Atheism is a religion

[amkerman]

I think you can reasonably say 'you can't lack beliefs about something you have thought about.

That's your belief

To say you can't lack belief in something you've thought about is nonsense.

That's your belief...
(to make this statement you must believe that consciousness exists apart from the brain. If consciousness doesn't exist apart from the brain, consciousness isn't "real". It would simply be a construct which only exists because of our ideas about how the brain works. Brains arent "real". They do not exist apart from our beliefs about them. We believe that the forces of physics and gravity created the universe and everything within it. That is out idea of how reality exists. If those forces did not exist we believe brains would and could not exist. We do not believe brains exist independantly of our ideas about them. Therefore brains aren't real. they are ideas we have about the effects of certain physical interactions in the universe. there is nothing inherently true about the brain. Our brains did not create themselves. Brains exist in reality, they did not create reality, they are not "real"

I've thought about Sherlock Holmes,

your belief...

I have beliefs about Sherlock Holmes,

your belief... I think you get the point

but that in no way means I believe in Sherlock Holmes. And invincible ignorance is ignoring evidence and rejecting arguments no matter what. Saying I lack belief in something is a report of my internal state. Invincible ignorance isn't even properly a fallacy, when you accuse someone of invincible ignorance you are presuming that you understand the arguments and know the evidence and have presented them in such a way that no reasonable person could possibly reject them, so you conclude they can't be convinced because of some flaw on their part, while rejecting the notion that you are the one who might actually be wrong. It's basically a cheap shot to take at someone when you can't win an argument.

Ugh... You can't "lack a belief" If you say "Achilles was not a real man" that is a statement of belief. If you say "I can't be sure whether or not Achilles was a real man" that is another statement of belief. If you then say, "Achilles was possibly a real man", that is a statement of belief, on which is based on two, contraditcotry, beliefs: 1. Achilles was not a real man, and 2. Achilles was a real man.

I am not going to respond to your argument about "invincible ignorance". I believe your reasoning is flawed, but honestly I don't care one way or the other right now.

How do you conclude attempting to know God is noble after noting that God is incomprehensible and claiming to know God's will is worse?

I believe it.

I would say that I start from the axiom that "what I perceive really exists, although my perception has flaws and limits."

That's a pretty convoluted axiom. "I percieve" coupled with "reality exists" coupled with "I percieve reality" coupled with "I percieve reality correctly" coupled with "I percieve reality correctly BUT ONLY sometimes AND ONLY to a point"... Really? Where do you go from there?

It's like you beleve everything you percieve actually "exists" apart from reality. Life the chair your sitting on would still be there if all the known laws of the universe came crashing down tomorrow, and everything as we know it ceased to be; the chair would still exist. It makes no sense. It's basically a belief that everything is a god unto itself; that everthing has created itself and exists independently of everything else.

Honestly if you can explain how you reason that something is "real", or even how you come to a conclusion, starting from your above stated axiom I would be interested in looking at it. It's so intruiging to me.

Proof that reality exists is impossible, [b]but it's useless to proceed as if it doesn't.[b]

Unfounded conclusion. a proof that reality exists is not impossible if we start from the axiom, "I perceive" and accept the inev.

1. I perceive
2. I believe my perceptions are real...
3. I percieve reality
4. Therefore reality exists.

Faith is requried to believe anything is real. You say you believe in reality, or maybe you say that you "know" it exists, but both statements require faith. It doesn't make any sense to place your faith in the thing you are trying to prove, it's a circular argument.

reality exists because I have faith in it, I have faith in it because it exists...
Reality is real because I perceive it as real, I percieve it as real because reality is real...

No, if perceptions are real, perceptions are real.

Yes.

They don't make consciousness real. That's an additional assumption.

We percieve things through consciousness. If consciousness is not real perceptions can't be real either. consciousness must be real in order for perceptions to be. It is not an assumption. Explain how perceptions can be real but consciousness not real.

Things that are real do not exist "in" reality, they create it. they are reality.

I happen to agree with it because I perceive myself to be conscious and I've already decided to accept it as axiomatic that my perceptions refer to something real. I also acknowledge that my perceptions certainly don't reflect reality perfectly. Some people make a case that consciousness is an illusion and I know for a fact that my perceptions can be fooled by illusions. So, I can't conclude that because I perceive consciousness, it is real. You can if you want, but it's a fallacy because it doesn't necessarily follow from the premise.

perceptions aren't "fooled" by illusions, they are still your perceptions. whether or not you believe them is another story. if you percieve consciousness, you perceive it. if you believe your perceptions are real, then consciousness must be.

Stating I lack belief in something is a report on my internal state

what internal state are you talking about? stating you lack belief in something is stating you lack belief in something... imore correctly it's stating you dont believe in it. lets try it the other way;

Theism is simply a lack of disbelief in God. It's not a belief in God.

Telling you what we believe or don't believe is not invincible ignorance. Neither is telling you that we didn't think about the white elephant: that is self-contradiction, not invincible ignorance.

Hilarious. If you are contradicting yourself you are refusing to acknowledge the evidence that has been given to you by yourself, your initial belief/claim/ whatever.

If i say don't think about a white elephant and you say you didn't, how is that self- contradictory? Where is the contradiction? Is it in the fact that obviously if you heard me say it and had beliefs about what "white" and "elephant" meant that you thought of a "white elephant'? If so the contradiction lies in the fact that you are refusing to accept the incontrovertable evidence, "your thought about the white elephant" and your statement "I didn't." Invincible ignorance argument. If you actually believe that you never thought about the white elephant, or that you lack belief that you thought of a white elephant, you are a sociopath.

Don't believe in God...

acceptable responses include "fuck you, God is a mythical figure fools worship, and God is not real."

non acceptable responses: "I don't", "I lack belief in God"; they mean the same thing, and they both are invincibbly ignorant.

If I say I lack a belief that Achilles was a real person, there's no 'gotcha' for you. Maybe there was an Achilles who was a great Greek warrior whose life and abilities were considerably embellished. I don't believe there was a 'real' Achilles. But there could have been, so I also don't believe there never was a 'real' Achilles. I lack both beliefs.

Ridiculous. You start by saying you lack belief in some "Achilles" you are aware of. You then go on to state your belief "Maybe there was an Achilles who was a great Greek warroir".. Then you go even further and state more of your beliefs about Achilles, "[his] life and abilities were considerally embellished.

Next, you make the statement, "I don't believe there was a 'real' Achilles"
- this is an inverse of the statement , "I believe that achilles wasn't real". The statement, "I don't believe" is technically a misnomer because we can't not believe in things we are aware of. Everyone uses it all the time to aviod cognitive dissonance, including me. Just realize that you can't not believe (lack belief) in things you are aware of. it's impossible.

You then go on to state that you believe there could have been a real Achilles...
- Incredible. somehow you believe Achilles wasn't real and believe that he could have been real at the same time... yet the world continues to spin.

Next you state that you "don't believe there was never a real Achillles".
- My heads starting to hurt. So you also believe that at some point in time there was a real Achilles, or "wasn't not one..."

Finally you end by again stating that you lack a belief about whether Achilles was real, after stating you believed he wasnt, that he might have been, and that he was.
-
B.R.A.V.O.

-Why don't you just admit you don't know, pick one belief and stand by it, or just continue to hold all these contradictory beliefs and just understand that they are contradictory and that it's ok (which, by happenstance, would be agreeing with me)?

I forgot what we were even talking about after that Achilles thing... oh yeah, invincible ignorance. You're committing it if you state that you lack a belief in something you are aware of... Still. Whether it is about God or a toaster. You have beliefs about everything you are aware of.

"God exists."

You are now on notice.

You can rationally say you dont know what you believe: agnostic

You can rationally say that you don't believe God exists (that you believe he does not). : atheist

You can rationally say you believe that God exists: theist

You can hold all three beliefs simultaneously and it's ok.: human

You no longer can "lack" belief that "God exists".: unconscious.