Definitions of atheism. Can atheism be scientifically defined?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

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.


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


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.


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?


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")


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


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.


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.


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 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.


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.

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."

I continue to wonder why you call yourself "questfortruth" when you already suppose that you own it, and everybody else is already wrong. You're not looking for anything. You seem, more than anything else to me, trying to convince yourself by trying to convince others. That is, because the doubts of others make you really, really uncomfortable, 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.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether methodological naturalism makes sense to you as the correct scientific approach or not.

 

[Milton Platt]

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

I was going to post a reply, but you did it for me.....

 

[questfortruth]

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

 

[rational experiences]

A theist historically as owned by the male group. The same DNA life body, so x mass it was looking at your own self like a twin, as you all were the exact same DNA body. Science in genesis/DNA studies already owned this claim.

I am a human, you are a human, the only one condition not spiritual and not natural is occult science, to convert mass. Mass that the spatial creation in its highest ownership COLD owns holding.

Science, the Satanist is a false preacher, a false prophet, a false mathematician, owning only his machine design from a mineral particle, why the Church by science historic law said NO MAN IS GOD. God was the Earth one stone philosophy and forbade any alchemical change to the only body supporting our life.

Said self, male human and Father/Son as a science human theme was the HOLY SPIRIT.

Ask self where did that spirit come from, not from the atmosphere, for that body sacrifices it spirit in space.

Came from the eternal spirit which is not in creation. When you die you still have one spirit in the eternal....as our parents were SENT OUT OF the eternal.

Reasoning, why and what conditions caused the release?

O God the stone ended the burning/loss of the angels of God into the fall out of the eternal body, historically. Finish the end.

God however then burst and had sex, as explained by his own male self with the spatial womb. And formed the Immaculate spirit, cold and clear.

In that history no human even existed.

Then the Immaculate spirit was Sun attacked by the God O larger bodies that rebelled, their bursting sent forth huge amounts of attacks.

So ask science, why aren't the other planets stone? You could quote...because the spatial vacuum as the Sun attacked the fusion sucked off the body mass of stone and scattered it in space. So you are looking at all that was left after conversion.

Seeing your quote GOD is the stone and ONE and highest and holiest in spatial womb cosmology...a self preaching to self.

So if you also quote O the planet fused stone is the only reason we still live and own a life, then you would forbid its changes, as then life living on it gets destroyed and sacrificed.

You then also quoted...males and man, the scientist said I am the only human male sacrificed son of God the planet Earth. I am the only man, self quote.

Ask him brother, what did you teach? We all got attacked converted and sacrificed for we no longer are all the same MALE DNA Father spiritual being, the only spiritual being, for God the stone mass does not speak.

I did it to my own spiritual body as my own spiritual self. A human and a male. And then I preached to self about never supporting occult conversion again.

Which is to have God the O Earth stone release its own held cold radiation fusion, have it sucked out of the God stone...where it sits in space by vacuum conditions until Earth only one ONE TRACK O one cyclic returns to it and it then attacks us.

Where I forced it to remain and stay trapped, for the vacuum had already rid Earth of the Sun attack radiation conversion a very long time ago. I personally reactivated GOD removal...and I still use common human aware sense today and quote God in my new collider themes....knowing that rationally my psyche already told me the UFO radiation mass is out of the body of Planet Earth.

Why I quoted it....as I am personally the highest form of consciousness in reality, human. And I did it to my own self, human.

So if science says as fact in science to spiritual humans, You cannot talk about owning a spirit when you die....for no one can prove it. That statement is to their own self, scientist for they sought it. As a spiritual human I can quote, I was proven that spirit existed, but I also taught, I cannot prove it, for science the known and proven awareness says so itself.

Stop arguing lying occult organization of brothers, scientists....for you are a proven liar.

Cause and effect a science law. O God ended in spatial cold, highest state as stone. Relative to God.

We came out of the eternal spirit, as a fact of self being the highest spirit aware self. Proven to self by what we realise and understand. We taught this advice as karmic or cause and effect, what you change you get returned a result. God burst O and made a heavenly body. The heavenly body Immaculate sacrificed spirit of God contacted the eternal body. And forced it to communicate to the heavenly lower mass, so it sent spirit out of its own body.

How do we know that history real. Total destruction of life on Earth including the Tree/Garden Nature, placing artefacts deep inside of planet Earth fusion as machine parts, proves that the spirit returned the life spirit back onto Earth when the atmospheric gases cooled. And the Garden Nature began again. Proof it did come from the eternal spirit.

 

[blü 2]

Can atheism be scientifically defined?

By conventional categories, atheism is a view of a theological claim, not about the nature of reality; it's not part of physics.

Perhaps it overlaps with science in psychology, sociology, anthropology.

As for the definition, the central pillar is absence of a belief in real gods.

And I've previously mentioned that in my view the idea of a real God is incoherent ─ certainly in Abrahamic thought, which is what I'm most familiar with.

I figure that to be an atheist, I'd need to know what a real God is, the being said to be found in nature whose existence I deny ─ in this respect not very different from the unicorn.

However, since I don't know any useful definition of a real god, any objective test that could tell me whether my keyboard is God or not, I'm not an atheist, rather an igtheist.



Oh, and the politest thing I can say about that Einstein video is that it's totally unhistorical, pure fictional propaganda, a stooge set-up and knock-down. Unless it was made as a spoof, it reflects very poorly on the cynicism of its makers.

 

[HonestJoe]

Please explain how you came to this conclusion.

Scientific method essentially boils down to observation of effects and reaching conclusions about them. Anything that exists must have some kind of effect (that's kind of the definition of existence) so anything that exists could theoretically have its effects observed and conclusions build based on them.

The only limitations would be in the ability of any given observer to do that. Humans might not be (currently) capable of of observing those effects but some other hypothetical observer could.

As another example, until relatively recently we didn't have the ability to study anything in the deepest oceans or on other planets in the solar system. That doesn't mean nothing existed in those places or that any of those things were "outside the scope of science" as a concept. Now we can (in limited ways) observe some of the effects and so study those things. The only thing that has changed is our technological abilities.

 

[gnostic]

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.

This is why I don’t trust creationists to being straight. They like to change context of definition for their own agenda.

You do realize that Natural Theology is the study of God based on observation of nature, which the exact opposite of Revealed Theology?

So if you accept Natural Theology, then you cannot accept “revealed knowledge” from prophets like prophecies and miracles, which (revealed theology) is important basis of Moses being the prophet (SUPPOSEDLY) authored Genesis through divine revelation.

Revealed Theology relied on divine revelation and miracles.

Divine revelation has nothing to do with normal observation of nature.

Divine revelation as given to the NT authors of gospels and letters would also be the opposite of observations of nature, because to believe in divine revelation would be accepting the Holy Spirit and accepting miracles, which exact opposite to Natural Theology.

Either you’d accept Divine Revelation (or revealed knowledge) or you’d accept Natural Theology. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[HonestJoe]

The way of research activity shapes the entire society and humankind.

To an extent yes, but that doesn't mean your way is the best or only right way.

Doubting the existence of God put in doubt all existing concepts, as it is unclear their origin.

Doubt is inevitable. If you didn't have doubt you wouldn't have research at all (under any framework). Why bother when you've already declared that the answer to any question is (and is only permitted to be) "God did it"?

You (falsely) accused science of being atheistic and denying the possibility of God but how are you not doing exactly the same, wanting science to be theistic, and theistic in relation to your specific religious beliefs, actually denying any conclusions that could possibly challenge or complicate your faith.

 

[PureX]

Yes it does. That's the whole point!
People use words to communicate verbal symbols for the reality. How people use these symbols is where the meaning comes from.

No, and no.

Dictionary committees try to keep up with usage, but it's increasingly difficult in a world that's ever more eclectic and polarized and jargonized and, well, global and sophisticated.

Usage does not connote logic or reason. Which is why running to the dictionary to support a point of logic is illogical.

I don't know where you live, but around here theism most certainly is an expectation. People, who don't know you, will ask about where you go to church. The same way they might ask what you do for a living or your family. It's just to get to know you better.

Those people are not defining theism for everyone else. And they are not the definition of theism, themselves. Nor do they define you as a "non-believer" for anyone but themselves.

But theism is such a strong expectation that non-theism is assumed to be another religion.

Theism is not an expectation. Religion is. According to religious expectations, you are a "non-believer". But religionists do not define theism, or you, for anyone but themselves. And they do not define theism, period. Are you even an atheist? Or are you just anti-religious? Atheism is the antithesis of the theistic assertion. And neither of these have anything to do with what you or anyone else "believes".

Theism is such a powerful expectation that lots of people simply cannot understand not having a religion. So, they think atheism is a religion.
Tom

You are confusing theism with religion. As do many.

 

[PureX]

Scientific method essentially boils down to observation of effects and reaching conclusions about them. Anything that exists must have some kind of effect (that's kind of the definition of existence) so anything that exists could theoretically have its effects observed and conclusions build based on them.

There are several flaws with this theory. One is that it assumes that we humans experience all effects that exist, and therefor; if something exists, we will experience it's effect. And clearly we do not. And two, assumes that "God" must be a phenomenon within the whole of existence, rather than a source of the whole of existence, as nearly all definitions of "God" would assert. Understood properly, ALL effects; those we experience and those we don't, are the result of "God". God being the "source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is".

The only limitations would be in the ability of any given observer to do that. Humans might not be (currently) capable of of observing those effects but some other hypothetical observer could.

Or we ARE observing them, and simply cannot differentiate them as such because all effect is an effect 'of God'.

 

[HonestJoe]

There are several flaws with this theory. One is that it assumes that we humans experience all effects that exist, and therefor; if something exists, we will experience it's effect.

No, I literally said the exact opposite. My entire point is that humans are limited in our ability to observe effects but that doesn't mean those effects don't exist and doesn't mean those couldn't be subject to scientific method. Humans are irrelevant to these wider concepts.

And clearly we do not. And two, assumes that "God" must be a phenomenon within the whole of existence, rather than a source of the whole of existence, as nearly all definitions of "God" would assert.

Yes, because the question is about God existing. Existing must mean within existence by literal definition. The concept of anything "outside existence" is taking an entirely different path where none of our ideas, language or logic applies.

Also, even if you have the idea of God "outside existence", if you are proposing that God can have any kind of effect or influence on anything "within existence", those effects would exists and thus could be studied.

Understood properly, ALL effects; those we experience and those we don't, are the result of "God". God being the "source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is".

You're free to make that assertion but you can you support it in any way? What is you basis for declaring all effects are the result of God? Would it be from someone observing those effects and reaching a conclusion based upon them?

 

[viole]

"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

Well, that is a powerful argument. Bible verses are well known for convincing atheists

Ciao

- viole

 

[questfortruth]

You (falsely) accused science of being atheistic and denying the possibility of God but how are you not doing exactly the same, wanting science to be theistic, and theistic in relation to your specific religious beliefs, actually denying any conclusions that could possibly challenge or complicate your faith.

The question: "does True God exist?" is the same question Shakespeare's Hamlet has asked: "be or not to be?". The doubting God is the doubting to follow Death or Life.

You're free to make that assertion but you can you support it in any way? What is you basis for declaring all effects are the result of God?

Look up the math in the viXra file.

 

[questfortruth]

Divine revelation has nothing to do with normal observation of nature.

The Young Earth Creationism, which tells that the Universe is 7000 years old, comes from revelation (the Bible).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"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



"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

I can't imagine why you think quoting Bible verses is going to be seen as a valid argument for anything by an atheist.

 

[questfortruth]

I can't imagine why you think quoting Bible verses is going to be seen as a valid argument for anything by an atheist.

Is it better to quote Harry Potter, Shakespeare, or Robin Hood?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Is it better to quote Harry Potter, Shakespeare, or Robin Hood?

If you are trying to convince somebody of something, try using a rational argument -- preferably one of your own.

 

[questfortruth]

If you are trying to convince somebody of something, try using a rational argument -- preferably one of your own.

You do not get it. Even a fictional literature contains thoughts, which can be used in answering people. As example, the Hamlet has said "to be or not to be". And when an atheist says: "what difference God makes?" You could write the quote: "to be or not to be" (Hamlet).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science isn't interested in atheism or defining it. Scientists define scientific concepts such as force, work, and power, not atheism.

Furthermore, there are competing definition of atheism.

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.

Theism will continue to exist no matter how small the gaps in knowledge become as science marches on filling them in, including after man ever answers all questions about physical reality if he can and does, because theism and faith-based thought are detached from reason and evidence based thought.

By faith, anything can be believed. Using reason applied to evidence, only ideas that accurately predict reality are believed, which is why there have been millions of gods and religious denominations, but just one periodic table of the elements. One kind of thinking is tethered to observed reality, the other is just creative thought, and there is only one physical reality, but limitless imaginings.

So, people will always be free to choose to believe whatever comforts them by faith no matter how much science teaches us about reality simply by ignoring the science, and human nature shows us that many people will go that path.

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.

Except I don't need the word god for any of that. I say yes to love, justice, reason, respect, life, knowledge, and creativity without any god concept. I say no to faith, and have no idea why the police appeared in your list unless it was a proxy for law and order, to which I also say yes as a godless atheist.

It turns out the the god concept, for which there is insufficient evidence to believe that it is more than man's imagination, adds nothing - no explanatory or predictive power - to any other idea. That is why gods do not appear in scientific theories. Throwing one or more in ad hoc adds nothing useful to any scientific theory.

A good example is Newton's treatment of celestial mechanics. Newton's mathematics predicted that the solar system should be unstable and toss planets out. So, he posited that God steps in to keep Jupiter and Saturn from throwing Mars and Earth out of their orbits around the sun.

Years later, Laplace solved the problem mathematically showing that what we observe is what is to be expected if one uses the proper mathematical model of the solar system. A useless idea based in faith and invoking a god was replaced with pertubation theory, narrowing the gaps for a god once again, and providing a more useful mathematical model for the reality we observe without gods.

That's the history of science. Useless explanations about gods pulling the sun through the sky with chariots or angry gods fashioning lightning bolts, all useless idea, were replaced by naturalistic explanations that were actually useful

There are many theisms in the world. And only one atheism.

That's a virtue of atheism. Refer back to the periodic table comment. There's also only one astronomy, but myriad astrologies. That's a virtue of astronomy, another being that it accurately predicts outcomes, such as eclipses, and where Pluto would be when the New Horizons robot had traveled far enough to encounter it.

It all goes back to what means you use to decide what is true about the world is. The one tied to reality (empiricism) produces consensus and generates utility. The one based on revelation, authority, and faith is untethered to external reality, and thus can assume any form that imagination can, but is sterile - cannot be used for anything, like astrology and creationism.

The theisms share one common truth: God's unique name (identifier) is the holy word God, and God is existent.

Your definition of truth is not mine. Mine is, not surprisingly, rooted in empiricism. Truth is the quality that facts and only facts possess, facts being linguistic strings (sentences, paragraphs) that accurately map some aspect of reality as evidenced by that idea's ability to predict outcomes.

If I tell you that I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier, that is only a fact if walking five blocks south and three blocks west from my front door gets me to the pier. It's really that simple. The statement is a fact because it accurately maps (in this case, literally) an aspect of physical reality that allows one to accurately predict outcomes, and is therefore also true and possesses truth.

Any other understanding of any of that is useless. Calling statements about gods or their names truths means that the word truth is meaningless except to say that it's something you believe however ill-founded or untrue by my definition. What you call truth I call faith-based belief unfounded in empiricism and useful for nothing.

The atheism has no valid knowledge of God.

Nobody has any valid knowledge of any proposed gods. The atheist is the one who recognizes this, the theist being the one that chooses to believe in one of them anyway and calls his beliefs knowledge.

most of the atheists accept the existence of even of Freewill and souls

I have no use for the word soul in the literal, metaphysical sense (I use the word metaphorically, but am not talking about what you are when I do). Like all of the other faith-based concepts lacking (i.e., lacking sufficient empirical support), such as creationism and astrology discussed above, the idea refers to nothing that can be demonstrated and is useless for predicting outcomes.

Regarding free will, many atheists question its existence. I do. Of course, we have to agree on what we're talking about when we use the phrase. If all one means is that he has the experience of desiring something and the ability to satisfy that desire, then yes, that occurs.

But I mean more than that. I'm talking about the ability to have decided otherwise in any given situation, a question we can't decide. I get a message from my hypothalamus that I am a little dehydrated, which appears to the self as a desire to drink. Ordinarily, I go get a drink and have had one of those experiences others call free will. I didn't create that desire, and I have little ability to not be thirsty short of getting a drink.

Free will in the deepest sense means not the ability to act out one's desires, but to determine them as acts of will not the result of deterministic, material influences underlying consciousness.