Atheism was easier before modern science

[Belk]

Still trying to peddle the idea that science takes sides I see.

 

[Percivale]

Still trying to peddle the idea that science takes sides I see.

Well, it does provide some information about reality, so one would expect it to have some influence on debates about reality.

 

[Davian]

It's true science has provided alternate explanations for things the old polytheistic religions attributed to gods, like thor causing thunder. But those explanations went out of style long before modern science. The world religions that exist today did not use those mythological explanations the way the old animism and polytheism did.

Such as demons causing sickness.

The Role of Demons and Sickness by Tom Brown

The things that religions like Christianity attribute to God, like the origin of the universe, are things that science has not answered yet, as several people have said on this thread.

You are positing the Christian "God" as a god-of-the-gaps?

Metaphysical truths often cannot be proven scientifically, but that does not make them false or mean there can be no evidence for them. People who say there is no evidence for God's existence should rephrase that and say they have not personally come across evidence.

Same for Bigfoot, and alien abductions.

Those who have witnessed miracles do have evidence.

Is it evidence for gods, or for how easily the human brain can be tricked?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UelJZG_bF98

 

[Percivale]

Such as demons causing sickness.

The Role of Demons and Sickness by Tom Brown

You are positing the Christian "God" as a god-of-the-gaps?

Same for Bigfoot, and alien abductions.

Is it evidence for gods, or for how easily the human brain can be tricked?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UelJZG_bF98

Ok I'll give it to you on the first two comments.

A lot more and saner people claim to have seen miracles than Bigfoot or aliens.

That last comment suggests you rule out any evidence for miracles a priori since it doesn't fit your worldview. There is always the question whether to believe your senses, but it generally works better to do so.

 

[Davian]

Ok I'll give it to you on the first two comments.

Cool.

A lot more and saner people claim to have seen miracles than Bigfoot or aliens.

An argument from popularity would be a fallacy. And by what standard do you rate sanity?

That last comment suggests you rule out any evidence for miracles a priori since it doesn't fit your worldview. There is always the question whether to believe your senses, but it generally works better to do so.

Not at all. I do not know what you mean by 'miracle'. If you like, provide a positive ontology for what you mean by "miracle".

 

[Percivale]

Cool.

An argument from popularity would be a fallacy. And by what standard do you rate sanity?

Not at all. I do not know what you mean by 'miracle'. If you like, provide a positive ontology for what you mean by "miracle".

I define a miracle as an event that requires a superhuman agent to happen. Something God or an angel does or facilitates. Like healing faster than can be done with our level of medical ability, or access to knowledge not available through normal means--like when a prophetess told me the exact phrase I had been thinking over earlier.

 

[Belk]

Well, it does provide some information about reality, so one would expect it to have some influence on debates about reality.

It provides information about the material universe we find ourselves in. Is it then your claim the material universe comprises all of reality?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then this happened!

What if the universe had no beginning? | Science Wire | EarthSky

And it was good...

 

[Davian]

I define a miracle as an event that requires a superhuman agent to happen. Something God or an angel does or facilitates.

I am only familiar with superhuman, God, and angels as characters, or character traits in books. Do you have anything testable?

Like healing faster than can be done with our level of medical ability,

But nothing that was properly observed and documented, I would guess.

or access to knowledge not available through normal means--like when a prophetess told me the exact phrase I had been thinking over earlier.

Can you get anything of note? How about a unifying theory between quantum theory and the theory of relativity? Or is it limited to what you yourself can imagine?

 

[Davian]

Then this happened!

What if the universe had no beginning? | Science Wire | EarthSky

And it was good...

Interesting article.

"...without the singularity, this model predicts that the universe had no beginning. It existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before collapsing into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang."

I can live with that.

 

[True Scotsman]

"Metaphysical truths often cannot be proven scientifically, but that does not make them false or mean there can be no evidence for them. People who say there is no evidence for God's existence should rephrase that and say they have not personally come across evidence."

I want to address this. I'm not sure what you mean by "metaphysical truths" but since this is a philosophy forum I want to say that Metaphysics is the first branch of Philosophy and as such it deals with the most fundamental principles. These principles don't need to be proved scientifically. They are mostly axiomatic or corollaries to axioms and are self evident. They are what you need to know before you can prove anything or do any science. We don't need to prove that existence exists. We don't need to prove that we are conscious of it. We don't need to prove that to exist is to be something, to possess a specific nature. We don't need to prove that existence exists independently of anyone's conscious activity. These are the fundamentals of metaphysics and they all clash violently with the idea of a supernatural, infinite, all powerful god.

The first branch, metaphysics, basically tells you: Where you are. What kind of world is this?

The second branch, epistemology, basically tells you: How do I know it?

The third branch, ethics, basically tells you: What should I do?

You have to have your metaphysics all lined out before you enter the field of epistemology. You have to have your metaphysics and epistemology all lined out before you enter the field of ethics. Otherwise you will most likely hold a mess of contradictions as your world view.

Now, if you are using the word "metaphysical" in place of the "supernatural" then I don't recognize such a thing as the supernatural. That is for the new age section of the book store and I stay away from that nonsense.

If there were any objective evidence for gods it would have been presented, but here it is the twenty first century and there hasn't been any. That word objective is crucial. There is plenty of anecdotes, feelings, appeals to emotions, arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, and ancient texts which are held up as both claim and evidence for the truth of the claim. Every time evidence is presented, it is only evidence if you already believe in a god. It begs the question. Oh look at that beautiful rainbow, must be God did it. Every argument contains multiple flaws. None of them prove the conclusion that a god exists. So I will continue to say that there is no evidence until some is actually presented.

 

[juvenissun]

What's so hard about being an atheist?

Mostly, because you will never be sure about the meaning of your life.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Mostly, because you will never be sure about the meaning of your life.

I am sure.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[True Scotsman]

Mostly, because you will never be sure about the meaning of your life.

I am certain. I know what it means to me and I know what my purpose is because I chose it and do you know what Juvenissun, I don't give a dingo's kidney what anyone else thinks my life should mean to me or what my purpose should be. It's mine and mine alone.

Being an atheist, as Mark said, is just a footnote, an insignificant part of my life. Sure, a lot of people judge me negatively for it, but that is their problem. I could care less. I let them go their way and I go on living my life to the fullest.

 

[durangodawood]

A lot more and saner people claim to have seen miracles than Bigfoot or aliens....

Friend of mine is a genuine bigfoot hunter, and a Christian, curiously.

 

[Ken-1122]

Mostly, because you will never be sure about the meaning of your life.

The person who brings meaning to his own life (like the atheist) is more certain of this meaning than the person who has meaning assigned to his life (the way many theists believe)

Ken

 

[bhsmte]

Mostly, because you will never be sure about the meaning of your life.

Nope.

That meaning is determined by me, so I am quite sure.

 

[durangodawood]

Nope.

That meaning is determined by me, so I am quite sure.

Then you are a rare person.

But why is sure-ness so important? Seems natural that ones life-meaning may change over time.

 

[Davian]

Mostly, because you will never be sure about the meaning of your life.

Atheism is only a theistic position regarding gods. I would think that, with the innumerable number of god beliefs out there, theism can only confuse matters.

 

[Ken-1122]

Then you are a rare person.

But why is sure-ness so important? Seems natural that ones life-meaning may change over time.

How do you conclude bringing meaning to your own life makes one rare?

Ken