Myth God Image Credits: Kerenos, Mtg Art
The human race is inherently atheistic, as we physically shan't believe.
(1) International belief definition:
“To accept as TRUE…..”
(2) International atheism definition:
"To lack belief or to disbelieve in God or gods."
(3) International scientific uncertainty:
We physically shan't believe, as there is uncertainty in any event; that is, we are NOT OMNISCIENT of any event.
So, rather than believe/accept as TRUE, we may regard events as PROBABLY/partially certain.
[ie we shan't believe in anything, and so we shan't believe in God or gods]
(4) Simple terms:
As we are not omniscient, we can't validate/believe (absolutely) whether God's existence is true/absolute.
Thusly, the human race is atheistic.
Non-beliefism Cult Basis: http://nonbeliefism.com/
Non-beliefism Cult Home: http://non-beliefism.appspot.com/
Non-beliefism Cult Info: http://non-beliefism-info.appspot.com/
Non-beliefism Cult Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nonbeliefism/
Have you not any understanding of basic language?
Belief may constitute non-science.
Logic/science in contrast, shan’t encode non-science.
…ie scientific evidence shan’t contain non-scientific-evidence.
Thereafter, it is illogical to believe.
I don't even know where to stthe...problems with the definitions or the fallaciesfallacies (non sequitur).
That may be his argument (is it? ). There are certainly numerous barriers to making real sense of it. He seems to have no clue what an atheist is (despite defindefining nor the relationship between science and belief. That's just for starters. The final conclusion is a non sequitur and this whole bizarre "international definition" is confusing and the wrong approach to defining terms. The stars and fonts and colours and Shakespearean vocabulary was comical the first and second time...not the 15th or 27th. I still have my doubts whether it is a bad google translation.
It seems as if the original poster is trying to squeeze his philosophy into the old Boolean architecture. I have yet to understand why.
I can't say I'm fond of picking through capital letters, bold font and stars to get to that.
There used to be a few programming languages, like Basic, that gave the programmer Boolean ability, unlike the programmes of today which are far more abstract and complex.
@Jordan, I think that Strega's point is that the world is not as black and white as you seem to think it is.
Davis Goodman quote:
He seems to have no clue what an atheist is (despite defindefining nor the relationship between science and belief.
I tire of your weak, silly responses Goodman.
Atheism is clearly defined in the ORIGINAL POST, using international definition:
Once more: Atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, as seen in the original post.
I tend to compound definitions from at least 38 definition websites, in tandem with google's definitions.
As such, like science, this is a universal approach.
2+2 in China = 2+2 in Africa.
Atheists don't believe in God
Belief is what someone accepts as true
(International) Scientific uncertain says we cannot be certain
Therefore we don't really believe in Gods
Therefore we are all atheists.
There are several fatal flaws here. The first and most confusing one is "international". No one uses that term. You can say "standard" or "common" or "most frequently used" but international definition makes no sense.
The problem really begins with your "international" qualification for scientific uncertainty. It doesn't exist. There is no consensus. Nor is there even a place where scientists get together to make an "international statement". Philosophers like Karl Popper (and myself) hold that absolute certainty is impossible. Howevver, some philosophers and scientists do claim that we can be certainty of things and this disagreements are not country based. Even within the same department of philosophy or department of science in one particular university you will have people taking opposite views (sometimes 50/50). We are dealing with a question here about the philosophy of science (your argument is closest to the arguments of Karl Popper)...and it is absolutely not a closed question with an accepted answer and so you cannot then make universal claims about belief based on it.
But your problem only gets worse when you assume scientific certainty is a given (despite the fact that there is no accepted answer or consensus) and then make a "shan't claim" on someone elses beliefs.
Even if scientific uncertainty was a given (even though it's not a given) it does not negate belief. A belief is what a person accepts as true...not what they can prove, not what they can defend, not what they should believe in, not what is reasonable, nor what they say with absolute certainty. It's what they accept as true. It is nothing more.. and nothing less that that. It is personal and you decide how you reach that position and you can be rational about it or not.
Even if we accept that there isn't certainty we can still believe that something exists or is the best way to deal with a problem. Changing the lingo to "degrees of probability" doesn't make the problem go away. You've just devided the scale of certainty into 100 slots and not allow 0% or 100%. You still have a highest and lowest limit and if you claim that there is a 99.9% probability that the moon exists...then you believe it exists.
We are not all atheists. Some people believe in God. That makes them atheists whether they are deluded, stupid, versed in Karl Popper's theories, have absolutely certainty...or not.