Semantics - atheism

[Alex-db]

In your opinion, could I validly state that:

"It is certainly 100% correct to be an atheist; if new information means that a creator becomes a reasonable hypothesis, the idea will move from one of theism to one of science, and atheism is still correct"

Or is this overly stretching the definition of theism?

[Subfallen]

Your definition of "creator" in the first part of the sentence fully determines the logical correctness of the second part of the sentence. How are you defining "creator?"

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
In your opinion, could I validly state that:

"It is certainly 100% correct to be an atheist; if new information means that a creator becomes a reasonable hypothesis, the idea will move from one of theism to one of science, and atheism is still correct"

Or is this overly stretching the definition of theism?

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesnt seem right to me. I think atheism is believing there is no god. If information came to light to make it reasonable to believe in God, it would be incorrect to remain an atheist imo.

[agent_fish]

1. Does creator=god? What makes an entity god or a god?

2. If evidence came to light that proved the existence of god then it would be no longer be correct to be atheist. Are you equating "believing in science" to being atheist? Maybe I don't understand what you're asking.

[TimWillTell]

I am crazy about science and consider myself a logicholic.

If science came up with proof that Santa Claus indeed did exist and was living on the North-pole, I would still not believe in Santa Claus.
Even if I would be the last person on Earth who would not believe it and even when I would see Santa coming down from the sky with his sled and rein-deers, landing before me, and asking me:"Do you now believe?"

I would still not believe.

[Alex-db]

I meant 'creator' in a loose sense, including the hypothesised 'God' of the Christians. I would want the definition to be loose because I never understood why anyone narrows it down.

E.g. if a creator was discovered that was similar to the Christian God, he almost certainly wouldn't actually be literally omnipotent, since its such a silly characteristic. But I'm sure they would adjust and say the omnipotence in the Bible was metaphorical or relative.

I'm not intending to base the phrasing on any current religion. I could possibly say 'conciouness more advanced than ours, who created us', but I don't see any reason to be more specific (but then I know what I'm thinking about /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

Part of the question is whether theism is defined as requiring faith, if that is the case then a discovered creator is an atheistic creator.

I'm not intending a premise that 'believing in science (/knowledge)' is a synonym for atheism, althought there is an obvious equivalence.

I think that part of my intention would be a neat illustration to the non-philosophically minded that atheists are not closed minded: Since I, and most atheists that post on here, would I'm sure be intrigued to read about the discovery of higher intelligence and valid creation hypothesis, if that hypothesis was intellectually honest.

In summary, to all natural-language intents and purposes,

If:
1) Mythology describes storys considered to be fantasy.
2) If X is accepted mythology.
3) X is discovered true

then either

A) X is no longer mythology but science (/knowledge).
B) We update 1) to say myths can be true.

In the case of mythology I think we will agree that (A) is practiced. So can we swap the word mythology for theism and consider (A) would be correct if our knowledge was updated?

[vhawk01]

FWIW, I don't think there is anything about theism that requires faith. Most earthly versions include that caveat, but it is certainly not necessary. This kind of demolishes your argument, though, so feel free to disagree.

[Bill Haywood]

I will reword your statement so it works.

"Science indicates it is 100% correct to be an atheist; if new information means that a creator becomes a reasonable hypothesis, the idea will move from one of theism to one of science, and science is still correct"

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I will reword your statement so it works.

"Science indicates it is 100% correct to be an atheist; if new information means that a creator becomes a reasonable hypothesis, the idea will move from one of theism to one of science, and science is still correct"

[/ QUOTE ]

Right on, much better.

[agent_fish]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I don't think there is anything about theism that requires faith. Most earthly versions include that caveat, but it is certainly not necessary. This kind of demolishes your argument, though, so feel free to disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you please explain how theism does not require faith? Just wondering.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I don't think there is anything about theism that requires faith. Most earthly versions include that caveat, but it is certainly not necessary. This kind of demolishes your argument, though, so feel free to disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you please explain how theism does not require faith? Just wondering.

[/ QUOTE ]


Theism is simply the belief in God. If the evidence pointed to God, you would not need faith to believe in it. 500 years ago, it would have required faith to believe in the theory of evolution. The evidence simply was not there, or not interpreted correctly (possibly a bad example but you know what I mean). However, there is nothing fundamental to the theory of evolution that requires faith. It may currently require faith to be a theist (depending on what you call God) but it isn't necessary forever.

I understand your question, I probably was misleading. Christianity requires faith, and it does so for two reasons. First, there simply is no evidence to support it. Second, it is a core principle of Christianity that you must have faith...proof would be anathema. But not all forms of theism are like this, and there is nothing fundamental to theism that demands this.

[m_the0ry]

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes"

-Yoda.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]


If science came up with proof that Santa Claus indeed did exist and was living on the North-pole, I would still not believe in Santa Claus.


[/ QUOTE ]

This would be downright irrational, unless you're using the word "proof" in a very idiosyncratic sense.