Definition of Atheism

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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

No, they don't. They may not identify and define it as a science, but the habit of observation, speculation and experimentation has been with humans from long before they could be called human. It is as much part of the nature of big-brained animals as emotional complexity is: they are both products of intelligence.

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Then later of course, as he gradually  progressed out of the need for supernatural deities and myth to explain other wonders around him.

No he hasn't. Wonder, awe, superstitious dread and magical thinking are also products of intelligence. 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

No, they don't. They may not identify and define it as a science, but the habit of observation, speculation and experimentation has been with humans from long before they could be called human. It is as much part of the nature of big-brained animals as emotional complexity is: they are both products of intelligence.

Now we have to define intelligence and how it relates to life?

Does a crow think about that?

Edited November 26, 2021 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

51 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Now we have to define intelligence and how it relates to life?

Not necessarily. All sentient life forms have some degree of intelligence; you can draw arbitrary lines anywhere, and at as many points, as you like, to demarcate one level of intelligence from another. Near the the top, where the most convoluted frontal lobes are, you will invariably find practical [problem-solving, tool-making, scientific] intelligence alongside emotive [bond-forming, social, aesthetic] intelligence. 

57 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Does a crow think about that?

About which 'that' ? Crows think about lots of things and make lots of emotional connections.

[Peterkin]

Konrad Lorenz tells the story of a wild goose he rescued and brought into his house. As the goose was going up the stairs for the first time, she was startled by the stained glass window on the landing, which made her jump back, flapping her wings for balance. That goose soon learned that that window posed no threat, yet every time she went up the same stairs, she always stopped at that same spot and flapped her wings a couple of times. 

That is a ritual. We all have personal rituals, whether from superstitious origins, designed for efficiency or habit we don't even notice. We also have communal rituals that a group of humans regularly performs together - and not just religious ones, either, but all sorts. So do flocks of geese and herds of bison and colonies of groundhogs.     

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Not by you.

Your opinion is noted and rejected. You sound like an anti-vaxxer. 😄

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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... 🤞

You obviously of course! Or is this just another "my bad"scenario? Life of course is far more (for most of us) then just surviving. Is your case (for what it is worth) so tenuous that you need to resort to the times before we crawled out of the sea and became human?

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

  and now human threatens life; I hope science can save us... 🤞

I agree. So what has this to do with Atheism?

It's because of the doubts about the science that we find ourselves in the position we are in. You pushing your philosophy won't help things one iota.

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

No he hasn't. Wonder, awe, superstitious dread and magical thinking are also products of intelligence. 

Intelligence perhaps, but Intelligence with vastly limited knowledge also, and of course over the ages, convention. Many many people say they are chrisitian or whatever, but are only chrisitian by name only. In actual fact unless the Pope has excommunicated me, I'm still a chrisitian by name and label.

[Peterkin]

Wander, awe, existential dread and magical thinking are not limited to religions. They exist in every human mind: in dreams, in art, in love, in transactions of all kinds, in gambling and games, in play and make-believe. Emotion lives alongside reason, and if you suppress either one, you destroy the human personality: you end up with a robot or a brute.

Emotional intelligence, aesthetic sensibility, imagination and wonder have nothing to do with the quantity of information available. One of the major factors making our current world so very sick is the compartmentalization and segregation of mental functions. 

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Wander, awe, existential dread and magical thinking are not limited to religions. They exist in every human mind: in dreams, in art, in love, in transactions of all kinds, in gambling and games, in play and make-believe. Emotion lives alongside reason, and if you suppress either one, you destroy the human personality: you end up with a robot or a brute.

Emotional intelligence, aesthetic sensibility, imagination and wonder have nothing to do with the quantity of information available. One of the major factors making our current world so very sick is the compartmentalization and segregation of mental functions. 

That changes nothing re ancient stone age man, having limited knowledge.

Another of the major reasons why we  perceive our world to be very sick, is the WWW and Internet, and having all types of sensationalistic news at our finger tips, and broadcasted with the relevant bias of the broadcaster, and as I said, the rejection of science by many because of greed and that old "f&$% you, I'm alright Jack"  attitude. 

[Peterkin]

59 minutes ago, beecee said:

That changes nothing re ancient stone age man, having limited knowledge.

It doesn't have to. I'm talking about all of mankind, ancient, medieval and modern. Having access to more information never diminished man's creative and emotional capacities.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Another of the major reasons why we  perceive our world to be very sick, is the WWW and Internet, and having all types of sensationalistic news at our finger tips, and broadcasted with the relevant bias of the broadcaster, and as I said, the rejection of science by many because of greed and that old "f&$% you, I'm alright Jack"  attitude.

It's not scientific knowledge causing that phenomenon. It's the other part of the human psyche. And knowing lots of science has done nothing to mitigate that fact.

It's never either science/or imagination; it's always both/and.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It doesn't have to. I'm talking about all of mankind, ancient, medieval and modern. Having access to more information never diminished man's creative and emotional capacities.

And I'm talking about facts...facts that ancient man not having the knowledge to understand what caused certain events, and why the universe is the way it is, had them fabricating deities in many forms, in place of that lack of knowledge, and as a result also of ......

10 hours ago, beecee said:

 convention. 

 

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It's not scientific knowledge causing that phenomenon. It's the other part of the human psyche. And knowing lots of science has done nothing to mitigate that fact.

Yes it is...It's a number of things, including instantaneous news and access, along with reasons you have put. I'm rather surprised you are unable to recognise that fact. Science explains the world around us, I have never claimed it governs man's morals, if that is what you are saying. That's also convention, along with tolerance and thought for your fellow man...

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It's never either science/or imagination; it's always both/and.

Yes, so? I'm not aware of me saying anything different. All I would add is that imagination is/should be in line with the science and scientific knowledge and principals. 

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

You obviously of course! Or is this just another "my bad"scenario?

You pointing out a mistake I've admitted too as an example of me being obtuse, is obtuse.

I'm done here, feel free to have the last word... 😉

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes it is...It's a number of things, including instantaneous news and access, along with reasons you have put. I'm rather surprised you are unable to recognise that fact

I do recognize the part science plays in the destruction of the world.

 

7 hours ago, beecee said:

Science explains the world around us, I have never claimed it governs man's morals, if that is what you are saying.

No, it's not what I'm saying. At all.

7 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm not aware of me saying anything different

Quote

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.

He hasn't.

7 hours ago, beecee said:

All I would add is that imagination is/should be in line with the science and scientific knowledge and principals. 

Should be's are as wishful as ever after's.

 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Konrad Lorenz tells the story of a wild goose he rescued and brought into his house. As the goose was going up the stairs for the first time, she was startled by the stained glass window on the landing, which made her jump back, flapping her wings for balance. That goose soon learned that that window posed no threat, yet every time she went up the same stairs, she always stopped at that same spot and flapped her wings a couple of times. 

We have too anthropomorphise in order to glimpse the life of others. 

[Peterkin]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We have too anthropomorphise in order to glimpse the life of others.

No, we don't. All 'others' are already very much like us and we are very much like them, having all evolved together from the same protozoan beginnings.

[dimreepr]

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, we don't. All 'others' are already very much like us and we are very much like them, having all evolved together from the same protozoan beginnings.

But I can't know a bat, if I'm not a bat and I can't know a criminal if I'm not a criminal; all I can do is, imagine what would make me happy... 

[Peterkin]

44 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But I can't know a bat, if I'm not a bat and I can't know a criminal if I'm not a criminal; all I can do is, imagine what would make me happy... 

No, you can't know [in the sense of fully experiencing and understanding] anybody - not even yourself. You can know a lot about others, as well as yourself. You can empathize, sympathize, observe, listen, conjecture, extrapolate, project and imagine. That is how all the stories of humanity come about. Also knowledge of science.

Most living things are only happy for brief periods of time, in specific limited ways. A constant state of happiness is expensive to support and impossible to maintain. For some fortunate creatures, a sustained state of contentment is their normal; for must, it's a condition greatly to be desired, rarely attained. 

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You pointing out a mistake I've admitted too as an example of me being obtuse, is obtuse.

Not really, as I have made plenty of mistakes myself. Just a bit of sarcasm. 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm done here, feel free to have the last word... 😉

*shrug* I have made a few valid points as I see it, including my abhorance to being labeled. I'm also finished as per the link in the other thread. 

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I do recognize the part science plays in the destruction of the world.

Wrong...that's not science...that's the choices being made by humans, and the rejection of science to right the mistakes made. 

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

No, it's not what I'm saying. At all.

Good. Again then we cannot do without science.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

He hasn't.

Of course he has. Are you playing your philosophical games? While science has not yet explained everything, (as I have said many, many times) it has given us an evidenced backed picture at least back to 10-35th seconds, post BB, and we are able to make reasonable speculation beyond that. So yes, for all intents and purposes, man has certainly explained most of the wonders of the universe around him. And if that (the BB) is shown to be in error in the future, we will improve that picture, based on the evidence available.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Should be's are as wishful as ever after's.

And science is what we know; philosophy (and religion)  is what we don't know (or invent). 🥱

 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Wrong...that's not science...that's the choices being made by humans, and the rejection of science to right the mistakes made. 

Mass communication is not a rejection of science; it is an achievement of science. The internet is not a rejection of science. Killer drones are not a rejection of science. Deep ocean oil drilling, pesticides, terminator genes - these are not rejections of science. These are tools of destruction developed by science. This is science in the service of destruction. 

Of course the mistakes are made and the crimes are committed by humans: humans use science. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Again then we cannot do without science.

I know that; have never said otherwise. I did say, however, that science does not replace or displace imagination and magical thinking. And that science and magical thinking, reason and emotion, have always existed side by side, serving different functions in the human psyche.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

So yes, for all intents and purposes, man has certainly explained most of the wonders of the universe around him.

Indeed. And it has not diminished his belief in gods, life after death and a lot of other fanciful notions.

Tradition aside - and the tenacity of some traditions, like organized religion, in preference to other traditions, like beating children into obedience, suggests that people value some traditions more than others.

The supernatural and its denizens have never explained the world. Now that science has explained the world, superstition is still going strong - not explaining, but serving other needs.

Quote

Belief in God may be declining, but ghosts and paranormal stories are alive and well.

Dogs bark. This orange is round.

Both are facts, but they don't support each other.

 

[beecee]

11 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Mass communication is not a rejection of science; it is an achievement of science. The internet is not a rejection of science. Killer drones are not a rejection of science. Deep ocean oil drilling, pesticides, terminator genes - these are not rejections of science. These are tools of destruction developed by science. This is science in the service of destruction. 

You have it arse about face. All those were from basic advancements in science and technology for the good of mankind. It is how they were then propagated and used by humans for anything other then good. But that fails to support your philosophy.

11 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Of course the mistakes are made and the crimes are committed by humans: humans use science. 

Humans using science for evil does not make science evil. sheesh!

11 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I know that; have never said otherwise.

That's nice.

11 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I did say, however, that science does not replace or displace imagination and magical thinking. And that science and magical thinking, reason and emotion, have always existed side by side, serving different functions in the human psyche.

Imagination/hypotheticals are part and parcel of science and the scientific methodology...I have never said anything differently. True magic as defined though, along with supernatural and paranormal concepts are unscientific, and of course (that again you have not denied or supported) as science progresses, much that was once called magic, is now explained by science without any silly magic, as magic is defined. 

11 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Indeed. And it has not diminished his belief in gods, life after death and a lot of other fanciful notions.

I addressed that...It's called convention... you know, follow Mummy and Dad's beliefs ad-infinitum. Plus of course the need for many humans to be fearful of the finality of death, and instead maintaining that warm fuzzy, inner glow feeling.

11 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Tradition aside - and the tenacity of some traditions, like organized religion, in preference to other traditions, like beating children into obedience, suggests that people value some traditions more than others.

Beating children is evil, cruel and inhumane...correcting children, and reasonable corporal punsishment, is part and parcel of raising a family.

11 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The supernatural and its denizens have never explained the world. Now that science has explained the world, superstition is still going strong - not explaining, but serving other needs.

They did at one time to a very large extent, when magic, the supernatural and paranormal had free reign, without developing scientific explanations..... Superstition , supernatural though are still strong for the reasons given. The hard, cold, facts about the finality of death is hard for some to come to terms with.

 

Edited November 28, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, beecee said:

You have it arse about face. All those were from basic advancements in science and technology for the good of mankind.

Some good, some bad, some for health, some for wealth, some for food, some for power, some for convenience, some for efficiency, some for fun. Yes. And? None of that makes science anything other than a methodology used by humans to achieve things humans want, good, bad and silly. When humans are constructive, they use science. When humans are destructive, they use science. When humans are in a hurry, they use science. When humans just want to show off, they use science. It plays a part in everything humans do. A hammer is a good tool, until you bash somebody in the head with it. A bayonet is a bad tool, until you use it to dig sugar beet.

5 hours ago, beecee said:

But that fails to support your philosophy.

What philosophy?

5 hours ago, beecee said:

Humans using science for evil does not make science evil.

And where did anyone say that science has a moral value - or, for that matter, a character of any kind? It's a methodology used by humans for human purposes - and nothing more. 

5 hours ago, beecee said:

I addressed that...It's called convention... you know, follow Mummy and Dad's beliefs ad-infinitum.

That may be true of some individuals in some situations; it is evidently not true of humankind. If it were true, there would be no change - political, philosophical, dietary or cultural. Yet change goes on all the time: people stop believing what they were taught, turn against their parents' ideals, overthrow entire systems of government and thought. Even in religion, there have been several major upsets and new innovations, as well as forcible imposition of one religious regime on people of a different faith.   

And old-time religion most certainly doesn't explain any of the modern ghost-lore, zombie fear and cockeyed unscientific theories. 

5 hours ago, beecee said:

Beating children is evil, cruel and inhumane...correcting children, and reasonable corporal punsishment, is part and parcel of raising a family.

Some people still think so. Most used to think so. Most don't anymore. See - it;s just one of the conventions that don't hold ad infinitum.

5 hours ago, beecee said:

[P - The supernatural and its denizens have never explained the world.] They did at one time to a very large extent,

No, they didn't. You keep repeating that opinion, without a single source for it. I gave you a dozen sources for believing otherwise.

People found picturesque ways to describe natural phenomena; they told stories anthropomorphizing natural phenomena; They speculated about the origin of their tribes; they revered their ancestors; they invented rituals around the fact of death; they elaborated world-views and set out standards of social behaviour. 

5 hours ago, beecee said:

when magic, the supernatural and paranormal had free reign

They still have: science didn't make superstition go away.

5 hours ago, beecee said:

The hard, cold, facts about the finality of death is hard for some to come to terms with.

Exactly. Explain it all you want; people will never like it.  That's what religion is for: to mitigate the hard, cold facts of life on Earth.

Edited November 28, 2021 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Exactly. Explain it all you want; people will never like it.  That's what religion is for: to mitigate the hard, cold facts of life on Earth.

Indeed, but the cold hard fact is, we can only live today; whatever prism we choose for tomorrow.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Some good, some bad, some for health, some for wealth, some for food, some for power, some for convenience, some for efficiency, some for fun. Yes. And? None of that makes science anything other than a methodology used by humans to achieve things humans want, good, bad and silly. When humans are constructive, they use science. When humans are destructive, they use science. When humans are in a hurry, they use science. When humans just want to show off, they use science. It plays a part in everything humans do. A hammer is a good tool, until you bash somebody in the head with it. A bayonet is a bad tool, until you use it to dig sugar beet.

So you essentially agreed ( in a philosophical round about way)with what I said. Why not just say so?

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

What philosophy?

The one you have been pushing for around 820 posts, rather then answering questions directly.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

And where did anyone say that science has a moral value - or, for that matter, a character of any kind? It's a methodology used by humans for human purposes - and nothing more. 

The following sounds an awful lot like claiming science is evil, an immoral value...and which I pulled you up on.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

On 11/28/2021 at 12:44 AM, Peterkin said:

I do recognize the part science plays in the destruction of the world.

11 hours ago, beecee said:

Humans using science for evil does not make science evil. sheesh!

Yes, science/knowledge is a method...a method that enables us to know and understand...to use it for evil is a human decision. You are drawing an extremely long bow by claiming it (science)  is leading to world destruction. It in fact is showing the method to obtain the opposite.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That may be true of some individuals in some situations; it is evidently not true of humankind. If it were true, there would be no change - political, philosophical, dietary or cultural. Yet change goes on all the time: people stop believing what they were taught, turn against their parents' ideals, overthrow entire systems of government and thought. Even in religion, there have been several major upsets and new innovations, as well as forcible imposition of one religious regime on people of a different faith.   

Yet most western nations still class themselves as god fearing, at least in name. The changes that occur are of course in most cases, lead by scientific and technological advancements.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

And old-time religion most certainly doesn't explain any of the modern ghost-lore, zombie fear and cockeyed unscientific theories. 

As an old time Catholic, there are many miracles (magic) that the church still cling to.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Some people still think so. Most used to think so. Most don't anymore. See - it;s just one of the conventions that don't hold ad infinitum.

Reasonable corporal punishment is still in vogue, as it is an effective means of correcting children and as discussed a while back.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

No, they didn't. You keep repeating that opinion, without a single source for it. I gave you a dozen sources for believing otherwise.

 And I'll repeat again...of course they did! The Egyptians had Ra, the Sun God...and ancient history is full of mythical beings used to explain the universe.

Just as you describe in the following.....

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

People found picturesque ways to describe natural phenomena; they told stories anthropomorphizing natural phenomena; They speculated about the origin of their tribes; they revered their ancestors; they invented rituals around the fact of death; they elaborated world-views and set out standards of social behaviour. 

 

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

They still have: science didn't make superstition go away.

To a large extent, yes it did and does...pandemics is one example, and the silly superstitions behind them. Now you may see the need to once again be pedantic and use some deep dark New Guinea or African tribe to show different, but very largely, the myth behind pedamics have been replace by science. Please don't make me dig up other examples!

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Exactly. Explain it all you want; people will never like it.  That's what religion is for: to mitigate the hard, cold facts of life on Earth.

So you agree with me again? I'm really not sure what you are arguing about, other then an excuse for your philosophy.

Edited November 28, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

So you essentially agreed ( in a philosophical round about way)with what I said. Why not just say so?

Because I didn't.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

The one you have been pushing for around 820 posts,

So you keep telling me, without any particulars or proofs. What philosophy?

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

rather then answering questions directly.

Which questions have I failed to answer?

2 hours ago, beecee said:

The following sounds an awful lot like claiming science is evil, an immoral value.

Sounds like? You must have a different pitch from mine.

I do recognize the part science has played in the destruction of the world. Why don't you? Do you really think chemical warfare is good? Do you really think climate change is good? Science is a methodology used by humans to achieve ends that humans desire. Good, bad and silly.

I also recognize the part superstition, magical thinking, irrationality and organized religion (even such organized religions and irrational cults as make effective use of technology to further their ends) have played in the destruction of the world. 

That does not mean -- and does not say -- that either of those human capabilities has a moral value apart from the uses to which humans put them.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

You are drawing an extremely long bow by claiming it (science)  is leading to world destruction.

Except that I've claimed no such thing.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Yet most western nations still class themselves as god fearing, at least in name. The changes that occur are of course in most cases, lead by scientific and technological advancements.

Yes. The two kinds of thinking continue on together, side by side, hand in hand.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

The Egyptians had Ra, the Sun God...and ancient history is full of mythical beings used to explain the universe.

The Egyptians of Ra had a sophisticated, technologically advanced civilization; they had precision engineering, meteorology, agriculture and astronomy as well some quite progressive notions civil law and of governance generally. Their highly organized, ritualized  religion was a whole separate realm from their practical application of knowledge. 

Quote

The Egyptian calendar was based of a year of 365 days, with twelve months and three seasons. Each month had three ten-day weeks, for a total of 30 days. The last five days of the year corresponded to the birthdays of five deities

Do you really not see the difference in religious belief, practice and application in stone age, bronze age, classical and modern societies?

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Please don't make me dig up other examples!

No worries. You haven't presented any examples. You made some vague statement about pandemics - of which I see no relation to primitive or ancient cultures or religions. 

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm really not sure what you are arguing about,

I can see that.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

an excuse for your philosophy.

What philosophy?

Perhaps you'll forgive me for asking again. Only, it's disconcerting to be daily accused of 'pushing' an unspecified, unnamed, undescribed - yet somehow presumed wrong - 'philosophy'. If i knew what it is, I might be able to repudiate or defend it.  

I see you won't. That's all right.

Edited November 28, 2021 by Peterkin

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Because I didn't.

I understand how hard it is to admit, but guess what? you did.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

So you keep telling me, without any particulars or proofs. What philosophy?

Stop playing dumb...please!

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Which questions have I failed to answer?

Sounds like? You must have a different pitch from mine.

Many....My pitch is science, no more, no less....your's is pushing a particular philosophy.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

.I do recognize the part science has played in the destruction of the world. Why don't you? Do you really think chemical warfare is good? Do you really think climate change is good? Science is a methodology used by humans to achieve ends that humans desire. Good, bad and silly.

Because I recognise correctly, that it is people using science for evil intent. Science isn't essentially evil. Science is knowledge which is essentially good.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Except that I've claimed no such thing.

Well you need to express yourself better.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

The Egyptians of Ra had a sophisticated, technologically advanced civilization; they had precision engineering, meteorology, agriculture and astronomy as well some quite progressive notions civil law and of governance generally. Their highly organized, ritualized  religion was a whole separate realm from their practical application of knowledge. 

And they also believed in all sorts of unscientific myth, which you are so intent on ignoring...badly I might add. It was part of their culture.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

No worries. You haven't presented any examples. You made some vague statement about pandemics - of which I see no relation to primitive or ancient cultures or religions. 

I've presented pandemics. Your  inability to recognise that, does not invalidate my claim...and is rather poor to boot...poor acting that is, as I don't believe you are really ignorant of that.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Perhaps you'll forgive me for asking again. Only, it's disconcerting to be daily accused of 'pushing' an unspecified, unnamed, undescribed - yet somehow presumed wrong - 'philosophy'. If i knew what it is, I might be able to repudiate or defend it.  

I'm really not that interested in more of your philosophical banter. And I won't elaborate anymore on something that stands out like dog's balls.

I remember hearing somewhere sometime about the fact that no matter how logical any argument is, there will always be someone that will present an argument against. 

Edited November 28, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

And they also believed in all sorts of unscientific myth, which you are so intent on ignoring...badly I might add. It was part of their culture.

I don't ignore it. Unscientific myths are part of every culture, past and present. Most people either believe or go along with the prevailing religious belief; a minority don't. That minority is called 'atheists' - if they're lucky enough to live in a society that doesn't call them 'apostate' or 'blasphemer' or 'heretic' and punish them more or less severely.

Every society, every culture has elements of the rational and the irrational, just as every human being does. the proportions vary from time to time and place to place; the co-existence of spirituality and science is constant.

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

I've presented pandemics

You mentioned pandemics. What about them? How are they an example of what?

3 hours ago, beecee said:

pandemics is one example, and the silly superstitions behind them.

Which silly superstitions? Who? When? In what context? What does it illustrate?

 

29 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm really not that interested in more of your philosophical banter.

What philosophy?

[beecee]

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I don't ignore it. Unscientific myths are part of every culture, past and present. Most people either believe or go along with the prevailing religious belief; a minority don't.

Yes for the reasons I have given, and which you seem blinkered to.

23 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 a minority don't. That minority is called 'atheists' - if they're lucky enough to live in a society that doesn't call them 'apostate' or 'blasphemer' or 'heretic' and punish them more or less severely.

I simply follow the scientific methodology as much as possible; what you want to label me and others as, is your choice. Most Atheists anyway, along with most agnostics and most theists are able to live their life without too much persecution.

29 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Every society, every culture has elements of the rational and the irrational, just as every human being does. the proportions vary from time to time and place to place; the co-existence of spirituality and science is constant.

So? That detracts nothing from the fact that we cannot live without science ( not withstanding your silly argumentive stance for the sake of arguing) and spirituality, supernatural and paranormal beliefs are unscientific. One is based on reason, the other comforting myth.

35 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You mentioned pandemics. What about them? How are they an example of what?

I'm not jumping through your fabricated hoops my friend...but perhaps you need to cast your mind back before the days of the discoveries of virus'and bacteria and  beliefs in miasmas and  or 

 or this maybe more familar....

How does your philosophy explain such superstitious nonsense?

46 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What philosophy?

🤣 The nonsensical philosophy you have been pushing an dragging into near every subject over more than 800 posts.

Aa wise old Owl earlier in this thread did say, 

On 10/30/2021 at 12:24 AM, Phi for All said:

 Science doesn't have the tools to measure god(s) until they agree to become observable, predictable, and consistent.

I would add that perhaps the tools can never exist to measure gods, and if they did exist and become observable, predictable and consistent, would they still be gods?

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I remember hearing somewhere sometime about the fact that no matter how logical any argument is, there will always be someone that will present an argument against. 

And you can bet your short n curlies that it would be a Philosopher! 😄