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

[Sheldon]

More broadly, any conclusion that I've reached through employment of logical reasoning. How could one possibly justify one's use of logic? Any justification would seemingly have to employ logic (and thus be circular) or be based ultimately on nothing more than intuition.

Could you tell me what you think logic is? Only that posts suggests it means something different to you than it does to me, and since I'm not aware of any other definition of logic, and given the sophistry in your posts thus far, I think you may be simply making up nonsense, and describing it as logic as a straw man you think you can decry?

 

[Sheldon]

If one wants to know or understand Bible God, I think it is essential, and it is not really about believing He is real.

I disagree, in fact I think the opposite is true if one wants to be open minded, and of course one understands that open minded means treating ideas without bias.

 

[Sheldon]

I think it is silly, if someone believes that would falsify it. It would just change the timelines, but the theory would still remain.

Then your ignorance of evolution geology and science is manifest, though I'd bet you don't even see that.

And this is, if it would even be accepted as evidence. Most probably it would be declared a creationists hoax, even if true.

High priests of science are not at all different than any cult leaders when their doctrine is questioned.

What a spectacularly stupid claim, though the real irony is you used a computer and the internet to share that asinine nonsense, and still fail to see the irony.

There is nothing that you could find that would change true believers faith in the theory.

Accepted scientific theories are based on overwhelming evidence, not the vapidity of religious faith, and all scientific ideas must b falsifiable, it is the most basic requirement of the method, and again very telling that your ignorant of this fact, and he just gave you an unequivocal example of how it could be falsified, so your dishonesty is also rather telling.

Do you not know what the ninth commandment says, or are you a "pretend" Christian?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can anyone really say that he knows something? Most of matters seem to be beliefs. Even the strongest "fact" is just a belief, person believes it is a fact.

"What is truth?"... right?

Again: don't get too hung up on semantics. If you feel like "know" is too high a bar, let's start with asking whether a claim is more supported than... oh... a random arbitrary claim that we just made up.

If your religious claims meet that bar, then we can try for something higher... for instance, we can ask whether there's enough justification to say that they're more likely to be true than false.

... but start with the first bar, because I've never seen a god-claim clear it.

Do you have something falsifiable?

Evolution:

Precambrian rabbit - Wikipedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it is silly, if someone believes that would falsify it. It would just change the timelines, but the theory would still remain. And this is, if it would even be accepted as evidence. Most probably it would be declared a creationists hoax, even if true. High priests of science are not at all different than any cult leaders when their doctrine is questioned. There is nothing that you could find that would change true believers faith in the theory.

If you really do believe that, why do you think the "high priests of science" replaced Lamarckism with Darwinian evolution?Both theories are incompatible with creationism. Why do you think they saw a need to replace one with the other?

Now... I know the answer: Darwinian evolution fit the evidence and Lamarckism didn't. But seeing how you don't think that evolution is supported by evidence, I'm curious about why you think the scientific community made that about-face.

 

[Windwalker]

You opened your post with an insult. I mirrored your tone.

I was not insulting you. I was referring to how that that understanding from Christianity, is not a very in depth one. That's true. There are far deeper understandings, that come out of Christianity as well. That's why I linked to the Stanford article on faith. You can see those are far more sophisticated in nature. It was not an attack on you. If you read the whole post, you see that explained. I didn't mean it to insult you.

 

[Sheldon]

Can anyone really say that he knows something? Most of matters seem to be beliefs. Even the strongest "fact" is just a belief, person believes it is a fact. Do you have something falsifiable?

As usual you seem a little confused. For example a belief is something one holds to be true, that does not mean all beliefs are equally valid.

I believe the earth is not flat, and I believe the earth is not at the centre of the universe.

Are you seriously saying those "beliefs" are not objective facts? Incidentally both of those objective facts are falsifiable, and both of them are supported by an unequivocal weight of objective evidence, just like species evolution and natural selection.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Thank you for showing the respect to attempt to understand the points I've laid out. As you've uncovered in citing that article from Stanford, which I linked to for another poster who was relying solely on dictionary definitions for knowledge on the subject of faith, there are many, many facets to understanding what faith means, and how it operates differently for people, even within the course of their lifetimes.

Faith as mere belief, or worse 'unfounded beliefs', is hardly adequate or realistic to describe what we see in how faith is held and practiced or understood by people. That's my hope in this is to perhaps open understanding beyond these negative and dogmatic views of what faith means.


Yes, I would say the #11: Faith beyond (orthodox) theism, model summarizes my views. But that also relates to and embraces several of the other views. I'd say it's a more perennial view where it sees faith as the underlying impulse that finds expression as all of the above, depending on where that person is at. It's not defined at those levels, but is the impulse underlying them all.

It's existential in nature, and cognitive beliefs are simply ways in which the mind tries to create a mental framework with which hold and interpret these intuitions from faith. Those beliefs are structures or frameworks, and those can be magical in nature, mythological (gods and angels and whatnot), rational (scientific), pluralistic, etc.

There are several points from various philosophers within that category that I relate to, and some less so. I relate for instance with the thoughts of William James and Dewey...

Both Dewey and James defend models of faith with a view to advancing the idea that authentic religious faith may be found outside what is generally supposed to be theological orthodoxy. Furthermore, they suggest that ‘un-orthodox’ faith may be more authentic than ‘orthodox’ faith. ‘...

And James: ‘Religion says essentially two things: First, she says that the best things are the more eternal things, the overlapping things, the things in the universe that throw the last stone, so to speak, and say the final word…. [and] the second affirmation of religion is that we are better off now if we believe her first affirmation to be true’...
​

I also recognize some of what Solomon says about atheism as faith...

More broadly, some maintain that a meaningful spirituality is consistent with a non-religious atheist naturalism, and include something akin to faith as essential to spirituality. For example, Robert Solomon takes spirituality to mean ‘the grand and thoughtful passions of life’, and holds that ‘a life lived in accordance with those passions’ entails choosing to see the world as ‘benign and life [as] meaningful’, with the tragic not to be denied but accepted​

There's far more to expand upon in explaining my views here, such as Tillich's view of God as one's "Ultimate Concern", and how that I see atheism as an expression of faith in that by rejecting dogmatic theistic concepts in favor of a naturalistic view of Reality. It's still faith, regardless of what beliefs one holds in mind to support that core faith.

That's my point in citing Wilber's very accessible view of 'faith as intuition', and how that is contrasted with 'faith as beliefs'. That 'faith as beliefs' model does not account for how the different beliefs across the world all source themselves in that same impulse; "They call him many who is one", expresses that. If one is grounded in beliefs, then one cannot take a challenge to those beliefs, as it threatens them existentially (their immorality symbols as Wilber put it). But when a person whose primary motive is faith has beliefs challenged, they take it all rather philosophically, that their beliefs can be changed or modified or discarded.

And hence why, atheism, particularly in the form of those leaving theistic beliefs to atheistic beliefs, have in my opinion, greater faith than the 'true believer' does. They intuited something was lacking on an emotional/spiritual level, and that is what allowed them to entertain challenging their own beliefs. The 'true believer' those whose primary religious involvement is beliefs cannot do that.

Their weak, or virtually non-existent 'faith' does not allow challenges to belief. They must defend their beliefs tooth and nail. Belief is all they have. You also see that within Atheism for certain individuals. True Beleiversim, is not about the content of beliefs, but the role beliefs play in that person's existential grounding, be those belief in God, and the church, or beliefs in Science and modernity.

In short, there is a lot more to this subject than just dictionary surface definitions. If I have any 'agenda', as a poster just accused me of, it's to bring light to this. There are lots of different understandings of faith, and people in their own understandings may see it for themselves. I've just expressed how I have come to recognize it now after these many years of consider the nature of it. It's far, far more than just "bad beliefs". Thanks for taking the time to dig deeper into the topic. It's appreciated.

​

You're welcome. I'm glad you were able to explain your views. I enjoy trying to understand people's thoughts on matters and ideas that are different than my own. I'm still not certain about what useable knowledge can be obtained or employed by use of faith, but let's leave it as it is. I do at least understand more about various types of faith. I'm more of a hands on and experiential type of learner rather than a philosophical explorer. But it takes all kinds which is a good thing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The point was not make you to believe, just give you a chance to know what Bible means with God. If one wants to know or understand Bible God, I think it is essential, and it is not really about believing He is real.

I've read the Bible before, back when I was a Christian and many times since then. It's one of the reasons I am no longer a Christian. I don't find it convincing.

But wait, I'm not sure I understand you ... Why would I want to understand "Bible God" if "Bible God" isn't real?

I think it is best to have the definition for spirit as it is said in the Bible. Bible describes God in my opinion well. But, probably no definition would be useful for you.

The quotes you gave don't appear to be very useful. I asked for a description of "spirit" that is useful to us. In other words, I'm looking for a definition so we can get down to what we're actually talking about here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think it is silly, if someone believes that would falsify it. It would just change the timelines, but the theory would still remain. And this is, if it would even be accepted as evidence. Most probably it would be declared a creationists hoax, even if true. High priests of science are not at all different than any cult leaders when their doctrine is questioned.

A rabbit fossil being found in the Pre-Cambrian layers of the earth would falsify evolution, because mammals didn't come onto the scene until hundreds of millions of years later.
It would demonstrate that we've made huuuuge errors in trying to understand evolutionary processes.

There are no "high priests" of science. That's a religious thing. There are scientists who study within various different fields of science like biology or geology, for instance. The amazing thing is that all available evidence gathered from multiple independent scientists in multiple different fields of study all over the world over the last 150+ years all converge on the same conclusion - that evolution is a fact of life. Nobody has been able to falsify it and it's definitely not for lack of trying, given how many religious-minded people would love to see it falsified, fallaciously thinking that if only evolutionary theory could be falsified that their beliefs would magically become true . We're talking about geology, biology, genetics, comparative genomics, paleobotany, botany, zoology, physics, chemistry, microbiology, and on and on and on. All evidence gathered from all fields of science all point to evolution being a fact of life.

There is nothing that you could find that would change true believers faith in the theory.

There is no faith required in accepting scientific theories, but I always find it strangely interesting when believers do this thing where they try to drag science down to the level of religion by claiming science requires faith. Weird thing, that. I mean, look at the language you're using - it's entrenched in religious thinking - "high priests," true believers," "cult leaders" - those are all words use in religion, not science.

Scientists and critical thinkers are always willing to change their minds in light of new evidence because generally, they are people who want to believe as many true things as possible and not believe false things.

I'm willing to bet that you accept the vast majority of scientific findings, save for the ones that you think go against your pre-conceived religious beliefs. After all, you are sitting there typing on a computer using electricity to convey your thoughts to people all over the world.

 

[1213]

... But seeing how you don't think that evolution is supported by evidence, I'm curious about why you think the scientific community made that about-face.

Only reason seems to be that atheism, secular world view, requires it.

 

[1213]

....
Evolution:

Precambrian rabbit - Wikipedia

Why do you believe it would falsify it?

 

[1213]

....
Why would I want to understand "Bible God" if "Bible God" isn't real?
....

If you don't understand and know what He is, how could you know is He real?

 

[Windwalker]

You're welcome. I'm glad you were able to explain your views. I enjoy trying to understand people's thoughts on matters and ideas that are different than my own. I'm still not certain about what useable knowledge can be obtained or employed by use of faith, but let's leave it as it is. I do at least understand more about various types of faith. I'm more of a hands on and experiential type of learner rather than a philosophical explorer. But it takes all kinds which is a good thing.

Thanks. I too am more of an experiential learner, but I also like to explore rational ways to understand and talk about it as well. How do I express something of significant experience which cannot be reduced into black and white ways of thinking as others wish to box things into? I know from experience it's not as simple as that, yet how do I talk to myself about it. How can I possibly help someone else to understand their own experiences, when easy black and white thinking doesn't suffice?

That's why I left the fundamentalist version of Christianity. Their answers to deeper questions, which my experiences exposed me to, pretty much was calling 'faith' the equivalent of a lobotomy. My experiences of the 'transcendent', or higher states of consciousness as it can be referred to, did not allow my rational mind to settle on these overly-simplistic boxes, which relied on mythological language as literal fact.

I later adopted the atheistic perspective, which got rid of the mythic-literal beliefs as a supporting language system for me. But like the language of mythic religion, I found the 'scientific' language, when used in reductionist terms, "it's all just only the brain", to be just as narrow and unrealistic as attributing everything to either God or the devil, using the mythic language structures.

Long story short, that's why I moved deeper into deconstructing these systems of language, which acts as filters and limiters upon understanding, which in turns limits experience. You naturally move out into far less concrete literal perspectives, "God did it", or "It's just the brain", into far more porous and open ways of perceiving and understanding experience. The language has to give a lot to accommodate. That's why I chaff at someone quoting a dictionary and saying "it's this!", which amounts to the fundamentalist with a Bible in hand saying, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it for me". Does it? Maybe for them, but not for me.

 

[Sheldon]

Only reason seems to be that atheism, secular world view, requires it.

Requires evolution, why would it? There is no evidence for the creation myths in either bible or koran, so I would disbelieve them even if species evolution were not an objective fact.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you don't understand and know what He is, how could you know is He real?

I'm sorry but this question doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you believe it would falsify it?

Because it would imply that rabbits existed long before evolutionary theory says that it would be possible for rabbits to exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you don't understand and know what He is, how could you know is He real?

I'm not sure who you're quoting, but I didn't write that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only reason seems to be that atheism, secular world view, requires it.

Well, no.

God isn't any more necessary in Lamarckism than in Darwinian evolution.

 

[Yazata]

Could you tell me what you think logic is?

In a nutshell, the principles of inference that connect a conclusion to whatever we believe are good reasons for accepting the conclusion. The "if... then" relation.

Inference - Wikipedia

My point in the post you take exception to is that justifying our rules of inference without circularity or appeals to intuition would seem to be difficult if not impossible. Yet all of our reasoning is nevertheless dependent on our acceptance of and confidence in those principles.

If you disagree, then you should explain how you think that the principles of logical inference can be justified without use of logical inference and without some appeal to an intuitive 'It couldn't be any other way!'