jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (73 posts)

Belief in disbelief

  1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    we've been saying it...but look here, a message from the Rebbe Lubavitcher Schneerson. Really great guy, chassidic, long beard and hat and everything "religionist"

    but he said this to a "nonbeliever" who (take note) BOTHERED to write to him...it's like yes, rather typical of self-proclaimed atheists, who BOTHER to be an atheist.

    http://www.chabad.org/library/article_c … Belief.htm

    "I do not accept your assertion that you do not believe.

    For if you truly had no concept of a Supernal Being Who created the world with purpose, then what is all this outrage of yours against the injustice of life?

    The substance of the universe is not moral, nor are plants and animals. Why should it surprise you that whoever is bigger and more powerful swallows his fellow alive?

    It is only due to an inner conviction in our hearts, shared by every human being, that there is a Judge, that there is right and there is wrong. And so, when we see a wrong, we demand an explanation: Why is this not the way it is supposed to be?

    That itself is belief in G‑d."


    ---

    Knock yourself out!

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What injustice of life? Life cannot be an injustice.
      This only proves HE(the person you mentioned) has no clue about morals.
      It's not a surprise because, usually "survival of the fittest" applies. lol Only ignorance leads the way for those who do take that action.
      Actually, being a judge(which would be judging other people's actions) and right/wrong, are social constructs based on the survival of the human species.
      It's been put in place by others a long time and continues to be in place, in this day and age. It actually doesn't have to be, providing....(answer to this is too long for a forum post, but boils down to five words) self responsibility and self awareness.
      I don't see the connection, but I am sure you'll explain it to me. lol

      1. Druid Dude profile image60
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No clue about morals...only you could step off the Matterhorn and end up at the beach at Malibu. I don't think you could have made less sense if you had been trying to make less. Survival of the fittest. Law of the jungle. Who are you...Tarzan? You should realize that survival of the Smartest doesn't necessarily mean "fittest", and how do you imagine yourself with that impenetrable blindness that you so obviously suffer from. You speak of love, yet you are so superficial, and can't even make consistant statements on your  "favorite" subject, even though we all know that your favorite subject is other people's riduculous beliefs, which only shows you have not a single tolerant bone in your body. Disrespect of others proves you to be be a prejudiced bigot.

        1. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And, your statement proves you are clueless. Nothing new. lol

      2. ceciliabeltran profile image86
        ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        yes, yes...the usual. that is from the writer of a classic chassidic treatise, he is like the pope of the Jews or if they had saints, this would be one big one, like francis of assisi or something. he is very philosophical in his approach. but then you would prefer to attack the clothes, than the wearer.

        it is very funny how an argument is plain, in psychological terms and people weedle their way around it like it did not show its face.

    2. jacharless profile image81
      jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Indeed, it is a belief in Theos, else they would not bother. They would simple ignore it completely as often hailing as myth. Yet, the underlying pulse and compulsion to disbelieve-believe is what keeps them returning to the same point again and again. The nature of these actions is seen in religious practices. Ergo, they have not altogether abandoned the practices they despise/dispute thoroughly. A thoroughness disregards ALL elements of a thing, not selective areas. They have turned to  managing and by some extremes controlling these elements.

      Exemplify this point as addition. an addict continues to go to AA or NA, having broke free of the drug itself, but the effects continue, else they would walk near a pub or see the substance and pay it absolutely no attention -as if it never existed.

      The stuff they once enjoyed now gives cause for disgust. It still does not change the individual, only the vantage point represented.

      They still believe or require a fixation with belief, to justify that new found freedom, still neglecting one important key: they still are addicted to the sensations/side effects of that drug.

      James.

      "Atheists do in fact claim supernatural knowledge; an astute hierarchy of verba sequentur. Self appointed guardians of knowledge, above others, is one of the roots of atheism (also Free Masonry). A superiority based on some empirical knowledge or result of a set of systematic practices (rituals) leading to an assumed god-like status, in fact. Atheism, therefore believes beyond simple semiotics or textually based disambiguation. This makes atheism a far more dangerous branch of theology than the others, as there is no restraint set in place to limit, even subdue the veracity of compulsion...of madness...
      ~j charles s | The Ism : prologue

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
        ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think schneerson is so spot on on many things...hence chabad.

    3. Evolution Guy profile image60
      Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      LOL

      So - anyone who does not believe the garbage is a believer? LOLOL

      Does that mean g-d dunnit? lol

      No wonder you cause so many wars

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
        ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Mark, new name...again?

    4. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      what is it to you to worry about dis-belief. The book you follow states it is your responsibility for your own salvation, not for others. If the story is right, then God will judge this- not you

      stick to your personal relationship with God, that you alone are suposed to be refining.

      as I understand this,  as I read the Book more and more to try to understand it, it is belief from the heart.

      You suposidly refine and simplfy yourself, become humble as you approach God.  That is the only way He, God will know you.

      you preach a moot point.

      You are not God and no authorization is or was given for any one to step in for him, to  save or judge anything or any one what so ever.

      you keep falling back on deeds, but it clearly states it is belief that makes it possible.

    5. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This makes a lot of sense.  I've always wondered about the radical atheists, that seem so mad about the whole thing.  It doesn't make sense to say you don't believe in God and then spend so much time ranting about the subject. If you don't believe or you aren't interested in finding out more on the subject, why bother?

      1. Beelzedad profile image58
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Reading, but not comprehending the posts here? You must be joking. smile

        1. profile image0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not sure why your problem of not being able to comprehend the posts you read is my problem. 

          But, as to your statement. No I'm not joking.  I read what the OP said, and I agree with it.

    6. Titen-Sxull profile image92
      Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The tired old long dead moral argument for the existence of God? Really? The one that's been dead for centuries ever since the Euthyphro dilemma.

      The reason we feel "conviction" is because we're a social animal, we evolved to survive in groups. Anyone who's studied animals and evolution even at a glance knows that human beings are not the only species with emotions and a form of morality. Indeed altruism and group dynamics in social species, along with empathy, form a basis for morality that is solely independent of a God concept. You wouldn't suppose that an animal might give its life for another in the group has some absurd notion of eternal reward or God in mind. If other animals can behave in surprisingly moral ways without a god concept than so can we.

      Not only can morality exist without a God but a malleable non-absolute morality (which is what humans possess) is far BETTER than any divinely commanded morality passed down from absolute authority. Indeed one need look no farther than the Old Testament to see this. Slavery is openly condoned by Yahweh and yet our society eventually realized the damage it was doing to fellow human beings as far more important than what some ancient book said. So our morality improved while "God's" remained in the bronze ages.

      That is precisely why our morality is better than any given by a God, it can improve. There need be no mystical reason for guilt and supposing one doesn't logically lead one to the God conclusion. If for the sake of argument I allow these moral absolutes to exist how does one then leap to the conclusion that they are dependent upon some God character rather than them just existing in much the same way Platonic forms would hypothetically exist. Moral absolutes might just as well be something natural as supernatural and that's presupposing they exist, no one has shown that they truly DO exist.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well reasoned post Titen! smile

      2. ceciliabeltran profile image86
        ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well is it a discussion on the belief in G-d, or a discussion on why people WHO DO NOT BELIEVE bother with the belief at all. See, you can howl there is no god, no god, no god...but have you ever asked why you do this? Why spend your caloric resources thinking up refutations and typing it up and so. why is the nonexistent important to you?

        1. Beelzedad profile image58
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, we understand why you don't understand. smile

  2. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    People with beards can still be idiots when speaking about stuff they have little experience, and no understanding, of.

    1. jacharless profile image81
      jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe so,
      But that same analogy applies to those who assume they have this 'experience', let alone a minute 'understanding' of this 'stuff', you mentioned.

      Just wondering, what exactly is that 'stuff' you are referring to, Skinner?

      James.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I am referring to the fact that as a person who doesn't believe I have a direct experience of the fact that I do not believe.  He can say I am a believer, an alien or an aardvark--but it is all equally ignorant.  The fact that he does not believe in me does not change who I am or cause me to cease to exist.

        1. jacharless profile image81
          jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Okay,
          So explain how you tested, measured and concluded that disbelief. What methods did you undertake, etc. Even more, without using belief itself, how were you able to escape it completely, if you have.

          James.

  3. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    It's a subjective belief.  I observe myself not believing it.  Are you seriously suggesting someone else know what I believe better than I do. I am literally the only person with direct knowledge of the phenomenon as it applies to me.

    1. jacharless profile image81
      jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I am not disputing your experience or the applied knowledge of yourself gained to bring about that phenomenon. I am merely asking you to provide the set of applications used to come to the point of disbelief, apart from the use of belief itself. One can guess a portion was thought, so what thoughts were they and how did you cipher them. What other tools were used apart from thought, etc.

      James.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That seems extremely tangential to my point that a dude who says other people can't be non-believers (because he has never experienced it himself and doesn't understand how that could be) is an idiot.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          missed the point, my dear. he is saying that disbelief is born from a pre-existing belief...that's all he said.

          1. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And he is wrong.  I am a life long atheist.  His 'logic' is loopy and egocentric.

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
              ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              A life long disbeliever? there is no such thing. I have met people who describe themselves as secular...not atheist. they know what they are...secular. when you ask them about religion they say they really aren't interested.

              but atheists...that's different. they go to debates against religious people and bother to like say things like I am a life long disbeliever... I disbelieve all my life. but why are you drawn to what you disbelieve? you believe it, and reject that you do.

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Bull patties Cecilia! This is not about projection or any other fear based self protection, this is about not allowing myth paraded as truth to be peddled on a thread like this for the good of those we care about.

          2. Beelzedad profile image58
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Of course, believers often cannot fathom life without their gods, whether it is themselves or anyone else. smile

            1. profile image0
              Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I think you missed the part where she said the man was responding to an atheist that took the time to write him.  The question is (and this apparently applies to you too) the guy went out of his way to proclaim a disbelief in God.  Why?  It's like if I stood on a street corner declaring a non belief in unicorns.  They don't exist.  OK.  No problem.  If someone claimed they did, I wouldn't take the time to write them and say they didn't. I don't think I'd be dogging unicorn enthusiasts to tell them they were delusional. I wouldn't take it personally.  Why would it matter?

              I know what you are going to say your reasons are, but I'm not sure you are always completely forthcoming.

            2. ceciliabeltran profile image86
              ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              and you are an example of someone fighting his own shadow.

          3. recommend1 profile image73
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And this is not exactly true - if the idea of a god had never been born then atheists could not even begin to exist, without Capitalism - Socialism would not exist.  Not that the things each do and talk about would change it just would not be called what it is.

            This is just a semantics trick.

  4. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    This is mindless babble.

    I don't believe my car is a V6 because I can count 4 spark plugs in a row.

    The workshop manual can say whatever the hell it likes, it is still a 4 cylinder.

    Not believing in an invisible sky fairy works the same way, we have no need to have any belief system to know it is a pile.

    If you tell me my cat is really a dog and sings opera I don't need to have a belief system to tell you you are talking crap.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
      ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      you don't believe in the sky fairy that you used to believe fervently...you still believe it but fear that very belief to control you.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        psych studies are still going a bit slow I see.
        smile
        Let me know how you feel about the psychosis of religion when you finish year 4. smile

  5. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    For those too feeble minded to see why non religionists post in these forums, my answer is simple.

    Like many others here, I am a loving father and grandfather who will never allow this sort of vile filth to be taught to my children as "truth"

       "I will sweep away everything in all your land," says the LORD.  "I will sweep away both people and animals alike. Even the birds of the air and the fish in the sea will die.  I will reduce the wicked to heaps of rubble, along with the rest of humanity," says the LORD.  "I will crush Judah and Jerusalem with my fist and destroy every last trace of their Baal worship.  I will put an end to all the idolatrous priests, so that even the memory of them will disappear.  For they go up to their roofs and bow to the sun, moon, and stars.  They claim to follow the LORD, but then they worship Molech, too.  So now I will destroy them!  And I will destroy those who used to worship me but now no longer do.  They no longer ask for the LORD's guidance or seek my blessings."   (Zephaniah 1:2-6 NLT)

    It doesn't matter in what context it was written, or who it was written to, or when.
    A hate filled psychotic person wrote this nonsense, and that is fact.
    We know what psychosis look like these days.

    1. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I assume my post  brought about the feeble minded statement. I'll be honest, some religionist on the abortion thread raised my blood pressure to the boiling point and I'm posting testily right now.

      But, I still say it is not unreasonable to think that radical non belief implies belief on some level.

      It's one thing to be anti religion, but if someone goes out of their way to proclaim a disbelief in God, then they are putting an inordinate amount of time and energy into it that doesn't add up.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It adds up just fine, and as I recall my statement was general. smile

        I have a beautiful family that includes 6 wonderful girls, and 4 boys, sons daughters and grandchildren.

        I will do all I can to protect them from hate filled doctrine, and all I can to prevent people from lying, wiggling out from under and claiming superiority, or making judgements of them and undermining their confidence.
        I can fill these threads every day for years with words of hate and loathsome inhuman quotes from the bible and quoran.

        Here is the elephant in the closet.

        The words in the two books are psychotic.
        Regardless of who or what said them, to whom and in what context is totally irrelevant. It is there, it can't be ignored, it's like wading knee deep in threats and neurotic behaviour that would result in the author being fitted with a double breaster in any civilised society today.

        1. profile image0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          We must all do what we think is right. But, just so you know. My statement was not general. It was specific in its scope. And it had nothing to do with anti religion. I'm anti religious myself.

          As to the question of the existence or nature of God? Non belief would equate to disinterest.

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You avoided addressing the elephant. smile
            Who wrote or inspired to write the psychopathic scriptures, and why would anyone listen to a psychopath?

            1. profile image0
              Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              What elephant? The Bible? Men wrote the Bible. It's the cosmology of the Hebrews; how they saw their place in the universe, in my opinion.

              I think I know why people listen to the New Testament. The old? You got me.

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                OK, I'm pretty disgusted with your walk around.
                Nothing more to add.
                Read all the book. It is not as easy to ignore the OT with your NT when you have studied both.

                1. profile image0
                  Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I have no idea what you're talking about, but that appears to be your MO. Emotionally attached to religion. It's just.a book. Get over it.

                  1. earnestshub profile image88
                    earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I'll spell it out for you then.

                    The bible and quoran are jointly the source of most religious belief including yours.

                    From this, three types of believers emerge.

                    Those who say only the new testament is a valid source for their beliefs, and deny the early laws except when they want to threaten with them.

                    Those who say the NT is all lies to avoid the judgement of the OT and make threats from the OT.

                    Those who say the book is one smooth transition from the OT to the new.

                    All of them choose to ignore the reality that psychotic people write psychotic text. Normal psychology does not threaten to kill, maim, set on fire, deny life to anyone, ever.

                    Your jesus is supposed to be at best the son of a psychopathic entity who is cruel beyond belief and an unredeemable sociopath to boot.

  6. jacharless profile image81
    jacharlessposted 5 years ago

    ...it is important to them because they still believe --in some form or another, be it the concept, the doctrine or the experiences of either. The excuses used to fend off those thoughts or feelings is heartily displayed as anti-devotion, anger, mockery, pity or inclusive use of the former doctrines texts, by their interpretation -aka as an antithesis.

    Addiction is a tough thing to get up all together, unless a lobotomy is performed to purge out those thoughts or the thoughts are thoroughly replaced with understanding, rather than assumption.

    Matter of fact, nearly all unbelief, non-belief or disbelief in a thing -especially theistic things- is not based on practical, substantial or irrefutable evidence, but rather supposition, indignation and cowardice.

    That is a mutated form of the same theos.
    It is funny because most equation views rant about the absence of proof does not deny the existence of something; only that the observation, based on whatever parameters were applied, was not adequate in its results to provide proof or clear evidence leading to further testing. They cannot prove Creator does not exist, through their reasoning or methods of testing/applications. So to save face, ignore the fact they have no proof to the contrary. Addiction 101 calls that denial. (ex: "I don't have a problem not believing; they have the problem because they believe" --which is highly irrational actually.)

    Short and Sweet, they bother because it bothers them they failed to prove or disprove what they hoped to gain from the thoes itself.

    James.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
      ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      absolutely. Why bother? I don't bother with wrestling, no opinion, do watch it, don't disapprove of it...nothing.

      Hi james, how is the "book thing"? do you know my controversial talk is now viewed 666 times. please tell me that's not a message.

      1. jacharless profile image81
        jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol ooooh, 666. scaaaaaaaaaaaary. NOT!

        book thing goes well.
        1st agent (AEG) turned out to be a Vanity Press.
        2nd author subsidized, no-reach.
        3rd and 4th (Westbow & Crossbooks) had great reach but really low royalty (less than $5 a book) + cost of marketing package (1 to 3k).

        5th is a boutique out of Oregon -InkWater Press. Seems promising. A lot of good reviews. They only take like 5 scripts to print per year. Waiting for the full monte.

        The one I really want, hasn't written back yet. They specialize in new authors for non-fiction how-to/spirituality and are jacked into nearly every main publishing house from Nelson on down.

        big_smile
        James.

        ps, really cannot believe I received 5 positives, so far, on the query's alone.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I am not surprised and actually impressed that you sent five in a row!

          It's creepy, you gotta admit.

 
working