Definition of Atheism

[beecee]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

It's your post man.You said it. I quoted it. You quoted it yourself. 

 I think this thread has run its course for me.

OK, I think I have what you seem to be objecting to....

4 hours ago, beecee said:

I actually reject being labeled an Atheist or anything else for that matter, other then recognising that science explains most of the universe and life around us, and continues to explain more and more. What need do we have for any deity when science can reasonably explain as far back as t+10-35th seconds? The problem as I see it, is that the universe is a cold, dark non caring product of evolution. And the evidence shows that once you are dead, you are dead..kaput, the end! Many humans do not like that answer and it sends a shiver up and down their spine. I'm aligned with Carl Sagan and his answer in the following 2 minute video...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EQDhtVl_50 specifically the part where he says, "If the general picture of the universe of a  BB followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter and then suddenly the matter was created? How did that happen? In manny cultures the customary answers are that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing. But if we wish to persue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question, where did god come from? If we decide this is an unanswerable question, then why not conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or if we say that God always existed, why not save a step, and say that the Universe always existed. There's no need for a creation, the universe always existed. These are not easy questions, cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries and questions which were once treated only by religion and myth." 

As an amateur non scientist, who has grown [to late in his life sadly to really do anything constructive about it] to realise the beauty of science and its methodology, I understand that science does not have all the answers as yet, and probably never will, but I also understand that it has pushed back the need for any supernatural and paranormal explanation of the universe to near oblivion. In essence I don't even think about  any atheisitic or agnosticism consequences of what I have learnt from forums such as this, and the logic of the scientific methodology and the answers that prevail according to the evidence,  I have also had one or two baggage laden individuals, claiming that my adherence to science and its methodology is a religious like belief, specifically of course when that science debunks the more mythical reasons that they may or may not hold. Science and its methodology to me is simply a refinement of everyday thinking, atheistic, agnosticism or whatever label some may chose to put on that.

That's the post in its entirety....and I stand by it as is...no goal post moving, no misunderstanding. In other words I'm saying we have plenty of evidence to support the concept of once you are dead, you are dead, kaput, the end. If you want me to retract that highlightedpart, show me reason/evidence why you believe it is wrong.

I agree though re this thread having run its course.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Screen door. From house to porch. She inside house.  Me on porch. Bear advancing. If she was being aggressive, it was for what she considered a good reason. We all act, when we feel we must, on limited information, because the alternative may be the death of a loved one.

While that maybe true, a dog, any breed of dog, properly trained and given plenty of TLC to boot, will not attack unless instructed to, and will hold an intruder at bay. One of my Rotty's was 69 kilos.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

No problem; I'm used to that.

It's showing in a calm, cool manner, that you are the Alpha male, its actually that simple. Like I have said, never ever had any problem with any of my two Rotty's or the German Shepherd. My present two miniature Dachy's are now warming my feet.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I wish I could. Won't be long now.

It's hard having a good mate pass away. I remember when I needed to take my last Rotty to the vet at 13.5 years old, for an obvious cancer growth on his back leg. I had the choice of getting the leg amputated and him maybe living another 3 months or so, or getting him humanely put down. I still have his ashes stored in a pride of place in our home.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That's the one thing I miss about religion, and the one thing most people are unwilling to give up, however implausible, absurd and wrong it may seem: an afterlife.

One writer I appreciated likened heaven to a vast library, where you would meet and talk with the creators of all the books you admired. Another notions was that you get to play different roles in heaven that you might have wished, but never got a chance to play in life. The most consistent recurring theme is that you're reunited with all the people you've loved and lost. My favourite fantasy is that when you die, you walk into a meadow where all your past friends of other species come to greet you and frolic about as you cross the bridge to where the human ones are. 

My personal theory of why religion was invented: people missed their parents.

Being an atheist deprives me of "the sure and certain hope of the resurrection" - and there is nothing I can do about that.

I don't really give it too much thought. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some cold hard bastard with no love or sympathy...I just simply accept the reality of the situation.

Edited November 14, 2021 by beecee

[iNow]

6 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm saying we have plenty of evidence to support the concept of once you are dead, you are dead, kaput, the end. If you want me to retract that highlightedpart, show me reason/evidence why you believe it is wrong

It’s a matter of precision and accurate framing.

We don’t “have evidence to support” that death is the end. It’s the most likely valid explanation, site, but we don’t have evidence FOR it so much as we absolutely lack ANY evidence whatsoever despite thousands of years of seeking that death is NOT the end… that ANYTHING at all happens or persists in any meaningful way once our biological functions cease. 

Perhaps a bit pedantic, but is more precise. Similarly, we don’t have evidence that flying unicorns don’t exist, we just lack evidence that they really do exist in anything more than fantasy books and children's imaginations. 

Edited November 14, 2021 by iNow

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, beecee said:

.I just simply accept the reality of the situation.

Much as the primitive peoples did their own situation?

PS - You can have the dog-training blue ribbon, if you like; I'm content with my imperfect Alphadom. 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, beecee said:

Have fun my philosophical friend.

You too, I just wonder, when can you?

if there's a different way too win...

Edited November 14, 2021 by dimreepr

[TheVat]

I'm always a little skeptical that people are fully accepting of mortality and concomitant view that biological death is the termination point.   Though any evidence otherwise,  like the people whose hearts stop in the OR and claim to witness events outside,  seem to be apocryphal.  No rigorous study,  controlling for normal sensory information paths,  has found any credible indication of people leaving their bodies.  But most of us,  I suspect, hedge our bets a little.  Sometimes with exotic parallel world theories,  quantum immortality theories,  matrix theories, morphic resonance,  panpsychism,  etc.   Stuff that lives along the fringes of science.  

And I think a similar dynamic drives the whole uploading "singularity" movement,  folks like Ray Kurzweil and Vernor Vinge.   Sometimes derogatorily referred to as "geek rapture. "  

 

[Peterkin]

I don't need alternative theories. I prefer to fantasize the oldest and most nearly universal version of Paradise: serenity, interspecies amity and perpetual good weather. I don't have to believe it to imagine it, any more than I have to believe to in a God to summon his wrath upon a hammer that landed on my toe while possessed by a demon in which I also don't believe. The multi-compartmental human mind has always done that. 

[beecee]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Perhaps a bit pedantic, but is more precise. Similarly, we don’t have evidence that flying unicorns don’t exist, we just lack evidence that they really do exist in anything more than fantasy books and children's imaginations. 

And the fairies at the bottom of your garden...don't forget the fairies! 😉

 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Much as the primitive peoples did their own situation?

And constructed all sorts of supernatural and paranormal wonders to explain what was happening around them...among other possible reasons also!

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

PS - You can have the dog-training blue ribbon, if you like; I'm content with my imperfect Alphadom. 

I have never did or been to any dog training course, ever...just did what I believed was best along with loads and loads of TLC.

[dimreepr]

On 11/13/2021 at 10:45 PM, beecee said:

Repeating my first  "modified"reply in this thread, rather than the philosophical claptrap being pushed by one or two......

I actually reject being labeled an Atheist or anything else for that matter, other then recognising that science explains most of the universe and life around us, and continues to explain more and more. What need do we have for any deity when science can reasonably explain as far back as t+10-35th seconds? The problem as I see it, is that the universe is a cold, dark non caring product of evolution. And the evidence shows that once you are dead, you are dead..kaput, the end! Many humans do not like that answer and it sends a shiver up and down their spine. I'm aligned with Carl Sagan and his answer in the following 2 minute video...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EQDhtVl_50 specifically the part where he says, "If the general picture of the universe of a  BB followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter and then suddenly the matter was created? How did that happen? In manny cultures the customary answers are that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing. But if we wish to persue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question, where did god come from? If we decide this is an unanswerable question, then why not conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or if we say that God always existed, why not save a step, and say that the Universe always existed. There's no need for a creation, the universe always existed. These are not easy questions, cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries and questions which were once treated only by religion and myth." 

As an amateur non scientist, who has grown [to late in his life sadly to really do anything constructive about it] to realise the beauty of science and its methodology, I understand that science does not have all the answers as yet, and probably never will, but I also understand that it has pushed back the need for any supernatural and paranormal explanation of the universe to near oblivion. In essence I don't even think about  any atheisitic or agnosticism consequences of what I have learnt from forums such as this, and the logic of the scientific methodology and the answers that prevail according to the evidence,  I have also had one or two baggage laden individuals, claiming that my adherence to science and its methodology is a religious like belief, specifically of course when that science debunks the more mythical reasons that they may or may not hold. Science and its methodology to me is simply a refinement of everyday thinking, atheistic, agnosticism or whatever label some may chose to put on that.

 

 

“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." - Frank Herbert. 

 

18 hours ago, beecee said:

I have never did or been to any dog training course, ever...just did what I believed was best along with loads and loads of TLC.

Sometime's it's cruel to be kind, especially when you're winging it... 😉

[beecee]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Sometime's it's cruel to be kind, especially when you're winging it... 😉

Never been cruel to any animal, ever...just doing what is best, with plenty of TLC....

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." - Frank Herbert. 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, beecee said:

Never been cruel to any animal, ever...just doing what is best, with plenty of TLC....

Nor had my mother, but she did kill our dog by over-feeding it.

18 hours ago, beecee said:

 

That statement reads the same even if, for religion read science.

Science and religion both try to eliminate fear, as in:

“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." - Frank Herbert. 

A mantra to be a human computer... 😉 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Science and religion both try to eliminate fear,

You know that quote is neither from religion nor science, but fiction.

Science is not primarily aimed at eliminating fear. In fact, it very often engenders fear, both rational 

Quote

Such nuclear brinksmanship hasn’t been seen since the twilight of the Cold War. For the first time in at least a generation, Americans are confronting not only the possibility of a nuclear attack, but also a 24/7 news cycle transfixed by that possibility.

and irrational

Quote

The unvaccinated fear the vaccine against Covid-19 more than the deadly Coronavirus and its rapidly spreading Delta variant, a new poll shows.

The driving motivation to science is curiosity; its central purpose is the solving of practical problems through the understanding of materials and forces, which leads to the ability to manipulate those materials and forces in order to accomplish some pragmatic end desired by humans. The main aim of science is mastery over the natural world.  

Similarly, religion engenders fear and makes threats (damnation, hellfire, stoning, shunning) as much as it offers comforts and promises of rewards (guidance, healing, forgiveness, eternal life). Its driving motivation is to define man's a relationship with the spirit world, and through communication and appeasement, influence those unseen entities.  It's main aim is mastery of the supernatural.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

You know that quote is neither from religion nor science, but fiction.

Indeed, that's what it looks like... 

A narrative, that leads to, A truth...

[Peterkin]

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

A narrative, that leads to, A truth...

A truth is not The truth. People often get confused about that. Not saying you are - just, you know, unspecified "people".

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

A truth is not The truth. People often get confused about that. Not saying you are - just, you know, unspecified "people".

And a story is just a story; it either leads to the truth or we ignore it...

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The driving motivation to science is curiosity; its central purpose is the solving of practical problems through the understanding of materials and forces, which leads to the ability to manipulate those materials and forces in order to accomplish some pragmatic end desired by humans. The main aim of science is mastery over the natural world.  

Not bad, other then "mastery over the natural world" You really mean "understanding of the natural world" 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Similarly, religion engenders fear and makes threats (damnation, hellfire, stoning, shunning) as much as it offers comforts and promises of rewards (guidance, healing, forgiveness, eternal life). Its driving motivation is to define man's a relationship with the spirit world, and through communication and appeasement, influence those unseen entities.  It's main aim is mastery of the supernatural.

 

Two points here that need modification....."mastery over the supernatural"which really should be "mastery over Imagination and myth" and of course the highlighted part...

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And a story is just a story; it either leads to the truth or we ignore it...

Or to fairies at the bottom of your garden.

[Peterkin]

15 minutes ago, beecee said:

You really mean

Please, let us not each tell what the other "really means". 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Peterkin
rong word order

[beecee]

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Please, let us not each tell what the other "really means". 

Just trying to be helpful and thought you might be big enough to accept your error.

[Peterkin]

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

Just trying to be helpful and thought you might be big enough to accept your error.

Very, very big of your. Pass.

I'm content with my minuscule status.

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Or to fairies at the bottom of your garden.

What price knowledge, when panic buying...

 

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What price knowledge, when panic buying...

I'm buying nothing, in fact I'm only rejecting your philosophy. Which is all this is about.

[TheVat]

LoL the revised Maslow hierarchy.  

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm buying nothing, in fact I'm only rejecting your philosophy. Which is all this is about.

My only philosophy is to not assume where wisdom can be found.

I don't have to believe in god to understand the benefits of love over hate or forgiveness or judging yourself before casting the first stone. 

We're all standing on the shoulders of giant's, not just science...

Only you can prevent you from learning something new, history is full of the relevant data.

Hindsight, the only exact science... 😉

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Hindsight, the only exact science..

Be careful about that! While hindsight is said to be 20/20, it's also coloured by corrective lenses.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

My only philosophy is to not assume where wisdom can be found.

The rest of your post, tells me differently.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Hindsight, the only exact science... 😉

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/19/our-knowledge-of-covid-19-changes-every-day-hindsight-is-misleading-when-it-comes-to-science

"We can’t look back and wonder what might have been, because the path that we’ve trodden was really the only one available.

The reality is that, while hindsight might be fun, it is misleading".

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, beecee said:

The rest of your post, tells me differently.

This is the rest of my post, you know, the important part that you ignored.

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I don't have to believe in god to understand the benefits of love over hate or forgiveness or judging yourself before casting the first stone. 

We're all standing on the shoulders of giant's, not just science...

Only you can prevent you from learning something new, history is full of the relevant data.

This is a throw away line, note the smilie:

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Hindsight, the only exact science... 😉

11 hours ago, beecee said:

The reality is that, while hindsight might be fun, it is misleading".

The reality is, you can only see if your scientific model is acurate, after the experiment's data is seen ie. hindsight.