Atheism is a belief (Why Atheists don't believe part 2)

True. but it`s important to make sure that all the observers arrived at their conclusions about what they saw independently. (That`s why witnesses of a crime are not supposed to talk to each other before being interviewed by the police). But all you have to show for us as evidence that there is an god is the subjective "I feel it in my heart" which is a learned line. I do not doubt that you feel something in your heart. But I doubt that it is god.

Yes, but if you mean to imply that because you are in a position to "observe" God in your thoughts this makes him an objective reality then you're on very shaky ground. Even if you find another believer there's no way to know that you are talking about the SAME god. It's the "colour problem" again!Now science can get around the "colour problem" by talking about wavelengths of light. Even with differing types of units, the relative scales can always be discerned (like a with a ratio, for example - 1:3).God, on the other hand, has no wavelength!Edited by RickJB, : Typos.

Wow, amazing that we were lead off topic in yet another discussion about the nature of reality. I'm shocked.In any case Atheism is not a belief any more than "off" is a TV channel or "clear" is a color.The TV analogy is particularly good in my opinion. All the various relgions are the channels while atheism is having the TV off. If you understand the TV analogy, you will understand why Atheism really isn't a belief (or at least not a belief system of any sort).PEACE OUT

The original point was that all something had to be in order to be objective was to be apparent to all observers observing it. Someone made the point earlier of people looking at a comet from different angles. Slightly different views but both looking at something objective. This is not scientific objectivity which applies tools for a particular purpose. But the comet is objectively a comet to the observers who can observe it.That some don't see it because they are not in a position to observe the comet doesn't make it any less objective. Even if only one person saw it is is objective. That they might not be able to prove that they did in a court of law only means that the kind of objectivity a court of law deals with is another kind of objectivity than this one.Science doesn't possess objectivity. It owns it only in so far as it seeks to deal with the objective reality we all (I suppose) assume to be the case in a particular way.And so to God. I observe God. I even talk to Faith and others who I have never met before but who observe the same thing (if from a slightly different perspective from me). Millions of others do too.You don't believe us and thats your perogative. But if someone wants to tell us that what we see isn't objective simply because they cannot observe it then they will have to form a slightly better basis for doing so that is being done to date.

How do you know you're all talking about the same God?

I haven't actually compared notes with all the others to know objectively. But the peer review principle operates effectively enough (you are familiar enough with it yourself so I won't explain further). You don't necessarily have to go out into the field and do all the 'science' yourself in order to to be sure of that which you state to be the case.We might be looking at the comet from lots of different angles but we are agreed that it is indeed a comet.

I think the comet and color discussions are fairly peripheral to the topic, but I understand what you say later on about others sharing your observations of God. Now let me see if I can tie it into the topic.Atheists base their lack of belief in God upon the absence of objective evidence for God. You respond that their inability to make observations of God in no way bears upon his reality because there are many others who do not share this inability and who do observe God, and who share and confirm their observations with others, thereby satisfying the replicability requirement associated with establishing something objectively.But as much as you might like to believe you're making objective observations, you're not, for a host of reasons.You're not using any of the five senses, either by direct observation or indirectly through instrumentation, to make your observations, so your observations are based upon internal subjective feelings.The natural progression of objective study is toward improved understanding of the phenomenon, something that certainly cannot be said about God.What you call verifying observations is actually sharing of religious feelings. That this is subjective is evidenced by the wide variety of organized religions, and of personal beliefs of members of those religions, and of personal religious beliefs of persons outside organized religions. Christians like yourself can find other Christians like Faith who share your religious feelings and beliefs, but as you've discovered it is also easy to find Christians who do not, such as Jar. And you'd have particular difficulty reaching any agreement about your observations of God with Hindus or Buddhists.The difference between your belief in God and the atheist's belief that there is no God is that the atheist's observation about the lack of any meaningful consensus about God, and about the lack of objective observational evidence of God, cannot be disputed. The objective evidence for God is about the same as the objective evidence for entities like pink dragons, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster.And there's nothing wrong with that. That there is no objective evidence for God is not proof that there is no God. As RiverRat observed at the outset, you can't prove there is no God, which agrees with what scientists have known from very early on in the development of science, that you can't prove a negative. I can't prove there's no Loch Ness monster, I can't prove there's no Bigfoot, and I can't prove there's no God. But there's no objective evidence for God, and so belief in God is a matter of faith, not of evidence.What RiverRat was actually trying to say in his OP was that believing there is no God is equally a matter of faith. Well, okay, but if you want to argue that way, then believing there is no Loch Ness monster is also a matter of faith. This is just another way of saying that everything is a matter of faith, and by that argument, as I pointed out in my previous message, all beliefs are equally valid, which is obviously not true.--Percy

That's because you can't. All you will get are subjective, non-falsifiable opinions. No, but somewhere up the chain someone will have, and their observations will be falsifiable.

Perhaps he does, perhaps he doesn't. Perhaps you are delusional or perhaps I am.
Whatever!
If you can't show ME your proof of God's existence in a way that I can understand, then it isn't (by definition) objective is it?
To be objective, the proof (and therefore God) has to actually exist so if it(He) does so then you should have no problem showing it (Him) to me. It (He) may well exist to you but I can't see it(Him) so that makes the whole thing Subjective.

Hi RatFrom what I can tell there are just as many different types of Atheism as there are types of theism.The word Atheist simply means someone who is not a theist. In other words, someone who lacks a belief in God or Gods.here is my own personal take on some of the things that you wrote in the OP of course it doesn't. Why would I think it did? No I haven't chosen any such thing.
I have no belief that there IS NO God, any more than I have a belief that ther IS a God. When it comes to God, I have zero belief in either his existence or non-existence. Zip, Nada, None.
I am SO utterly indiferent as to whether he exists or not that the only time I even give it a passing thought is when somebody tries to tell me what I believe or don't believe. And neither would I want to. like I said that isn't what I believe. Frankly I really don't care either way.
Does that make me Agnostic?
No I don't think so since Agnosticism accepts that maybe there is a God and sits on the fence.
I look at the evidence, find absolutely none and dismiss the entire question as utterly irrelevent while I move on to something that actually matters to me. Sure I have heard of God. I have also heard of Odin, Zeus, Marduk and the tooth fairy. I give all of them about equal credibility. Maybe they all exist. Who knows for sure? Then again maybe they don't.
Either way I have no beliefs regarding any of them. I do not actively believe in the absense of the tooth fairy since I know it is impossible to prove her(his) non-existence so it would be illogical to believe that.I do, however, think it would be highly unlikely that he/she does exist based on the utter non-existence of positive evidence.I have the exact same level of non-belief for God, Loki, Vishnu, Apollo and all the other Gods whom men have always claimed to exist. I can't believe you would be able to hate anything about lovable little me.

Red is catagorically a subjective term for the exact reason that you just gave.
Red is imprecise and inaccurate as a descriptive term for an exact wavelength of light.
Some peole are color blind. To them what you call Red is actually Green. I doubt that the exact frequency of light that you would deam to be a specific shade of Red, would be the same for any other living person.I often have disagreements with others in my household about whether something is blue or green. When something is a bluey green color, I always see primarily green where others see mainly blue.However if I were to say to you that an object emits (or reflects) light that is primarily of a wavelength equal to 680nm then that is an objective statement. You can measure it even if you are blind, given the right instruments.RED is most definitely 100% subjective. Bad analogy.

Perhaps by your scientifiky definition. But who says that has overriding say in anything?How does a person prove the existance of a sunset to a blind person. They can explain all day long but they cannot prove it. This does not make it unobjective. The problem lies with the blind persons lack of ability to see. Now the blind person, who cannot see the sunset might deny that there is any sunset at all. He can say that the person describing it is spinning them a yarn. Understandable, expecially since a person born blind has no way of knowing they are blind in the first place.They need to trust others when they are told they are blind. They don't have to of course. They can say that unless they get proof in a way that meets their 'in blindness' definition of proof then they will not believe itAnyway. I never said I could prove God I was just saying that he was objective in the sense that any observer capable of seeing him will see him. I can point you in the direction of him at best.

Can't argue with that.
The point is that your "redness" might be 680nm while somebody elses "redness" is 660nm
Then for somebody who is colorblind it might even be 530nm (green)
And if you are blind then who knows what the concept of "redness" might beHowever you cut it, "redness" is a subjective term.

Then your understanding of the term is wrong.
Nothing about the word "Atheist" defines a belief in anything.By common usage, the letter "A" in front of a word means the absense of the thing defined by that word."A"sexual: The absense of any sexual features
"A"theistic: The absense of any theistic featuresAnd since "Theism" is defined as a belief system in God or Gods then "A"theism is nothing more or less than a complete absense of a belief in God or GodsWhy do you insist on reading more into it?Technically a rock is atheistic. It has no belief in God or Gods. It also has no beliefs in anything else but that remains utterly irrelevent just as it does in an atheistic person.The term atheist or atheism is totally "God(s)"-centric. Its meaning does not take one single step beyond anything that is related to God(s)
Beliefs in other things, while possibly present, are completely besides the point and are not implicitely defined in the term atheist.

You are SOOO not helping my argument here I spent many hours of my time (over most of the last year) trying to convince Iano of my position and along comes another atheist with a completely different take on the situation and scores an own goal.Ah well, it just goes to show that even atheism is completely subjective. We all view it differently.