beyond science, beyond religion

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Quazga
Typically if you say "I don't know if a God exists or not" then you are called agnostic.

If you say "I believe there is no God" than that is a statement of belief.

but 99% of atheists don't say that. the vast majority of atheists say "i don't believe in a god"
not believing in something is different than believing something doesn't exist.

i do not believe in god
i believe there is no god

there is quite the difference.
agnostics would say "i do not believe in a god" because they truely don't believe in a god, but they also do not believe a god doesn't exist.

agnostics are in fact atheists, for they have no theism. they are just agnostic atheists, like almost all atheists.

Any conclusion you arive at due to persuasion (whether persuaded by evidence or other wise) is a belief.

You can say I have a lack of belief, all day long, but unless you are completely unaware of something, you hold a belief about it. It's just the way the human mind works.

Think of it this way, you are a computer and your input is "God is real". How do you respond? However you respond is based upon your conclusions, and is thus a belief.

Anything that you hold to be true or untrue is a belief. It might be a belief re-enforced by external evidence, or it might be a belief based on internal desires, but it is always a belief.

By the way, Websters 3rd definition for belief explicity states this...

3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

Note how any conviction that is the result of the examintation of evidence, is a belief.






[edit on 13-8-2007 by Quazga]

Originally posted by Quazga
Typically if you say "I don't know if a God exists or not" then you are called agnostic.

If you say "I believe there is no God" than that is a statement of belief.

I go further to say Atheism is belief system because when you ask an Atheist why religions exist, you will get different answers from different people.

well i dont say "I believe there is no God" i say "there is no god" as a fact, not a belief.

Also i could say "i believe cars move on the road" would that be a belief system as well?

[edit on 13-8-2007 by tankthinker]

[edit on 13-8-2007 by tankthinker]

Originally posted by tankthinker

Originally posted by Quazga
Typically if you say "I don't know if a God exists or not" then you are called agnostic.

If you say "I believe there is no God" than that is a statement of belief.

I go further to say Atheism is belief system because when you ask an Atheist why religions exist, you will get different answers from different people.

well i dont say "I believe there is no God" i say "there is no god" as a fact, not a belief.

Also i could say "i believe cars move on the road" would that be a belief system as well?

[edit on 13-8-2007 by tankthinker]

[edit on 13-8-2007 by tankthinker]

Yes, according to Webster, it would be a belief. Not neccesarily a belief system, but a belief.

3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

All this fact and non-fact talk shows that in order to go beyond atheism and religion, we need new vocabulary.

there are spiritual schools of thought that do not distinguish between "real" and "unreal" or "fact" and "fiction" but rather between...

various levels of REAL or various levels of illusion or various levels of truth or various levels of manifestation.

just because something is not perceivable and experientially manifest, does not mean it is not REAL. Examples: You cant see an unborn child, but that does not mean its not real. You cannot hear all that a dog hears, but that does not mean it is not real.

Considering that we currently might not be able to perceive 99.9% of all-that-exists there is a bit more wisdom and progress to be gained by no longer trying to figure out "what is real and not real".

If you only perceive 0.1.% of all that is, it even borders on the insane to start telling people what is "real" and unreal. Seen from this perspective, current scientific practice is a form of insanity. The only thing more narrow-minded might be religion...which is probably why nobody religious has shown up in this thread yet.

sorry for sounding harsh, Im only debating.

so what do all you atheists have to say on Webster Dictionaries definition of a Belief?

Any belief system that cannot be proven constitutes a religion.

As such, atheism is also a religion because there is no proof:

1. That the Universe emerged purely through accident; and,

2. That a discarnate consciousness was not around prior to The Big Bang that helped to bring the Universe into existence.

The absence of belief is not a belief. That reasoning is absurd and I look at it as grasping at straws to level a playing lield in which you have no chance of winning or even have the right to be playing on.


Athiesm is not a "belief" Some forms moving towards agnostic thought is moreso. To even call Athiesm a religious belief just because it is required for you to have a faith in the supernatural and improbable in non-athiestic systems is like playground debate and reflects the degree of mentality used as the basis of the argument.

Kinda funny to be honest.

Athiesm has nothing to do with the "Big Bang" or Darwinism" at all. That is just common beliefs of people who call themselves athiests. Taht is like saying, to be Christian you need to bring up your kids believing in Santa. Ridiculous.

And the definition of religion does not include anything someone can base thoughts on. Which is what athiesm is. Religion requires faith, doctrine, and action within that doctrine.... athiesm has none or very little degrees of those attributes. Again, just theists grasping at straws to help defend a waivering and decaying concept.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by IamBoon]

The burden of proof lies within those who say a consciousness WAS around that lies beyond out means of percieving it.

NOt the other way around. If I say " There is a 100,000 mile wide vagina that it causing solar flares and wish to be taken seriously . I ned to bring proof. Just because noone can say it is not true Doesn't meean taht it proves me right, I am the one making outlandish and unsubstantiated claims that do not lay within the realm of the known , so I bare the burden of proof.


Theists are the ones who need proof, not the skeptics of their wild belief systems.

Originally posted by IamBoon
The absence of belief is not a belief. That reasoning is absurd and I look at it as grasping at straws to level a playing lield in which you have no chance of winning or even have the right to be playing on.


Athiesm is not a "belief" Some forms moving towards agnostic thought is moreso. To even call Athiesm a religious belief just because it is required for you to have a faith in the supernatural and improbable in non-athiestic systems is like playground debate and reflects the degree of mentality used as the basis of the argument.

Kinda funny to be honest.

Athiesm has nothing to do with the "Big Bang" or Darwinism" at all. That is just common beliefs of people who call themselves athiests. Taht is like saying, to be Christian you need to bring up your kids believing in Santa. Ridiculous.

And the definition of religion does not include anything someone can base thoughts on. Which is what athiesm is. Religion requires faith, doctrine, and action within that doctrine.... athiesm has none or very little degrees of those attributes. Again, just theists grasping at straws to help defend a waivering and decaying concept.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by IamBoon]

Webster disagrees with you. Webster states that any conviction based on examination of evidence is a belief.

Webster also has a few other definitions... and also the definition of belief we are scrutinizing is belief on ABSENSE of evidence... not based thereon.

Sure I believe I am typing , but I have sufficient proof to claim this is true and thus maintain it as fact. So what is "WEbster's" Definition of "fact"... or can there be one is in fact belief ... on your terms is anything, or I believe that is just the passage you chose to falsely make your point seem more relevant.

Truth is , on the basis ofd this topic, that point is mute. As the belief we are speaking of is in fact based on circumstantial or absent evidence. Not on much of anything tangible.

so everyone is basically saying that atheism is a belief, so a type of religion?

well if thats the case im signing up for pope (lol)

Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan -- more at BELIEVE
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer . FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof . CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent . CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof . synonym see in addition OPINION


THis come directly from Websters... Remind me where you retrieved your version of webster's..... the defintion you give is based on assumption of evidence that when examined represesents the idea or concept. Belief enters when the evidence points towards the concept NOT being true.... As defined in the paragraph BELOW the decription of the word.

Describing a word in definition and the way it actually works inside thought are two different things when using such abstract concepts.
LIke "LOve" , "Hate" "Disbelief"..etc.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by IamBoon]

[edit on 13-8-2007 by IamBoon]

IamBoon...thanks for quoting the Websters entry. In my view it confirms what is being said: That atheism IS a belief. But theres nothing wrong with you having beliefs at all...we all need some concept of life to hold on to, dont we?

Atheism is a belief that spawns lines of argumentation, books, lectures, attempts to convert christians, attempts to convince others, attempts to explain why certain things are true and others untrue. While it may be a much softer and more reasonable belief-system, it still is a belief-system.

One thing atheists are BRILLIANT at is acting like their specific beliefs are the only things that are not beliefs at all but truth. So we are back at "we have the truth, and you dont". And in THIS sense atheism is very similar to theism.

Brittanica... Belief;
a mental attitude of acceptance or assent toward a proposition without the full intellectual knowledge required to guarantee its truth

Originally posted by IamBoon
Webster also has a few other definitions... and also the definition of belief we are scrutinizing is belief on ABSENSE of evidence... not based thereon.

Sure I believe I am typing , but I have sufficient proof to claim this is true and thus maintain it as fact. So what is "WEbster's" Definition of "fact"... or can there be one is in fact belief ... on your terms is anything, or I believe that is just the passage you chose to falsely make your point seem more relevant.

Truth is , on the basis ofd this topic, that point is mute. As the belief we are speaking of is in fact based on circumstantial or absent evidence. Not on much of anything tangible.

First, I say you need to read Hegels Phenomenology of Spirit.

en.wikipedia.org...

That should clear things up for you.

Yes, anything you take as fact is a belief, whether that be a fact that is commonly accepted or one that isn't. You ever had an argument with someone who was colored blind and didn't know it?

"Thats Red!"

"No it's not, its Green!"

In truth, they are both right, because one "percieves" it as red, and the other "percieves" it as green.

Now I know you will say that the colored blind person has the wrong impression. But when a parrot looks at that thing which other see as Red, they won't see red but a different color altogether!

So where does this leave us? The best we can aspire to is a working set of truths, which might someday be "proven" wrong.

This is the precise reason why Stephen Colbert invented the word "Truthiness"

There are very Different aspects to an Athiests belief and other theistics beliefs.


If you cannot see those like you should see white and black would you like me to point it out to you?

An athiest belief is like the belief you are alive. You believe it, and others can attest and give forth many manifestations in testable, concrete ,and plausible manners that justify it towards truth. I.E I believe there is no god or gods based on these evidences because of logic, lack of evidence, hypocrisy, i.e

A thiest bases belief on paranormal,un-manifest, abstract arrangments, dogmas, and doctrines that have no basis in testable, logical terms and are void of evidence besides the doctrines from whish they are derived.

Belief as you are defining it is too abstract to even be applied to anyconclusive idea because the manner you are using it applies to everything, to me living, the earth actually existing, to anything that manifests, which, is just a form of malignant and desperate chicanery.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by IamBoon]

Originally posted by Skyfloating

One thing atheists are BRILLIANT at is acting like their specific beliefs are the only things that are not beliefs at all but truth. So we are back at "we have the truth, and you dont". And in THIS sense atheism is very similar to theism.

I agree with this totally for anytime an atheists talks it is all truths or facts.

Even though I believe in evolution I would not say it is a “fact” as an atheist would, because it is a hypothesis based on observations, and Creationism just happens to be a hypothesis too, hmm.

Food for thought;

If we evolved from one cell animals or something more basic than that why have we not been able to recreate that in a lab? Lightning or heat from volcanoes would be the typical catalyst to change some Primordial Goo into amino acids, but this is still one of the great mysteries of the universe, and so I do not see it much different than believing in creationism.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by Xtrozero]

[edit on 13-8-2007 by Xtrozero]

I will love to read Hegel... awesome guy.


I suggest you read the Bible, Qu'ran, Vedas... and read it logically and scrutinize. Then see why athiests are not in war with spirituality outright, just this... nonsense.

I am an "ATHIEST" now I don't believe Evolution is fact.... That destroys your concept of athiest now doesn't it?

[edit on 13-8-2007 by IamBoon]

Evolution is a theory and a fact.

That life has changed over time is a fact. Common descent via the process of natural selection is a theory. So, the observations are fact (e.g., that species existing today never existed in the past), the mechanisms of evolution are theory (e.g., non-random selection acting on random mutation etc).

[edit on 13-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by IamBoon
I will love to read Hegel... awesome guy.


I suggest you read the Bible, Qu'ran, Vedas... and read it logically and scrutinize. Then see why athiests are not in war with spirituality outright, just this... nonsense.

I am an "ATHIEST" now I don't believe Evolution is fact.... That destroys your concept of athiest now doesn't it?

[edit on 13-8-2007 by IamBoon]

Not at all, but I find it interesting that, as you put it, Atheists are "at war" with something that they have a "lack of belief" about.

I've read the Bible, some of the Qu'ran and some of the Vedas. I find them to be beautiful cultural literature which tells me about their own cultural identifications and values.