Zerinus and Introspection Illusion

[Guest]

No it doesn't (work both ways). Else-wise you are saying we are obligated to give weight to what ever ridiculous subjective claim anyone in the world makes.

You want us to actually give any value to you "testimony" - remembering that your testimony and $2.00 buys a burger at McDonalds, then show objectively, not subjectively, that there is evidence for your claims, and that there is repeatability - that anyone performing your experiment will come to the same conclusion, and then you will have some argument against "Introspection Illusion". What you have now is "I know the Book of Mormon is true". Whee haw, I am impressed. I'll add your claims to the tons of subjective religious claims from the dawn of the written word. You want enshrined between the Avesta and the Necronomican, or you want to be closer to the Koran? Perhaps closer to the writings of Ellen White as she was a contemporary of Joseph Smith?

[_Gadianton]

In what way is it a belief system?

Let me help you, since I clearly know more than you do about theology and Mormonism.

Atheism is a belief system reductio ad absurdum -- apologists say that atheists literally exercise faith the same way religious people do.

Atheism is a belief system because everything is a belief system.

If neither of these choices fit, perhaps you can explain it yourself? (or maybe you don't know enough)

[_Analytics]

There is a difference between declaring "categorically" there is no God (or no Rudolf), and affirming it as a position of absolute knowledge. I said nothing about not "categorically" disbelieving in Rudolf and Santa. I, for one, categorically deny Santa, but I don't hold the position as one of absolute knowledge. Do you see the difference?

It is not absolute knowledge. I never said it was. It is a belief system, just like theism is.

Just to add another voice to this, "God" isn't a well-defined thing. Some people believe God is everywhere. Some believe He is nowhere. Some believe He is both. Some believe he is intimately involved in the workings of the universe, holds it together, and regularly intervenes in creation. Others believe he "wound the clock" and then sits back watching it unfold. Some believe He's a humanoid space traveler with a home base on a planet orbiting a star called Kolob. What is God? Believers aren't even close to coming on a consensus on this. Until the question of "what is God?" is clarified, expressing an opinion on whether "God" exists is a meaningless exercise.

If you don't believe in "God", you are an atheist. That's the definition. It isn't a belief system--it is a lack of a belief system.

As more examples:

Say there is a group of people that believe in "plucketeries," but these believers don't explain what plucketeries actually are. They just say there is a possibility that they exist and that they have faith that they in fact do exist.

Say I respond that I don't believe in plucketeries. How could I believe in them if I don't even know what they are? Is not believing in plucketeries a belief system?

Likewise, I don't believe in magic elves. Is that a belief system?
Likewise, I don't believe in square triangles. Is that a belief system?

[_zerinus]

I did not arrive at where I am presently by a process of introspection. I arrived here by accepting the results of scientific investigation . . .

There is no scientific investigation that disproves the existence of God. Your atheism is still a belief system.

[_zerinus]

No it doesn't (work both ways). Else-wise you are saying we are obligated to give weight to what ever ridiculous subjective claim anyone in the world makes.

Talking nonsense. You know perfectly well what I mean.

[_zerinus]

Just to add another voice to this, "God" isn't a well-defined thing. Some people believe God is everywhere. Some believe He is nowhere. Some believe He is both. . . .

Whatever people believe God is, it is still a belief system, just as atheism is a belief system.

[_Gadianton]

Analytics brought up elves, z, is rejecting elves and rudolf also a belief system?

[_SteelHead]

No it doesn't (work both ways). Else-wise you are saying we are obligated to give weight to what ever ridiculous subjective claim anyone in the world makes.

Talking nonsense. You know perfectly well what I mean.

That is what you are saying. That a purely subjective, un repeatable claim has the same value, as an objective completely repeatable claim.

You are claiming your testimony should have the same value in our lives as the assertion that the freezing point of water under normal conditions is 0 celsius. The one anyone can test and verify, the other only exists in your head,.

There is a difference, and it does not "work both ways". The one that anyone can validate repeatedly is actually important. The other is the equal of every unverifiable subjective claim. Add it to the trash heap of religious claims.

[_zerinus]

In what way is it a belief system?

In the same way that any religion is a belief system. Wasting time.

[_zerinus]

That is what you are saying. That a purely subjective, un repeatable claim has the same value, as an objective completely repeatable claim.

You are claiming your testimony should have the same value in our lives as the assertion that the freezing point of water under normal conditions is 0 celsius. The one anyone can test and verify, the other only exists in your head,.

There is a difference, and it does not "work both ways". The one that anyone can validate repeatedly is actually important. The other is the equal of every unverifiable subjective claim. Add it to the trash heap of religious claims.

Talking rubbish, nonsense, wasting time. Not interested.