Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
for many theists, believing is also grounded in direct observation, practical experience, experimentation.
If this were true, it could hardly be called faith, could it. It would be scientifically observable and measurable with their human sensory capabilities.
If this were true, it could hardly be called faith, could it. It would be scientifically observable and measurable with their human sensory capabilities.
This is all true except it is not verifiable by second parties since getting into the head of another person and experiencing what they observe and sense through their sensory system is not currently doable. The lack of second hand verification tends to be the sticky wicket.
If this were true, it could hardly be called faith, could it. It would be scientifically observable and measurable with their human sensory capabilities.
people can observe things which science can not.
humans have sensory capabilities which science does not.
science is limited and constrained and confined by what can be measured and quantified.
human observation and sensory capability is more extensive than that and goes beyond that.
i'm not sure what "it" you are talking about in post above. my comment (post #19), and the post i responded to (post #17), are talking about belief and believing. or not belief and lack of belief. no mention of "faith."
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-30-2021 at 11:14 PM..
people can observe things which science can not.
humans have sensory capabilities which science does not.
science is limited and constrained and confined by what can be measured and quantified.
human observation and sensory capability is more extensive than that and goes beyond that.
i'm not sure what "it" you are talking about in post above. my comment (post #19), and the post i responded to (post #17), are talking about belief and believing. or not belief and lack of belief. no mention of "faith."
"science" is not a thing. it is made up of people who are called scientists.
I will say what I always say on this topic, to wit:
OK, call it a "negative" belief system rather than a "positive" belief system if you like, but it's still a belief system. The conviction that there is no God is arrived at by precisely the same sort of analytical process as the conviction that there is a deity. Life consequences flow from atheistic convictions just as they do from theistic ones; no one is an atheist in a vacuum.
Sorry you don't get to tell people what they do or don't believe, just like you would want them doing. I do not find your assertion a deity exists to pass inspection, because no reasonable evidence backs up your assertion, that does NOT mean I believe there isn't one nor couldn't be one. That is atheism. It is neither positive nor negative, it is neutral.
The same applies to agnostic. Gnostic means knowledge of a deity. Since no knowledge (accompanied by supporting evidence) exists, We ALL lack said knowledge, and are by definition 'knowledge neutral/absent' or A-gnostic.
Abstinence is NOT a sexual position, Just as A-theism is not a belief system, it is a rejection of a belief system's tenants.
Personally, I do not think atheism is just another belief system. However, a close friend of mine believes it is and just reminded me of this again today. I will be given a very brief talk about my deconversion experience at an organization of which we are both members and was explaining what I was going to say to her. She said something like: “You speak with such certainty of your atheism, but you have to remember that it is a belief just like everyone else’s belief. You choose to believe that. Others choose to believe in God.”
It was clear that she didn’t want to discuss the matter further (I could tell she was getting upset), so I let the matter drop.
But what do you think? Do you see your atheism as just another belief? Of of an entirely different order/quality? If you feel that it is of a different order than religious belief, how do you explain/justify that?
It is a belief, a negative belief; but a system is a collection of things, so atheism is not a system.
Religious people usually argue about this because of of two reasons, they want to:
1) pretend all beliefs are equal, so it is just a belief (the belief / faith word game), or
2) they want to argue about the burden of proof, even though we have already met that burden of proof. They do not have credible evidence for their extraordinary beliefs.
I agree. I don't see what the "system" is. I don't believe. Period. I can still be convinced, but not with the SOS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill_Schramm
Ok, I see I should not have used the word “system” in the title. Everyone is focusing on that, but the important part for my friend was not the “system,” it was the “belief.” I am not even sure she used the word “system,” but she definitely mentioned belief.
If she had let me continue, I probably would have contrasted “belief” with “knowledge.” Many believe in a God. They have “faith” and hope for things unseen. I on the other hand have “knowledge.”
There is a misconception that it is impossible to have knowledge unless one is 100% sure of something, but not is not what we mean by knowledge in actual practice. It is actually difficult to be 100% sure of anything. And yet, we have things we know and things we don’t know. Knowledge is always contingent, always possibly re-assessed in the light of new facts and experiences.
Maybe (I highly doubt it, but maybe) someone will find convincing evidence of some God. In that case, my knowledge of how things are will expand to include God. Until that time, I know … as much as I know anything that there is no God.
Knowledge is all about evidence or lack thereof. Belief is about having faith in spite of lack of evidence. Different thing.
I agree with you both.
You are correct to contrast the two but I would also look at their relationship. A people's culture can be built on beliefs that are based on knowledge. For example, in our culture, we believe that literacy should be a priority based on our past experience (knowledge) with it. But not everybody agrees. We believe preserving culture is important. But not everyone agrees.
I think it is important to make it clear that atheism and even theism are not systems. I do think theism results from systematic thinking which would make it not the default "setting."
Ok, I see I should not have used the word “system” in the title. Everyone is focusing on that, but the important part for my friend was not the “system,” it was the “belief.” I am not even sure she used the word “system,” but she definitely mentioned belief.
If she had let me continue, I probably would have contrasted “belief” with “knowledge.” Many believe in a God. They have “faith” and hope for things unseen. I on the other hand have “knowledge.”
There is a misconception that it is impossible to have knowledge unless one is 100% sure of something, but not is not what we mean by knowledge in actual practice. It is actually difficult to be 100% sure of anything. And yet, we have things we know and things we don’t know. Knowledge is always contingent, always possibly re-assessed in the light of new facts and experiences.
Maybe (I highly doubt it, but maybe) someone will find convincing evidence of some God. In that case, my knowledge of how things are will expand to include God. Until that time, I know … as much as I know anything that there is no God.
Knowledge is all about evidence or lack thereof. Belief is about having faith in spite of lack of evidence. Different thing.
I agree with people not being 100% sure, but belief and knowledge being two different things is not that clear for me, as my beliefs are based on knowledge. This is true for other people as well. The question for me is is that knowledge accurate? How accurate is that knowledge?
One does not need to have a conviction that there is no god in order to be an atheist.
Certainly, one's beliefs or lack thereof shape one's life.
I agree. Unlikely beliefs are often subconsciously not believed without any analytical process. When I stopped believing in gods, I never asked why, I just realized I did not believe the old man in the sky concept*. And it was not just suddenly stopping believing (emptying the bucket), it was realizing I did not believe, and had not believed for some time (realizing the bucket had a hole and was leaking water).
* Before anyone complains that the old man in the sky concept is rude or simple, this was the concept I had as a child.
for many theists, believing is also grounded in direct observation, practical experience, experimentation.
I find many believe because they ignore information they do not like.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
