To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

[Sherlock Holmes]

To be clear the title of this thread is false.

There are currently several purported definitions of atheism, personally I always use the real one, the established one, the one used historically in books on theology, philosophy and so on, the one that's been around for hundreds of years.

But there are some who like to use a different definition one made up one afternoon by Antony Flew in the 1970s in a rather obscure book The Presumption of Atheism.

Nobody paid much attention to this until relatively recently where it became fashionable amongst militant atheists, some of whom even insist that Flew's definition is the true definition.

You can read more about this hand waving and other foot stamping here.

It's also worth noting that there are plenty of atheists who rely on the historic definition and do not agree with this attempt to redefine it, so any pretense that all atheists adopt the "lack of belief" view is false, many atheists do not share that definition at all.

[Bust Nak]

If I were to accept your testimony as written, I would also have to accept the testimony of the gospels regarding the resurrection of Jesus.

Why? Do you think that whether Jesus was resurrected, is just a matter of opinion?

Since we developed morality from opinion, we can agree that opinion is shaped through circumstance, and since our collective circumstance is one in which we are currently still in the process of getting to know, we are forced to adapt often by changing our opinion to suit said circumstance, because we base our criteria on aligning our opinion with the thing we call reality. The Universe.

So therein it is the universe which is shaping our opinion and thus our morals.

So far so good, what you said here matches my view: our sense of morality is the product of evolution, which in turn is the product of the universe.

If our universe is really just a chaotic misshapen mindless mess of a thing, we draw a blank on being able to answer the question as to WHY we are using an apparent mindless mess of a thing to shape our opinions and morals and how come we think that is going to solve the hard problems we current face as a specie.

We use it because we feel it, we are wired that way by said misshapen mindless mess of a thing. The same way we go and seek out more of certain dish to eat, is because we like the taste of it. More interesting is the how: how did we ended up with a brain that see certain stuff as moral and others as immoral.

As for why it would solve the problems of our species, it all boils down to competition for resources, and this underlying problem isn't likely to be solved. In the meantime, we can make it less of a problem with strict societal rule on sharing.

Whereas, if we choose to adopt the notion that there is a Mind to that apparently mess up thing - those questions are answered as follows...

We succeed as a permanent specie or we fail as a temporary one, while involved within said "The Universe" depending on how we [each] actually reflect the Universes intentions through our [individual] behavior...

If I am correct in my [ongoing] calculations, my opinion - shaping my morals - has to be able to know what the Universe's intentions are in regard for itself.
Since I just can't tell by looking at its form, I have to dig deeper.
If there is a Mind to it, then I have to be able to discover it and converse with it and therein, find out for myself.

I have done this [for myself] and proceed with sharing that information with the rest of my connections [our minds here together].

And this has to be done peaceably because everyone at the table has yet to prove that their morality really is "The One", and we should know already by now that Warfare isn't the way to go about it.

Well that sounded very much removed from solving humanity's hard problems and more a path to enlightenment. That's not gonna help us survive, instead of two sides fighting, and a species dying... you would have everyone soul searching and a species dying all the more quickly.

[TRANSPONDER]

No. Those who claim that nature is a something or other of God or a god or Cosmic Mind or anything else that people think of as being 'God' (not evolution, physics or natural law, but an intelligence at least) has the burden of proving that is what it (credibly) is. Of course if you are willing to post here that by 'God' you men natural processes without intelligence, volition or forward planning, Then I might consider your argument as having merit.

My argument has merit regardless of your personal opinion to the contrary.

Unless you can show me why it doesn't have merit, it does.

The universe most obviously exhibits natural processes with intelligence, volition and forward planning, as clearly can be seen by us within this particular expression of that...here on this planet.

There is merit in the idea that this planet was meant to be as it now is. There is no merit in the belief that it was a mindless accident.

There is merit in the idea that this planet was meant to be as it now is. = 664
Energies Renewed Inspiration Initiative Progress New Project

There is no such thing as true randomness = 428
Information which we see as heavenly objects

Explanation given in full pointing up the evidenctial and logical merits of the materialist and atheist position.

Your dismissal of that without explanation doesn't do you any favours.

You do however appeal to ID in general. You will have to do better than just claiming that the ID claim proves anything, because from where I've been watching, the various ID argument have collapsed and those that didn't relied on unexplained questions which do not validate an ID claim and, of course, that leaves the materialist default intact.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #132]

Explanation given in full pointing up the evidenctial and logical merits of the materialist and atheist position.

Please direct me with link to this full explanation.

Also, when you say 'explanation' are you referring to actual supported explanation or simple more opinion?

If the latter, you needn't bother with the link.

You do however appeal to ID in general. You will have to do better than just claiming that the ID claim proves anything, because from where I've been watching, the various ID argument have collapsed and those that didn't relied on unexplained questions which do not validate an ID claim and, of course, that leaves the materialist default intact.

Unfortunately you have provided no supported examples of what you allege I have done, therefore I can only presently regard your statement as allegation, until such a time as that changes.

Search "allege"
claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof.

"Opinion" iow.

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #131]

Since we developed morality from opinion, we can agree that opinion is shaped through circumstance, and since our collective circumstance is one in which we are currently still in the process of getting to know, we are forced to adapt often by changing our opinion to suit said circumstance, because we base our criteria on aligning our opinion with the thing we call reality. The Universe.

So therein it is the universe which is shaping our opinion and thus our morals.

So far so good, what you said here matches my view: our sense of morality is the product of evolution, which in turn is the product of the universe.

Where we differ is not there but in how we each currently understand the process itself.
I understand it as a mindful process and you do not.

WHY we are using an apparent mindless mess of a thing to shape our opinions and morals and how come we think that is going to solve the hard problems we current face as a specie.

We use it because we feel it, we are wired that way by said misshapen mindless mess of a thing.

Can you support that statement with any evidence to show this must be the case?

The same way we go and seek out more of certain dish to eat, is because we like the taste of it.

Introducing bias does not meet scientific criteria.

More interesting is the how: how did we ended up with a brain that see certain stuff as moral and others as immoral.

More opinion. While that might be 'more interesting' to some and not others goes back to personality taste/bias.
As such, it is not supporting evidence.

As for why it would solve the problems of our species, it all boils down to competition for resources, and this underlying problem isn't likely to be solved.

I agree only in that it is apparent that a purely mindless process cannot solve anything.
However, a mindful process does have that advantage.

In the meantime, we can make it less of a problem with strict societal rule on sharing.

I have encountered the evidence where the rule of sharing is a theistic recommendation. What evidence to you have to show that this is also a materialist recommendation?

In the mean time it would appear that theistic rules on sharing should be followed, as per your statement "we can make it less of a problem".

Well that sounded very much removed from solving humanity's hard problems and more a path to enlightenment.

Your statement of opinion implies that you at least - think that "the path to enlightenment" will not solve humanities hard problems.

Do you have any supporting evidence to back your statement?

That's not gonna help us survive, instead of two sides fighting, and a species dying... you would have everyone soul searching and a species dying all the more quickly.

This is incorrect. If everyone was on "the path to enlightenment", there would be significant and undeniable changes in the way we interact together - not just because we are no longer fighting, but because - in the unity - we would actually be looking for sincere non-mundane solutions which benefit all of us together.

The process itself would be the solving of humanities hard problems.

All humans require in order to kick-start this change is evidence supporting that this universe is not a mindless mess of a thing, and while the one side of the battle preach it ain't so because the mind is outside of the creation, and the other side teach that there is no mind involved with the formation of the Universe [either inside or out] the hard problems of humanity remain unsolved, and our specie will most likely fail to get to first base.

[Unless some intervention outside of humanities influence, happens along.

Which is what one side is hoping for while the other side seems unconcerned about.]

Given no such intervention to such scale has occurred, we - humanity - are left to our own devices. [search "The Great Filter"]

The Great Filter = 154

Glow Softly
Bandages of The Beast
The second coming

My devices - in - the devices I am using here - Re: Generating Messages and word-string values - are proving to be promising and have yet to be properly/scientifically debunked.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #132]

Explanation given in full pointing up the evidenctial and logical merits of the materialist and atheist position.

Please direct me with link to this full explanation.

Also, when you say 'explanation' are you referring to actual supported explanation or simple more opinion?

If the latter, you needn't bother with the link.

You do however appeal to ID in general. You will have to do better than just claiming that the ID claim proves anything, because from where I've been watching, the various ID argument have collapsed and those that didn't relied on unexplained questions which do not validate an ID claim and, of course, that leaves the materialist default intact.

Unfortunately you have provided no supported examples of what you allege I have done, therefore I can only presently regard your statement as allegation, until such a time as that changes.

Search "allege"
claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof.

"Opinion" iow.

Read back through the posts yourself, I'm not here to do your work for you. And while of course my argument is just my argument, it is not only logically sound but logically necessary. It's very very simple.

Agnosticism is not knowing whether there is a god or not

Not believing until you do know is logically sound and indeed logically mandated. You don't need to trawl the thread to understand that.

If atheism was a 100% denial (as in metaphysical atheism, or so I gather) it would be logically untenable and we'd have to change it to the definition we actually profess. This has all been explained.

I've pointed out that natural processes are not 'god' in any sense or definition useful to the discussion. It needs to be intelligent at least, and since science has found no intelligence in natural proces outside human (and some animal) intelligence the burden of proof of a Cosmic intelligence falls on the one making the claim.

It's really very simple, but the believers in some god or other really can't seem to get their heads around it.

So since your effort to make it look like the 'goid' claim had as much merit as not (and Not - all the logic and evidence is against and burden of proof is on the God -claimant) materialism - natural forces - do not need to be proven beyond what science has proven), I'm obliged to ask - just why do you have this need to maintain Faith in this (modified) god -claim? If it isn't Biblegod or any other personal god but intelligent natural forces, why does it even matter to you that it should be presented as a plausible (even compelling) claim or (in good old Theisthink -style) at least an undisprovable belief that is as Good as the position of those who don't believe?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #135]

Read back through the posts yourself, I'm not here to do your work for you.

Suit yourself.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ah..but it isn't about Me. Or even about you. It's about Readers and whether they understand the logic that is behind atheism. It's not about your efforts at misdirection into searching the past threads for links to the argument, when I state it simply in one post anyway. It's not about your evident attempt to twist my refusal to be sent on a wild goose chase by you to look like you'd made some kind of telling point and I refused to look. It's about you refusing to look at a simple and easy logical position for atheism (whether or not one calls it a definition) on the nonsensical pretext that you need to have the argument referenced by links before you can give 'we do not know whether there is a god or not so (logically) we will not believe in one until we do know." any consideration.

It's not even about your rejection of the logical position of atheism but about WHY. Why is it so important for you to make this postulated Cosmic Mind so credible (without a shred of decent evidence so far) that you have to damn' atheism as though it made this intelligent cosmos -claim more believable.

Why? Explain. It's something I'd really like to understand. Ok. I can get that a Christian sees it as vital that we all believe Jesus so as to be saved. I don't agree but I can see why they see atheists as a threat to salvation that must be stomped down.

But a Cosmic mind that is just like physics and evolution and entropy but is thinking about it. Why is belief in it so important to you that you have to misrepresent and traduce atheism? I think I know why. It's residual Faith. I've seen it before. I'd guess you came to reject the Bible, Christianity and organised religion, but kept Godfaith though reduced (so to speak to an intelligent Universe which meant that you didn't need to defend anything. The Unknown was good enough to keep a sorta god floating. The last thing you needed was someone telling you your Belief was worthless until you produce some valid evidence or non - belief was the logical default. Why, your feelings of self -worth were on the line, here. Along with it was a residual detestation of the very name 'atheist', Agnostic was ok, non -religious' was tolerable, but Atheist .."The devil himself hath not such a name".

I've seen it before and seen that it is nearly always based in political hatred of the Left, but that might not be your case, or not even residual Godfaith. But something is making you so determined to debunk atheism in hopes to make a Cosmic Mind more credible (which it doesn't) that you will leap to the worst kind of Religious apologetics ploys to try to fabricate a case to debunk atheism.

I'm really curious to know why you feel debunking of atheism for an academic abstract of a sortagod worth risking your own integrity and credibility for. I really want to know what's the drive behind this, and maybe you need to know as well.

[Bust Nak]

Can you support that statement with any evidence to show this must be the case?

Must be? No. I can however point to the evolution as evidence to show that this is the case.

Introducing bias does not meet scientific criteria.

I am not sure what exactly you are referring to as bias, since it is a biological fact that we as a species prefer certain taste over others.

More opinion. While that might be 'more interesting' to some and not others goes back to personality taste/bias.
As such, it is not supporting evidence.

Supporting evidence for what exactly? You asked me a question, I gave you an answer. Not sure what you are fishing for.

However, a mindful process does have that advantage.

In what way?

I have encountered the evidence where the rule of sharing is a theistic recommendation. What evidence to you have to show that this is also a materialist recommendation?

You have my testimony for that. I am a materialist, I just recommended it, therefore it is a materialist recommendation.

Your statement of opinion implies that you at least - think that "the path to enlightenment" will not solve humanities hard problems.

Do you have any supporting evidence to back your statement?

Yes, because for that I point to the fact that enlightenment does not fill your stomach.

This is incorrect. If everyone was on "the path to enlightenment", there would be significant and undeniable changes in the way we interact together - not just because we are no longer fighting, but because - in the unity - we would actually be looking for sincere non-mundane solutions which benefit all of us together.

Non-mundane? That sounded very much like you think things like hunger is all in the mind, that you can fill your stomach with positive thoughts.

[TRANSPONDER]

No. Those who claim that nature is a something or other of God or a god or Cosmic Mind or anything else that people think of as being 'God' (not evolution, physics or natural law, but an intelligence at least) has the burden of proving that is what it (credibly) is. Of course if you are willing to post here that by 'God' you men natural processes without intelligence, volition or forward planning, Then I might consider your argument as having merit.

My argument has merit regardless of your personal opinion to the contrary.

Unless you can show me why it doesn't have merit, it does.

The universe most obviously exhibits natural processes with intelligence, volition and forward planning, as clearly can be seen by us within this particular expression of that...here on this planet.

There is merit in the idea that this planet was meant to be as it now is. There is no merit in the belief that it was a mindless accident.

There is merit in the idea that this planet was meant to be as it now is. = 664
Energies Renewed Inspiration Initiative Progress New Project

There is no such thing as true randomness = 428
Information which we see as heavenly objects

The reason your argument does not have merit is because you have no argument.

You deny or ignore the basic validation (on evidence and logic) of atheism (as a non belief in the god -claim) and nothing as to what's wrong with it.

You claim ID without anything but 'obviously'. The earth is 'Obviously' flat with a dome over it, but that is a human illusion. The usual ID arguments (vastness, complexity and apparent design) are invalid on logic and evidence.
Obviously; but I'll explain why if you can't see it.

Appeals to order, luck and unknowns are gaps for God, true, but not evidence for a god. They are unexplained questions that may get answers and though fair points, are not more than that.

There is no merit in the idea that the planet was intended to be as it is now. One could say that the basic materials of the universe would result iin in a planet of minerals, liquids and gases. What would you expect? Known and predictable (in action if not result) physical processes means no true randomness. You are making a strawman argument. Information which we see as heavenly objects (and everything else, I suppose) means nothing. Information does not mean written messages.

Your argument only has merit in a gap for 'god' (some sort of cosmic mind) but is no more than appeal to unknowns and they have never been logically valid as evidence for anything other than something is unknown or unexplained.

I'd still like to know why pushing ID (because that is what it is) is so important to you. A Cosmic mind is academically interesting for me, but not important. Again, why is it important for you?

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #138]

Non-mundane? That sounded very much like you think things like hunger is all in the mind, that you can fill your stomach with positive thoughts.

I mentioned the mundane in relation to the hard problems humanity currently face.

Taking your statement above as something to bounce off of as a means of explaining my use of the word more fully;

I think that the investment made in - for example - projects such as the James Webb telescope do not fill the stomachs of the hungry.

It is about fixing the problem of hunger and how the mundane projects invested in, show clearly that empty stomachs cannot be filled through such scientifically engineered pursuits.

On the other hand, what such projects do show us is that human beings do have the potential to do great things, but - unfortunately - that potential is overshadowed by investment in less-than-great-things, which do little to solve the hard problems of humanity.