Definition of Atheism

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Thank Christ I don't live in a world without science...preferable to some idealised pretend philosophical utopia.

I look foward to the sun light upland's, science is about to provide (any second now 🤞). 🙄

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So? How is an indifferent/absent creator preferable to an indifferent long-ago explosion?

Because people prefer to know how the universe began over not knowing how the universe began. A god answers that question, the BB does not.

 

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Why do people find the idea of intelligent design (even though the creator doesn't care) more attractive than the idea of physics, which also doesn't care?

I have no idea.

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The difference is, we're okay with not having an authoritative answer from on high; we're okay with trying to figure it out, one little clue and setback at a time. And we don't demand that you fall on your knees, burn witches, slit the throats of rams or promise never to have carnal knowledge of stinky girls.  

Are you debating me or have you begun to debate someone who is not participating in this thread? That has nothing to do with kicking the can down the road.

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

No. It does not apply to theists.

It applies to theists exactly the same way it applies to science. Saying god existed forever is no different than saying the universe existed forever.

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Can you quote them in context?

Yes.

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

If you demand a reason for the universe to exist

Clearly I didn't demand it. I'm an atheist, remember?

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

But then, since your information is limited, your god starts showing contradictions, conceptual errors

Please name the contradictions and conceptual errors "my" god has. Given that all he did was push the start button then go on vacation I'm curious as to what those could be.

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Who said there has to be a reason, and why did you believe him? 

No one said that and therefore I did not believe anyone. It came out of my own mind as I was trying to reason through whether or not god existed. Do you never have and discard ideas as you are thinking through things?

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You shouldn't. You should only pay attention to literate, civilized slave-owners who stoned people to death for being gay.

WTF?!?!

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

As a wise man recently said: Why should I give a rat's ass which of two improbable things doesn't give a rat's ass about me?

I don't care. I simply crave knowledge.

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, beecee said:

. You seem to want to put religion/mythical beliefs and science on an equal footing.

It's not a contest for me. But it is for many, many people - and not an equal contest for most of them.

 

7 hours ago, beecee said:

Tell me anyway how there god is/was protecting them from it.

Same way He does now: in their imagination. That's the essence of magical thinking.

 

7 hours ago, beecee said:

I havn't a clue what you are saying, other then being rather obtuse and argumentive for argument sake.

I was recounting the evolution of deity in human cultures. Not for argument's sake, but because I like anthropology. Of course, that doesn't rule out obtuseness.

7 hours ago, beecee said:

So why do you come to a science forum, if you are not interested in science?

One can be interested in many sciences without obsessing over that first fraction of a second.

7 hours ago, beecee said:

you appear only to want to preach from your pulpit, your philosphical take on life. 

There was a question about atheism and theism. I was addressing that - not advocating for any philosophy of life.

7 hours ago, beecee said:

Don't you not want to know the answer to life's big questions before you kick the bucket?

I'm not sure we ask the same life's big questions. For the ones I've asked, I have some partial answers, and that's probably the best i can do. I accept that nobody gets to know everything they've ever been curious about - life isn't long enough, human knowledge isn't wide enough and we're not smart enough. 

7 hours ago, beecee said:

Does life exist elsewhere?

Probably. I'd like to say, certainly, but of course, I'll never find out. No matter how many mashed potato hills I construct, they're not coming for me.

7 hours ago, beecee said:

How did the process of Abiogenesis take hold?

I don't remember. In mud, most likely.

7 hours ago, beecee said:

Is the universe finite or infinite?

Yes.

7 hours ago, beecee said:

Why do you expect inanimate, abstract entities to answer you back?

Because it's all the social life I have these Covid days.

34 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Are you debating me or have you begun to debate someone who is not participating in this thread? That has nothing to do with kicking the can down the road.

I'm not debating anyone. In that instance, I was pointing out one difference between religious and secular thought.

 

34 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Please name the contradictions and conceptual errors "my" god has.

I was referring to the belief cited - the hypothetical second person - not anything you yourself believe now or may have believed at any time in the past.

It was in no wise meant to be personal.

However, what I thought was a discussion about the evolution of religions and the concept of deity seems to have become personal. So I withdraw any comments that were taken that way and won't make any more. Is that agreeable?

Edited November 9, 2021 by Peterkin

[zapatos]

32 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

However, what I thought was a discussion about the evolution of religions and the concept of deity seems to have become personal. So I withdraw any comments that were taken that way and won't make any more. Is that agreeable?

And I thought you were commenting on my journey to atheism post but I can see now you were not. My apologies.

I'll switch over to the broader discussion as I'm really enjoying this. Unfortunately I'll be gone for a couple of days but I'll be back!

[Peterkin]

48 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And I thought you were commenting on my journey to atheism post but I can see now you were not.

Your journey - any ex-religionist's particular journey - parallels that of civilizations, usually their own. Your personal observations got mixed in, but I wasn't addressing them directly; at least half the time, I was addressing beecee's take on primitive cults. Anyway, I'll offer one last personal remark:

I was brought up in a loosely Christian environment; family of Protestants and Catholics who didn't attend church regularly and didn't question the basics of their faith - God and Jesus were just sort of in the background. We did Christmas, Easter eggs, St. Nicholas' and other relatives' saint days. (I don't have one, BTW; was named after a pagan who never achieved beatitude) As a child, I enjoyed both kinds of service - as theater, without comprehension. Didn't care for some of the Bible stories but liked the pictures. Then I started reading the Bible and a lot of its content stuck in my craw. It all unravelled after that, pretty fast. Nothing to do with science or the birth of the universe - just the internal implausibility and contradiction of their own stories; the self-proclaimed character of their god.

Much later, I became interested in all the other stories - still am. Something non-factual can still be interesting, and the facts around its fabrication, even more so.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Peterkin
just more

[TheVat]

Stepped away for a couple weeks - thanks to Pete and Now for clarifying some types of atheism.  I am always puzzled by the notion that either religion or science or personal mysticism can really "explain" the beginning of the universe.  You seem to reach a turtles problem, no matter which you pick.  If there is a creator, how did the creator come to exist?  If a BB, what was before or is it just an endless bang/crunch cycle through eternity?  Or bubbleverses arising from vacuum fluctuations going back forever and therefore of infinite extent?  In a way, these issues are one where religion and science share the common feature of hitting an epistemological brick wall.  (or what cosmologists call an event horizon)

I was named after a large dark cloud of smoke.  (this will confuse "Lost" fanboys, so let me make clear my name is not Titus Welliver) 

[Peterkin]

10 minutes ago, TheVat said:

was named after a large dark cloud of smoke.  (this will confuse "Lost" fanboys, so let me make clear my name is not Titus Welliver) 

hmph! You still get a feast day 

Don't spend it all with Jordan Peterson. 

[beecee]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

WTF?!?!

I don't care. I simply crave knowledge.

Nice post, particularly the WTF remark. 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It's not a contest for me. But it is for many, many people - and not an equal contest for most of them.

The contest between religion and science? I agree with you on that score...One we can live without, the other we cannot. One has no evidence to support it and is simply a comfort thingy, the other is a product in eternal progression, as evidence comes to light. 

In saying that, I fully support those that see a need for that warm cozy comforting thingy, unless as the more fanatical of those, try and use it in scientific debates.

Science is what we know; Philosophy/religion is what we don't know: Bertrand Russell.

The highlighted word is my own insert.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Same way He does now: in their imagination. That's the essence of magical thinking.

And yet even that fails more times then not. 😉

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I was recounting the evolution of deity in human cultures. Not for argument's sake, but because I like anthropology. Of course, that doesn't rule out obtuseness.

I was recounting the obvious nature of early man, without anything more then basic scientific intelligence, and how they probably were confounded by volcanis eruptions, eclipses, even thunder and lightening. Without relatively advanced science, there "god of the gaps" of choice was the methodology they used to explain them.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

One can be interested in many sciences without obsessing over that first fraction of a second.

Yep, of course, but going on some of your remarks and comments, you seem to be pushing a philosophically political point of view, as obviously is one other. eg: "You shouldn't. You should only pay attention to literate, civilized slave-owners who stoned people to death for being gay".

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

There was a question about atheism and theism. I was addressing that - not advocating for any philosophy of life.

I'm not really convinced, but hey! I could be wrong on that score.

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I'm not sure we ask the same life's big questions. For the ones I've asked, I have some partial answers, and that's probably the best i can do. I accept that nobody gets to know everything they've ever been curious about - life isn't long enough, human knowledge isn't wide enough and we're not smart enough. 

I still live in hope that we can put boots on Mars before I kick the bucket...I still live in hope that we will discover that life off this Earth does exist somewhere/sometime. I hope that we will always have intrepid humans, that will set out to go where no man has ever gone before. I still hope that the long sort after, validated QGT will surface in the near future. I hope that my Son, my Mrs, my grandchild, my freinds, all stay healthy. I hope that true evil will one day be eliminated and we can all live in peace and harmony, no matter our social or political standings in life. I hope that my bar fridge will always stay stocked full of VB, even when I am incapable of walking/riding up the street for a carton.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

I was recounting the obvious nature of early man,

Nothing obvious about it. Long-held misconceptions are being overturned every year, as the scientific investigative tools keep improving and new finds come to light. I don't pretend to keep up with the literature, but neither do I buy the popular assumptions regarding  our ancestors - who must have been so much stupider and more frightened than we are. (I'm not sure it's possible to be stupider and more frightened than we are.)  And I get prickly when the real pioneers of science are derided, just because they may also have had superstitions - much like modern man. 

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Without relatively advanced science, there "god of the gaps" of choice was the methodology they used to explain them.

That must be founded on bedrock fact, since you keep asserting it.

I hope your hopes come true.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Peterkin
link

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Nothing obvious about it. Long-held misconceptions are being overturned every year, as the scientific investigative tools keep improving and new finds come to light. I don't pretend to keep up with the literature, but neither do I buy the popular assumptions regarding  our ancestors - who must have been so much stupider and more frightened than we are. (I'm not sure it's possible to be stupider and more frightened than we are.) 

Yes, we learn all the time, but none of that invalidates the likelyhood of early man creating dieties out of fear. Not sure what other popular assumptions you don't like, but that's your choice. And no one has said early man was stupider, but the facts stand, that they didn't have the advanced science to fall back on, nor the shoulders of giants, on whose shoulders they could stand to see any reasonable distance.

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 And I get prickly when the real pioneers of science are derided, just because they may also have had superstitions - much like modern man. .

So do I. The fact though remains, in that they didn't have the advanced sciences to call upon.

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That must be founded on bedrock fact, since you keep asserting it.

I keep mentioning it because it is one of the prime obvious reasons. Please explain to me why it wouldn't be a reason?

18 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I hope your hopes come true.

I stand amongst many who also hope they come true within one's lifetime. But nothing is certain, that I won't get hit by a bus tomorrow.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Yes, we learn all the time, but none of that invalidates the likelyhood of early man creating dieties out of fear.

I didn't say that. Fear of many things has always been with us, and magical thinking has always been, as it still is, one of the ways we cope with fear. I said early men were probably not as afraid of the unexplained cause of natural phenomena as modern people assume. Their immediate, pressing fears were of hunger, fire, flood, cold, predators and each other. The mythologies I've read strongly suggest that the main purpose of those of stories was not the explanation of weather or volcanoes: though both appear in the stories, their nature is not deeply investigated. The main purpose of creation myths is group identity, solidarity, an expression of man's emotional relationship with his world, and some forms of magical control over the things they couldn't fight.

As civilizations grew, so did the intricacy of magic and the regimentation of myth to the service of  power-structure, social order, law-making and so forth. The early myths are different from the modern ones in significant ways - and the supernatural contents of a religions is not - afaics - related to the state of science and technology. 

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

they didn't have the advanced science to fall back on, nor the shoulders of giants, on whose shoulders they could stand to see any reasonable distance.

That's right. It is on their shoulders that we so unappreciatively stand and crow about our accomplishments.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The fact though remains, in that they didn't have the advanced sciences to call upon.

And that keeps having nothing to do with religion! All those modern billions who have plenty of science to draw upon, and who do draw upon science, daily and hourly, even for the dissemination of their faith, who still profess reliance on some god (Two of the most popular of whom seem to me far less credible than Raven or Kaang, which is why I compared the modern and ancient gods earlier). Intellect, emotion and spiritual yearning (or awe) have always coexisted, regardless of how advanced each one was in its history at any given time. Indeed, science has served religion, just as it has served agriculture, war, crime, medicine, politics, industry, entertainment and communication.  Religion has served society in various other ways.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

keep mentioning it because it is one of the prime obvious reasons. Please explain to me why it wouldn't be a reason?

It could be a reason. But it's not obvious, and I have no basis - based on the mythology itself - to believe that it's the primary reason.  That's a popular assumption which I think has been imperfectly evaluated for probability. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I stand amongst many who also hope they come true within one's lifetime. But nothing is certain, that I won't get hit by a bus tomorrow.

Stay clear of buses. Mars needs boots. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Peterkin

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I didn't say that. Fear of many thing has always been with us, and magical thinking has always been, as it still is, one of the ways we cope with fear. I said they were probably not as afraid of unexplained phenomena as modern people assume; their more immediate fears were of hunger, fire, flood, cold, predators and each other. That the mythologies I've read strongly suggest that the main purpose of those of stories was not the explanation of weather or natural phenomena, but group identity, solidarity and some forms of magical control over the things they couldn't fight.

Agreed, that all are probable reasons.

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That's right. It is on their shoulders that we so unappreciatively stand and crow about our accomplishments.

Who said unappreciativly? And who is crowing? There access to science was limited. We of course are standing on the shoulders of giants that stand on the shoulders of other giants, that stand on the shoulders of other giants, ad infinitum until we have those standing on the shoulders of early man before he jumped down from the trees and discovered  that he was bipedal.

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

And that keeps having nothing to do with religion!

Disagree. It probably as you already have said is a possibility, a reason why they created the supernatural in their minds. I equate religion with supernatural.

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It could be a reason. But it's not obvious, and I have no basis - based on the mythology itself - to believe that it's the primary reason.  That's a popular assumption which I think has been imperfectly evaluated for probability. 

 Well, OK, not obvious to you, but obvious to me.

16 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Stay clear of buses. Mars needs boots. 

Sadly unless they were calling for old farts to go to Mars, I wouldn't stand a chance. But hey, and fair dinkum, if it wasn't for the Mrs, and my health and safety were reasonably guarranteed within the known and accepted dangers of such a trip, with a return also being seen as  realistic, I would jump at the chance!!

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

And that keeps having nothing to do with religion!

Disagree. It probably as you already have said is a possibility, a reason why they created the supernatural in their minds. I equate religion with supernatural.

If a need for the supernatural is due to lack of access to scientific knowledge, why do all the people today, with all their access to so much scientific knowledge, including many who are immersed in scientific knowledge, still need the supernatural?

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

If a need for the supernatural is due to lack of access to scientific knowledge, why do all the people today, with all their access to so much scientific knowledge, including many who are immersed in scientific knowledge, still need the supernatural?

I didn't really say it was a need, it is a reason. And in answer to the second part, probably a variety of reasons, convention, the hard to accept cold hard fact that death is death, and finality, and of course because as yet science does not have all the answers to answer those questions.

[Peterkin]

84% of the world's population is still filling in the gaps with superstition. It's no longer about an explanation for lightning, volcanoes, eclipses and meteorites, all of which science has explained completely. Now, it's about refusing to accept death - even though science has explained that, too. Might it not always have been more about mortality than it ever was about explanations for the causes of natural phenomena?  Science progresses, yet gods keep their faithful and people never want to die. I think those three facts are related. In fact, it seems obvious to me. 

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 Now, it's about refusing to accept death - even though science has explained that, too. Might it not always have been more about mortality than it ever was about explanations for the causes of natural phenomena?  

Actually more about the morbid fear of the finality of death.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 Science progresses, yet gods keep their faithful and people never want to die. I think those three facts are related. In fact, it seems obvious to me. 

Yeah for many probable deeply underlying reasons.

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes, we learn all the time, but none of that invalidates the likelyhood of early man creating dieties out of fear.

I think the elders created a diety in order to teach the children.

Let's imagine a society that depends on tree's and you've got to teach the children that they have to cut down tree's to live today, but only what they need today, because if they get greedy; there won't be enough left to sustain the forest.

You'd start with a boogeyman that lives in the tree's, and eats people who cut down more than they need, and believe me, they know when you do...

You get to argue metaphysics later in life... 😉

Edited November 10, 2021 by dimreepr

[TheVat]

Yes,  plus one, I think gods could function as proxy elders whose presence could be useful when no actual adults were supervising.   Grab an anthropologist and you likely are offered quite a few positive social mechanisms that some form of theism provided.  Helping parents,  easing group's fears of nature's whims,  promoting lawfulness,  reducing anxiety about death,  promoting stewardship of nature,  etc.  

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I think the elders created a diety in order to teach the children.

There are many probable reasons, that possibly being another. 

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

There are many probable reasons, that possibly being another. 

It's not about probability, it's about plausibility. 

Assuming were more intelligent than them because we know more, is very arrogant; what path would you choose to "teach the children"?

[beecee]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's not about probability, it's about plausibility. 

😏 Whatever floats your boat.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 Assuming were more intelligent than them because we know more, is very arrogant; what path would you choose to "teach the children"?

The only thing I'm assuming, is the fact that ancient man did not have the tools, nor the shoulders of giants before them, to stand on and see further. I thought I already said that. Teach the children? In that era with the lack of science?, I don't know.

Edited November 11, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

Teach the children? In that era with the lack of science?,

Cats do. Robins do. Wolves do. Whales do. Children don't raise themselves; don't learn the practical skills to feed, defend and house themselves, or the social skills to fit into a society, without instruction. Why in the world do you suggest that no human children were taught anything before Galileo?

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

Cats do. Robins do. Wolves do. Whales do. Children don't raise themselves; don't learn the practical skills to feed, defend and house themselves, or the social skills to fit into a society, without instruction. Why in the world do you suggest that no human children were taught anything before Galileo?

Yes, and children do also but in a limited sense if you have been following my posts. In that era, for parents to explain an eclipse for example, would be stretching it...volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, lightening, thunder, thereby giving rise and reason to manufacture some mythical supernatural deity or belief. We still do it today for infants...Santa and the Easter Bunny. And no, I don't really see anything too wrong in that...it does add a sense of fun and awe for our little ones.

[Peterkin]

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

In that era, for parents to explain an eclipse for example, would be stretching it...volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, lightening, thunder,

As I explained before, that's not what the instruction was for.

But, okay. You win: I won't repeat it again.

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

As I explained before, that's not what the instruction was for.

? I may have missed it. What instructions are you on about? Parental instructions to their children? 

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

But, okay. You win: I won't repeat it again.

🤣 You bloody beauty!!! 🤔 Umm, sorry, what did I win?