Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[GoodAttention]

And plenty of us who simply don't know one way or the other.

And this is where the "line" should be. A theist will overwhelmingly say reality is necessary.

Without the question mark, this would have made sense. As it is, not sure what the question has to do with what you quoted.

I'm glad I could make sense and appear courteous.

Bit of light banter is a change from my long and careful replies to @PureX (that he's totally ignored, of course).

So multiple periods and question mark signifies a rhetorical question, got it...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes and I already explained that the statement by one group does not a definition for all make.
In this case while many here are atheists, we don't qualify as "American Atheists" so drop that silly little thought Lero, I mean Mikkel.

But as far as I can tell the athiests on this site are not all atheists. Nor are the atheists on the other site all atheists. That is the point. There is no universal understanding by atheists of what an atheist is.

 

[Pogo]

As I've said before, I am attempting to find what is really meant by atheists and whether the definition is accurate.

I choose reality because this is where proof is born from, and I add necessity to question the "reality of reality" so to speak. I believe science could have an answer the question what makes reality necessary.

At this point, the difference between an athiest and a theist, in my opinion, isn't the question of God, it is the question of the necessity of reality.
If most atheists are uncertain if reality is necessary, then they could say (correct me if I'm wrong), IF reality is necessary, then the answer will be found through science, OR, will never be realized or known.

To me, an atheist would say, IF reality is necessary, then the answer could be God, however this would be an unknowable and unrealizable God.

As an atheist who does not have a belief in god/s , reality is not necessary, I take it as axiomatic. If you can demonstrate reality to be wrong, I dunno if it even changes anything.
It just leaves me with What is a god and if it existed would I care? As for comprehensibility, to what degree? I can imagine a god that is not the typical Christian god with the same powers and how they did everything claimed but I but I don't know if that is comprehending it because I am still left with asking what is the turtle standing on.

 

[Pogo]

I think the correct term should be antitheist and not atheist, but I understand the ramifications of using such a label.

correct for what?

 

[GoodAttention]

But as far as I can tell the athiests on this site are not all atheists. Nor are the atheists on the other site all atheists. That is the point. There is no universal understanding by atheists of what an atheist is.

I hope my attempt has been worthwhile for others. I believe there are two main challenges to the debate

(1) Agreeing on the term and definition of God
(2) The requirement of proof being a back and forth argument

I attempted to reconcile this by stating an atheist believes in an unknowable or unrealizable God. I did this because this negates the need for a definition of God, describing instead an entity that cannot be proved, or realized. There is nil burden for the atheist, except to use the words believes and God in the same sentence.

This also goes to the heart of what a theist can argue, which is faith and belief in God, but not proof. God for a theist would be a knowable entity, within the context that this can only be a personal comprehension, one that can be held with a degree of certaintly.

I also put a "firewall" question so to speak first, is reality necessary? This is more to separate theists and atheists in a different way that doesn't pose the question of God.

Thanks to all for engaging in this linguistic endeavour.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, I think my questions boil down to what makes proof necessary, and can I believe in an unknowable entity with certainty.

Rationally and I try to be, nothing necessitates proof and believing the unknowable with certainty is definitely irrational.

 

[PureX]

But as far as I can tell the athiests on this site are not all atheists. Nor are the atheists on the other site all atheists. That is the point. There is no universal understanding by atheists of what an atheist is.

Same is true of theists.

I prefer to stick with the philosophical propositions that the terms refer to. Theism: that God/gods exist in some way that effects the existence of humanity, and Atheism: that such God/gods do not exist.

There are no "theists" or "atheists", really, there are only people that adhere to one proposition or the other at any given time and for any given reason. Any of us could be either of these depending on circumstances.

 

[Pogo]

Egotism, mostly. We think we're supposed to know everything for certain, and we clearly don't. So we are constantly demanding proof even when we clearly cannot have it, or even recognize it if we did.

Again, why the insistence on certainty?

I think it's just fear of being wrong ... i.e., ego.

Mirror mirror on the wall.

 

[Pogo]

The only way I ever heard anyone use the word "antitheist" was to describe someone who is opposed to god (well, opposed to a hypothetical (in most cases, the biblical) god, if he existed). Not theists.

For the biblical god which is both inconsistent and not worth worshiping yes, people are anti that but that doesn't even make them atheists.

 

[Pogo]

Wouldn't the correct term be antideist not antitheist?

I read antitheist like i would read antifascist, which is against the belief system specifically.

Dawkins and similar go far beyond atheism, anti might be appropriate for their philosophy.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, because I believe before God can be considered, the question of the necessity of reality needs to be asked.

To me, a theists believes in the necessity of reality AND an answer XYZ/God as knowable.
Therefore I believe an atheist should be defined as a person who believes in the necessity of reality AND an answer XYZ/God as unknowable.

The difference between a theist and atheist shouldn't be if God exists, it should be if God is knowable or unknowable.

And lack of belief does not deny existence but knowledge without belief is whole nother question.

 

[vijeno]

For the biblical god which is both inconsistent and not worth worshiping yes, people are anti that but that doesn't even make them atheists.

Hehe, true. I don't think I ever heard anybody use the word outside of the debate between bible believers and atheists, in which case they're obviously a subgroup.

 

[blü 2]

Well, no. Our senses send impulses to our brain that have been set in motion by external phenomena. Our brains then try to "make sense" of these impulses by comparing and contrasting them with each other, and with remembered impulse experiences. And over time our brains create a whole imaginary landscape through which to"understand" them, and successfully interact with them.

Yes, the animal brain has evolved to favor survival and breeding by understanding and utilizing the individual's surroundings, and humans are, it appears, particularly well developed in this respect.

Thus we see and understand that there really is a world external to the self, from which we get our parents, our air, water, food, society, and so on.

So clearly we're doing something right. And you must agree with that,. since you post here.

What you are calling knowledge is really just being able to predict the results of this interaction. This is a form of understanding, surely, but we would be dishonest to mistake it for true knowledge.

What exactly is "true knowledge" other than accurate knowledge about reality as we understand it from time to time?

What objective test will distinguish "true knowledge" from ordinary knowledge?

 

[F1fan]

I hope my attempt has been worthwhile for others. I believe there are two main challenges to the debate

(1) Agreeing on the term and definition of God

But even theists can't agree on what they think a God/gods are. It's got very little to do with those who have examined the concepts and can't decide they are real or credible or represent something.

(2) The requirement of proof being a back and forth argument

Theists dislike the requirement of evidence for humans to decide a God.gods exist.

I attempted to reconcile this by stating an atheist believes in an unknowable or unrealizable God.

This is incorrect. Atheists don't believe in anything in regards to what theists refer to as their God/gods concepts. What you are doing here is a common mistake by theists who try to drag atheists into some sort of belief with beloievers, as if we are all the same in some fundamental way. The irony is that if atheists have some religious belief, and are wrong, then it only tells us those who believe in God concepts can be wrong in general, and then how do you reconcile which believers are wrong and are any correct? How do you argue that your religious beliefs are true without something that rises above what you claim atheists believe?

I did this because this negates the need for a definition of God, describing instead an entity that cannot be proved, or realized. There is nil burden for the atheist, except to use the words believes and God in the same sentence.

But it isn't accurate. You burdened atheists with a belief they don't have. What is your motive for this?

This also goes to the heart of what a theist can argue, which is faith and belief in God, but not proof.

Right, it is immediately irrelevant and can't be defended. Faith is a major flaw in theism.

God for a theist would be a knowable entity, within the context that this can only be a personal comprehension, one that can be held with a degree of certaintly.

To rely of faith, and then claim God is knowable, it a distortion. At best the theist can know what they believe, but not know that the God exists as they imagine it. This is an example of how theists will use tricky language to siggest they have knowledge of a God when that isn't the case. Knowing about Zeus is not knowing that Zeus exists. But believers learn to treat these two as the same.

I also put a "firewall" question so to speak first, is reality necessary? This is more to separate theists and atheists in a different way that doesn't pose the question of God.

Atheists and theists will have to acknowledge reality when they drive a car. None of us what to hit that tree. But where it comes to religious beliefs there is a different set of standards for theists. To believe requires a suspension of reason and critical thought. This goes back to your acknowledgement that faith is required, and that's because the mind needs some excuse to decide and believe a God, or gods, exist. Most theists live on autopilot and can maintain these beliefs without any challenges. Those theists who engage in debate have a bigger challenge, and we see them often use various tactics that aren't consistent with logic or reason, and inevitably retreat into the redoubt of faith.

 

[leroy]

No. The burden is yours. You're the one making the God-claim. Not believing it is not an alternative claim.

No. Noöne's claiming that science and logic supports this claim. We're claiming that you haven't met your burden in support of your God claim, ergo, the claim's set aside till you do. We're not proposing this alternate claim you're attributing to us.

You're shifting the burden.

Why is this so hard to understand?

If you claim that God is not the best alternative, you are making a knowledge claim that has a burden........which is why you are expected to provide an alternative

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why is this so hard to understand?

If you claim that God is not the best alternative, you are making a knowledge claim that has a burden........which is why you are expected to provide an alternative

No, relevant if burden of proof apply to the variants of good and bad. If there is no proof for any of those, then burden of proof doesn't apply.

Further there is the problem of knowing what objective reality is in itself and what knowledge actually is.
But that is in effect philosophy.

 

[F1fan]

What objective test will distinguish "true knowledge" from ordinary knowledge?

Then there's the "really true knowledge", and the "really, really true knowledge", and of course the "no seriously, the really, really, really true knowledge, and I triple dog dare you to doubt me" levels of knowledge.

 

[wellwisher]

It is uncertain where you actually disagree with the substance of my post. I agree with your factual description of of gravity, but disagree with some of your philosophical interpretations.

For all practical purposes we can measure gravity,

I agree with you. The problem is more about my knit picking the nature of analytical science tools. We can measure photons with a photometer. The device is designed to react to the photons, which is then equated to the photon properties. There is a middle man; matter; photons impacts matter and matter responds and this is interpreted. Both mean the same thing. Tools have a middle man. If I stand on an old fashion spring scale, my weight or force creates an opposing force, that moves the dial; action-reaction-output. If I touch a tree my brain is reacting to the sensors in my hand, which are activated by the texture of the tree and pressure I apply. This says the same thing with more detail.

perhaps not, perhaps mutations are not always random

I have been saying this for years. It has been known for some time that some aspect of the DNA hardly ever change, and some aspect have a higher rate of change. It is like two slot machines set side-by-side with two sets of odds. Life can load dice and count cards. The problem is the current empirical organic centric approach is not conductive to the logic needed to infer how and why. The standard approach is more of a result of statistical empiricism and is not a rational and logical model that can extrapolate and predict this.

This is why my approach iso have the water leading, creating organic equilibrium effects that are easier to infer with chemical logic using a basic set of principles, like the water and oil effect. Water and oil want to separate unless we add surfactants to get them to blend; tweak surface tension to dial in the perfect shape in water such a mutations.

The empirical approach to science is sort of similar to getting a new cell phone with a new operating system. At first it seems complicated. You can play with it and through trial and error learn how to use it. Or you can speed this up by reading the owners manual or listen to your peers show you their little tricks and hacks. Getting good at this does not require you have to understand how it works from the inside; hardware and software. This can stay in the black box.

The graphical user interface; GUT, of empirical science can be learned with trial and error, and provides an intuitive way to operate the hardware and software, without having to fully understand phenomena at that deeper level; can stay in the black box. My approach was from the inside. The cell phone is not randomly assembled, but has a logical order; space saving and component interfaces. While the software is based on computer logic. This is much harder to see from an organic centric POV, due to the endless variety of organic materials in life. Water is one thing and touches all the organics thereby simplifying the innards.

When I discuss evolution I do not stay at the GUT level, of statistical empiricism, but I try to also address the hardware and software, which then is mistaken for Creationism, since it seems like magic, if all you know is from the GUT. A GUT approach to evolution and life does not go all the way to the logic inside of life. There is room to improve evolution, but opening the black box takes way the foundation of the GUT approach and is resisted. One does not need to know about the hardware and software to turn the cell phone on and off or play video games. Why confuse things? The answer is if you know the innards and how they work, you can overclock the processor.

In computing, overclocking is the practice of increasing the clock rate of a computer to exceed that certified by the manufacturer. Commonly, operating voltage is also increased to maintain a component's operational stability at accelerated speeds.

Maybe overclocking is too soon, and may looks like magic or religion to the empirical GUT crowd in science. But I am bored waiting and enjoy hacking the living state and the brain with the water logic of the innards.

 

[PureX]

Yes, the animal brain has evolved to favor survival and breeding by understanding and utilizing the individual's surroundings, and humans are, it appears, particularly well developed in this respect.

Thus we see and understand that there really is a world external to the self, from which we get our parents, our air, water, food, society, and so on.

The problem is that we think the imaginary "world" we create in our minds IS that external world, and it's not. All that's "out there" is phenomena. Same as that's "in here". The "world" is just a sea of interrelated and interconnected phenomena. What we make of that in our minds is all imagined.

So clearly we're doing something right. And you must agree with that,. since you post here.

We have learned how to interact with that sea of phenomena, more or less. How successful we are is yet to be determined.

What exactly is "true knowledge" other than accurate knowledge about reality as we understand it from time to time?

That's a good question. And one that deserves serious consideration. Because how we answer it will determine who we are.

What objective test will distinguish "true knowledge" from ordinary knowledge?

There is no such "objective test". We are the subjects experiencing our existence subjectively. There is no alternative to this. That "reality" we are creating in our minds is all the reality we are ever going to get.

 

[leroy]

No. The burden is yours. You're the one making the God-claim. Not believing it is not an alternative claim.

No. Noöne's claiming that science and logic supports this claim. We're claiming that you haven't met your burden in support of your God claim, ergo, the claim's set aside till you do. We're not proposing this alternate claim you're attributing to us.

You're shifting the burden.

Why is this so hard to understand?

If you claim that God is not the best alternative, you are making a knowledge claim that has a burden........which is why you are expected to provide an alternative