Shouldnt they be encouraged to not to believe in things that aren’t true? That seems like something we teach children in other areas to me, like when they learn biology we don’t present creationism as one of a bunch of explanations they can choose to believe or not believe right? (The obvious religion parallel aside, i didnt mean to make that a confusing analogy its just the first thing that came to mind. The structure is the same.)
I mean, would you say the same thing about teaching a kid that they get to choose for themselves whether Harry Potter magic is real or not? Religion is just older, more ingrained and we are used to it, but its no less baseless than Harry Potter magic. Not one, tiny bit. — DingoJones

You could tell a kid that there is a dimension that Harry Potter magic exists but not our dimension. Then you could make it plain that it is completely up to the kid whether to believe this or not. It would have no bearing on the practical matters of life. Kind of like the multiverse.

Of course that’s a reason many theists have given. There are also theists who experience things that atheists don’t seem to or atheists would dismiss these experiences as mistaking God for something going on in the brain as a kind of delusion, hallucination, or something. Just be aware that defending your beliefs sounds like preaching to atheists even when it’s not.

Sure, but do you feel comfortable throwing away your vote? Suppose only two parties have a real chance of winning but there are four parties to choose from. One of the parties that could win want to feed you broccoli every meal and you don’t like broccoli. The other party that could win wants to make leisure time illegal, and you love leisure time. You choose to vote for a third party that wants to give everyone $1 million, but they will never win. See the problem?

Yes, absolutely. I hope that l don't sound like l am preaching — Wittgenstein

No, you don’t sound like you’re preaching. At least not to me. But atheists often see any defense as a form of preaching. They tend not to see that distinction.

The problems with atheist is that they never have met a real mystic. By mystic l mean someone who has devoted his whole life searching for God and gone through the ascetism and all hardships of life. I think there is a whole different kind of experience waiting for us if we manage to completely disconnect from the world and have no other desire but to know God. I have met countless people like that and they have always said the same thing ; reason can never lead you to know God . — Wittgenstein

That’s fine. But you can’t preach to someone who has no interest, right?

What is the child being told about all these religions? That they are mythology, or that they are true? — DingoJones

As long as the child is told that concerning these matters it is completely up to them to believe or disbelieve whatever they want, and that they should give the same consideration to others, then it is not a problem.

What about the religious indoctrination of children? Would you see that as fundamentalism? — DingoJones

I think giving a child exposure to many different religions is not a problem. Indoctrination in a particular religion is a problem. It promotes intolerance.

Yes, but given that we really only have a dichotomous choice, is one side clearly worse than the other in your view?

Ok, and if theism isnt doing that then you dont think its a problem? Also, for clarity could you elaborate on how you are using the term “coerced”? — DingoJones

Theism in and of itself is innocuous. Evangelism on metaphysical issues is what I have in mind as coercion. Also, in the Theistic middle eastern countries there is threat of violence. This clearly is much worse.

What is being informed? It's just a compulsive addiction to a 24-hour news cycle. A person's capacity to witness a slow train wreck does not correlate to their capacity to change the world for the better. I live in PA and didn't vote in protest of the cult behavior exhibited by the Democratic Party leading up to the election. I would have voted for Hilary or Sanders given the chance to. I partially lost the election for the Democratic Party. This places me in a unique position. I am now who the Democratic Party panders to. I have decided to exploit this. I am going to vote party line in the local elections of 2019, but will vote for the Democratic Socialists of America's candidate in 2020. If they don't put forth a candidate, then I will vote Green. I already registered Green in protest of that the Democratic Party routinely turns into a cult every two years or so. My vote is in good faith as I do believe that political parties should be more like the Democratic Socialists of America, but I do have an ulterior motive. I am voting as such, in part, because the Democratic Party will consider for that to be a vote that they lost. I know that the Democratic Socialists of America have no chance of winning the election. I also know that the Green Party has no chance of winning the election. I want for the Democratic Party to consider why they have lost a vote. Perhaps this will change the world for the better. I only — thewonder

Do you believe things wouldn’t be as bad or better given a dichotomous choice? I agree that winner take all elections are a problem in this country.

Anyway, I think I disagree with you about fundamentalism being the problem rather than theism. According to you encroaching on freedoms is the definitive trait to make the conviction of belief “fundamentalism”, am I reading you right? And that absent that fundamentalism theism is not a problem? — DingoJones

Fundamentalism usually implies that there are right and wrong beliefs to have and further that others should be coerced into holding the same beliefs as the fundamentalist. That’s what I think.

A person is coerced by others into doing something or is coerced by circumstances to ‘choose’. We call the latter “free will”. So I agree that there is no such thing as a “free” will.

Is the above idea realistic/practical/good or not :wink: ? — TheMadFool

This OP is not not simplistic in its treatment of language.

Everyone needs to wage a personal strike. — thewonder

That’s the case already with half of the electorate. Total informed engagement is the solution imo.

You make a good point. However, the OP was about atheism, no?

In order not to concede, the only thing that a person can do is to actively disengage. — thewonder

That’s from the viewpoint of an anarchist, though. What about someone who wants to improve upon the system? There are many good things about America from which to build on.

I am actually older than 25. — thewonder

And I have a 13-inch penis.

No. I'm not defending Trump, I'm just lamenting upon how boring this whole thing is. Trump is like the pushy foreman from a Hollywood film made by people who were later brought before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. He's just kind of stubborn and agressive. There's not a lot to the guy. I wish that there was something more to analyze. — thewonder

I’m glad you find fault with him for his lack of entertainment value, but for people in the US who value American values as pronounced in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, the situation couldn’t be more serious. I’m glad you think this is a joke. I wish I could see it as a joke. Or not.

Let me guess. You’re between 18 and 25 years old?

That’s right. You’re an anarchist. Do you live in the US? Because if Trump has his way, there will be much less freedom for everyone else and unlimited freedom for himself. Is that something an anarchist values?

When you try to run others’ lives by telling them what to believe or think, then yes.

Perhaps you should watch the news or read a paper. There’s nothing banal about what is happening here. The foundations on which this country was built are crumbling.

Does having strong conviction in certain core tenets/beliefs qualify? — creativesoul

Strong conviction in anything that encroaches on the freedom of others should be avoided and is fundamentalism.

Pray, pray and pray and pray even more. — TheMadFool

Praying is only good for meditating on self-improvement. It is worthless in influencing others.

We determine what's good. It's not all that complicated. We determine how best to treat one another. In such conversations it(one's actual moral/ethical compass) all comes out in the wash(so to speak). — creativesoul

The collective “we” or each individual? If you mean each individual, then I don’t see how you can separate the individual from the whole. None of us live in a vacuum. The problem isn’t atheism or theism. The problem is fundamentalism.

Pray, pray and pray and pray even more. — TheMadFool

Are you mocking me? If so, don’t be a prick. If not, then what?

I'm not satisfied with the Trump presidency. It's so banal. — thewonder

Right. Dismantling of the American system of government is SO banal. :wink:

A better question, I think, would be can we get Trump to do another season of The Apprentice while he is in office? — thewonder

Isn’t that what we are watching daily on the news with his cabinet?

Why does he need an electrified perimiter? — thewonder

I guess my worry was that I wouldn’t want him to build a raft like in the movie “The Castaway”.

Hmm. Maybe only if we build an electrified perimeter around the island.

Conservatives tend not to believe in mental illness as a general rule, but they will not hesitate to invoke the mental health crisis every time there is a mass shooting because they would rather place the blame somewhere else when there’s pressure from the NRA about protecting the 2nd Amendment. They believe everyone is mentally healthy enough to work, for instance, and they strongly oppose disability benefits to the mentally ill, believing them not to be a right but a burden on the taxpayer. This is prejudice, not principle. They will even send out their goons to harass the people on disability for mental illness. This is commonplace, and one need only inquire from someone on SSDI or SSI or Medicaid to confirm this fact.

Now that there have been two recent high-profile mass shootings, President Trump is calling for the opening of more mental institutions to deal with the “problem” of the mentally ill. This, however, begs the question, “What should we do with a mentally ill commander in chief?” President Trump clearly has narcissistic personality disorder. He is also clearly in the early stages of dementia. Who is going to save women from his long history of sexual assault? Who is going to save the taxpayer from his profiting off of the office of the presidency when he charges the government for security at Mar-a-lago, for example? Who is going to save the nation from his mental illness and reckless behavior? If he is charged with a crime after he leaves office, should he go to jail or a mental institution?

So then a metaphysics of gender is ultimately doomed to failure? My intuitive sense is that a person identifies as a certain gender because of their emotional feeling reflecting their concept (often cultural biases and norms) of what the gender is. I identify as a heterosexual man because I am sexually attracted to the opposite sex and I have a penis. I also like having a penis. This is my concept of a heterosexual man. Now that’s not to say that some people wouldn’t perceive in me anything feminine, as most of us fall on a spectrum from totally masculine to totally feminine (which as concepts are mostly cultural biases and norms).

So, a transgender male born in a female body would most likely feel like they should have a penis and they don’t belong in a body with a vagina. They can be gay, straight, or bi or whatever sexuality they are. So sexual orientation is an instinctive drive, while sex is anatomical (and can be changed through surgery and hormones), while gender is a feeling on a spectrum based on concepts of male and female roles (or masculine or feminine attitudes or traits) situated in cultural biases and norms.

Will you two speak English? Y’all are too smart for me.

:lol: I guess it is weird when you put it that way! I don’t really know what enlightenment is actually. I was trying to give some comfort to Wallows.

:up:

..and if you are a brain in a vat? Would you not then be modelling the 'reality' the vat-maintainers send to you? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

I take it on faith that I’m not a brain in a vat or an AI in a simulation. It’s my opinion.

Conceptualization is not a relationship between concept and subject, but it is the act of forming a mental model, the concept itself. The mental model or picture is not correct or incorrect in itself, but is correct or incorrect in its relation to the objects of perception or cognition. :lol:

My so-called model of OR is that we - all humans, past, present and future - know nothing of it, other than that is exists. Not really worthy of the term "model", is it? :wink: More of a non-model, really. It is simply an acknowledgement of our inability to obtain - by any means - Objective knowledge. — Pattern-chaser

I sympathize with this point of view.

I think that that's just saying something else based loosely on the gobbledygook that he produced, but it's good that you're able to make sense from nonsense. — S

:lol: Perhaps I’m projecting my mind into his.

The way I understand it is that concepts have meaning, and it’s not a matter of using a correct concept, but of using a concept correctly.

Yes, Donald Trump is a pussy. :up: