I don't believe in pixies, is there a label for me, and is that a belief system?

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Woodcarver

Okay, you got me

I'm more drawn towards wondering why lack of belief in pixies is not deemed a faith in itself, like the claims regarding those who do not believe in gods, and why there is no descriptive term for one who does not believe in pixies.

There is overwhelming local historical belief in pixies here in my area, together with written record of claims, so I don't see much of a difference with claims of gods, be they Norse, Greek, Abrahamic, or Hindu. They all equally lack any testable evidence as far as I see it.

So, if one who lacks faith in gods has a label, then why not a label for those who lack belief in pixies?
...and is that lack of belief then a religion or a position of faith I wonder?

It is simple. It is not a question of faith when someone says they are not convinced of your position. If you don't have any evidence to support your claims, then there is no good reason to accept them as true. Faith is believing without evidence. It is normal to dismiss claims that have no supporting evidence.

Atheism is a logical position based on the available evidence. Which is some old stories. But there were plenty of fictional stories around even before those days. It is called mythology and christianity as well as all the others play on the same topics.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: incoserv
I believe in the existence of God. I find the energy expended by people to fight something that ostensibly does not exist to be both laughable and sad at the same time.

This thread is about pixies, not any gods.

#1 reply.

originally posted by: nonspecific
I say if you wish to have a system of belief you should by default respect any other system regardless of the obvious flaws in logic and lack of proof.

That is exactly how I feel, and whenever I mention Hindu or Sikh gods, or Zoroastrian for that matter it is ALWAYS ignored by the rabid Christian believers on ATS.
The conflicting gods thing seems brushed over with inter-faith harmony yet there is quick hate for those who do not believe in any gods, and a continual lame attempt to present that lack of belief as a faith in itself.

It is why I started this thread. My lack of belief in pixies is exactly the same as my lack of belief in any gods, so I wonder what is my pixie heathen label, and how would one argue I have some 'faith' or religion in my lack of belief in pixies?

a reply to: grainofsand

As there are many types of Atheists (you cannot put them all in a box), there are also those types who are "Evangelical and or Militant" that practice Atheism as a religion and have their "great commission" of winning converts just as any other religion.

Not believing and actively trying to exterminate a belief are completely different behaviors.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Evangelical Atheist:

An evangelical atheist is one who not only believes there is no god or other supreme being, but is obsessed with convincing everyone around them to become an atheist too, usually through hard-line intolerance (the kind they accuse other religions of).

When cornered they usually try to put down their opponent's religion and bash them for 'blind faith', not realizing that their belief that there is no god is no more or less valid or provable than the other guy's belief that there is one.

Not to be confused with normal atheists/agnostics, who for the most part just don't talk about religion and accept the beliefs of those around them as their prerogative. Evangelical atheists are particularly common on the Internet, as organized religion is generally accepted as part of 'the system' of global human society, and lately it's become cool on the Internet to hate 'the system'. Evangelical atheist usually seeks to "convert" borderline theists, often by engaging in debate with fundamentalists.

Or taking it to the extreme utilizing the force of Government:

For the first time in our relatively tranquil history, we’re facing a determined attempt not just to keep organized religion out of government (which most religious Americans agree is a good idea), but to suppress religion completely.

What we call the “New Atheism” is a bit different than its predecessor. It’s more aggressive, and it has more power. The leaders of the sect are well placed in the academic world, and they have a strong determination to mold government policy.

The New Atheists see religion as a disease to be exterminated. Their dream, in short, is not a government neutral to religion, but a government actively hostile to religion. The evangelical atheists assume that religion must inevitably breed mindless fanaticism.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: nonspecific

Clearly a masochistic personality disorder, can't help myself lol, my thread about consent and rape when a woman lies got much more anger/hate and the replies were hard to keep up with.
This thread seems more like a chat over a cup of tea in comparison.

I have noticed you playing devil's advocate in many threads, only to change your position in another. Or you will throw out an obviously absurd or inflammatory argument in the middle of serious discussion. I usually don't take you seriously because of this.
I do respect when someone can play both sides, because it is good to be able to do that. In high school debate classes, i was forced to support positions i did not agree with. I appreciated the process of debate more, because of it.

But here it will serve you better to be yourself and not take on characters to entertain yourself.

originally posted by: ColCurious

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: incoserv
I believe in the existence of God. I find the energy expended by people to fight something that ostensibly does not exist to be both laughable and sad at the same time.

This thread is about pixies, not any gods.

#1 reply.

Except for that he admitted that it was about gods later.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Okay, you got me

a reply to: infolurker

So let's take someone who does not believe in pixies then, and using DISRAELI's interesting newly created label 'apixist' can we assume that 'apixist' simply means 'one who does not believe in pixies?
That accepted, then the only apixists who could be deemed to have faith or religion then would be the "Evangelical and or Militant" ones?

That prefix is the important bit then?
Being a simple apixist requires no faith, just being one who does not believe in Pixies?

*Edit*
Corrected because of this, cheers, was rushing...

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: grainofsand
No, a Pixist does believe in Pixies.
One who does not is an Apixist.

a reply to: Woodcarver

All still in the context of pixies though, or that is to say - the remaining question(s):

originally posted by: grainofsand
So, if one who lacks faith in gods has a label, then why not a label for those who lack belief in pixies?
...and is that lack of belief then a religion or a position of faith I wonder?

a reply to: grainofsand
No, a Pixist does believe in Pixies.
One who does not is an Apixist.

Once the Apixists begin aggressively sneering at and attempting to undermine the faith of the Pixists, then the Pixists will look for ways of fighting back.
One of them might work by unconsciously defining Apixism as " a conviction that all faith is wrong"; on that basis, if Apixism can be defined as a form of faith, then Apixism is being shown up as self-contradictory.
"Argument by definition" is very popular on ATS, and antitheists frequently use it against Christians.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Hmm, not about gods, mainly about pixies, but of course drawing comparison with the atheist 'faith' arguments.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I was replying to someone else, I am being myself here, what is your issue?
I don't believe in Pixies and I wonder what the label for me is and if said lack of belief is faith in itself as claimed about atheists?

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Woodcarver

Hmm, not about gods, mainly about pixies, but of course drawing comparison with the atheist 'faith' arguments.

yes but the belief in pixies is not one that is commonly advocated for. So the majority of people would be "apixist" It does not have a word because it is not needed. The term would be "normal". The term for the minority of people who do believe in pixies is "crazy".
In the religious debate, the majority are believers of one or another "gods". So that is normal. The term "Atheist" is a derogatory term, used for the minority who have the position of non belief.

These arguments have been hotly contested for as long as religion has been a thing. There has always been someone there with the position that gods are unfeasible and unbelievable.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Surely lack of belief in pixies is pretty much the same as lack of belief in any gods?
As I said, in my region of the UK pixies were a big thing. Generations of stories passed down by word of mouth. Some folk still believe in them and there are annual local festivals and ceremonies to this day.
How do any claims of gods have greater validity, and how can anyone argue it requires faith to 'not believe in gods' if it requires no faith to lack belief in pixies?

a reply to: grainofsand

It's a good job you'r a plasterer mate as the ammount of banging your head against that wall you may have to do may require some patching up.

It apprears to be a numbers game, if enough people say your lack of faith is in itself a faith then that is the way it is.

Your lack of belief in pixies is different however because that is a sensible option.Not like that whole organised religion bible thing.

originally posted by: nonspecific
Your lack of belief in pixies is different however because that is a sensible option.Not like that whole organised religion bible thing.

Why is it different?
The folklore, recorded historical writings and generational word of mouth stories are strong.
I don't see any gods having better evidence, aside from old writings with no verifiable author.

And I say again, lack of belief in pixies requires as little faith as lack of belief in gods.
...unless someone can explain differently?

a reply to: grainofsand

From what I understand the belief in Pixies predated that of christianity, unfortunatley those beliveing in pixies neglected to take the belief and form an organised and oppresive cult around it forcing people to follow the faith or suffer the consequences.

If the pixie followers had taken the same route they would have both the numbers and audacity to decide what your opinion is or is not.

Just my opinion of course.

originally posted by: grainofsand
In the region of the UK I live there has been a long held belief in pixies:
en.wikipedia.org...

Before the mid-19th century, pixies and fairies were taken seriously in much of Cornwall and Devon. Books devoted to the homely beliefs of the peasantry are filled with incidents of pixie manifestations. Some locales are named for the pixies associated with them. In Devon, near Challacombe, a group of rocks are named for the pixies said to dwell there.

Indeed there are still annual festivals and rituals celebrating these mythical entities, and a decent trade in pixie trinkets and such like.
I know a couple of old folk who live in the moors and still believe they are real, although most rational folk doubt it these days.
The pixie folklore has been handed down through word of mouth for generations, but as far as evidence that is pretty much it.

Personally I don't believe in pixies because I have seen nothing in my life to draw me towards believing that they exist. I have an open mind though so if I met one myself or there was convincing evidence to show they exist then I would happily change my opinion. That is a logical position to take.

So I ask, is my lack of belief in pixies a belief system in itself, as often claimed for those who lack any belief in gods, or just rational thinking and an open mind looking at the evidence and finding nothing to draw one towards a belief?
And may I also ask what would be the label for one who does not believe in pixies, you know, like atheist for those who do not believe in gods?

Read Jacques Vallee's "Passport to Magonia". You might actually believe in pixies without knowing it. You just call them something else.

originally posted by: grainofsand
So is my lack of belief in pixies a belief system then?
The majority of folk I know don't believe in them either...does that make it a religion?!

Absolutely! You are an apixiest (or the cruder "Apixists" that Disraeli uses). All apixiests believe the same things about pixies, pixie nirvana, pixie inferno, pixie hereafter, life, death, morals (you have NONE!), faith, values, freedom, Mother God, home apple pie.

Heathen!

a reply to: infolurker

As there are many types of Atheists (you cannot put them all in a box), there are also those types who are "Evangelical and or Militant" that practice Atheism as a religion and have their "great commission" of winning converts just as any other religion.

Not believing and actively trying to exterminate a belief are completely different behaviors.

You know what they say...
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"

a reply to: nonspecific

Oh yeah for sure the belief in pixies is probably as old as our many neolithic stone circles in the region.
Maybe the pixies didn't want a cult following?
They were pretty nasty if crossed from what I've read, perhaps the locals in history just treated them as a dirty little secret.

No more evidence for the pixies than any gods as far as I've ever seen though, and neither require any faith to lack belief in them lol