I have often heard atheists and agnostics accused of believing in nothing, especially by apologists. As though, all belief has to be sourced in god or religion to exist at all. The usual response is that you do not, believe in belief. But I would rather say that, you do not want any more in unfounded, blind, unjustified belief, than you must have. Since it is at least, a simple observation, that most of us do believe in something, often many things. Whether it be, environmentalism, true democracy, human rights, science, socialism, capitalism, libertarianism, welfare, humanism, the green movement, progressive arts, the glory of nature, or some secular charity, etc., etc.
I do not therefore think that atheism/agnosticism is about abolishing belief, but about replacing old broken and corrupt beliefs with better ones. Just as Christianity, for example, replaced the corrupt state paganism, back in the days of the Roman empire. Since traditional religions today, are not just a problem because they directly oppose progress. But also simply, because they get in the way; taking time and resources from better more effective belief systems. Which, like secular charities, are not only better at forwarding what they do, by explaining what they want directly and being free from dangerous inherited baggage. But also because they are actually better at building communities and creating their own rituals, stories, narratives, metaphors and traditions, in fact all of the things that people look to traditional religions for.
This may not seem quite so true from a USA centric perspective, but it is a wide world, and to give just one example. Here in the UK each year there is an annual citizens science ritual, where people count the birds they see for one hour, on one given day each year. They then send their observations to the RSPB, ( A bird centred conservation charity. ) who compile statistics from them. And here is the rub. More people take part in that each year, than go to church.
Many apologists will also ask. How do you derive morality without religion ? Well the obvious answer to that is, that if you can not derive morality without religion, then from where did religion get its morality from ? ( However primitive that morality may be. ) Someone must have derived it from somewhere. There is, it is true, a quite strong philosophical argument, they will often fall back on, that. You can not prove morality just by logic, from first principles.
Which may or may not be true, I really don't care. Because it is very easy to derive morality logically in several ways, if you only allow yourself to start with believing in just a single prerequisite. Such as for example. “I would prefer to live in a happy world.” Or. “The well being of the world and the people in it, is a good objective.” Because then it follows that if I take, any one of many like those, as a given, then you have to ask what is logically the best way to achieve that. And your morality logically follows. You only need one of several such prerequisites, to accept belief in.
And to deny it, you would have find someone who was prepared to disbelieve a statement like. “I would prefer to live in a happy world.” Which is at least I think, is a much less incredible thing to believe in, than. “I believe in the holy trinity, the rapist, his baby zombie and whatever makes the priest talk funny.”
23
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
17 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I don't think it is simply a matter of replacing old broken and corrupt beliefs with better ones. Agnostics/atheists are saying that don't believe in religious belief systems, which the other things you mention are not. It is a rejection of theistic-based belief systems.
Heraclitus
Level 8
Apr 5, 2022
0
Yes that is what I meant, I am equating, "old broken and corrupt", with "theistic" because given that this is and atheist /agnostic site, I am assuming that everyone else will do the same.
I continually hear arguments asking where you got your morality. Does that mean you want to be poked in the eye with a stick? We can travel that path without gods. As for atheists believing in nothing, my take on this one is that we refuse to make up shit on how we got here or what happens when we die. This is true for me because I no longer do so. Where am I going after I die? I'm either cremated or buried unless some wild animal eats me. Oh, I'm sorry. You were referring to that non-existent part of me that Saul of Tarsus made popular. The big surprise is that until we know otherwise, being dead most likely means we are dead. Yes, dead and gone in this world putting things back to where they were before you were born. If I am wrong please show me the proof. For those who think Jesus was "the first fruits of the dead" with ideas that the believer would follow, they obviously have not read their bible. Look around and you will find other writings where people return, having survived death. Mankind is so afraid of non-existence. People just keep on making things up.
DenoPenno
Level 9
Apr 4, 2022
2
I believe in things that matter. It does not matter to me whether there is or isn't a god. Nothing to prove either way for my purposes in living a good life.
I do believe in goodness, kindness, fairness, natural consequences, courtesy, respect, compassion, empathy and a whole lot of things that contribute to the harmony of the world.
I believe in supporting good people, with good ideas, good deeds, etc., and not supporting people with selfish, greedy, evil, hurtful, unfair, disrespectful ideas.
It really doesn't take Sunday school or Church to teach good values to ourselves and our children. Most of us naturally want what is best for ourselves and our loved ones.
There are lots of "self help" books, novels, movies, fairy tales, fables, myths and legends to give us a good idea of the right way to act and live. We don't have to believe the characters in the stories are true, but we can glean from them a moral and then balance that with what we observe in the world around us.
The natural consequence of being disliked, left out, imprisoned, etc., is enough for most people with a conscience to behave civilly.
Sadly there are people who lack the social skills most of us learned from many sources, or maybe have been damaged psychologically in such a way that they do not behave in a kind or civil manner. Those people need to be understood and provided with professional help, instead of or in addition to spiritual help.
I don't fault people for turning to the ready made religion of their family or friends, but I personally didn't get anything from the many religions I explored, when I was searching.
I am a deep thinker, in some ways, and have different ideas than what is taught in the bible, at least from what I understand of the bible. I really don't see many good family or social values taught simply in the monotheistic religions -- and so have come up with my own ideas for my personal philosophy in life.
Some people think that makes me an evil person - not taking my spiritual direction from an invisible deity whether myth or man, who seems to have made lots of mistakes if he really is out there somewhere, but I just do my best to show them that I'm actually just as loving and caring as they are. I just do it because I feel in my heart it's the right thing to do - not because a dusty old book told me to somewhere in between the lines of thees and thous.
Yes, good question, if morality is supposed to come from the bible, didn't the morality exist before it was written down? Who decided what was moral back then, and is it still moral now? The world has evolved in the past 2000 years, but sadly the religion of the masses has not.
Julie808
Level 8
Apr 4, 2022
3
Very good, I could quote every word, my possition exactly. Though I do think that, while I agree with, "I don't fault people for turning to the ready made religion", I do think that there is perhaps, a moral obligation to always, whenever possible, point out that there are perhaps better ways.
You may like Rossy92's reply at the bottom of this post too.
@Fernapple Yes, those with whom I have conversations, who deeply believe in their religion, are usually aware of my humanist position. The subject likely comes up more often with me than some closeted atheists.
When new acquaintances ask me what I do for a living, I tell them I perform weddings and funerals. So, then they say oh, so you're a minister. That gives me the opportunity to explain that I'm a "humanistic minister" and I describe how my services focus on human values rather than biblical values, and then ensues a conversation, usually very respectful. Sometimes people are disgusted and growl at me in a huff and leave my presence, but not often.
At least I've given them something to think about and they can decide for themselves if I'm really an evil person for catering to the non-religious folks wanting to get married or scatter the ashes of their non-religious loved one, who may have specifically requested a non-religious service.
They usually come around eventually to have some manner of respect, since I am not there to change their minds, just show by example that yes, there are other ways of gaining inspiration for being a good person.
Beautifully stated. 
@PapPap Virtues come from your observations and experiences. They are the morals you chose to live your life by. Kindness and cruelty are individual choices, not predestined.
Consciousness is an awareness that we have an effect on ourselves and others and it guides our choices.
Culture grows from our environment.
@PapPap I can account for where my sense of morals and virtues snuck into my brain... From kindergarten through today's news program... Many things that I've absorbed from listening to teachers, parents, even my children, peers, leaders, story tellers, myths, inspirational movies, even secular funerals I've attended... Many ways I've absorbed my philosophy of life, and none of it comes from church or catechism or reading the bible.
If some of those same lessons are in the teachings of the bible, I must have missed them, as they aren't as plain and simply found as the lessons I've learned elsewhere. Especially how to navigate in today's world, which is so much different than the world as it was thousands of years ago.
@PapPap I'm not arguing, but it seems you are? I simply state that our natural human values are supported and taught through many means, not just religion.
The collective wisdom of humanity keeps going forward, evolving to assist us in living our best lives. The fact that many cultures address human values through various means supports my view, so I'm not sure of your point.
In any case, feel free to outline your views in a stand alone comment, rather than in an argument with me. Thanks.
Perhaps we actually agree but don't understand each other. I enjoy discussions that go forward and expand my thinking, but I'm having trouble understanding your perspective, maybe because of your argumentative tone.
@PapPap You got a couple things wrong in your analysis.
-
While you are correct that there is something "deeper" than culturally learned morals, it is not uniquely human as your statement seems to suggest. It has been bred into us and our ancestors for, at minimum, tens of millions of years. There was a study done with capuchin monkeys that showed even they had incredibly strong senses of equity and displayed jealously, anger, and aggression when that sense of equity was violated. And, given it is quite early in the morning for me, forgive me if there's an easy answer, but what, from a list of moral principles, can't be boiled down to or summed up as an offense to equity?
-
We agree that morality most assuredly does not reside in the conscious mind, but that's the extent of the agreement. You have claimed that one can consciously defy this instinct. Even if you disagree with the fact that humans lack agency, you have contradicted yourself. If you can consciously defy your moralistic instincts through conscious thought and choice, than your actual moralistic beliefs, principles, and actions do reside in the conscious mind. You can't have it both ways.
@PapPap Wow, I got none of that level of fantasy from your pervious comments. And, to be honest, I'd be shocked if anyone else would have guessed it either. A vast, vast majority of members here do not believe in souls or spirits. Had I known you believed that heavily in a bunch of stuff for which there is zero evidence, I wouldn't have bothered to detail corrections to your comment based on the nature of reality. I mean, how can anyone have a meaningful discussion about a topic when the other side cites what amounts to fairy tales? Even your belief that mankind has a "purpose" is completely foreign to anyone who understands evolution. Good luck with your future discussions here, but I will say it would be nice of you to start every comment with, "I believe in souls and spirits" to save a lot of people a lot of time.
@PapPap Personally I believe that legality and morality are separate entities and should not necessarily inform each other. In other words, whether or not you could or would be punished is irrelevant in determining whether or not something is "wrong".
@PapPap Not really. It's the reason I put "wrong" in quotes. I don't believe in objective morality, but whatever a person and/or society deems wrong shouldn't be predicated on whether or not a punishment is prescribed or carried out. The reverse is also true.
@PapPap
I answered hastily while at work. I should respond to everything you said.
- I don't know what you mean exactly by "natural law", thus, I can't agree that morality stems from it. As I said, I don't believe in objective morality, so if this natural law you are referencing is some kind of metaphysical property that governs all mankind, I'd adamantly reject that hypothesis. Our ideas of morality can't even span time OR distance, so the thought it could span BOTH is a non-starter for me.
- While I do believe that what one thinks is the "right" or "wrong" thing to do shouldn't be determined simply by what is legal or what one can "get away with", it does not follow logically that one shouldn't weigh 'fear of punishment' when determining what to do¹. I do not believe that speeding, for me, is wrong. I'm an amazing driver. I could drive figurative and literal circles around most other people on the road. I just had to pass some douchebag that was getting on the freeway at 25mph while texting, and I may have done something that was technically illegal, but what he was doing was INFINITELY more dangerous and I was simply removing myself from his sphere of influence and likely improving the whole situation (any time there are less drivers near a bad driver, there is a reduced chance of an accident). That said, I still weigh potential consequences for doing something I don't even think is wrong, and likely wouldn't have done what I thought was the right thing to do if I saw potential to get in trouble for it (like if a cop was nearby).
- Even if I didn't object to any of the prior statements you made, I'd still object to the proposition that "it is in our nature to be good." Humans are inherently deeply selfish.
- Since I take issue with everything you said prior to this point, I also don't believe we should love one another. (Also because it begs some cosmic imperative I can't see reason for.) Nor do I worry about the "consideration" or "essence" of something I don't even acknowledge.
¹ This is all ignoring the fact that I don't believe in free will at all and my musings over what is "right" and "wrong" and decisions of what to do are all merely post-hoc commentary on the observations of how I've behaved in the past and how I hope my subconscious mind determines I will behave in the future. There are some here that will try to claim I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth without this disclaimer.
- Not believing we should love one another (as if it is an imperative) is not the same as thinking we shouldn't love one another (meaning that we should avoid it regardless). I try to use my words very carefully, and I'd appreciate the same care when being paraphrased.
- I disagree that love is purposeless if life is meaningless (not to mention the fact that most people don't believe people have a choice whether or not to feel what we describe as "love" so it's kind of moot either way). That does not follow logically. For someone who wants to remain open to possibilities, you sure jump to a lot of conclusions that close doors...
- What is "genuine love"?
- Yes, me, and generally anyone else who believes in evolution, don't believe in some cosmic purpose to life, but what makes you think love is a necessary condition to meaningful life? You really adhere to the belief that if one never found love their life was meaningless?
- I never said anything about religion specifically. I am just saying you're inventing some cosmic force that dictates intention and purpose to [human] life for which there is no evidence. Weren't you the one talking about assuming you know something being an impediment to the attainment of knowledge? What do you think you're doing with this assumption?
@PapPap But you don't have an open mind. You are living with so many assumptions in your head about the nature of reality. Many more than me in fact, yet you are lecturing me about keeping an open mind.
And there are NUMEROUS objections you completely ignored from my last several comments. If you're all about attaining knowledge, you should have either countered the objection or conceded the point and attempted to change your opinion.
@PapPap I don't have a comment on how they access that information because to venture a guess on the subject would be to gloss over the assumption you're carrying that they do access unlearned information. You don't even notice your assumptions as you type them...
As for the government having programs that center around fringe-beliefs, you're making two more assumptions. 1. That these programs are not a front for other secret programs they can't publicly fund and/or 2. that if they did fund said programs that their funding is evidence that there is validity to said fringe-belief.
As for the day of a date or fast math, it sounds like you're just too enamored by fantastical outcomes to think critically about how it's possible. People like you are a magician's favorite audience member. I loved having people like you around when I was performing fairly amateur tricks for my restaurant and bar customers. They were amazed and entertained and always left great tips. Anyway, if you take just a second away from being amazed by what you think is supernatural to look for the how, you may just find you're a duped rube full of assumptions.
Mathemagics: How to Look Like a Genius Without Really Trying [amazon.com]
@PapPap It's not your personality. Your personality is great. You seem like a nice enough guy and you're genuine. I can deal with a lot of differences with someone that's generally cool. You just have some blind spots in your belief structure, we all do, and I know people can't control what they believe or whether or not they'll encounter a person that says the right combination of words in the right order that makes them change their mind. Also, it doesn't really hurt me if you don't, so I'm not too worried about it. It would be nice if our conversation allowed you to recognize that some things you believe you may not have given enough thought and make some changes, but it's not necessary.
I can sense that there's a lot of belief in the room tonight and that makes me very happy.
A feeling so palpable you can almost touch it.
waitingforgodo
Level 8
Apr 3, 2022
2
Belief simply means hold information as true.
Information can be held true with out good reason, this is typically called assumption.
Holding information as true does not make it true.
Information could appear to be 100% true but it could be some small portion, o .oooooo1% that makes it not true.
I think of the old movie, "12 angry men", been a while since I have seen it. But, If I remember, plot of the movie is 12 jurors deciding if a boy is guilty.
The theme seems to give a lot of evidence that would seem to point that the boy was guilty. However, after 12 angry men deliberate I think he was found not guilty.
So, a point of holding belief, or holding something true, is to do it only so long as it holds true.
If a so called belief is known to be false, but purported or held as true, is it really a belief?
Word
Level 8
Apr 3, 2022
2
The question is "known to be false" by whom? If I honestly do not know or remember who won the Super Bowl 14 months ago (which I honestly do not remember), but believe it was, say, the Colts, you may know that to be false, but it would still be a belief I hold. If, however, I looked it up (which I haven't) and found it was actually the Bills, but continued to state I believed it was the Colts, that wouldn't be a belief I actually held. That would be a false statement of belief, which is not at all the same thing. I can make the claim right now that I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but that doesn't mean I actually hold the belief that Jesus Christ was divine, because that is not something I can choose [no belief is].
So in actuality, no one can continue to hold a belief that they know no longer holds true, but you will have people claiming they do all the time. So to answer your final question, if it is known to be false by the person making the statement, no, it is not a belief, it is a lie.
Word:
@JeffMurray psychology of eye withness studies have show that eye witness testimony to something like a bank robbery can give for eye witnesses having conflicting accounts of the bank robbery. One witness can say robber had a blue shirt, another say a green shirt. Bank camera was black and white recording, but recorded robbery in progress.
The mistaken information is wrong information but not specifically intended as a lie. The mistaken shirt color does not change the fact the bank was robbed.
@Word You're not saying anything I disagree with or anything that challenges my comment. Basically, I'm confused as to the intent of this reply.
Word:
@JeffMurray yes, just further information. There was some else I did have in mind but got distracted and sent what I had typed and cannot recall my exact conclusion at this point.
@Word Been there my man. Happens to all of us.
We Atheists believe all kinds of things, but more often our beliefs are couched in some sort of proof even if that proof is not entirely "scientific". For example, I have a belief that my kitties love me. Now I have not tortured them with tests to prove their affections. Instead, I observe the way they come running to see me when I come home, the way they will compete for my attention and the way Elvira will get cranky if she is beaten out by Tiger-tiger. I also believe that Surf Instrumentals are the single most awesome music when on a road trip. Also, I have definite beliefs on the nature of Reality and Matter, which are based of the failures of Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, Branes, multidimensionality. And I hold a belief that our knowledge is dependent on an instinctive perception of the probability of it being correct, and that the probability is never 100%, though it may get close.
Reignmond
Level 7
Apr 3, 2022
1
Very true.
Mmmmmmmm, lots of thinking material above, but can you define "happy world" for Me?
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Apr 3, 2022
1
That’s probably different for a lot of people. Depends on what you have now. For people in Africa it may be having something to eat every day. For those in the US it may be being able to pay your rent every week, for very rich people it may be increasing their riches ten fold.
@Jolanta I am extremely happy to wake up in a world where my scary abusive ex is underground. And "enough" money.
Sometimes I think I should be asking/looking for more, but I Am happy just because of these 2 things.
That's why I asked, I suspect most will be like WTF?
And more power to 'em!
You may define "happy world" however you wish, my own definition is not in any way special. Rossy92 down at the bottom here, gives a really good one. My only point is that you need only create the smallest prerequisite, as a starting point for the rest to follow, in order to address the agument that without god you can have no morallity because god is the only prerequisite for morallity available.
@Fernapple Really? Did some gawd invent The Golden Rule?
I think not........
@AnneWimsey Quite.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. Agnosticism is not having the knowledge any gods exist. Either one is not a belief system. Theism is based on faith, because it lacks objective evidence that any god exist.
xenoview
Level 8
Apr 3, 2022
3
Yes that was my point exactly, though I simply wanted to add that, just because we do not believe in gods, it does not mean we ( always) believe in nothing. And I deliberately included some contradictory ideals like capitalisnm and socialism in the list, to make that point.
Correct with the emphasis on that fact that Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief that something does not exist.
@Alienbeing well & succinctly put! The usually Very long posts on here about some point of theology (how many angels fit on the head of a pin crapola) ending with "can somebody explain this?"drive me Insane!
@AnneWimsey Thank you and I agree completly about long posts.
For most the view of the world is colored by ethnocentrism. I am not referring to being Polish or Japanese, I mean in a closer way, what we are taught by our families, schools, communities, and possibly religion or house of worship. One that has religious belief from the time they are a child thus sees us as having no belief.
MizJ
Level 8
Apr 3, 2022
2
Belief is truth as you know it. You believe in the stability of your relationships, family, friends, co-workers, community etc. What does religion, god, or any make believe entity have to do with truth? To believe is to accept that there is evidence of truth.
Morals, values, and code of conduct evolve within your environment to promote peaceful co-existence.
Betty
Level 8
Apr 3, 2022
1
Brilliant.
How excellent.
@Freeofcancer Thank you.
I'm not on board with the "evidence of truth" part of your definition, especially considering you can have beliefs about things that may happen in the future.
@JeffMurray Can you give me an example?
@Betty I can believe that the Cavs will win their next game. I can cite reasons for why I believe that. There's no way to know it and there's no evidence that that believe is of something true as it hasn't happened yet.
@JeffMurray The belief that they "will win" had to come from previous games that gave you evidence that it was a distinct possibility. Belief is not an absolute otherwise you would have said...I know they will win their next game.
Do you have another example for me?
@Betty Not so. My mom believes that the Cleveland Browns will win the Super Bowl and there's NO reason ANYONE should EVER think that based on prior evidence. I agree belief is not an absolute, but it also does not require "evidence of truth" as you suggested. For a simpler example, what "evidence of truth" is there that the Earth is flat? Yet there are quite a number of people who believe that.
@JeffMurray Your mom has mixed up hope with belief. She is using the word out of context. For those who claim the Earth is flat they are going on the information they accept as truth.
Do you have another?
@Betty Exactly. Something they believe is true. But no evidence of something being actually true is required for a belief.
And no, she didn't mix them up. She hopes they will and believes they will accomplish it. Whereas I hope they will but do not believe they will ever accomplish it.
@JeffMurray Exactly what religion is. Giving people a fantasy claiming it is "Truth" so they will believe.
Belief is truth as "you" know it. Miracles are they evidence of that truth.
@JeffMurray Her belief is based on what?
@Betty That's my whole point, belief doesn't have to be based on anything that you could even detail. To be honest, none of the things people believe they actually know why they believe, they can merely make educated guesses as to why they believe those things, but that's a whole other conversation I don't think either of us want to have.
@JeffMurray Okay. I stand by my comment.
That’s a mouthful…..
Aaron70
Level 8
Apr 3, 2022
2
Yes I can be long winded, I did think of making two posts out of it, but then I thought. Nah, the people either have good concentration spans, or they won't understand it anyway. Of course, if I was smart, then I could probably shorten it to just a couple of lines, but its just dull old me, sorry.
@Buck Thank you. I am always fishing for compliments.
Nothing as a word and this context; is akin to "Cold", 'Silence' or "Dark" it does not indicate an object or a state of being, it is the word used to describe an absence of something else.
Cold is the absence of heat, dark is the absence of light, silence is the absence of sound and
Nothing is the absence of all things.
To say the matter of the universe came from nothing is as nonsensical as saying there is such a thing as this glass of dehydrated water.
'Being' therefore is a necessary state of affairs that simply changes forms and locomotive states within a measurable set of process' we call entropy, time and space
LenHazell53
Level 9
Apr 3, 2022
2
I plead guilty to believing in nothing.
barjoe
Level 9
Apr 3, 2022
2
May I ask? Do you believe you made that statement?
And you are more than welcome, its a free world, well bits of it are, even the USA was until the theists took over . OH no! Not yet of course, that is the bit I wrote and saved for next year.
@Fernapple Theists have not taken over the USA not do they even have that much influence. They are merely loud.
@Alienbeing It is good to hear it, and I hope things will turn arround and they will grow less loud. Though my reply to Barjoe was a bit of a joke, since I alway assume that a lot of what you hear about the dire things happening in the world, are overstated.
@Alienbeing The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
@Betty Perhaps you haven't noticed, they are not getting any grease.
If the universe originated 13.7 billion years ago there was no ' before ' and therefore, no notion of time. It would seem that the universe originated from nothing or no-thing. That makes sense when you consider that all objects exist in space and not something inconceivable as a non spatial place.
Neils Bohr was good friend of Albert Einstein and often they would talk through the night about the nature of time and space. Bohr was awarded a Coat of Arms by the Royal Danish Court for his contribution to physics. Bohr believed in the principle of complementarity, see his Coat of Arms which he designed.
ASTRALMAX
Level 8
Apr 3, 2022
2
Believers and non-believers alike often feel a sense of pride or superiority that stems from their beliefs or foundations for their briefs. And I get the temptation. I often feel it creeping up when I hear someone say something like, "All abortions should be banned no matter the reason" or "Natural disasters are God's way of punishing mankind for their tolerance of homosexuality." But the truth of the matter is that no one can control what or how many things they believe. People can't even control believing two mutually exclusive things simultaneously, which seems mind boggling. We're all slaves to the black box in our minds that determines for us what is plausible or nonsensical, and it would serve mankind well if we all believed that... even though none of us have any choice in the matter.
ChestRockfield
Level 8
Apr 3, 2022
2
@K9Kohle789 They'll probably just say, "God works in mysterious ways, y'all. Do you have anyone you wanna report to get that sweet ten grand?"
At this point, I hope Republicans in ALL states try to take away women's rights so women start voting as a block. They are a majority in this country and could have anything thing they wanted if they worked together.
@JeffMurray in those huge marches on Washington, pre Roe, it was 95% anti-choice women heckling, screaming at us, smearing the entire interiors of all the porta-potties with massive amounts of feces (so that it dripped on my head) and etc.....
@AnneWimsey So there is a really vocal minority, but they only get one vote each. 80% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in some or all circumstances and only 19% think it should be illegal always. Hell, even 48% think there should be zero restrictions on it (myself included). If their overreach turned pro-choice women (and men) into a single-issue voting block, they'd win every single election at every level of government except for maybe a few sporadic districts filled with the worst this country has to offer...
I took the decision about 60 years ago in a Philosophy class that Belief is a dirty word. I set about removing it from my vocabulary, replacing it with other "more appropriate" words in my opinion. For example, I ACCEPT the notion of gravity, even though I cannot explain it. And I THINK electric cars can help save our planet. The only time I've used that BAD word (as well as I can remember) in the past year was to say "I believe I'll have another beer, please."
mischl
Level 8
Apr 3, 2022
4
Oliver Cromwell said: “A main never rises so high and when he knows not whither he is going.” I think that Cromwell’s statement perfectly encapsulates the mind of a scientist who, unlike, many people does not jump to quick conclusions and bears the weight of uncertainty with a cheerful disposition.
Yes you could swap "belief" in my post for, accept, and it would still work just as well. But I was being critical of religious apologetics, and that is the word they like to use.
In reply to the accusation of believing in "nothing", I'd respond that I try to believe in as many true things and as little false things as possible. And in response to both what I actually DO believe in, and where I derive my morality/ethics, I would respond that I'm concerned with that which fosters the best world for myself, my loved ones, and the entire community of the world in the here and now, rather than that which appeases the values of some supposed supernatural being to win favor in some supposed afterlife.
Rossy92
Level 8
Apr 3, 2022
6
That is another very good prerequisite for morals too. Probably better than my examples, so I shall note it down , although I deliberately picked short ones like, “I would prefer to live in a happy world.” because I knew the post would be long winded, and I was trying to keep it as short as possible. Though of course, as always, I failed.
@Fernapple Even my use of "best world" would require some unpacking. But 1 or both of 2 of my favorites, Ingersoll and Paine, made use of the word happiness (of mankind) as the essential goal of their outlooks, and the constitutional framers referenced pursuit of happiness. Some say human flourishing. And personally I like Rawles's concept of Veil of Ignorance in which one designs the best of worlds given a hypothetical situation in which you don't know what deck of cards you'd be dealt at birth, for example gender, race, disability, etc.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.