Atheism is a belief.

[buckybeam]

Indeed, Pontius Pilate met Jesus and sentenced him to death. If he, and the massed crowds preferred to set a thief free over Jesus, I think that says a lot about the alleged character, more so than the fan fiction written about him years later!

So yes, you have proven my point nicely.

i cannot prove or disprove your theories. little can be proven, only predicted.

my point is that many have been thought to have been insane because of their ideas/theories only to later find out that they were correct in their observations.



in regards to this pole.....

atheism is a belief.

 

[phlogistician]

Yes, dictators (if mid-level) and crowds are reliable to make just decisions. I am glad we are moving from myth to reality.

A judge and a jury, more like. People who knew Jesus, allegedly, and he was less popular than a common thief.

Then his fanclub cleaned up his image after he was dead, and so were all his detractors.

The fact stands, people that met him weren't swayed. All since is myth.

 

[phlogistician]

in regards to this pole.....

atheism is a belief.

'atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby'.

or, in simple terms, you are wrong.

 

[buckybeam]

'atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby'.

or, in simple terms, you are wrong.

i am not wrong you are wrong.

as far as im aware stamp collections have nothing to do with predictions let alone how the universe was created so it is a terrible analogy.

you could say, I do not "believe" in dark matter, i am simply a darkmatterist. dark matter simply is. nothing to believe. then you would go blindly through life never learning. stuck on one theory. never changing regardless of what you or others may have discovered. not very scientific if you ask me. we all have heard of scientists hiding data that doesnt support their therories. its a terrible thing.

 

[Enmos]

Bucky, talk to me..

 

[buckybeam]

pascal's wager.

stanford encyclopedia of philosophy is a good source id link it but i do not have enough posts to link

but in a jist

Suppose that you have the option of paying a dollar to play a game in which there is an equal chance of returning nothing, and returning three dollars. The expectation of the game itself is

0*(1/2) + 3*(1/2) = 1.5,

so the expectation of paying a dollar for certain, then playing, is

-1 + 1.5 = 0.5.

This exceeds the expectation of not playing (namely 0), so you should play. On the other hand, if the game gave an equal chance of returning nothing, and returning two dollars, then its expectation would be:

0*(1/2) + 2*(1/2) = 1.

Then consistent with decision theory, you could either pay the dollar to play, or refuse to play, for either way your overall expectation would be 0

but this is not my intention, to bring belief in a god.

 

[spidergoat]

Athiesm is a belief. Otherwise one would not defend it. Why promote it?
Whats with all the "religious zeal" anyway?
If you do not believe in something you do not have a supporting opinion about it.

It can be disbelief or just not having an opinion about it. That's why people distinuish between different forms of it. This debate is just semantic. Atheism is a broad term.

 

[buckybeam]

This debate is just semantic.

you are right. if you are an atheist then you must believe in atheism.

 

[spidergoat]

That's not what I meant. Someone who has never heard about God could also be considered an atheist, even if they have never formed an opinion about it.

 

[buckybeam]

That's not what I meant. Someone who has never heard about God could also be considered an atheist, even if they have never formed an opinion about it.

not true, atheism is the denial of theism. not just not knowing about theism. but, other definitions have been proposed making suggestions such as yours. the term atheism was created by theists to describe those that deny the existance of a god.

 

[phlogistician]

as far as im aware stamp collections have nothing to do with predictions let alone how the universe was created so it is a terrible analogy.

I wasn't talking about Stamp Collecting, I was talking about NOT STAMP COLLECTING.

It's a great analogy, to those who can see it.

 

[buckybeam]

I wasn't talking about Stamp Collecting, I was talking about NOT STAMP COLLECTING.

It's a great analogy, to those who can see it.

i saw it and i gave you an even better analogy... did you see it.

i could step it up one for you if you would like?

 

[phlogistician]

i saw it and i gave you an even better analogy... did you see it.

No you didn't, you missed the point entirely.

 

[(Q)]

not true, atheism is the denial of theism. not just not knowing about theism. but, other definitions have been proposed making suggestions such as yours. the term atheism was created by theists to describe those that deny the existance of a god.

Hence the problem.

How many here are Aleprechaunists? Aunicornists? Ainvisiblepinkdragonists? Aflyingspagettimonsterists?

It's absolutely ludicrous how a position in which the invisible and undetectable is the default and that reality and nature are somehow negative oppositions to the default.

How stupid is that?

 

[Simon Anders]

'atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby'.

or, in simple terms, you are wrong.

It could be, and in some cases it no doubt is. But how many people are actively non-stamp collectors? How many people who we encounter in these discussions are like your proposed non-stamp collector who simply does not collect stamps? I am sure there are atheists like this. Some probably do not even know the word 'atheist'.

There can be a person who is an atheist and there certainly is a rather mathematical term atheism that can be effectively defended as a mere lack of belief in God.

I just don't know how relevent this is.

 

[Simon Anders]

A judge and a jury, more like. People who knew Jesus, allegedly, and he was less popular than a common thief.

Clearly, it must have been justice. The mob who called for his death 'knew' him, as mobs in general know their victims. Mobs are good judges of people's character.

Then his fanclub cleaned up his image after he was dead, and so were all his detractors.

that's a hypothesis. At least the first part, I couldn't follow the grammar of the second part.

The fact stands, people that met him weren't swayed.

ah, so the people in the crowds calling for his death 'met' him. They like other members of crowds and mobs are never manipulated into action by rumor, hearsay and people who might feel threatened by certain individuals. I am sure the blacks who were lynched in the South BY THEIR FELLOW TOWNSPEOPLE were fairly judged by those who 'knew' them and had 'met' them. The presence of the local sherrif was of course 'more like' the presence of a judge.

All since is myth.

So you see yourself as a kind of Oliver Stone with a countermyth. I am sure this will edify the masses.

I assume you are one of those atheists for whom atheism is beliefless.

And we can look at your posts as the equivalent of 'not collecting stamps'. how odd that it keeps happening in dialogue with stamp collectors. I do not collect stamps and I cannot remember the last discussion I had about stamps with a stamp collector.

 

[buckybeam]

No you didn't, you missed the point entirely.

not so, because i actually have given you an even better arguement in your favor and you have completely missed it.

 

[buckybeam]

Hence the problem.

How many here are Aleprechaunists? Aunicornists? Ainvisiblepinkdragonists? Aflyingspagettimonsterists?

It's absolutely ludicrous how a position in which the invisible and undetectable is the default and that reality and nature are somehow negative oppositions to the default.

How stupid is that?

not very. keep in mind that close to 90% of americans believe in god. as the majority they are going to be able to decide what to call nonbelievers. sure you can counter with your own names or terms but, you will only have 10% on your side.

the invisble and undetectable are believed as truths throughout science.

 

[(Q)]

not very. keep in mind that close to 90% of americans believe in god. as the majority they are going to be able to decide what to call nonbelievers. sure you can counter with your own names or terms but, you will only have 10% on your side.

I understand that, although your numbers are probably somewhat skewed. Even if we used them, 10% of 300 million is 30 million. That's no small potatoes. That would the equivalent to the entire population of Canada, for example.

You are also fallaciously stating that because a majority believes it, it must be true.

the invisble and undetectable are believed as truths throughout science.

So, are you saying you don't know anything about science, then?

 

[buckybeam]

I understand that, although your numbers are probably somewhat skewed. Even if we used them, 10% of 300 million is 30 million. That's no small potatoes. That would the equivalent to the entire population of Canada, for example.

first off actual numbers are not the same as percentages.
its a moot point. ill explain later.

aside from that i dont think my numbers are skewed. i said "believe in a god" not "are christians and go to church every sunday".

You are also fallaciously stating that because a majority believes it, it must be true.

i never said that. if i make up the name googol. i say it is 1 followed by a hundred zeros. what, your gonna come back and argue with me? are you going to say no its not its one followed by 1000 zeros. make up your own damn name. the one that most people use will become the common definition. its not a right or wrong.

So, are you saying you don't know anything about science, then?

much of science is predictions (ok im forgetting the philisophical bits for now) but it is predictions. take black holes, in reality we have no proof. does that mean they dont exist. when first thought of there was zero data on black holes. yet we thought that they existed. everything we know as proof about them is a preditction on how things would behave around them. i beleive they exist. i have no proof. i suppose that makes me unscientific? i suppose that means i also believe in fairies and unicorns?
some people did think that believing in black holes was like believing fairies and unicorns. are you a non believer? i guess that you would be because "we have no proof"