is atheism a belief system?

[Huskqa]

How is it that atheists can write entire books/volumes about what they 'lack' belief in?
Why the need for conferences to discuss non-stamp collecting?

Because of people like Ken Ham.....

[Lion IRC]

I don't see the connection.
Why would atheists complain about someone else's beliefs as against their own LACK of belief in anything.

If you don't even eat pizza, why does it matter to you what Ken Ham puts on his?

[Huskqa]

I don't see the connection.
Why would atheists complain about someone else's beliefs as against their own LACK of belief in anything.

If you don't even eat pizza, why does it matter to you what Ken Ham puts on his?

Because they are selling pizza to Kids like if it where healthy food, and it isn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiV39cR2jgc

Video's like this say: do not think for your self, god is alway right and the scientist is always wrong. etc etc....you need an opposing force. A strong one at that.

[Lion IRC]

Sorry, I don't do argumentum ad Youtubem. (Didn't watch it.)

And I'm asking about why atheist "non-stamp collectors" proselytize.

I already know why evangelists do it.

[Huskqa]

And I'm asking about why atheist "non-stamp collectors" proselytize.

Because it needs an opposing force. Before you know it they start teaching creationism in highschools. So there is a good reason why you would want to spread the idea that the idea of god is basically very poorly defined and there is no reason to think it is any more true than any other poorly defined proposition.

I understand this does not make sense if you have a strong belief in god.....

[Iwantaconversation]

Naturalism is a belief system which atheists must hold to.

[Lion IRC]

You mean they 'must' if they want to avoid some otherwise awkward alternatives?

To avoid the fine-tuning hypothesis they have to contrive multiverse theory.

To avoid biblical Genesis being taught in the classroom they have to contrive panspermia and spontaneous abiogenesis and random mutation...."of the gaps".

[Architecto]

Sorry, I don't do argumentum ad Youtubem. (Didn't watch it.)

And I'm asking about why atheist "non-stamp collectors" proselytize.

I already know why evangelists do it.

He used it as an example. You don't need to watch it to know what he is talking about.

Theists vote. Their vote impacts other peoples lives. Therefore, we all have a reason to question their reasoning if it's based on unverifiable claims.

Would you want a Muslim voting for policies that would impact your children's education, you freedoms?  Maybe, maybe not, right?

If you disagree with a vote that forces women to wear head-coverings, wouldn't you speak up - and attack their fundamental belief that God wants women to wear head-coverings?

After all, if they claim it is a command from God, it's not enough to say "Hey, we live in a pluralistic society. We have to accept different views", because the Muslim would say "but it's not me saying it, it's God."

Now you have to PROVE he is wrong.  How could you even begin?  Even WLC doesn't claim to prove Christianity, he only says his arguments make it rational to believe in. (If I only presented positive arguments for Islam, I too could claim it is rational to believe).

Learn to accept: Your beliefs (in God) impact other people.

[john doe]

I do not see that we, inside the universe / everything, necessarily should be equipped to understand the universe --  there just might not be any full explanation that any human could state, less comprehend. A very poor analogue would be that I cannot explain the existence of a book to the characters in it.

In math there exists true statements that cannot be be proven true within any consistent axiomatic setup (Gödel).

So maybe the sentence "creation of the universe" is just not valid, since these are words created by mankind to describe stuff and relations inside the universe.

All good points which apply as well to God as they do to the universe.  Some things are beyond us. 

That is why the far full of coins fails as an analogy.  There being an odd number or even number of coins is a very plain statement which is easily understood.  There being a god or not being a god isn't like that.  No one can say clearly what the sure signs of a god's existence might be.  Even if one tried there is every likelihood that there would be no general agreement.

[Architecto]

It's not a "System". It's a belief (or lack of).

It wouldn't be a problem if it was a belief system, it just doesn't fit the criteria of a "system".

[lucious]

The difference is that the gumballs are a denumeration, and the only possible piece of evidence which could alter the probability from a dead heat would be a complete count of the gumballs--after which, one side would be proven necessarily true and the other false, and nothing further could possibly be said.

This is in no way analogous to a philosophical or metaphysical discussion, which for lack of a better word, can be resolved as "cheaply" as this. It has nothing to do with a single, quantitative magnitude.

[john doe]

The difference is that the gumballs are a denumeration, and the only possible piece of evidence which could alter the probability from a dead heat would be a complete count of the gumballs--after which, one side would be proven necessarily true and the other false, and nothing further could possibly be said.

This is in no way analogous to a philosophical or metaphysical discussion, which for lack of a better word, can be resolved as "cheaply" as this. It has nothing to do with a single, quantitative magnitude.

To make the gumball analogy better fit the god question one must make the gumball container cloaked and completely unscannable.  Furthermore the nature of the 'gum ball' must be a complete unknown with no measurable attribute.  In short, it must be impossible to know if there is actually anything in the gum ball container or if there actually is a container.

[lucious]

There is no way to make the gumball comparable to God.

The gumball question has nothing to do with metaphysics or philosophy, it is an everyday question of denumeration, a count of physical objects.

Nice atheist rhetoric though. Really full of positivism.

[john doe]

There is no way to make the gumball comparable to God.

The gumball question has nothing to do with metaphysics or philosophy, it is an everyday question of denumeration, a count of physical objects.

Nice atheist rhetoric though. Really full of positivism.

Funny you should say that.  I first heard it here put forth by a theist as an argument for God' existence.  I was disparaging the argument, not endorsing it.

[ArcSky]

Unless you're all-knowing, faith/belief is inevitable.