Atheism the Belief

[MintPlumbing]

I'm not making the claim.

 

My claim is that it can't be tested, do you disagree with that claim?

[SnailyBoy]

My claim is that it can't be tested, do you disagree with that claim?

 

I'm not a theoretical physicist or cosmologist. I can only consider the evidence presented to me by the likes of Professor Hawking. His report clearly doesn't support your claim that the Universe is deterministic. So on what basis should I discuss it further?

[flamingjimmy]

It has been tested exhaustively.

If not why does everybody who has studied cosmology or quantum mechanics say one thing and pretty much only you say the other?

All this testing has been extensively documented.

 

You could start by reading this:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html

 

A good read, thanks. Now for an opposing view I'm gonna watch these videos by some MIT graduate who reckons Einstein was right, to the extant that he wrote a book called 'god does not play dice'!

 

[unbeliever]

A good read, thanks. Now for an opposing view I'm gonna watch these videos by some MIT graduate who reckons Einstein was right, to the extant that he wrote a book called 'god does not play dice'!

 

 

Einstein did not stand by that comment.

Some random MIT graduate on youtube is hardly comparable with a lecture by the Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology within the University of Cambridge.

But it never hurts to hear people out.

Edited July 23, 2015 by unbeliever

[RootsBooster]

Yes I did mean to, because it's very difficult to represent the incoherence of what you're suggesting otherwise.

In that case, if you meant to use the double negative it reads this...

 

"...to distract from the fact that to both be sure about whether there is a god and to not believe there is a god requires a belief that there isn't a god"

 

I have no problem with that statement, it follows logic and I haven't made any claims contrary to it. There are indeed atheists who that statement applies to, just not all atheists (if you wanted to to get into it, the full title would probably be gnostic anti-theist atheist).

 

In terms of explaining how it works, I have done - you rejecting or asking me to explain "how it works" requires me to delve into your level of incoherence - my very point is that it doesn't work.

What doesn't work? Atheism meaning absence of belief?

 

It's interesting that Huxley, who you hold up for your definition of atheism coined "agnostic" in rejection of atheism, for the very reason that atheists felt they had 'attained a certain "gnosis"'.

I've done nothing of the sort, I don't know which thread or forum you've been reading but I haven't stated anywhere that Huxley is my definition of atheism. I only pointed out that he acknowledged he was an atheist.

 

Huxley was uncomfortable identifying with the term 'atheist' because many people thought it implied a surety, he acknowledged that it did apply to him though.

[Cyclone]

I'm an atheist but that's not a belief I hold

 

You're either playing word games with yourself (IMO) or you're not an atheist.

 

You claim not to believe in a god (obviously I believe your claim) but you also claim not to disbelieve in (a) god(s).

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2015 at 08:22 ----------

 

My opinion is based on my own observations and thoughts, not the observations and thoughts of other people, if scientists believe the universe to be random how do they predict future events in the universe. A random universe could end tomorrow or go on for ever, it would be impossible to know its future.

 

You've observed a lot of quantum behaviour? You've investigated radioactive decay?

Or you think the universe is deterministic because at the level we exist it largely appears to be so when observed through our rather limited senses?

 

A universe that includes randomness at a very low level doesn't mean it becomes unpredictable on a macro scale. You've obviously not thought about it very much if that's as far as you've gone.

[Zamo]

Whether atheism is a belief or not is pretty irrelevant. What it isn't is a 'belief system' i.e. a religion. Atheism isn't used to coerce people into following rules by threatening them with the sadistic revenge of some egotistical super being. Far better to believe in no god than the sort described by most religions... people should be more choosy about who they worship.

[RootsBooster]

You're either playing word games with yourself (IMO) or you're not an atheist.

 

You claim not to believe in a god (obviously I believe your claim) but you also claim not to disbelieve in (a) god(s).

 

I think (with many of the posts on here) the problem lies with the interpretation of the word "disbelief". I thought we had cleared this one up earlier.

 

If you take it to mean;

 

1.Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real

 

OR

 

2.Lack of faith

 

...as per the OED, then there's no issue and I haven't claimed not to disbelieve in God (or gods).

 

 

If you think that to disbelieve means to hold the opposing belief (that gods do not exist), then that doesn't apply to me.

[Cyclone]

A lack of a belief that something exists is a belief that something doesn't exist.

 

If I tell you that I'm 10 feet tall and you express disbelief, that means you believe that I'm not 10 feet tall. Again, it's a binary thing, there is no 3rd position for you to take. Disbelief in a thing existing, is belief in the thing not existing.

[RootsBooster]

A lack of a belief that something exists is a belief that something doesn't exist.

in that case, as per post #120...

 

This binary state is exactly why absence of belief is not belief of absence.

 

Imagine I were to ask you if you believed I currently had an injured left hand, you would most likely say you didn't have enough information to base such a belief on. Therefore, you wouldn't hold the belief that I have an injured hand. You literally would not believe that I have an injured hand.

 

This absence of belief does not, however, imply that you believe in the opposite (which would be a 3rd option, not binary), that I do not have an injured hand.

You simply haven't been convinced yet that I do have an injured hand.

You lack that belief.

It is absent.

It is disbelief.

...if asked that question you would (according to your logic) hold the belief that my hand is injured or hold the opposing belief that my hand is not injured, you would not be able to simply be without belief that my hand is injured.

 

So I ask you, do you believe that my hand is injured?

If I tell you that I'm 10 feet tall and you express disbelief, that means you believe that I'm not 10 feet tall. Again, it's a binary thing, there is no 3rd position for you to take. Disbelief in a thing existing, is belief in the thing not existing.

If you told me that you were 10 feet tall I would express disbelief (lack of belief) because I have not been convinced you are telling the truth, with no evidence to support your claim. It would not mean that I hold the belief that you are not 10ft tall.

 

Do you believe my hand is injured?