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 Bust Nak in post #160]

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.

Please expand upon this idea.

Are you saying that if this universe is the product of a creative mind, then it is evil?

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.

But the overall destination [based upon the purely materialistic world view] is a fizzer. Add to that the sacrifice of a perfectly functional planet - a spaceship in its own right - and one far grander than anything human science and engineering could hope to achieve and such reasoning doesn't add up to anything which can be sincerely referred to as truthful, or even sane.

Indeed, the philosophy has more than hints of Nazism in it, which is something we shouldn't be too surprised about, given the fact that the space program might not have got its legs if it were not for the Nazi scientists employed by the superpowers at the end of the last WW.

As such, it is very short-sighted, even that you think it is about long-term 'human' survival.

Any specie occupied in trying to escape the bounds of their planet even at the sacrifice of the life of said planet is not only twisted in its thinking, but doomed to fail big-time.

Such a giant goose-step for "mankind" cannot end well...

[Bust Nak]

Please expand upon this idea.

Are you saying that if this universe is the product of a creative mind, then it is evil?

I am saying this universe contains evil regardless of whether it is the product of a creative mind or not. The existence evil, is a problem (because it is unexpected) for the thesis that it is the product of a creative mind; but not a problem for the thesis that it is a mindless happenstance (as there is no expectation with re: evil one way or the other.)

But the overall destination [based upon the purely materialistic world view] is a fizzer. Add to that the sacrifice of a perfectly functional planet - a spaceship in its own right - and one far grander than anything human science and engineering could hope to achieve and such reasoning doesn't add up to anything which can be sincerely referred to as truthful, or even sane.

As for fizzer, I've already pointed out that it's good while it last; as for sacrificing a perfectly functional planet/space ship, no, I am speaking of abandoning it because it is foundering, that's not a sacrifice.

Indeed, the philosophy has more than hints of Nazism in it, which is something we shouldn't be too surprised about, given the fact that the space program might not have got its legs if it were not for the Nazi scientists employed by the superpowers at the end of the last WW.

Meh, not gonna throw the baby out with the bath water. Rocket science is useful whether it came from Nazi scientists or not.

Any specie occupied in trying to escape the bounds of their planet even at the sacrifice of the life of said planet is not only twisted in its thinking, but doomed to fail big-time.

Such a giant goose-step for "mankind" cannot end well...

Why are you even labelling the boiling of Earth by the sun in the far future as a "sacrifice" in the first place? It's rather odd to apply such a label to a natural occurrence.

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #162]

I am saying this universe contains evil regardless of whether it is the product of a creative mind or not. The existence evil, is a problem (because it is unexpected) for the thesis that it is the product of a creative mind; but not a problem for the thesis that it is a mindless happenstance (as there is no expectation with re: evil one way or the other.)

Okay - thanks for clarifying.

Given that it has been proven that true random does not exist, mindless happenstance is off the table as an 'explanation' for this existence.

Therefore, IF this universe contains evil and is also the creation of a creative mind, why is it an 'unexpected problem'? What do you mean by that? Why should it matter one way but not the other?

As for fizzer, I've already pointed out that it's good while it last; as for sacrificing a perfectly functional planet/space ship, no, I am speaking of abandoning it because it is foundering, that's not a sacrifice.

Assuming you are truthfully interpreting what is happening re the planet, does this not get back to the argument that the process of this foundering could be turned around by the very minds and money currently invested in escaping that outcome - an outcome which said minds share the greater part of being responsible for making happen in the first place.

Indeed, the philosophy has more than hints of Nazism in it, which is something we shouldn't be too surprised about, given the fact that the space program might not have got its legs if it were not for the Nazi scientists employed by the superpowers at the end of the last WW.

Meh, not gonna throw the baby out with the bath water. Rocket science is useful whether it came from Nazi scientists or not.

Perhaps mainly useful to the agender of those willing to save themselves at the cost of an entire species they use and then abandon, to attempt this self-serving salvation.

Any specie occupied in trying to escape the bounds of their planet even at the sacrifice of the life of said planet is not only twisted in its thinking, but doomed to fail big-time.

Such a giant goose-step for "mankind" cannot end well...

Why are you even labelling the boiling of Earth by the sun in the far future as a "sacrifice" in the first place? It's rather odd to apply such a label to a natural occurrence.

Meh...this idea that what is going on re this space program agenda as "preparation" for a natural event which is way in the distant future doesn't ring true.
It is an attempt at abandonment of the hard problems of humanity, through investment in poorly thought out strategies of selfish intent.

There is no baby in such bathwater.

eta;
viewtopic.php?p=1066667#p1066667

WingMakers Philo II

[Bust Nak]

Therefore, IF this universe contains evil and is also the creation of a creative mind, why is it an 'unexpected problem'? What do you mean by that? Why should it matter one way but not the other?

Just insert the standard problem of evil here. Something along the lines of:
1) If creative mind then no evil.
2) Evil.
3) Therefore not creative mind.

Assuming you are truthfully interpreting what is happening re the planet, does this not get back to the argument that the process of this foundering could be turned around by the very minds and money currently invested in escaping that outcome - an outcome which said minds share the greater part of being responsible for making happen in the first place.

I don't see how you can blame the life cycle of the sun on humans, but sure, we human are causing a lot of the problems on Earth. Global warming being the most pressing currently, as far as our species as a whole is concern.

Perhaps mainly useful to the agender of those willing to save themselves at the cost of an entire species they use and then abandon, to attempt this self-serving salvation.

Why don't you think it would benefit the vast majority of humanity?

Meh...this idea that what is going on re this space program agenda as "preparation" for a natural event which is way in the distant future doesn't ring true.
It is an attempt at abandonment of the hard problems of humanity, through investment in poorly thought out strategies of selfish intent.

Same as above, why don't you think humanity as a whole would benefit from colonising the stars?

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #164]

Therefore, IF this universe contains evil and is also the creation of a creative mind, why is it an 'unexpected problem'? What do you mean by that? Why should it matter one way but not the other?

Just insert the standard problem of evil here. Something along the lines of:
1) If creative mind then no evil.
2) Evil.
3) Therefore not creative mind.

What I am asking is what justifies this equation?

Assuming you are truthfully interpreting what is happening re the planet, does this not get back to the argument that the process of this foundering could be turned around by the very minds and money currently invested in escaping that outcome - an outcome which said minds share the greater part of being responsible for making happen in the first place.

I don't see how you can blame the life cycle of the sun on humans,

As I mentioned, I am not referring to the far-off event of the expansion of Sol. Secondly, I am not blaming. I am stating matters of fact.

but sure, we human are causing a lot of the problems on Earth.

Science and engineering together have contributed most of the damage, don't you agree?

Global warming being the most pressing currently, as far as our species as a whole is concern.

Yes. One of the main hard problems facing humanity. How is investing in space-related science and engineering dealing with said problem, other than, that it might provide the possibility of a few humans being able to survive, and the likely ones who could survive re that, are also those who are currently investing in science and engineering which are causing the most damage to the planet.

Isn't it more practical and intelligent to invest in what is already established rather than invest in things which are mostly causing this floundering?

Perhaps mainly useful to the agender of those willing to save themselves at the cost of an entire species they use and then abandon, to attempt this self-serving salvation.

Why don't you think it would benefit the vast majority of humanity?

I don't think it will benefit even those who get a ticket to ride.

What are they hoping to find out there which could possibly benefit the vast majority of humanity?

The more likely explanation for this investment strategy is to attempt to save themselves.

Meh...this idea that what is going on re this space program agenda as "preparation" for a natural event which is way in the distant future doesn't ring true.
It is an attempt at abandonment of the hard problems of humanity, through investment in poorly thought out strategies of selfish intent.

Same as above, why don't you think humanity as a whole would benefit from colonising the stars?

I think colonizing the stars is as unrealistic as a materialist thinks theists dreams of heaven are. A fantasy.

And as with religious imagery, science fiction serves a similar function in that regard.

In the real world, the climate changes scientists are warning humanity about, are going to happen long before any colonizing the stars could possibly happen.
And with those warnings, are the predictions that humanity as a whole, is unlikely to fare well.

I don't think your favorable outlook re space-science is any better a hope than the Christian hope in the return of Jesus.

[Bust Nak]

Just insert the standard problem of evil here. Something along the lines of:
1) If creative mind then no evil.
2) Evil.
3) Therefore not creative mind.

What I am asking is what justifies this equation?

That depends on specific features one ties to the creative mind, typically omnipotence and benevolence.

Science and engineering together have contributed most of the damage, don't you agree?

Sure.

Yes. One of the main hard problems facing humanity. How is investing in space-related science and engineering dealing with said problem, other than, that it might provide the possibility of a few humans being able to survive, and the likely ones who could survive re that, are also those who are currently investing in science and engineering which are causing the most damage to the planet.

Space exploration isn't the only thing we are working on, that's meant for longer term problems than global warming; plus as I've already mentioned, there might be technologies developed with space exploration in mind, that ends up having other, more immediate useful, utility.

Isn't it more practical and intelligent to invest in what is already established rather than invest in things which are mostly causing this floundering?

Science and engineering is the only practical solution we have.

I don't think it will benefit even those who get a ticket to ride.

What are they hoping to find out there which could possibly benefit the vast majority of humanity?

More land, more resources.

The more likely explanation for this investment strategy is to attempt to save themselves.

Sure, but won't stop the rest of us from tagging along. What's gonna stop them from more profit by selling us the chance to tag along?

In the real world, the climate changes scientists are warning humanity about, are going to happen long before any colonizing the stars could possibly happen.
And with those warnings, are the predictions that humanity as a whole, is unlikely to fare well.

I don't think your favorable outlook re space-science is any better a hope than the Christian hope in the return of Jesus.

What about renewable/clean energy? What about recycling technologies? What about batteries technologies? Are those fantasies too?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #159]

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...

If one is not to rely on their own experience that they know is true, what else are they to rely upon? Also, please explain what you mean by "any god is needed to enlightenment."

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

Researched other opinions, religions, practiced some. More than enough for me to from my own opinion as proper for me.

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?

Where did I specifically say this is wrong?

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

People like what's easy. It's easy to believe in a god that did things we don't know about, for example. It's easy to point to others and their perceived 'problems' than first dealing with our own. It's easier to tell someone 'this or that' than to do it one's self. So yes, people like - LOVE - 'easy'. This doesn't mean every 'sector's' job is to do what another thinks they should.
Should I stop giving my monthly donation to the SOI DOG FUND and give it to ST JUDES simply because you think it's best?

Is it a scientific fact that we are here to rely solely on our individual selves,

Please provide scientific proof, that's testable and verifiable by others, that this is true.

when nature itself has made it a basic survival necessity that we need others [something greater than ourselves] to actual get that done.

Same question as above, specifically as to how 'something greater than ourselves' plays into this statement of 'proof'. Additionally, provide scientific proof of what 'something greater than ourselves' is as it pertains to any deity or supreme deity. Lastly, please show how humanity is continuing to stay within it's 'natural parameters'. Last I saw, there were no electronic computers existing in nature.

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #166]

Just insert the standard problem of evil here. Something along the lines of:
1) If creative mind then no evil.
2) Evil.
3) Therefore not creative mind.
What I am asking is what justifies this equation?

That depends on specific features one ties to the creative mind, typically omnipotence and benevolence.

So in that, are you saying your equation factors in these elements - and if so, now the question is;

What justifies these attributes as being the actual attributes of the creative mind of this universe?

Science and engineering together have contributed most of the damage, don't you agree?

Sure.

I am encouraged by your honesty in recognizing this as truth.

Yes. One of the main hard problems facing humanity. How is investing in space-related science and engineering dealing with said problem, other than, that it might provide the possibility of a few humans being able to survive, and the likely ones who could survive re that, are also those who are currently investing in science and engineering which are causing the most damage to the planet.

Space exploration isn't the only thing we are working on, that's meant for longer term problems than global warming; plus as I've already mentioned, there might be technologies developed with space exploration in mind, that ends up having other, more immediate useful, utility.

Okay.

So would you agree that this is a statement of faith, since the word "might" was - honestly - used?

Isn't it more practical and intelligent to invest in what is already established rather than invest in things which are mostly causing this floundering?

Science and engineering is the only practical solution we have.

I agree.

However, my question is not related to any argument against the practicality of S&E, but rather - re the way these are being practically applied.

With that in mind, would you re-read my question and give an answer to it?

To clarify, "what is already established" is the planet-space-ship it/herself.

I don't think it will benefit even those who get a ticket to ride.

What are they hoping to find out there which could possibly benefit the vast majority of humanity?

More land, more resources.

More fantasy.

Isn't it more practical to use the S&E to manage the land and resources already available, more resourcefully and responsibly?

The more likely explanation for this investment strategy is to attempt to save themselves.

Sure, but won't stop the rest of us from tagging along. What's gonna stop them from more profit by selling us the chance to tag along?

Tag along with what? Yet another human fantasy? How is selling a fantasy in the face of reality any more practical or different than selling religious fantasy and having humans tag along in that?

In the real world, the climate changes scientists are warning humanity about, are going to happen long before any colonizing the stars could possibly happen.
And with those warnings, are the predictions that humanity as a whole, is unlikely to fare well.

I don't think your favorable outlook re space-science is any better a hope than the Christian hope in the return of Jesus.

What about renewable/clean energy?

Much more of this is required for any real hope in solving the hard problems of humanity. That is what I am putting forward re the need for massive re-thinking and project the investment of wealth into the space-craft already established.

Fix what is broken and once that task has been done, THEN look to the stars...

What about recycling technologies? What about batteries technologies? Are those fantasies too?

They are in the sense that these technologies are not given the priority they have to be given in order to seriously reverse the numerous decades of harmful damage S&E have already done to this ship.

The closer we get to an extinction level event, the more obvious it becomes that these technologies - while real and potentially world-changing - were neglected by the necessary commitment and investment to make them anything more than fantasy.

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #167]

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...

If one is not to rely on their own experience that they know is true, what else are they to rely upon?

I am not arguing against that.
What I am asking you is why you are basing your learned views on the one experience you have had, when there are plenty of other other experience to investigate, should you chose to include these in your overall ongoing human experience.

Put another way...I have had some bad experiences with coupled relationships. If I had taken your approach, I would not have experienced the good relationship I currently have, and have been having for nearly 20 years now.

In the same way, while I too can categorically state that I had [and continue to have] bad relationships with Christians, I cannot say I was 'enslaved' by this, even to the point where I felt any requirement to abandon "God" simply on account of the Christian version of God.

Also, please explain what you mean by "any god is needed to enlightenment."

I simply used the term as your wrote it. What is your reason for using the words;

"I can't agree that any god is needed to enlightenment."

_____________________?__________________

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

Researched other opinions, religions, practiced some. More than enough for me to from my own opinion as proper for me.

Assuming you allow yourself this, please explain why you have problems with theism, since theists are also allowed to form opinion which is "proper for them".

Is "proper for me" a realistic argument in the face of reality?

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?

Where did I specifically say this is wrong?

Where in my question did I specify you said it was wrong? I framed my question based upon your stating;

Relying on 'something bigger than myself', while supportive, negates what one can achieve for themselves.

The science and engineering sectors of humanity are 'bigger than' we as individuals are, and we rely upon those sectors as having more chance of dealing with the hard problems than we as individuals can achieve for ourselves.

For example, there are scatterings of individuals who 'live off the grid' sufficiently to be seen as those who are 'achieving for themselves', yet we can honestly agree that they are able do so because of S&E and they are not completely so self-sufficient that they are actually independent from the rest of us.

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

People like what's easy. It's easy to believe in a god that did things we don't know about, for example. It's easy to point to others and their perceived 'problems' than first dealing with our own. It's easier to tell someone 'this or that' than to do it one's self. So yes, people like - LOVE - 'easy'. This doesn't mean every 'sector's' job is to do what another thinks they should.
Should I stop giving my monthly donation to the SOI DOG FUND and give it to ST JUDES simply because you think it's best?

I am not here for the purpose of telling anyone to do what I think is best.

I am focused upon the subject of the collective problems of humanity and the difficulty involved in getting folk to understand that S&E on its current projection is killing us all - slowly and surely - not because S&E are bad things, but because they are being used badly.

How 'easy' do you think it is to deal with those hard issues we face together?
I understand the attraction to 'easy ways out' and think that the Space programs are one such example of humans taking that path.

I am arguing that what looks like the easy way out, is a form of denial from that sector, and a hard but necessary solution to that is in the owning of its destructive ways by fessing up, and seriously doing an about-face in a genuine attempt to clean up the mess they essentially created.

Is it a scientific fact that we are here to rely solely on our individual selves,

Please provide scientific proof, that's testable and verifiable by others, that this is true.

I do not have to provide such...I have to assume you read what I wrote, incorrectly...

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.

Same question as above, specifically as to how 'something greater than ourselves' plays into this statement of 'proof'.

I already did. Nature herself is greater than the individual.
The individual cannot survive in nature without the assistance of others, and "others" is greater than "the individual".

Additionally, provide scientific proof of what 'something greater than ourselves' is as it pertains to any deity or supreme deity.

Since that is not part of my argument here, I see not legitimacy in your request for such evidence.

Lastly, please show how humanity is continuing to stay within it's 'natural parameters'. Last I saw, there were no electronic computers existing in nature.

And the truth remains that without those natural ingredients which nature provides, electronic computers would not exist in nature...yet - contrary to your statement - they do actually exist within nature. Not sure where you are looking but it is obvious to me where you are not looking.

The natural parameters are clear enough re humanities hard problems. They are solvable, once nature is recognized as the greater thing than individualized humanity, rather than as a mindless habitat that can be abused by its inhabitants - likely because those inhabitants think themselves to be the greater thing than nature.

Such thinking has to be fantasy, in the face of reality.

Don't you agree?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #169]

What I am asking you is why you are basing your learned views on the one experience you have had, when there are plenty of other other experience to investigate, should you chose to include these in your overall ongoing human experience.

Why would you assume there's only been 1 experience? 1 investigation? 1 item for me to reference?

I cannot say I was 'enslaved' by this, even to the point where I felt any requirement to abandon "God" simply on account of the Christian version of God

Count yourself 'lucky', I suppose.

Also, please explain what you mean by "any god is needed to enlightenment."

That, it seems, was a typo on my part perhaps . It should read "I can't agree that any god is needed for enlightenment."

Assuming you allow yourself this, please explain why you have problems with theism, since theists are also allowed to form opinion which is "proper for them".

Where did I make this over-reaching claim?

Is "proper for me" a realistic argument in the face of reality?

Who else can answer that question for you, other than you? For everyone else in their particular experience, it would likely suffice, I suspect. But, by entering into a debate, one shouldn't be surprised it that is challenged.

Where in my question did I specify you said it was wrong?

The inference here: "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?"

The science and engineering sectors of humanity are 'bigger than' we as individuals are, and we rely upon those sectors as having more chance of dealing with the hard problems than we as individuals can achieve for ourselves.

I don't agree. These sectors wouldn't exist WITHOUT 'us', so they aren't 'bigger than us', it is us that makes them as big as they are.

I am not here for the purpose of telling anyone to do what I think is best.

Purpose doesn't mean it's not present

I am focused upon the subject of the collective problems of humanity and the difficulty involved in getting folk to understand that S&E on its current projection is killing us all - slowly and surely - not because S&E are bad things, but because they are being used badly.

I find that a sad state, considering all the good S&E does as well. Humans can make almost everything 'bad' (if not everything). How it's used (or not) is the issue, not S&E itself. If you want perfection (something humanity does that benefits ALL and harms NONE), you're not going to get it.

How 'easy' do you think it is to deal with those hard issues we face together?

I made no such claim.

I am arguing that what looks like the easy way out, is a form of denial from that sector, and a hard but necessary solution to that is in the owning of its destructive ways by fessing up, and seriously doing an about-face in a genuine attempt to clean up the mess they essentially created.

Which is fine. And true to varying degrees. Not 'every sector' needs to adhere to your personal concept of what needs to happen. Simply by not meeting your 'ideal' doesn't make anything good or bad overall. It's about perception, in this instance. And yours seems, IMO, poorly placed (not that it matter to you, I'm sure, which is, of course, more than fine).

When you say "Is it a scientific fact that we are here to rely solely on our individual selves..." then say you don't have to provide any proof of said fact, that shows, it seems, the need to make grand statements of fact with out providing facts to support it, like you seem to insist on others to do to meet your own criteria throughout many of your posts. In other words, pointless soapboxing.
Then you go one to claim, when it seems to suit you, that you can provide facts now, on a new subject. One must wonder what your end goal is here.

And the truth remains that without those natural ingredients which nature provides, electronic computers would not exist in nature...yet - contrary to your statement - they do actually exist within nature.

You seem to be using the term nature here differently than I. Perhaps that's the disconnect. But no, computers do not exist in nature, as most use the term 'nature'. There are no computers growing from the ground in the woods. Using the term 'nature' to mean 'coming from nature', then EVERYTHING is nature. If that's your POV, by all means have at it. But I wonder if you're intentionally mis-leading others for your own biasness

Not sure where you are looking but it is obvious to me where you are not looking.

I'm not looking in the direction you are. But if one is arrogant, they can say others aren't looking simply because they're looking at it differently. Humility and all that rot.

They are solvable, once nature is recognized as the greater thing than individualized humanity, rather than as a mindless habitat that can be abused by its inhabitants - likely because those inhabitants think themselves to be the greater thing than nature.

Simply saying something is solvable because 'nature is bigger than us' is about a worthless as bringing jello to a gun fight.

Such thinking has to be fantasy, in the face of reality.

Yes, I think that sums up your POV nicely.

But, to get back to the point being made, there are many things in the world for people to occupy their time on. If one is to say 'that isn't 'good' because it's doing XYZ not ABC' is only good for ego chest thumping and not much else IMO.