atheism is a belief system

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, I get the burden of proof, you are the one making the claim, I ask
for you to prove it. How do you know?
Kelly

The lack of cognitive development in early childhood means infants are incapable of conceptualizing things such as a god. If you want to make the opposite claim, then by all means you're free to try.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Log out of my eye?

The problem with logs, is you cannot see through them. Stop trying to see through it and take it right out.
So, on the topic of seeing through things, does the absence of blue pigment, make glass transparent? What about the absence of red pigment, or pink pigment? The problem is that God is so important to you, that you see the issue as a dichotomy, either the universe + God, or universe - God. Us atheists just see the universe. Yes, we can also see that it is the universe-God and the universe-Santa and the universe-fairies and the universe-aliens, just as we see that glass has no blue pigment, no pink pigment and no red pigment. But normally, we just see glass as colourless, and when we don't think about it, we don't even realise it has no colour. Now if glass was blue, your whole view out the window would change, you might not even be able to see out. But does this really mean that the lack of blue is affecting your view out the window? Of course not.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Log out of my eye? For saying that if you view this universe as a godless
place no matter if you claim you lack a belief in God, or you claim there
isn't one, both have this universe a godless place. That is a painting you
get no matter how you voice the foundational views about this place, both
roads get you to the same place. You have your blinders on ...[text shortened]... want the way you want see it all, because it suits you, your belief
system is at work.
Kelly

As I have already pointed out, you are laboring under at least two serious errors in your thinking.

The first error is your claim that there is no difference between not holding the belief that God exists and holding the belief that God does not exist. It's painful to watch you keep pressing this point, since the point is so obviously false. I mean, if there were no difference, they should each entail each other. But is that the case? Of course not. The latter typically implicates the former in practice (although, strictly, the latter does not entail the former, since one can hold contradictory beliefs). But the former clearly does not entail or implicate the latter. Only in KJ's fantasy world does a lack of belief in P entail or implicate belief in not-P. 🙄🙄

You seem to want to claim that they lead to the same effect in practice anyway; but have you considered how incredibly absurd this is as a general rule? Suppose one simply has no clue whether or not God exists. So, he lacks belief that God exists and he also lacks belief that God does not exist. But, according to KJ fantasy world rules, whenever one lacks the belief that P it is indistiguishable in effect from his believing that not-P in how it paints his world. So, his lack of belief that God exists is indistinguishable from his believing that God does not exist; and his lack of belief that God does not exist is indistinguishable from his believing that God does exist. So, according to KJ fantasy world rules, this person who withholds judgment on the matter of God's existence is, in effect, an irrational, incoherent idiot on the topic who holds the contradictory beliefs that God does exist and that God does not exist at the same time. Likewise, KJ, if you haven't checked the weather reports recently and have no clue what the weather will be like tomorrow that makes you, in effect, an irrational, incoherent idiot who believes numerous sets of contradictory beliefs on the topic (such as that it will rain tomorrow and that it will not rain tomorrow; that it will be sunny tomorrow and that it will not be sunny tomorrow; that it will hail the size of golf balls tomorrow and that it will not hail the size of golf balls tomorrow; etc, etc). I mean, come on. Haven't you even considered how absurd it is to claim that lack of belief in P is, in effect, the same as belief in not-P? The idea is mad as a box of frogs.

The second serious error that you make is in your bloated understanding of how the question of God impinges on our foundational views. I think your particular Christian conception of 'God' does not exist. Sorry, but I honestly think that is a fact. It's based on my holistic understanding of the rational arguments for/against your conception of 'God'. Now, how does this impinge on my "foundational views"? Well, it really doesn't as far as I can tell. Of course, my foundational views will not include pointers to God and will not be availed of invoking God as an sort of component. So what? My foundational views do not include pointers to magical fairies and do not invoke magical fairies, either, but I do not lament this fact. You would only make me lament this fact if you could convince me that 'God' were somehow a necessary component for satisfactory foundations. But, again based on my holistic understanding of the arguments for/against, I think theistic arguments that try to show that God is a necessary component are pretty much failures across the board. These arguments are typically so bad they fail even to give much pause.

In fact, I don't think the subject of God, even supposing He exists, has much to do with foundations. That is, even if we take it as a fact that God exists, I am not at all convinced that much would follow from this as it would concern things like morality or value or meaning or purpose, etc, etc. The implications you draw from God's existence seem to me to be outrageously bloated. Hence, the log in your own eye.

Originally posted by LemonJello
As I have already pointed out, you are laboring under at least two serious errors in your thinking.

The first error is your claim that there is no difference between not holding the belief that God exists and holding the belief that God does not exist. It's painful to watch you keep pressing this point, since the point is so obviously false. I mean ...[text shortened]... istence seem to me to be outrageously bloated. Hence, the log in your own eye.

I think your particular Christian conception of 'God' does not exist.

Er, your conception of 'God' of course exists. But that conception is not instantiated. It fails to pick out anything actual. So this God doesn't exist. That's what I meant. 😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem with logs, is you cannot see through them. Stop trying to see through it and take it right out.
So, on the topic of seeing through things, does the absence of blue pigment, make glass transparent? What about the absence of red pigment, or pink pigment? The problem is that God is so important to you, that you see the issue as a dichotomy, eith ...[text shortened]... s this really mean that the lack of blue is affecting your view out the window? Of course not.

I think not having God in the universe is as important to you as you claim
having God is important to me. So you have setup a system to keep God
out, you set up a system to avoid God, and that is the topic. Being belittling
with Santa and fairies is just part of it.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
The claims are different, period. Like I said, they have different propositional content and entail different things. Likewise, not holding the belief that God exists is different than holding the belief that God does not exist (even if the latter typically implicates the former in practice). Of couse they are different. For starters, the latter entai nothing to do with it. You, unfortunately, have an extraordinarily provincial view on this.

The claims are different, but I also said it gets you to the same a universal
claim that it does not have God or gods in it. I don't care how you make
the claim, both have a universal system built up that does not have God or
gods in it. LOOK AT THE TOPIC, a belief system...not a view about
a data point.
Kelly

Originally posted by rwingett
The lack of cognitive development in early childhood means infants are incapable of conceptualizing things such as a god. If you want to make the opposite claim, then by all means you're free to try.

You have NOTHING but a claim, you are the one that uses that claim about
how babies are born Atheist. I want to see you prove your point, claiming
my desire to see you proves it means I have to prove is shifting the blame
for your lack of proof, it only shows your claim is baseless.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think not having God in the universe is as important to you ...
Kelly

You may think that. But it is clearly untrue.
And really; how can the absence of something you do not believe in have any importance?

It is akin to me saying that it is important to me that my brother is not here beside me ... when I do not have a brother.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think not having God in the universe is as important to you as you claim
having God is important to me. So you have setup a system to keep God
out, you set up a system to avoid God, and that is the topic. Being belittling
with Santa and fairies is just part of it.
Kelly

Yes. We know you think that.

What we are saying, and you are not hearing, is that you are wrong.

And while you continue to refuse to accept that we don't view the world
the same way you do, or on the same terms as you do, you will continue
to fail to understand your position.

Interestingly, as we generally do accept what you say your beliefs are, we
have a much more accurate understanding of your beliefs than you do of ours.

Although while I generally get what you believe, I still can't put myself in
your mindset and understand and empathise with WHY you believe what you
believe. That I still find incomprehensible.

And is perhaps one of the reasons I still come back here.
I don't like not understanding stuff.


The only reason I care at all about the 'god question' is because there are
people like you who believe that such beings exist.


I grew up in a post theist household, I was never taught that there is no god or
indoctrinated to disbelieve in gods. The subject never came up (except later on
at school, and even then in a very English way without much importance attached
to it, a bit like being told fairy tales) because it wasn't considered relevant or
important.

Until you understand and accept that, you will never comprehend my position.
Or the position of anyone like me, and of atheists in general.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You may think that. But it is clearly untrue.
And really; how can the absence of something you do not believe in have any importance?

It is akin to me saying that it is important to me that my brother is not here beside me ... when I do not have a brother.

LOL, so what....again you do not have a brother your loss.
It still does the same thing true or not if you have no faith about your
brother, or claim you don't have a brother means you have a life without
a brother in your thinking. Both take you the same place a life without
a brother.
Kelly

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes. We know you think that.

What we are saying, and you are not hearing, is that you are wrong.

And while you continue to refuse to accept that we don't view the world
the same way you do, or on the same terms as you do, you will continue
to fail to understand your position.

Interestingly, as we generally do accept what you say your beliefs ...[text shortened]... er comprehend my position.
Or the position of anyone like me, and of atheists in general.

I think you are missing my point!

God is simply a data point in this discussion, any answer will change how
all things are viewed. That change is how we look at everything else, either
we are giving credit to God, or gods, or we do not in the universe around
us. Not giving credit to God for this means that we credit X whatever X
happens to be *nothing* or some thing else.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have NOTHING but a claim, you are the one that uses that claim about
how babies are born Atheist. I want to see you prove your point, claiming
my desire to see you proves it means I have to prove is shifting the blame
for your lack of proof, it only shows your claim is baseless.
Kelly

The lack of cognitive development in early childhood means infants are incapable of conceptualizing things such as a god, which means they are all born as implicit atheist. I can keep repeating that as long as you like. If you wish to demonstrate that babies have the cognitive capacity for conceptualizing a god, by all means do so.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have NOTHING but a claim, you are the one that uses that claim about
how babies are born Atheist. I want to see you prove your point, claiming
my desire to see you proves it means I have to prove is shifting the blame
for your lack of proof, it only shows your claim is baseless.
Kelly

No.

Babies are known to have limited cognitive abilities as their brains are still being
built and have not yet been trained and/or altered by learning a language and
learning about the world.

This is just part of the general scientific knowledge we have of the world.

This is the default position in the light of our knowledge accrued over centuries
of scientific endeavour.

Just as I don't need to cite evidence that the world is a ball and not a flat disk
because it is just taken as general knowledge of the world, a brute fact, and
anyone claiming differently has an enormous burden to prove it...

Claiming that babies have the ability to conceptualise gods, let alone believe in them,
is an extraordinary claim that goes against our present knowledge of how the world
works and consequently has a huge burden of proof.

As you are claiming that it might be possible for babies to both conceptualise and
believe in gods (a requirement for them to be theists), you have the burden of
proof to show that they have such capabilities.

If they don't (and they don't) then they are atheists, by default.

Not that that really means a whole lot.

Originally posted by KellyJay
LOL, so what....again you do not have a brother your loss.
It still does the same thing true or not if you have no faith about your
brother, or claim you don't have a brother means you have a life without
a brother in your thinking. Both take you the same place a life without
a brother.
Kelly

You do not think the statement
I do not have a brother and it is important to me that he is not here beside me.
absurd?

Originally posted by KellyJay
The claims are different, but I also said it gets you to the same a universal
claim that it does not have God or gods in it. I don't care how you make
the claim, both have a universal system built up that does not have God or
gods in it. LOOK AT THE TOPIC, a belief system...not a view about
a data point.
Kelly

No, the claim that S lacks belief in God is not the same as the claim that S believes God does not exist, nor do they get you to the same "universal claim". Do I really need to explain why that is yet again? And as I have already pointed out, the idea that not believing P is the same "in effect" as believing that not-P leads to a whole host of absurdities. So, something is wrong with that idea.

Now you're claiming that if S1 lacks belief in God and S2 believes that God doesn't exist, then both S1 and S2 will "have a universal system built up that does not have God or gods in it". Well, yes, I would expect that neither S1 nor S2 would invoke God much or at all in their worldviews, since neither hold the belief that God exists. So what? Are you trying to imply that this means that S1's lack of belief still constitutes in itself a "belief system"? Who would have thunk it, a "belief system" that involves no belief. Kind of fails to satisfy, like a beef burger with no beef; false advertising.

What about pixie moon dust fairies that spend their time laughing and playing on the surface of the moon? I know you lack belief in them, since I just made them up. So, you have a "universal system built up" that does not have pixie moon dust fairies in it. Does that mean your lack of belief in pixie moon dust fairies constitutes a "belief system"?

If that does not address the point you are trying to make, then I just don't know what point you are trying to make. Please clarify in that case.