But you have reasons for your absence, and you believe in those reasons, and the process that it takes to form them.
If you think there is currently no evidence for God, then there is a reason why you think that. If you think that the evidence, given by thinking theists, past and present, is lacking. Then you must have some way of coming to that conclusion. That is the belief.
Even if I accept this (and to go into the matter of belief would require another thread entirely) there is no pt necessarily a shared belief among all atheists that would thus make atheism a religion. I.e. what attracts the label of "atheist" is simply the lack of belief that God (or gods) exist.
So you're saying that to reject God, is not the same as not believing in God (I don't get this ''believing not-X)?
So despite years of explaining it to you you still don't get it? Wow.
Right...
What this boils down to is this: there is a difference between "not believing that God exists" and "believing that God does not exist".
If X = "God exists" then not-X = "God does not exists"
Thus there is a difference between "not believing X" and "believing not-X".
For example, you are either wearing a hat or not. If I do not have the belief that you are wearing a hat, this does not mean that I therefore believe you are not wearing a hat.
Got it?
If that is what you're saying, then you're right. But that then begs the question. If there is currently no evidence; Why do you reject God?
Hopefully the above has now clarified.
As for what your atheism is built on? A pointless question.
For you, perhaps. Not for some actual atheists. But your evasion is noted.
You are atheist, whether you think about, and build upon, or not.
No, I am atheist precisely because I do think about it. Because I have thought through it, and continue to do so. Atheism is an effect, not a cause.
Like you said, you are absent of the belief in God, and as such the description ''atheist'' fits. ''Atheism'' is kind of like a broad range of people who are all absent of the belief in God. The opposite is true with theism also.
Yes, the opposite is true: you all share a specific belief: God exists. Whether this manifests as "God Is" or anything else, ultimately one is asserting that God exists (even if not in the manner that pots and pans exist).
Every thinking atheist shares the belief that the process they use to come to the conclusion that their position is correct, as opposed to the opposite, is rational, reasoned, and in step with good logic.
Unfortunately you are simply describing what it means to consider oneself rational. This undoubtedly applies to (most) theists as well, even if what we might consider to be "good logic" is different.
So no, while what you describe certainly links most atheists, it also links them with most theists. It is almost as useful as saying that the thing that links all atheists is that they are human.
Or are you suggesting that theists do not have the belief that "
the process they use to come to the conclusion that their position is correct, as opposed to the opposite, is rational, reasoned, and in step with good logic."
You believe in yourselves.
Do you not believe in yourself? Do theists abdicate responsibility for what they do, for what they achieve, for what results from their actions?
If you can say you've never met anyone who honestly believed in God, because of Pascal's wager, why don't you have ideas about why people honestly believe in God?
Isn't it the same process?
Non sequitur, Jan. I have some ideas, sure, of why people may believe in God, but only they can know if their belief is honestly held. If I say that some people might believe because of X, and then someone says "I believe in God because of X", my point is that only they can know if their belief is because of X or whether they are just giving it lip service.
You're the one who keeps saying there is currently no suitable, or convincing evidence of God.
Indeed. I have no doubt that the evidence you put forth is convincing
to you, but when I talk of being convincing it is implicit that I am referring to
myself.
Huh?
So you're saying, the reason you don't believe in God, is not absence of evidence?
Given the number of times you've asked me what I would consider evidence of God to be, and I've told you that I don't know, I thought it would have been obvious. The absence of convincing evidence is really only a by-product of the underlying reasons.
No it doesn't. Because you cannot act as though you believe. You will always know that you don't believe.
Thats my point, Jan.
But you can act as though there is a God, by learning about God, and act in a way that is conducive, That way there is a chance that you may accept God.
Sure, brainwashing works like that. Jump on the cycle of believing to believe, and whatdoyaknow... you believe.
If you don't live as though there is a God, you can live how you like, which tends to gravitate toward chaos.
It does??? According to who?
You may be judged (if there is a God) on the weight of your transgressions. But if you have lived as though there is a God, you can not be judged on transgressions that weren't committed. It's a win win situation, both in this life, and the next, or not.
Yes, Pascal's wager. Simply repeating it using different words doesn't change it or its flaws.
You should look at your own inconsistencies.
Such as?
I said you cannot pretend to believe in God, or anything for that matter.
Maybe that's where your point of contention lies.
One can not just live as though God exists without actually believing that God exists. While there is that non-belief there is no ability to truly live as though God exists. Thus one will never jump on the cycle of belief.
We are talking about the experiences that we are consciously aware of. Not every moment of our lives.
You can be talking about any experience you want: I stand by what I said.
That's not belief.
That is simply lying.
So can a belief be not genuine, or, dishonest?
It's not necessarily lying unless there is intent to decieve. There may simply be an unthought expression of belief without having actually truly examined one's position. There may be an apathy, a herd mentality, a cultural inclusivity that hinders examining the truth of the belief. Not necessarily lying. If one is getting to the point of lying then one must be in a fairly miserable position about it.