Comments on: Atheism is a belief system http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/atheism-is-a-belief-system/ Occasional thoughts from an unqualified atheologist and amateur skeptographer Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:35:42 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: fropome http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/atheism-is-a-belief-system/#comment-779 fropome Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:13:39 +0000 http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/?p=375#comment-779 Thanks Mr. Rube, that does clarify! I still don’t agree though, which is good because it keeps things interesting. I would be happy to say that I think there is no god, and that I don’t believe in a god, but I wouldn’t say I believe there is no god. I think that there is a political point to be made here, though it is perhaps trivial in a conversation strictly between atheists. In the context of religion, atheists are often seen as a polar opposite to the religious - that Dawkins is a ‘fundamentalist’ atheist, that atheism is as much of a religion as Christianity and we have ‘faith’ in our position. I don’t think that this is the case – I don’t think (most) atheists think like this. We don’t have faith in atheism any more than we have faith in the theory of gravity; it’s just the best, most parsimonious, explanation. If the Bible was replete with statements like “And Yea, for a beam of light has a speed, and no thing can move faster – for as you move more quickly you become more heavy until your energy is exhausted” or perhaps if Jesus kept swooping down like a hippie Superman to save pious kids from being squished by buses then I’d think that there was something in it, but as it is I don’t. Christians – even pretty moderate or liberal ones – say that their faith in God is different to their faith in gravity. For a start, gravity doesn’t care if you believe in it. As such I think that, in the sense you mean, while it’s true to say we believe there is no God, the difference between our belief and that of Christians in the existence of God is an important one which could be confused because we don’t use the word ‘believe’ in the same way as Christians do. Saying only that we lack a belief in God conveys some of this difference. Another (more rhetorical) point is that the default position is atheism, and one should only believe in a God if there is evidence for it. This, again, is not the position of most Christians who would say that while they think there is evidence for God, this is relatively unimportant compared to the need for raw faith. Thanks Mr. Rube, that does clarify!
I still don’t agree though, which is good because it keeps things interesting.

I would be happy to say that I think there is no god, and that I don’t believe in a god, but I wouldn’t say I believe there is no god.

I think that there is a political point to be made here, though it is perhaps trivial in a conversation strictly between atheists. In the context of religion, atheists are often seen as a polar opposite to the religious – that Dawkins is a ‘fundamentalist’ atheist, that atheism is as much of a religion as Christianity and we have ‘faith’ in our position. I don’t think that this is the case – I don’t think (most) atheists think like this. We don’t have faith in atheism any more than we have faith in the theory of gravity; it’s just the best, most parsimonious, explanation. If the Bible was replete with statements like “And Yea, for a beam of light has a speed, and no thing can move faster – for as you move more quickly you become more heavy until your energy is exhausted” or perhaps if Jesus kept swooping down like a hippie Superman to save pious kids from being squished by buses then I’d think that there was something in it, but as it is I don’t. Christians – even pretty moderate or liberal ones – say that their faith in God is different to their faith in gravity. For a start, gravity doesn’t care if you believe in it.

As such I think that, in the sense you mean, while it’s true to say we believe there is no God, the difference between our belief and that of Christians in the existence of God is an important one which could be confused because we don’t use the word ‘believe’ in the same way as Christians do. Saying only that we lack a belief in God conveys some of this difference.

Another (more rhetorical) point is that the default position is atheism, and one should only believe in a God if there is evidence for it. This, again, is not the position of most Christians who would say that while they think there is evidence for God, this is relatively unimportant compared to the need for raw faith.

]]> By: cubiksrube http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/atheism-is-a-belief-system/#comment-778 cubiksrube Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:15:12 +0000 http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/?p=375#comment-778 Hey fropome, no worries about the tardiness, I think most of the booze has gone but there should still be a few Pringles and some of those little sausages on cocktail sticks. Mind you don't step in a stray vol-au-vent, though. I don't know whether to blame Critic or Eric for those being strewn about the floor. I haven't revisited this page in a while, and forgot how much discussion there'd been here, tangential though it tended to be. Gosh, this was first posted almost a year ago. It could probably do with redrafting one of these days, when I get around to doing that for the Skeptictionary as a whole, because it couldn't hurt to clarify a few terms. For a start, there are different flavours of atheism that I could do with distinguishing more effectively. I don't really buy the over-simplified strong/weak atheist dichotomy ("There is no God" versus "I have no belief in any particular God"), but there are different ways in which people can unbelieve. (If that wasn't a verb before, it is now.) If someone has never given the notion of a divine being any thought at all, and thus never had their brain inhabited by any belief in such, it may well be reasonable to call them an atheist. (Though I wonder how many other sentient beings or living creatures this could be extended to, if that's how we're defining our terms.) But this seems to be a different kind of atheism from mine, and it's not a trivial difference. A lack of belief stemming from a complete lack of consideration probably can't be labelled a belief system in the way I described here. I originally wrote this in response to a lot of atheists claiming that atheism isn't a belief system, it's just a lack of belief, which I thought was a bad idea. It seems like an unnecessary cop-out, to avoid conflict or wiggle out of having to defend their position, by denying that they even have any position to defend. It reminded me of the kind of people who say things like "Hey, I'm not saying we <i>didn't</i> land on the Moon," or "Obviously I don't <i>know</i> that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11," then add a "<i>but...</i>" and start listing all the usual conspiracy theory clichés. I don't think we need to act like that, or pretend that we're not making any definite claims about anything. I'm making a lot of definite claims about stuff. "God doesn't exist" may or may not be among them. But even if I'm just claiming to lack a god-belief, that's a position that I've chosen, which exists in the context of all my other beliefs and opinions. I think this must apply to anyone except those who've never given it a moment's thought. Most people have encountered the concept of a supreme being, and atheists have actively rejected it. They may not go so far as to deny it, but they've decided they're not convinced. So, I call that a belief system. There's a lack of a particular belief, but there's also <i>reasons</i> why they chose not to accept that belief. They've heard the arguments, and they're still not buying it. Does that clarify anything at all? Hey fropome, no worries about the tardiness, I think most of the booze has gone but there should still be a few Pringles and some of those little sausages on cocktail sticks. Mind you don’t step in a stray vol-au-vent, though. I don’t know whether to blame Critic or Eric for those being strewn about the floor.

I haven’t revisited this page in a while, and forgot how much discussion there’d been here, tangential though it tended to be. Gosh, this was first posted almost a year ago. It could probably do with redrafting one of these days, when I get around to doing that for the Skeptictionary as a whole, because it couldn’t hurt to clarify a few terms.

For a start, there are different flavours of atheism that I could do with distinguishing more effectively. I don’t really buy the over-simplified strong/weak atheist dichotomy (“There is no God” versus “I have no belief in any particular God”), but there are different ways in which people can unbelieve. (If that wasn’t a verb before, it is now.)

If someone has never given the notion of a divine being any thought at all, and thus never had their brain inhabited by any belief in such, it may well be reasonable to call them an atheist. (Though I wonder how many other sentient beings or living creatures this could be extended to, if that’s how we’re defining our terms.) But this seems to be a different kind of atheism from mine, and it’s not a trivial difference. A lack of belief stemming from a complete lack of consideration probably can’t be labelled a belief system in the way I described here.

I originally wrote this in response to a lot of atheists claiming that atheism isn’t a belief system, it’s just a lack of belief, which I thought was a bad idea. It seems like an unnecessary cop-out, to avoid conflict or wiggle out of having to defend their position, by denying that they even have any position to defend. It reminded me of the kind of people who say things like “Hey, I’m not saying we didn’t land on the Moon,” or “Obviously I don’t know that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11,” then add a “but…” and start listing all the usual conspiracy theory clichés.

I don’t think we need to act like that, or pretend that we’re not making any definite claims about anything. I’m making a lot of definite claims about stuff. “God doesn’t exist” may or may not be among them. But even if I’m just claiming to lack a god-belief, that’s a position that I’ve chosen, which exists in the context of all my other beliefs and opinions. I think this must apply to anyone except those who’ve never given it a moment’s thought. Most people have encountered the concept of a supreme being, and atheists have actively rejected it. They may not go so far as to deny it, but they’ve decided they’re not convinced.

So, I call that a belief system. There’s a lack of a particular belief, but there’s also reasons why they chose not to accept that belief. They’ve heard the arguments, and they’re still not buying it.

Does that clarify anything at all?

]]> By: fropome http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/atheism-is-a-belief-system/#comment-747 fropome Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:39:31 +0000 http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/?p=375#comment-747 Late to the party, but only just stumbled on this and found it interesting. I've scanned through the comments, but because I'm only really interested in Cubik's claim that "atheism is a belief system" rather than debating the existence of God - which is where the conversation seemed to go - I've skipped a fair bit, so sorry if I'm repeating points already made! Cubik: You seem to be saying that rather than being the absense of a positive statement of the existence of a god/s, atheism is a set of positive statements about the non-existence of god/s. Is that the case? This seems to be different to my understanding of the word atheist. An atheist is (generally) someone who "does not believe in god" (lack of a positive statement), of whom a subset are those who "believe god does not exist" (positive statement). Someone who had never heard of or considered the concept of a god would be, to me, an atheist despite the fact that they've never considered a god in order to identify themselves as such. You might argue that they are making implicit statements about the existence of god in that they make claims which do not include god, and thus are making positive statements - is it possible to make a positive statement without knowing that you are doing so? This doesn't seem like a very useful definition of the term. When I say that atheism is not a belief system I am also, usefully, pointing out some of the strange assumptions inherent in theism, which (IMO) exist for historical rather than logical reasons. Interested in your thoughts! Late to the party, but only just stumbled on this and found it interesting. I’ve scanned through the comments, but because I’m only really interested in Cubik’s claim that “atheism is a belief system” rather than debating the existence of God – which is where the conversation seemed to go – I’ve skipped a fair bit, so sorry if I’m repeating points already made!

Cubik:
You seem to be saying that rather than being the absense of a positive statement of the existence of a god/s, atheism is a set of positive statements about the non-existence of god/s. Is that the case?
This seems to be different to my understanding of the word atheist. An atheist is (generally) someone who “does not believe in god” (lack of a positive statement), of whom a subset are those who “believe god does not exist” (positive statement). Someone who had never heard of or considered the concept of a god would be, to me, an atheist despite the fact that they’ve never considered a god in order to identify themselves as such.
You might argue that they are making implicit statements about the existence of god in that they make claims which do not include god, and thus are making positive statements – is it possible to make a positive statement without knowing that you are doing so? This doesn’t seem like a very useful definition of the term.
When I say that atheism is not a belief system I am also, usefully, pointing out some of the strange assumptions inherent in theism, which (IMO) exist for historical rather than logical reasons.

Interested in your thoughts!

]]> By: Hennessy http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/atheism-is-a-belief-system/#comment-494 Hennessy Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:19:20 +0000 http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/?p=375#comment-494 Eric: I did not miss the point of the discussion between you and Critic. However, you may have missed mine. I simply commented on the futility of it in so far as trying to make a point at the expense of the other. To the best of my knowledge you can not state as fact that God exists nor can Critic do the same referring to the Big Bang. Here I am assuming that we are talking about the Creation vs. Evolution. One is a belief the other is a theory. You asked: why does he (Critic) find it logical to demand proof of God? Although I do not know the inner workings of his mind but I am fairly certain the he and countless others place the same demand on themselves trying to turn their theory into fact. Getting back to the discussion that I termed futile, however, it is not without some level of benefit. There is always something that we can learn from what others think. The point is what do we do with it? So what have you quoted from my previous comment remains as intended, my view of your individual positions from which, you and Critic argue/debate, trying to further your position regarding to topic at hand: Cogito, Ergo Sum. Credo, Ergo Deus Est. Eric:

I did not miss the point of the discussion between you and Critic. However, you may have missed mine. I simply commented on the futility of it in so far as trying to make a point at the expense of the other. To the best of my knowledge you can not state as fact that God exists nor can Critic do the same referring to the Big Bang. Here I am assuming that we are talking about the Creation vs. Evolution. One is a belief the other is a theory.

You asked: why does he (Critic) find it logical to demand proof of God? Although I do not know the inner workings of his mind but I am fairly certain the he and countless others place the same demand on themselves trying to turn their theory into fact.

Getting back to the discussion that I termed futile, however, it is not without some level of benefit. There is always something that we can learn from what others think. The point is what do we do with it?

So what have you quoted from my previous comment remains as intended, my view of your individual positions from which, you and Critic argue/debate, trying to further your position regarding to topic at hand:

Cogito, Ergo Sum.
Credo, Ergo Deus Est.

]]> By: Eric Kemp http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/atheism-is-a-belief-system/#comment-491 Eric Kemp Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:50:31 +0000 http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/?p=375#comment-491 Henessy "Critic: I think, therefore I am. Eric: I believe, therefore He exists." That wasn't the point at all. The only point was that since Critic can't prove the existence of reality, why does he find it logical to demand proof of God? This goes along with the general atheistic delusion that their position is purely scientific while the Christian position is purely faith based when in fact the two worldviews have comparable mixtures of both. Henessy

“Critic: I think, therefore I am.
Eric: I believe, therefore He exists.”

That wasn’t the point at all. The only point was that since Critic can’t prove the existence of reality, why does he find it logical to demand proof of God?

This goes along with the general atheistic delusion that their position is purely scientific while the Christian position is purely faith based when in fact the two worldviews have comparable mixtures of both.

]]> By: Hennessy http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/atheism-is-a-belief-system/#comment-486 Hennessy Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:47:47 +0000 http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/?p=375#comment-486 I am a late comer but let me put in my two bits worth. This whole issue of debating (arguing) the existence or non-existence of God (Eric’s) is an exercise in futility. Did you Critic really expected to convince Eric otherwise? Or you Eric, is there anything Critic could have said that it would have caused you to turn your back on your belief? Not likely. Critic you were toiling with the definitions of Know and Proven. Neither one of them exists in Eric’s vocabulary. So no wonder you had so much difficulty. Those two words were replaced with Belief and Acceptance. No wonder you two were talking past one another. To sum it up briefly: Critic: I think, therefore I am. Eric: I believe, therefore He exists. I am a late comer but let me put in my two bits worth. This whole issue of debating (arguing) the existence or non-existence of God (Eric’s) is an exercise in futility. Did you Critic really expected to convince Eric otherwise? Or you Eric, is there anything Critic could have said that it would have caused you to turn your back on your belief? Not likely. Critic you were toiling with the definitions of Know and Proven. Neither one of them exists in Eric’s vocabulary. So no wonder you had so much difficulty. Those two words were replaced with Belief and Acceptance. No wonder you two were talking past one another.

To sum it up briefly:

Critic: I think, therefore I am.
Eric: I believe, therefore He exists.

]]> By: Eric Kemp http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/atheism-is-a-belief-system/#comment-345 Eric Kemp Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:48:06 +0000 http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/?p=375#comment-345 Critic Ok, the evidential post is up on my blog. One thing: "Now, you say that, since I accept reality on faith, I should also accept that god exists on faith. Such a claim is totally baseless and frankly absurd." I never said anything close to that. I am merely pointing out that you must accept reality on faith and yet literally demand that God be proven to you. This is inconsistent. And, Critic, it just IS inconsistent, there is no way around it. You can either admit that it's inconsistent and attempt to rework your belief system accordingly or you can stick your by your inconsistency to the end. I apologize that you missed my point and thought that I was attempting to get you to believe in God through some "you can't prove reality" argument because that's not what I was doing. "I am not going to directly reply to such an inane and misleading statement." Critic, I'm hoping that you are going to be a bit self-reflective here. You are literally raising your level of skepticism about the existence of God higher than your skepticism about the existence of reality. You demand proof of one but no proof of the other. You also assume that you MUST assume reality to survive when in fact hundreds of millions of Hindus believe that none of this is real and they get along just fine. Also, how do you know that you musn't believe in God? How do you know you aren't missing a fundamental belief that would allow you to understand yourself and your world correctly? I apologize that this conversation wasn't able to get anywhere. But when we can't even agree on the definition of words, that is quite hard to do. Hopefully we can have more good fortune with another topic such as the fine-tuning argument I'm getting into on my blog. Critic

Ok, the evidential post is up on my blog.

One thing:

“Now, you say that, since I accept reality on faith, I should also accept that god exists on faith. Such a claim is totally baseless and frankly absurd.”

I never said anything close to that. I am merely pointing out that you must accept reality on faith and yet literally demand that God be proven to you. This is inconsistent. And, Critic, it just IS inconsistent, there is no way around it. You can either admit that it’s inconsistent and attempt to rework your belief system accordingly or you can stick your by your inconsistency to the end.

I apologize that you missed my point and thought that I was attempting to get you to believe in God through some “you can’t prove reality” argument because that’s not what I was doing.

“I am not going to directly reply to such an inane and misleading statement.”

Critic, I’m hoping that you are going to be a bit self-reflective here. You are literally raising your level of skepticism about the existence of God higher than your skepticism about the existence of reality. You demand proof of one but no proof of the other. You also assume that you MUST assume reality to survive when in fact hundreds of millions of Hindus believe that none of this is real and they get along just fine. Also, how do you know that you musn’t believe in God? How do you know you aren’t missing a fundamental belief that would allow you to understand yourself and your world correctly?

I apologize that this conversation wasn’t able to get anywhere. But when we can’t even agree on the definition of words, that is quite hard to do. Hopefully we can have more good fortune with another topic such as the fine-tuning argument I’m getting into on my blog.

]]> By: Critic http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/atheism-is-a-belief-system/#comment-342 Critic Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:36:10 +0000 http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/?p=375#comment-342 Eric: We seem to keep talking past each other. This is my last attempt to make my point on the two topics you seem to be obsessing over. You claim that I am being inconsistent in that I accept reality on faith but I don't accept god on faith. I <i>must</i> have faith in the continuity of phenomena (time, physics, mathematics, etc.) and external reality (mass/energy) in order to believe that my existence is real. Everyone has to accept these basic assumptions. These are logical, practical, sane and compelling assumptions. Now, you say that, since I accept reality on faith, I should also accept that god exists on faith. Such a claim is totally baseless and frankly absurd. Accepting the existence of god is in no way similar to what I would describe as the <i>essential</i> assumptions of reality that everyone on the planet must make. Accepting that god exists with no proof <i>is not</i> necessary to live in the universe. Accepting that mass/energy exists with no proof <b>is</b> a requirement to live in the universe. This completely refutes your point. Making it again in the same old tired way will not get us anywhere. I am sure you disagree, but you are not going to convince me with the false comparison that you keep proposing. Your argument holds no water. Find a new one or, preferably, just let this ridiculous topic die a quiet, well deserved death. <blockquote>can you explain to me the difference between “definitions” and “practical definitions”? Specifically can you explain how the “practical definition” can change the meaning of a word?</blockquote> Again we have to flog a dead horse. Here goes. You like the definitions I quoted above from the AHDoEL: <blockquote><b>Know:</b> 1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty. 2. To regard as true beyond doubt <b>Proven:</b> Having been demonstrated or verified without doubt.</blockquote> I assume it is the "beyond doubt" and "without doubt" portions of those definitions that you hold to so reverently. Perhaps my my usage of the words is a bit postmodern and is stated from a scientific viewpoint. I'll take all the flak you want to dish out for those criticisms, however, the practical definition that is made thought out all of science is that <i>facts are concepts that are known and proven with <b>as little doubt</b> as is possible</i> and nothing can be said to be known or proven without a doubt. As Cubiksrube said earlier, and I can't say it any better: <blockquote>everything we “know” must always be tentative, and subject to refinement, adaptation, or complete overhaul, if any new evidence comes in to undermine it, or any sound reason is provided why the assumptions we’re making are no longer useful, reasonable, or practical.</blockquote> Again, Eric, you have succeed in not progressing this argument beyond where it was a week and 10+ posts ago. My frustration stems from the seemingly pointless nature of this exchange. <blockquote>This is going to be difficult for me to accomplish since you’ve raised your level skepticism of evidence for God higher than your own personal beliefs.</blockquote> I am not going to directly reply to such an inane and misleading statement. <blockquote>Yet, I’m working on beginning a series of fine-tuning, and biocentricity, arguments on my blog and will let you know when one goes up. Then you can let me know wether or not they qualify as evidence for God’s existence, why they don’t, and we can discuss accordingly.</blockquote> Well, I guess I will just have to wait until you are ready to present those ideas. I had hoped that you had thought through that already. Perhaps the horses and carts are all a jumble? I am interested in reading those arguments. But, beware the major, and perhaps inevitable, failure of all "fine-tuning" arguments: they tend devolve into silly chicken and egg conundrums that prove nothing <i>without a doubt</i>. Although, maybe you have a new twist. I'll be interested to see what you come up with. Cheers, Critic PS: Cubiksrube - thanks for the forum. Hopefully this hijacking of your blog has not been a problem. I look forward to reading your blog from here on - I like your ideas and the way you present them. PS: Eric - feel free to reply, however, this is my last post on this blog entry. Eric:

We seem to keep talking past each other. This is my last attempt to make my point on the two topics you seem to be obsessing over.

You claim that I am being inconsistent in that I accept reality on faith but I don’t accept god on faith.

I must have faith in the continuity of phenomena (time, physics, mathematics, etc.) and external reality (mass/energy) in order to believe that my existence is real. Everyone has to accept these basic assumptions. These are logical, practical, sane and compelling assumptions.

Now, you say that, since I accept reality on faith, I should also accept that god exists on faith. Such a claim is totally baseless and frankly absurd. Accepting the existence of god is in no way similar to what I would describe as the essential assumptions of reality that everyone on the planet must make.

Accepting that god exists with no proof is not necessary to live in the universe.

Accepting that mass/energy exists with no proof is a requirement to live in the universe.

This completely refutes your point. Making it again in the same old tired way will not get us anywhere. I am sure you disagree, but you are not going to convince me with the false comparison that you keep proposing. Your argument holds no water. Find a new one or, preferably, just let this ridiculous topic die a quiet, well deserved death.

can you explain to me the difference between “definitions” and “practical definitions”? Specifically can you explain how the “practical definition” can change the meaning of a word?

Again we have to flog a dead horse. Here goes. You like the definitions I quoted above from the AHDoEL:

Know: 1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty. 2. To regard as true beyond doubt

Proven: Having been demonstrated or verified without doubt.

I assume it is the “beyond doubt” and “without doubt” portions of those definitions that you hold to so reverently. Perhaps my my usage of the words is a bit postmodern and is stated from a scientific viewpoint. I’ll take all the flak you want to dish out for those criticisms, however, the practical definition that is made thought out all of science is that facts are concepts that are known and proven with as little doubt as is possible and nothing can be said to be known or proven without a doubt. As Cubiksrube said earlier, and I can’t say it any better:

everything we “know” must always be tentative, and subject to refinement, adaptation, or complete overhaul, if any new evidence comes in to undermine it, or any sound reason is provided why the assumptions we’re making are no longer useful, reasonable, or practical.

Again, Eric, you have succeed in not progressing this argument beyond where it was a week and 10+ posts ago. My frustration stems from the seemingly pointless nature of this exchange.

This is going to be difficult for me to accomplish since you’ve raised your level skepticism of evidence for God higher than your own personal beliefs.

I am not going to directly reply to such an inane and misleading statement.

Yet, I’m working on beginning a series of fine-tuning, and biocentricity, arguments on my blog and will let you know when one goes up. Then you can let me know wether or not they qualify as evidence for God’s existence, why they don’t, and we can discuss accordingly.

Well, I guess I will just have to wait until you are ready to present those ideas. I had hoped that you had thought through that already. Perhaps the horses and carts are all a jumble?

I am interested in reading those arguments. But, beware the major, and perhaps inevitable, failure of all “fine-tuning” arguments: they tend devolve into silly chicken and egg conundrums that prove nothing without a doubt.

Although, maybe you have a new twist. I’ll be interested to see what you come up with.

Cheers,

Critic

PS: Cubiksrube – thanks for the forum. Hopefully this hijacking of your blog has not been a problem. I look forward to reading your blog from here on – I like your ideas and the way you present them.

PS: Eric – feel free to reply, however, this is my last post on this blog entry.

]]> By: Eric Kemp http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/atheism-is-a-belief-system/#comment-341 Eric Kemp Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:27:10 +0000 http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/?p=375#comment-341 Critic "It is completely rational to believe in the continuity of phenomena and the extence of an external reality. It would be irrational not to believe those two basic assumptions and still go through the trouble of commuting to work each day. However, there is no requirement for a belief in god inherent in my position." We're not talking about rationality or that you must believe in God in your worldview, which I know you must do no such thing. I'm talking about your inconsistency. I'll show you: Rational or not, you do not require the existence of matter to be proven to you for you to believe in it. You admitted as much. Yet, God's existence must be proven to you. To elaborate and to use your definition of what would qualify as "evidence for God's existence" as you explained it: your belief that non-living chemicals produced life a billion years ago is not reproducible and/or measurable in the real world by real observers over time. And yet, you believe it and then force a standard upon God that you don't force upon your own beliefs. THIS is rational? "Ok. Purely for discussion (I still stand by my practical definitions as stated above), we can use your preferred definitions of know and proven from the AHDoEL." Thank you. Just out of curiosity, can you explain to me the difference between "definitions" and "practical definitions"? Specifically can you explain how the "practical definition" can change the meaning of a word? "As for evidence that a god exists. Simple enough, I just need a reproducible phenomenon that can be measured in the real world by real observers over time and that can only be explained by the existence of a supernatural being." This is going to be difficult for me to accomplish since you've raised your level skepticism of evidence for God higher than your own personal beliefs. Yet, I'm working on beginning a series of fine-tuning, and biocentricity, arguments on my blog and will let you know when one goes up. Then you can let me know wether or not they qualify as evidence for God's existence, why they don't, and we can discuss accordingly. Critic

“It is completely rational to believe in the continuity of phenomena and the extence of an external reality. It would be irrational not to believe those two basic assumptions and still go through the trouble of commuting to work each day. However, there is no requirement for a belief in god inherent in my position.”

We’re not talking about rationality or that you must believe in God in your worldview, which I know you must do no such thing. I’m talking about your inconsistency. I’ll show you: Rational or not, you do not require the existence of matter to be proven to you for you to believe in it. You admitted as much. Yet, God’s existence must be proven to you.

To elaborate and to use your definition of what would qualify as “evidence for God’s existence” as you explained it: your belief that non-living chemicals produced life a billion years ago is not reproducible and/or measurable in the real world by real observers over time. And yet, you believe it and then force a standard upon God that you don’t force upon your own beliefs. THIS is rational?

“Ok. Purely for discussion (I still stand by my practical definitions as stated above), we can use your preferred definitions of know and proven from the AHDoEL.”

Thank you. Just out of curiosity, can you explain to me the difference between “definitions” and “practical definitions”? Specifically can you explain how the “practical definition” can change the meaning of a word?

“As for evidence that a god exists. Simple enough, I just need a reproducible phenomenon that can be measured in the real world by real observers over time and that can only be explained by the existence of a supernatural being.”

This is going to be difficult for me to accomplish since you’ve raised your level skepticism of evidence for God higher than your own personal beliefs. Yet, I’m working on beginning a series of fine-tuning, and biocentricity, arguments on my blog and will let you know when one goes up. Then you can let me know wether or not they qualify as evidence for God’s existence, why they don’t, and we can discuss accordingly.

]]> By: Critic http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/atheism-is-a-belief-system/#comment-340 Critic Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:32:17 +0000 http://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/?p=375#comment-340 <blockquote>“I understand that there are basic assumptions that must be made in order not think that we are literally brains in jars. I am comfortable with those assumptions.” Thank you for being honest. In light of this, I’m wondering why you still think God’s existence must be PROVEN to you in order for you to believe?</blockquote> It is completely rational to believe in the continuity of phenomena and the extence of an external reality. It would be irrational not to believe those two basic assumptions and still go through the trouble of commuting to work each day. However, there is no requirement for a belief in god inherent in my position. <blockquote>If we can revise your statements to be more conducive to discussion and if I can understand what would pass for you as “evidence” for God, then I can present my case more clearly.</blockquote> Ok. Purely for discussion (I still stand by my practical definitions as stated above), we can use your preferred definitions of know and proven from the AHDoEL. Know: 1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty. 2. To regard as true beyond doubt. Proven: Having been demonstrated or verified without doubt. As for evidence that a god exists. Simple enough, I just need a reproducible phenomenon that can be measured in the real world by real observers over time and that can only be explained by the existence of a supernatural being.

“I understand that there are basic assumptions that must be made in order not think that we are literally brains in jars. I am comfortable with those assumptions.”

Thank you for being honest. In light of this, I’m wondering why you still think God’s existence must be PROVEN to you in order for you to believe?

It is completely rational to believe in the continuity of phenomena and the extence of an external reality. It would be irrational not to believe those two basic assumptions and still go through the trouble of commuting to work each day. However, there is no requirement for a belief in god inherent in my position.

If we can revise your statements to be more conducive to discussion and if I can understand what would pass for you as “evidence” for God, then I can present my case more clearly.

Ok. Purely for discussion (I still stand by my practical definitions as stated above), we can use your preferred definitions of know and proven from the AHDoEL.

Know: 1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty. 2. To regard as true beyond doubt.

Proven: Having been demonstrated or verified without doubt.

As for evidence that a god exists. Simple enough, I just need a reproducible phenomenon that can be measured in the real world by real observers over time and that can only be explained by the existence of a supernatural being.

]]>