atheism is a belief system

Originally posted by KellyJay
Go back and read all the posts, I've been saying all along that each of us
will build our belief systems, we will have a foundation to them, the rejection
of, or the ignoring of God or gods are two different groups, and we have hit
over and over, of course there are going to be differences!

I told you up front many people will hit that place from completely different
roads, but they hit it.
Kelly

I have read your posts. As incoherent as they are it's typically hard to tell what
you are saying.

However when you have made clear statements (like the one I just quoted) they
have been all over the map.


And you are still wrong. As LemmonJello has explained extremely patiently several
times.


Please reread his posts and try to answer his rebuttal to your argument rather than
just repeating your position over and over again.

Originally posted by LemonJello

They give the same accreditation to X means they give the same
accreditation to X does it not?

Yep, hard to argue against a tautology. 🙄

I've already told you that I'm not talking
about the path to X, but X itself!

And I've already made two counterpoints. Perhaps you missed them above. Here they are again:
...[text shortened]... same.

I provided argument in support of both these points above. Did you read any of it?

If X were Chicago, would it matter how they got there, would it matter if
they were near Soldier Field because they love football, or Wrigley Field
because they loved baseball, if they liked hot dogs instead of deep dish
Chicago style pizza? The point was they ended up in Chicago! Just as it is
so with no God, no gods there are going to be differences but only in
Chicago, you'd have to go someplace else to change that scenery, because
once there you are limited to only those things in Chicago.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If X were Chicago, would it matter how they got there, would it matter if
they were near Soldier Field because they love football, or Wrigley Field
because they loved baseball, if they liked hot dogs instead of deep dish
Chicago style pizza? The point was they ended up in Chicago! Just as it is
so with no God, no gods there are going to be differences b ...[text shortened]... hange that scenery, because
once there you are limited to only those things in Chicago.
Kelly

The problem with your analogy is that your analogy breaks down in the crucial
area we are discussing.

To get closer to what we are talking about it might be a better analogy to regard
people as being quantum probability fields rather than classical particles.

In your classical particle model people are either entirely in Chicago or they are not.

In a quantum wave model people could be partly in Chicago but also a little in New York
and a bit in San Francisco.


Peoples beliefs are not absolute binary things.

Someone who is fence sitting and doesn't know if gods exist but is unsure and possibly leaning
that way might be quite a bit 'outside Chicago' and might attribute quite a bit of mental probability
mass to the idea of a god.

Which would be totally different from someone who strongly disbelieves in the idea of a god
who attributes no (or exceptionally little) probability mass to the idea of a god.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The problem with your analogy is that your analogy breaks down in the crucial
area we are discussing.

To get closer to what we are talking about it might be a better analogy to regard
people as being quantum probability fields rather than classical particles.

In your classical particle model people are either entirely in Chicago or they are not ...[text shortened]... of a god
who attributes no (or exceptionally little) probability mass to the idea of a god.

The whole idea of religious people wanting to call atheism a religion is to justify their own faith. It shores up their delusions so they can rationalize all their fairy tales.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If X were Chicago, would it matter how they got there, would it matter if
they were near Soldier Field because they love football, or Wrigley Field
because they loved baseball, if they liked hot dogs instead of deep dish
Chicago style pizza? The point was they ended up in Chicago! Just as it is
so with no God, no gods there are going to be differences b ...[text shortened]... hange that scenery, because
once there you are limited to only those things in Chicago.
Kelly

Is it really that hard to admit you got it wrong and move on?

Originally posted by googlefudge
The problem with your analogy is that your analogy breaks down in the crucial
area we are discussing.

To get closer to what we are talking about it might be a better analogy to regard
people as being quantum probability fields rather than classical particles.

In your classical particle model people are either entirely in Chicago or they are not ...[text shortened]... of a god
who attributes no (or exceptionally little) probability mass to the idea of a god.

"In a quantum wave model people could be partly in Chicago but also a little in New York
and a bit in San Francisco. "

Well I guess you are not saying that really you don't have God or gods,
yet you have God or gods. You either are limited by your belief to only
be able to go where those beliefs take you, or you've taken on new
beliefs and in this case would include God or gods.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
The whole idea of religious people wanting to call atheism a religion is to justify their own faith. It shores up their delusions so they can rationalize all their fairy tales.

I have not call Atheism a religion in this thread any where, I've been
maintaining that once you settle on a set of beliefs you have now settled
upon those beliefs and they will be used to fit in everything else you believe.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"In a quantum wave model people could be partly in Chicago but also a little in New York
and a bit in San Francisco. "

Well I guess you are not saying that really you don't have God or gods,
yet you have God or gods. You either are limited by your belief to only
be able to go where those beliefs take you, or you've taken on new
beliefs and in this case would include God or gods.
Kelly

You are confusing (among other things) the label and the reality.

'theist' and 'atheist' are labels, artificial constructs to help us categorise things.

And they are [by definition] exhaustive and mutually exclusive labels.

You are (at any given moment) either one or the other.

You either have a belief (firm conviction) that a god or gods exist or you don't.


However, you could have one person who will tell you that they think the likelihood
of a god existing is low (say 20% ) while at the same time having a belief (firm conviction)
that that god exists, because it makes them feel happy... or rationalised as some-such.
Now that's not a sensible position, but we are not looking at what positions are sensible
to hold... But what positions are possible to hold, and that are held.

Someone else could hold that a god is more likely than not to exist (say 60% chance)
but not believe (hold a firm conviction that) that god exists.

And while the first of these two would be a theist and the second an atheist...
The atheist in this example is assigning more probability mass to the existence of a god than
the theist is... but has a higher threshold of probability to believe a proposition as being true.

And the mental probability mass each assigns to the god hypothesis is likely to be a significant,
if not the significant, factor in determining its effect on their other beliefs.

From a probabilistic standpoint people could assign mental probabilities to the existence
of any given god or gods (or just gods in general) anywhere between 0% and 100%.
And the effect this has on their other beliefs will likely depend where on this scale they lie
at any given time.


Also people use different sets of beliefs/values/'facts' as the foundation or basis of their
belief system.
And the existence or otherwise of a god or gods might not be one of them, even for someone
who believes that they do exist.

The labels of atheist and theist are just labels. They are not the reality.
And the reality is that peoples beliefs are often irrational, contradictory, and complicated.

And you are trying to oversimplify your model of reality.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are confusing (among other things) the label and the reality.

'theist' and 'atheist' are labels, artificial constructs to help us categorise things.

And they are [by definition] exhaustive and mutually exclusive labels.

You are (at any given moment) either one or the other.

You either have a belief (firm conviction) that a god or gods exi ...[text shortened]... radictory, and complicated.

And you are trying to oversimplify your model of reality.

If you want to talk about someone who is NOT an Atheist we can; however,
the topic is Atheism is a belief system, which means one does not have
God or gods in their equations, someone wishy washy on the topic isn't a
part of this discussion. If they are 25% sure there isn't a God or gods I'd
not call them an Atheist they are not sure! If you have been mixing in those
that do believe its possible, than its you that has been off topic not me.

I told you that if you stop saying there isn't a God or gods you've moved
away from those that deny them. I'm sticking the the topic you are mixing
in beliefs about God and gods and assigning them to Atheists. The words
either mean what they say or they do not.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If X were Chicago, would it matter how they got there, would it matter if
they were near Soldier Field because they love football, or Wrigley Field
because they loved baseball, if they liked hot dogs instead of deep dish
Chicago style pizza? The point was they ended up in Chicago! Just as it is
so with no God, no gods there are going to be differences b hange that scenery, because
once there you are limited to only those things in Chicago.
Kelly

There's lots of different stuff to do in Chicago, and yes it would matter to me and those I'm with whether we are doing this or that. But I don't really understand what any of this had to do with the discussion leading up to this point.

I just don't agree with your arguments, and I have tried to present substantive reasons why. You keep pretending like the lack of belief in P and the belief in not-P are in effect the same. Well, I don't agree and have tried to present some concerns with that.

By the way, GO PACKERS! Beat the Bears! 🙂 🙂

Originally posted by LemonJello
There's lots of different stuff to do in Chicago, and yes it would matter to me and those I'm with whether we are doing this or that. But I don't really understand what any of this had to do with the discussion leading up to this point.

I just don't agree with your arguments, and I have tried to present substantive reasons why. You keep pretending lik ied to present some concerns with that.

By the way, GO PACKERS! Beat the Bears! 🙂 🙂

Your a Packer fan, well now I get it! I'm dying a slow death in baseball now,
but I have hope for this century since lost the last one completely. 🙂

As I have been saying over and over it is where you end up!
I have acknowledge from the beginning that not-P and a lack of belief
in P are not the same, but what I have been saying is both gets you some
place which is a universe without God or gods! There are several roads to
Green Bay, WI as well, getting there leaves you in Green Bay, WI not
Chicago.

A universe empty of God or gods is where all the Atheist end up It is still
either 1, >1, or 0, not some 0 with a dash of 1 or >1 thrown in.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you want to talk about someone who is NOT an Atheist we can; however,
the topic is Atheism is a belief system, which means one does not have
God or gods in their equations, someone wishy washy on the topic isn't a
part of this discussion. If they are 25% sure there isn't a God or gods I'd
not call them an Atheist they are not sure! If you have been ...[text shortened]... nd assigning them to Atheists. The words
either mean what they say or they do not.
Kelly

Atheism is not a belief system. It's a specific absense of belief in gods.

Period.

If thats your point then its done dusted and finished.

Being an atheist does not, and has never, required being absolutely
certain gods don't exist.

All it requires is not having a firm conviction [belief] that they do exist.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Atheism is not a belief system. It's a specific absense of belief in gods.

Period....Being an atheist does not, and has never, required being absolutely
certain gods don't exist.

All it requires is not having a firm conviction [belief] that they do exist.

Look, your first point is not correct. Dirt is not atheistic. Go study and see for yourself. Your second point is correct.

Originally posted by apathist
Look, your first point is not correct. Dirt is not atheistic. Go study and see for yourself. Your second point is correct.

This was cleared up earlier in the thread. The definition generally assumes an entity capable of belief. So you can read his first point as: a specific absence of belief in gods in an entity capable of belief.
One could of course call dirt atheist, but it would have no descriptive value.