The only thing more irritating...

[memimemi]

First and foremost, addressing memi's last post, that was not offensive. Thank you for the changes your making so that you aren't ^_^

No problem; when dealing with strangers, it's always best to be a little bit careful with one's terminology.  I hold it as an ethical imperative, to show that atheists can be just as reasonable and kind as any religious person.

Second, one of you (I believe memi) said "a billion beliefs does not a fact make". I would like to point out that maybe not a billiion beliefs, but 7 billion probably would. If 99% of the population believe's something is true, it is regarded as fact and those who disagree are called wrong. Yes, yes, we have scientific backing for said facts, but science only gets so far before it hits axioms, something we just have to accept. All science eventually boils down to axioms. Though I cannot prove it without mass genocide, I believe if 99% of people believed God existed, his existence would be regarded as fact.

That was indeed me.  Still, your own terms are telling: 'regarded as fact,' is not the same as 'is fact.'  The only axiom in science is that if a thing exists, there will be evidence thereof.  Perhaps, as a second axiom, we could also add the Copernican hypothesis, that a point of view from anywhere in the universe will show the same basic laws of physics. (This point is under some scrutiny, lately, however....)

Third, at this point we seem to be at an impasse on the definition of "atheist" and "convert". As such, we can't really argue one of the major points here because we define things differently. Unless we were to agree on a definition, we cannot progress.

I'm trying, and failing, to show how the actual terminology makes no difference.

Fourth, I support moving the off topic stuff off the thread.[/.quote]

Yes.  It would be great to move this to Philosophy; not only for relevance (we've been delving into epistemology here), but also to draw some more philosophical thinkers into the discussion.  It'd be great to delve even deeper into the meanings of 'proof, ' 'evidence,' and such -but only in its proper place.

Fifth, using real world examples to try and show a parallel to something we cannot for the sake of explaining and then tearing the example appart instead of looking at what the example was trying to explain is something that has always baffled me. My mother and one of my brothers do it, as do a couple of my friends and some people on the forums. But most people I know (may not be a global majority) understand that the example is to illustrate. I'm a missing something here? I would really like this explained to me. (And I hope this doesn't seem insulting, for I don't mean it to be).

So much for brief...

No offence taken.  What you're describing is a problem that Philosophy tries to work around, through using very specific terminology and symbols.  Unfortunately, this is a public forum, not a university workgroup - so we need to be willing to accept a certain level of vagueness in our terms and examples, just to remain intelligible to those who don't have very specialized education and training.

tl;dr: I'll try to stay on-topic, and keep it respectful and polite.  Not only is that following the precedent set by users like you, Naesala - it's also the most effective way to pursue Truth, rather than Victory.  I'm also Canadian, eh!  We have a stereotype of polite reason to live up to, after all... XD

[OldTrees]

@memimemi
As a student of Genetics, I personally know the anger you speak of.  I have not given up on the teach tolerance tactic. Hopefully the non fundementalist theists will join the cause for areligious tolerance provided they don't get too irritated.

[Naesala]

I concede regarded as fact isn't the same as fact. But things that are considered "facts" change later on, and are discovered to be things that were just regarded as fact.

Terminology does matter, it always matters. And I'm confused as to why, for this only, you say it doesn't and then go on several times to say it does matter and must be very very specific. If we can't agree on a definition, we can't communicate efficiently. If I say an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in any gods and you say an atheist is something else, then we can't really argue about atheists except about which definition is right. Same with convert. Under my set of definitions, someone -can- be converted to atheism (Bob converts John to not believe in any gods by convincing him using various scientific stuff (Braindead on those last 2 words >.>). Conversion: a change in beliefs. Atheist: a person who does not believe in gods.) You still have to believe in facts for them to matter to you.

I do not like the "changing religions is like changing hats" simile. I agree converting from one religion to another is likely less difficult than to no religion at all, but I dont think religions should be put on so similar a level and I dont think the gap to atheism is so much further than to a new religion. (To point out an example, arum's recent thread about his/her conversion)

[memimemi]

I concede regarded as fact isn't the same as fact. But things that are considered "facts" change later on, and are discovered to be things that were just regarded as fact.

Which is the essence of the Scientific Method, and its self-correcting property.  Compare this to dogma, or to received wisdom.

Terminology does matter, it always matters. And I'm confused as to why, for this only, you say it doesn't and then go on several times to say it does matter and must be very very specific. If we can't agree on a definition, we can't communicate efficiently. If I say an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in any gods and you say an atheist is something else, then we can't really argue about atheists except about which definition is right. Same with convert. Under my set of definitions, someone -can- be converted to atheism (Bob converts John to not believe in any gods by convincing him using various scientific stuff (Braindead on those last 2 words >.>). Conversion: a change in beliefs. Atheist: a person who does not believe in gods.) You still have to believe in facts for them to matter to you.

I'm not saying it doesn't matter - but, rather, was trying to speak to the concept behind the words, as was requested by OldTrees.  Belief has nothing whatsoever to do with facts, or whether they matter.  Even if you don't believe in the material world (as has been proposed, quite seriously, by a variety of philosophers and theologicians - see Berkeley), stepping in front of a speeding train will still crush you. 

I request that you answer the same questions I put to OldTrees in re: conversion.  When a person changes hir own mind, based on a grasp of demonstrable, replicable, experimentally tested facts, what conversion is happening there?  I still contend that comparing a change of beliefs to a shedding of all belief is comparing apples to walruses.  They are very different concepts.

I do not like the "changing religions is like changing hats" simile. I agree converting from one religion to another is likely less difficult than to no religion at all, but I dont think religions should be put on so similar a level and I dont think the gap to atheism is so much further than to a new religion. (To point out an example, arum's recent thread about his/her conversion)

Well, we could compare the internal value of various religions, but that's another thread altogether - probably one I'd not involve myself in due to its highly contentious nature.

In re: Arum's thread - note that even when speaking with a newly minted atheist, I hold the same view - making such a life decision should not be done in reaction to others, period.  The switch to atheism is one that, ideally, comes from a weighing in of facts, and induction therefrom.  The switch to a new religion, however, requires less factual consideration (less, mind you, not none), and more of a visceral, emotive reaction.  I'm not claiming that atheism is better (not on this thread, that is - if someone else starts one, I'll gladly give my thoughts); it's just an altogether different way of experiencing the world from the religious perspective.  Once again, apples to walruses.

In your Bob/John example, Bob wouldn't be convincing John of anything; the facts do enough convincing for themselves, for John at least, without any help from Bob beyond the dissemination of knowledge.

The changing hats analogy was not meant to show that all religions are created equal, but rather to show that any religion is different from atheism, in the same way.  It's a question, in the end, of the value of belief and faith vs factual knowledge.

[Naesala]

Not sure what you mean by received wisdom. Dogma is constantly, constantly being reinterpreted.

More later, sleep now

[esran]

i would argue that converting from  a religion to no religion is the same as from one religion to another. me and my 3 brothers were born into a religous family and have since decided we do not believe in it, and have become atheist. atheism is a belief system as any other. the only difference between a theist trying to convert you and an atheist trying to convert you is that the theist believes he is doing you a favor, and attempting to win you eternal salvation. the atheist is just being an asshole and trying to spit on your beliefs for fun. unless someone is part of a religion that is harmful to them, like a cult, there is no good reason to attempt to convert them to atheism. i also believe theists shouldnt try to convert poeple, but at least they have a reason to do so.

[Cheesy111]

i would argue that converting from  a religion to no religion is the same as from one religion to another. me and my 3 brothers were born into a religous family and have since decided we do not believe in it, and have become atheist. atheism is a belief system as any other. the only difference between a theist trying to convert you and an atheist trying to convert you is that the theist believes he is doing you a favor, and attempting to win you eternal salvation. the atheist is just being an asshole and trying to spit on your beliefs for fun. unless someone is part of a religion that is harmful to them, like a cult, there is no good reason to attempt to convert them to atheism. i also believe theists shouldnt try to convert poeple, but at least they have a reason to do so.

Atheism isn't a belief system.  It's a lack of belief in gods.   

[Naesala]

Or: Atheism is a belief system in which you believe there is no such thing as gods.

This is varying semantics and definitions for "belief", not worth arguing since people rarely change there definitions. Also I'm to tired to argue and too weary of this thread.

People who are annoying and try to force what they "believe", even if what they "believe" is all based in things currently considered facts, are annoying and bothersome. Thats my final thought on this thread.

[esran]

i will give an example of my beliefs.
imagine there are 2 poeple. person 1 believes that if he prays every day he will be happy for eternity. person 2 does not belieive this.
since person 1 believes prayer will make him happy later, he is happy to pray. person 2 would not be happy to pray, because he doesnt believe this.
if person 2 attempted to convince person 1 not to pray, despite his beliefs, that would be wrong. person 1's prayer does not harm person 2. even if person 2 wants to help person 1, person 1's prayer does not harm person 1. any attempts by person 2 to convert person 1 could therefore only possibly be wrong, regardless of which person is correct.
if person 1 attempted to convert person 1, then that would also be wrong, though more understandable. to person 1's point of view, he is attempting to give person 2 happiness, and his motives are pure. however, person 2 will never believe person 1's beliefs, and if person 2 forced him to pray, that would make him unhappy. if person 1 is correct, then what he is doing would theoretically be right, but if he is wrong what he is doing is definately wrong.
because unless person 1 is correct, he would only be hurting person 2, unless person 1 has absolute proof that he is right, attempting to convert person 2 is wrong, no matter which one of them is correct.
if, however, person 1 had absolute proof, person 2 would join without the need for encouragement. therefore, since person 2 does not, it can be deduced that no matter what person 1 believes about his proof, it is not absoulute.
therefore any attempts by person 1 or 2 to convert the other is wrong in every situation regarding correctness of their beliefs and proof.
now imagine a person 3. person 3 believes that if he hits himself hard enough with a baseball bat he will find eternal happiness.
in this situation, one only requires proof strong enough for person 3 to be convinced, not neccecarily absoulute proof.
however, if person 1 or 2 had strong enough proof, person 3 would join without additional encouragement.
therefore, unless additional unprovided information exists, such as the brainwashing of person 3, or some other situation, it is still in all situations wrong to attempt to convert person 3.

tldr; all attempts to change anothers beliefs, without absolute proof that cannot be rebuked, and oftentimes even with absolute proof, it is wrong.

thus my entire argument is invalid because i am trying to change your belief on this topic.

preview edit: cheesy, lack of belief=belief.
to reiterate: belief is not neccecarily in the existence of something.
ANY belief, true or not, is a belief.
try proving to me that you exist, and that my laptop is not a figure of my imagination.
the truth of this does not matter, the point is, is the burden is on you to prove it. or on me to disprove it?
answer:if i try to convince you either way the burden is on me.
if you try to convince me either way the burden is on you.

[OldTrees]

i would argue that converting from  a religion to no religion is the same as from one religion to another. me and my 3 brothers were born into a religous family and have since decided we do not believe in it, and have become atheist. atheism is a belief system as any other. the only difference between a theist trying to convert you and an atheist trying to convert you is that the theist believes he is doing you a favor, and attempting to win you eternal salvation. the atheist is just being an asshole and trying to spit on your beliefs for fun. unless someone is part of a religion that is harmful to them, like a cult, there is no good reason to attempt to convert them to atheism. i also believe theists shouldnt try to convert poeple, but at least they have a reason to do so.

Atheism isn't a belief system.  It's a lack of belief in gods.   

True changing from theism to atheism does not mean rejecting all of the religion's belief system. Some non Christians still follow the ethical code of the bible. When it is a simple change like this then it is different than the change from religion A to religion B. However more often when a theist becomes an atheist they change ethical codes as well. (either to their moral intuitions or to a more sophisticated secular moral philosophy) This more common change is as great a change as changing religions.

Another way to look at this:
Let's examine the minimum change claimed by switching from theism to atheism vs the change from being theist towards god A to god B.
In the T->T case we have beliefA->disbeliefA and disbeliefB->beliefB. In T->A we have beliefA->disbeliefA.
As we can see the change from belief in one god to belief in another god includes all the steps of belief in a god to disbelief in that god. So yes changing gods is different than disbelieving a god but only because there is an addition step.

[memimemi]

Naesala: Atheism is not a belief system.  Full stop.  Christianity is - regardless of your opinions on the various denominations, there are beliefs common to most or all: the Nicene Creed; the Divinity of the Christ; the Resurrection and Assumption; the Miracles described in the 4 'Q' gospels; etc.

Find me a common belief structure to atheists - beyond a lack of belief.

Esran: "tldr; all attempts to change anothers beliefs, without absolute proof that cannot be rebuked, and oftentimes even with absolute proof, it is wrong."

No.  As an (admittedly, hyperbolic) example: if I believe that my God has granted me the right to do what I will with your property, money, and person, and what I desire is to burn down your house, spend your money, and beat you, is it 'wrong' for the law to convince me otherwise, by force if necessary?

Or, were the Crusades justified?  How about any other crimes committed in the name of various religions?  I'm sure you don't need examples from me; they're plentiful.

What if I held the unshakeable belief that I am the reincarnated Christ, and therefore anything I say or do is automatically morally justified?  This is a common delusion for Schizophrenics - is it wrong to medicate them, thereby denying their beliefs?

Sure, some people (on both sides of the theism/atheism divide) are just jerks - but most aren't.  It's just not that simple.

OldTrees: Kinda.  I still maintain that a heretic=/=an apostate.  Look at the reactions of the more militant churches, to other religions, then to atheism.  (I'm reminded of Walter from the Big Lebowski: ' I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.')  No, I'm not trying to Godwin things here with that; it's humour.

There's one thing that all belief systems share in common; they're based on belief.  Changing from one to another requires changing beliefs, but belief is still a common factor.  Atheism is a rejection of the value of belief.  It is *not* a belief system, despite the favourite arguments of theists - not to judge, it's understandable that theists would try to describe atheism in terms they understand - and has no articles of faith.  There is no common ground between theism/atheism, like there is between theology a/theology b.

Thank you, everybody.  This has been fun!

edit: grammar.

[OldTrees]

OldTrees: Kinda.  I still maintain that a heretic=/=an apostate.  Look at the reactions of the more militant churches, to other religions, then to atheism.  (I'm reminded of Walter from the Big Lebowski: ' I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.')  No, I'm not trying to Godwin things here with that; it's humour.

There's one thing that all belief systems share in common; they're based on belief.  Changing from one to another requires changing beliefs, but belief is still a common factor.  Atheism is a rejection of the value of belief.  It is *not* a belief system, despite the favourite arguments of theists - not to judge, it's understandable that theists would try to describe atheism in terms they understand - and has no articles of faith.  There is no common ground between theism/atheism, like there is between theology a/theology b.

Thank you, everybody.  This has been fun!

edit: grammar.

I am not sure what you meant by bringing up the difference between heretic and apostasy. Changing gods seems to be Apostasy. Changing only the belief in gods but not the rest of the belief system seems to be Heresy. Changing to atheism and adopting a secular moral philosophy seems to be Apostasy again. It is likely that I am misunderstanding/misapplying the terms though.

I agree that Atheism is not a belief system. Belief systems require at least 2 beliefs. Likewise Theism is not a belief system.

I have a bowl. Is it true that I have a belief about how many apples are in the bowl?
Is it possible to disbelieve in gods and not belief that no gods exist? Aka is the middle excluded?