Perhaps, as an atheist, I can help you better understand why your beliefs about atheism being a "religion" or "belief system" are wrong.
The definition of atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of one or more deities (AKA gods). A lack of belief is not a "belief system." Not believing in Santa Claus is not a belief system and, thus, neither is not believing in a deity.
Nor is atheism a religion. Unlike a religion, atheism has no uniform beliefs, scripture, teachings, practices, rules, doctrines or dogma. There are no sacred or profane objects. There are no ritual acts or a moral code believed to be sanctioned by deities or "holy" figures. Atheism includes nothing even remotely similar to prayer or other forms of communication with supernatural beings. It does not purport to be a means of understanding our existence or explaining the mysteries of the universe.
Despite the propensity of some religious activists to redefine words to suit their agenda, atheism has neither neither "congregations" nor clergy. Arguing otherwise is like saying that a business meeting in an conference room is a "congregation" in a "church" and that the guy running the Powerpoint presentation is their "preacher."
Prove that the Big Bang occurred... Good luck! See my signature below. A secular noble[LOL!] prize winner understands the issue, and you think you know better than him?
I cannot, and need not, prove that it occurred. Scientists don't claim that it is scientific fact. It's a scientific theory. They believe it because it provides an explanation for the origins of the universe which fit in with our understanding of cosmology and evidence gathered through our observations (expansion rate of the universe, background radiation, even distribution of elements throughout the universe, etc.). All of that is consistent with the theory.
We can prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, but it cannot be proven that God does or does not. You believe God doesn’t exist which is why atheism is indeed a belief system.
There you go again. I’ve made no comment on that scenario at all.
Yes you did, when you argued that income inequality was not a problem and proposed a "solution" which you admitted would not change the current status quo where 80% of the people get 7% of the wealth. See below.
Quote:
Okay, that’s an appeal to authority from the outset.
No, it is not. An appeal to authority fallacy is committed only when the person cited is not a legitimate authority on the subject.
Contradictions and vague statements are not part of debates, so every one of those will be taken as you ceding the point.
Quote:
Except it’s fairly easy to see a single point from which all economic behavior is derived, so there’s quite plainly a single base problem.
And we will take that as your admission that the "base problem" is not inflation.
Quote:
You’ve said that before, but that’s not it. That’s not the foundational problem with the economic system.
And that's your admission that I was correct, that it's income inequality that is the basic problem we are facing.
Quote:
No, not really. I proposed getting rid of welfare.
And that's your admission that you really did propose another Great Depression as a way to fight poverty.
Quote:
Nor should there be. Nor should there be anything in “the system” that limits the pay scale to any ratio or hard limit.
It wouldn’t, but I made no comment to that effect.
So you admit that what you proposed would neither require nor cause change to thewealth distribution, in which 80% of the people get only 7% of the wealth. Which goes back to the original point where you falsely accused me of misrepresenting your position.
Quote:
I suppose so, yes. I’d venture they’re not as bad as what we’ve experienced over the last 100 or so years.
On what basis do you make that statement? I understand that simple solutions are really appealing, but global economics do not lend themselves to simple solutions.
Quote:
So to what do you propose switching when the US dollar loses its faith?
Perhaps, as an atheist, I can help you better understand why your beliefs about atheism being a "religion" or "belief system" are wrong.
The definition of atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of one or more deities (AKA gods). A lack of belief is not a "belief system." Not believing in Santa Claus is not a belief system and, thus, neither is not believing in a deity.
Nor is atheism a religion. Unlike a religion, atheism has no uniform beliefs, scripture, teachings, practices, rules, doctrines or dogma. There are no sacred or profane objects. There are no ritual acts or a moral code believed to be sanctioned by deities or "holy" figures. Atheism includes nothing even remotely similar to prayer or other forms of communication with supernatural beings. It does not purport to be a means of understanding our existence or explaining the mysteries of the universe.
Despite the propensity of some religious activists to redefine words to suit their agenda, atheism has neither neither "congregations" nor clergy. Arguing otherwise is like saying that a business meeting in an conference room is a "congregation" in a "church" and that the guy running the Powerpoint presentation is their "preacher."
I cannot, and need not, prove that it occurred. Scientists don't claim that it is scientific fact. It's a scientific theory. They believe it because it provides an explanation for the origins of the universe which fit in with our understanding of cosmology and evidence gathered through our observations (expansion rate of the universe, background radiation, even distribution of elements throughout the universe, etc.). All of that is consistent with the theory.
I used to be an atheist. I know very well many of its tent poles. Evolutionary "theory" is more closely related to a hypothesis. The theory tag is often promoted by the media and lay people and is incorrect. It's a hypothesis at best, and an untestable one at that. How do you reproduce it?
...you argued that income inequality was not a problem...
Not the underlying problem.
...a “solution” which you admitted would not change the current status quo where 80% of the people get 7% of the wealth.
I did not say that shrinking the currency pool was the solution to the underlying problem.
An appeal to authority fallacy is committed only when the person cited is not a legitimate authority on the subject.
You’re joking, right? I mean, you’re legitimately just kidding here, yes?
Contradictions and vague statements are not part of debates, so every one of those will be taken as you ceding the point.
Sorry you’re unable to see these things.
And we will take that as your admission that the "base problem" is not inflation.
It’s a result of the base problem.
And that's your admission that I was correct, that it's income inequality that is the basic problem we are facing.
That’s the opposite of anything I’ve said, no.
And that's your admission that you really did propose another Great Depression as a way to fight poverty.
So you’re just not even reading my posts anymore.
...you falsely accused me of misrepresenting your position.
That’d be true if you hadn’t misrepresented my position, which you did.
I don't accept your unsubstantiated premise.
The thought that faith could be lost in the US dollar is unsubstantiated when every single fiat currency in the history of human civilization eventually has its faith lost?
I used to be an atheist. I know very well many of its tent poles. Evolutionary "theory" is more closely related to a hypothesis. The theory tag is often promoted by the media and lay people and is incorrect. It's a hypothesis at best, and an untestable one at that. How do you reproduce it?
I did not say that shrinking the currency pool was the solution to the underlying problem.
You said that the underlying problem was inflation leading to less purchasing power and proposed shrinking the currency pool as a means of addressing that problem.
Quote:
You’re joking, right? I mean, you’re legitimately just kidding here, yes?
No, I am not joking in any way shape or form. But you obviously are since that's all that you had to offer in return.
Quote:
Sorry you’re unable to see these things.
...
It’s a result of the base problem.
...
That’s the opposite of anything I’ve said, no.
...
So you’re just not even reading my posts anymore.
Yes, I am reading your posts, and have watched them devolve from actual attempts at debate to you just making smarmy remarks devoid of content. When you provide logical arguments to back up your claims, I'll continue to debate those points. But I'm not going to waste my time arguing against tripe like "The problem’s just staring you in the face." Especially not after you wrote "I’ve just ignored it because it’s secondary to fixing the base problem." And by "it", you mean what I alleged to be the base problem. You've spent the last day ignoring or dismissing out of hand much of what I wrote as well as evidence that I provided. I'm tired of it and, frankly, I wish that A.I. would suspend you for a while for that kind of juvenile performance. It is intellectually dishonest and inconsiderate of the time of those who show you the courtesy of offering up a reasoned debate.
FineWine put it well when he wrote the following:
As a debating technique, you may find that your responses demand zero effort on your part, but correspondingly the value to readers is also zero.
And since you don't have the courtesy nor gumption to actually engage in good-faith argumentation, I think you might find it instructive to find that you get out exactly what you put in. In other words, if I bother responding to you at all - insofar as there is a response at all - I'll give you the same treatment back: "nah-ah". Two can play this game.
I hope that I've made myself clear.
Quote:
That’d be true if you hadn’t misrepresented my position, which you did.
No, I did not misrepresent your position. That's obvious to anyone with the patience to wade through your postings. You've alleged that the "underlying problem" is not wage inequality, but rather inflation. You said that wage inequality was just "a consequence of the system itself, not the cause" and you proposed a "solution" to inflation of limiting the amount of currency. And then you admitted that doing so would do nothing to address wage inequality.
Quote:
The thought that faith could be lost in the US dollar is unsubstantiated when every single fiat currency in the history of human civilization eventually has its faith lost?
By that argument, you should be an atheist, since man has created more than 2,800 deities over time and civilization has eventually lost its faith in just about all of them.
You believe God doesn’t exist which is why atheism is indeed a belief system.
I do not believe that God does exist. That's different than me believing the God does not exist.
I also do not believe invisible space aliens live inside my hot water heater. Is that also a "belief system"?
Would you describe your lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy as a "belief system"?
This distinction appears to be entirely lost on @ExceptionHandler, @dasanman69, and others. As I mentioned previously, those who need to believe often, apparently, cannot comprehend rejection of belief, and insist that it must, instead, really just be belief in some antithetical construct. I have found this to be one of the most difficult concepts to convey to "believers". This characteristic even seems to extend into the realm of science, where they often state that scientists "believe" in evolution, for example. Apparently no concept at all of how logical, objective reasoning operates.
Then you’re just wrong. That’s literally not the meaning of it.
Especially not after you wrote "I’ve just ignored it because it’s secondary to fixing the base problem." And by "it", you mean what I alleged to be the base problem.
Right, because you were wrong in your assessment thereof.
You've spent the last day ignoring or dismissing out of hand much of what I wrote as well as evidence that I provided.
Not really. I’ve responded directly to it.
No, I did not misrepresent your position.
You said something that was not my position and claimed it was my position. That’s misrepresentation.
You've alleged that the "underlying problem" is not wage inequality, but rather inflation.
Borne of our currency not being backed by money, not being restricted in scope, and not having any regulation put on its coinage, yes.
You said that wage inequality was just "a consequence of the system itself, not the cause"
Yes.
and you proposed a "solution" to inflation of limiting the amount of currency.
Having a hard, impassable limit would do much to stop the madness of the last century, yes. Extrication from the faith-based system is the point.
And then you admitted that doing so would do nothing to address wage inequality.
And you agreed with me–on the latter point alone–I believe.
By that argument...
Do you at least understand the statement enough to answer the question therein?
You believe God doesn’t exist which is why atheism is indeed a belief system.
I do not believe that God does exist. That's different than me believing the God does not exist.
I also do not believe invisible space aliens live inside my hot water heater. Is that also a "belief system"?
Would you describe your lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy as a "belief system"?
This distinction appears to be entirely lost on <a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/u/142033/ExceptionHandler" style="display:inline-block;">@ExceptionHandler</a>
, <a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/u/64984/dasanman69" style="display:inline-block;">@dasanman69</a>
, and others. As I mentioned previously, those who need to believe often, apparently, cannot comprehend rejection of belief, and insist that it must, instead, really just be belief in some antithetical construct. I have found this to be one of the most difficult concepts to convey to "believers". This characteristic even seems to extend into the realm of science, where they often state that scientists "believe" in evolution, for example. Apparently no concept at all of how logical, objective reasoning operates.
The definition of believe is to accept something as true, hold something as an opinion, so no matter how much you try to deny it you believe in something. There's no such thing as rejecting belief. A belief system is simply a mechanism that we individually use to make sense of the world.
, and others. As I mentioned previously, those who need to believe often, apparently, cannot comprehend rejection of belief, and insist that it must, instead, really just be belief in some antithetical construct. I have found this to be one of the most difficult concepts to convey to "believers". This characteristic even seems to extend into the realm of science, where they often state that scientists "believe" in evolution, for example. Apparently no concept at all of how logical, objective reasoning operates.
The definition of believe is to accept something as true, hold something as an opinion, so no matter how much you try to deny it you believe in something. There's no such thing as rejecting belief. A belief system is simply a mechanism that we individually use to make sense of the world.
I am baffled by how you fail to understand such a simple concept - assuming that you are not just playing games here. Firstly, we were not discussing whether an atheist believes in anything, we were discussing the particular issue of belief in the existence of a deity. Just to be clear on what the word means:
belief |bi?l?f| noun1 an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists: his belief in the value of hard work |a belief that solitude nourishes creativity.• something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction: contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language | we're prepared to fight for our beliefs.• a religious conviction: Christian beliefs | I'm afraid to say belief has gone | local beliefs and customs.
Religion, unambiguously, involves belief in a deity of some kind.
religion |ri?lij?n| nounthe belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion.• a particular system of faith and worship: the world's great religions.• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance: consumerism is the new religion.
On that issue there are two other obvious positions that one can take: belief that there is no deity, or lack of belief that there is a deity. The former position is a specific belief, while the latter is a conclusion that the lack of evidence for a deity does not admit even a reasonable hypothesis for a deity, let alone a firmly held conviction (belief) that one exists.
atheist |??TH??ist| nouna person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods: he is a committed atheist.
So an atheist could take either of those positions; the first of which clearly is a belief, but also a rejection of religion, not a religion, while the second is neither a belief nor a religion. A reasoned assessment of evidence, or lack thereof, is not a belief.
And no - there is no logical or philosophical problem with not believing. Especially in the context of religion, belief generally involves "accepting on faith", i.e. with little or no objective evidence. To me (and to many others) that is not a tenable position to hold on the existence of a god or any other subject - hence the rejection of such beliefs.
That just demonstrates natural selection in bacteria. Nothing new or evolutionary there. Creationists actually agree with secular scientists on this area, because it is observable, testable, and demonstratable. But natural selection is not equal to the idea of molecules to man evolution. The creatures in that study are still bacteria and will always be bacteria. God created the various kinds to reproduce within their own kind (which falls somewhere around family or class). He created them to vary within their own kind. What we see from that study is genetic variation within the created kind, or new species. We have not observed one form transition into another such as the secularist supposed ape/human ancestor into an ape or human. We also have not observed life come from non-life which is one of the foundational laws of biology. Try again! All accounts of evolution in the laboratory simply demonstrate natural selection.
Note that this "church's" faq is littered with the word belief...
Hey as much as I don't want to feed your nonsense, that's a false church. We already have the Temple of Scandinavian Secularism. Most people refer to it as Ikea. I guess if you believe in "god", you also believe everything you read on the internet.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
??Romans? ?1:22, 24-27? ?ESV?? http://bible.com/59/rom.1.22,24-27.esv
Not many ways you can reinterpret that. The Bible is clear.
And to those who state there are many interpretations: yes there are many passages that have differing interpretations. But the one that matters is the original intent of the author: Gods intent. This is why scripture needs to be interpreted by scripture, to help us understand what the author is saying. I've said this before, and I'm saying it again. It all boils down to what is the context. The only way to know if you have a correct interpretation of a passage is to compare it in its entirety to other passages to see if it aligns with the rest of scripture. To do otherwise could/will lead to an erroneous interpretation. Not all interpretations are equal. This is also why there are word studies of the original texts to help us understand the meaning of a word in the given context. This is called hermeneutics.
Science can no more disprove the Bible as it can prove the Big Bang. Can you repeat the Big Bang for me? Thanks, that would be great.
Then you’re just wrong. That’s literally not the meaning of it.
I provided you a link to one of the most respected resources on logical fallacies. Your reply was the equivalent of "nuh-uh!" -- and I'm not going to let you drag this down to the level of a "nuh-uh!", "uh-huh!" playground tiff.
Quote:
Right, because you were wrong in your assessment thereof.
Your personal assertions are not debate, especially in light of your demonstrated lack of expertise on the subject matter under discussion.
Quote:
Not really. I’ve responded directly to it.
Stop lying. You already admitted that you ignored what I wrote: "I’ve not made any statement about it, either way. I’ve just ignored it..."
Quote:
You said something that was not my position and claimed it was my position. That’s misrepresentation.
No, I did not. And I provided a summary, shown color-coded here for reference:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fred Maxwell
You've alleged that the "underlying problem" is not wage inequality, but rather inflation.You said that wage inequality was just "a consequence of the system itself, not the cause"and you proposed a "solution" to inflation of limiting the amount of currency.And then you admitted that doing so would do nothing to address wage inequality."
Your response to that:
Quote:
Quote:
You've alleged that the "underlying problem" is not wage inequality, but rather inflation.
Borne of our currency not being backed by money, not being restricted in scope, and not having any regulation put on its coinage, yes.
Quote:
You said that wage inequality was just "a consequence of the system itself, not the cause"
Yes.
Quote:
and you proposed a "solution" to inflation of limiting the amount of currency.
Having a hard, impassable limit would do much to stop the madness of the last century, yes. Extrication from the faith-based system is the point.
Quote:
And then you admitted that doing so would do nothing to address wage inequality.
And you agreed with me–on the latter point alone–I believe.
So we established that you just lied. You accused me of misrepresenting your position and then, point by point, acknowledged the accuracy of my representation of your position.
Note: On that last point, I believe it was I who first stated that you proposed solution would do nothing to address wage inequality and you conceded that I was correct.
Quote:
Do you at least understand the statement enough to answer the question therein?
I have no trouble following anything you write, except in those cases where you express yourself poorly. I responded by pointing out your hypocrisy. Since you obviously require a more direct answer (something you have often shown yourself loathe to provide to my questions), here it is: Your claim that "every single fiat currency in the history of human civilization eventually has its faith lost" is false. Almost all modern currency in use is fiat currency.
Here is another link which I took the time to find for this debate, although I am almost certain that you will neither read it nor address the points contained therein:
That just demonstrates natural selection in bacteria. Nothing new or evolutionary there. Creationists actually agree with secular scientists on this area, because it is observable, testable, and demonstratable.
This is a dictionary definition of natural selection: "the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution."
Quote:
God created the various kinds to reproduce within their own kind (which falls somewhere around family or class).
...
We have not observed one form transition into another such as the secularist supposed ape/human ancestor into an ape or human. We also have not observed life come from non-life which is one of the foundational laws of biology.
We have not observed God creating even one creature, much less man. We did not observe God creating life from non-life. So if we're going to reject evolution due to it not being observed by us, then we must reject creationism on that same basis.
Of course the big difference between the two is that the vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. And evolution has the advantage of being consistent with our understanding of the natural world and biological processes rather than relying on a belief in a supernatural, all-powerful, undetectable being.
The definition of believe is to accept something as true, hold something as an opinion, so no matter how much you try to deny it you believe in something. There's no such thing as rejecting belief.
I do not share your belief in God's existence. Therefore, I am not a "believer."
Quote:
A belief system is simply a mechanism that we individually use to make sense of the world.
Not believing something does not define a "belief system." I don't "make sense of the world" by not believing in God any more than I make sense of it by not believing in the tooth fairy.
Would you define your belief system as being based on not believing in Santa Claus and, if not, why? (This is not a rhetorical question.)
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
We can prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist
I am calling you on it: Provide the proof.
dasanman69, If you do not provide the proof, I will have to assume that you wrote something that you knew to be false. I thought that your "belief system" held that God prohibited making false statements.
Quote:
I also do not believe invisible space aliens live inside my hot water heater. Is that also a "belief system"?
Would you describe your lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy as a "belief system"?
Those were not rhetorical questions; they were directed at you, dasanman69. Please answer them.
Comments
We can prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, but it cannot be proven that God does or does not. You believe God doesn’t exist which is why atheism is indeed a belief system.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
There you go again. I’ve made no comment on that scenario at all.
Yes you did, when you argued that income inequality was not a problem and proposed a "solution" which you admitted would not change the current status quo where 80% of the people get 7% of the wealth. See below.
No, it is not. An appeal to authority fallacy is committed only when the person cited is not a legitimate authority on the subject.
See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Contradictions and vague statements are not part of debates, so every one of those will be taken as you ceding the point.
And we will take that as your admission that the "base problem" is not inflation.
And that's your admission that I was correct, that it's income inequality that is the basic problem we are facing.
And that's your admission that you really did propose another Great Depression as a way to fight poverty.
Quote:
It wouldn’t, but I made no comment to that effect.
So you admit that what you proposed would neither require nor cause change to thewealth distribution, in which 80% of the people get only 7% of the wealth. Which goes back to the original point where you falsely accused me of misrepresenting your position.
On what basis do you make that statement? I understand that simple solutions are really appealing, but global economics do not lend themselves to simple solutions.
Quote:
I don't accept your unsubstantiated premise.
I used to be an atheist. I know very well many of its tent poles. Evolutionary "theory" is more closely related to a hypothesis. The theory tag is often promoted by the media and lay people and is incorrect. It's a hypothesis at best, and an untestable one at that. How do you reproduce it?
We can prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist
I am calling you on it: Provide the proof.
You believe God doesn’t exist which is why atheism is indeed a belief system.
I do not believe that God does exist. That's different than me believing the God does not exist.
I also do not believe invisible space aliens live inside my hot water heater. Is that also a "belief system"?
Would you describe your lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy as a "belief system"?
...you argued that income inequality was not a problem...
Not the underlying problem.
I did not say that shrinking the currency pool was the solution to the underlying problem.
An appeal to authority fallacy is committed only when the person cited is not a legitimate authority on the subject.
You’re joking, right? I mean, you’re legitimately just kidding here, yes?
Sorry you’re unable to see these things.
It’s a result of the base problem.
That’s the opposite of anything I’ve said, no.
So you’re just not even reading my posts anymore.
That’d be true if you hadn’t misrepresented my position, which you did.
The thought that faith could be lost in the US dollar is unsubstantiated when every single fiat currency in the history of human civilization eventually has its faith lost?
O~kay.
I used to be an atheist. I know very well many of its tent poles. Evolutionary "theory" is more closely related to a hypothesis. The theory tag is often promoted by the media and lay people and is incorrect. It's a hypothesis at best, and an untestable one at that. How do you reproduce it?
Evolution has been observed in the laboratory: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/
I did not say that shrinking the currency pool was the solution to the underlying problem.
You said that the underlying problem was inflation leading to less purchasing power and proposed shrinking the currency pool as a means of addressing that problem.
No, I am not joking in any way shape or form. But you obviously are since that's all that you had to offer in return.
...
It’s a result of the base problem.
...
That’s the opposite of anything I’ve said, no.
...
So you’re just not even reading my posts anymore.
Yes, I am reading your posts, and have watched them devolve from actual attempts at debate to you just making smarmy remarks devoid of content. When you provide logical arguments to back up your claims, I'll continue to debate those points. But I'm not going to waste my time arguing against tripe like "The problem’s just staring you in the face." Especially not after you wrote "I’ve just ignored it because it’s secondary to fixing the base problem." And by "it", you mean what I alleged to be the base problem. You've spent the last day ignoring or dismissing out of hand much of what I wrote as well as evidence that I provided. I'm tired of it and, frankly, I wish that A.I. would suspend you for a while for that kind of juvenile performance. It is intellectually dishonest and inconsiderate of the time of those who show you the courtesy of offering up a reasoned debate.
FineWine put it well when he wrote the following:
As a debating technique, you may find that your responses demand zero effort on your part, but correspondingly the value to readers is also zero.
And since you don't have the courtesy nor gumption to actually engage in good-faith argumentation, I think you might find it instructive to find that you get out exactly what you put in. In other words, if I bother responding to you at all - insofar as there is a response at all - I'll give you the same treatment back: "nah-ah". Two can play this game.
I hope that I've made myself clear.
Quote:
No, I did not misrepresent your position. That's obvious to anyone with the patience to wade through your postings. You've alleged that the "underlying problem" is not wage inequality, but rather inflation. You said that wage inequality was just "a consequence of the system itself, not the cause" and you proposed a "solution" to inflation of limiting the amount of currency. And then you admitted that doing so would do nothing to address wage inequality.
By that argument, you should be an atheist, since man has created more than 2,800 deities over time and civilization has eventually lost its faith in just about all of them.
We can prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist
I am calling you on it: Provide the proof.
You believe God doesn’t exist which is why atheism is indeed a belief system.
I do not believe that God does exist. That's different than me believing the God does not exist.
I also do not believe invisible space aliens live inside my hot water heater. Is that also a "belief system"?
Would you describe your lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy as a "belief system"?
This distinction appears to be entirely lost on @ExceptionHandler, @dasanman69, and others. As I mentioned previously, those who need to believe often, apparently, cannot comprehend rejection of belief, and insist that it must, instead, really just be belief in some antithetical construct. I have found this to be one of the most difficult concepts to convey to "believers". This characteristic even seems to extend into the realm of science, where they often state that scientists "believe" in evolution, for example. Apparently no concept at all of how logical, objective reasoning operates.
No, I am not joking in any way shape or form.
Then you’re just wrong. That’s literally not the meaning of it.
Especially not after you wrote "I’ve just ignored it because it’s secondary to fixing the base problem." And by "it", you mean what I alleged to be the base problem.
Right, because you were wrong in your assessment thereof.
Not really. I’ve responded directly to it.
No, I did not misrepresent your position.
You said something that was not my position and claimed it was my position. That’s misrepresentation.
Borne of our currency not being backed by money, not being restricted in scope, and not having any regulation put on its coinage, yes.
Yes.
Having a hard, impassable limit would do much to stop the madness of the last century, yes. Extrication from the faith-based system is the point.
And you agreed with me–on the latter point alone–I believe.
Do you at least understand the statement enough to answer the question therein?
The definition of believe is to accept something as true, hold something as an opinion, so no matter how much you try to deny it you believe in something. There's no such thing as rejecting belief. A belief system is simply a mechanism that we individually use to make sense of the world.
We can prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist
I am calling you on it: Provide the proof.
You believe God doesn’t exist which is why atheism is indeed a belief system.
I do not believe that God does exist. That's different than me believing the God does not exist.
I also do not believe invisible space aliens live inside my hot water heater. Is that also a "belief system"?
Would you describe your lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy as a "belief system"?
This distinction appears to be entirely lost on @ExceptionHandler
, @dasanman69
, and others. As I mentioned previously, those who need to believe often, apparently, cannot comprehend rejection of belief, and insist that it must, instead, really just be belief in some antithetical construct. I have found this to be one of the most difficult concepts to convey to "believers". This characteristic even seems to extend into the realm of science, where they often state that scientists "believe" in evolution, for example. Apparently no concept at all of how logical, objective reasoning operates.
The definition of believe is to accept something as true, hold something as an opinion, so no matter how much you try to deny it you believe in something. There's no such thing as rejecting belief. A belief system is simply a mechanism that we individually use to make sense of the world.
I am baffled by how you fail to understand such a simple concept - assuming that you are not just playing games here. Firstly, we were not discussing whether an atheist believes in anything, we were discussing the particular issue of belief in the existence of a deity. Just to be clear on what the word means:
Religion, unambiguously, involves belief in a deity of some kind.
On that issue there are two other obvious positions that one can take: belief that there is no deity, or lack of belief that there is a deity. The former position is a specific belief, while the latter is a conclusion that the lack of evidence for a deity does not admit even a reasonable hypothesis for a deity, let alone a firmly held conviction (belief) that one exists.
So an atheist could take either of those positions; the first of which clearly is a belief, but also a rejection of religion, not a religion, while the second is neither a belief nor a religion. A reasoned assessment of evidence, or lack thereof, is not a belief.
And no - there is no logical or philosophical problem with not believing. Especially in the context of religion, belief generally involves "accepting on faith", i.e. with little or no objective evidence. To me (and to many others) that is not a tenable position to hold on the existence of a god or any other subject - hence the rejection of such beliefs.
That just demonstrates natural selection in bacteria. Nothing new or evolutionary there. Creationists actually agree with secular scientists on this area, because it is observable, testable, and demonstratable. But natural selection is not equal to the idea of molecules to man evolution. The creatures in that study are still bacteria and will always be bacteria. God created the various kinds to reproduce within their own kind (which falls somewhere around family or class). He created them to vary within their own kind. What we see from that study is genetic variation within the created kind, or new species. We have not observed one form transition into another such as the secularist supposed ape/human ancestor into an ape or human. We also have not observed life come from non-life which is one of the foundational laws of biology. Try again! All accounts of evolution in the laboratory simply demonstrate natural selection.
https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/feedback-is-atheism-a-religion
And as a bonus (even secular biology scientists will say abiogenesis is a "black magic" when pressed; Richard Dawkins says the mechanism is unknown, often resort to just saying evolution did it without substantiating it):
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-not-creation-is-a-god-of-the-gaps
Atheism is not a religion. That's a juvenile comment.
http://firstchurchofatheism.org
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/faq/
Note that this "church's" faq is littered with the word belief...
Hey as much as I don't want to feed your nonsense, that's a false church. We already have the Temple of Scandinavian Secularism. Most people refer to it as Ikea. I guess if you believe in "god", you also believe everything you read on the internet.
edit : fixed my silly joke
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Then you’re just wrong. That’s literally not the meaning of it.
I provided you a link to one of the most respected resources on logical fallacies. Your reply was the equivalent of "nuh-uh!" -- and I'm not going to let you drag this down to the level of a "nuh-uh!", "uh-huh!" playground tiff.
Right, because you were wrong in your assessment thereof.
Your personal assertions are not debate, especially in light of your demonstrated lack of expertise on the subject matter under discussion.
Not really. I’ve responded directly to it.
Stop lying. You already admitted that you ignored what I wrote: "I’ve not made any statement about it, either way. I’ve just ignored it..."
You said something that was not my position and claimed it was my position. That’s misrepresentation.
No, I did not. And I provided a summary, shown color-coded here for reference:
Originally posted by Fred Maxwell
You've alleged that the "underlying problem" is not wage inequality, but rather inflation. You said that wage inequality was just "a consequence of the system itself, not the cause" and you proposed a "solution" to inflation of limiting the amount of currency. And then you admitted that doing so would do nothing to address wage inequality."
Your response to that:
Borne of our currency not being backed by money, not being restricted in scope, and not having any regulation put on its coinage, yes.
Yes.
Having a hard, impassable limit would do much to stop the madness of the last century, yes. Extrication from the faith-based system is the point.
And you agreed with me–on the latter point alone–I believe.
So we established that you just lied. You accused me of misrepresenting your position and then, point by point, acknowledged the accuracy of my representation of your position.
Note: On that last point, I believe it was I who first stated that you proposed solution would do nothing to address wage inequality and you conceded that I was correct.
Do you at least understand the statement enough to answer the question therein?
I have no trouble following anything you write, except in those cases where you express yourself poorly. I responded by pointing out your hypocrisy. Since you obviously require a more direct answer (something you have often shown yourself loathe to provide to my questions), here it is: Your claim that "every single fiat currency in the history of human civilization eventually has its faith lost" is false. Almost all modern currency in use is fiat currency.
Here is another link which I took the time to find for this debate, although I am almost certain that you will neither read it nor address the points contained therein:
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/john-butler/top-ten-reasons-why-fiat-currency-is-superior-to-gold
That just demonstrates natural selection in bacteria. Nothing new or evolutionary there. Creationists actually agree with secular scientists on this area, because it is observable, testable, and demonstratable.
This is a dictionary definition of natural selection: "the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution."
God created the various kinds to reproduce within their own kind (which falls somewhere around family or class).
...
We have not observed one form transition into another such as the secularist supposed ape/human ancestor into an ape or human. We also have not observed life come from non-life which is one of the foundational laws of biology.
We have not observed God creating even one creature, much less man. We did not observe God creating life from non-life. So if we're going to reject evolution due to it not being observed by us, then we must reject creationism on that same basis.
Of course the big difference between the two is that the vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. And evolution has the advantage of being consistent with our understanding of the natural world and biological processes rather than relying on a belief in a supernatural, all-powerful, undetectable being.
So, as you say, "try again!"
The definition of believe is to accept something as true, hold something as an opinion, so no matter how much you try to deny it you believe in something. There's no such thing as rejecting belief.
I do not share your belief in God's existence. Therefore, I am not a "believer."
A belief system is simply a mechanism that we individually use to make sense of the world.
Not believing something does not define a "belief system." I don't "make sense of the world" by not believing in God any more than I make sense of it by not believing in the tooth fairy.
Would you define your belief system as being based on not believing in Santa Claus and, if not, why? (This is not a rhetorical question.)
We can prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist
I am calling you on it: Provide the proof.
dasanman69, If you do not provide the proof, I will have to assume that you wrote something that you knew to be false. I thought that your "belief system" held that God prohibited making false statements.
Would you describe your lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy as a "belief system"?
Those were not rhetorical questions; they were directed at you, dasanman69. Please answer them.
It is, however, a belief system.