Re: Did you "Choose to Believe," or "Choose not to believe"?

On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:15:58 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:37:04 -0500, atheist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 May 2008 21:27:04 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>><calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:17:11 -0500, atheist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:26:44 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>>>><calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:19:32 -0700 (PDT), cazayoux@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you imagine the rest of the world revolves around your
>>>>>>> religious beliefs as though they were real?
>>>
>>>That and other explanations were ignored.
>>>
>>>>>>Obviously other beliefs are in the world, evidenced by the existence
>>>>>>of so may beliefs, including atheism.
>>>>>>No need to be so defensive, Chris.
>>>
>>>That was a lie.
>>>
>>>>>Atheism isn't a belief,moron.
>>>
>>>After this had been made clear.
>>>
>>>>>Why don't you learn to read for comprehension instead of lying about
>>>>>people being defensive?
>>>
>>>He didn't answer this.
>>>
>>>>>>It's been my experience that the one hollering in a discussion is
the
>>>>>>least confident in what they are saying.
>>>>>>They don't speak, they yell, as if that make the point better.
>>>>>>Call off the dogs, lower your tone.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now you're amateur-psychologising your own lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm glad to have met people here that explain rather than rant.
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't rant, liar.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, you most certainly did.
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>
>>You were a bit aggressive.
>>It isn't easy being a theist and having your beliefs challenged in the
>>way that some of us do.
>>He or she seemed to be asking honest questions with no intent to
>>proselytize.
>>
<snip>

>Having committed themselves to inventing a position we don't have,
>using over-simplified language and meaning, they have to use the same
>"logic" themselves for Zeus and all the others. Suddenly developing a
>view they never had before.
>
>If we use their restricted vocabulary, meanings and logic it is
>impossible to get our POV through to them.
>
>It's almost Orwellian. When words or meanings disappear it becomes
>impossible to explain concepts that use them. In "1984", "free" meant
>"not costing you anything". The concept of free as in freedom didn't
>exist any more.
>
>This is why I insist on using more exact words and meanings to try to
>get through to them. 

As I'm sure you know, latin is used by those engaged in certain
intellectual disiplines because as a "dead" language it is less open
to corruptions.
If the word means something to one scientist, or a term to one
attorney it means the same to the other.
I once objected to people claiming that religion is a form of insanity
and while I've been forced to alter my position on that to a degree I
do for some reason prefer the term "madness."
It seems to me less "medical" and is used in general to describe
something less than a physical or emotional disorder but instead
describes thinking disorders regarding everything from love to
racisim, to homophobia, as well as many other cir***stances in which
the emotions construct illusions that guide our thoughts and deeds.
Strong believers are in fact suffering from a form of madness.
And I don't mean that disrespectfully.
<We find the same thing in politics to the point that it becomes
difficult to tell the two apart>
But that madness alters their view of the world and disturbs their
thinking to the point that words actually do take on different
meanings than the dictionary definitions and it leaves us trying to
communicate with them in language that means one thing to us and
something else to them.
Many of us can get frustrated by it and sometimes even angry but we
may as well get angry at a five year old who doesn't understand things
that are obvious to most adults.
<And again, I don't mean that disrespectfully>
We have to remember that despite all evidence to the contrary they do
honestly believe they are in possession of absolute knowledge and one
may as well try to take down a mountain with a pick ax as to try and
communicate in logical terms with most of them.
<They even redefine the terms knowledge and evidence so that they mean
exactly the opposite of what they actually mean>
And it might also do us well to remember that there are brilliant
scientists, philosophers and practitioners of other intellectual
disiplines who are also believers, that religious belief is in fact so
seductive that it can ensnare even the most intelligent and reasonable
among us; and the more intelligent the victim the better his or her
arguments are in defending those beliefs.
We are at a disavantage in the discussion because all we have to offer
is the cold, hard and unemotional light of reason and they have
eloquent language and dreams and the promise of beautiful things that
reason cannot provide.
But we can't exorcise their demons by shouting at them in the fa****on
of the priest who believes he can scare them away.
And this one wasn't being rude and imo we make a mistake by believing
that such types are deliberately avoiding a question or deliberately
distorting his answers.
They very often simply don't know any better.
What we are doing by trying to convince them that their beliefs are
false is also an attempt to relieve them of their hope and faith that
in the end it will all be ok.
That in the end they will be reunited with those they love and have
lost and that one day all the suffering that mankind is subjected to
will magically vanish and that they will no longer have anything to
fear.
Why would they want to give that up any more than we would want to
give up our belief that it's all bullocks?

>It's a mistake to say we "don't believe in God" because that gets
>interpreted as "they don't believe in something that exists".  Or
>"believe God doesn't exist" which to them is the same as "they believe
>something supremely im****tant whose existence is obvious, doesn't
>exist". They can't even tell the difference anyway.

Again, sometimes they have to be handled in the same way we would
handle children whose heads are filled with magical beliefs and who
don't know how to reason their way out of them.
They need deprogramming and as anyone in the field of psychology can
attest that can be a very, very difficult thing to do.

>"A stupid man's re****t of what a clever man says can never be 
> accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into 
> something he can understand." 

>   - Bertrand Russell

All too true and all too common.
Except that in the case of religion it isn't stupidy that causes the
irrational beliefs, it's social indoctrination that most often begins
in childhood and is reinforced on a daily basis by a religious culture
that inundates the believer with messages that the belief is true.
And that's a difficult thing to counteract.
In the movie A Beautiful Mind the psychiarist asked what sort of
nightmare would it be to wake up one morning to discover that every
thing that you had always believed and known was false.
And to a great degree we are dealing with the same sort of thing here.
Religion isn't just a religious philosophy with true believers; it's
who and what they are.
It's the sum total of their identities.
And giving up that identity can be a very distressing, deeply
disturbing and difficult thing to do.
And sometimes the world of the madman, however poorly constructed it
may be, makes more sense to him than the real world ever will.

atheist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]