Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Non sequitur]

I'm still waiting for a response to what this "truth claim" is, that I have been apparently making without my knowledge...

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It may be wrong, their analysis of the evidence may ultimately be incorrect, but if their claim is based on empirical evidence, then it's not faith.

But how do we justify empiricism? It may work, but the evidence that it works is all empirical, so we have to assume empiricism in order to accept this evidence.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So do I.

I call them Boolean standards.

But I take flak for them, and you won't; because yours [probably] gives preeminence to science, whereas mine gives preeminence to God.

Ok but why call partial beliefs "boolean standards"?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But how do we justify empiricism? It may work, but the evidence that it works is all empirical, so we have to assume empiricism in order to accept this evidence.

The fundamental assumption is more, well, fundamental: we have to assume that Descartes' Demon doesn't exist. Once we assume that, empiricism should follow. If our senses, our perception of reality, is at least roughly representative of reality itself, then we can trust that this object really does exist, and it really does fall. From that basis, empiricism follows.

 

[selfinflikted]

It's a little annoying when someone else speaks towards our beliefs, or in this case unbelief. As an atheist, I make no truth claim. I call myself an atheist and use the most strict definition of the word that there is:

a - without
theist- god(s)

Without god. Simple. Effective. It explains my position quite nicely. I don't say there is no god. I don't know. I can't know - no one can.

 

[WretchedMan]

First, if they see evidence for their claim, then it's not faith - it's a rational belief. It may be wrong, their analysis of the evidence may ultimately be incorrect, but if their claim is based on empirical evidence, then it's not faith.

Second, the word 'atheist' can be defined to mean anything we want, just like any other word. So what definition should we use? Well, when someone says "I'm an atheist", the definition we should use when analysing that sentence is the definition they use. If we use some other definition, then we equivocate: we run the risk of saying "Aha! You said you're an atheist, and by my definition of atheism, that means you have faith! Nyer!" - obviously, semantics cannot force someone to have faith. If the person in question genuinely doesn't have faith in anything, then our semantics therefore means squat.

We have to use the definition used by self-professed atheists, otherwise you equivocate. So, what is the definition used by self-professed atheists? The vast majority of atheists define theism and atheism thusly:

Theism is the affirmation of the existence of deities; theists are those who make the claim "God exists". Atheists, then, are everyone else: they're those people who don't make the claim "God exists". Atheism can be further split according a particular self-professed atheist's stance on the claim "God does not exist". An atheist who affirms this second claim is a 'strong' atheist: they reject the claim "God exists" as well as affirm the claim "God does not exist". Those who reject the second claim are 'weak' atheists: they reject both the claim that "God exists" and the claim that "God does not exist" - they know he either exists or doesn't exist, but they don't affirm either stance. These weak atheists make up the vast majority of self-professed atheists.

Theist: Affirms "God exists" and rejects "God doesn't exist"
Weak Atheist: Rejects "God exists" and rejects "God doesn't exist"
Strong Atheist: Rejects "God exists" and affirms "God doesn't exist"

This is the definition used by the vast majority of people who say "I am an atheist". You can personally define these terms how you wish; some theists call 'atheism' what atheists call 'strong atheism', leading to confusion. Regardless, when a person says "I am an atheist", they are almost certainly implying that they are a 'weak atheist' as defined above.

As such, the vast majority of self-professed atheists do not make a faith-based claim.

This is derailing the thread, so this is the last I'm going to post on this here. I will gladly discuss it in an appropriate thread if you will give me a link or I may start one when I get time.

There needs to be sufficient evidence for a belief to be rational, but I didn't get into the rationality of the belief. Additionally, faith isn't restricted to religious belief and it does not exist in a vaccum where evidence isn't allowed. This is a mistake atheists often make. Everyone has faith and utilizes it every day. Related to the topic of this thread, naturalism requires faith that only natural causes are sufficient to account for the universe, origin of life, and its diversity.

As far as "we can define any word any way we want" claim, it makes no sense. Yes words' meanings can change over time, but if we followed your relative linguistics as you seem to define it, we could have no meaningful discussion or ideas.

Atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, which means "godless" or "no god" and has been used that way throughout history. It wasn't formed by simply slapping an "a" on the front of theism. It is not simply "no belief" in any god, it is a definitive claim on the existence of gods. This recent attempt to change the meaning of atheism only serves as a semantic attempt to absolve atheists of having to defend their belief.

The claimed position of "weak atheism" as you have presented is illogical. To reject "no gods exist" while also rejecting "gods exist" is a violation of the law of non contradiction, so this is not a valid position. As I said in post, the only logical in between is agnosticism, regardless of any word games a person attempts to play or what label they misapply to theirself.

 

[selfinflikted]

Please start a new thread rather than discuss through PM. I'd like to participate also.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Please start a new thread rather than discuss through PM. I'd like to participate also.

As would I.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is derailing the thread, so this is the last I'm going to post on this here. I will gladly discuss it in an appropriate thread if you will give me a link or I may start one when I get time.

There needs to be sufficient evidence for a belief to be rational, but I didn't get into the rationality of the belief. Additionally, faith isn't restricted to religious belief and it does not exist in a vaccum where evidence isn't allowed. This is a mistake atheists often make. Everyone has faith and utilizes it every day. Related to the topic of this thread, naturalism requires faith that only natural causes are sufficient to account for the universe, origin of life, and its diversity.

As far as "we can define any word any way we want" claim, it makes no sense. Yes words' meanings can change over time, but if we followed your relative linguistics as you seem to define it, we could have no meaningful discussion or ideas.

Atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, which means "godless" or "no god" and has been used that way throughout history. It wasn't formed by simply slapping an "a" on the front of theism. It is not simply "no belief" in any god, it is a definitive claim on the existence of gods. This recent attempt to change the meaning of atheism only serves as a semantic attempt to absolve atheists of having to defend their belief.

The claimed position of "weak atheism" as you have presented is illogical. To reject "no gods exist" while also rejecting "gods exist" is a violation of the law of non contradiction, so this is not a valid position. As I said in post, the only logical in between is agnosticism, regardless of any word games a person attempts to play or what label they misapply to theirself.

Please start a new thread rather than discuss through PM. I'd like to participate also.

As would I.

New thread in progress made in Philosophy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok but why call partial beliefs "boolean standards"?

For lack of a better term --

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a little annoying when someone else speaks towards our beliefs, or in this case unbelief.

So far, so good; but then...

I don't say there is no god. I don't know. I can't know - no one can.

It's a little annoying when someone else speaks towards our beliefs.

 

[selfinflikted]

So far, so good; but then...

It's a little annoying when someone else speaks towards our beliefs.

Sorry, AV. You can say you do until the cows come home, but you don't know for sure that anything exists, let alone a god. You could just be plugged into the Matrix, and everything you "know" to be true is only an illusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, AV. You can say you do until the cows come home, but you don't know for sure that anything exists, let alone a god. You could just be plugged into the Matrix, and everything you "know" to be true is only an illusion.

Maya, maya, maya --

 

[selfinflikted]

Maya, maya, maya --

Just sayin'.

 

[Chalnoth]

Second, science doesn't "work for every part of our lifes (sic)". Science's scope is limited.

Science is about finding the truth. There is nothing else that works as well as science for finding the truth about things.

There are other aspects of our lives that are not about finding the truth, but the problem here is that religion claims to know the truth about certain things. So the two most definitely overlap, and science wins every time there is an overlap.

 

[Chalnoth]

The origin of mountain has a scientific explanation. And it is included in creationism.

Is one example enough?

Science is a method. Your statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the method of science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, AV. You can say you do until the cows come home, but you don't know for sure that anything exists, let alone a god. You could just be plugged into the Matrix, and everything you "know" to be true is only an illusion.

Maya, maya, maya --

Just sayin'.

I trust you're treating this as more than just a standard facepalm?

You do know what 'maya' is, don't you?

 

[Chalnoth]

But how do we justify empiricism? It may work, but the evidence that it works is all empirical, so we have to assume empiricism in order to accept this evidence.

The success of empiricism really only relies upon one fact: the world is sensible. If the world isn't sensible, then nothing can give us knowledge about how the world works. If the world is sensible, then only empiricism can give us knowledge about how the world works.

 

[Greg1234]

Science is about finding the truth.

Its methodological naturalism that's the problem.

 

[Chalnoth]

Its methodological naturalism that's the problem.

You mean, the problem is that science doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notions? Because it is only by throwing out supernatural explanations that science actually started to make progress.