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.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #139]

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?

It is important because it verifies order rather than disorder.

Is that something which should be delegated academically interesting or important?

That question is left to the individual to decide.

If your question is more about 'importance' re 'what is in it for me' - 'what can I get out of this which will help me survive?' et al...it is not important to me personally, in that context.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #139]

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?

It is important because it verifies order rather than disorder.

People seemed to love to put order to chaos - the reason why gods are invented. Invention doesn't mean actuality, though.
Curious: what's wrong with 'disorder'?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #139]

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?

It is important because it verifies order rather than disorder.

People seemed to love to put order to chaos - the reason why gods are invented. Invention doesn't mean actuality, though.
Curious: what's wrong with 'disorder'?

People seem to love to put order to chaos because that is only natural, as nature is not chaos.
The reason why gods are invented has everything to do with discovering that nature is not a mindless chaotic process.
Invention isn't actually what is going on though. Realization is what is occurring.
There is nothing wrong with 'disorder' other than one interpreting the universe as disorderly.

Why it is wrong is that it does not serve reality to see it as disorderly.


People seemed to love to put order to chaos = 442
Extend Beyond The Borders of Institution
Is this the correct question to be asking?

The reason why gods are invented = 323
Things Will Run There Course
Through the unconscious mind
Working with the simulation
Okay, thanks for your input.

Invention doesn't mean actuality, though. = 423
Creating Gateways Into Other Dimensions
Worthy of the individuals time and effort

What's wrong with disorder = 300
In The Mirror - Mirror Sense
One Who Does Not Believe In Gods
[Chuckles]

Curious = 106
An Objective
Leave a Trail
In the open
Love Heart
Calculator
Metatron

[TRANSPONDER]

But (as I already said) it isn't Random. There is order. There is just not a shred of decent evidence for intelligently designed order. Your previous appeals to immensity and complexity are both false and appeal to unexplaineds prove nothing.

Just asking again - why do you have this compulsion to try to make an unvalidated claim look like it is valid? Why does it matter so much to you?

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #139]

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?

It is important because it verifies order rather than disorder.

Is that something which should be delegated academically interesting or important?

That question is left to the individual to decide.

If your question is more about 'importance' re 'what is in it for me' - 'what can I get out of this which will help me survive?' et al...it is not important to me personally, in that context.

That's plainly not true. If it wasn't important you'd just accept that there is really no good case for a Cosmic Mind, A disbelief in a 'god' - claim is therefor logically sound, provided that no claim to know for definite 100% is made and so atheism is valiod on evidence and logic.

It is wasn't important to you, you'd put you hand up: "Got it, dudes."

But you don't. You bang away at debunking atheism and pushing a sortagod -claim using the same debunked arguments again and again.

How can you claim it isn't important to you? You are just digging the hole in your credibility a bit deeper.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #144]

Critique the argument not the arguer.

[hint: Making unsupported statements is not critiquing the argument]

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #144]

Critique the argument not the arguer.

[hint: Making unsupported statements is not critiquing the argument]

Evasion does you no credit. Aside that why this is so important to you sheds light on the artgument you are making, you didn't address my point about the validity of the argument you are making.

I already said that physics means natural orcder - 'order' doesn't require intelligence.

Intelligence (as in intelligent design of what we think of as natural) is a claim which you have to produce some validation for. Science iconically does not find Intelligent Design in natural phenomena.

Unexplained problems are not evidence for a Cosmic mind.

Ball back in your court. You have to provide better evidence than 'Obvious', strawmanning 'Random' and ID claims.

[Bust Nak]

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

Think bigger, if we are to survive long term as a species, space exploration is a requirement.

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.

And then there is stuff that went into developing for space exploration that directly made our lives easier. Non stick pans is the go to example.

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.

That's still better than focusing on soul searching.

[William]

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

Think bigger, if we are to survive long term as a species, space exploration is a requirement.

Why? What is your rational?

What do you mean by "survive long term as a species?"

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.

And then there is stuff that went into developing for space exploration that directly made our lives easier. Non stick pans is the go to example.

That is the 'go to example'? That is it?

How do non-stick pans fill the hungry bellies you mentioned;

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.

That's still better than focusing on soul searching.

If 'soul searching' involves the ability to empathize with those who are hungry and invest in actual ways in which to solve that problem, how is investing in space exploration projects better than that?

[TRANSPONDER]

We seem to have drifted off atheism, but we are still in the 'secularist/scientific society - arguments for and against' area.

The whole point and basis of morality and ethics (once one has discounted what some invisible dictator demands of us) is what is good for humans. It's instinct and as objective a basis as any. Surprisingly, it reminds me of existential questions I asked myself as a teenager, back around the time of the boer war... when I faced up to no universal purpose for me or anyone else. And why I shouldn't just kill myself. It was like this:

"I went to the edge and looked over and decided that I didn't want to jump. Having made that purely personal decision I had to ask 'what do I do with my life then?' And answer came back 'Whatever you like'.

The release from a supposed divine plan that (somehow) had been dinned into my head was as overwhelming as anything until a 'deconversion' I had, which is an odd thing to happen to an atheist and I still wonder about it.

Anyway point is that what is good for us as a species is the bottom line of morals. Not 'God wants', even if William here believed that which I gather he doesn't.

So obviously the survival and prospering of humanity is the point (as much as anything and probably more), and aside from the quite unforeseen benefits of space travel, and the benefits of science and technology (which even Luddites and science skeptics help themselves to when it suits them) there's the element of curiosity; wanting to know which is an instinct that makes us human and is another instinctive drive as objective as one could ask. That's unless they mean by 'objective' the demands of an invisible dictator, which would be of course the ultimate in arbitrariness.

So science and technology apart from conveniences like mechanical washers, microwave ovens and non -stick frypans has put food on our plates in a way that would have defeated a population even a 100 years ago. I won't make further comments about those who pee all over science while gorging themselves on all the benefits it has brought us, but I hope the point in clear; Secular humanism and science and technology has done more for us that religion and Theism ever did.

[Bust Nak]

Why? What is your rational?

For a start, the sun is going to boil the Earth in the distant future, rendering it inhospitable for life.

What do you mean by "survive long term as a species?"

Not go extinct while there are still habitable bubbles in the galaxy, and hopefully, not go extinct until there are no habitable bubbles in the universe.

That is the 'go to example'? That is it?

How do non-stick pans fill the hungry bellies you mentioned;

Less time scrubbing pans, more time being productive.

If 'soul searching' involves the ability to empathize with those who are hungry and invest in actual ways in which to solve that problem, how is investing in space exploration projects better than that?

That's fine, the point was actual ways to solve hunger is mundane.