Is belief a choice? (agnostic, gay, people, statistics)

[TRANSPONDER]

You will have to engage with other atheists about their biases. I can't speak for them and don't propose to go into bat for them. The only thing we have in common is no belief in any gods, and there is good reason not to believe. An atheist may disbelieve for many reasons, good or bad. That doesn't affect the valid rationale for atheism, nor does it do a thing to validate god -belief.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Hi Transponder,
We agree in many ways.
But in my experience in conversing with countless Atheists, they are very biased and hypocritically slam on other peoples' biases.
Ie:
1) According to US health reports gathered by the US CDC, it is a statistical FACT that those who engage in homosexual practices contract and spread HIV/AIDS much more than heterosexuals do. They also have more cases of STDs and mental illness, besides risks of anal sex (anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture & bacterial infection). Yet, most Atheists not only ignore these inconvenient facts, but their biases also cause them to dispute these facts.
If Atheists are so unbiased, why the extreme denial of and fight against reality?

2) According to human development anatomy research, it is a fact that children (developing humans) have all body systems intact by 8 weeks gestation, so by the time abortion murder is committed, he/she can FEEL his/her body being ripped apart. Atheists are so often the first to volunteer others to be killed in such an inhumane way.

Ugly truths that most Atheists (& even some of other tribes) refuse to acknowledge because of their biases.

Association is not cause and does not speak for why things are as they are. For example if a group has more mental illness than another group, the first thing to ask is not why being a part of that group causes mental illness. That's entirely the wrong question, to the point of non-sequitur. Rather, one would ask why that groups suffers more from that problem than others and what can be done about it. Possible reasons include greater resistance to self actualization because of societal attitudes, greater poverty and its knock on effects, and any number of other things. What are that group's access to mental health care specifically or health insurance generally? What is that group's access to educational opportunities? Counseling services of appropriate quality and expertise? Adequate nutrition? How does their access compare to other groups? What kind of bullying does or does not happen relative to other groups, particularly in vulnerable young people? These are the sorts of questions to be asking because these are the kinds of things that actually have been demonstrated to influence mental health.

If questions were being asked about the mental health of heterosexual Baptists or wealthy whites or businesspeople, somehow I suspect the assumptions and tone of the discussion would be completely different.

The truth is, we are atheists because we are rationalists and empiricists, and we follow the evidence where it leads. We also understand what evidence is, where burdens of proof lie, and what the common human biases and perceptual faults are that need to be guarded against. In general we don't start from a preconception and then cherry pick evidence to support what's already been decided is true. We want to actually know what IS true.

Perhaps more importantly, we are free to accept whatever conclusions come out of that process -- or at least far, far freer than someone with an arbitrary set of rigid strictures on where they can go in their thinking.

[Arach Angle]

no you're not.

Fundyz, or recovering exfundy, brain state is forced, by that brain state, to reject or accept things that justify itself. we see it all the time.

"free-er" brains dont need to make up personal meaning to justify a stance, just the observations are needed. The length and convoluted nature of many posts are proof of that claim. Dude dying, waking up, and flying away is another example. Literally needing "no historical" jesus is another example. both deny observations and intent.

[SuperSoul]

Mordant,
I notice how you ignored facts of STDS, AIDS/HIV and anal sex risks of homosexuals.
Are you going to try to blame supposed "homophobia" for homosexuals sleeping around, as many Atheists do? And are you also going to misplace blame for the anus being anatomically designed as an "exit only"?

And if mental illness is somehow because of supposed "discrimination" then why are other minorities not suffering from mental illness in such high statistics?

[SuperSoul]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

You will have to engage with other atheists about their biases. I can't speak for them and don't propose to go into bat for them. The only thing we have in common is no belief in any gods, and there is good reason not to believe. An atheist may disbelieve for many reasons, good or bad. That doesn't affect the valid rationale for atheism, nor does it do a thing to validate god -belief.

Fair enough, IF you apply the same thing to Theists.
If you put down Theism, specify exactly which interpretation of which doctrine of which religion, because the only common thing they have is a group thought (which Atheism is also).

[mordant]

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Mordant,
I notice how you ignored facts of STDS, AIDS/HIV and anal sex risks of homosexuals.
Are you going to try to blame supposed "homophobia" for homosexuals sleeping around, as many Atheists do? And are you also going to misplace blame for the anus being anatomically designed as an "exit only"?

And if mental illness is somehow because of supposed "discrimination" then why are other minorities not suffering from mental illness in such high statistics?

In brief, as this is becoming totally off topic, not all homosexuals engage in anal sex and not all heterosexuals do not. Heterosexuals contract SDTs and HIV also. As for HIV risk for those homosexuals who DO practice anal sex, I understand that they are roughly 18 times more likely to contract HIV via that route. That doesn't change that what homosexuals do in their sex life is none of my or your business and it is not evidence that their practices are "wrong".

I do not know what you even mean by "homosexuals sleeping around" and what that would have to do with homophobia. Perhaps it is some confused attempt to portray homosexuals as more promiscuous, but then I would have to wonder why you don't approve of gay marriage, which would encourage them to be less so.

If you want to start yet another debate thread on this topic, I invite you to do that, but we should not continue this discussion here, and frankly, I doubt that either of us would say anything that hasn't already been said about it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Fair enough, IF you apply the same thing to Theists.
If you put down Theism, specify exactly which interpretation of which doctrine of which religion, because the only common thing they have is a group thought (which Atheism is also).

That is true to a certain extent. While the 'group thought' is a disbelief in any god -claim, we do have to consider the different kinds of god -claims. That is why I often use the terms 'Sorta-god' and 'Biblegod'. While the god is often considered to be the same god, the 'claim' is very different.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by mordant

In brief, as this is becoming totally off topic, not all homosexuals engage in anal sex and not all heterosexuals do not. Heterosexuals contract SDTs and HIV also. As for HIV risk for those homosexuals who DO practice anal sex, I understand that they are roughly 18 times more likely to contract HIV via that route. That doesn't change that what homosexuals do in their sex life is none of my or your business and it is not evidence that their practices are "wrong".

I do not know what you even mean by "homosexuals sleeping around" and what that would have to do with homophobia. Perhaps it is some confused attempt to portray homosexuals as more promiscuous, but then I would have to wonder why you don't approve of gay marriage, which would encourage them to be less so.

If you want to start yet another debate thread on this topic, I invite you to do that, but we should not continue this discussion here, and frankly, I doubt that either of us would say anything that hasn't already been said about it.

And I have no idea how it relates to belief (in a god, I presume) being a 'choice'. I would note, however, that the same objections have been applied to heterosexuality by the religious. I presume that homosexuality is currently a pet beef of the religious and something of a soft target, because of AIDS. The same response applies: an open and practical approach to containing the problem is the answer, not supressing it and appeals to those involved to stop doing it - which is never going to work.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Belief is not a choice for me. I can not look at an empty box and merely choose to believe it full of money. I can not look at a claim entirely empty of substantiation and simply choose to believe it likely or true.

I do not choose my beliefs, I am COMPELLED to them by substantiation.

Originally Posted by Rafius

Why shouldn't palpably daft ideas be mocked? Why should we celebrate superstition and vast chanting ignorance?

Originally Posted by Skyl3r

Why shouldn't we mock the religious? Because you are not exempt from having ridiculous ideas and acting in daft ways just because you're an atheist. The more you can do to "walk the walk" and avoid blatant hypocrisy, the better.

You are talking past each other. Rafius is espousing the position that daft IDEAS be mocked. Skyl3r is moaning that the PEOPLE who hold them are being mocked.

There is NOTHING wrong with mocking ideas. There is EVERYTHING wrong with mocking the people who hold them.

Respect people, not their ideas.

Originally Posted by Saskia Calico

Maybe you could start with the tangibility of His creation, the air that you breathe, the fact that you have a body made to breathe the air. The "nature" you see around you, and the fact that you are aware of it.

You might want to look up the phrase "begging the question".

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Of course we choose what we want to believe.

YOU might. That does not mean anyone else does, or has to.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Just because you're a "skeptic" doesn't mean you know everything

I have yet to see a single person claim it does. Quite the opposite in fact. Do you make it a habit to correct people generally on positions not ONE person has actually espoused?

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

What's beautiful? What's love?
Those are what some would describe as other words for God.

Yea, which goes to show just how uselessly dilute and labile that word actually is.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Why would someone s--t on their beliefs because they disagree, or can't "prove" them?

Because we as a species move together in "idea space" and our continued survival and the benefit of our species are predicated on making the right moves in that sphere.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Might as well make the stories you tell yourself work FOR you rather than against you. That's your choice.

That certainly explains for your penchant of going around the forum simply inventing false science that supports your positions on many subjects. You are simply making up the stories that work for you.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

God is a symbolic word, to me, which means essentially: LOVE.

We have a workable word for love already. It is "love". I see no utility in muddying the waters linguistically by bringing in other terms for it. Let alone terms with the metaphysical baggage that "god" has.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

To reiterate that belief is a choice... one can choose to feel sorry for oneself or to be more encouraging and not give up.

That is not a choice about what to feel however. That is a choice about what to do with the feelings one has. And choosing ones actions based on inputs is NOT supporting your position that we choose belief.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Essentially, believing in God is believing in self.

Except no, it isn't.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

But in my experience in conversing with countless Atheists, they are very biased and hypocritically slam on other peoples' biases.

I see you offering nothing to support that narrative. I also see no reason to think that atheists, in general, suffer any more or less from human bias than any other group.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

it is a statistical FACT that those who engage in homosexual practices contract and spread HIV/AIDS much more than heterosexuals do.

Except that is not a statistical fact at all. The people who claim it is a statistical fact do so by focusing on very specific sub-groups of homosexuals in general, while ignoring the others, and so they contrive to skew the statistics to fit their narrative. You have done this on MULTIPLE threads across the forum. JeffBase40 is also egregiously guilty of it.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

They also have more cases of STDs and mental illness

That is also one of those "facts" you simply invent out of nothing. However what issues of mental illness do exist in the homosexual community usually are not based in their homosexuality, but in the treatment they receive at the hands of bigoted heterosexuals and theists.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

besides risks of anal sex

Homosexuality != Anal Sex. Anal Sex != Homosexuality. You have been schooled on this any number of times before.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Yet, most Atheists not only ignore these inconvenient facts

There is no "facts" there to ignore. You have simply invented them. And what facts that DO exist on the subject are not ignored by atheists. They are simply not wantonly misused and abused to fit a narrative like YOU do.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

but their biases also cause them to dispute these facts.

I will certainly dispute facts you have simply made up off the top of your head. Because yes I am biased. I am biased towards truth over lies.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

If Atheists are so unbiased

Take it up with someone who has claimed them to be unbiased.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

why the extreme denial of and fight against reality?

You have shown no such denial or fight. What they deny and fight is the rubbish you simply make up, or the distortion of statistics and facts that you engage in with such fetid desperation.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

2) According to human development anatomy research, it is a fact that children (developing humans) have all body systems intact by 8 weeks gestation, so by the time abortion murder is committed, he/she can FEEL his/her body being ripped apart.

None of that is "fact" at all. You have wholly, completely, totally and entirely just made that up.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

I notice how you ignored facts of STDS, AIDS/HIV and anal sex risks of homosexuals.

No one is ignoring facts. They are correcting YOUR distortion of them.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

Yeah I knew it's gonna agitate you a little.

I can find NO agitation in his post whatsoever. Is this another of those things you chose to believe in despite a lack of any evidence that it is there?

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

Let's take a more simple one.

Another case of not knowing the difference between "simple" and "simplistic". Your following example is the latter, not the former.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

You have never seen or touched your brain. You don't have a tangible evidence that you have a brain.

That is not belief or faith, but knowledge. A knowledge of the biological workings of our species, and the scientific pre-requisites to be a functional and thinking adult human being. It is this KNOWLEDGE that leads one to the conclusions, without cutting ones head open, that they possess brains.

Your examples really are not working to establish any kind of point that I can discern here.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

I think the VERY FUNDAMENTAL AND BASIC CONCEPT that Atheists lack to understand when they question the theists is that faith is NOT based on evidence.

Oh no we very much understand that thanks. We very clearly understand that the claim there is a god is one that is made ENTIRELY devoid of any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that grounds the claim in even a modicum of credence.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

Absense of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

It can be a very strong indicator however.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

Are you saying you have a proof that God does not exist?

Curious how atheists generally ask for EVIDENCE that there is a god, but the counter is that you want PROOF there is not. An interesting difference of standards there where we give the theist much more lee way and room.

I never ask for PROOF that there is a god. I ask for ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that lends any credence at all to the claims there is one. Yet the theists and deists can not even offer anything there.

But I do not seek PROOF there is a god. Nor do I seek PROOF there is no god. But certainly with many claims there is evidence we can look to.

For example, take the claim there is an after life. No one can prove there is or is not one. But we CAN say there is currently NO evidence at all upon which to base an expectancy there is one. And there is much evidence we CAN base an expectancy that there is not.

So put "proof" aside and realize we can not prove anything in this regard, but we CAN follow the evidence where it points.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

What do you think will constitute as an "evidence" of God?

It is not up to us to find or define your evidence for you. Not least because it risks a close mind. If I presume to know what your evidence might or must be, before you present it, then I risk missing or rejecting the ACTUAL evidence when it arrives. So I remain ENTIRELY open to considering any and all evidence you move to present. Which thus far is: None.

However I can help you by defining what I think evidence it self is. It is a process, not a thing. And a simple one as follows:

1) Define very clearly what you are claiming.
2) Define very clearly what things you think support that claims.
3) Explain very clearly how the things listed in 2 support the claim made in 1.

Unfortunately the theist version of this process, in my experience, is more like:

1) Contrive to be acutely vague as to what the claim is.
2) List some stuff.
3) Run.

Saskia Calico above was a great example of this:

1) Very vague about what it is this "god" is or what he is claiming.
2) Listed stuff like "air" "breathing" "bodies" "Creation".
3) Ran.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

just tell me in a simple, short and precise manner as to "what will you accept as a proof of God"?

Once again: I am open to a robust and open consideration of anything and everything you move to present as evidence for a god. I am interested to know ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you think you have available that lends credence to the idea there is one.

What that will be however is up to you, not us.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

Say I told you that there is a tree behind this wall and you asked for a proof.

Well if you wanted to start from absolute foundations, you would begin by establishing the existence of trees in general. That would begin to lend credence to your claim that an example of "tree" currently resides behind the wall.

While the existence of trees is not evidence there IS one behind your wall, it would certainly be a move towards taking your claim credibly.

So there really is no analogy to be drawn between the claim there is a god, and the claim a tree stands behind a wall.

You simply have not EVER offered a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to lend credibility to the idea that a non-human intelligent and intentional agency exists, and is responsible for the creation and/or maintenance of our universe. And I strongly suspect that is because you do not have a shred TO offer.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

So what we see here? A person may not change it's course EVEN if a satisfactory evidence is provided to them.

Another poor analogy because you are comparing a situation on one hand where people have no reason to think X is true.... and a situation in another hand where people accept X is true, but do not alter their choices in light of that new knowledge.

There is no analogy to be drawn there between knowledge, and implementation of that knowledge. This thread is about belief in god, not what one chooses to do with that belief when they have it.