Atheism not a Belief System?

guitarjosh · Dec 8, 2008

For basically the same reasons that atheists cannot disprove God they cannot entirely disprove the existence of Santa Claus. Does that mean we should be agnostics as to Santa Claus?

When over thousands of years billions of people around the world claim to have had legitimate experiences with Santa Claus, let me know.

I have no problem to admit that many parts of astrophysics go way above my head. If scientists say that the multiverse is a legit theory then I accept that, not more and not less. Why do you ask?

Do you think it's possible that there could be a higher being in another universe that created this one, a "God" more or less?

koidog · Dec 8, 2008

Funny, I think both sides are wrong.

Athiest Don't believe in God...that's all.

That some are idiotic and will even become members of "groups" of like thinkers does indeed show that it is a belief.

And Religious folk that make fune of Athiest are equally idiotic. If we could skip talking about God and talk about every other subject Most religious people think I'm one of them. Hell I'm even more conservative than a lot of them.

Preussen · Dec 8, 2008

guitarjosh said:
When over thousands of years billions of people around the world claim to have had legitimate experiences with Santa Claus, let me know.

Billions? Are you saying that every Christian has had real contact to God?

Also, are you saying people claiming some sort or other of experiences mean anything even if entirely unproven? Mind you, not only Christians had spiritual experiences. Pagans, for example, felt much more in contact with their gods (mainly because there were many more things they couldn't explain), so their experiences mean something, too?

Do you think it's possible that there could be a higher being in another universe that created this one, a "God" more or less?

A Higher Being with God-like characteristics like omnipotence, omnipresence and such - no. A very highly developed civilisation that has created our universe for scientific or other reasons - yes, I think that would be theoretically possible.

bilbal · Dec 8, 2008

Preussen said:
A Higher Being with God-like characteristics like omnipotence, omnipresence and such - no. A very highly developed civilisation that has created our universe for scientific or other reasons - yes, I think that would be theoretically possible.

And how did that highly developed civilization come to exist?

Preussen · Dec 8, 2008

bilbal said:
And how did that highly developed civilization come to exist?

The same way that I believe we came into existence - by chance.

Your question would only be legit if I had explained our existence by the existence of a higher civilisation, which I obviously did not do, I only did not entirely discount the theoretical possibility.

woodog22 · Dec 8, 2008

Semantically speaking... Who labels who? Its a disagreement with the definition of the word God. "is" is abstracted. The way one can define "God(s)" are endless.

bilbal · Dec 8, 2008

Preussen said:
The same way that I believe we came into existence - by chance.

Your question would only be legit if I had explained our existence by the existence of a higher civilisation, which I obviously did not do, I only did not entirely discount the theoretical possibility.

If that is your belief, then surely you have a rock solid explanation as to how the laws of chance were created.

and it's not "which I obviously did not do" it's "which I obviously cannot do", there's a difference.

Preussen · Dec 8, 2008

bilbal said:
If that is your belief, then surely you have a rock solid explanation as to how the laws of chance were created.

The laws of chance are mathematical and therefore were not created.
What you probably mean are the physical constants and conditions which enabled our universe to be as it is. These constants and conditions were created by chance. Our existence ws highly unlikely. But if things hadn't worked out we wouldn't be here to notice. There's a term for this which unfortunately eludes me at the moment, perhaps someone else can help me here (anthropological something, I believe).

and it's not "which I obviously did not do" it's "which I obviously cannot do", there's a difference.

I'm afraid you are missing the point here. When I say that I think it theoretically possible that a higher civilisation created the universe we know, I do obviously not claim that this is what actually happened, so what is your goal with your remark?

But, please, let us not go down this road here. We already had threads about this.
This thread is about FesteringZit trying to prove that atheism is a system of belief and I'm interested in seeing how he will try to improve his sorry performance so far, therefore I don't intend to stray off-topic too much.

bilbal · Dec 8, 2008

Preussen said:
The laws of chance are mathematical and therefore were not created.
What you probably mean are the physical constants and conditions which enabled our universe to be as it is. These constants and conditions were created by chance. Our existence ws highly unlikely. But if things hadn't worked out we wouldn't be here to notice. There's a term for this which unfortunately eludes me at the moment, perhaps someone else can help me here (anthropological something, I believe).

I'm afraid you are missing the point here. When I say that I think it theoretically possible that a higher civilisation created the universe we know, I do obviously not claim that this is what actually happened, so what is your goal with your remark?

But, please, let us not go down this road here. We already had threads about this.
This thread is about FesteringZit trying to prove that atheism is a system of belief and I'm interested in seeing how he will try to improve his sorry performance so far, therefore I don't intend to stray off-topic too much.

Your first sentence may be the most moronic statement I've ever seen you write, and you've written some doozies, too.

kingbill · Dec 8, 2008

The only differences between Atheists and You Zit is that they just believe in one less god than you do...

festeringZit · Dec 8, 2008

bilbal said:
Your first sentence may be the most moronic statement I've ever seen you write, and you've written some doozies, too.

Preussen:

"The laws of chance are mathematical and therefore were not created. "

I agree, this rivals some of other idiotic things he has said,
Preussen again shows that he is totally clueless.

punter · Dec 8, 2008

Yep pretty stupid there Preussen.

Its amost like you are getting your information from a burning bush.

Preussen · Dec 8, 2008

bilbal said:
Your first sentence may be the most moronic statement I've ever seen you write, and you've written some doozies, too.

I'm always willing to learn, but as far as I know mathematics will always be the same even in a different universe. While lots of physical conditions could well be different I haven't ever heard someone claim that in another universe 1+1 might not equal 2, or something that has a chance of 1% might not happen, on average, once every 100 tries.
But since, in your opinion, I'm a moron I guess you can easily prove me wrong. I'm waiting...

Preussen · Dec 8, 2008

festeringZit said:
Preussen:

"The laws of chance are mathematical and therefore were not created. "

I agree, this rivals some of other idiotic things he has said,
Preussen again shows that he is totally clueless.

Zit, you created this very thread to "tear to shreds" a statement of mine which, according to you, was one of the most stupid things you ever read. Unfortunately you totally failed.

Now, instead of trying to reinforce your case, you again accuse me of being idiotic and clueless, this time without even trying to prove me wrong.

You will excuse me if I'm less than impressed.

festeringZit · Dec 8, 2008

Preussen said:
Zit, you created this very thread to "tear to shreds" a statement of mine which, according to you, was one of the most stupid things you ever read. Unfortunately you totally failed.

Now, instead of trying to reinforce your case, you again accuse me of being idiotic and clueless, this time without even trying to prove me wrong.

You will excuse me if I'm less than impressed.

Man, I don't know where to start with you. You say that
because the laws of chance are mathematical, therefore they are
not created? Seriously, that is the stupidest thing I've read on here
in weeks. Please expound, I need a good laugh.

As far as atheism not being a belief system. Every single atheist I've
ever met is a naturalist:

What exists: Naturalism asserts that the world is of a piece; everything we are and do is included in the space-time continuum whose most basic elements are those described by physics. We are the evolved products of natural selection, which operates without intention, foresight or purpose. Nothing about us escapes being included in the physical universe, or escapes being shaped by the various processes – physical, biological, psychological, and social – that science describes. On a scientific understanding of ourselves, there’s no evidence for immaterial souls, spirits, mental essences, or disembodied selves which stand apart from the physical world.

Whether you like it or not Preussen, this is a belief system.

rolltide · Dec 8, 2008

believing in nothing is not a belief system

bilbal · Dec 8, 2008

Preussen said:
I'm always willing to learn, but as far as I know mathematics will always be the same even in a different universe. While lots of physical conditions could well be different I haven't ever heard someone claim that in another universe 1+1 might not equal 2, or something that has a chance of 1% might not happen, on average, once every 100 tries.
But since, in your opinion, I'm a moron I guess you can easily prove me wrong. I'm waiting...

Preussen · Dec 8, 2008

bilbal said:
<META content=Word.Document name=ProgId><META content="Microsoft Word 10" name=Generator><META content="Microsoft Word 10" name=Originator><LINK href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5Csa%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml" rel=File-List><STYLE>  </STYLE>First you say "the laws of chance are mathematical and therefore were not created". I call that moronic and now you say "as far as I know mathematics will always be the same even in a different universe", which is, incredibly, even more moronic, but also has absolutely, positively nothing to do with your first claim.

Then you qualify your sheer insanity by claiming that no one has personally challenged you that 1+1=2 in another universe, so it must be true?

I've changed my opinion, you're not a moron, you're a lunatic.

You are really impressive, bilbal. You say nothing substantive but manage to call me another name.

I cannot decided whether you are to dumb to understand me or just unwilling. In either case further explanation seems fruitless. Nevertheless I will try it one more time.

The laws of chance are mathematical, and mathematics is an abstract science. There is nothing creative or changeable about it. Gravitation could be changed, the temperature where water freezes could be different and so on, but mathematical laws and facts simply are there. They would even be the same if no universe existed, so how are they supposed to be "created"?
It's difficult to put in words but I think anyone willing to understand me can do it. But I guess you are rather looking for another name to call me instead.

Preussen · Dec 8, 2008

festeringZit said:
You say that because the laws of chance are mathematical, therefore they are
not created? Seriously, that is the stupidest thing I've read on here
in weeks. Please expound, I need a good laugh.

Care to explain to me how mathematical laws can be created, or are you only good at insulting (purely rhethoric question, I assume)?

As far as atheism not being a belief system. Every single atheist I've ever met is a naturalist:

What exists: Naturalism asserts that the world is of a piece; everything we are and do is included in the space-time continuum whose most basic elements are those described by physics. We are the evolved products of natural selection, which operates without intention, foresight or purpose. Nothing about us escapes being included in the physical universe, or escapes being shaped by the various processes – physical, biological, psychological, and social – that science describes. On a scientific understanding of ourselves, there’s no evidence for immaterial souls, spirits, mental essences, or disembodied selves which stand apart from the physical world.

Whether you like it or not Preussen, this is a belief system.

First question - if it is that easy, why did you start this thread with so much cut-and-pasted material?

Second question - say I were to concede that naturalism is a belief system (which I do not do until we have defined 'belief system'), how would this improve your argument? As even all the definitions you provided say, atheism is simply the denial that a God of any sorts exists. Even if you could prove that atheism naturally leads to the adoption of a certain belief system, it would not change the fact that atheism itself is not a belief system.

festeringZit · Dec 8, 2008

Preussen said:
Care to explain to me how mathematical laws can be created, or are you only good at insulting (purely rhethoric question, I assume)?

First question - if it is that easy, why did you start this thread with so much cut-and-pasted material?

Second question - say I were to concede that naturalism is a belief system (which I do not do until we have defined 'belief system'), how would this improve your argument? As even all the definitions you provided say, atheism is simply the denial that a God of any sorts exists. Even if you could prove that atheism naturally leads to the adoption of a certain belief system, it would not change the fact that atheism itself is not a belief system.

You are so laughable.

First you say that you can't concede that naturalism is a belief system
because we haven't defined "belief system" - but then you go on to argue that even though we haven't defined "belief system", atheism is definitely not this thing we haven't defined.

You need to go back to school and get an education on logical thinking and argumentation.

Oh, and by the way mathematical laws are no different than anything
else in creation, and could have been created just like everything else.
And, I believe they were. I believe God holds together every atom in
the universe as we speak.