The belief system that's conquering the world

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Boy that's a new one. Belief is thinking and criticism is not thinking.

Doubt is not the same as critical reason. Rational thought is a trained process; whereas the average joe's doubts are not the result of critical reason examining known truth and history to examine the claims of creeds.

When you or anybody else claims average joes doubting and believing in nothing, you're saying, they're lazy because they won't exercise emotional power and critical reason to motor their dialectic.

An analogy or question. Is it more difficult to construct a house or to destroy it? Any mindless terroist can strap on a bomb and destroy it, but I suggest it takes a great deal of skill and thought to build one.

Look at the belief systems of SIEQ, Pelagius, Mike Waters, creekster, Lebowski, Cali Coug or even Indy, and tell me it doesn't take a lot of work to assemble and maintain that system.

OTOH, a critic merely identifies easily spotted inconsistencies and never states anything else. You have failed to fully identify in what you believe, but it appears very amorphous, but you haven't endeavored to devote enough energy to it. You have only identified what aspects of culture and belief have tormented you. Much less work.

So disbelief is the lazy process, the incomplete process, the process of least mental and emotional energy. There will always be the lazy and they will be significant in numbers.

Does anybody really believe that the average untrained Joe or Josephine who disbelieves does so as a result of an empirical cognitive process, or the result of a lack of training and effort, coupled with some disappointments in life that led them to disbelieve?

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Boy that's a new one. Belief is thinking and criticism is not thinking.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Doubt is not the same as critical reason. Rational thought is a trained process; whereas the average joe's doubts are not the result of critical reason examining known truth and history to examine the claims of creeds.

This is true. As atheism and enlightened humanism become trendy, there are those that reject faith without involving any critical process whatsoever. One need only watch the "Blasphemy Challenge" videos to realize there are a lot of dumb atheists out there.

An analogy or question. Is it more difficult to construct a house or to destroy it? Any mindless terroist can strap on a bomb and destroy it, but I suggest it takes a great deal of skill and thought to build one....tell me it doesn't take a lot of work to assemble and maintain that system.

This is also true. I would tread lightly in using this reasoning, though. One of the arguments atheists have against religion is the extraordinary mental gymnastics believers often exhibit in an attempt to create a logically consistent system of belief.

Furthermore, regarding the work of homebuilding, an intellectually-honest secular humanist must build the moral framework of his own house without the benefit of the foundation of any scripture that a believer would rely on.

Does anybody really believe that the average untrained Joe or Josephine who disbelieves does so as a result of an empirical cognitive process, or the result of a lack of training and effort, coupled with some disappointments in life that led them to disbelieve?

I would argue that many atheists have little understanding of the logic of disbelief, and that even fewer could explain how they would reconstruct morality outside of religion. However, I would also argue that the vast majority of subscribers of religion exercise little thought and no reason. Thus it is not really possible to say which group is more or less intellectually lazy. There are reasoned individuals within each group. And within each camp there are many blind followers.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Archaea

So disbelief is the lazy process, the incomplete process, the process of least mental and emotional energy. There will always be the lazy and they will be significant in numbers.

I'm not sure that statement is accurate. I know plenty of lazy believers that know hardly anything about history, scriptures, or doctrine. They jsut go through life believing because they were taught to believe. Most non-believers I know have, in my opinion, as good of a reason not to believe as believers have to believe. I don't doubt that there are many lazy non-believers, but to call disbelief the lazy process is an exaggeration at best. I have a lot of respect for people that study hard and still believe. Especially the posters you mentioned. There are, however, just as many people that study that hard and don't believe.

[SeattleUte]

Archea, I bet all those mental gymnastics are a lot of work.

[BarbaraGordon]

For context, I'm married to an atheist.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Archaea, I bet all those mental gymnastics are a lot of work.

I did not accuse anyone of mental gymnastics, I was merely citing a common argument.

Seattle, may I ask if you even read my post? Like the whole thing? Or did you just pick out the words that jive with your theory?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Seattle, may I ask if you even read my post? Like the whole thing? Or did you just pick out the words that jive with your theory?

Remember, this is a guy who says he has read certain works, but when push comes to shove, he admits that he has only read the reviews, but "that is sufficient."

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

For context, I'm married to an atheist.



I did not accuse anyone of mental gymnastics, I was merely citing a common argument.

Seattle, may I ask if you even read my post? Like the whole thing? Or did you just pick out the words that jive with your theory?

Of course, I use hyperbole. Anybody who uses a disbelief system as the fourth largest, when anything that large is not the result of an active contemplative act, deserves hyperbolic refutation.

Disbelief is rarely the result of concentrated study, but the result of a few events stringed together that makes the disbeliever throw up his hands and so I give up, this isn't true.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Of course, I use hyperbole. Anybody who uses a disbelief system as the fourth largest, when anything that large is not the result of an active contemplative act, deserves hyperbolic refutation.

Disbelief is rarely the result of concentrated study, but the result of a few events stringed together that makes the disbeliever throw up his hands and so I give up, this isn't true.

Your 2nd paragrpah I think especially rings true.

[All-American]

I am actually going to speak out on the behalf of disbelievers in general.

Every human being has the natural right to evaluate all the evidence presented to them and decide what makes sense to them. I don't believe that most atheists proclaim atheism as truth because it is easier, or because they want to stick it to their parents or to their nosy neighbors. In all likelihood, they've looked at the arguments presented to them and decided that the most logical system is one without a God. To accuse them of ignorance of other kinds of evidence is both obvious and irrelevant; nobody is able to examine ALL the evidence. They go with what they feel is most correct, and that's a right they have.

Surely some proclaim atheism less because they believe it, and more because they are lashing out at something. Until I have means to decisively decide which is which, I'll give the benefit of the doubt.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

I am actually going to speak out on the behalf of disbelievers in general.

Every human being has the natural right to evaluate all the evidence presented to them and decide what makes sense to them. I don't believe that most atheists proclaim atheism as truth because it is easier, or because they want to stick it to their parents or to their nosy neighbors. In all likelihood, they've looked at the arguments presented to them and decided that the most logical system is one without a God. To accuse them of ignorance of other kinds of evidence is both obvious and irrelevant; nobody is able to examine ALL the evidence. They go with what they feel is most correct, and that's a right they have.

Surely some proclaim atheism less because they believe it, and more because they are lashing out at something. Until I have means to decisively decide which is which, I'll give the benefit of the doubt.

In academics, you will find those who find discrepancies of the professed religions and thereby declare, 'well those guys are liars, it must be made up."

In life, however, most non-academics don't really ponder things that much. They worry about food on the table. If family is believing, they believe, if not they aren't. It's not much more complex than that. This is oversimplification, but disbelieving simply involves doubt to a point where your will to believe as William James likes to put is extinguished. You give up.