(March 10, 2013 at 11:59 pm)jstrodel Wrote: What did you believe before you an atheist that was compatible with atheism? Did you go from Deism to atheism or something like that?
Yes, and before that, from theism to deism.
(March 10, 2013 at 11:59 pm)jstrodel Wrote: How can you separate what you do believe in from what you don't believe in?
What I do believe in is - by definition - separate from what I don't believe in.
(March 10, 2013 at 11:59 pm)jstrodel Wrote: You can't do this and be rational person.
Actually, its the opposite. Its when what do believe and don't believe overlap then you are not being rational.
(March 10, 2013 at 11:59 pm)jstrodel Wrote: You understand what things are in terms of what they are not.
No, you understand it in terms of what they are. Cataloging what they are not would be impossible.
(March 10, 2013 at 11:59 pm)jstrodel Wrote: While you may not think about your beliefs everyday, what you don't believe forms a structure of belief that informs what you do believe, and it is a major part of the structure of your understanding.
That's precisely the opposite of how a rational mind works. You don't start by listing things you don't believe and after an exhaustive process of elimination decide that since these are the things I don't not believe then these must be what I do believe. You first establish what you do believe and based on that you decide what you don't by rejecting things that are incompatible.
(March 10, 2013 at 11:59 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Are you really arguing that it doesn't matter very much whether you believe in God or not?
No. Believing in god matters - not believing in it doesn't.
(March 10, 2013 at 11:59 pm)jstrodel Wrote: I can't believe what I am reading.
Better believe it.
(March 10, 2013 at 11:59 pm)jstrodel Wrote: It is almost like you are trying to grab a hold of anything that you can to make the absurd point that atheism is not belief, it is only the absence of belief.
On the contrary, atheism is a belief. What it is not is a significant belief.
(March 10, 2013 at 11:59 pm)jstrodel Wrote: There is no concern for a systemic appreciation of the way that one aspect of philosophy affects another, only a sort of carnal impulse to defend as fiercely as possible the hopeless argument that atheism does not imply anything about ethics.
Ofcourse there is a significant concern for how one aspect of philosophy affects another - but atheism is not a significant aspect of one's philosophy and since it is not the basis for one's ethics, it doesn't imply anything about it other than that they are not theological.
