Faith

[falcon9]

Definition of atheism:
Noun
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
--merriam webster

Definition of atheism:
Noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

dictionary-reference.co
(links aren’t allowed)

So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.

The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a"doctrine").  As far as the inherent claim of atheistic theory goes; you've got "Abrupt" diligently checking to see whether I've claimed to be an atheist or not.  He'll find that I have not expressly made such a claim and therefore, am under no particular obligation to support a claim I didn't make.  Although that seems to vex "Abrupt" a bit, (with his "failure to state" diatribes), I prefer to consider atheism to be a theory since it doesn't qualify as a "belief system."

"Main Entry:  

'belief system':
noun
Definition:  

faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society"
-- dictionary.com

[SurveyMack10]

Definition of atheism:
Noun
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
--merriam webster

Definition of atheism:
Noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

dictionary-reference.co
(links aren’t allowed)

So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.

The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a"doctrine").  As far as the inherent claim of atheistic theory goes; you've got "Abrupt" diligently checking to see whether I've claimed to be an atheist or not.  He'll find that I have not expressly made such a claim and therefore, am under no particular obligation to support a claim I didn't make.  Although that seems to vex "Abrupt" a bit, (with his "failure to state" diatribes), I prefer to consider atheism to be a theory since it doesn't qualify as a "belief system."

"Main Entry:  

'belief system':
noun
Definition:  

faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society"
-- dictionary.com

Dodging.

[falcon9]

Definition of atheism:
Noun
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
--merriam webster

Definition of atheism:
Noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

dictionary-reference.co
(links aren’t allowed)

So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.

The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a"doctrine").  As far as the inherent claim of atheistic theory goes; you've got "Abrupt" diligently checking to see whether I've claimed to be an atheist or not.  He'll find that I have not expressly made such a claim and therefore, am under no particular obligation to support a claim I didn't make.  Although that seems to vex "Abrupt" a bit, (with his "failure to state" diatribes), I prefer to consider atheism to be a theory since it doesn't qualify as a "belief system."

"Main Entry:  

'belief system':
noun
Definition:  

faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society"
-- dictionary.com

Dodging.

I'm aware that you often dodge and take that into account when replying to your dodgings.

[SurveyMack10]

Definition of atheism:
Noun
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
--merriam webster

Definition of atheism:
Noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

dictionary-reference.co
(links aren’t allowed)

So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.

The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a"doctrine").  As far as the inherent claim of atheistic theory goes; you've got "Abrupt" diligently checking to see whether I've claimed to be an atheist or not.  He'll find that I have not expressly made such a claim and therefore, am under no particular obligation to support a claim I didn't make.  Although that seems to vex "Abrupt" a bit, (with his "failure to state" diatribes), I prefer to consider atheism to be a theory since it doesn't qualify as a "belief system."

"Main Entry:  

'belief system':
noun
Definition:  

faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society"
-- dictionary.com

Dodging.

I'm aware that you often dodge and take that into account when replying to your dodgings.

In other words, you are admitting to dodging and attempting to blame it on me.

[falcon9]

Dodging.

Quote from: falcon9 on Today at 02:44:52 pm:
I'm aware that you often dodge and take that into account when replying to your dodgings. [/quote]

In other words, you are admitting to dodging and attempting to blame it on me.

No, as usual, your reading comprehension skills are significantly lacking.  Your own dodgings are in your own words.  I've answered directly, without dodging - unlike your 'responses'.  Back to the subject matter you are currently dodging;
"belief system."

"Main Entry: 

'belief system':
noun
Definition: 

faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society"
-- dictionary.com

[SurveyMack10]

Dodging.

Quote from: falcon9 on Today at 02:44:52 pm:
I'm aware that you often dodge and take that into account when replying to your dodgings.

In other words, you are admitting to dodging and attempting to blame it on me.

No, as usual, your reading comprehension skills are significantly lacking.  Your own dodgings are in your own words.  I've answered directly, without dodging - unlike your 'responses'.  Back to the subject matter you are currently dodging;
"belief system."

"Main Entry: 

'belief system':
noun
Definition: 

faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society"
-- dictionary.com


[/quote]

I'm not dodging anything- you did not even ask a question?
And your response was clearly admitting that you are dodging as a revenge to me for the imaginary dodging you claim I participate in. Honestly, talking to you is an utter waste of time and I don't mean that as an insult or a dig, merely as an explanation if I decide to discontinue responding to someone who avoids discussing any issues.

[falcon9]

I'm not dodging anything- you did not even ask a question?

Currently, you've been dodging the challenge to your claim that atheism is a belief system.  You claimed it, I challenged your loose interpretation of the phrase, (even after you quoted dictionary definitions).  Since then, you've been dodging supporting your claim but, that's not unusual for you.

And your response was clearly admitting that you are dodging as a revenge ... [yada yada, fabricated nonsense which does not match the record of what was actually written] ...

Your specious nonsense warranted no more response than this comment.

Honestly, talking to you is an utter waste of time

Coincidentally, the same thought had crossed my mind more than once however, for completely different reasons, (that is, I used reasoning - as opposed to what ever you're using in lieu of reasoning).

... and I don't mean that as an insult or a dig, merely as an explanation if I decide to discontinue responding to someone who avoids discussing any issues.

Sure you do; you words belie your empty insistance and serve not as a prelude "explaination" but, merely as an exit excuse.  Keep dodging or stop responding; either way is alright with me - it's your choice, afterall.
[/quote]

[meemeechowin]

People should have faith in God. In my religious view, I believe in God. God sent his son, Jesus Christ our savior to die on the cross for our sins. So we have to be thankful for our life.
So people should live our life in each step by faith.

[Abrupt]

Definition of atheism:
Noun
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
--merriam webster

Definition of atheism:
Noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

dictionary-reference.co
(links aren’t allowed)

So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.

The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a"doctrine").  As far as the inherent claim of atheistic theory goes; you've got "Abrupt" diligently checking to see whether I've claimed to be an atheist or not.  He'll find that I have not expressly made such a claim and therefore, am under no particular obligation to support a claim I didn't make.  Although that seems to vex "Abrupt" a bit, (with his "failure to state" diatribes), I prefer to consider atheism to be a theory since it doesn't qualify as a "belief system."

"Main Entry:  

'belief system':
noun
Definition:  

faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society"
-- dictionary.com

Actually I haven't been diligently checking and I probably will not but will keep the option in reserve.  You must understand that it doesn't vex me.  I am approaching this more like an attorney might in a trial (although my skill would be much less).  I know that we are both likely entrenched into our positions with one of us as prosecution and the other as defense (the roles not being fixed in any regard).  I am assuming we are arguing to the reader and I use devices of persuasion periodically to try and reinforce my points and weaken yours -- but this is natural and we all do this in a sense in general.  In my case I am focusing most of my efforts towards the reader though and not actually at attempts to reason with you.  Since we lack the types of feedback that would typically be used to measure our efforts (we cannot consider those that agree with us or disagree with us as we know the bias), it proves more challenging to grade ones effectiveness.  I use a mixture of trial balloons (to myself which makes it odd) and a delay in response where I can forget the immediate argument and approach it again fresh and more objective at a later time.  Some things I say are only for the purpose of me judging them later and others are not.  I have never had any experience on how to deal with a situation where one side is playing the prosecutor but relying upon protections afforded to the defense...and this makes it interesting to me.  I am sure there are examples of how to effectively argue this but it is something I want to learn on my own, or at least explore what seems best to do in such situations.

Now some, upon hearing this, might say "well why bother".  My answer is that this is interesting to me and enjoyable and something I consider good mental exercise as it draws in many areas of consideration.

[SurveyMack10]

I'm not dodging anything- you did not even ask a question?

Currently, you've been dodging the challenge to your claim that atheism is a belief system.  You claimed it, I challenged your loose interpretation of the phrase, (even after you quoted dictionary definitions).  Since then, you've been dodging supporting your claim but, that's not unusual for you.

And your response was clearly admitting that you are dodging as a revenge ... [yada yada, fabricated nonsense which does not match the record of what was actually written] ...

Your specious nonsense warranted no more response than this comment.

Honestly, talking to you is an utter waste of time

Coincidentally, the same thought had crossed my mind more than once however, for completely different reasons, (that is, I used reasoning - as opposed to what ever you're using in lieu of reasoning).

... and I don't mean that as an insult or a dig, merely as an explanation if I decide to discontinue responding to someone who avoids discussing any issues.

Sure you do; you words belie your empty insistance and serve not as a prelude "explaination" but, merely as an exit excuse.  Keep dodging or stop responding; either way is alright with me - it's your choice, afterall.

[/quote]

Please show where you challenged my claim (this is not the same thing as denying the definition of atheism)

[Graeth]

Why are people straying away from Religion? Is the belief in God no longer necessary?

I believe it is more that their religion has been twisted and  corrupted and turned away from its core ideology.
And people can't stomach that beyond a certain time limit.
People should have faith---maybe note faith in the religious sense, but faith in something.

[falcon9]

Currently, you've been dodging the challenge to your claim that atheism is a belief system.  You claimed it, I challenged your loose interpretation of the phrase, (even after you quoted dictionary definitions).  Since then, you've been dodging supporting your claim but, that's not unusual for you.

Please show where you challenged my claim (this is not the same thing as denying the definition of atheism)

Can't recall what you recently wrote again, huh?  Okay, I'll repost the excerpt, (just to see if you'll deny your own words) --

--Message ID: 434227:

Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.


Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").

[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term.

[falcon9]

I am approaching this more like an attorney might in a trial (although my skill would be much less). 

While I can see the parallel to a limited extent, I view this debate more as the presentation of opposing perspectives rather than faith' or 'reason' being on trial, (athough I'm fairly certain you could extrapolate what would happen in an actual court of law were the objective to substantiate 'faith' with conclusive evidence).  Therefore, we are pretty much allowing any readers, (entrenched or still open to persuasion by reasoning - or, swayed by emotions), to weigh any evidence/lines of reasoning for themselves.

I know that we are both likely entrenched into our positions with one of us as prosecution and the other as defense (the roles not being fixed in any regard).  I am assuming we are arguing to the reader and I use devices of persuasion periodically to try and reinforce my points and weaken yours -- but this is natural and we all do this in a sense in general.  In my case I am focusing most of my efforts towards the reader though and not actually at attempts to reason with you.  Since we lack the types of feedback that would typically be used to measure our efforts (we cannot consider those that agree with us or disagree with us as we know the bias), it proves more challenging to grade ones effectiveness.  I use a mixture of trial balloons (to myself which makes it odd) and a delay in response where I can forget the immediate argument and approach it again fresh and more objective at a later time. 

Although I am unlikely to be persuaded otherwise by irrational arguments, rational ones do ellicit a considered response.  Perhaps you feel "entrenched", (as you suggested) however, my responses have not been solely directed at whomever else may be reading this lengthy exchange.  They've also been directed at challenging you to challenge yourself, (instead of resting upon the 'bunker' of "faith").  Doubtless, you may consider my 'bunker' to be logical reasoning alone, (and frankly, I've presented that as being most conducive to arguing within the format of debate, rather than opening/closing arguments at a trial). Regardless, the position I've taken isn't arbitrary, (neither do I perceive yours to be, for what it's worth).  So, we are both representing vested interests, as it were and given that awareness, I still seek to examine any evidence as objectively and rationally as possible.

Some things I say are only for the purpose of me judging them later and others are not.  I have never had any experience on how to deal with a situation where one side is playing the prosecutor but relying upon protections afforded to the defense...and this makes it interesting to me.  I am sure there are examples of how to effectively argue this but it is something I want to learn on my own, or at least explore what seems best to do in such situations.

Now some, upon hearing this, might say "well why bother".  My answer is that this is interesting to me and enjoyable and something I consider good mental exercise as it draws in many areas of consideration.

[falcon9]

I am approaching this more like an attorney might in a trial (although my skill would be much less).  I know that we are both likely entrenched into our positions with one of us as prosecution and the other as defense (the roles not being fixed in any regard).

While I hold no law degree, I can see where you are going with this analogy.  Let's try overtly following that analogy for as far as it takes this debate.  Specifically, to expand on an assertion you made in a recent exchange within this debate:

Message ID: 433747-
Quote from: falcon9 on October 16, 2011, 12:27:26 am:
'The common definition, (as opposed to your selective one), of "faith" includes a lack of supporting evidence for whatever is 'believed' in.  A "leap of faith" is therefore jumping to a conclusion for which there is a lack of supporting evidence.'

"What I am suggesting is that evidence isn't even considered or required, regardless of its existence or absence.  You define it in a way that suggests those of us with faith measure something when we don't. While the "leap of faith" does indeed suggest that empirical evidence was found to be lacking and consciously realized, it is not synonymous with 'faith'.

---

In the context of discussing the concept of 'faith', you've contended "that evidence isn't even considered or required, regardless of its existence or absence."  How would you perceive your arrest for murder if the police did not consider evidence, (or its absence)?  Further, how would you perceive the decision to try you for murder, (let's say under circumstantial evidence), convict you of that charge and impose judgement upon you, (all without conclusive evidence and even in the face of a lack of such evidence)?

Would you view these choices, (your arrest and conviction), under these circumstances as arbitrary or, fairly based upon available evidence?

From my perspective, deliberately _not_ considering evidence, (or not requiring it when it is lacking), doesn't follow as a reasoned decision.  Perhaps you could elaborate on any of your reasoning behind choosing to disregard evidence or a lack of evidence when it comes to "faith"?

[ricky305]