Only two different types of belief

[atheist buddy]

In my opinion there are only two types of beliefs.

Examples of type 1 beliefs
Planet earth is approximately globe shaped, 2+2=4, my mother loves me, Los Angeles is west of Chicago, I have a million dollars in my bank account, humans have 23 chromosome pairs, Napoleon was born on August 15th 1769, Bradd Pitt is married to Angelina Jolie


Examples of type 2 beliefs
Jesus was born of a virgin, Mohammed flew into heaven on the back of a winged white horse, there is an alien space ship hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet which you can teleport to by committing suicide, Apollo causes the sun to rise eveyr morning by carrying it up into the sky on a charriot, the Lock Ness monster exists, Frosty the Snow man occasionally comes to life, Santa delivers gifts from his invisible North Pole factory to millions of homes every Christmas night.

What do all type 1 beliefs have in common? They are all supported by empirical evidence.

What do all type 2 beliefs have in common? They are all NOT supported by empirical evidence, and in many cases contradicted by empirical evidence


If you are religious, which type do your religious beliefs fall into?

If type 1, can you please spell out what your beliefs are, and what the empirical evidence for them is?

If type 2, can you please outline what justification there is for believing your specific type 2 belief and not any other type 2 belief?

If you agree that they are not type 1, but assert that they don't belong in type 2 either, could you please outline what attributes your beliefs have that differentiate them from type 2 beliefs?

[ttruscott]

In my opinion there are only two types of beliefs.

...

What do all type 1 beliefs have in common? They are all supported by empirical evidence.

What do all type 2 beliefs have in common? They are all NOT supported by empirical evidence, and in many cases contradicted by empirical evidence


If you are religious, which type do your religious beliefs fall into?

...

As a religious, I must point out a third type of belief, the kind used by religion and that is a belief in something based upon the unproven hope it is true, usually used in English as faith. At its simplest, it is wishful thinking, at it strongest it is a conviction of truth.

And, if the number of religious people on earth who have a religious faith in an unproven hope means anything, it is a type of belief that should not be discounted.

Peace, Ted

[atheist buddy]

In my opinion there are only two types of beliefs.

...

What do all type 1 beliefs have in common? They are all supported by empirical evidence.

What do all type 2 beliefs have in common? They are all NOT supported by empirical evidence, and in many cases contradicted by empirical evidence


If you are religious, which type do your religious beliefs fall into?

...

As a religious, I must point out a third type of belief, the kind used by religion and that is a belief in something based upon the unproven hope it is true, usually used in English as faith. At its simplest, it is wishful thinking, at it strongest it is a conviction of truth.

And, if the number of religious people on earth who have a religious faith in an unproven hope means anything, it is a type of belief that should not be discounted.

Peace, Ted

Yeah, that falls squarely under the category of belief type 2

[Divine Insight]

As a religious, I must point out a third type of belief, the kind used by religion and that is a belief in something based upon the unproven hope it is true, usually used in English as faith. At its simplest, it is wishful thinking, at it strongest it is a conviction of truth.

And, if the number of religious people on earth who have a religious faith in an unproven hope means anything, it is a type of belief that should not be discounted.

Peace, Ted

I agree with Atheist Buddy that this is still a type 2 belief.

But I also agree with you Ted that this is a belief that should not be discounted on a personal level.

In other words, if you want to believe in your religion for yourself then I don't think anyone should say anything negative about that in terms of what you believe for yourself.

However, if you are going to debate, proselytize, evangelize or in any way try to convince other people that they too should believe like you, then you should be more than prepared to hear them reject it out-of-hand, and you should also be prepared to totally accept that they are right for having no reason to believe like you.

But if you are going to take a position like the Biblical Paul took by proclaiming that these people are "without excuse" for not believing like him. Then you are going to be just as wrong as Paul was. They have more than sufficient rational reasons for dismissing your beliefs without any further consideration of them.

[1213]

Ok, but in the cases where you can clearly see that it's not true, like when it talks about talking donkeys and about the earth freezing in it's rotation, then you don't believe that, right?

I believe that person may have heard donkey talking and I believe sun stopped or planet earth stopped. I can change my mind; if you can show me some evidence that those are not in any case possible. You could first start by proving that earth really rotates. Airy failed, but maybe you could be more successful.

https://www.google.fi/?gws_rd=ssl#q=airy's+failure

Wait, what? How does one book with hundreds of millions of followers "not matter much" while others with hundreds of millions of followers matter more? How can you make such statements?

I don’t appreciate something just because it has many followers.

Well, we can "prove" that 2000 years ago nobody got pregnant without male intervention.

I have not seen any proof for that.

[atheist buddy]

Ok, but in the cases where you can clearly see that it's not true, like when it talks about talking donkeys and about the earth freezing in it's rotation, then you don't believe that, right?

I believe that person may have heard donkey talking and I believe sun stopped or planet earth stopped. I can change my mind; if you can show me some evidence that those are not in any case possible. You could first start by proving that earth really rotates.

Everybody, 1213 just asked me to prove that the earth really rotates! He doubts it!

Obviously, I'm done debating with him, but I need everybody to take a good look at this exchange, because there's a very important lesson to be learned.

This is an example of what religion can do to people. This is the kind of self-destruction of the human mind that it is necessary to undergo, if you're going to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

If anybody asks you "why are you so up in arms about your atheism, why don't you just let believers just live their life as they want", you don't have to bring up the Inquisition or the Salem Witch trials to justify being outspoken about your atheism. You can tell them that you personally talked to people in the 21st century that dispute Einsteinian Relativity, that dispute the earth being globe-shaped, that dispute the earth's very rotation, all in an effort to somehow maintain irrational belief in the bronze age myths they're spasmodically attached to.

This is terrifying. I've never had the chance to witness directly the true horror of religion. Everything I know about it is from history books and from the news. To actually see somebody deny the earth's rotation sends a chill down my spine. How many steps of madness away from this does one have to be, before he believes that nuclear explosions don't actually kill people?

We're screwed. Humanity is screwed.

[Zzyzx]

.

You could first start by proving that earth really rotates.

Everybody, 1213 just asked me to prove that the earth really rotates! He doubts it!

It seems unlikely that anyone with access to technology / computers / public education would ACTUALLY and honestly doubt that the Earth rotates.

Perhaps instead, demanding proof of rotation is just another debate tactic used to obfuscate / smokescreen / derail / and disguise one's failure to present credible argument to support incredible or unbelievable bible tales as though they were literally true. Though asking for proof of rotation doesn't cast favorably upon one's credibility as a knowledgeable debater.

Obviously, I'm done debating with him, but I need everybody to take a good look at this exchange, because there's a very important lesson to be learned.

It can be useful to "debate" against even irrational positions IF one's intent is to present BETTER, more believable positions for readers to compare to any fundamentalist / literalist / fanatical / irrational positions that come up in debate.

This is an example of what religion can do to people.

This thread can be considered by some as a demonstration of major defects and disadvantages of religious teachings / beliefs / indoctrinations

This is the kind of self-destruction of the human mind that it is necessary to undergo, if you're going to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

It has been said that "You must leave reasoning behind" to accept many of the claims and stories of some religions.

This is terrifying. I've never had the chance to witness directly the true horror of religion.

Religion run amok IS terrifying and theocracy is perhaps the worst form of government (as evidenced by Christianity during Dark Ages in Europe and Islam in modern Middle East).

Even modest infusion of religious beliefs into secular affairs and government is objectionable (such as agitation to teach "creationism" as though it was legitimate science)


That said, we still must overcome frustration and incredulity to remain civil and to present reasoned and compelling arguments for readers to consider -- and to avoid violating Forum Rules and Guidelines (or even coming close) -- that isn't necessary.

Of course it is unlikely that reasoning will reach the most fanatical of opponents (of any POV), but converting (or deconverting) opponents should not be a primary objective – and is unlikely to happen any time soon.

[atheist buddy]

.

You could first start by proving that earth really rotates.

Everybody, 1213 just asked me to prove that the earth really rotates! He doubts it!

It seems unlikely that anyone with access to technology / computers / public education would ACTUALLY and honestly doubt that the Earth rotates.

Perhaps instead, demanding proof of rotation is just another debate tactic used to obfuscate / smokescreen / derail / and disguise one's failure to present credible argument to support incredible or unbelievable bible tales as though they were literally true.

Do you honestly think so? How long could oen pretend to not believe in the earth being a globe, or in relativity being false, or in the earth not rotating, before getting tired of it?

There are people on this board who believe that donkeys can talk. Why is it surprising if they also believe the earth doesn't rotate?

I don't know zz, in my opinion he truly doesn't believe the earth rotates at all.

Obviously, I'm done debating with him, but I need everybody to take a good look at this exchange, because there's a very important lesson to be learned.

It can be useful to "debate" against even irrational positions IF one's intent is to present BETTER, more believable positions for readers to compare to any fundamentalist / literalist / fanatical / irrational positions that come up in debate.

I hear you, I just prefer to engage in a conversation with the person I'm debating, rather than gear my statements at third parties that may be on the fence and who could benefit from seeing a stark constrast between an atheist prospective and a theist one. That being said, I do understand that you have a good point.

This is an example of what religion can do to people.

This thread can be considered by some as a demonstration of major defects and disadvantages of religious teachings / beliefs / indoctrinations

This is the kind of self-destruction of the human mind that it is necessary to undergo, if you're going to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

It has been said that "You must leave reasoning behind" to accept many of the claims and stories of some religions.

This is terrifying. I've never had the chance to witness directly the true horror of religion.

Religion run amok IS terrifying and theocracy is perhaps the worst form of government (as evidenced by Christianity during Dark Ages in Europe and Islam in modern Middle East).

Even modest infusion of religious beliefs into secular affairs and government is objectionable (such as agitation to teach "creationism" as though it was legitimate science)

Agreed

That said, we still must overcome frustration and incredulity to remain civil and to present reasoned and compelling arguments for readers to consider -- and to avoid violating Forum Rules and Guidelines (or even coming close) -- that isn't necessary.

Do you reckon I should provide reasond and compelling arguments for the earth's rotation? I'm hoping that I didn't violate any forum rules with my last post. Reading it back I realize it's on the edge, maybe. All I was trying to say is that religion causes one to have irrational beliefs about all sorts of things. E.G, the earth's rotation. My attack was not targeting 1213 personally, but targetting religious literalism generally. Because 1213 is clearly a literalist and because my attack on literalism in general was triggered by an example of literalism which he provided on this particular occasion, then my attack also includes him indirectly, but that is an incidental result of my broader statement about a belief system held by millions, not just by 1213.

Of course it is unlikely that reasoning will reach the most fanatical of opponents (of any POV), but converting (or deconverting) opponents should not be a primary objective – and is unlikely to happen any time soon.

I don't know. Converting or deconverting me would take all of 5 minutes. All it takes is the presentation of evidence.

[Divine Insight]

Everybody, 1213 just asked me to prove that the earth really rotates! He doubts it!

Obviously, I'm done debating with him, but I need everybody to take a good look at this exchange, because there's a very important lesson to be learned.

This is an example of what religion can do to people. This is the kind of self-destruction of the human mind that it is necessary to undergo, if you're going to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Well, for whatever its worth, I didn't need to see this particular exchange to recognize the truth of your evaluation.

And I agree with Zzyzx, these kinds of absolutely absurd replies in debates can only be a sign of extreme desperation on the part of someone who at least subconsciously recognizes that their position has no merit at all, so to deal with this they pretend that all knowledge is impossible to prove and thus this places their absurd religion on a level playing field.

That tactic is very old hat and doesn't fly. An argument for religion cannot be won by appealing to the ideal that no knowledge has any merit. That's truly an act of extreme desperation. Basically a gesture of resignation actually.

[janavoss]

In my opinion there are only two types of beliefs.

Examples of type 1 beliefs
Planet earth is approximately globe shaped, 2+2=4, my mother loves me, Los Angeles is west of Chicago, I have a million dollars in my bank account, humans have 23 chromosome pairs, Napoleon was born on August 15th 1769, Bradd Pitt is married to Angelina Jolie


Examples of type 2 beliefs
Jesus was born of a virgin, Mohammed flew into heaven on the back of a winged white horse, there is an alien space ship hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet which you can teleport to by committing suicide, Apollo causes the sun to rise eveyr morning by carrying it up into the sky on a charriot, the Lock Ness monster exists, Frosty the Snow man occasionally comes to life, Santa delivers gifts from his invisible North Pole factory to millions of homes every Christmas night.

What do all type 1 beliefs have in common? They are all supported by empirical evidence.

Yes, however...The only one of your type 1 examples I have a problem with is "my mother loves me." You may have evidence to support your belief, but you can't really know that your mother loves you in the same way that you can know how much money you have in your bank account. Your mother may have other motives for whatever you claim is evidence of her love. A bank account has no motive, it simply is or is not a certain amount.
So, I would say that is a different type of belief: things that you may have good reason to believe are true, but may in fact be false.

What do all type 2 beliefs have in common? They are all NOT supported by empirical evidence, and in many cases contradicted by empirical evidence

Mostly agreed. I have no reason to believe that Santa is real, but I do have a good reason to believe he is not. That is, I know that I am the one who puts presents under the tree, and if I don't do it there are no presents.

We now know more about how the universe operates so we know there is no chariot causing the sun to rise. But I can't say for sure if the Loch Ness monster exists or not. Maybe it does, I don't know. Many people claim there is evidence, so you have to decide for yourself whether the evidence is convincing enough.

So even there, we might have sub-categories of type 2 beliefs: things that we have no evidence for and convincing evidence against, and things that may be supported by some sort of evidence but not enough to be sure, or not convincing to everyone.

If you are religious, which type do your religious beliefs fall into?

If type 1, can you please spell out what your beliefs are, and what the empirical evidence for them is?

If type 2, can you please outline what justification there is for believing your specific type 2 belief and not any other type 2 belief?

If you agree that they are not type 1, but assert that they don't belong in type 2 either, could you please outline what attributes your beliefs have that differentiate them from type 2 beliefs?

"Religious beliefs" is a broad statement, but I think what you are getting at (and I agree) is that religious beliefs fall into type 2.
I personally have enough (non-empirical) evidence to believe that I really did receive the holy spirit when I was baptized.
I do not have any evidence at all to suggest that Frosty can really come to life. I have no reason to believe that is true.
You may see no difference in those two statements, but they are different things as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know if Mohammed flew into heaven. If someone who believes that wants to offer any reasons why they believe it, I would consider it, but until then I don't have any reason to believe it is true. I'm not expecting any empirical evidence for something like that.

I don't know if Jesus was born of a virgin, there is no way to prove that he was. What we know about biology is evidence against it. But again, I'm not expecting empirical evidence for something that would be a supernatural event, if it did happen.

[atheist buddy]

In my opinion there are only two types of beliefs.

Examples of type 1 beliefs
Planet earth is approximately globe shaped, 2+2=4, my mother loves me, Los Angeles is west of Chicago, I have a million dollars in my bank account, humans have 23 chromosome pairs, Napoleon was born on August 15th 1769, Bradd Pitt is married to Angelina Jolie


Examples of type 2 beliefs
Jesus was born of a virgin, Mohammed flew into heaven on the back of a winged white horse, there is an alien space ship hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet which you can teleport to by committing suicide, Apollo causes the sun to rise eveyr morning by carrying it up into the sky on a charriot, the Lock Ness monster exists, Frosty the Snow man occasionally comes to life, Santa delivers gifts from his invisible North Pole factory to millions of homes every Christmas night.

What do all type 1 beliefs have in common? They are all supported by empirical evidence.

Yes, however...The only one of your type 1 examples I have a problem with is "my mother loves me." You may have evidence to support your belief, but you can't really know that your mother loves you in the same way that you can know how much money you have in your bank account. Your mother may have other motives for whatever you claim is evidence of her love. A bank account has no motive, it simply is or is not a certain amount.
So, I would say that is a different type of belief: things that you may have good reason to believe are true, but may in fact be false.

EVERYTHING which we have good reason to believe may in fact be false. Everything.

Your mother may actually not love you, and the bank might make an error and incorrectly indicate the amount of money in your account.

The question is: Is there good empirical reason to believe X? If the answer is yes, then it's type 1, if the answer is no, then it's type 2.

Therefore both "my mother loves me" and "I have $5000 dollars in my checking account" are both type 1, with no additional categories needed.

There was good reason to believe the earth was flat, 10,000 years ago. All available empirical evidence pointed to that. 10,000 years ago, the earth being flat was a type 1 belief. Then as more evidence came in, believing the earth was flat went from being a type 1 to a type 2 belief.

What do all type 2 beliefs have in common? They are all NOT supported by empirical evidence, and in many cases contradicted by empirical evidence

Mostly agreed. I have no reason to believe that Santa is real, but I do have a good reason to believe he is not. That is, I know that I am the one who puts presents under the tree, and if I don't do it there are no presents.

We now know more about how the universe operates so we know there is no chariot causing the sun to rise. But I can't say for sure if the Loch Ness monster exists or not. Maybe it does, I don't know. Many people claim there is evidence, so you have to decide for yourself whether the evidence is convincing enough.

Name one piece of empirical evidence for Loch Ness monster. If you can, it's type 1, if you can't it's type 2. It really is that simple.

So even there, we might have sub-categories of type 2 beliefs: things that we have no evidence for and convincing evidence against, and things that may be supported by some sort of evidence but not enough to be sure, or not convincing to everyone.

Mmm, no. It doesn't matter if it's not convincing to everyone. A user posted on this very thread that he's not convinced that the earth rotates and that Einsteinian Relativity is accurate. There's always going to be some fringe individual that doubts even that which is empirically confirmed - and sometmes he may be right. How many people are convinced doesn't mean anything. If it has empirical support, then it's type 1, if it doesn't, it's type 2.

Please note: There may be empirical support for both one belief and the opposite belief. In that case, both beliefs would be type 1. That is ok. In order to be type 1 oyu don't have to hold a TRUE belief, just one that is supported by empirical evidence.

If you are religious, which type do your religious beliefs fall into?

If type 1, can you please spell out what your beliefs are, and what the empirical evidence for them is?

If type 2, can you please outline what justification there is for believing your specific type 2 belief and not any other type 2 belief?

If you agree that they are not type 1, but assert that they don't belong in type 2 either, could you please outline what attributes your beliefs have that differentiate them from type 2 beliefs?

"Religious beliefs" is a broad statement, but I think what you are getting at (and I agree) is that religious beliefs fall into type 2.
I personally have enough (non-empirical) evidence to believe that I really did receive the holy spirit when I was baptized.

How do you differentiate yourself from someone who, on the basis of non empirical evidence, is convinced that he will teleport to the spaceship hidden behind the Hale-Bopp comet by committing suicide? (here is more info.

You have non-empirical evidence for your beliefs, he has non-empirical evidence for his beliefs.

If it's acceptable to believe in the holy spirit on the basis of non-empirical evidence, can you give me an example of something it's NOT acceptable to believe in on the basis of non-empirical evidence?

I do not have any evidence at all to suggest that Frosty can really come to life. I have no reason to believe that is true.
You may see no difference in those two statements, but they are different things as far as I'm concerned.

Right, but if somebody made the claim that he has non-empirical evidence that Frosty comes to life through the Grand Spirit of Brotherly Love, in what way could you broadly criticize his type of thinking, without also attacking your own belief in the Holy Spirit?

I don't know if Mohammed flew into heaven. If someone who believes that wants to offer any reasons why they believe it, I would consider it

Put the case that the reason to believe this, is very similar to your reason for believing the holy spirit story. Would you then believe in the flying horse as well, since the evidence for it would be just as good as the evidence for the holy spirit?

I don't know if Jesus was born of a virgin, there is no way to prove that he was. What we know about biology is evidence against it. But again, I'm not expecting empirical evidence for something that would be a supernatural event, if it did happen.

Why not? If not with empirical evidence, then how do you distinguish between a supernatural event that happened and a supernatural event that didn't happen?