Atheism, Is not believing in gods a belief or not?

[Manny]

I do not do "believing"...because whenever "I take the case to be true" or "regard something to be true" or "guess something to be true" or "suppose something to be true" or "estimate something to be true" or "calculate something to be true"...

...I say that I take it to be true, regard it to be true, guess it to be true, suppose it to be true, estimate it to be true, or calculate it to be true.

I do not disguise how I feel using the word "believe."

What if you knew something to be true, but it was too complicated and difficult to explain to people. Like for example trying to explain the ideas of quantum physics to a general audience, most of whom don't have the foundational knowledge to begin with? You would not be able to explain it to them. You could only ask them to believe you.

 

[CLAX1911]

Considering there is no evidence to suggest that universes can be created without any engineering, atheists lean more towards faith than belief. Which is still a belief, only a belief with no evidence as the definition of faith clarifies.

There is absolutely no evidence that the universe was engineered. Atheists have us in that one.

Faith is simply trust. They trust that it may have been some physically understandable occurrence. I don't think such a thing negates God, but nothing really confirms God either. That's why every theologian stated that it takes a lap of faith.

 

[Cephus]

What if you knew something to be true, but it was too complicated and difficult to explain to people. Like for example trying to explain the ideas of quantum physics to a general audience, most of whom don't have the foundational knowledge to begin with? You would not be able to explain it to them. You could only ask them to believe you.

You can only know something to be true if you can demonstrate how you came to that knowledge. Lots of people confuse knowledge with believing really, really, really hard.

 

[Cephus]

There is absolutely no evidence that the universe was engineered. Atheists have us in that one.

Faith is simply trust. They trust that it may have been some physically understandable occurrence. I don't think such a thing negates God, but nothing really confirms God either. That's why every theologian stated that it takes a lap of faith.

It is BLIND trust. You trust something you have no reason to think is true whatsoever. It is something you hope for, not something you can show is even reasonable. That's why faith is idiotic.

 

[Pozessed]

Incorrect and a Mischaracterization/Non-answer of my post.
There is NO "faith" required to say what I TWICE specifically elucidated
"We don't know/We Don't know yet", is NOT "belief" or Faith".
It's a Fact of the matter, and the only answer to an 'insufficient data' problem.

Worse, and more Disingenuously, you mischaracterized/Whiffed on my explanation/elaboration of Bogus past Assumptions (like Yours) of "engineering"/ID/god/s in re All the other Failed attempts to invoke 'him' (an "engineer"), in LIEU of actual [as yet unknown] answers.

I'm confused. Are you stating that the atheist position is to be defined as "we can't know if a god exists, therefore no god exists"? If so, I'd argue that is first an agnostic stance before an atheistic stance. Even though an atheistic belief is formed the definition would admit the "can't know" stance of the agnostic. Thus the agnosticism is the only lack of faith/belief in the definition leaving the atheistic views relying very much on faith.

 

[CLAX1911]

Nobody is arguing with that.

BUT SOME ATHEISTS DO HAVE A "BELIEF" THAT NO GODS EXIST...which in my opinion is the reverse side of the coin of "I believe there is a god."

SOME!

Several here in this forum...and lots, lots more on the outside.

Not believing in gods is still not believing. However you choose to say it, it's the same thing.

 

[Manny]

You can only know something to be true if you can demonstrate how you came to that knowledge. Lots of people confuse knowledge with believing really, really, really hard.

No one demonstrated to me that quantum physics is true. And I'm just an ordinary guy, like millions of others who believe it.

 

[Ikari]

Vacuum fluctuations account for how this part of the universe may have come to exist. It does not account for what came before the fluctuations nor the origin of our universe. If anything vacuum fluctuations strengthen the logical evidence supporting there is more to this universe than what exists on this side of the big bangs expansion.

Which IMO suggests that a force from outside of our known universe is projected into this one by an unknown source. That to me does not discount a possibility that these fluctuations themselves, or the events that allow them to exist, may be engineered.

Vacuum Genesis has indeed been theorized, and it would be possible to create a universe through one. In fact, vacuum Genesis does not contradict any of our current measurements.

 

[CLAX1911]

It is BLIND trust. You trust something you have no reason to think is true whatsoever.

You have us on the evidence but you can't begin to know my reasons.

It is something you hope for, not something you can show is even reasonable. That's why faith is idiotic.

Again You can't begin to understand my reasons, so you lack the qualification to judge if it's reasonable or not.

Faith is trust, nothing more. People trust many things. Even atheists.

 

[Cephus]

No one demonstrated to me that quantum physics is true. And I'm just an ordinary guy, like millions of others who believe it.

You can go get that knowledge if you want. It is available. If you choose not to, that's up to you. The "knowledge" about gods isn't available to anyone, anywhere.

 

[Cephus]

You have us on the evidence but you can't begin to know my reasons.

Again You can't begin to understand my reasons, so you lack the qualification to judge if it's reasonable or not.

Faith is trust, nothing more. People trust many things. Even atheists.

I don't care about your reasons. I care whether you can prove what you claim. You cannot.

 

[mbig]

You have a premise error.
The case for a god/against atheism (or at least agnosticism) Necessarily contains one.

Pozessed
"Considering there is no evidence to suggest that universes can be created without any engineering"​

There is also "No evidence" the universe/s had ANY "engineering".
Your position is the Religious one, Assuming an "engineeer"/God/ID.
Logic error #1 in this debate and for eons.

There was "no evidence" to suggest what caused Lightning, Fire, or Fertility 20,000 years ago, so they, Like YOU, said "goddidit" aka "God of the Gaps", etc, Until we DID understand.
Tens of thousands of 'gods' have gone by the wayside who were created with your "it must be god" 'logic'.
Not understanding/Not understanding Yet, is Not a reason to assume a god.
All gods WE Created this way that we have a verdict on have been proven false.
Assuming an "engineer" is Not logical.
We just Don't know/don't know Yet.

Considering there is no evidence to suggest that universes can be created with or without any engineering, atheists and theists lean more towards faith than belief. Which is still a belief, only a belief with no evidence as the definition of faith clarifies.

Sorry, forgot to make it all inclusive.

Incorrect and a Mischaracterization/Non-answer of my post.
There is NO "faith" required to say what I TWICE specifically elucidated
"We don't know/We Don't know yet", is NOT "belief" or Faith".
It's a Fact of the matter, and the only answer to an 'insufficient data' problem.

Worse, and more Disingenuously, you did so despite my explanation/elaboration of Bogus past Assumptions (like Yours) of "engineering"/ID/god/s in re All the other Failed attempts to invoke 'him' (an "engineer"), in LIEU of actual [as yet unknown] answers, that All later proved to have Natural explanations.

I'm confused. Are you stating that the atheist position is to be defined as "we can't know if a god exists, therefore no god exists"?
If so, I'd argue that is first an agnostic stance before an atheistic stance. Even though an atheistic belief is formed the definition would admit the "can't know" stance of the agnostic. Thus the agnosticism is the only lack of faith/belief in the definition leaving the atheistic views relying very much on faith.

I'm saying your Bogus [Religious] Position that the Universe had to have an engineer/"Be engineered" is False and you Still have No rebuttal.
We simply, and Again, "Don't know/Don't Know Yet."
Period.

Having Lost the Logic battle, you attempt to put "Words in my mouth".
You want me to answer your New attempt to Move the Goal Posts? Concede the first point.
Let's keep it Linear and clear.
Your last Two posts have been Obfuscations/Diversions, unable to deal with being called on "engineering" Not in evidence.

You further Disingenuously said my position was "faith" or "belief." So.. I had to AGAIN explain "We don't know/We don't know Yet" is NOT either. It's simply a logical answer to an 'insufficient data' problem.
Period.

 

[CLAX1911]

I don't care about your reasons. I care whether you can prove what you claim. You cannot.

What claim did I make?

The claim that faith is trust?

The claim that atheists have us on this one?

Those are the only claims I have made.

 

[Manny]

You can go get that knowledge if you want. It is available. If you choose not to, that's up to you.

No, I cannot "get" the knowledge, even though I want to. I, like 95% of the world am unable to comprehend the mathematics behind what these folks are saying.




I believe that the physicists understand something that is only esoteric to me.
But I, like millions of ordinary persons have no reason to disbelieve them. I've been educated to believe them, without understanding.

 

[CLAX1911]

No, I cannot "get" the knowledge, even though I want to. I, like 95% of the world am unable to comprehend the mathematics behind what these folks are saying.

View attachment 67195812


I believe that the physicists understand something that is only esoteric to me.
But I, like millions of ordinary persons have no reason to disbelieve them. I've been educated to believe them, without understanding.

That is a good point, but I don't exactly agree with it. Education is teaching you how to understand things. Math and science don't really teach you to accept things. They teach you how to come to reasonable conclusions. Literature in the other hand tries to teach you to accept certain firms of literature as artistic

 

[Hicup]

Here's my take:

There is a fine line between believing there are no gods and simply not believing in gods.

Seems like exactly the same thing to me.. No fine line, no line, they mean the same thing.

And, I guess, an absence of evidence for gods can lead someone to believe there are no gods, even though such a belief is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assumption. So, it's a "belief."

No, it's objectively true.

However, and this IMO is relevant: Belief that something does not exist because nothing out there indicates that it does is not the same as believing something does exist even though nothing out there indicates that it does.

Hehehe.. um what?


Tim-

 

[FluffyNinja]

That is a good point, but I don't exactly agree with it. Education is teaching you how to understand things. Math and science don't really teach you to accept things. They teach you how to come to reasonable conclusions. Literature in the other hand tries to teach you to accept certain firms of literature as artistic

You're only partially correct here. Math isn't always as finite as we'd like to believe. For instance, there is math (albeit mystery math) which supports string theory and the existence of one dimensional "strings".....at least on paper. However, even physicists, when pressed, will agree that there will likely never be any objective evidence or testable scenarios to support the paperwork. They've stretched their equations to some mythical 10th dimension in order to get the math to work out. Yes....in this case at least, it seems to have evolved (devolved) into a "religious" belief system.

 

[Pozessed]

I'm saying your Bogus [Religious] Position that the Universe had to have an engineer/"Be engineered" is False and you Still have No rebuttal.
We simply, and Again, "Don't know/Don't Know Yet."
Period.

Having Lost the Logic battle, you attempt to put "Words in my mouth".
You want me to answer your New attempt to Move the Goal Posts? Concede the first point.
Let's keep it Linear and clear.
Your last Two posts have been Obfuscations/Diversions, unable to deal with being called on "engineering" Not in evidence.

You further Disingenuously said my position was "faith" or "belief." So.. I had to AGAIN explain "We don't know/We don't know Yet" is NOT either. It's simply a logical answer to an 'insufficient data' problem.
Period.

Your inability to separate how the universe has a potential for creation from the religious depictions of our cosmological origin is the only error I am noticing. Aside from you seeming to suggest an incorrect correlation that atheist and agnostic holds the same definition.

 

[Pozessed]

Vacuum fluctuations account for how this part of the universe may have come to exist. It does not account for what came before the fluctuations nor the origin of our universe. If anything vacuum fluctuations strengthen the logical evidence supporting there is more to this universe than what exists on this side of the big bangs expansion.

Which IMO suggests that a force from outside of our known universe is projected into this one by an unknown source. That to me does not discount a possibility that these fluctuations themselves, or the events that allow them to exist, may be engineered.

Vacuum Genesis has indeed been theorized, and it would be possible to create a universe through one. In fact, vacuum Genesis does not contradict any of our current measurements.

Vacuum Genesis theory does not account for what came before the fluctuations nor the origin of our universe (the events prior to the observable fluctuations are not observable). If anything vacuum fluctuations strengthen the logical evidence supporting there is more to this universe than what exists on this side of the big bangs expansion.

 

[CLAX1911]

You're only partially correct here. Math isn't always as finite as we'd like to believe. For instance, there is math (albeit mystery math) which supports string theory and the existence of one dimensional "strings".....at least on paper. However, even physicists, when pressed, will agree that there will likely never be any objective evidence or testable scenarios to support the paperwork. They've stretched their equations to some mythical 10th dimension in order to get the math to work out. Yes....in this case at least, it seems to have evolved (devolved) into a "religious" belief system.

No I must disagree with you here. Religion tells you what to believe and you believe it or you get lost. Where any theory you can generate and support is going to gain traction.

Science is about ideas, religion, at least organized social religions are about control.

 

[FluffyNinja]

No I must disagree with you here. Religion tells you what to believe and you believe it or you get lost. Where any theory you can generate and support is going to gain traction.

Science is about ideas, religion, at least organized social religions are about control.

Evidently religious belief has gained a bit of "traction" as well.....seeing as how so many cling to it. And I'd challenge anyone to show me with objective, measureable, evidence that the existence of "strings" is anything but a religion. Its not supported by anything in the "real world" as we know it nor is it supported by any observable, objective evidence.....and yet many physicists cling to this "theory" as if it were the be-all-end-all of universal physics......the answer to linking quantum theory with relativity. When in reality its just a shot in the dark.....an idea backed my nothing more than imaginary math.

 

[William Rea]

Many do.


Here are three...just among the few people who post here in Debate Politics:


http://www.debatepolitics.com/churc...eligion-w-1586-2242-a-120.html#post1064850522

I finally see the difference in our arguments. It's very subtle: You believe atheism is not believing in a God. I view atheism as believing there is no God. In my definition, it is an active belief. The belief of a negative. In your definition, it's the absence of a belief.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...created-w-1581-1781-a-213.html#post1065101796

There are no gods. No human that ever claimed that any god exists was ever able to prove their claim.

There are no gods.

Deal with it.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/244286-does-god-exist-6.html#post1065447015


There is no god. (TheDemSocialist)

Among my atheistic friends on the outside, there is: Bernie L.; Jonathan J. ; Bob C; Jane ?; Maryanne C...and a host of others.

Define 'many' Frank, it's your positive assertion and your burden but, my guess is that you have already spotted this problem and modified your posts accordingly without acknowledging it. Bad form old man but, not unexpected from your posts.

Here's my list of people outside that don't believe Frank.
Bob and Carol down the road
Dave in the Garage
Harry who owns the Cafe in town
Bill, Derek, Sheila and Pete from work
Deborah, Steven, Pete, Bob, Mazzy, Tom, Richard, Aker, Simon, Luke, Mark, John, Matthew, Naomi, Ruth and Barry from down the pub
Nige, Deidre, Rachel, Sally, Bob, Harry, Pete and Stuart up in Scotland
and a whole host of others.

 

[William Rea]

...I have heard you try to compare atheists to theists asserting that both are beliefs. You desperately do not want to be in their company since in your opinion to just believe something without what you feel is a valid logical proof is beneath such a astute person as yourself...

Indeed, Dunning-Kruger strikes in the forum posting world again.

 

[William Rea]

Considering there is no evidence to suggest that universes can be created with or without any engineering, atheists and theists lean more towards faith than belief. Which is still a belief, only a belief with no evidence as the definition of faith clarifies.

Sorry, forgot to make it all inclusive.

Which atheists? What do you mean by 'faith' and 'belief'? Let's see you actual analysis of what number of atheists hold a position of faith or belief, by your definition, regarding the creation of the Universe?

 

[CLAX1911]

Evidently religious belief has gained a bit of "traction" as well.....seeing as how so many cling to it.

People clinging to social organizations isn't really any support for its correctness. That's more of a desire to belong.

And I'd challenge anyone to show me with objective, measureable, evidence that the existence of "strings" is anything but a religion.

I can list a few things that seem to be indicative of religion that seem to be absent in string theory.

There is no worship, there is no deity, there is no ritual, there is no spirituality, there is no mystery. It's missing all defining characteristics of a religion.

I can list a few things that it doesn't have that religion depends on.

It's questionable, it's theoretical, it can be untrue tomorrow and there are no faithful.

The only thing you could loosely say it has in common with religion is belief. I would say there is no room in religion for belief, there is only a program.

If you were to say it was a belief similar to a belief in God, I'd agree. But it has absolutely nothing in common with religion.

Its not supported by anything in the "real world" as we know it nor is it supported by any observable, objective evidence.....and yet many physicists cling to this "theory" as if it were the be-all-end-all of universal physics......the answer to linking quantum theory with relativity.

Incorrect, it is a hypothesis based on a supposition. Scientists view these types of things as frame work. Or guidelines to build upon. And tomorrow if it's driven it's abandoned.

When in reality its just a shot in the dark.....an idea backed my nothing more than imaginary math.

Religion isn't even that. It's absurd rules largely dreamed up by megalomaniacs in the wilderness that generally aren't even literate.