Atheism not a Belief System?

[Preussen]

Zit, it's painfully obvious that you simply cannot address the points I raise. Why don't you just give it up?

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.

Once again you are avoiding the issue and are not even logical in doing so. The reason why I'd need a definition of "belief system" is that I'm not quite sure of the exact meaning you attribute to this term (remember, I'm not a native English speaker). If it has (as I currently think) a religious connotation then I'd disagree as naturalism has nothing to do with religion. However, if it has the same meaning as the German word Weltanschauung (I think this word exists in English, too, I don't know what the best translation would be, probably '(secular) world view'), then yes, I'd agree that naturalism is that.
Obviously this little uncertainty does not prevent me from seeing that atheism in itself, the simple denial of God's existence, is not a belief system, no matter what the exact meaning of this term. And as usual, you didn't have any proper reply to my argumentation. Did you never realise that trying to ridicule an adversary without being able to beat him just embarrasses yourself?

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.

This says nothing at all. "Created just like everything else" - how? I can imagine God putting together the universe atom by atom, I can imagine him setting physical constants, but how was he to create mathematics? Most (perhaps all) physical formulas apply only to our universe (some even only to the environment we live in), so I can see how Creation can make a difference here. But, as I said, mathematics is entirely independent from conditions, it simply exists, but not in a material sense, it's only a description and therefore cannot be created or destroyed, it will always be the same.
If God created mathematics (including the laws of chance) he should be able to alter or destroy it, correct? Show me in what way God could change or destroy mathematics. If you cannot, simply shut up.

 

[bilbal]

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.

It’s not that I’m too dumb, it’s that I’m too dumbfounded by your hypothetical comparisons of mathematical laws on earth with other universes and how credible you feel you are being with your wild guesses. Sagan and <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:City><st1lace>Newton</st1lace></st1:City> have nothing on you!

 

[barman]

Exactly. Unlike all other religions that have a laundry list of tenets that members must adhere to, atheism is simply the belief that there is no God. No other like beliefs are required.

I agree with this succinct summation of atheism.

 

[barman]

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

Short, simple and very easy for most of us to agree.

 

[mr21]

 

[barman]

Yep pretty stupid there Preussen.

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

Or a talking snake

d1g1t

 

[barman]

believing in nothing is not a belief system

Which makes it now 6-2 in favor of common sense

ZIT, you shoulda made a Poll. It increases Views.

And it more clearly slots people into narrow definitions

Sincerely

NewModTryingToJackUpViewCounts

 

[nimue77]

You're an asshole and arrogant is a great word to describe you.

Definition of an Athiest is an evil selfish arrogant person that tries to elevate themselves higher by trying to push that no higher power than themselves exists & created everything....I think some of them think either they are God or they are simply posessed by some evil force that anybody with a lick of common sense cannot understand nor tolerate. Atheists> :finger:

 

[barman]

Oh and just to clarify...I'm technically the "late night mod".

This time of day, I'm just another average cyber sap like the rest of you schmoes

 

[barman]

Though I confess I think we'd all be a bit better off if there were a cutback in "you're an asshole/moron/lunatic" smak

If I can get along with ZIT, the rest of you mopes should be able to at least follow the counsel of Rodney King, post-beatdown by the LAPD

 

[festeringZit]

Zit, it's painfully obvious that you simply cannot address the points I raise. Why don't you just give it up?



Once again you are avoiding the issue and are not even logical in doing so. The reason why I'd need a definition of "belief system" is that I'm not quite sure of the exact meaning you attribute to this term (remember, I'm not a native English speaker). If it has (as I currently think) a religious connotation then I'd disagree as naturalism has nothing to do with religion. However, if it has the same meaning as the German word Weltanschauung (I think this word exists in English, too, I don't know what the best translation would be, probably '(secular) world view'), then yes, I'd agree that naturalism is that.
Obviously this little uncertainty does not prevent me from seeing that atheism in itself, the simple denial of God's existence, is not a belief system, no matter what the exact meaning of this term. And as usual, you didn't have any proper reply to my argumentation. Did you never realise that trying to ridicule an adversary without being able to beat him just embarrasses yourself?




This says nothing at all. "Created just like everything else" - how? I can imagine God putting together the universe atom by atom, I can imagine him setting physical constants, but how was he to create mathematics? Most (perhaps all) physical formulas apply only to our universe (some even only to the environment we live in), so I can see how Creation can make a difference here. But, as I said, mathematics is entirely independent from conditions, it simply exists, but not in a material sense, it's only a description and therefore cannot be created or destroyed, it will always be the same.
If God created mathematics (including the laws of chance) he should be able to alter or destroy it, correct? Show me in what way God could change or destroy mathematics. If you cannot, simply shut up.

Preussen,

I don't even know why I bother to respond to you. You argue at the
level of a 5th grader - all rhetoric, and no substance. Others have
commented in this thread that your statements are sheer lunacy.

Do you even have a high-school education? Seriously.

I will state again that every atheist I ever met is a naturalist,
which is clearly a belief system as I outlined above. A belief system
being simply, a system of beliefs.

Even the one statement that says:

"I believe there is no God" is a belief.

 

[Preussen]

It’s not that I’m too dumb, it’s that I’m too dumbfounded by your hypothetical comparisons of mathematical laws on earth with other universes and how credible you feel you are being with your wild guesses. Sagan and <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:City><st1lace>Newton</st1lace></st1:City> have nothing on you!

I notice that you manage to provide exactly nothing to refute my "wild guesses".

 

[mrcrash]

Let's try to keep this thread civil.

This is my favorite part of the thread. 1st post is keep it civil. since then festering has only insulted posters.

 

[Preussen]

Preussen,

I don't even know why I bother to respond to you. You argue at the
level of a 5th grader - all rhetoric, and no substance. Others have
commented in this thread that your statements are sheer lunacy.

This is the best you can do? Oh my, is this weak. You were the one who twice ridiculed statements of mine but couldn't provide anything substantial to prove me wrong, and now your coming with these phrases in order to make it less obvious.
There was exactly one other poster, Bilbal, who agreed with you (and sided with you in calling me names), and he, too, didn't have anything to dispute my positions, so you will forgive me for believing that his support does not strengthen your argument at all.

I will state again that every atheist I ever met is a naturalist,
which is clearly a belief system as I outlined above.

And I will state again that even if naturalism were a belief system and every single atheist were a naturalist this would not mean that atheism itself, the simply denial that a God exists, is a belief system. So?

A belief system being simply, a system of beliefs.

I asked you whether, in your understanding, this term has religious connotations. Are you unable to answer simple questions?
Assuming it has, then I disagree that naturalism is a belief system. Atheists, at least those I know, hold that science can theoretically explain everything. There are things we know and things we don't know yet, but in our view of the world there is no place for belief in the religious sense.

Even the one statement that says:

"I believe there is no God" is a belief.

So I guess the statement "I believe there is no Santa Clause" is a belief, too?

 

[bilbal]

I notice that you manage to provide exactly nothing to refute my "wild guesses".

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5Csa%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Verdana; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1593833729 1073750107 16 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} </style>I don’t consider your clueless drivel as proof or fact, not in this galaxy or any other galaxy. Maybe one of your imaginary friends has an intergalactic math book we can peruse? :missingte

 

[Preussen]

?

 

[bilbal]

?

I don’t consider your clueless drivel as proof or fact, not in this galaxy or any other galaxy. Maybe one of your imaginary friends has an intergalactic math book we can peruse? :missingte

 

[Preussen]

Bilbal, my "?" was not meant as a comment, it was just a test. Somehow your post #55 broke the thread for me. But I just noticed that posts #55 and later do appear in the topic review when I go on "Reply", although I can't really say they are worth reading.

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.
...

I know you don't want to understand, but once more in short: You claimed that the laws of chance were created (by God). I hold that the laws of chance are mathematical and that mathematical laws cannot be created as they are not material but (for want of a better term) abstract descriptions that can neither be created nor altered or destroyed, they'd be the same in any kind of universe or even if no universe as such existed. But of course my statements have "absolutely, positively nothing to do with [each other]", right?


You called my argumentation "moronic", "lunatic", "sheer insanity" and "clueless drivel". Pretty strong language for someone who still has not provided the slightest argument against my positions nor for his original assertion that the laws of chance were created.

Bilbal, just out of curiosity I will ask you a direct question and expect a direct answer: Do you believe that in order to call someone a clueless moron one should be able to show that his position is not only demonstrably false but so ridiculous that no-one with any common sense can defend it?

 

[bilbal]

Bilbal, my "?" was not meant as a comment, it was just a test. Somehow your post #55 broke the thread for me. But I just noticed that posts #55 and later do appear in the topic review when I go on "Reply", although I can't really say they are worth reading.




I know you don't want to understand, but once more in short: You claimed that the laws of chance were created (by God). I hold that the laws of chance are mathematical and that mathematical laws cannot be created as they are not material but (for want of a better term) abstract descriptions that can neither be created nor altered or destroyed, they'd be the same in any kind of universe or even if no universe as such existed. But of course my statements have "absolutely, positively nothing to do with [each other]", right?


You called my argumentation "moronic", "lunatic", "sheer insanity" and "clueless drivel". Pretty strong language for someone who still has not provided the slightest argument against my positions nor for his original assertion that the laws of chance were created.

Bilbal, just out of curiosity I will ask you a direct question and expect a direct answer: Do you believe that in order to call someone a clueless moron one should be able to show that his position is not only demonstrably false but so ridiculous that no-one with any common sense can defend it?

I ask you for your personal opinion on where you felt those laws came from and by asking you that question you are now saying that I now claim the laws of chance were created by God? Yes, I call your argumentation moronic, at best.

To answer your question, no. In order to do that, all one has to do is read their nonsensical assumptions on intergalactic mathematical theories. That's really all it takes, everything else is just icing on the cake.

 

[Preussen]

I ask you for your personal opinion on where you felt those laws came from and by asking you that question you are now saying that I now claim the laws of chance were created by God?

To be fair, after re-reading the thread I agree that it was not you but Zit who explicitely said he believed the mathematical laws were created by God. But if you really have a different opinion you managed to conceal that fact remarkably well. So, may we know your explanation?

To answer your question, no. In order to do that, all one has to do is read their nonsensical assumptions on intergalactic mathematical theories. That's really all it takes

Bilbal, even if it was to be expected, I confess I'm a little surprised that you really have the nerve for this answer. You openly admit that you think it correct to call someone names just because you feel he might be wrong even though you are entirely unable to disprove his argumentation and in fact are not even trying to provide any indications that the argumentation might be wrong. This is like calling someone a 'loser' who has just destroyed you in a sports competition in which you couldn't even be bothered to put in a good effort, without any explanation as to why that person should, against all visible facts, be a loser, just because you feel that any result that does not agree with you cannot be right so insults are in order.

It was fun while it lasted, but such childish behaviour by you shows me that it is high time to end this farce. Please don't expect me (and probably any other sensible person who read this thread, may he agree with my positions or not) to take you seriously ever again.
Not that I believe this will bother you in any way, of course. Have fun in your own small mental world where you are the king and make your own rules.