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

[TheBrokenSoul]

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.

As I said prior , go to my journal , scientific axioms don't need validation .

 

[Sheldon]

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 .

I had a chemistry set as a child, and I respect the conclusions of the method, I am not however a scientist, my Avatar is from a well known comedy, the character is not real, it's meant as irony.

I'm sorry but I would need to see some compelling objective evidence for your claim to be a scientist, especially after some of the nonsense you have posted about science.

I see no link to any worthy peer reviewed scientific journals your "work" has been published in? I can't say I am surprised. Have you tried to make your claims in scientific forum? If you did I'm guessing they'd get short shrift, maybe they have and that is why you made those nonsensical remarks about science earlier?

 

[Sheldon]

As I said prior , go to my journal , scientific axioms don't need validation .

That is not how scientific ideas are validated. The claim itself is rather preposterous anyway, as one would only have to flick on any news channel to see your conclusion to have found scientific evidence for a deity are nonsense.

There's nothing in the Catholic Herald? I imagine the Pope and the RCC would welcome such a find?

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

That is not how scientific ideas are validated. The claim itself is rather preposterous anyway, as one would only have to flick on any news channel to see your conclusion to have found scientific evidence for a deity are nonsense.

There's nothing in the Catholic Herald? I imagine the Pope and the RCC would welcome such a find?

Do you think the heads of religions actually want proof of the possibility of a deity ?

My science is very accurate , precise , truthful to reality and based on present physical facts .

It is not made up nonsense as some theory writers do .

Scientists all over the net loathe me correcting their misconceptions .

Did you know that the speed of light is zero ? Whoops ,

Anyway we are disturbing this thread , if you want answers ask me in my journal .

 

[Sheldon]

Do you think the heads of religions actually want proof of the possibility of a deity ?

I wouldn't know.

My science is very accurate , precise , truthful to reality and based on present physical facts .

I doubt it, but I doubt your conclusions even more, and I shall continue to remain dubious while you peddle them here.

Scientists all over the net loathe me correcting their misconceptions .

That, does not surprise me.

Did you know that the speed of light is zero ? Whoops ,

Anyway we are disturbing this thread , if you want answers ask me in my journal .

Oh I think not, again if your ideas had any scientific merit we'd likely know about it, and we wouldn't be finding out here. This is not the first time a theists has made this very claim. I once encountered a poster in another forum, who was adamant he had falsified species evolution. Generally I feel sad for people who make such claims.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

I wouldn'er: 73444t know.



I doubt it, but I doubt your conclusions even more, and I shall continue to remain dubious while you peddle them here.



That, does not surprise me.



Oh I think not, again if your ideas had any scientific merit we'd likely know about it, and we wouldn't be finding out here. This is not the first time a theists has made this very claim. I once encountered a poster in another forum, who was adamant he had falsified species evolution. Generally I feel sad for people who make such claims.

My science affects major corporations and is very accurate based on present science and of course logic . When pressured in online debates by people not listening and thinking for themselves , in another words people who just quote present information back ,I get flustered in replies because they are quoting back the errors I am trying to correct .
When somebody listens and hears , then I calmly explain the truths and demonstrates the why's . I don't make false assumptions based on subjective whims .
Anyway I will refrain from answering again in this thread , it is not polite to thread high jack .

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

He said, the "experience of the Mysterious". I said that is "Faith".

And everybody else has said that that is incorrect. As I said earlier, I'm convinced now that you have no idea what critical thinkers are talking about when they refer to religious-type faith (insufficiently justified belief) and explain to you why it is a logical error. If the definition I gave for faith is not yours, you simply don't know what people who don't engage in faith-based thought are rejecting.

I can't help you if you can't follow what was written.

Nobody could follow that, including you, because there's nothing there - no substance. You haven't once drawn from that pile of fluffy, unevidenced claims that say nothing. There's no evidence that you have read it much less derived any knowledge from it. It's just hand-waving on your part - "insubstantial words, arguments, gestures, or actions used in an attempt to explain or persuade."

In your own words. Knowledge acquired with faith. And please keep it short and to the point.

faith leads the way to knowledge. It's what allows us to see beyond the blocks and limits of our minds and language. That's why I quoted what Einstein said, as that illustrates that. Again, how he speaks of the "experience of the mysterious", very much is what I believe "faith" is. It's not limited to ideas and concepts. Yet it is an impulse, a "knowing" that there is something beyond the mind's grasp. He said the same thing about this "emotion" as he called it in saying,

"To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
That is what, and how, "faith", in the non-verbal, non-cognitive, intuitive sense, gives us knowledge. As he says, we "know what is impenetrable to us really exists... which our dull [minds in the best of its thinking and reasoning] can comprehend only in their most primitive forms". You see how there is knowing and knowledge that exists beyond thinking?

That's what I mean by faith. It goes beyond beliefs, which are merely cognitive and "dull". "Faith" illuminates our "dull faculties" with a knowledge which goes beyond our best reasoning minds. This is what has given rise to the best of our "arts and sciences", and "true religiousness".

That's about as brief as I can go, but it's all there. The question is answered.

Still no knowledge there. And the sense of the mysterious is not an act of faith. Faith is not a sense at all. It's a choice to believe prematurely. I realize that you will never address that statement, never give your reasons for calling it incorrect, just ignoring it and reposting fluff so that you can evade having to define clearly what you mean by faith in a few words as I have, and just go on repeating yourself. Others tell you what they find flawed in your arguments, but you don't seem to be interested in doing more than failing to respond to the objections of others by ignoring them and repeating yourself. You simply don't address what is written to you, and it isn't hard to guess how you think that serves you.

Can we conclude that you will never produce a fact derived from faith? I have. You've failed to meet the challenge a few times in this thread. One fact derived from faith. One true thing about the world that didn't come from reason applied to evidence. You can't, and that's the point of the exercise. You have produced as many meaning statements about reality as astrology, whichis also a faith-based enterprise (completely unrelated to a sense of the mysterious or anything else you equate with faith) - none.

Here's what faith generates: lighter objects fall more slowly than heavy ones (error).
Here's what knowledge not derived from faith looks like: lookie there - in a vacuum, they fall at the same speed (truth).

How about giving us a faith-based truth, just one, and hopefully something more substantial than what we've seen so far, something that one can actually use. How about blood letting as a means of curing disease by draining toxic humors from the body? There's a faith-based idea. Is it true? Nope, more uselessness from faith.

You don't understand that religious faith means something different than the colloquial use of the term?

No, you don't know what the critics of religious faith are criticizing. You have no idea what they are telling you. You just know that they don't respect faith like you do, and so you ignore what they are telling you and repost empty claims and fuzzy citations.

Faith is the human condition, Sheldon. That's as true for atheists as for anyone else.

Disagree. It is not necessary to believe anything more than the available evidence supports. But to get there, it has to be one's goal. One has to recognize that faith is a guess and a logical error if one believes the guess is true. It requires years of practice to condition the mind to think that way, but once one does, one never accidentally believes by faith again. One just won't let anybody tell him that some god or afterlife exists and believe it for no reason.

Every human being lives their life on the basis of faith, on the basis of confidence in beliefs that aren't (and perhaps in principle can't be) soundly justified.

Nope. We often have to act with partial information and make educated guesses based on them, but that is not faith. That's reason. Saying that the plane is probably safe to fly in based on the track record of commercial air travel is not faith. It is reason. But saying that one will be safe because God will watch over him is faith, and a guess, and a logical error - one critical thinkers just don't partake in because they don't want to and don't have to as you suggest.

 

[Windwalker]

And everybody else has said that that is incorrect.

Not everyone, only you and those in this thread who agree with you, yet don't deal with the substance of what has been posted. Your understanding of what religious faith is, is incorrect. You equate faith with errant belief. That's untrue.

As I said earlier, I'm convinced now that you have no idea what critical thinkers are talking about when they refer to religious-type faith (insufficiently justified belief) and explain to you why it is a logical error.

What critical thinkers? Your fellow posters in this thread? I hardly considered them well-informed, or utilizing critical thinking skills in this regard. You yourself dismiss the experts. Need more be said?

Nobody could follow that, including you, because there's nothing there - no substance.

You're claiming that I could not follow what I posted in post 1141? Despite that I not only posted it, but have tried to explain it in my own words 50 different ways? Of course I understand what it says. It's relatively simple, if you'd read any of his other works. It's one of his most accessible books. His other are far more dense and challenging to penetrate, yet I follow them just fine. I own over 12 of his books. So yes, I do follow it.

Interesting how you want to imagine because you can't, I must not be able to also... I must be lying. Nothing suspicious about that line of reasoning there....

 

[Sheldon]

Not everyone, only you and those in this thread who agree with you, yet don't deal with the substance of what has been posted. Your understanding of what religious faith is, is incorrect. You equate faith with errant belief. That's untrue.


What critical thinkers? Your fellow posters in this thread? I hardly considered them well-informed, or utilizing critical thinking skills in this regard. You yourself dismiss the experts. Need more be said?


You're claiming that I could not follow what I posted in post 1141? Despite that I not only posted it, but have tried to explain it in my own words 50 different ways? Of course I understand what it says. It's relatively simple, if you'd read any of his other works. It's one of his most accessible books. His other are far more dense and challenging to penetrate, yet I follow them just fine. I own over 12 of his books. So yes, I do follow it.

Interesting how you want to imagine because you can't, I must not be able to also... I must be lying. Nothing suspicious about that line of reasoning there....

Here is the dictionary definition of religious faith, do you agree with or not?

noun.

Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

 

[Windwalker]

Here is the dictionary definition of religious faith, do you agree with or not?

noun.

Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Not sure why I bother, but I'm pretty certain I've explained the value of dictionary definitions, and how you seem to treat them the way Christian fundamentalists treat the Bible.

But here it is. I call your dictionary, and raise you an article with actual substance to it. Read it, if you are willing to learn: Faith (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Sheldon]

Not sure why I bother, but I'm pretty certain I've explained the value of dictionary definitions, and how you seem to treat them the way Christian fundamentalists treat the Bible.

But here it is. I call your dictionary, and raise you an article with actual substance to it. Read it, if you are willing to learn: Faith (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Read my post before responding, I asked a question, you seem to have missed that. Your straw man nonsense is irrelevant, as I have never made the claims about dictionary definitions you keep falsely assigning to me, and your subjective arbitrary contempt for common usage is why I asked the question. Your link gives multiple definitions, as you'd expect, is the one you are using a secret?

 

[lukethethird]

Read my post before responding, I asked a question, you seem to have missed that. Your straw man nonsense is irrelevant, as I have never made the claims about dictionary definitions you keep falsely assigning to me, and your subjective arbitrary contempt for common usage is why I asked the question. Your link gives multiple definitions, as you'd expect, is the one you are using a secret?

The secret definition is according to Einstein, don't you know?

 

[Willamena]

I agree with the dictionary that atheism is a belief.
Definition of atheism | Dictionary.com

I'm funny that way.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Actually you brought it up as an example of how, "It does a much better job at describing what has given rise to religious beliefs and faith." So I need you to explain that to me, to key in on what you had in mind. There are many layers to that film to consider, but you brought it up with something in mind. Let's discuss that.


Keeping things short is not my strong suit. However, as I said before, faith leads the way to knowledge. It's what allows us to see beyond the blocks and limits of our minds and language. That's why I quoted what Einstein said, as that illustrates that.

Again, how he speaks of the "experience of the mysterious", very much is what I believe "faith" is. It's not limited to ideas and concepts. Yet it is an impulse, a "knowing" that there is something beyond the mind's grasp. He said the same thing about this "emotion" as he called it in saying,

"To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
​

That is what, and how, "faith", in the non-verbal, non-cognitive, intuitive sense, gives us knowledge. As he says, we "know what is impenetrable to us really exists... which our dull [minds in the best of its thinking and reasoning] can comprehend only in their most primitive forms". You see how there is knowing and knowledge that exists beyond thinking?

That's what I mean by faith. It goes beyond beliefs, which are merely cognitive and "dull". "Faith" illuminates our "dull faculties" with a knowledge which goes beyond our best reasoning minds. This is what has given rise to the best of our "arts and sciences", and "true religiousness".

That's about as brief as I can go, but it's all there. The question is answered.

I appreciate your attempts at explaining what faith means to you. Although I may not agree with you, I do like to try to understand your position.

Therefore, I took the time this morning to research what it is I believe you were attempting to articulate.

The following paper was what I read and am thinking #11 is how you are viewing faith.

"There is no single ‘established’ terminology for different models of faith. A brief initial characterisation of the principal models of faith and their nomenclature as they feature in this discussion may nevertheless be helpful—they are:

• the ‘purely affective’ model: faith as a feeling of existential confidence
• the ‘special knowledge’ model: faith as knowledge of specific truths, revealed by God
• the ‘belief’ model: faith as belief that God exists (where the object of belief is a certain proposition)
• the ‘trust’ model: faith as believing in (in the sense of trusting in) God (where the object of belief or trust is not a proposition, but God ‘himself’)
• the ‘doxastic venture’ model: faith as practical commitment beyond the evidence to one’s belief that God exists
• ‘sub-’ and ‘non-doxastic venture’ models: faith as practical commitment to a relevant positively evaluated truth-claim, yet without belief
• the ‘hope’ model: faith as hoping—or acting in the hope that—the God who saves exists."

You would have to read through the various models to exclude them as your position but if your position is close to the #11 model, faith beyond orthodox theism, at least I will understand where you are coming from.

Faith (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's very debatable. I think some who lack the deeper understanding of that might think of it in simplistic terms like that.

I don't think much of your agenda-laden opinion either, bub.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

You should inform the world's scientists of your findings. What are you wasting your time on here for?

 

[1213]

Something is unfalisfiable if there is no conceivable way to falsify it, ...

I think it is interesting how people can limit reality by deciding that something is not falsifiable just because they don’t know how it is falsifiable.

(Evolution theory seems to be a theory that can’t be falsified, because it will be always adjusted (goalposts moved) so that it is impossible to falsify).

 

[1213]

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.....

That is an interesting claim. I believe people can know it, similarly as people can know love, because:

Don't you know that you are a temple of God, and that God's Spirit lives in you?
1 Corinthians 3:16

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

 

[1213]

...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.

Ok, thank you.

 

[Sheldon]

The secret definition is according to Einstein, don't you know?

COUGH! Shhh! Atheists only, COUGH!