How to recognize evidence for God

[CyberLN]

@Sherlock-Holmes

This post is directed at everyone who might read it.

This is how you respond to a poster you have told you won’t respond to without responding to them.

[Sheldon]

@CyberLN

Do “they go far beyond the definition of atheism adopted by people in this forum”?

Even if they did, this is not how dictionary definitions are compiled and maintained. Who used those and when, would of course provide some context, but no context of their use would alter the dictionary definition of atheism, NB Only one of those made the claim @Sherlock-Holmes is insisting is a belief inherent in atheism, are all atheists obliged to share that slogan then, or any other?

Beyond the lack of belief in any deity or deities, no two atheists need agree on anything. Since atheism has no doctrine or dogma.

@CyberLN

I certainly don’t speak for anyone but myself. We are not a many-legged creature with one brain.

Precisely, atheism is one thing, the lack or absence of theistic belief, individual atheists can believe or disbelieve whatever they want beyond that.

@CyberLN

This is how you respond to a poster you have told you won’t respond to without responding to them.

I think my sense of irony may have been overused of late.

I’m guessing this will go unanswered though:

@Sheldon

Atheism isn’t a movement, and what particularly are you objecting to in describing (where appropriate) specific theistic claims as “excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural,” (superstition) or as “a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events,” (myth), or “the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.” (magic)?

The other remarks require context, and then I imagine the people who made them can answer. The context of your remarks above were a sweeping and false derogation of atheism as a “a bigoted and intolerant cult” and it did not address @CyberLN post at all.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@CyberLN

You most assuredly ARE critiquing me as I am considered to be atheist.

No more so than someone critiquing theism is critiquing me - as I am considered a theist. But I don’t take criticisms of theism or religion personally.

@CyberLN

To iterate what you seemingly ignored in a previous post, I direct my comments about what you say to you. You, on the other hand, have decided to lump all people who are identified as atheist into a single group and apply descriptions to it.

A set is not the same as the members that comprise it. Critiquing atheism or theism inevitably leads to generalizations about the individual members so how this is news I can’t imagine.

@CyberLN

That is the very definition of bigotry.

No, this is a dictionary definition of bigotry:

I know there’s a perception that atheism - the popular social movement it has become - is somehow above criticisms of intolerance and cultism and bigotry, as if the sanitized definition “holds no belief in a deity” somehow guarantees their absence.

The tone across many if not all threads in the forum, the slogans on the merchandise and the facebook presence all show contempt for anyone who might believe God exists that is “prejudice against people on the basis of their membership of a particular group”.

Talk about irony !

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@CyberLN

We are not a many-legged creature with one brain.

In which case the same must be said of theism and theists yet those t-shirts do exactly that.

Modern atheism has embraced a host of beliefs, many of these are clearly and unapologetically emblazoned across t-shirts being sold here. The claim might be “holds no belief in God” but the reality is how the movement behaves, what it does collectively, how it’s adherents speak about others in public.

What the catholic church espouses is not borne out in practice and what atheism espouses also is not borne out in practice.

You are creating a monster that empowers the darker side of human nature no different deep down to many of the theist organizations you disparage on those t-shirts.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@CyberLN

This is how you respond to a poster you have told you won’t respond to without responding to them

It wasn’t a response to Sheldon.

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

I don’t take criticisms of theism or religion personally.

it’s hard to know what to say to that…but thanks for making me laugh anyway.

@Sherlock-Holmes

A set is not the same as the members that comprise it.

Yet you keep describing the actions and claims of some atheists as atheism, despite your erro being explained repeatedly. The fact is that there is no set of atheism, it is not a collective, anymore than people who don’t believe in mermaids are a group, or collective. Were the influence of religions not so pervasive, my atheism would be no more significant than my lack of belief in Santa Claus.

@Sherlock-Holmes

It wasn’t a response to Sheldon.

All anyone need do is click the link in the top RH corner of your post to see that’s not true, it didn;t address any of my post though, but then than rather typifies your evasion throughout this discourse.

@Sherlock-Holmes

I know there’s a perception that atheism - the popular social movement

It’s not a popular social movement, it’s not any kind of movement, it is the lack of belief in any deity or deities. It is no more a popular movement than not believing in unicorns is. generally the outspoken declarations are fostered by a frustration at the behaviour and arrogance of religions and the religious.

@Sherlock-Holmes

is somehow above criticisms of intolerance and cultism and bigotry, as if the sanitized definition “holds no belief in a deity” somehow guarantees their absence.

From the definition of atheism yes, not as individuals, you seem determined to pretend that atheism and atheist are the same thing, but only when it suits your own prejudices against both. IN what way has atheism harmed anyone here, I mean in any practical sense?

@Sherlock-Holmes

The tone across many if not all threads in the forum, the slogans on the merchandise and the facebook presence all show contempt for anyone who might believe God exists

Wrong again, if there is contempt it is for the pernicious behaviour of some religions and their adherents, and in debate for the endlessly poorly reasoned and irrational arguments and beliefs they peddle, what’s wrong with any of that anyway? You seem to be annoyed that atheists are allowed to express their disbelief, even here in an ostensibly atheist debate forum.

@Sherlock-Holmes

that is “prejudice against people on the basis of their membership of a particular group”.

Talk about irony !

@Sherlock-Holmes

a bigoted and intolerant cult

@Sherlock-Holmes

atheism is a vacuity

@Sherlock-Holmes

How can an atheist distinguish between something that is evidence for God and something that is not? They can’t

Yes ironic indeed.

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

Modern atheism has embraced a host of beliefs,

Nope, modern atheists have though, you really don’t seem to be able to understand that atheism and atheist are not the same thing?

@Sherlock-Holmes

The claim might be “holds no belief in God” but the reality is how the movement behaves,

There is no movement, I am an individual who lacks belief in any deity or deities. Atheism has no dogma or doctrine, unlike religion no atheist organisation tries to tell me what to think or believe.

@Sherlock-Holmes

what it does collectively

Here they share ideas and debate, but no one is obliged to adhere to any doctrine or dogma, you are projecting.

@Sherlock-Holmes

how it’s adherents speak about others in public.

Atheism doesn’t have adherents, since it isn’t a claim or belief.

adherent
noun

1. someone who supports a particular party, person, or set of ideas.

Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

@Sherlock-Holmes

What the catholic church espouses is not borne out in practice and what atheism espouses also is not borne out in practice.

Atheism doesn’t espouse anything, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity, nothing more, only atheists can go beyond that, not atheism.

@Sherlock-Holmes

You are creating a monster that empowers the darker side of human nature

This is just hilarious, but all that is on display here is your irrational fear and prejudice against anyone who doesn’t share your superstitious beliefs, and dares to have the temerity to say so publicly, albeit in an atheist forum where you need never ever read any of it if you don’t want to.

@Sherlock-Holmes

no different deep down to many of the theist organizations you disparage on those t-shirts.

@CyberLN has explained she is not responsible for those t shirts. It’s bizarre you claimed you were here to challenge ideas and dogma, and yet you’re attacking atheists for doing just that, and dishonestly projecting that onto atheism.

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

So if the atheist is permitted to use epithets like “mythology fanboy” and “superstition” and “cartoon magic man”

@Sheldon

…what particularly are you objecting to in describing (where appropriate) specific theistic claims as “excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural,” (superstition) or as “a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events,” (myth), or “the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.” (magic)?

Bumpity bump…

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

@Sherlock-Holmes

don’t piss down my neck then tell me it’s raining.

isnt that an assumption?

[Sherlock-Holmes]

Is atheism a movement? Sheldon posted a thousand words arguing “no” so lets check the facts:

The Evolution of Atheism: The Politics of a Modern Movement.

Growing criticism by atheists of the New Atheism movement

Is Atheism a cult?

Why There Is An Atheist Movement

The World’s Newest Major Religion: No Religion

Finally:

There we are, it seems entirely reasonable to regard atheism as a movement, it’s hardly disputed too. Of course if mentioning this is the atheist equivalent of blasphemy then fine, delete my post, ban me from the site or even burn me at the stake - after all that’s what other religions do when their bigotry gets exposed.

Just because one or two atheists believe atheism is not a movement doesn’t mean all of you have to.

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

Is atheism a movement?

No.

Now about the claims you just reeled off:

@Sheldon

@Sherlock-Holmes

So if the atheist is permitted to use epithets like “mythology fanboy” and “superstition” and “cartoon magic man”

@Sheldon

…what particularly are you objecting to in describing (where appropriate) specific theistic claims as “excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural,” (superstition) or as “a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events,” (myth), or “the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.” (magic)?

@Sherlock-Holmes

it seems entirely reasonable to regard atheism as a movement, it’s hardly disputed too.

I dispute it, what beliefs, ideas, or aims, do I have to share to belong this imaginary movement?

@Sherlock-Holmes

Just because one or two atheists believe atheism is not a movement doesn’t mean all of you have to.

Yaaayyyy! You got something right, and the reason we don’t have to agree is because atheism is not a movement. Here’s a clue to your error in reasoning, since I am feeling generous. There can be atheistic movements, just as there can be atheistic sports teams, or atheistic religions, but atheism is not a movement, a religion or a sports team.

Language is not really your forte I feel.

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

Is atheism a movement? Sheldon posted a thousand words arguing “no” so lets check the facts:

The Evolution of Atheism: The Politics of a Modern Movement.

A Natural History of Mermaids

Oh dear…

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

isnt that an assumption?

Could be, I assumed atheists weren’t allowed to assume though. I’ll ponder the metaphysical and scholastic implications of this shortly. Once I pour my brew and get into my swimming pool for the afternoon.

Gotta go, stay out of trouble.

[Sheldon]

@Sheldon

@Sherlock-Holmes

So if the atheist is permitted to use epithets like “mythology fanboy” and “superstition” and “cartoon magic man”

@Sheldon

…what particularly are you objecting to in describing (where appropriate) specific theistic claims as “excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural,” (superstition) or as “a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events,” (myth), or “the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.” (magic)?

Bumpity bump???

[Cognostic]

@Get_off_my_lawn

Thus, conservation laws are more than assumptions, and have solid empirical observational as well as theoretical support. Which is more than one can say about the traits of diverse gods in ancient mythologies.

He’s still at it. Equating his assertions for god with the observable, empirical. verifiable, practices of science. Dishonest, obfuscations, and a complete refusal to recognize facts. After are there are no real facts because we can’t really know anything therefore the God assumption is just as valid as a fact. Unbelievably ignorant assertion.

[Calilasseia]

Oh dear …

@Sherlock-Holmes

Symmetry is assumed, it is an axiom, an assumption just as you cannot prove conservation laws are never violated we also cannot prove that symmetry is never violated.

This is complete tosh.

Oh wait, physicists KNOW what to look for when instances of symmetry are violated. As a corollary, it isn’t an “assumption”, it’s a testable postulate.

Indeed, one symmetry that is known to be violated, is the balance of matter versus antimatter in the universe, and physicists are busy looking for reasons why this is the case.

And, oh look, it took me precisely three seconds to find this peer reviewed scientific paper:

Direct Terrestrial Test Of Lorentz Symmetry In Electrodynamics to 10⁻¹⁸ by Moritz Nagel, Stephen R. Parker, Evgeny V. Kovalchuk, Paul L. Stanwix, John G. Hartnett, Eugene N. Ivanov, Achim Peters and Michael E. Tobar, Nature Communications, 6: Article number: 8174 (1st September 2015) [Full paper downloadable from here]

@Nagel et al (2015)

Abstract

Lorentz symmetry is a foundational property of modern physics, underlying the standard model of particles and general relativity. It is anticipated that these two theories are low-energy approximations of a single theory that is unified and consistent at the Planck scale. Many unifying proposals allow Lorentz symmetry to be broken, with observable effects appearing at Planck-suppressed levels; thus, precision tests of Lorentz invariance are needed to assess and guide theoretical efforts. Here we use ultrastable oscillator frequency sources to perform a modern Michelson–Morley experiment and make the most precise direct terrestrial test to date of Lorentz symmetry for the photon, constraining Lorentz violating orientation-dependent relative frequency changes Δν/ν to 9.2±10.7 × 10⁻¹⁹ (95% confidence interval). This order of magnitude improvement over previous Michelson–Morley experiments allows us to set comprehensive simultaneous bounds on nine boost and rotation anisotropies of the speed of light, finding no significant violations of Lorentz symmetry.

The authors continue with this:

@Nagel et al (2015)

Introduction

A significant consequence of Lorentz symmetry is the isotropic nature of the speed of light, which remains invariant under rotation and boost transformations. Measuring the isotropy of the speed of light has played an important role in physics, starting with the seminal Michelson and Morley interferometer experiment in the late nineteenth century¹. What began as a hunt for a luminiferous ether soon evolved into tests of the revolutionary theory of special relativity. Current motivation arises from the search for hints of new physics^2,3,4, to provide direction in the quest for a unified theory of quantum mechanics and general relativity⁵.

Despite the success of unifying the weak force and electrodynamics6, unification of the standard model with gravity remains elusive. Many approaches invoking string theory^{7(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications)}, quantum gravity^{8(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications),9(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications),10(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications)} and noncommutative field theories^{11(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications)} either explicitly require or naturally permit Lorentz symmetry to be broken^{5(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications)}. Efforts to test these theories experimentally focus on searches for violations of Lorentz and charge–parity–time (CPT) symmetry, which are expected to occur at the Planck scale (5.4 × 10⁻⁴⁴ s, 1.6 × 10−³⁵ m and 1.2 × 10¹⁹ GeV), with suppressed effects manifesting in regimes experimentally accessible via precision measurement^{12(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications)}. Many tests of Lorentz and CPT symmetry have been performed for a variety of fields, particles and forces, with no violations reported to date^{13(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications)}.

Just as the theories motivating Michelson–Morley style experiments have changed, so too has the technology used. The transition from conventional optical interferometer searches to resonator-stabilized frequency source tests^{14(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications),15(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications),16(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications),17(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications),18(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications),19(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications)} has enabled a rapid increase in experimental sensitivity; an overview is provided in Fig. 1. The exceptional frequency stability performance of these modern sources makes tests of Lorentz symmetry of the photon one of the most powerful experimental tools in the search for clues towards unification frameworks such as quantum gravity.

Presented are interferometer tests (squares) that measure fractional shifts in the speed of light, Δc /c , and cavity-based tests (circles) such as this work that measure a fractional change in frequency, Δν /ν . Bounds are taken directly from the results reported in original publications. A full list is provided in the Supplementary References, with numerical values given in Supplementary Table 1.

Here we present the results of the most sensitive Michelson–Morley style frequency comparison experiment performed to date. We use 1 year of data to set new bounds on the nine possible rotational and boost isotropies of the speed of light, with our results expressed as constraints on coefficients of the standard model extension (SME)^{20(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications)}. We find no evidence of any statistically significant violation of Lorentz symmetry of the photon.

After an extensive dissertation on the experimental setup, the authors present their findings thus:

@Nagel et al (2015)

Discussion

We use our data to place limits on coefficients of the SME20, which is an effective field theory framework containing the standard model and general relativity along with any possible Lorentz and CPT symmetry violating coefficients that could arise from the various fields. It is important to note that the SME is a purely phenomenological framework, designed to enable comprehensive searches for Lorentz and CPT symmetry violations and facilitate cataloguing and comparisons between experiments. It is conventional to express results in a single inertial reference frame; in this case, the widely adopted sun-centred celestial equatorial frame is used^{22(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications)}.

It is important to point out that technically, at a fundamental level, a change in the beat frequency of the experiment is proportional to not just a change in the speed of light (owing to Lorentz violation of the photon) but also to changes in the propagating medium, owing to Lorentz violation of the electron^{26(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications),27(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications),28(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications)}. What we are actually measuring and constraining is a difference or combination of these potential effects. Owing to the choice of coordinates, the proton sector remains Lorentz invariant and does not contribute to any changes in the propagating medium^{22(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications)}.

After some technical details, the authors continue with:

@Nagel et al (2015)

Despite thoughtful advances in the implementation and design of alternative experiments, cavity-based Michelson–Morley tests such as the one presented in this work still remain the most powerful and comprehensive way to search for non-birefringent LIV effects in electrodynamics.

Scheduled upgrades to the experiment to improve the fundamental stability of the microwave oscillators^{32(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications)} will soon allow for even more sensitive tests. The installation of superior magnetic shielding around the oscillators will reduce the influence of systematic noise sources. The addition of a separate optical cavity system in the same cryogenic environment will also open up opportunities for exploring additional higher-order coefficients^{31(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications),33(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications)} and matter sector coefficients^{34(Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to 10−18 | Nature Communications)}, allowing a more complete disentangling of electron and photon sector coefficients.

A modern Michelson–Morley experiment has been performed with two orthogonally aligned stable microwave oscillators. Using data of the beat note frequency between the two oscillators recorded over the course of a year, we are able to constrain LIV-induced Δν /ν to be <10−18, the most precise measurement ever made for electromagnetic cavity experiments. No violations of Lorentz symmetry were observed.

That’s just one paper devoted to this topic. I’m pretty sure my search will turn up numerous other papers in the same vein.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Just to be clear symmetry being assumed is fine, I’m fine with it, but it is not proven, we cannot prove that symmetry can never ever be violated, all of our claims about the natural world are ultimately the result of assumptions.

The above paper says your assertions are horseshit. No doubt I’ll find more in the same vein once I start searching in earnest.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Atheism as espoused here in this website embodies more than a mere absence of belief, clearly there is a belief that theism is wrong

More bullshit. First of all, merely asserted entities can be rejected as summarily and effortlessly as they were presented. Second, we know that pre-scientific mythologies contain farcical errors of a sort that no genuinely existing god type entity would allow itself to be associated with, certainly not an entity in this class possessing perfect foreknowledge of the future, and thus able to know in advance that those assertions would be destroyed.

@Sherlock-Holmes

First the fact that an assumption is borne out by experimental test does not alter the fact it is an assumption, I assume we agree on that point at least now.

Complete crap. A statement purporting to be an axiom about the natural world is treated as a hypothesis to be tested in proper scientific circles.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Newtonian gravitation rests on axioms and these were supported by extremely strong observational data, but did any of that mean it was fact? No, it didn’t the axioms of Newton are now abandoned despite their huge empirical support.

Already dealt with this repeatedly in the past. Oh, and if you think the willingness of science to correct its postulates when the DATA tells us this is warranted, is some sort of “weakness”, then it’s no wonder you’re a mythology fanboy.

Oh, and the fact that Einstein found reasons why Newtonian postulates appeared to be so successful, is another point you’re going to pretend doesn’t exist?

@Sherlock-Holmes

Wrong, there is no “remains just an assumption until” it remains an assumption at all times, there is no “until” that changes it from an assumption to a fact and it cannot be anything else.

Poppycock. When a hypothesis is found to be in accord with a large body of observational data, it isn’t an “assumption”. Do learn the elementary concepts applicable here.

I’m sure there’s more to feed into the shredder, but this should suffice for now.

[skriten]

Although I am disinclined to continue engaging with semantical and definitional ambiguities, the following may perhaps, be of interest.

From Sherlock’s references

From:

“The Evolution of Atheism: The Politics of a Modern Movement:”

(The link provided was to a review of the book)

“The Evolution of Atheism” is marred by significant historical, analytic, and conceptual errors, to say nothing of a ponderous postmodern style all too familiar in the social sciences today. Try this turgid passage on for size: “The analysis in this book offers a picture of a movement confounded in its attempts to define itself by a complex and sometimes self-contradictory set of discourses, and of groups of people united only by their lack of faith struggling to maintain cohesion in the face of deep divisions in their politics.”

“As for the errors, they permeate LeDrew’s book. They include an incorrect definition of atheism, a contradictory view of the New Atheism, a disturbing lack of historical understanding, and an underlying hubris that encourages the author to jump to conclusions instead of admitting when he lacks information.”

From:

“Growing criticism by atheists of the New Atheism movement”

“Can Science Explain Religion? : The Cognitive Science Debate”

(this is a rant by a professor of religion which attempts to define “New Atheists” as militants with an ideological movement responsible for increases in Islamophobia. It refers heavily to the prior book, “The Evolution of Atheism” but rather than recognizing the flaws in the book, this diatribe paints a picture of a militant movement with a social and political agenda, harkening to the conspiracy craziness rampant on the internet.)

(from the book)

“Stephen LeDrew’s The Evolution of Atheism shows that atheism is not just the denial of belief in God but is itself a system of belief in a “secular ideology” with a particular cultural and political agenda, an agenda powered by a simplistic view of science and a rationalistic utopianism that “exhibits some totalitarian tendencies with respect to the use of power.”

From

“Is Atheism a cult?”

“While we noted that a cult doesn’t have to be religious, atheism isn’t a unified movement of non-religious people. While all atheists agree that there are no gods, most atheists come to that conclusion independently. There are also many different kinds of atheists: implicit atheists, Christian atheists, weak atheists and strong atheists to name a few. This lack of ideological purity or unified structure runs counter to the idea that atheism is a cult.”

From “Why there is an atheist movement”

“But how can there be a movement around not believing in gods? Easily. It happens when people who do not believe in gods face discrimination and bigotry because they do not believe in gods. The atheist movement is about promoting atheism and celebrating the atheist part of one’s identity. It is about protecting atheist civil rights. It is about combating anti-atheist bigotry.”

The fifth reference requires a signup

Then from “finally”

This is a Wikipedia article concerning secular movements , making no mention of atheism as a movement.

None of the references identify atheism as a movement, even the ones which do identify an atheist movement

[Cognostic]

@skriten

None of the references identify atheism as a movement, even the ones which do identify an atheist movement

This poor sod gets owned each and every time he makes a move… one needs to seriously wonder if he is falling for the ole Christian ploy - “The more you suffer, the closer you are to God.”

1 Peter 4:1 1 Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin.

2 Corinthians 4:17 For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.

2 Timothy 3:12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,

Luke 14:27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

Romans 8:18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.

James 1, 2-4
2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds,

3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance.

4 Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

Each time his pearls of faith are dashed on the rocks of atheism, it is only evidence that the bible was correct. Matthew 5:10–12 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.*

After all… Any and all disagreement with his reviled claims of truth, are simply persecuting as predicted by the Bible. Such persecution is often carried out by those with whom God has not revealed his truth. We, Atheists, are simply acting in accordance with God’s good plan.

[Sheldon]

I think it might be useful to ask @Sherlock-Holmes to define assumption at this point, and the word fact, as his assertions about both words seems dubious next to the dictionary. For instance his assertion that a fact can never change seems laughably wrong, since our knowledge can and has done precisely that, and a fact is something that is “known or proven to be true.” The idea that what we know cannot change seems more like a tenet of religions than science to me, irrefutable and immutable are two very different concepts, the former based on current and overwhelming reliable evidence, but tentative in the light of new evidence as all scientific ideas must remain, the latter represents the erroneous hubris of religions, that we see creationists and their ilk embarrass themselves with.

If I am wrong here of course it would be useful for someone to help me out, plodding duffer as I am, it would be appreciated.

@skriten

This is a Wikipedia article concerning secular movements , making no mention of atheism as a movement.

It was another of his broad sweeping assertions, as we have seen if he wants to be vague you won’t torture any detail out of him, I think he was wrong, but it still gets a who cares, as he simply fishing to get a reaction by trying to pretend a lack of belief is epistemologically little different to holding a belief, an absurd position to take.

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@Sherlock-Holmes

Axioms in the sciences should be rationally justified no argument from me on that. But no amount of data can ever make an assumption into a fact.

Semantic equestrian manure. When an axiom or a hypothesis is corroborated with quality empirical data to such a degree that there can be no question about it, it receives the status of fact. By your very own argumentation, whatever observation, generalisation and rule you might make can never make the starting assumption come out of the start pit, and will forever remain an assumption. Thus, you effectively make the word “fact” meaningless, making one wonder why well-known and respected dictionaries define “fact” as a thing that is known to be true, especially when it can be proved (sense 1), something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information, and a piece of information presented as having objective reality (sense 2). Given the choice between trusting well-known dictionaries and a random internet guy for a definition of a word, I by far prefer the dictionaries. In short, you are engaging in semantic wankery.

@Sherlock-Holmes

You can’t compare science with religion.

No? Just watch: Science deals with the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, while religion deals with the belief in the existence of a god or gods, and the activities that are connected with the worship of them, or in the teachings of a spiritual leader. In short, science deals with facts about the real world, while religion deals with beliefs that do not have an empirical basis. There, I just compared(*) them.

(*) to examine people or things to see how they are similar and how they are different

Edit: added link