The atheist refuses to believe in the existence of anything that cannot be proven in a controlled situation. The theist is willing to believe in the existence of a purposeful force which we cannot detect at will because either "it feels right to him" or he attributes "purposefulness" in events having extremely low probability of occurrence.
Is that the generalized distinction this thread should discuss?
No.
Atheism and theism were just two (obvious) examples of world views. They are not specifically the context of the thread. Consider any frame of mind one could be inculcated into.
There are children born into what is an essentially terrorist mind set, religion perverted to monstrous ends (sort of like a modern inquisition).
There are children born into poverty, some with little hope of ever escaping it. In the US, our "war on poverty" and our welfare system has created the opposite of what it was designed to do.
Why do we still have the KKK and Skinhead Nazis?
And we can go from broad categories to more narrow, individualized.
I'm asking what identity is. Why do we accept the boundaries of self handed to us? Why don't we see that our own neural structure, the boundary that forms self is actually a form of prison? We see it in others. We sit and think and say to ourselves, I just don't get where they're coming from? How can they not see the truth? Isn't it obvious there is no God? Isn't it obvious that God exists? (Again, just examples). But we rarely ask ourselves if what we think to be true is really true. How can I possibly be wrong?
I'm asking why can't we see that our views are subjective, created by our own neural structure and may have very little relationship with reality. Why do we think our own view is special? Why can't we see in ourselves what we see in others?
Go back and read the OP in this context. See. Our viewpoint will not even let us be objective about a simple post.
sdp
Now it is perfectly true that the Cogito allows me to reach being, and even, in a sense, an absolute being, since it is not because I think that I am but because I am that I think. However, the heart of the problem remains untouched: namely, if the being I grasp is only through and in my thought, how by this means shall I ever succeed in grasping a being which is anything other than that of thought? Etienne Gilson
The atheist refuses to believe in the existence of anything that cannot be proven in a controlled situation. The theist is willing to believe in the existence of a purposeful force which we cannot detect at will because either "it feels right to him" or he attributes "purposefulness" in events having extremely low probability of occurrence.
Is that the generalized distinction this thread should discuss?
Now it is perfectly true that the Cogito allows me to reach being, and even, in a sense, an absolute being, since it is not because I think that I am but because I am that I think. However, the heart of the problem remains untouched: namely, if the being I grasp is only through and in my thought, how by this means shall I ever succeed in grasping a being which is anything other than that of thought? Etienne Gilson
A short visit to the Atheist Board reveals a better clarification of the atheist vs theist position. The atheist refuses to believe in the existence of anything that cannot be proven in a controlled situation. The theist is willing to believe in the existence of a purposeful force which we cannot detect at will because either "it feels right to him" or he attributes "purposefulness" in events having extremely low probability of occurrence.
Indeed, the world is divided into two kinds of people - those who think the world is divided into two kinds of people, and those who don't.
So to have a useful discussion, we'd first need to define our types.
Should theism be represented by Einsteinian deism? The theistic / monastic aspects of Buddhism? Wojtyła preaching no condoms in AIDS-struck Africa? Should we chose a guru from the Hindus or Sikhs or Jains? Shall we call on Spong? Or Robertson? Perhaps someone who worships his or her ancestors? Is it time to bring some of the native religions of Africa, Asia, the Americas and Australia to the fore? What about those folk in the death-through-exorcism thread?
Atheism is more problematic - it's any worldview you like that doesn't believe in gods. Shall we have Dawkins and be aggressive to theism? Is an atheist Buddhist better? A Humanist? Or a lottery to choose someone else?
However, what is difficult to see is that our particular worldview is in effect, polarizing, and allows in only that which corresponds to its construction. It is actually very difficult to be objective. Now, in some cases, theists become atheists and atheists become theists, but generally, not.
What think ye? Can you consider that you (A or T) can't really be objective, that your neural structure will not let you be objective? And, is there a means to "deconstruct" our (unconscious) bias, and see the world as it is in actuality?
stardustpilgrim
Interesting observation. However the major difference between the theist and the atheist is the concept of faith or acceptance of that which cannot be observed in any ordinary manner. While our worldviews are built from the input of our social support group, the theistic support group includes the faith concept which acts as a Morton’s demon to filter out that which conflicts with the faith teachings. Confirmation bias of course exists in all world views, but it is institutionalized in the theistic worldview with the concept of faith or belief. Faith is intrinsic in the teachings about God and any ancillary supporting entities, which cannot be questioned in any normal way, but must be accepted as taught as true. Therefore the confirmation bias cannot even be examined in a realistic way as long as the God is accepted as taught.
J'Carlin If the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.
I've brought up what I will share on several other threads over the years, with no response. Thought I would start a specific thread.
Everyone here has a worldview, acts and posts from it, and it changes little from other people responding to and criticizing it. Let's call two basic world views, theistic and atheistic. Now, how did one arrive at their worldview? It came mainly from exterior influences. Let's say our neural structure is formed from "legos" of either the T variety or the A variety. Now, these legos (memes) enter and in some (unconscious?) manner, connect together and form either a T worldview or an A worldview. We believe that we, from either POV, can be objective concerning examination of evidence given by various sources, religious, cultural and scientific.
However, what is difficult to see is that our particular worldview is in effect, polarizing, and allows in only that which corresponds to its construction. It is actually very difficult to be objective. Now, in some cases, theists become atheists and atheists become theists, but generally, not.
What think ye? Can you consider that you (A or T) can't really be objective, that your neural structure will not let you be objective? And, is there a means to "deconstruct" our (unconscious) bias, and see the world as it is in actuality?
stardustpilgrim
Now it is perfectly true that the Cogito allows me to reach being, and even, in a sense, an absolute being, since it is not because I think that I am but because I am that I think. However, the heart of the problem remains untouched: namely, if the being I grasp is only through and in my thought, how by this means shall I ever succeed in grasping a being which is anything other than that of thought? Etienne Gilson
