I do not know" option that is clearly a valid position renders the question incompatible with binary logic, the same way saying "In a cloudy village in Italia, this morning a penny was found behind a staircase" is incompatible if you have no way of knowing whether the answer is true or not.
But since we are human beings, and can operate outside the binary logic, we can conclude that an unsure position is just that: an unsure position. Not a disbeliever position, and not a believer position. And besides, still using logic, if saying "I am not sure I believe" puts you in the non-belief camp, by simple negation, the "I am not sure that I DO NOT believe" will HAVE TO put you in the belief camp.
I bolded this part not because of shouting, but because it is quite conclusive, imho
As to your first statement, why did you feel the need to strawman me, what would make you think I care about some supposed 'win'? I care about using the right terminology when discussing these things, that's all.
Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite. For example, not believing the claim that the inventor of the automobile died in a car crash doesn't mean one positively believes that he didn't die that way. We don't get to make up our own logic, there is no separate logic that some people follow and some don't, there is only logic and the very position forces a dichotomy. One can have degrees of belief yes, but the position ultimately binary by the very nature of the position to the claim.
BuggyDClown
Member
I started reading through the thread. I don't even know where to begin.
Let's just keep religion and organization away from atheism. That's the whole damn point. There is no we. It's not a belief, religion is a belief system.
Atheism is freedom from religion and all this bs.
Let's just keep religion and organization away from atheism. That's the whole damn point. There is no we. It's not a belief, religion is a belief system.
Atheism is freedom from religion and all this bs.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Sutton, belief is not really a choice. It's just a natural conclusion you come to with the given facts. It isn't a binary choice and you can not know what to believe on all sorts of things. I don't know what to believe about whether or not George Washington was an effective president, for example.
Sutton: Okay, you managed to reference a fallacy when I was just asking why it is so important to twist logic itself to consider "not decidable" a false.
Besides, there is not just one logic. There are many logics, different kinds, different rulesets.
Anyway, if the logical conclusion does not interest you, that is fine with me. But do not reference logic when you are ignoring it when it comes to this.
"For example, not believing the claim that the inventor of the automobile died in a car crash doesn't mean one positively believes that he didn't die that way. We don't get to make up our own logic, there is no separate logic that some people follow and some don't, there is only logic and the very position forces a dichotomy. One can have degrees of belief yes, but the position ultimately binary by the very nature of the position to the claim. "
Besides, there is not just one logic. There are many logics, different kinds, different rulesets.
Anyway, if the logical conclusion does not interest you, that is fine with me. But do not reference logic when you are ignoring it when it comes to this.
"For example, not believing the claim that the inventor of the automobile died in a car crash doesn't mean one positively believes that he didn't die that way. We don't get to make up our own logic, there is no separate logic that some people follow and some don't, there is only logic and the very position forces a dichotomy. One can have degrees of belief yes, but the position ultimately binary by the very nature of the position to the claim. "
Sutton Dagger
Member
Agree, we can talk about the nature of free will after, let's get back to this
I think if you insert a couple of words into that sentence then I agree. Like so "It's just a natural conclusion you come to based on your perception of the evidence". Knowledge would apply to the unaltered sentence more closely I think.
We are talking about a specific claim though, so lets use your example.
Someone claims that George Washington was an effective president (it's not a very specific claim but still works).
1.Now you could believe their claim, which would mean that you also believe GW was an effective president.
2. You could disbelieve their claim, but that doesn't mean you think GW was an ineffective president, you just don't believe their claim.
There is only two possible reactions, you believe their claim or you don't believe their claim. Theist or Athiest, only two choices in terms of belief.
Nope. Still three choices. One: I believe he was an effective president. Two: I do not believe he was an effective president. Three: I do not know whether he was an effective president or not.
Logic has a rule for this. It makes this a non-conclusive statement (I do not know the exact definition, because when I learned mathematic logic, I learned it in hungarian language, not english)
Logic has a rule for this. It makes this a non-conclusive statement (I do not know the exact definition, because when I learned mathematic logic, I learned it in hungarian language, not english
)IHaveCandy
Banned
I honestly don't know if George Washington was an effective president. I don't really have any strong belief in either direction. My lack of evidence to even evaluate leads me to have indifference of belief in either direction. I don't have to fill in a default belief until I evaluate the evidence and assign a real belief.
Sutton Dagger
Member
You are not correct, in terms of this discussion there is one logic and it's ironic the way you called me out for not using it when you in fact you used a logical fallacy when you first responsed to me. I can explain it again using another anology if you like, because it is by definition a dichotomy and the logically sound. I suggest reading up on the logical absolutes for example, that should point you in the right direction.
Sutton Dagger
Member
Nope. Still three choices. One: I believe he was an effective president. Two: I do not believe he was an effective president. Three: I do not know whether he was an effective president or not.
Logic has a rule for this. It makes this a non-conclusive statement (I do not know the exact definition, because when I learned mathematic logic, I learned it in hungarian language, not english
False. Going out, will correct you when I get home (or someone else might).
Sutton Dagger
Member
You are looking at different things, we are looking at belief not knowledge. Going out. Will respond later.
IHaveCandy
Banned
If you are insistent that there MUST be a belief or disbelief, it would be that I "believe that I do not know whether or not George Washington is an effective president." That is still a third option.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Knowledge is required to have a belief that is meaningful. If I asked you which team is better, The Atlantis Owls or the El Dorado Devils, you shouldn't have a belief one way or the other. I just made those two teams up, but assuming you think they are real, you wouldn't know anything about them. We've already agreed that beliefs occur on their own within our minds after evaluating the related evidence. If there is no evidence to evaluate, you don't just assign a default belief until you do that. You simply think "I don't know what to think. I've yet to really learn anything about that."
I am standing in the right direction, thank you. The neutral position is a known thing in Atheism-Theism debates, a single google search can offer you enough examples on this. Even if you neglect logic (thus allowing the "I am not sure I believe" to put you in a non-believer camp, but "I am not sure I do not believe" still lets you stay there instead of putting you in the believer camp, which should be obviously a natural conclusion if you assume that "not being sure that you believe" puts you in the non-believer camp), NeoGaf and of course Reddit/Atheism is pretty much the only places where even having a shred of doubt in your belief makes you an atheist, cause we somehow need to have a clear answer on this. (We do not, btw.)
Yep. It is a statement using an A OR not A for both possible outcomes. Which is quite a good answer to almost any question we do not have the answer to
That would be the second option, actually, out of three. Believe X, Don't Believe X, Believe anti-X. What he's saying is that the latter two are not
But...I don't mean to suggest this formulation is useful or relevant. It is consistent though.
toddhunter
Member
Being an atheist used to be so simple.
"What religion are you?"
"None of them"
"Oh ok"
and life went on just swimmingly.
All the good players would play for the Devils. Who is going to sign up to be an Owl?
"What religion are you?"
"None of them"
"Oh ok"
and life went on just swimmingly.
All the good players would play for the Devils. Who is going to sign up to be an Owl?
Sutton Dagger
Member
This is literally what I'm saying, the logical conclusion is you don't believe, and thus extending that to the God claim, you're an atheist by definition (someone who doesn't accept theistic claims). I'm talking solely about the logical dichotomy inherent in the God claim, I think you're assuming I'm saying someone can't have doubt, which I have never claimed in any of my posts, I'm purely talking about the inherent nature of the claim which is a dichotomy (either someone who believes or they don't). Out of curiosity, what do you understand the definition of an Atheist to be (Arnold can you also answer that question)?
But atheism isn't a practice, it's a definition. Adding rituals or anything of that nature goes against that very definition. True atheists don't even define him or herself as an atheist.
Insane Metal
Member
Atheism is not a religion, so why the fuck would one want 'atheist rituals' ?
Sutton Dagger
Member
You literally have this backwards according to many in the field of epistemology. Plato famously said that knowledge is 'justified true belief' and you'll find many hold a similar view (including myself). The belief that is meaningful qualifier is not how people typically hold beliefs, their beliefs are meaningful to them regardless of knowledge. You are also starting to conflate your analogies, subtle shifts away from a single claim to something different, but the dichotomy is still clearly evident.
I'll try this one more time for you guys, so you can clearly see that there is either belief or disbelief in regards to the claim 'God exists'.
Have you ever seen those big containers of gum balls, the ones that are associated with a competition whereby you must guess the correct numerical amount? Would you agree that there is either an odd or even amount of gum balls? I'm going to assume you would say yes because we are using logic, specially the Law of Non-Contradiction (look up the logical absolutes if you're unfamiliar with them).
If you were to say to me 'there is an odd amount of gum balls in the container', what would be the most logical response to that claim? It would be, 'I don't believe your claim'. Now, just because I don't believe your claim that DOES NOT mean I believe there is an even amount of gum balls. The very fact that I don't believe your claim means that I have disbelief in that claim, the same applies to someone who makes that claim that 'God exists'. If I don't believe the theistic claim, I am by definition an atheist, it doesn't matter if you aren't sure because the very nature of belief forces the dichotomy.
Does this now make sense to you?
Thatonemoor
Member
Would going to Atheist conventions count as a ritual? If so does that make comic com a ritual?
It's frustrating as an atheist to see the term take on different meaning colloquially, one that doesn't accurately describe most atheists. Atheism is not an assertion. There's no positive claim being made; it is the default position. Should an individual choose to take it a step further, they then assume the burden of proof, the same as anyone making any other truth claim.
A newborn baby is an atheist. Indigenous tribes who never developed belief in deities are atheists. The person suspending judgement on the existence of God is an atheist. Buddhists who don't believe in super natural deities are also atheists. And yes, the person claiming to know there is no god is an atheist too. How or why you arrived at this state of non-belief and how long you stay is completely irrelevant. "Well your silence is a noise too". This is how ridiculous someone sounds when they call atheism a belief.
A newborn baby is an atheist. Indigenous tribes who never developed belief in deities are atheists. The person suspending judgement on the existence of God is an atheist. Buddhists who don't believe in super natural deities are also atheists. And yes, the person claiming to know there is no god is an atheist too. How or why you arrived at this state of non-belief and how long you stay is completely irrelevant. "Well your silence is a noise too". This is how ridiculous someone sounds when they call atheism a belief.
- Status