The Anti-theist Thread

[Blackheart]

The short answer is economic and cultural history (and mbs).

Catastrophism again?

In other words, are you saying that people change their cultures (or belief systems) only when they are forced to change?

[Cirdan]

Yes, however the term gets appled, or misused if you like, to humanist groups who do have agendas. (Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with agendas.. persay) And indeed technically, non-belief is more akin to agnosticism than athiesm. Athiesm is a bit closer to the belief that there is no diety. At least, that's the most commonly occuring usage I come across.

Err. a·the·ist Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

This is another one of those semantic things. I found the same definition for atheist, but for agnostic I found the definition as being one who beleives it is impossible to know god or the essential nature of things.

With the additional definition of disbelief merely being the act of rejecting belief.

The oxford Unabridged goes so far as to say that they are synonamous (as so with "infidel" and "skeptic"

The definition for agnostic, i must admit, is not exactly what i expected, but it is closer to the position you have held, BH.

I think the main problem is the casual usage of "belief" in english; as in,"I believe the keys are on my dresser" instead of " I think my keys are on my dresser".

I like the definition of skeptic:

a skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

...although I like the ring of "infidel"

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Catastrophism again?

In other words, are you saying that people change their cultures (or belief systems) only when they are forced to change?

catastrophism before

My response was a macro view related to your statement about social revolution. Individual change of belief system, or the loss of faith in said system, is effeted by a whole host of additional factors. Changing culture versus changing belief system are separate questions. Russians continued to be russians when the majority of society rejected marxism/communism. Culture is related history. People who make history can change culture. The rest of us are relegated to being changed by culture.

Did you mean a peoples?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Err. I disagree. We can quibble about the nature of belief if you like (as I pointed out earlier), but there's a lot more to a belief system than just what it's adherant's profess. There are cultural memes, political association, and other bonds. What you identify as a belief system, I view as a culture, or subculture, depending on how you define it. As such, there is nothing particularly different about the group dynamics between atheists, theists, nationalists, and other groups, except for the important distinction that athiests are currently not socially organized.

Hopefully there is such a wide disparity among atheists that it will never occur, because once it does, the same ills that befall any other human organization will come home to roost.

I find this particular line of discussion particularly interesting.

It would be interesting if atheists formed a formal fbs and built buildings to meet in, collected dues, waved flags, elected leaders, and tried to convert everyone they met. Glad you enjoy the discussion.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Cirdan


It would be interesting if atheists formed a formal fbs and built buildings to meet in, collected dues, waved flags, elected leaders, and tried to convert everyone they met.

We don't do that? Damn.

*Sadly puts away membership badge, and flag.*

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan
my keys are on my dresser".

I like the definition of skeptic:

a skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

That would be me yes. Although critical doesn't necesarily mean criticism. Critical thinking, although my mind often wanders away....

[Cirdan]

One more from the Python gang:

"Bright Side of Life"

Always look on the bright side of life.
[whistling]
Always look on the light side of life.
[whistling]

If life seems jolly rotten,
There's something you've forgotten,
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you're feeling in the dumps,
Don't be silly chumps.
Just purse your lips and whistle. That's the thing.
And...

Always look on the bright side of life.
[whistling]
Always look on the right side of life,
[whistling]

For life is quite absurd
And death's the final word.
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin.
Give the audience a grin.
Enjoy it. It's your last chance, anyhow.
So,...

Always look on the bright side of death,
[whistling]
Just before you draw your terminal breath.
[whistling]

Life's a piece of ****,
When you look at it.
Life's a laugh and death's a joke. It's true.
You'll see it's all a show.
Keep 'em laughing as you go.
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.
And...

Always look on the bright side of life.
[whistling]
Always look on the right side of life.
[whistling]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistling]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistling]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistling]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistling]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistling]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistling]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistling]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistling]

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


We don't do that? Damn.

*Sadly puts away membership badge, and flag.*

Wait, could I see the flag first?

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


catastrophism before

My response was a macro view related to your statement about social revolution. Individual change of belief system, or the loss of faith in said system, is effeted by a whole host of additional factors. Changing culture versus changing belief system are separate questions. Russians continued to be russians when the majority of society rejected marxism/communism. Culture is related history. People who make history can change culture. The rest of us are relegated to being changed by culture.

Did you mean a peoples?

Before I try to clear that up, do you consider a belief system as a culture unto itself? Or a sub-culture?

I consider protestants, catholics, jews (outside of isreal), etc to be sub cultures at the very least. In other words, there's more that's going on than JUST the professed tenants of the belief system. For example, This one guy I know, he's funny, he keeps referring to himself as a jewish athiest. Yes he's makeing a joke, but one with a point.

Of ocurse, such sub cultures here are being rapidly subsumed into the mass culture of consumerism, so by the time we get it all figured out, the point may be very well moot.

As for the example of Marxism, I disagree that the majority of Russians "bought into" the underlying tenants. Any more than the average American (for example) considers themselves as primarily a capitolist. It's not uncommon for people to belong to more than one "sub-culture" or have more than one "group identity", if you like.

My point in all this was, belief systems are complicated. Humans are complicated. Is it more rational to place responsibility for an individual's actions on the individual, or the beleif system the individual holds? Especially when other individuals profess the same thing, but do not act in a similar manner?

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


It would be interesting if atheists formed a formal fbs and built buildings to meet in, collected dues, waved flags, elected leaders, and tried to convert everyone they met. Glad you enjoy the discussion.

Umm, intersting perhaps. There is an evangelical athiest group where I live. (that's what they call themselves) They do act in much the same manner you describe. I find them as annoying as Mormons. They are fortunately however a small group, and as long as it remains that way, they will likely never fall prey to the same sort of monkey behavior that affects governments and theocracies.

To put a final nail in the coffin, so to speak, how (and where) did the idea of a priest class arise? Any bright young Anthropology students out there want to venture an opinion?

What was the first type of government inflicted on humanity?

What is the primary function of a power structure?

What happens to group interactions when you get more than say 40-50 people in an organization?

Why is humanity doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again? (hint:Monkey Brains)

Perhaps we'll change one day. But it seems that change is an exceedingly slow thing. Pehaps more than just what we think will have to change, maybe even the way we think.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Umm, intersting perhaps. There is an evangelical athiest group where I live. (that's what they call themselves) They do act in much the same manner you describe. I find them as annoying as Mormons. They are fortunately however a small group, and as long as it remains that way, they will likely never fall prey to the same sort of monkey behavior that affects governments and theocracies.

To put a final nail in the coffin, so to speak, how (and where) did the idea of a priest class arise? Any bright young Anthropology students out there want to venture an opinion?

What was the first type of government inflicted on humanity?

What is the primary function of a power structure?

What happens to group interactions when you get more than say 40-50 people in an organization?

Why is humanity doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again? (hint:Monkey Brains)

Perhaps we'll change one day. But it seems that change is an exceedingly slow thing. Pehaps more than just what we think will have to change, maybe even the way we think.

BoP would know this one better than I. I think it started with shamanism and progressed from there.

The primary function of a power structure is to aquire more power.

Large groups tend to fragment into smaller groups.

Humanity is doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again because as a civilzation achieves it's zenith of power and complexity, specialization rises and the general knowledge becomes less important. Pretty soon you have many people so detached from their "tribal" nature and family, they forget everything but the desire for large four wheel drive vehicles and more channels of cable (monkey brains).

Either that or most people hate reading history books (i'm the opposite).

well, you asked....

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Before I try to clear that up, do you consider a belief system as a culture unto itself? Or a sub-culture?

YES

As for the example of Marxism, I disagree that the majority of Russians "bought into" the underlying tenants. Any more than the average American (for example) considers themselves as primarily a capitolist. It's not uncommon for people to belong to more than one "sub-culture" or have more than one "group identity", if you like.

This is true, to some degeee varying over the period from 1917 to the present. During the revolution there were many competing political fbs'. The emergence of marxism/leninism/stalinism/communism asthe controlling force set the tone for the culture. fbs' never require pluality to exert control. The battle of stalingrad is a good example of the degree of influence of the nationalist fbs of the russians. In ww1 they deserted en masse. Majority consent isn't required for fbs success, but it is for social revolution.

Even american democracy doesn't strictly adhere to it's egalitarian ideals. After gaining support of enough corporations and millionaires, politicians get voted into office by a minority of eligable voters. Yet a majority of americans believe we live in a true democracy and buy into the american fbs (subcultures not withstanding).

My point in all this was, belief systems are complicated. Humans
are complicated. Is it more rational to place responsibility for an individual's actions on the individual, or the beleif system the individual holds? Especially when other individuals profess the same thing, but do not act in a similar manner?

I think we can agree that fbs' can facilitate individuals to act out in ways they might otherwise not. The promotion of a particular idea by a recognized authority can have a strong effect on individual action. While the palestinians live in less than ideal conditions they are not worse off than many others around the world. Yet they teach their children to be suicide bombers. Certainly not all will choose martyrdom, yet it is likely that they would not excercise this option if their fbs was similar to that of ghandi or MLK.

Is the fbs responsible? No. Individuals that seek to influence other are responsible to some degree. I agree theat the individual is ultimately responsible. The monkey brain will respond to the fbs in a unique way, especially if it thinks it will get a banana. mmmmmm, banana....

[BeardofPants]

BoP would know this one better than I. I think it started with shamanism and progressed from there.

I would say earlier. Shamanism is the first obvious manifestation upon the record (venus figurines, cave art, etc), but there are earlier instances which suggest some sort of ideology &/or priest class. The current theory is that you could trace it back to the event of H. sapiens sapiens... however, H. erectus also exhibits some interesting characteristics in the endocast, which suggest the possible event of symbolism, and henceforth possible elitist social groupings.

The area? Who knows. Possibly Europe, possibly the middle east. The proliferation of venus statues is concentrated mainly in Europe... But it really comes down to which migration theory you believe in.

Also, at what stage in the development of social hierarchy are we looking at? For power structures to form, we're generally looking at a structure that is more developed than a hunter/gatherer structure (in which there is no real structure, hence, no competition for resources.) So should we examine the tribal structures, or chiefdoms?

Large groups tend to fragment into smaller groups.

Yes. It is easier for an elistist group to control individuals to a certain number, based, strangely enough, upon the size of our brains. There has been a study on this, I forget where, but it extrapolated that the maximum size of a group for hominids, for optimal social "grooming" is only 50. Anything above that, and the group begins to lack the social cohesian needed to function.

Humanity is doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again because as a civilzation achieves it's zenith of power and complexity, specialization rises and the general knowledge becomes less important.

Not to mention, that specialisation, or specialised task forces are more time consuming. It all comes back to that "vicious circle" idiom. Hunter/gatherers had way more leisure time, than we do. Ironic, huh?

[/QUOTE]

[Blackheart]

I think we can agree that fbs' can facilitate individuals to act out in ways they might otherwise not. The promotion of a particular idea by a recognized authority can have a strong effect on individual action. While the palestinians live in less than ideal conditions they are not worse off than many others around the world. Yet they teach their children to be suicide bombers. Certainly not all will choose martyrdom, yet it is likely that they would not excercise this option if their fbs was similar to that of ghandi or MLK.

Is the fbs responsible? No. Individuals that seek to influence other are responsible to some degree. I agree theat the individual is ultimately responsible. The monkey brain will respond to the fbs in a unique way, especially if it thinks it will get a banana. mmmmmm, banana....

Well that's my point. The main problem is that (most) humans are hard wired to follow the herd. All a politician has to do is convince the majority of people that the majority of people are acting and thinking X, and viola! It's true!

You see, a beleif system isn't some static abstract concept. it lives, and breathes and dies with the people who use it. As they change, the system changes. Sometimes with horrifying results, as in the case of Nationalism, or something useful, as with social reform movements.

I think it all depends on the leader.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Has anyone here read American Gods by Neil Gaiman? Now that would be an interesting discussion. . .and related, I promise!

[Blackheart]

*looks at stack of technical manuals sitting on desk*

I wish. Summerize it!

[afro-elf]

hey blackheart

besides eating hobbits etc whadda do as a livin'?

[afro-elf]

However, nothing in particular follows from accepting that apodictic claims are impossible to demonstrate. It does not follow, for example, that because nothing is certain one should suspend judgment on all claims and believe nothing. Nor does it follow that because nothing is certain one should follow the customs and traditional beliefs of one's society. Nor does it follow that because nothing is certain any belief is as good as any other belief. Nor does it follow that because nothing is certain every belief is an equal act of irrational faith. Though each of the above inferences has been drawn by various people, none of them is a valid logical inference from the proposition nothing is certain.

My choosing to believe some things and not believe others is not a direct consequence of my philosophical skepticism. I accept that nothing is certain, but the only thing that seems to follow from that is that none of my beliefs are absolutely certain, i.e., without possibility of error. Probabilities are the best we can hope for and probabilities seem to be sufficient for daily living and for science. Those who have a need for absolute certainty may not accept this but I believe their rejection of probability as sufficient for human purposes is based on feelings and emotions, not thought.

I hope it is obvious that by 'probability' I do not mean 'mathematical probability.' The mathematical probability that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow may be zero, but the probability upon which humans may reasonably rest their expectations is very, very high. Epistemologically speaking, I cannot say with absolute certainty that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. But, if I am driving east in the morning, I will bring my sunglasses and not feel in the least that I am acting on faith or that I could just as well get where I want to go by heading west.



i picked them up here
http://skepdic.com/

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by afro-elf
hey blackheart

besides eating hobbits etc whadda do as a livin'?

I'm a BOFH.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by afro-elf
[B]However, nothing in particular follows from accepting that apodictic claims are impossible to demonstrate. It does not follow, for example, that because nothing is certain one should suspend judgment on all claims and believe nothing. Nor does it follow that because nothing is certain one should follow the customs and traditional beliefs of one's society. Nor does it follow that because nothing is certain any belief is as good as any other belief. Nor does it follow that because nothing is certain every belief is an equal act of irrational faith. Though each of the above inferences has been drawn by various people, none of them is a valid logical inference from the proposition nothing is certain.

I don't think that was the point. The point is that all beliefs should be examined, even the ones we view as "rational". And continuously reviewed. Even if it's as simple as feeling the ground under our feet.

Note that also none of the opposite follows from "apoditicticism" either. In order to make critical judgements on any of those however, you need information. Realizing that information is always tainted by subjective bias is one way of maintaining objectiveness.

My choosing to believe some things and not believe others is not a direct consequence of my philosophical skepticism. I accept that nothing is certain, but the only thing that seems to follow from that is that none of my beliefs are absolutely certain, i.e., without possibility of error. Probabilities are the best we can hope for and probabilities seem to be sufficient for daily living and for science. Those who have a need for absolute certainty may not accept this but I believe their rejection of probability as sufficient for human purposes is based on feelings and emotions, not thought.

Hmm. Nope, not going to walk of the edge of the building on the off chance that gravity isn't working today. But then, what does metaphysical theosophy have to do with everyday living? For that matter, what's wrong with taking feelings and emotions into account when making a decision? Especially when it's a decision about a human condition.

My objection to using probabilities as a guage for making policy is that all to often, the data upon which the probabilities are based is skewed or too small of a sample. It might be the best data we have, and if a policy is needed, then we might as well use it, under the caveat that we remember it is only the best available information.

However, if you don't actually NEED a policy, there isn't a mandate for one, then why make a decision? Especially why make a decision and call it a "fact"? It seems more emotional to me, than reserving judgement. I think it's related to that human need to avoid saying "I don't know".

I hope it is obvious that by 'probability' I do not mean 'mathematical probability.' The mathematical probability that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow may be zero, but the probability upon which humans may reasonably rest their expectations is very, very high. Epistemologically speaking, I cannot say with absolute certainty that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. But, if I am driving east in the morning, I will bring my sunglasses and not feel in the least that I am acting on faith or that I could just as well get where I want to go by heading west.

That's a fine way to feel. Nothing wrong with it. But if you notice, you are indeed acting on a "feeling". So what's wrong with taking "feelings" into account when making a decision?