Definition of Atheism

[iNow]

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I've never heard an atheist claim that a god of some kind cannot exist

It’s less common, but is out there. It’s called hard atheism as Segev said. 

[MigL]

Why the need for so many labels ?
( and more importantly, will anyone be offended if I don't use the proper label ? 😁 )

I am a simple scientist; until there is evidence for something, I don't have a need to 'imagine' that something is real.
Some others find great confort in 'imagining' something for which there is no evidence.

To each their own.

[beecee]

On 10/30/2021 at 5:43 AM, MissThundra86 said:

 Does God exist?

we have no evidence that supports the existence of any divine supernatural magical  entity.

Are there fairies at the bottom of my garden?

we have no evidence that supports the existence of any divine supernatural, magical entity.

On 10/30/2021 at 2:02 AM, Danijel Gorupec said:

 Even if science cannot make a rigorous prof (and therefore a claim) that there is no God, it should still honestly advise general population that it is not smart to spend extensive resources (time/money/effort) only to please any god(s). Not having a rigorous proof does not mean you should refrain from making a honest advice... In fact, science must clearly state its best advice and not keep silent (I don't think it has much to do with quality of equipment available to science; even if science only has most rudimentary tools, it should provide advice the best it can at that moment... loud and clear, even if it has to apologize later).

That's similar to my stance. Science has dragged us out of the ignorant times when we saw the Sun, Moon, Mountains, Rivers, Volcanoes, eclipses, as the actions of some omnipotent deity. While as yet, we still cannot explain how and why the BB banged, what was before the BB, and/or why as yet we do not have a working, reputable model of Abiogenesis, we have come a long way, on a very informative, interesting scientific journey. I see that journey continuing.

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Science has dragged us out of the ignorant times

Into ignorant times with a different flavour.

[Segev]

20 hours ago, studiot said:

Surely what matters is what the user of the word aetheist think it means or, if you like, means by it ?

Of course. Unfortunately, most often, people "stick" their own meaning to others.

 

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Religion, belief in a particular deity offers comfort and solace to people.

It depends on the person in power of that religion.

Religion is (as many other things) can be easily abused.

 

20 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Actually, I've never heard an atheist claim that a god of some kind cannot exist

I have, more than you might think.

20 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I'll try not to confuse it, but I wonder:  How do we know what another person's unbelief relates to?  

Not sure I understand the question.

The only way to know what someone don't believe, is by him telling it.

 

[dimreepr]

30 minutes ago, Segev said:

The only way to know what someone don't believe, is by him telling it.

Another way to know, is by asking it...

[Peterkin]

37 minutes ago, Segev said:

The only way to know what someone don't believe, is by him telling it.

I judge more by his actions. Someone, for example, who proclaims his faith in the Christian god, in ultimate judgments and everlasting life -  and yet behaves in ways that contravene the tenets of his professed faith, you can tell that he doesn't believe: if he did, he'd be afraid to behave that way. If you look around, there are plenty of pious atheists who tell you the opposite of what they believe.

Quote

Don't confuse that with the idea that religion is dangerous. This has got no relation to being an Atheist or not.

Someone may tell that they don't believe. They don't always explain why they don't believe. And even if they do, they're not always telling the real reason or the whole reason - they might not even know all of their reason. They've constructed an explanation, yes, but it doesn't account for all the impressions, conversations, readings, ideas, reflections, responses and emotions that went into the current mind-set. You can't account for that long complicated thought- process; much of it is subliminal.

They may have never been indoctrinated, and so encountered various forms of religion on a purely theoretical level. They may have been steeped in one specific religion from infancy and struggled with their own skepticism and their family's disapproval. They may have been brought up in one religious culture and transplanted to a different culture and struck by the contrast. They may have been believers and something happened to shake their faith, or vice versa. There are many routes even to a minor conviction, and this conviction involves an entire world-view. So when somebody tells you they don't believe in god, you can't know from that statement whether it relates or doesn't relate to the dangers of religion or anything else. 

The word itself is so variously defined that when someone says "There are no gods" you know very little about what they actually think on the subject of deity, the supernatural and organized religion.

[zapatos]

5 hours ago, beecee said:

we have no evidence that supports the existence of any divine supernatural magical  entity.

Are there fairies at the bottom of my garden?

we have no evidence that supports the existence of any divine supernatural, magical entity.

While I understand the sentiment I don't think the comparison of the question of the existence of gods and fairies is quite fair. 

The question of the existence of god seems perfectly reasonable and has been asked by people since people began. Nearly every culture has an origin story. It can even be considered a scientific question; given existence, how did it come to be? While the proposed answer (god) has no scientific evidence, it is at least a proposed answer to a fundamental question that most everyone would like to know.

The question of the existence of fairies on the other hand is rather minor. I for one don't even know what question their existence might be intended to answer. Not all people and cultures have wondered about the existence of fairies.

So while you are correct we have no evidence that supports the existence of fairies at the bottom of your garden, asking if god exists would at least address some larger, more significant question.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Segev said:

22 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Actually, I've never heard an atheist claim that a god of some kind cannot exist

I have, more than you might think.

What were their exact words? Did they say "Nothing that can be described as divine can possibly exist anywhere in the universe." or "No gods exist."?  In the latter case, did you then follow up with a question "What do you include under 'gods'?"

See the definition does get stretched out in theoretical arguments. "God" begins as either the specific named character at the center of a particular religion, or as a collective term for all the supernatural controlling entities humans have worshipped, thn is stretched to include supernatural beings that are not objects of worships but were supposed to have powers of some kind, then to vague ideas about communal coherence, any kind of spirit, anima, creative force, natural phenomenon, or maybe something that set of the big bang....

The more it's prodded, the more amorphous godhood becomes. So, when somebody makes a statement like "I know that my Redeeemer liveth." or "There are no gods." that's usually a proclamation of their own belief. Neither has claim to universal truth.      

19 minutes ago, zapatos said:

While I understand the sentiment I don't think the comparison of the question of the existence of gods and fairies is quite fair. 

It is, though. The Big All-Purpose God of modern Christianity didn't spring fully formed from the head of a guy in bearskin. There have been myths and legends and stories and songs about all manner of supernatural entities from ghosts to angels, from the minuscule pixie who lives in a bluebell to the demon at the heart of a maelstrom. They're not all creative and destructive being of great power; some are benign, some are vindictive, predatory or protective; they bring rain or fire, fertility or death - all kinds of gods and spirits. So it's quite fair to take the one familiar and poorly understood word 'god' or 'fairy' out of the question and raise it up one level:

Is there anything supernatural?

Edited November 8, 2021 by Peterkin
word

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Is there anything supernatural?

How would we know unless they told us?

Edited November 8, 2021 by zapatos

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

How would we know unless they told us?

Exactly. Have they?

[zapatos]

42 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Exactly. Have they?

Haha. Don't you know?

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Into ignorant times with a different flavour.

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

6 hours ago, Segev said:

It depends on the person in power of that religion.

Religion is (as many other things) can be easily abused.

Agreed, and more often then not, used as a means to a selfish end.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Don't you know?

I'm an atheist. They wouldn't likely be talking to me. 

On a more serious note: many extraordinary claims are made on behalf of any number of supernatural entities, by Earth-bound humans, who do not then scruple to turn around and accuse me of making claims to knowledge i can't possibly have.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

The question of the existence of god seems perfectly reasonable and has been asked by people since people began.

 I agree whole heartedly, but science has given us many of those answers, from those ancient times when we were ignorant of many things. Add that to the fact that it continually updates and modifies those answers, and our ignorance continues to grow less and less.

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So, when somebody makes a statement like "I know that my Redeeemer liveth." or "There are no gods." that's usually a proclamation of their own belief. Neither has claim to universal truth.      

Yet no evidence exists to confirm either answer. While my previous comparable analogy of Gods with fairies, may have been faulty [I agree with zapatos logic] science has answered many of those questions that ancient man hypothesised a deity to explain, so continually invalidating any need for any creator to very minimal levels that science has yet to explain. eg: why and how the BB banged...process of abiogenesis.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Yet no evidence exists to confirm either answer.

That would explain why neither has claim to universal truth.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

science has answered many of those questions that ancient man hypothesised a deity to explain

We can't really know what ancient man needed gods for - nor the exact route whereby those earliest supernatural beings were imagined and elaborated and adapted before civilization. I have some basis to think it was not primarily for explanations. Those same ancient peoples did use science and technology to solve their practical problems: they improvised, fabricated, invented and improved on tools, dwellings, food production and preservation, quite independently of their spiritual life. That served, and still does serve, a different function. People don't go to church to inquire about things; they go there to pray for things. They want someone more powerful themselves to care for and help them.

This ancient temple is already a very sophisticated example of organized religion - far more so than the myths of nomadic peoples or hut-dwellers - and yet appears to explain nothing at all. 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Peterkin

[zapatos]

As I transitioned from theist to atheist the last hurdle I had to overcome was the simple fact of existence. I began jettisoning the pageantry and hypocrisy of organized religion starting when I was about eight years old. (No surprise my teachers through 12 years of Catholic school found me to be a real PITA.) But the fact that anything existed at all was a real roadblock for me when it came to the final step over to the dark side.

I imagine if I had never been exposed to religion or gods at all, I would have invented the idea myself to possibly explain how things came to be. It is easy to recognize all the rules and stories are nonsense, but how we got here seems to me a more fundamental question. At that point it is kind of binary; was it natural or supernatural? Given the lack of any evidence one way or the other it is not surprising that many people chose supernatural, even if only for that most basic question. I think that is a reason why so many people choose "none" when it comes to identifying their beliefs or religious affiliation, rather than choosing "atheist". They may think Christianity is ridiculous but are not ready to give up on 'god' completely.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

It is easy to recognize all the rules and stories are nonsense, but how we got here seems to me a more fundamental question.

I believe the most significant word there is "we". Other species take their environment for granted; though aware of themselves, "How comes I?" does not seem to concern them. All the earliest belief systems - long before organized religion -  start with a creation story. This sometimes does and sometimes does not include the origin of land, water and sky, but it invariably includes the origin of the people telling the story. There are usually some tales regarding celestial bodies, landmarks, animals, weather phenomena, trees - which all predate humans, often with no origin story of their own. All these things can be personified, spoken-to and revered. 

But they are never explained. The spirit-story doesn't delve any deeper into the character of winds than 'Then North Wind was so angry with Antaki that he took back his daughter...' Yet these same people would have a thorough understanding of wind speed, direction, temperature, humidity, seasonal change, etc. that would enable them to plan hunts, fishing trips and migration. They don't need the stories to use weather; they need the stories to answer "Who are we? Where do we come from? Why are we here?" All kinds of different answers; none of them practical or meant to be taken literally. 

Quote

According to Inuit tradition, there was nothing but water when the world began. Suddenly, stones and rocks came down from the sky. Land was created! There was only darkness, and humans and animals lived together as one species. The animals and human beings took on each other's forms and shapes.

There seem to be some recurring themes, though, from parts of the world that could not possibly have had contact.  Water as a starting point is one. Another is man being made from earth. Animal spirits and deities are very common. And this idea:

Quote

Words were created and, because these words had never been used before, they contained very powerful magic

The significance of language. Those excerpt are from Inuit mythology - a particularly imaginative culture.

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

how we got here seems to me a more fundamental question.

It's the one most exercises humans. Always looking for reflective surfaces!

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

was it natural or supernatural? Given the lack of any evidence one way or the other

Whoa! There is really quite a considerable body of evidence for the natural origin of life and it's not matched by the evidence for a supernatural one. And when you consider how coherent the natural explanation is compared to the welter of supernatural ones... well....

Anyway, whether you evolved from an ape or some god fashioned you from mud hardly makes any difference. What's important is having a story to be at the center of.

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

They may think Christianity is ridiculous but are not ready to give up on 'god' completely.

Because mud is better than apes. But then, we apes go back to mud, as well - it's just longer ago. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Peterkin
that one left out word

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That would explain why neither has claim to universal truth.

But one does claim to know universal truth. That's the beauty of science in it being an open book, governed by the scientific methodology.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

We can't really know what ancient man needed gods for -nor the exact route whereby those earliest supernatural beings were imagined and elaborated and adapted before civilization. I have some basis to think it was not primarily for explanations. 

Can't go along with that. The occasional meteorite hit, thunder, lightening, eclipses, etc  would have been damn frightening for ancient man, and I'm sure they needed some comfort and solace to accomodate those fears.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Those same ancient peoples did use science and technology to solve their practical problems: they improvised, fabricated, invented and improved on tools, dwellings, food production and preservation, quite independently of their spiritual life. That served, and still does serve, a different function.

Certainly they used the most basic and obvious results of science to help them...cooking for example. But they still were in awe of the violence occuring in the atmopshere as mentioned, and even all those volcanoes and had nothing to explain such happenings.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 People don't go to church to inquire about things; they go there to pray for things. They want someone more powerful themselves to care for and help them.

Some also go to church to impress.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

This ancient temple is already a very sophisticated example of organized religion - far more so than the myths of nomadic peoples or hut-dwellers - and yet appears to explain nothing at all. 

Just one example of their talents, in line with their ignorances of the sciences of the heavens.

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

I think that is a reason why so many people choose "none" when it comes to identifying their beliefs or religious affiliation, rather than choosing "atheist". They may think Christianity is ridiculous but are not ready to give up on 'god' completely.

I reckon you have hit the nail fair, square on the head. 

34 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Whoa! There is really quite a considerable body of evidence for the natural origin of life and it's not matched by the evidence for a supernatural one.

I mentioned somewhere sometime, that while Abiogenesis is the only scientific explanation for how life started, as yet, we still have limited knowledge on the actual pathway. 

The future will in time I believe, reveal answers to are we alone [No I don't believe we are] and convincing evidence of support for a particular pathway for Abiogenesis. I hope I'm still alive and kicking for the answers to those two awesome scientific questions.

Edited November 9, 2021 by beecee

[zapatos]

48 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Whoa! There is really quite a considerable body of evidence for the natural origin of life and it's not matched by the evidence for a supernatural one. And when you consider how coherent the natural explanation is compared to the welter of supernatural ones... well....

I was not talking about humans, I was talking about everything. The universe. There is no evidence that says the origin of the universe (if it even had an origin) was natural vs supernatural. It was the fact that ANYTHING existed that gave me pause on my path to atheism.

Similar to the deist positions of many of America's founding fathers; the idea that a god existed, created the universe, but then basically stepped aside and just watched things unfold. No interaction with humans. A reasonable person could argue this type of god explains the universe as well as any non-god based explanation, since it doesn't contradict any observations.

21 minutes ago, beecee said:

Can't go along with that. The occasional meteorite hit, thunder, lightening, eclipses, etc  would have been damn frightening for ancient man, and I'm sure they needed some comfort and solace to accomodate those fears.

I agree. Anything far enough beyond understanding will seem magical. Or perhaps supernatural... 

Especially when so much was not understood, and people had not yet arrived at the concept of "well, we eventually explained all these other things, so there is a good chance we'll be able to explain THIS eventually too".

Edited November 9, 2021 by zapatos

[Peterkin]

42 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I was not talking about humans, I was talking about everything. The universe. There is no evidence that says the origin of the universe (if it even had an origin) was natural vs supernatural. It was the fact that ANYTHING existed that gave me pause on my path to atheism.

Kicking the can down the road, or up one level, still doesn't get you an answer. If nothing existed before nature but supernature, what made supernature? The only honest answer is : We don't know. But there are plenty of dishonest answers from people who claim to know, absolutelye and exclusively, and then demand something from you - money, a dress-code, sacrifice, obedience, your life or an enemy's... something that's a lot harder to give than some glib answer like Goddonit. Anyway, the Biblical, Talmudic, Vedic, etc. description of origins don't include much of the universe - mostly just earth and immediate environs at the center of a black glass bubble painted with stars.

I can see switching from that limited certainty to cosmology with all its gaps might give you momentary pause, but I can't see it as a difficult choice - especially if you do even the most superficial comparison among creation stories.  

42 minutes ago, zapatos said:

the idea that a god existed, created the universe, but then basically stepped aside and just watched things unfold. No interaction with humans. A reasonable person could argue this type of god explains the universe as well as any non-god based explanation, since it doesn't contradict any observations.

It doesn't support of contradict anything. How is an indifferent/absent creator preferable to an indifferent long-ago explosion?

 

59 minutes ago, beecee said:

The occasional meteorite hit, thunder, lightening, eclipses, etc  would have been damn frightening for ancient man, and I'm sure they needed some comfort and solace to accomodate those fears.

Thunder and lightning were commonplace for people living in nature, having evolved in nature. City folk seem much more impressed by weather. meteor hits are rarely survivable - which may be why we have so few reference them in folklore.

Comfort and solace, yes; I've never disputed those as functions of religion. I can only think of one reason why ancient man would be more afraid of natural phenomena than other animals living in the same environment: his imagination. Bad shit happens; therefore Somebody's out to get me. If I can get that Somebody on my side, say by offering up the heart of my rival, perhaps Somebody will protect me and smite the other football team instead.  Sure, it's about magic, bribing and harnessing magic. It's not about understanding why.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Peterkin

[beecee]

45 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It doesn't support of contradict anything. How is an indifferent/absent creator preferable to an indifferent long-ago explosion?

We actually have  evidence for a long ago evolution of space and time. [1] Reversing the observed expansion, [2] the uniformity of the CMBR at 2.73K, [3] Abundance of the lighter elements, and [4] the tiny variations in that CMBR, being the seeds for galactic formation.

45 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Thunder and lightning were commonplace for people living in nature, having evolved in nature. City folk seem much more impressed by weather. meteor hits are rarely survivable - which may be why we have so few reference them in folklore.

 Coomon place but obviously still damn scary, due to the lack of knowledge behind such causes...particularly volcanis eruptions and eclipses, and that need to explain.

45 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Comfort and solace, yes; I've never disputed those as functions of religion. I can only think of one reason why ancient man would be more afraid of natural phenomena than other animals living in the same environment: his imagination. Bad shit happens; therefore Somebody's out to get me. If I can get that Somebody on my side, say by offering up the heart of my rival, perhaps Somebody will protect me and smite the other football team instead.  Sure, it's about magic, bribing and harnessing magic. It's not about understanding why.

And who would that somebody be? some imagined omnipotent, supernatural being that created it all.

 

45 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Kicking the can down the road, or up one level, still doesn't get you an answer. If nothing existed before nature but supernature, what made supernature? The only honest answer is : We don't know. But there are plenty of dishonest answers from people who claim to know,

Science is quite open with "we don't know" answer. But by the same token, based on current science/cosmology/particle physics, we are able to come up with some reasonable speculative answer. My best guess is with Professor Lawrence Krauss' suggestion...fluctuations in the quantum foam, the quantum foam being defined as "nothing" [that has existed for eternity] far, far closer to nothing then some complicated deity, don't you agree? Nothing supernatural about those speculative scenarios at all...all based on current science.

Or even as far back as the greatest educator of our time, Carl Sagan mused....[from the 35 second mark]

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by beecee

[zapatos]

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Kicking the can down the road, or up one level, still doesn't get you an answer. If nothing existed before nature but supernature, what made supernature? The only honest answer is : We don't know.

Same goes for nature as a preference over the supernatural. If there is no supernatural, what made nature? You are just kicking the can down the road, and it still doesn't get you an answer. "We don't know" applies to naturalists just as much as it applies to supernaturalists. There are also people who claim to know absolutely that there is no god.

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I can see switching from that limited certainty to cosmology with all its gaps might give you momentary pause, but I can't see it as a difficult choice

Well, you are a better person than me. The existence of the laws of physics that allow a hot dense mass of energy to turn into something complex enough to become self aware still fills me with awe. For there to be no reason behind this seems hard to believe, although believing in a deity is certainly no lesser stretch.

It was not an easy choice for me and given the amount of theism in this world seems to indicate it is a difficult choice for many others. A comparison of creation stories has no bearing on what I do or don't believe. Why would I give a rat's ass what some prehistoric, scientifically illiterate people think about talking bushes and islands being created by an angry deity throwing giant stones?

It took much more than a "superficial" effort to put me over the edge. To this day I would not be surprised and would laugh heartily if I ultimately found that a god did exist. "The jokes on me!" 

48 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It doesn't support of contradict anything. How is an indifferent/absent creator preferable to an indifferent long-ago explosion?

 

An indifferent creator is an answer to how we got here. An indifferent long-ago explosion doesn't even attempt to explain the origin of the universe, only its evolution after it was already here. The difference is huge.

[Peterkin]

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

4 hours ago, beecee said:

 Coomon place but obviously still damn scary, due to the lack of knowledge behind such causes...particularly volcanis eruptions and eclipses, and that need to explain.

Scary to you is not obviously scary to someone who lives in the open and has never known anything else.  Why animals and early people feared lightning was not lack of knowledge behind it, it's knowledge of what comes after it: fire. That's a real and practical fear, not a superstitious one. What they need a god for is not to explain it but to protect them from it. 

Volcanic eruptions are local; people who lived near active volcanoes did make a fetish of them; nobody who didn't live near one knew anything about them. AFIK, no explanation has been given by religion, beyond "that's another way the gods can kill you if you don't do as I say." 

Solar eclipses don't come around to the same area for a long time - very few primitives will have seen more than one in his lifetime. People might have been scared when they saw one, but it was over in 7 minutes and nothing happened to them. People made up stories about it - and that's all they are: stories. They don't promote a Big Giant Head kind of god. 

4 hours ago, beecee said:

And who would that somebody be?

The same Somebody who has it in for you. Coyote? A kelpie? Old Man River? Any supernatural entity may be harmful or helpful to humans.

 

Quote

some imagined omnipotent, supernatural being that created it all.

No. It doesn't have to be omnipotent or a creator. The supernatural being in charge of the particular phenomenon was sufficient. You have a problem with too much rain or not enough rain? You talk to the rain spirit, do the ritual, kill a pigeon. You want to have a baby? Talk to the ghost of Midwife at her grave and offer her some oranges. 

Gods didn't get so uppity until civilization, and then they just kept growing and growing - because of all the wars, and because, after each war, the gods of defeated nations were added to the pantheon of of an empire, and when there were overlapping spheres of influence (everybody had their own god of the underworld, god of corn,  etc.) the big imperial ones subsumed the vassal nations' gods. By the time the Roman Empire imagined itself ruling the whole world, it's adopted Jewish deity had been promoted to Lord of Creation.... and incidentally pushed so far out of reach that the faithful turned to local saints for help - just as they had to local deities, back when they were pagan. 

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Science is quite open with "we don't know" answer. But by the same token, based on current science/cosmology/particle physics, we are able to come up with some reasonable speculative answer. My best guess is with Professor Lawrence Krauss' suggestion...fluctuations in the quantum foam, the quantum foam being defined as "nothing" [that has existed for eternity] far, far closer to nothing then some complicated deity, don't you agree?

I have no idea. Or interest, really. I've never thought the origin and extent of the universe were any of my business. I suspect most primitive people felt this way and most modern people feel this way, but of course I can't prove it. 

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

Same goes for nature as a preference over the supernatural. If there is no supernatural, what made nature?

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.  

 

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

"We don't know" applies to naturalists just as much as it applies to supernaturalists.

No. It does not apply to theists. Their whole shtick is knowing absolutely and exclusively. 

 

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

There are also people who claim to know absolutely that there is no god.

I'm sure there are. Can you quote them in context? There are people who know all kinds of crazy and smart things. And everyone who listens to them has a reason for believing one rather than another.

 

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

The existence of the laws of physics that allow a hot dense mass of energy to turn into something complex enough to become self aware still fills me with awe. For there to be no reason behind this seems hard to believe, although believing in a deity is certainly no lesser stretch.

The critical word there is highlighted. If you demand a reason for the universe to exist, and moreover demand that this reason should make sense in a human-centric comprehension, you're stuck with a small range of options. It's a whole lot easier to make up a human-type reason if you first make up a human-type creator. But then, since your information is limited, your god starts showing contradictions, conceptual errors.... Who said there has to be a reason, and why did you believe him? 

 

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

Why would I give a rat's ass what some prehistoric, scientifically illiterate people think about talking bushes and islands being created by an angry deity throwing giant stones?

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

 

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

The difference is huge.

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?

Edited November 9, 2021 by Peterkin

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So? How is an indifferent/absent creator preferable to an indifferent long-ago explosion? 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 find the possibility of you being deliberately obtuse, to put it mildly. First, it wasn't an explosion, it is physics/science supported by evidence as I listed. Those that find ID and myth preferable to believe, are mostly ignorant of the evidence and the science, particularly our ancient friends. You seem to want to put religion/mythical beliefs and science on an equal footing. They are actually worlds apart for the reasons given.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Scary to you is not obviously scary to someone who lives in the open and has never known anything else.  Why animals and early people feared lightning was not lack of knowledge behind it, it's knowledge of what comes after it: fire. That's a real and practical fear, not a superstitious one. What they need a god for is not to explain it but to protect them from it. 

It's not in the least scary to me, as I understand to a limited extent the science behind the cause. And please stop telling the ancients and the animals around that time what they were and were not scared of. Obviously eclipses, volcanic eruptions etc, would have been scary...it's even scary today to many that live in the open, even though they understand the causes. Animals of course still retreat in utter fear when fireworks are set of. Ever had a dog?

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That's a real and practical fear, not a superstitious one. What they need a god for is not to explain it but to protect them from it. 

😄 It's spelt o-b-t-u-s-e-n-e-s-s...and you are revelling in it at this time. Tell me anyway how there god is/was protecting them from it.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Volcanic eruptions are local;

 

Solar eclipses don't come around to the same area for a long time

  Volcanic eruptions can have, [particularly in the long past] devestating, long lasting effects over large areas.

In the past, the Moon was a lot closer to Earth then what it is today...about half its distance I recall. Eclipses would have been a lot more common, and a lot longer, and all total eclipses, despite you attempting to make light of them.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The same Somebody who has it in for you. Coyote? A kelpie? Old Man River? Any supernatural entity may be harmful or helpful to humans.

No. It doesn't have to be omnipotent or a creator. The supernatural being in charge of the particular phenomenon was sufficient. You have a problem with too much rain or not enough rain? You talk to the rain spirit, do the ritual, kill a pigeon. You want to have a baby? Talk to the ghost of Midwife at her grave and offer her some oranges. 

WTF!! 🥴 You have actually lost me...I havn't a clue what you are saying, other then being rather obtuse and argumentive for argument sake. On the highlighted bit by me, I say so what? Local magic spaghetti monster, or some omnipotent creator that said abracadabra, let the universe be!!! Let me state my opinion again...Science is quite open with  "we don't know" answer. But by the same token, based on current science/cosmology/particle physics, we are able to come up with some reasonable speculative answer. My best guess is with Professor Lawrence Krauss' suggestion...fluctuations in the quantum foam, the quantum foam being defined as "nothing" [that has existed for eternity] far, far closer to nothing then some complicated deity, don't you agree? Nothing supernatural about those speculative scenarios at all...all based on current science.

Then you say with respect to my factual paragraph above, 

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I have no idea. Or interest, really. I've never thought the origin and extent of the universe were any of my business. I suspect most primitive people felt this way and most modern people feel this way, but of course I can't prove it. 

So why do you come to a science forum, if you are not interested in science? Particularly when they admit openly when they don't know, instead of manufacturing some belief in some weird magic spaghetti monster. Like one other I have crossed swords with in recent times, you appear only to want to preach from your pulpit, your philosphical take on life. 

2 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.  

 People in the general populace and all of us believe a myriad of things. Yet we still all depend on science just about every day of our lives. 

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I'm sure there are. Can you quote them in context? There are people who know all kinds of crazy and smart things. And everyone who listens to them has a reason for believing one rather than another.

That was addressed to zapatos and his quote...."There are also people who claim to know absolutely that there is no god".

Quoting myself in context, just because science as yet does not have the answer to the big questions, like why and how the BB banged, why and how Abiogenesis took hold, is still no reason to manufacture a "God of the gaps" 

2 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.

This thread isn't about your politcal philosophy. 

2 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?

You are I believe near my age? Don't you not want to know the answer to life's big questions before you kick the bucket? Does life exist elsewhere? How did the process of Abiogenesis take hold? Is the universe finite or infinite? Why do you expect inanimate, abstract entities to answer you back?

Edited November 9, 2021 by beecee