Definition of Atheism

[beecee]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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

No I didn't ignore it, I rejected the gist of it.

23 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. 

Glad you agree with what I have previously said re having good morals is not confined to god believers.

And Of course I have plenty of love, compassion and forgiveness within me, and we [myself and the Mrs] show that in a far more practical way then just plain rhetoric.  But I also firmly believe all need to be responsible for their actions, and face the consequences of such actions, and not make excuses for those actions....but hey matey, this isn't about compassion and love, its a thread for defining Atheism, a label I don't concern myself with too much in actual fact, as I have already stated and given reasons for.

You have fun anyway, I'm out of this, as it is simply a rehashing of old ground.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

No I didn't ignore it, I rejected the gist of it.

Your rejecting the idea that some people, including scientist's, need to be, or can be, taught a good moral compass (we're not all born with it); no wonder you're out of your depth with the question of justice.

Edited November 19, 2021 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

Moral standards are socially determined; moral guidance is given to the young by their elders in every kind of social organization. It's not only not restricted to god-fearing people, or people who have some kind of shared supernatural/spiritual belief - it's not even restricted to humans. Catholics have a moral system; atheists have one; Vikings had one; the Khoikhoi of precolonial Africa had one. Parents, grandparents, elders, preachers and teachers pass the principles of their society's standard of behaviour on to the young - through lessons, example, punishment, assignment, reward, songs, exercises - but mostly stories. 

Moral systems are not made by science or religion; religions and sciences are guided and informed by the moral systems in which they operate.

[beecee]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Your rejecting the idea that some people, including scientist's, need to be, or can be, taught a good moral compass (we're not all born with it); no wonder you're out of your depth with the question of justice.

And as usual, you again are off topic, but the reason for that is again obvious.

Getting back on topic,  it stands out like dog balls, that the various descriptions of God from any corner of the world and every major world religion is the product of primitive and superstitious peoples who knew very little about the world in which they lived. I also have learnt over the years, and as shown on many science forums, that theism generally look upon Atheist with scorn and disbelief, and yes, also with wishes and threats of death and violence.  http://www.mtv.co.uk/lol/news/richard-dawkins-reading-out-hate-mail-is-like-religious-celeb-mean-tweets Richard dawkins reading out hate mail.....

Theists believe in gods and in god because they have been lied to. Myths are promoted as truths. Lies are told as facts. To be a theist is the be convinced of the existence of a god or gods. To be an atheist is to NOT be convinced of the existence of a god or gods. When theists stop looking down their noses at Atheists, when they cease with the death threats and chose tolerance, when they see the arrogance and stupidity in arguing against science and the scientific methodology, on science forums no less, then perhaps the Dawkin's of this world, may likewise let them live according to their beliefs. Afterall, I certainly would not walk into a church on Sunday and start telling the congregation about the futility of their beliefs and the finality of death. I respect them for whatver they chose to believe, no matter how unscientific. I personally have nothing against theists and weird philosophical stances, as long as their stance affects none other then themselves. I simply see science as a refinement of common sense.

 

"Science is simply common sense at its best that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic".

Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.

 

"The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification".

Thomas H. Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, beecee said:

And as usual, you again are off topic, but the reason for that is again obvious.

Only to you, since you haven't explained.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

Getting back on topic,  it stands out like dog balls, that the various descriptions of God from any corner of the world and every major world religion is the product of primitive and superstitious peoples who knew very little about the world in which they lived.

Arrogant much, they knew everything they needed to know about the world they lived in, it's like calling my grandad primitive because he can't use the internet.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

Theists believe in gods and in god because they have been lied to. Myths are promoted as truths. Lies are told as facts. To be a theist is the be convinced of the existence of a god or gods. To be an atheist is to NOT be convinced of the existence of a god or gods. When theists stop looking down their noses at Atheists, when they cease with the death threats and chose tolerance, when they see the arrogance and stupidity in arguing against science and the scientific methodology, on science forums no less, then perhaps the Dawkin's of this world, may likewise let them live according to their beliefs. Afterall, I certainly would not walk into a church on Sunday and start telling the congregation about the futility of their beliefs and the finality of death. I respect them for whatver they chose to believe, no matter how unscientific. I personally have nothing against theists and weird philosophical stances, as long as their stance affects none other then themselves. I simply see science as a refinement of common sense.

So, god = bad and science = good, got it; atheism mean's good then, simple.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against science, I'm using science to investigate old ideas. 

[beecee]

11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Only to you, since you haven't explained.

Oh, OK, according to the title, this is about Atheism, not your philosophical/religious  view of how you believe the world should be.

11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

So, god = bad and science = good, got it; atheism mean's good then, simple.

I wish you did get it...blinkers?? God= myth: religion = faith: science = knowledge:  and atheism = label:  

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, beecee said:

Oh, OK, according to the title, this is about Atheism, not your philosophical/religious  view of how you believe the world should be.

I'm an atheist, trying to explain religion rationally; I believe that's germane to the topic.

15 hours ago, beecee said:

I wish you did get it...blinkers?? God= myth: religion = faith: science = knowledge:  and atheism = label:  

Right back atcha, it's only your bias that prevents a good view... 🙄

God = concept not reality: religion = culture: science = method and atheism = belief.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Right back atcha,

Whatever...it's really not worth conversing with you, sadly.

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, beecee said:

Whatever...it's really not worth conversing with you, sadly.

Tag you're it... 🙄

[beecee]

😄Atheism = belief is about as valid as science= religion😄 

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, beecee said:

😄Atheism = belief is about as valid as science= religion😄 

Don't you believe there is no such thing as God's? I know I do, but neither science or me can be sure of that, so we're left with belief; besides I've never said science = religion, I may have said science is your religion; you've done nothing, so far, to assuage that opinion.

 

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Don't you believe there is no such thing as God's? I know I do, but neither science or me can be sure of that, so we're left with belief; besides I've never said science = religion, I may have said science is your religion; you've done nothing, so far, to assuage that opinion.

And then you get all offended when I call you obtuse! 😅 Let me explain it further... Science generally is never 100% certain about anything. That's why we call them scientific theories. I have no scientific proof with regards to the existence of fairies either. The point is that any and all supernatural and paranormal explanations are unscientific at best and mythical nonsense at worst. I prefer to stay under the umbrella of the scientific methodology and critique and reasoning. Science has made the ID/deity explanation as superfluous at least back to t+10-35 seconds, and has reasonable speculative scenarios back further then that.

Edited November 23, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Science has made the ID/deity explanation as superfluous at least back to t+10-35 seconds, and has reasonable speculative scenarios back further then that.

Science doesn't know what it means to be human, fairy-tales are often more effective at teaching children; science lacks the narrative to engage the unbeliever. 

16 hours ago, beecee said:

And then you get all offended when I call you obtuse! 😅

confirmation bias has reinforced my sense of a patern, you know the one; you call me stupid because you can't answer/understand my post, that's why I'm not offended.

I'm using science to explore me, you're using science to defend you; which is more religious?

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Science doesn't know what it means to be human,

 

Do you? I see the phrase bandied about, but have yet to hear a succinct definition.

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Do you?

I think I do...

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I think I do..

Wanna share?

[dimreepr]

I thought I did...

[Peterkin]

You explained what it means to be human? Where? 

But as it's already well established that I'm obtuse, could you summarize it for me in simple words?

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

confirmation bias has reinforced my sense of a patern, you know the one; you call me stupid because you can't answer/understand my post, that's why I'm not offended.

I'm using science to explore me, you're using science to defend you; which is more religious?

*shrug* I don't need defending old mate, and I use science appropriatley. Regarding yourself, that's entirely up to you, but please, stop being so philosophically dramatic about it.

ps: I did forget to mention that when I used the word "obtuse" regarding yourself, I used it for the express purpose and meaning thus......"difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression" It is also, unfortunately, ill-written, and at times obtuse and often trivial.— Shirley Hazzard. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obtuse

And as mentioned, I am not the first to express thoughts on your "cryptic"  posting style.

 

Edited November 24, 2021 by beecee

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Science doesn't know what it means to be human,

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 

Do you? I see the phrase bandied about, but have yet to hear a succinct definition.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I think I do...

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Wanna share?

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I thought I did...

The battle of our philosophical giants! 😉😁

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

The battle of our philosophical giants! 😉😁

I'm starting to think you're not debating honestly, either that or you're being obtuse.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

*shrug* I don't need defending old mate, and I use science appropriatley.

Your using science as a comfort blanket rather than a means to explore.

Science isn't a thing, it's a concept, a means to an end, a tool and a way to explain thing's, mostly to adult's like you and me who accept the evidence provided (preaching to the choir).

Science isn't a way to explain life and what it means to be a good human, it doesn't even try because it lacks the vocabulary to tell the story. 

 

 

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm starting to think you're not debating honestly, either that or you're being obtuse.

You mean I'm not falling for your propaganda.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Your using science as a comfort blanket rather than a means to explore.

Actually, its the reverse. Your using your santised version of society and beliefs for your own feel good warm and cozy feeling. And of course science shows that as irrelevant. Perhaps that's your problem?

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Science isn't a thing, it's a concept, a means to an end, a tool and a way to explain thing's, mostly to adult's like you and me who accept the evidence provided (preaching to the choir).

😏 Perhaps its your own honesty that needs to be bought into question. I have nerver said science is a thing. And it isn't just a way to explain things, as you put it. It is a intellectual study of the world around us and the universe, formulating theories based on the knowledge gained via observational and experimental data. It is a system we cannot live without and without it the world stagnates. That dear friend is what you need to contemplate.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Science isn't a way to explain life and what it means to be a good human, it doesn't even try because it lacks the vocabulary to tell the story. 

Again while science cannot and does not explain everything, it is something that we cannot live without. A personal philosophy of life such as yours, may give you that warm inner glow, but it remains a personal issue and unscientific to boot. Irrespective you are entitled to those beliefs, if they give you the peace and happiness as Freddy just quoted and which you kindly linked to, just please, don't shove them down my throat. Science effectively isn't really interested in your supposed truth and/or reality, if it at all even exists. It (science) does though give us provisional truths, that may gain in validity and stature over time, but never really any final truth.

Stay warm and cozy in your security blanket; I really don't need one.

Edited November 25, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, beecee said:

You mean I'm not falling for your propaganda.

I mean you're not even willing to listen to anything that doesn't conform to your world view, that may as well be religious.

Like I said, I'm using science to explore a possible explanation for the 'myths' you're so quick to dismiss without a thought.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

Perhaps its your own honesty that needs to be bought into question. I have nerver said science is a thing. And it isn't just a way to explain things, as you put it

I never said you did and I didn't say that.

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

and a way to explain thing's

13 hours ago, beecee said:

It is a system we cannot live without and without it the world stagnates.

People do live without science and people of the stone age didn't stagnate. 

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I mean you're not even willing to listen to anything that doesn't conform to your world view, that may as well be religious.

It's your unworkable world view that I won't accept, and is continually shown to be unworkable...

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Like I said, I'm using science to explore a possible explanation for the 'myths' you're so quick to dismiss without a thought.

You have said plenty in your posts that others beside myself have found, well at best cryptic, at worst obtuse.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I never said you did and I didn't say that.

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Science isn't a thing, it's a concept, a means to an end, a tool and a way to explain thing's, mostly to adult's like you and me who accept the evidence provided (preaching to the choir).

 

Delusions? poor memory? double talk?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

People do live without science and people of the stone age didn't stagnate. 

No they don't, and never have. Even stone age man needed rudimentary to understand that once he climbed down out of the trees, he could walk on two feet as a bipedal, and understanding fire etc. Then later of course, as he gradually  progressed out of the need for supernatural deities and myth to explain other wonders around him. Most certainly It is a system we cannot live without and without it the world stagnates.

 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

It's your unworkable world view that I won't accept, and is continually shown to be unworkable...

Not by you.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

No they don't, and never have. Even stone age man needed rudimentary to understand that once he climbed down out of the trees, he could walk on two feet as a bipedal, and understanding fire etc. Then later of course, as he gradually  progressed out of the need for supernatural deities and myth to explain other wonders around him. Most certainly It is a system we cannot live without and without it the world stagnates.

Now who's being obtuse, life has survived without science and then life became human and now human threatens life; I hope science can save us... 🤞

“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” ― Kurt Vonnegut