The Religion of Atheism

[ImmortalFlame]

If I have sufficient reason to believe it is true, this is another belief (supporting) the first belief (in God). It is sense of analysis. But I am also that which is determining 'what makes for sufficient reason.' I may not be 'all alone' in this, but ultimately, I am the decision maker, for 'my beliefs.'

But surely you understand that the things that are most likely true should be true no matter who you are speaking to. If you are personally convinced of something, it says nothing whatsoever about that thing's truth value - just that you believe it is true. The only things that have real, measurable truth value are things that can be objectively assessed based on merit. Just because something is true "to you" doesn't mean anything other than it is most likely false.

So, if I present data that says, I / you exist, and deem that sufficient reason for demonstrating that God's existence is true. That may not be enough. Let us pretend it is not. Thus, I could then present umpteen hundred other bits of data, all of which could be met with, "doesn't sufficiently demonstrate, within (my) reason, that God exists.

You could, but you haven't tried. Refusing to accept your burden of proof on the grounds that you assert other people won't accept your reasoning is just an excuse.

I apologize that you have not seen any evidence that works for you. And is about best I can offer at this point of discussion.

My supposition that the physical world is illusion is entirely valid unless you can present evidence of proof. Since none has so far been presented without being easily refuted or demonstrated to be a logical fallacy, my supposition is valid.

That's a false dichotomy. It is sufficient to say "there is no evidence of God" if no evidence has ever been presented in spite of hundreds of years of trying. It is not sufficient to say "because my supposition has not been proven false, it is therefore true". That's completely different logic.

In other words, "there is no evidence of God because no evidence has ever been found" means the same as "there is no X because there is no X". Your argument, on the other hand, is "X is true because you have not disproven X".

Sorry you read my statements with that implication.

No, I didn't. Your statement was very plain:

"Theist is belief in God's existence, God's attributes, God's influence on Self / Reality. Confidence in that. Based on knowledge. Derived from Trust, Reason, Experience and exploration of beliefs."

You quite clearly defined belief in God as requiring "confidence, knowledge, trust, reason and experience".

I got this from: "It just requires you not to believe something at face value without sufficient reason."

Which was in response to this:

"An atheist is willfully lacking in all of this, unable to go down that road to Trust and Reason, because the position 'lack of belief' demands as much."

Also, you re-wrote my response like this:

"(Atheism) It just requires you not to believe something at face value without sufficient reason."

You were dishonestly claiming that I was talking about atheism, which I wasn't. I was talking about lack of belief. If you still refuse to understand, here's the exchange in full, without your creative editing:

"An atheist is willfully lacking in all of this, unable to go down that road to Trust and Reason, because the position 'lack of belief' demands as much."

"No, it doesn't. It just requires you not to believe something at face value without sufficient reason."

Now, I shouldn't have to teach you basic language skills for you to see and understand exactly what I was addressing.

I have. I squarely addressed the point made.

Not only did you not address it, you altered it to make it seem as if I had made a claim I never made, then formulated a straw man of the very argument you altered. I never once said "atheism is a requirement".

Whining? LOL.

My standards for evidence seem as high as any, and considering I keep harping on 'physical world doesn't objectively exist,' I would say that puts me ahead of the curve.

No, it doesn't. It puts you nowhere, since "physical world doesn't objectively exist" is an empty, meaningless claim that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on any kind of meaningful discussion.

Tell me your standard of evidence, and if you wish to put forth, "objective" as a standard, please do your absolute best to cite example(s) of said evidence. Ones you are fairly sure I cannot not shoot down with logic / reason. In so doing, I will be glad to provide equal or greater evidence for beliefs that Spirit world / reality exists. And that God is Creator of that world, aka Creator of who I really am.

My nextdoor neighbour exists. I have met them personally, I see the result of them personally mowing their lawn, they get their mail wrongly delivered to my house, I hear him shouting at his kids through the living room wall, I hear his car drive away to work every morning, he sends me birthday cards, I occasionally talk to him on the phone or over the fence about the council, he came to a barbecue of mine once.

I cannot demonstrate objectivity in said beliefs.

Then your beliefs cannot be assessed as being objectively true.

Don't think you can either with the physical. Verifiable will come from you, your experience. Perhaps terms like "real" and "factual" may need to be discussed / agreed upon before anything moves forward. Real to me is non-physical.

Then your definition of real is meaningless, and your logic ultimately useless.

 

[DinChild]

Cool, atheists get to define what (theistic) belief is, even if they have lack of it. Well, I'll work with this goal post arrangement.

Here was the definition once again:

Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.

First of all, when and where was it writ in the definition I provided that an atheist was behind it? Second, why would it matter? It's one of the several definitions of the word. I chose that definition to highlight because it has the most bearing on the context of this particular discussion. And third, what?

Obviously this sort of use of belief applies to existence of the physical world, as belief is all we have with regards to trusting (sensory) perception. But back to our regularly scheduled program.

It's also called faith.

With the above definition if I were to select one word that represents belief, it would be Confidence. This isn't to say the other words do not matter, but is to say Confidence (like Acceptance) is key word.

Again, faith. And sure, confidence is the key word. I'm not questioning your devotion to your faith -- your confidence in God. Just that belief is a so-called virtue of the theist. Scientists don't base the laws of nature on confidence. They base it on fact. Full trust, to you may mean the same thing, but "believe" me, they aren't.

The "immediately susceptible" part of this equation does not equal, nor do I think it is proper to understand as, "not susceptible." So arguably, all our claims on a forum like this, or vast majority, are beliefs. I would say very rarely (like less than 1% of the time) are we providing rigorous proofs to support the claims we make. So, if I'm in a thread talking about "gravity this, and gravity that" and speaking in ways that may appear factually accurate to those familiar with (rigorous) proof, the actuality of what is being expresses is really beliefs, and not knowledge. According to some. For knowledge would be present, but not 'seen.' While what would be quite visible in such a discourse would be exchange of beliefs.

How does what's written on this forum equate in any way to what I'm talking about? The definition I provided doesn't limit itself to the goings-on of internet forum silliness. There are actual institutions out there who DO require rigorous proof in order for things to operate. How do you think we're even allowed to offer our opinions across the world at the speed of light? Magic? You think the engineers, PhDs, and scientists of the world didn't require rigorous proof when studying and building the world around us? Much less the internet?

Would it be plausible to suggest that without the rigorous proofs present, that one is able to lack belief in gravity, while a discourse is occurring? In which case, I often lack belief in gravity, even while the evidence may be all around me, and in me. I may choose not to see it, or arguably cannot see it with physical eyes, and therefore 'lack of belief' would be appropriate / rational. Same with all conclusions we have that equate to knowledge. Unless proof is presented and is only what is being discussed, only being discussed, then belief is all we would have in that moment, and the rational position would therefore be that whatever the topic, whatever the value, it must be met with lack of belief, otherwise the persons who claim otherwise are acting irrationally. For they may believe their knowledge is accurate, but if not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof, they are, in that moment, demonstrating an unverifiable position. And need to realize burden of proof is on them for each and every claim that is made. Best to stop making claims altogether.

...no? No to all of that. When the discovery of gravity was made, yes, the burden of proof was on, let's say Sir Isaac Newton, to demonstrate why. When the claim that the world was indeed spherical, the burden of proof was on, let's say Erotosthenes, to provide the proof. Claims and hypotheses aren't irrational. They aren't substantiated by "belief" like you seem to think they are. They're substantiated by observable evidence (I'll explain in a little more detail in the last section.) In the end, this unverifiable position is necessary. Because we find means to verify. That's the whole point...something I think you're not understanding.

It is not supposition, but instead confidence in the truth. Supposition is an uncertain belief. Which strikes me as closer to atheism. Supposition that god does not exist. Theist is belief in God's existence, God's attributes, God's influence on Self / Reality. Confidence in that. Based on knowledge. Derived from Trust, Reason, Experience and exploration of beliefs. An atheist is willfully lacking in all of this, unable to go down that road to Trust and Reason, because the position 'lack of belief' demands as much.

You have no idea what burden of proof means, do you? Atheists don't assume God doesn't exist, we don't accept him...at all. He's not even part of the equation. Religion folk DO assume he exists. Whether you want to get particular with the word choice is your problem, the point is, to SUPPOSE something doesn't question your faith. It simply means that theists offer God to the world with no actual evidence in the face of skeptics. It is therefore absolutely acceptable that the burden of proof lies with theists.

How convenient.

Move the goal posts and I'll be right here addressing the expressed logic.

This was in response to me saying there are other definitions for belief that atheists, indeed everyone, could employ. I kind of figured you might go to a dictionary yourself and reference the word, but clearly you haven't. Like I said above, a scientist requires empirical evidence to move forward, but works with theories and hypotheses, yes claims (or beliefs,) to build on. But this definition of "belief" has nothing to do with what we're discussing. In fact, the primary definition for belief is:

an opinion or conviction

Everyone has opinions. Everyone has convictions. So far as scientists are concerned, opinions are necessary to the growth and development of society and scientific study. This is why I offered the second definition of belief. Seemed to be more in line with the context. How convenient, right?