Originally posted by LemonJelloIt isn't as complex as you are jumping though hoops to claim. Building
Again, it's not quite as simple as you imply. Belief (or suspension thereof) can proceed at differing levels of confidence. Even two persons who, say, both believe not-P can have (and in general will have) different levels of psychological sureness in the truth of P. So, even two persons who both believe not-P are not in the exact "same place". Maybe ...[text shortened]... ief (or suspension thereof) is not the simple black and white 0/1 process you imply.
a belief system like building a home, it requires material and tools, you
either have what you need or don't, when you reject some material and
tools you do not have them to build with. It is no different than going some
place you are left with those things you can find in your location. As I
pointed out to you if you went to Chicago, it didn't matter what road you
took to get there, it didn't matter what it was that made you go there, it
didn't matter what part of town you ended up in, once your there you
are there. If you want to say that not have God or gods can be different
than not have God or gods, have at it...unless you mix in God or gods you
are still without God or gods, your confidence will not change that till you
change your position.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaywhen you reject some material and
It isn't as complex as you are jumping though hoops to claim. Building
a belief system like building a home, it requires material and tools, you
either have what you need or don't, when you reject some material and
tools you do not have them to build with. It is no different than going some
place you are left with those things you can find in your locat ...[text shortened]... ut God or gods, your confidence will not change that till you
change your position.
Kelly
tools you do not have them to build with
Yes, well the person who believes that God does not exist has to at least some degree "rejected" the existence of God; but the person who neither believes that God exists nor that God does not exist has not. The latter is compatible with just suspending judgment on the matter. So even by your own analogy, these two persons are not the same with respect to their building materials and attitudes thereof. Maybe the first person thinks the material is better burned for fire than used for his building project; maybe the second is not quite sure what to make of the material and leaves it on the side of the building site, to be used later (or not) depending on what circumstances arise during the construction phase.
You say I'm over-complicating the issue; I say you're over-simplifying the issue. Maybe we can meet somewhere in the middle?
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloCorrect the one who rejects God out right is different than the one who does
[b]when you reject some material and
tools you do not have them to build with
Yes, well the person who believes that God does not exist has to at least some degree "rejected" the existence of God; but the person who neither believes that God exists nor that God does not exist has not. The latter is compatible with just suspending judgment on the issue; I say you're over-simplifying the issue. Maybe we can meet somewhere in the middle?[/b]
not have God, either through suspending judgment or a complete lack of
knowledge. Yet none of them are building their belief system with God or
gods now are they? So no matter how they got to that point they are a that point.
Kelly
Originally posted by JS357Correct no deal, as I have been pointing out we build our world views
OK so no deal.
through those things we think are true. We use the items we believe are
there doing the things we believe they are doing to make the universe
work the way we believe it works. So every time someone talks about
the universe with and without God they have made judgment calls about
the universe and how and why it works the way it does.
Kelly
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo the middle is where?
[b]when you reject some material and
tools you do not have them to build with
Yes, well the person who believes that God does not exist has to at least some degree "rejected" the existence of God; but the person who neither believes that God exists nor that God does not exist has not. The latter is compatible with just suspending judgment on the ...[text shortened]... issue; I say you're over-simplifying the issue. Maybe we can meet somewhere in the middle?[/b]
If you mix God or gods into a person's views who didn't have God or gods
doesn't that move them outside of a universe without God or gods?
If you leave God or gods out, are not God and gods out, and you are left
with a place without God or gods?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay
Correct the one who rejects God out right is different than the one who does
not have God, either through suspending judgment or a complete lack of
knowledge. Yet none of them are building their belief system with God or
gods now are they? So no matter how they got to that point they are a that point.
Kelly
Yet none of them are building their belief system with God or
gods now are they? So no matter how they got to that point they are a that point.
Neither of them are actively employing the God-material in the current construction of their home, yes. But their attitudes with respect to the God-material are quite radically different. I just got done telling you that the former thinks the God-material has no business ever being a part of his home and is in the process of burning it instead, whereas the latter doesn't quite know what to make of the God-material and has positioned it in a neutral zone on the construction site to be used (or not) later depending on the breaks. Again, only in KJ fantasy world are these two in the "same place" with respect to their attitudes toward the God-material.
If your only point is that neither is actively using the God-material in their current construction, then your point simply boils down to saying that neither has the belief that God exists. Well, yes thanks, but we all already knew that neither of these atheists is a theist. That's rather uninteresting don't you think? And what concerns me is the way you act like this uninteresting point has interesting implications, like implicating that both these atheists are in the "same place" on the issue. No, they're not in the same place, as has been explained numerous times. And just because they are both not theists doesn't mean they are in the "same place".
So, sorry, I still just don't agree with you.
EDIT: And, for that matter KJ, even if you have two theists who were both actively building with the God-material, it wouldn't mean those two were in the "same place" either with respect to their attitudes towards the God-material. Perhaps the first uses the God-material in every room in the house with abandon in a show that is, well, gaudy; while the second uses the God-material in a more tasteful way. So, my take is that you over-simplify this issue big time.
Originally posted by KellyJayAgain, you're still projecting your 0/1 black and white perspective of belief. As I already remarked, this perspective is naive at best.
So the middle is where?
If you mix God or gods into a person's views who didn't have God or gods
doesn't that move them outside of a universe without God or gods?
If you leave God or gods out, are not God and gods out, and you are left
with a place without God or gods?
Kelly
1 edit
Why are atheists so resistant to calling what believe a belief? That's what a belief is, it is something believed.
If you believe something it's a belief, but if you are an atheist then it's something else...? ImNsHo atheism works out to either being unnecessary denial, or just plain old fashioned stupidity dressed up in philosopher's robes. If there is no God the position is unnecessary, and if there is a God the position is worse than stupidity.
I don't know what it is, but it seems atheists are always trying to avoid saying something that would undermine a pet argument. I can't put my finger on what that might be, but why else would anyone want to avoid something as simple and self evident as a belief being something that is believed? As much as this sounds like an old cliche, there really is more here than meets the eye.
Edit: It just occurred to me what that mysterious something is, that will prevent an atheist from acknowledging a belief is something (they) believe. It's simple association.
They associate the word belief with what they are convinced is simply an imagined perception of God. Their own self perception is inextricably wrapped up in the belief they are rational realists, whereas the people who believe in God are not.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloLook at the name of the thread! Atheism rejects God and gods, now if youYet none of them are building their belief system with God or
gods now are they? So no matter how they got to that point they are a that point.
Neither of them are actively employing the God-material in the current construction of their home, yes. But their attitudes with respect to the God-material are quite radically different. I ju a more tasteful way. So, my take is that you over-simplify this issue big time.
want to include those that do accept God or gods we are no longer talking
about Atheism now are we? If you reject the tools outright or don't use
them because you don't know about them, you are still not using the tools.
You are really working hard to include those that keep God or gods away
from themselves to include those that do not reject God or gods, but the
topic is and always has been Atheist.
We are not talking about Agonistics belief systems now are we? Can we
describe the belief system of Agonistics to include God or gods, yes, but
when we move to the rejection we are now left with Atheism. To mix in
God or gods is not a rejection of either.
I am not debating that you can have two different theist who believe in 1
God to not believe in the same God, mainly because we define those that
do believe in 1 God the same, no matter who their 1 God is. If they believe
in more than 1, it really does not matter which ones they believe in it
only matters that they believe in more than 1!
You are trying very hard to make this much more complex than it needs
to be.
Kelly
Originally posted by lemon limeI have no problem saying I believe God does not exist. I reject the claim that my belief system is founded on the absence of a god - which is how Kelly would like to portray it.
Why are atheists so resistant to calling what believe a belief? That's what a belief is, it is something believed.
There are of course atheists that simply lack belief in God.
ImNsHo atheism works out to either being unnecessary denial, or just plain old fashioned stupidity dressed up in philosopher's robes. If there is no God the position is unnecessary, and if there is a God the position is worse than stupidity.
Would you then say that if there is no God then Theism is worse than stupidity?
And why is atheism unnecessary if there is no God? Do you refuse to state that you don't believe in Santa simply because he doesn't exist? Do you take no position on the matter of his existence?
If there is a Santa, is your belief that there isn't worse than stupidity?
I don't know what it is, but it seems atheists are always trying to avoid saying something that would undermine a pet argument.
In this thread we are mostly trying to stop theists from using their pet argument - because it is wrong.
I can't put my finger on what that might be, but why else would anyone want to avoid something as simple and self evident as a belief being something that is believed?
I think that if you read the thread carefully, nobody has made any such attempt at avoidance. I think you are setting up a strawman. If you look a bit more carefully at the thread title, it is about a 'belief system' not a 'belief'.