Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

[leov]

Except when it comes to god claims, it's not me that needs a base. It's you. Since you're making the claims.


And also, this is so absurdly easy to counter....

So, was 9/11 a bad decision by Mohammed Atta?
He believed he was on a holy mission. Who are you to tell him it's false? It is your opinion only.

this claim exists for thousands of years, claim that there is no God is new and odd.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here is a page about science:
Science relies on evidence


So you are not doing science, you are doing philosophy.
So how many kinds of truth are there in practice? At least 3 to start off with.
Through observation, that is the domain of natural science.
Through reasoning, that is math and philosophy.
Through what matters subjectively, that is in the end good and bad in all variations.

Dude....

You're way off track.

I made a simple point.
What is "true" is not determined by what you like.

I don't "like" the idea of having cancer, so I won't believe I have cancer when the doctor tells me, because it feels more comfortable to believe I don't have cancer.
None of that is going to change the fact that I do have a cancer, should I have one.

We don't determine what is true, by exploring how we "feel" about it.

Now if you say up thread that the multiverse theory is science, it is not actual science, because it is in principle not testable.

Multiverse is not a theory. It's an untestable prediction which naturally flows from an actual scientific model.

It is theoretical physics, so let us play that. We will need a Boltzmann Brain. You know science, so you know the following. There are in theoretical physics different models of the probability of you being a Boltzmann Brain. All of them just like the multiverse model are not testable, because of the following fact. They all require that you are not in the universe, but outside the universe observing if there is a multiverse of if you are a Boltzmann Brain or not.
You are doing a form of metaphysics, that is philosophy but it is not testable using science. Now as per up thread you used the word "worthy". It is worthy to you and other humans, but not all humans. So let us test the word "worthy" using truth. Can you see, hold, touch or otherwise observe worthy? Can you link to how to calibrate a scientific instrument, which can measure worthy? No, in both cases. Worthy is not science, it is something else.

You're all over the place. And you haven't read those posts with much attention either, it seems.

I said that inflation theory is worthy of exploring, as it is a scientific model attempting to explain the big bang and the early universe. It is this theory which predicts a multiverse.

None of this is relevant to the points being made in the post you are responding to, which was about holding rational versus irrational beliefs, while even knowing it is irrational.

So is worthy attainable using only reason and logic; i.e. rational? Not because worthy is a subjective choice.

No. Pursuing scientific models is worthy of spending time on. Because science is worth it.

You choose that it is worth your time

You don't agree that spending time on science, is time well spend?

I find it a waste of time, because it is unknowable as science.

I'ld agree with you, if the multiverse were a stand-alone metaphysical claim, like religious claims.
But it's not. It's a prediction from a scientific theory. That theory is worth exploring, as science is worth it.

Obviously if you view the multiverse as a standalone metaphysical claim, trying to explore it is a waste of time. Primarily, for the same reason as religious claims are a waste of time: there's nothing there to explore.

It is worthy to believe in as a belief and it apparently works for you to believe in, but it is not science nor is it rational per se. It is a belief.

I don't believe in a multiverse and to my knowledge, neither does any scientist.

Your whole reasoning boils down to what matters to you and some other humans and it is without evidence and reason/logic.

No, I'm quite positive that there's plenty of evidence and reason/logic to support the claim that scientific inquiry and progress matters to most all humans one way or another, no matter the field.

You then use your belief that it is rational and science to bash other beliefs, because your beliefs are not about what works for you subjectively, but that is the problem. It is subjective and rests on your subjective thinking and emotions; i.e. worthy.

Nope. There's nothing "subjective" about what works or doesn't in the real world. Emotions are subjective yes. But truth about reality, as mentioned already, is not determined by emotions.

What I believe the universe is in the metaphysical sense; i.e. having reality independent of the mind, is something I know is a belief. You don't, because you believe you can know something, which is unknowable.

Your "because" makes no sense at all to me.

You think that based on your thinking (the 100 as 99 and 1, where the 1 is untestable) you are doing science. You are not, it is a version of induction, but neither science nor philosophy can give evidence or truth for that. To use induction is a matter of belief and to claim it for something not testable, is not science. You can use induction in science, IFF you can test it. If you can't test it and you still claim it, you are claiming a belief.

You seem to have also misunderstood what was meant by the 99 vs 1 thingy.
I never once said that successfully testing the 99, makes the 1 untestable thing a fact.
It will never be a fact. It will always be an untestable thing. But it will eventually gradually promote to "likely" should the evidence in favor of the model that predicts it, just pile on and on.

Let's illustrate what i'm saying a bit... Consider a logical argument: if the premises are true and the logic is sound, the conclusion necessarily follows.

In terms of a scientific theory and its predictions, you could reword that as If the theory is correct and complete, and the logic is sound, the predictions necessary follow.

So... if inflation theory is 100% accurate and complete, and the logic leading to the multiverse prediction is sound, then the multiverse necessarily exists.

HOWEVER, we are dealing with science here. Meaning that theories are never consider proven. So we'll never get to a point where we'll be able to say that multiverse necessarily exists.

But we sure can get to a point where we can say that it's very likely that it exists. And that's what that 99-1 is all about. And the comparision drawn with gods/the supernatural here, is that in case of religious claims, we'll never be able to get to that stage, because there is nothing there to explore... because they are stand-alone claims and not at all predictions flowing naturally from a model that IS testable in other ways.

You are aware, that for the 3 bold part, you are neither using evidence, reason or what ever. You are stating your beliefs about what matters to you and you think that I must do to so.

Yes, what matters to me is being rationally justified in my beliefs.
Which is why I don't get to choose my beliefs according to my "tastes" or "likes", but according to what can or can't be rationally supported.

The question is: why don't you?
Don't you care about holding as many accurate beliefs as possible and the least false beliefs possible? Surely you understand that your wants and likes aren't a good way to determine what is actually real?

But that is not the case. Cognitive relativism is a fact and how you make reality true to you, don't need to be true for me

Reality won't care.
You jump from a high building, you won't be standing around to tell the story afterwards. No matter if you believe that you won't plummet to bone shattering depths and instead keep floating mid-air, because you happen to "like" that as a reality more.

Nobody can eliminate subjectivity

But everybody can try. And when you realise your subjectivity is making you hold irrational beliefs, it's rather trivial to then stop doing that. Again, I actually don't understand how one can still continue instead.

So here it is reductio ad absurdum.
If it is a fact, that I am irrational, then that is natural and part of how reality works.

It is a fact and you yourself have already acknowledged that you hold irrational beliefs.
So, not sure why that "if" is there.

And yes, it's natural for humans to let emotions get in the way and to be superstitious, to engage in type 1 cognition errors, etc. That's because we evolved to avoid being eaten by dangerous predators, not to understand quantum mechanics.

The primary reason why we are building space shuttles while chimps are flinging fecies at eachother, is because we manage to rise above that instinctive superstition and engage in rational reasoning instead.

You don't seem to understand that you attach subjective worth to rationality and subjective disdain to irrationality.

I'ld say that rational reasoning objectively yields better results then irrational reasoning.
I'ld call that an objective fact.

If 2 people are given the same problem to solve and one has to use rational reasoning and the other irrational reasoning, I'll bet everything I own that IF someone solves it, it will be the one employing rational reasoning.

You would to.

No, it's not some "subjective" opinion of mine.

BTW how do you scientifically measure bs?

By its merrits and evidence in support of it.

It's actually a bit funny, because what the scientific method really is, is a very efficient BS filter.

BTW I have never claimed that I know what reality really is. I don't have to, my beliefs work fine for me and that is it. I know when I use emotions, what about you?

Beliefs include/imply claims.
Claims include/imply beliefs.

When you make a claim, you imply belief in said claim.
When you express a belief, you imply a claim that is being believed.

And to believe = to accept as true/accurate.

So, yes, when you say "i believe this and this", you are most certainly expressing things about reality that you deem to be correct / accurate / true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

this claim exists for thousands of years, claim that there is no God is new and odd.

A claim being old doesn't make it true.
And as an atheist, I'm not making any claim about "no gods".

At best, I'll say that reality as I observe it seems pretty consistent with "no gods".
But that doesn't mean there aren't any. More importantly, it doesn't matter. Burden of proof is on the positive claim, which is theism.


EDIT: also, good job ignoring the point being made in the post you're responding to. You almost got away with it. I just noticed as I posted this commen and went in to edit to add this.

 

[leov]

How?

Just saying the truth, : "I do not sense God, so, God does not exist".

 

[charlie sc]

Just saying the truth, : "I do not sense God, so, God does not exist".

Generally, this is not the atheist worldview. Is this what you thought, as an atheist?

 

[leov]

Generally, this is not the atheist worldview. Is this what you thought, as an atheist?

Lack of God or anything spiritual, materialism. That what was said to me since I was born.

 

[leov]

A claim being old doesn't make it true.
And as an atheist, I'm not making any claim about "no gods".

At best, I'll say that reality as I observe it seems pretty consistent with "no gods".
But that doesn't mean there aren't any. More importantly, it doesn't matter. Burden of proof is on the positive claim, which is theism.


EDIT: also, good job ignoring the point being made in the post you're responding to. You almost got away with it. I just noticed as I posted this commen and went in to edit to add this.

But it is default position, so, one needs dance around it, just because 7 out of 100 say that default position is not right does not put those 7 in a position to ask for a proof.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Dude....

You're way off track.

I made a simple point.
What is "true" is not determined by what you like.

...

Yes, it is in some cases. You as you find theoretical physics worthy. That is what makes it true. That you find it worthy.
Just as what you believe truth is:
Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Part of the headlines:

The correspondence theory
The coherence theory
Pragmatist theories
Realism and anti-realism
Truth pluralism
Deflationism

Here are two definitions of truth:
Truth is the end of inquiry.
Truth is satisfactory to believe.

For the second one that we are in effect doing. You find your understanding satisfactory and mine not, and so in reverse.

The joke is here:

In terms of a scientific theory and its predictions, you could reword that as If the theory is correct and complete, and the logic is sound, the predictions necessary follow.

Yes, IFF but that is unknown and logic itself is not everything:
That is simple to test:
Someone: The universe is logical.
Me: No.

The rest in effect revolves on the following problem: That which is not testable and not a fact, is still science, because you think so. That is all you keep doing. And it still end here: You only done so, because it makes sense to you to claim it is science. That is all.

You like your reasoning, so it is true to you. But your reasoning is not independent thinking and thus not objective in the following sense:
Objective as being independent of all human thought and observable through observation.

BTW Something can't be objectively better, because better is a bias. It is a bias in favor of something, but that is still a bias. Objectively there is rationality and irrationally, but to state that rationality is better than irrationality, is subjective.
You can't observe it and you can't decide it using reason and logic. Because both cases are observable facts of human behavior. And your behavior is to claim one is better than another. You are an objectivist. You believe that it is not subjective, but it is so, because it is true, because you believe so.

So here is the end of the inquiry: We think differently, yet we both exist, just as rationality and irrationality exist.
You are judging 2 facts, you and I and you are doing so based on how you think.

So here it is as observable: Is it observable, that I think differently than you? Yes, it is and you admit that. Yet you deny it, because you think that you can do it differently, means that my thinking is irrational, but that is based on your thinking.
You are functionally unable to accept your thinking as subjective and yet you continue to confirm it by trying to get me to think like you. But that is the evidence that it is subjective.

Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. More precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. Relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So imagine a time before humans: Would there be truth? No, truth is in the brain of the individual and you don't understand that your truth is relative to you holding it. I understand that truth only matters if someone feel so and which truth they believe is, is relative.

You jump from a high building, you won't be standing around to tell the story afterwards. No matter if you believe that you won't plummet to bone shattering depths and instead keep floating mid-air, because you happen to "like" that as a reality more.

You don't understand that you and I thinking differently about the mulitiverse will get neither of us killed. Jumping from buildings is not all of the universe and that some scientists make a model, won't get me killed if I deny that the model is real. Let us test that:
The multiverse is not real and it doesn't really exists other that an idea in the brains of some scientists.

As I was writing that, I fell to my death and now I am dead. So you have just proven that life after death is real. Or not!
Do you really think I would fall for that one? It is over 15 years ago I came across that one the first time on the Internet and it is still as weak.
Reality is not one factor. Reality is many factors and so on. You are not reality. You are a part of reality and so am I. And you still haven't stop using emotions, because that is an appeal to emotion.
If I don't think like you, I die. I don't think and feel like you and yet I am dead, right? Or not!

And yes, it's natural for humans to let emotions get in the way and to be superstitious, to engage in type 1 cognition errors, etc. That's because we evolved to avoid being eaten by dangerous predators, not to understand quantum mechanics.

The primary reason why we are building space shuttles while chimps are flinging fecies at eachother, is because we manage to rise above that instinctive superstition and engage in rational reasoning instead.

And here we go again. That is an emotional evaluation. BTW "flinging feces" is natural, yet you use it as that we are objectively better. We are not. There is not objective meaning, purpose or what ever in the universe as known through observation. If you feel you have a good life, then that is subjective in part and I can do it differently and have a good life.

And you are unable to understand that your concept of truth is a cultural product and you would have another understanding of truth, if you were in another culture. Just as gods are dependent on culture, so is truth.
My belief in what really is, is my belief. So is yours, and that you think that yours, is independent of you, is only true because you think so.
The universe is not independent of your thoughts and feelings, because they are a part of the universe and how you think and feel, is what causes you to write your posts. The same in case of me. That is the real life limitation of objectivity.

 

[SkepticThinker]

over thousands of years practically there was no atheism, people had functional organs of perception, the last several hundred years, I'd say starting beginning of industrial era, atheism increased. I partially attribute it to industrial pollutions that kill perception functions.

That's funny, I guess.

Don't forget that for a large portion of human history, being an open atheist could be detrimental to one's life, so the smart thing to do was to just keep quiet about it and/or pretend to be religious. So we'll never truly be able to know the extent of human atheism throughout our history.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But it is default position, so, one needs dance around it, just because 7 out of 100 say that default position is not right does not put those 7 in a position to ask for a proof.

No. The default position is the null hypothesis, if and until the claim is demonstrated. When did you demonstrate the veracity of your claim?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, it is in some cases.

No, always.
Reality doesn't have to conform to your wants and likes.

Reality is the way it is, no matter if you "like" it or not.

You as you find theoretical physics worthy. That is what makes it true. That you find it worthy.
Just as what you believe truth is:
Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Part of the headlines:

Truth is that what corresponds to reality.
Science is a worthy undertaking, as it is demonstrably a good method to learn about reality.

Here are two definitions of truth:
Truth is the end of inquiry.
Truth is satisfactory to believe.

For the second one that we are in effect doing. You find your understanding satisfactory and mine not, and so in reverse.

You misunderstand that second one.
It is saying that it is satisfactory to believe true things.
Not that it is satisfactory to believe "satisfactory" things - which indeed is what you seem to be doing.

The joke is here:

It's not a joke. It is how it is.
If gravity blablabla, then hammers will fall when dropped and not shoot into space. Every single time.

Yes, IFF but that is unknown

Perhaps you should read the rest of posts before jumping to conclusions. You know... like the part where I said that sice we are dealing with a theory, it will NEVER ever ever be regarded as "proven", and thus will never be seen as "100% accurate and complete".

The rest in effect revolves on the following problem: That which is not testable and not a fact, is still science, because you think so.

The model that makes the predictions, is science.
The predictions are the predictions of a scientific model.

If the model is accurate, the predictions are correct.

This is how we are able to build technology. When a GPS tells you your location, then that is the result of a whole bunch of predictions, like relativity.

IF relativity is accurate THEN internal atomic clocks of orbitting GPS satelites need to be calibrated to account for relativity because of its travel speed, etc, or it will be off by several miles.

This is a prediction of relativity.
IF relativity is accurate THEN that prediction is the case.

This happens to be a testable prediction, but the underlying idea is the exact same.

IF the premise is correct and the logic sound, THEN the conclusion necessarily follows.

[qutoe]
That is all you keep doing. And it still end here: You only done so, because it makes sense to you to claim it is science. That is all.[/quote]

Because it is. It's a prediction that naturally flows from a scientific theory. That makes it a scientific prediction. A useless one - by itself - since it doesn't allow for testing of the model, sure. But a scientific prediction nonetheless. However, the model, off course, makes plenty of other predictions as well.

You like your reasoning, so it is true to you. But your reasoning is not independent thinking and thus not objective in the following sense:
Objective as being independent of all human thought and observable through observation.

It is, actually.
The multiverse is an objective prediction from a scientific model of reality.
This has nothing to do with my "opinion".

There factually is a scientific theory. This theory factually predicts a multiverse. It's just one of its implications. I get it, you don't like it. But that doesn't matter. It doesn't change its nature, nore what it is, nore how it was obtained. And it was obtained through science.

Nobody is saying it's correct or believable or to be believed.

BTW Something can't be objectively better, because better is a bias.

Off course it can, as long as we are talking "better" in context of clearly defined conditions.
In this case, the goal is to get to the most accurate beliefs (not the most "likeable").

And rational reasoning, and science for that matter, yields objectively better results then irrational reasoning.

This is also easily tested, as I told you as well. Give 1 problem to two people, one who has to use rational reasoning and another who has to use irrational reasoning. You and I both know that if it gets solved, it will be solved through rational reasoning. Because when it comes to problem solving and obtaining accurate answers to questions, rational reasoning demonstrably works. Irrational reasoning demonstrably doesn't.

It is a bias in favor of something, but that is still a bias

Yeah, ok, sure, whatever....

Ok, I'm "biased" towards rationality and holding justifiable beliefs.
The horror, right?

Objectively there is rationality and irrationally, but to state that rationality is better than irrationality, is subjective.

Is it, really?
We both stand on the roof of the empire state building.
Rational reasoning tells me that jumping down without a parachute will end in certain death.
Irrational reasoning tells you that jumping down won't do any harm because Jesus will catch you and make you land safely.

You jump, I'll take the stairs.

When all is said and done, only one of us will be walking home.


But rational reasoning isn't "objectively better", ha?

So here it is as observable: Is it observable, that I think differently than you? Yes, it is and you admit that. Yet you deny it, because you think that you can do it differently, means that my thinking is irrational, but that is based on your thinking.

No. My judging your thinking is irrational, is based entirely on your thinking itself and, you know...the fact that you yourself said that your beliefs are irrational.

And yes, I consider it a demonstrated given that rational reasoning is preferable to irrational reasoning.

Frankly, if you are really going to dispute that, then there really is no point in continuing this conversation. Because I don't know how to respond to a mind that doesn't see how rationality is preferable to irrationality......

You don't understand that you and I thinking differently about the mulitiverse will get neither of us killed.

The exact same logic applies.
We're discussing rational beliefs vs irrational beliefs.
I'm actually not sure why you keep going back to that multiverse thingy, since that doesn't even deal with beliefs. That rather deals with science and how scientific theories work......

I'm skipping the rest because it's just an endless stream of building upon your misunderstanding of this entire thing.

And here we go again. That is an emotional evaluation.

it is not.
It is factually true that the reason we can build things like space shuttles, is because we employed rational reasoning to learn how reality works, which in turn allowed us to build machines able to achieve space velocity and withstand the vacuum of space and whatnot.

And you are unable to understand that your concept of truth is a cultural product

Errrr.... no. The exact opposite is true. YOUR concept of truth is a cultural product, as it consists of your religion.

Scientific truths are cultureless.
This is why newtons law's of motion work the same in India as they do in afghanistan as they do in france and Sweden.

But in france most believe in Jesus, in Afghanistan they believe in Mohammed, in India they believe in Shiva and in Sweden most are atheist.

See, it's only religious beliefs that are culturally bound.

I wonder why.

and you would have another understanding of truth, if you were in another culture.

Again, no. That's just you once more.
If you lived in Pakistan, chances are you'ld be a muslim.

But the laws of gravity would remain the same.

Just as gods are dependent on culture, so is truth.

No. Truth depends on reality.

My belief in what really is, is my belief. So is yours, and that you think that yours, is independent of you, is only true because you think so.
The universe is not independent of your thoughts and feelings, because they are a part of the universe and how you think and feel, is what causes you to write your posts. The same in case of me. That is the real life limitation of objectivity.

It's kind of ironic to which lengths you go just to rationalise your religious beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But it is default position

No. Just believing claims is never the default position. Be it "just believing" out of tradition, out of popularity or whatever.

, so, one needs dance around it, just because 7 out of 100 say that default position is not right does not put those 7 in a position to ask for a proof.

LOL

That must be the most hilariously blatant shifting of the burden of proof, in combination with an argument from popularity, I've seen in quite a while.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

this claim exists for thousands of years, claim that there is no God is new and odd.

Argument From Popularity Logical Fallacy.

The claim that the earth was the center of the universe? Existed for thousands of years-- except we now know that's false.

The claim that the earth was flat? Existed for thousands of years, and still has true believers even today, and is supported by the bible too.

Yet we know a flat earth is also false.

I would bet that at least 80% of the planet (or more) does not believe in the same god you believe in, and indeed, would call you "heretic".

Using your "logic" above? YOU ARE VERY WRONG.

Ooops!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Just saying the truth, : "I do not sense God, so, God does not exist".

Incorrect. Nobody but NOBODY "senses god".

There are Special Places for people who truly think they do. It has lots of attendants wearing white coats. They even have special jackets with extra-extra long sleeves, and a room that is upholstered in padding, just for such as what need it.

Proof? The constant harping on "you have to have faith" -- which means? You have doubts.... which you keep attempting to suppress.

Dude! Those doubts are healthy!

You could say, that skepticism is simply embracing healthy mental doubts.

Doubts are good. Doubts keep you from buying that Magic Peach Pit "Cure". Doubts make you read the label on food-- wherein you go, "WHAT? THE NUMBER ONE INGREDIENT IS PROCESSED SUGAR?"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, always.
Reality doesn't have to conform to your wants and likes.

Reality is the way it is, no matter if you "like" it or not.

...

That is it. That is your fault in your reasoning.
Let us test that:
I want to say "no". I like if I could do that. I will try it now:

You:
No, always.
Reality doesn't have to conform to your wants and likes.

Reality is the way it is, no matter if you "like" it or not.

Me: No.

Now you can observe I said "no". You can further know that it is based on what I wanted to do and liked for it to happen and indeed I like it, because I could do it.
Reality is not independent of you. You are a part of reality and here is how I know that.
You wrote the above quote and it is based on an idea in your brain of what reality is. The problem is that the quote wouldn't be there unless you had the idea, you liked it(worthy) and you wanted it to be true and also all those other words you like.

So here it is for the natural world.
It started in time and over time humans evolved. We are a part of the world/reality/the universe/everything otherwise you and I couldn't interact.
When you then start observing humans you realize that they have individual beliefs and are not exactly the same. If you then are objective about that, you realize that is also so of you and that you have wants and likes. But not all work and here is one that doesn't work. That reality is independent of you in all senses. That can't be the case, because then you couldn't interact with me.
You want and like reality to be independent of you in all senses, but you confirm that is not the case, because you do it as a part of reality.

You are doing philosophy and you are unaware of it, because you haven't tested your claim of what reality is. You operate with a weird ontological dualism of humans in some sense not being a part of reality, yet that requires for you to communicate that you want and would like me to believe like you. Namely that you want me to believe like you, what you believe, reality is.

But you see, I tested it and found that it didn't work.

So here it is for 3 options:
Reality is objective.
Reality is subjective.
Reality is in part objective and in other sense in part subjective.

I take the 3rd one. It has the added benefit that I can explain what you are doing: You are subjective, but you don't notice it, because it works for you to believe that reality is independent in all senses of your wants and like. You don't notice that in effect, that is something you want and like and thus you actually give yourself the falsification of your claim as true.
You confirm subjectivity by subjectively denying its relevance.

I am a skeptic to the bone, when it comes to knowledge and truth and I will run you in circles, as long as you don't understand this part of yourself.

So here it is for 2 different parts of philosophy, which give rise to different ideas about science:

Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.

philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

You are of the first version with the added caveat of objective reality as the whole and I am of the second one.

That is what you don't get, I don't talk of reality as a whole (independent of humans), I talk about the second one.
So in my experience as me, it works for me to be religious, but I don't talk of reality as a whole (independent of humans). I talk about how being religious work for me.
And of you go with how you want and would like reality to be objective. So I point out that in effect you are doing the second one.

 

[charlie sc]

Lack of God or anything spiritual, materialism. That what was said to me since I was born.

Not necessarily. Many Buddhists consider themselves spiritual and atheists. However, lack of belief in god is correct.

I’m not sure why you’d be an atheist because of what people said to you . Atheism and scepticism is an intellectual process

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not necessarily. Many Buddhists consider themselves spiritual and atheists. However, lack of belief in god is correct.

I’m not sure why you’d be an atheist because of what people said to you . Atheism and scepticism is an intellectual process

Yes, but where skepticism ends, depends on in the end for lack of better way of describing it in individual nature and nurture.

Cognitive relativism asserts the relativity of truth. Because of the close connections between the concept of truth and concepts such as knowledge, rationality, and justification, cognitive relativism is often taken to encompass, or imply, the relativity of these other notions also. Thus, epistemological relativism, which asserts the relativity of knowledge, may be understood as a version of cognitive relativism, or at least as entailed by it.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/

If you want it old school, here it is: "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras, Greek sophist

 

[charlie sc]

Yes, but where skepticism ends, depends on in the end for lack of better way of describing it in individual nature and nurture.

I'm not sure how relevant this is for my response. Do you want to expound?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure how relevant this is for my response. Do you want to expound?

Okay, observe a sufficient number of humans debating reality, reason, logic, rationality, evidence, science, what matters and so on. Now limit it to say religious people and you will notice that they can't all agree. Do the same with atheism and you will find if you look closer that they can't agree either on all in the end. You already know this, right? Religious people are only unified by an overall category of some similarities, but also variance. It is more extreme for atheism, because all atheists only have in common are a lack of beliefs in gods.
The same is the case for skepticism because it is in the end an overall category of some similarities, but also variance, so skeptics can disagree on what knowledge, truth and so on are.

Let me give you an example concerning truth. There are at least 3 major versions of truth and they are contradictory in some sense. Now add realism and anti-realism and include what reason, logic and rationality are and you are off to the races. Then add meta-ethics and the fun begins and include how to arrive at correct answers, dare I say true ones, regarding morality and ethics.

What I am trying to explain is that there are no homogeneous examples of what religion, atheism or indeed skepticism are. You always get some form of limited variance. Indeed that is obvious, because we are in part individuals and not perfect clones. Evolutionary variance is also present within humans and in short the effect of nature and nurture explain cognitive relativism.
Yet you will find some humans who exactly know what all of this is and I have found that in some religious humans, some atheists and some skeptics. So one way to get at it, is that even the idea that we evolve to something better, is problematic, because the universe has no overall purpose. All attempts in the books and on the Internet I have come across are somewhat subjective.

So here it is. It is not about just truth and all those formal cognitive words. It is also about how you view other humans.
So atheism and skepticism is not just intellectual, it is also about the soft parts, values, opinions and how we ought to treat each other.
Atheism and skepticism are not in an intellectual place of their own, it is done within nature and nurture. The same with science:

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

With regard

PS Somehow to some people now is better than the past and to other the past is better and they all have truth and so on for it. The only way I can make sense of that is trough relativism and that includes what reality/everything/the universe really is? The varies over time somewhat as a result of nature and nurture.
As a skeptic I am somewhat old school, in that I don't believe in knowledge like most people do. And that runs through at lot of these debates and go haywire when we include, how we ought to live our lives.

 

[charlie sc]

Okay, observe a sufficient number of humans debating reality, reason, logic, rationality, evidence, science, what matters and so on. Now limit it to say religious people and you will notice that they can't all agree. Do the same with atheism and you will find if you look closer that they can't agree either on all in the end. You already know this, right? Religious people are only unified by an overall category of some similarities, but also variance. It is more extreme for atheism, because all atheists only have in common are a lack of beliefs in gods.
The same is the case for skepticism because it is in the end an overall category of some similarities, but also variance, so skeptics can disagree on what knowledge, truth and so on are.

Let me give you an example concerning truth. There are at least 3 major versions of truth and they are contradictory in some sense. Now add realism and anti-realism and include what reason, logic and rationality are and you are off to the races. Then add meta-ethics and the fun begins and include how to arrive at correct answers, dare I say true ones, regarding morality and ethics.

What I am trying to explain is that there are no homogeneous examples of what religion, atheism or indeed skepticism are. You always get some form of limited variance. Indeed that is obvious, because we are in part individuals and not perfect clones. Evolutionary variance is also present within humans and in short the effect of nature and nurture explain cognitive relativism.
Yet you will find some humans who exactly know what all of this is and I have found that in some religious humans, some atheists and some skeptics. So one way to get at it, is that even the idea that we evolve to something better, is problematic, because the universe has no overall purpose. All attempts in the books and on the Internet I have come across are somewhat subjective.

So here it is. It is not about just truth and all those formal cognitive words. It is also about how you view other humans.
So atheism and skepticism is not just intellectual, it is also about the soft parts, values, opinions and how we ought to treat each other.
Atheism and skepticism are not in an intellectual place of their own, it is done within nature and nurture. The same with science:


With regard

PS Somehow to some people now is better than the past and to other the past is better and they all have truth and so on for it. The only way I can make sense of that is trough relativism and that includes what reality/everything/the universe really is? The varies over time somewhat as a result of nature and nurture.
As a skeptic I am somewhat old school, in that I don't believe in knowledge like most people do. And that runs through at lot of these debates and go haywire when we include, how we ought to live our lives.

I’m not sure what this has to do with me saying skepticism and atheism is an intellectual process. Leov gave the impression that he was an atheist because people told him what atheism is rather than him understanding these epistemological positions for himself. Being an atheist, in this day and age, is being confronted by people claiming numerous religions and gods. Therefore, it is necessarily an intellectual process when someone does disbelieved with logical argument(or understanding lack of arguments for) and the consideration of available evidence. I would even say that some forms of theism are an intellectual process, however, from my experience many theists lack the ability to even use hypotheticals outside their worldview.

You seem to be taking what I’m saying far more philosophically than practically. I’d say that anyone theist/atheist, or any ideology, that has not contemplated on some level has not gone through an intellectual process. Leov seemed to show a very rudimentary and false idea of what atheism is. Similarly, his comment passed over, showing his view of theism, which was equally lacking any skepticism and subsequent intellectual process.

You might argue that we all have different versions of reality, truth and definitions. Then, without going too in-depth, I would ask for clarity and logical consistency for their versions of reality. I have no contention on the varying definitions of atheism/theism, however, religions do. So if anyone is part of a religion, which they probably are, they’d need some form of logical consistency and standardised norm. Eh, I didn’t make these rules.