Atheism is not a belief, so why would anyone lie that it is?

[lukethethird]

It would be nice to know how they know it is unknowable.

God can't be seen or detected in any way for all of us to know it exists, it's not described in falsifiable terms, therefore we can't know of its existence. It makes itself known to an arrogant few that make such claims but none have shown us anything real to go on.

 

[Sheldon]

Posting a string of little one-word dismissals isn't the way to win arguments, Sheldon. One needs to engage intelligently with the issues.

One word? Is counting words that difficult, and they're not dismissals, unless one doesn't understand what a known common logical fallacy is, or what its use means.

Sheldon Less ridiculous than trying to claim the lack of a belief, is in fact a belief

If you believe that atheists lack a particular belief, then that's obviously a belief about atheists' belief.

The irony here, after your opening rant, is that you have entirely ignored the context of the claim I was responding to, Physician etc..FYI All atheists lack belief in a deity, but not all stop at that, why this simple point is so difficult for some to absorb is bizarre. The reverse triple negatives are just hilarious...

Have you ever heard of Occam's razor? Atheism is not a belief, if it were it would exclude all atheists who don't hold a belief that no deity exists, like me and the 24 others who have already voted just in this thread.

Sheldon Ah theists love to imagine what is not there, enjoy.

So how do you know that what they supposedly imagine isn't there?

Ah, you're ignoring the context of what I was replying to yet
again.

You claim to have no beliefs on that question, remember?

Nope wrong again, I claimed my atheism was not a belief no deity exists. I have stated I am also an agnostic, but only where the claims are unfalsifiable, you have to grasp the difference between falsifiable claims and unfalsifiable claims, then you might grasp what I have actually said, and not the straw man absolutes you are trying to pretend are mine.

You appear to once again be contradicting yourself.

To you yes, but the culpability for your confusion is not mine.

 

[Sheldon]

That's very debatable. I think some who lack the deeper understanding of that might think of it in simplistic terms like that. That would be true in anytime in history. I've debated some Christians on this site who equate faith with trust, as though they were the same thing. Same as those in this thread who equate faith with belief, as though they were the same thing. Both trust and beliefs may be part of faith, but faith is the engine and trust and beliefs are different train cars in tow behind it.

But that trust, in the way you worded it, "trust that God will keep his promises for the future", is really more tied to beliefs or ideas about God. Faith, in the deeper sense of an intuition, is not tied to specifics. It's not tied to ideas about God. Faith is more an inner knowing, and 'trusting' in that, or a better word would be 'resting' in that feeling or sense or intuition, that God IS, despite all beliefs being thrown into question, and losing one's beliefs. That certainly happened to me.

Faith 'rests' or 'trusts' in the unknown - not in beliefs. It is a mistake to understand faith as "trust in beliefs", which is how many dumb down faith to be, no understanding its deeper knowledge and impulses. That's why I cite that philosopher I did, because he articulates that deeper understanding so well. There are of course many other scholars and philosophers who recognize and understand these differences.

One key thing for me that helped, was that I refused to the let the most ardent "True Believers(tm)", define what these terms mean, when in reality their understandings are far from insightful. Theirs is the 'dumbed down' version of faith and God and religion, and they proclaim themselves as authoritative, when they are not. I refused to let them define these things, when there are far greater minds out there.


Not really. It's only recently that this misconstrued understanding of faith has become distorted as a response to modernity, and popularized by the loudest mouths in the swimming pool (see my signature line below). That is not what true religious faith is about. This is a modern phenomena born out of protestants trying to make religion a competitor with science and reason. That is all error. Faith is not a competitor. It's complementary with reason. Faith is of the heart. Reason is of the mind. And both inform and interprentrate each other, in everything we do, in every aspect of our lives.

The heart illuminates the mind. And the mind helps direct the heart. It's not one over the other, but like the wind in the sail of a sailboat, along with the rudder in the water, guides the boat across the lake. That's complementary in action, faith and reason work together. Take the wind out of the sail, you're dead in the water. Take the rudder out of the water, you spin in circles and go nowhere.

What couldn't one believe using the vapidity of faith?

 

[lukethethird]

Hello Sheldon , isn't your religion and belief science ?

Dude, seriously?

 

[lukethethird]

What couldn't one believe using the vapidity of faith?

Apparently there are people in Dallas waiting for JFK's return.

 

[Yazata]

It would be nice to know how they know it is unknowable.

It's a good question. I'm an agnostic so I'll take a shot.

The "it" we are talking about is the secret of the universe, I guess. What explains reality's existence, why reality possesses the order that it seemingly displays, and answers to the biggest and most fundamental metaphysical questions like that.

Perhaps first off, we don't 'know' that the answers are unknowable, we 'believe' that they are unknowable. If knowledge is 'justified true belief', we can't know that the proposition (The secret of the universe is unknowable) is true. To know that would require what some philosophers have called the "God's-eye view". We would seem to also lack suitable means to conclusively justify the proposition.

But that being said, we think that we have reason to think that the proposition is likely enough to believe. The atheists have historically specialized in providing those kind of reasons (and they would today, if they would admit to having beliefs on the question) so I needn't repeat them.

These aren't scientific questions. It's difficult to think of any plausible way that human beings can discover the answers. The senses don't seem to be sufficient. Mathematical and logical intuitions don't seem to provide the answers (though the Platonic tradition has interesting things to say about that).

Religious revelation might conceivably provide the missing answers. Of course the existence of religious revelation itself is controversial and questionable. What's more, none of the extant religious traditions that purport to reveal the secret of the universe seem even remotely plausible to me. The things that the Bible and Quran claim to reveal just don't look like answers to the kind of metaphysical questions that interest me. (Maybe some of the more philosophical versions of Hindu Vedanta come closest.)

So in a nutshell, just given the ways that human beings come to know things, it seems incredible to me to believe that anyone possesses the kind of answers I seek. I don't believe that any human being possesses the secret of the universe.

 

[Sheldon]

Hello Sheldon , isn't your religion and belief science ?

No of course not, that's a preposterous piece of sophistry.

 

[Sheldon]

Apparently there are people in Dallas waiting for JFK's return.

Well there are theists on this forum insisting a deity knows what I will do, but that I still have a choice. Using the vapidity of faith it appears there is literally nothing one could not believe, even obviously contradictory beliefs like that one. That should tell one all one needs to know about the efficacy of faith in arriving at a true or correct conclusion.

 

[lukethethird]

Well there are theists on this forum insisting a deity knows what I will do, but that I still have a choice. Using the vapidity of faith it appears there is literally nothing one could not believe, even obviously contradictory beliefs like that one. That should tell one all one needs to know about the efficacy of faith in arriving at a true or correct conclusion.

Theists love telling atheists about their version of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and at the same time call non-believers believers.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Dude, seriously?

Have you ever spoke to people whom are educated in science ?

To them science that is written is all fact , their version of a book . You disprove them and they will still say you are incorrect , mind boggling indeed .

 

[lukethethird]

Have you ever spoke to people whom are educated in science ?

To them science that is written is all fact , their version of a book . You disprove them and they will stay you are incorrect , mind boggling indeed .

Out of curiosity, what science have you disproved?

 

[Sheldon]

I'm an agnostic so I'll take a shot.

If you're an agnostic the you believe nothing is known or can be known about a deity, since that is how it is defined.

The "it" we are talking about is the secret of the universe, I guess. What explains reality's existence, why reality possesses the order that it seemingly displays, and answers to the biggest and most fundamental metaphysical questions like that.

Firstly it's an inauspicious start that commences with guesswork, secondly you are assuming there is a "why" in the first place, which suggests you are assuming an overarching reason for reality, what objective evidence can you demonstrate there is a reason, or that a reason is needed at all?

Perhaps first off, we don't 'know' that the answers are unknowable, we 'believe' that they are unknowable. If knowledge is 'justified true belief', we can't know that the proposition (The secret of the universe is unknowable) is true.

Not without the unevidenced assumption I previously pointed out.

To know that would require what some philosophers have called the "God's-eye view".

Well that's just a metaphor, nothing more.

We would seem to also lack suitable means to conclusively justify the proposition.

What proposition, that nothing is known or can be known about a deity? This only seems true of unfalsifiable god concepts, and of course that would be the same for all unfalsifiable concepts.

The atheists have historically specialized in providing those kind of reasons (and they would today, if they would admit to having beliefs on the question) so I needn't repeat them.

Who has ever denied that? Atheists all lack theistic belief, beyond that an atheist is free to believe whatever they want. Atheism is the entire set of all atheists, and the one thing they all have in common is that they lack a belief in any deity or deities.

These aren't scientific questions. It's difficult to think of any plausible way that human beings can discover the answers. The senses don't seem to be sufficient. Mathematical and logical intuitions don't seem to provide the answers (though the Platonic tradition has interesting things to say about that).

Well all non existent things are beyond science, and of course if there is no data to study then why do we assume there is anything?

Religious revelation might conceivably provide the missing answers. Of course the existence of religious revelation itself is controversial and questionable. What's more, none of the extant religious traditions that purport to reveal the secret of the universe seem even remotely plausible to me. The things that the Bible and Quran claim to reveal just don't look like answers to the kind of metaphysical questions that interest me. (Maybe some of the more philosophical versions of Hindu Vedanta come closest.)

There is no objective evidence for revelation.

So in a nutshell, just given the ways that human beings come to know things, it seems incredible to me to believe that anyone possesses the kind of answers I seek.

Again you are stopping short of saying it, but I get the sense you assume there are such answers, why is that?

I don't believe that any human being possesses the secret of the universe.

I don't even know what you mean here by "secret of the universe"?

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Out of curiosity, what science have you disproved?

Stating at the beginning I firstly proved that space itself is not expanding and existed before any big bang progression could take place .

 

[Sheldon]

Have you ever spoke to people whom are educated in science ?

To them science that is written is all fact , their version of a book . You disprove them and they will still say you are incorrect , mind boggling indeed .

What utter garbage, one would have to be entirely ignorant of the basic methodology of science to even suggest such a claim. All scientific ideas must remain tentative and open to revision in the light of new evidence, it is the most basic requirement of the method, or else science would be unable to correct any error, and end up asininely clinging to errant nonsense in the same way religions do. Science disproves science, and the method puts at least as much store in falsifying ideas as evidencing them, did you not know that? What's mind boggling is people who speak authoritatively on a subject without even the most basic understating of its methods.

 

[Sheldon]

Stating at the beginning I firstly proved that space itself is not expanding and existed before any big bang progression could take place .

No you didn't, don't be preposterous. making grandiloquent claims in an internet chat room isn't how paradigm shifting scientific discoveries occur.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

No you didn't, don't be preposterous. making grandiloquent claims in an internet chat room isn't how paradigm shifting scientific discoveries occur.

Yes I have but if you want to take up debate on this , go to my journal thread .

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

What utter garbage, one would have to be entirely ignorant of the basic methodology of science to even suggest such a claim. All scientific ideas must remain tentative and open to revision in the light of new evidence, it is the most basic requirement of the method, or else science would be unable to correct any error, and end up asininely clinging to errant nonsense in the same way religions do. Science disproves science, and the method puts at least as much store in falsifying ideas as evidencing them, did you not know that? What's mind boggling is people who speak authoritatively on a subject without even the most basic understating of its methods.

You are proof of my statement with that statement .

 

[Sheldon]

Yes I have but if you want to take up debate on this , go to my journal thread .

No you haven't, as that is not how scientific ideas are validated or falsified. that you don't know this is very telling. If you want to convince me. then link the worthy peer reviewed scientific journals that have published your work, and validate the conclusions you are claiming. Such ideas don't get validated in a religious debate forum, that is axiomatic. You haven't even taken your ideas to proper scientific forum, that says it all.

 

[Sheldon]

You are proof of my statement with that statement .

Only to anyone who has no grasp of English, as my post was refutation of your claims, pointing to the most basic scientific methodology, and I am not a scientists by the way, so you are doubly wrong, but then I'd bet a years salary that neither are you.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Only to anyone who has no grasp of English, as my post was refutation of your claims, pointing to the most basic scientific methodology, and I am not a scientists by the way, so you are doubly wrong, but then I'd bet a years salary that neither are you.

I am actually a scientist by definition and so are you if you study and/or practice science . You talk a lot about science and have the name Sheldon .
You can keep your years salary , I am sure you earn it but you did bet wrongly .