You didn't really answer my question. I'd repeat. Does lack of evidence invalidate truth. Was Einstein's Theories of Relativity Wrong but became Truth after scientists confirmed it?

Depends on what you mean by 'truth'. If you discuss Einsteins relativity theory specifically; no it (in reference to the theory) wasn't true before it could be validated by experimental evidence. The evidence used to infer the hypothesis where in themselves present but not inherently 'true' or 'false'.

It was an hypothesis, built on observed data, and it was a very strong hypothesis, especially as it was setting forth testable propositions (which could be defined to be true or false in their paradigms). As these propositions have been supported by experimental data, it has gone from hypothesis to a theory (which is the gold standard in this area). If the hypothesis would have failed meeting those criteria, Einstein would have been just a footnote in history. N.B. just because it has been tested and found to be working doesn't mean it could not be improved. The theory is not 'true' in the sense of a boolean algebra sense. It is simply our current best working model for specific envelope of physical properties. The general relativity breaks down in the very small (hence the use of quantum mechanics). The mere fact that both of these theories breaks down in the intersection with one another indicates that we are missing a center piece, AKA the unifying theory which we get glimpses off every now and then but still is elusive. But we know its there, and there is work ongoing to find it...

Reyginus:
This is a new definition of atheism. Atheism is simply after the burden of proof? Is it really that there's no evidence or it's not sufficient? And does insufficiency or lack of evidence invalidate a thing?

So far _no_ evidence of _any_ kind has surfaced which support _any_ of the theistic propositions out there. Lack of evidence for a proposed hypothesis shoots a very big hole in it...

*) "a disbelief in the existence of deity", Webster, deifnition of atheism. A fairly common definition which is aplicable in the context outlined above. Disbelief can be turned to belief if the proper conditions are met.

Reyginus:
Your answer is simply Yes, Atheism rejects deities. Now let's try non theism. Does Non theism reject the idea of a God?

'Any of a range of concepts regarding spirituality and religion which do not include the idea of a deity in the form of a theistic god or gods'

This is Non theism according to Merriam Webster. Do you agree with the above definition. We could do an etymological examination of both terms if you disagree.

In fact let's begin. Do you agree that a word is correct etymologically or by definition?

No. I didn't say it rejects gods or deities per see. It is simply a question of accepting the fact that when a propositions is made and that proposition is not supported by evidence the proposition should be rejected. I.e. if you say (propose) that you have a magic goblin living in your basement which communicates telepathically to the world and I better be friends with it or it will burn my skin for an eternity, I will find your proposition to be extraordinary, and i expect you to back it up with extraordinary evidence.

I am, in the context above, using the definition "Theism, in the field of comparative religion, is the belief in the existence of deities." as can be found (among other places) wikipedia, and which is similar to the one you are referring to (webster) above.

However, atheism is not rejecting the notions, or idea, that such a proposition _could_ be valid. It simply observes that the burden of proof has not been met. Furthermore, many atheist believe in various things from lucky charms to ghosts and big foots. Being an atheist does not mean that your life is governed by the scientific method, although the chances for this is significantly higher than for the rest of the population. Functionally non theism and atheism can be regarded as equivalent in this context.

Reyginus:
Does Atheism reject the belief that any Deity Exists?

Technically a deity, or a number of them, could exist, however you would have to have extraordinary evidence for it to be accepted. So far none has been able to give evidence for the various god hypothesis that exists. Therefore the default is to reject the claim of a god/gods.

Reyginus:
I don't get your point. When you say 'not really' what exactly do you mean? Does it even mean anything or it takes a position in the middle? Non theism does not attack theism and as long as you don't discuss the same God you deny its existence or attack it with that poorly grounded reason the atheist does you are not an atheist. Atheism is Anti Theism and Vice Versa and can never be non theism. Explain yourself.

I was responding to your last sentence which stated "Atheists spend their lives discussing God" which is not true. I am not denying existence to any god. As they all lack evidence the default position is to not accept the proposition of the existence of any of them. There's a difference. And factually youre wrong; Atheism is not anti theism. It is simply lack of theism, AKA non-theism.

Reyginus:
Non theism? I disagree. Atheism is not non theism but anti theism. A non theist simply does not concern hi.self with matters of God. I'd put Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg in that category. Atheists spend their lives discussing God.

No not really. I live in Scandinavia for instance, in Europe atheism is commonplace, to the point of being the normal position (most call themselves non religious but spiritual, whatever that means). No one raises an eyebrow, and we rarely, if ever discuss religion. However, there are some vocal theists that wants to impose their various world views on society. And those _people_ we engage. We don't really care about their deities as they are non existing outside of the imagination of these persons, but we do care about the harmful actions such mental disorders can lead to.

onetrack:


Agnostic atheism is not an impossible position for the reasons I explained. You insist that atheists claim to know that there is no god, which is not necessarily true. I do not make that claim, I simply do not have any belief in any god, I do not know that there is no god--this is the agnostic part of what I am saying.

As far as atheists insulting religious people, well I can't say I insult religious people, but remember that believing in a god and having a religion are two different things. God(s) cannot be disproved, but religion certainly can, and has been disproven.

I can't claim to know that there is no god but I am certain that religions do not come from any god. Most people are religious because of their parents and that is it. It's hard to watch the crazy pastors and gullible believers without laughing, to be honest.

Technically atheism is simply non theism. So it really just position on the statement that there is a supernatural realm (a god/gods of whatever variety). There are few, if any, atheist that say they _know_ there is no good. In the normal case it simply is a question of accepting the default position of not accepting a claim which has no evidence. Which is the sensible approach. Agnosticism is technically in all essential form a softer form av atheism.

felixomor:


Please all I can tell u is to go and study about communism, period. Nothing else

My copy of 'Das kapital' resides binder to binder with my copy of 'Mein Kampf'. The term communist is so misused nowadays that it borders on useless if not qualified further. Which type of communism are you referring to? I am fairly well acquinted with them, and as ideologies they leave much to desired even in the best of cases they are pretty naive. However that has nothing to do with atheism (did you know there are christian communists by the way, yes they actually self identify in that way) as such. It's merely an observation from Marx:s side that religion was used a 'opiate for the masses'. Which actually was quite spot on at the time. Sure it still is used that way in parts of the world (muslims in Iran, Saudi Arabia and so forth comes to mind) but in most of west Europe religion is but a cultural memory nowadays and have no actual influence on people. It still hold a grip on the south, largely poorer parts, of the USA, but otherwise the US is largely trending in the direction of secularism as well, so that part is not really true anymore in these geographic areas. Communistic ideology in itself is a child of its time, and when studying the philosophy most people realize that it has been dated. But its still a groundbreaking work, and one should read it if one is interested in political science as it provides a lot of insights. Just as anyone studying psychology cant avoid Freud although no one uses his methods or theories in todays world. Interestingly enough, though, the basics of marxism is likely to be reexamined in the not so distant future if the technology development continues its acceleration.

Really radical life extensions methods is in the pipe, my three children for instance will likely (given the progress) have a useful life of 200 years, at the very least. Heck even I could be in the region where radical life extensions could become the norm. Other very important and fast moving trends is the 4:th revolution in industrialization which is happening as we speak at an, by social standard unprecedented, speed. While medical research formerly where in to soften the diseases caused by aging, we are now looking at curing the aging. Other areas of development that already is having an impact are artificial intelligence systems and highly sophisticated robotics which already is rapidly advancing in a wide spectrum of areas, taking over manufacturing and also theoretical areas which formerly where the domain of human intelligence. This will have very profound and deep effect on society at large and how we do resource management. In a society where manufacturing costs next to nothing, healthcare is largely automated and we don't need people even for simple tasks and the people living there can expect more or less indefinite life spans we will have a very different economic system out of sheer necessity. Or we might even find that we don't need an economy at all... Another area which need attention in this scenario is how to handle the social tensions between poor regions and rich regions. After all, we already have a wide discrepancy in life expectancy, and when that discrepancy grows towards infinity i would think that things would get interesting, and sooner or later intolerable.

felixomor:


Sorry bro, then what is communism based on? Religiousity? Just asking.

Ok; once again; extremely simple; *A*theism = *Non*theism => simplified form --> non belief in supernatural entities. Nothing more. Nothing else.It doest tell you anything about ideology, political views, your knowledge or lack thereof. It *only*, and I mean *only*, says anything about this singular question. This mean that you can find atheists in all conceivable walks of life in all geographic areas with *no* common denominator otherwise. They might be preppers for the doomsday, they might believe in aliens and pink chrystals or they might be science savvy.

Political ideologies is a completely different beast altogether. And quite a few of them are built along the blueprints of religious institutions with a back drop of rituals, social pressure and common dogmas to create cohesion and, yes, religion and worship (a good modern example would be north Korea for instance).


In short before you understand the difference of the concepts the discussion is pretty worthless.

KingEbukasBlog:


Communism is an atheistic ideology - even a buffoon knows this

You still wrong. When you can differentiate between worldview/idelology and atheism, you're welcome to discuss. Before you pass those basic steps, discussions are not very productive.

KingEbukasBlog:

Communism is an atheistic ideology

No. It isnt. Go back to zero and start over. Next time you might learn something...

sonofthunder:

so you did read the comment I quote and was responding to?

Yes? And?

KingEbukasBlog:


Atheism is an irrational belief system and has held its adherents in mental slavery for a long time . E.g Soviet Union , North Korea and 20th century China .

Do you know that atheists have made very little accomplishments through out the history of mankind ? Do you know that atheism is culpable for the death of millions ?

Do you know that atheists are filled with so much hatred and anger ?

You saying it doesn't make it so. There is nothing rational with imaginary friends when you have reality to deal with. And you have to start to educate yourself about the difference between political ideologies and the simple stance on a single question. It seems you have missed some fundamentals.

At any rate it would be fun to know what the term 'christian' really means for you. Its a term with a very wide span (from flower power something out there to hardcore creationist) so a clear definition is a good start.

Godwin2016:


There is only one God. You have to worship him all the time.

Which one, and Why?

Godwin2016:


Young man fear God! That is the best advice I could give to you. Do not deny He who created you. Stop being ungrateful as you are on your way to hell. Be warned before it becomes too late.

Young, that was some time ago, but thanks! What deity should I fear, on what grounds? To what deity should I be grateful for what?

KingEbukasBlog:


How is this germane

In Denmark , there are adherents of Islam , Baha'i Faith , Buddhism , and Neopaganism - these only constitute 20 percent of Denmark's population .

Norway made it possible for people to opt out from the state church just last week and only 15,000 opted out with 3.8 million Norwegians opting to stay back as members of the church .

It requires an actual opt out. Most people simply don't bother. Religion is simply put not important enough to bother about here. I do, because I see the harm of it in other countries. That its no longer affect normal life in the nordics doesn't mean irrational belief systems is good.

KingEbukasBlog:


You just presented data from online polls where a picayune percentage of the population participated . Atheism is no where close to a majority in Europe . As at 2010 the number of atheists globally are only 136 million .

Don't confuse irreligion with atheism .

There is no proof you are Swedish . Stop making claims - no one is concerned with where you came from

Notoriously hard to estimate faith. At the end self reporting is the only actual figure. And I don't confuse atheism with irreligiousness. I have never stated that the majority is self proclaimed atheists... I am because I have choose to adopt the label, which makes me odd, as non belief is assumed. It's nothing I need to say. As I said in another thread, saying I am an atheist is like proclaiming 'I dont collect stamps!' People find it weird that such a thing is needed. It isn't needed in scandinavia, but it's seems to be another story in certain countries :-)

KingEbukasBlog:



Norway

Close to 80 percent of the population in Norway are Christians and the officially unaffiliated make up just 13.0% of the population. Norway are historically a Christian country and its conversion started at 1000AD

Switzerland

Another Christian country is the third most developed country in the world .Christianity came to Switzerland in the 16th century .

Denmark
Christians constitute 80 percent of Denmark’s population with other religions and the non religious are 20 percent of the population .
The 8th most developed country in world is Canada which is one of the world’s wealthiest nations and has an economy dominated by the service industry. By the 16th century , Christianity was already in Denmark

On communism

Communism is an atheistic ideology and atheism led to the death of millions

https://www.nairaland.com/3286519/communist-leaders-killed-millions-because

Russia
According to the World Bank , in 2013 , Russia's GDP per capita: 14,611.70 USD and its Gross domestic product: 2.097 trillion USD .

Three countries are notably irreligious in Europe ; New Zealand ,France and Netherlands

Atheists constitute just 10-12 percent of Europe's population

And 60% of swedens population belongs to the former state church... You should perhaps note that Sweden and Norway until recently have had an obligatory state church, so yes, of course they have a large fraction of the population as members. Doesnt mean that the church has had any impact on the society though :-). Latest figure on people that have some sort of belief in *any* supernatural entity in some sort of way is actually 40%. Yet the church has 60% members. How odd. I for instance, am an atheist and have been that for all of my life, but on paper I am a member in the swedish church. Go figure :-).

Denmark still has a state church, which means that people automatically become members on birth.

KingEbukasBlog:


They still live better lives than you

North Korea has been with atheism since 1948 yet their economy is moribund , the citizens are being brainwashed , the people live in insularity , their leaders are venal and the crime rate is unreasonably high . People get capriciously executed and religious ones are being used to test new military equipment .

Christian countries - Norway , Switzerland , Denmark - are the wealthiest and most progressive in the world . Russia left atheism and started flourishing . Christians own 55 percent of the global wealth while the rest of the adherents of numerous religions including the atheists , irreligious and the agnostics are left with 45 percent

You atheists excoriate Islamic countries for being backward while atheist countries do worse just to constrain their citizens to adhere to atheistic ideologies . Atheism is backwardness , atheism is mental slavery !


Say no to atheism !

Atheism and political idelogoy is to separate things, and further more; your have your facts wrong. Depending on what you mean by the label 'christian', for simplicity we can use the barna group definition (a person who believes in god with a capital 'G', thinks the bible is correct in all its content and goes to church at least once a month) the christian population is about 0.5 % of the Scandinavian population. If you count christians as someone who goes to church at least once every third month (no other qualification needed) its about 5% of the population. If you count 'christians' as someone who things it a cute tradition and like to mark life stages by doing a church wedding, a baptism or similar with a minimal mentioning of supernatural stuff, well its about 60% of the population. The rest is largely simply indifferent to religion. This has been the case for at least the last 70 years or so. In regards of economy your right. We, because I am scandinavian, have about 3% of the worlds GDP, and only have about 0,33 of the worlds population.

In regards of russia your also factually wrong. If you by 'flourishing' means an economy in full on crisis, drastically lowered life expectancy and increased poverty. Yes. They are flourishing.

As said, atheism has no bearing on the political ideologies, but it allows good solid solutions based on actual rational decisions. That helps when developing a nation.

naijadeyhia:



You defined Atheism but forgot that its broader than just a definition. Atheism is a life gotten from various perspectives but all claiming to arrive at one point... THERE IS NO GOD, supernatural or other gods

I am touching an aspect of what some have used to arrive at the NO GOD position and you say it has nothing to do with Atheism?

What you should have said is that you became an atheist from a different path which brings me to my next question,

Why and how did you become an Atheist?

Lets start from there and then i can ask you specific questions you can answer.

No. I didn't forgot anything. The definition is not broader than I said. Various people which where brought up in religious settings have arrived at atheism in various ways, thats is true, but there is quite a few people that never where theists to begin with. I have essentially never in any way, shape or form been religious, and have never been in religious settings. So I didn't really arrive at being an atheist. I always was. Religion is a cultural thing. The best predictor for what religion you happen to get is what society you are growing up in. If you happen to grow up in primarily muslim country you very likely end up being muslim. If you're living in a christian country, you will likely end up christian, the same for hindu or Buddhist or any other religion which happens to dominate your living quarters. Sure, its not true for every single individual, but on average the correlation is obvious.

What I mean when I say that science in itself have no actual bearing on the belief in super natural entities is that science in itself don't have the goal, nor the capacity, to disprove or prove a super natural entity. Sure it doesn't help the christian faith, all in all, that we can reduce genesis to nothing for instance, nor does it help that we can trace the mythology all the way back through Egyptian cultures to the Sumerian times. Nor does it help that we have a fair grasp of the expansion of the universe back to a Planck length after big bang. But technically it could exist super natural beings hidden somewhere in the gaps of knowledge that we have. No, the real clincher is the absence of evidence for a supernatural entity at all. After all; if it is suggested that such an entity exists, i would expect solid evidence for it, but no such things are found, I therefore default to not accepting the proposition of a supernatural being.

sonofthunder:

if a person is a thief, liar, murderer it is a personal matter not your concern fa?

In what regard would any of those things have to do with LBGTQ questions, or atheism which happens to be the topic?

Truthman83:


My reason for pointing Homosexuality is to give some deprived people a voice. As you can see I got attacked immediately I mentioned it.

Well I sort of noticed. LBGTQ is not totally unproblematic anywhere in the world, but its fairly well accepted in most of Europe. And it is unlikely you would get a problem in that arena.

naijadeyhia:



I am surprised you chipped in homosexuality even when the one responding to you has not yet mentioned any sexual orientation. Makes me begin to wonder about one of the reasons you actually became an atheist...

No I haven't. I consider sexual preferences to be irrelevant. If a person is homosexual, it is a personal matter not of my concern.

Truthman83:


It is a much different society to ours over here. Here you are considered insane if you do not believe in the Christian God or the Islamic one. 95% of our population is very religious. I cannot sum up the courage at this moment to declare myself Atheist. killing an Atheist might be considered as demonic cleansing. I live in a society that believe demons are real and a lot of money is made by pastors killing them. My society is also extremely Homosexuality intolerant. It is good to know that someone out there lives in a much civilized society.

Well what I said goes for most of Europe actually So the nordic regions is not alone.I have a hard time to understand this part. And it fascinates me that people can behave in such an immoral and irrational way. Especially as many of these religious cults seems keen on claiming the moral high ground.

Truthman83:


I am a new Atheist and I would love to know if your society is like mine,where it is difficult to let anyone know you do not believe in a god? Thanks

No. Not at all. Technically the country I live in have about 60% that calls themselves and are a member of the lutheran church. About 40% have a vague sort of deism/theism type of faith system (usually on the level ' I think there something out there' type). About 5% actually goes to church. about 0.5% actually believe in what the bible says. In practical term the absolute majority are practical atheist and cultural christians where the church is reduced to ceremonial relevance. We use baptism to welcome a new life to the extended family, we use weddings as a ceremony for entering a new stage of life, and have the burial ceremony carried out by the local church with a minimal amount of supernatural references. In essence the church plays a cultural role and people are happy with that. So no, having no faith here is not hard in any way, actually it would raise eyebrows you actually where an outspoken religious person, it would be taken as a mental illness rather than something positive.

SirWere:


How about your traditional religion?? How do you feel when People advocate such beliefs to you

When traveling outside of Europe (i work fairly internationally) the situation changes. There it seems that there are regions where things like religion is important. Hence my interest of the subject. Different cultures and belief systems are interesting.

I am not sure what you mean by 'traditional religions'. If you take the interpretations of the christian mythology it goes from Russian orthodox to roman catholics all the way to the mormons. Its a very wide field. The islamic mythology is also fairly wide in its interpretation and so is the jewish mythology (which is the ancestor to both christianity and islam).

Really traditional mythologies would be the local deities (in my case old norse asa gods, and whatever you had locally). In common for all the mentioned mythologies is the lack of evidence for them. What I feel for advocation of a specific variant of these belief systems depends on the corollaries of the belief system.

SirWere:
I already know the Answer to this but I just want to put it out for those who claim Atheism equals a hugely negative trend:



Do you HATE religious people??


Do you get ANGRY when they preach to you??

Both of the statements is conditional on the context. Hate is a strong word. Dislike is more likely. If they where to preach to me, I would, likely, simply ignore them. It's Not something which happens in the society I live in, so I am not sure how I would react. Last time I had religious people trying to proselytize must have been, well, about 25 years ago or so, I think it was mormons actually. A rare breed indeed here in Scandinavia. We had a nice discussion and I actually read their book (well, it was, how should I put it, an experience). I read the bible and the quo-ran as well back then. They where on equal footing with one another when it comes to literary quality and quality of the contents.

naijadeyhia:


Oh so this route has nothing to do with Atheism? I see

Care to share this eureka moment with your fellow atheists here?

I can not speak for them. And no this route have nothing to do with atheism per see.

naijadeyhia:


Currently unknown or YOU DO NOT KNOW. (clarification is needed because many atheists here come out straight and say THEY KNOW the cause and point to SCIENCE)

You answered Yes to the other question. I need the long answer and not the short one.

Well if they know they can give the guys at cern a call. We have hypothesis in that regard,and viable pathways forward to investigate. BUt we cant say we know.

But regardless; neither of the questions have anything to do with atheism. Me knowing or not knowing how the universe came to be, or whether or not quantum mechanics is compatible with newtonian mechanics, or whether or not I am proficient in the area of physics (spoiler alert; I am not a physicist, i deal in software) is totally irrelevant to the premise. So sorry, we can have that discussion (within limits), and it would be very interesting, but it has nothing to do with atheism.

naijadeyhia:


Let me indulge you and ask you just 2 questions first in accordance with your definition of Atheism;

1. Does the universe have a beginning that requires a cause? If so, what was this cause?

2. Is materialistic determinism compatible with the intrinsically probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics?

Lets start from there.

1. Current data sugest a start point for _our_ universe. What started it, and whether the question of a cause is even valid, is currently unknown.
2. Short answer; Yes.

4kings:

*Stance of a question concerning proposed deities*

So what's your stance on the existence of an 'intelligent designer'?

If you read my text, you have my stance on that particular subject, at least if its a question of a supernatural one.

naijadeyhia:


correction, its "was that directed at me"? not "to me" The Nigerian tongue is heavy on you bro

To the best of my knowledge both forms are valid. But sure, I could be wrong.