When does Atheism Become a Belief System

[calamity]

This doesn't have anything to do with the concept of god. Unknown simply means unknown. It doesn't mean anything is possible.

If we do not know what is or is not possible, that means it may or may not be possible/ Right?

 

[William Rea]

You're free to believe whatever you wish. That's the beauty of beliefs.

See, that's the problem, it's not a belief, i proved it. On exactly the same terms as Frank (and by default you since you plagiarised this nonsense from him).

 

[William Rea]

This doesn't have anything to do with the concept of god. Unknown simply means unknown. It doesn't mean anything is possible.

You miss the point. If you call it gods then it has a more, shall we say, disruptive effect. What is actually happening is people are pointing at things and simply saying, 'that's gods' without any justifications whatsoever. I decided to join them and so, I have proved that god's don't exist. Hopefully, Frank's disciples will catch on soon.

 

[William Rea]

If we do not know what is or is not possible, that means it may or may not be possible/ Right?

Yup, and we don't even know if this all exists in reality and so, you are left to ponder that it is ignorance all the way down. We either know everything or we know nothing.

 

[William Rea]

If we do not know what is or is not possible, that means it may or may not be possible/ Right?

Good, I'm glad that you have disowned the faulty statement previously asserted which implied that reality is contingent upon our knowledge of it. You are making progress.

 

[Russell797]

One line of argument is that the known laws of physics break down at the big bang. So, it's safe to say we know nothing about what is or is not possible outside of our known universe: what came before or exists beyond what we can observe.

We don't even know IF there is an outside or before the known universe. The terms don't really apply rationally.

 

[calamity]

We don't even know IF there is an outside or before the known universe. The terms don't really apply rationally.

What difference does that make? The bottom line is we do not know anything beyond what we know. And, for all we know, what lies beyond the known is the realm of gods.

 

[calamity]

Good, I'm glad that you have disowned the faulty statement previously asserted which implied that reality is contingent upon our knowledge of it. You are making progress.

I certainly disown your claim that you know gods do not exist.

 

[Russell797]

You're free to believe whatever you wish. That's the beauty of beliefs.

However, there are rational beliefs and then there are irrational beliefs. Reasoned beliefs and illogical beliefs. Just like opinions, not all beliefs and faiths are created equal.

 

[calamity]

However, there are rational beliefs and then there are irrational beliefs. Reasoned beliefs and illogical beliefs. Just like opinions, not all beliefs and faiths are created equal.

Beliefs are what the believer chooses them to be.

 

[Russell797]

If we do not know what is or is not possible, that means it may or may not be possible/ Right?

I don't think that's right. If there is an objective reality, then it exists whether or not we think it is possible. The opposite is also true. If something doesn't exist then it doesn't whether or not we think it is possible. Human minds are not the final arbiter as to what exists and doesn't.

However, if you notice I introduced another boundary condition. "If there is an objective reality." Without that boundary there can be no logical thought...we can not conclude anything about anything because then infinity applies and infinity is irrational. In the case of infinity you are correct.....absolutely anything goes without limitation, but that would mean we could know nothing, which is obviously wrong. We know what we know within natural boundaries and the boundaries we establish. Anything else is nonsensical.

 

[calamity]

I don't think that's right. If there is an objective reality, then it exists whether or not we think it is possible. The opposite is also true. If something doesn't exist then it doesn't whether or not we think it is possible. Human minds are not the final arbiter as to what exists and doesn't.

It still may or may not be possible. We simply do not know. I did not say it is possible. We do not know if it is or is not. We only know that it may be.

However, if you notice I introduced another boundary condition. "If there is an objective reality." Without that boundary there can be no logical thought...we can not conclude anything about anything because then infinity applies and infinity is irrational. In the case of infinity you are correct.....absolutely anything goes without limitation, but that would mean we could know nothing, which is obviously wrong. We know what we know within natural boundaries and the boundaries we establish. Anything else is nonsensical.

Why do you insist on boundary conditions when discussing gods?

If I define the boundary to earth, the solar system, the known universe, matter, and the four fundamental interactions or forces which we understand, then of course there are no gods. But, that is not the discussion we are having here.

 

[Russell797]

Beliefs are what the believer chooses them to be.

Of course, but as soon as the believer shares their belief with others those others can apply logical thought to it and determine if the belief makes sense. If it's irrational and illogical then it can be dismissed. Belief in god is irrational and illogical. There is no way to arrive at god other than through irrational blind faith. That ends the discussion right there. There need not be any consideration of possibilities because there is no way to establish what the odds are.

 

[calamity]

Of course, but as soon as the believer shares their belief with others those others can apply logical thought to it and determine if the belief makes sense. If it's irrational and illogical then it can be dismissed. Belief in god is irrational and illogical. There is no way to arrive at god other than through irrational blind faith. That ends the discussion right there. There need not be any consideration of possibilities because there is no way to establish what the odds are.

Basically, you can choose to believe what the person is saying or ignore it. What you cannot do without proof though is declare his beliefs false. Doing so is simply an unsubstantiated assertion, which is in itself a logical fallacy.

 

[Russell797]

It still may or may not be possible. We simply do not know. I did not say it is possible. We do not know if it is or is not. We only know that it may be.


Why do you insist on boundary conditions when discussing gods?

If I define the boundary to earth, the solar system, the known universe, matter, and the four fundamental interactions or forces which we understand, then of course there are no gods. But, that is not the discussion we are having here.

We all are making a case for our lines of argument, you, me and everyone else. I would think that each of us is trying to make sense. We are not trying to make nonsense. When we attempt to apply infinity to our arguments we become irrational. By definition our argument no longer makes sense.

That's what you are doing. It's not my opinion or my belief that infinity is irrational. The value for the number Pi proves infinity is irrational. Without boundaries we are talking nonsense. The argument for the possible introduces an infinite regression of possibilities.

 

[calamity]

We all are making a case for our lines of argument, you, me and everyone else. I would think that each of us is trying to make sense. We are not trying to make nonsense. When we attempt to apply infinity to our arguments we become irrational. By definition our argument no longer makes sense.

That's what you are doing. It's not my opinion or my belief that infinity is irrational. The value for the number Pi proves infinity is irrational. Without boundaries we are talking nonsense. The argument for the possible introduces an infinite regression of possibilities.

Any reasonable discussion about gods has to go beyond what is known and rational. After all, we know that there are no gods in the known and rational parts of the universe. We've proven that much.

Gods do not make it rain; they did not form the earth, sun, moon and planets. Gods did not build the hydrogen atom, and they do not build up the heavier elements. We know all that. What we do not know is whether or not gods created what we call time and space. We cannot know....at least not yet.

 

[Russell797]

Any reasonable discussion about gods has to go beyond what is known and rational. After all, we know that there are no gods in the known and rational parts of the universe. We've proven that much.

Gods do not make it rain; they did not form the earth, sun, moon and planets. Gods did not build the hydrogen atom, and they do not build up the heavier elements. We know all that. What we do not know is whether or not gods created what we call time and space. We cannot know....at least not yet.

The people who believe in the Christian god and most other god(s) I presume would disagree with you on all of that.

Those god(s) do interact with us and the world we inhabit according to them. They can say that because they establish no limit to what is possible. You and I do impose limits or boundaries, but then you arbitrarily remove those boundaries in order to suggest it's all possible.

 

[calamity]

The people who believe in the Christian god and most other god(s) I presume would disagree with you on all of that.

I know. But, they would be wrong. I believe, and I have supporting evidence, that we do actually know that much.

Those god(s) do interact with us and the world we inhabit according to them. They can say that because they establish no limit to what is possible. You and I do impose limits or boundaries, but then you arbitrarily remove those boundaries in order to suggest it's all possible.

Let's be frank--not William's hero Frank, but using the "honest" version of the word--no reasonable person can possibly believe that gods make it rain, spin the earth, fuel the sun, etc. But, no reasonable person can rule out that something like a god may have created our reality. We simply do not know what spun this web.

Now, do I think that a god did it? Of course not. I just cannot rule it out without more evidence.

 

[D_NATURED]

That it a good theory. It's not proven, but the hypothesis certainly sounds reasonable.

Evolution is not just a theory, it's real, modern science. Just as other aspects of the human animal is relative to where and when it evolved, so is religious culture. It's no wonder that some isolated Amazonian tribes believe god is a giant anaconda. That's the highest power they know.

The "theory" that religion evolved seems more obvious to me than to reduce it to theory. Unfortunately, faith can blind people to all else or to itself. Look at how easy it is to look objectively at that Amazonian tribe's beliefs. A giant snake god sounds ridiculous unless you were raised to believe it. The same goes for a man on a cloud, tossing lightning bolts at doubters. They are two ways of doing the same thing. The difference is only meaningful if you believe that one of them is the truth about god rather than both of them being the truth about humans.

I'm not sure. My belief that there is no god certainly feels like a legitimate belief system.

It's a belief but it's not a "system". I've never had atheists knock on my door on a Saturday, asking if I've heard the good news about Darwin. You don't have to organize around the truth the same way you do to push a lie. Religion needs more fire power than science.

 

[calamity]

Evolution is not just a theory, it's real, modern science. Just as other aspects of the human animal is relative to where and when it evolved, so is religious culture. It's no wonder that some isolated Amazonian tribes believe god is a giant anaconda. That's the highest power they know.

The "theory" that religion evolved seems more obvious to me than to reduce it to theory. Unfortunately, faith can blind people to all else or to itself. Look at how easy it is to look objectively at that Amazonian tribe's beliefs. A giant snake god sounds ridiculous unless you were raised to believe it. The same goes for a man on a cloud, tossing lightning bolts at doubters. They are two ways of doing the same thing. The difference is only meaningful if you believe that one of them is the truth about god rather than both of them being the truth about humans.

Evolution is most definitely a theory. That is why they call it the Theory of Evolution. And, yes. It is a sound, good theory which is substantiated by much evidence.

It's a belief but it's not a "system". I've never had atheists knock on my door on a Saturday, asking if I've heard the good news about Darwin. You don't have to organize around the truth the same way you do to push a lie. Religion needs more fire power than science.

Aren't we doing the equivalent of "knocking on doors" when we discuss atheism here, especially those who insists there is no god? It's a belief, and for some it's even a belief system. Certainly there are people here who go out of their way to argue that no gods exist.

 

[Russell797]

Evolution is not just a theory, it's real, modern science. Just as other aspects of the human animal is relative to where and when it evolved, so is religious culture. It's no wonder that some isolated Amazonian tribes believe god is a giant anaconda. That's the highest power they know.

The "theory" that religion evolved seems more obvious to me than to reduce it to theory. Unfortunately, faith can blind people to all else or to itself. Look at how easy it is to look objectively at that Amazonian tribe's beliefs. A giant snake god sounds ridiculous unless you were raised to believe it. The same goes for a man on a cloud, tossing lightning bolts at doubters. They are two ways of doing the same thing. The difference is only meaningful if you believe that one of them is the truth about god rather than both of them being the truth about humans.




It's a belief but it's not a "system". I've never had atheists knock on my door on a Saturday, asking if I've heard the good news about Darwin. You don't have to organize around the truth the same way you do to push a lie. Religion needs more fire power than science.

Biological evolution is a fact of observation just as is the observation that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. The evidence is as solid as is any in science. What is a theory is the set of mechanisms by which it takes place. Natural selection and punctuated equilibrium for example.

 

[William Rea]

Any reasonable discussion about gods has to go beyond what is known and rational. After all, we know that there are no gods in the known and rational parts of the universe. We've proven that much.

Gods do not make it rain; they did not form the earth, sun, moon and planets. Gods did not build the hydrogen atom, and they do not build up the heavier elements. We know all that. What we do not know is whether or not gods created what we call time and space. We cannot know....at least not yet.

What you are doing is trying to define yourself to victory. If gods means just about anything you want it to then all you are saying is that, 'just about anything may or may not be possible'. That is the point of my proof that has skimmed right over your head. I define gods as, 'non-existent entities' so therefore I just proved god's don't exist. You are scratching around for as obscure a concept as you can muster and are simply pointing at it and saying, 'that's gods' you are not discussing anything inherently recognisable as gods. Frank tried doing this and failed and has run away from it twice.

Next question will be why you don't afford the same argument to Leprechauns and Faeries.

 

[calamity]

What you are doing is trying to define yourself to victory. If gods means just about anything you want it to then all you are saying is that, 'just about anything may or may not be possible'. That is the point of my proof that has skimmed right over your head. I define gods as, 'non-existent entities' so therefore I just proved god's don't exist. You are scratching around for as obscure a concept as you can muster and are simply pointing at it and saying, 'that's gods' you are not discussing anything inherently recognisable as gods. Frank tried doing this and failed and has run away from it twice.

Next question will be why you don't afford the same argument to Leprechauns and Faeries.

Not even close. But, do keep trying.

I do not believe in gods. I'd like to be able to say there are no such thing as gods. I can even come very close to actually proving that there are no gods in our known universe (see my rain, earth, sun and hydrogen posts for examples of that). But, I have just enough humility to admit that I simply do not know enough about all of existence to exclude gods form the equation completely. In short, I know we do not know enough about the fabric of existence to make such a claim.

Tis a shame your hubris prevents you from crossing that bridge. But, do continue to flail. It's entertaining to see.

 

[Russell797]

What you are doing is trying to define yourself to victory. If gods means just about anything you want it to then all you are saying is that, 'just about anything may or may not be possible'. That is the point of my proof that has skimmed right over your head. I define gods as, 'non-existent entities' so therefore I just proved god's don't exist. You are scratching around for as obscure a concept as you can muster and are simply pointing at it and saying, 'that's gods' you are not discussing anything inherently recognisable as gods. Frank tried doing this and failed and has run away from it twice.

Next question will be why you don't afford the same argument to Leprechauns and Faeries.

I think calamity does, just not on planet Earth and likely not in our universe....maybe in some other universe? If there are an infinite number of universes then anything imaginable could be, because the possibilities are well....infinite....Of course what I have been attempting to show is that thinking in terms of infinity is nonsense so what is the point of appealing to it.

 

[calamity]

I think calamity does, just not on planet Earth and likely not in our universe....maybe in some other universe? If there are an infinite number of universes then anything imaginable could be, because the possibilities are well....infinite....Of course what I have been attempting to show is that thinking in terms of infinity is nonsense so what is the point of appealing to it.

We cannot rule out infinity because infinity has not been excluded from the equation. It would be nice if we could, but we can't. Therefore, infinity must be considered in play when discussing these things.