I think I am now an atheist

[muhammad_isa]

As to changing the financial system. It might work. You really need a working example to claim that you have a solution.

It's there in the Bible and Quran..
Usury is strongly disliked by Almighty God, but the global financial system is based on it, by "pretending" that "small" rates of interest are not usury.

Apparently even 50% rates are so-called "small" and is common on many credit cards today.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

What is your opinion on this? Disbelief fits much better, doesn't it?

Actually no.
In my understanding and that of popular usage,“lack of belief” is fully synonymous with “disbelief”, both indicate that the “belief” was considered and then rejected.
With “uncertainty”, the “belief” was considered and was not rejected, but also not not accepted.
This would be a case of “not taking a stance”.
Which would, in a black and white world, fall on the side of “lack of belief” (equivalent to disbelief), since belief has not yet been achieved.

Dis-
a Latin prefix meaning “apart,” “asunder,” “away,” “utterly,” or having a privative, negative, or reversing force (see de-, un-2);
used freely, especially with these latter senses, as an English formative:
disability; disaffirm; disbar; disbelief; discontent; dishearten; dislike; disown.
Definition of dis | Dictionary.com

dis-
prefix
Definition of dis- (Entry 5 of 5)

1a: do the opposite of: disestablish
b: deprive of (a specified quality, rank, or object) disfranchise
c: exclude or expel from: disbar

2: opposite or absence of: disunion, disaffection

3: not: disagreeable
Definition of DIS

However, since you have made it clear that you do not agree with the standard usage, I will refrain from using the phrase “lack of belief” when I mean “not believing” while in dialogue with you.
_______________________________________

In my youth I was very much a "New Atheist"

A form of anti-theistic secular humanism, typified by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc. that promotes "Enlightenment values", scepticism, science and reason and sees theistic religions as very harmful anachronisms that society would be better off without.

As you stipulated “in my youth”, might I presume you no longer align with this definition?
What of these attributes do you no longer align with?
How has your position changed?
________________________________________

the category of weak atheists includes babies and those unaware of gods so they can be different. I don't think unawareness of gods is the same as disbelief.

Here, I would agree with you.
While technically (in a black and white world) babies or persons ignorant of the concept of god/s
obviously would not hold a belief and would therefore not believe in god/s, I would not categorize them as atheists.
I reserve the label for those who have deliberated on the proposition “god/s exist” and have not been convinced that it is true.
Thus, the characterization of being unaware would not apply.

I see no cognitive difference between someone saying "I disbelieve in the existence of gods" or "I believe gods don't exist" though.

Would you agree that for a belief to be a rational one, it must have a reasonable justification?
Regardless of whether it’s held privately or espoused publicly?

So some "weak atheists" are no different from "strong atheists".

Here we are talking about the use of the terms in general.
Depending on the precise proposition (usually pertaining to a specified god), I would take a “strong atheist” position if I can reasonably falsify that the specific god in question exists.

However, in the general use of the term, since I can not reasonably falsify all gods, but have not been convinced by sufficient evidence that gods exist, I take the “weak atheist” position in order to remain rational.

When one takes the position (stance) of believing that “no gods exist”, they must have a reasonable justification in order for that belief to be rational.
Without that reasonable justification (i.e. burden of proof) that belief and therefore their position (stance) is irrational.
In order to show reasonable justification it would be necessary to prove (present sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to judge it as most probable) that “no gods exist”.
In order to prove (present sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to judge it as most probable),
“no gods exist” (a negative) it would be necessary to prove that negative (present sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to judge it as most probable).
Since one can not prove a negative, the position (stance) absent reasonable justification would be considered irrational.

When one takes the position (stance) of NOT believing that gods exist, because they have not been presented with a reasonable justification to adopt that belief, their position (stance) is rational.

In other words:
The position (stance) “I believe no gods exist” requires a burden of proof, without which, it is irrational.

The position (stance) “I do not believe gods exist” is rational.

I consider the difference between rational and irrational to be a cognitive difference.
Do you not?

Can you prove (present sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to judge it as most probable) that no gods exist?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

..but you are too smart to "fall for it" .
I would rather stay in my "ignorance" thanks..

This is very telling.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You do not live in the UK..
It has a reputation for drunken behaviour..
You would rather have your OWN laws, which is more or less what I said.

We too have drunks, but generally only among the poor people.And they are generally not atheists.
Yeah, we craft our own laws which are generally not anti-social.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's there in the Bible and Quran..
Usury is strongly disliked by Almighty God, but the global financial system is based on it, by "pretending" that "small" rates of interest are not usury.

Apparently even 50% rates are so-called "small" and is common on many credit cards today.

We were not talking about interest rates. We were talking about inheritance laws. The Jewish and Muslim laws do not match up. That societies have inheritance laws is not evidence for you since just about every society has some sort of inheritance laws.

 

[DNB]

Perhaps they have no need to believe in anything but "themselves"

...must be, since he didn't appear to understand the implications of either my initial statement, or his own rebuttal - man is not searching for comfort or a placebo, but truth rather, and how to abide by it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I still believe reality is a computer simulation though

So….who designed the computer code?

 

[muhammad_isa]

We were not talking about interest rates..

How convenient..

 

[Subduction Zone]

How convenient..

Don't get all snippy because you forgot what we were talking about. You made a false claim about Jews and Muslims following the same laws. You tried to use inheritance as an example. You failed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, then, you still either believe that there is some entity programming that simulation, or you must believe that it popped into existence and programmed itself.

In my view, you might just as well keep believing in God or gods, in that case, since there's no difference in the amount of evidence you can find for either.

-
There is no evidence for what objective reality is as independent of the mind and that is no limited to God or any other non-naturalistic belief, because in the end the belief that the world is natural is also without evidence. So I am an agnostic to what objective reality really is and what we really are.
There are always the option to me at least to admit that I don't know.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..We were talking about inheritance laws..

Speak for yourself.
The conversation has moved on..

As to changing the financial system. It might work. You really need a working example to claim that you have a solution.

 

[YoursTrue]

I agree...some ideas are confusing and/or detrimental. I also believe Christianity as taught by Jesus is a rationally coherent religion while some others are not as rational nor as coherent. Having standing mysteries within this coherence does not translate into being irrational. Most of the time human beings as human beings create our own detriment irrespective of religion and we often make confusion synonymous with ignorance which isn't necessarily the case. One gets confused when one thinks they know for a fact what the case should be but the case seems not to meet their expectations of those facts. Ones confusion may simply be a case of being ignorant of the correct facts.

The history of the world, especially starting with Abraham, shows that the majority believed in gods that the God of Abraham did not approve of, and even moreso, the nation of Israel itself had a big problem worshipping gods that the One called the "True God" did not approve of, known by the prophets.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Speak for yourself.
The conversation has moved on..

I made that comment after you screwed up. You are once again blaming others because you forgot what was being discussed.

It is rather irritating when a person screws up and will not admit it. It shows that one is not discussing in good faith.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I made that comment after you screwed up. You are once again blaming others because you forgot what was being discussed.

It is rather irritating when a person screws up and will not admit it. It shows that one is not discussing in good faith.

Oh, boo hoo.
If you don't wish to speak about interest rates, I'm sure you have your reasons.
..better to criticise me as a deflection?

The post you refer to is #228 .. we are now at #273

Just one verse that shows the intricacy of God's book.

I was answering your criticism that the Quran "merely follows the Bible",
and Muhammad was deluded into thinking he was receiving revelations from God.

Anyhow, I get it .. you don't wish to discuss money

 

[Augustus]

In my understanding and that of popular usage,“lack of belief” is fully synonymous with “disbelief”, both indicate that the “belief” was considered and then rejected.

In popular usage I don't think I've ever seen that phrasing used outside of the definition of atheism for "I don't believe that statement is true". Perhaps it's just my recall, but do you think it is something that is used often?

"He lacks belief that 2 + 2 = 5" sounds wrong in the context of "he doesn't believe it is true".

"He lacks belief in himself" sounds normal because it means "he doesn't have belief"

"A baby lacks belief in god" sounds ok.

"A baby disbelieves in god" is wrong.

Can't say I agree they are fully synonymous, or that "lack of belief" would be equally suitable in the research paper.

Dis-
a Latin prefix meaning “apart,” “asunder,” “away,” “utterly,” or having a privative, negative, or reversing force (see de-, un-2);
used freely, especially with these latter senses, as an English formative:
disability; disaffirm; disbar; disbelief; discontent; dishearten; dislike; disown.
Definition of dis | Dictionary.com

dis-
prefix
Definition of dis- (Entry 5 of 5)

1a: do the opposite of: disestablish
b: deprive of (a specified quality, rank, or object) disfranchise
c: exclude or expel from: disbar

2: opposite or absence of: disunion, disaffection

3: not: disagreeable
Definition of DIS

Imo, this is the problem getting meaning from a dictionary rather than what sounds intuitive, it covers a range of usages that may be true, but they are not necessarily correct in any given context.

However, since you have made it clear that you do not agree with the standard usage, I will refrain from using the phrase “lack of belief” when I mean “not believing” while in dialogue with you.

Use it if you like, I know what you mean which is the only thing that matters, and you won't use it in any other context other than "lack of belief in god" anyway so it makes no difference either way.

As you stipulated “in my youth”, might I presume you no longer align with this definition?
What of these attributes do you no longer align with?
How has your position changed?

I think secular humanism is a godless offshoot of Protestantism (liberal Protestantism -> providential deism -> secular humanism) and no longer believe in the myths that underpin it (especially the progressive teleology). Given all belief systems are underpinned with myths, no point in being anti-theistic, just judge things on their merits: god beliefs are bad when they cause harm and ok when they don't.

I also think they overstate the potential for a rational society. Humans are not collectively rational and never will be and we need to take this into account. SH seems to assume we can fix this, but I think we can only mitigate it to a limited extent.

Basically SH is the Christian/post-Christian optimistic view of human history (the Idea of Progress), mine is the classical tragic view (we dare hubristic, don't really learn from our mistakes and eventually cause our own downfall (history is cyclical).

Would you agree that for a belief to be a rational one, it must have a reasonable justification?
Regardless of whether it’s held privately or espoused publicly?

Yes, but I see both positions being supported by the same evidence.

reserve the label for those who have deliberated on the proposition “god/s exist” and have not been convinced that it is true.

And we perceive the world based on what we think exists and is real. If we have not been sufficiently convinced that something exists, then we believe it doesn't exist until show otherwise.

However, in the general use of the term, since I can not reasonably falsify all gods, but have not been convinced by sufficient evidence that gods exist, I take the “weak atheist” position in order to remain rational.

We don't need to falsify any gods, just judge their existence less probable than their non-existence.

If someone asks "are there any dangerous, invisible, formless predators in your swimming pool?" Then I believe there are none. I don't simply "not believe there are any".

This is because if there were dangerous predators in my pool, I'd expect to see evidence of some kind. As I have swum there many times, and never been attacked, this adds to my reasons. In addition I don't believe any invisible, formless predators exist based on my knowledge of what I perceive as reality.

I can't falsify their presence, and my knowledge of reality may be flawed, but it is still rational to believe there are none. I also don't need to go through every possible predator and reject them one by one. I reject the concept, not the individual manifestations.

There may be many god concepts, but I don't need to tick off every single monotheist view, or every single polytheistic god, or duelistic system. We can see how mythologies emerged, and how they share common features and how they relate to aspects of human cognition and anthropological histories.

Based on this I have evidence to believe they don't exist, even while accepting that I could be wrong. Most beliefs are open to some degree of doubt, that doesn't make them all irrational.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, boo hoo.
If you don't wish to speak about interest rates, I'm sure you have your reasons.
..better to criticise me as a deflection?

The post you refer to is #228 .. we are now at #273

I was answering your criticism that the Quran "merely follows the Bible",
and Muhammad was deluded into thinking he was receiving revelations from God.

Anyhow, I get it .. you don't wish to discuss money

That is only because once you screwed up in a massive way and won't admit it. And why did you quote out of context? Do I seriously have to go back to your error? By the way, I would be happy to discuss money. But there is no point in having a discussion with one that was shown to be wrong and will not admit it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@muhammad_isa in post #221 you claimed that Islam confirms the Judaic laws. I pointed out that that was an error. At best they only follow them. And then you sank you own claims in post #228 where you quoted Islamic inheritance laws that were different from Judaic ones. Now granted, I did say "the only follow them" but you showed that even that was not true.



So does the Quran "confirm Judaic laws". No by your own post it disagrees with them.
Here is 228, though I will not untangle it for you:

"
↑
Islam does not "confirm" the Judaic laws, they merely follow them...
..but why?
Are you saying that Muhammad made it all up in his subconcious mind, and that the revelations were some kind of concoction of his own mind?

11. God chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half. And to his parents a sixth of the inheritance, if he have a son; and if he have no son and his parents are his heirs, then to his mother appertaineth the third; and if he have brethren, then to his mother appertaineth the sixth, after any legacy he may have bequeathed, or debt (hath been paid). Your parents or your children: Ye know not which of them is nearer unto you in usefulness. It is an injunction from God. Lo! God is Knower, Wise.
-Quran Women-

Just one verse that shows the intricacy of God's book.
I have no doubt that it is from God, and not the product of a man in the desert, with no formal education, relatively socially isolated.

↑
Most know how myths and legends start.
..and how would that be, exactly?"

 

[muhammad_isa]

That is only because once you screwed up in a massive way and won't admit it. And why did you quote out of context? Do I seriously have to go back to your error? By the way, I would be happy to discuss money. But there is no point in having a discussion with one that was shown to be wrong and will not admit it.

Balderdash.
You need to realise that the subject can change according to replies.
In any case, I don't believe you.
You are just making a fuss about nothing.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..does the Quran "confirm Judaic laws". No by your own post it disagrees with them.

I am/was not saying that Islamic law and Jewish law are completely identical, but there is much similarity.

eg. There is no god but Hashem / Allah worthy of worship .. pork is unlawful .. blood is unlawful .. usury is unlawful .. murder is unlawful etc.

..so as far as I'm concerned, the One God of Abraham, the Creator and Maintainer of the universe has provided mankind with guidance.
Some people acknowledge it, and some people don't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the middle ages in Christian Europe, usury was outlawed.
This changed with the Protestant/Catholic split, when Amsterdam became the centre of banking and commerce.
[ Dutch East India Company etc.]

..which was transferred to London after William of Orange invaded England.

As we all know, Great Britain became an industrial nation and vast Empire.
This was the start of man-made climate change.
I see that usury is behind it all.
Almighty God has warned us, but most of us are oblivious, and wander blindly on in our contumacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Balderdash.
You need to realise that the subject can change according to replies.
In any case, I don't believe you.
You are just making a fuss about nothing.
No surprise there.

I want to have a proper discussion and right now it looks like we cannot have one.