Controlling your bias

[Ruv Draba]

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

You guys should come to Sweden. At my job, (a standard middle-class kind of place) nobody would ever reveal being religious. It's kept very secret.

That sometimes happens in Australian workplaces too -- it depends on the workplace.

I took a look at Swedish demographics... about 95.2% of the population were baptised into Church of Sweden in 1972, fallen to 72.9% in 2008, but only 4% of members attend service in an average week and 2% attend regularly. At one time baptism in the Church of Sweden was mandatory, but that ceased and the Church ceased to be a state religion in 2000 (so Sweden has only been a secular state for 9 years). Women were ordained as priests in 1958. Same-sex church weddings were approved this year (congratulations!). About one fifth of Swedes profess belief in God -- so dropping the Church of Sweden as a state religion will probably see baptisms drop to around 20% over time. Curiously, around 9 in 10 Swedes have Christian burials, and about half Swedish weddings take place in a church.

Not atheistic as in rejecting belief in God, but more like, rejecting having a strong opinion about it. Anybody with strong faith in anything metaphysical is treated like a complete moron.

Liberal societies tend to fret about supremacist faith (sometimes euphemised as 'strong' faith), but that's not the same as rejecting faith.

For instance, Sweden has been a refuge for Islam since the 18th century when Sweden formed an alliance with the Ottoman empire. Muslims have had freedom to worship in Sweden since that time. Muslims still flee to Sweden to escape religious persecution and estimates put faithful Muslims at around 2% of Sweden's population (about half the ethnic Muslims there). Islam by the way, is a growing religion in Sweden.

I'd describe Sweden as a liberal post-Christian country, rather than an atheistic country.

So basically... if you're an atheist, you'll be most welcome here.

I believe you.

If nothing else, you can get a taste of being a majority oppressing a religious minority

I think that if religious people are fleeing to your country to escape persecution, you're probably not persecuting that religious belief. On the other hand, you're probably not accepting supremacist nonsense from them either.

[Mr Flibble]

You guys should come to Sweden. At my job, (a standard middle-class kind of place) nobody would ever reveal being religious. It's kept very secret.

It's not something anyone talks about much here in the UK, as a general rule. If you are religious, fine, no need to boast about it, is the sort of attitude. It's a personal thing, and should stay that way. It does get discussed sometimes, but not often and usually in a more general way rather than 'Hey look at me, I'm a XX'. From what I gather, many people are agnostic or as you say, apathetic. Even people who say they're Christians, many don't go to church.

Put it like this, I've been married twelve years and I only found out my MIL is a Christian last year. Who knew?

[zornhau]

Originally Posted by Brutal Mustang

Many people who are rational believe logic points to a higher power, so I don't see how rationalism can be a religion. But a set of beliefs certainly can be a religion, even the simple silly stuff, like what some people have mentioned in this thread. Religion is broad and blurry. And quite frankly, there should not be sharp lines drawn between human beings, like what some are trying to do here. Whenever atheists get the intolerant "us and them" mentality, they are no different than the religious fundamentalist sectors in humanity they scorn. They become just another judgmental group in the mix of humanity, causing friction and suffering among people.

Rational arguments for religion, on closer examination, always collapse into either rhetoric, or appeals to personal revelation.

As for judging: I'm quite happy to judge since there are practical implications to being around people who listen to their invisible friend before they listen to their humanity.

This is a meme war. There is no objective or fair place in which to stand. So - myself - I'm unconcerned with controlling my bias, since my bias is really a world view, which of course will be represented in my fiction.

[Rhys Cordelle]

Originally Posted by zornhau

Rational arguments for religion, on closer examination, always collapse into either rhetoric, or appeals to personal revelation.

As for judging: I'm quite happy to judge since there are practical implications to being around people who listen to their invisible friend before they listen to their humanity.

This is a meme war. There is no objective or fair place in which to stand. So - myself - I'm unconcerned with controlling my bias, since my bias is really a world view, which of course will be represented in my fiction.

Good point.

[Ruv Draba]

Originally Posted by zornhau

As for judging: I'm quite happy to judge since there are practical implications to being around people who listen to their invisible friend before they listen to their humanity.

Gah. There's a whole discussion that belongs somewhere under this topic... But I think it's not 'invisible friend vs humanity'; it's 'ideology vs humanity'...

I'd love to participate in that discussion but I haven't got the first clue on how to kick that off... I bet AMC knows how though.

[AMCrenshaw]

Say what?




AMC




eta:

workin' on it.

[SLake]

My, my the debate has moved along apace, but still running with the underlying schoolyard thing: "I'm right because I'm logical but you're wrong because you believe in invisible friends," or visa-versa, it hardly matters.

Disappointing either way.

Can't get at Ruv Draba with the beautiful looking wolf avatar for missing my point slightly, no, you all missed my point.

The world has 8 billion people or so, each with slightly different opinions, some more divergent than others. The consequence of that schoolyard is war - big boys and girls, each telling their children that they are right, and peace and love are the way to go, whilst blowing the crap out of other mothers, fathers, boys and girls. It's a job some of them say.

And here we are at the heart, or near enough, of that nitpicking intelligentsia.

Religion isn't perfect, surprise, surprise, what is? Yep in England and much of Europe, religion is pretty much a non-issue and the result is that those continents have bright and happy peoples? Haha, total fail.

Countries devoted to religions? Well, cynical laughter at their similar failures isn't PC, so I won't do that.

I was saying (and here, trying to make my point more simple stupid) - that certain concepts are consistent world wide, regardless of the names pinned to them, such as religion and atheism.

I asked essentially: do atheists have belief? Do religious people have belief? That is: placing aside the schoolyard bickering that: you're right because you're logical, OR, you're right because you know God - I was saying: is the concept belief consistent in all peoples world wide?

Belief as a concept, do you understand what I mean by that? A concept is [CoD 11th edition]: "an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects, formed by combining all their aspects." Or a concept is, "an abstract idea."

Belief according to CoD 11th edition is: "1/ an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially without proof. A firmly held opinion or conviction. A religious conviction. 2/ trust or confidence in." It's from, "believe: 3/ have confidence in. 4/ think or suppose: I believe we've already met. (believe in) think that (something) is right or acceptable."

Therefore humanity has much in common. Similarities make humanity a place of sisters and brothers, but names and languages cloud the etymologies, which, as I've said: should be rethought. Nature has difference, it has summer and winter, and humanity has parallel differences.

Although I guess none of it really matters, does it, nah. You, none of you really care about your similarities, neither in the East, West, nor North or South.

That belief is something that all hold true, even like love, betrayal, faithfulness and endearments doesn't matter either. Religious, atheist, it's only the schoolyard thing you really like - it's the last man standing thing of I'm right, na na na.

Having said this, it's not really you guys who annoy me. The epitaph of the human race has long been written, yours are merely footnotes.

[Ruv Draba]

Originally Posted by SLake

I asked essentially: do atheists have belief?

Some do and some don't. For instance, my mother is an atheist who believes that God doesn't exist, but I'm an atheist who doesn't accept that there's a topic to discuss.

Atheism is a word religious people use to describe 'non-belief', but it doesn't really mean anything outside some religion's view of what it means to reject their theology.

I was saying: is the concept belief consistent in all peoples world wide?

I don't think so. Some people seek unifying principles to make their life make sense; others don't. Some people make some beliefs sacred; other people have no sacred beliefs.

All people may believe things (even if they are not sacred things), but so what? How does that contribute to a decision to work toward common welfare? Some commonality does: e.g. all people have lungs so we're all concerned about the air we breathe. All people have beliefs, but most of us don't need all the beliefs we have, so how does that make us want to help each other?

My personal view is that all of us need reliable facts, so I like to try and seek those and protect them. As for beliefs, I care about peoples' right to inquire and form views, but I certainly don't care to defend others' beliefs -- especially if I think that those beliefs might cloud truth. To me, beliefs aren't sacred things. They're transient confusion while we try to find facts.

Having said this, it's not really you guys who annoy me. The epitaph of the human race has long been written, yours are merely footnotes.

You seem to be throwing stones at people who are saying 'I'm right and you're wrong' -- but in throwing stones, aren't you doing the same?

[AMCrenshaw]

Originally Posted by Ruv Draba

You seem to be throwing stones at people who are saying 'I'm right and you're wrong' -- but in throwing stones, aren't you doing the same?

And how bravely!




AMC

[SLake]

No [religious] topic to discuss, you say, 'person with superb avatar?' Au contraire, but you have said: I took a look at Swedish demographics... about 95.2% of the population were baptised into Church of Sweden in 1972, fallen to 72.9% in 2008, but only 4% of members attend service in an average week and 2% attend regularly. At one time baptism in the Church of Sweden was mandatory, but that ceased and the Church ceased to be a state religion in 2000 (so Sweden has only been a secular state for 9 years). Women were ordained as priests in 1958

But indeed as you say and if that's what I think that you're inclining (and I could be wrong) the subject religion throughout history been well discussed, which obviously includes yourself.

Your mother, as you say yourself, she believes.

Ruv Draba: Atheism is a word religious people use to describe 'non-belief', but it doesn't really mean anything outside some religion's view of what it means to reject their theology.

You use Atheist(ism) above to describe yourself and your mother, so it's a functioning concept. I guess I don't see your point there.

slake: is the concept belief consistent in all peoples world wide?
Ruv Draba: I don't think so. Some people seek unifying principles to make their life make sense; others don't. Some people make some beliefs sacred; other people have no sacred beliefs.

Ok, I should clarify what I mean precisely and I used the OED for that reason. The OED offers narrow variations, but I think you're straying beyond the minor into wider territories, or sub categories. I agree, it can be said there are sacred beliefs and non sacred beliefs. Others may seek GUTs perhaps to cement their beliefs. But at the core is the believer, or one who hopes to believe more. I hope that makes my point clearer.

Ruv Draba: All people may believe things (even if they are not sacred things), but so what? How does that contribute to a decision to work toward common welfare? Some commonality does: e.g. all people have lungs so we're all concerned about the air we breathe. All people have beliefs, but most of us don't need all the beliefs we have, so how does that make us want to help each other?

Help each other or a common welfare. On the contrary I suggested humanity en masse hasn't the capability of achieving such, in fact that's what I meant by referencing epitaph. Sure people try, seems they always have. I think nearly everyone wants what's right including yourself, but as you incline, and I agree with,right is the crux of the problem. Re-identifying etymologies I think would clarify that humanity adopts similar stances whether they are tagged with atheist, religious or otherwise. In this sense kinship occurred to me in parallel with your example: lungs. Sure yes, humanity en masse understands the need for clean air. And various books and films have thrown combatants of different races and even species together attempting to show the possibility of kinship, which I'm trying to point out but in a more factual sense.

Ruv Draba: My personal view is that all of us need reliable facts, so I like to try and seek those and protect them. As for beliefs, I care about peoples' right to inquire and form views, but I certainly don't care to defend others' beliefs -- especially if I think that those beliefs might cloud truth. To me, beliefs aren't sacred things. They're transient confusion while we try to find facts.

I guess I answered that above, and latterly of your statement above, I respect your right to make such declarations. For you, beliefs are transient confusion, as you say. Yes, for other people, beliefs can be sacred I suppose. Perhaps if we look at the core of sacred, maybe you'll agree that what you've said is a kind of mission statement that holds a certain amount of sacredness for you. Not sacred in the metaphysical sense, but more in the sense, you value your statement deeply (I presume). Sacred has religious overtones, but that's why I think etymologies should be rethought and subsequently brought to a more neutral arena.

slake: Having said this, it's not really you guys who annoy me. The epitaph of the human race has long been written, yours are merely footnotes.

Ruv Draba: You seem to be throwing stones at people who are saying 'I'm right and you're wrong' -- but in throwing stones, aren't you doing the same?


AMCrenshaw: how bravely!

Seem to be throwing stones? I thought I was saying that we essentially all think alike except for etymological confusion which should be clarified in today's sense, so that many worn out arguments that result in childish dramas, such as war, could be put aside for more sophisticated pursuits, and the intelligence that's claimed can be exhibited without the need for the usual barbed wire, guns and surveillance.

[2Wheels]

Originally Posted by SLake

I thought I was saying that we essentially all think alike except for etymological confusion which should be clarified in today's sense, so that many worn out arguments that result in childish dramas, such as war, could be put aside for more sophisticated pursuits, and the intelligence that's claimed can be exhibited without the need for the usual barbed wire, guns and surveillance.

Yeah, but then we wouldn't be human any more.

[AMCrenshaw]

I guess I answered that above, and latterly of your statement above, I respect your right to make such declarations. For you, beliefs are transient confusion, as you say. Yes, for other people, beliefs can be sacred I suppose. Perhaps if we look at the core of sacred, maybe you'll agree that what you've said is a kind of mission statement that holds a certain amount of sacredness for you. Not sacred in the metaphysical sense, but more in the sense, you value your statement deeply (I presume). Sacred has religious overtones, but that's why I think etymologies should be rethought and subsequently brought to a more neutral arena.

I won't speak for the wolf avatar, but I personally doubt Ruv values his statement to such an extent it would cloud his sense of what is true and what is not true, and I also imagine that if his statement were to prove false he would abandon it for a better one. I think there is a fairly significant difference between saying something is sacred and saying that something is beneficial or important because of its benefits. Sacred has a religious overtone because its very word refers to a sense of holiness.

Now, the other thing that I disagree with is that we essentially all think alike. There's another thread about this called "Fundamental Likenesses", or something, and I'm not sure I have anything to add from there.



AMC

[Ruv Draba]

Originally Posted by SLake

You use Atheist(ism) above to describe yourself and your mother, so it's a functioning concept. I guess I don't see your point there.

I actually don't use atheism to describe myself to anyone but strangers. Strangers (sorta) understand what atheism is because of the culture we live in; but friends get a story that starts with what's important to me; not what's not.

Help each other or a common welfare. On the contrary I suggested humanity en masse hasn't the capability of achieving such, in fact that's what I meant by referencing epitaph.

Why aren't humans capable of caring about common concerns? And if they're not then why are they doomed now rather than in their two million or so years of prior history?

Perhaps if we look at the core of sacred, maybe you'll agree that what you've said is a kind of mission statement that holds a certain amount of sacredness for you.

To me, sacred means an ideal surrounded by a taboo. I have ideals, but I don't have many taboos so not much is sacred to me. My beliefs about the world certainly are not sacred; neither is whatever sense of purpose I may from time to time marshall.

I thought I was saying that we essentially all think alike except for etymological confusion which should be clarified in today's sense

You've pointed out (by assertion) that people are trivially identical. Odd that they hadn't realised it before, but assuming so, where to now?

[Rhys Cordelle]

SLake, that was one hell of a long way of saying "can't we all just get along?" :P

[SLake]

Originally Posted by Rhys Cordelle

SLake, that was one hell of a long way of saying "can't we all just get along?" :P

If only, xd. S'like, where's common-sense these days?! The update, you like? ^^

Originally Posted by Ruv Draba

I actually don't use atheism to describe myself to anyone but strangers. Strangers (sorta) understand what atheism is because of the culture we live in; but friends get a story that starts with what's important to me; not what's not.

I'll go along with that, thanks.

Originally Posted by Ruv Draba

Why aren't humans capable of caring about common concerns? And if they're not then why are they doomed now rather than in their two million or so years of prior history?

Timing, yeah, I was going to say something about that in the above post but it was moving into theology, a subject you'll realize I've been trying to sideline even along with science, as an entity. Well my personal view inclines towards geological concepts of now, those being considerably longer than human perceptions of now. Although my epitaph thing I'll agree was indicative of immediacy, which of course one feels at times with one's pet subject.

Originally Posted by Ruv Draba

me, sacred means an ideal surrounded by a taboo. I have ideals, but I don't have many taboos so not much is sacred to me. My beliefs about the world certainly are not sacred; neither is whatever sense of purpose I may from time to time marshall.

Just a posit and yes I think the concept sacred should be modified, essentially to something like what one holds dear. In my opinion, and I hope I don't offend anyone unnecessarily, I think the concept sacred in the religious sense has moved into the area of, traditional historical, so we value it immensely. I've only looked briefly into religious origins of sacred, so essentially I'm guessing, but even so, I'm trying to categorize today rather than justify remnants of yesterday.

Originally Posted by Ruv Draba

pointed out (by assertion) that people are trivially identical. Odd that they hadn't realised it before, but assuming so, where to now?

Trivially identical - I'll take that as compliment, but well yes ok, you're stating a fact. It is odd as you say that people haven't realized it before, something like the obvious multi strata make up of earth, visible in one way or another to just about everyone since humanity began.

If you can answer why strata hasn't been recorded as being noticed then you will have answered a ton of sociological questions about humanity, I think. It kinda hints the question: were people like Galileo Galilei exceptions through the ages or were there many who were overlooked, and for multitudes of reasons? I'm not placing myself with him or other greats, even if you'd let me try, but if you accept there is a future then there will probably be changes which result from realizations, currently unrealized.

Where to now with this etymology thing? Shall I be facetious and say it's in God's hands, or maybe not

Etymology, a branch of linguistics and there's semiotics and finer subdivisions or fields, the list of which kinda do the dry butterless toast banquet on a hot day during a water shortage thing for most people, but they involve the basis of all human thought, rather than what people think. The latter of the sentence: an important point.

Lost in that tangle of specialties is: {item, and / or, system} = {concept (or idea)} = {spoken word, its sign(s) and its symbol(s)}. Meaning that our mind is structured so that collections of items and systems have words etc assigned. That's the basis of human thought. Theoretically, for example: there's no reason to suppose time alters the concept belief, or that culture to culture the concept belief could be different but it is, which the many fields of linguistics examine to the nth degree, the frequent result being the burnt bread banquet.

I'm not proposing the studies are overlooked just refined to offer -most certainly school kids- a succinct overview of thought first before the more advanced and frequently conflict inducing, what they think.

The current approach to thought is often abstract to the point of metaphysics, even if it's taught by people who wouldn't give the subject a second glance. Not knowing the nature of thought, abstraction occurs, so that although the same language is spoken, the possibilities of derivatives can become horrendous. Knowing the structure would highlight divisions in language even from town to town, but actually knowing there are divisions offers a distinct advantage. Further they highlight pronenesses and consequently differences from individual to individual.

What do you think? would become a more complex question certainly, but then the human is supposed be intelligent.

I hope this post makes some sense - I've cut it down a fair bit - essentially advocating looking at thought first before thinking about thinking! I hope the post also contributes to this thread, controlling bias.

[Ruv Draba]

Originally Posted by SLake

It is odd as you say that people haven't realized it before, something like the obvious multi strata make up of earth, visible in one way or another to just about everyone since humanity began.

Or it might not be true. Language and meaning might not be the only differences. Mere assertion doesn't make it so. Perhaps personalities, values, knowledge, belief and tribal identity might sometimes make us work as though we're multiple species.

Theoretically, for example: there's no reason to suppose time alters the concept belief, or that culture to culture the concept belief could be different but it is

I'm not at all confident about definitions of knowledge and belief, and I used to work in those fields. My biggest problem is that they're properties of mind rather than brain, and mind can't see itself very well.

Linguistics offer some insights -- but only for those things we easily express in language; and there's a lot that we don't. And even if 'belief' meant the same thing linguistically, who's to say that it means the same thing functionally in all respects? I wouldn't put even a dollar on that proposition... not when we have neurological evidence that a lot of times brains do stuff then justify it afterward. Are my beliefs anything more than some narrative I invent to explain my impulses?

[zornhau]

Originally Posted by SLake

My, my the debate has moved along apace, but still running with the underlying schoolyard thing: "I'm right because I'm logical but you're wrong because you believe in invisible friends," or visa-versa, it hardly matters.

Since people of faith make decisions for themselves and other people depending on what their invisible friend tells them. (Or their reading of e.g. the Communist Manifesto.) So if they're wrong when they burn books or people, force their daughters to give birth to unplanned children when they themselves are children and so on, then that matters.

Regarding your other points; of course atheism is a "belief" since it refers to a certain belief about the way the world works. However, this doesn't make it a religion any more than belief in transubstantiation is a religion.

Is the materialist world view from which atheism stems a religion? No, because (1) it doesn't involve gods, and (2) religion is an extension (or add-on) to the materialist world view. You can still be an electrical engineer and believe in God, but believing in God doesn't enable you to build a circuit board.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Originally Posted by SLake

I asked essentially: do atheists have belief? Do religious people have belief?

Um.
Religious people and atheists are exactly the same except that religious people have this extra belief about God.

[zornhau]

Originally Posted by Shadow_Ferret

Um.
Religious people and atheists are exactly the same except that religious people have this extra belief about God.

Exactly.

In day-to-day life we use the same standard of proof, expect and work with the same material world, tap our feet to the same rythms... how are we different?

[SLake]

Fascinating replies.

Good luck with the them vs us thing, I think I'm with going with epitaph.

[veinglory]

Originally Posted by Shadow_Ferret

Um.
Religious people and atheists are exactly the same except that religious people have this extra belief about God.

QFT. As Dawkins would say, Christians just believe in one more God than I do.

[zornhau]

Originally Posted by SLake

Fascinating replies.

Good luck with the them vs us thing, I think I'm with going with epitaph.

I hope it will be an epitaph.

It has always been them versus us. Nowadays they can't torture us or persecute us, so are in "Wah wah lets have a dialogue and respect each other's belief" mode. Personally, I want to kick them while they're down so hard they never get up and take over the aparatus of government - as they seems to be trying to do in the states.

[Ruv Draba]

Originally Posted by zornhau

I want to kick them while they're down so hard they never get up and take over the aparatus of government - as they seems to be trying to do in the states.

I see no need to dismantle religion -- and no way to do it even if one wanted to.

I see need and means to dismantle religious supremacism though. It doesn't involve kicking anyone, but it does involve feeding and educating them and keeping them safe.

[zornhau]

Originally Posted by Ruv Draba

I see no need to dismantle religion -- and no way to do it even if one wanted to.

I see need and means to dismantle religious supremacism though. It doesn't involve kicking anyone, but it does involve feeding and educating them and keeping them safe.

You cannot dismantle the supremacism without dismantling the certainty, and certainty is part of the structure of religion.

[Ruv Draba]

Originally Posted by zornhau

You cannot dismantle the supremacism without dismantling the certainty, and certainty is part of the structure of religion.

Not all -- just the ones that believe in tribal superiority or a punitive afterlife.