Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BADecker]

The complexity of complexity is indeed beyond our thinking for its complexity. We don't know for a fact that everything was made originally from hydrogen and/or helium. That is theory or assumption.

We don't know the complexity of the forces that combine simple things into complex things. The simple conversion of hydrogen into helium (fusion) is something that, in the past, we needed the complexity of an atomic explosion to accomplish. When we do it these days, in the laboratory, in extremely tiny operations, we need a whole lot of complex equipment to do it.

We have no factual evidence of simple to complex conversion without something more complex causing it to happen.

Oooooooooooook...
Well if you go this way we can't discuss anymore ^^

Of course it's a theory, but it's a very solid one. It explains everything we know. It might not be true, in fact the whole science we know is probably wrong, but it explains everything we observe CURRENTLY.

You're actually denying the assumption that Helium and Hydrogene are fusing together in the stars. But spectroscopy allow use to know in a very precise way stars composition. And this theory may be just an assumption, but it explains EXTREMELY WELL the composition of the universe as we observe it. It explains it so well that it is now a worldwide consensus.

I have neither the time nor the energy right now to look deeper in the article you provide about another theory than fusion. You may be right. As I said, we'll probably prove that what we know is wrong in a few decades, that's the main purpose of physic sciences: to be demonstrated wrong and then go further. Maybe your theory explains better the lithium mystery I don't know.

But the theory I'm providing is without any doubt the actual consensus at the moment. So it is a proof in my point of view.
If you need another example of simple things creating something complex then just think about life and evolution: we come from monkeys (not exactly I know but you know what I mean xD), so the complex comes from the simple. Same for most chemical reaction involving fusion, or complex formation.

I know that it is difficult to discuss. And it is difficult to know for fact with our limited abilities.

The point I am trying to make is that complexity does not come about from something simple without a lot of even more complex forces directing it to happen this way. We have no evidence of this anywhere. The best we have are theories or guesses.

The thing that we see all around us when looking for what makes complexity is, greater complexity makes complexity. Since the complexity of human intelligence, awareness, and identity are readily seen all over the place, throughout the whole world, Whatever caused this complexity to happen must have been way more complex in all these areas. The "Whatever" matches the definitions of "God" in our encyclopedias and dictionaries.

[1714111411]

1714111411

[1714111411]

1714111411

[1714111411]

1714111411

[1714111411]

1714111411

[1714111411]

1714111411

[organofcorti]

Purpose indicate a meaning an objective that a group of people have in regarding to something (deity, money, health, other...).

Atheists don't believe in God but they don't have a faith: so the word purpose has no meaning to them.

You know that. I know that. Try explaining that to BADecker.

Look, even if atheist all thought that the universe doesn't have a purpose - not all of them think this way -

Yes, they do. If the universe has a purpose it must have a creator. If you believe in a creator, you're not atheist.

Does an atheist do anything in the universe? Does an atheist dream? Does he make plans? Does he use the things of the universe? For him the universe has a purpose. If it didn't, he would go off and commit suicide out of despair. If he didn't commit suicide out of despair, and the universe didn't have a purpose for him - at least in his own mind - he would have to be a vegetable.

An atheist views himself as god, although he may not recognize that he is doing so. Since he doesn't know much about himself - the way-down-deep human self that he is - yet he believes that he knows, he has a personal religion going.

We are talking about different things - the Universe having a purpose, and making your life have a purpose.

So you think that a person can have purpose outside of the universe? Since the person is in the universe, and the purpose is in the person, purpose is also in the universe.

The universe , however, does not consist of one person - which is what you imply if you say that a person's purpose is the same as the universe's purpose.

Furthermore, since people are a product of the universe, and since people have enough intelligence that they can have purpose, the universe that made them has purpose as well. Why? Because nowhere in the universe have we found that complexity is ever made by something that is less complexity. On the contrary. Everything we have found shows that what is produced is at least slightly, bun mostly largely, degraded from what has made it (entropy).

No, sadly you've misunderstood entropy. Everything complex is made by something of less complexity. Entropy doesn't mean things cannot become more complex, it simply makes thermodynamically expensive to create  something ordered from something unordered.

This means that not only does the universe have purpose, but it has intelligence, as well. Such intelligence fits the definition that we have of God. Since an atheist denies God in the face of the fact that we know God exists, the atheist has a religion for himself.

Grant you, this is a simple explanation. If you flesh it out, you will see that it is entirely accurate.

I fleshed it out and found it inaccurate. I think you will too if you give it some thought, and also read a first year chemical engineer's guide to thermodynamics. I have one if you want to borrow it.

An atheist believes his or her life can have a purpose, while the universe does not have a purpose.

How about this example. There are some very small monkeys in the world. We make some of them into pets.

Imagine that you have a small, pet monkey in your hand. The monkey has a peanut in his hand. Do you not also have the peanut in your hand? The universe has purpose, even if it is only your purpose.

No, you have a monkey holding a peanut in your hand. But I think I follow your point. However, a purpose is an abstract idea. The monkey you're holding does not share your purpose.

Right now I'm holding a stone in my hand and I'm hungry. I intend to have lunch. I hope very much that the stone does not share my intention or purpose.

Since one's life is not identical to "the universe", it is possible for one's life to have purpose, but not ones universe.

In the theories of the mega-universe, where there are parallel universes that all occupy the same space, what you say might be true. Why? There is theory that the spirit/soul/identity of each person resides in a separate universe from the spirit/soul/identity of every other person, even though it is expressed on earth in a body that occupies the same universe as all other human bodies.

If this, or something like this, is the fact, it is possible that there are some universes that don't have purpose (of course, only if universes don't have purpose of themselves... a thing that we don't know). Why? Because there might be some people who don't have purpose. Thus, their universe might not have purpose, as well.

As you can see from all this that I have written in this post, atheism is almost definitely a religion.

I wasn't attempting to theorise, just make a logical argument. I can make it even simpler, if you need it.

[BADecker]

Purpose indicate a meaning an objective that a group of people have in regarding to something (deity, money, health, other...).

Atheists don't believe in God but they don't have a faith: so the word purpose has no meaning to them.

You know that. I know that. Try explaining that to BADecker.

Look, even if atheist all thought that the universe doesn't have a purpose - not all of them think this way -

Yes, they do. If the universe has a purpose it must have a creator. If you believe in a creator, you're not atheist.

Does an atheist do anything in the universe? Does an atheist dream? Does he make plans? Does he use the things of the universe? For him the universe has a purpose. If it didn't, he would go off and commit suicide out of despair. If he didn't commit suicide out of despair, and the universe didn't have a purpose for him - at least in his own mind - he would have to be a vegetable.

An atheist views himself as god, although he may not recognize that he is doing so. Since he doesn't know much about himself - the way-down-deep human self that he is - yet he believes that he knows, he has a personal religion going.

We are talking about different things - the Universe having a purpose, and making your life have a purpose.

So you think that a person can have purpose outside of the universe? Since the person is in the universe, and the purpose is in the person, purpose is also in the universe.

The universe , however, does not consist of one person - which is what you imply if you say that a person's purpose is the same as the universe's purpose.

Furthermore, since people are a product of the universe, and since people have enough intelligence that they can have purpose, the universe that made them has purpose as well. Why? Because nowhere in the universe have we found that complexity is ever made by something that is less complexity. On the contrary. Everything we have found shows that what is produced is at least slightly, bun mostly largely, degraded from what has made it (entropy).

No, sadly you've misunderstood entropy. Everything complex is made by something of less complexity. Entropy doesn't mean things cannot become more complex, it simply makes thermodynamically expensive to create  something ordered from something unordered.

This means that not only does the universe have purpose, but it has intelligence, as well. Such intelligence fits the definition that we have of God. Since an atheist denies God in the face of the fact that we know God exists, the atheist has a religion for himself.

Grant you, this is a simple explanation. If you flesh it out, you will see that it is entirely accurate.

I fleshed it out and found it inaccurate. I think you will too if you give it some thought, and also read a first year chemical engineer's guide to thermodynamics. I have one if you want to borrow it.

An atheist believes his or her life can have a purpose, while the universe does not have a purpose.

How about this example. There are some very small monkeys in the world. We make some of them into pets.

Imagine that you have a small, pet monkey in your hand. The monkey has a peanut in his hand. Do you not also have the peanut in your hand? The universe has purpose, even if it is only your purpose.

No, you have a monkey holding a peanut in your hand. But I think I follow your point. However, a purpose is an abstract idea. The monkey you're holding does not share your purpose.

Right now I'm holding a stone in my hand and I'm hungry. I intend to have lunch. I hope very much that the stone does not share my intention or purpose.

Since one's life is not identical to "the universe", it is possible for one's life to have purpose, but not ones universe.

In the theories of the mega-universe, where there are parallel universes that all occupy the same space, what you say might be true. Why? There is theory that the spirit/soul/identity of each person resides in a separate universe from the spirit/soul/identity of every other person, even though it is expressed on earth in a body that occupies the same universe as all other human bodies.

If this, or something like this, is the fact, it is possible that there are some universes that don't have purpose (of course, only if universes don't have purpose of themselves... a thing that we don't know). Why? Because there might be some people who don't have purpose. Thus, their universe might not have purpose, as well.

As you can see from all this that I have written in this post, atheism is almost definitely a religion.

I wasn't attempting to theorise, just make a logical argument. I can make it even simpler, if you need it.

By the general dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of "religion," atheism is a religion. But if it is not, it is so close that it might as well be.

The fact that God exists (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg13609627#msg13609627) shows all the more that atheism not only is a religion, but that it is a religion in the direction of a cult.

[organofcorti]

I wasn't attempting to theorise, just make a logical argument. I can make it even simpler, if you need it.

By the general dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of "religion," atheism is a religion. But if it is not, it is so close that it might as well be.

The fact that God exists (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg13609627#msg13609627) shows all the more that atheism not only is a religion, but that it is a religion in the direction of a cult.

Way to ignore the entire conversation. I thought you above that sort of thing. I guess you're not going to answer any of my points then? In future don't bring up thermodynamics if you don't really understand it.

There is no fact that proves god's existence. However, if there was such a proof you'd probably be very unhappy. Why? (and I'm sure BitNow would agree with me here)

If god's existence could be proven, there would be no need for Faith. However, Faith is a central part of religion. Without Faith, religion cannot exist.  Therefore if you prove the god of a religion to exist, you have just killed that religion.

[mOgliE]

I wasn't attempting to theorise, just make a logical argument. I can make it even simpler, if you need it.

By the general dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of "religion," atheism is a religion. But if it is not, it is so close that it might as well be.

The fact that God exists (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg13609627#msg13609627) shows all the more that atheism not only is a religion, but that it is a religion in the direction of a cult.

Way to ignore the entire conversation. I thought you above that sort of thing. I guess you're not going to answer any of my points then? In future don't bring up thermodynamics if you don't really understand it.

There is no fact that proves god's existence. However, if there was such a proof you'd probably be very unhappy. Why? (and I'm sure BitNow would agree with me here)

If god's existence could be proven, there would be no need for Faith. However, Faith is a central part of religion. Without Faith, religion cannot exist.  Therefore if you prove the god of a religion to exist, you have just killed that religion.

I'm not sure he's ignoring the whole conversation. It's more that he doesn't accept our scientific observations and theories. Which means it's hard to debate on anything as he points out that all that we present as facts are just theories (which is right but it's the very principle of science, you can't prove anything most of the time, you just elaborate a theory describing perfectly the universe you know until something new blow it up).

But I disagree with the point you're making with faith here. Old gods were believed to be true but also "proven". At the time of ancient Greece, there was no discussion about the existence of gods, the fact that the sun goes up and down was by itself a proof, so be it for the lightning, proof of Zeus wrath.

Faith is an essential part of modern religion because people know there can't be any proof of god's existence, but it was not the case when we had limited knowledge of our world ^^

And I agree with your interpretation of thermodynamics laws. Entropy is a question of energy and order. Nothing to do with complexity. In fact how would you even define complexity?

[BADecker]

I wasn't attempting to theorise, just make a logical argument. I can make it even simpler, if you need it.

By the general dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of "religion," atheism is a religion. But if it is not, it is so close that it might as well be.

The fact that God exists (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg13609627#msg13609627) shows all the more that atheism not only is a religion, but that it is a religion in the direction of a cult.

Way to ignore the entire conversation. I thought you above that sort of thing. I guess you're not going to answer any of my points then? In future don't bring up thermodynamics if you don't really understand it.

Since you ignored the conversation long ago, I might as well move on to other things, as well.

The point isn't thermodynamics points. The point is thermodynamics result. Nobody knows what the end result of entropy would really look like. But the evidence of it so far is that all things are attempting to coalesce. This means that all things would be dispersed evenly throughout all space and time once entropy became completely effective. Because of the gigantic amount of "reverse entropy" that has been placed in the whole universe by God in creation, complete entropy throughout all the universe might take an extremely long time, especially when you consider that time is dispersing, as well.

Just because you don't like the truth that God exists and that atheism is a religon, doesn't mean you have to continually get off the subject... or would you be unhappy if you didn't?

There is no fact that proves god's existence. However, if there was such a proof you'd probably be very unhappy. Why? (and I'm sure BitNow would agree with me here)

If god's existence could be proven, there would be no need for Faith. However, Faith is a central part of religion. Without Faith, religion cannot exist.  Therefore if you prove the god of a religion to exist, you have just killed that religion.

God's existence is proven by combining universal cause and effect, with complex universe and universal entropy.

As for the faith part you are wrong. For example. Let's imagine that you really exist and that I really know it. If you express to me that you are going to give me $1,000 five days from now, I either have faith that you will do it, partial faith, or no faith.

The existence of God is fact. Believing that He will provide for me based on the examples He as given me so far in life, or based on the things that He has told me through the Bible, is faith.

[BADecker]

In fact how would you even define complexity?

My mistake. Is it foolish of me to act like I am conversing with complexity that might even be less than that of a rock?

[mOgliE]

In fact how would you even define complexity?

My mistake. Is it foolish of me to act like I am conversing with complexity that might even be less than that of a rock?

Complexity is a non scientific term. So I'm asking what you mean by this in case we disagree on the meaning...

You didn't answer my point on evolution. Here something less complex becomes complex.

The monkey becomes human. It means something less complex and less intelligent leads to something of greater intelligence.

So what is your argument now? Evolution is just a theory?

[organofcorti]

I wasn't attempting to theorise, just make a logical argument. I can make it even simpler, if you need it.

By the general dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of "religion," atheism is a religion. But if it is not, it is so close that it might as well be.

The fact that God exists (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg13609627#msg13609627) shows all the more that atheism not only is a religion, but that it is a religion in the direction of a cult.

Way to ignore the entire conversation. I thought you above that sort of thing. I guess you're not going to answer any of my points then? In future don't bring up thermodynamics if you don't really understand it.

Since you ignored the conversation long ago, I might as well move on to other things, as well.

It's sad. At one point I really was trying to understand your point of view. But you change the subject constantly, you don't answer questions and you don't understand logic.

Since we're now at the point that you're just making things up rather than having a conversation, I think I'll just wait for you to try your illogic on new-comers to the thread and just make sure they can see it for what it is.

[organofcorti]

I wasn't attempting to theorise, just make a logical argument. I can make it even simpler, if you need it.

By the general dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of "religion," atheism is a religion. But if it is not, it is so close that it might as well be.

The fact that God exists (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg13609627#msg13609627) shows all the more that atheism not only is a religion, but that it is a religion in the direction of a cult.

Way to ignore the entire conversation. I thought you above that sort of thing. I guess you're not going to answer any of my points then? In future don't bring up thermodynamics if you don't really understand it.

There is no fact that proves god's existence. However, if there was such a proof you'd probably be very unhappy. Why? (and I'm sure BitNow would agree with me here)

If god's existence could be proven, there would be no need for Faith. However, Faith is a central part of religion. Without Faith, religion cannot exist.  Therefore if you prove the god of a religion to exist, you have just killed that religion.

I'm not sure he's ignoring the whole conversation. It's more that he doesn't accept our scientific observations and theories. Which means it's hard to debate on anything as he points out that all that we present as facts are just theories (which is right but it's the very principle of science, you can't prove anything most of the time, you just elaborate a theory describing perfectly the universe you know until something new blow it up).

But I disagree with the point you're making with faith here. Old gods were believed to be true but also "proven". At the time of ancient Greece, there was no discussion about the existence of gods, the fact that the sun goes up and down was by itself a proof, so be it for the lightning, proof of Zeus wrath.

Faith is an essential part of modern religion because people know there can't be any proof of god's existence, but it was not the case when we had limited knowledge of our world ^^

Good point. I meant only modern religions - I was assuming BADecker belonged to a religion that values faith, but I could well be wrong about that.

And I agree with your interpretation of thermodynamics laws. Entropy is a question of energy and order. Nothing to do with complexity. In fact how would you even define complexity?

This thread?

I just realised that even if gods existed, I'd still do my best to ignore them. Most organised religion seems to me to be like being in a co-dependant relationship with an all-powerful and abusive father figure.

Given the state of the world (and comments of religious followers, especially the ones that suggest mass murder might be an appropriate response to having their point of view challenged) if one of the religions were correct and there *is* an omnipotent god, I'd be immediately taking it to court for crimes against humanity.

[BADecker]

I wasn't attempting to theorise, just make a logical argument. I can make it even simpler, if you need it.

By the general dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of "religion," atheism is a religion. But if it is not, it is so close that it might as well be.

The fact that God exists (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg13609627#msg13609627) shows all the more that atheism not only is a religion, but that it is a religion in the direction of a cult.

Way to ignore the entire conversation. I thought you above that sort of thing. I guess you're not going to answer any of my points then? In future don't bring up thermodynamics if you don't really understand it.

Since you ignored the conversation long ago, I might as well move on to other things, as well.

It's sad. At one point I really was trying to understand your point of view. But you change the subject constantly, you don't answer questions and you don't understand logic.

Since we're now at the point that you're just making things up rather than having a conversation, I think I'll just wait for you to try your illogic on new-comers to the thread and just make sure they can see it for what it is.

Poor baby. At one point your were really trying... (chuckle).

It's sad that I have answered all your questions over and over, but you simply don't want to accept the answers, which are backed with definitions. Now you want me to do your thinking for you as well.

This is a forum, not a book-writing situation. If you can't or won't think, that's okay. Some of the other people who see these posts will understand. And, essentially, that's all I am after.

[organofcorti]

I wasn't attempting to theorise, just make a logical argument. I can make it even simpler, if you need it.

By the general dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of "religion," atheism is a religion. But if it is not, it is so close that it might as well be.

The fact that God exists (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg13609627#msg13609627) shows all the more that atheism not only is a religion, but that it is a religion in the direction of a cult.

Way to ignore the entire conversation. I thought you above that sort of thing. I guess you're not going to answer any of my points then? In future don't bring up thermodynamics if you don't really understand it.

Since you ignored the conversation long ago, I might as well move on to other things, as well.

It's sad. At one point I really was trying to understand your point of view. But you change the subject constantly, you don't answer questions and you don't understand logic.

Since we're now at the point that you're just making things up rather than having a conversation, I think I'll just wait for you to try your illogic on new-comers to the thread and just make sure they can see it for what it is.

Poor baby. At one point your were really trying... (chuckle).

It's sad that I have answered all your questions over and over, but you simply don't want to accept the answers, which are backed with definitions. Now you want me to do your thinking for you as well.

This is a forum, not a book-writing situation. If you can't or won't think, that's okay. Some of the other people who see these posts will understand. And, essentially, that's all I am after.

And that right there -- your combative attitude and inability to understand logic or new ideas -- is why discussions with religious people with dogmatic beliefs is so painful.

..and

(chuckle)

? Are you three years old? Good god man, learn some self control.

[BitNow]

And that right there -- your combative attitude and inability to understand logic or new ideas -- is why discussions with religious people with dogmatic beliefs is so painful.

Life is painful, not discussion.

If you cannot face pain and need to discuss to others, bend yourself to others and discussion will be more easy.
"The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility."
-Pro 15:33


Best regards.

[organofcorti]

And that right there -- your combative attitude and inability to understand logic or new ideas -- is why discussions with religious people with dogmatic beliefs is so painful.

Life is painful, not discussion.

If you cannot face pain and need to discuss to others, bend yourself to others and discussion will be more easy.
"The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility."
-Pro 15:33


Best regards.

Thank you for you kind words.

[BitNow]

Thank you for you kind words.

I don't understand your word "kind".

Since we have not the same God: what is kind for you?


Best regards.

[organofcorti]

Thank you for you kind words.

I don't understand your word "kind".

Since we have not the same God: what is kind for you?


Best regards.

Of course, kind has two meanings so you probably misunderstood. I meant this:

1. of a good or benevolent nature or disposition, as a person: a kind and loving person.
2. having, showing, or proceeding from benevolence: kind words.
3.indulgent, considerate, or helpful; humane (often followed by to): to be kind to animals.
4. mild; gentle; clement: kind weather.
5. British Dialect. loving; affectionate.

[Gronthaing]

But I disagree with the point you're making with faith here. Old gods were believed to be true but also "proven". At the time of ancient Greece, there was no discussion about the existence of gods, the fact that the sun goes up and down was by itself a proof, so be it for the lightning, proof of Zeus wrath.

Faith is an essential part of modern religion because people know there can't be any proof of god's existence, but it was not the case when we had limited knowledge of our world ^^

Don't know about that. Ancient gods were proven the same way people say current gods are proven. And there was discussion in ancient greece about the existence of gods. Some were even atheists. But atheism was a capital crime so they were persecuted and had to hide. But among theists too there was discussion about what were the explanations for things like the sun, lightning, etc. The view that it could have natural causes wasn't uncommon. Of course anyone going too far with it could be accused of atheism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

"The first fully materialistic philosophy was produced by the atomists Leucippus and Democritus (fifth century BCE), who attempted to explain the formation and development of the world in terms of the chance movements of atoms moving in infinite space."

"Euripides (480–406 BCE), in his play Bellerophon, had the eponymous main character say:

    “Doth some one say that there be gods above?
    There are not; no, there are not. Let no fool,
    Led by the old false fable, thus deceive you.”[13]"

"Aristophanes (ca. 448–380 BCE), known for his satirical style, wrote in his play The Knights: "Shrines! Shrines! Surely you don't believe in the gods. What's your argument? Where's your proof?"[14]"

[BitNow]

Of course, kind has two meanings so you probably misunderstood. I meant this:

1. of a good or benevolent nature or disposition, as a person: a kind and loving person.
2. having, showing, or proceeding from benevolence: kind words.
3.indulgent, considerate, or helpful; humane (often followed by to): to be kind to animals.
4. mild; gentle; clement: kind weather.
5. British Dialect. loving; affectionate.

Define Loving: my God is speaking about love all around in his book.

What is love for you?


Best regards.

[mOgliE]

But I disagree with the point you're making with faith here. Old gods were believed to be true but also "proven". At the time of ancient Greece, there was no discussion about the existence of gods, the fact that the sun goes up and down was by itself a proof, so be it for the lightning, proof of Zeus wrath.

Faith is an essential part of modern religion because people know there can't be any proof of god's existence, but it was not the case when we had limited knowledge of our world ^^

Don't know about that. Ancient gods were proven the same way people say current gods are proven. And there was discussion in ancient greece about the existence of gods. Some were even atheists. But atheism was a capital crime so they were persecuted and had to hide. But among theists too there was discussion about what were the explanations for things like the sun, lightning, etc. The view that it could have natural causes wasn't uncommon. Of course anyone going too far with it could be accused of atheism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

"The first fully materialistic philosophy was produced by the atomists Leucippus and Democritus (fifth century BCE), who attempted to explain the formation and development of the world in terms of the chance movements of atoms moving in infinite space."

"Euripides (480–406 BCE), in his play Bellerophon, had the eponymous main character say:

    “Doth some one say that there be gods above?
    There are not; no, there are not. Let no fool,
    Led by the old false fable, thus deceive you.”[13]"

"Aristophanes (ca. 448–380 BCE), known for his satirical style, wrote in his play The Knights: "Shrines! Shrines! Surely you don't believe in the gods. What's your argument? Where's your proof?"[14]"

I was trying to speak in a more general way.

Today what phenomenon can we observe to argument in favor of the existence of God? Nothing, the only mystery here is the origin of the creation of the universe. Which is not really a "daily phenomenon".
Thousands of years ago, everyday phenomenons could be explained only by the existence of gods. How could a woman give birth? Gods of fertility. How can the sun shine so bright and go throw the sky? Gods bringing a huge fireball. How storms lightning and volcanic eruptions appear? Gods Gods and Gods.

Of course some had great explanations, it was the case for the most cultivated individuals and lots of scientists and philosophers were probably atheists. But it depends a lot of the period of time you're talking about (because Greek kingdom and Roman Empire cover a long period) and which part of the population.

[organofcorti]

Of course, kind has two meanings so you probably misunderstood. I meant this:

1. of a good or benevolent nature or disposition, as a person: a kind and loving person.
2. having, showing, or proceeding from benevolence: kind words.
3.indulgent, considerate, or helpful; humane (often followed by to): to be kind to animals.
4. mild; gentle; clement: kind weather.
5. British Dialect. loving; affectionate.

Define Loving: my God is speaking about love all around in his book.

What is love for you?


Best regards.

rom the same source:

Loving (adjective)
* feeling or showing love
* very careful and thorough