This is false. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God or gods. You can be an atheist and believe in ESP, ghosts, whatever.
Yes, you can believe whatever you want.
That’s why I say atheism is a conclusion, not a belief.
One concludes there are no gods, or ghosts, because there cannot be anything supernatural … if something exists, it’s observable … part of natural and bound by physics.
There’s no lack of belief … I believe (speculate) that’s a politically correct dictionary definition to help publishers avoid being boycotted.
I don’t lack belief … I have none because I conclude there are none to have. It’s not like I was born lacking a believing gene. One might lack a sense of taste because it’s missing from birth … it’s not a decision.
OR one can conclude that there are no gods or goddesses because they have been presented with any evidence that supports their existence. This does not necessarily preclude the existence of the supernatural as a whole.
Yes, plenty of times. I don’t know what it is that you have chosen to watch, or what the algorithm displays for you, but I see plenty of videos explaining the nature of reality.
If I see that a video is going off into woo-woo land, I hit dislike and close it.
Yes, I understand why as well. They were raised with it, it’s pervasive in their culture, and it answers one question that science will likely never give a comforting answer to, “What happens when we die?”.
I don’t understand why people are fans of homeopathic medicine. Or maybe I do, just a little.
Anyway, my point was that you said you didn’t know what the God of the Gaps argument was, which tells me you have a very long road ahead of you to understand what it is that you are arguing here, and that you are thinking you are trailblazing on some very well trod road here.
But then you gave a perfect definition of God of the Gaps, where what we don’t know and cannot currently explain is given over to the realm of the divine.
The ignorance is that we don’t know everything about the universe. We can either accept that, and chalk up everything we don’t know to ineffableness, or we can try to learn more, even if we never know everything.
When you said:
Either you are saying that the explanation for the origin of the universe and life is god, or you are just randomly stringing words together in a way that is mostly grammatically correct.
The only ones who would argue with that are theists that claim that atheism is a belief.
I don’t know that I would go that far. Theists make claims that god controls the weather, that god sends plagues and storms and other nasty things against sinners. A response to that is to ask why god sends storms to harm good people. A god cannot be omniscient and omnibenevolent, as the theists claim. The people you blithely label “angry theists” are responding directly to claims from theists about the nature of the universe.
No, and only angry theists claim that they do. How can I hate something that doesn’t exist?
People can be inspired to do good by religion, but how do you know that they wouldn’t have been fantastic people without religion?
As for why atheists may be angry, it’s not that they are angry at god or the concept of god, they are angry at other people who try to control their lives by invoking their religion as justification.
No, the universe isn’t eternal either.
Are you saying that the framework from which the universe that we know and love arose is eternal, or that the universe that we live in is? The first is possible, jury is still out, and we may or may not ever get an answer. If the latter, that contradicts everything that we currently understand about the universe.
This is something I have long had concerns with. Typically when someone is described as a “believer” it’s implied that we’re talking about a believer in God, or a believer in religion. There is nothing inherent in the word “believer” that has to have a religious connotation. Maybe I believe in rainbows and puppy dogs. Just because I don’t believe what you believe doesn’t make me a non-believer. Maybe from my point of view you’re the non-believer because you don’t believe in rainbows and puppy dogs.
And it doesn’t. We’re speaking about supernatural belief.
When someone says “I believe it’s going to rain.” we understand it’s means possible, not supernatural.
Having a belief (about reality) vs. having an opinion about the possibility of an event.
It’s something Steve Martin once said. I think it was part of a longer declaration.
Substitute “I believe in the Loch Ness monster” or whatever unprovable thing you’d like.
Steve Martin - “What I Believe”
?What’s not part of the universe?
Does science say there’s a framework that caused the universe?
You don’t lack belief but you have no belief? I don’t understand the distinction, but I think I’ll go back to my earlier statement and bow out of this conversation.
That would be anti-theism or strong atheism, which is the assertion that there is no god or gods, which has a burden of proof associated with it because it is a positive claim. (Weak) atheism, as it is usually used, is merely lacking a belief in a god or gods. You have not been convinced that they are real, but you are not asserting that they aren’t real.
I’m back on break so a few things
RitterSport please stay.
EverythingMadeEasier I agree you seem to have a number of erroneous assumptions. I believe in a G-d who keeps covenant with me and who I see in my daily life. I believe because what I have experienced has been proof enough for me. I don’t believe in homeopathy, ghosts, psychic phenomena etc. An atheist friend once told me ‘You are so smart, sceptical and rational. I can’t wrap my head around you being a theist’. Being a theist or an atheist concerns belief in deities only.
You also seem not to know much of Randi- who you claim to emulate.
ETA- On review, I misspelled skeptic. I feel my points still stand
Right. It’s not missing … a lack … there is none anyone could have.
Are you a plumber? No? We’ll do you lack plumbing training or just don’t have any because there’s no reason you should?
? I claimed to emulate James Randi? ???
“I believe because what I have experienced has been proof enough for me.”
Well yea …that’s what belief is … it means it’s not real, else it would be verifiable. Beliefs are personally true because that’s all they can be, they’re not objectively true as they’d no longer be beliefs.
This is exactly why the scientific method exists…to remove “it’s true enough for me”.
“ I agree you seem to have a number of erroneous assumptions.”
Where is your list?
“but I see plenty of videos explaining the nature of reality.”
Please post some.
I think you spelled it the British way.
I’m happy to talk about these topics with others here. I have no interest in going around and around on whether “I lack belief” is the same as “I don’t have a belief.”
I’m completely in agreement with you about whether belief in the supernatural in general has anything to do with theism – other than belief in a supernatural God, they are orthogonal. Theists and atheists alike can believe in ghosts, homeopathy, and psychic phenomena, or not.
Yep, completely orthogonal. I am a theist, but I don’t belief in the supernatural. (God doesn’t break their own laws.)
No, that’s not how belief works.
You can believe that intelligent life exists somewhere else in the universe. Or you can believe that it does not. One or the other of these things must be objectively true, but you don’t know which.
You can believe that you locked your front door when you left your home this morning. Or you can believe that you did not. One or the other is objectively true. If you’re away from home right now, you don’t know which it is; but you can verify it once you return home. And if I am at your home right now, I could know whether your front door is locked, while you might only believe that it is.
We know the origin of the materials like carbon and oxygen that make up life just fine. In supernovas.
Talking about abiogenesis, evolution and the Big Bang in one breath is classic creationist garbage.
Where did god come from? How did he do it? Why did he make a big universe just for us? Saying goddidit answers none of those questions, and is thus not an explanation. No more than thunder comes from Zeus or rain comes from the tears of pixies.
As for where the grad students came from - it’s grad students all the way down. The supposed issue is that our instantiation of the universe had a beginning. We don’t know if there are others. There is some good science saying there might be, but it’s just speculation at the moment. But no magic is required.
Yeah, but we should see his direct impact on the world, just like in the Bible. If he has no impact he is a deistic god, and him existing or not existing is equivalent in impact. If he does have impact it can be measured.
Because there are better things than YouTube videos about this, like books from real cosmologists and physicists. The End of Everything has a nice chapter on possible explanations from the universe. It is written by a cosmologist. I just finished watching a 24 lesson Great Courses Video on the way to The Theory of Everything by a particle physicist from FermiLab which also has a lesson on beginnings. So read a book. Your ignorance is not a good reason to believe in any god.
No belief is 100% true since we can always be brains in a vat. Unlikely, but possible. But we can provisionally believe things. I provisionally believe that there is life on other planets. I provisionally believe that no human identified gods exist. But I just lack belief in gods on other possible planets since I have no information on their existence or non-existence. There being no reason to think they exist, I withhold belief.