Definitions of atheism. Can atheism be scientifically defined?

[questfortruth]

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")

 

[McBell]

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....

 

[questfortruth]

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

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

 

[HonestJoe]

It can be tested, but not within science. I need Natural Theology.

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.

 

[McBell]

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

wow.
Just...
wow.

 

[PureX]

View attachment 42703

Dictionaries are not a source of common sense. They are a source of common usage. The fact that a lot of fools use a word in a certain way does not make their doing so logical or sensible: "gay" as homosexual, for example.

 

[questfortruth]

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.

 

[McBell]

Dictionaries are not source of common sense. They are a source of common usage. The fact that a lot of fools use a word in a certain way does not make their doing so logical or sensible: "gay" as homosexual.

Your dislike of the common usage definition does not change the common usage definition.

Cant wait to see your thoughts on synonyms....

But now that you have declared there is no such state or condition of "lack of belief".....

 

[HonestJoe]

The era of Natural Theology will start, after the Second Comming of God.

That isn't what I asked, I was asking what is the difference between science and your "Natural Theology". What does it allow you to do that isn't within the scope of science?

 

[ChristineM]

Definitions of atheism. Can atheism be scientifically defined?

I showed you the definition yesterday. I will repeat it now just in case you missed my post, despite having replied to it

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Science does in deal in faith.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It can be tested, but not within science. I need Natural Theology. For example, the church of satan in USA is called religion. But it should be non-theistical religion. It is like Buddism. Because the satan is defined as (fallen) angel, not God. Another test is the failure to detect Dark Matter in underground detectors. That means, that there can be invisible world, which acts on the visible matter.

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

 

[questfortruth]

That isn't what I asked, I was asking what is the difference between science and your "Natural Theology". What does it allow you to do that isn't within the scope of science?

In the video below (Expelled: no intelligence allowed) one famous theistical professor says: "many think, that science comes first, then comes worldview. But actually, the worldview comes first."
This, means, that science has methodological atheism as the starting method. Natural Theology has Theism as the basis of all activity. The research of nature is the department under Theology then. Such a department has LHCollider as well. In such an "utopian" world the theists took over. Look: we talked about Multiverse. Thus, in some alternative reality in 2020 AD we have public lead school prayers in USA.

 

[questfortruth]

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.

 

[PureX]

Your dislike of the common usage definition does not change the common usage definition.

Nor does your siting common usage make it make sense.

But now that you have declared there is no such state or condition of "lack of belief".....

There can only be a "lack" where something is expected. You can be a "non-believer" to a believer, for example. But theism is not an expectation. It's a proposition. The proposition that God or gods exist, and in a way that effects humanity. "Atheism", then, is the antithetical to that proposition: that no God or gods exist in any way that effects us.

"Belief" is irrelevant. Just as "gaiety" is irrelevant to homosexuality.

 

[HonestJoe]

This, means, that science has methodological atheism as the starting method.

I've already pointed out that is not true. If a god existed, it could be studied via scientific method (even if humans were somehow prevented from doing so).

Natural Theology has Theism as the basis of all activity.

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")?

 

[PureX]

If a god existed, it could be studied via scientific method (even if humans were somehow prevented from doing so).

Please explain how you came to this conclusion.

 

[PureX]

What does it mean to be "scientifically defined"?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

How? Please demonstrate.
Oh, and please demonstrate that demons exist in the first place.

 

[questfortruth]

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, one 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).

 

[viole]

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

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

Ciao

- viole