In general, adults use logic and rationality when looking at things, and children are the ones who have a lively fantasy. So I think it's pretty safe to say us agnostics should look at the religious folk like children

???

Adults using superficial means of logic and rationality, which include economical situations or societal life is a viable assertion, but in no means do they use logic and reasoning when it comes to the universe origins or humanity origins.

Or you're perhaps implying your perception of a adult, in which a adult ought to bypass the illogicality of religion and think with reason. Thus look at religious advocates as children.

I don't think it's childish to harbor a belief of spirituality, the belief in spirituality is inevitable when the fate of death is present. The belief that life continue on in some way is near instinctual to a mind capable of intelligent decision/judgement/conclusion making process. Spirituality can be twisted/skewed into something it's not and seem like something childish to believe in, but the belief in a afterlife isn't childish.

Just adding my 2 cents.





[edit on 25-5-2010 by GrandKitaro777]

Originally posted by My_Reality
I can't say that I agree with those statements. I am an Atheist. A person does not need to believe in a creator or savior to be spiritual. Spirituality and Theism are unrelated to one another. I observe life from Taoist philosophy. When I see things, places or creations of great beauty I see Kami in them.

When talking about Atheism we must refer to the generality not minority. Atheists are traditionally materialist. The few who see the dead-end in materialism then try the cop-out of "Taoism" and "Buddhism" but if they' had any clue they would see that those too require higher energies, higher realilties and also moral accountability.

Atheism is nothing but an expression of infantile rebelliousness and as no place in a sane society. You will find NOT A SINGLE TAOIST WRITING OR COMMENTARY that professes to know that "no God exists".

Neither will you find Taoists or Buddhists running around speaking out against Christianity or a Supreme Being.

I am curious if perhaps you cannot see clearly. You classify all Atheists as spiritually immature. Your gaze should be broad and not focused on a single belief.

Basing ones life vision against rather than for something is more than only immature.

Originally posted by Greyling2012
Maybe this will help us understand what you're getting at...

Why is morality illogical? Please frame 3 answers in the context of: a human animal living alone without society, one living in a primitive hunter-gatherer society, and one living in a modern society today.



-Greyling

Morality is a non-issue in your first example, because morals are only relevant in your interactions with any other living creature.
You can't do anything immoral to yourself !

Morality is important in a primitive hunter-gatherer society, and so is God/religious beliefs. In my opinion, both are important for bonding a society and group survival.

The difference nowadays is in knowledge.
I think it's fair to say that we evolved with a strong preponderance to believe in God, yet atheists will claim that there is no evidence for God, and will use a logical position of disbelief.
Why don't they carry on with their logical thought process and disbelieve in any moral or ethical code ?
Based on our knowledge and a disbelief in God, it doesn't follow to have any moral disposition.
All that's needed is to live within the arbitrary rules and laws of any given society; there's absolutely no need to adopt a faith based moral code.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

I think it's fair to say that we evolved with a strong preponderance to believe in God, yet atheists will claim that there is no evidence for God, and will use a logical position of disbelief.
Why don't they carry on with their logical thought process and disbelieve in any moral or ethical code ?

Because morality is not derived from a belief in god, therefore such a thought process is not logical.

For the gazillionth time, atheism is not nihilism. You really should try to absorb this fact.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Because morality is not derived from a belief in god, therefore such a thought process is not logical.

For the gazillionth time, atheism is not nihilism. You really should try to absorb this fact.

In combination with materialism, atheism offers no reason to act morally. In materialist-atheism there is no life after death, no karma, no values, no soul, no creator, but only a pointless and hopeless chain of chemical events.

The morality invented by modern atheists is a reaction to modern criticism, an attempt to spice up what would otherwise be a completely empty lifestyle.

Nihilism is a later stage that follows as a logical consequence of atheism.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer


What scientific method reveals to us is that the universe operates just fine without our concepts of creators/deities/gods. This is often seen as an existential threat to the devout believer, and we end up with all manners of foolish science-deniers.

I have read a few of your posts coming down hard on religious people, but your comments reek of the arrogance that the OP points out relating to unscientific claims made by atheists.

Tour comment above, if you can support it with evidence is most exciting scientific breakthrough that I have ever seen.
Can you point out the studies that indicate a complete understanding of the universe so as to rule out any external force, consciousness or intelligence.

Can you point out the scientific method, tested and observed that indicates the origins of the universe and the origins of all life that excludes any kind of intelligence or "god".

Thanks Traditional Drummer, I am really excited by your announcement regarding our understanding of how the universe operates and that this understanding excludes any concept of a superior being, or god like entity.

I'm no bible thumper and I have enough respect for science to know, that science itself cannot make such a claim as this:What scientific method reveals to us is that the universe operates just fine without our concepts of creators/deities/gods.

When we know how the universe works my friend, then you can blow your trumpet. Until then, your comments are just a continuation of the religious rhetoric you seem to enjoy criticizing.

Originally posted by lucid eyes
In combination with materialism, atheism offers no reason to act morally. In materialist-atheism there is no life after death, no karma, no values, no soul, no creator, but only a pointless and hopeless chain of chemical events.

The morality invented by modern atheists is a reaction to modern criticism, an attempt to spice up what would otherwise be a completely empty lifestyle.

Nihilism is a later stage that follows as a logical consequence of atheism.

Incorrect. Atheism is strictly the lack of belief in deities.

Morals and ethics are derived as a matter of social contract, not from belief in cosmic overlords. Nihilism is not a "logical consequence" of atheism, nor are the moral of atheists a reaction to criticism, nor is atheism an "empty lifestyle".

Presumably the belief that atheism begets nihilism is based on serious and rampant misconceptions about atheism.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
No, the certitude I have formed is not a belief. It is a logical conclusion based on evidence and/or lack thereof.

It is a personal belief, because you are basing it on your own personal experience. You have only found a lack of objective evidence for God in the scientific studies that you, personally have seen.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
If you are certain the the earth doesn't revolve around the sun because of lack of evidence then you are ignorant of the objective tangible evidence that exists to support it. The "evidence" presented for existence of deities is strictly subjective and never objective nor tangible.

That's the point I was getting at; someone who hasn't seen any evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, would be better off stating: ''I personally have not come across any evidence to support this''.
As far as I see, stating ''I have formed a certitude that the earth doesn't orbit the sun'' is identical to ''I have formed a certitude that God doesn't exist''. They are both based on ignorance - I don't mean that in a pejorative sense - and are certitudes formed on someone's own personal, subjective experiences.

If I had a peer-reviewed scientific study that confirmed the existence of God ( I don't, by the way ), your certitude would be based on your personal ignorance of this research, just as someone's belief that the earth doesn't rotate the sun, is basing their belief on what scientific knowledge they have or haven't come across.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I find that a failure to rule out the existence of tooth fairies and easter bunnies to be an absurdity.

I find it an absurdity that someone debating from a logical standpoint, would commit the argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
It appears you've set up an "anything goes" scenario for existence of deities to reconcile the illogic of agnosticism. Once you accept a possibility that the laws of physics can be violated by supernatural forces and deities unlimited by your imagination you've thrown logic out the window.

No, I've set up an ''anything goes'' scenario because it's the most logically sound. Any other position commits the argument from ignorance logical fallacy.

And here lies the problem that a lot of atheists have, in that they have an almost religious belief in science.
Your apparent bewildered disbelief at any suggestion that the laws of physics could be violated, means you have an unquavering belief that the laws of physics are absolute and final - I don't consider that to be a healthy position, especially as they have been tweaked and updated throughout the years.