Do you believe in spirits ?

[raphael89]

Who cares? Let people believe what they want to believe, as long as it's not hurting anyone. If it makes them happy and live a fulfilling life. It's not our place to denigrate their beliefs, as it is theirs to denigrate yours.

 

[kallipolis]

Hallucination? I think not, especially if you're talking about me.

Those atheists who claim to be sceptical will easily, and conveniently identify hallucinatory behaviour in those of spiritual faith, yet deny such behaviour can exist in one who campaigns with evangelical fervour on behalf of atheistic beliefs.

 

[bankside]

Those atheists who claim to be sceptical will easily, and conveniently identify hallucinatory behaviour in those of spiritual faith, yet deny such behaviour can exist in one who campaigns with evangelical fervour on behalf of atheistic beliefs.

Yeah!! And those doctors are similarly famous for easily and conveniently identifying bronchitis in those who've been coughing for two years after a lifetime of smoking, yet they deny this "bronchitis" in people who breathe freely!

kallipolis, why not answer the question instead of trying to disqualify those who disagree with you from the discussion? To wit: how does a person of faith distinguish between hallucination and the experience of spiritual belief?

Incidentally I'm happy to acknowledge plenty of ersatz atheists;

• people who are "angry with god" (makes no more sense than being angry with unicorns),
• people who disbelieve because "god is not just for x, y, or zed reason" (perhaps god exists but is just a jerk who sends babies to die in emergency wards), or
• people who disbelieve christianity but think that star wars got it right and something like "the force" is real (get back to me when they discover midichlorians in a petri dish; until then they might as well just espouse any other unfamiliar mysticism.)

But I'm sure I will be accused of simply naming as heretics those "atheists" who happen to disagree with me as part of my Politically-Motivated Ego-Driven Campaign Against Hearing The Truth™ and accused of excommunicating them as schismatics or prisoners of conscience or something.

So I will propose a trade: my heretics for yours, with the acknowledgement that there are fewer sincere parties to either side of this debate than meets the eye.

And as Dawkins acknowledged in that clip, the sincerity is not in doubt, only (from the atheist's examination of the evidence) the conclusion of the believer.

 

[FirmaFan]

Those atheists who claim to be sceptical will easily, and conveniently identify hallucinatory behaviour in those of spiritual faith, yet deny such behaviour can exist in one who campaigns with evangelical fervour on behalf of atheistic beliefs.

Atheism is one thing and one thing only....atheism is the skeptical position to the claim that one or more gods exist. There is no "belief" involved with atheism anymore than there is the hobby of not collecting baseball cards or the hair color of baldness.

I can not count the number of times this concept has been explained to you, and every time it is, you continue to lie and misrepresent in order to attempt to place atheism on the same footing as religious beliefs so you can turn every argument against religion into one against atheism instead of actually addressing the argument itself...well, it just doesn't work like that.

To demonstrate:

Tell me, then, what "atheistic belief" is there that you believe has been promoted that you have then, in turn, identified as having the capacity to be described as "hallucinatory behavior"?

 

[kallipolis]

kallipolis, why not answer the question instead of trying to disqualify those who disagree with you from the discussion? To wit: how does a person of faith distinguish between hallucination and the experience of spiritual belief?

Would my answer satisfy you were I to provide you with my opinion?

A person of faith through their living experiences in faith in God will know the difference between hallucinatory episodes, and the rewards of faith.

 

[kallipolis]

Tell me, then, what "atheistic belief" is there that you believe has been promoted that you have then, in turn, identified as having the capacity to be described as "hallucinatory behavior"?

A compulsive, and obsessive belief that the experiences of those who live in faith in God are hallucinatory.

 

[zoltanspawn]

The human mind is susceptible to hallucination?

Or is it capable of imagination?

The pathological tenor is an appropriate criticism to both atheists and the religious stuck fast in the cement of literalism.

 

[FirmaFan]

A compulsive, and obsessive belief that the experiences of those who live in faith in God are hallucinatory.

Yeah, sorry, but no. Atheism is the skeptical position to the claim that one or more gods exist. Where in there does it state "atheism is the obsessive belief that the experiences of those who live in faith in god are hallucinatory"?

I do not believe that people who believe in god are hallucinatory. Just as I do not believe children who believe in santa clause are hallucinatory. There are, however, certain claims that, by their nature, leave the option of hallucination open. If a child says they saw santa come down the chimney and spoke to him, hallucination becomes more of a possibility. Belief alone is not a hallucination. However, until shown otherwise with evidence, belief is unsubstantiated.

I am an atheist because I am skeptical of the claim that a god or gods exist due to a lack of sufficient supporting evidence. I do not believe that all who are religious are hallucinatory, nor would such a thing be a consequence of my skeptical position towards the existence of a god/gods. I, thus, am a perfect example demonstrating why your assertions about atheists is false.

 

[Jacquemar]

Hallucination? I think not, especially if you're talking about me.

Well Mikey, you've avoided my question for a long time, so I ask again: how do you know you're not hallucinating? Give me something that I can hang my hat on, rather than just denying it.

 

[FirmaFan]

Kallipolis, very interesting you say "atheistic beliefs". Atheism isn't a belief system. There is no central authority, there is no book on it... and it's not organized.

I think it is quite telling that Kalli must represent atheism as akin to a religion in order to use the arguments against religious belief to attempt to argue against non-belief. On some level he must recognize that there is at least some merit to the arguments against religion if he feels compelled to use them against atheism, even though the definition of what makes a person an atheist renders any such turn-around inapplicable.

 

[zoltanspawn]

On some level he must recognize that there is at least some merit to the arguments against religion if he feels compelled to use them against atheism.

I'm pretty sure one can be as pathological about religion as one can be about atheism. It doesn't seem much of a stretch to me to credit Kallipolis such a simple opinion.

 

[FirmaFan]

The belief system that you have is quite simple....You either don't believe in God, or that there is no God...it is as simple as that.

Is it a belief system to believe that there is no santa clause? Is it a belief system to believe that there is no big-foot? Is it a belief system to believe that there are no unicorns? Is it a belief system to believe that there are no fairies? Is it really appropriate to label a disbelief in something because of a lack of supporting evidence, such as in the case of santa clause, big-foot, unicorns, fairies, or god, a "belief system" at all? Your false dichotomy mandating that skeptical positions to fantastic claims that have no supporting evidence be labeled as "belief systems" really isn't as simple as you would want it to be.

 

[Telstra]

You will know them by their fruits (Not fruits as in food). The fruits are as listed:
-Charity
-Joy
-Peace
-Patience
-Kindness
-Goodness
-Generosity
-Gentleness
-Faithfulness
-Modesty
-Self-control
-Chastity....and yes, Gay Men can practice Chastity if they so choose to do so.

Are you saying non believers don't have those fruits ?
And are more likely to do evil ?

Seriously its all depends on each person's morals whether you believe in god or not.

 

[zoltanspawn]

And zoltanspawn, that doesn't mean atheism is a religion. Atheism lacks a central authority, it isn't organized nor does it have texts prescribing indoctrination. There may be groups that advocate atheism, but there is little organization and no central authority.

Folks can practice a kind of atheism which resembles the worst of religion, no? Or, is atheism somehow such a perfect idea that it transcends typical human faults...as Kallipolis has characterized them, 'compulsive and obsessive'?

I'm baffled why you think "central authority, organization or indoctrinating texts" have anything at all to do with my posts.

 

[kallipolis]

Atheism isn't a religion.It's not about beliefs. It's the lack of religious beliefs. The lack of religious beliefs.

And organization has everything to do with religion. That is what religion is.

And where did I say atheism is a perfect idea that transcends human faults? Where?

Some have very wrong ideas about atheists.

Atheism is a belief system just as much as religion is a belief system when we consider the crusading, evangelistic nature of the posts on this forum from atheists determined, and dedicated to spreading the words of faith in non belief in the divine.

That atheists on this forum incessantly, and with obsessive delight state that there is no God illustrates the very nature of belief when believing that there is no God to believe in.

You will note that I can be as categoric, and as strident as you when framing my posts evidencing that my beliefs are as powerfully felt, as are your beliefs.

 

[Telstra]

Atheism is a belief system just as much as religion is a belief system when we consider the crusading, evangelistic nature of the posts on this forum from atheists determined, and dedicated to spreading the words of faith in non belief in the divine.

That atheists on this forum incessantly, and with obsessive delight state that there is no God illustrates the very nature of belief when believing that there is no God to believe in.

You will note that I can be as categoric, and as strident as you when framing my posts evidencing that my beliefs are as powerfully felt, as are your beliefs.

It is NOT a belief system.
I don't belief in a belief system is not a belief system.

Where is the place of worship for Atheism?

 

[FirmaFan]

Atheism is a belief system just as much as religion is a belief system

It has been explained to you time and time again why this is false.

when we consider the crusading, evangelistic nature of the posts on this forum from atheists determined, and dedicated to spreading the words of faith in non belief in the divine.

There has been no crusading, to proselytizing, no "spreading the word of non-belief", there has only been RESPONSES of skepticism towards other people's claims about the existence of god. It has always been the assumption that when those who believe discuss god on these boards, they are discussing it with the definition of some variant of the judeo-christian god, and, it is this definition of god that you and others have failed to demonstrate is accurate and correct. If you were to define god as a totem pole you have in your backyard, I would not be an atheist with respect to that, because you would easily be able to provide evidence of the existence of the totem pole you have defined to be god.

Atheism is not trying to sell an idea of non-existence of god, atheism simply doesn't buy what others are selling about the existence of god.

That atheists on this forum incessantly, and with obsessive delight state that there is no God illustrates the very nature of belief when believing that there is no God to believe in.

I can not speak for others, but I challenge you to find one post of mine where I state "There is no god". Maybe that will illustrate to you how belief is not a part of my skepticism towards other's claims that god exists.

Oh, and "obsessive delight"...I wouldn't go that far. Arguments with others on the merits of religious belief is, to me at least, intellectually stimulating.

You will note that I can be as categoric, and as strident as you when framing my posts evidencing that my beliefs are as powerfully felt, as are your beliefs.

Again, not speaking for others, but I have not once stated any of my beliefs, so you can not show how your beliefs are "as powerfully felt".

 

[bankside]

kallipolis, I think you are confusing "belief" with "political movement."

I think it is easy to demonstrate a political encampment within the larger group of modern atheists. There are many atheists who have reacted to defend themselves and their right to freedom of conscience against the impositions of the theologically-minded on the public sphere. This reaction takes the form of campaigning for public opinion, awareness and marketing tools, and so forth.

You see an example of it in Quebec where people question the practice of the government hanging crucifixes in its buildings, public schools and so on. Atheists, among others, are offended by the idea that the polity should endorse what is, as you acknowledge, a personal belief. Yet based on the reaction of the "religiously entitled," you would think the atheists are campaigning not for the removal of the crucifix, but for its replacement with a picture of Carl Sagan instead.

I have yet to see a campaign there against personal religious symbols of those who might enter or freely use those buildings. If someone wants to wear their usual small crucifix on a chain around the neck, no one is objecting to that. There has been more difficulty digesting symbolic items with other implications: kirpans are variously banned or allowed depending on the institution and the court ruling; same thing with burkas.

In those cases however it is not the religiousness of those items or vestments that raise alarm; it is their other purposes. Kirpans are dangerous knives and parents don't want them in schools. People don't really debate the theology of it. If it was a sacred toaster, or a ceremonial bean bag, there would be no objection. And the burka is seen as a tool of sexist oppression. Yes, some women make the argument that it is their right and their choice to wear the burka in a state of equality and consistent with their religion. However given the state of women living under islamic theocracy, they just aren't very convincing in their arguments that it is a choice made by a woman secure in her equality.

So in addition to "atheism" denoting "the conclusion that any sort of god seems highly improbable," atheism does also often denote the political activity of those who are just fed up with the religiously entitled imposing their speculative views on our shared world. Beliefs that are -- as defined in this thread -- private, purely personal, and beyond the realm of debate or external appreciation, have no place in public life.

When the skeptic asks not for proof, but just even for evidence, we are told that the evidence is personal to and only intelligible to the believer.

If that is the case, we would love nothing more than for believers to write it all down in a diary and then never read it to anyone, let alone use it to drive wars, or school curricula, or marriage law, or research funding, or tax exemptions, or mandatory trading days, or drivers' licensing, or social services, or...

Anyway, a political dimension does not make atheism a belief system either, even if that political bent were embraced by every atheist, which it is not. It makes it not willing to lay down and die in the face of obscure and pernicious omnipresent assumptions of the religiously entitled.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Atheism isn't a religion.It's not about beliefs. It's the lack of religious beliefs. The lack of religious beliefs.

And organization has everything to do with religion. That is what religion is.

And where did I say atheism is a perfect idea that transcends human faults? Where?

Some have very wrong ideas about atheists.

Yeah, see, I wrote that atheism can resemble religion.

Religion is "organization." Okay.

You didn't say that atheism transcends human faults. Good. It would seem you are in agreement then that atheism can be practiced in the same pathological manner that one can practice religion.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I don't think so. Atheism doesn't resemble religion at all. No, I'm not in agreement that atheism can be practiced in the same way as one practices religion. Atheism isn't a belief system. It's actually about the lack of beliefs in religion and god(s). You're quite mistaken there.

Please don't put words in my mouth, it's not nice.

Speaking of putting words in other's mouths, you may need to review the thread to figure out who you are disagreeing with when you repeat your claim to me that atheism isn't a belief system. I have never stated that it was, just as I never stated previously that atheism is a religion.

What I have stated, in case you have missed it, is that atheism can be practiced pathologically in the same way that religion can be. To borrow Kalli's words, the skeptical response can be made compulsively and obsessively.