I thank you for introducing those items this early in the discussion. I will discuss them
and I hope you open your mind to the arguments I make about them.
And what belief system would that be? Occam's Razor? Uh, yes, I do believe in Occam's razor. Guilty as charged I guess ...."
Occam's razor. Get into a discussion with an atheist
and good ole Occam will rear his ugly head.
Thomas, Occam's razor is one of the most over-valued philosophical concepts ever created. That probably is why one almost never hears it invoked
except in discussions where atheists are rationalizing their guesswork.
Occam's razor leads one as often to a wrong conclusion about a reality
as it does to a correct one. Applying it to possible explanations of the apparent movement of celestial objects
to whether or not the Earth is flat
to the composition of material things
to the composition of atomic particles
to a plethora of other phenomena
leads to conclusions now verifiably wrong.
In any case, Occam's razor will NEVER lead to a denial that gods exist
and at best, will lead to the agnostic position of "It makes no sense to assume there IS or HAS TO BE a god or gods involved in the REALITY of existence. " (It also makes no sense to suppose gods are an impossibility in the REALITY.)
if you are on a ranch and hear hoof beats
do not think Zebra. But that is a long way away from introducing Occam's razor in defense of the atheistic position.
In any case, Occam's razor what not what I had in mind when I called atheism a belief system. I was thinking more along the lines of the blind, unsubstantiate belief that there are no gods.
Here is a statement of my agnosticism: As regards gods, I do not know (cannot establish beyond a reasonable doubt) if there is a God involved in the REALITY
and I do not know (cannot establish beyond a reasonable doubt) that there are no gods involved. Also, I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess on the issue.
apply that to Flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, and teapots in the sky. I cannot establish beyond a reasonable doubt that there are no flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, or teapots in the sky. That is much too daunting a task. But I do have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess on those items.
The only time I ever see them proposed
are in discussions with atheists attempting to make their belief system seem more reasonable than it actually is. I suspect, therefore, that those items are simply the product of people trying to rationalize
rather than the product of people proposing a POSSIBLE explanation for why existence IS. In fact, I NEVER see them proposed as possible ingredients to an explanation of how existence happens to be.
I am agnostic with regard to them. And I guess they are bullshyt.
(Actually, I think the "flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, or teapots in the sky" is way over done
and unworthy of people who consider themselves reasonable and logical.
If not, would you seriously label your amonsterism, your aunicornism, and your ateapotism as "belief systems"? Just asking, no troublemaking intended. (He heee.)
I would seriously label myself an agnostic
no matter what.