Atheism isn't a belief?

Retreating into insanity, iano?

Bad example, as, unless you're telepathic, that's deduced. Once it's deduced, we can imbue our model of another person with love for us, and be aware that the model loves us; but that love isn't an input from them; it's internally-generated.

I think the main problem here is that you haven't defined your God. Ok, so he's 'supernatural'. So's the Judeo-Christian God. Ain't gonna find that one sitting on a park bench, but that doesn't mean you can't use evidence to disprove it. It's defined as having done some very specific things to the natural world; such as creating Man directly from dirt, and flooding the entire Earth. There's tons of evidence against these things, so there's plenty of reasons to believe that that God doesn't exist.
As to your God, I haven't a clue as to what it's supposed to have done, if anything. Is it just a God of the Gaps? If so, belief can be dismissed as being premature and deleterious to the effort of finding what's actually in those gaps.

False. The theoretical maximum is objective. It doesn't matter what you think it is. Here's proof:Kevin Kelly -- Chapter 15: Artificial Evolution
Kevin Kelly -- Chapter 15: Artificial Evolution
(emphasis mine)
"Ackley is a bear of a guy with a side-of-the-mouth wisecracking delivery. He broke up 250 serious scientists at the 1990 Second Artificial Life Conference with a wickedly funny video of a rather important artificial life world he and colleague Michael Littman had made. His "creatures" were actually bits of code not too different from a classical GA, but he dressed them up with moronic smiley faces as they went about chomping each other or bumping into walls in his graphical world. The smart survived, the dumb died. As others had, Ackley found that his world was able to evolve amazingly fit organisms. Successful individuals would live Methuselahian lifetimes-25,000 day-steps in his world. These guys had the system all figured out. They knew how to get what they needed with minimum effort. And how to stay out of trouble. Not only would individuals live long, but the populations that shared their genes would survive eons as well.Noodling around with the genes of these streetwise creatures, Ackley uncovered a couple of resources they hadn't taken up. He saw that he could improve their chromosomes in a godlike way to exploit these resources, making them even better adapted to the environment he had set up for them. So in an early act of virtual genetic engineering, he modified their evolved code and set them back again into his world. As individuals, they were superbly fitted and flourished easily, scoring higher on the fitness scale than any creatures before them.But Ackley noticed that their population numbers were always lower than the naturally evolved guys. As a group they were anemic. Although they never died out, they were always endangered. Ackley felt their low numbers wouldn't permit the species to last more than 300 generations. So while handcrafted genes suited individuals to the max, they lacked the robustness of organically grown genes, which suited the species to the max. Here, in the home-brewed world of a midnight hacker, was the first bit of testable proof for hoary ecological wisdom: that what is best for an individual ain't necessarily best for the species."This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-26-2005 07:23 AM

quote:

---

That's the dictionaries example.

---

I know.

quote:

---

I know my parents love me without them telling me and vice versa for kids loving their parents.

---

Yes, but being convinced that something is true isn't the same as observing it. Two different definitions of 'know'.

quote:

---

Of course in reality info is usually gained from interpreting the actions of the other person in lieu of words.

---

And neither of those is a direct observation of what's going on in someone's head.

quote:

---

IMO, of course, that means that God should provide some sort of action to show his love for his people.

---

Yes, love without an observable action/effect is an unknowable love, for you have no indication of what they're feeling.

*sigh*Dude, a good percentage of what costitutes criminal 'justice' is, "If you hurt me, I get to see that you're hurt back." It also serves the public safety (and the public's perception of safety even more so), and serves as an example to others. And, as an afterthought, the criminals might end up rehabilitated by the negative reinforcement. Doesn't matter, now does it?1. "If you hurt me, I get to see that you're hurt back."
Does it matter if he was genetically predisposed to do what he did?
Nope.2. Public safety.
Does it matter if he was genetically predisposed to do what he did?
Nope.
It does mean that he'll likely do it again when released if not properly reconditioned, but a genetic predisposition cannot yet be demonstrated, and we rarely go beyond the negative reinforcement of imprisonment as far as reconditioning goes, anyway.3. Example to others.
Does it matter if he was genetically predisposed to do what he did?
Nope.

Nope.
M-Theory allows for multiple 4-dimensional expansions of spacetime -- multiple universes. Say that there are multiple universes. So, 2 universes over, there might be a dog fighting a chicken somewhere within it.Now, your position seems to be that since this 'dog fighting a chicken' wouldn't leave any evidence in our universe, and since I haven't looked in that universe so see whether or not there is a dog fighting a chicken, that I'm irrational if I don't believe in it.ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![edit to correct to the right theory. Thanks PurpleYouko.]
(If I'm not mistaken, Superstring didn't allow for it, so that was way off.)This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-26-2005 12:38 PM

I don't think he has a choice in the matter. He seems to have some need to believe that atheism is irrational; and, in typical Fundie fashion, is unwilling to give up that belief no matter what.

What's the 'something else' if you don't believe that there's a dog fighting a chicken two universes over?

It's your assertion. Support it. I believe that my motorcycle exists. I already knew that I was a motorcyclist.

Since the person asserting it cannot give a valid reason to believe it's true, the assertion has no weight. So, throwing it at someone won't move them.

And theists would have 'the presence of a belief in a god or gods' + 'some other belief', as you cannot only believe in (a) god/gods. The best you could do is believe that you exist, that you're a god, and that you're the only thing that exists; and the belief that everything else is an illusion would come along for the ride; which is 2 beliefs -- a belief in illusions, and a belief that everything else is one.
Kinda pointless to add all that other stuff on, though; as the defining characteristic of a theist is that their belief structure incorporates gods. The fact that there's more to the structure than that is irrelevant. Neither can be falsified or verified. Same goes for your assertion that you believe in God. However, as a person is in position to know what's going on in their heads, unless there's a reason to believe they're lying, it's accepted that what they say is going on in their heads is actually going on in their heads. Neither atheism nor theism are belief structures.

Weak atheists don't exclude gods from all explanations -- they simply don't yet have reason to believe that any explanation that uses gods is right.The difficulty here seems to be that you're only seeing explanations for which there's sufficient evidence to believe they're true. Lightning, earthquakes, volcanoes, the diversity of species -- all have naturalistic explanations with sufficient evidence behind them to believe they're true.
Try one that doesn't, though. Dark Matter.
What is it? MACHOs? WIMPs? One of the other candidates? Damned if I know. There's not enough evidence to say what it is. Now, if you want to say that Dark Matter consists of the bodies of gods floating around in space, you can go right ahead. However, just as I lack a belief that Dark Matter is MACHOs or WIMPs, I lack a belief that it's gods. I don't lack a belief because I believe it's something else -- I lack a belief because I don't have any beliefs regarding what Dark Matter is. I haven't a clue.
If you provide evidence that Dark Matter consists of gods floating around in space -- evidence which excludes the other possible candidates -- I'll believe that Dark Matter consists of gods floating around in space. If you provide evidence that it's MACHOs -- evidence which excludes the other possible candidates -- I'll believe it's MACHOs. If you provide evidence that it's WIMPs -- evidence which excludes the other possible candidates -- I'll believe it's WIMPs. However, until I have evidence which allows me to make a determination, I make none. What Dark Matter is is indeterminate.Get it? NO BELIEFS REGARDING WHAT DARK MATTER IS. It's not 'a belief in something other than gods' -- it's no beliefs whatsoever concerning what Dark Matter is. I haven't a clue, and I have no problems saying that I haven't a clue.