Accepting/Rejecting "Atheism" as a label.

[Violet]

I don't just go with whatever a dictionary tells me, since they are only lists of words and how they would define them. Just one look at atheism in M-Webster can demonstrate why: "the theory or belief that God does not exist."

And it's the same reason I don't use wikipedia for philosophy. If your only concern is to do a basic pass over a matter, it'll give you one... but if you want to actually look into something, it's simply not going to cut it.

The Extra Credits video came a long time after I established where I'm coming from, and it was a genuine surprise for me to see it, since people as a whole tend to simply not agree with my extremely specific definitions because 'reasons'.

Concerning your definitions, it is important to know that opinions don't count in determining how the universe operates. So considerations and beliefs are out. The world was never flat, nevermind that a vast majority decidedly believed it to be the case. The earth never was the center of the solar system. Gravity never affected objects at different rates. It doesn't matter that people believed them to be true. My belief of what is true is not necessarily truth. But it might be. I might happen to believe the earth is a sphere. That this happens to be the case makes my belief correct. It doesn't mean that my belief dictated what was the case. Truth is unaffected by belief. Truth is what actually is the case. Science can be wrong by not accurately describing the truth. But it doesn't simply validate beliefs.

Is it important to know that? Considering that we have no concept of how the universe might actually operate on an objective scale, it might well be that our universe is 'The Fade', a metaphysical realm where thoughts and emotions are reality and hold more power than the nonsentient particles of that universe. We really cannot observe this.

Also, though we have observed the world as 4 dimensional, it isn't necessarily so. In a 2D observation of it, 'earth' is flat. The earth might even be the center of the solar system AND the universe... current scientific thought states this as unlikely, but we really can't observe what the future holds in store for us.

I happen to believe that this planet is not a sphere, as you'll notice it is larger one way than it is another (damn gravity and that whole 'spinning disk' effect). As for gravity, it might well affect objects at different rates, we simply haven't observed it yet (or maybe we have, i'm not in the loop).

But it absolutely does matter that people believe them to be true... at least, if you think it does. Importance is subjective, and it's subject to an individual's valuing system. Babies don't matter to some people, to others they come first and foremost.

It's true, your subjective belief of what is true is not an objective observation of that with is... however, it is not made wholly invalid because of this, as WITHIN YOUR PERSPECTIVE... it might well be absolute truth. If the systems that are part of larger systems meant nothing, then your organ systems mean nothing, the parasites living within you mean nothing, *this universe itself* might even mean nothing. If the only truth that can be is that which is absolutely true *only* in the largest of the largest systems, then truth is ultimately impossible in every event and the word might as well disappear from usage immediately. Instead, we identify how things are true 'logically true', 'personally true', 'experimentally true', 'obviously true', 'socially true', 'culturally true', 'religiously true', 'emotionally true', etc... and these are simply assumed withing the statement of truth itself... lingually true

Truth is not unaffected by belief: it is the manifestation of it. Truth only being that which is actual makes it unapproachable to any who are not gods to the gods to the gods to the gods, and even they may not be able to observe truth. Science is always wrong until it is not, as truth is beyond its reach at this time... and the whole process starts with a little belief. A little belief in yourself, and in the method you're using, and in its ability to eventually (if you're lucky) discern precisely what is true.

Now, there are multiple definitions for this, all of which are related. But they are not all identical, which is a non-flexible term meaning "the same."

From Dictionary.com's link:
1.that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

I'm sure your eyes are lighting up at the term "belief" in example no. 1. But note the emphasis on proof. A proof is something that asserts it in the affirmative and cannot be disproved.

I'm aware that there are multiple definitions for various words. And I'm also aware that many of those definitions are redundant, ridiculous, self-defeating, and even wholly circular (I demonstrated this).

No, my eyes actually state that this first is the second worst of these definitions. One first has to have belief *in* the evidence's 'truth' for it to pave the way to 'proof', it does not serve as the ground for that belief. Rather, it is the evidence which may or may not be grounds for proof of a thing.

Definition 2 is, in my estimation, what you use as evidence for religion. Interpretations that might be construed as to suggest a creator. But it is not proof.

Definition two is also incorrect, but is the best of these three by its *intent*. Evidence is something that helps to make (more) plain or clear, serving as indication or sign... of a conclusion's validity.

Definition 3 again emphasizes proof of facts. This is evidence. This is at least what I mean when I use the term. So things like beautiful skies, mountains, occurrences of rare odds, etc are not evidence. They might satisfy definition 2, but they don't fully satisfy definitions 1 or 3.

Definition three is the worst, as firstly courts that assume the crime was committed by the accused and seek evidence *for* that conclusion (not for finding out 'who really did' commit the crime, if the crime is committed at all (false rape cases, for instance)), secondly: the data often comes from a biased prosecutor, and far less often from the defendant or third party sources, sometimes leading to someone being Shawshanked or executed though they were innocent. Finally, that which is proof according to law is not the same as proof according to science, as the entire thing takes place in the vague realm of "beyond reasonable doubt", while jurors are not allowed to speak to one another, legalese is spoken to prevent anything from actually being known to the jury, and most key: ASKING QUESTIONS IS TYPICALLY NOT PERMITTED.

That last bit it kind of important when it comes to your argument, as if definition 3 was applied to religion: it might well be proven in an instant and without a single drop of the scientific method OR observation AT ALL taking place.

---

Existence is good enough. But you then misconstrue that to interpret thoughts as "is." So let's clarify that further. A thought might truly exist. But the contents of that thought still wouldn't exist in nature as a result of that thought. I can't simply imagine a big pile of money into existence. You must be playing devil's advocate with that idea. Mental ideas can exist. Material things can exist. Mental thoughts don't bring material things into true existence. Eg - 2,700 dead gods.

Thoughts are, aren't they? The question you're asking is not whether something exists (everything does, including nothing)... but 'how' and 'where' and 'in what form' do things exist?

If you're a god, or if you know Grey Magic, your thoughts might well manifest physically. Humans, luckily, cannot yet do so without tools. ALL ideas ever thought exist, and ALL material things that ever were exist... AND YES: mental thoughts can bring material things into existence (don't pull a no true scottsman, I'll let you off the hook this once).

Observe:

Every book ever made, every letter typed upon a page, every song ever recorded, every piece of art ever put upon display, every word ever spoken: all of these material things were brought into existence by *thought* being allowed to draw upon the universe.

To disarm thought's ability to exist in a realm outside of neurons: one must disarm any way in which they might be put there... the mouths of humans cemented shut, the limbs hacked off, the eyes blinded, the ear's deafened, the ability to feel ripped from their body, all emotion wiped from their minds. And then, you would have committed art upon the world yourself.

---

This is the same as a hypothesis. If you've learned nothing as a result of your experiment, then your conclusion might simply be left as your starting hypothesis. Otherwise they should be decidedly different.

Cute, every synonym now means EXACTLY the same thing. Loathe, detest, despise, dislike, abhor, execrate; be repelled by, be unable to bear/stand, find intolerable, recoil from, shrink from, abominate... all of these mean *exactly* what hate means. None of them have any specific implied meanings, none of them specify a certain attribute in the definition of hate, none of them mean a lick different from one another.

That which you loathe is the same as that which you shrink from... that which abominates is the same as that which repels.



No. Please, don't use a synonym chart as the basis behind whether a word is identical to another word... It *can* be that, but it can also mean something which is "nearly" the same. Similar.

Your method is pretty much on. The shortened method seems to omit research and rethink. Just to point out, you don't need to rethink a hypothesis to publish your results. It doesn't impact the findings at all. Although you could suggest how mistakes might be corrected. But that is something you can keep personal so no one scoops your work/ideas. Doesn't mean it's bad science. And the "research" is really part of the observation. It doesn't necessarily need its own step.

I think until and unless we clarify and agree to these distinctions we have here, we will gain no ground on discussing evidence for religion.

That's because research is only needed if you intend to see whether anyone ese has tried it before and perhaps to adjust your experiment if still curious, also it might help you understand something that you otherwise might have overlooked in starting your experiment. Ultimately, it's optional... but it can help one to be even more accurate and to devise a more specific experiment that does more for science than it otherwise would have.

As for rethink... you simply don't have to rethink something if you find that the hypothesis was false... you could stop there. Publishing results is needed only if one intends to contribute to the 'greater' scientific method, and if one doesn't find their hypothesis to have been true: giving up on the question originally asked is a valid answer if one has lost interest

And the reason it's poor science is because science is an intersubjective system... the scientific method, on the other hand, is not necessarily such.