Atheism is inconsistent with scientific method, prize-winning physicist says

#11
Gleiser seems to be referring to positive atheists who are mentally aware of and vocally or even politically assertive of their cognitive orientation. As opposed to a passive condition of lacking theistic beliefs, just having the classification pinned upon such by an outside establishment -- plus agnostics.

positive & negative: "Positive" atheists explicitly assert that it is false that any deities exist. "Negative" atheists assert they do not believe any deities exist, but do not explicitly assert it is true that no deity exists. Those who do not believe any deities exist, but do not assert such non-belief, are included among implicit atheists. Among "implicit" atheists are thus included the following: children and adults who have never heard of deities; people who have heard of deities but have never given the idea any considerable thought; and those agnostics who suspend belief about deities, but do not reject such belief. All implicit atheists are included in the negative/weak categorization.

implict & explicit. . . "implicit atheism" is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while "explicit atheism" is "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists, though they do not themselves maintain a belief in a god or gods, have not rejected the notion or have not considered it further. [...] Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. [...] The terms "weak atheism" and "strong atheism", also known as "negative atheism" and "positive atheism", are usually used by Smith as synonyms of the less well-known "implicit" and "explicit" categories.


###

(Mar 21, 2019 05:27 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: I am an atheist but only in the sense that I am also an a-mermaidist, an a-satyrist, or an a-unicornist. There's simply no reason to posit a being for which there is not a shred of evidence. And the fact that many people believe in God is an argument ad populum. IOW, it doesn't make it true that people believe in it.


Like Sam Harris, I've never quite understood the apparent conceptual conflict of being passionately anti-God and yet preferring to be distinguished in the population by an identity-label that contains the very word "theist".

Considering the intensely personal, injured or antagonistic feelings that a positive atheist may contingently feel, it's kind of similar to running about the neighborhood proclaiming "Hey, everybody, I'm a non-murderer!" Or "Hey, everybody, I'm a non-pedophile!" I wouldn't remotely want those two sub-components mentioned in association with my identity even with the prefix indicating a diametric relationship to them.

###

(Mar 21, 2019 07:11 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: . . . She told him that she needed reassurance and asked him if he believed that Jesus died for our sins. He said, yes. She then asked him if he accepted Jesus as his savior. He said, yes.

Next up, pastor so-and-so, who then gave a salvation message and went on and on about his concern over this man and all of us making into heaven.

[...] In my mind* "We sent him there, you fucking idiot. He was only nineteen. If there was a heaven, your ungrateful ass would never make it in. So, STFU!"  (Keep quiet and walk away. It’s just people being people.)


It is amazing -- depending upon the passages and their interpretations by a denomination or group -- how a life of good acts can really not amount to a hill of beans. Making it to the Kingdom of God revolving centrally around repeatedly being conscious of accepting slash appreciating Christ dying for human sins and being a ritualistic groveler (but truly feeling that way inside, not outer pretense). My aunt[*] once talked about this Baptist(?) they knew who'd often pontificate (paraphrasing) "Saved is saved. I could go out and rape a 16-year old girl, but I'd still be going to Heaven -- just need to repent for it and keep loving the Lord.".

Yeah, really promotes and ensures civilized behavior when a lifestyle of moral behavior or "good acts" is diminished as a requirement for getting their reward.

- - -

[*] footnote: Some relative, anyway. Memory's so jumbled nowadays that I'm like a homeless Bag Lady attributing Silla to Drew instead of Dru, half the time.

###
Reply
#12
(Mar 21, 2019 07:10 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Only that its prevalence is evidence of something, even if only an evolutionary propensity to see significance in patterns...like your ghosts and UFOs.

There are thousands of eyewitness accounts and photos and videos of ghosts and ufos. There is no such evidence for God. He is a literary character from ancient fables. People believing in him is evidence of nothing. You might as well believe in lightning bolt-hurling Zeus. Is Zeus a "pattern" too?
Eyewitness accounts and photos and videos of unknown and unproven phenomena. There are many similarly unexplained "miracles" and personal experiences with God. In both cases, it's just a matter of belief as to the source of either.



(Mar 21, 2019 07:42 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote:
Quote:Your "only logical conclusion possible" belies your professed nonchalance. Just because you're not willing to argue it doesn't make it any less a belief. Plenty of people hold beliefs they neither examine nor could argue.

Again, believe whatever you want. Why defend a belief.....could it be because the believer can’t keep it private? What makes a belief worth defending?
I don't know. Why couldn't you keep your atheism private? O_o

If you have no real reason for your belief, I can fully understand not defending it.



(Mar 21, 2019 07:55 PM)C C Wrote: Gleiser seems to be referring to positive atheists who are mentally aware of and vocally or even politically assertive of their cognitive orientation. As opposed to a passive condition of lacking theistic beliefs, just having the classification pinned upon such by an outside establishment -- plus agnostics.

A lot of people who claim to only lack theistic belief often argue against theism, making their claim transparently false.
Reply
#13
Quote:Eyewitness accounts and photos and videos of unknown and unproven phenomena. There are many similarly unexplained "miracles" and personal experiences with God. In both cases, it's just a matter of belief as to the source of either.

No..eyewitness accounts and photos and videos of ghost and ufo phenomena that are henceforth proven to be real. There is no question that ghost and ufo phenomena are real since the evidence for them is overwhelming. Tortillas with baked in images of Jesus or the virgin Mary? Yeah...we know all about that.


[Image: small_DIY%20Jesus%20on%20a%20tortilla%20.jpg]
Reply
#14
(Mar 21, 2019 09:09 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: No..eyewitness accounts and photos and videos of phenomena that are henceforth proven to be real. There is no question that ghost and ufo phenomena are real since the evidence for them is overwhelming. Tortillas with baked in images of Jesus or the virgin Mary? Yeah...we know all about that.


[Image: small_DIY%20Jesus%20on%20a%20tortilla%20.jpg]

That's one exclamation that Deb maybe missed on "Dexter": "Christ on a tortilla!"

###
Reply
#15
(Mar 21, 2019 09:09 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Eyewitness accounts and photos and videos of unknown and unproven phenomena. There are many similarly unexplained "miracles" and personal experiences with God. In both cases, it's just a matter of belief as to the source of either.

No..eyewitness accounts and photos and videos of phenomena that are henceforth proven to be real. There is no question that ghost and ufo phenomena are real since the evidence for them is overwhelming. Tortillas with baked in images of Jesus or the virgin Mary? Yeah...we know all about that.

Again, you need to learn how to read. Rolleyes

No one said anything wasn't "real"...yet another straw man. Only that their "source" was "unknown and unproven" and thus a "matter of belief".
And you're ignorant if you're unaware of unexplainable medical recoveries, etc., that's on you.
Reply
#16
Quote:Why couldn't you keep your atheism private? O_o


Do you know who I am?  I'll tell you...I'm anonymous. Anonymity, about us much privacy as one can have when chatting amongst others on an internet forum without being hacked. I couldn't say for certain who you are or even if you believe everything you type. I can tell you anything but there's always going to be doubt about the truth. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Even if I was a believer, and who knows maybe I am, God would be anonymous. All I have is some words from someone claiming they're God's. Pen names, nom de plumes, ghost writers, as far as I'm concerned...anonymous in their own right.

One thing I've noticed every time I frequented a church service was that no one questioned anything being said. Not one believer or non believer would interrupt the sermon and ask WTF about anything. It was what made me keep going as a kid, waiting for someone to pop a question....never happened. I did ask a preacher a WTF while exiting the church once and it horrified/embarrassed my mother so much that she never took me again. People are exposed to science daily and yet when amongst their cohorts, seems no one questions the faith. I welcome them here.
Reply
#17
(Mar 22, 2019 03:33 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote:
Quote:Why couldn't you keep your atheism private? O_o

Do you know who I am?  I'll tell you...I'm anonymous. Anonymity, about us much privacy as one can have when chatting amongst others on an internet forum without being hacked. I couldn't say for certain who you are or even if you believe everything you type. I can tell you anything but there's always going to be doubt about the truth. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Even if I was a believer, and who knows maybe I am, God would be anonymous. All I have is some words from someone claiming they're God's. Pen names, nom de plumes, ghost writers, as far as I'm concerned...anonymous in their own right.
Still just pointing out the apparent hypocrisy.

(Mar 21, 2019 04:03 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: The most difficult thing about religious belief isn't proving it, it's keeping it to yourself.

...the only logical conclusion possible....No reason for believing in God.

So that only counts in-person, huh? You have zero complaints about how much people may talk about their religious beliefs, or you your atheistic beliefs, online or anonymously?
If that's the case, just don't hang around with religious people. No idea why we should care about who you hang around with.

God is not anonymous to a believer.

Quote:One thing I've noticed every time I frequented a church service was that no one questioned anything being said. Not one believer or non believer would interrupt the sermon and ask WTF about anything. It was what made me keep going as a kid, waiting for someone to pop a question....never happened. I did ask a preacher a WTF while exiting the church once and it horrified/embarrassed my mother so much that she never took me again. People are exposed to science daily and yet when amongst their cohorts, seems no one questions the faith. I welcome them here.

It's called polite society, where people generally do not interrupt eulogies, commencements, campaigning, or other speeches or lectures. Bible class (Sunday school) is for questions and discussion. And there's no accounting for the sensibilities of your mother.

Whether you want to believe it or not, you can find plenty of religious people online to ask your questions. The miracle of the information age.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  10 biblical-era discoveries of 2018 + If sci & relig are at war, sci is winning C C 12 527 Dec 28, 2018 07:34 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)