RocketGirl: Animator

[Trance]

Carry on then. It was simply constructive criticism.

[nickspoon]

I dunno if anyone else has said this because I haven't looked at the rest of the thread, but the style reminds me of ReBoot.

(In other words, I like it.)

Alphanumeric!

[RocketGirl]

Well, and I welcome constructive criticism, it's just...I'm not sure how to use this.

I mean, I genuinely, no bull, honestly don't know how to get my points across without either honking off sensitive religious types OR compromising the message while trying to not ruffle any feathers; the two seem quite at odds with each other, perhaps even mutually exclusive.

And it's made even more difficult by the fact that these rules aren't also being applied to some religious types out there. So being told, "Whoa...too harsh!" is, like...total incredulity time.

[Segovia]

I mean, I genuinely, no bull, honestly don't know how to get my points across without either honking off sensitive religious types OR compromising the message while trying to not ruffle any feathers; the two seem quite at odds with each other, perhaps even mutually exclusive.

They are your beliefs, express them. Don't worry what other people think.

[Dr. Sticks]

yeah amen roger screw christians

[Segovia]

I know you're playing Dr. Sticks but please watch your language.

[RocketGirl]

They are your beliefs, express them.

Oh, but they're not my beliefs. My philosophy, maybe, my toolkit for getting along in the world...but they're not beliefs.

More than half my point is that beliefs are not necessarily A Good Thing™; replace 'em with empirical fact whenever you can.

Don't worry what other people think.

I usually don't. The thing is...well...if you're trying to get a message across, you DO have to consider your audience a little.

That's actually part of why I'm taking a break from Rational Station for a while to work on a project of mine that's primarily fiction.
With that project, I'm significantly less concerned with what people think and much more concerned with telling a story; if people dig it, great, but I'm rather less concerned about whether the message is getting across beyond the comprehension level...

[nickspoon]

Oh, but they're not my beliefs. My philosophy, maybe, my toolkit for getting along in the world...but they're not beliefs.

I would disagree; the idea that logic, science and rational thought can offer truths is, in itself, a belief, and if one tries to justify it logically one first has to accept the premise that logic is a way of defining truth, and similarly if one tries to justify it empirically one first has to accept that the universe functions according to empirical evidence and patterns.

Of course, these are very simple conclusions to make, and the evidence supports them, but it is nonetheless clearly a belief. What it certainly is not (and I would happily defend this) is faith.

[Segovia]

I would give my opinions but I'm already disliked as it is.

[Dr. Sticks]

yeah, I always read atheists talking about how they do believe, that they do have faith, in the idea that there is no god or gods. I guess that may partially be because I follow the school of thought that "agnostics are full of shit fence-sitters that need to actually admit which side they believe, or just say that they're not comfortable discussing it rather than act like they don't have opinions"

[Dr. Sticks]

have at it, I know I'll keep my contributions respectful rather than attacking your faith itself. the more the merrier.

[RocketGirl]

I would disagree; the idea that logic, science and rational thought can offer truths is, in itself, a belief

Yes, that IS a belief...but it's also not what is being said here. At all.

Truth, in a philosophical sense, is something that religion attempts to offer, but it does so by wrapping it all up in a package of magic, mysticism and legend which can only be opened through faith, through the belief without empirical evidence.
It's a repudiation of THAT which is being offered here; if you believe something for irrational reasons, frankly, you're doing it wrong, that's the message.

The point is that logic, science, and rational thought can offer you a view of the world which is accurate, consistent and reasonable, and not based on superstition or overgrown hope.

Of course, these are very simple conclusions to make, and the evidence supports them, but it is nonetheless clearly a belief.

No, I can't agree. If the evidence supports it, then belief isn't required. That's the whole point of an empirical worldview.

What it certainly is not (and I would happily defend this) is faith.

Personally, I don't see a huge difference between faith and belief in the religious sense.

yeah, I always read atheists talking about how they do believe, that they do have faith, in the idea that there is no god or gods.

Oh, not at all, not at all.

If an atheist is doing it right, their position will be something akin to: "There is no evidence that there is a god, and there is plenty of contradictory evidence to religious claims, therefore, pending an influx of new data, the position that there is no god is the most reasonable one."

Granted, there's no one way to be an atheist, but the flat-out statement that there is no god, period, full stop, end of story, is about as irrational as saying that there IS one when the evidence is not conclusive on either side.
However, that doesn't mean that the likelihood of god's existence is 50/50; given the claims made by religions versus the scientific data which refutes them, the likelihood of god's existence is pretty damn close to nil...but it could just turn out that there IS a deity that exists and it's nothing like what religions describe in any way. Heck, I can come up with many different god-substitutes that would fit the facts we currently have.

I guess that may partially be because I follow the school of thought that "agnostics are full of shit fence-sitters that need to actually admit which side they believe, or just say that they're not comfortable discussing it rather than act like they don't have opinions"

Technically speaking, I suppose I'm a bit of an agnostic...but only if you take the position that even hinting at, "I don't know for certain," makes you an agnostic.
But I tend to think of agnostics as more like the 50/50 people, the "Could be/might not be," folks. Whereas I'm more on the, "I find the notion of a god to be ludicrous, given the mountain of evidence we have that makes religious claims about the nature of the universe redundant...but I'm open to new data if you've got it, just be prepared to back it up with falsifiable evidence which can be checked and peer reviewed; no subjective experiences allowed."

[nickspoon]

It's a repudiation of THAT which is being offered here; if you believe something for irrational reasons, frankly, you're doing it wrong, that's the message.

There seems to be a difference between what you and I understand by 'belief'. You appear to understand belief as an acceptance of something without sufficient reason or evidence or against reason or evidence; this is what I would call 'faith'. However, I understand it differently - a belief is something which you hold to be true, regardless of how you come to that conclusion. You seem to hint at that definition with "if you believe something for irrational reasons".

What I'm getting at is that you require beliefs about things to function in the world. If you're religious, it's simple; you believe in a deity or supernatural force. If you're an empiricist, you believe that science and experience are the only ways of learning about the world. If you're an agnostic, you believe that there is no way to ascertain whether God exists or not. While your position may be perfectly rational it is not excluded from the notion of belief.

[Dr. Sticks]

I'm the exact same as you, Rocketgirl, except I agree with Nickspoon on the definition of belief. My point is that: I interact with my friends, I know for a fact that they are real. I also believe that they are real. It comes with the territory. I could technically be entirely pantsless wrong and living in the matrix or something dumb like that. My example is flawed, but it's still true.


you are what is called an "agnostic atheist". Meaning, you admit that there's potential for there to be a god, but you believe in the contrary. This definition of agnosticism is why many atheists that think of agnosticism that way admit that besides the lack of scientific evidence for god (which is the closest they can get to proof AGAINST god), they believe against god.

It's really all semantics. I find that my more well-spoken atheist friends have the exact same ideas as me, but we only differ in the fact that we use different terminology. Most people assume that agnosticism is for people that are unsure about whether or not there is a god, and therefore they're a third option. There is no "third option," agnosticism is a modifier for theism or atheism.

(sometimes I tell a joke that goes "what's the one thing theists and atheists both agree on? AGNOSTICS ARE DUMB LOL" the point is to aggressively and offensively assert my definition of the term and make them feel uncomfortable so that I can be laughing at my own joke lolol)

[RocketGirl]

There seems to be a difference between what you and I understand by 'belief'. You appear to understand belief as an acceptance of something without sufficient reason or evidence or against reason or evidence; this is what I would call 'faith'. However, I understand it differently - a belief is something which you hold to be true, regardless of how you come to that conclusion. You seem to hint at that definition with "if you believe something for irrational reasons".

"Belief" is entirely too fuzzy a term; I actually REALLY dislike it quite a bit in discussions like these for exactly that reason.

Especially because it's far too easy to dismiss something as "just a belief", to characterize belief as an overgrown opinion or preference. The very fact that belief is something you hold to be true regardless of how you come to the conclusion, is precisely why I don't much care for the word; how you to to a conclusion is very, very, very important. That's actually a very large part of the point of Rational Station.

What I'm getting at is that you require beliefs about things to function in the world. If you're religious, it's simple; you believe in a deity or supernatural force. If you're an empiricist, you believe that science and experience are the only ways of learning about the world.

But there's a serious disparity between those two things.
As an empiricist, any position you take can be tested; empirical positions are objective ones, not subjective. By contrast, faith is entirely subjective, and neither falsifiable nor testable.
It's that disparity which leads me to reject the term "believe" with regards to an empirical position; you don't need to believe an empirical position because you have the evidence to back you up.

While your position may be perfectly rational it is not excluded from the notion of belief.

Well, you're using belief in a way which I would not. With objective, testable, falsifiable evidence on hand, belief becomes redundant, replaced by knowledge.