Definition of Atheism

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

What instructions are you on about?

That one:

On 11/10/2021 at 8:22 AM, dimreepr said:

I think the elders created a diety in order to teach the children.

Let's imagine a society that depends on tree's and you've got to teach the children that they have to cut down tree's to live today, but only what they need today, because if they get greedy; there won't be enough left to sustain the forest.

You'd start with a boogeyman that lives in the tree's, and eats people who cut down more than they need, and believe me, they know when you do...

You get to argue metaphysics later in life... 😉

among others.

 

3 hours ago, beecee said:

We still do it today for infants...Santa and the Easter Bunny.

as child-friendly celebrations of Jesus the redeemer. The first to encourage obedient behaviour and the spirit of giving; the second, initiated to subsume pagan fertility festivals into the Christian cult of sacrifice, but little children aren't supposed to know that about rabbits.  More euphemism, same purpose.

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

as child-friendly celebrations of Jesus the redeemer. The first to encourage obedient behaviour and the spirit of giving; the second, initiated to subsume pagan fertility festivals into the Christian cult of sacrifice, but little children aren't supposed to know that about rabbits.  More euphemism, same purpose.

And as per Santa, all serve a harmless purpose with little children, be it fact or fantasy. But little children grow up and as they grow up, parents need to teach them (as opposed to instruct) how to critique logically certain so called facts. Science then excels. 

[Peterkin]

13 minutes ago, beecee said:

Science then excels. 

That would be nice.

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, Peterkin said:

among others.

I think it's more plausible that the others, just evolved with that society/beginning adapting as they go, until the meaning is lost and the others just pick at the carcass... 

But don't listen to me, I'm a madman...

13 hours ago, beecee said:

And as per Santa, all serve a harmless purpose with little children, be it fact or fantasy. But little children grow up and as they grow up, parents need to teach them (as opposed to instruct) how to critique logically certain so called facts. Science then excels.

You and your so called facts, it's not science that excels in critical thinking, it's people...

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You and your so called facts, it's not science that excels in critical thinking, it's people...

Agreed...but it's science that results generally in such critical thinking. And I didn't say it was a fact.

PS: You need to stop flaying yourself for being a madman. I don't believe you are. 😉

Edited November 12, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, beecee said:

You need to stop flaying yourself for being a madman. I don't believe you are. 😉

I'm not flaying my self with it, I'm wearing it as a badge of honour, you should really read the parable, rather than just assuming a philosopher has nothing valuable to say... 😉

"Cometh the hour, cometh the man".

This is not quite the hour, so I'm not quite the man; story of my life... 🙄

[beecee]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not flaying my self with it, I'm wearing it as a badge of honour, you should really read the parable, rather than just assuming a philosopher has nothing valuable to say... 😉

"Cometh the hour, cometh the man".

This is not quite the hour, so I'm not quite the man; story of my life... 🙄

Have fun my philosophical friend.

[beecee]

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

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

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

 

 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I actually reject being labeled an Atheist or anything else for that matter,

And has anyone here attempted to do that? You like science, and that's wonderful for both you and science.

It does not, however, address the OP question.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

And the evidence shows that once you are dead, you are dead..kaput, the end!

Cool! Can you list that evidence here for me?

Of course lack of evidence for a deity is not the same thing as evidence for no deity. A minor point but one I find many with the title we shall not call you fall into. 😀

1 hour ago, beecee said:

 ... if we say that God always existed, why not save a step, and say that the Universe always existed.

I've never much cared for this argument. It sound too similar to the theist who says "since you can't know for certain that no god exists, why not believe in him just to be safe?" Neither the scientist nor the theist makes a good case (or any case for that matter) for why you should accept their side. In neither case is it reasonable to expect that someone can change what they believe in simply as a matter of convenience. Beliefs don't change like that.

On 11/9/2021 at 5:06 PM, Peterkin said:

I said early men were probably not as afraid of the unexplained cause of natural phenomena as modern people assume

I don't know why they wouldn't have been. Certainly people today are afraid of the unexplained cause of natural phenomena. Kids are afraid of the dark. Adults are afraid of the unexplained sounds of a house settling. Many are afraid of the hereafter. Early men would have many more unexplained natural phenomenon than we do.

[Peterkin]

41 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I don't know why they wouldn't have been.

A number of reasons related to their way of life. Simply put: they were not sheltered from the harsh realities. And they were literally not sheltered from storms. Why worry about the reasons for things that are just the way they are?

43 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Certainly people today are afraid of the unexplained cause of natural phenomena.

There are always such "certain people", but in this age of explanation, speculation, theorizing, discussion, disputation refutation and even more explanation about everything all the time, the unexplained sticks out a lot more than it did before all those mountains of explanation were written. I'd blame the inventor of papyrus, but electronic media have far more to answer for. 

I know, that's flippant. What I'm really talking about is different mind-sets, different habits of thought, concerns, priorities, world-views, perspectives.

48 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Kids are afraid of the dark.

Are they? I mean, what makes you think it's the dark they're afraid of, not what might be lurking in the dark? And what that lurking danger might be is a product, not of the child's own imagination, but his culture. When I was four years old, I was afraid to go to the bathroom at night, in case there was a wolf waiting behind the toilet. My nightmares often featured witches on broomsticks, flying in through windows. I'd never seen either, except as depicted in storybooks. My son, in turn, was afraid to go down to the cellar in case of vampires and evil clowns. He didn't like swimming in the lake, either - guess why!

 

57 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Adults are afraid of the unexplained sounds of a house settling.

No, they're not. They're afraid that sound is a home invader or escaped convict looking for somewhere to hide. But they're not afraid of distant sirens and airplanes. Just as our distant ancestors were not unworried by the owl's hoot or bat-wings flapping, but sat up and reached for their spears at the stirring of a low branch or high weeds - even if it wasn't a stalking cougar - this time. We're afraid of what we've learned, though experience or from other people, poses a danger to us. 

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Many are afraid of the hereafter.

That hardly fits into the natural phenomena category. Both ancient and modern man have to settle for invented stories on that subject.

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Early men would have many more unexplained natural phenomenon than we do.

Unexplained, yes. Unfamiliar, no - in fact, a lot less. The more we are alienated from nature the more we - some of us, anyway - see things in it that require explanation. I have no reason to suppose early people had that same attitude. Other apes don't show any signs of worrying about natural things. 

Ancient peoples were more imaginative, as well as more inquisitive than their ape relatives. So they studied the properties of materials, used vegetation, made tools, exploited the environment in clever ways. They also told stories about all manner of things, natural and supernatural, practical and fanciful, instructive and amusing. Just like we do.

[zapatos]

24 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Why worry about the reasons for things that are just the way they are?

Simply put, because you have no choice. If you are afraid, you are afraid. I can't say "I'm about to be eaten by a wolf but why worry about it because that is the way things are?"

25 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Are they? I mean, what makes you think it's the dark they're afraid of, not what might be lurking in the dark?

Fine. It's what is lurking in the dark. Either way they are afraid.

28 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, they're not. They're afraid that sound is a home invader or escaped convict

Fine. It's possibly a home invader or escaped convict. Either way they are afraid.

28 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

But they're not afraid of distant sirens and airplanes.

Because they understand distant sirens and airplanes. It is the things they don't understand (like what is hiding in the dark, or if the sound is really a home invader or escaped convict) that cause the fear.

30 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That hardly fits into the natural phenomena category.

Was that a constraint we were following? Either way it is fear of things not understood.

32 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Other apes don't show any signs of worrying about natural things. 

Citation? My dog is afraid of thunder, my cat is afraid of the things that I'm unable to sense, my chickens are afraid of geese flying overhead, and just today I scared the hell out of one of my alpacas when I wore a bright red jacket for the first time.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

And has anyone here attempted to do that? You like science, and that's wonderful for both you and science.

Yes. On the second part, for me yes, obviously, for science, no not really.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It does not, however, address the OP question.

I'm taking my lead from you.

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Cool! Can you list that evidence here for me?

Well I don't believe we have anyone reported to be dead to have come back to relay where they have been...One 2000 year old rumour, that's about it.

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Of course lack of evidence for a deity is not the same thing as evidence for no deity. A minor point but one I find many with the title we shall not call you fall into. 😀

I've never much cared for this argument.

I find it reasonable. I mean while science has made the explanation of the universe, back to an incredibly short time pretty reasonable, and reasonable in such a short space of time, ( the 20th/21st century) I believe its reasonably safe to assume that with time,  we will be able to answer even more. Sure, its not 100% but I have never said it was. But certainly more appropriate the some non scientific explanation.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

No, they're not. They're afraid that sound is a home invader or escaped convict looking for somewhere to hide. But they're not afraid of distant sirens and airplanes. 

That answer is pure unadulterated philosophical nonsense at best, and argumentive excuse making at worst!

Edited November 14, 2021 by beecee

[zapatos]

20 minutes ago, beecee said:

Sure, its not 100% but I have never said it was. 

No, but you did suggest there was evidence, which is what I took exception to, which you have not provided, nor have you retracted the statement.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Simply put, because you have no choice. If you are afraid, you are afraid. I can't say "I'm about to be eaten by a wolf but why worry about it because that is the way things are?"

That's not the kind of thing the supernatural can help you with. Wolves don't need explaining: if you live in the wild, wolves are something you understand, a danger you can avoid, outsmart or fight. Of course, you're afraid: therefore you make weapons, light fires, shelter in caves and set a watch. No need to make up gods about it a practical problem.

The wolf in my 4-year-old mind was a superstitious fear, not a real one - in the bathroom on the fourth floor of a city apartment  - exactly because they were not of my world; they were the stuff of fairy tales. It didn't need explaining; it needed exorcising. 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Either way they are afraid.

They're afraid of what their environment and culture presents to them as things to fear. Different things. Not the unexplained but the known. Explaining the reason why a serial killer might have escaped from prison and be desperate to hide wont make him any less threatening to the householder who thinks he might be hiding downstairs.

The normal, practical fear of familiar dangers does not engender superstition. It's dangers of the imagination that engender superstition. Explanation won't make those fears go away; you need magic. 

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Because they understand distant sirens and airplanes.

No, because they know those familiar sounds are not threats to their safety.  They're not alerted by sounds that are unexplained; they're alerted by sounds that might warn them of dangers they do know about. 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

It is the things they don't understand (like what is hiding in the dark, or if the sound is really a home invader or escaped convict) that cause the fear.

They do understand about a serial killer, and that's what makes the concept frightening. Cavemen understood about cougars, and that's what made cougars frightening. 

Fear is normal and sensible. It does not automatically reach for superstition.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I scared the hell out of one of my alpacas when I wore a bright red jacket for the first time.

You don't see a lot of bright jackets in the Andes. My dog dove through a screen door one time, attacking a neighbour she had never seen in a parka. She understood human; she understood 'our house'; she understood 'protect our house from suspicious stranger coming in the the porch uninvited'; the only part she didn't understand was 'friend in disguise'. 

 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Peterkin

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, because they know those familiar sounds are not threats to their safety. 

Which is because they are understand them. It's two sides of the same coin, and you are saying your side is valid and my side is not.

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

the only part she didn't understand was 'friend in disguise'. 

That's what I keep saying; it is not scary if they understand, it is scary if they don't. I can't understand why you keep telling me my side of the coin is wrong, followed by why your side of the same coin is the correct.

[beecee]

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No, but you did suggest there was evidence, which is what I took exception to, which you have not provided, nor have you retracted the statement.

What I said was, "And the evidence shows that once you are dead, you are dead..kaput, the end!" I certainly do not know of any confirmed case of a dead person coming back to life. I'm not real sure that I said that is evidence for the absence of a deity....terms I have used are "what need for any deity with science explaining back to within a small fraction of a second and/or similar. 

 

[Peterkin]

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It's two sides of the same coin, and you are saying your side is valid and my side is not.

I'm not saying any fear is invalid. No, I'm saying that you cannot explain away a real danger, because it is real. And you cannot explain away an imaginary danger, because it's inexplicable. I'm saying fear doesn't come from ignorance and knowledge doesn't cure it.

You can tell your kid the umpty-seventh time that there can't be a monsters in his closet, because monsters don't exist and the Pixar movie is just drawings; you can even show him how animated motion pictures are made - none of that will do a scrap of good. You have to get the flashlight, open the closet door and say very loudly: "Any monsters hiding in there better get lost right now, or else!" Then let the kid keep the flashlight; "Those monsters bother you again, use this on them". That's how superstition works. That's why people who know all about lightning and volcanoes still go to church. 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Peterkin

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

"And the evidence shows..."

This part. Right here. Please provide this evidence you mention.

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

I'm saying fear doesn't come from ignorance

Why did your dog attack your neighbor if not for the fact they were ignorant of who the person in the parka was?

[beecee]

16 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 My dog dove through a screen door one time, attacking a neighbour she had never seen in a parka. She understood human; she understood 'our house'; she understood 'protect our house from suspicious stranger coming in the the porch uninvited'; the only part she didn't understand was 'friend in disguise'. 

I have had two Rottweilers at different times, and put one on the porch facing the street when I noticed two Religious zealots going house to house. My dog simply gave one almighty bark as a warning. It stopped them in their tracks. The dog never attacked, and would never attack unless I was being assaulted. I would suggest you yourself need training in dog control and obedience classes. 

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

This part. Right here. Please provide this evidence you mention.

Evidence for no one ever coming back from the dead?😲 No I havn't any, other then normal everyday experiences, and the published medical evidence that it hasn't and cannot happen, and that has existed for as long as science has. 

But hey, if you have anything refuting that (other than 2000 year old myth) then great, let's hear it!

[Peterkin]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

I would suggest you yourself need training in dog control and obedience classes. 

There was nothing wrong with my control. This little Sheltie cross saw a hulking great creature advancing on me in our own porch and thought I was in imminent danger. There was no time to woof or warn, just to get between me and the threat. If it had been a real bear, she'd have been killed. You don't be casting aspersions on my Daisy! 

She was one very good dog. I haven't wanted another since. 

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

Evidence for no one ever coming back from the dead?

You are either moving the goalposts or are unaware of what you originally said.

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There was nothing wrong with my control. This little Sheltie cross saw a hulking great creature advancing on me in our own porch and thought I was in imminent danger. There was no time to woof or warn, just to get between me and the threat. If it had been a real bear, she'd have been killed. You don't be casting aspersions on my Daisy! 

She was one very good dog. I haven't wanted another since. 

I'm not casting aspersions on Daisy, I'm casting aspersions on your lack of control of your pet. Dove (as in dived I guess) through a wire door???? That sounds like aggressive behaviour. But hey, that's off topic so go give Daisy a dog biscuit for me and a hug!

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

You are either moving the goalposts or are unaware of what you originally said.

No I'm not actually sure what statement (in full) you are questioning.

[zapatos]

39 minutes ago, beecee said:

No I'm not actually sure what statement (in full) you are questioning.

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

 I think this thread has run its course for me.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Dove (as in dived I guess) through a wire door???? That sounds like aggressive behaviour.

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

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I'm not casting aspersions on Daisy, I'm casting aspersions on your lack of control of your pet.

No problem; I'm used to that.

Quote

But hey, that's off topic so go give Daisy a dog biscuit for me and a hug!

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

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

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

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

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

Edited November 14, 2021 by Peterkin