I still don't see from this why it's repugnant. Why should science legislate and organize society? That's just the same as god doing that — EugeneW

Repugnant is a strong term. I perhaps should have used ‘limited’ with respect to post-religious perspectives. My point is that when someone newly embraces a religious idea or faith, it is because they see it as an improvement over their previous stance on the world. It clarifies, unifies and harmonizes aspects of their engagement with others and with themselves. So it’s not something you want to take away from someone without replacing it with a faith or thinking that incorporates all that is advantageous and clarifying about it relative to what it superseded for them. Form my vantage, post-religious thinking keeps what is precious and valuable about belief in god, what about it clarifies our moral dealings with others, and enriches it by transcending it’s limitations. So, for instance , the co cost of omnipotence is ‘repugnant’ for me because it is a form of nostalgia. It is backward looking. To strive to connect with moral
perfection is to look behind one at some perfect Cause and perfect beginning. It presupposes a separation between mortals and the perfect God, between creator and created. postmodern post-religious views, in contrast, are future and creativity oriented. We are brought intimately in touch with the sources of moral good, because they are right in front of us as our being with others in time.

Most people in the world believe God exists. But like God once ruled the day, so is science nowadays. It's what you are obliged to learn at school and Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, etc. try to get rid of that idea altogether. I don't think science will replace it, but the powers that rule have abandoned it. Well, of course there are political parties and partisan vwith religious flavors, but that's all it is. A flavor. The world and is managed on the basis of science. But what's so important about it that gives it that right?

Most people in the world believe God exists. But like God once ruled the day, so is science nowadays. It's what you are obliged to learn at school and Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, etc. try to get rid of that idea altogether. I don't think science will replace it, but the powers that rule have abandoned it. Well, of course there are political parties and partisan vwith religious flavors, but that's all it is. A flavor. The world and is managed on the basis of science. But what's so important about it that gives it that right? — EugeneW

This is certainly true for many people today, but the historical development of worship of science ( called scientism) replacing worship of god is already an old trope, having been thoroughly analyzed and critiqued by Nietzsche in the 19th century, and in the 20th by Heidegger , Foucault and others. Science as it is treated by Dennett, Dawkins and Harris is. it an alternative to faith , but merely another incarnation of it.
They present an atheism that rejects science worship. There are also those within science studies itself that take this view ( Joseph Rouse, Dan Zahavi).

You claimed that science replaced God, and now say that is not the case. If it’s not the case then what’s the problem?

post-religious views, in contrast, are future and creativity oriented. We are brought intimately in touch with the sources of moral good, because they are right in front of us as our being with others in time. — Joshs

That sounds good. I agree. I don't think God is the source of moral. I don't care for nature or fellow men because God created them. That doesn't mean though that I don't think they created them. I can't see no other source from where it came. Laws of nature just don't have the intelligence to create themselves. Nor does the basic stuff in nature.

Science replaced the role that God once played. In politics. God plays a minor role, though most people believe in God.

“…no matter how much the thoughts off the top of our heads won’t shut up.”

it does not matter how much individual humans are comforted by the idea of a supernatural superhero, who cares about them and will offer them life after death if they do this or that, if it turns out that it's complete bullshit. — universeness

What matters is that the person who discovers it is bullshit is disappointed and mourns the loss of this faith.
If so, then they have not completely extricated themselves from religious faith. Existentialists like Sartre and Schopenhauer belong within this category of mourning. One needs to understand Nietzsche’s critique of Schopenhauerian pessimism, why he celebrates a godless world , rather that simply arguing that God is not empirically verifiable. One needs to understand why for Nietzsche the ways of thinking that ground empirical proof are themselves a remnant of religious faith.

People are always attracted to what makes them feel good but do you not agree that truth is more important than what makes you feel good? — universeness

This what I believe:

“It is no more than a moral prejudice that the truth is worth more than appearance; in fact, it is the world's most poorly proven assumption. Let us admit this much: that life could not exist except on the basis of perspectival valuations and appearances; and if, with the virtuous enthusiasm and inanity of many philosophers, someone wanted to completely abolish the “world of appearances,” – well, assuming you could do that, – at least there would not be any of your “truth” left either! Actually, why do we even assume that “true” and “false” are intrinsically opposed?”

Why shouldn't the world that is relevant to us – be a fiction? And if someone asks: “But doesn't fiction belong with an author?” – couldn't we shoot back: “Why? Doesn't this ‘belonging' belong, perhaps, to fiction as well? Aren't we allowed to be a bit ironic with the subject, as we are with the predicate and object? Shouldn't philosophers rise above the belief in grammar?”(Nietzsche, Will to Power )

They present an atheism that rejects science worship. — Joshs

Worship is maybe too big a word. But science has to be learned obligatory at schools. From young age our children are trained in analytical problem solving of which abstract math problems are the ultimate example, like is our appreciation for IQ. The higher IQ, the more intelligent one is. But that's a value, an opinion only.

That's funny. "A dizzying intellect."

When did you start believing in God? I used to ask my mum where God was, looking outside the airplane window. I learned science, shouted against God, and now I see there is nothing but to see they exist.

Science replaced the role that God once played. — EugeneW

Now you’re back to claiming that science replaced God. Okay, whatever. Again, I’m rather surprised to hear from a believer that God plays such a minor role as to be replaced by some scientific discoveries.

One can be a singing and writing painting counselor, visiting college in between running around from girl to girl, teach in the evenings, and build body in the weekends. While experiencing God.

The existence of god cannot yet be disproved but what's wrong with looking at it the other way. If it exists then it needs to manifest in every town square of the world. If it can't even do that then I am not impressed and I certainly have no fear of it.

Only a fool would claim to have no fear of how you will die, especially when existence seems so imperative to us but this fear comes from a lack of knowledge.
I do not fear oblivion as the term suggests no awareness and therefore is the same state as before birth.
I fear the way I will die and I mourn the fact that I will no longer exist by way of entropy rather than my will, but it also excites me as all trips into the unknown do, even though I believe it to be a very short trip to oblivion.
As I have said before, science may be able to aid future humans with this death problem.
We might be the first intelligent species anywhere in the Universe. Someone has to be first.
If we don't go extinct then it seems to me that we will obviously move off this planet and towards the vastness of space.
8 billion humans could each have a thousand planets and that would be nothing. A cosmic splash.
A million years from now, each human family might live on their own separate Mclass planet, who knows.
See, I can do storytelling as well and what I suggest is no less valid than your god fable.

All the life after death scenarios offered by religions are so obviously creations of the human imagination. The paradisical versus the hellish. To me, they are obviously false and mere manifestations of the human ID as described by Freud, so I am not afraid of their threat.

maybe you guys are such reactionaries to the notion because you are afraid. — theRiddler

What would I have to do to convince you that I am not afraid of any god story or the threat of oblivion?
How can anyone prove such to anyone other than how they ultimately face their own death?

I offer my life as a sacrifice to destruction and eternal suffering, if your god will manifest to all humans or at least to all scientists and submit itself to scientific scrutiny.

After enough suffering, I will be a 'creature' anyway, perhaps a Gollum type character from Lord of the Rings. "Fascinating" as Spock would say, do you think I will scream for eternity or do you think I might get used to it and perhaps even come to enjoy it. After long enough, I would have no memory of pleasure after say a thousand years or more of suffering in hell (or listening to bands like Take That on eternal repeat) so no comparator so would I still even recognise that I was suffering? Again fascinating! But the hell story is as bullshit as the heaven story.

I hope I have made myself clear that I fear only the 'loss of my current existence and how it will happen,' I do not fear oblivion(non-awareness) or the threat of being judged by a non-existent supernatural F***wit and the threat of suffering forever in hell.

It's what I said every time. I'm not sure what you're surprised about. That God doesn't play a role in scientific discoveries?

I hope I have made myself clear that I fear only the 'loss of my current existence and how it will happen,' I do not fear oblivion(non-awareness) or the threat of being judged by a non-existent supernatural F***wit and the threat of suffering forever in hell. — universeness

Not every religion threatens with hell.

God is merely of the gaps in our knowledge. — universeness

What if all gaps are closed? Why should God be about gaps. I might know everything to the fundamental level. And where does that fundament come from? It hasn't the intelligence to create itself. No physical theory is self-explanatory.

One can be a singing and writing painting counselor, visiting college in between running around from girl to girl, teach in the evenings, and build body in the weekends. While experiencing God. — EugeneW

I'm sure that's true, but I wonder if you can experience God while bragging about how wonderful you are and gloating about how much better you are than other people.

Belief in God needn't predicate the existence of an afterlife either.

But anyway, there's nothing wrong with everyone exploring completely diverse arenas of belief, so long as they aren't a hindrance to human dignity.

For me, God is synonymous with the simple idea that there may be vastly higher orders of intelligence. I wouldn't expect It to reveal itself everywhere or subjugate people to its power, either. Nor to erase pain and suffering from existence.

I'm sure that's true, but I wonder if you can experience God while bragging about how wonderful you are and gloating about how much better you are than other people — T Clark

I wonder too, but as the saying goes, God moves...

Perhaps I should try to rephrase. Let’s say we have God’s role in one hand, and in the other hand we have the scientific method and its results (earth is a sphere that revolves around the sun, evolution, etc.). The role that science plays is useful, needless to say, and the roll that religion plays is also useful, however they are not useful in the same way, right? Do you agree?

For me, God is synonymous with the simple idea that there may be vastly higher orders of intelligence. I wouldn't expect It to reveal itself everywhere or subjugate people to its power, either. Nor to erase pain and suffering from existence. — theRiddler

That's nice, though I don't see what God has got to do with intelligence. Maybe they know nothing in the way we do, have no power at all like we do, and are they mean in our metrics (just because they created the universe).

What matters is that the person who discovers it is bullshit is disappointed and mourns the loss of this faith. — Joshs

Your words after that got too 'esoteric' for me. I am a complete novice at philosophy rhetoric but I will offer the following on the above quote.

Well, that would be a matter for them to struggle with. I would experience no such nostalgia. I would celebrate and continue in my excitement towards the questions that remain unanswered. If all the questions get answered then and only then might it become valid to talk about the Omni's.
If all lifeforms at that moment can intercommunicate and affect every part of known space then we might envisage the birth of a self-aware universe, a pan or cosmo psychism. If at that time you wish to label such 'God' then fine. The idea that god will eventually be all of us or all lifeforms united then ok. I will subscribe to that. This would be a natural god not a supernatural one and it would not be ineffable and would be in full view of everyone. But I don't think all the questions will ever be answered, which is good news for us as we would still have a purpose.
If our Universe does become self-aware then what would it do? Create a copy of itself from scratch? repeat the process all over again? until we have a multiverse of gods? has this all already happened?
Are we all components of an emerging god?
Sounds like fun to me!
Let's get started on technologies that will mean we can survive off-planet!
Time is a wastin! This god needs birthing before the big rip!

The role that science plays is useful, needless to say, and the roll that religion plays is also useful, however they are not useful in the same way, right? Do you agree? — praxis

Yes. Science can't explain that the universe and all in it is there. It only says how stuff inside it behaves without knowing its nature or its origin. You can close all gaps, but that doesn't explain that of which you close the gap.

Not every religion threatens with hell — EugeneW

So? Even more reason to not be afraid!

What if all gaps are closed? — EugeneW

If we answer all questions and fill all gaps then feel free to declare all of those involved as components of a label you want to call God. Fred would be just as acceptable. I will believe in Fred because I will then be a component of Fred.

That's nice, though I don't see what God has got to do with intelligence. Maybe they know nothing in the way we do, have no power at all like we do, and are they mean in our metrics (just because they created the universe).

Omniscience would be fairly intelligent. Though I think it would be picking straws if it even just had something along the lines of super intelligence.

But I think the universe at large is this superintelligence, that everything is one, and, truly, nothing is completely subjective.

So? Even more reason to not be afraid! — universeness

Afraid of what?

Fred would be just as acceptable. — universeness

Haha! Why not? I'm gonna call them Stephen. If we know everything, will we all be Stephen?

But I think the universe at large is this superintelligence, that everything is one, and, truly, nothing is completely subjective. — theRiddler

Do you see the universe as a superbeing of which we are tiny parts?

The role that science plays is useful, needless to say, and the roll that religion plays is also useful, however they are not useful in the same way, right? Do you agree?
— praxis

Yes. Science can't explain that the universe and all in it is there. It only says how stuff inside it behaves without knowing its nature or its origin. You can close all gaps, but that doesn't explain that of which you close the gap. — EugeneW

You say yes but then go on as though they play the same role, the role of explaining the universe. Do you believe that God’s only role and only power is explanatory?