Definition of Atheism

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

what you want to label me and others as,

I'm not labelling anyone. Most people believe in something supernatural; some people don't. The thread title mentioned atheists. Many religionists, past and present have other words for unbelievers. I didn't make any of them up.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

That detracts nothing from the fact that we cannot live without science

Nobody said we can, could or ever have. We - as a species - also can't seem to live without the supernatural. Some of us can and do; the majority don't. Science doesn't make the supernatural go away and superstition doesn't make science go away. They are always in operation at the same time.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

One is based on reason, the other comforting myth.

Not all myths are comforting - far from it! But yes, myth and reason live together in human cultures. Quite sophisticated, rational people will throw spilt salt over their shoulder, avoid stepping on the cracks in pavement,  walk around ladder, make birthday-candle wishes, refrain from anticipation of a good outcome in case they jinx it, and cross their fingers when telling a lie. It does no harm. Lots of quite rational people talk to their dead and buried parents or spouses. It makes them feel better and does no harm.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

need to cast your mind back before the days of the discoveries of virus'and bacteria and  beliefs in miasmas

 Ah! you're referring to medieval Christian Europe. (You might have been clearer, as we had previously been talking about ancient mythology, not modern.) Yes, they were benighted in many ways.  Stone-age people are far less likely to have suffered epidemics, because their living conditions were less susceptible to mass contagion, so it's unlikely that a pandemic was the reason for making up stories about the Baxian or guie. Still, the existence of disease may well have played a part.

Of course, if you have no way of detecting pathogens, you look for another cause. They had science, enough for celestial navigation, aqueducts and cannons, but not advanced enough to figure out what caused the plague. (We have science advanced enough to detect the cause, but not enough to prevent it.)

And, of course, now the response to disease is entirely free of irrationality, right? It's not like anybody was refusing the vaccine, breaking quarantine, protesting against precautions or threatening doctors, right? Coz we have access to science now.   

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The nonsensical philosophy you have been pushing

What philosophy?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

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?

It doesn't matter. Ideas* are not quantifiable. (Ghosts get measured and filmed and Geiger-counted all the time, but that's probably a fad.)  Nobody who believes in gods wants to observe or measure them - that's not what gods are for. The only people who demand such a procedure are convinced that it's absurd and say it expressly for the absurdity.  Which doesn't mean those very same people don't have some other superstition or irrational belief of their own. 

*they don't exist

 

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 Ah! you're referring to medieval Christian Europe. (You might have been clearer, as we had previously been talking about ancient mythology, not modern.) Yes, they were benighted in many ways.  Stone-age people are far less likely to have suffered epidemics, because their living conditions were less susceptible to mass contagion, so it's unlikely that a pandemic was the reason for making up stories about the Baxian or guie. Still, the existence of disease may well have played a part.

Of course, if you have no way of detecting pathogens, you look for another cause. They had science, enough for celestial navigation, aqueducts and cannons, but not advanced enough to figure out what caused the plague. (We have science advanced enough to detect the cause, but not enough to prevent it.)

And, of course, now the response to disease is entirely free of irrationality, right? It's not like anybody was refusing the vaccine, breaking quarantine, protesting against precautions or threatening doctors, right? Coz we have access to science now.   

I'll leave you to it appears you are arguing in bad faith as the above highlights.

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

What philosophy?

Your philosophy over more then 800 posts, from your denial of sport/s, to your crocodile tears re criminals and jails etc, to your sympathies to those same criminals as opposed to society and the vicitms of crime,  to your comments in this thread.

I'm happy enough to leave you to your philosophical preaching, as it is unworkable and has zero, zilch, nada chance of ever being implemented in any reasonable society.

I may make the odd comment once in a while when I see fit, otherwise my point has been made with relation to atheism....not some mish mash of philosophical comedy. 

Edited November 29, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, beecee said:

Your philosophy over more then 800 posts, from your denial of sport/s, to your crocodile tears re criminals and jails etc, to your sympathies to those same criminals as opposed to society and the vicitms of crime,  to your comments in this thread.

Oh, you're still sore about my reluctance to 'throw away the key'. 

I confess to having political leanings toward the Green & Socialist end of the spectrum. The same convictions - formed over a lifetime of watching, reading and learning - that inform my political views also influence my opinions.  Opinions are necessarily subjective. Statements of fact, on the other hand, are not. I back those up with citations, statistics, studies and reports from reputable and relevant sources. 

The emotions you attribute to me are not mine.

The 'philosophy' to which you object in this thread is actually Anthropology, a science, though the aspect of it under consideration here was cultural anthropology, which is more akin to the humanities, as it overlaps the disciplines of archeology, history and linguistics. Again, I confess a long-time interest in this field of study, and claim a little bit of amateur knowledge. 

6 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm happy enough to leave you to your philosophical preaching, as it is unworkable and has zero, zilch, nada chance of ever being implemented in any reasonable society.

The origin and development of spiritual, magical and religious belief systems in the past is not even applicable to anything that societies, reasonable or unreasonable (and have quite a few of the latter right now) may implement in the future. The recent past has an immediate impact on present societies; ancient history has an influence on how they formed; prehistory has only the faintest traces in our lifestyles, political and religious organizations, morality and law-making. But it lives on in art, language and spirituality. 

I'm describing, not subscribing or prescribing.  

 

[beecee]

On 10/30/2021 at 1:33 AM, iNow said:

There are different "flavors" of atheist, but pretty much all of them simply mean "not theist." It's right there in the word... A (not) - theist.

But there is weak atheism: I don't believe in god or gods.

And there is strong atheism: I actively believe there are NO gods.

These are subtly, but importantly different. 

There's also agonistic atheism (I don't believe, but cannot know for sure), and agnostic theism (I do believe, but cannot be sure I'm right).

Anyway... looks like our OP was just here to spam us anyway, and I have strong beliefs about spammers.

And then there's me! don't forget me! 😁 that is, I'm really not that concerned, as long as science keeps giving us answers/explanations.

Edited November 29, 2021 by beecee