Originally posted by apathistThen you have a countless number of 'belief systems' and the term has been rendered useless.
[b]Have you considered the possibility that babies and rocks are atheists?
Yes. Then I checked dictionaries and encyclopedias to see if I understood the words and the concepts. Turns out they aren't.
Is your lack of belief in Santa Claus a belief system? Do you have scientific evidence that Santa Claus does not exist?
Of course, and no.[/b]
Originally posted by Great King RatNo, believing that there is only one of something, more than one of
It always amazes me that religious people would want to equate their belief with that of the atheist. I mean, "believing" in god is something entirely different than "not believing" in god, isn't it? The way I understand it, theists don't just look at the world and say "oh well, based on emotionless, empiric evidence I have no choice but to come to th ...[text shortened]... e that you need to make everybody "a believer"?
How pitiful.
something, or none of something is still believing, and if you believe
that the correct value means all other variables are to be looked at one
way over another because of that correct value, as soon as you choose to
look at all the other variables in the light of your beliefs about that value
than you without a doubt have a belief system.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by apathistPlease explain why they aren't.
Yes. Then I checked dictionaries and encyclopedias to see if I understood the words and the concepts. Turns out they aren't.
Of course, and no.
What about your lack of belief in Shingitzu, prior to my telling you of him?
I am trying to establish whether your lack of belief becomes a belief system only when you consciously decide not to believe.
Would you describe all monotheists as athiests-1 ie athiests for all gods but one?
Would you describe them as having a belief system with respect to each god they don't believe in, or is the totality of what they believe in or don't believe in their belief system?
I would like to establish whether there is any significant relationship between my belief system and that of SwissGambit who has heard of and rejected a completely different set of gods/supernatural entities than I have.
And lastly, is my belief that pluto exists a belief system ie are belief systems restricted to supernatural entities or are they our opinions on the validity of any truth claim?
Originally posted by KellyJaySo do you agree with apathist that your lack of belief in Santa is a belief system? Do you agree that you look at all the other variables in the light of your lack of belief in Santa?
.... as soon as you choose to look at all the other variables in the light of your beliefs about that value than you without a doubt have a belief system.
Originally posted by twhitehead
Please explain why they aren't.
[b]Of course, and no.
What about your lack of belief in Shingitzu, prior to my telling you of him?
I am trying to establish whether your lack of belief becomes a belief system only when you consciously decide not to believe.
Would you describe all monotheists as athiests-1 ie athiests for all gods but one?
Would ...[text shortened]... tricted to supernatural entities or are they our opinions on the validity of any truth claim?[/b]
I explained this already. NObody Does It Better for I am...
The Instructor
Originally posted by KellyJayI have no problem with calling atheism a "belief". I think it's pointless - just like calling my non-believe in Manbearpig a believe is pointless - but I have no problem with it.
No, believing that there is only one of something, more than one of
something, or none of something is still believing, and if you believe
that the correct value means all other variables are to be looked at one
way over another because of that correct value, as soon as you choose to
look at all the other variables in the light of your beliefs about that value
than you without a doubt have a belief system.
Kelly
Would you agree that my atheism is the same kind of belief as my non-belief in Santa Clause (basically the question that Twitehead has already asked)?
1 edit
Originally posted by apathistAll babies are born as implicit atheists. As is everyone who is unfamiliar with theism, or who is incapable of conceptualizing it. Babies can be expected to subsequently grow up to be either explicit atheists or theists.
There are those who believe that atheism is best defined as a lack of belief in gods. Well, babies and rocks don't believe in gods.
By using dictionaries and encyclopedias, it turns out that atheism requires belief.
I'm pretty sure than must be correct, unless you have scientific evidence that gods cannot exist? :/
Rocks, on the other hand, are incapable of ever having beliefs of any kind, under any circumstances. It therefore is nonsensical to refer to them as atheists.
Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief.
Originally posted by apathist"What's yer point."
No, but there'll probably be some nearby. Lamps, too, and a basin to vomit in. What's yer point.
What or whom have you placed your confidence in regarding the eternal residence of your immaterial being
(after your temporary residence becomes brain dead and its material remains are buried or burned)?
Originally posted by rwingett"Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief."
All babies are born as implicit atheists. As is everyone who is unfamiliar with theism, or who is incapable of conceptualizing it. Babies can be expected to subsequently grow up to be either explicit atheists or theists.
Rocks, on the other hand, are incapable of ever having beliefs of any kind, under any circumstances. It therefore is nonsensical to refer to them as atheists.
Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief.
Thank you.
Originally posted by Great King RatI agree generally, that it doesn't really matter what words we use as labels, so long as the definitions are mutually agreed.
I have no problem with calling atheism a "belief". I think it's pointless - just like calling my non-believe in Manbearpig a believe is pointless - but I have no problem with it.
The danger is that people have a tendency to commit a logical error when it comes to definitions. They think that if they can get a label to stick even if they have to redefine it, then any other attributes that label used to carry with it, must also be brought along.
It think in this case, the main intention is to claim equivalency ie if everyone has a belief system, then everyone is equal. Of course it doesn't actually follow. Even if I have a religious like belief in something, or even the lack of something, it doesn't make my belief equivalent to any other persons belief. There may be differences in how we formed our belief, and differences in how reasonable our beliefs are.
My atheism consists of a lack of belief in entities that I have never considered the possibility of them being real, and a positive belief in the non-existence of entities whose existence I have considered. But my positive belief is well grounded in evidence and logic, whereas a theists belief is not.
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat do you say about lacking belief in any god?
No, believing that there is only one of something, more than one of
something, or none of something is still believing, and if you believe
that the correct value means all other variables are to be looked at one
way over another because of that correct value, as soon as you choose to
look at all the other variables in the light of your beliefs about that value
than you without a doubt have a belief system.
Kelly
1 edit
Indeed Twitehead. The main point I've been trying to make in this thread - and that so far has seemingly not been picked point by "the theists" - is that even if you label atheism as a belief, it is so radically different from the theists', that equating these two beliefs a) is quite pointless and b) as far as I'm concerned greatly weakens the belief of the atheist which - if I'm not mistaken - is NOT based on evidence but rather on feelings, emotions and most importantly faith.