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]

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.

That is so far off, if humans did survive for that long, they would likely not be recognized as humans, by humans in the now.

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.

According to popular materialist beliefs, the universe itself will one day go extinct.
If so, then why does it matter?

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.

Productive to what end? Filling hungry bellies or investing in space telescopes to understand how to better increase certain types of the human specie survival?

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.

So you agree with me then, that investing in space exploration projects is a mundane mechanism in regard to solving hunger?

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

Either Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior, or he isn't...and since both the atheist/agnostic fall under the "no" answer, there is really no distinction.

[Bust Nak]

That is so far off, if humans did survive for that long, they would likely not be recognized as humans, by humans in the now.

That's fine.

According to popular materialist beliefs, the universe itself will one day go extinct.
If so, then why does it matter?

Because life is good while it lasts.

Productive to what end? Filling hungry bellies or investing in space telescopes to understand how to better increase certain types of the human specie survival?

Yes, and fun too.

So you agree with me then, that investing in space exploration projects is a mundane mechanism in regard to solving hunger?

Yes? Were you under the impression that I thought it wasn't mundane?

[TRANSPONDER]

.

Either Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior, or he isn't...and since both the atheist/agnostic fall under the "no" answer, there is really no distinction.

After thinking it through, I wouldn't disagree with that. Since (technically) neither atheists nor agnostics know whether Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior or not, we are both in the same boat (1) The Question is based (more obviously than the 'God' -claim on believing the Bible, and atheists obviously don't believe the religious claims (even if they accept the record as reliable) and I suppose neither do 'Agnostics' or they would call themselves Christians.

(1) "Sinking"

"Shaddup."

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #153]

According to popular materialist beliefs, the universe itself will one day go extinct.
If so, then why does it matter?

Because life is good while it lasts.

Unless the universe is the ongoing result of a creative mind. Then life becomes "the problem of evil"...

Productive to what end? Filling hungry bellies or investing in space telescopes to understand how to better increase certain types of the human specie survival?

Yes, and fun too.

Yes to both?

How does investing in space telescopes fill hungry bellies?

So you agree with me then, that investing in space exploration projects is a mundane mechanism in regard to solving hunger?

Yes? Were you under the impression that I thought it wasn't mundane?

I am currently under the impression that you see no problem with it, even that it does not fill empty bellies - because it is useful to help with the task of ensuring the survival of certain members of the human specie.

I assumed that you thought such a task was important rather than mundane.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #155]

Then life becomes "the problem of evil"...

Can you elaborate on this concept?

How does investing in space telescopes fill hungry bellies?

Some would say what's learned here could trickle down to help others.
Others say creating these objects could do just that (though not every hungry belly)
Who's to say everything NEEDS to fill a belly and why are they the pinnacle of what to do and not to do, whom all should listen?

you see no problem with it, even that it does not fill empty bellies

What have you done to fill an empty belly? And why does everything else have to fill an empty belly?

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #156]

From memory, I did not bring this 'fill hungry bellies' into the argument. I am simply going along with it in order to try and follow the argument.
It was suggested that if human being were to genuinely apply spiritism, this would not solve humanities hard problems - and I do not disagree that empty bellies is one of those hard problems to solve.

My argument is that the idea of enlightened human beings on a massive scale, not being able to deal with the hard problems of humanity, is an opinion rather than a statement of scientific fact.

The idea that 10 billion+ was spent on the manufacture and launch of the James Web Telescope "is money which would have been better spent on helping to solve humanities hard problems" - is viable - so what is it that prevents those focused upon such monumental science/engineering from seeing this for themselves?

My overall argument is that a lack of belief in gods has much to do with it...but the 'gods' part is argued by me to be 'The Cosmic Mind' whereby one connects and in doing so one moves - slowly and surely - toward being enlightened.

My opponent believes that enlightenment won't solve humanities hard problems.

I am thinking then, that perhaps such opposition is stating/arguing that "one might as well focus on the stars, since there is no other realistic alternative humans have to invest in".

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #157]

From memory, I did not bring this 'fill hungry bellies' into the argument. I am simply going along with it in order to try and follow the argument.

Got it got it (and apologies)

Then I'd need to direct all those comments to the one that brought up the issue. To the one who brought up the issue, please elaborate on the questions I wrongly asked of William

My argument is that the idea of enlightened human beings on a massive scale, not being able to deal with the hard problems of humanity, is an opinion rather than a statement of scientific fact.

That stands to reason, though I would suspect that any 'enlightenment' could go a long way in doing so (depending, of course, on what the enlightenment was and how it was received).

The idea that 10 billion+ was spent on the manufacture and launch of the James Web Telescope "is money which would have been better spent on helping to solve humanities hard problems" - is viable - so what is it that prevents those focused upon such monumental science/engineering from seeing this for themselves?

Viable, perhaps. But I've found that, many times, those that need help and are given it, simply refuse to accept it. My brother is testament to that. Some people like to suffer. Maybe it brings them purpose? Attention?
I'm not sure those people of whom you speak don't 'see it', simply choose to entertain their gifts towards other endeavors, if I understand your POV.

My overall argument is that a lack of belief in gods has much to do with it

I'm not sure that's true, at least not for everyone. Much might be stretching it, maybe 'some'? Simply believing in god doesn't mean, again if I understand your point correctly, one's going to be the 'champion of humanity's biggest issues'. From what I've seen, that is, many times, quite the opposite.

but the 'gods' part is argued by me to be 'The Cosmic Mind' whereby one connects and in doing so one moves - slowly and surely - toward being enlightened.

Having been an enslaved christian for decades, I can't agree that any god is needed to enlightenment. Seems to me, by having a god itself promise such 'perfection in eternity' takes away from anything one can do for themselves in this regard. Relying on 'something bigger than myself', while supportive, negates what one can achieve for themselves.

My opponent believes that enlightenment won't solve humanities hard problems.

Maybe it won't?

I am thinking then, that perhaps such opposition is stating/arguing that "one might as well focus on the stars, since there is no other realistic alternative humans have to invest in".

Each person is (or should be) free to entertain whatever alternative they choose! I'd point out that, believing in a magician in the sky, as many christians do, is nothing more than believing in the stars in some's eyes.

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #158]

What you are pointing out is known to me, but does not negate my position of argument.

Having been an enslaved christian for decades, I can't agree that any god is needed to enlightenment. Seems to me, by having a god itself promise such 'perfection in eternity' takes away from anything one can do for themselves in this regard. Relying on 'something bigger than myself', while supportive, negates what one can achieve for themselves.

Yet here you are relying upon your own experience of being "an enslaved christian for decades" to determine for you the idea that "any god is needed to enlightenment." as being fallacy...

What have you done for yourself since, in this area, to support that your position is true?

For example, are you now relying on what materialism tells you is true, as being true?

And - re humanities hard problems;

Is it somehow therefore wrong for those with hungry bellies to rely upon science and engineering sectors of humanity [instead of relying on their selves] to think about investing in Spaceship Earth as a primary and ongoing concern re those hard problems?

Is it simply easier for those sectors to ignore the hard problems than to seriously consider investing in creating solutions to said problems?

Is it a scientific fact that we are here to rely solely on our individual selves, when nature itself has made it a basic survival necessity that we need others [something greater than ourselves] to actual get that done.

[Bust Nak]

Unless the universe is the ongoing result of a creative mind. Then life becomes "the problem of evil"...

Yes indeed, it's a problem if the universe is the result of a creative mind, but just fine and dandy if it's just naturalistic. Understandably (I hope,) expectation is much higher for a creative mind than mindless serendipity.

How does investing in space telescopes fill hungry bellies?

Asked and answered, it's a step towards leaving this planet, an essential step in long term human survival. New planets equal more resources to exploit, more filled bellies.

I assumed that you thought such a task was important rather than mundane.

No, it is important and mundane. Mundane as in dealing with practical issues rather than spiritual ones.