Isn’t Atheism a faith-based non-religion?

[Acim]

When I say Know, I Mean based on the observations we can make we come to an assumption of outcomes.

Is not "assumption of outcomes" faith?
Assumption equals: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof
Perhaps you meant "awareness of outcomes?"

So I can say I Know that if you heat glass to ~1500c, It will melt..
How do I know it works? millions of experiments and observations...

Hence awareness of own observations or information (experiments done by others that you've observed in some fashion, accepted as valid - or faith in their methods).

I Know that the temperature changes the molecular structure of the glass thus changing its density and stability.

I'd use "understand" here instead of knows.

Now, I Could say that the temperature changes the molecular level of the glass because thats how God made it...
That means, that I don't know why it works as it does but I do know it works and I can map some of the process...
Same goes for Nature and God for example..

How does that follow? Or why would you not know (be aware) of the why if attributing to God making it? If knowing it works and aware of mapping the process for own purposes, then the why I think follows. God/Nature provided understanding the how so you could have purpose in using it in your life/experience. Without that provision, it would be beyond your current natural existence.

 

[Acim]

and I will ask, What if it is Not?

Then it would understood to not exist.

 

[Acim]

Of course... as 2 and 4 are a representation of a number of elements (in that example).. and 2 represents a certain amount and four represents a certain amount, and I know that every time you take 2 and 2 more, it always without an exception adds up to the same amount of elements that is represented by the symbol 4... I can say that this is a 100% chance that this statement is true.
What i cannot prove as truth, is the fact that in your eyes and my eyes, the symbols 2 and 4 represent the same number of elements.

But you did lay claim to truth in my belief. Therefore, I feel as I succeeded in showing you what I said would in post #288.

You can believe it.. yet it is not true

Therefore also showing what I said I would in post #288, for you are claiming untruth about my belief.

Just like the number 2, the word Agnostic represents a specific concept.

Neither of which are technically observable in nature, but are understood via faith in mental constructs.

Once you claim Agnostics and Atheist are the same, then one of them is irrelevant..

I'm okay with that.

I Can say that Theist and Deist is the same..
Even if i say thousand times a day.. it is not true!

If it is your belief, you are accepting it as plausibly true. I can claim your belief is not truth via (first) rejection and perhaps persuade you to understand it as not truth via knowledge and reason.

Theism represents something and Deism represents something else.
they both have shared ideas (That there is a God) yet the deist is a whole other idea of this God.
Same goes for Atheist and Agnostic... These are two different things that might share same ideas (The fact that they don't know or claim to know if there is a God)

The "represents" and how that correlates to understanding, rests on faith (foremost).

 

[LuisDantas]

You are the only person who seems to have any problem with this issue. Most people find it pretty straightforward.

But there is no particular difference between "new" atheists and any other atheists. The whole label is a vacuous fabrication.

 

[Acim]

How can requesting a definition of something, be a faith assertion?

Not sure how you got this loaded inquiry based on what I wrote, but upon review of what I wrote, I would make note that the post I quoted where it concluded "is meaningless" is what I said is a faith assertion.

As long as spiritual things are not clearly and unambiguously defined, talking of their acting on the physical Universe has so much meaning as saying that it could be that jggngnggngfytjynt acts on the Universe, as well.

And that would be (another) faith assertion. You are trusting that spiritual things are not clearly defined, and are (perhaps always will be) ambiguous (for you). You are trusting that for others when they use the term as acting on the physical universe, it has no such meaning (for you). And trusting that jggngnggngfytjynt works in the same way.

So, what is a spiritual being, exactly?

You are a spiritual being exactly
I am a spiritual being exactly
We are spiritual beings exactly

Defining it will limit the scope by fact of defining, thus it could be said (upon hearing the definition) that it is incomplete in understanding, but would seem disingenuous to say it is entirely without meaning. Same game can be played with "what is science exactly" as that will inevitably produce assertions that are incomplete in understanding (all of) science. Same goes with Nature, with Life, with Love. But to then conclude the definition provided is meaningless or is nonsensical, is a matter of faith.

I would define spiritual being with positive understanding (rather than negative, i.e. opposed to physical being) as such:

1 - The fundamental quality that substantiates existence of all living creatures,
1b - And plausibly all animated processes
2 - The primary thought that embraces all (subsequent) ideas with regards to the nature of Self (being).
3 - The essence of a person

With solid evidence, I mean inescapable proof. For numbers are pretty well defined, unlike your spirits.

Again, definitions limit scope. So of course that which is without scope (i.e. individual numbers/symbols) is going to match well with definitions, even while the definitions themselves are likely including alleged scope. For how would you define "2?"

Could just as well say numbers are pretty well defined (even if technically they aren't), unlike your science.

And I am bit surprised of your claim to know something that is provably false. Well, maybe not so surprised

The way to see that is quite simple. Call your number U = 0.9999999999..... .

1) Do you agree that U = 0.9 + 0.09999999999999........?
2) Do you agree that U/10 is also 0.0999999999999......?

If not, why not?

Not - because the .... on the end of .999 is (intentionally) limiting the scope. Once that limitation is accepted, via faith, I can understand the equation. I see no real reason to limit the scope, but realize it may be (likely is) impractical or inconvenient to not limit the scope.

 

[Segev Moran]

Is not "assumption of outcomes" faith?
Assumption equals: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof
Perhaps you meant "awareness of outcomes?"

Assumption is not like faith.
Assumption is based on previous knowledge.
Assumption is based on previous results of tests and experiments.
It is true that an assumption is not always correct.. but when you make an assumption, you base it on things you can measure and validate your assumption.
Faith on the other hand, has got nothing to do with past experiences or outcomes.
I Can have faith that if i jump from a building, i will be able to fly.
This is not something you can assume unless you have if a thousand people before you jumped and weren't able to fly ( I mean, you can assume it, but it will be plainly stupid)

Hence awareness of own observations or information (experiments done by others that you've observed in some fashion, accepted as valid - or faith in their methods).

There is no faith in a scientific method...
You might have faith in something before it is considered a valid theory for example.
I can have an Idea.. and i can have faith I am right..
Once I manage to show that the idea is answering things I couldn't explain and it is possible to measure and observe the outcomes of the idea...
Once I manage to show that the Idea is predicting correct outcomes (assumptions are correct)...
Once I can show that the Idea is not in contradiction to the reality we can observe.. only then I can call it a Theory or a valid Method.

Take for example Age dating..
It is a valid method...
How so? We are able to predict outcomes based on it...
We are able to predict that if something is of age X, the results of the age dating should show the following results and vice versa.
We can see that Age dating matches the universe as we know it.
We can see that age dating provides are information that is valid and correct.

It is true, that we have a lot of open questions and inaccuracies.. but we can predict those inaccuracies .
So for example, Carbon dating, is a valid method, yet we know it might be wrong in (for example) 10-20%..
So if something is dated 1000 years.. it might be that it will be 1200 or 900...
We do however know, that it cannot be 50 years..
If the deviation was up to 90%, it wouldn't be considered a valid method.




I'd use "understand" here instead of knows.



How does that follow? Or why would you not know (be aware) of the why if attributing to God making it? If knowing it works and aware of mapping the process for own purposes, then the why I think follows. God/Nature provided understanding the how so you could have purpose in using it in your life/experience. Without that provision, it would be beyond your current natural existence.[/QUOTE]

 

[Segev Moran]

Then it would understood to not exist.

What?

 

[Augustus]

But there is no particular difference between "new" atheists and any other atheists.

They're certainly different from me in many of their beliefs. And, again, it's New Atheists, not "new" atheists, a proper noun need not be a literal description.

Atheism is just a single belief, nothing more. It is not an ideology of itself. New Atheism refers to a set of beliefs: an ideology.

The whole label is a vacuous fabrication.

No more than any other loosely defined ideology. You could call it New Atheism, or you could call it Moop, or Chobism or any other word symbol. Would still have a clear referent. There is even a book called 'The New Atheism' which has an endorsement from Sam Harris, suggesting even New Atheists understand the term New Atheists.

While I find it overly pedantic, I can at least see why some people dislike the term New Atheism. I really cannot understand how anyone could claim that the term has no meaning or connection to reality though. It's like saying there is no such thing as Secular Humanism.

If you had to describe the views of Harris, Dawkins et al, not every view they hold, just their shared commonalities between their public discourses on issues surrounding theistic religion, etc. How would you describe these? If New Atheism is not an acceptable shorthand, what is?

 

[Acim]

Assumption is not like faith.
Assumption is based on previous knowledge.
Assumption is based on previous results of tests and experiments.

A) you're making this up (observably)
B) same BS can be said about faith

I provided dictionary definition and what are you coming from?

It is true that an assumption is not always correct.. but when you make an assumption, you base it on things you can measure and validate your assumption.

Wow, keep going soldier. Apparently there's a whole bus load of (blind) faith assertions you can make with regards to assumptions.

Faith on the other hand, has got nothing to do with past experiences or outcomes.
I Can have faith that if i jump from a building, i will be able to fly.
This is not something you can assume unless you have if a thousand people before you jumped and weren't able to fly ( I mean, you can assume it, but it will be plainly stupid)

The little admission in the end, is enough concession for me to realize you do kinda get it.

There is no faith in a scientific method...
You might have faith in something before it is considered a valid theory for example.

Yeah, faith is dealing with far bigger fish than mere theory or "laws of the universe." That's just fancy schmancy sense of order for the illusion. Given Reason of course, but not the starting point. Clearly not the starting point.

I can have an Idea.. and i can have faith I am right..

Faith deals with (squarely) the part before "right" and after "faith." That's the starting point. That's not something Reason, can touch. It can touch all the made up BS that might follow from that, or the Reality of Who You Are (that surely follows that), but faith starts there.

Once I manage to show that the idea is answering things I couldn't explain and it is possible to measure and observe the outcomes of the idea...
Once I manage to show that the Idea is predicting correct outcomes (assumptions are correct)...
Once I can show that the Idea is not in contradiction to the reality we can observe.. only then I can call it a Theory or a valid Method.

Well whoopdie do. Maybe valid methods can get you, what? Another 30 years of survival? Maybe 50? Heck, let's just go with a round number of 150 and call it a day. Those wonderful (nay magical) valid methods can surely get you that. Yet in the scheme of things (ergo a universe around 100 million times older than that, it really doesn't strike me as all that much. Does it for you?)

Interesting to me, that many centenarians are smokers. People smoking cigarettes at age 105 and living to tell about it. Gotta be a valid method or assumption in there for that to occur, no?

Anyway, I digress

Take for example Age dating..
It is a valid method...
How so? We are able to predict outcomes based on it...
We are able to predict that if something is of age X, the results of the age dating should show the following results and vice versa.
We can see that Age dating matches the universe as we know it.
We can see that age dating provides are information that is valid and correct.

It is true, that we have a lot of open questions and inaccuracies.. but we can predict those inaccuracies .
So for example, Carbon dating, is a valid method, yet we know it might be wrong in (for example) 10-20%..
So if something is dated 1000 years.. it might be that it will be 1200 or 900...
We do however know, that it cannot be 50 years..
If the deviation was up to 90%, it wouldn't be considered a valid method.

I'll take your word for it. Or I'll assume you are speaking as if this is all accurate.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I'd be interested in that topic, albeit in another thread.

I would be interested in your position on the topic.

Start a thread for me.

 

[viole]

You are a spiritual being exactly
I am a spiritual being exactly
We are spiritual beings exactly

So, by kicking that ball, I proved that spiritual beings changed the physical state of the Universe?

Defining it will limit the scope by fact of defining, thus it could be said (upon hearing the definition) that it is incomplete in understanding, but would seem disingenuous to say it is entirely without meaning. Same game can be played with "what is science exactly" as that will inevitably produce assertions that are incomplete in understanding (all of) science. Same goes with Nature, with Life, with Love. But to then conclude the definition provided is meaningless or is nonsensical, is a matter of faith.

Yet, I could give you definitions of all these things. Maybe wrong, or incomplete, but something we can chew on. At present, I have no idea what a spiritual being is. So, your missing definition does not even satisfy the minimum requirement of being even wrong.

I would define spiritual being with positive understanding (rather than negative, i.e. opposed to physical being) as such:

1 - The fundamental quality that substantiates existence of all living creatures,
1b - And plausibly all animated processes
2 - The primary thought that embraces all (subsequent) ideas with regards to the nature of Self (being).
3 - The essence of a person

Good. Does Ebola virus, or the black death bacterium, get their substance for their existence from some spiritual component? Do you think that without that spiritual something, they could not possibly be alive?

Again, definitions limit scope. So of course that which is without scope (i.e. individual numbers/symbols) is going to match well with definitions, even while the definitions themselves are likely including alleged scope. For how would you define "2?"

Sure you can define 2. Check out Peano axioms, or Frege.

Could just as well say numbers are pretty well defined (even if technically they aren't), unlike your science.

Well, it is obvious you are not a mathematician, by knowing something that would you put you in trouble while trying to pass examination of basic arithmetic.

So, how do you know that numbers are not precisely defined?

Not - because the .... on the end of .999 is (intentionally) limiting the scope. Once that limitation is accepted, via faith, I can understand the equation. I see no real reason to limit the scope, but realize it may be (likely is) impractical or inconvenient to not limit the scope.

And who is limiting scope?

I started asking if you agree that 0.99999999.... is 0.9 + 0.09999999.......

If you do not, then tell me please what 0.9 + 0.099999.... gives. Or, what 0.999999...... - 0.9 gives.

What is it? Something spiritually ineffable?


Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

So, by kicking that ball, I proved that spiritual beings changed the physical state of the Universe?

Yes

Yet, I could give you definitions of all these things. Maybe wrong, or incomplete, but something we can chew on. At present, I have no idea what a spiritual being is. So, your missing definition does not even satisfy the minimum requirement of being even wrong.

Well, glad I provided definition that can be chewed on and is no longer missing.

Good. Does Ebola virus, or the black death bacterium, get their substance for their existence from some spiritual component?

Yes

Do you think that without that spiritual something, they could not possibly be alive?

Yes

Sure you can define 2. Check out Peano axioms, or Frege.

I have. I do not see these as defining 2.

Well, it is obvious you are not a mathematician, by knowing something that would you put you in trouble while trying to pass examination of basic arithmetic.

I don't understand what this is saying. I'm sure it is saying something nice, and highly accurate about me.

So, how do you know that numbers are not precisely defined?

By my awareness of them not being precisely defined.

And who is limiting scope?

I started asking if you agree that 0.99999999.... is 0.9 + 0.09999999.......

Us who use the .... (after the last 9) are limiting the scope.

If you do not, then tell me please what 0.9 + 0.099999.... gives. Or, what 0.999999...... - 0.9 gives.

I noticed you already answered these with the way you wrote .99999.....
In the first case you added a nine in the front of the infinite string of nines
In the second case you subtracted a nine in front of the infinite string of nines.

What is it? Something spiritually ineffable?

Just a matter of faith and limiting scope to provide what appears like a sensible answer. Ya know, like how .9999... allegedly equals 1.

 

[viole]

Yes



Well, glad I provided definition that can be chewed on and is no longer missing.



Yes



Yes



I have. I do not see these as defining 2.



I don't understand what this is saying. I'm sure it is saying something nice, and highly accurate about me.



By my awareness of them not being precisely defined.



Us who use the .... (after the last 9) are limiting the scope.



I noticed you already answered these with the way you wrote .99999.....
In the first case you added a nine in the front of the infinite string of nines
In the second case you subtracted a nine in front of the infinite string of nines.



Just a matter of faith and limiting scope to provide what appears like a sensible answer. Ya know, like how .9999... allegedly equals 1.

So, on account of your spiritual awareness: how much is

0.99999..... minus 0.9?

Can your spirit change the physical state of the Universe by kicking a ball, and not do that simple subtraction?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

So, on account of your spiritual awareness: how much is

0.99999..... minus 0.9?

I have to limit the scope of the first to provide adequate (though perhaps not sufficient) answer.

That answer equals 0.9999.....

Can your spirit change the physical state of the Universe by kicking a ball, and not do that simple subtraction?

Maybe.

 

[Segev Moran]

A) you're making this up (observably)
B) same BS can be said about faith

Ok.. lets do a small definition of Faith and Assumption:

To assume: To think something is true or probable without actually Knowing it.
Faith: To be certain that something is true regardless that truth of it.

Do you agree with those statements?

I provided dictionary definition and what are you coming from?

No you didn't. at least not in this post

Wow, keep going soldier. Apparently there's a whole bus load of (blind) faith assertions you can make with regards to assumptions.

Ok...
So as far as you see it, these two statements are the same...

I Assume I will not die if I crash my car into that wall in a speed of 100mph.
And...
I Have Faith I will not die If I crash the car into that wall in a speed of 100mph.

There is no way knowing the actual results... therefor, you can say they are both of the same intent.

But now, Lets say we know that out of million cars that hit the wall in a speed of 100mph, 950K ended up with the driver being dead..

Now take the both statements again...

The assumption, might be wrong and can easily be identified as wrong.
The faith argument, can not be wrong. You cannot Faith wrongly..

Now, If someone assumes something that is in a great contradiction to reallity, we usually say it is based on Faith.. not probability.

The little admission in the end, is enough concession for me to realize you do kinda get it.

I Understand what you are saying, yet see above... There is a big difference between faith and assumptions.
The later can be proved wrong.
I Can tell someone, your assumption is wrong because A B C...
I Cannot tell someone that His Faith is wrong as Faith has ZERO relation to reality.

Faith doesn't require explanation. Assumption does.

Yeah, faith is dealing with far bigger fish than mere theory or "laws of the universe."
That's just fancy schmancy sense of order for the illusion. Given Reason of course, but not the starting point. Clearly not the starting point.

Faith deals with (squarely) the part before "right" and after "faith." That's the starting point. That's not something Reason, can touch. It can touch all the made up BS that might follow from that, or the Reality of Who You Are (that surely follows that), but faith starts there.

So it seems you also disagree that Faith and Assumption are the same.




Well whoopdie do. Maybe valid methods can get you, what? Another 30 years of survival? Maybe 50? Heck, let's just go with a round number of 150 and call it a day. Those wonderful (nay magical) valid methods can surely get you that. Yet in the scheme of things (ergo a universe around 100 million times older than that, it really doesn't strike me as all that much. Does it for you?)

Interesting to me, that many centenarians are smokers. People smoking cigarettes at age 105 and living to tell about it. Gotta be a valid method or assumption in there for that to occur, no?

Anyway, I digress



I'll take your word for it. Or I'll assume you are speaking as if this is all accurate.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[viole]

I have to limit the scope of the first to provide adequate (though perhaps not sufficient) answer.

That answer equals 0.9999.....

We both know this is absurd.

If 0.999999.... minus 0.9 = 0.9999999.....

Then 0.9 = 0. And 0.9 does not look like zero at all.

I propose 0.099999999.... instead. Any objections?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

Ok.. lets do a small definition of Faith and Assumption:

To assume: To think something is true or probable without actually Knowing it.
Faith: To be certain that something is true regardless that truth of it.

Do you agree with those statements?

I do not. I'm disagreeing with adding something on at the end, as you have. How about we go with:

To assume: To think something is true or probable
Faith: To be certain that something is true

Do you agree with those updated statements?

No you didn't. at least not in this post

Yet, I did in the previous one.

Ok...
So as far as you see it, these two statements are the same...

I Assume I will not die if I crash my car into that wall in a speed of 100mph.
And...
I Have Faith I will not die If I crash the car into that wall in a speed of 100mph.

There is no way knowing the actual results... therefor, you can say they are both of the same intent.

But now, Lets say we know that out of million cars that hit the wall in a speed of 100mph, 950K ended up with the driver being dead..

Now take the both statements again...

The assumption, might be wrong and can easily be identified as wrong.
The faith argument, can not be wrong. You cannot Faith wrongly..

Because you used a noun as a verb, it can not be inaccurate? If you have faith in something (an event) and the event goes the other way of what your faith claim asserted will happen, that be bad faith, or erroneous faith.

Now, If someone assumes something that is in a great contradiction to reallity, we usually say it is based on Faith.. not probability.

Who is this "we?" I'm saying the terms, especially in ways you are using them are virtually the same.
Faith strikes me as stronger in confidence than assumption, but I'm guessing that is disputable.

I have faith the Cubs will win tonight. Someone might ask why I have such faith. There could be lots of reasons why, and no reason, just that I am that confident they will win. But I do actually have confidence (or trust) in the pitching stats of both starting pitchers, such that I see more reason to trust the probability that the Cubs pitcher (Arrieta) will be the victor.

I assume the Cubs will win tonight, for essentially the same reasons. I could mix and match the rationale on both counts. Such that you wouldn't really be able to discern which one is "faith" and which one is "assumption."

Yet, the way I generally use faith in such discussion (or most of the time on RF) is at fundamental level of how the self (myself, ourselves) exist. That we don't understand/know if we are inherently physical beings or spiritual beings, yet are fairly certain we exist. That "fairly certain we exist" is faith. To me, if staying strictly with intellectual, it is also assumption, though doesn't carry weight of "fairly certain." More like, I think I exist, therefore I do = assumption.

I Understand what you are saying, yet see above... There is a big difference between faith and assumptions.
The later can be proved wrong.
I Can tell someone, your assumption is wrong because A B C...
I Cannot tell someone that His Faith is wrong as Faith has ZERO relation to reality.

But you're just asserting the last without providing either viable examples or for sure ones that I don't agree with.
I see faith as having power to make reality. Or perhaps better worded as 'make believe reality.' Assumption is rather mundane in its assertion. Such as, I think I exist, and I think because of that, I can do things.

Faith doesn't require explanation. Assumption does.

Neither does.

So it seems you also disagree that Faith and Assumption are the same.

I think they are in same vein, but faith carries more conviction. But I see that as disputable. Because when I read of others assumptions, some of them are so strong, they may as well be faith statements for how I understand faith. Faith is trust, assumption is maybe. Could say more, but would be really saying the same thing in other words.

 

[Acim]

We both know this is absurd.

I actually think it was spot on accurate.

If 0.999999.... minus 0.9 = 0.9999999.....

That's not what I wrote. I said: 0.999999.... minus 0.9 = 0.99999....

Perhaps you need to pay closer attention to what's being written?

 

[Segev Moran]

To assume: To think something is true or probable
Faith: To be certain that something is true

Do you agree with those updated statements?

I Can live with that with one final tune up

To assume: To think something is true or probable - Cool!
Faith: To be certain that something is true even if there is no evidence to support it or there is evidence to disprove it.

 

[McBell]

I actually think it was spot on accurate.



That's not what I wrote. I said: 0.999999.... minus 0.9 = 0.99999....

Perhaps you need to pay closer attention to what's being written?

Does not really matter, it is still wrong.
And before you start with your semantics, I trust a calculator in the matter of subtracting 0.9 from 0.999999 more so than I trust your answer.