Is atheism a threat to humanity?

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

No, I am saying that all words can't be understood only objectively. That is where it ends.
All experiences can't be reduced down to only eternal sensations of that which comes from the outside to the brain. I.e. science has a limit. You can't understand everything by just seeing it and making models of observations and instrument measurements. That is what I am saying. And you can't see this. You can understand it as I or understand it differently, but both cases are subjective and not science.

Firstly, not sure why you keep droppin' asides. These are claims I've not made, so I don't really feel a need to defend them.

But just for fun;

How do you define 'science'? You seem to be defining it as our current understanding and accepted methods.

But that's not really what science means. Science is all of our knowledge and the reliable ways of getting to it, testing it, and verifying it. It's a living thing that expands and changes as we learn.

With this in mind saying something is outside science is saying something is unknowable, for now and always. It is very hard to predict what we might discover tommorow.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

With this in mind saying something is outside science is saying something is unknowable, for now and always. It is very hard to predict what we might discover tommorow.

No, you are doing a naive version of empiricism.

Take this claim: The dog is black. That can be observed.

Now take this: The universe is natural. And I answer: No!
You know that I have answered "No!", but you don't know it through observation, you know it through understanding in your brain using thinking.

The robust version of empiricism is this one:
In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes primarily from sensory experience.
The naive one is:
In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only from sensory experience.

The joke is that: "In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only from sensory experience." doesn't itself come from sensory experience. It comes as a rule from some brains. You then test that and find that the other one is better.
In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes primarily from sensory experience.

Now it is your turn.

Regards
Mikkel

PS Depending on how you answer, we can look closer at knowledge.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"At best, only one of them is what it claims to be (ie: coming from gods and/or accurate descriptions of gods/the supernatural). All others then must be human inventions."

What are you missing here?
You are missing that in order for your argument to work, gods can't be contradictory. So how do you know that? How do you know anything about gods as gods if that is unknowable? Or can you prove that gods don't exist?

Answer that please.

Because different religions are compatible.

If islam is correct, then there is only one god.
That makes all polytheistic religions false, right out the gates.

So those religions couldn't have come from those gods, since those gods can't exist if islam is correct.
If those polytheistic gods didn't teach / communicate / whatever humans the polytheistic religions, that must mean that humans themselves invented them.

In short, religions tend to be mutually exclusive like that.
For one to be right, the others must be wrong.

They can't all be right. But they can all be wrong.
And considering how they all make the same kind of faith based claims, it's quite likely that they are are all wrong...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because different religions are compatible.

If islam is correct, then there is only one god.
That makes all polytheistic religions false, right out the gates.

So those religions couldn't have come from those gods, since those gods can't exist if islam is correct.
If those polytheistic gods didn't teach / communicate / whatever humans the polytheistic religions, that must mean that humans themselves invented them.

In short, religions tend to be mutually exclusive like that.
For one to be right, the others must be wrong.

That says nothing about gods as gods. That says something about humans. Now concentrate on gods as gods.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That says nothing about gods as gods.

But it says something about religions, which is the subject under discussion.

That says something about humans.

And the religions that humans are known to invent. You know... the current topic of conversation.

Now concentrate on gods as gods.

The topic is religions and more specifically, their origins.

 

[Augustus]

Science is all of our knowledge and the reliable ways of getting to it, testing it, and verifying it.

Most of our knowledge is not acquired through science, but generic experience. A caveman clubbing a mammoth to death wasn't doing science, and redefining the term so that he was renders the term pretty much meaningless.

Science is also dependent on philosophy, but philosophy isn't science. Claiming science is all of our knowledge is just scientism.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

And, as stated, that is demonstrably false.

And why the "demons" (daemons) …."demonstrate", this falsehood.

 

[firedragon]

Off course it is evidence.

Humans factually and demonstrably invent religions.
No supernatural entity, gods or otherwise, have been demonstrated to even exist - let alone communicate religions.

So we HAVE evidence of humans inventing religions.
We have NO evidence of supernatural entities introducing religions.

So since we KNOW for a FACT that humans invent religions, the rational conclusion here is that religions are of human origins. There simply is no other candidate.

How is that not evidence?

No brother. Thats not evidence.

Its not that i dont understand what you say, but this is not evidence. This is your view. None of your statements are carrying evidence. And you are not understanding or even trying to understand that you are making a bias viewpoint without analysing broadly.

EVEN IF humans created religions, it may very well be that morality of modern society stemmed from religion. AGAIN, IT MAY VERY WELL BE.

Do you understand that statement??

Also, it may very well be that humans have morals build in by default, so they created moral standards. Then created religions that would act as protocol or communication methodologies of transmitting these moral standards.

There are lots of theories of morality etc etc. But do not make anecdotal statements, pick up a tiny bit of what i said somewhere and respond to that as if its some kind of attack upon what you think your kind or your tribe is.

If you wish to go back to my original post that you took half of to respond please do.

Have a great day.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Most of our knowledge is not acquired through science, but generic experience. A caveman clubbing a mammoth to death wasn't doing science, and redefining the term so that he was renders the term pretty much meaningless.

Science is also dependent on philosophy, but philosophy isn't science. Claiming science is all of our knowledge is just scientism.

That's just what the word means. How you feel about it isn't concerning to me.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

No, you are doing a naive version of empiricism.

Take this claim: The dog is black. That can be observed.

Now take this: The universe is natural. And I answer: No!
You know that I have answered "No!", but you don't know it through observation, you know it through understanding in your brain using thinking.

The robust version of empiricism is this one:
In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes primarily from sensory experience.
The naive one is:
In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only from sensory experience.

The joke is that: "In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only from sensory experience." doesn't itself come from sensory experience. It comes as a rule from some brains. You then test that and find that the other one is better.
In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes primarily from sensory experience.

Now it is your turn.

Regards
Mikkel

PS Depending on how you answer, we can look closer at knowledge.

My answer is that you have twisted yourself up in language games so tightly you don't know which way is up.

Can you get to the point?

 

[McBell]

Can you get to the point?

Don't hold your breath

 

[Augustus]

That's just what the word means. How you feel about it isn't concerning to me.

It's what it used to mean in the pre-modern world, as in scientia, it's not the standard meaning of the term in the modern world. Why do you think there is such a thing as the philosophy of science if science simply means all knowledge?

Demarcation problem - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My answer is that you have twisted yourself up in language games so tightly you don't know which way is up.

Can you get to the point?

With this in mind saying something is outside science is saying something is unknowable, for now and always. It is very hard to predict what we might discover tommorow.

You: "With this in mind saying something is outside science is saying something is unknowable..."
Me: No! Because you don't know this "No!" through observation. You can't see the referent of a "no". You understand it in your brain.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As stated, you are confused.
And no wonder, when you choose to believe lies
instead of investigating on your own.

Oh, and the earth is flat...….according to the "science" of that day,
remember that one ?

There was never any science indicating a flat earth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh, hey Tag.....you must have missed the part about how
"words" are really sound vibrations,
and how "vibration" is the basic building block of energy and matter.

Which means "sound vibration" ( words ), when used properly,
can be used to manifest a solid object ( matter ) out of thin air.

But you won't find that in "science class".....naturally

Because you made it up and can't support it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just so you know :

In the eyes of this universe, your puny "scientific knowledge" is viewed as "circumstantial" AT BEST.
There are plenty of innocent souls in prison right now because of "evidence".

"evidence " is only used to "prove" an allegation, or in this case a "hypothesis "
and has NOTHING to do with finding "facts" (TRUTH).

TRUE seekers are fact (TRUTH) finders......not intellectual idiots in white coats.

Yes, it's scientists who are the "intellectual idiots." Riiiiiight.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Its not that i dont understand what you say, but this is not evidence. This is your view.

No. This is not just "my view" or my "opinion". This is factually.

We know humans exist and invent religions. Factually. Demonstrably.
We have NO evidence that supernatural entities exist, let alone that they communicate religions.

This is DATA. Aka evidence.
So, considering this data / evidence, when asked what the most likely source of religion is, the only rational answer is humans. They are the ONLY entities we know of that are known to invent religions.

And you are not understanding or even trying to understand that you are making a bias viewpoint without analysing broadly.

There's nothing biased about stating the fact that humans are the only known existing entities that invent religions.

EVEN IF humans created religions

Not "if". They factually and demonstrably do that.

it may very well be that morality of modern society stemmed from religion. AGAIN, IT MAY VERY WELL BE.

And it "may very well be" that morality comes from extra-dimensional aliens that visited earth.
But the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of such at all.
There is much evidence that religions are invented by humans. In fact, we ONLY have evidence of religions being invented by humans.

Do you understand that statement??

I understand the statement. It lacks supportive evidence and it's just a "what if" which is unfalsifiable.
There is absolutely no reason to accept it or even propose it, because there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.

We only have evidence of humans inventing religions.

Also, it may very well be that humans have morals build in by default

Yes. Like just about all other social species.
It kind of goes hand in hand. Social species that live in groups, especially when they depend on cooperation, is going to have some sense of morality for the benefit of the larger group. You can't have succesfull cooperation without it.

Then created religions that would act as protocol or communication methodologies of transmitting these moral standards.

Indeed. And that also explains why religions tend to have moral standards that reflect the morals of the time and society they were born in. If a religion like abrahamic judaism / christianity would be invented today, it is quite likely that anti-slavery rules would be part of the main commandments, for example. But it was invented 2000 years ago. When slavery was common and not seen as an immoral thing. So instead of "forbidding" it, it regulates it.

There are lots of theories of morality etc etc. But do not make anecdotal statements, pick up a tiny bit of what i said somewhere and respond to that as if its some kind of attack upon what you think your kind or your tribe is.

There's nothing anecdotal about stating the fact that humans are the only known existing entities that actually invent religions.

 

[firedragon]

No. This is not just "my view" or my "opinion". This is factually.

We know humans exist and invent religions. Factually. Demonstrably.
We have NO evidence that supernatural entities exist, let alone that they communicate religions.

This is DATA. Aka evidence.
So, considering this data / evidence, when asked what the most likely source of religion is, the only rational answer is humans. They are the ONLY entities we know of that are known to invent religions.




There's nothing biased about stating the fact that humans are the only known existing entities that invent religions.



Not "if". They factually and demonstrably do that.




And it "may very well be" that morality comes from extra-dimensional aliens that visited earth.
But the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of such at all.
There is much evidence that religions are invented by humans. In fact, we ONLY have evidence of religions being invented by humans.



I understand the statement. It lacks supportive evidence and it's just a "what if" which is unfalsifiable.
There is absolutely no reason to accept it or even propose it, because there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.

We only have evidence of humans inventing religions.



Yes. Like just about all other social species.
It kind of goes hand in hand. Social species that live in groups, especially when they depend on cooperation, is going to have some sense of morality for the benefit of the larger group. You can't have succesfull cooperation without it.



Indeed. And that also explains why religions tend to have moral standards that reflect the morals of the time and society they were born in. If a religion like abrahamic judaism / christianity would be invented today, it is quite likely that anti-slavery rules would be part of the main commandments, for example. But it was invented 2000 years ago. When slavery was common and not seen as an immoral thing. So instead of "forbidding" it, it regulates it.



There's nothing anecdotal about stating the fact that humans are the only known existing entities that actually invent religions.

Thanks.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

With this in mind saying something is outside science is saying something is unknowable, for now and always. It is very hard to predict what we might discover tommorow.

You: "With this in mind saying something is outside science is saying something is unknowable..."
Me: No! Because you don't know this "No!" through observation. You can't see the referent of a "no". You understand it in your brain.

Uhh.

That in no way relates to what I wrote.

Are you feeling ok?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It's what it used to mean in the pre-modern world, as in scientia, it's not the standard meaning of the term in the modern world. Why do you think there is such a thing as the philosophy of science if science simply means all knowledge?

Demarcation problem - Wikipedia

The second you can reproduce knowledge though a repeatable methodology, it becomes science.

If you can't reproduce it in such a way, it isn't really knowledge.

Even your cave man clubbing example is in fact science.

This is why unevidenced religious claims can never be 'knowledge'

Knowledge, in the clearest epistimological(philosophical) sense, is 'justified true belief'. Scientific(reproducible, falsifiable) methods are the only reliable path to the 'justified' and 'true' parts of that definition.