Does everyone have a developed a belief system?

[Conaeolos]

A conversation between I and FreedomFromAll started in response to my statement in another thread that I am interested in what replaces religious philosophy for the non-theistic. He argued that was stupid as it goes the other way: one is in a natural state of disbelief than comes to believe.

The contested point we felt would derail the other thread. This disagreement in question: what constitute a personal belief system? Do non-religious people have anything resembling the type of personal belief system held by the religious or spiritual?

Specifically:

If you are a theist you may have a personal belief system that molded itself through your biases. Or just anyone without a religion might have some type of personal belief system, but the thing is not everyone has a personal belief system. An example would be children. Sure they might be developing one but they do not really have one yet. Another example would be people who just do not care enough about such things.

Expanded:

I view belief systems as nothing more than personal excuses for personal behavior. Add to that the belief in a belief system is really just the lack of understanding about how the human brain works.

I am not sure we actually disagree that much.

I view personal belief systems like religious philosophy similar to maps. There are detailed elements to a map and there are vague elements to a map, but the ultimate meanings comes from the general principles on those maps. A map denotes essence of a place but can never fully capture it.

I would argue children, babies and people who choose not to identify their philosophies all still have fully functioning equivalent belief systems and similar psychodynamics based on the sole facts they have maps and we share the same reality.

I would say there are differences between secular and religious philosophies. I would agree that secular is universal whereas religious are not. To define then a replacement is not an either or situation, but the specific elements within a secular map that refer the phenomena and experiences associated with the religious systems and where on the map they reference meaning.

Generalized verses specific is an important topic in this determination. That which is specific is mostly secular. The religious only exists in the generalized. For example, suppose one accepts there was the Hebrew man Joshua 2000 years ago who trigged the creation of the Christian religion. The difference between Joshua the man and Christ Jesus could not be further apart; yet, the disagreement between if said Christ is the literal personification of God or simply a representative spiritual truth could also not be further apart. The man verse christ, an example of specific verse generalized. The literal christ verse figurative christ an example different shapes on generalized truth.

I would split the secular replacements in two: expressed mathematical patterns (probability, there for so) and experiential disbelief (we can not observe/test there for it is most likely our imagination).

So, to be clear I think we all start off as religious in so much as the overall nature of our maps starts subjective. That is the idea that what we experience, believe, imagine etc is true. The secular idea enters the map later likely solidifying around ~12. These developmental years are where a lot of effort is spent determining real from unreal. The maps first big move into getting some details. Objective truth verses subjective truth. The belief systems we adults talk about, take pattrens post 21 where in these maps have become much more complex.

How can we possibly call this 'religious' especially if those pre 12 are not exposed to religious stories?

To explore this is to look at a psychological definition of God(pseduo-gods) which are the abstraction of "cause" / "fate" / "uncertainty" [God of the gaps]. This may seem weird for a theist embrace but only because you've at some point superseding that concept with something different from what I call God let's say 'universal mystery'. The main difference being I say it's conscious and you say it material.

A psychological God abstraction alone isn't enough to be religious though as there is another aspect 'devotion'. To this one has to look at natural behaviour, which is difficult since primal egotism is unchecked. The emotional response raw. Enter parental attachment & authority. In that, we observe our loveable little tyrants responding to 'authority' and 'submission' against the ego via an 'idealized abstraction' of fate. There are those who later argue this is fear but the evidence does not support that.This rough structure is basis to all later 'relgious' faith and certainly still very is much active in even the most ardent atheist or person who does not care about issues of the 'imaginary'. What fills in these details hwoever can ceritanly be either religious or secular.

 

[Conaeolos]

Part 2: How is that not secular?
When you say 'belief systems' are just 'personal excuses for personal behavior'. I don't disagree you simply mean it in the context of us communicating our motivations(past) and I the model best reflecting the structure of those motives(now). Again, we reverse the cause and the effect: belief system -> personal behavior vs personal behavior -> belief system. Fundamentally though it makes no difference which came first only that we except both are related.

As to 'lack of understanding about how the human brain works'. Talking about physically of the brain can be useful in some contexts but is like talking about computer systems in 1s and 0s or heck even Assembly. You're not going get the same out of it as talking in general terms or abstracted languages such as Java, Python or Objective-C.

Now, you may ask why if I see this rudimentary childish structure behind religion how could I possibly than be so bold as to confidently say 'God is real'. To this end, one needs to get to the crux: what is the meaningfulness of the imaginary?

Used in this conversation, the imaginary is unreal. It has no form in the physical universe. Trivial. It's Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Interesting, but not worthy of the second religious aspect: devotion or authority. It has no real-life lessons except metaphors and other literary devices.

This though is where we do depart. Not in that I disagree but in that I do not follow your conclusion. The imaginary does exist in our heads. Simulations of the real. All the above apply to that. The problem is the real world, the observerable has a property known as an infinite nature (your may observe a form of finite nature or infinite formable impersonal material such as matter alone). We imagine the world period. The observable is the input from our senses. Real is the coordinate. The parts of our simulation we universally experience. You likely think these sensory checks though are relatively reliable. Not the be all end all. But generally reliable. This is why the objective is such a focus. I disagree, as you cannot ever separate subject(observer) from the environment.

In math, the real is like expression, finite in form, observable, testable, where as the super-real mathematical systems themselves infinite in possibility.

So you see that part on the map[expression] has gaps/blurs. There is this common belief, that if you look hard enough you will see only details. Only matter. Only Atoms. Only vibrations. A fruitless endeavor IMHO as the real is infinite. Infinite spaces are more like the imagination than the senses projected realitiy. The rules are self-created by the observer (consciousness). This only becomes more clear the closer or farther out you look from.

Which really bring up only one other major contention. Consciousness. Does this childish impulse to assign personification distort a material force: Is it calling 'thunder clouds' God? Or, is there actual reasoning as to why this 'universal mystery' might deserve attention and hence authority and devotion. Our maps are quite different at this point so it harder to express, but by looking inward one sees all memory, personality, egotism is subject to a personal observer. A quiet force behind. You-ness. I-ness. Stare into the face and 'cause and effect' itself dissolves. There is personification, but I think its better termed personalization. The real is only possible by having a super-observer. To that non-duality [beyond observation]. Consciousness is all but a sure thing. consciousness is what shapes everything….The real then becomes "God's Will made manifest".

 

[Conaeolos]

Part 3: Universality
Ultimately though that is just a personal belief system. A map to understand 'meta-physics' and it religious in that it gives its devotion to God, and that God is supernatural. To your average Christian, the reasoning is faith, evidence experiential, words and language based in the theology, reference and stories told most often by a parent. There to thoughwe see the same abstraction labeled God, which one shows devotion, and that God is also Supernatural. A less self-reasoned version perhaps, but comparible religious personal belief systems none the less.

Let's suppose, although I can only speculate: your psychological abstraction is Reason. Reason, a set of logical principles is used to deduct real from unreal. Truth from falsehood. Evil from good. The same physicality to where devotion was physically projected moves on to simple probability: 'God's will' is there is a 50/50 chance this coin will come up heads. Now reason is not personified nor is it supernatural. So, this replacement is no God, but the word is more an abstraction[as we live in secular frame], so since psychologically this meet the requirements it still serves all the same functions. Devotionally, you are likely not without serving Reason in some way. Maybe it politics. Maybe its science. Maybe it some humanism. Maybe hedonism. Doesn't really matter the structure is the same. It's universal.

You may not consider that a belief system at all nor as powerfully motivating as say mine and certainly less so than the hypothetical Christian and their well developed story. I have yet to see evidence. The abstract exist universally. What fills it as diverse as mankind, but not so much as to prevent modeling a fair understanding to how these compare and thus discuss between ourselves.

Now maybe, you think since you didn't actively do anything to develop this speculated 'devotion to reason' that it doesn't count as an equivalent belief system. It somehow 'a return' to a more natural state before suggested considering religious stories. What that misses is neither did I nor the hypothetical Christian. No our experiences up to now simply formed a map and that map is expressed and here logged, labeled and codified.

Which is why when we hypnotically rewind to the moment life sparks into being. I would not say it was religious, proclivity no doubt varies, it neutral. A blank map changes though the moment the observer focus in. The map determines the behavior and questions to follow. The behavior influences the map…. And at any given point we have only a snapshot to discuss.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Your argument is pretty much just an strawman, since I am ignostic. Thats Ignostic and not Agnostic. The entire supernatural claim is neither coherent or even relevant to me at all. Spirituality, gods etc its all attributed to something described as supernatural. Things are called supernatural for the main reason that there is absolutely no evidence in the natural world to support such things.

Belief systems are not philosophies. And they are especially not philosophies if the individual never thinks about such things. Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Equivocating belief systems with philosophy is ignorant.

And to be clear I simply do not have a belief system. Of course you can try to tell me that I do (have a belief system), but that will get you nowhere fast. But thats what theists do; they assume that everyone is like them.
I do not need to believe something to know right from wrong. Instead my brain is equipped with a sense of right and wrong. There is actually a part of the brain that evolved to deal with empathy and compassion. People who have problems in that part of the brain of disorders that impair their ability to have empathy and compassion.


Edit: more later I just realized that I am late for an engagement with friends...later.

 

[Conaeolos]

Thanks. And I would certainly understand just skimming all that.

Your argument is pretty much just an strawman, since I am ignostic.

Just to be clear, I am merely trying to have a discussion which does not talk past each other. It would not surprise me in the slightest considering our vastly different conceptual maps that I would make straw men arguments along the way.

I try to be careful to add thing like hypothetical to show I am aware 'motivations' are speculative on my part. Secular 'replacement' philosophy is not something i pretend to fully understand I simply enjoy learning from it.

I can not accept however one can simply skip this human condition by not believing in Gods. I am however very curious as to how you think that is possible hence the interest in the thread.

Spirituality, gods etc its all attributed to something described as supernatural. Things are called supernatural for the main reason that there is absolutely no evidence in the natural world to support such things.

All that big text was attempting to show I am happy all too happy to talk about it in terms we agree like "psychological highest truth" or "god of the gaps". I do not expect you to change your worldview. I do no need you to believe in the supernatural. I do not wish to attempt a proof. I merely wish to discuss concepts which don't talk past one another simply because I do believe in the supernatural.

Belief systems are not philosophies. And they are especially not philosophies if the individual never thinks about such things. Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Equivocating belief systems with philosophy is ignorant.

That does clarify a lot. I do not use the term in that way.

And to be clear I simply do not have a belief system.

In the sense of the terms previously defined. I would agree you do not as you've never thought about it. How could you.

In my sense of the terms though you most certainly do and I am curious in the way you frame my conception again absent the whole supernatural part.

Of course you can try to tell me that I do (have a belief system), but that will get you nowhere fast. But thats what theists do; they assume that everyone is like them.

I assume everyone is human and we all share psychological similarities.

I do not need to believe something to know right from wrong. Instead my brain is equipped with a sense of right and wrong.

I believe you think that. I also agree adding belief in the supernatural in and of itself is not going to change that. Nor any story, like say christianity.

There is actually a part of the brain that evolved to deal with empathy and compassion. People who have problems in that part of the brain of disorders that impair their ability to have empathy and compassion.

Please do expand on this part. It is much more to what I would like to discuss.

 

[rjay]

.
.
.
Please do expand on this part. It is much more to what I would like to discuss.

We do have an inherent sense of compassion, empathy and fairness. These are evolved traits. There have been tests with other social mammals that have shown that they too have a sense of fairness. One such test involved chimpanzees. The chimps would do a task and get a treat. They would also watch as another chimp did the same thing. This was fine, everyone was happy.

But if they give one chimp a better reward than the other, One chimp will get a little chafed.



team work can be shown too

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Thanks. And I would certainly understand just skimming all that.

Just to be clear, I am merely trying to have a discussion which does not talk past each other. It would not surprise me in the slightest considering our vastly different conceptual maps that I would make straw men arguments along the way.

I try to be careful to add thing like hypothetical to show I am aware 'motivations' are speculative on my part. Secular 'replacement' philosophy is not something i pretend to fully understand I simply enjoy learning from it.

I can not accept however one can simply skip this human condition by not believing in Gods. I am however very curious as to how you think that is possible hence the interest in the thread.


All that big text was attempting to show I am happy all too happy to talk about it in terms we agree like "psychological highest truth" or "god of the gaps". I do not expect you to change your worldview. I do no need you to believe in the supernatural. I do not wish to attempt a proof. I merely wish to discuss concepts which don't talk past one another simply because I do believe in the supernatural.


That does clarify a lot. I do not use the term in that way.


In the sense of the terms previously defined. I would agree you do not as you've never thought about it. How could you.

In my sense of the terms though you most certainly do and I am curious in the way you frame my conception again absent the whole supernatural part.


I assume everyone is human and we all share psychological similarities.


I believe you think that. I also agree adding belief in the supernatural in and of itself is not going to change that. Nor any story, like say christianity.


Please do expand on this part. It is much more to what I would like to discuss.

You have claimed that everyone has a belief system whether they not it or not. It seems that you need to back that claim before we can proceed.

Also the phrase: belief system is subjective, I do not really know what you mean when you say belief system. Psychologists, political scientists and anthropologists tend to use the term in rather different senses.

A belief system implies that you believe in something; what exactly do you think that everyone must believe, in order to have a belief system?

And further what a belief may be to someone may be not a belief for someone else. This is to say that one may believe that doing X is wrong; while another might not believe that X is wrong, but rather that X has been proven wrong so therefor it a truth whether you believe it or not. Just as you believe (and many other people believe) that everyone has some type of belief system, but is it a truth or just your belief? WHy should I believe you or anyone unless it can be shown to be true?

I agree that we should avoid talking past each other. Unfortunately that is a difficult task. Mainly since words like belief have more than one meaning. Given that religions tend to have their own doctrine that dictates what certain words mean while those not in those religions tend to use the normal definitions of the same words.

What I find interesting is that so far the assertion that everyone has a belief system is not backed with anything as far as I have found. I have read some attempted logic that asserts it, but as the case most of the time such logic demands that you believe certain tenants in order for that logic to be valid. In other words the concept of belief system require that you believe in belief systems. It seems more logical that beliefs do not need to be organized into systems. When asked if you believe in X and you do not, the believer in X tends to then claim that, then you believe that you do not believe in X. But in reality you lack belief in X. So it is possible that people who describe them self as a believer is biased into believing that everyone has a system of beliefs just like they do.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Reasoning system might be a better way to put it.

One is to look skeptically at the world and think about it the other (there may be additional other as well) is to accept what you are told by some authority.

 

[Angel]

Belief is the basis of human experience. The human condition is grounded in belief.

 

[PoS]

We do have an inherent sense of compassion, empathy and fairness. These are evolved traits. There have been tests with other social mammals that have shown that they too have a sense of fairness. One such test involved chimpanzees. The chimps would do a task and get a treat. They would also watch as another chimp did the same thing. This was fine, everyone was happy.

But if they give one chimp a better reward than the other, One chimp will get a little chafed.

I would add that aggression, defense of territory, and warfare are also evolved traits present within us.

 

[devildavid]

Belief is the basis of human experience. The human condition is grounded in belief.

No, it isn't.

 

[Rich2018]

Belief is the basis of human experience. The human condition is grounded in belief.

Say's who ?

 

[Angel]

Say's who ?

Says anyone who's done any thinking worth the name on the human condition, that's who.

 

[Conaeolos]

A belief system implies that you believe in something; what exactly do you think that everyone must believe, in order to have a belief system?

To clarify, we both agree everyone has beliefs, right? We are arguing more about how these beliefs are organized. Specifically how in the case of us theists, how one belief (God) becomes central to a whole series to follow. It is that structure that you feel does not exist in someone like yourself, who gives no thought to an incoherent concept like God: ignostic. Agreed?

Why should I believe you or anyone unless it can be shown to be true?

I personally would say that this proof is a two way street and why we have and enjoy discussions, debates etc. I am sympathetic to the fact, one may for example not want to discuss any controversial topic with a 'flat earther' or a 'alien conpirisist' etc since they feel there is bad faith even if not intentional by way of some personal issue.

If that is the way one feel about this topic. I would certainly would not hold it against anyone to be very selective with the effort placed in discussing the topic.

I know the 'alien' example above comes up with one of my friends in conversations I otherwise enjoy. It's aggravating as I have no interest in going over the 10,000,000 reasons that is not proof of aliens. I do not need to see another testimony video. I don't care the credentials of the speaker. I do not believe there are aliens among us in that sense. Period. It is a waste of my time.

the concept of belief system require that you believe in belief systems. It seems more logical that beliefs do not need to be organized into systems. When asked if you believe in X and you do not, the believer in X tends to then claim that, then you believe that you do not believe in X. But in reality you lack belief in X. So it is possible that people who describe them self as a believer is biased into believing that everyone has a system of beliefs just like they do.

I wonder then is Tim right. If I changed my original statement: I enjoy discussing reglious personal belief systems and their replacement by secular personal reasoning systems. Would that in your opinion also be just as wrong?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Belief is the basis of human experience. The human condition is grounded in belief.

That is your belief, and a reflection of your personal experience. It doesn't necessarily extend beyond that.

 

[Angel]

That is your belief, and a reflection of your personal experience. It doesn't necessarily extend beyond that.

No, science has long confirmed the ancient philosophical insight that the human experience of the world is a mental construction accepted as real and true by the human mind.

 

[Conaeolos]

We do have an inherent sense of compassion, empathy and fairness. These are evolved traits. There have been tests with other social mammals that have shown that they too have a sense of fairness. One such test involved chimpanzees. The chimps would do a task and get a treat. They would also watch as another chimp did the same thing. This was fine, everyone was happy.

But if they give one chimp a better reward than the other, One chimp will get a little chafed.

Yes, but don't you think that talks about capacity more than any actual system of implementation (morals)?

We know for example, that 'fairness' matters more to people with higher trait agreeableness than those with lower trait agreeableness.

I have never heard it directly argued however that disagreeable people are inherently evil. [every other day indirectly]

To make a statement such as "I do not need to believe something to know right from wrong" or "my brain is equipped with a sense of right and wrong", directly refers to morals not capacity.

In morals, capacity is one such factor. If one doesn't have the capacity to be good they are not expected to be good. This is why is not evil for a lion to kill a human, but human killing a human would be considered generally evil.

So you must understand my skeptisism to the idea that morals not moral capacity is inherit in every human?

If the argument is a moral instinct in its purest form is good. I would guess the reason children are 'little lovable tyrannts' is simply they have less devloped 'empathetic' brain area? And the theroy then given time, they would by moral instinct alone demostrate forms of ethical good. Why then is it that permissive parenting produces distorted ethical judgement and linked to asocial and antisocial behaviors?

 

[soylentgreen]

I would say there are differences between secular and religious philosophies..

Then you would be wrong.
It really is difficult to get the point across. Atheism is not a philosophy. Nor is religion a philosophy. Religions are theologies. Where as atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a god . It is used only to respond to theists false belief that reason or evidence can be given to back their god.

Let's suppose, although I can only speculate: your psychological abstraction is Reason

Again you suppose wrong. Atheism is not a belief in reason or science or reality. It simply just rejects the poorly thought out reasoning of theists. Otherwise it serves no other purpose.

My example for this is the people of iceland.

https://icelandmag.is/article/00-icelanders-25-years-or-younger-believe-god-created-world-poll-reveals

Iceland seems to be on its way to becoming an even more secular nation, according to a new poll. Less than half of Icelanders claim they are religious and more than 40% of young Icelanders identify as atheist. Remarkably the poll failed to find young Icelanders who accept the creation story of the Bible. 93.9% of Icelanders younger than 25 believed the world was created in the big bang, 6.1% either had no opinion or thought it had come into existence through some other means and 0.0% believed it had been created by God.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/destinations/europe/iceland/believes-elves-exist-mythology/

ELVES ARE SMALL—ONLY 36 inches high at most. And though they have big ears and wear old-fashioned clothing, they do not wear pointy hats.

Such facts can be learned on an “elf walk” in Hafnarfjörður, Iceland, a harbor town just outside Reykjavík reputed to be the elves’ capital.

Yes, elves. Fifty-four percent of Icelanders either believe in them or say it’s possible they exist.

So, to be clear I think we all start off as religious in so much as the overall nature of our maps starts subjective.

No, this is nothing more than another poor attempt to give grandeur to a religious belief that does not deserve it. We start off with no beliefs and an active imagination. We do not start off with a set belief system which is what religion is.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

No, science has long confirmed the ancient philosophical insight that the human experience of the world is a mental construction accepted as real and true by the human mind.

Ah, a slightly different meaning to the word 'belief', but yes, you are right. "reality" is in the mind - ergo - what we believe to be real..

 

[Conaeolos]

We start off with no beliefs and an active imagination. We do not start off with a set belief system which is what religion is.

I would agree with you here. Unfortunately it such a long first post(s) some of the post-clarifications are lost.

My argument is that starting point is a neutral state, changing the instant there is a spark of consciousness, but over time 'sets of beliefs' form and the structures of religion can't just be skipped over when one never develops a belief that post age 21 one might still consider supernatural.

One example of a secular religion, might be 'radical environmentalism'.

I merely equated the early childhood period as closer in form to religious/supernatural explanations rather than secular ones. I did not say the two are the exact same. I use terms referring to system that develop post age of 21. I consider all that comes before that subject to caveat.

My example for this is the people of iceland.

I would agree Iceland is an example of a more secular culture than American culture which is even more secular than say Turkey.

Secular is the measure of degree of religious lanagugue. It goes down as religiosity goes up. One does not need to pass through one to be the other: God -> Reason or vice versa.

I do not see how that means Reason can not server the same psychological purpose as God does for the religious.

For the religious: reason being tool of God. For the secular God being a tool of (bad) reasoning.Again, that alone does not make a belief systems equivalent which requires devotion. I am merely showing how in my model the concepts are shifting around not collapsing. I am thus setting up an alternative model so we can compare and contrast. It may be a strawman. I fully admit that.

Atheism is not a philosophy. Nor is religion a philosophy. Religions are theologies.

Yes that is an example of talking past one another. I am aware of all those distinctions and why they exist. The context should make clear which meanings to use.

Where as atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a god . It is used only to respond to theists false belief that reason or evidence can be given to back their god.

Nope. A supernatural God is a position of faith. As the closer approximations in secular terms might be "universal mystery". So hence why there is never reasoning for Universal Mystery. There doesn't have to be from our POV. Reason itself is a gift of universal mystery (more specifically consciousness).

Now, psychologically God might be approximated in secular terms the "absolute highest truth". The absolute highest truth for atheist is something other than Universal Mystery. And certainly not conscious(more goo less mindful). I gave the example Reason/Logic/Observation. Reasoning likewise doesn't need reasoning. In such a model "universal mystery" on the other-hand most certainly does.

Does that help make it any clearer why we tend to talk past one another?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Then you would be wrong.
It really is difficult to get the point across. Atheism is not a philosophy. Nor is religion a philosophy. Religions are theologies. Where as atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a god . It is used only to respond to theists false belief that reason or evidence can be given to back their god.




Again you suppose wrong. Atheism is not a belief in reason or science or reality. It simply just rejects the poorly thought out reasoning of theists. Otherwise it serves no other purpose.

My example for this is the people of iceland.

https://icelandmag.is/article/00-icelanders-25-years-or-younger-believe-god-created-world-poll-reveals



https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/destinations/europe/iceland/believes-elves-exist-mythology/






No, this is nothing more than another poor attempt to give grandeur to a religious belief that does not deserve it. We start off with no beliefs and an active imagination. We do not start off with a set belief system which is what religion is.

I think that when we are young we all experiment with magical thinking. It's pleasurable and comforting. Over time, many of us drop it, at least to a large degree.

 

[Conaeolos]

This thread reminds me of the saying "I think we forget we are more the same than we are different".

From the ignostic/atheistic/agnostic lens of the universe one can not help, but see the people who embrace belief in supernatural as feel goods, embracing childish notions of imaginary events and beings. A hellish existence in so much as it is wasted on all kinds of silly activities.

From a theistic lens of the universe one can not help, but see the people who doubt and dismiss supernatural beliefs as malcontents, embracing childish notices of self-importance. A hellish existence in so much as it lacks meaning and any sense of true responsibility.

In the end both showing of a distain based in hope for the other which drives the other side red. eace

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

To clarify, we both agree everyone has beliefs, right? We are arguing more about how these beliefs are organized. Specifically how in the case of us theists, how one belief (God) becomes central to a whole series to follow. It is that structure that you feel does not exist in someone like yourself, who gives no thought to an incoherent concept like God: ignostic. Agreed?

There is a difference between belief in a god and believing the facts. Religious beliefs involve a great deal of willing suspension of disbelief. Religious belief is contrasted by one believing that 2+2=4 is correct. The later is not part of a belief system.

ANd no I am not naively missing a belief system in myself. I just have a different outlook that does not have the biases that your outlook has.

I personally would say that this proof is a two way street and why we have and enjoy discussions, debates etc. I am sympathetic to the fact, one may for example not want to discuss any controversial topic with a 'flat earther' or a 'alien conpirisist' etc since they feel there is bad faith even if not intentional by way of some personal issue.

If that is the way one feel about this topic. I would certainly would not hold it against anyone to be very selective with the effort placed in discussing the topic.

I know the 'alien' example above comes up with one of my friends in conversations I otherwise enjoy. It's aggravating as I have no interest in going over the 10,000,000 reasons that is not proof of aliens. I do not need to see another testimony video. I don't care the credentials of the speaker. I do not believe there are aliens among us in that sense. Period. It is a waste of my time.

Well of course is a given claim is too incoherent to apply reason too, then there isnt going to be much rational debate.

I wonder then is Tim right. If I changed my original statement: I enjoy discussing religious personal belief systems and their replacement by secular personal reasoning systems. Would that in your opinion also be just as wrong?

The problem lies in making one the equevolent of the other. In reality we are talking about apples and oranges. AT best despite asserting that you are talking about personal systems; religious refers to a collective frame of mind. What religious people do not seem to be able to grasp that secular is not collective thought.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

This thread reminds me of the saying "I think we forget we are more the same than we are different".

From the ignostic/atheistic/agnostic lens of the universe one can not help, but see the people who embrace belief in supernatural as feel goods, embracing childish notions of imaginary events and beings. A hellish existence in so much as it is wasted on all kinds of silly activities.

From a theistic lens of the universe one can not help, but see the people who doubt and dismiss supernatural beliefs as malcontents, embracing childish notices of self-importance. A hellish existence in so much as it lacks meaning and any sense of true responsibility.

In the end both showing of a distain based in hope for the other which drives the other side red. eace

I'm agnostic, but i don't have that negative a view of theists. I can see how my post would lead some to think that I view them as childish, but that really isn't the case. Some are, but so are some atheists. I look for open minds. Those exist in both realms. but probably not at the poles.

 

[rjay]

Yes, but don't you think that talks about capacity more than any actual system of implementation (morals)?

We know for example, that 'fairness' matters more to people with higher trait agreeableness than those with lower trait agreeableness.

I have never heard it directly argued however that disagreeable people are inherently evil. [every other day indirectly]

To make a statement such as "I do not need to believe something to know right from wrong" or "my brain is equipped with a sense of right and wrong", directly refers to morals not capacity.

In morals, capacity is one such factor. If one doesn't have the capacity to be good they are not expected to be good. This is why is not evil for a lion to kill a human, but human killing a human would be considered generally evil.

So you must understand my skeptisism to the idea that morals not moral capacity is inherit in every human?

If the argument is a moral instinct in its purest form is good. I would guess the reason children are 'little lovable tyrannts' is simply they have less devloped 'empathetic' brain area? And the theroy then given time, they would by moral instinct alone demostrate forms of ethical good. Why then is it that permissive parenting produces distorted ethical judgement and linked to asocial and antisocial behaviors?

I cannot respond without knowing what you define as morals. I use Sam Harris's definition. When we talk about morals we are really talking about well-being. If we can agree on a definition, then we can discuss whether specific actions are moral or not, based on our understanding of whether they promote well-being. This is not necessarily individual well-being, but rather well-being to humans as a whole.