Belief, Rationalization, Manipulation

We have some interesting comments that came in on past postings. In reaction to my statement on Notes on Realization of God's Reality, someone named "Atheist" says:

Atheist said...Metarock: Belief Is, therefore, a realization about the nature of reality, not a technology.
Atheist: Belief Is, therefore, a realization about the nature of fantasy, not a technology. Belief has nothing to do with reality or truth. In fact belief and truth are mutually exclusive.

The problem with this is that it privileges doubt to the extent of re-writing the point of bleief. Belief becomes a dirty word tot he professional doubter. The fact of belief is that one does not believe something one thinks is false. Belief is obviously about truth. Of cousre this is not a guarantee that the particulars of one's beliefs are true, yet no one sets out to believe falsehood. Dawkamenatlists. like the fundies that they are, are literalistic and rigid slave thinkers who dread having to think for themselves, thus any hint that a held opinion is not a "fact" and is not guaranteed by the atheist fortress of facts (ala atheist ideology) but is merely "belief," must be held as falsehood and ridiculed to the text the very word "belief" is taken ass a dirty word and held to mean "rationalization." Belief is what one hold to be true, it' s synonymous with "conviction," that's a term atheists are not familiar with.

I am thinking that this person is reacting to the idea that I stated, that proving things is a technology. Somehow this person sees this as an insult he/she has to insult belief back and though belief is some alien process that atheists don't involve themselves in. Unless one is illiterate it must be obvious to all that even atheists have beliefs. Strangely enough an atheist on CARM, who humbly calls himself "big thinker," who martians that he has no beliefs. Belief is such a dirty word to the Dawkies that he can't bring himself to admit that he has beliefs. He refused to answer my question "so you believe you have no beliefs?" That would entail the admission that what you think is true is a belief. Thus there are no people without beliefs. How is it possible that one thinks for oneself without believing things? This person obviously believes that belief is is about unreality, this person believes that atheism is about being realistic about reality these are beliefs. I wonder if most atheists even know the word reality. What they really mean is "what I want to be the case." If it could be proved that God is reality what would they do? They would then begin asserting that reality stinks and fantasy is true.

Webster's Online:

be·lief

noun \bə-ˈlēf\

Definition of BELIEF

1

: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2

: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3

: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

See belief defined for English-language learners »

Examples of BELIEF

1. There is growing belief that these policies will not succeed.
2. He gets angry if anyone challenges his religious beliefs.
3. We challenged his beliefs about religion.

Origin of BELIEF

Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelēafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lēafa; akin to Old English lȳfan — more at believe

First Known Use: 12th century

Related to BELIEF

Synonyms: credence, credit, faith, article of faith

Antonyms: disbelief, discredit, doubt, nonbelief, unbelief

Related Words: axiom, law, precept, principle, tenet; assurance, certainty, certitude, conviction, positiveness, sureness; confidence, dependence (also dependance), reliance, trust; hope; doctrine, dogma, philosophy; dogmatism, fanaticism, insistence

Near Antonyms: distrust, mistrust, skepticism, suspicion, uncertainty

see all synonyms and antonyms

[+]more[-]hide

Synonym Discussion of BELIEF

belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof faith in God>. credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent credence by scientists>. credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof credit to the statement of a reputable witness>.

Belief is placing confidence in a proposition." conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence " Belief is about the way one views reality not manipulating reality.

Proving things is a from of manipulation. Why? Because it requries the re-organizing of bits of sense data in order to change the situation form appearance to demonstration. I didn't originally call it manipulation I called it "technology." Then I defined technology as manipulation. This commenter took this as an assault upon truth. It's actually just phenomenological awareness about our relationship to sense data in the formation of truth claims. Belief is a conviction of truth as the definition says it is not a pretense or a fantasy. Getting at truth requires re arranging the appearance of reality and thus its manipulation. This doesn't mean that stacking the manipulation to coincide with our desires is truth finding.

Webster defines Technology:

tech·nol·o·gy
noun \tek-ˈnä-lə-jē\
plural tech·nol·o·gies
Definition of TECHNOLOGY
1
a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : engineering 2 b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge
2
: a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge
3
: the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor
— tech·nol·o·gist \-jist\ noun
See technology defined for English-language learners »
Examples of TECHNOLOGY

This doesn't tell us the use of the term in such elite venue as intellectual history in postmodern circles such as the writing of Michele Foucault. The word is used apart from gadgets. We can employ a technology in the way we think about things without any new inventions or scientific apparatus. That's the way I was using the term, not as an insult or an attack but with persimmon making known the fact that the way we think about "reality" in relation to what can be demonstrated as true is a technology and an application of knowledge in a varied way.

In other words, belief is actually conviction that honestly understands truth or reality to be a certain way, while proof and demonstration are actually manipulating reality by arranging the way it is perceived, in order to produce a particular outcome.

The same poster left another interesting comment, this was addressed to the post about atheists moving away from the big bang.

Atheist said...I am an atheist. I do not depend on science for my atheism. In fact I disagree with science often when it looks too much like theism. Multi-universes, quantum mechanics and the Big Bang are a some examples.

My atheism is based on truth and facts not science.

"I disagree with science when it looks like theism." I assume then that he/she agrees with it when it looks like opinions he/she already holds. So at that rate science is not a teaching device that tells this person truth but is in fact the "big fortress of facts" that proves atheism and backs up her opinion. In other words in the Orwellian "atheist speak" truth is a lie and one's own desire to escape God is paramount and outweighs truth, scirnce is a propaganda tool that can only be useful when it backs the template of atheist ideology. Look at the two quotes back to back it's pretty obvious that's what being said. If science was as atheists cling to it and portray it in clash with Genesis or creationism it's supposed to be a tool that lays bear what is real and enables us to know the truth of the physical world. To allege that would be a belief. Belief is a dirty word, belief is fantasy. Yet it's also apparent that truth finding goes hand in hand with fantasy and in place of truth this atheist wants propaganda. Hence I only believe science when it tells me what I want to hear.

"I don't believe scinece when it looks like theism."


Is there a way to reason with such people? If the facts and the uncovering of reality to the extent that the umpire of reality says "this be true" is not good enough, but must be rejected when ever it strays from the ideology that enthralls this salve thinker then what could possible point to truth in discussion or argument or evidence? Can't we see this is the total betrayal of "free thought" that it obviously is? How long can people be suckered?

We have to fear truth seeking and make conviction a dirty word becasue reality might be other than we wish?

Belief, Rationalization, Manipulation: Belief is a dirty word to Dawkamentalists

We have some interesting comments that came in on past postings. In reaction to my statement on Notes on Realization of God's Reality, someone named "Atheist" says:

Atheist said...

Metarock: Belief Is, therefore, a realization about the nature of reality, not a technology.

Atheist: Belief Is, therefore, a realization about the nature of fantasy, not a technology. Belief has nothing to do with reality or truth. In fact belief and truth are mutually exclusive.

The problem with this is that it privileges doubt to the extent of re-writing the point of bleief. Belief becomes a dirty word tot he professional doubter. The fact of belief is that one does not believe something one thinks is false. Belief is obviously about truth. Of cousre this is not a guarantee that the particulars of one's beliefs are true, yet no one sets out to believe falsehood. Dawkamenatlists. like the fundies that they are, are literalistic and rigid slave thinkers who dread having to think for themselves, thus any hint that a held opinion is not a "fact" and is not guaranteed by the atheist fortress of facts (ala atheist ideology) but is merely "belief," must be held as falsehood and ridiculed to the text the very word "belief" is taken ass a dirty word and held to mean "rationalization." Belief is what one hold to be true, it' s synonymous with "conviction," that's a term atheists are not familiar with.

I am thinking that this person is reacting to the idea that I stated, that proving things is a technology. Somehow this person sees this as an insult he/she has to insult belief back and though belief is some alien process that atheists don't involve themselves in. Unless one is illiterate it must be obvious to all that even atheists have beliefs. Strangely enough an atheist on CARM, who humbly calls himself "big thinker," who martians that he has no beliefs. Belief is such a dirty word to the Dawkies that he can't bring himself to admit that he has beliefs. He refused to answer my question "so you believe you have no beliefs?" That would entail the admission that what you think is true is a belief. Thus there are no people without beliefs. How is it possible that one thinks for oneself without believing things? This person obviously believes that belief is is about unreality, this person believes that atheism is about being realistic about reality these are beliefs. I wonder if most atheists even know the word reality. What they really mean is "what I want to be the case." If it could be proved that God is reality what would they do? They would then begin asserting that reality stinks and fantasy is true.

Webster's Online:

be·lief

noun \bə-ˈlēf\

Definition of BELIEF

1

: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2

: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3

: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

See belief defined for English-language learners »

Examples of BELIEF

1. There is growing belief that these policies will not succeed.
2. He gets angry if anyone challenges his religious beliefs.
3. We challenged his beliefs about religion.

Origin of BELIEF

Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelēafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lēafa; akin to Old English lȳfan — more at believe

First Known Use: 12th century

Related to BELIEF

Synonyms: credence, credit, faith, article of faith

Antonyms: disbelief, discredit, doubt, nonbelief, unbelief

Related Words: axiom, law, precept, principle, tenet; assurance, certainty, certitude, conviction, positiveness, sureness; confidence, dependence (also dependance), reliance, trust; hope; doctrine, dogma, philosophy; dogmatism, fanaticism, insistence

Near Antonyms: distrust, mistrust, skepticism, suspicion, uncertainty

see all synonyms and antonyms

[+]more[-]hide

Synonym Discussion of BELIEF

belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof faith in God>. credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent credence by scientists>. credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof credit to the statement of a reputable witness>.

Belief is placing confidence in a proposition." conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence " Belief is about the way one views reality not manipulating reality.

Proving things is a from of manipulation. Why? Because it requries the re-organizing of bits of sense data in order to change the situation form appearance to demonstration. I didn't originally call it manipulation I called it "technology." Then I defined technology as manipulation. This commenter took this as an assault upon truth. It's actually just phenomenological awareness about our relationship to sense data in the formation of truth claims. Belief is a conviction of truth as the definition says it is not a pretense or a fantasy. Getting at truth requires re arranging the appearance of reality and thus its manipulation. This doesn't mean that stacking the manipulation to coincide with our desires is truth finding.

Webster defines Technology:

tech·nol·o·gy
noun \tek-ˈnä-lə-jē\
plural tech·nol·o·gies
Definition of TECHNOLOGY
1
a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : engineering 2 b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge
2
: a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge
3
: the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor
— tech·nol·o·gist \-jist\ noun
See technology defined for English-language learners »
Examples of TECHNOLOGY

This doesn't tell us the use of the term in such elite venue as intellectual history in postmodern circles such as the writing of Michele Foucault. The word is used apart from gadgets. We can employ a technology in the way we think about things without any new inventions or scientific apparatus. That's the way I was using the term, not as an insult or an attack but with persimmon making known the fact that the way we think about "reality" in relation to what can be demonstrated as true is a technology and an application of knowledge in a varied way.

In other words, belief is actually conviction that honestly understands truth or reality to be a certain way, while proof and demonstration are actually manipulating reality by arranging the way it is perceived, in order to produce a particular outcome.

The same poster left another interesting comment, this was addressed to the post about atheists moving away from the big bang.

Atheist said...

I am an atheist. I do not depend on science for my atheism. In fact I disagree with science often when it looks too much like theism. Multi-universes, quantum mechanics and the Big Bang are a some examples.

My atheism is based on truth and facts not science.

"I disagree with science when it looks like theism." I assume then that he/she agrees with it when it looks like opinions he/she already holds. So at that rate science is not a teaching device that tells this person truth but is in fact the "big fortress of facts" that proves atheism and backs up her opinion. In other words in the Orwellian "atheist speak" truth is a lie and one's own desire to escape God is paramount and outweighs truth, science is a propaganda tool that can only be useful when it backs the template of atheist ideology. Look at the two quotes back to back it's pretty obvious that's what being said. If science was as atheists cling to it and portray it in clash with Genesis or creationism it's supposed to be a tool that lays bear what is real and enables us to know the truth of the physical world. To allege that would be a belief. Belief is a dirty word, belief is fantasy. Yet it's also apparent that truth finding goes hand in hand with fantasy and in place of truth this atheist wants propaganda. Hence I only believe science when it tells me what I want to hear.

"I don't believe science when it looks like theism."


Is there a way to reason with such people? If the facts and the uncovering of reality to the extent that the umpire of reality says "this be true" is not good enough, but must be rejected when ever it strays from the ideology that enthralls this salve thinker then what could possible point to truth in discussion or argument or evidence? Can't we see this is the total betrayal of "free thought" that it obviously is? How long can people be suckered?

We have to fear truth seeking and make conviction a dirty word because reality might be other than we wish?

No Place in Atheist Thought for Thinking

 


The other day the CARM atheists surpassed themselves in stupidity. Given a prefectly good God argument, a valid reason to believe in God, they reufussed to answer it saying it was not a real argument it's not about tangible things. The argument was an all purpose disproof of anti-God argued based upon possible worlds. It was based upon Theistic proto pan psychism (the idea that our reality is a thought in a mind, the mind we call "God"). That defeats any possible world because it means that there is no possible world that is not a product of God's imagination. The argument was based upon two other arguments I make all the time. the first was the argument that God is the ground of being, And the Transcendental Signifier argument. I found a way to make them both fit the "thought in the mind of God" argument.

(1) God is the depth of being, all being has depth (god is being itself, same thing). Any world must contain being and any form of being in indicative that God is present.

(2) TS signifier argument shows that the organizing Principe is necessary to any organized world. thus god must be in all organized worlds. This might be bridged with the the notion of the world in the mind of god.

The person I put it up for never got to it until it was full of trash talk and stupid pissing contests. The others did a ridicule gauntlet thing and just mocked it and said stupid useless things for well over 46 posts.

Radiology:

I truly enjoy arguments like this. "God is great and perfect and wonderful because I say so and don't question me!"

Meta, you seem like a fairly intelligent person. If someone knocks on your door and tells you to buy this oil because it'll fix all your health problems and make your .. 'male member'.. grow to epic proportions --- Do you buy it? I assume you don't. Your God arguments are nothing more than snake oil. You can exclaim all of the reasons why your God must exist. Why? Because you invented him and you invented the reasons, too.

Maybrick:

Snake oil generously applied to those fine new robes being worn by that emperor.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

you didn't' read it! you trying to tell all about them and you didn't read them!

Radiology

I did - the first line of your argument. Don't play dumb.

Yes, don't play dumb. I can't answer arguements because I can't think logically so I quite reading after the first line because it's too hard for me, but you are playing dumb."

My answer: at least I have to  play. like reading the first line really counts as reading the argument.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

since you have 0 knowledge of theology, you don't know beans about Christianity (evidenced by the fact that you think theology is done by taking the OT literally) you don't have a right to talk about it. you are spouting Pi pi kaka which you know not of.

HillyBilly

Existing isn't a thing that can love or forgive. To say it is is to make a category mistake. As is confusing something with the ground of that thing. So, you've got double category mistake. None of this has anything at all to do with the OT. So, try again. And, psst, read up on theology yourself if you don't think maximal goodness is a property of God.

This is an extremely moronic answer because it means he has no idea what Tillich's notion of being itself is about. Rather than learn about it he just uses his usual literalism, he knows "existence can't be a person" so he's not going to wonder about it any further. He does know that God is supposed to have some sort of human like qualities that stem from consciousness and in his literalistic thinking existence is not a person so it can't have those qualities. Never mind what Tillich actually meant by the term, which I did explain. Even when they are kind of smart they are really stupid.

The idiot Radiology can't just leave it hanging that he is stupid stupid to read more than one line so  he tries to invent a reason why he could see at a glance my argument is no good. Of course this has to be after he went back and read more becuase I shamed him into it.

Originally Posted by Radio1ogy

I already explained why it isn't an argument - because for you to make the argument you were forced to invent terminology that defines your God as untestable. Get past this and we will have something to talk about. Until then your arguments are just jibberjabber.

He's insisting that I made up the term "being itself" no one ever used it before I did. So if I made it up it must be stupid he doesn't have to answer it.

Meta

I did not invent any terms for any of htat. every bit of that came form established thinkers who aware called great one was an atheist.

if you were educated you would know that. Tillich and Derrdia are not that obscure. you don't know stuff and you refuse to admit it you should just stay out of areas you don't know.

I dont' try to tell Hans about math.

Dneh:

I'd politely point out that science actually works. I might even go as far as to say that some aspects of philosophy have helped that.

Science "works" that is it's covering subject matter that is given in sense data so we can empirical observations about it. Does that mean that it always favors atheism over beilef in God? No of course not. Does it mean that philosophy and logic can't offer valid reasons to believe in God? NO, why would it? All it really means is the most immediately trivial aspects of life are more amenable to scinece.

Here we have that stupidity again, where the atheist says "scinece works." that proves its veracity so working is indicative of truth. But religious works too, the religious experience studies show that religion makes good on it's claims to transform our lives and make them better. That's working stops being indicative of truth. Just because it's an advantage doesn't mean it's true. In the world logic we call this "a double standard," or "special pleading" or "contradiction." But that's not scinece, science would all of those fallacies.


Originally Posted by Metacrock

you don't know anything about philosophy. of cousre I'm the last person because I showed you up.

Dneh 

I know enough about philosophy to know its pretty much a worthless subject, at least for me.

In part of the exchange he says I'm angry as that's supposed to prove I'm wrong. only wrong people get angry.

Meta

O think I'm angry hu. right in front of your face they treat me like **** and you think I'm angry what a genius. 

Dneh

Oh poor Meta!

O poor meta, O poor asshole. it goes on this way post after post all down the page. nothing in that whole thread that's even worth reading. I think this is all pretty hateful. That's evidence of hate group as well as shallow thinking and stupidity. they didn't even try to answer the arguments. they saw immediately they are not even willing to hold a civilized discussion. They are there to mock, period.

why would anyone want to be in a movement based upon being stupid? This exhibits the aspect of atheist ideology that is the most dangerous the reduction of thinking and all knowledge to scientism. Scientism is the obsessive love of science to the point of making it the all pervasive ideology and replacing all other forms of thought. That's what they have done here. Logic has no place in thinking now it's all scinece. Scinece works but it only works as long as it's in agreement wiht atheist ideology.

I just got through posting 2 essays on the tendency of atheism to reduce all knowledge to scinece.

Atheists Sponsor "slavery in Bible" Billboard

Huff Post (3/13/20)
By Diana Fishlock
Religion News Service[1]

The Billboard featured a picture of a Black Slave in the Southern USA wearing a collar and said "Slaves Obey Your Masters" (Col. 3:22) "A lesson in Bronze Age ethics brought to you by the year of the Bible and the House of Representatives." The Bill board was torn down by people presumably in the neighborhood but why exactly they did it is unclear. One thing that is clear is that the world wide bill board campaign the organized atheist movement is using doesn't mind lying and advertizing falsely. The wording makes it appear that some entity called "year of the Bible" working with the U.S. House of Representatives put up the bill board. The NAACP opposed the Billboard and argued that it was racially changed.
.... Lesson no 1 is that they don't mind lying or creation false impressions, lesson no 2 is that they want to inflame situations and stir up hard feelings. The irony is two fold, first their wanton disregard of the facts leads them to imply that slavery in ancient Israel would be the same as slavery in the southern U.S. before the civil war. In fact we've seen from past articles on AW that it was not.[2][3] Much of it was self imposed and it lacked the wort form, chattel slavery. When the Bible is translated as saying "slavery" any number of things could be tagged with that label; bond service, or share cropping,  tenant farming. Yes Ancient Israel had ownership of human  beings and technical they were chattel, but that term is used of the kind of slavery in the old south where there was no family relations honored the slave was just property with no kind of rights. Ancient Israel let the slave some rights although not many. Of we are not advocating support for such institution. But then again God only tolerated it and regulated it by requiring some basic rights he never says "slavery is good."  Atheists try to argue that he's saying that tacitly by not saying it's bad, but he does say it's bad (Paul 1 Tim 3 says slave traders are among the worst of sinners).
....That brings up the second irony that most of the abolition movement was Christian. Christians made up the underground rail road. The worked to end the slave trade by boycotts (led by Quakers)[4]. Moreover, Christians led the way to freeing slaves the ancient world too (Deaconess Olympia under John Chrysostom (around 361 AD) spent her family fortune to free slaves).

Although still young and attractive, Olympiada was not drawn to the pleasures and luxuries of a worldly life. She disciplined herself to fast strictly, to wear plain--even poor--clothing; at the same time she was generous to the poor and sick, she financed the building of churches, supported hospitals, bought people out of slavery, and sent aid even to other countries.[5]

The argument  the atheists try to imply is that the Bible was written by slavers and it will brain wash us into supporting slavery. Yet if this is so how is it that the people who no selfish monetary motive wound up opposing slavery on the basis of scripture and their faith? Olympia was daughter of a wealthy family who was related to the emperor and she owned slave, but then found it in her heart to spend her inheritance to slaves free.
....What we see at work here is the famous world wide billboard campaign. It was once limited to anti-Christmas but now going year around. The funds are probably raised locally but clearly coordinated.  The atheist movement is not above string up any trouble they can and creating resentment regardless of what they must do to the truth to achieve their ends. The Huff Post article ends with a picture of a Billboard that says "we've got the whole world in our hands." Who is "we?" Presumably they would say we as the human race can decide our own destiny. Clearly we've been doing that, and God clearly designed it that way since he gave us free will. We have not been doing a bang up job of it have we? The article links to views of different bill boards that cause controversy. One reads "Don't believe in God? join the Club." So now it's a club? It's not a movement and it's unorganized and the only thing they have  in common is lack of belief (according their party line) but now it's a club? They want you to join? Of course they have a anti-Christmas spot "we know it's a myth." "Are you good without God, millions are?" That's a matter of opinion. These are in every city. Twenty were put up in Tampa Bay in 2010.[6] Are there really so many spontaneous not connected people who just happen to share lack of belief who decide to go raise thousands of dollars to put up bill boards?
....Who is masterminding and paying for the bill boards? The Freedom from Religion Foundation.[7]



TAMPA - Twenty new billboards are hanging above Tampa Bay roadways. The billboards are printed with just one phrase - 'God & Government A Dangerous Mix.' The signs are creating a stir.

EllenBeth Wachs of Lakeland has been an atheist since she was 12-years old, and is now part of a non-profit organization called the "Freedom from Religion Foundation" (find out more about them at www.ffrf.org ).
That Wisconsin-based group said it paid three-thousand five hundred dollars to buy the billboard space across the Tampa Bay area, and erected them in random neighborhoods like one placed near the roadway at 22nd and Cayuga Street in Tampa.

The Freedom from religion foundation is a huge organization that has brought numerous suits on behalf of atheist movement. They have scored many successes. Clearly no one can raise money for 20 bill boards in every major city or even a limited number of cities from purely grass roots concern. As a non profit the FFRF is free to accept huge sums of money without begin taxed. "According to the 2011 IRS tax Form-990, FFRF spent just over $200,000 on legal fees and services and just under $1 million on education, outreach, publishing, broadcasting, and events." I guess we see what is my next big research project.[8]

Sources:

[1] This article is also published in Washington post. on line copy URL: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-03-13/national/35447151_1_new-billboards-billboard-site-american-atheists
[2] "Slavery in The Bible and In Atheist Thinking," Atheist Watch, 3/15/2013 URL: http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2013/03/salvery-in-bible-and-in-atheist-thinking.html
[3] AW article on atheist's dishonesty in handling sources related to this topic.
[4] The Journal of John Woolman, With Notes by John G. Whittier.Edited by Alexander Smellie, M.A. London: Andrew Melrose Melrose 1898 URL:  http://www.strecorsoc.org/jwoolman/title.html
[5] "Saint Olympia," Orthodox America,Nikodemos Orthodox Publication Society, 2006 online resource, URL: http://www.roca.org/OA/61/61n.htm
[6] Carson Chambers, "Atheists Pay for Anti-Religious Billboards" ABC Action News, 8/11/2010  URL: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_tampa/atheists-pay-for-anti-religion-billboards
[7] Ibid
[8]"Freedom From Religion Foundation," Wikipedia. URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_From_Religion_Foundation#History

Atheists whine if they don't get the advantage

Atheists whine about not getting the advantages. I've notice this before that they seem to consider logic an unfair trick. They resent God arguments because they think they are being somehow hatted by apologists saying "this is not logical" then think we manipulate lgoic to support our views. The actually like real argumentation is a trick.

Backup:

Is Christianity incapable of defending itself on a level playing field?

I used to think that there was some sort of equality about debating Christians on their on turf. But now I realize it is not particularly challenging to fight in the minor leagues even if you have a handicap. What is the point? There is nothing to learn. Almost all Christian forums, blogs, and YouTube channels are rigged so that any challenge to there position is ignored or deleted. Christian talk radio is designed to stifle or misrepresent counter arguments.

The simple fact is, Christianity cannot survive open debate. The vast majority of open forums are dominated by atheists because it it so easy to fact-check anything these days.

Question: Is anyone aware of a Christian apologist who can handle his or her own without the handicap of a stacked deck? The closest I am aware of is William Lane Craig in the formal debate arena. And that is an embarrassment to atheists everywhere who continually fail to prepare for his handful of tricks (namedropping, claiming scientists don't understand philosophy, etc.)

 Quite Ironic because when I debated this guy: he went by the name "Blondie." he whined until I brought in an atheist to judge, givin myself a huge disadvantage because he said any Christan board would be unfair (he reufsed to go on carm so we went on my boards on the proviso that I had an atheist judge--in effect that I let him win). He whined his way into getting every advantage. He had to go negative and debate his thesis so that meant we would be using his martial that's he's talked about a million times, and his arguments, so I'm clearly at an even greater disadvantage. The topic had to be worded in such a way that he couldn't lose (something about some aspect of religion is irrational--like you can't find that somewhere if you look hard enough). Then he still argued in very stupid ways using a 100 year old article and trying ti disprove Lourdes miracles that had not yet hapepned by that article.





 Maybrick

 In a word, no.

All the apologist has are rhetorical tricks and the near certain knowledge that most of his/her audience are to lazy to check the facts.

They also have an advantage in that they can hide in the maze of philosophy and sound very clever, while actually saying nothing of worth.

 he really does seem to be saying that we are cheating by being intellectual. t's unfair of us to your better educations and be logical in our arguments. Hide in the maze of philosophy is just a frank admission that it's over his head.

The Difference Between AW and the Atheist Hateful Excuse for a "Watch" site

My version of a "watch" site is to talk about atheism as a movement. Becuase I don't have studies (because they dont' do them) following the hate group syndrome in atheism then I have us to anecdotal evidence. I don't center on one individual and just try to totally ruin his reputation and drive t into the ground that this one guy so totally no good...I have never done that. Some emotionally backward people who are quoted on this sight may feel I'm doing that. I think if one looks at the facts one sees that's not what I'm doing.

So atheists  have tried to come back on AW and put up a "MetacorckWatch" and it is exacltyk a character assasinatin aiming at hurting one guy ,me. One of the major contributors to it is Steve Smith, aka "Blondie/Backup" who has made a fool of himself over here many times. Notice he did it to himself then blamed me because he did it. He sent private hate male to me. He sent the mail. I put it up for the public, but he wrote it. Not content with being expossed he did it again. I put up again. He kept getting more and more angry and yet he didn't stop sending it. Then blames me for putting it up.

So now Steivies hasMetacrock watch

Iti s nothing but a pile of hogwash about what a bad guy I am. It even shows my pcituer and bleow it says:"the above needs no explianation." Of courset that's not personal is it? No tha'ts just good journalism.

They use a red background like I used to, trying to make it look ike AW used to look,  they haven't caught on to the change. they use lime green words on red background. I guess I did that. what was I thinking?
Here are some more classic Metacrock quotes:

There's a new book where a doctor and medical historian (a major forensic researcher) examined the secret Vatican archives and finds a huge number of resurrection accounts throughout history. She concludes they are true.

you are wasting my time. talking to you is absurd.

your concepts are stuck in a comic book frame work that's why you can't understand.

I said God is not a big man in the sky he's more like the laws of phsyics.

how many children did the atheists kill in the USSR?

Of cousre all of these are out of context.  Tyey think they aer so outrageouis you to see them in context to know what they are about.


It's all just personal bad mouthing:

How does one become as ill-informed as Matacrock? Part of it is having the emotional development of a three year old. When he is proven wrong, which is continually, he has a temper tantrum and refuses to admit a mistake.

Now we were all like this when we were three but Metacrock never outgrew it. This is why he continually holds on to the dumbest ideas and just repeats them though everyone knows he is wrong.

Recently on the fundamentalist hate site CARM Metacrock proposed the "Chruch of the Holy Seplechur" as hard archaeological evidence for Jesus. Now no one but the most know nothing fundamentalist or historical moron would make such a claim. He obviously has no idea what real historians or archaeologists do. He seems to be totally oblivious to what a simple google search would reveal about the history of the that Church.

At least I'm trying to make some sociolgical observations and show the hate of a movement. These guys are just trying to hurt people that made them feel small. I'ts so easy to make them feel small. Their behavior shows they are small.

This statement that "no one but the most know nothing fundamentalist or historical moron would make such a claim" just shows how uninformed he is. That was the claim of Dr. Biddle who did the last survey of the educable at the site and he himself is the one who made the statement. I was just reporting on his theory. I find these guys are so uninformed they often attribute to me personally positions I learned in seminary and that told them "this is what Tillich says" they will say "you are hte only person who believes that' (what about Tillich?).

Again it's a social movement based upon being unread and unlearned. one of their major tricks making everything personal.

That whole site might be boiled down to one idea: I hate this guy. to which I say I don't consider them important enough to waste my time hating them.

Stupid Atheist trick of the Week

arguing with Deist on CARM. the thread is an attempt (again) to mock and ridicule the subject matter of my arguments on religious experience. They are talking teh M scale by Ralph Hood which is a control for study of religious experience. A means of understanding if one has had real mystical experience or not.

There's really not much more to say. Taking anonymous loaded surveys that would be answered only by God believers, and then having a religious whacko interpret the answers and proclaim there is a God is hardly an unbiased study. I read up on this Hood guy, and see he's a religious nutzo. Everything he writes about revolves around religion. Just because he somehow got a PH D from Phoenix college or some other such "college" doesn't mean the guy has any credibility. What ELSE would a religios nut conclude frrom loaded surveys? That there is no God?

Originally Posted by Deist

There's really not much more to say.

not when you don't know what you are talking about.

you are not answering the quotes I put up. It hasn't occurred to you that the study in the Backup thread is corroboration of the M Scale.

Taking anonymous loaded surveys that would be answered only by God believers, and then having a religious whacko interpret the answers and proclaim there is a God is hardly an unbiased study.

In other words yu don't know what social scinece research is. it's alluded you that social science research involves hiding your purpose form the respondent so they don't answer the way you want. In other words you knowing about reserach!

I read up on this Hood guy, and see he's a religious nutzo.

No it doesn't. you is no source anywhere that say "Hood is religious nutzo." you are assuming because you don't' like his research, even though you don't sundress it.

you are assuming "He studies snake handlers so he must me one." that's proof you are a bigoted ignorant anti-intellectual pipsqueak who doesn't' undrestand social scineces.

My intro psychology professor was did a study on Transvestites but he not a transvestite do you understand?

Everything he writes about revolves around religion. Just because he somehow got a PH D from Phoenix college or some other such "college" doesn't mean the guy has any credibility. What ELSE would a religios nut conclude frrom loaded surveys? That there is no God?

that's is field Einstein. psychology of religion duh?

btw don't look now everything Dawkins rights is about religion does that mean he's a religious nutzo?

Atheists use Mocking and Ridicule as Co-ersion (Brian Washing)

Mocking and ridicule are acts of hate. To mock ideas is to stifle thinking. It's true that some ideas worthy of ridicule, the problem is that accepting such a standard replaces thinking in the minds of those who don't like to think. Thus all one need do is ridicule and idea and the groupies accept the mocking as judgment that the idea is no good, one need to think about the idea. Stupid people and ignorant people always mock things they don't understand. When mocking and ridicule replace real thought in a community then the mere presence of ridicule is enough to stifle thought on the subject.
thus ridicule takes on a hateful aspect, it is the work of the lynch mob. Mocking and ridicule are nothing ore than mob rule.

More and more atheists advocate ridicule as a valid approach. That's nothing more than an excuse to stifle thinking among ignorant people.

planet atheism oct 21 2010

Why Criticism and Mockery are Important

Published

by

Staks

on October 21, 2010

.

Yesterday I talked about the perception that criticism and mockery is often considered going negative. Today I want to talk about the value of criticism and mockery. Quite simply, it is how we learn.
When presented with an idea (good or bad) we have to think about the idea. Sometimes we don’t do that or we don’t think deeply enough about the idea. This is where someone else comes along and points out why the idea is poor by criticizing the idea. Their criticism may or may not have merit, but at least now we can think about those criticisms.
Sometimes however, ideas become deeply held beliefs and regardless of how valid the criticism might be, we still reject that criticism and cling to the belief. We might even insist that the belief be taken seriously and believed by others on insufficient reasoning and/or evidence.
This is where mockery comes in. When people refuse to take our deeply held beliefs seriously, we might dig in deeper in trying to get people to take our beliefs seriously. The more people mock the belief, the more we are confronted with the criticisms of the belief and he more we must try to deal with those criticism if we still expect our beliefs to be taken seriously.
Mockery is withheld as a last form of criticism for those who refuse to have their ideas criticized. It is more dismissive of the idea and usually only comes in when the particular idea is really ridiculous and worth mockery. It is a message that, “hey, your idea has way too many criticisms and is just so ridiculous that is really isn’t worth taking seriously at all.”

The problem is, you can't allow that becuase people have a hard time distinguishing a truly absurd idea from something they don' know about. Atheists don't' want to learn about theology anyway. There will be times when one can't help but mock something, to actually employ it as a strategy even a last resort is just creating an environment of hatred and negativity.

Ridicule becomes a form of atheist brain washing. Daylight Atheism argues that it's a valid and effective means of changing people's attitudes. They don't seem to concerned with the ramifications the effectiveness of it seems more important to them. In fact this guy tells how his own conversion include being ridiculed out of his beliefs.

This was around my last year of high school. I was surfing Internet chat rooms when I saw someone in one of them give an offhand reference to the site Things Creationists Hate by Bob Riggins, a sarcastic list of things that contradict creationist belief - everything from sand piles to the apostle Paul.
I read the whole page the first time I saw it, and I was hooked. I went back several times in the following weeks, reading new things as the author added them, and then branched out into exploring other websites, including some with a snarky and irreverent attitude towards religion (there was one I remember called Fade to Black, now defunct). I wasn't yet an atheist at that point, but it got me to realize that claims made in the name of religion could be questioned, even mocked - and that was what set the stage for my subsequent deconversion.
I bring this all up because, yet again, there's an ongoing tiff with an accommodationist - in this case the astronomy blogger Phil Plait - who's chastising the skeptical and atheist community for being excessively vitriolic and insulting:

"How many of you here today used to believe in something - used to, past tense - whether it was flying saucers, psychic powers, religion, anything like that... [and] no longer believe in those things and became a skeptic because somebody got in your face, screaming, and called you an idiot, brain-damaged and a retard?"

It's hard to disagree with the point as he phrases it, but the problem is this: Plait never said who, specifically, he was talking about. In fact, he made it a point not to cite any specific examples. This makes it very difficult to evaluate the merit of his argument, and raises the suspicion that he's just throwing up an inflammatory straw man. I don't know very many skeptics whose approach consists of getting in people's faces and screaming insults at them. But I do know many skeptics who mercilessly mock ridiculous beliefs, who argue using snark and sarcasm, and who forthrightly call irrational nonsense what it is. Is Plait talking about them? Is he talking about me? Where, specifically, does he think the line is? His argument isn't helpful if it doesn't answer these questions.

What they are really describing here is actually the Atheist Brain washing process. A bunch of thugs pick out weak lonely people who need friends and support, mock them and ridicule them make them feel like shit then give them a sense of belonging when they give in. This is as anti-intellectual as you can get. It's nothing more than thugs forcing people to change their minds. I put it on a par with torture. Its' a very tame for of torture. Ridicule can cause people to commit suicide. Ridicule can scar one for life. These people are thugs and there basically just admitting to be psychological kidnappers.

one comment on Daylgiht Athest says:

Thomas Paine obviously disagreed with Plait and his writings certainly utilize ridicule (a lot):
"The hinting and intimidating manner of writing that was formerly used on subjects of this kind [religion], produced skepticism, but not conviction. It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." (from a letter to Elihu Palmer)

Comment #1 by: EvanT | August 30, 2010, 6:34 am

Thomas Paine (ass though he was) did not just ridicule everything. He reserved his ridicule for his oppoents policies in politics, he didn't' try to ridicule all of philosophy, all of theology, all of literature, as many many atheists do.

Not all atheists agree of cousre. There are dissenting voices that council not to mock and ridicule. Paul Kurtz of the Free Thinking Blog (Center for Inquiry part of the atheist propaganda echo chamber) has some intelligent things to say about it.

It is one thing to examine the claims of religion in a responsible way by calling attention to Biblical, Koranic or scientific criticisms, it is quite another to violate the key humanistic principle of tolerance. One may disagree with contending religious beliefs, but to denigrate them by rude caricatures borders on hate speech. What would humanists and skeptics say if religious believers insulted them in the same way? We would protest the lack of respect for alternative views in a democratic society. I apologize to my fellow citizens who have suffered these barbs of indignity.

His readers disagree:

Randy on Tuesday September 29, 2009 at 4:10pm

Two problems I have with this post:
(1) Nazi reference, already in the second paragraph. Really, do we need to go there every time?
(2) “What would humanists and skeptics say if religious believers insulted them in the same way?” I nearly fell off my chair. This happens on a daily basis, in all media, and usually is not meant as a lighthearted joke either.

The old "they do it to us so we can do it to them." I never hear atheists ridiculed in the media. I think he's confusing general sense of disagreement and cultural unacceptability with actual ridicule.

wandering on Tuesday September 29, 2009 at 5:19pm

It is not dissimilar to the anti-semitic cartoons of the Nazi era.

There is a great difference between denigrating a living person, or an existing nation and a mythical god/leader of religion. A person has rights; God, Jesus and Mohammed have no rights.

What would humanists and skeptics say if religious believers insulted them in the same way?

How is drawing Jesus an insult to anyone that is not Jesus, and the drawing of the pope, an insult to anyone that is not the pope? People have no rights to be insulted on the behalf of a third party, just because they believe something about that party…

Those are thoughtless and stupid comments because Jesus and Mohamed are not just abstract ideas. To a lot of people they are cherished beliefs, and more, they are friends, they are people some people love. when you ridicule Jesus you are hurting me. It hurts me deeply and offends me deeply to see Jesus ridiculed. I equate Jesus with the basic symbol of all that is good and holy. To mock and ridicule that is totally evil. It requires only a modicum of brains to understand the ability to distinguish between the cultural construct of Jesus the icon of the good and the religious doctrine that the man of Nazareth was incorante logos. Not that mocking the logos would not also be offensive to me, but respecting Jesus as a cultural icon does not mean accepting the doctrine of the Trinity.

We can see clearly that atheism flourishes on mocking and ridiculing. it's my theory that they equate that with their intellectual superiority. As the studies indicate atheists have poor self esteem, they feel anger and frustration toward people who feel loved by God. They love the sense that they superior to these people because they can mock and ridicule what they don't understand. They use it as a tool to hijack people's brains and force them to give up their beliefs. They probably have to find boarder line people to work that on. Those are have low self esteem, struggle to feel accepted by God, have no support group need a sense of belonging. Being mocked and rejected creates the desire to be accepted by their persecutes and then the sense that one has finally ache-ivied belonging when one renounces the hated beliefs is enough to bring people into submission. Free thinkers, O yea, they are free thinkers. Free thinkers really bleieve in forcing people into submission don't they?


another one

Another comment on Daylight atheism and it's so telling! This guy recounts his forced conversoin (he gave up the faith because they made him feel stupid) it's so telling:

As usual, Dawkins is correct, and I offer myself as Exhibit A. The whole reason I'm an atheist, the reason that Ebon Musings and Daylight Atheism exist, is because of those websites which made me realize that religious beliefs could be poked fun at. Ridicule has its uses: If skillfully deployed in an argument, it can be more persuasive than anything else - nothing gets someone on your side like making them laugh. It helps break down the stifling aura of solemnity and respect that religions have convinced themselves they deserve, and that they use to smother legitimate criticism. And it communicates, more eloquently than any cool and dispassionate argument ever could, that it's okay not to believe this stuff!

As ususl of course Dawkie is right he as to justify going to hell. He has to make himself feel better about blaspheming and damning himself. When I say that I mean form his fundie point of view no mine.Obviousy he has a ot cognaitvie dissonace to overcome. How did Festinger say we over cogitative dissonance? By becoming more committed to the new commitment, even in the face of disproof.

Look at what he says:the reason that Ebon Musings and Daylight Atheism exist, is because of those websites which made me realize that religious beliefs could be poked fun at. Ridicule has its uses: The dulcimer was effective. He was co-erced and now this cheerful attitude because he has to rationalize going to hell. now look what he says:

If skillfully deployed in an argument, it can be more persuasive than anything else - nothing gets someone on your side like making them laugh.


Ends justify the means. As long it works. so if it works to thereaten to kill people then we can do that too. He's just putting a happy face on being a thug.

here an atheist takes a dissenting view

"Blondie" Lies about My Honesty With Evidence.

ON CARM in an exchange on the moral argument:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

you don't understand the moral argument. I'm not surprised. this is the kind of third rate attempt we get when we are content to stop with the surface of level of ideolgoical sloganizing.

I understand the moral argument.

Blondie:

I doubt you do because you have never been able to defend any position.

I still remember when you pulled a quote from some quy off the Internet and actually went in and changed a word to make is sounded like he supported your point. When I caught you you said I was stupid and that you we're modifying it or something and I was too dumb to know what that meant. I have never seen anyone do anything so nakedly dishonest and shameful on one of these forums.

when challenged he can't come across with the skinny.

Originally Posted by ferengi

Evidence please.

Even if it were true - you cannot say what he did was wrong - because your feelings are not a basis for a moral law - objective or otherwise.

Blondie:

In you subjective opinion because, like so many Christians, you have a broken moral compass.

Like I said. People that believe in objective morality often end up justifying things we all believe to be wrong. Atheists just end up getting tongue tied or saying human happiness or something is the foundation for morality.

several things to notice:

(1) I have repeated remakes that I don't argue for objective ethics I think that is not a valid concern of major ethicist such as Kant, ect. so I don't use it.

(2) the fact that tries to stick me with it shows (a) he has never actually paid attention to any of my arguments. (b) I've denied over and over that I"m into objective ethics (c) he clearly doesn't care about truth, he thinks in stereotypes the real facts of a situation are secondary to him.

(3) the real issue is his bid to assassinate my charter. This twister little guy is a street fighter. He goes for the jugular. he knows my work as a scholar is improtant to me so tha'ts what he tries to destroy from day one. He began attacking my scholarship and my reserach ability (which are so clearly better than since he used 100 year old articles in documentation about Lourdes) That's what he's out to destroy is the understanding that I'm a scholar and that's what I'm good at. He's lied in many ways to try and destroy that reputation.

(4) I don't care that most atheist her hate my guts, I don't care if you think you have a valid reason, which you don't. I don't give a damn. I understand why I fight back against your bullying I understand why can't admit that you bully.

I will now allow this aspect of it to be destroyed without taking the character assassin down with me.


(5) please notice how totally unfair this is to make this kind charge and not have any evidence. He could be totally making this up. I'm willing to think he's just not a very good researcher so he doesn't understand something, or it was typo and it's too good to pass up.

a mistake that plays so into his hands is too good for him to not use somehow.

think of the unfair nature of it to say that and not have proof. It's just destructive he could lie about it so easily. If no one cares that it's just and someone is being hurt unfairly then its so easy to do. what are you going to do when someone does to you?


If there was any reality to it he would at least have a name. he doesn't offer any kind of info. We don't know when it happened, what the issue was no idea.

I's so obviously just propaganda.

when someone demands that he makes good he just plays off of stereotypes and general hatred for Chrsitians.

Atheists frantic to shut down Atheistwatch

The atheists on carm are starting to throw little fits when I quote them. The point of qutooing so much of the posts is not to show that certain individuals are not up to intellectual par, but to demonstrate different things about atheist thinking. I quote a lot to give a full context. One guy in particular is really angry because I wont concede to his little tantrum insisting that I took him out of context but he wont say why. He put me on "ignore" (yea like that lasts for more than a day. I guarantee he will be answering my posts in a few days).

One of the major things we see from these exchanges and their whining and instance that I don't quote them is that they see when their words are put in a new presentation and placed along side other who weak their arguments are. That's not really my purpose. One of the main things I've been trying to illustrate recently is how they brain wash each other. They do this buy reinforcing one another in bigotry. When they go on the these long jags, one will put up a post saying "Its' Christianity stupid" the others will chime in 50 posts deep "Yes it sure is." "here's how stupid it was for me" and son. what they are really doing is brain washing each other.

Brain washing means socialization. When they re affirming each others prejudices they are telling themselves, "I get positive strokes from thinking this, if I express these opinions they will like me." they are telling each other, "you are accepted in social group because you say what we want to hear." You are not going to find brights lights in a little room where they beat each other with rubber hoses and demand "say you hate God!" The cybre equivocate of that is when 20 or 30 of them gang up on one person and keep saying outrageously insulting things becuase he expressed some form of belief in God. They are actually telling each other, See what will happen to you if you don't follow along.

Fair use law
US copyright office:

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Belief, Rationalization, Manipulation

We have some interesting comments that came in on past postings. In reaction to my statement on Notes on Realization of God's Reality, someone named "Atheist" says:

Atheist said...

Metarock: Belief Is, therefore, a realization about the nature of reality, not a technology.

Atheist: Belief Is, therefore, a realization about the nature of fantasy, not a technology. Belief has nothing to do with reality or truth. In fact belief and truth are mutually exclusive.

The problem with this is that it privileges doubt to the extent of re-writing the point of bleief. Belief becomes a dirty word tot he professional doubter. The fact of belief is that one does not believe something one thinks is false. Belief is obviously about truth. Of cousre this is not a guarantee that the particulars of one's beliefs are true, yet no one sets out to believe falsehood. Dawkamenatlists. like the fundies that they are, are literalistic and rigid slave thinkers who dread having to think for themselves, thus any hint that a held opinion is not a "fact" and is not guaranteed by the atheist fortress of facts (ala atheist ideology) but is merely "belief," must be held as falsehood and ridiculed to the text the very word "belief" is taken ass a dirty word and held to mean "rationalization." Belief is what one hold to be true, it' s synonymous with "conviction," that's a term atheists are not familiar with.

I am thinking that this person is reacting to the idea that I stated, that proving things is a technology. Somehow this person sees this as an insult he/she has to insult belief back and though belief is some alien process that atheists don't involve themselves in. Unless one is illiterate it must be obvious to all that even atheists have beliefs. Strangely enough an atheist on CARM, who humbly calls himself "big thinker," who martians that he has no beliefs. Belief is such a dirty word to the Dawkies that he can't bring himself to admit that he has beliefs. He refused to answer my question "so you believe you have no beliefs?" That would entail the admission that what you think is true is a belief. Thus there are no people without beliefs. How is it possible that one thinks for oneself without believing things? This person obviously believes that belief is is about unreality, this person believes that atheism is about being realistic about reality these are beliefs. I wonder if most atheists even know the word reality. What they really mean is "what I want to be the case." If it could be proved that God is reality what would they do? They would then begin asserting that reality stinks and fantasy is true.

Webster's Online:

be·lief

noun \bə-ˈlēf\

Definition of BELIEF

1

: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2

: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3

: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

See belief defined for English-language learners »

Examples of BELIEF

1. There is growing belief that these policies will not succeed.
2. He gets angry if anyone challenges his religious beliefs.
3. We challenged his beliefs about religion.

Origin of BELIEF

Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelēafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lēafa; akin to Old English lȳfan — more at believe

First Known Use: 12th century

Related to BELIEF

Synonyms: credence, credit, faith, article of faith

Antonyms: disbelief, discredit, doubt, nonbelief, unbelief

Related Words: axiom, law, precept, principle, tenet; assurance, certainty, certitude, conviction, positiveness, sureness; confidence, dependence (also dependance), reliance, trust; hope; doctrine, dogma, philosophy; dogmatism, fanaticism, insistence

Near Antonyms: distrust, mistrust, skepticism, suspicion, uncertainty

see all synonyms and antonyms

[+]more[-]hide

Synonym Discussion of BELIEF

belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof faith in God>. credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent credence by scientists>. credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof credit to the statement of a reputable witness>.

Belief is placing confidence in a proposition." conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence " Belief is about the way one views reality not manipulating reality.

Proving things is a from of manipulation. Why? Because it requries the re-organizing of bits of sense data in order to change the situation form appearance to demonstration. I didn't originally call it manipulation I called it "technology." Then I defined technology as manipulation. This commenter took this as an assault upon truth. It's actually just phenomenological awareness about our relationship to sense data in the formation of truth claims. Belief is a conviction of truth as the definition says it is not a pretense or a fantasy. Getting at truth requires re arranging the appearance of reality and thus its manipulation. This doesn't mean that stacking the manipulation to coincide with our desires is truth finding.

Webster defines Technology:

tech·nol·o·gy
noun \tek-ˈnä-lə-jē\
plural tech·nol·o·gies
Definition of TECHNOLOGY
1
a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : engineering 2 b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge
2
: a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge
3
: the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor
— tech·nol·o·gist \-jist\ noun
See technology defined for English-language learners »
Examples of TECHNOLOGY

This doesn't tell us the use of the term in such elite venue as intellectual history in postmodern circles such as the writing of Michele Foucault. The word is used apart from gadgets. We can employ a technology in the way we think about things without any new inventions or scientific apparatus. That's the way I was using the term, not as an insult or an attack but with persimmon making known the fact that the way we think about "reality" in relation to what can be demonstrated as true is a technology and an application of knowledge in a varied way.

In other words, belief is actually conviction that honestly understands truth or reality to be a certain way, while proof and demonstration are actually manipulating reality by arranging the way it is perceived, in order to produce a particular outcome.

The same poster left another interesting comment, this was addressed to the post about atheists moving away from the big bang.

Atheist said...

I am an atheist. I do not depend on science for my atheism. In fact I disagree with science often when it looks too much like theism. Multi-universes, quantum mechanics and the Big Bang are a some examples.

My atheism is based on truth and facts not science.

"I disagree with science when it looks like theism." I assume then that he/she agrees with it when it looks like opinions he/she already holds. So at that rate science is not a teaching device that tells this person truth but is in fact the "big fortress of facts" that proves atheism and backs up her opinion. In other words in the Orwellian "atheist speak" truth is a lie and one's own desire to escape God is paramount and outweighs truth, scirnce is a propaganda tool that can only be useful when it backs the template of atheist ideology. Look at the two quotes back to back it's pretty obvious that's what being said. If science was as atheists cling to it and portray it in clash with Genesis or creationism it's supposed to be a tool that lays bear what is real and enables us to know the truth of the physical world. To allege that would be a belief. Belief is a dirty word, belief is fantasy. Yet it's also apparent that truth finding goes hand in hand with fantasy and in place of truth this atheist wants propaganda. Hence I only believe science when it tells me what I want to hear.

"I don't believe scinece when it looks like theism."


Is there a way to reason with such people? If the facts and the uncovering of reality to the extent that the umpire of reality says "this be true" is not good enough, but must be rejected when ever it strays from the ideology that enthralls this salve thinker then what could possible point to truth in discussion or argument or evidence? Can't we see this is the total betrayal of "free thought" that it obviously is? How long can people be suckered?

We have to fear truth seeking and make conviction a dirty word becasue reality might be other than we wish?