It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Disbelief Is Not A Choice

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


You weren't clear whom you were speaking to partner. Or what post ?
edit on 2-10-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by seachange
That is a great set of definitions, except that people actually use the terms differently. Someone who believes God does exist but does not know god exists generally would deny being agnostic. I believe the most commonly used used meaning is the atheist-agnostic-theist scale. Furthermore, while I do see a use in the definition set you present, I'm not sure I see how its superior to using the atheist-agnostic-theist scale. Its also useful to know people's degree of belief.


It's not a matter of superiority, it's the proper definition of the terms. Colloquially, the terms are widely misused. As such, when people engage in philosophical discussions about them using improper definitions means a flawed premise and it results in a lot of problems for everyone.


The proper definition to use is the one that achieves the highest level of understanding. If you think your definition set is the proper one, then explain how it is the most proper when its not going to be widely understood. In specific, you use the term "agnostic" to describe a large number of people who describe them self as Christian, and therefore you're use of the term agnostic will not be widely understood.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by seachange
The proper definition to use is the one that achieves the highest level of understanding.


To me, that would be the correct definition.


If you think your definition set is the proper one, then explain how it is the most proper when its not going to be widely understood.


Again, it's not my definition set. It's the correct set of definitions. Are you actually arguing that we should proliferate misuse and misunderstanding of words?


In specific, you use the term "agnostic" to describe a large number of people who describe them self as Christian, and therefore you're use of the term agnostic will not be widely understood.


Other people's ignorance of language is their problem. The fact that agnostic theists exist is not going to change just because I use an adjective they don't understand.

Anyway, it's up to you if you choose to use your own made-up definitions for words but it's only going to result in problems for everyone when you employ them in discussion.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by seachange
 


That's why the definition is included. It's education. For years people thought the earth was flat. Agreeing with that notion without educating them on the facts isn't doing anyone any favors. Many people use the word irregardless, when they mean regardless, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. I'm still going to try to explain to them that regardless means without regard...

Here is a video that explains the actual meaning of the words (atheist, agnostic) and the positions behind them.




posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


You're right. I was unclear. And I had received an answer from the person I had intended my post for anyway. I'm sorry about that, All.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Disbelief is not a choice, belief is not a choice, in fact there is no choice in anything. Can anyone choose the way they feel about something in any given moment? The feeling arises but who put it there? When it is present it is too late to not feel it.


But those feelings and vague sensations arrive from the way the information is arranged. Some arrangements do not permit the feeling of knowing, and even those feelings can be tested for accuracy/consistency. What people think is needed to recreate belief is not consistent, and when belief is found, hope/faith is more of an accurate reason than understanding.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Really I just wanted to say that the reason I think people in general think Atheism is a choice, is because of the misplaced burden of proof argument. In that - you cannot prove God doesn't exist - So you must now admit that you are choosing to rule out God. This is what I think it keeps coming back to.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by juveous
Really I just wanted to say that the reason I think people in general think Atheism is a choice, is because of the misplaced burden of proof argument. In that - you cannot prove God doesn't exist - So you must now admit that you are choosing to rule out God. This is what I think it keeps coming back to.


Indeed, if one predicates their assertion on a misunderstanding of who has the burden of proof then I can see how that might happen. Astonishingly, my wife uses that one on me, though she has sense enough to know I'm not a chosen atheist.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Sexual preference IS a choice.

It's a choice driven by environmental chances, lifestyle opportunities, life experience, and personal responsibility choices.

Saying that you're proud to be gay but that it wasn't your choice is hypocritical. If you're gay, so be it, but stand up and take personal responsibility for your choices.

Here's something to think about. If being gay were genetic, the parents of gay children would also be gay too, and there wouldn't BE any gay children at all.

Saying that "you were born this way" is simply a way to absolve yourself of all personal responsibility for your lifestyle choices.

Gay lifestyle as a percentage of population has EXPLODED since LBGT has been heavily featured in popular culture and media over the last 20 - 30 years, and people felt more comfortable joining the lifestyle. It's an environmental and opportunistic choice, and is ABSOLUTELY a choice.

If it were genetic, the gay population as a percentage of human population wouldn't change that much, and the data just doesn't support this theory.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
Sexual preference IS a choice.


Hmm. I didn't realize that. All of the gay people I've ever known have told me there was no choice whatsoever: they were simply born that way. You're the first gay person that's told me otherwise.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
Here's something to think about. If being gay were genetic, the parents of gay children would also be gay too, and there wouldn't BE any gay children at all.


Something to think about for about .5 seconds.
Genes don't exactly work that way. For example, the bald gene is passed from mother to son... Mother doesn't have to be bald to pass on the gene.




Gay lifestyle as a percentage of population has EXPLODED since LBGT has been heavily featured in popular culture and media over the last 20 - 30 years, and people felt more comfortable joining the lifestyle.


Have you heard of coming out of the closet? 20-30 years ago, most gay people were afraid to 'admit' their preferences. There aren't more gay people, there are just more gay people OUT.
Just because you didn't hear about them doesn't mean they're not there.


How did this turn into a discussion about gay being a choice, anyway? Who cares WHY someone is gay?



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
How did this turn into a discussion about gay being a choice, anyway?


I referred to it in my opening salvo. Since we're on about it, though I don't have a source handy, I've heard that there is a correlation between gay siblings and the fertility of their straight siblings. Apparently those who have a gay sibling end up being more fertile and it has something to do with genetics. So, homosexuality may actually turn out to be oddly beneficial for the species. I'll see if I can find a source as it sounds bizarre at face value.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


The reason why I'm not yet convinced you've provided the best definition set is that a helpful classification of beliefs is a three-level system: False, Undecided, and True. Certainly the video presented by Benevolent suggests such a thing is useful.

An even more precise model could be a number scale ranging from -100% to +100%. A baby would for example start out at 0% regarding their belief in Santa Clause. I started off my life at the 0% mark since I'd never heard of Santa at that time. I started out life neutral at 0%. Now I'm at something like -99.99999% confidence that Santa Clause is nonexistent. I'm not neutral on the topic.

I don't believe atheists are neutral on the topic of whether God exists, otherwise atheists wouldn't present an illustration such as @8:16 shown in the video included in Benevolent's post. A useful labelling system would be 50% for another group("God probably/definitely does exist"). So you go ahead and tell me the best labels for those groups.
edit on 3-10-2011 by seachange because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-10-2011 by seachange because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by seachange
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


The reason why I'm not yet convinced you've provided the best definition set is


You're arguing in favor of your own ignorance. Be my guest.

You know which definitions I'll be using,



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by seachange
 

Here is a video that explains the actual meaning of the words (atheist, agnostic) and the positions behind them.




Oh my, that video is brilliant, but it's missing one thing at the end. The human species cannot currently cast off its belief in God(s) because of the terrifying reality that would be waiting for them. The very idea that death is the absolute end of consciousness is so powerful that it can cause people to brainwash themselves. "Magical thinking" isn't some silly kid's game that adults like to play; it is the ultimate protection against a reality that is psychologically debilitating.


Originally posted by babybunnies
Saying that you're proud to be gay but that it wasn't your choice is hypocritical. If you're gay, so be it, but stand up and take personal responsibility for your choices.


That's right, and saying that you're proud to be black but that it wasn't your choice is hypocritical. If you're black, so be it, but stand up and take personal responsibility for your choices.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by babybunnies
Here's something to think about. If being gay were genetic, the parents of gay children would also be gay too, and there wouldn't BE any gay children at all.


Something to think about for about .5 seconds.
Genes don't exactly work that way. For example, the bald gene is passed from mother to son... Mother doesn't have to be bald to pass on the gene.


As much as I love you, you're wrong.
It's actually that each parent has TWO sets of genes (because they each had two parents) so you could inherit a baldness gene from a father with a full head of hair, it's just that the baldness gene isn't the one being expressed. In fact, you could inherit the bald gene from dad but not be bald because of mom, and then pass on that bald gene to your son who in turn also has hair because of his mom. The gene that is expressed is not necessarily the one that is passed on, and because this applies to all genes, there are many possible differences in a set of siblings.

And to bolster your point on "the gay" being genetic, identical twin studies on homosexuals have an extremely high correlation as opposed to fraternal twins. I'm not digging up the research on that as I've posted it a great number of times and this thread isn't even about that.

reply to post by Dasher
 


Augustine developed Predestination as the ultimate defense against logic and reason. Later picked up by Calvin, it really is a new level of peculiar. Predestination would actually argue in favor of this threads main point, but it argues from a point of view that claims that infidels were damned when they were created by God, and were intentionally and specifically NOT given the ability, choice, or desire (as argued by Augustine) to be saved. That could be the most sadistic interpretation of God I've ever heard and I've got to give it up to Augustine for being creative enough to invent it. The regular Abrahamic God is a autocrat that punishes the rational, but the Predestination God is a psychotic child that would just as soon hug his mommy as light a cat on fire.

And as for me, well, I recently had an experience that was mine and mine alone and there's no damn reason to be posting about it. But my preliminary conclusion is that it doesn't matter if you are an atheist or not; the universe is not concerned with your beliefs. And the universe certainly isn't malevolent enough to create life to specifically annihilate it later on while allowing a chosen few to continue existing. More research is needed, but I'm just not sure where to go from here.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
So if disbelief isn’t a choice then how could I have a belief about what you are trying to get to? There is a disbelief and a belief. Hmmmmmmm I have a choice. Which one do I choose? It seems like a multiple choice to me.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
I'm going to change my stance on this issue and argue that Disbelief is a choice.

When you encounter new information, you can do one of four things:
1. Accept the information (believe)
2. Reject the information (disbelieve)
3. Ignore the information (refuse)
4. Abstain from commenting on the information (distance)

Technically, all four of these alternatives are choices because you make a conscious decision when you select any of them.
edit on 4/10/2011 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I'm going to change my stance on this issue and argue that Disbelief is a choice.

When you encounter new information, you can do one of four things:
1. Accept the information (believe)
2. Reject the information (disbelieve)
3. Ignore the information (refuse)
4. Abstain from commenting on the information (distance)

Technically, all four of these alternatives are choices because you make a conscious decision when you select any of them.
edit on 4/10/2011 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)


It seems it would be that way, though I believe the appearance of a choice is an illusion. If I take you to a river to show you a rock, you will then know the rocks exists and therefore cannot disbelieve it exists even if you tried.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
"Magical thinking" isn't some silly kid's game that adults like to play; it is the ultimate protection against a reality that is psychologically debilitating.


If it's sure to be psychologically debilitating, how do atheists manage?



That's right, and saying that you're proud to be black but that it wasn't your choice is hypocritical. If you're black, so be it, but stand up and take personal responsibility for your choices.


Just a note on being 'proud' to be gay or black... It's not like being proud of an accomplishment. For so many years, gay people and black people (and women before them) were told by society that they should be 'ashamed'. And for many years, they were. Pride is a way of casting off shame. Instead of being embarrassed and feeling bad about themselves, they cast off the shame and replaced it with pride. So, they're not proud in the sense that they chose to be black or gay, they're proud as in the opposite of ashamed, unhappy and 'wrong'.

Like, I am woman! Hear me ROAR!




The gene that is expressed is not necessarily the one that is passed on, and because this applies to all genes, there are many possible differences in a set of siblings.


OK. so I was wrong about the mother (exclusively) carrying the gene, but my point was that genes don't always express in a direct way. The poster was saying that only gay people would have gay children, and that's not how genes work. A person can CARRY a gene without expressing it. THAT was my point.


And I love you, too.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


What happens for people that have never seen a rock before (assume there are none nearby to show them)? Can they not correctly believe (in their minds) that rocks do not exist? The concept of a "rock" would be foreign to them.

Also remember that it is far easier to verify the existence of a physical object than it is an abstract concept. This does not make abstract concepts unbelievable, though.

edit on 4/10/2011 by Dark Ghost because: formatting



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


I disagree with you. Here are a couple reasons why...

Do you believe that you will be alive on Saturday? I would wager to say that your answer would be 'yes', even though you have no proof that this is true. Just like you have no proof that God exists. You can choose to believe that yes, you will be alive in Saturday, or you can choose to be 'agnostic' about it, that is, to admit that you just don't know whether you will be or not. There are many people in the world who are very comfortable in choosing to believe that they will be alive this coming Saturday, but are mistaken about that belief.

Another chose belief many people have is regarding life outside this Earth. Is there life on other planets in this universe? You can choose to believe what you will.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join