What's atheism?

[MisterMike]

Isn't the mindset of a theist just that? That they "know" God is up/down there watching and lending a guiding, unseen hand? That's called Faith.

"Know" is a big word to a scientist. All it takes is one piece of contradictory evidence and it blows a hole in the theory they're trying to prove (unless they're proving by contradiction, then you just need an affirmation, but I digress). Without some sort of measureable proof, most scientists would look upon someone who "knows" with a skeptical eye. Can you blame them? If I walked up to you and told you there's a 2' tall invisible gnome named Ted that walks next to me and guides my life, you'd have me locked up.

Creationism/"Intelligent Design"? That's a topic for another thread, which I believe has been debated here already.

I'm pretty much with you - I'm just saying the word "know" is going to send the scientific folks through the roof.

Some can believe based on whatever evidence they want. I think believeing is knowing without scientific proof.

Scientists beleive in theory. They belive in the big bang, but there is no proof. But know is a strong word, and I guess I feel that way from my introduction to Zen studies.

How to you "know" anything?

If someone here has reached the absolute Truth about anything, please PM me - I wanna meet ya

 

[Cryozombie]

Well,

Athieism is actually a religion unto itself, according to Wisconson.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/232005e.asp

 

[Loki]

Well,

Athieism is actually a religion unto itself, according to Wisconson.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/232005e.asp

kenpojujitsu3 has this flag...

(http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=424644&postcount=30)

 

[hardheadjarhead]

(Of course, let's pick on Christianity)

Not knowing Why things happen is different than being an unbeliever.

Not really. Atheists will be the first to acknowledge there are things they don't know, and recognize that one can't prove a negative.

As for picking on Christianity, its one of the foundations of western culture. What would you have me comment on? Islam? I have read the Bible cover to cover and have yet to read the Koran. In any case the Christians are the ones I hear expounding on the "mystery of God." Its a proper frame for what I wrote, Mike.

Some can believe based on whatever evidence they want. I think believeing is knowing without scientific proof.

Scientists beleive in theory. They belive in the big bang, but there is no proof.

So there is "no proof" to any theory?

So WITH scientific proof one ought NOT believe? What ought one do in the face of evidence, disbelieve? Seriously...look what you wrote here.

Belief can be characterized as having a number of properties. One is veridicality. This is the degree to which the belief reflects reality. Scientists develop and adopt theories (their beliefs) that are based on what they perceive to be accurate representations of reality. To do this they apply rules of evidence.

The scientific method is a rigorous process by which ideas about the natural world are put to a test. Theories are not mere guesses or hunches based on conjecture. They are always, by nature, tentative.

A fact, defined, is something for which we have a great deal of evidence and for which we can place a great deal of confidence in its truth. Notice the inherent tentativeness of this. Facts can be disproven, just as theories can.

If a person makes an extraordinary claim then we expect them to provide extraordinary proof of the claim. We ask for data, we ask for facts. We apply rules of evidence for determining the validity of anything submitted to support the claim. We test it again if new evidence comes to light suggesting that the old information is now incorrect.

If you were to say, for instance, that there is an invisible elf named Fritzie sitting on your head...we'd ask for proof (or have you committed). I am not going to believe in your elf until you make it very apparent to me that it exists.

I for one will not say "we can not truly know if there is an elf or not," thus waffling with agnosticism in an effort to be indulgent and polite. I'm going to demand you prove the elf's existence or I'm going to insist you take your Depacote and Thorazine.

As for there being no proof insofar as the "Big Bang," well...yes. There is a tad of veridicality there. A bit of data and fact. And a smidgin of understatement in the last three sentences here.

Nice word, veridicality. Latin words roll off the tongue so nicely.



Regards,


Steve

 

[Loki]

I'll back what Steve is saying by adding that "theory" and "hypothesis", while roughly interchangable as synonyms, apply to different things.

Dictionary.com defines as follows:

Theory: "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena".

[While admittedly it lists another five definitions, this is the one a scientist means when he uses the word.]

Hypothesis: "a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation".

The way I see it, it's more reasonable to have "hypothesis" interchangeable with "wild guess". Theories conform to facts. They've been tested to some extent.

The Big Bang has no proof, but it has lots of supporting evidence, making it the commonly accepted explanation theory. Likewise, evolution is not only a theory. It's also fact: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

The supplied link leads to a great explanation of the difference between theory and fact. It uses evolution as it's example, but please nobody start a teleological argument over it. It's used to illustrate a principle.

 

[heretic888]

I think atheists are just Christians fooled by the devil into believing they are not.

My, my, my, Technopunk. How very Marxist of you. :boing1:

 

[heretic888]

I think it is more black and white, but most of you all know by now I think that way a lot.

Personally, I learned a long, long time ago to avoid simplistic dualisms. Developmentally speaking, it isn't a sign of particularly mature thinking.

You believe in God (Thiest) - A person of great spiritual faith.

My definition and understanding of "spirituality" does not connote that simply holding a particular intellectual position makes one more "spiritual" than another.

People can have whatever reasons they want for believing/not believing but they still either "Do" or "Do not" believe in God. It's like trying to say "I'm a little bit pregnant." You just can't.

Unless, of course, what one means by "God" is not well understood or well-defined. I might be an "atheist" to Pat Roberston, but I'd probably be considered a "theist" to Paul Tillich and Thomas Merton.

In all honesty, though, I think this quibbling over definitions is nothing short than a matter of semantics. Different people use words in different ways. They don't have objective, independent, pre-existing meanings.

Laterz.