Why didn't humans stop at atheism (I'm assuming you mean why didn't [all] humans stop at being atheists)? — Mayor of Simpleton

Or, I could be asking why [most] humans are yet to forget theism.

And what is this scientific conception of reality?

As it is now, scientists are dazed and confused, and sound like theologians!! — Pussycat

The same scientists that built the computers upon which you type.

The same scientists that conceived modern medicine, modern transportation, etc.

Everything that God creates is the best and of finest quality. His omnipotence in intellect and preference are invariably undeniable. No such thing as something imperfect from him or his dues. — Emmanuele

Are you saying an infinite being has some "best" measure of performance?

Is this universe's creation the end of God's supposedly unending power?

Well I read it but it sounds like another atheist pipe dream attempt to explain fine-tuning:

Black holes typically have a mass of a few solar masses on average. Our universe is utterly huge. If universes are caused by black holes, we should expect small universes of a few solar masses rather than utterly huge universes like ours. So the theory runs contrary to the physical evidence. — Devans99

You may want to spend more than 4 minutes to go over the data I presented to you. The difference between religious data and scientific knowledge, is that unlike religious texts, scientific data builds modern medicine, the computers you use etc. You can take a few more months to go over the data.

No I am not. I am not saying the universe is definitely fine-tuned for live; I'm saying it appears fine-tuned for life and any scientific explanation of the universe needs to explain the apparent fine tuning. That's exactly what the atheist cosmologists have done; they created the multiple universe theories to explain the fine-tuning. I'm merely pointing out instead of jumping through infinite mathematical loops of multiple universes there is a much simpler explanation. — Devans99

See Cosmological Natural Selection for example, which is a scientific theory that explains fine tuning. it's basically much like biological natural selection. There were reasonably a large number of universes, each "successful" or occurring universe would reasonably contain black holes.

Except for the blind faith in science itself. — Jake

Science was used to built your computers.



There are no scientific equations in bible that can help anyone to do anything sensible.

They all support life or they don't. — Devans99

Could you explain what you mean here? As well as provide citations for your claim?

The chances that a universe, picked at random, would be life supporting are very slim. So many things about our universe are 'just right' that it requires an explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe — Devans99

Unlikely doesn't mean impossible.

You may want to check out Appeal to improbability fallacy, which you are committing to in your response above.

You're right: authority is neither required nor relevant. Justification is a different matter. To discard a theory or idea requires exactly as much justification as accepting it. No more, no less. ... If you're working with logic and reason, that is.... :chin: — Pattern-chaser

The absence of a crew member, that is, not being present at a bank robbery, does indeed require the crew member to do some reasoning. It still doesn't mean the crew member was present at the bank rubbery if indeed he wasn't there. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I think the analogy above nicely matches your grossly invalid logic.

You're making a positive claim, you just don't realize that you are. — Jake

In other words, the absence of a person in a bank robbery, means that the person was actually at the bank robbery?

I think the analogy above closely matches your logic, and I hope you see how silly that logic is.

Disagree. Here are some dictionary definitions of 'atheist':

"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist)

"1. someone who does not believe in any God or gods
2. someone who believes that God does not exist"
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheist)

"1. (n British) a person who does not believe in God or gods
2. (in American) a person who believes that there is no God"
(SYNONYMY NOTE: an atheist rejects all religious belief and denies the existence of God)
(https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/atheist)

"Atheism: 1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. "
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)

'Atheism' certainly does not mean 'without belief'. A lot of people seem to think it means either that or 'without god', and cite the Greek roots of the word ('a-' meaning 'without', 'theism' from 'theos' meaning 'god'); but to believe that a word's current meaning is determined by its origins is to commit the etymological fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy).

As the above examples from dictionaries make clear, the current meaning of 'I am an atheist' is ambiguous between 'I do not believe there is a God' (agnostic) and 'I believe there is no God' (anti-theist). — Herg

• Ironically, the dictionaries correctly identify that atheism tends to mean lack of belief in the existence of Gods.
  
  • Your dictionaries show that primary definitions, or the no. 1 meaning tends to concern a lack of belief.
    
  • The secondary or no. 2 meaning tends to be a positive claim or belief that Gods don't exist.
• Wikipedia/atheism underlines this clearly as well: "Atheism broadly means lack of belief in Gods, more narrowly, atheism means belief that no gods exist".
  
• It is very strange that your dictionary definitions clearly show that atheism concerns lack of belief in Gods, and you claim otherwise. The evidence you gathered clearly shows that atheism is broadly, lack of belief.
  
• See Wikipedia/false dilemma. You fallaciously propose that since atheism may be known as a positive belief that God's exist, it is therefore false that atheism may also concern lack of belief. That's a false dilemma.

Atheism is a positive claim that human reason is qualified to analyze questions the scale of god proposals, just as theism is typically a positive claim that some holy book is so qualified. Each party is referencing their preferred chosen authority, neither of which can be proven qualified for the task at hand. — Jake

Wikipedia/atheism states atheism to broadly mean lack of belief in Gods.

One doesn't require authority to lack belief in something, although one would perhaps require evidence to otherwise make positive claims. The broad definition of atheism is not a positive claim.

• Of course, you can define atheism to your personal liking, but that does not change the facts. Facts don't care about your feelings.

Who cares what Wikipedia says? Why should Wikipedia volunteers be expected to have any deeper understanding of atheism than the average man on the street?

Most people, including almost everybody on philosophy forums, blindly chant the memorized definition "atheism equals lack of belief in God" without bothering to ask where that lack of belief comes from, what is it built upon, what is it's source?

Atheism is no more merely a "lack of belief" in gods than theism is merely a "lack of belief" in Christopher Hitchens. — Jake

Wikipedia/atheism then goes on to say that in a very narrow sense, atheism means a positive claim that no Gods exist.

It is quite clear that atheism has a broad meaning, and a narrow meaning. The OP concerns the broadest meaning.

I don't actually see that quote on the astrology page. — Terrapin Station

See it in the 4th sentence of this section, on the same page.

My wife has just been diagnosed with cancer. You will forgive me if I say that you are talking through your rear end. — Herg

My likely atheistic friend, that's the typical religious selfishness.

399 of 400 people die in a plane crash.

..but Lisa the Christian, is glad that God saved her husband, while killing the others. [Bible says God creates all good and all evil, Isaiah 45:7]

You said that in the other thread, too, but I've not run into much of a connection between religion and astrology. I'm not sure what you're referring to there. — Terrapin Station

Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy may help.

Note that Wikipedia/astrology states that astrology may be seen as a “Greek system of planetary Gods”, see also Wikipedia/planets in astrology, which concerns deities. It becomes quite clear here that Modern science having dropped astrology, disregards deities, where Modern Science need not make any positive claims about the in-existence of deities, although Modern Science clearly rejects belief in deities i.e. Modern Science is inherently atheistic.

The link: Waymo One self-driving taxi service launches in Phoenix

How do you know that this isnt the best god could do? If god wants a universe with free will, or any other preferential parameters, why cant this be the best result based in those parameters? — DingoJones

Are you saying this universe represents the end of God's supposedly unending range of preferences?

Let me try to warn you from now, any noun you aim to supply, be it love, preference etc, can probably receive the same treatment. Good luck.

Who is actually saying that this universe is special? — lupac

As an example:

Luke 12:7 ESV
"Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows"

...and thousands of other bible verses about great specialness. Of course, this is not limited to Christianity.

This may be a personal question, but you can chose to not grant me a response. What is your view on fornication, and how do you resist "temptation" in the absence of marriage?

Most clerics don’t view Christianity as involving astrology. — Noah Te Stroete

Fact remains, astrology still concerns deity stuff. As we can see, it's no longer a part of modern science. When you strip away the silliness from archaic science or religion, you get modern science.

Care to justify this with an actual argument? I’m open to one — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, although what follows is not much of an argument, but rather a reporting of facts.

The point is that obviously, mankind had not always had modern science; notably, 'archaic science/religion' was replaced by modern science in the scientific revolution, and thereafter, 'archaic science/religion' no longer applies.

• (See an example of 'astrology/archaic science/religion' being removed from 'modern science/astronomy', in Wikipedia/Astrology and astronomy )
• Notably, astrology concerned deities and other religious baggage, and astrology is now regarded as pseudoscience, having been replaced by astronomy back then.

If so, what are these extra religious things that these atheists would keep?

No. As I mentioned earlier, the myths and parables have morals or lessons that also have value. — Noah Te Stroete

Are you saying highly atheistic countries keep religious things with them, beyond loving thy neighbor, and the other nice ways to treat each other, or the other things currently maintained by law and order?

Do unto others as you would have done unto you (by others). — Noah Te Stroete

Are you saying that stripping away everything from religious texts, except love your neighbor, don't kill, etc is a great way to proceed in humane ways? ( ͡Ϙ ͜ʖ ͡o)

Because that my theistic friends, is how you get modern science and modern civilization.

Their Christian remnants wouldn’t involve the Law of the Torah. — Noah Te Stroete

What remnants are you talking about btw?

They have remnants from their religious pasts. — Noah Te Stroete

Any data there?

And I hope you're not referring to Bibles when it comes to behaviour lessons, because murder, rape, slavery etc are all endorsed/condoned by bibles.

• Rape a woman? No problem in the bible, just marry them as "punishment".
  
• Commit adultery, go ahead and get put to death according to the bible.
  
  ....

I’m saying they probably borrow from religion’s normative teachings, e.g. the Golden Rule or Buddha’s moderation, without being theists or religious. — Noah Te Stroete

I'm referring to highly atheistic, non-religious countries, with no Buddhism etc. How is it possible for them to know how to behave? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hint: Religion is not required.

Your claim about religion is wrong. Religion should be thought of as dealing with the normative, i.e. what people ought to do or how they should behave. It should not be thought of as an explanatory framework for the cosmos. That is fundamentalism. Science does the job with that. Science, however, can say nothing about what we ought to do (the normative). — Noah Te Stroete

Are you saying highly atheistic countries, who happen to tend to be the happiest, wealthiest, least violent etc, can't deal with how people should behave? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I'm not seeing where the data indicates that religion is necessary for the properties you describe. Please enlighten me, or at least try?

Summary of the OP, in the form of a meme I made:



Please share your thoughts.

I thought I had it all figured out, too, when I was an atheist for twenty years. I learned a little humility. Now I am open to different world views without thinking that I must always be right. — Noah Te Stroete

• Science by definition, is about minimizing errors, in how we describe the cosmos, i.e. Science is evolving. Science seeks to find the conclusion, while observing facts. Atheists tend to think in this manner.
  
• Religion on the other hand, is quite literally stuck in archaic ways of describing the cosmos, and already presumes to know the answer, without any shred of scientific evidence.Religion tends to want to find facts to fit their already presumably correct conclusion.

Which group above seems to think they're literally always right? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Didn’t you learn the world’s religions in your high school World History class? I know I did at my public high school. It enriched my education rather than being a detriment to it. I doubt the Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia had such a class. — Noah Te Stroete

I did learn them. In fact, atheists tend to know more about religious texts, than theists.

Well, sure, if that's how you want to define "atheistic scientists" and "non-atheistic scientists." This the layout of your argument:

1. If a scientist objectively analyzes truth values, then they are an atheistic scientist.
2. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while analyzing truth values, then they are a non-atheistic scientist.
3. Religion has truth values.
4. Therefore, if a scientist objectively analyzes religion, then they are an atheistic scientist.
5. And therefore, if a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while analyzing religion, then they are a non-atheist scientist.

Your argument, while valid, it is not sound, because it conflates many definitions that are otherwise by and large agreed upon in philosophy. I'd like to offer these alternative definitions:

scientist-- a person who objectively analyzes truth values of concepts within the scientific realm.
scientific realm-- the plane of existence that includes everything that operates within the known laws of nature; the natural world.
atheistic scientist-- a scientist who concludes that there is no convincing philosophy for believing in the existence of anything outside of the natural world; denies the existence of the supernatural.
non-atheistic scientist-- a person who objectively analyzes truth values of concepts within the scientific realm, and also believes that a convincing philosophy exists that posits the possible existence of the extra-natural (supernatural).

Using these definitions, your first and second premises fail. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor in their search for truth within the natural world, then they are no scientist at all. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while establishing a personal philosophy regarding the extra-natural (including whether or not it exists), then they are simply someone who is aware of accurate definitions in philosophy.

Your argument begs the question, looking at the disagreement between religious and non-religious scientists and calling religious scientists wrong because you believe the extra-natural doesn't exist. Religious scientists are not those who ignore or "turn off" science, but rather are simply scientists who also hold the belief that someone exists outside of the science that they so diligently study. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but are actually two separate studies. Those who conflate the two, on either side, are uninformed about the definitions of their own viewpoints. — adhomienem

1. Side note: I am an atheist as Wikipedia/atheism describes in the broadest meaning, such that I lack belief in the existence of deities, i.e. I don't make any positive claims. Also, Science concerns the natural. To aim to practice otherwise is thus far demonstrably futile, as such "supernatural" aims contrast the pillars of modern Science, that has long dropped deity related models.

1.b. Note how "astrology/archaic science" was dropped from "astronomy/modern science". Note also that astrology concerns deities and other religious endeavour, and note how it is currently regarded as not science, but pseudoscience instead.(See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy )

2.a. Secondly, my argument is not as trivial as you garner; one can quite simply turn on scientific endeavour while doing scientific experiments, while turning it off while doing other activities, including analyzing religion. For example, a quite bright medical Doctor may engage in smoking tobacco, somewhat turning of Scientific endeavour, while otherwise turning it on in several other activities.

2.b Simply put, we can roughly apply degrees of scrutiny; it's not merely scrutiny off all the time, or scrutiny on all the time, which your long albeit reasonably invalid expression above commits.

Your argument aims to service a false dilemma.

Well, sure, if that's how you want to define "atheistic scientists" and "non-atheistic scientists." This the layout of your argument:

1. If a scientist objectively analyzes truth values, then they are an atheistic scientist.
2. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while analyzing truth values, then they are a non-atheistic scientist.
3. Religion has truth values.
4. Therefore, if a scientist objectively analyzes religion, then they are an atheistic scientist.
5. And therefore, if a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while analyzing religion, then they are a non-atheist scientist.

Your argument, while valid, it is not sound, because it conflates many definitions that are otherwise by and large agreed upon in philosophy. I'd like to offer these alternative definitions:

scientist-- a person who objectively analyzes truth values of concepts within the scientific realm.
scientific realm-- the plane of existence that includes everything that operates within the known laws of nature; the natural world.
atheistic scientist-- a scientist who concludes that there is no convincing philosophy for believing in the existence of anything outside of the natural world; denies the existence of the supernatural.
non-atheistic scientist-- a person who objectively analyzes truth values of concepts within the scientific realm, and also believes that a convincing philosophy exists that posits the possible existence of the extra-natural (supernatural).

Using these definitions, your first and second premises fail. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor in their search for truth within the natural world, then they are no scientist at all. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while establishing a personal philosophy regarding the extra-natural (including whether or not it exists), then they are simply someone who is aware of accurate definitions in philosophy.

Your argument begs the question, looking at the disagreement between religious and non-religious scientists and calling religious scientists wrong because you believe the extra-natural doesn't exist. Religious scientists are not those who ignore or "turn off" science, but rather are simply scientists who also hold the belief that someone exists outside of the science that they so diligently study. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but are actually two separate studies. Those who conflate the two, on either side, are uninformed about the definitions of their own viewpoints. — adhomienem

1. Side note: I am an atheist as Wikipedia describes in the broadest meaning, such that I lack belief in the existence of deities, i.e. I don't make any positive claims. Also, Science concerns the natural. To aim to practice otherwise is thus far demonstrably futile, as such "supernatural" aims contrast the pillars of modern Science, that has long dropped deity related models.

1.b. Note how astrology/archaic science was dropped from astronomy/modern science. Note also that astrology concerns deities and other religious endeavour, and note how it is currently regarded as not science, but pseudoscience instead.(See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy)

2.a. It's not as trivial as you garner; one can quite simply turn on scientific endeavour while doing Science, while turning it off while doing other activities, including analyzing religion. For example, a quite bright medical Doctor may engage in smoking tobacco, somewhat turning of Scientific endeavour, while otherwise turning it on in several other activities.

2.b Simply put, we can roughly apply degrees of scrutiny; it's not merely scrutiny off all the time, or scrutiny on all the time, which your long albeit reasonably invalid expression above commits.

Your argument aims to service a false dilemma.

The UN Happiness Report and World Happiness Index indicate this trend, the least religious countries tendung to be the happiest. Correlation doesnt mean causation though, so a grain of swlt might be best. — DingoJones

• Saying that Correlation doesn't mean causation doesn't end the story.
  
• As it says on Wikipedia/Correlation does not imply causation, one can extrapolate causality from trends.
  
• And the trend is indicating that religious presence tends to contrast happiness, wealth and prosperity.
  
• I bet the world trade center terrorists quickly correlated their religion, with the cause of their destructive actions.

Simply put, you likely won't hear a person condemning a nation, and threatening to destroy said other nation in the name of nothing.. aka in the name of absence of belief.

You'd probably have some difficulty building a computer with a marine biology textbook, too. — Terrapin Station

Why limit yourself to just one science book or document?

Most religions don’t advocate violence. At least not the ones I’ve studied. The dolts who pick out verses from religious texts out of context to justify violent behavior are the problem. Religions’ true purpose if it was understood by the unthinking souls is to shape your life into a more meaningful one. I believe religious studies aren’t sufficient, however necessary, but science and philosophy studies are necessary as well. I’m not denying the value of science. (I have a Bachelor of Science degree.) However, a well rounded education is necessary if one wishes to one day become wise as I hope to. — Noah Te Stroete

Data shows that religion does not provide any sensible well roundness.

The Christian wasn’t violent. Furthermore, my claim was that knowledge of science is necessary but not sufficient for a good life. — Noah Te Stroete

I wasn't referring to the Christian.
The tribe likely has a religion as well.
The tribe, absent modern science, and probably absent atheism is rather violent.
Also how do you explain highly atheistic countries tending to be the happiest?
How do you explain why american prisons are mostly filled with theists?

I fail to see how that bolsters your argument and falsifies what I said. — Noah Te Stroete

Care to answer the prior question?

Religions’ true purpose if it was understood by the unthinking souls is to shape your life into a more meaningful one. — Noah Te Stroete

Does shooting a visitor of a foreign land, classify as a more "meaningful" life? Unfortunately, this is what happened to the Christian visitor recently, when he attempted to contact a modern science-less/technology-less tribe.