Atheism people have a belief "God does not exist "

[ChristineM]

You are correct, Atheist is a BELIEF because a God or Gods have not been proven to NOT exist, however they have NOT been proven to exist and have had no reliable evidence to match it's claim, so yes Atheism is a belief. Just not one that accepts religion and mythology.

Atheism is a disbelief. A disbelief that gods exist.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

You are correct, Atheist is a BELIEF because a God or Gods have not been proven to NOT exist, however they have NOT been proven to exist and have had no reliable evidence to match it's claim, so yes Atheism is a belief. Just not one that accepts religion and mythology.

It creates its own

 

[Cassandra]

Dark energy and dark matter...are the current best explanations, it wouldn't surprise me if we come up with a better one (Not god did it)

I knew I'd upset someone with my list of non-beliefs.

Yes they are "explanations", but are they scientific? You have a hole between what your theory predicts and what you observe and you stuff the hole by giving it a name. We need more matter to explain this, a never observed kind of matter, so let us say it is invisible. Lets call it "dark matter". O blast, we still have big hole, we need more energy to explain this, never observed invisible energy. Lets call it dark energy.

Explanations not based on observation are not scientific. PERIOD. They are purely wishful thinking. It is no different from believers saying, When we can not explain it, it is the work of God. It is just a hole that is being stuffed by giving it a name. Once you accept that things exist that you can not observe, you are outside the roam of science.

Frankly if we would follow Popper we would have to question our theories. When theories do not comply with what we observe they are to be questioned. In reality scientist often do the same thing as theologians, they try to stuff the holes in their theory. Because it is their baby. The only difference is, new generations adopt new theories when someone comes along with a different new understanding that creates better explanations. But until then old generations are allowed to protect their theoretical framework with religious fever.

It really is wrong to say that dark matter and dark energy are the best explanations. An explanation that contains things that can not be observed is the worst explanation, as observation is the foundation of science. These really are the worst explanations. They challenge that we can observe reality in all its aspects. The scientific thing would be to say: We currently have no scientific explanations. We have some wild guesses, but that is all.

There is a difference with relativity theory of Einstein of which not all predicted phenomena were yet observed. Why? Because the common predicted phenomena were observed, just not all the uncommon ones. So on the basis of observation there was a strong base for confidence. Can you give me any phenomena that was predicted on the basis of dark matter and energy that was not known before? Otherwise this claim it is the best explanations is more of a religious belief.

Neither can you compare this with predicting unobserved planets in the Solar system as we did not not demand these planet were made of a different matter that could not be observed.

Conan Doyle made Sherlock Holmes say: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". I like my explanation of Fairies better. No need to invent new things, Fairies have been known for thousands of years. And no need to call them Dark fairies, Fairies have proven to be extremely difficult to observe. And Fairies demand less belief. They are playful. They like to fool us into believing things, and make a fool of us for believing them. Well you know how fairies are. Those who see how fairies operate are freed of all beliefs.

 

[Altfish]

Yes they are "explanations", but are they scientific? You have a hole between what your theory predicts and what you observe and you stuff the hole by giving it a name. We need more matter to explain this, so let us say it is invisible. Lets call it "dark matter". O blast, we still have big hole, we need more energy to explain this, invisible energy. Lets call it dark energy.

Explanations not based on observation are not scientific. PERIOD. They are purely wishful thinking. It is not different from believers saying, When we can not explain it, it is the work of God. It is just a hole that is being stuffed by giving it a name. Once you accept that things exist that you can not observe, you are outside the roam of science.

Frankly if we would follow Popper we would have to question our theories. When theories do not comply with what we observe they are to be rejected. In reality scientist often do the same thing as theologians, they try to stuff the holes in their theory. Because it is their baby. The only difference is new generations adopt new theories when someone comes along with a different new understanding that creates better explanations. But until then old generations are allowed to protect their theoretical framework with the religious fever.

It really is wrong to say that dark matter and dark energy are the best explanations. An explanation that contains things that can not be observed is the worst explanation, as observation is the foundation of science. These really are the worst explanations. They challenge that we can observe reality in all its aspects. The scientific thing to do would be to say: We currently have no scientific explanations. We have some wild guesses but that is all.

There is a difference with relativity theory of Einstein of which not all predicted phenomena were yet observed. Why? Because the common predicted phenomena were observed, just not all the uncommon ones. So on the basis of observation there was a strong base for confidence. Can you give me any phenomena that was predicted on the basis of dark matter and energy that was not known before? Otherwise this claim it is the best explanations is more of a religious belief.

I think, it is really is a slap in the face of science to postulate things that can not be observed. That is even worse than religion as religion at least claims to observe the influence of their God indirectly. Now atheist can find alternative explanations for that, but an alternative explanations is only a refutation if it can be proved to have working mechanism that can be proved to take place. Just creating an alternative explanation in itself not enough. That is what creationists also do. And something like Ockham's razor are unproven and it is unscientific to use that as argument. Saying that the simplest explanation is the best is only so from a practical view point. There is not proof our reality is simple, in fact it becomes more complicated as we study it in more detail.

No this is not meant as support for all the religious simplifications that people are made to believe in, but my concern with science becoming an ideology more and more. Maybe this comes from the desire of atheist scientists to create (alternative) explanations even if there are none. Then science becomes the religion of atheists as their all-knowledgeable God.

Conan Doyle made Sherlock Holmes say: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". I like my explanation of Fairies better. No need to invent new things, Fairies have been known for thousands of years. And no need to call them Dark fairies, Fairies have proven to be extremely difficult to observe. And Fairies demand less belief. They are playful. They like to fool us into believing things, and make a fool of us for believing them. Well you know how fairies are. Those who see how fairies operate are freed of all beliefs.

To answer some of a very long reply.
Yes, it is scientific, because it is based on observation and predictions.
I don't think it is a Theory (I stand to be corrected on this) it is still at the hypothesis stage. There is still uncertainty. But that is good, it's what excite scientists.

 

[Cassandra]

To answer some of a very long reply.
Yes, it is scientific, because it is based on observation and predictions.
I don't think it is a Theory (I stand to be corrected on this) it is still at the hypothesis stage. There is still uncertainty. But that is good, it's what excite scientists.

It is based on the observation of holes in theory you mean?

There is no reason to believe in things that are not positively proven to exist. That is unscientific. But there is a tendency among theoretical physicists to confuse theory with reality. Rather then seeing our present mathematics as one of the descriptive languages they regard it as the framework of the Universe. A similar mistake as theologians make

Fairies are the better explanations, they have been observed in the past, Many can testify to their mischief. But no one has ever claimed to have observed dark matter and dark energy, not even indirectly. It is the purest make-belief.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's claim, so yes Atheism is a belief. Just not one that accepts religion and mythology.

1) There is no need to capitalise atheism. It's not a proper noun.
2) It's entirely possible to be both religious and an atheist.
3) Whilst perhaps not seeing myth as literally true, it's entirely possible to be an atheist and 'accept' mythology, and the lessons contained therein.
4) Agnostic atheism is a claim of what, exactly?

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem is that you could not post any reliable evidence..

The evidence is there for you to look at yourself.
Baha’i Reference Library online

 

[Trailblazer]

I hate it when someone says things like " that's an excellent question - we should talk about it sometime."

So, I should talk about evidence that God exists at midnight when I have to get up at 5 am to go to work?

 

[Trailblazer]

OK, I await your post tomorrow or whenever.

Thanks for your patience.
I saved your post and link into a Word document as a reminder.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have discussed evidence with @Trailblazer before, his argument seems to be that his opinion is evidence.

That is a false statement. I listed the evidence. It is completely independent to my opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence is there for you to look at yourself.
Baha’i Reference Library online

It it is there please post it. I am not doing your homework.

 

[Trailblazer]

that may be, but once again:

You did not post any reliable evidence. One would think that the first thing one wou!d do would be to post at.least one item that was reliable.

I have no idea what you would consider reliable evidence.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It's not lack of evidence why you don't believe. It's lack of belief that makes you need evidence. The lack is not outside but in you.

This can easily be demonstrated to be gobbledegook by turning to an old classic:

"It's not lack of evidence in Bigfoot why you don't believe. It's lack of belief in Bigfoot that makes you need evidence. That lack is not outside but in you."

In other words, "God" is an arbitrary nonsense to choose to believe in, when there are so very many nonsensical objects to choose from. Leprechauns, unicorns, werewolves, vampires, the entire Greek pantheon of gods, goblins, Slenderman, the Loch Ness Monster, etc.

 

[Willamena]

I think part of the problem here is that belief (and dis belief) are a wibbly-wobbly thing.
One might say, "I believe in unicorns."
Another might say, "Ah, but is your unicorn pink?"
And one might say, "No, it's blue."
"Aha! So you don't believe in pink unicorns!"
And one might say, "Well, no, but maybe pink unicorns exist. I don't know. I'm just saying I believe in blue unicorns."
So... does one believe 'pink unicorns do not exist'?

I don't believe any of that example represents belief. To uncover belief you need only ask yourself, "Is that true?" If the internal compass comes back with a resounding "Yes!" then it's something you believe. Belief isn't variable, it's just you seeing parts of the world as true. Most of the time, 99% of the time, you don't have to ask yourself, "Is that true?" because you accept apparent truth. Only when doubt arises is it necessary to consult the compass.

One could never say "I believe in unicorns" genuinely if they've never determined the truth of one.

 

[Trailblazer]

It it is there please post it. I am not doing your homework.

It is your homework, not mine.
I already know God exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is your homework, not mine.
I already know God exists.

You clearly only believe. Knowledge is demonstrable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no idea what you would consider reliable evidence.

No, you have no idea what is or is not reliable evidence.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

So, I should talk about evidence that God exists at midnight when I have to get up at 5 am to go to work?

If it was what you really wanted. And lol if someone had evidence of that they've probably been up dozens of hours..

 

[LuisDantas]

G-d is rightly All-Significant, I believe.
Regards

There is no shortage of people who seem to sincerely think so.

All the same, that is just about as arbitrary a belief as they come. You are not only saying that an unevidenced entity is definitely real, but also saying that he is, as you put it, "All-Significant".

Come to think of it, that is also a direct internal contradiction. It would probably not be possible to even conceive of not perceiving of an All-Significant, all-mighty entity, now would it?

The very fact that we atheists exist shows that no god, real or otherwise, is all-significant. Or maybe it shows that he does not want to be perceived?

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks
That is my point that demanding evidence does not make Atheism (and the like) anyway science, they remain a part of belief though in negative sense yet it is still belief.
Regards

I wonder if you realize how confused this sounds.

I also wonder what it would be like to some day meet an atheist as you conceive those. It would probably be a bit scary and rather unforgettable.