atheism is a belief system

Originally posted by KellyJay
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

you said...

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.

Which is an entirely different point than the one you are now claiming to be making.

Of course someone who doesn't believe in gods will not 'credit' any gods, where
someone who does believe in gods would/might.

For anyone who is sane and clinging to at least a shred of logic this is tautological.

However what you were claiming when I wrote my previous reply was that we
had created a system of beliefs with the specific purpose of "[keeping] god out".

Which is false.

Do you accept that?

Originally posted by KellyJay
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

Right, and in your worldview, you credit nothing unto pixie moon dust fairies. You give the credit to X whatever X happens to be, but we know X doesn't happen to be pixie moon dust fairies. So, I guess that means your lack of belief in pixie moon dust fairies constitutes a "belief system", by your own lights.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Right, and in your worldview, you credit nothing unto pixie moon dust fairies. You give the credit to X whatever X happens to be, but we know X doesn't happen to be pixie moon dust fairies. So, I guess that means your lack of belief in pixie moon dust fairies constitutes a "belief system", by your own lights.

The system is built on whatever your X is, not sure where you are going for
pixie moon dust fairies, but okay.
Kelly

Originally posted by googlefudge
you said...

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.

Which is an entirely different point than the one you are now claiming to be making.

Of course someone who does ...[text shortened]... with the specific purpose of "[keeping] god out".

Which is false.

Do you accept that?

No I didn't say Atheist built up something to keep God out I said you were.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
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 absurditi ...[text shortened]... st don't know what point you are trying to make. Please clarify in that case.

If it is a fact none resides in the universe means all things are pieced
together with out one. The belief systems people use to describe all the
pieces and how and why are doing what they are doing is a godless set of
pieces, this system is what all people who reject God or choose to ignore
Him share no matter how they describe themselves.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If it is a fact none resides in the universe means all things are pieced
together with out one. The belief systems people use to describe all the
pieces and how and why are doing what they are doing is a godless set of
pieces, this system is what all people who reject God or choose to ignore
Him share no matter how they describe themselves.
Kelly

Sorry, I honestly have absolutely no clue what you're trying to argue anymore.

Back to the pixie moon dust fairies, you're okay with the idea that your lack of belief in pixie moon dust fairies constitutes a "belief system"? That sounds right to you?

Originally posted by KellyJay
No I didn't say Atheist built up something to keep God out I said you were.
Kelly

Yes. I know that. I know what it is you are saying.

Now listen to what I am saying.

I am still telling you that you are wrong, for all the reasons listed previously.


I haven't built up anything to "keep god out".
And if god actually existed there wouldn't be anything I could do to "keep god out"
even if I wanted to.

I follow a system where you let the evidence for the nature of reality tell you what
you should or should not believe in.
If there was sufficient evidence for the existence of a god I would believe in the
existence of that god.

There isn't.

Thus I don't believe in gods.


I don't need defence mechanisms to keep out the truth because unlike you I want to
know what the truth is whether I like that truth or not.

If a god exists then I want to know.

You on the other-hand are only prepared to believe that which fits your preconceived ideas
and what makes you happy or feel comfortable.


Everyone has biases. But some have more biases than others, and some follow philosophies
designed specifically to minimise those biases and others follow philosophies that maximise them.

Originally posted by rwingett
Of course atheists have thought about god. At least explicit atheists have. They just find the evidence for it (god) to be unconvincing.

Everyone who calls himself an atheist has beliefs of one sort or another. But none of those beliefs are a result of his being an atheist. They are the result of his being a humanist, a materialist, a socialist, or whatever.

I find the evidence for the existence of God very convincing. Perhaps those that do not think so, are lacking in knowledge about the evidences.

The instructor

Originally posted by googlefudge
I wasn't claiming that atheists don't believe anything.

I was saying that the foundation of those beliefs is not the absence of belief in gods.

As rwingett said, atheism is the result of other beliefs, not the source of them.


And I have known and met plenty of 'normal' adults who haven't thought about the
existence of god... Advantage of liv ...[text shortened]... nd its sexist to assume that an atheist would be a he.
Gender unbiased language please.

I assure that those 'normal' adults, who you think haven't thought about the existence of god, have thought about the existence of God or gods. They just have not informed you about it.

The Instructor

Originally posted by googlefudge
I wasn't claiming that atheists don't believe anything.

I was saying that the foundation of those beliefs is not the absence of belief in gods.

As rwingett said, atheism is the result of other beliefs, not the source of them.


And I have known and met plenty of 'normal' adults who haven't thought about the
existence of god... Advantage of liv ...[text shortened]... nd its sexist to assume that an atheist would be a he.
Gender unbiased language please.

Did you view this video:

The Signs of God's Existence

YouTube

The Instructor

Originally posted by LemonJello
Sorry, I honestly have absolutely no clue what you're trying to argue anymore.

Back to the pixie moon dust fairies, you're okay with the idea that your lack of belief in pixie moon dust fairies constitutes a "belief system"? That sounds right to you?

With respect to the system the belief about them, both would gender the
same results. I’m not disputing they are different notions where one could
be a conscious point of view, and the other since I had no knowledge of
them till now a completely unconscious point of view they were not real.
The end of both would still render the universe a place where we do not
acknowledge the pixie moon dust fairies as getting any credit for the
universe and where it is going. The system is what we do with the initial
point of view, be it conscious or unconscious if you believe nothing
deserves credit outside of the universe itself than that is where you are, if
you believe something outside of the universe deserves credit than that is
where you are, but you are somewhere piecing it all together making it all
make sense working out the details, creating the system you use to color
your world.
Kelly

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes. I know that. I know what it is you are saying.

Now listen to what I am saying.

I am still telling you that you are wrong, for all the reasons listed previously.


I haven't built up anything to "keep god out".
And if god actually existed there wouldn't be anything I could do to "keep god out"
even if I wanted to.

I follow a system whe pecifically to minimise those biases and others follow philosophies that maximise them.

"I haven't built up anything to "keep god out".
And if god actually existed there wouldn't be anything I could do to "keep god out"
even if I wanted to."

Sure you could, just deny Him no matter what, and setup boundries to make
sure you don't stumble into Him and be forced to acknowledge Him. You are
doing a grand job with that so far.
Kelly

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes. I know that. I know what it is you are saying.

Now listen to what I am saying.

I am still telling you that you are wrong, for all the reasons listed previously.


I haven't built up anything to "keep god out".
And if god actually existed there wouldn't be anything I could do to "keep god out"
even if I wanted to.

I follow a system whe ...[text shortened]... pecifically to minimise those biases and others follow philosophies that maximise them.

"I follow a system where you let the evidence for the nature of reality tell you what
you should or should not believe in.
If there was sufficient evidence for the existence of a god I would believe in the
existence of that god.

There isn't.

Thus I don't believe in gods."

The trouble with this is you only accept evidence that proves what you
want to believe is true. I have not seen you or anyone else here tell the
rest of us where everything came from. I don't know of a single piece of
matter, energy, or whatever that everyone says this is the eternal piece of
the puzzle that we give credit for starting all things. People limit the age of
the universe with some number, but beyond that no clue. That is evidence
for something outside of this place being responsible for this place.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The trouble with this is you only accept evidence that proves what you
want to believe is true. I have not seen you or anyone else here tell the
rest of us where everything came from. I don't know of a single piece of
matter, energy, or whatever that everyone says this is the eternal piece of
the puzzle that we give credit for starting all things. Peopl ...[text shortened]... That is evidence
for something outside of this place being responsible for this place.
Kelly

You accuse people of selectively ignoring the evidence, yet when you try to present evidence, this is the best you can do?
It has been explained many many times to you that there is no good logical reason to think a cause is required, but even if there is a cause, how would that be evidence that what you call God exists?
If I were to make a guess at what came before the universe, it would be 'more universe'.

Originally posted by KellyJay
With respect to the system the belief about them, both would gender the
same results. I’m not disputing they are different notions where one could
be a conscious point of view, and the other since I had no knowledge of
them till now a completely unconscious point of view they were not real.
The end of both would still render the universe a place where ...[text shortened]... ll
make sense working out the details, creating the system you use to color
your world.
Kelly

You didn't answer my question. Does it make sense to you to say that a lack of belief in something constitutes a "belief system"? Hey, I'm just trying to figure out what the heck you're actually arguing. I'm trying to clarify. It seemed to me that you were trying to imply that a lack of belief in something still constitutes a belief system because it's still a part (in some sort of negative space way) of that person's picture of the universe. For example, let's suppose S lacks belief in God. Then, you say S is not going to give credit to God in his worldview, as you put it. It seemed to me that you were arguing that because of this, his lack of belief in God still, in part, constitutes his belief system. That's just sounds incredibly silly. It would be kind of like saying that stuff that is not LemonJello's house still in part constitutes LemonJello's house because it delimits the boundaries of the house. In a similar fashion, you are trying to say that stuff that S does not believe still in part constitutes S's belief system because it delimits it. That has to be notionally confused. Everything that is not my house cannot constitute my house; just like stuff I don't believe cannot constitute my belief system. They delimit them, yes; they set boundaries on them, yes. But surely they don't constitute them. So, you're confused as far as I can tell.

With respect to the system the belief about them, both would gender the same results.

No. Look, this seems a very basic point: if the two do not involve or entail the same beliefs, then they cannot be said to engender the same results with respect to belief system. Right? Obviously, a lack of belief in P and belief in not-P do not involve or entail the same belief. So, how could they have the same results with respect to engendering belief system?

And I have already explained to you the dangers of trying to say the lack of belief in P and belief in not-P are the same "in effect". They're clearly not the same in effect. You can see obviously that they're not the same because when we assume they are, it leads to a whole bunch of absurdities, such as the absurd notion that when one has no clue on a topic and thus holds no belief either way it is the same in effect as his holding contradictory beliefs on the topic.

Please stop saying that they are the same in effect or that they engender the same belief system. Both of these claims are patently absurd.

And further, I would say that virtually none of your points here have any validity. Typically, I would try to resuscitate some portions that I can somewhat agree with, but on this topic I think you're basically confused and just wrong six ways to Sunday. Even your claim that the two have the same effect with respect to S's giving "credit" to God within his worldview is false in any strict sense when we really analyze it. That's because giving "credit" in this sense is often a thoroughly probabilistic exercise. In our lives we have to swim in probability as a basic medium through which we meet the world. In fact, the whole process of coming to belief or withholding belief or just not forming belief is something of a probabilistic exercise concerning this "credit" you talk about because it involves varying levels of credence concerning the extent to which one thinks it accords with reality. Because it's perfectly consistent that lack of belief in God's existence and belief in God's nonexistence respectively involve different levels of credence concerning God, you have no reason to think that these involve assigning the same "credit" to God within one's worldview. In fact, you have reason to think just the opposite, since, again, they are consistent with potentially very different levels of credence for God.

If you are having trouble understanding that last point (since I'm not sure how clearly I laid it out), I'll make it more clear with an example. Suppose Kelly lacks belief in God; suppose he's simply unsure and does not believe God exists and does not believe God does not exist. Suppose further that Jay believes strongly that God does not exist. Do you honestly think Kelly and Jay assign the same "credit" to God within their worldviews? You'd be a fool to think that, since I just got done telling you that the two assign very different credence levels to God's existence. If you asked Kelly if God was responsible for something, he may just reply with maybe but he's not too sure. If you asked Jay the same question, he would probably say no since he believes strongly that God doesn't exist in the first place (though he may still acknowledge it's possible he is wrong). I really think you have pretty much absolutely no basis for stating that lack of belief in God and belief that God doesn't exist have the same effect in one's "crediting" God from their perspective. So I cannot agree with any of your main points. Sorry.