What is Atheism?

[Whateverist]

EXACTLY THIS:

I was replying/arguing against the "lack of belief" is the threshold for being an atheist. You, like most self-identified atheists, have reasons for holding the belief and those reasons are open to examination.

Examine away.  But don't you really mean (in my bolded) "open for speculation"?

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Hello, SteveII. Out of curiosity, regarding the concepts of god and scientific truth, are you familiar with the concept of an isomorphism from mathematics?

Please forgive me, but essentially, suppose we have two groups, A and B, which appear to be different; however, if we can rename the elements of group A so that they coincide with the properties and patterns of the elements of group B, then we have effectively transformed A into B.  In essence, A and B are actually the same groups and the only difference is that they have different names for their elements.  Hence, A and B are isomorphic to each other; we can equivalently say that there is an isomorphism from A to B.

With that said, is it possible that the pursuit of scientific truth and the pursuit of god, despite being different ways of interpreting reality, could ultimately lead humanity to the same conclusion (or perhaps multiple conclusions?); however, because this conclusion was pursued via different modes of thought, could people actually be calling it something different when it is actually not?  [1]

 Does gaining an accurate understanding of reality extend beyond humanity's current level of thought, whether it be via god concepts, a lack of god concepts, or some other current means of understanding the world around us? [2]

1. I agree.  If God exists, then all truth is God's truth and while we might use different methods to examine different areas, it would have to lead to the same conclusions. 
2. I believe that God create the universe to be explored and figured out (that's why science flourished better under a Christian worldview than a worldview that imbued nature with supernatural qualities). I also think he has given us enough revelation (natural and revealed) to understand him as much as we are capable.

Thank you for your reply, SteveII.  I'm afraid that I did not communicate my questions very well.   Regarding [1], is the conclusion you came to, namely that if god exists then all truth is god's truth, the only conclusion?  Is it equally valid for a scientist to say that if all truth can be obtained via scientific truth, then all truth is scientific truth?  Hence, regarding [1] and [2], does ultimate truth exist outside of god and science?  Are god and science just means for people to pursue some truth that is currently beyond their understanding?

[Nonpareil]

To quote myself from another thread, it seems rather odd when a proposition like "'God exists' is true" can be considered either true or not true because it is a belief, whereas its negation, "'God exists' is not true",  cannot be either true or not true because it isn't considered a belief.

No one says that the proposition "God does not exist" has no truth value. They say that it has an unknown truth value, as does "God exists", and that lack of belief is all that is required to be labeled an atheist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

To quote myself from another thread, it seems rather odd when a proposition like "'God exists' is true" can be considered either true or not true because it is a belief, whereas its negation, "'God exists' is not true",  cannot be either true or not true because it isn't considered a belief.

No one says that the proposition "God does not exist" has no truth value. They say that it has an unknown truth value, as does "God exists", and that lack of belief is all that is required to be labeled an atheist.

That's all well and good except if that is your position then you have no right to say whether someone should or should not be theist, including yourself. When someone says "I am not a theist because of insufficient evidence"  he or she is tacitly admitting that one should prefer one epistemological position over another. I do not believe atheists can sufficiently justify disbelief as the better default position since (as I've argued elsewhere  A Better Default   ) our instincts, common experience and thousands of years of cross cultural reports point us in the direction of God's existence.

Actually that's kind of funny. I think I just argued that atheists have a burden of proof to show that people should have an epistemological preference for disbelief.

[SteveII]

1. I agree.  If God exists, then all truth is God's truth and while we might use different methods to examine different areas, it would have to lead to the same conclusions. 
2. I believe that God create the universe to be explored and figured out (that's why science flourished better under a Christian worldview than a worldview that imbued nature with supernatural qualities). I also think he has given us enough revelation (natural and revealed) to understand him as much as we are capable.

Thank you for your reply, SteveII.  I'm afraid that I did not communicate my questions very well.   Regarding [1], is the conclusion you came to, namely that if god exists then all truth is god's truth, the only conclusion?  Is it equally valid for a scientist to say that if all truth can be obtained via scientific truth, then all truth is scientific truth?  Hence, regarding [1] and [2], does ultimate truth exist outside of god and science?  Are god and science just means for people to pursue some truth that is currently beyond their understanding?

1. No, it is not the case nor will it ever be the case that scientific knowledge can answer all our questions (not even close). Great stretches of human thinking/achievement have nothing to do with science: philosophy, mathematics, language, aesthetics, the any of social sciences, etc. In addition, science requires the philosophy of science to underpin everything it does--something decidedly not scientific. 
2. Based on 1, I think it is clear that science and God are not two paths to the same knowledge. Science is a tool (of many) and not to be shunned, ignored, or despised by those who believe in God. Science does not have the ability to comment on God, the supernatural, or and truths we might arrive at through non-scientific methods.

[Jesster]

I told you the theists would try this. That burden of proof thing really frustrates them and this is the only way they can try to fight it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I told you the theists would try this. That burden of proof thing really frustrates them and this is the only way they can try to fight it.

Meh, I'm used to the cowardice for people unwilling to stand-up what they really believe - those who fling insults and ridicule at believers then scurry behind their "no burden of proof" dodge.

[Jesster]

I told you the theists would try this. That burden of proof thing really frustrates them and this is the only way they can try to fight it.

Meh, I'm used to the cowardice for people unwilling to stand-up what they really believe - those who fling insults and ridicule at believers then scurry behind their "no burden of proof" dodge.

And I'm used to the cowardice of theists telling me what I "really" believe. Otherwise they have no argument against me. Try arguing against what people are actually claiming instead of making up their claims for yourself.

Also, I didn't just insult you and run like you claimed. You're laying straw men on top of other straw men.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

SteveII, thanks for your reply.  IMO, it's cool that we can have a discourse in such a constructive manner.

1. No, it is not the case nor will it ever be the case that scientific knowledge can answer all our questions (not even close). Great stretches of human thinking/achievement have nothing to do with science: philosophy, mathematics, language, aesthetics, the any of social sciences, etc.

Can the same observation be made about artistic, mathematical, philosophical, and theistic knowledge (just substitute the appropriate terms for scientific/science and plug them into the post quoted above) or any form of knowledge for that matter? Perhaps a combination of various modes of thinking (not relying on any particular one) can provide a better means for answering all of humanity’s questions about reality?

Based on 1, I think it is clear that science and God are not two paths to the same knowledge. Science is a tool (of many) and not to be shunned, ignored, or despised by those who believe in God. Science does not have the ability to comment on God, the supernatural, or and truths we might arrive at through non-scientific methods.

Based on 1, is it valid for any particular domain of thought to make comments about matters that go beyond its domain?  In your opinion, do your beliefs give you the ability to comment on matters that are unrelated to theism? If they do, then how do you validate this?

Thanks for your time and attention, Steve II.

[Whateverist]

I told you the theists would try this. That burden of proof thing really frustrates them and this is the only way they can try to fight it.

Meh, I'm used to the cowardice for people unwilling to stand-up what they really believe - those who fling insults and ridicule at believers then scurry behind their "no burden of proof" dodge.

But since when did my default positions on other people's whacko propositions which are of no interest to me count as "what I really believe"?