Please - this is NOT a thread about atheism vs. theism. A definition of atheism is the disbelief in a supernatural existence. To say that one does not believe in something does not imply one denies the existence of something, correct? Or am I wrong? How could I articulate such language to someone of this?
That's exactly what it means. If you don't believe in something, it means that you don't think that that something exists.
But the definition of belief is "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something." So to NOT belief in something is to take no mental acceptance of blah blah blah. So I don't accept something as true... that doesn't imply I accept it as false.
This is a place of science. In science (as opposed to mathematics, philosophy or detective work), every assertion has three possible states: True beyond a reasonable doubt Not true beyond a reasonable doubt False However, within the second category there is a range of doubt. Some assertions are hypotheses that are being investigated; evidence in the form of observations or reasoning has been provided and it is being tested or peer-reviewed. But other assertions fall closer to the realm of crackpottery: they contradict canonical theories and they either lack evidence or their evidence is of such poor quality that it has been easily falsified. These assertions are therefore extraordinary. The Rule of Laplace tells us that an we are not obliged to treat an extraordinary assertion with respect--to "waste" any of science's finite bandwidth on it--until someone at last offers the extraordinary evidence needed to redeem it from the realm of crackpottery. So the position of the atheist is: To assert that a supernatural universe exists, whose forces and creatures can perturb the operation of the natural universe, is an extraordinary assertion. Until extraordinary evidence is supplied to support it, we are not obliged to treat it with respect.
To be fair, Fraggle, the same holds true in mathematics. What you're describing is the process of science rather than the outcome. The same process occurs in mathematics. But both enterprises seek to work towards reaching either 'true' or 'false' as a final statement. And both enterprises can sometimes take an extremely long time to reach that destination.
No. There's a qualitative difference between the testing of a scientific hypothesis and the testing of a mathematical hypothesis. Mathematics deals exclusively with abstractions, so its theories can be proven "completely true" by sheer logical reasoning. Scientific theories are predictions of the future behavior of the natural universe. They use logical reasoning, but they apply it to empirical observations rather than to abstractions. Therefore a scientific theory can only be proven "true beyond a reasonable doubt" as the number of supporting observations continues to grow. Scientific theories can be and occasionally are falsified, or at least subject to revision.
And I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that the process is the same in both fields. As well, what "true" means in mathematics is very difficult to pinpoint. Ever since Godel's proof, it's been a bit of a mess to really say anything is "true" in mathematics. You're right that there is no "true beyond a reasonable doubt" in mathematics, instead there is "true... whatever the hell that means..." But there is "not true within reasonable doubt" and "false" the same as in science. And the same as in science the middle category can be broken down into crackpottery and reasonable propositions. Unless you're a neo-Platonist, in which case everything (in science or math) is either true or false already and there's no point in defining things otherwise.
Everyone is atheist - for at least one of the millions and millions of Gods and Goddesses and Aliens. . . . Atheism = lacking a belief. Everyone is born an atheist and I wouldn't be surprized if in that last second we all die an atheist.
I tried to come up with a scenario where there's a practical difference, and the only thing I could think of would be determining whether or not a person who has never heard of gods should be labeled as an atheist. Such a person doesn't believe in any gods, but he also hasn't affirmatively rejected them either. Other than that, I'm not sure why it would matter. Although I suppose if one wanted to have a discussion about fine nuances of semantics, this would be the place for it...
"True" and "false," "good" and "evil" are religious concepts. They have no scientific meaning. Science is theory, more accurate theory than religion. I am an atheist because I do not believe "spirits" of any kind exist. I do recognize that there is such a thing as a belief in "spirits," but that belief does not compromise my atheism at all. charles http://atheistic-science.com
Mike, i dont think that is at all realistic. These beliefs came from someplace, you can disregard organized beliefs but even the slightest acknowledgement that there may be something more to existence than time spent here on earth means that a person is not an Atheist. I have always been agnostic and i really believe or even know for a fact i would be an agnostic without any interaction or outside influences. The truth is that true atheism is very rare in humans and tbh many atheist's seem to get agnostic and atheist mixed up. agnostics dont have a movement to latch onto either, so people looking to belong or give themselves a title use atheist but i dont believe they are being completely honest with themselves.
No, no. Of course it isn't. Nor will the 10 new threads started this week. I purpose an Atheist Mental Masturbation Super Thread. You know, to save bandwidth or server space or whatever excuse you folks use to censor this place.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Jung does not agree with that. He says that belief in the supernatural is an archetype, an instinctive motif that occurs in all cultures in all eras. He was not a biologist, but to restate it in contemporary scientific terminology, this belief is pre-programmed into our synapses by our DNA, just like other instincts such as the urge to run away from a large animal with both eyes in front of its face. Jung would say that everyone is born a theist, although a geneticist would qualify that statement to accommodate the effect of mutation. Please provide some evidence or reasoning to support that assertion. This is a place of science so consider this request a peer review. I find that your assertion verges on the extraordinary and I'm tempted to apply the Rule of Laplace. Please don't ask us to read an entire website. You learned to write book reports in school like the rest of us so you can give us a quick abstract of the reasoning behind that assertion. I was raised in a household where gods were never discussed so I didn't know what they were. However, for the same reason I would not have understood the word "atheist" until I was introduced to the concept of gods. Yes, perhaps the fact that I never felt an instinctive urge to take up religion makes me one of the mutants I referred to earlier. I have been watching this thread carefully and am doing my best to keep it on topic. If they're not started on my board then it's up to somebody else to moderate them. For the last two or three years, the goal of the site administrators has been to restore SciForums to the status of a place of science, as it was ten years ago. The home page has been reorganized so Free Thoughts is no longer on top, moderators have been appointed who take a dim view of trolling, the scientific method is applied even to discussions of dating and folk music (although not as rigorously as I would like), and members who flout the rules have been banned. We do occasionally combine threads to make discussions easier to follow and participate in. But as an American I support the principle of free speech and I only "censor" posts when they violate the rules, such as trolling, racism, plagiarism, pornography or instructions on the performance of illegal activities. I don't necessarily agree with all of the rules but like the rest of you, I must uphold them anyway or go start my own website with my own rules.
* * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR * * * * Lala, could you please spend a little more time composing your posts. That one does not make very much sense as written. Please take to heart my earlier criticism that your sentences are waaaay too long. You get lost in them and so do we. Please edit your post so it contributes to the discussion. Thanks.
Recomposition: Everything that we know as being false could later be proven through time as true, same for something being true could later be falsified. For example the ancient dinosaurs where not in fact killed by an asteroid per say but rather a combination of disasters, not necessarily including an asteroid. We only know things to a certain extent, then it becomes out of our hands and into space for we have no idea.
Alright. I say there is no "truth" and "false" in that scientific knowledge is a quest to improve the accuracy of what we know or need to know. It is not abstract "Truth," the final, total answer to anything. It is always just more accurate than what we used to believe. We call it theory, as in the theory of Evolution. Amittedly, it is practical to use the word "true" when judging if you went to the market yesterday or not, but even much of such statements are not absolute and are only of varying degrees of accuracy. Such as "the Earth is round," well, not quite but almost . . . And regarding "evil," the word comes from the old-religion concept that the world is all "good' or "evil," the faithful being "good" and the rest motivated by the devil. The opposite of "good" is "bad", but everyone thinks they are "good" or at least justified in what they do. People are not with "evil" ("satanic") intent. Even when they harm another person, they think that person deserves it or that they have for some reason some right to do it. Most criminals believe they are justified in what they do because they feel they are persecuted. They feel they are just getting what they deserve from those who they think exploit them. The CEO of a corporation like Ken Lay at Enron believe they are doing the right thing for the stockholder by making impressive profits. They think they are just doing better by making more and are within the law. To be sure the law allows it, even if they have to give contributions to Congressmen to get them to write the laws in ways that give the most money to the stockholders. By doing all that, they expect to make a lot of money they feel they deserve. People die from accidents and storms and that is "bad" but it is not "evil" because there is no satanic force behind it. Only the faithful think that it might be a Satan involved, not scientists like you and I. charles http://atheistic-science.com
For me, Atheism isn't an action but an inaction. I don't disbelieve there is a God or Gods, I simply don't bother myself with the idea at all. There is no reason to, when most things are accurately described by science. Using logic and reason, there is no need for a belief system. But I don't assert that there is no God or Gods, I don't admonish people who think there is. I am sure there is a God for certain people, and it helps them with their life. It's actually a force in their life that helps them with a path they are on personally. Since the mind is a tricky place, and because the world is under the subjective view of each individual person, I can see a need for God for certain people. I'm just not one of those people. It's not an active thing like disbelief, but an absence of interest either way.
That's a definition alright. This is kind of an awkward questions. To say that one does not believe in something has a couple of potential meanings. *It could mean that you don't believe in the behavior of that *something* (ex. I don't believe in my dog's ability to protect me). *It could also mean that you don't accept an assertion as true. In general to "deny" the existence of something carries a strong implication that the *something* exists in the first place. It's why it's called denial. To "believe" generically means to "accept as true" and examining atheistic belief results in the following logical positions: 1) I accept it is true that omnipotent life does not exist. 2) I don't accept it as true that omnipotent life exists. 3) I accept it is true that all human claims of omnipotent life do not exist. 4) I don't accept it as true that all human claims of omnipotent life exists. 5) I deny that omnipotent life exists. 6) I deny that all human claims of omnipotent life exists. 7) I don't have enough information. 8) I don't have enough interest. We can now widdle away at these positions to see if we can find one that represents an average of atheism (one is always better as people are more likely to comprehend and want to comprehend one position than multiple ones). If we apply the constraint that enough information is present, interest is present, and denial is absent then we are left with positions 1)-4). If we apply the constraint that all possible information is not present then we can eliminate position 1). If we apply the constraint of having a positive evidence-based claim then positions 2) and 4) are eliminated. So what we are left with is position 3) and all its constraints. If we put it all together while trying to retain simplicity then we get: *Atheism is a belief, based on empirical knowedge and evidence, that all human claims of God are false.
Forgot to mention... a benefit of that definition is that while you reject human claims, you are not rejecting the existence of anything outside the scope of those human claims. It's a cleaner and presumably more accurate definition than the "lack of belief" / "weak atheism" definitions that theists always argue with.
