The negative connotations of Atheism and popular assumptions about atheists.

You can do jobs in different feilds with a philosophy degree. You don't neccesarily have to become an academic or a teacher.

 

In the UK and probably the US there are lots of shortish post grad conversion courses.
I know many people who will apparently have better prospects getting accepted by law firm because they did a 3 year history degree, then a 1 or 2 year law conversion than if they just did straight law.

 

I’m using belief as in ones representations of the world. Believing that a proposition maps onto reality. The conviction of the truth of a proposition.

What’s the difference? What does it matter that it is a personal belief. If you believe in the truth any given proposition you should be able to prove it. If you don’t, don’t expect anyone to adopt or respect that belief.

I really don’t know what you’re talking about when you say it isn’t practical or possible.

People obviously believe what they believe for a reason, what ever it is. It’s simply a matter of presenting that reason; the reason which they think validates the proposition. It’s quite simple… I think your making it appear harder than it actually is. If the reason is good, if it validates the proposition, the belief would probably be adopted by others. If it’s not good/valid, expect it to be questioned rather than accepted to.

If I say I believe Evolution is true, and someone asks why, it’s simply a matter of presenting some arguments and evidence that support it, and perhaps some references so they can further look into it.

Again, you make this seem like a big, long drawn out thing. When faced with a proposition you can do a number of things:

-Believe it without question, without reason/evidence (why do this?)
-Request reasons/evidence before you accept it and until then you make a judgment on the probability of it based on other factors.

You don’t have to accept the proposition as completely true, nor do you have to completely reject it. You seem to ignore the nuances, the probability, it making a judgement.

Who would have no reason to be sceptical?

Give me an example.

I hold a belief to be irrational compared to its more rational alternative. So I hold theism to be irrational compared to atheism. However I agree when it comes to the matter of how you arrived to the choice. You might have arrived at an irrational conclusion, but did try to be rational in the process.

However I notice an interesting ramification to your argument. If being rational is merely attempting to be logical, wouldn’t it mean everyone is rational? Everyone ‘attempts’ to be rational. Right? No one tries specifically to be irrational do they.

Who is talking about insulting anyone?

Your confusing respecting the person and respecting the belief.

There is a difference…

You can respect a person without respecting their belief(s). Not respecting their beliefs doesn’t mean you insult them.

I will respect beliefs when given good reason to. I will not respect a belief simply because someone says ‘this is what I believe.’

People usually think that tolerance is a lack of criticism. And that criticism is persecution. It isn’t. Criticism is not persecution or intolerance. It is very importance to see this. There is a difference between criticism and persecution / tolerance.

I have no sympathy for people who expect to have there beliefs protected from rational criticism.

So you respect a person’s belief simply to be polite. So if a 40 year old man believes its okay to sleep with 6 year old girls, you respect that in order to be polite! You respect the Popes belief that condom use if morally wrong, despite knowing the suffering and death caused by such a stance, just so you can be seen to be polite! You respect the Muslim terrorist’s belief that infidels should die; so to be polite!

The simple fact is that we do not respect beliefs by default. We require reasons, which we evaluate. If no reasons are presented we are under no obligation to respect the belief. But like I said, this doesn’t mean we then open up a barrage of insults.

 

Oi biatch! I wrote this topic for you. It distinguishes irrational and illogical. Socrastein commented on it and everything!

That was how I always saw it.
However, you can believe things in that sense without really believing in it. e.g. think that you believe it until it's time to act on said belief and then realise that you're not so sure...

Personal beliefs are part of our practical lifestyle.
In a non-personal body like "facts of science" or "facts of mathematics" the importance is accuracy. However, we need to use our knowledge and can't afford to withold decision until a full analysis has been done. We process so many beliefs that would be impossible to prove. So we mostly trust our intuition and use analysis to deal with problems that arise rather than prove everything from scratch.

The 'don't expect people to adopt' I agree with because if you want to convince someone then you have to convince them. 'Respect' though... that one's not so obvious.

Analysing a belief takes time and effort.
We process too many beliefs to analyse them all so we must stick to the ones that are problematic.

If I was to tell you that I went to the shop today, it wouldn't even cross your mind to doubt me. You'd believe it without question. We usually need a reason for doubt, even if that reason is just that our intuition rings an alarm bell.

All the examples you gave us (like ghosts and aliens) were of controversial subjects that we personally (through reputations of such stories) have reasons to doubt.

I actually noticed this myself but saw it's not a problem.
You've probably read that topic I wrote by now.
It makes a good distinction between rational and irrational.

Calling someone's belief irrational can be insulting.

It depends. If it's a belief they didn't really care about anyway then it won't really matter to them. If it's something they've put a lot of thought into...

You know I'm not adverse to criticism. I argue against worldviews different to my own. However, calling something irrational isn't a rational criticism. It's closer to an insult, accusing them of not thinking properly.

Hmmm...
Once again you've used loaded examples.
I think we should respect a belief until we've got reason to otherwise.
Besides, the problem I have with the examples you gave isn't really their rationality.

Anyway, I've linked you to the other topic on rationality. If we agree on the definition of that then I think that'll be half of our argument solved. The other half - whether we should prove our beliefs first (your position?) or start with a shabby worldview and gradually tune it up by ironing out problems as they arise (my position) - will be easier to tackle. I think discussing both together in one topic mixes things up a little.

 

I'm not a big fan of atheists, and find that many are quite agressive or bigoted about their views. In some cases, their understanding of religion is annoyingly facile, and their objections based on some kind of vulgar straw-man. In others there is an evident stunting of their spiritual development.

In general, I'd prefer more relaxed company, such as someone who has lapsed, or an agnostic, to the company of someone who is so passionate about their disbelief and has contempt for anyone who doesn't share it. (Oh, the irony!)


(On the converse, I do admit to having a soft spot for Mormons, who I've always had very positive experiences with)

 

Hi legless

Hmm. Indeed, I've yet to meet any Quakers. But get the feeling I would like them. I like their oats, they are good. They give you strength as well as absorbing and flushing rubbish from your system. How sweet that is.

Eat and drink well.
Regards.

 

Again I think this is just ignoring the fact that you can have different degrees of certainty in a belief. For instance, you might think that something is probably true, but the risks in following that belief outweigh any gains in doing so. This isn't rejecting the belief though, as all you are doing is acknowledging that it could be incorrect.

 

so what? as long as i'm not mean its ok? and why do mormons get special treatment? you should be very weary of people who don't like caffinee :Alien:

 

Ya, but they were super smartie to buy up in the strip. Ladies gettin' nekked an everything I bet.

 

Maybe...
I've a few objections here:
Other philosophy that me and Homer subscribe to treat the 'belief predicate' as binary - you either do or you don't. 'Degrees of belief' puts a large area of area of grey inbetween belief and non-belief.
The other point is how sometimes you can 'lose yourself in fantasy', i.e. 'feel' like a false belief is true. (perhaps when prancing around your bedroom pretending you can kick like Bruce Lee! )
At that moment you're in the state of mind as if you really believe it, but you don't really believe it because you wouldn't act on it on real life. e.g. if a real fight started then you'd remember that you don't really believe you fight like Bruce Lee.

These are obvious examples that no one would confuse believing with 'really believing'. I personally think a good rule of thumb to distinguish is whether you would act on it in a real situation.

 

Well I would disagree with your binary belief predicate. Your belief would depend on the situation, as there may be times where you would act on the belief, whereas there may be other times where the risks involved outweigh the strength of your belief. Surely according to you this person both believes and disbelieves the same thing.

I completely disagree that there are any grey areas with a degrees of belief system. You can firmly believe that a proposition is likely, or unlikely or even 67.4% likely etc. That doesn't mean that you "quite" believe in it, but that you believe that there is a certain likelihood of it being true.

Not acting on a belief would just be aknowledging that the likelihood of it being true is outweighed by the risks of it being false. For instance, if I correctly concluded that a gun had an 80% chance of not firing, I would not pull the trigger to my temple for £5.

 

Oh dreary me..

Why do you conclude that percentage is any different than degree. Slice of pie LJoll ?

It's lemon tart - very tasty!

 

Hmmm...
The thing is, this whole discussion has treated belief like a binary predicate.
"Do you believe in God or not?"
Although I don't think belief is necessarily binary I think this topic assumes that it does for discussion. So we should stick to that during this topic. I might be wrong on this. Perhaps the subject can be re-worded so 'belief' can be treated binary again?

But while we're on this tangent on whether belief is binary:

Yeah. There's lots of things that I'd be happy to accept as true when there's no risk. I actually see this as a reason that excuses religious people for not being so sceptical. If they see no risk in accepting the religion as true then there's no need to be sceptical. I know that a lot of my scepticism was fueled by recognising the consequences of my believing and deciding that I had to be really sure it was true in order to accept those consequences.

I think there is a grey area. There are some beliefs that you assign a "it might be true but I'm not really sure" status to, but then you find yourself stuck when you have to act on them.
There are other beliefs that you don't assign 'probable' status to but find yourself swinging inbetween belief and disbelief, believing one second and disbelieving the next.

 

I think you should re-read what he said.

 

Why?
I think you should enlighten me.


LJoll said:

Then goes on to affirm his preference for percentage probability points, as i read it

What is the difference then or what are you reading that I can't see, or what am i getting wrong ?

Unless he clearly sees all the grey areas I presume.

Thanks.

 

I don't think you neccesarily have to be stuck when you act on them. Determining the correct line of action may become more difficult, if you accept multiple possibilities with differnt outcomes and probabilities, but isn't that what we do all the time?

I don't think swinging between beliefs in a necessary symtom of taking a non-binary stance. In fact, it is surely a consequence of taking a binary stance to a belief you cannot be completely sure of either way.

 

"dreary" me . I'm advocating the use of percentages and degrees. I was just pointing out that there doesn't need to be a grey area between belief or non-belief, as you can have a strong, well founded belief in the probability of something being true. So instead of saying you believe it a "bit", you can say that there is a certain probability of it being true.

 

Certain probability, sounds like a contradiction if ever I heard one.
And you can say then for certain the probaility of something being true or not. How ?

That you were advocating both is not particularly clear in your post. Mathematically speaking degrees are not percentages and percentages are not degrees. Degrees are geometric as i understand, so any difference or not very much depends on your use for them. Your useage and differentiation is not apparent. That they can add up to the same is - a whole pie if you want to say. There is no call for you to mix the two really, is there. They are used mathematically in different contexts. Either way I still don't see your point as to any perceived accuracy that you seem to be arguing for here.

Your percentage or degree is based on limited information so your figure would apparently be nothing more than a guess - I am guessing. That is why we have words such as opinion, belief and or faith. They are not mathematical and geometric figures like percentages and degrees(geometric). There are words and there are numbers unless that had escaped your notice..

 

Why should that be a contradiction. If I rolled a dice, I could be fairly sure that, based on the knowledge I have, there is a 1/6 chance if it landing on any of the numbers.

de·gree Pronunciation (d-gr)
n.
1. One of a series of steps in a process, course, or progression; a stage: proceeded to the next degree of difficulty.
2. A step in a direct hereditary line of descent or ascent: First cousins are two degrees from their common ancestor.
3. Relative social or official rank, dignity, or position.
4. Relative intensity or amount, as of a quality or attribute: a high degree of accuracy.
5. The extent or measure of a state of being, an action, or a relation: modernized their facilities to a large degree.
6. A unit division of a temperature scale.
7. Mathematics A planar unit of angular measure equal in magnitude to 1/360 of a complete revolution.
8. A unit of latitude or longitude, equal to 1/360 of a great circle.
9. Mathematics
a. The greatest sum of the exponents of the variables in a term of a polynomial or polynomial equation.
b. The exponent of the derivative of highest order in a differential equation in standard form.
10.
a. An academic title given by a college or university to a student who has completed a course of study: received the Bachelor of Arts degree at commencement.
b. A similar title conferred as an honorary distinction.
11. Law A division or classification of a specific crime according to its seriousness: murder in the second degree.
12. A classification of the severity of an injury, especially a burn: a third-degree burn.
13. Grammar One of the forms used in the comparison of adjectives and adverbs. For example, tall is the positive degree, taller the comparative degree, and tallest the superlative degree of the adjective tall.
14. Music
a. One of the seven notes of a diatonic scale.
b. A space or line of the staff.

I'm sorry if you didn't realise which meaning of the word degree I was using. I did not mean the angle of a belief.

I do not mean degrees as in, a unit of measurement of angle.

It would not have to amound to nothing more than a guess. Where did you get that idea from? The fact that your believe that something is true is not completely certain, does not make it a complete guess.

In the latest report on global warming scientists said it was at least 90% certain that humans were the cause of global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm

Would you say that this is "nothing more than a guess"?

 

But wait a minute, you know all the possible outcome in this example don't you?

What about when you don't, Like what you are applying it to here in this thread.

hahahaha

Degrees of belief? Either you believe something or you don't. If not then it would hardly be called a belief would it. Maybe a guess, speculation or opinion then ?

You went on to use percentages like so %, so it would follow as you went on to say you weren't differentiating that you were using the word degree in the mathematical/ geometric sense.

I know what the word degree means thanks your generosity far outweighs my own. It was very obvious that you were aiming to be mathematical and or ‘scientific’ now wasn’t it..

Very much depends on what you are basing on. Ie. What and how much you know about it. First there must be the question.

They are apparently scientist who have a basis for the figure quoted i imagine. I am not discussing them or there finding. I am discussing your post sir!

Stick to the matters at hand, rather than going off on irrelevant tangents please. I don’t see why I should scrutinize this offering so you can justify yourself.