Explain Atheism to Justinian2

[dafydd]

Some atheists are 'spiritual' for different values of spiritual. Some atheists are religious, presumably following a religion that doesn't require theism. Atheism is a category that includes everyone who doesn't believe in deities, the category of 'not theists'.



The only group that can be meaningfully compared to atheists is theists. We're not a group in the sense that we share common attitutdes, preferences, and values. We are only the group of all people who don't believe in any gods.

If the group needs a name I suggest The Smart Party.

 

[Complexity]

From Wikipedia:


To me, agnosticism is more valid that atheism. Agnosticism does not make war with the theists as do the nonreligious.

As a Scientologist, I think much like the atheistic Buddhists except that I have a slight belief in spirits of all sizes - except those powerful enough to dictate my life. Scientologists are tolerant of all other religions.

Agnosticism does not make war with the theists.

Neither does atheism.

Many atheists and some agnostics want religious people to quit sticking their noses into other people's business, to quit trying to using government and culture to influence or control how we live our lives, and to leave us alone.

Some atheists and some agnostics want to see an end to religious beliefs and other superstitious beliefs.

Scientology is nothing like buddhism - scientology is among the vilest of religions/con-games and buddhism is among the most innocuous religions/philosophies.

 

[Mister Agenda]

The belief system of many, but not all, atheists is that theism is bad. The belief system of theists is that atheism is bad. If a sufficient number of atheists oppose religion, they (atheists) will probably become the enemy of the religious.

You can reasonably say that most atheists believe theism is unjustified. That is not a system of belief, but a singular one. Theism isn't a belief system either, it is probably reasonable to say most theists believe atheists are incorrect, but it's really just a restatement of the proposition that some sort of god or gods actually exists.

You'll find that most Western atheists find the idea of oppressing the religious for their beliefs abhorrent because Western society values freedom and makes a good case for it, and because like people in general, most of us are decent folk that don't want to be mean to other people.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Proof follows belief. For example, people had the belief that the world was a sphere before it was proven. It took hundreds of years to prove the world was a sphere. Sailors made a profit from their belief that the world was a sphere long before the fact was proven.

Which sailors do you have in mind? The earth was shown to be round an awfully long time ago.

I don't agree that proof follows belief. Investigation can and sometimes does show that the result you expected was incorrect. I'm sure lots of people had all sorts of different ideas of what shape the world was. It's not necessarily the case that anyone had to have the right idea before the truth was revealed, nor is it necessarily the case that those who guessed right did so for the right (or even logical) reasons.

There are many beliefs and theories in religion. An atheist knows that nothing else exists. I am very skeptical of the belief that nothing exists beyond what some worldly people can see with their own eyes.



You have that right. However, people have good reason to be highly skeptical of your belief or absence of belief - whatever you call it.

You're trying to redefine atheism again. It's not true that atheists don't believe anything else exists. It's more that while there are still mysteries and discoveries to be made, and aspects of the world may be revealed to be substantially different to the way we currently see it, it's frankly not worth pondering whether the fairytales and myths of some ancient goatherds (or whoever) will by some ridiculous coincidence turn out to be real.

 

[Justinian2]

I vote for the person who I think is the best candidate, or I protest vote Third Party (usually Libertarian) to show my displeasure at the offerings.

I have contributed to the Libertarian Party and have supported HRossPerot.

My generic protest vote is: "Random college graduate"

 

[Justinian2]

Which sailors do you have in mind? The earth was shown to be round an awfully long time ago.

Space satellites and pictures from outer space ended the debate, not that there was much reason to argue after Ferdinand Magellan's voyage.

From Wikipedia:

Ferdinand Magellan (Portuguese: Fernão de Magalhães, IPA: [fɨɾˈnɐ̃w ðɨ mɐɣɐˈʎɐ̃jʃ]; Spanish: Fernando de Magallanes, IPA: [ferˈnando ðe maɣaˈʎanes]; c. 1480 – 27 April 1521) was a Portuguese explorer. He was born in Sabrosa, in northern Portugal, and served King Charles I of Spain in search of a westward route to the "Spice Islands" (modern Maluku Islands in Indonesia).

Magellan's expedition of 1519–1522 became the first expedition to sail from the Atlantic Ocean into the Pacific Ocean (then named "peaceful sea" by Magellan; the passage being made via the Strait of Magellan), and the first to cross the Pacific. It also completed the first circumnavigation of the Earth, although Magellan himself did not complete the entire voyage, being killed during the Battle of Mactan in the Philippines. For background see Exploration of the Pacific.

I don't agree that proof follows belief. Investigation can and sometimes does show that the result you expected was incorrect. I'm sure lots of people had all sorts of different ideas of what shape the world was. It's not necessarily the case that anyone had to have the right idea before the truth was revealed, nor is it necessarily the case that those who guessed right did so for the right (or even logical) reasons.

Why would anyone spend time on an investigation unless they were trying to prove a belief? Why would Ferdinand Magellan have tried to sail around the world unless he believed he would make it. The irony is that he didn't make it.

You're trying to redefine atheism again. It's not true that atheists don't believe anything else exists. It's more that while there are still mysteries and discoveries to be made, and aspects of the world may be revealed to be substantially different to the way we currently see it, it's frankly not worth pondering whether the fairytales and myths of some ancient goatherds (or whoever) will by some ridiculous coincidence turn out to be real.

There is a lot of truth in the Bible. It is being proved to contain valid history.
We know the allegories are multifaceted and valuable.

A lot of truth comes from folklore. Many drugs were developed from ancient remedies (aspirin for example)

From Wikipedia:

Plant extracts, including willow bark and spiraea, of which salicylic acid was the active ingredient, had been known to help alleviate headaches, pains, and fevers since antiquity. The father of modern medicine, Hippocrates, who lived sometime between 460 BC and 377 BC, left historical records describing the use of powder made from the bark and leaves of the willow tree to help these symptoms.[137]

 

[zooterkin]

Space satellites and pictures from outer space ended the debate, not that there was much reason to argue after Ferdinand Magellan's voyage.

What debate?

From wikipedia:

Eratosthenes
Eratosthenes (276–194 BC) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BC. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to fifteen percent. Eratosthenes used rough estimates and round numbers, but depending on the length of the stadion, his result is within a margin of between 2% and 20% of the actual meridional circumference, 40,008 kilometres (24,860 mi). Note that Eratosthenes could only measure the circumference of the Earth by assuming that the distance to the Sun is so great that the rays of sunlight are essentially parallel.

Seleucus of Seleucia
Seleucus of Seleucia (c. 190 BC), who lived in the Seleucia region of Mesopotamia, stated that the Earth is spherical (and actually orbits the Sun, influenced by the heliocentric theory of Aristarchus of Samos).

The circumference of the globe was calculated with reasonable accuracy before 190BC, 1700 years before Magellan. He was not trying to prove that the world was round, but that a particular route existed, though the voyage helped confirm directly rather than by inference that the world was round.

 

[Dessi]

Why would anyone spend time on an investigation unless they were trying to prove a belief? Why would Ferdinand Magellan have tried to sail around the world unless he believed he would make it. The irony is that he didn't make it.

The whole "flat earth" belief in the Dark Ages is a myth. There's a nice wikipedia article on the subject. Among the myths is the belief that people objected to circumnavigations of the globe due to flat eartherism. The Greeks already knew the earth was round in the 5th century BC, it was already an established belief Christianity in the 5th century AD.

When it became obvious that Columbus' search did not discover the "West Indies", but a totally new continent, Megellan's voyage was to find a new route through the Atlantic to promote ocean trade between Europe and Asia. It has nothing to do with proving that the earth is a sphere. See wiki article for background.

 

[slingblade]

I wonder if Justin has ever read this, and carefully:

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

 

[Mister Agenda]

From Wikipedia:

To me, agnosticism is more valid that atheism. Agnosticism does not make war with the theists as do the nonreligious.

As a Scientologist, I think much like the atheistic Buddhists except that I have a slight belief in spirits of all sizes - except those powerful enough to dictate my life. Scientologists are tolerant of all other religions.

I know, I know, but anyway: Agnosticism is a knowledge postion, theism and atheism are belief positions. 'I don't know' is a nonsensical answer to the question 'Do you believe in God?' Agnosticism answers a different question: Do you know there's a God?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Proof follows belief.

Not for rational skeptics: Belief follows evidence, provisionally.

For example, people had the belief that the world was a sphere before it was proven.

People had evidence that the earth was spherical and they believed the evidence. It wasn't that some people thought the earth was sphere-like based on just speculation.

It took hundreds of years to prove the world was a sphere. Sailors made a profit from their belief that the world was a sphere long before the fact was proven.

It took a long time to overcome the superficial belief that the earth is flat.

There are many beliefs and theories in religion.

That's what happens when you can just make stuff up and be taken seriously.

An atheist knows that nothing else exists.

In this context, 'know' is a pretty strong word that most atheists don't claim.

I am very skeptical of the belief that nothing exists beyond what some worldly people can see with their own eyes.

I know things exist beyond what I can see with my eyes. That's what instruments are for. But taking you less literally, I believe more exists than what we know so far. I just don't believe anyone knows what that actually is before it's discovered. At best, someone might be right coincidentally.

You have that right. However, people have good reason to be highly skeptical of your belief or absence of belief - whatever you call it.

I'm very interested in hearing good reasons for that.

 

[Mister Agenda]

A lot of truth comes from folklore. Many drugs were developed from ancient remedies (aspirin for example)

Many ancient remedies were retained because they were effective, based on evidence. They were discovered through science, albeit primitive, informal science; that is, through observation and experimentation.

 

[Shalamar]

What do atheists do for Christmas?

The same as a lot of people. exchange gifts, and hang out with family.

What are your mores?

What is your profession?

I'm a field Tech.

What is your charity?

I provide my appearance in a costume in exchange for money being given to one of a number of charities, all children related.

How do you vote?

I am a resident alien in the USA. Thus, I do not vote.

I assume all the answers are different. No implication. Just trying to get a feel for who you are.

We're people. like everyone else.

 

[Craig4]

Agnosticism does not make war with the theists.

Neither does atheism.

Many atheists and some agnostics want religious people to quit sticking their noses into other people's business, to quit trying to using government and culture to influence or control how we live our lives, and to leave us alone.

Some atheists and some agnostics want to see an end to religious beliefs and other superstitious beliefs.

Scientology is nothing like buddhism - scientology is among the vilest of religions/con-games and buddhism is among the most innocuous religions/philosophies.

I would add that many of us want to see an end to the intrusion of super natural beliefs into the realm of public policy, public education and science. These are areas where evidence based reasoning should have an exclusive domain, free of the irrational.

 

[catsmate]

So? Other people may be enlightened.

Exactly. Probably the only reason to participate in this thread.

 

[ynot]

So? Other people may be enlightened.

Exactly. Probably the only reason to participate in this thread.

I agree, but . . .

You do realise that s/he didn't ask the question and s/he isn't genuine in wanting to know the answer?

Was a specific response to . . .

Whilst I may have been having a go at Justinian2 on another thread, I think that if s/he is asking a genuine question then we should be courteous and give genuine replies.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Space satellites and pictures from outer space ended the debate, not that there was much reason to argue after Ferdinand Magellan's voyage.

Eratosthenes blah, blah. It's already been said.

Why would anyone spend time on an investigation unless they were trying to prove a belief?

As a fan of Las Vegas, have you ever watched an episode of CSI? Sometimes people want to learn the truth rather than try to validate their assumptions.

There is a lot of truth in the Bible. It is being proved to contain valid history.

Yes, there's a lot of history in the bible. And a lot of fantasy, myth, legend and propaganda. The fact that it often refers to real historical places or events does not mean the magical bits are actually true.

We know the allegories are multifaceted and valuable.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

A lot of truth comes from folklore. Many drugs were developed from ancient remedies (aspirin for example)

You might put it the other way and say a lot of folklore comes from truth. Willow was used for medicine because it worked. Unfortunately a lot of folklore comes from nonsense too. Picking out the good bits is the real trick.

 

[Pup]

Why would anyone spend time on an investigation unless they were trying to prove a belief?

You're missing the key point of the scientific method. If the belief is proven wrong, or no increasing evidence appears to support it, it has to be abandoned.

This is the part that religious people leave out, when comparing their beliefs to legitimate hypotheses that are tested to be accurate or not.

A lot of truth comes from folklore. Many drugs were developed from ancient remedies (aspirin for example)

A lot of harm comes from folklore too. You don't see doctors today forcing patients to vomit to bring their bile humour back in balance.

 

[Justinian2]

What debate?

From wikipedia:


The circumference of the globe was calculated with reasonable accuracy before 190BC, 1700 years before Magellan. He was not trying to prove that the world was round, but that a particular route existed, though the voyage helped confirm directly rather than by inference that the world was round.

Thanks for that quote. During my childhood in the dark ages, the emphasis was more on direct confirmation that the world was round.


From Wikipedia:

The Flat Earth model is a belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk. Most ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century[citation needed]. It was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies.[1]

The paradigm of a spherical Earth was developed in Greek astronomy, beginning with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most Pre-Socratics retained the flat Earth model. Aristotle accepted the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds around 330 BC, and knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on.[2][3][4][5]

The misconception that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief, has been referred to as "The Myth of the Flat Earth".[6] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[7]

That someone was brighter than the rest of the earth is not a new idea. China may have believed the world was flat until the 17th century. Bright people always are the first to believe something with inductive reasoning. Then they teach the rest of the world.

 

[Justinian2]

You're missing the key point of the scientific method. If the belief is proven wrong, or no increasing evidence appears to support it, it has to be abandoned.

This is the part that religious people leave out, when comparing their beliefs to legitimate hypotheses that are tested to be accurate or not.



A lot of harm comes from folklore too. You don't see doctors today forcing patients to vomit to bring their bile humour back in balance.

The bright and educated are always the first to believe because they have faith in inductive reasoning. Everyone believes, if you show them a picture or a video on Utube (but with the ability today to edit movies and pictures, that is changing)