Atheism – The complete disregard of scientific fact

page: 20
35
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



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


So, following that analogy, the agnostics are like the teenagers that think they're too old for the kid stuff anymore but secretly still wish it were true and think the adults are all dumb and don't know anything until the teenagers themselves grow up and realize how the world really works?




posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





So, following that analogy, the agnostics are like the teenagers that think they're too old for the kid stuff anymore but secretly still wish it were true and think the adults are all dumb and don't know anything until the teenagers themselves grow up and realize how the world really works?


Interesting and very well said. I'll be hornswagled you are ninja.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


LMFAO! I told you!

At least we found some common ground huh?



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





At least we found some common ground huh?


Well lets not start giving each other oral just yet!: on my back lmao.
what I mean is hard pills take a little time to ingest.


[edit on 25-5-2010 by randyvs]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   


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]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





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


It's pretty safe to say no one cares much about the opinion of an agnostic.
By your own admission you don't know anything.Just as a passer by.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by randyvs]


And neither do you, you just BELIEVE to know something. Your whole belief system is based on pure guesswork absent of any facts, rationality, or logic. You claim to know something you CAN'T know, and no matter how often you repeat "there is a God and he created the world", in the end, you don't have the slightest bit of proof or evidence.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by lucid eyes
 



Originally posted by lucid eyes
Atheism is the religion of the Plebs. As they lack sophisticated brain circuitry they are incapable of spiritual sight and unable to appreciate the beauty of Creation. Thus, they should not be condemned or judged as many have the habit of doing. Instead we must view them with the tolerance and love we would view children with and do our best to provide education in the hopes that through millenia of education they too become mature enough to witness greatness.


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.

That still makes me an Atheist. Taoist philosophy has nothing to do with deities. Seeing the Shinto concept of Kami in exquisite things has nothing to do with deities.

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.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by My_Reality]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Utopian
 


Doctrines and belief systems cannot last forever. How can they when they are based in the same universe that's very nature is impermanent. Why not adopt a system of "No system" and carry the beliefs in the same fashion but never allow the system to be transformed into a doctrine and allow new information to change and transform it whenever new information becomes available.

I'm also an intellectual prick and a scared person but when one embraces truth one must learn to live there. When one embraces a lie his world will eventually shrivel up and die leaving him without anything to stand on.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   

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.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   

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.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   

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.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
People saying atheism and morals don't go along well, and that you need religion as a guideline are beyond crazy.

If that statement were true, this wouldn't happen:



But I'm sure he found God



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
People need to realise why religion is a bad thing:-

THINGS ATHEISTS DID NOT DO!

I'm not saying having your own beliefs is wrong but this organised religion indoctrination using your beliefs to commit unethical acts is just wrong.


I think it's something in the region of 90% are religious, so it follows that 90% of things good or bad will be committed by religious people.

Atheists always selectively pick out the bad things that religious people are guilty of, yet don't mention people like Isaac Newton and William Wilberforce, who's religious beliefs had an active input on their accomplishments.

We can examine what happened in non-religious societies, and it doesn't exactly bode too well; USSR, Albania, Cambodia, North Korea etc.
I mean, look what happened in Cambodia: Pol Pot's regime actively tortured and killed people for not being atheists.
How does one reconcile the belief that religion causes all the problems, when you see exactly the same modus operandi in atheist regimes ?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Thank you for posting that. It is representative of the severe distortion atheists compusively engage in every day. They take one bad apple and make it representative of the whole.

Because of the aforementioned deficiencies in brain chemistry the Pleb does not recognize the logical fallacy of "he is a baker and commited a crime, therefore bakers are criminals" and falls for atheist propaganda.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   

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.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Thank you for posting that. It is representative of the severe distortion atheists compusively engage in every day. They take one bad apple and make it representative of the whole.

Because of the aforementioned deficiencies in brain chemistry the Pleb does not recognize the logical fallacy of "he is a baker and commited a crime, therefore bakers are criminals" and falls for atheist propaganda.
Wow, you really missed the point of that post.


Originally posted by MrXYZ
People saying atheism and morals don't go along well, and that you need religion as a guideline are beyond crazy.

If that statement were true, this wouldn't happen:



But I'm sure he found God


Yeah, he's obviously generalizing christians, as opposed to, you know, providing an example that contradicts that ridiculous notion that you need religion to have morals.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   

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.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


The title "Preacher Kills Wife" is quite enough to see that its another generalizing hitpiece. Its no surprise because atheists publish a few Million such pieces every day on this Planet. Their hatred knows no bounds.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   

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.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

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 _


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.






top topics



 
35
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join