Atheism is a belief

[Samckeyes]

This is so because of a few things, one science can neither prove or dis-prove Gods existence. But just because someone doesn't believe God exists, doesn't mean atheism isn't a belief and just a dis-belief, affirming the thought that God doesn't exist means that one must believe that statement to be true, which requires a leap of faith.

Agnosticism would require less faith but would still be a belief, one I tend to lean to very often, but I'm also very inclined to religous thinking. To me there is so much that science will never be able to help us with, the existential struggles and so on.

[Samckeyes]

This is so because of a few things, one science can neither prove or dis-prove Gods existence. But just because someone doesn't believe God exists, doesn't mean atheism isn't a belief and just a dis-belief, affirming the thought that God doesn't exist means that one must believe that statement to be true, which requires a leap of faith.

Agnosticism would require less faith but would still be a belief, one I tend to lean to very often, but I'm also very inclined to religous thinking. To me there is so much that science will never be able to help us with, the existential struggles and so on.

To me atheism, agnosticism and theism all take too much for granted. When they all talk about the existence of God, I don't even know what they are talking about. I am ignostic. I don't know the meaning of the word God. Actually, I hold to a strong form of ignosticism, theological noncognitivism.

The sentence [font=Comic Sans MS]X is a four-sided triangle that exists outside of space and time, cannot be seen or measured and it actively hates blue spheres [/font]is an example of an unthinkable proposition. Although some may say that the sentence expresses an idea, that idea is incoherent and so cannot be entertained in thought. It is unthinkable and unverifiable. Similarly, [font=Comic Sans MS]Y is what it is[/font] does not express a meaningful proposition except in a familiar conversational context. In this sense to claim to believe in X or Y is a meaningless assertion in the same way as I believe that [font=Comic Sans MS]colorless green ideas sleep furiously[/font] is grammatically correct but without meaning.

Some theological noncognitivists assert that to be a strong atheist is to give credence to the concept of God because it assumes that there actually is something understandable to not believe in. This can be confusing because of the widespread belief in God and the common use of the series of letters G-o-d as if it is already understood that it has some cognitively understandable meaning. From this view strong atheists have made the assumption that the concept of God actually contains an expressible or thinkable proposition. However this depends on the specific definition of God being used. However, most theological noncognitivists do not believe that any of the definitions used by modern day theists are coherent.

As with ignosticism, the consistent theological noncognitivist awaits a coherent definition of the word God (or of any other metaphysical utterance purported to be discussable) before being able to engage in arguments for or against God's existence.

Well I agree with some of this but not all maybe, in dont think there are any worldviews out there that are anomaly free or completely coherent, ones believing in some kind of God and ones believing in no God or just the physical/material.

But for me all things we experience with people, nature, the universe, life all together and much more, there is mystery that lays behind it all, it is in science, the arts, math, history, and so on. I know Einstien didn't believe in a personal God and I'm still trying to figure out exactly how I fell about it, but he talks about this mysterious aspect in a way I think is relatable.

“The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle.

Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel Press, 1999, p. 5.

[McCulloch]

Well I agree with some of this but not all maybe, in dont think there are any worldviews out there that are anomaly free or completely coherent, ones believing in some kind of God and ones believing in no God or just the physical/material.

Just because there may be some necessary anomalies, inconsistencies or even incoherent bits in any attempt to construct a complete worldview, does not justify adopting unnecessary nonsense.

But for me all things we experience with people, nature, the universe, life all together and much more, there is mystery that lays behind it all, it is in science, the arts, math, history, and so on. I know Einstien didn't believe in a personal God and I'm still trying to figure out exactly how I fell about it, but he talks about this mysterious aspect in a way I think is relatable.

“The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle.

Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel Press, 1999, p. 5.

Yes, unquestionably there is a great deal of mystery and amazement in this universe. No need to construct an artificial alternate über-universe to provide even more.

[Samckeyes]

Well I agree with some of this but not all maybe, in dont think there are any worldviews out there that are anomaly free or completely coherent, ones believing in some kind of God and ones believing in no God or just the physical/material.

Just because there may be some necessary anomalies, inconsistencies or even incoherent bits in any attempt to construct a complete worldview, does not justify adopting unnecessary nonsense.

But for me all things we experience with people, nature, the universe, life all together and much more, there is mystery that lays behind it all, it is in science, the arts, math, history, and so on. I know Einstien didn't believe in a personal God and I'm still trying to figure out exactly how I fell about it, but he talks about this mysterious aspect in a way I think is relatable.

“The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle.

Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel Press, 1999, p. 5.

Yes, unquestionably there is a great deal of mystery and amazement in this universe. No need to construct an artificial alternate über-universe to provide even more.

Well I don't adopt any specific belief on it all, and I'm not trying to construct anything of the sort. I'm agnostic in some ways, but I'm inclined slightly torwards religous thinking, not really one specific but I do find a few different ones very interesting, and I do think that a lot of good can come from them, obviously not everything good.

I try my best to not dismiss any of them and look for the good they offer, while taking account their anomalies and not so good parts. my mind might change on this because I'm always looking to discuss and learn, but up untill now, I haven't found a view as coherent as Christianity, not the fundamentalist kind. But I don't claim to be a Christian, because if there is a God or a transcendent, I don't think we can come to any certainties about it.

[A Troubled Man]

First, no it isn't that science needs to define itself, the point is that science can not define itself through scientific inquiry, and this isn't the only place where science has to look to philosophy.

Once again, science is a process, hence it doesn't need to define itself through itself, that makes no sense. Science doesn't need philosophy.

What is your view of objectivity? Do you think it's a human construct or do you think science finds objective facts of nature that are universal through all of space time?

Yes, it does find that. The universe is quite homogeneous and isotropic, and the laws of physics that apply here apply everywhere.

One more question, do you feel that scientist are, or can be completely objective observers or no?

Sure, they have to be, they have their reputations and careers at stake if they aren't. Most scientists aren't going to toss that away knowing very well anything they do will be rung through a peer review process that will show it.

[Samckeyes]

First, no it isn't that science needs to define itself, the point is that science can not define itself through scientific inquiry, and this isn't the only place where science has to look to philosophy.

Once again, science is a process, hence it doesn't need to define itself through itself, that makes no sense. Science doesn't need philosophy.

What is your view of objectivity? Do you think it's a human construct or do you think science finds objective facts of nature that are universal through all of space time?

Yes, it does find that. The universe is quite homogeneous and isotropic, and the laws of physics that apply here apply everywhere.

One more question, do you feel that scientist are, or can be completely objective observers or no?

Sure, they have to be, they have their reputations and careers at stake if they aren't. Most scientists aren't going to toss that away knowing very well anything they do will be rung through a peer review process that will show it.

So do you not see humans as being subjective in any sense, or yes and somehow we can free ourselves from subjectivity through some kind of scientific attitude or outlook?

[ndf8th]

The word belief can be used in two common ways.

The philosophic way that formally is named ontology?
Ontology is about what exists. Does there exist a god or not?
And by exist they most likely mean is it logical to define that god to exist.


But the more everyday usage of belief is like do you believe
in the good deeds this religious group does and they refer to God
as the source of why they care about other humans and then even
if you have no evidence for that God you trust in the persons believing
them doing it for that God. The example their acts of faith show that
that God means them care.

wish I could say it better but i have met many believers that seems to act
that way. They trust that these people would not act that selflessly unless
there really existed something that made them motivated and they say it is God
so you trust them and want to get to know that particular God.

Philosophy would see that as totally irrelevant if Iget it. A logical error
but belief is sometimes used that way.

Compare with faith in a friend. You believe the friend will not deceive you.

AFAIK that is not the belief that the philosophy minded atheists talks about
so when an atheist say they lack belief they mean a very formal ontology
kind of belief that has very little to do with the everyday usage of teh word belief
in a friend being reliable.

That is also why I refer to that I am a former atheist I don't think religious faith
is about ontology of the philosophy kind that atheists lack belief in.

the believers I have met refer to subjective personal stories of feeling saved.

that is not about ontology to me. That is psychology how things feels subjectively.

Atheists try to feel as little as possible in relation to gods.
Apart from some of them who love to feel ridicule of the believers ideas.
Surprisingly they don't think those feelings make their reason get biased.

you maybe can say that some activist atheists trust in logical reasoning
but that is not really part of the atheist definition of what it is to be atheist.

[Samckeyes]

Yeah I should have made this point earlier but I'll do it now, obviously there are different views within each view, not all atheist agree on everything, same goes for Christians, Buddhist , and all others.

So yes, some atheist claim that they lack belief in God, but don't say they believe there is no God. I would say that these are two Very different staments, the latter being the stronger. Or maybe some would say lacking belief isn't atheism, I wouldn't know honestly.

[ndf8th]

One thing that makes me curious
is why one don't care much about
the part of the human that is supposed
to end up in Heaven or Hell?
Soul or Spirit? don't most Christians
think we have such? Jesus went for
three days into Hell to fight the Devil
and then went to Heaven to be with God?

It was his spirit (Soul) and not his body
that went to Hell and Heaven?

did not St:Paul claim we get a Heavenly body
that does not get old? Atheists does not talk much
about the lack of souls or lack of spirits do they?

Why the concentration on gods?

[Samckeyes]

One thing that makes me curious
is why one don't care much about
the part of the human that is supposed
to end up in Heaven or Hell?
Soul or Spirit? don't most Christians
think we have such? Jesus went for
three days into Hell to fight the Devil
and then went to Heaven to be with God?

It was his spirit (Soul) and not his body
that went to Hell and Heaven?

did not St:Paul claim we get a Heavenly body
that does not get old? Atheists does not talk much
about the lack of souls or lack of spirits do they?

Why the concentration on gods?

Well I would think, and of course I might be wrong, but it seems that God and spirit, while they might not be one in the same it seems they would be very similar. Now of course it would be just about as hard to prove we have a spirit compared to proving God, I'm not saying I don't think that either exist just the troubles when proving anything.

[ndf8th]

I wish I where a good thinker.
Sadly I am not. atheists only care about
if one are good at reasoning, feelings they say
are irrelevant.

Now reason. suppose we reason about
Jesus , Christ, God, spirit.

John the prologue says that the Word was
with God. God used the Word when he created
Light in the beginning. word seems to be another
word for Christ and maybe for the Spirit too?

anyway. christ was sent to earth to become Jesus
that is why they name it incarnation. The heavenly Christ
incarnated in the body Jesus. That way both 100% God
and 100% physical Human Jesus that is why we say
Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus. Two in one body?
the spiritual Christ that becomes the physical Jesus.

God is not physical because God is spirit a supernatural being.
so God has to incarnate to become Christ in Jesus.

i guess you can name that Theology and atheists do
Philosophy instead for theology?

Did I get it right? I have no idea I don't do such stuff ever.

So I only wild guess.

Now reason this. What is most important? That you get saved?

Atheist does not agree because they don't do saving they do reason.

Or they say reason will save you from getting enslaved in religion.

So two competing philosophies they seem to think?????

But is religious traditions really about philosophy?
Are they not about getting saved? your soul need to get saved.

Jesus is the answer. Why did Christ need to become Jesus.
God sent his only Son to become Jesus to save us. Logical

how does the atheist reason? Atheist does not ask: "Did Jesus save you?"
You would happily answer: "Yes indeed he saved me and gave me eternal life."

Nope Atheist ask you "Do you belief in gods or a god?"
"Jesus Christ and his Father are my Lord and God. "
then you are a theist the atheist say.

Do you notice they don't say you are a Baptist or Pentecostal or
prestbyterian or Catholic or Eastern Orthodox they say you are a theist.

That seems important to atheists that they have a very general term
for you. In their world you are a theist they don't care about if you
are a Baptist or a Catholic.

When I visited Baptist Church where I lived then they did not talk in tongue
while the Pentecostal and the Words of faith Churcs did. Catholic did not
take communion with Baptists so these traditions differ in their self identity.

Self identity seems to be nothing atheists care about at all.

1. you tell an atheist that you are member of Baptist Church.
2. Atheist respond with. "If you believe in gods then you are a theist"

You respond. I am a Baptist since me 12 years old. My Dad a Pastor
in our local church"

Atheist say. So you admit you are a theist then?

can you see the pattern here. You are worth nothing to the atheist
you are either a theist which would make you a non-atheist or you
are an atheist which does not mean much either at most a logical
acknowledgement that you are saved from religion by reason.

I find it odd. i trust that all of us are human first and then our individual
history of how we relate to family and friends and what we do in life
and the answer to if we believe in gods in a philosophical way is
way down in priority?

suppose you grow up in a religious family and feel at home and
share their commitment to you local Church. then do you really do
logical reasoning. did you get saved using logical reasoning.

When you say Yes to Jesus Christ as your Lord is that a logical reasoning?

Can you help me to think straight here? I see it as a commitment with
the whole body not just the logical reasoning part?