Subscribers of non-theism and 'atheism'

[gravydancr]

Too often, I see non-theists going on about what they do not believe (i.e., theism). I would really like to hear about is what you do believe. Second, I would like to hear why you choose to identify yourself primarily by non-theism or 'atheism' -- assuming you do so. (To be honest, I find it odd that people choose to identify themselves by what beliefs they lack rather than what beliefs they adhere to.)

Side note: Why is atheism in quotations? Going forward, I will no longer use, on this message board, atheism to mean "a lack of theism." I have done so here as a one-time thing to appeal broadly to all non-theists. In the future, I will use non-theism to mean "a lack of theism" and atheism to mean "the belief that God or gods do not exist." All others are free to continue using the terms as they see fit, so long as when they differ from my own definitions that they clarify and remain consistent in their usage.

[TD101]

I believe that religion is man made myth.

If there is a God, I do not believe that he is the omniscient, omnipotent, loving being that is portrayed in the Bible. And he is certainly far from perfect.

I believe the purpose of life is survival. It's that simple.

I believe that science can explain many things, but for a layman like me to accept everything science has to say requires just as much blind faith as when I was a believer.

[Danny McGee]

The label debate is one that's been raging in "our" camp for quite some time. A lot of the problem comes with the difficulty of "herding cats," to borrow someone else's words. The only thing really required to call oneself an atheist is a lack of belief in deity (a-, meaning literally not; and theist, meaning one who believes in a deity). The only reason it's necessary for us to use this particular label is because theism is the "norm," so the lack of theism is notable in and of itself.

But most people these days who fancy calling themselves atheists generally have a particular worldview in common. The difficulty has been finding an adequate label for this worldview, which is still the subject of much debate. There's been Brights, skeptics, freethinkers, secular humanists, and the list goes on. For whatever reason, none of these labels have really stuck and most of us like to simply call ourselves atheists, though this is far from an adequate description of our broad and sometimes complex set of philosophies. Most of the other respondents have done a fair job of defining it, but I'll throw my two cents into the hat as well.

Generally:

We believe that the scientific method, while not infallible, is the best system yet devised by humans for the discovery of truth, and it acts by systematically weeding out fallacy.

Because the scientific method is great at falsification but not so great at reaching infallibly True conclusions, no belief or profession or assertion or truth statement can be assuredly taken as 100% Guaranteed Truth. They can only be provisionally accepted as probably true due to the weight of current evidence.

Because the body of evidence with which to examine these questions is constantly growing, we must always be open to the possibility that we are wrong.

Because of the above, the following statements should not be taken as a dogmatic beliefs, but rather as statements we generally accept on a provisional basis until otherwise convinced by evidence to the contrary.

We do not believe in the existence of the supernatural. The physical realm is all there is, and every observable phenomenon can find its principal causation in the physical interaction of matter.

Because of the above, and because the typical conception of "God" is supernatural in nature, we do not believe in God. (Hence, "atheists.")

But then, someone could just as easily be an atheist because they are a devout Buddhist and their particular worldview leaves no room for deity. That hypothetical person would still be an atheist, but certainly not the sort of atheist I describe here. Such is the difficulty and limitation of labels.

[Sing]

I believe that religion is man made myth.

If there is a God, I do not believe that he is the omniscient, omnipotent, loving being that is portrayed in the Bible. And he is certainly far from perfect.

I believe the purpose of life is survival. It's that simple.

I believe that science can explain many things, but for a layman like me to accept everything science has to say requires just as much blind faith as when I was a believer.

Science does not REQUIRE one to have blind faith. Science does nothing more or less then offer the most plausible explanations to posed questions based on Empirical Evidence. For somethings, we have such a degree of evidence combined with time tested ability to accurately predict an event that it becomes a Scientific Law. Such as the speed of light. HOWEVER, designation as Scientific Law does not mean that it is an Absolute. It only means, that when considering the physical world around us, it is the most accurate answer to the question it seeks to answer. I personally hold out hope that one day we will realize "Warp" drive. Otherwise, our aspirations to explore and colonize the universe are completely shot. Science also defines tow more concepts along side that of Scientific Law. Those are that of Theory, and Hypothesis. With out quoting the exact definitions, these three concepts take into account the varying degrees of available evidence and the ability to accurately predict the outcome of event they are attempting to describe.

Science is the polar opposite of Blind Faith. Science does not accept or condone Blind Faith as a justification for anything. So what exactly are you pointing to when you say

I believe that science can explain many things, but for a layman like me to accept everything science has to say requires just as much blind faith as when I was a believer.

Science makes no absolute claims that require blind faith to accept. Math is the only discipline to my knowledge that defines anything in terms of absolutes.

[Adurumus]

I am an atheist because you are not. Being called an atheist is just as good as being called agnotist, ignotist, christian or muslim. If everyone had one mind set, then there'd be no need for labels, but when you need to quickly categorize one's set of beliefs they can be useful.

[TD101]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 576#394576]l

Science is the polar opposite of Blind Faith. Science does not accept or condone Blind Faith as a justification for anything. So what exactly are you pointing to when you say

I believe that science can explain many things, but for a layman like me to accept everything science has to say requires just as much blind faith as when I was a believer.

I would equate my use of the term faith with trust. I have no scientific background, have never taken a Physics class, and held no interest in evolution or cosmology until recently. When I watch a show or read up on these topics, I have to trust that what they say is true. Therefore, I am now putting my trust in science instead of a book written thousands of years ago. I continue to educate myself, but am a long way from understanding everything.

[Sing]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 576#394576]l

Science is the polar opposite of Blind Faith. Science does not accept or condone Blind Faith as a justification for anything. So what exactly are you pointing to when you say

I believe that science can explain many things, but for a layman like me to accept everything science has to say requires just as much blind faith as when I was a believer.

I would equate my use of the term faith with trust. I have no scientific background, have never taken a Physics class, and held no interest in evolution or cosmology until recently. When I watch a show or read up on these topics, I have to trust that what they say is true. Therefore, I am now putting my trust in science instead of a book written thousands of years ago. I continue to educate myself, but am a long way from understanding everything.

Well, I'm certainly not advocating that if someone tells you that x is scientifically factual to take them at face value. They might be straight up lying.

But, the difference between a Faith and Science is that scientific claims are based on evidence, where faith, not matter how its spun, is devoid of empirical evidence.

For example, if someone tells you that global warming is a scientific fact, there is reason to be skeptical. However, if you do any amount of rudimentary searching on the internet, it becomes fairly evident that mainstream science has reason by means of substantial evidence to suggest that Global warming is Real, and that man IS having a negative effect on our current climate.

And I will leave you with this. NO one is harder on scrutiny of evidence then the scientific community, often lambasting and tearing apart new theories that question long established ones. Although this can sometimes serve as a negativ impact up and coming scientists, It does provide a built in breaking mechanism that virtually ensures that scientific knowledge is well grounded in the latest and most complete evidence that is available. The same can absolutely not be said for religious dogma.

[Adamoriens]

And I will leave you with this. NO one is harder on scrutiny of evidence then the scientific community, often lambasting and tearing apart new theories that question long established ones. Although this can sometimes serve as a negativ impact up and coming scientists, It does provide a built in breaking mechanism that virtually ensures that scientific knowledge is well grounded in the latest and most complete evidence that is available. The same can absolutely not be said for religious dogma.

I wouldn't be so confident. According to some analyses, most published research findings are false.

[lionel1020]

The problem for me is the fact that I don't know a lot for certain. Facts and absolutes are constantly moving; scientists and theists are constantly changing their opinions and adjusting their beliefs. Discussion with either one is difficult for different reasons, a bit like trying to grip a very slippery bar of soap.

So I use the only thing I have, my feelings. The things that tell me what is right or wrong, what is good or bad. What I feel comfortable with. To confirm my feelings and arrive at some sort of conviction I will look at what things produce.
There is no point in looking at individuals as there are saints and sinners everywhere. Only as a group can it's system be judged and there are groups of every size.
The Christian group is the largest, it contains lots of sub-divisions, they identify each other by splitting hairs but to me they are all the same. The Islamic group is the next largest also with sub-divisions but I don't know much about them but they are all the same. The Jewish group is standing in the corner, they are quiet, keep to themselves but they are often picked on by others for some reason. The nerdy group of scientists is also picked on, mainly because most people can not follow what they are saying. And so on, different groups, different sizes, different beliefs, different behaviour.
I listen to what they are saying but mainly I look at them as a group, watch their behavior and what that produces, actions speak louder than words for me. I talk to lots of people and find I have a lot in common with a great deal of them but would I like to join them, be identified as one of them?
Look at what these groups have produced, from the large groups of bullies who want nothing but their way and will kill you if you disagree, to the medium and small groups whose calm acceptance of things is a little to airy fairy, it lacks any attack on life and fierce pursuit of improvement.
So while I have a lot in common with my fellow humans in general, they as a group, display trait's that are below them.
So I am an Atheist not because I am better than anyone. I could improve in so many ways but judging on the results, these belief systems will not help me...nor anyone
I am an Atheist by process of elimination.

[McCulloch]

I believe that science can explain many things, but for a layman like me to accept everything science has to say requires just as much blind faith as when I was a believer.

I would equate my use of the term faith with trust. I have no scientific background, have never taken a Physics class, and held no interest in evolution or cosmology until recently. When I watch a show or read up on these topics, I have to trust that what they say is true. Therefore, I am now putting my trust in science instead of a book written thousands of years ago. I continue to educate myself, but am a long way from understanding everything.

There is a huge difference. In science, there is a systematic methodology that is used to test the veracity of any claim. You can, in principle, validate any claim that scientists make. In theology, there is no such systematic methodology. A Priest says that God wants this. An Imam says God want that. One ancient book says that God acts in a certain way. Another says something different. There is absolutely no objective way to determine which, if any of the various theological claims is true or false.

I wouldn't be so confident. According to some analyses, most published research findings are false.

This is an interesting study. It seems to be the only study done in this particular field. Thus, if it is true then, according to his own analysis, it is probably false.

[Adamoriens]

I wouldn't be so confident. According to some analyses, most published research findings are false.

This is an interesting study. It seems to be the only study done in this particular field. Thus, if it is true then, according to his own analysis, it is probably false.

Nicely done.

The paper itself is more of a meta-analysis. There is none of the raw data to be examined or manipulated as a normal medical study does, so it's not subject to lack of replication effects, small/targeted sample sizes and effects, lack of prior established relationships (which are unjustifiably taken for granted), field popularity, financial/political bias etc. I thought it was an interesting insight into how science works better in theory than practice.