Originally posted by LemonJelloI did answer your question. The belief "SYSTEM" is all that is done to make
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' ...[text shortened]... not agree with any of your main points. Sorry.
everything work without a positive acceptance of the X we are talking
about. The X as I pointed out does not have to be acknowledge in any part
of the discussion, if we move on trying to piece it together without X than
the "SYSTEM" will be without "X", and that system will be equal to those
people who down right deny "X" in their beliefs to build a system without
"X".
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by KellyJayNo. Everything you just said was eloquently refuted in LemonJello's last post (and those preceding).
I did answer your question. The belief "SYSTEM" is all that is done to make
everything work without a positive acceptance of the X we are talking
about. The X as I pointed out does not have to be acknowledge in any part
of the discussion, if we move on trying to piece it together without X than
the "SYSTEM" will be without "X", and that system will be e ...[text shortened]... people who down right deny "X" in their beliefs to build a system without
"X".
Kelly
Read the entire thing not just the first line and think about it.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI think you still missing my point!
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' not agree with any of your main points. Sorry.
I am not saying that "no belief in" and "I deny that" are the same thing!
So that is not my point, so comparing how different they are has nothing
to do with the point.
"Belief system" the end result....is the discussion.
Each of us looks at the universe around us, things are here due to X.
I don't care who you are, your beliefs about the things around us are all
about how you piece it together and give credit to X, you can be a Christian
or a fairie dust guy, an Atheist, it doesn't matter.
Your lack of belief or your denial of something as different as they can be
still, they are two different roads that get you to X, the SAME X.
There are different roads to Chicago and not all of them get there.
I'm saying that between two DIFFERENT roads you get to the same place.
Your focused upon being this or that and assigning a belief system around
the "this or that", I'm telling you neither of those matter it is the system
you end up with that does.
I am a Christian, I believe in the God of scripture, all other gods I reject
it is simple as that for me, with you not so much! Reason being the universe
if godless no matter how you define or arrive at your belief has a
godlessness universe. The affect of "false gods' upon a godless universe is
no different than there being none, and rejecting them out right.
As a Christian I believe that all of creation awaits God to end this world of
sin, a godless universe is waiting for nothing. The systems is our beliefs
about the universe, the answer to is God/gods real is one of many ways
to get one.
Kelly
Originally posted by wolfgang59He is saying that an atheist and an agnostic will both have the same Belief System despite having different beliefs. He claims neither will attribute God as a cause to any particular event. I think LemonJello adequately showed that this is not the case. I would argue that an 'ignorant agnostic'* might to all intents and purposes have the same belief system as a strong atheist as he would not attribute God as a cause to any events. I am not sure LemonJello adequately addressed this because he assumed that when one has no clue on a topic one will not use Occam's razor - although I guess the use of Occam's razor could be considered 'getting a clue'.
What are you saying???????????
* an agnostic that has not even heard of the 'God' concept.
3 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59Why would I care? That has nothing to do with the point! How you get
NO
This is one of the points you do not understand!
Why are you denying the possibility of someone saying
"I wonder what caused all this?" There is nothing wrong
with not knowing.
there, either through (I don't believe this or that), or (this is not important
enough to me to care about) isn't the issue or the topic!
Once you get to the place where you by design, or though lack of caring
say or just through deeds without saying that God/gods are not required,
or even wanted, you start to look at all things as if God/gods are not
required or even wanted thus a system is born.
Kelly
Originally posted by wolfgang59It isn't a debatable point for me anyway! I used that to show you that I
We can agree on that. Don't bring it up as a debatable point.
cannot be confused with anyone who has another belief system due to the
fact that there is a specific God I believe in. Atheist filled the universe with
nothing like God or gods, therefore any belief system that also agrees with
that will share almost all the same beliefs in that no God or gods are to get
blame or credit. I get there will be some small differences, but on large they
view all things without God or gods. All of their beliefs will be their system
of beliefs to support that notion and all others they have.
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by KellyJay
It isn't a debatable point for me anyway! I used that to show you that I
cannot be confused with anyone who has another belief system due to the
fact that there is a specific God I believe in. Atheist filled the universe with
nothing like God or gods, therefore any belief system that also agrees with
that will share almost all the same beliefs in that n ...[text shortened]... eliefs will be their system
of beliefs to support that notion and all others they have.
Kelly
therefore any belief system that also agrees with
that will share almost all the same beliefs in that no God or gods are to get
blame or credit.
No. No. No.
There are many totally different, almost no-overlap, belief systems that do
not include gods.
What you are saying is false, and blatantly so.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThey each have their own rules, each person has his own rules, thetherefore any belief system that also agrees with
that will share almost all the same beliefs in that no God or gods are to get
blame or credit.
No. No. No.
There are many totally different, almost no-overlap, belief systems that do
not include gods.
What you are saying is false, and blatantly so.
over lap is that they all agree about there being NO God or gods! They each
build up their beliefs about the universe with no God or gods. Each person
takes their beliefs and builds their own little personal unviersal system,
and with those that reject God and gods for all reasons, LEAVING God and
gods out!
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by KellyJayThat is not what you were claiming.
They each have their own rules, each person has his own rules, the
over lap is that they all agree about there being NO God or gods! They each
build up their beliefs about the universe with no God or gods. Each person
takes their beliefs and builds their own little personal unviersal system,
and with those that reject God and gods for all reasons, LEAVING God and
gods out!
Kelly
You said, and I quote...
therefore any belief system that also agrees with
that will share almost all the same beliefs in that no God or gods are to get
blame or credit.
"will share almost ALL the same beliefs".
You are not moving the goal posts...
You made this claim. Its wrong. Admit that and then we can move on.
Originally posted by KellyJaySo in LemonJello's house analogy, your house is like his house in that both houses do not have a Redwood tree in them? This is of course of great importance to beetles that live solely on Redwood bark, but to you and him, not so much.
They each have their own rules, each person has his own rules, the
over lap is that they all agree about there being NO God or gods! They each
build up their beliefs about the universe with no God or gods. Each person
takes their beliefs and builds their own little personal unviersal system,
and with those that reject God and gods for all reasons, LEAVING God and
gods out!
Kelly
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay
I did answer your question. The belief "SYSTEM" is all that is done to make
everything work without a positive acceptance of the X we are talking
about. The X as I pointed out does not have to be acknowledge in any part
of the discussion, if we move on trying to piece it together without X than
the "SYSTEM" will be without "X", and that system will be e ...[text shortened]... people who down right deny "X" in their beliefs to build a system without
"X".
Kelly
that system will be equal to those
people who down right deny "X" in their beliefs to build a system without
"X".
You can keep on stating that they lead to the same belief system until you're blue in the face (which seems to be what you are intent on doing), but that statement is false. Belief systems are constituted by beliefs, and the two positions do not entail the same beliefs. In math, when you have two sets A and B and you want to show they are equal or identical to each other, you want to show both that every member of set A is a member of set B and that every member of set B is a member of set A. Can you do that in this case? Can you show that every belief in one system is also a belief in the other system? No, you cannot, since one position entails the belief that God doesn't exist, whereas the other does not. Hence, it only takes a cursory treatment to see that the two systems are not equal.
I think you continue to make at least a couple errors.
First, you wrongly infer that if the two assign the same credit to X, then the underlying belief systems that led to that accredidation are the same. That inference is not warranted, since different sets of beliefs can lead to the same accredidation in this sense. Twhitehead already provided one such example, in which two different sets both lead to the same answer of "no" to the question of whether or not phenomena should be accredited to God. In that example, one set contains the strong belief that God does not exist; on the other hand, the other set contains neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist, but it does contain a strong commitment to Occam's razor. The first will say "no" because he strongly thinks God doesn't exist in the first place; the second will say "no" because that answer is most parsimonious. So, these persons both give the same accredidation to X, but it doesn't follow that their belief systems are equal.
Second, I think you're making an even more fundamental error, since there's no reason in the first place to think the two assign the same credit to X (it may hold for some particular instances of which we can conceive, like twhitehead's example, but it will not hold generally). In reality, the accredidation process is not separate from the belief system itself. It's a part of it, and all these things are intertwined and ultimately all "hang together" to form one coherent picture. By implying that these different routes (lack of belief in G versus belief in not-G) both lead to the same accredidation unto G in a person's worldview, you are in effect divorcing the accredidation process from the question of what credence level the person assigns to G's existence. After all, lack of belief in G and belief in not-G imply potentially very different levels of credence in G and yet you claim they lead to the same degree of accredidation unto G within one's worldview. It seems to me, on a very fundamental level, that is just not valid. After all, if you want to know to what extent a person will "credit" G for stuff, it stands to reason that you cannot reasonably divorce that from the question of how plausible the persons thinks G's existence is in the first place. But that seems precisely what you have tried to do. Anyway, it's simply false in general that the two will lead to the same credit to X. Again, just consider the extremes: consider one who very strongly believes that God does not exist on one hand, and consider on the other hand one who is on the fence, or even leaning somewhat toward theistic belief but needs just a little push to get there. You have no reasons to assume that these two will "credit" God to the same degree in their worldviews.
So, in summary, you have no reasons to think the two will lead to the same credit for G. And even if you did, it still wouldn't follow that the belief systems are equal.
Originally posted by LemonJelloJesus once said that to obtain the kingdom of God one must come to him with the faith of a child.
[First, you wrongly infer that if the two assign the same credit to X, then the underlying belief systems that led to that accredidation are the same. That inference is not warranted, since different sets of beliefs can lead to the same accredidation in this sense. Twhitehead already provided one such example, in which two different sets both lead to the s ...[text shortened]... ive the same accredidation to X, but it doesn't follow that their belief systems are equal.
However, he also wrongley inferred that the two assigned the same credit to X, then the underlying belief system that led to that accredidation are the same. Thus the inference was not warranted, since the different sets of beliefs can lead to the same accredidation in this sense.
What a buffoon. 😛