And you *might* of known the correct answer to every mathematics test question you got wrong in school (but couldn't figure it out at that time), so at the time of the test you were implicitly confirming the negative.

We're now asking "do you believe in God". By answering anything other than yes you're implicitly confirming the negative.

...

Yeah, but since he also lacks a belief in antitheism is lawdude an a-antitheist as well? Are all atheists, who don’t affirm antitheism, i.e. lack a belief in antitheism, a-antitheists as well? To me, that’s like saying the apolitical are non-Republicans. Yeah, it’s true but it’s also true they’re non-Democrats as well. So if anything, atheism and a-antitheism signify what is trivially true.

At any rate, I think part of the issue is that while theism and antitheism signify propositional attitudes, atheism does not. So while theism and antitheism are true or false, atheism and a-antitheism are neither true nor false. From which, atheism, taken solely as a lack of belief in God, is reduced to a property that's either true or false of a person, and nothing more. In other words, atheism per se isn’t something that can be argued, debated, proved or disproved, and hence isn’t really in opposition to theism at all.

Exactly. Implicit atheism is rather trivial, which is why I don't see why lawdude is getting so worked up about it.

Define spiritual things, and define how they differ from scientific things.

As far as I am concerned, they are the same thing, investigation into reality. And the method for both is the same, look at reality and see if it matches up with your beliefs.

Sure. If I'm a non-partisan, it makes perfect sense to call me a non-Republican and a non-Democrat, and I don't think anyone would be confused by this at all. In fact, it is very useful when it comes to analyzing polling data and things like that to have an ecompassing category for "not one of us" while still having the option to break it down further (Republican, Green Party, non-partisan).

I wouldn't say it "trivially true" in the sense that there are many people who are theists and atheists, and antitheists and a-antitheists.

I completely agree and this is my exact point, the mind must be completely open! Unfortunately we are not free from false dogmas to do this.

Yes we need to free ourselves from false dogmas before doing this effectively too.

It was probably easier back in the ancient times, but now with schools, and democracy propaganda, and the Internet, we can't really just assume we are free because we read the Bible, we have to spend time learning about our wrong conditioning and how to free it.

Someone might say, no, gods words will uncondition you, but I don't know if I hear them correctly because I might already be conditioned

REALITY ALWAYS MATCHES UP WITH YOUR BELIEFS!!!

"Belief" is a propositional attitude towards a statement. There's no "might" about affirming a propositional attitude.

Do you like fried crickets? You don't know because you haven't tried them yet? Then you can't affirm that you like fried crickets, nor can you affirm that you don't like fried crickets.

It takes no arrogance to take the words you've expressed and to characterize them. I don't even claim that the words you're using actually reflect your thoughts. It's simply an observation that the words you are using would characterize you as an atheist.

Unless you can affirm the claim that you believe God exists, you're an atheist.

Did you read the post you quoted? By playing mental games with definitions, words, names can we know the things they are describing?

no it doesnt. your beliefs and thoughts are of no concern at all to how reality actually is.

You are the one that is stating


So it appears that you know what is meant by science and spirituality, and that you think they are different things, and that different methods are needed for investigating them
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant.

Your thoughts and beliefs form almost the entirety of your reality.

I don't think this is true.

There are tons of people that post on here that seem to be living in a fantasy world. A good deal of the time you can't have a serious conversation on here for all of them interrupting with their fantasies.

Imo philosophers in particular seem to indulge in a lot of fantasy. I strongly suspect Nietzsche's Superman was a philosophical construction of Nietzsche's personal fantasies. His construct doesn't seem to match the New Man image painted by God in the New Testament either.

All the people fantasizing and day dreaming could be why God describes Himself by the down to earth term as The Rock.

I think what he meant to say was "Your reality always matches up with your beliefs."