Definitions of atheism. Can atheism be scientifically defined?

[questfortruth]

"Love your God with all your heart and mind" (Jesus Christ).

Fortaste of what is comming:

Aww. Are you afraid we will burn you at the stake like you guys did with us not long ago? Relax, we are better than you.

Believe me. Being laughed at, is much more comfortable than being burned alive.

"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."
Matthew 7:6 NKJV

you're spending an immense amount of energy trying to make them go away.

If you truly have faith, go with it, enjoy it. But if that faith is real, then you don't need anybody else to share it with you.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
Matthew 28:19 NIV

Please tell me, do I understand the following correctly. I am opened to productive discussions.

These definitions of atheism are equivalent:
Non-belief in the existence of True God,
Belief in the non-existence of True God.
The True God is not an idol, the idol is man-made and wrong understanding of god.

Quote from WWW:
"The scientific method employs something called methodological naturalism. This is the presumption that natural causes and explanations can be found for what we observe in nature. That principle (and the reliance on observation to support hypotheses) is the whole point behind the science. It is what has made it so successful ever since the Renaissance at explaining the physical world."

Naturalism is the belief, that God does not influence the world, that there is no God in the world. Thus, it is not different from atheism.

Thus, atheism is the method of science. Thus, the science has an anti-religious agenda, for example, Charles Darwin's Evolution has ripped off the Church many innocent souls. "Who is not with Me, is against Me" (Jesus Christ). Jesus is consistent: God is Life, thus, who is against Life, serves Death. Why? The reality has sources. The illusion has sources. The original source of reality is God. The original source of illusion is satan. There is no third option in my religion.

Reality follows Aristotle's laws of logic. Illusion violates these laws.
If there are no objective laws of logic, then all is an illusion. If this is true, then this sentence is real. Thus, we came to the contradiction. Therefore, there is the reality.

That is why in the coming God's kingdom the scientific activity will go under the name "Natural Theology". Yes, it is my naming, but there was Natural Philosophy. The natural theology is the nature research activity, which goes under the True Religion. The True Religion is the most adequate understanding of who the True God is. First hand, it is the understanding, that God's name is God, and what God is existent.

Demons can influence science tests and numerical calculations. Thus, scientists are better to pray together (without a shame to say in the papers: "the prayers were done") before running their machines. Look up the contribution:

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability or how Science has run into the Q-problem by Dmitri Martila

Science ran into Q-problem

But that will be no science, but natural theology.

science is a method for determining what is true or false about the natural world

The only problem, that the world is semi-natural.

God shares His name with the true believers, who call themselves "gods by Grace." Other gods have stolen the Holy name "God", thus they are idols. The satan is the origin of idols, the origin of all sin, including atheism. The satan is the spirit of death.

The natural theology is consistent with Creationism but calls the time before 8000 BC as virtual history. The virtual matter and the virtual spacetime one can begin to study using this viXra file:
Gravity Law Without Universalism is Solving Many Tasks, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0112

No mystery.
God Did It

But how exactly? How nature allows the function of God? There is no function of God's Freewill in General Relativity. The answer has the viXra file.

Sure, there is nothing to prevent you from demonstrating it.

The demonstration (using math) is in the viXra file. But I can ask you: if Dark Matter is matter, then why it is not detected in underground detectors or made in CERN?

people throw in a supernatural explanation the moment they get stuck and can't explain something.

They are clever. The God's name is the God of the Gaps. Such God can not be removed completely. Thus, the theism will always be there. "It's always the Son" (cf. song entitled "it's always the Sun")

And also the reason god keeps getting smaller and smaller and smaller....

In your wishful mind. My God of the Gaps gets bigger: 96% of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

That still isn't true, however many times you repeat it. Anything defined as having any kind of identifiable effect is within the scope of science. Human limitations in being able to apply it don't change anything. I fail to see what your "Natural Theology" offers that is new or different - it just seems to be science with a predefined set of unquestioned assumptions.

The era of Natural Theology will start, after the Second Comming of God. Thus, I am describing not the present situation (which will never change prior to the Second Comming). I am sure, the methodological naturalism won't be allowed in Heaven. I mean, if it happens, that Creationists are right, then were be the study of the Virtual Big Bang, not the Actual Big Bang. The mathematical introduction to Virtual Matter and virtual space is in the viXra file.

So...it should be kept apart from science.

I have no funds, no money to run an alternative reality. I rely on the peer-review system, because I have no power and no authority to run own journal. I have only one priest and one PhD scientist in my current team.

How would that be any better? You're just starting with your own unsupported assumption. Why do you need to have any assumption as a basis? Why not start from the position that gods may or may not exist and let the actual evidence guide you (accepting that it may guide you to an "I don't know")?

The way of research activity shapes the entire society and humankind. Accepting the God, one says definitely yes to all his names: Love, Police, Justice, Reason, Respect, Life, Knowledge, Faith.... Spirit of all that exists comes from God, thus it is the names of God. God is not a tree, God is not a bird, but God is Creativity itself. Doubting the existence of God put in doubt all existing concepts, as it is unclear their origin. Having not taken the position one is being in limbo between two spirits: Holy Spirit, the evil spirit. God is the Spirit. Being in limbo between two gods, human does not move forward, because one's name is Lie and Death, other's name is Life and Reason. The question of God's existence is the question: "is death better than life?" "Be or not to be - that is the question" (Shakespear, Hamlet).

There wouldn't be death, without life. Ergo, by objectives laws of logic, whoever created life, created death, too.

Albert Einstein said the Bible is childish, too. And the product of feeble minds.
Now, either you agree with everything he said, or you just suffer from the typical theist malfunction: confirmation bias.

There are many theisms in the world. And only one atheism. One of the theisms is the most adequate description of God. Let us call it True Theism. The theisms share one common truth: God's unique name (identifier) is the holy word God, and God is existent. The atheism has no valid knowledge of God. The atheism talks about satan only, that is why atheists are angry at god, who done crimes in the Old Testament. It is the satan, not True God. NB! Word God in Old Testament refers to True God.

I am as angry at God as I am angry at Mickey Mouse.

What?! You are playing theist mode now. Any sinful human is in limbo between theism and atheism. It is very convenient: most of the atheists accept the existence of even of Freewill and souls. But the unmasked atheism is hatred against True God: King Herod has murdered 10 000(?) children in Bethlehem just to harm the baby Jesus. Google: "Christians to the lions!" Christianity is the most persecuted Religion.

Jesus is anything but consistent. The notion of the requirement for sacrifice of a person in order to forgive the sins of all other persons is not consistent.

The holy communion might clear this: people eat Godman and drink His blood to become gods by Grace. Jesus has said: "if you will not eat My flesh and drink My blood, you will have no life in you."

 

[Revoltingest]

Please tell me, do I understand the following correctly. I am opened to productive discussions.

These definitions of atheism are equivalent:
Non-belief in the existence of gods True God,
Belief in the non-existence of True God.
The True God is not an idol, the idol is man-made and wrong understanding of god.

Fixed.
Other than some spanning of that spectrum of
non-belief (ie, weak to strong), that's about all
there is to it.

 

[HonestJoe]

These definitions of atheism are equivalent:
Non-belief in the existence of True God,
Belief in the non-existence of True God.
The True God is not an idol, the idol is man-made and wrong understanding of god.

Your addition of this concept of "True God" goes beyond the standard definitions of the term. Conventionally, it refers to "any god or gods".

Either way, those definitions aren't necessarily equivalent, though it is confused by people misusing and misunderstanding words (intentionally or not). Basically, "non-belief" can be passive. If you're not even aware of a concept, you could be said to not believe in it. "Belief" is active. You have to actually know and understand a concept (in some manner) to actively believe it doesn't (or does) exist.

Quote from WWW:
"The scientific method employs something called methodological naturalism. This is the presumption that natural causes and explanations can be found for what we observe in nature. That principle (and the reliance on observation to support hypotheses) is the whole point behind the science. It is what has made it so successful ever since the Renaissance at explaining the physical world."

Naturalism is the belief, that God does not influence the world, that there is no God in the world.

I disagree. If a god existed and was influential on the world, that god would be a natural cause.

Thus, the science has an anti-religious agenda

Even if the previous steps were correct, this is a (common) false accusation. Disbelief in gods is not automatically anti-religious just as being teetotal does not mean you're automatically anti-pub.

 

[questfortruth]

Disbelief in gods is not automatically anti-religious

"Who is not with Me, is against Me" (Jesus Christ)

 

[Revoltingest]

"Who is not with Me, is against Me" (Jesus Christ)

That belief was his problem.
Sounds rather narcissistic...perhaps paranoid.

 

[questfortruth]

That belief was his problem.
Sounds rather narcissistic...perhaps paranoid.

Jesus is consistent: God is Life, thus, who is against Life, serves Death.

 

[HonestJoe]

"Who is not with Me, is against Me" (Jesus Christ)

Being against Jesus wouldn't be anti-religious either. Loads of religious people aren't "with Jesus" after all. Religion mean a lot more than just your preferred form of Christianity. Until you're willing and able to accept that, you're never going to understand any of these concepts.

 

[questfortruth]

Being against Jesus wouldn't be anti-religious

It is against at least my religion. Thus, anti-religious. Moreover, it is against the "Muslim Jesus".

Jesus is consistent: God is Life, thus, who is against Life, serves Death.

 

[Nimos]

These definitions of atheism are equivalent:
Non-belief in the existence of True God,
Belief in the non-existence of True God.
The True God is not an idol, the idol is man-made and wrong understanding of god.

As already mentioned, not sure what is meant with a true God?

1. the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

I think these two definition covers what a God is pretty well, so to say a true God, only applies if one prioritize one over others. Atheists don't do that per definition.
Typical this is what religious people do, God of the bible is the real deal, Thor and Odin are just made up, so they are not real gods etc.

Thus, atheism is the method of science. Thus, the science has an anti-religious agenda, for example, Charles Darwin's Evolution has ripped off the Church many innocent souls.

I guess you can say that atheism is a standard position of science, even if you are religious. Which is simply because if you bring gods to experiments or observations etc. you can basically conclude anything, as a they can do whatever they please, which means that you in theory can't rely on whatever results you would get. Therefore I think it's wrong to say that science is anti-religious, because it isn't. It simply wouldn't make sense to have a method for determining things, where you could simply invoke a supernatural explanation everytime you don't get the results you would like.

Let's say you make a vaccine that doesn't really seem to work very well, your test results are all over the place... so to fix that, you write a disclaimer on it that say "Only work on those, which truly believe in God". If God was allowed in the labs, there wouldn't really be anything wrong in writing that, because how would you prove that it weren't true? Which is why, science doesn't allow supernatural explanations, so its good both for non believers and believers alike.

Furthermore science is a method for determining what is true or false about the natural world, it doesn't care about the supernatural for the reason mentioned above.

Definition of a method
a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one.

In general you can't really say that a "method" threatens God, the conflict between science and religion, is because religions make claims about the natural world, without the use of any method for verifying whether these are true or false. Things just is, because God wills it, or those that wrote the scriptures claim it to be so, and in general these types of statements are not very convincing, unless you happen to believe in that particular God.

 

[Revoltingest]

Jesus is consistent: God is Life, thus, who is against Life, serves Death.

That's irrational because it deems everyone ally or enemy.
Neutrality & independence are excluded.

 

[questfortruth]

Neutrality & independence are excluded

The reality has sources. The illusion has sources. The original source of reality is God. The original source of illusion is satan. There is no third option in my religion.

 

[HonestJoe]

It is against at least my religion. Thus, anti-religious.

You're just making up your own definition of words then. On this basis, literally everybody in the world (yourself included) is "anti-religious" (rendering the term meaningless) since it'd be impossible to obey all religious requirements.

 

[Revoltingest]

The reality has sources. The illusion has sources. The original source of reality is God. The original source of illusion is satan. There is no third option in my religion.

What would your opinion be if I said....
Everyone is either for me or against me.

 

[Altfish]

Please tell me, do I understand the following correctly. I am opened to productive discussions.

These definitions of atheism are equivalent:
Non-belief in the existence of True God,
Belief in the non-existence of True God.
The True God is not an idol, the idol is man-made and wrong understanding of god.

Quote from WWW:
"The scientific method employs something called methodological naturalism. This is the presumption that natural causes and explanations can be found for what we observe in nature. That principle (and the reliance on observation to support hypotheses) is the whole point behind the science. It is what has made it so successful ever since the Renaissance at explaining the physical world."

Naturalism is the belief, that God does not influence the world, that there is no God in the world. Thus, it is not different from atheism.

Thus, atheism is the method of science. Thus, the science has an anti-religious agenda, for example, Charles Darwin's Evolution has ripped off the Church many innocent souls. "Who is not with Me, is against Me" (Jesus Christ). Jesus is consistent: God is Life, thus, who is against Life, serves Death. Why? The reality has sources. The illusion has sources. The original source of reality is God. The original source of illusion is satan. There is no third option in my religion.

That is why in the coming God's kingdom the scientific activity will go under the name "Natural Theology". Yes, it is my naming, but there was Natural Philosophy. The natural theology is the nature research activity, which goes under the True Religion. The True Religion is the most adequate understanding of who the True God is. First hand, it is the understanding, that God's name is God, and what God is existent.

God shares His name with the true believers, who call themselves "gods by Grace." Other gods have stolen the Holy name "God", thus they are idols. The satan is the origin of idols, the origin of all sin, including atheism. The satan is the spirit of death.

The natural theology is consistent with Creationism but calls the time before 8000 BC as virtual history. The virtual matter and the virtual spacetime one can begin to study using this viXra file:
Gravity Law Without Universalism is Solving Many Tasks, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0112

No, definition of athesim is something like "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

 

[McBell]

Jesus is consistent: God is Life, thus, who is against Life, serves Death.

bold empty claim

 

[McBell]

The reality has sources. The illusion has sources. The original source of reality is God. The original source of illusion is satan. There is no third option in my religion.

Then your religion does not pair up with reality.

 

[questfortruth]

Which is simply because if you bring gods to experiments or observations etc. you can basically conclude anything, as a they can do whatever they please

Demons can influence science tests and numerical calculations. Thus, scientists are better to pray together (without a shame to say in the papers: "the prayers were done") before running their machines. Look up the contribution:

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability or how Science has run into the Q-problem by Dmitri Martila

Science ran into Q-problem

 

[Tambourine]

Definitions are not an empirical science.

 

[Tambourine]

Demons can influence science tests and numerical calculations.

Sure, but daemons are a negligible source of failure compared to gremlins and bugs.

 

[questfortruth]

Definitions are not an empirical science.

Reality follows Aristotle's laws of logic. Illusion violates these laws.
If there are no objective laws of logic, then all is an illusion. If this is true, then this sentence is real. Thus, we came to the contradiction. Therefore, there is the reality.