Goliath

Brian,

In every post that you've made in this thread, you've assumed what you're trying to prove (or at least argue for): That every human holds a belief regarding the supernatural.

What part of "I understand that emotions affect beliefs, and I understand that old beliefs affect new beliefs" do you not understand? Your article does not address the existence of beliefs on any given issue, let alone the supernatural, and that is why it is not relevant to this discussion.

Let's take a look at the selected quotes from your article (emphasis mine):

Well, that's nice. However, this quote says nothing whatsoever about whether or not one must hold a belief regarding any particular topic.

This quote is talking about beliefs that already exist. Again, it does not adress whether or not beliefs need exist in the first place with respect to certain topics.

Again, we're talking about already existing beliefs. Irrelevant.

And....yep, you guessed it! The quote merely talks about preexisting beliefs.

Do you get it, yet? Your argument is just as useless as that of a theist who marches in here and gives an argument that boils down to "God exists because he exists!"

Sincerely,

Goliath

Brian63

A couple of the quotes I use make use of the phrase "change any belief" and "change even one belief." How do you interpret these phrases? Note the word "change" in particular.

What does it mean to "change" a belief, in other words? To me, it suggests that one belief is dropped and another is acquired in its place. For instance, at one time I believed that Santa Claus existed. At a later point in my life, I believed Santa Claus did not exist. What this involves is the elimination of one belief and the replacement of it with another. A shorthand way of identifying this is to say it was a "change" of beliefs, when to break it down even more accurately I would say it wasn't so much a change, but a deletion and an addition.

This "change" you will notice, as I have pointed out, involves the acquisition of a brand new belief, namely the belief that Santa Claus does not exist.

So when the author speaks of beliefs "changing," I interpret that as meaning that some beliefs are removed from the individual's belief system while other new beliefs are added.

In what other way do you interpret the phrase "changing beliefs" that does not involve the acquisition of new beliefs?

Brian

Goliath

Brian,

You still do not see the question-begging in your "argument."

(emphasis mine)

And with regards to the supernatural, YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT THERE IS A BELIEF TO BE DROPPED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

This is getting extremely frustrating.

Sincerely,

Goliath

(edited to move the "emphasis mine" part to where it should've been)

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

Brian63

Chill dude.

Of course, because as I said already, I interpret the phrase "changing beliefs" to involve the deletion of one belief and the addition of another. In what other way do you interpret the phrase "changing beliefs" that does NOT involve either the removal or addition of an already existing belief? You will, of course, answer that you had no beliefs about the supernatural to begin with.

So let's try this another way. It is a given that you have existing beliefs. You cannot start life "beliefless" in other words. Your values, biases, etc. influence what those beliefs are. Since you have biased opinions and personal prejudices right from the start, any new opinions that you acquire will be affected by such values. As I mentioned earlier, there are certain things that you *want* to be true, and others that you *want* not to be true. Pure apathy is not a viable option, I believe, for us humans. We have desires for every situation imaginable.

When I say "The supernatural exists," you have desires either way, for that to be either true or false. You will then look for evidence to support your initial desires, and from the evidence (or what you perceive to be evidence) you form opinions and beliefs.

To be completely "beliefless" about a proposition is not a viable option, as long as you have desires, values, biases, etc and you start off with some beliefs right from the get-go. They will lead to the formation of new beliefs, including beliefs about the supernatural when that thought is contemplated in your mind.

I'll try to break this down into an easy-to-follow sequence:

General

1. Desires, values, biases, emotions, etc. exist about every scenario imaginable.
2. Some beliefs exist (given)
3. We look for evidence to validate our own biases, values, etc.
4. The new awareness of evidence (or what we perceive to be evidence, based upon our desires and already-existing beliefs) leads to the formation of new opinions and beliefs.

Particular

1. You have desires, values, etc. that affect whether you want the proposition "The supernatural exists" to be either true or false.
2. You have certain existing beliefs about different issues other than the supernatural, and seemingly completely unrelated to the issue of the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. In short, you have beliefs.
3. You look for evidence to make you feel at ease with your values, desires, etc. including your values, desires, etc. about the proposition "The supernatural exists."
4. Your perception of what you consider to be "evidence" about the supernatural will lead you to form beliefs about the supernatural.

Brian

Goliath

Brian,

Sorry. I shouldn't have snapped like that. My apologies.

And that is why talking about the changing of beliefs is completely irrelevant to this discussion, since this discussion has to do with the existence of beliefs regarding the supernatural.

If you mean that I hold beliefs, yes. If you mean that I hold a belief on every given topic, then no.

They influence the beliefs that currently exist, yes.

Agreed.

Correct. However, this does not mean that every propositional statement falls into one of the two aforementioned categories.

And here is where we depart.

Speak for yourself. I have no such desire. I have absolutely no idea whether or not anything supernatural exists.

And here again you assume that I must always hold a belief regarding every topic. You have not demonstrated this.

Speak for yourself!

I don't believe this.

No, sir. I do not.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Brian63

This is where I believe we depart. I frankly find it insensible that a person can be 100% purely apathetic about a given issue. That is not humanly possible, it seems to me. It also seems that that is the position you must adhere to in order to hold your own position. So you will of course believe that it is possible for a person to be absolutely and completely biasless and desireless about a given issue/proposition. You will also believe that you are a living example of such a possibility. I will of course believe you are not.

I don't see how either one of us could convince the other.

Brian

Goliath

Brian,

I know absolutely nothing about the supernatural...not even enough to form an opinion about it. That is basically why I hold no beliefs regarding the existence of anything supernatural.

And you will continue to assert that you're right over and over again without backing up your assertions, right?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Amie

I have a question maybe someone can help me with...I have heard the terms strong atheist and weak atheist used recently. It seems to me that a nonbelief is a nonbelief. How can one person's nonbelief be any stronger than anothers or any weaker for that matter?
If this has been previously adressed and I somehow missed it, feel free to come schmack meh

Amie~

Goliath

Amie,

The distinction is a huge one, but a very subtle one.

A strong atheist holds the belief that no gods exist.

A weak atheist does not believe that any gods exist.

Note the difference between the two: a strong atheist definitely holds a belief regarding the existence of gods, whereas the weak atheist need not hold such a belief.

Did that clear things up?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Brian63

Well, I thought we had both identified our points of departure and left it at that...but let's keep goin if you like. It seems there is still some misunderstanding about what was being said, not just disagreement.



And my point (which you would have to disagree with to maintain your position) is that you have values about the idea of the supernatural existing, and those values lead you to observe (what you consider to be) evidence that leads to conclusions and beliefs about the supernatural.




Not at all. I provided the reasons and evidence (or what I conider to be evidence) for the positions that I hold. The fact that you do not consider evidence what I do consider evidence does not mean that I am not "backing up my assertions." It means that I am not "backing up my assertions" IN A WAY THAT IS SATISFACTORY TO YOU.

I see 2 possible reasons why my "evidence" is unsatisfactory to you, but is satisfactory to me. First, it could be that my standards that constitute evidence in this case are too lenient. Second, it could be that yours are too demanding. Which standard would actually lead us to draw the "correct" conclusions on the issue, if either? Well, that's what this thread has been hashin over from day one, albeit subtlely.

Brian