What do you believe, and why

[atheist buddy]

In my second post I borrow a popular question from the "Atheist Experience" show.

It is a rather broad question: When it comes to religion, God, spirituality, etc, what do you believe, and why.

I'll go first:

I believe that it's preferable to belive as many true things as possible and disbelieve as many untrue things as possible.

I believe that reason and evidence are the best methods to discern what is true from what is not true.

I believe that reason and evidence do not support the notion that a supernatural intelligence exists. To the contrary, in the case of several religious claims, it's not just a matter of lack of evidence for, it's a matter of enormous amounts of evidence against.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

[Clownboat]

In my second post I borrow a popular question from the "Atheist Experience" show.

It is a rather broad question: When it comes to religion, God, spirituality, etc, what do you believe, and why.

I'll go first:

I believe that it's preferable to belive as many true things as possible and disbelieve as many untrue things as possible.

Wow, now that truly is a broad statement. Lets see now, having lived for a while and debated on various Forums for a while, this is how I understand your statement; "to believe as many true things as possible and disbelieve as many untrue things as possible."

True things:
* A universe popping out of nothing 13.75 billion years ago, becomes really, really hot and explodes with a Big-bang evolving the universe as we see it - true

* Warm salty sweat from a rock in space that for some reason don't want to evaporate as it cooled creates a single celled bacteria that in 4.5 billion years evolves every and all creatures on the planet called earth, and living and adapting within the same area, and evolving to survive as the fittest, .. one becomes a butterfly and the other right next to it an impenetrable skinned crocodile. - true

* meteor hits earth creating an ice age that wipes out the big lizards - true

* Cave paintings that describe in such great detail that hundreds of books were written about them about the millions of years of life of horror before the human ape realized that the sun WILL come up next morning (and hundreds of other evolutionary facts) - true

Not true:
*God the Creator - not true

* demons, Satan - not true

* The stories of Moses, Noah, - not true

* Jesus the Son of God coming to earth and teaching us about right and wrong, and opening a door back into the garden of Eden (Paradise) - not true

* The Bible - not true

I believe that reason and evidence are the best methods to discern what is true from what is not true.

In a religiously run world that pre-decides for the masses what is true and what is not true, 'Obey'-ing is reason and evidence enough.

I believe that reason and evidence do not support the notion that a supernatural intelligence exists. To the contrary, in the case of several religious claims, it's not just a matter of lack of evidence for, it's a matter of enormous amounts of evidence against.

Supernatural is like eternity, or infinity, I don't know of any "supernatural intelligence", just like I never heard of eternity or infinity intelligence. So I don't know where you get your "reason and intelligence"? Maybe you are hearing 'supernatural' talking to you?

What is true and what is not true?
I believe evil is no good, because it feels bad and it hurts. I believe in God our Creator because of the stories in the Bible which said I was created in God the Creators image.
I create, but I did not create me, or the universe, so logically there has to be an original Creator who would have to be both Eternal, Infinite, Intelligent where He can design everything in this universe including me a little creator in His image, and be able to create it.
My mind is infinite and eternal, it cannot be seen or detected other then when it acts upon the brain. Since the Bible explains that God is Spirit and that no one can see God, or has seen God, my mind is the perfect example of God the Creator. No one has seen my mind, or can see my mind, or your mind yet we know it exists.

Arian, you should probably stop posting about the Big Bang, evolution and atheistic high priests and stick to answering questions or inform us of your alternatives to these things you don't understand and have problems with.

It has been quite some time since I have actually finished one of your posts. It's all the same ol' same ol' nonsense and IMO is a waste of time to read unfortunately.

We get it, you don't agree with those theories, but continuing to show us that you don't understand them does not further the debate. I would assume you do understand the process that you claim brought about the biological diversity that we see around us, so perhaps you can stick to what you think you know so we can comment.

This is just friendly advise. Continue as you will of course.

[arian]

Arian, you should probably stop posting about the Big Bang, evolution and atheistic high priests and stick to answering questions or inform us of your alternatives to these things you don't understand and have problems with.

Your problem with me is obvious, it is that I DO understand the Big-bang Evolution story too well. So well that I can sum up the whole thing in just a few sentences. I admit, I do go deeper than that and point out the ridiculous and very religious foundation it is built on. Anyone who has gone on an atheist/evolutionist forum knows what I'm talking about, and I have debated with you long enough to know that so do you.

I asked you many times, pick any point in the 13.75 billion year of your Big-bang Evolutionary theory, quote it and let's debate.

Your only defense on Evolution so far has been generalized comments on my long and detailed posts.
If you say that carefully lined up fossils that have been collected from around the world is PROOF of evolution, you want to pull me into your religious indoctrinations on evolution to prove to you which fossils are out of sequence. Or to go into great detail as to "where you are wrong?" On evolution, you are right. A Catholic who is a Catholic scholar on Catholic theology is also probably right about Catholism.
Or you want to argue about the "uniform microwave radiation left over from the Big bang" ?
I am not going to be pulled into a rabbit hole of your religious doctrines. I have done that enough and realized it's an endless argument, not debate. This goes same with any religion, weather Muslim, Mormon, Constantine Christian, Hindu, all of them. The problem starts when your religion is forced on my children, like telling them they are apes evolved from a single celled bacteria without a purpose. Or if they don't accept Islam and strap a bomb-belt around their chest to prove their loyalty they should be beheaded.

I only point out the truth as to 'who created the earth' and 'who was man created by?' and so far no religion can come even close to the truth. Besides, .. what exactly is 'truth' in Big-bang Evolution, a story of a chaotic purposeless expansion from and into nothing for no apparent reason that you or any Evolutionist could see?

It has been quite some time since I have actually finished one of your posts. It's all the same ol' same ol' nonsense and IMO is a waste of time to read unfortunately.

Exactly. I know you don't finish my posts because you keep giving me the same-ol' same ol' generalized responses, like 'You are just refusing to go along with our big bang theory, and our evolution theory arian! You oppose the very idea and point to completely unrelated facts that have nothing to do with evolution. Or, .. They are completely different theories arian, even if the BB never happened, evolution would still be true!" and so on.

Clownboat, if an idea is ridiculous and unscientific from the get go, why would anyone build on it unless it's for religious reasons? Then to make it sound scientific, you guys point out some scientific observation and blend it in with the rest of the fairytale to try to make it as if the whole billions and billions of year old story was actually scientific, or could be scientifically observed.
Hello! You cannot look through a telescope and 'observe' something that happened 14 billion years ago, and I don't care how many billions of $$$ you have robbed humanity of to build it.

Science observes the here and now. If anyone calls himself a scientist and starts to tell a story on the rock he is holding in his hand with a story like; "Billions and billions of years ago, this rock was a speck of quantum aah, .. aah, string, .. no a quantum gravitational wave, .. yeah, that's the ticket, a quantum gravitational wave", that man is NOT a scientist but is peddling his religious cultic ideologies.

We get it, you don't agree with those theories, but continuing to show us that you don't understand them does not further the debate.

You cannot say I don't understand them Clownboat, so just say what you really mean; "You refuse to accept them arian" Like for instance that; "Humans are evolving more-intelligent chimps, in the less-intelligent ape family" We debated this to kingdom come already.

I would assume you do understand the process that you claim brought about the biological diversity that we see around us, so perhaps you can stick to what you think you know so we can comment.

This is just friendly advise. Continue as you will of course.

Yes, God brought about the biological diversity by creating each species. God created man, and over time we have all these varieties of humans. But you insist on keeping with your religion which says we have all these varieties of monkeys and man is one of them.
That's what's wonderful about free will, you can pretend to be anything you want. Just be careful you don't start believing in your make-belief!

[Clownboat]

Arian, you should probably stop posting about the Big Bang, evolution and atheistic high priests and stick to answering questions or inform us of your alternatives to these things you don't understand and have problems with.

Your problem with me is obvious, it is that I DO understand the Big-bang Evolution story too well. So well that I can sum up the whole thing in just a few sentences. I admit, I do go deeper than that and point out the ridiculous and very religious foundation it is built on. Anyone who has gone on an atheist/evolutionist forum knows what I'm talking about, and I have debated with you long enough to know that so do you.

I asked you many times, pick any point in the 13.75 billion year of your Big-bang Evolutionary theory, quote it and let's debate.

Your only defense on Evolution so far has been generalized comments on my long and detailed posts.
If you say that carefully lined up fossils that have been collected from around the world is PROOF of evolution, you want to pull me into your religious indoctrinations on evolution to prove to you which fossils are out of sequence. Or to go into great detail as to "where you are wrong?" On evolution, you are right. A Catholic who is a Catholic scholar on Catholic theology is also probably right about Catholism.
Or you want to argue about the "uniform microwave radiation left over from the Big bang" ?
I am not going to be pulled into a rabbit hole of your religious doctrines. I have done that enough and realized it's an endless argument, not debate. This goes same with any religion, weather Muslim, Mormon, Constantine Christian, Hindu, all of them. The problem starts when your religion is forced on my children, like telling them they are apes evolved from a single celled bacteria without a purpose. Or if they don't accept Islam and strap a bomb-belt around their chest to prove their loyalty they should be beheaded.

I only point out the truth as to 'who created the earth' and 'who was man created by?' and so far no religion can come even close to the truth. Besides, .. what exactly is 'truth' in Big-bang Evolution, a story of a chaotic purposeless expansion from and into nothing for no apparent reason that you or any Evolutionist could see?

It has been quite some time since I have actually finished one of your posts. It's all the same ol' same ol' nonsense and IMO is a waste of time to read unfortunately.

Exactly. I know you don't finish my posts because you keep giving me the same-ol' same ol' generalized responses, like 'You are just refusing to go along with our big bang theory, and our evolution theory arian! You oppose the very idea and point to completely unrelated facts that have nothing to do with evolution. Or, .. They are completely different theories arian, even if the BB never happened, evolution would still be true!" and so on.

Clownboat, if an idea is ridiculous and unscientific from the get go, why would anyone build on it unless it's for religious reasons? Then to make it sound scientific, you guys point out some scientific observation and blend it in with the rest of the fairytale to try to make it as if the whole billions and billions of year old story was actually scientific, or could be scientifically observed.
Hello! You cannot look through a telescope and 'observe' something that happened 14 billion years ago, and I don't care how many billions of $$$ you have robbed humanity of to build it.

Science observes the here and now. If anyone calls himself a scientist and starts to tell a story on the rock he is holding in his hand with a story like; "Billions and billions of years ago, this rock was a speck of quantum aah, .. aah, string, .. no a quantum gravitational wave, .. yeah, that's the ticket, a quantum gravitational wave", that man is NOT a scientist but is peddling his religious cultic ideologies.

We get it, you don't agree with those theories, but continuing to show us that you don't understand them does not further the debate.

You cannot say I don't understand them Clownboat, so just say what you really mean; "You refuse to accept them arian" Like for instance that; "Humans are evolving more-intelligent chimps, in the less-intelligent ape family" We debated this to kingdom come already.

I would assume you do understand the process that you claim brought about the biological diversity that we see around us, so perhaps you can stick to what you think you know so we can comment.

This is just friendly advise. Continue as you will of course.

Yes, God brought about the biological diversity by creating each species. God created man, and over time we have all these varieties of humans. But you insist on keeping with your religion which says we have all these varieties of monkeys and man is one of them.
That's what's wonderful about free will, you can pretend to be anything you want. Just be careful you don't start believing in your make-belief!

New record by the way!
I stopped after:
Your problem with me is obvious, it is that I DO understand the Big-bang Evolution story too well. So well that I can sum up the whole thing in just a few sentences.

When you utter something that is so far from the truth, can you blame us if some of us don't take you seriously, or if we stop reading?

Good story though, but not interesting enough to warrant further reading.
By the way, I have no problems with you. You see, you are a member of the great ape family, just as I am. There is no me vs you. No special place either of will go when we die. We are equals.
Be well.

[Zzyzx]

.

Agreed. We could identify the same ocular stimulation by light as "red" – so what?

There IS an ocular stimulation in sighted people. There IS measurable light wavelength as measured by instruments. The name is immaterial.

If we both identify a given wavelength signature (for us personally or for instruments) it does not matter what name we attach.

I am not talking about the name, the wave length or even the ocular stimulation. What we are talking about in this thread is belief.

Perhaps belief should be strongly separated from reality. Discussion of color perception is far removed from "belief."

I have a mental image of what "green" is. You also have a mental image of what "green" is. Even if we believe two different images in that regard, we agree that we each will refer to our separate construct as green. This is how we view everything. We either agree to label our different constructs similarly or one of us submits to the construct of the other. In reality "green" may not even exist. However, since we both have a mental construct, albeit stimulated by external forces, we both believe that there is such a thing as "green".

That is quite a scenario in order to work "believe" into the discussion.

After staring at a particular color, one will see the trees in a black and white photo as "green".

YOU may choose to see trees in a B&W photo as green. I and others (and a microdensitometer) identify them as shades of gray.

Please, watch the program Brain Games, the episode on colors, then come back and tell me that you never see gray as green.

I do not watch television, movies or video games.

I have worked in Photogrammetry – and taught air photo interpretation and remote sensing; which involved consideration of color. I prefer real world experience to vicarious living through entertainment.

Regarding the microdensitometer, that also creates a mental construct for each of us that happens to correlate to what we have agree to refer to as "green", except when we are not really paying attention or are tricked into seeing some thing else as green.

Correction: a microdensitometer is "An extremely sensitive densitometer used to measure optical densities of photographic plates or film to detect small details, such as spectral lines invisible to the human eye." http://www.yourdictionary.com/microdensitometer

What that means is the instrument measures the characteristics and intensity of light associated with an image on photographic emulsions / films.

Therefore, what one believes to be "green" is not the wavelength, but how that something is interpreted by the mind.

Those who have become familiar with "additive color mixing" and "subtractive color mixing" the actual study of colors, recognize that each color human perceive is associated with certain stimulation of ocular sensors by given wavelenghts of electromagnetic energy (often known as visible light).

Yes, but have they shown that everyone has the same mental image.

It makes no difference if everyone has the same mental image of "green" (for instance) provided that they are consistent in its application. When their optical and mental systems are stimulated by electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths in the range of 495–570 nm. The response to a given wavelength or combination of wavelengths can be assigned a number rather than a name.

I believe that my mental image is correct, but it may be different from your mental image. That is the nature of belief. It is a mental construct, even for the scientist.

Is electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths in the range of 495–570 nm as measured by instruments a "mental construct?"

Can you explain what "green" looks like to another person? People's minds "see" things differently.

It makes no difference what our personal response might be as long as we have a response to "green". I do NOT need to know what the term means to you as long as the same wavelengths of light are identified by both of us by some consistent term.

We are not talking about terms, we are talking about belief, ie the mental image.

Perhaps you are confining discussion to beliefs; however, effective communication requires some consideration of TERMS used to convey concepts.

There are many things that are "seen" generally the same. That is why I say that ultimately empiricism breaks down to either a shared mental construct or a subjugation of ones own mental construct to the agreed construct of another.

Human communication requires a certain overlap of meanings of words and concepts.

Exactly, it is the abstract of communication that forces us to come to agreements on things. There only needs to be a partial agreement between what each of us believes and how things happen for there to be communication. The essence of what each of us believes and what actually is may very well be different. For example, what is the essence of a light wave?

I state no position regarding the "essence of a light wave" – perhaps you would like to expound on the topic.

Well, science uses speculation based on uniformity. That is, if something works a certain way today, it has always worked that way.

WHERE, exactly, is that strange concept taught as science? Television? Church?

Scientists generally presume that light has been traveling through space according to a uniform set of laws for billions of years. What is interesting is scientists have changed what is believed to be that uniform set of rules several times over the last 500 years.

YES, our (scientific) understanding of nature has changed a great deal over the past 500 years. Ideas which were forefront in their time have been augmented, modified, replaced by later ideas.

Your statement "if something works a certain way today, it has always worked that way" is diametrically opposite of actual scientific ideas. Perhaps it would be prudent to rethink or retract erroneous ideas.

No, regardless of the fact that they have been augmented, modified, replaced, whichever view was prominent at the time was presumed to apply to times when man was not even believed to exist. That is where science moves into the area of belief.

Are you saying that if thunderstorms occurred before humans existed that present knowledge is "belief?"

If there is evidence of lava flows that can be dated to millions of years ago is it "belief" to say that volcanic activity occurred then?

[historia]

I think Jefferson is putting in absolute terms a non absolute truth. This is not true in the way that E=MC2 is true.

I think what is TRUE is that the average happiness and wellbeing of humanity will be increased if we operate by the edicts of the Declaration of Indipendence.

So, in other words, you would say that Jefferson is drawing upon certain metaphors here in an attempt to give fuller expression to his idea that people should possess certain basic rights. Although he doesn't provide any evidence, as such, to justify this claim, it is in living out this ideal that we, in fact, see that it is true. Not 'true' in the same way that the laws of gravity are 'true', to be sure, but nonetheless effective in bringing about a better society. Is that right?

You were about to draw a pareallel with the Bible, weren't you?

Actually, no.

I was going to draw a parallel to how religious beliefs function: They draw upon certain metaphors in an attempt to give fuller expression to the values of a particular religious community, the perception that there is a level of reality beyond the material world, and so on. Religious beliefs don't provide evidence, as such, to justify these claims, but adherents feel that it is in living out these ideals that they come to 'know' that they are true. Not 'true' in the same way that the laws of gravity are 'true', to be sure, but nonetheless effective in bringing about a better person and community.

The Bible as a collection of historic sacred texts for the Jewish or Christian communities is a bit of a different matter. Like a lot of atheist critics of religion, and much like the hypothetical Evangelical Christian we discussed above, you seem committed to a certain biblical hermeneutic based on prior philosophical commitments -- in fact, ironically, the same (literalist) interpretation of the Bible shared by Fundamentalist Protestants, albeit for precisely opposite reasons. I see no reason to adopt such a position.

I agree almost completely with what you say, except for the notion that there is no evidence for the preference for giving people certain rights.

I didn't say there wasn't any evidence related to these claims, but rather that the Declaration of Independence doesn't present any, instead merely asserting its claims are 'self-evident'. Like religious claims, it's an expression of values, not a scientific hypothesis.

There IS evidence. Life expectancy, infant mortality, mobility, literacy, health, education, etc ARE better in democracies than in dictatorships. That consitututes empirical evidence that Jefferson was right.

Although note, for example, that the largest poverty alleviation program in the history of the world has been carried out in recent decades by the communist dictatorship headquartered in Beijing, China.

But the more pertinent question here is why we should value these metrics at all. Who says that the overall health and well being of a nation is the paramount concern here? Why not, instead, value only the health and well-being of an elite few; perhaps those strongest and smartest among us who are best suited to pass their genes onto the next generation, strengthening the species. Why not institute a political program on those grounds?

[historia]

There's a whole lot of "objective" going on in that statement. In it's tone, if not in fact in its content, you seem to be saying that the word "believe" is beneath you, since you simply (almost passively) "accept" the truth of things based on "objective" evidence and reason -- albeit only "provisionally."

That's all we can do, all knowledge is provisional, we have to be willing to change our minds about things when new and better information comes along. We have to be careful not to be dogmatic about anything, regardless of how it makes us feel.

I think you missed the thrust of my comment above. I have no issue with your comments that your knowledge is provisional. Rather I'm taking issue with your assertion that you don't "believe" anything because your knowledge is based on "objective" evidence and reasoning. Especially since you also admitted that none of us can be purely objective.

Once you get into morality and politics and the like, there is no right or wrong, true or false, it's all opinion.

So, in other words, you do believe in things after all -- assuming, of course, you have opinions on matters of morality, politics, and the like. Are those not beliefs?

[arian]

New record by the way!
I stopped after:
Your problem with me is obvious, it is that I DO understand the Big-bang Evolution story too well. So well that I can sum up the whole thing in just a few sentences.

When you utter something that is so far from the truth, can you blame us if some of us don't take you seriously, or if we stop reading?

Good story though, but not interesting enough to warrant further reading.
By the way, I have no problems with you. You see, you are a member of the great ape family, just as I am. There is no me vs you. No special place either of will go when we die. We are equals.
Be well.

Aahh.. now what were you saying? I stopped after you said; "I stopped after". It sounded like a good story, .. ahh.. but not interesting enough to keep reading. Try again..

[bluethread]

I am not talking about the name, the wave length or even the ocular stimulation. What we are talking about in this thread is belief.

Perhaps belief should be strongly separated from reality. Discussion of color perception is far removed from "belief."

Why should belief be separated from "reality". Your statement seems to imply that you believe in an objective reality. If that is not the case, please, clarify. However, presuming that to be your point, how is it that we know what that objective reality is? Is that not dependent on what we choose to believe? The application of the scientific method to empirical data does not make one's conclusions real. It makes them consistent with belief in the scientific method and empiricism.

I have a mental image of what "green" is. You also have a mental image of what "green" is. Even if we believe two different images in that regard, we agree that we each will refer to our separate construct as green. This is how we view everything. We either agree to label our different constructs similarly or one of us submits to the construct of the other. In reality "green" may not even exist. However, since we both have a mental construct, albeit stimulated by external forces, we both believe that there is such a thing as "green".

That is quite a scenario in order to work "believe" into the discussion.

Belief is what this thread is about. If anything is being worked in it, it is the idea that scientific empiricism is not a belief system.

Please, watch the program Brain Games, the episode on colors, then come back and tell me that you never see gray as green.

I do not watch television, movies or video games.

I have worked in Photogrammetry – and taught air photo interpretation and remote sensing; which involved consideration of color. I prefer real world experience to vicarious living through entertainment.

Though the program was originally broadcast on commercial TV in an entertaining fashion, it is a program that is scientifically based and I streamed it. So, it is not designed to make my point and you can stop the stream at any point to verify that there are no camera tricks. However, if you are not going to even examine the evidence regarding the fact that one's mind alters one's perception, then you really do not appear to be as scientifically inclined as you claim to be.

Regarding the microdensitometer, that also creates a mental construct for each of us that happens to correlate to what we have agree to refer to as "green", except when we are not really paying attention or are tricked into seeing some thing else as green.

Correction: a microdensitometer is "An extremely sensitive densitometer used to measure optical densities of photographic plates or film to detect small details, such as spectral lines invisible to the human eye." http://www.yourdictionary.com/microdensitometer

What that means is the instrument measures the characteristics and intensity of light associated with an image on photographic emulsions / films.

Yes, and that provides data relative to what it measures. However, just because we have an invention that provides data the correlates to a particular phenomena under certain conditions, does not make any of that objectively real. What it does is verify consistency within the framework of a given belief system. How the mind perceives what the microdensitometer measures is another matter. If one buys into, ie believes, the premises of the meter, which I am not questioning, that data is significant. However, if one refuses to accept that premise, as you are doing with regard to the program Brain Games, that one just accepts the world as his mind perceives it and goes on his merry way. In either case, neither one can claim to be looking at unbiased reality. Both interpret the world based their respective belief systems.

Yes, but have they shown that everyone has the same mental image.

It makes no difference if everyone has the same mental image of "green" (for instance) provided that they are consistent in its application. When their optical and mental systems are stimulated by electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths in the range of 495–570 nm. The response to a given wavelength or combination of wavelengths can be assigned a number rather than a name.

Yes, then they are agreeing to a shared mental construct related to that number, based on a belief in electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths. Everything we think we know is based on our belief in something.

I believe that my mental image is correct, but it may be different from your mental image. That is the nature of belief. It is a mental construct, even for the scientist.

Is electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths in the range of 495–570 nm as measured by instruments a "mental construct?"

What that phrase relates to may not be, but that phrase and what it means is. When one believes in the concepts that phrase refers to, one is agreeing to a shared mental construct that is used to refer to that phenomenon consistent with that belief system. Science does not make things real, science defines things consistent with the premises on which it is based.

We are not talking about terms, we are talking about belief, ie the mental image.

Perhaps you are confining discussion to beliefs; however, effective communication requires some consideration of TERMS used to convey concepts.

Well, this thread is talking about what one believes and why. In order to communicate there must be agreed upon terms, correct. We are half way there. In order for those terms to have any meaning there also must be an agreed upon concept, otherwise one party is just subjugating his perception to that of the other. Either way, it is the mental construct that dictates what is accepted as real.

Exactly, it is the abstract of communication that forces us to come to agreements on things. There only needs to be a partial agreement between what each of us believes and how things happen for there to be communication. The essence of what each of us believes and what actually is may very well be different. For example, what is the essence of a light wave?

I state no position regarding the "essence of a light wave" – perhaps you would like to expound on the topic.

That is my point. How one explains the essence of a light wave is subject one's prospective on the universe. Regardless of how one defines the essence of a thing, that definition can be challenged based on a conflicting belief system.

No, regardless of the fact that they have been augmented, modified, replaced, whichever view was prominent at the time was presumed to apply to times when man was not even believed to exist. That is where science moves into the area of belief.

Are you saying that if thunderstorms occurred before humans existed that present knowledge is "belief?"

If there is evidence of lava flows that can be dated to millions of years ago is it "belief" to say that volcanic activity occurred then?

Your use of the term "if" supports my point. The only way to establish that thunderstorms occurred or lava flows can be dated is to make certain assumptions and an assumption is a form of belief. Therefore, one can not verify empirically, by means of the scientific method that those things happened before man existed. One can believe based on current experimentation, that one can verify empirically today, that what has been verified today occurred in the same way before man existed. However, one can not verify that belief empirically, because no one was there to experience it.

[wiploc]

This from a Pew Research Poll (link below):

Although the literal definition of “atheist� is “a person who believes that God does not exist,� according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 14% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit. That includes 5% who say they are “absolutely certain� about the existence of God or a universal spirit. Alternatively, there are many people who fit the dictionary definition of “atheist� but do not call themselves atheists. More Americans say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit (7%) than say they are atheists (2.4%).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -atheists/

There are some anomalies that explain why few people show up on record as not fitting the literal definition of atheist. [Emphasis added.]

- Trying to make sense of that. Among other things, I'll assume you meant "fitting," where you wrote "not fitting."

- Calling that definition "the literal definition of 'atheist'" is indefensible. You found two sources that used that definition---and, yes, one was a dictionary---but we could show you many other sources, including other dictionaries---and, yes, one would be the OED---that would offer alternative definitions. I'll bet that even Merriam Webster's own hardcopy book would offer other definitions.

So that is not "the literal" definition, but rather one definition among several recognized legitimate definitions of the word.

Pew made a mistake. If you make the same mistake, it is still a mistake. You can't legitimize it by citing Pew. (When you are quoting Pew, that's one thing. But when, outside of quotes, you adopt Pew's error, then it becomes your error.)

...

Most strong atheists, I believe, have been heading for the tall grass the last decade or two for any of several reasons:

- If you talk about "strong atheists," then you implicitly recognize the existence of weak atheists. In which case you are contradicting (even as Pew contradicted it) your own usage. A “person who believes that God does not exist,� cannot be "the literal definition of 'atheist'" if weak atheists are atheists.

- I don't believe that strong atheists are heading for the tall grass. When I was younger, there was just me and Madalyn Murray. We were the only atheists (strong or weak) that I knew of. Then the internet came along, allowing people to find other people like themselves, creating a Cambrian explosion of micro-cultures. Suddenly we were everywhere. And there are more of us all the time.

> Atheism, particularly hard atheism,

There, once again, you are shooting yourself in the foot semantically. If strong atheism isn't the same as atheism, then your chosen definition of "atheism" is simply wrong.

has always been a pejorative term and its negativity sticks more easily in the Internet age.

Like I say, the internet probably accounts for Christian society's failure to continue suppressing atheist society. It's hardly likely that it somehow also has a net suppressing effect of its own.

> Many illogical atheists want it both ways; to claim there IS no God, then equivocate when pressed.

Again, I'm skeptical. I've been active on forums like this for a long time, and I'm not familiar with this phenomenon.

But I can offer a possibility. I'm a strong atheist, and I'm happy to defend that position; but if you use "atheist" to mean "strong atheist," I will first straighten you out on that. That is to say, if you ask someone, "Why are you a strong atheist," you'll get an answer to that question (assuming she is actually a strong atheist). But if you ask instead, "Why do atheists think gods don't exist?" then you'll get told that atheists don't necessarily believe that.

So often theists seem to have a vested interest in getting atheists to use the theist's preferred terminology. So, most of the time, the discussion never gets past terminology.

All you have to do to get a defense of strong atheism is to not try to maneuver the atheist into saying that atheists are the same as strong atheists.

I believe this accounts for any impression you have of wishy-washyness.

If you get past the terminology issue, we strong atheists are generally happy to defend our position.

The easiest way for a hard atheist in the public eye to equivocate is to say I don't "believe" in God, because idiot reporters never ask them if that means they're certain. It's a distinction few even realize or acknowledge.

"I don't believe" can be meant literally, as in "I happen not to have that belief." It can also be a figure of speech (specifically litotes), meaning something like, "Not only do I not have that belief, I actually have the opposite belief."

We use litotes so often/naturally/instinctively/habitually that we often aren't aware we've done it. So the sentence, "I don't believe in god," is inherently ambiguous. But nether the speaker nor the listener may notice the ambiguity.

It is a phrase that one should strive to avoid in discussions of this kind. It causes confusion.

But the confusion is between atheism (undifferentiated, the speaker could be either a strong atheist or a weak atheist) or strong atheism. Certainty doesn't come into it. There is no call for the reporter to "clarify" by asking about certainty.

I don't know of anyone but you who thinks strong atheists are certain that gods don't exist. And you have proven unable to support your claim in the tiniest degree.

You haven't even apologized to me for misrepresenting my position.

> Hard atheists leave themselves vulnerable to accusations of being as dogmatic as the Christians they (rightly) accuse of being dogmatic.

How do you figure? That's an assertion. It's an assertion about me. I want an explanation.

And the explanation shouldn't be that you can make up a strawman definition of strong atheism just to make the position easier to attack.

> Hard atheists are also logically vulnerable to the argument that they can't proclaim their certainty that there is no God,

Why would we want to? That's not our position.

including a deist God,

Hey, we're atheists, not adeists. You yourself adduced the Pew poll pointing that out.

because there is no difference between atheism and deism possible from our perspective. This latter has been the most successful argument IMHO, for bringing about the shift in professional atheists and atheist scientists from hard atheism, if that's where they started, to deism. I think many were so busy debunking theism, it just never occurred to them, or the recent rise of deist thought has forced them to face it.

I met a deist once. I assume there are more of them. But the rise in deist thought has escaped my notice. As has the movement from atheism to anything else. There are more of us all the time.

To finish this off, there's this from the Wiki article on Negative and Positive Atheism:

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1]

Technical point: Strong atheism is the belief that no gods exist. You don't have to assert anything.

Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.[1][2][3]

Once again, you have proven that Merriam-Webster's online dictionary is inadequate, and that Pew erred in calling that definition "The literal definition of atheism."

Again, I don't think people would be spending time on the distinction and defining it if there were no positive atheists.

There are tons of us. The fact that you can't find any evidence that we tend to hold the belief you wish to impute to us should be a clue that you're wrong about what we believe.[/quote]

[ThePainefulTruth]

> Atheism, particularly hard atheism,

There, once again, you are shooting yourself in the foot semantically. If strong atheism isn't the same as atheism, then your chosen definition of "atheism" is simply wrong.

So you're saying you can't take a noun and modify it or qualify it with another word for clarity. Yet you'll buy all the many different definitions of plain atheist in different dictionaries. I think we're done here.