When does Atheism Become a Belief System

[Russell797]

I have reason to believe that the rate of universal expansion is not accelerating. No, the Universe is not expanding at an accelerated rate, say physicists - ScienceAlert

Sure, the acquisition of new evidence will always further test any theory. I am aware of that new study, that's why I phrased the first sentence the way I did.
"The universal rate of expansion seems to be accelerating according to observation." The conclusion is an interpretation of the data. There is no guarantee that our interpretations are correct. Scientists hope to find multiple lines of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion. In this case there is one line of evidence, that of Type 1a supernovae.

 

[Econ4every1]

Atheists who lack belief in gods are truly non-believers and are not conflicted. However, atheists who claim to believe that there are no gods are indeed believers. They, like those who believe in god, "accept claims without proof."

I think many self-proclaimed atheists who claim to know that god doesn't exist aren't really saying that they know that no god/s exist, rather they are saying that the god/s defined in whatever conversation they are having don't exist. For example, I'm resonably certain that the god of Christianity as described by most Christians does not exist based on the positive claims made by most Christians as many of the claims aren't consistant with our reality and I'm comfortable making that claim. However, there may, in fact be a unnamed god that does exist and that is truly unknown....

 

[calamity]

I think many self-proclaimed atheists who claim to know that god doesn't exist aren't really saying that they know that no god/s exist, rather they are saying that the god/s defined in whatever conversation they are having don't exist. For example, I'm resonably certain that the god of Christianity as described by most Christians does not exist based on the positive claims made by most Christians as many of the claims aren't consistant with our reality and I'm comfortable making that claim. However, there may, in fact be a unnamed god that does exist and that is truly unknown....

I buy that. Mostly I do because I am 100% sure that all the gods as yet defined by man do not exist, but i am very much unsure if something which could be construed as a god exists or not. Call me biased on this one.

 

[William Rea]

I think many self-proclaimed atheists who claim to know that god doesn't exist aren't really saying that they know that no god/s exist, rather they are saying that the god/s defined in whatever conversation they are having don't exist. For example, I'm resonably certain that the god of Christianity as described by most Christians does not exist based on the positive claims made by most Christians as many of the claims aren't consistant with our reality and I'm comfortable making that claim. However, there may, in fact be a unnamed god that does exist and that is truly unknown....

And therein lies the problem. I'm sure it is very clever to play around with arbitrary definitions in order to make the set of 'god' so vast that it is unavoidable that something in that arbitrary set might exist that you can call 'god'. Why don't we just say that the Universe is 'god' and prove all those darned atheists wrong, just to win a game of semantics. If we cannot arrive at a meaningful definition of 'god' then it is pointless and that is why I lack belief or, alternatively I suspend belief which is not the same as not believing by the way.

 

[William Rea]

Atheists who lack belief in gods are truly non-believers and are not conflicted. However, atheists who claim to believe that there are no gods are indeed believers. They, like those who believe in god, "accept claims without proof."

No, I am not truly a non-believer. I lack belief.

 

[calamity]

And therein lies the problem. I'm sure it is very clever to play around with arbitrary definitions in order to make the set of 'god' so vast that it is unavoidable that something in that arbitrary set might exist that you can call 'god'. Why don't we just say that the Universe is 'god' and prove all those darned atheists wrong, just to win a game of semantics. If we cannot arrive at a meaningful definition of 'god' then it is pointless and that is why I lack belief or, alternatively I suspend belief which is not the same as not believing by the way.

If the universe is intelligent, or even conscious, it would be god.

 

[calamity]

No, I am not truly a non-believer. I lack belief.

I don't. I believe there are no gods.

 

[Econ4every1]

I don't believe in believing the unbelievable.

Wait, what?

 

[calamity]

I don't believe in believing the unbelievable.

Wait, what?

The Jesus thing is an interesting example of something I believe is nonsense but can't quite prove is total crap. This is unlike the words in Genesis, which are easy to prove wrong.

In G we can prove the creation myth is all garbled up: there could not have been plants and an earth before there was a sun, moon and stars. We also know there was no global flood and an ark. And, Exodus appears made up too. So, I am comfortable saying this god of which they write does not exist.

Jesus, although unbelievable, cannot so easily be debunked. At least not to my knowledge.

 

[Russell797]

The Jesus thing is an interesting example of something I believe is nonsense but can't quite prove is total crap. This is unlike the words in Genesis, which are easy to prove wrong.

In G we can prove the creation myth is all garbled up: there could not have been plants and an earth before there was a sun, moon and stars. We also know there was no global flood and an ark. And, Exodus appears made up too. So, I am comfortable saying this god of which they write does not exist.

Jesus, although unbelievable, cannot so easily be debunked. At least not to my knowledge.

Jesus, the miracle man, can be debunked however. The so called miracles defy the physics of our universe. One must first believe in the supernatural in order to believe those miracles actually took place the way they are described. You may as well believe in the power of a magic wand.

 

[calamity]

Jesus, the miracle man, can be debunked however. The so called miracles defy the physics of our universe. One must first believe in the supernatural in order to believe those miracles actually took place the way they are described. You may as well believe in the power of a magic wand.

I understand that. Problem is there is no clear contradiction with observed reality like there is with a global flood, an ark, plants coming before the sun and over 100,000 Jews living in the desert for 40 years or being enslaved in Egypt.

 

[Cephus]

That would be called not believing.

Which is what the overwhelming majority of atheists do.

 

[calamity]

Which is what the overwhelming majority of atheists do.

Perhaps you are being naive. I suspect most who lack belief in gods are more like me in that they also believe gods do not exist.

They just lack the gnads to admit it...probably because they detest being seen as "believers."

 

[William Rea]

Perhaps you are being naive. I suspect most who lack belief in gods are more like me in that they also believe gods do not exist.

They just lack the gnads to admit it...probably because they detest being seen as "believers."

Frank used to do that a lot as well.

 

[Russell797]

I understand that. Problem is there is no clear contradiction with observed reality like there is with a global flood, an ark, plants coming before the sun and over 100,000 Jews living in the desert for 40 years or being enslaved in Egypt.

We are on the same page with this one. Some people like to claim there is no contradiction between science and religion. Bunk...The contradictions are blatant and the reason why by about the age of 12 I began to seriously doubt my Catholic indoctrination. I was forced to choose between two contradictory world views and the rational part of my brain won out.

 

[Tim the plumber]

If the universe is intelligent, or even conscious, it would be god.

No. It would be what it is. God is something different, at least in the usual Christian definition.

 

[Econ4every1]

The Jesus thing is an interesting example of something I believe is nonsense but can't quite prove is total crap. This is unlike the words in Genesis, which are easy to prove wrong.

In G we can prove the creation myth is all garbled up: there could not have been plants and an earth before there were a sun, moon and stars. We also know there was no global flood and an ark. And, Exodus appears made up too. So, I am comfortable saying this god of which they write does not exist.

Jesus, although unbelievable, cannot so easily be debunked. At least not to my knowledge.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between, but my belief in something is inversely proportional to the consequences of that belief. Proving Jesus lived isn't the issue. If you asked me if Jesus, the man, could have existed, I'd say I believe it's entirely possible and would spend little time arguing that idea. If you asked me if I believe that Jesus is the son of a god existed, I'd say that I don't believe it's possible. But, as you've said, my skepticism lies in the claims made by those that believe Jesus was the son of god and how those claims are inconsistent with standards of evidence, physics etc.

How would I explain the resurrection? Easy, people believed what they wanted, or perhaps Jesus was a twin and he was killed in an elaborate hoax....There are very real expectations and when presented with two possibilities, one natural and the other supernatural, Occam had it right.

 

[legalimmigrant]

No. It would be what it is. God is something different, at least in the usual Christian definition.

How can one define what does not exist other than in clever stories? Like the Little Red Riding Hood.

 

[calamity]

No. It would be what it is. God is something different, at least in the usual Christian definition.

I completely reject the "Christian definition." So, I guess, I am talking about a different kind of god, which I also believe does not exist, BTW. I just do not know it. I do know the Christian one does not exist.

 

[calamity]

Frank used to do that a lot as well.

If you can't tell the difference between my arguments and Frank's, then you really are out of your league here. Maybe you should find another thread in which to spew nonsensical drivel.

 

[Econ4every1]

No. It would be what it is. God is something different, at least in the usual Christian definition.

I think he's talking about Pantheism.

 

[calamity]

We are on the same page with this one. Some people like to claim there is no contradiction between science and religion. Bunk...The contradictions are blatant and the reason why by about the age of 12 I began to seriously doubt my Catholic indoctrination. I was forced to choose between two contradictory world views and the rational part of my brain won out.

Interesting is that my dad had me read the bible at about age-12. His original claim was nothing in it has ever been proven wrong. I read about two pages and went, "Hey, this is all wrong."

Devious SOB that he is---he went on to tell me to write it all down, find all the said contradictions and substantiate my claims. I think it kept me busy for an entire summer. You know that had to be his plan. He certainly didn't believe that hogwash himself. Joke was on me. Maybe, I should have tricked him and said, "Man, this book is awesome! Not a single lie can be found in it."

 

[Econ4every1]

And therein lies the problem. I'm sure it is very clever to play around with arbitrary definitions in order to make the set of 'god' so vast that it is unavoidable that something in that arbitrary set might exist that you can call 'god'. Why don't we just say that the Universe is 'god' and prove all those darned atheists wrong, just to win a game of semantics. If we cannot arrive at a meaningful definition of 'god' then it is pointless and that is why I lack belief or, alternatively I suspend belief which is not the same as not believing by the way.

Which is why I try to stay away from claims that no god/s exist (hence my agnosticism) and focus on claims of specific gods (hence my atheism). If a god exists and it does not interact in our reality in any way, then it is a concept without any consequence what-so-ever. As such I can ponder the possibilities without having to change my life in any way. If someone asks me to admit to the possibility of that god, I freely admit it's possible, however, to your point, anyone that argues and wants you to admit that there could be a god and it's just never interacted with reality is guilty of trying to define a concept into existence, which again is why my beliefs are proportional to the consequences of holding them.

 

[Cephus]

Perhaps you are being naive. I suspect most who lack belief in gods are more like me in that they also believe gods do not exist.

They just lack the gnads to admit it...probably because they detest being seen as "believers."

You can suspect anything you want, it's what you can PROVE that matters. And we all know you can't prove a damn thing.

 

[calamity]

I think he's talking about Pantheism.

Yep. The idea of a conscious universe...or nearly something to that effect. I still believe that life itself may be a fundamental force of nature not just a result of it.