Fatwater: My interactions with others have never been significantly affected by my metaphysical beliefs or by the metaphysical beliefs of others – people might try to convert me into (dis)believing in this that or the other metaphysical belief, or they might pity me and/or hate me for not sharing whatever (IMO irrelevant) metaphysical belief that they happen to hold, but the former interaction is usually not very significant while the latter interaction (as well as the former interaction) has more to do with ethics than with metaphysics.
It’s not so much that metaphysical beliefs are irrelevant, it’s more that if somebody’s actions are not affected by their metaphysical beliefs (or by any of their various beliefs) then I’m not as concerned about why they hold their beliefs as I would be were their beliefs to manifest themselves in their actions. For all I know, my best friend believes that the world is really a flat disc on the back of a giant space turtle, but since this belief has not affected his actions in any way it really wouldn’t concern me if he did happen to hold this belief (though I’d probably be inclined to use this information to embarrass him at parties). Most (a)theists’ actions seem to be as unaffected by their (dis)belief in God (or angels or demons etc.) as my friend’s are unaffected by his hypothetical world-turtle belief, so in general I don’t concern myself very much with the metaphysical beliefs of others except in the cases where their metaphysical beliefs begin to affect their ethical/political/etc. beliefs. I honestly couldn’t tell you the (metaphysical) religious beliefs of almost all of my friends, simply because their actions have never been affected by their (dis)belief in God or Original Sin or World-Turtles etc. – I can, however, tell you that they are all good people, which is ultimately all that really matters.
It’s a matter of perspective, loinburger. Using most of your words from that quote, I could say:
I honestly couldn’t tell you whether the actions of almost all my friends have been affected by their (dis)belief in God or Original Sin or World-Turtles etc, simply because I don’t know their (metaphysical) religious beliefs – I can, however, tell you that they all seem to be good people, which, ultimately, might be all that really matters.
And it would approximate part of what led to the OP. You see? It’s the implied question marks in that statement which drive me in this.
And thanks, I find your views relevant to this topic.
I came to this board a long-time agnostic, and empiricist and I still am…but some of the exchanges I’ve had with *Libertarian lately have come pretty close to making me break a philosophical sweat.
—Disbelief is active; it is defined as rejecting an idea.—
But even that is ambiguous (which is why I clarified as to what I’m interested in). Do you reject the truth of the idea, or simply reject the belief that the idea is true? What if the rejection of a belief is due to lack of adequate motivation for acceptance?
Sorry, what you’re interested in, the lack of belief, is what I see as agnosticism; or neither believing nor disbelieving the truth of an idea for lack of (for whatever reason) ability to determine that truth. Disbelief would be rejecting the belief that an idea is true because you have become convinced (for whatever reason) the idea holds no truth.
I am a strong believer in God, but lately, I can totally understand atheists. I can see how a lack of belief in God is possible.
I hate the fact that asking God to prove himself is considered a bad thing.
I use to think of God as being constantly there, looking over us, being involved in this world, but looking around, at the world, and all it’s problems I’ve come to the conclusion that God isn’t involved, except for maybe the occasional miracle, but other than that, this is a natural world, things happen naturally, and God doesn’t really have anything to do with it.
<sigh> I hate that I’ve become so cynical in the past 5 years or so.
Honestly, I hate to disappoint you, Polycarp, but I stated all that I really wanted to say on that subject in the post that you quoted. I don’t have much to add, and, as you’re fond of saying, I don’t have a horse in that race.
Apos, I have yet to meet anyone like that, on the boards or off.
—Sorry, what you’re interested in, the lack of belief, is what I see as agnosticism—
Ok. That happens to be what I call atheism, non-belief, non-theism, unbelief, etc., not agnosticism (which isn’t about belief at all as I understand it). You can, however, define however you wish as long as you tell me what you mean by it, and we can go from there. So yes, lack of belief in particular is what I’m interested in, re your original invitation to discuss what changes believers, atheists, agnostics, etc. have undergone.
—Disbelief would be rejecting the belief that an idea is true because you have become convinced (for whatever reason) the idea holds no truth.—
So when someone comes in and tells me that they just won the lottery, and I react in disbelief, it always means that I am convinced that it’s impossible? Dictionaries don’t seem convinced of this: they give either or even both definitions.
Heritage defines it as the refusal or reluctance TO believe, which is not the same thing as believing that something is false. Websters claims more clearly that unbelief and disbelief are two different things, while Princeton claims that one meaning is simply skepticism or doubt, while the second meaning is “rejection of belief” (which has the same ambiguity I noted earlier) and then goes on to list “unbelief” as a synonym for that second definition. Even the seemingly unambiguous Websters seems confused, acting as if “denial of belief” or “refusal of assent” is the same thing as when “one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true” when that’s clearly not the case. But then, Websters seems to habitually make that sort of mistake. You can, at least, see why I found the meaning ambiguous (hence my clarification). I apologize if that is not a subject you wanted to discuss. It seems pretty relevant to placing people’s changes in context.
I certainly cannot explain the affect of this board on me without a clear explication of what is going on when people describe believe something is true or not, or believe that it is false or not.
One of the most important aspects of this board is seeing the sorts of understandings people can come to if they are willing to give each other the time to know where their beliefs are coming from. While I don’t believe in any of the many conceptions of God expressed on this board at various times, every religious poster, even those decried by others, has definately deepened my appreciation for how very different things can be important to different people, and that has begun a personal hope that spreading this sort of mutual understanding can really change people’s attitudes about those that don’t, and probably won’t, ever believe what they believe. I think there is a definate positive (positive in my opinion) theme on these boards of people not necessarily giving up their religious beliefs, or gaining new religious beliefs, but changing them subtly (or even discovering deeper subtleties to what they already thought). Believers finding ways to include the existence of legitimate non-believers into their theology in m. Non-believers welcoming the idea of believers being a positive, permantent, and vital part of society as well as indespensible in the search for truth.
That’s a convoluted mouthful. What I mean is: there are some opinions on this board with which many people start out thinking should and must be changed. But many people later seem to come to realize that these opinions, while they may not share them, cannot be ruled out of the game. That the world would be a far bleaker place if no one held them, and that the search for truth would be unaturally crippled if they were excluded from it.
That’s a subtle and noteworthy development, far more sophisticated than you’ll find almost anywhere else. It’s not at all what most people are used to with debates, where often the best that can be hoped for is agreeing to disagree. These particular subjects of religious opinions seem to have a more potential than just that: more than either just plain toleration or even full concession. I guess I can’t describe it any better, but it’s heartening.
—Apos, I have yet to meet anyone like that, on the boards or off.—
Do you mean that you’ve never met a person who has moral opinions different from yours that you can concede has thought through their beliefs? Or that everyone who has thought through their beliefs has the same moral opinions as you?
I think the part of the post which you discarded explained what I mean by agnosticism, “neither believing nor disbelieving the truth of an idea for lack of (for whatever reason) ability to determine that truth.” As far as I know, this is pretty close to commonly accepted views of agnosticism. The qualifiers, of course, are mine. But if you’d like a dictionary definition with which I’m comfortable, the online Merriam-Webster definition for agnostic will suffice: “a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.”
I’m interested in hearing more on your view of agnosticism.
In the context of the OP, and for this thread, the above description of disbelief is what I mean; that disbelief is active, as belief is active.
And, yes, the subtleties we find here are both wonderful and heartening.
And, more importantly, I think we can do here without any conclusion on particular designations, because we can express what we mean without them.
For instance, I would hope that the effect of this board, and particularly the effect of the theists on this board, would be to encourage people who are anti-theist and anti-religion to come to the position expressed in the latter part of that definition for agnosticism (especially because, even if that WAS agnostiticism, that particular position still wouldn’t be what it’s often presented as: an alternative to their atheism. I hold it myself, an atheist).
Yes. Particularly when it’s true, as in this case.
There is nothing hurtful about opposing evil – and that is all that fundamentalist Christianity is, total, condensed, pure evil. After what the fundies have done to me and my religious faith, you expect me to give them a big bear hug and love them? I don’t love them, I loathe them, as evil must be loathed. They have taken a religion that was very important to me, ripped it from me, damned me and left me for dead, metaphysically speaking. They deserve so much worse than a few harsh words on the Internet.
If there is a God, if he loves and accepts their hate cult faith, then he is evil, a monster, to be rejected and hated. I don’t know, anymore, if there is a God. I used to know. Hell, I used to want to be a priest, sort of. Now I’m desperately trying to figure out how to re-build a Christian faith in the light of the one thing religions like Christianity fare worst against – reality.
Apos, interesting links. Thanks. As to this thread… it’ll continue or not in the manner in which it continues or not. It’s already given me food for thought, but I wouldn’t refuse more if it’s offered.Apos
Yes, and I appreciate it. Sadness just happens to be part of that appreciation.
I came to the conclusion some time ago that to have freedom I must allow others to have it. You’re in a tough spot at the moment and that saddens me as well, but it also gives me a kind abstract joy because reminds me of something Emily Dickinson wrote (and I can’t remember the exact phrasing) to the effect that after a great hurt comes a healing. I wish you well.
—If there is a God, if he loves and accepts their hate cult faith, then he is evil, a monster, to be rejected and hated. I don’t know, anymore, if there is a God.—
I’ve always wondered about this: why do people seem to be more willing to give up a belief in God if they come to think that God might be morally objectionable to them? If one has reasons to think God exists, I don’t see how starting to think that God is a monster would change those reasons. Existential proofs or personal inferences about God’s character seem, for the most part, distinct lines of evidence from information about God’s potential character: so why would more info about character change those personal reasons or proofs to believe in God?
This is a real problem for interpreting subjective experiences of God: if when it’s good, it’s associated with God, but when it’s bad, people can’t believe that God could be bad.
I can accept that a bad God might exist just as easily as a good God, and I don’t see why the conclusion that God is the former should make anyone more likely to doubt its existence.
My participation here has been limited to about two and a half months. My beliefs change a little at a time, so any changes have been, as yet, unnoticeable to me.
But it is such a relief to participate in a forum that allows for give and take and variance of belief. And it has been tremendous to see the faith in action that I have seen here.
