Believers VS Non-belivers

[edwardcullensotherwoman]

Why is it that if someone believes in something, they will talk about it as exactly that - something they believe in - and not portray it as absolute fact; yet if someone doesn't believe in something, they will say this as an absolute fact and ridicule those who believe?

It's almost as if those who don't believe (in whatever the subject: angels, God, reincarnation) consider themselves superior to those who do, and view those who do as stupid for doing so.

Surely everyone's beliefs are their own belief and opinion - nothing "woo" can be either proven or disproven, so therefore nobody is right or wrong.

It just seems that every thread that starts "Do you believe" on this board ends up in a bun fight with believes defending themselves against non-believers who tell them they're being ridiculous. The clue is in the title of the board - if you don't believe in anything that's likely to be discussed under that heading, just avoid the board!

"Hakluyt,

But why does 'guiding' have to refer to humans?"

It doesn't.

I think what Einstein was referring to was a sense of the transcendent. Which is unrelated to God, religion or higher (or, indeed, guiding) consciensness.

.

I think the thing is with people feeling offense regarding others speaking out against their own particular belief system is that our world views are very tightly bound up with who we are, the decisions we make and how we live our lives essentially.

Belief systems, by their very definition, require a level of belief, a faith in something being a particular way, without being proven or fully proven. To question someone's belief, in order to shake it, could lead them them feel everything about them is being questioned, their own integrity even.

And, well, the natural thing is to be protective....once your integrity is put into question, what you stand for, and say, has doubt cast onto it. Being taken seriously potentially could become very difficult.

This is where 'debate' and ridicule can become very cruel. Whilst atheists might not personally believe in any God, many others do - religion is relatively mainstream, across all sectors of society. So you would expect a certain amount of respect, not ridicule, simply because going too much down the 'let's ridicule' path leads to religious discrimination.

I think the key is to systematically deal with questions, individual question by question and not then to draw more generic conclusions from the answers....and ask the question, don't put words into people's mouths.

Wow, this has turned into a much bigger debate than I thought it would!

I would just like to clear up a few assumptions from early on in the thread

• in my op I was just talking about MN, this board in particular actually, rather than the world as a whole. Obviously I know that in the real world there are people who believe their own thoughts to be right on both sides of the argument.

-I did not at any point say I don't like people disagreeing and stating their reasons, disagreement is fine and healthy (it would be a boring world if everyone agreed with everyone else!). What I don't understand is the need to ridicule.

I would also like to point out that I am an atheist. I believe that god does not exist. If others believe god does exist, fine. I have friends who believe it, we discuss it and question each other regularly, but I do not belittle them by saying there is no god, simply I don't believe that there is.
In the world in general, many believers and non-believers (in anything) would do well to remember that it's ok to disagree with people, we don't all have to think the same thing. If someone wants to believe in fairies, god, father christmas, aliens, whatever, that's fine.

The point I was making was basically if someone says "there's no such thing as aliens" someone who disagrees would not come on and say "of course there is, don't be ridiculous". But the reverse of the conversation is something that happens frequently.

capsicum - yes ... I think that having our beliefs questioned - especially if they are beliefs in a personal God - can be quite similar to someone denigrating a member of your family. The 'attack' may not even be ill-intentioned, but it is liable to be received very personally.

Going back a bit - IME most scientists - and many others of course, I don't want to be 'two cultures' here - are philosphically agnostic. They will then have a belief - be it atheism (I believe there is no god, though it is unprovable) , Einstein's pantheism, theists of many types. Anyone here not an agnostic really?

Errol Anyone here not an agnostic really?

I am not an agnostic. I am a Christian. Really.

"Going back a bit - IME most scientists - and many others of course, I don't want to be 'two cultures' here - are philosphically agnostic. They will then have a belief - be it atheism (I believe there is no god, though it is unprovable) , Einstein's pantheism, theists of many types. Anyone here not an agnostic really?"

Einstein was not a pantheist.

I think what scientists mean when they say they are agnostic is the same that Richard Dawkins means. As it is impossible to prove a negative, it is theoretically impossible to say that there is no God with absolute certainty. As it is impossible to say with absolute certainty that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. So strictly speaking, atheism is not a logically tenable position to hold. However it is possible to be as sure as it is possible to be about the sun rising and about the being no god. But, on a technicality, some atheists call themselves agnostics. It does not mean the think there might be a god- it just means that they have to admit the possibility, however remote, that God will turn up tomorrow.

hak - sorry, you're right - some people identified him as such but he said he wasn't.

Agree on agnosticism. Which is why unbelievers shouldn't do what the OP says they do (but IME most don't) - which is to assert their position as absolute fact. However, I'd contend that believers should do likewise and are as least as likely not to.

capsicum - do you think that the existence of God is provable?

Errol- if somebody held up an apple and asked you if, if they let it go it would hit the ground, would you say "yes"?

Errol Not provable in the scientific/empirical sense but I believe someone can have a personal revelation.

"Not provable in the scientific/empirical sense"

Is there another sense? "Prove" surely means in a way that everyone will have to see that it is real, not just you.

"but I believe someone can have a personal revelation"

You say 'personal revelation', others may say 'psychosis'.

If one day I hear a voice in my head, I will immediately get an appointment with a neurologist to see what is wrong with my brain. You would probably think it is God talking to you. Or possibly the Devil, if the voice tells you to take a knife from the kitchen and stick it into somebody, I presume.

"The point I was making was basically if someone says "there's no such thing as aliens" someone who disagrees would not come on and say "of course there is, don't be ridiculous". "

I'm happy to prove you wrong.

If I saw someone claim on here that there are no extraterrestrial lifeforms, I would be happy to say "Don't be ridiculous" because:

(1) What happened once can happen again - i.e. life evolved on Earth so can happen somewhere else, too.

(2) There are billions of planets in the universe plus their satellites, so many billions of places one would have to check (very carefully, under every rock) before a statement such as "there's no such thing as aliens" can be made.

What will you do if the neurologist says your brain is working just fine Cote?

Errol Not provable in the scientific/empirical sense but I believe someone can have a personal revelation.

Sounds like you're a good enough agnostic to me then! (which obv I mean as a positive). I don't doubt people can have 'personal revelations' too.... had them myself (so I believed)

hak - I'd say yes - being a shorthand for, all predictions based on the known laws of physics say that (unless there is some other force at work like a sudden tornado) the apple will fall due to the force of gravity. This isn't a matter of belief. What would you say?

Errol I am not an Agnostic though, in that I positively believe in God and the divinity of Christ. I have a definite belief.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

Erol- so that's why it's OK to say one is an atheist, not an agnostic. I am only agnostic about God as far as you and I are agnostic about a dropped apple falling not rising.

Dione, I don't know about Cote- but if the neurologist said my brain was working fine and I had eliminated all other possible causes for the voice in my head, then I might start considering whether it was the voice of god.

Cote

You say 'personal revelation', others may say 'psychosis'.

This statement is borderline offensive. Borderline because you have said 'others may say'. If you had declared personal revelation was synonymous with psychosis this I would have found offensive and untrue. My personal revelation is through experience and often serendipitous coincidences, which I have found meaningful in relation to my developing Faith. This is not at all related to anything that could possibly be defined as a psychotic event.

Rousing applause for BigDorrit (Tue 10-Jun-14 17:25:58)

and indeed for Einstein - thanks for finding those quotes; I never can!

Since I left this thread around page 2, as was already in pain from banging my head against walls, I need to add another reply to the assertion that "Support threads are not about challenging beliefs." Of course they are, often. When someone posts that they're looking for support, not LTB, then goes on to relate a tale of abuse, it's irresponsible to suggest the spa day and candlelit dinners she's asking for. When someone says God is telling her to kill herself, it's irresponsible to take her words at face value. The same's true in many less crucial situations. My recovery support group sometimes agrees I should go back to bed; other times they encourage me to go out and do something: in those circumstances, they know me better than I do.

Any opinion worth holding is resilient. Views that can't withstand challenge are flawed from the outset.

cote - I don't think we can say 'of course there is' in response to the aliens question. However, we can (for the reasons you stated) reply to the assertion that there are no such thing as aliens 'dont be ridiculous - there is a good probability that there are'. Neither of the absolutist positions can (at this time) be supported. Proof either way isn't theoretically impossible (though darned hard to prove the absence - much easier to prove their existence when the Vulcans make contact )

hak - I call myself an agnostic atheist.

capsicum - the term'agnostic' has mutate in common usage - the merriam-webster definitions aren't particularly helpful IMO. On these philosophy/religion threads I tend to assume that Huxley's original meaning when he coined the term is what we're talking about. It's not incompatible with having a definite belief - so long as you clearly recocgnise that it is a belief.