Atheism and agnosticism defined.

The arguments over what ‘atheism’ and ‘agnosticism’ mean have been raging here since sciforums began. Newcomers often have erroneous pre-conceived ideas and have to be re-educated within each debate and many dictionaries especially older ones are simply not in touch with current usage.

The definitions here I believe are fairly simple to understand and represent the majority view (of those who have seriously considered the issue). However, there are variations on the definition of agnosticism which involve the concepts of theist agnosticism and atheist agnosticism, but I find that these subtle variations are not widely held and attempts to use them here have simply been met with confusion. But if anyone disagrees or has further comment then please post your concerns and definitions in this thread and I’ll evaluate then and give consideration for including them in this opening post.

The other primary contentious issue is the subject and definition of ‘faith’ but I think that deserves its own sticky thread.

The source for the following definitions is –

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html


"What is atheism?"

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism.

"What is agnosticism then?"

The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not know for sure whether God exists. Some agnostics believe that we can never know.

In recent years, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those who simply believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.

To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on a belief that we cannot know whether God exists be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the belief that we merely do not know yet be qualified as "empirical agnosticism".

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism".

Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe.

Have fun
Cris

Edit 9/5/3

Reference to Christian Apologetics and Research.
A fair site for Christians about atheists.

http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheism.htm

Well put Cris, thanks a lot. I'm glad to see this addressed. I hope it will save everyone some time in the threads.

At the same time, Drange poses the question in a somewhat different manner ...
Suppose you are to answer the following two questions: Does the sentence "God exists" express a proposition?
If so, then is that proposition true or false?If you say no to the first question, then you may be classified as a noncognitivist with regard to God-talk. If you say yes to it, thereby allowing that the given sentence does express a proposition, then you are a cognitivist with regard to God-talk. (Let us henceforth abbreviate these expressions, simply using the terms "cognitivist" and "noncognitivist".) All theists, atheists, and agnostics are cognitivists, so the second question applies to them: is the proposition that God exists true or false? You are a theist if and only if you say that the proposition is true or probably true, you are an atheist if and only if you say that it is false or probably false, and you are an agnostic if and only if you understand what the proposition is, but resist giving either answer, and support your resistance by saying, "The evidence is insufficient" (or words to that effect).

- see Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998) (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html)I suspect that much of the argument about terminology conceals a more fundamental disagreement about burden of proof. The theist sees an admittedly uneven playing field. It is, after all, relatively easy to cast stones at Christian doctrine so long as the atheist has no fear of being forced to defend his or her 'doctine' in return. To make matters worse, too many of these atheists are recognized by theists as little more than frenetic bible-bashers no less dogmatic and superficial than the most ignorant of fundametalist. Given all this, the frustrated theist views debating "atheism as the absence of belief" a bit like wrestling a foul smelling ooze. This will continue to be the case so long as one or both contenders are discussing/debating ontology rather than epistemology.

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.[?] Which brings us to agnosticism.Quite interesting. Why not just say I'm unsure to avoid the confusion? Crap you guys are so technical when it can be avoided.

The brief summary, as I understand it:

<b>strong atheist</b>:
"I believe there is no God." (i.e. positive belief in the non-existence of God).
<b>weak atheist</b>:
"I do not believe there is a God." (i.e. lack of a positive belief in non-existence, but not necessarily a negative belief).
<b>strict agnostic</b>:
"It is impossible to know whether God exists or not." (i.e. belief that the nature of God is undecidable.)
<b>empirical agnostic</b>:
"God might exist, but the evidence so far is inconclusive." (i.e. truly undecided, on the basis of the evidence.)
<b>theist</b>:
"I believe there is a God." (i.e. positive belief in at least one God.)

MarcAC,

Why not just say I'm unsure to avoid the confusion?Because a disbelief is not an expression of uncertainty.

E.g. I am quite sure that I do not believe theist claims.

Pretty soon atheism is going to have more sects than christianity. :confused:

Originally posted by okinrus
Pretty soon atheism is going to have more sects than christianity. :confused: But far, far fewer myths. ;)

The rhetorical difference between disbelief and belief in a negative is not relevant to the definition of Atheism.

Theism/Atheism deal with belief. The Theist believes that a deity exists. The Atheist EITHER does not believe in the existence of a deity OR believes that deities do not exist.

Gnosticism/Agnosticism is a separate school of thought from Theism/Atheism.

Gnosticism/Agnosticism deal with knowledge. A Gnostic is one who claims to know that a deity exists. An Agnostic claims to have no knowledge about the existence of a deity.

Confused yet?

A Gnostic Theist is one who believes in a deity and claims to know that the deity exists. Typically devoutly religious people fall into this category. They claim their knowledge comes from fulfilled prayer, prophecy or miracles.

An Agnostic Theist is one who has a belief in the existence of a deity but does not claim to know this for sure. They are often skeptical about religious documents, such as the Bible, but refuse to accept the idea of an uncaused first cause, i.e. the Big Bang, without divine intervention.

A Gnostic Atheist is one who does not believe in a deity (or believes that no deity exists) and claims to know that no deity exists. This is sometimes referred to as Strong Atheism. Their knowledge derives from scientific evidence that refutes religious claims.

An Agnostic Atheist is one who does not believe in a deity (or believes that no deity exists) but does not claim to have knowledge regarding the existence of a deity. This is sometimes referred to as Weak Atheism. The Agnostic Atheist is content to leave the burden of proof (knowledge) on those who make the claims regarding the existence of a deity.

Reposted from this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25260&perpage=20&pagenumber=3) at the request of Wesmorris.

Excellent explanation, LucidDreamer. I just want to clarify two things.

A Gnostic Atheist is one who does not believe in a deity (or believes that no deity exists) and claims to know that no deity exists. This is sometimes referred to as Strong Atheism.
A gnostic atheist is a strong atheist, but not necessarily vice versa. See below.

An Agnostic Atheist is one who does not believe in a deity (or believes that no deity exists) but does not claim to have knowledge regarding the existence of a deity. This is sometimes referred to as Weak Atheism.
An agnostic atheist can be either a strong atheist or a weak atheist. An agnostic atheist who simply lacks belief that God or gods exist is a weak atheist. An agnostic atheist who holds an explicit belief that God or gods do not exist is a strong atheist. One need not claim knowledge that God or gods do not exist in order to have an explicit belief that they do not.

One need not claim knowledge that God or gods do not exist in order to have an explicit belief that they do not.

I agree. However the claim of knowledge is what distinguishes a strong Atheist from a weak one. Knowledge implies certitude.

I really think that people are getting too hung up on the distinction between disbelief and belief in a negative. While I agree that there is a difference rhetorically, it plays no role in the definitions of strong or weak Atheism or Atheism in general. Atheism can be either disbelief in a deity or belief that no deity exists.

It is important to note that Agnosticism is not a third option to Theism or Atheism, but rather a subset of the two.

Originally posted by LucidDreamer
It is important to note that Agnosticism is not a third option to Theism or Atheism, but rather a subset of the two.

Damnit are you sure? Shit i think I might have it backwards. Straighten me out please. I was thinking that Theism and Atheism are two non-intersecting circles within in the intersection of agnosticism and (what do you call someone believes in knowledge from authority?) (trying to describe it like a Venn Diagram).

Most people live in a state of apathy except for a few rare moments.

Originally posted by okinrus
Most people live in a state of apathy except for a few rare moments.

hehe.. okay, jcarl.. if you're watching. THIS IS A NON-SEQUITER. Use the example to understand the pattern then use that to improve your arguments.

Pretty soon atheism is going to have more sects than christianity.
seeing this is a thread for clearing up misconceptions- atheism is in no way a religion. it never has been. if it was, it would indeed have many more sects than christianity as you would be hard pressed to find a group of atheists who agreed on a substantial set of beliefs.

Originally posted by LucidDreamer
I agree. However the claim of knowledge is what distinguishes a strong Atheist from a weak one.
That is not true. The claim of knowledge is what distinguishes a gnostic from an agnostic. Atheism has nothing to do with the field of epistemology (gnostic vs. agnostic), but deals only in the realm of belief.

Knowledge implies certitude.
Yes, this is why gnostic atheists would all be strong atheists as well. Certitude does not, however, imply knowledge, which is why strong atheists are not necessarily gnostic atheists.

I really think that people are getting too hung up on the distinction between disbelief and belief in a negative. While I agree that there is a difference rhetorically, it plays no role in the definitions of strong or weak Atheism or Atheism in general. Atheism can be either disbelief in a deity or belief that no deity exists.
Disbelief and belief in a negative not only have a role in the strong and weak atheist positions, but they are the very qualities that distinguish these two philosophical stances. Yes, atheism in general can encompass either of these two standpoints. However, it is important to keep these distinctions in mind because many people have misconceptions about atheism (the very reason that Cris appropriately posted this subject as a sticky). A notable example is the erroneous belief that all atheists are strong atheists, i.e. they hold an explicit belief that God or gods do not exist, when they may simply be skeptics.

It is important to note that Agnosticism is not a third option to Theism or Atheism, but rather a subset of the two.
Correct. Agnosticism is not a third option to theism or atheism. However, it is not a subset of those two views either; it is a completely different philosophical field (epistemology).

seeing this is a thread for clearing up misconceptions- atheism is in no way a religion. it never has been. if it was, it would indeed have many more sects than christianity as you would be hard pressed to find a group of atheists who agreed on a substantial set of beliefs.

Atheism can be considered a religion. "2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" (Webster) So you have your beliefs in varying degree of the nonexistance of God and your beliefs constitute your own personal religion.


hehe.. okay, jcarl.. if you're watching. THIS IS A NON-SEQUITER. Use the example to understand the pattern then use that to improve your arguments.

That was supposed to be a joke.

Okinrus,

Atheism can be considered a religion. "2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" (Webster) So you have your beliefs in varying degree of the nonexistance of God and your beliefs constitute your own personal religion.Nice try, but no that doesn’t work. For your statement to be true atheists must maintain a “religious attitude, belief and practice”.

From Webster - Religious: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.

Therefore for atheists to be considered religious they must acknowledge an ultimate reality or deity. Since atheism is specifically disbelief in such things then the two conditions are mutually exclusive, i.e. an atheist cannot both believe and disbelieve in a deity.

Atheists cannot be religious.

The claim of knowledge is what distinguishes a gnostic from an agnostic. Atheism has nothing to do with the field of epistemology (gnostic vs. agnostic), but deals only in the realm of belief.

I agree entirely. I don’t think I said anything that contradicts that.

Damnit are you sure? Shit i think I might have it backwards. Straighten me out please. I was thinking that Theism and Atheism are two non-intersecting circles within in the intersection of agnosticism and (what do you call someone believes in knowledge from authority?) (trying to describe it like a Venn Diagram).

Correct. Agnosticism is not a third option to theism or atheism. However, it is not a subset of those two views either; it is a completely different philosophical field (epistemology).

All right, let me clarify what I meant. Perhaps the use of the word subset was confusing. Theism/Atheism and Gnosticism/Agnosticism are two separate schools of thought. However, one cannot be either Gnostic/Agnostic without also being either Theist/Atheist. The two schools of thought are in that sense connected.

Let us examine three statements:

Statement # 1: “I know that God exists.”

Statement # 2: “I know that God does not exist.”

Statement # 3: “I do not know that God exists.”

The first statement is pretty straightforward. The person is clearly a Gnostic since he is stating that he has knowledge about God. We can conclude that he is also a Theist because with his knowledge comes belief. If I know that something exists I must also believe that it exists.

The second statement is also straightforward. The person is also a Gnostic for the same reason: claimed knowledge regarding the existence of God. We can conclude that the person is also an Atheist. If I know that something does not exist then I must also believe that it does not exist.

The third statement is not so clear-cut. All we can conclude is that the person is an Agnostic because he is not claiming any knowledge regarding the existence of God. The statement says nothing about his belief in God. Never the less he must be either a Theist or an Atheist since he either has belief or he has no belief.

I think that I should clarify my above post further. Knowledge is not a prerequisite for belief; however one who claims belief must also take a position on whether or not he possesses knowledge.

To use a non-religious example, the scientists who operate the SETI program believe that intelligent alien life exists else where in our galaxy. However being good scientists they would never claim knowledge regarding the existence of aliens without first having proof in the form of the radio signals that they are searching for. Their lack of knowledge does not affect their belief. They believe but claim to have no knowledge regarding the existence of aliens.

Originally posted by LucidDreamer
However, one cannot be either Gnostic/Agnostic without also being either Theist/Atheist. The two schools of thought are in that sense connected. Furthermore, one cannot be either an okra-lover or mortician without also being either Theist/Atheist one cannot be either a bee-keeper or existentialist without also being either Theist/Atheist one cannot be either a Peterist or wide receiver without also being either Theist/Atheist one cannot be either above X or Y without ...

*one cannot be either an okra-lover or mortician without also being either Theist/Atheist
*one cannot be either a bee-keeper or existentialist without also being either Theist/Atheist
*one cannot be either a Peterist or wide receiver without also being either Theist/Atheist
*one cannot be either above X or Y without ...

A funny observation but not relevant to my point, which I will try and explain one more time.

Theism/Atheism and Gnosticism/Agnosticism are two separate schools of thought. Never the less you cannot claim to be an Atheist without also taking a position regarding knowledge of God. For that matter you cannot claim to be a Theist without also taking a position regarding knowledge of God. You either have knowledge regarding the existence of God or you have no such knowledge.

The strength of one’s belief in no god (or disbelief) is not what distinguishes between a strong Atheist and a weak one. It is the claim of knowledge that is the determining factor. You either know that there is no God or you claim no such knowledge.

Originally posted by LucidDreamer
The strength of one’s belief in no god (or disbelief) is not what distinguishes between a strong Atheist and a weak one.
Correct.
It is the claim of knowledge that is the determining factor. You either know that there is no God or you claim no such knowledge.
Incorrect. While it is true that an atheist is either gnostic or agnostic, these epistemological standpoints are not what distinguish strong and weak atheism. Let's try it this way:

Gnostic strong atheism: Knowledge and explicit belief that God or gods do not exist (the knowledge implies the explicit disbelief).

Gnostic weak atheism: Lack of belief that God or gods exist and knowledge that God or gods do not exist. (Note that all strong atheists are also weak atheists because they have the requisite lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. They simply take it one step further by proactively believing that God or gods do not exist.) Since knowledge implies explicit disbelief, gnostic weak atheism is simply a more general way of describing gnostic strong atheism. All gnostic weak atheists will also be gnostic strong atheists.

Agnostic strong atheism: Explicit belief, but not knowledge, that God or gods do not exist.

Agnostic weak atheism: Lack of knowledge of and belief in the existence of God or gods.

Lucid,

Just a quick critique for now.

the scientists who operate the SETI program believe that intelligent alien life exists else where in our galaxy. Not if they are true scientists. Science is strictly rational. A belief without an evidential basis would be irrational. These scientists offer a speculative hypothesis and are searching for evidence to support the hypothesis. Issues of belief are strictly irrelevant. A true scientist will withhold belief (for or against) until evidence is found, if ever.

However being good scientists they would never claim knowledge regarding the existence of aliens without first having proof in the form of the radio signals that they are searching for. And hence form the basis for a rational belief.

Their lack of knowledge does not affect their belief. Oh but it most certainly does or should if we are discussing truly objective scientists. Without knowledge a belief in the existence of aliens would be irrational.

They believe but claim to have no knowledge regarding the existence of aliens.Then they would not be scientists, since such a belief would be irrational and not scientific.

I agree that holding a belief is not dependent on supporting knowledge (evidence), but if the belief is to be considered rational then knowledge is required.

Now, do your assertions regarding Gnosticism and agnosticism still make sense in that light?

Originally posted by Cris
I agree that holding a belief is not dependent on supporting knowledge (evidence), but if the belief is to be considered rational then knowledge is required.
I must disagree with that statement. While belief without knowledge is not scientific, I wouldn't say it is always irrational. For example, I believe that the Christian God does not exist. This belief is based on reason. There is no evidence for the existence of such a being. The evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is, in my opinion, spurious at best. And the Christian Bible forces the rational mind into a state of incredulity.

Now I don't claim to have personal knowledge that the Christian God does not exist, but I would certainly maintain that my belief that he does not exist is not irrational.

seeing this is a thread for clearing up misconceptions- atheism is in no way a religion That's like saying a Yugo is in no way a car. True, but barely and selectively.

Should we measure atheism by its assertion, or by its adherents?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

How do you define "a religion", Tiassa?

I suggest that the term is defined by its members and by common usage... ie that "a religion" is any member of the set of things that are commonly agreed to be religions.

If Atheism is not commonly agreed to be a religion, then it's not a religion.

Originally posted by LucidDreamer
Never the less you cannot claim to be an Atheist without also taking a position regarding knowledge of God. For that matter you cannot claim to be a Theist without also taking a position regarding knowledge of God. ... which is the converse of saying "It is important to note that Agnosticism is not a third option to Theism or Atheism, but rather a subset of the two."

... which is the converse of saying "It is important to note that Agnosticism is not a third option to Theism or Atheism, but rather a subset of the two."

OK, forget I used the word “subset” in a previous post. It was a poor choice of words on my part. The point I was trying to make was that people will frequently claim to be Agnostic as an alternative to Atheist, as if the word Atheist has a negative connotation.

People either know or they do not know AND they either believe or they do not believe (or believe in a negative).

Jade,

I agree that holding a belief is not dependent on supporting knowledge (evidence), but if the belief is to be considered rational then knowledge is required.

I must disagree with that statement. While belief without knowledge is not scientific, I wouldn't say it is always irrational. For example, I believe that the Christian God does not exist. This belief is based on reason. The building block of reason is the logical premise. A valid premise requires a factual basis, i.e. it has been proved; it is knowledge. If your claim to reason does not contain such a premise then your claim is irrational, no matter how much it appears “reasonable” to you.

But let’s gain some perspective; while the basis for your belief is not reason it is nevertheless an overwhelming issue of credibility. The question of whether the Christian God exists is as pointless as asking whether Santa Claus exists. It is not a question of reason, irrationality, or need for proof, since a perusal of the history of religions shows an overwhelming and total common theme – human imaginative creativity. I.e. gods are fantasies and do not warrant serious investigation anymore than Santa Claus or fairies.

So while we debate the detailed meanings of terms like theism, atheism, agnosticism, etc, there is a tendency to miss the big picture – gods are fantasy concepts, so let’s lighten up and enjoy the mythical bedtime stories. And aren’t they great children’s stories; the ultimate good guy versus the ultimate bad guy, with lot’s of killing, some love, sacrifice, betrayal, torture – sounds like a best seller.

Originally posted by Cris
The building block of reason is the logical premise. A valid premise requires a factual basis, i.e. it has been proved; it is knowledge. If your claim to reason does not contain such a premise then your claim is irrational, no matter how much it appears “reasonable” to you.
Now I see why we were in disagreement. I was looking at the terms "rational" and "reasonable" in the common everyday usages (i.e. sensible, having sound judgment, not absurd), while you were using these terms as they apply to the field of logic.

So while we debate the detailed meanings of terms like theism, atheism, agnosticism, etc, there is a tendency to miss the big picture – gods are fantasy concepts, so let’s lighten up and enjoy the mythical bedtime stories. And aren’t they great children’s stories; the ultimate good guy versus the ultimate bad guy, with lot’s of killing, some love, sacrifice, betrayal, torture – sounds like a best seller.
I could possibly enjoy these fairy tales if they were presented for what they really are. Unfortunately, some of these fantasies are portrayed as the truth to a credulous population. And the dogma associated with this "truth" starts to infringe upon the personal liberties of those subject to the believers of such nonsense.

Originally posted by LucidDreamer
The point I was trying to make was that people will frequently claim to be Agnostic as an alternative to Atheist, as if the word Atheist has a negative connotation. Some do. Some don't. Forgive me, but it seems like an underwhelming point. Parenthetically, neither you nor I are in charge of connotation.

Originally posted by LucidDreamer
People either know or they do not know AND they either believe or they do not believe (or believe in a negative). I agree.

Jade,

I could possibly enjoy these fairy tales if they were presented for what they really are. Unfortunately, some of these fantasies are portrayed as the truth to a credulous population. And the dogma associated with this "truth" starts to infringe upon the personal liberties of those subject to the believers of such nonsense.Or more importantly such “truths” infringe on the freedoms of those who do not believe and against their will.

The solution I think is education and specifically in the area of critical thinking.

Originally posted by Cris
The solution I think is education and specifically in the area of critical thinking.
My thoughts exactly. I've wanted "Critical Thinking" to be a required course for high school students for some time now. I should write to my MLA, but I live in a very conservative province where critical thinking by no means abounds.

Originally posted by Cris
MarcAC,
Because a disbelief is not an expression of uncertainty.

E.g. I am quite sure that I do not believe theist claims.

Previously
Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.Well I got it 'previously' but now... well I thought here it was being stated that a disbeleif is, possibly, an expression of uncertainty. So disbeleif is not an expression of uncertainty - but if you use it to say I disbeleive in theist claims... it can possibly mean you are uncertain of the truth within the claims? That's what I'm reading there... I'm just trying to wrap my non-technical head around this one - don't mind me. I know Cris is a bright guy/girl.

From Webster - Religious: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.

Therefore for atheists to be considered religious they must acknowledge an ultimate reality or deity. Since atheism is specifically disbelief in such things then the two conditions are mutually exclusive, i.e. an atheist cannot both believe and disbelieve in a deity.

Atheists cannot be religious.Well, maybe it's my reading again, but, ultimate reality or deity. Don't atheists believe in their ultimate reality? Like if you 'throw yourself off a building gravity will surely pull you down, so gravity does exist' - paraphrased - mind you cro-magnons pushed rocks off cliffsides to slaughter mammoths - I'm wondering if 'gravity' was existent back then - wonder if t hey ever thought of what causes that downward motion? Agnostics are the only ones who escape the religious realm. Try as you might atheists, you're right there with the cattle.:)

You know, you'll soon have a religious sect called 'Consequent Atheists', that guy is areal 'athevangelist' don't you think?

MarcAC,

I thought here it was being stated that a disbelief is, possibly, an expression of uncertainty. So disbelief is not an expression of uncertainty - but if you use it to say I disbelieve in theist claims... it can possibly mean you are uncertain of the truth within the claims? Try this example: If I claim there is an invisible evil gnome standing on your shoulder right now, will you be unsure whether the claim is true or not or will you simply disbelieve my claim as being idiotic?

See my opening post again – atheist disbelief – This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. I.e. there is no uncertainty.

Well, maybe it's my reading again, but, ultimate reality or deity. Don't atheists believe in their ultimate reality?Atheism is concerned with the disbelief of deities. The fact that those who are labeled atheists might also believe other things has nothing to do with atheism.

Originally posted by Cris
It is not a question of reason, irrationality, or need for proof, since a perusal of the history of religions shows an overwhelming and total common theme – human imaginative creativity. I.e. gods are fantasies and do not warrant serious investigation anymore than Santa Claus or fairies.
Everyone agrees with the history of Santa Claus and knows well that there is a human behind the Santa's guise. But not everyone agrees with histories of religions. History of religions would reveal what the authors of those histories wanted to reveal. Besides, your notion of God and It's investigation are heavily linked to religions. Therefore your outright rejection of God as fantasy is not rational and the premises ( histories of religions ) you hold for that rejection is disputable.

Everneo,

Everyone agrees with the history of Santa Claus and knows well that there is a human behind the Santa's guise. I never thought of Santa as human. The concept is of a being that can fly in a sleigh with flying reindeer and can visit every home on the planet in a single night and can climb down every chimney no matter how narrow. The point is that it is a made-up story, a fairy tale.

But not everyone agrees with histories of religions. I agree, but one can examine them to see if they have the qualities of a fairy tale or have factual content.

History of religions would reveal what the authors of those histories wanted to reveal. As was the Santa Claus tale.

your outright rejection of God as fantasy is not rational and the premises ( histories of religions ) you hold for that rejection is disputable.How so? Can you point to any incident or record in history that reveals a proof for the existence of a god? Without a proof you have nothing but a fantasy, a fairy tale exactly like Santa Claus.

You have no method to prove me wrong unless you have a proof for a god, until then all you have is a fairy tale, albeit a very elaborate one, deliberately made complex for adult consumption.

Within this light my rejection of gods as fantasies is fully rational.

Cris,

Originally posted by everneo
Everyone agrees with the history of Santa Claus and knows well that there is a human behind the Santa's guise. But not everyone agrees with histories of religions. History of religions would reveal what the authors of those histories wanted to reveal. Besides, your notion of God and It's investigation are heavily linked to religions. Therefore your outright rejection of God as fantasy is not rational and the premises ( histories of religions ) you hold for that rejection is disputable.

You missed to respond to the line (bold) in my above quote.!

Everneo,

You missed to respond to the line (bold) in my above quote.!It appeared to be noise.

I assume then you are trying to imply that a god concept could exist independently of a religious framework. I don’t believe that is possible. As soon as a god concept is imagined and proposed as a truth then that forms the creation of a religious framework, a belief in gods is religion. Even the simplest form that Deism portrays is still a religion.

A possible alternative is that a god concept forms the cornerstone of a scientific hypothesis, where belief, for or against is not an issue. However a scientific hypothesis is only rationally warranted if a body of evidence and inference has been provided in support of it. So even here you cannot get past the god as a fantasy issue and form a valid hypothesis without some evidence. And the proposal that the universe must have been created so therefore a god did it is not a valid inference for this exercise.

My assertion that all religious histories are based on imaginative fantasies is strictly because none, that I have examined, can point to direct observation or verifiable physical evidence. Now I haven’t examined every religion so there is a potential for you to prove me wrong by showing me a history which isn’t a fantasy.

Originally posted by Cris
MarcAC,

Try this example: If I claim there is an invisible evil gnome standing on your shoulder right now, will you be unsure whether the claim is true or not or will you simply disbelieve my claim as being idiotic?Honestly, I should only be unsure. I would suspend my disbelief/belief until further investigation.

Atheism is concerned with the disbelief of deities. The fact that those who are labeled atheists might also believe other things has nothing to do with atheism. Disbelief through a debatable 'lack of proof'. The 'proof' you search for or simply have this inherent inability to see or just choose to ignore would be manifest as a part of your 'ultimate reality'. Most atheists, as far as I have seen, present similar arguments with regards to their disbelief. Point? They disbelieve through their idea of what an 'ultimate reality' is, which is obviously one where they don't see God, or are just 'blind' and don't want 'surgery' which can help.;)

Originally posted by MarcAC
Honestly, I should only be unsure. I would suspend my disbelief/belief until further investigation.

Most atheists, as far as I have seen, present similar arguments with regards to their disbelief. Point? They disbelieve through their idea of what an 'ultimate reality' is, which is obviously one where they don't see God, or are just 'blind' and don't want 'surgery' which can help.;)

It's funny that you say that MarcAC. Most athiest arguments I see are either from people who haven't explored the topic fully, people who are religiously athiest, or based on the premise you established regarding Cris's hypothetical gnome.

I think CA nailed this entire issue perfectly with this line:

This will continue to be the case so long as one or both contenders are discussing/debating ontology rather than epistemology.

Because what option do you have to rather than to argue that you HAVE evidence? Then we have to argue on what basis your evidence is valid. I'll say you're full of shit, you'll say I'm full of shit because how would I know because I'm not you and blah blah freakin blah. Round and round we go. If we alter the discussion to actual relevant issue: epistemology, how far would we get? Either you'd be forced to concede or claim that your knowledge is of higher authority than mine right? How else can you defend your position?

The theist argument for god is shaped in a circle. Same for the applicability of the bible. If you fail to see this, it's because you're blind.

Arguing over the validity of the circle won't help. The proper issue is "is a circle okay to argue from" which brings me back to my point about faith. To take a leap of faith toward reason doesn't require a step. Choosing a historicalish type book from a newly evolved ape-species on the third rock from the sun of a random solar system of a random galaxy to promote as the word of the creator himself, well that's quite a leap if you ask me.

Most atheists, as far as I have seen, present similar arguments with regards to their disbelief. Point? They disbelieve through their idea of what an 'ultimate reality' is
um, i'm an atheist but you could take 'ultimate reality' to mean a number of things. for me it is what we sense ourselves. in this way i would call it 'perceived reality'. i don't think any atheist could claim to know an 'ultimalte reality'- that is practically a conundrum if they are humans (which i'm sure they are). as a species we know shit all about how things work and go on about us. to claim something ultimately is stupid- for instance their is a god. you can't possibly take anyone seriously if they claim to know this for a fact.

obviously one where they don't see God, or are just 'blind' and don't want 'surgery' which can help.
no thanks, i find those surgeons who feel they can help tend to be butchers who wield a sharp scalpel with inadequate skill, doing more harm than good.

Try this example: If I claim there is an invisible evil gnome standing on your shoulder right now, will you be unsure whether the claim is true or not or will you simply disbelieve my claim as being idiotic?I'd disbelieve your claim as idiotic, of course. Unless many people made the same claim, with widespread anecdotal reports of miraculous events produced by the gnome, in which case I'd be unsure. Further investigation may or may not resolve the issue.

Pete.

I'd disbelieve your claim as idiotic, of course. Unless many people made the same claim, with widespread anecdotal reports of miraculous events produced by the gnome, in which case I'd be unsure. Further investigation may or may not resolve the issue.Sounds very much like not so long ago when pretty much everyone on the planet believed the world was flat and stories of people falling over the edge were considered quite credible.

Originally posted by MarcAC
Well, maybe it's my reading again, but, ultimate reality or deity. Don't atheists believe in their ultimate reality? Like if you 'throw yourself off a building gravity will surely pull you down, so gravity does exist' - paraphrased - mind you cro-magnons pushed rocks off cliffsides to slaughter mammoths - I'm wondering if 'gravity' was existent back then - wonder if t hey ever thought of what causes that downward motion? Agnostics are the only ones who escape the religious realm. Try as you might atheists, you're right there with the cattle.:)
Nice try, but no cigar. Let's take another look at Merriam-Webster's definition of religious, "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity".

First of all, atheism does not make any claim about ultimate reality. It is merely a position of disbelief in the existence of God or gods. Ultimate reality is irrelevant to the definition of atheism, and therefore atheism is not religious. Second of all, even if you consider gravity, for example, to be part of an atheist's "ultimate reality", belief in gravity does not require "faithful devotion".

"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, 'Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!' If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it."
--Dan Barker

Sounds very much like not so long ago when pretty much everyone on the planet believed the world was flat and stories of people falling over the edge were considered quite credible.Well, the situation you describe never happened. But even if it did, it doesn't change the argument. If you were living in such a situation with the applicable knowledge limitations, would you dismiss claims of a flat Earth as idiotic without some kind of investigation?

Wes Morris
The theist argument for god is shaped in a circle. Same for the applicability of the bible. If you fail to see this, it's because you're blind.If you view it from the realm of epistemology, yes - but so is every single other argument that you can ever propose. Even the universe... something from nothing.To take a leap of faith toward reason doesn't require a step. Choosing a historicalish type book from a newly evolved ape-species on the third rock from the sun of a random solar system of a random galaxy to promote as the word of the creator himself, well that's quite a leap if you ask me.Is that necessarily a bad thing Wes?atheroy
i don't think any atheist could claim to know an 'ultimalte reality'I agree here, perceived reality is a better term to use. But some do seem to think their percieved reality is the ultimate reality. That leads to a claim that there is no God, because you can't 'see' the evidence, of course from your text you don't seem to be one of them - you're just unsure - smart guy/girl.to claim something ultimately is stupid- for instance their is a god. you can't possibly take anyone seriously if they claim to know this for a fact.To have some fun, you seem to be claiming to know that noone can have ultimate knowledge of their surroundings, why? You know that noone knows? Or you know that noone can know if they know or not? Or maybe you just don't know huh?Pete
I'd disbelieve your claim as idiotic, of course.Would that be a rational thing to do? Anyway scientists do it all the time so... but sometimes they end up eating their words.Jade SquirrelUltimate reality is irrelevant to the definition of atheism, and therefore atheism is not religious.The definition of atheism arises from the fact that that atheists argue there is no God from what they believe is an 'ultimate reality' - the scientific 'reality'. Therefore atheists are religious in their belief. There is no atheism without the religious atheist arguing from his idea of what an ulitmate reality is, no?Second of all, even if you consider gravity, for example, to be part of an atheist's "ultimate reality", belief in gravity does not require "faithful devotion".I disagree. How else will you be sure if what happens when the piano hits you coming down at 5 m/s is caused by gravity as currently defined?

Originally posted by MarcAC
To have some fun, you seem to be claiming to know that noone can have ultimate knowledge of their surroundings, why? Out of curiosity, would you accept that noone can verify ultimate knowledge of their surroundings?

Would that be a rational thing to do? Anyway scientists do it all the time so... but sometimes they end up eating their words.Yes, it would be rational.
I risk the consequences of being wrong to gain certain benefits (saving time), because the probability of being wrong appears low.

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
Second of all, even if you consider gravity, for example, to be part of an atheist's "ultimate reality", belief in gravity does not require "faithful devotion".

Originally posted by MarcAC
I disagree. How else will you be sure if what happens when the piano hits you coming down at 5 m/s is caused by gravity as currently defined?

Faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory of gravity. One need not have "faith" that a piano will fall if dropped because there has been no evidence to indicate that it would do anything else.

Devotion is a state of being ardently dedicated and loyal. Sorry, but I don't have any "ardent" feelings of dedication toward gravity. It is what it is. And I am not "loyal" to it. If something comes along to prove gravity wrong, then it's good-bye to gravity.

My definition of faith is slightly different than the definition that you gave which would be more like blind faith. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."(Hebrews 11:1)

To have some fun, you seem to be claiming to know that noone can have ultimate knowledge of their surroundings, why? You know that noone knows? Or you know that noone can know if they know or not? Or maybe you just don't know huh?
lol, i would say that i know noone knows. if you new everything that surrounded you, you may as well be god-like. i don't think it is in anyones capacity to know that much knowldege actively. even before that could be attempted you'd have to learn that knowledge from somewhere. last time i looked, our collective knowledge as humans of how things work around us is pretty tiny. i think it is a pretty safe assumption to say that noone can have an ultimate knowledge of their surroundings.

That leads to a claim that there is no God, because you can't 'see' the evidence, of course from your text you don't seem to be one of them - you're just unsure - smart guy/girl.
yup. while i'll never claim definitively that there is no god, from my personal experience, if there is one, he is not interested in me or just doesn't exist. i was born with innate skepticism, i've had no personal encounters or feelings that many have claimed to have had (i've had similar feelings, just never linked to a being) by god and i'm skeptical of those who claim such experiences, i've had bad incidences with christianity which just didn't help, and from the knowledge that i have, i would conclude that god is highly improbable.
smart guy:D

yeah, i guess the thing which we most strive for in our lives, acceptance, is for me not found within a religious group. in truth i never made it into my one of my friends "groups" because i didn't share their beliefs. i'm different from them and they never accepted me, purely on belief. it kinda sucked, but it was no great loss. it just helped me define myself by concluding that i wouldn't want to be a part of something that in some way influenced my actions towards others.

The definition of atheism arises from the fact that that atheists argue there is no God from what they believe is an 'ultimate reality' - the scientific 'reality'. Therefore atheists are religious in their belief. There is no atheism without the religious atheist arguing from his idea of what an ulitmate reality is, no?
mmm, i dunno. i don't like your use of 'an ultimate reality'. i believe what i believe because it makes the most sense to me. i defend what i believe because who likes being told they're wrong? i argue against theism in part because of past incidences with religion and in part because what i believe theism does to a person's thought.

in the end i would say that atheism is really not a religion. besides, in the end it is all terms humans have made up that have no meaning, they only help us define ourselves in a world/universe/reality that we know little about.

Originally posted by okinrus
My definition of faith is slightly different than the definition that you gave which would be more like blind faith. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."(Hebrews 11:1)
Fair enough, but you can't really expect atheists to use the biblical definition of faith. The definition I provided is from Merriam-Webster and is useful by both the secular and the religious folks.

Consequent Atheist
Out of curiosity, would you accept that noone can verify ultimate knowledge of their surroundings? No, why? It all depends on what you mean by 'verify'. You have subjective verification and subjective verification on a [i]wider front [objective verification]. So... the same old argument... I can see the bright white light while you possibly see nothing [an invisible, bright, white light;) - atheists love language like this]. I can verify that I see it to myself, but you can't verify if I see it or not. I can't verify that something's not wrong with your eyes why you're not seeing it... or maybe it's something wrong with my eyes why I'm seeing it... etc. That's why I say no. So I can know God exists, if I choose to 'acknowledge' his presence.
Pete
Yes, it would be rational.Well we might disagree on what is rational. It can be seen with James R's sticky. I should be unsure but I would be tempted to think as you do, I'm only human.
atheroy
it just helped me define myself by concluding that i wouldn't want to be a part of something that in some way influenced my actions towards others.Well I'd say your actions are influenced either way. If not by that group then by some other 'group' - but that's another story. If those guys don't accept you for who you are well, they need to revise themsleves I guess. However, you are influenced either way, you have to decide which is a bad influence and which is a good one - my view.mmm, i dunno. i don't like your use of 'an ultimate reality'. i believe what i believe because it makes the most sense to me.But what is your ultimate reality other than what makes sense to you? It's either that or it can't exist to you... within your perceptual limits.
Jade Squirrel
Faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory of gravity.But how do you conclude that what you see is proof of the theory of gravity? The theory was actually developed from that same evidence. It's something similar to what atheroy stated - gravity is just a defnition. But what else do you have except faith in your definitions and your notions? It's like you're on a plain and you draw a circle and return to the same spot. But then you could draw an elipse, and any one - or combination - of the surfeit of forms you have out there... the path defined by these different shapes on that plane can represent any of a combination of 'gravity' theories.One need not have "faith" that a piano will fall if dropped because there has been no evidence to indicate that it would do anything else.Maybe not, but you need to have some degree of faith as to whether it was caused by gravity as currently defined."Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, 'Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!' If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it."
--Dan BarkerBy the way this was pretty hilarious... very... in fact... had to share it with a friend. However, faithful devotion is manifest in many forms. Just as a Muslim drops to his knees to offer one of his daily prayers, so a scientist slumps to his chair to pour over his data and formulate theories.

Originally posted by MarcAC
But how do you conclude that what you see is proof of the theory of gravity? The theory was actually developed from that same evidence. It's something similar to what atheroy stated - gravity is just a defnition. But what else do you have except faith in your definitions and your notions?
We see a piano fall to the ground. We develop a theory as to why that piano fell to the ground, the theory of gravity. This theory makes other predictions that we observe to be true. The theory is therefore valid until we find new empirical evidence that does not support the theory, in which case we have to abandon it or modify it. The latter was done when a new theory of gravity (relativity) was required to explain the observation that light travels at the same speed regardless of one's frame of reference. It was found that relativity was able to more accurately explain all the concepts previously explained by Newtonian gravity.

Gravity is the term we use to define the process that we see before us when an object falls to the ground. One need not have faith that we are observing the process of gravity when we see an object fall to the ground because "gravity" is the name we have given to this process.

Maybe not, but you need to have some degree of faith as to whether it was caused by gravity as currently defined.
Again, no faith is required because all the available evidence demonstrates that the piano fell due to a process we have called "gravity". Improved theories (or definitions) of gravity based on observational evidence only serve to strengthen the theory and make it even more clear that no faith is required. If, on the other hand, we attributed falling objects to an invisible creature pushing them downward, this would require faith because there is no evidence that such a creature exists.

By the way this was pretty hilarious... very... in fact... had to share it with a friend. However, faithful devotion is manifest in many forms. Just as a Muslim drops to his knees to offer one of his daily prayers, so a scientist slumps to his chair to pour over his data and formulate theories.
Glad you enjoyed it. :) Although certain scientists may actually feel devotion to their work, faith is not required if there is evidence to support their theories. As for me, I can assure you that I feel no such "devotion" to any theories. They are all subject to change if new evidence comes along that demands such a modification. Therefore, the term religious could never apply to me.

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
Gravity is the term we use to define the process that we see before us when an object falls to the ground. One need not have faith that we are observing the process of gravity when we see an object fall to the ground because "gravity" is the name we have given to this process.The name is one thing. The whole process behind the name is another. My point is that your idea of the processes which drive this piano to the earth's surface require some amount of faith in your rationale.Again, no faith is required because all the available evidence demonstrates that the piano fell due to a process we have called "gravity".Sure, but what are the details behind it? Elaborated Expansionary Theory Of Gravity (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25688) If, on the other hand, we attributed falling objects to an invisible creature pushing them downward, this would require faith because there is no evidence that such a creature exists.Force/Creature... big diff.;)As for me, I can assure you that I feel no such "devotion" to any theories. They are all subject to change if new evidence comes along that demands such a modification. Therefore, the term religious could never apply to me.Well I guess it applies to me as I believe in a diety, but not an ultimate reality. I also will accept the current gravity theories - but not the one that link points to - and watch them as they evolve. But that's what they are when it comes down to it, just theories.

Marc,

My point is that your idea of the processes which drive this piano to the earth's surface require some amount of faith in your rationale.No. You are confusing “faith” with inductive reasoning again.

Faith in this and religious contexts means belief without evidence.

I also will accept the current gravity theories - but not the one that link points to - and watch them as they evolve. Why not? They are both describing processes that explain observed facts.

But that's what they are when it comes down to it, just theories.What do you mean by ‘just theories’. A scientific theory is not some type of inferior fact.

Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in the last century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Well I'd say your actions are influenced either way. If not by that group then by some other 'group' - but that's another story. If those guys don't accept you for who you are well, they need to revise themsleves I guess. However, you are influenced either way, you have to decide which is a bad influence and which is a good one - my view.
i would like to know the other group you think i have been influenced by, and in a way that the group didn't accept me did influence me. it was perhaps the string of incidences that detered me from religion, then these people's bahviour towards me that makes me skeptical of religion's positive influence on people. i pretty much made my decision then and there (with hindsight on the matter) that religion is not a good influence- ONLY FOR ME. i'm not saying it's bad, but in my experience it's not good.

Consequent Atheist
Out of curiosity, would you accept that noone can verify ultimate knowledge of their surroundings?
i would definately agree with this as fact. lightning occurs and we can't explain that, if you can't explain that then you can't have ultimate knowledge of your surroundings.

But what is your ultimate reality other than what makes sense to you? It's either that or it can't exist to you... within your perceptual limits.
please don't call it that. i don't agree with the term. what makes sense to me doesn't even have physical or definable properties- i don't even know properly where they stem from (my thoughts? my brain? well obviously my brain- but why does that make sense to my brain and not others brains?). i'm trying to say that their is no ultimate reality for me because i don't properly live in reality. none of us do. we live in our own realities but that shouldn't equate to ultimate reality.

PS i wouldn't compare belief with gravity as one has obvious existence while the other has a collection of inconseqential people on a tiny planet, in a massive universe believing in something that has no obvious existence.

Originally posted by atheroy
i would definately agree with this as fact. lightning occurs and we can't explain that, if you can't explain that then you can't have ultimate knowledge of your surroundings.
You may find this (http://science.howstuffworks.com/lightning.htm) to be informative. But I also do not believe that "ultimate" knowledge, or omniscience, is possible as this is an infinite quality.

Originally posted by Cris
Marc,

No. You are confusing “faith” with inductive reasoning again.

Faith in this and religious contexts means belief without evidence.My basic point is that faith is an inherrent quality within your acceptance of anything you hold to be true/probable/factual/reasonable. So even if you reason inductively - you still have faith in your reasoning - if you see the invisible gnome - you have faith in your perception - and vision is eventually a cognitive process because different people will see different things when they actually see the same thing.Why not? They are both describing processes that explain observed facts.This answer would more suit the other thread. Though I do not think that Occam's Razor can be applied practically to most situations. It may come in to play here. I am yet to see this theory explain anyything which previous ones have not. Then it still has the same basic problem - why are these objects expanding and why is space accelerating?What do you mean by ‘just theories’.[?] A scientific theory is not some type of inferior fact.Of course not. It's just what it is - a theory - a human, possibly errant explanation of observed phenomena [what we think we see].Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.I'd say they are the same thing viewed from a different angle.;)Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.Actually, I've seen many facts disappear - then again it might be how you view it? maybe from another angle?. For example, I'm positive it was a fact that the rest of the 'universe' rotated around the earth before Kopernik's theory was accepted.Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in the last century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. Sure, they just stopped 'falling', and were more attracted. But wait! The Expansionary Theory!... They might just be growing too - even when they're not on the tree!?! I wouldn't say Einstein replaced Newton - he just improved on him. Newtonian mechanics are still used today. I have no problem with theories - don't know why you seemed to have discerned that. I just stated they are just that - theories which can be replaced at any one time. And 'facts' - even they can be replaced - as you have seen. The only fact I know about is the fact that I cannot know if I know or not - philosophically speaking - but I'm no philosopher.atheroy
PS i wouldn't compare belief with gravity as one has obvious existence.Yeah, belief has obvious existence. You believe gravity exists.

You may find this to be informative.
i knew there were theories about the way it worked, it was just the fact that we don't exactly know how to explain it. it was more of an example to show we can't have ultimate knowledge of our surroundings.

Yeah, belief has obvious existence. You believe gravity exists.
in this case i meant take humans out of the equation (as in not in existance) and which would obviously exist. gravity exists without out us. belief in religion does not. we have no impact on the universe, the universe impacts on us. we live in it, it doesn't live in us. i don't believe in gravity as gravity believes in me, if it didn't i would float off this earth. therefore to some degree i know it. if you had no humans around there would be no such thing as religion, that is why i wouldn't compare it to gravity.

Originally posted by MarcAC
My basic point is that faith is an inherrent quality within your acceptance of anything you hold to be true/probable/factual/reasonable. So even if you reason inductively - you still have faith in your reasoning - if you see the invisible gnome - you have faith in your perception - and vision is eventually a cognitive process because different people will see different things when they actually see the same thing.
You are confusing simple belief with faith. Faith is a subset of belief. Once again, it is firm belief in something for which there is no proof. We have plenty of evidence to conclude that observation is a good way to determine what is going on around us. If I see a piano in front of me, I believe it is there, but I do not need to have faith that it is there.

Originally posted by atheroy
it was just the fact that we don't exactly know how to explain it.
The explanation in the link I provided seems to be quite clear. :)

Faith in God comes within us. It is a part of us and not based on external evidence but internal evidence. Faith is also different than just belief. We can see this in the bible because demons know that Jesus is the Son of God yet do not have faith.

Also atheism is a religion. It is a very strong belief in not having a belief. Atheism is also more well defined than christianity. If it was not a religion then it would not be protected under the freedom of religion acts.

Originally posted by okinrus
Also atheism is a religion. It is a very strong belief in not having a belief. Atheism is also more well defined than christianity. If it was not a religion then it would not be protected under the freedom of religion acts. That was funny. :D Of course atheism is not "a very strong belief in not having a belief" but, rather, the very strong conviction that there is insufficient verifiable evidence to warrant a belief in God(s). The distinction is simple and obvious to all except those who need not to see it.

So, tell me. Why is it that some try so very hard to legitimatize themselves and their fantasies by framing atheism as a religion?

Faith in god isn't "a part of me", and there was nothing to come from within me.

An absence of something isn't a rival version of it.

All religions that I'm aware of maintain the pretense of having an answer for the question of he meaning of life.

Atheists do not pretend to know, and are willing to admit that they do not have the answer.

We simply aren't aware of any credible evidence that anyone else has an answer either.

Maybe you could define "internal evidence" for us as well.

The explanation in the link I provided seems to be quite clear
:p

Faith in God comes within us. It is a part of us and not based on external evidence but internal evidence. Faith is also different than just belief. We can see this in the bible because demons know that Jesus is the Son of God yet do not have faith.
no it doesn't. if it did, some people were born without god within them. i find no internal evidence of god in myself, i have never experienced feelings synomous with some greater being. demons could count as an exception because they have to believe in christ. for them it isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of dependance, without christ demons wouldn't exist. humans on the other hand would probably exist without god, so for us it's not just a matter of belief, you have to have faith to believe.

Also atheism is a religion. It is a very strong belief in not having a belief. Atheism is also more well defined than christianity. If it was not a religion then it would not be protected under the freedom of religion acts
for the last time atheism is not a religion, freedom of religion acts should be named freedom of belief's act if atheism is protected by it.

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
You are confusing simple belief with faith. Faith is a subset of belief. Once again, it is firm belief in something for which there is no proof. We have plenty of evidence to conclude that observation is a good way to determine what is going on around us. If I see a piano in front of me, I believe it is there, but I do not need to have faith that it is there. I agree fully that faith is a subset of belief. That's why I say it is an inherrent quality within your acceptance of anything you hold to 'be'. Many display faith in scientists and their methods because many atheists are not scientists themselves... have never done the many experiments... have never gone through the data... and yet they believe... why? Everything you hold true is directly related to what you believe to be true [two ways of saying the same thing]. The question is if noone in the world believed gravity exists, would it exist? Atheroy seems to think so... I simply don't know.

With respect to the definition... eventually... if you realise it... there is no real 'proof' of anything upon dissection. The notion that you exist and you are who you are is proof of itself. And everything is relative to your existence [if you don't exist then your notions won't exist] - this is how an atheist has to see it based on their rationale. I take that definition as; The condition of a human existence is built upon faith.

Faith is a subset of belief. As okinirus said, faith comes from God to help us believe in Him. It is an inherrent human quality. When you put your faith in God, within yourself you will know that you have placed your faith in the right place. You all use faith but you just fail to see it. If you read the bible carefully, it stresses on faith... the central verse in the bible... states; "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man." PSALM 118:8 - N.I.V. In other words put your faith in God, not in man. Atheists choose to put their faith in man. I put my faith in God.

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
That was funny. :D Of course atheism is not "a very strong belief in not having a belief" but, rather, the very strong conviction that there is insufficient verifiable evidence to warrant a belief in God(s). The distinction is simple and obvious to all except those who need not to see it.Syntax. That's the obvious distinction - except for those who need not see it;). Two ways of saying the same thing?

So, tell me. Why is it that some try so very hard to legitimatize themselves and their fantasies by framing atheism as a religion? No true Christian needs to legitamize themselves by doing anything except worshipping God. And that's a personal, explicitly subjectiive experience. We are just on a mission for truth.

Originally posted by atheroy
in this case i meant take humans out of the equation (as in not in existance) and which would obviously exist. gravity exists without out us. belief in religion does not. we have no impact on the universe, the universe impacts on us. we live in it, it doesn't live in us. i don't believe in gravity as gravity believes in me, if it didn't i would float off this earth. therefore to some degree i know it. if you had no humans around there would be no such thing as religion, that is why i wouldn't compare it to gravity. I cannot see how you can say gravity would exist without us. You seem to have taken a position on all of the above, but I cannot at the moment except to say that we definitely impact on the rest of the universe [our environment?]. Hey... it's all a matter of how you look at it. Aren't we apart of the universe as humans. We are all a part of God's creation.

MarcAC,

We are just on a mission for truth.No you aren't. Christianity says it already has the truth and that it is God.

Your only mission as a Christian is to mindlessly do what you are told.

Originally posted by MarcAC
Syntax. That's the obvious distinction ... That is simply inaccurate. One commits to a metaphysics, while the other commits to a methodology. If it serves you to conflate the two, please feel free to do so.

Originally posted by MarcAC
No true Christian needs to legitamize themselves by doing anything except worshipping God. And that's a personal, explicitly subjectiive experience. No doubt, rendering the efforts of okinrus et. al. all the more pathetic.

Originally posted by MarcAC
We are just on a mission for truth. So was David Koresh. So is Osama Bin Laden. So?

So, tell me. Why is it that some try so very hard to legitimatize themselves and their fantasies by framing atheism as a religion?

I'm not sure how treating atheism as a religion legitimatizes it or doesn't. All I'm doing is stating that Atheism is a religion. Surely if it was not a religion, we would not be speaking about it in a religion forum. Now it is impossible to have just non-belief. Either you belief that God does not exists, maybe does exists or exists. You cannot just not have a belief. If you did, you could not detect the existance of not having a belief.

Discussing atheism in a religious forum, oooh, you've got us there!
That makes it a religion?

It isn't impossible to have a non-belief. Responsible thinkers suspend judgement in the absence of evidence.

I'm unaware of any evidence of god(s), so I don't believe. If some irrefutable evidence comes along, I may have to change that.

The religious right's campaign to call atheism a religion is part of their agenda to have "equal time" for religious nonsense like creationism in the classroom.

Okinrus,

To be blunt you are seriously screwed up. I sincerely hope you have some suspicion that you know you are wrong.

I'm not sure how treating atheism as a religion legitimatizes it or doesn't.You missed the point. It is theists like you trying to assert that atheism is a religion that somehow allows you to feel more comfortable with your own religion. You don’t seem to comprehend that not everyone has to be dependent on religion.

All I'm doing is stating that Atheism is a religion. And it most definitely is not as it fails all essential criteria in the definition of a religion. It is firstly a disbelief in the existence of gods or a god, and optionally it is a belief that gods (the essential ingredient of many religions) do not exist. Theistic religions assert the opposite.

Surely if it was not a religion, we would not be speaking about it in a religion forum.It is difficult to believe that you can make such a statement. The religion forum is for debating religious issues which includes opposing views of which atheism is a dominant adherent. The forum is not just for those who hold religious beliefs.

Now it is impossible to have just non-belief.Don’t be silly of course it isn’t. If a scientist makes a claim that he believes Jupiter is made of cheese then I am perfectly free to disbelieve him. This would be pure non-belief, despite the fact that I cannot prove him wrong.

Either you believe that God does not exists, maybe does exists or exists. You cannot just not have a belief. No as I have just described but again I can have a disbelief in the claims made for the existence of God.

There is no “maybe” in my position, I simply find the Christian claims for the existence of their God too ridiculous to be worthy of belief.

If you did, you could not detect the existance of not having a belief.Like I said you are really screwed up. I have no idea what that statement means.

Please please read the opening post of this thread.

It isn't impossible to have a non-belief. Responsible thinkers suspend judgement in the absence of evidence.

The maybe exist, maybe doesn't category of belief is supposed to cover these thinkers.


It is difficult to believe that you can make such a statement. The religion forum is for debating religious issues which includes opposing views of which atheism is a dominant adherent. The forum is not just for those who hold religious beliefs.

Wait a minute. If atheism had no links to religion, than why discuss it here. Why don't we just say it is a science? There are "atheist" religions such as buddhism where some schools don't believe in the existance of a creator. Why not just make atheism a broad religion covering many different sects such as buddhism? Christianity itself is fairly broad and covers many different beliefs from mormons who believe in many gods to Jehova Witness who believe that Christ is not God. So already we bend our beliefs to society, let's at least bend them consistantly. Atheism is not taught at school. The teacher will usually make it clear that evolution and creation are scientific theories based on observation and not universal truths. Not to say that christians could not believe that these two theories are true.

Creationism isn't science.

Yes creationism is science. Whether is true or not does not effect it's acceptance into the realm of science. However when I said creation, I was specifically talking about the big bang, which is usually taught somewhat in highschool.

Originally posted by okinrus
The maybe exist, maybe doesn't category of belief is supposed to cover these thinkers.

Please retract this statement or correct such that it has some sort of actual meaning.
Originally posted by okinrus
Wait a minute. If atheism had no links to religion, than why discuss it here.

Religion is founded on blind faith in god. Atheism refutest that foundation. That is the only issue which atheism and religion have in common.
Originally posted by okinrus
Why don't we just say it is a science?

Atheism isn't anything but a position on a single question. That is not comparable to "a science". You should try to understand this basic context before attempting to forumulate a credible rebuttal - unless credibility is of no concern to you. I suppose you're only required to be credible to "the lord". You can't see CA's point from where you're sitting because your position requires you not to look at it or you will go to hell. That's circular logic.
Originally posted by okinrus
There are "atheist" religions such as buddhism where some schools don't believe in the existance of a creator.

That in no way makes atheism a religion.
Originally posted by okinrus
Why not just make atheism a broad religion covering many different sects such as buddhism?
Because it's not a religion.
Originally posted by okinrus
Christianity itself is fairly broad and covers many different beliefs from mormons who believe in many gods to Jehova Witness who believe that Christ is not God.

Christianity might be considered "the common belief of many religions" whereas each religion in particular has it's own spin on those beliefs. You seem to have a clear inability to comprehend the simplest of conceptual relationships. Are you trying to understand something you don't understand or are you just spewing dogma? Perhaps you may find it odd, but I suspect you're merely spewing dogma.
Originally posted by okinrus
So already we bend our beliefs to society, let's at least bend them consistantly.

What "beliefs" do you think "we" bend? In what manner to you think they are inconsistent?
Originally posted by okinrus
Atheism is not taught at school.

That's akin to saying "'pro-life' isn't taught at schools".
Originally posted by okinrus
The teacher will usually make it clear that evolution and creation are scientific theories based on observation and not universal truths.

Creation is NOT a scientific theory. It is simply wrong if it is being taught as such. Dissapointing to know that such a thing could be allowed but then again... I doubt it's the first time lies have be told to children to get something from them eh?
Originally posted by okinrus

Not to say that christians could not believe that these two theories are true.

How ambiguous, thank you. It amazes me when people insist that they must have answers to questions which no one knows the answer. Tell me, why do you insist on "believing" a theory? A theory either seems plausible to you or doesn't, but your "belief" has no bearing on the objective validity of the theory. It is imperative to the nature of your belief system that your assumption be correct.

Originally posted by okinrus
Yes creationism is science.

No it isn't. It is a ridiculous theory based on the interpretation of scripture by your cult leaders (whose quest is not for truth but rather the proliferation of their existing belief system which they blindly promote as truth). That is not comparable.
Originally posted by okinrus

Whether is true or not does not effect it's acceptance into the realm of science.

Correct but irrelavent. It was accepted into the realm of science and generally rejected based on lack of evidence.
Originally posted by okinrus

However when I said creation, I was specifically talking about the big bang, which is usually taught somewhat in highschool.

You said "creationism". That is generally not at all the same thing as "creation". Regardless the "big bang" is unrelated to your deity except in that the leaders of your cult have adapted their interpretation of scripture in an attempt to highjack science's credibility. That is afterall, their purpose.

You said "creationism". That is generally not at all the same thing as "creation". Regardless the "big bang" is unrelated to your deity except in that the leaders of your cult have adapted their interpretation of scripture in an attempt to highjack science's credibility. That is afterall, their purpose.

No I did not. From the other post, "The teacher will usually make it clear that evolution and creation are scientific theories based on observation and not universal truths." Considering that the official catholic possition allows belief in evolution with some reservations, I'm confused by what exactly you mean by "leaders of my cult". http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm

okinrus,

Creationism is not science. It is based on the assumption that there is a creator and that is religious belief.

I agree fully that faith is a subset of belief. That's why I say it is an inherrent quality within your acceptance of anything you hold to 'be'. Many display faith in scientists and their methods because many atheists are not scientists themselves... have never done the many experiments... have never gone through the data... and yet they believe... why? Everything you hold true is directly related to what you believe to be true [two ways of saying the same thing]. The question is if noone in the world believed gravity exists, would it exist? Atheroy seems to think so... I simply don't know.
i don't know what atheists you have been talking to but i have no such thing as blind faith. everything i believe in i have either read voluminous amounts on, or i have been taught to a degree that exceeds general knowledge by a fair way. you can have faith in scientists because they follow a general practice of excellence otherwise they will not be employed if their research is found to be crap (research is exposed to great scrutiny- their is no room to push agendas unless money is to be gained from making incorrect statements). and please be serious. humans aren't so fucking important that if we weren't here gravity wouldn't exist. we have observed it its existance only because we exist along with it. take humans out of the equation and you'll still have gravity. its arguements like this that rile me, we aren't important, look up at the night sky and its infinite quality and if you feel anything but insignificant you are an arogant bastard.

Atheists choose to put their faith in man
no, i put my faith in the fact that all around us there is shite to be explained, to assume as answer on faith is a human failure to be avoided. humans throughout history have proved to be pathetic places to put faith, wars are an example.

All I'm doing is stating that Atheism is a religion. Surely if it was not a religion, we would not be speaking about it in a religion forum
the logic astounds my theoretical five year old brother.

Yes creationism is science
use your terms correctly. and the big bang thoery was briefly mentioned when i was in school (last year), not taught.

Considering that the official catholic possition allows belief in evolution with some reservations
told you it was going to happen- "the world is most definately flat"(religious zealot many years ago).......... "evolution is blasphemy"(religious zealot a couple of years ago)

Originally posted by okinrus
Surely if it was not a religion, we would not be speaking about it in a religion forum. And surely if health were not an illness it would not be discussed in medical journals ...

And surely if health were not an illness it would not be discussed in medical journals

Yes but there is a link between illness and health. I want to know what is the link between atheism and religion. If atheism is not a religion, then what does it have to do with religion? It cannot just be God because Buddhism is considered a religion.


Creationism is not science. It is based on the assumption that there is a creator and that is religious belief.

Many scientific theories today are based on assumptions. We still consider Newton a scientist despite many of theories being proved to be invalid. If the creationist have evidence and present a factual case, then it is science.


use your terms correctly. and the big bang thoery was briefly mentioned when i was in school (last year), not taught.

I took astronomy and two years of physics in highschool. Been a while since I've done any physics though.

Originally posted by MarcAC
I agree fully that faith is a subset of belief. That's why I say it is an inherrent quality within your acceptance of anything you hold to 'be'. Many display faith in scientists and their methods because many atheists are not scientists themselves... have never done the many experiments... have never gone through the data... and yet they believe... why? Everything you hold true is directly related to what you believe to be true [two ways of saying the same thing]. The question is if noone in the world believed gravity exists, would it exist? Atheroy seems to think so... I simply don't know.
Faith in scientific research is not required because anyone may personally review the research and judge for oneself.

I take that definition as; The condition of a human existence is built upon faith.
Science does have to take a few things for granted, the main one being that life is real. But this does not require faith as it is defined. All of our experiences have led us to believe that our existence is real (at the very least, it is real as far as we are concerned). This is not belief without evidence; hence it is not faith. Faith is, rather, belief within our existence (which we presume is real) in something for which there is no proof.

Faith is a subset of belief. As okinirus said, faith comes from God to help us believe in Him. It is an inherrent human quality. When you put your faith in God, within yourself you will know that you have placed your faith in the right place. You all use faith but you just fail to see it. If you read the bible carefully, it stresses on faith... the central verse in the bible... states; "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man." PSALM 118:8 - N.I.V. In other words put your faith in God, not in man. Atheists choose to put their faith in man. I put my faith in God.
Again, we are talking about the Biblical definition of faith, one which you cannot honestly expect atheists to accept.

Originally posted by atheroy
and please be serious. humans aren't so fucking important that if we weren't here gravity wouldn't exist. we have observed it its existance only because we exist along with it. take humans out of the equation and you'll still have gravity. its arguements like this that rile me, we aren't important, look up at the night sky and its infinite quality and if you feel anything but insignificant you are an arogant bastard.
Bravo! :)

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
And surely if health were not an illness it would not be discussed in medical journals ...
And bravo to you too! :)

Quote from okinrus;


“Also atheism is a religion. It is a very strong belief in not having a belief.”


And…


“All I'm doing is stating that Atheism is a religion. Surely if it was not a religion, we would not be speaking about it in a religion forum. Now it is impossible to have just non-belief.”


False. Not agree to disagree. You are wrong. Apparently it has to be repeated ad tedium. Non-belief is not a belief, non-faith is not a matter of faith and the non-religious are in no way religious.


You are misrepresenting inclusion, exclusion and overlap. An Euler-Venn diagram can clear things up. Start with a blank leaf of paper; make a large circle with a “B” (belief) in the middle of the circle. Within the large circle of “belief” you can make two smaller circles; “BG” (believe there is a god) and “BNG” (believe there is no god). This is an accurate representation of inclusion. Both “BG” and “BNG” fall under the larger category of “B” (belief). Now make a separate circle beside the “B” (belief) circle titled “NB” (non-belief). Now the diagram accurately portrays both inclusion and exclusion. You’re attempting to claim that the category of non-belief should be within category of belief, as if it were merely a subset of belief. It would be bad enough were you only claiming overlap, but you’re actually claiming inclusion. Your explanation is convoluted and all but incoherent. Let’s look at your explanation;


“Now it is impossible to have just non-belief. Either you belief that God does not exists, maybe does exists or exists. You cannot just not have a belief. If you did, you could not detect the existance of not having a belief.”


You’ve stated your conclusion twice (circular argumentation) without clarifying anything other than your refusal to accept the very real option of no belief at all. Your forced choice deliberately omits non-belief in spite of the fact that there are a handful of people directly informing you that they have no belief. I join my voice to that chorus. I never had to reject belief for I simply never had belief to begin with. Your last sentence in particular makes no sense.


“If you did, you could not detect the existance of not having a belief.”


On a planet dominated by magical thinkers and true believers? Nonsense. I detected my non-belief status very early (7 years old). The inherent arrogance and intolerance of believers made it impossible to not detect my non-belief status.


“If the creationist have evidence and present a factual case, then it is science.”


You just shot yourself in the foot. Creationists have no evidence and have presented no relevant facts. Creationism is neither science nor a theory. This is official academically and legally.


http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/edwa_v_agui.html



As already pointed out by others, creationism begins with a belief in supernatural ideas and is essentially non-falsifiable. It is more accurately described as a religious myth which is spread through indoctrination. It has no foundation in science or reason.

Originally posted by okinrus
Yes but there is a link between illness and health. I want to know what is the link between atheism and religion. If atheism is not a religion, then what does it have to do with religion? It cannot just be God because Buddhism is considered a religion.
As much as I liked ConsequentAtheist's allusion, you are technically correct. Atheism isn't the opposite of religion; it is the opposite of belief in God or gods. Some atheists, such as Buddhists or Taoists, are religious. Religion requires faith. Most atheists would assert that faith is not a valid way of attaining knowledge, but not all of them would.

Many scientific theories today are based on assumptions. We still consider Newton a scientist despite many of theories being proved to be invalid. If the creationist have evidence and present a factual case, then it is science.
The strength of a scientific theory has nothing to do with its originator or its advocates. Einstein's theory of general relativity, for example, is not accurate just because Einstein was a really smart guy, but because it corresponds with reality. If the assumptions (or premises) on which a scientific theory are based can be shown to be valid, then the theory can be a good one. If they are not, as is the case with creationism, the theory will not be a good one. Creationism is a theory that does not correspond with reality and is based on religious faith, which is belief without proof. It is therefore not science.

Originally posted by Cris
No you aren't. Christianity says it already has the truth and that it is God.

Your only mission as a Christian is to mindlessly do what you are told.Cris, why do you always brazenly attempt to elaborate on things you obviosuly know nothing about? Have some self-respect will you?

As much as I liked ConsequentAtheist's allusion, you are technically correct. Atheism isn't the opposite of religion; it is the opposite of belief in God or gods. Some atheists, such as Buddhists or Taoists, are religious. Religion requires faith. Most atheists would assert that faith is not a valid way of attaining knowledge, but not all of them would.

I don't you can have the opposite of belief. For any statement, we can that it is either true, false or maybe true/false. Disbelief would be believing that the statement is false. This is what confuses me about some atheist. They claim that they have no belief. How can can they see nothingness? Could they dectect nothingness? No, unless we postulate the existance of the soul, something atheist disbelieve. Also when I say impossible, I mean impossible to detect. If the atheist say they have no belief, then they could not know that they have no belief. An example of someone with no belief would be a one year old.

Buddhists are interesting because they take a more scientific approach based on meditation.

Any theory that uses the scientific method can be considered a science. The hypothesis of creationist is that God created the world. Totally valid but somewhat unprovable. The creationist then has to use the scientific method to prove that hypothesis. Most of us agree that they have failed or not produced conclusive proof. However this is not to say that it is not a science.

Any theory that uses the scientific method can be considered a science. The hypothesis of creationist is that God created the world. Totally valid but somewhat unprovable. The creationist then has to use the scientific method to prove that hypothesis. Most of us agree that they have failed or not produced conclusive proof. However this is not to say that it is not a science.
creationism is a theory, not a scientific one. scientific theories are based on physically observable data, not, "i believe this to be the case despite any evidence being present to prove it".

and the definition of science is (collins); systematic study and knowlewdge of natural or physical phenomena. creationism does not fall into this category, it is not a science.

There is a big IF here, but IF they follow the scientific method, which is based upon observation, then it is a science. http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000

There is a big IF here, but IF they follow the scientific method, which is based upon observation, then it is a science
no. it's just not. what is there to observe anyway? the universe is definately not 6000 or 10000 years old. what at all is observable? i would call it a theory but NOT a scientific one. it can't have followed any of those steps because there is basically no evidence around that supports creationsim.

Originally posted by okinrus
This is what confuses me about some atheist. They claim that they have no belief. How can can they see nothingness? Good grief. It is truly hard to believe that such scatter-brained ignorance can be sustained without constant practice.

Originally posted by okinrus
Any theory that uses the scientific method can be considered a science. The sentence is utter nonsense. Theories don't use scientific method but, rather, scientific method puts strictures on theory. For science, theory is a testable explanation of directly or indirectly observed phenomena.

Originally posted by okinrus
The hypothesis of creationist is that God created the world. Totally valid but somewhat unprovable. It is a totally invalid example of scientific theory, not because it is wholly unprovable but because it is unfalsifiable. "God did it" is not a theory, but a pathetic excuse for the absence of one.

Originally posted by okinrus
Most of us agree that they have failed or not produced conclusive proof. However this is not to say that it is not a science. You haven't a clue.

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.

In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)

From 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=7&catID=2

Good grief. It is truly hard to believe that such scatter-brained ignorance can be sustained without constant practice

Show me how to scientifically detect nothingness and your nonbelief. Otherwise all your doing is name calling.


The sentence is utter nonsense. Theories don't use scientific method but, rather, scientific method puts strictures on theory. For science, theory is a testable explanation of directly or indirectly observed phenomena.

I was specifically responding to Cris's view that God is not a valid hypothesis. You can use any testable hypothesis and have it be a scientific theory.


It is a totally invalid example of scientific theory, not because it is wholly unprovable but because it is unfalsifiable. "God did it" is not a theory, but a pathetic excuse for the absence of one.

Not really. Hypothesizing that the world suddenly came into existance and then trying to find scientific proof, would be science.

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
But far, far fewer myths. ;)

That is a matter of opinion, the big bang, and macro evolution are some pretty big myths in my book.

Originally posted by okinrus
I don't you can have the opposite of belief. For any statement, we can that it is either true, false or maybe true/false. Disbelief would be believing that the statement is false.
Not believing something is true is not the same as believing it is false. For example, if you don't know something, then you don't believe it is true (you have disbelief that it is true) and you don't believe it is false (you have disbelief that it is false). Do you see what the difference is?

This is what confuses me about some atheist. They claim that they have no belief. How can can they see nothingness? Could they dectect nothingness?
The atheists you are referring to likely have no belief that God exists. They also have no belief that God doesn't exist. This is what is meant by "no belief". Lack of belief is not something that can be seen any more than belief is something that can be seen.

If the atheist say they have no belief, then they could not know that they have no belief. An example of someone with no belief would be a one year old.
You are correct. A one-year old would be considered an atheist. In this case, the infant does not have belief because he or she has never been exposed to the idea. However, never being exposed to the idea is only one way in which one may have attained disbelief. Another example is simple skepticism. "I don't know whether God exists. Therefore I don't believe God exists. But I also don't believe God doesn't exist. I just don't know."

Does this help clarify this matter for you?

The hypothesis of creationist is that God created the world. Totally valid but somewhat unprovable.
It is because of the fact that the hypothesis "God created the world" is unfalsifiable that it is not scientific. From the link you yourself provided:

"There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be 'falsifiable'. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable."

Not really. Hypothesizing that the world suddenly came into existance and then trying to find scientific proof, would be science.
Big Bang Theory does not hypothesize that the universe "came into existence". It merely asserts that at one point, all the matter in the observable universe was compressed into a point of very small volume. This assertion is deduced from the fact that the universe is expanding, implying that at one point it was all bunched up in a tiny space. This might be true or it might not be, but it is not arbitrary. It is a theory that is based on observations. It is also falsifiable, meaning that it is possible to prove that it is wrong (or at least incomplete) by finding contradictory evidence.

Originally posted by biblthmp
That is a matter of opinion, the big bang, and macro evolution are some pretty big myths in my book.

you're having a hard time with the difference between theory and myth? uh, it's simple. what's the confusion? i'm guessing you're delusional from your cult conditioning.

Not believing something is true is not the same as believing it is false. For example, if you don't know something, then you don't believe it is true (you have disbelief that it is true) and you don't believe it is false (you have disbelief that it is false). Do you see what the difference is?

Then not