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.

[ndf8th]

Sam
you have posted this in the section Questions About a Belief
but your title is more like an assertion or a fact?

I am trying to get what your question of belief is

Suppose I for the sake of our discussion go along with you for a while?

Suppose some or a few atheists would admit them to really believe
that the evidence for a supernatural god are so absent that it would be
fruitless to reckon with any kind of gods to exist.

What then? What would you use that admittment to?
would you look up to them as the real atheists and
befriend them and take them to your heart and love them?

Or would you be more upset over them then the atheists
that say they simply lack belief in gods.

I am trying to guess your intent with the thread.

could this be your intent in the following quote

To me there is so much
that science will never be able to help us with,
the existential struggles and so on.

But atheism and science is not connected that directly.
Neither atheism nor science has promised to help us
with existential struggles and so on

I want help too with " existential struggles and so on"

But atheism does not help me with it because they only lack belief in gods.
AFAIK The atheists have no official answers to give on existential struggles and so on.

Science has never promised to answer existential struggles and so on.

Maybe academic philosophy has? Or some individuals within philosophy?
But I am not into philosophy at all. so I can not recommend any of those.

So what do we do now then? Both you and I seems to share this need then?
To get help with existential struggles and so on Whom to trust to have answers?

[Artie]

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.

Christians were and still are the original atheists because they didn't and still don't believe in gods (plural). Christians were even originally persecuted for being atheists, that is for not believing in all the gods others believed in at the time. Christians are atheists who don't believe in gods but have for some unfathomable reason made an exception for one god. Which of course is as irrational as saying that no leprechauns exist except for the one that does.

[Divine Insight]

Science can neither prove or dis-prove Gods existence.

Actually this is not true. Moreover science itself is not even required to disprove the existence of various Gods.

Most people believe that Greek Mythology is false and has indeed been proven to be false. Why? Well, because in Greek Mythology the Gods supposedly lived on Mt. Olympus, but it's now been shown that no God's live on that mountain.

The Hewbrews were a bit more clever and placed their God in an imaginary heaven which is totally separate from the physical world. The idea is that you can supposedly never prove that this imaginary heaven doesn't exist because by definition it's beyond the reach of physical detection.

However, that's a truly trivial point.

The fact is that the Hebrew mythology of God disproves itself by it's own contradictions concerning the very nature and character of the God that it claims to be describing.

For example, right off the bat this God is supposed to be the epitome of all that is good and righteous, yet one of the first things the Hebrews claim about this God is that he is a jealous God who will hurt anyone who refuses to believe in him.

There is nothing good or righteous about that. So the Hebrews have already disproved their God before they even got off the ground.

This God supposedly created a hell fire place of damnation where he will cast people to be eternally tortured if they fail to obey him. There is nothing benevolent about such behavior. Thus it's an oxymoron to claim that this God represents benevolence.

In Christianity things get far worse. In the original religion this God killed people for being sinners and even drowned them in a great flood. But in Christianity this very same God supposedly loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son to pay for the sins of mankind.

But once again, this God is said to be unchanging in character and thus dependable. But here we have Christianity claiming that the God cannot be depended upon to remain consistent at all. At one moment it might drown you for being a sinner, and the next moment its sacrificing its son to supposedly save you.

And just what is it that you are supposedly being "saved" from?

Well, you're being saved from the wrath of this supposedly benevolent righteous God who is chomping at the bit to cast you into a state of eternal damnation.

The religion has proven itself to be false via it's gross self-contradictions.

This this particular God has indeed been proven to be false via the very myths about the God. No science required to show that it must necessarily be false.

So some Gods can indeed be proven to not exist, and the God of Christianity is certainly one of them. These same principles can be applied to Judaism and Islam as well since they are all supposedly based on a God who is supposed to be simultaneously all-benevolent, yet extremely evil in his wrath. That's an oxymoron thus disproving the fables from within.

A benevolent God would need to be benevolent, not so evil and wrathful that a person would need to be 'saved' from it.

~~~~

However, if you actually prefer a scientific proof, science has also proven that these Abrahamic myths are necessarily false.

The Abrahamic myths are entirely based upon a story of mankind's "Fall from Grace" which supposedly brought death, and all manner of imperfection into the world, including thorns growing on plants.

But scientific observations of the real world reveal that animals that ate each other and died on a regular basis existed long before mankind ever appeared on the planet. It can also be shown that all manner of disease had also existed, and that thorns grew on plants long before humans ever came to be.

Thus these religious fables that try to pin the blame for the state of reality onto mankind are clearly false. In short, the entire biblical picture of God is based on an outright lie.

And that is a scientific fact.

So in that sense, science can and has disproved these particular fables of a God.

What science can't disprove are more abstract lofty ideas of "God" along the lines of Eastern Mysticism. The Eastern Mystics haven't created extreme dogma about God that shoots itself in its own foot.

Moreover, there are many Eastern Mystical philosophies that actually offer scenarios where their God can indeed be 100% perfectly benevolent even in the face of a world that doesn't appear to be perfect from our perspective. The important thing to keep in mind here is that they don't claim that their God will cast anyone into a state of eternal damnation.

Unlike Christianity where the God of Abraham loses the vast majority of souls that he creates, in Eastern Mysticism nary a single soul is ever lost. So it's a candidate for a truly benevolent and all-wise philosophy of a God. So it doesn't shoot itself in its own foot, and neither is there any scientific reason to dismiss it.

So whilst some concepts of God cannot be disproved by science, or by their own self-destruction, other concepts do indeed avoid that fate.

But the God of the Hebrews is definitely a God that is extremely easy to disprove. The fables themselves disprove their own God time and time again via their own self-inconsistencies.

[Samckeyes]

Well see I don't believe the bible is inherent yet I still think it gives truths, and people saying they think God is jealous doesn't mean that he is. The whole bible is a pointing to the mesage of Jesus, and Jesus said we must read all of scripture with his mesage in mind, and if your interpretation doesn't fit what Jesus said then you have mis-interpreted it. And also whenever I read the bible I use a Hebrew and Greek translator along with it to get the original phrasing which very often can clear some things up, but obviously translating text can pose problems to understanding.

I suppose I did t frame my question very well I'm sorry for that, sorry also for seeming so certain, because while I do take Jesus's mesage seriously I consider myself a skeptic in many ways as well, I can expound upon that if relevant.

But here is my question, if naturalism or materialism is true and every can boil down to atoms and chemical reactions and so on, how could the reasoning, or rationality that we humans supposedly possess spring out of irrational matter? So one would have to take rationality purely as a leap of faith, or one would must say that it is an lllusion.

[Divine Insight]

But here is my question, if naturalism or materialism is true and every can boil down to atoms and chemical reactions and so on, how could the reasoning, or rationality that we humans supposedly possess spring out of irrational matter? So one would have to take rationality purely as a leap of faith, or one would must say that it is an lllusion.

How do you get that the universe is inherently irrational?

The laws of physics appear to be very consistent throughout the entire universe, and very quantitatively precise in terms of relationships.

The universe is apparently quite "mathematical". This stems from its consistent quantitative nature. So in this sense the universe actually quite rational.

The very idea that the universe is some mere hodgepodge of complete random chaos is simply incorrect.

Moreover, because the rationality of the universe arises simply due to the fact that it behaves quantitatively consistently explains why it needs no "designer". There doesn't need to be any "design" at all. Organization would arise naturally simple from the fact that the universe is consistent in its quantitative properties.

Finally, our brains arose from this universe. We are a product of this universe. Therefore it's perfectly rational that it would appear to make some sense to us. Which it does.

So where is there any need for any "leap of faith"?

It simply is what it is. No faith required.

[Samckeyes]

But here is my question, if naturalism or materialism is true and every can boil down to atoms and chemical reactions and so on, how could the reasoning, or rationality that we humans supposedly possess spring out of irrational matter? So one would have to take rationality purely as a leap of faith, or one would must say that it is an lllusion.

How do you get that the universe is inherently irrational?

The laws of physics appear to be very consistent throughout the entire universe, and very quantitatively precise in terms of relationships.

The universe is apparently quite "mathematical". This stems from its consistent quantitative nature. So in this sense the universe actually quite rational.

The very idea that the universe is some mere hodgepodge of complete random chaos is simply incorrect.

Moreover, because the rationality of the universe arises simply due to the fact that it behaves quantitatively consistently explains why it needs no "designer". There doesn't need to be any "design" at all. Organization would arise naturally simple from the fact that the universe is consistent in its quantitative properties.

Finally, our brains arose from this universe. We are a product of this universe. Therefore it's perfectly rational that it would appear to make some sense to us. Which it does.

So where is there any need for any "leap of faith"?

It simply is what it is. No faith required.

Well to me it is clear your leap of faith is assuming that the laws of nature and/or physics are consistent through the entire universe. We have only been able to scientifically study our small view of matter and energy, this is an assumption of doing science, there are others as well, but the scientist who origanally came up with the assumption you have drawn out, they did so because they thought God sustained the universe, therefore making the universe intelligible and unified in order.

You can look that up or I can give you some quotes if you'd like. But why should there be a universe at all, why is there something rather then nothing, did matter spring forth out of non-matter? And if so then our senses and our rationale could be, most likely would be illusory. Our brains tend to see patterns where there aren't any so science and math could be imagination.

[Samckeyes]

But here is my question, if naturalism or materialism is true and every can boil down to atoms and chemical reactions and so on, how could the reasoning, or rationality that we humans supposedly possess spring out of irrational matter? So one would have to take rationality purely as a leap of faith, or one would must say that it is an lllusion.

How do you get that the universe is inherently irrational?

The laws of physics appear to be very consistent throughout the entire universe, and very quantitatively precise in terms of relationships.

The universe is apparently quite "mathematical". This stems from its consistent quantitative nature. So in this sense the universe actually quite rational.

The very idea that the universe is some mere hodgepodge of complete random chaos is simply incorrect.

Moreover, because the rationality of the universe arises simply due to the fact that it behaves quantitatively consistently explains why it needs no "designer". There doesn't need to be any "design" at all. Organization would arise naturally simple from the fact that the universe is consistent in its quantitative properties.

Finally, our brains arose from this universe. We are a product of this universe. Therefore it's perfectly rational that it would appear to make some sense to us. Which it does.

So where is there any need for any "leap of faith"?

It simply is what it is. No faith required.

Well to me it is clear your leap of faith is assuming that the laws of nature and/or physics are consistent through the entire universe. We have only been able to scientifically study our small view of matter and energy, this is an assumption of doing science, there are others as well, but the scientist who origanally came up with the assumption you have drawn out, they did so because they thought God sustained the universe, therefore making the universe intelligible and unified in order.

You can look that up or I can give you some quotes if you'd like. But why should there be a universe at all, why is there something rather then nothing, did matter spring forth out of non-matter? And if so then our senses and our rationale could be, most likely would be illusory. Our brains tend to see patterns where there aren't any so science and math could be imagination.

[Divine Insight]

But why should there be a universe at all, why is there something rather then nothing, did matter spring forth out of non-matter?

The problem with those types of questions when considering the possibility of a designer is that they are self-defeating.

If you demand that if something exists and has intelligence then it must have been purposefully created, then this would necessarily also need to apply to any God.

So you end up with a God that needed to be created by a previous God who also needed to be created by an even more primordial God, and so on.

Something had to exist on its own. So why not the universe?

Why create and endless stack of infinite Gods?

And it doesn't solve your dilemma to just have a single God that supposedly created the universe. Because then you have a God who himself violates precisely your original objections. You have a supposedly highly intelligent power creator who can create an entire universe and all the life in it, yet he himself just existed for no reason from nothing and had no creator himself.

So introducing a God to solve this dilemma doesn't work. It doesn't solve anything. All it does is pass the buck to the God.

[A Troubled Man]

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.

Science really has nothing to do with it. If you claim God exists, then the burden of proof is on your shoulders. If all you can offer is a 'belief' as proof, then you haven't really supported your claim. My position would be to not accept your claim that God exists because you did not support your claim. This would then be an "understanding" on my part to reject your claim, not a 'leap of faith'.