Atheism is not a belief, so why would anyone lie that it is?

[Hidingfromyou]

Atheism is a belief that there is no God.

Atheism is a belief that there is no Thor.

Do you believe in Thor? No? You're an atheist!

 

[Hidingfromyou]

Atheism is more like a belief in science. Everyone believes in something, including athiests.

Science is not about belief, it's about testing propositions. But, yeah, at some level, the findings of science are accepted as "confirmed." I suppose lay people accept confirmed hypotheses to be fact, which is stuff you believe in.

But atheism isn't dependent on science. Airplanes are! And computers. Not atheism - there were atheists long before science.

 

[PureX]

Science is not about belief, it's about testing propositions. But, yeah, at some level, the findings of science are accepted as "confirmed." I suppose lay people accept confirmed hypotheses to be fact, which is stuff you believe in.

But atheism isn't dependent on science. Airplanes are! And computers. Not atheism - there were atheists long before science.

The problem is confusing belief with truth. We can believe all sorts of things that we can't know to be true. And we do. But unfortunately few of us recognize that believing something to be true does not mean that it is true. What we believe to be true often turns out to be untrue, and anything we believe could. But we ignore this because we like to believe that what we believe is true. In fact, that's what it means to say "I believe". What we are believing is that what we believe to be true, is true, even though we should know better: that it may very well not be true.

Scientists understand this. It's why they never claim to have discovered the truth, but only offer workable theories of the truth. It's also why scientist are logically able to be theists, or not be theists, and still be scientists. Also, science can only investigate physical relationships. And existence involves far more than just it's physicality.

So all this debating about what we "believe in" is really just our egos arguing, endlessly, about things that we can't really know to be true or untrue. And all the experiments and "evidence" we can muster doesn't change that.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

The problem is confusing belief with truth. We can believe all sorts of things that we can't know to be true. And we do. But unfortunately few of us recognize that believing something to be true does not mean that it is true. What we believe to be true often turns out to be untrue, and anything we believe could. But we ignore this because we like to believe that what we believe is true. In fact, that's what it means to say "I believe". What we are believing is that what we believe to be true, is true, even though we should know better: that it may very well not be true.

Scientists understand this. It's why they never claim to have discovered the truth, but only offer workable theories of the truth. It's also why scientist are logically able to be theists, or not be theists, and still be scientists. Also, science can only investigate physical relationships. And existence involves far more than just it's physicality.

So all this debating about what we "believe in" is really just our egos arguing, endlessly, about things that we can't really know to be true or untrue. And all the experiments and "evidence" we can muster doesn't change that.

I like what you wrote, except for your appeals to "truth."

Who has privledged information to know what truth is?

 

[Hidingfromyou]

The problem is confusing belief with truth. We can believe all sorts of things that we can't know to be true. And we do. But unfortunately few of us recognize that believing something to be true does not mean that it is true. What we believe to be true often turns out to be untrue, and anything we believe could. But we ignore this because we like to believe that what we believe is true. In fact, that's what it means to say "I believe". What we are believing is that what we believe to be true, is true, even though we should know better: that it may very well not be true.

Scientists understand this. It's why they never claim to have discovered the truth, but only offer workable theories of the truth. It's also why scientist are logically able to be theists, or not be theists, and still be scientists. Also, science can only investigate physical relationships. And existence involves far more than just it's physicality.

So all this debating about what we "believe in" is really just our egos arguing, endlessly, about things that we can't really know to be true or untrue. And all the experiments and "evidence" we can muster doesn't change that.

Ok.

You're saying that scientists have "two minds" or multiple frameworks from which to think about reality. Sure, no problem.

 

[PureX]

I like what you wrote, except for your appeals to "truth."

Who has privledged information to know what truth is?

None of us do. We can know that "X" is true relative to "Y" and "Z", but "X" will inevitably be untrue relative to some other contingencies because we humans cannot comprehend the truth as a whole. Yet we routinely ignore that last part to 'believe' that our limited, relative, and contextual truth is the whole truth.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

None of us do. We can know that "X" is true relative to "Y" and "Z", but "X" will inevitably be untrue relative to some other contingencies because we humans cannot comprehend the truth as a whole. Yet we routinely ignore that last part to 'believe' that our limited, relative, and contextual truth is the whole truth.

Yup!

 

[Willamena]

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Ho hum, try reading it all, here is that same dictionary defining atheist...

Actually, I was pointing at Dictionary.com: "the doctrine or belief that there is no god."

What's funny is the sophistry of some theists digging up a definition they like and ignoring common usage.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[lukethethird]

Actually, I was pointing at Dictionary.com: "the doctrine or belief that there is no god."

Do you bet that that definition was written by a Christian?

 

[Willamena]

Do you bet that that definition was written by a Christian?

I've no doubt that it was. I also don't fault them for being the definer.

I'm curious: do you have a point?

 

[lukethethird]

I've no doubt that it was. I also don't fault them for being the definer.

You prefer the narrow definition.

 

[Willamena]

You prefer the narrow definition.

Atheism is belief in "no god."

 

[Willamena]

The problem is confusing belief with truth. We can believe all sorts of things that we can't know to be true. And we do. But unfortunately few of us recognize that believing something to be true does not mean that it is true. What we believe to be true often turns out to be untrue, and anything we believe could. But we ignore this because we like to believe that what we believe is true. In fact, that's what it means to say "I believe". What we are believing is that what we believe to be true, is true, even though we should know better: that it may very well not be true.

I believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4.
I also believe that I should not "know better" about that.

Scientists understand this. It's why they never claim to have discovered the truth, but only offer workable theories of the truth. It's also why scientist are logically able to be theists, or not be theists, and still be scientists. Also, science can only investigate physical relationships. And existence involves far more than just it's physicality.

"Knowing better" has nothing to do with it. They only offer workable theories because they understand falsifiability.

So all this debating about what we "believe in" is really just our egos arguing, endlessly, about things that we can't really know to be true or untrue. And all the experiments and "evidence" we can muster doesn't change that.

No argument there, amongst us lay-people.

 

[Audie]

I've no doubt that it was. I also don't fault them for being the definer.

I'm curious: do you have a point?

Who else would think to use the word "doctrine"?
Its the old " to a hammer everything
is a nail " thing.

Theists seem generally so confused with
it they cannot see anything except in their terms.
Threads like this. Things like, " atheists want to be their own... GODS".. " EV-rybody believes in Something".

I doubt anyone would call it a doctrine to
be extremely dubious of the latest Nessie
sighting. Why say it of atheism?

Its not a religion, its not a doctrine its none of
those. Its super simple.

We just dont believe it.

 

[rational experiences]

A the ism. Satanisms. Theories to practice science.

Belief. I own what I theory upon.

Belief God is by space first star gases themes just coming arriving into its being as stone.

Is a thinker.... a sun is getting smaller colder as it is becoming less but evolved...cold.

The stone is cooling in space too getting colder as a volcanic mass moves into stone.

Just thoughts and not reality ....as yet it had not occurred the end status. Of his thinking what it will become.

Why a theism is a fake belief.

Stars in the same state vision recorded seen is still just a star.

The sun in vision recording is still a sun.

The earth in vision recording is stone already.

An atheist human in reality is a liar.

Egotism.

An ist first to practice. Imposed isms himself.

Satanist.
Satanisms. What never was.

Reality was always natural.

 

[Willamena]

Who has privledged information to know what truth is?

Each of us.

 

[Audie]

Atheism is belief in "no god."

Do you believe in " no flying saucers"?

 

[rational experiences]

Basic. Radiation is still just radiating as radiation. The word equals the status.

Radiation in thinking never went anywhere.

 

[rational experiences]

Radiation in space law gets sucked out into the space pressure that owned earth RA metal pressurized seams place first.

Why it goes into out of space where it belongs.

If it falls to earth it means men who built metal machines tried to recreate a machine that made it leave itself First by man's science.

 

[Willamena]

Who else would think to use the word "doctrine"? The old " to a hammer everything
is a nail " thing.

Theists seem generally so i fused with
it they cannot see anything except in their terms.
Threads like this. Things like, " atheists want to be their own... GODS".. " EV-rybody believes in Something".

I doubt anyone would call it a doctrine to
be extremely dubious of the latest Nessie
sighting. Why say it of atheism?

Its not a religion, its not a doctrine its none of
those. Its super simple.

We just dont believe it.

The word "doctrine" isn't qualified. Musicians use it. Mechanics use it. Cooks use it. Anyone who has a solidified way of "this is the way" uses it.

Is it the way for atheists to not believe in gods?