Atheism – The complete disregard of scientific fact

page: 21
35
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Derised Emanresu
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.


Defense of atheism is not "coming down hard" on the religious, nor is it arrogant.



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.


I don't seek to provide answers or explanations for things we don't know yet. That is the domain of the religious and/or the creationists. I am fine with not having those answers and don't seek to explain them with entities.

So far we've discovered nothing in the universe that requires assistance from deities, gods or creators. We've also never seen irrefutable evidence of such either from scientific discovery or of the claims of the religious.

Since there remains no irrefutable evidence and I'm fine without having explanations for unknowns there is no need for me to believe in the gods, deities and creators that others use to bridge that gap of knowledge.




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

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''.


And that is my exact position. No scientific discovery nor claims from the devout have presented any objective evidence of deities, gods or creators. Neither have they pointed to anything in the universe that could not be explained in any other way than the involvement of such. Although there is a remotely slim possibility that evidence could be presented otherwise, I feel fine with reasoning a certitude based on these facts. There is a remotely slim possibility that evidence could be presented for tooth fairies and easter bunnies too but based on the facts I have formed certitudes about them also.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

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.


Claiming that "anything goes" is not logically sound. A claim that a human being could grow to the height of 14 miles is an "anything goes" proposition, yet not logically sound.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
So what about all the other times in history where a culture came up with a list of rules for their soceity? Are you saying it was impossible for them to do such without the belief in God?


A list of rules is a slightly different matter to morality. There are plenty of laws that I wouldn't have a moral objection to breaking, and there are plenty of things that I have a moral objection to that are lawful.


Originally posted by LeoVirgo
We have a compass within us as well as we learn from experiences and through others. Empathy is a nature within us unless we are raised in a enviroment where this empathy becomes too hard to tap into and acknowledge.


Well if it makes someone feel good to be empathetic, then they should do it. A lot of people don't have much empathy ( as the state of the world demonstrates ).
Having empathy is neither good or bad, so if you base your actions on empathy at the expense of others without it, you are imposing your own arbitrary beliefs on them.


Originally posted by LeoVirgo
there are pleny of non believers that will stand up for universal rights for others.


This is something that I've never understood; it appears to be hypocritical, relativist and culturally imperialist for a non-believer to support human rights.
What they are essentially doing is imposing their own arbitrary concept of what's right onto others who have different views.
I don't consider non-believers to be interested in human rights, but rather an interest in everybody living the way they feel is right.
If a society thinks it's ok to chop off people's hands for burglary, then why on earth stick your nose into another culture's arbitrary moral code ?


Originally posted by LeoVirgo
But you have no reason to assume a person that does not believe in God should have no reason to believe in morality.


Someone who claims they base their lack of belief in God have no reason to believe in any moral code - if behaving morally is good for them, then that's fine, but why willingly adopt an arbitrary code to live your life by ?
It's faith based, and contrary to their supposed logical stance on the existence of God.


Originally posted by LeoVirgo
Why so harsh on others? Why does it bother you so that non believers can be good people and have good leader ship skills, and can have a good healthy dream for society?


It doesn't bother me, in fact I'm glad that they are as moral as the rest of us !
My point is purely in regards to the atheists that claim to be logical, then suspend that logic when it comes to morality; and instead use a faith based system.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sasky
Every thing and I mean EVERYTHING can be explained by math and science with out the existence of a god.


And that's a faith based belief. There is absolutely nothing to say - other than your opinion - that everything can be explained by maths and science.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
It doesn't bother me, in fact I'm glad that they are as moral as the rest of us !
My point is purely in regards to the atheists that claim to be logical, then suspend that logic when it comes to morality; and instead use a faith based system.


There is no suspension of logic in deciding to behave morally, nor do atheists use a faith based system of morals. Morals and ethics are not derived from faith or religious texts. They are derived from social contract.

There appears to be a major disconnect in your logic in assuming that atheism begets nihilism, yet atheists are "as moral as the rest of us". That alone renders your logic fallacious.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Greyling2012
Why would making a personal decision to follow a certain set of ethics be considered a burden, hinderance or irrational, if that individual believes that doing so will benefit their existence in some way?


If behaving morally is what feels right to them, then that's fine. But why not just go through life doing what feels right to you, without the unneccessary moral code ?


Originally posted by Greyling2012
I disagree that there's no relevance between 2 events. In general, if most people would just take the money, then we would live in an even more paranoid and distrusting society, so while not directly related, again, doing the "right" thing has a pay-it-forward type of affect on society as a whole, although not certainly to the degree that we might hope.


Yes, but someone taking the money in that one example isn't really going to have a huge effect overall - so in that example you are hampering yourself by not taking the money.


Originally posted by Greyling2012
You are talking past-tense in all of these examples. Maybe that's an indication that those societies didn't quite nail the whole ethics thing very well.


Rwanda and the Yugoslavian civil war both happened within the last 20 years, so we haven't exactly evolved since then !
I don't think it's presumptuous to think that there will be another huge bloodbath somewhere in the world in the near future; in fact, there are many unreported conflicts going on in the world as we speak.


Originally posted by Greyling2012
At some point, we realized that eating each other wasn't necessary nor safe, lest we be eaten ourselves. Also, I never said all societies were created (dare I use that term - hehe) equal, and some today are practically eating each other.


The point I was making about cannibalism was in regards to instinctual responses. If I didn't know that cannibals existed, I would have assumed that my reaction towards it was instinctually hard-wired into us. It obviously isn't, if some societies found it acceptable.


Originally posted by Greyling2012
A lack of education, technology, natural resources and the oppression by rich countries like the US make sure their enlightenment progress is slow to nill. (what's that say about US/UK (etc.) ethics as a whole?)


There we have it. You are assuming that our arbitrary opinion of what is right is better than other cultures. A cannibalistic society may look at us pityingly, wondering when we'll get ''enlightened''.


Originally posted by Greyling2012
Why would making a personal decision to follow a certain set of ethics be considered a burden, hinderance or irrational, if that individual believes that doing so will benefit their existence in some way?


If behaving morally is what feels right to them, then that's fine. But why not just go through life doing what feels right to you, without the unneccessary moral code ?


Originally posted by Greyling2012
I disagree that there's no relevance between 2 events. In general, if most people would just take the money, then we would live in an even more paranoid and distrusting society, so while not directly related, again, doing the "right" thing has a pay-it-forward type of affect on society as a whole, although not certainly to the degree that we might hope.


Yes, but someone taking the money in that one example isn't really going to have a huge affect overall - so in that example you are hampering yourself by not taking the money.


Originally posted by Greyling2012
You are talking past-tense in all of these examples. Maybe that's an indication that those societies didn't quite nail the whole ethics thing very well.


Rwanda and the Yugoslavian civil war both happened within the last 20 years, so we haven't exactly evolved since then !
I don't think it's presumptuous to think that there will be another huge bloodbath somewhere in the world in the future; in fact, there are many unreported conflicts going on in the world as we speak.


Originally posted by Greyling2012
True, and while those individuals may well "succeed" in their own life, how many others might they bring down in the process, and what kind of a ripple effect might that have in terms of the overall success of that society? It's like several people seeing someone steal a pack of gum, and then just all saying screw it, let's alll do it because that guy did. That animal pack mentality eventually backfires because the store owner will eventually fight back, or the store will close, and then those people lose the convenience of utilizing that resource. At some level, most people inherently make the "right" decision out of a cause and effect rationalization, without a god telling them why.


It may have a ripple effect, but that doesn't matter to the immoral person sunning himself in Barbados.

Any knock-on effect would have no relevance to a successful, immoral person, because the effects of their actions would only be detrimental in the long-term.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes
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.
No it's not. It doesn't prove anything. You're making zero sense. If it was titled "Husband kills wife", would it be generalizing husbands? If it was titled "Man kills Woman", would it be generalizing towards men? Maybe we should just title it human kills human, just make to make sure we don't offend anyone.

But in repsonse to the other thing you said:


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 hate to burst your bubble, but believing in a mythlogical being backed by no evidence whatsoever (hence it being a mythological being), is far from sophisticated. In fact, some would view it as primitive. And athiests being viewed like children? Really? Call me crazy, but it looks like you just copied some anti-religious comment and flip-flopped the positions, because none of what you're saying makes any sense whatsover. You're starting to look like a troll.

And before you say anything else:

1. Science is not a religion. Science has data and evidence. Religion does not.
2. Scientists have witnessed evolution in action, so it doesn't take faith to accept evolution. Sure some people may accept it without looking at any of the facts backing it, but that's beside the point. The facts are there.
3. It doesn't take faith to be an Atheist. Sure, there may be some athiests who became athiest for reasons other than skepticism of mythological beings, but that's beside the point. Now if we take a look at the definition of the word faith, you'll see it has many definitions:

dictionary.reference.com...

One of them being: belief that is not based on proof. Now assuming this is definition you're referring to when you say atheists have faith, let me ask you: what proof is there for the existence of god? And no, people across the world believing in god in a time where there was no communication between them is not proof, especially since the their ideas of god vary. All it proves is that people made up stories to explain unexplainable things back then.
4. A theory is backed up by evidence in the scientific community. Saying evolution is only a theory is not a valid argument.
5. Athiests don't have to disprove god. The people who believe in god need to prove that existence of god in the first place.
6. The Big Bang didn't come from nothing. It came from a singularity. Do we know where the singularity came from? No.
7. A few scientists being Christian is not evidence for the existence of god. Assuming this is so is a logical fallacy I believe.

I only posted that assuming you were going to say/have said any of those things. If you weren't/didn't, then ignore this part.





[edit on 26-5-2010 by technical difficulties]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   


High IQ not required as long as you can let your fantasy go wild...weeeeeeeeee


I wish we had this program where I live, I loooooove good comedy




[edit on 26-5-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Greyling2012
This seems like a flawed argument... it's the aggregate of all of a societies individuals' personal morals that indicate what that societies overall morality stance is. Sure, laws play a part in enforcing some morals (most of the important ones), but those are also based on a legal (if we're lucky) consensus of the body politic, so in essence, an average of the range of personal morality for the individuals in that society.


I don't think it's flawed. If I didn't have a conscience, I could easily go around behaving like a tool if I so wished to !
I live in a country of 60million people, if I wanted to go around killing rodents and having sex with my mate's girlfriend, then it's not going to have a large detrimental effect on the overall morality of British society !


Originally posted by Greyling2012
Well, maybe this is true for the majority, and yes, this is likely what will do us in. However, there are many, especially those who understand at least a little bit about physics/inertia/blunt trauma, who will go the speed limit (or maybe a tad slower), because they know it may someday help save injury/life. Do you always go full-tilt at or above the speed limit without considering road/visibility/safety conditions? I guess most do, but that's sad = many people are just plain stupid and don't consider the consequences of their actions. The bible doesn't tell us how fast to drive - maybe it should.


I don't drive.

Speeding is an example of something that I think most drivers do ( moral or immoral ). I outlined it as a behaviour that most people do, yet would stop at the immediate sign of something that could have a negative effect on them ( such as a police car ).
I was suggesting that that would be the most logical position to take on all matters.
I imagine most amoral people act morally most of the time, because that is the best way to get on in society most of the time; the difference is that when they get the opportunity to do something immoral and beneficial to themselves, they will do.


Originally posted by Greyling2012
I disagree, and it's not about personally "needing" to follow the code, it's a choice, and there are many atheists that drive the speed limit, like myself. It's not illogical, it's about survival, courtesy, gas mileage, and yes, perhaps some fear of the po-po.
Apply this same concept to actual morality, not just following laws.


But if you were daydreaming and suddenly looked down and saw you were above the speed limit, would you rationalise slowing down in the same way as above ? Or would your mind instantly prompt you to think speeding=wrong ?


Originally posted by Greyling2012
Wow, okay, I think you've just proven my point. Yes, it would personally disadvantage me to beat my family. I therefore have personally determined that it's wrong to beat them - I don't need a god/bible to tell me so. Again, it's not about "need," but a conscious choice to adopt such morals.


What I'm saying is that I don't think your rationalisation is the main reason you wouldn't harm them. Your main reason is probably emotionally based, rather than a conscious, well-thought out reason, even if you think otherwise. I'm not saying you haven't rationalised it, just that not harming them is probably your default position based on emotion alone.
It certainly is in my case; my reason for not harming people is entirely emotion based, because I don't like pain and suffering in others.


Originally posted by Greyling2012
Your argument that it's illogical for an atheist to also have self-imposed (or follow "normal" societal) morals is baseless, IMHO. The definition of Atheism doesn't say anything about logic, BTW.


I apologise if I haven't made a clear enough distinction; my points are aimed at atheists who claim to have come to their disbelief through the use of logic, yet suspend logic and rely on a faith or emotion based belief when it comes to morals, rather than the most logical position of amorality.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
I apologise if I haven't made a clear enough distinction; my points are aimed at atheists who claim to have come to their disbelief through the use of logic, yet suspend logic and rely on a faith or emotion based belief when it comes to morals, rather than the most logical position of amorality.


Being that there are no such atheists as the ones you describe I imagine you're falling on deaf ears. The problem here is your faulty misconceptions about atheism and morality. It really would be ideal to discover where you're going wrong in your argument so that we can stop wasting bandwidth trying to explain it to you.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
God prefers those who worship Him from the heart, with sincerity, and by doing what is good and avoiding what is evil, to those who fancy they honor Him by ceremonies which do not render them any better than their neighbors.

All men are brothers, and children of God; He calls to Him all who follow His laws, whatever may be the form under which they show their obedience.

He who has only the externals of piety is a hypocrite; he whose worship is only a pretence, and in contradiction with his conduct, sets a bad example.

He who professes to worship Christ, and who is proud, envious, and jealous, who is hard and unforgiving to others, or ambitious of the goods of earth, is religious with the lips only, and not with the heart. God, who sees all things, will say to him, 'He who knows the truth, and does not follow it, is a hundredfold more guilty in the evil he does than the ignorant savage, and will he treated accordingly in the day of retribution.' If a blind man runs against you as he goes by, you excuse him; but if the same thing is done by a man who sees, you complain, and with reason.

Do not ask, then, if any form of worship be more acceptable than another; for it is as though you asked whether it is more pleasing to God to be worshipped in one tongue rather than in another. Remember that the hymns addressed to Him can reach Him only through the door of the heart.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
If the God of the bible exists as I was taught in the Catholic religion, he loves each and every one of us.

If there's some being up there that's taken on the mantle of God, it's not worthy of being called God.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
- Epicurus

edit to add the quote from Epicurus.


Well, as far as I see, there is nothing to say that God has to be good or nice. I don't consider God's disposition to be relevant to the question of whether God exists or not.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7
Morality is not illogical. We are a social species and we spend most of ours lives relying on one another for the things we need to survive. Without a common sense of morality, there could be no trust and reliance.


There's no need for morality there. Just rules and regulations to subscribe to.
It appears that religious belief was also useful to our survival, judging by how easily people believe in God.
Just because something was useful, doesn't mean it is still relevant today.


Originally posted by andrewh7
Our ancestors who did not steal from their peers were more socially desirable and thus more likely to be chosen as mates.


I don't entirely disagree with your assessment, but if we're fair about this, that's pure conjecture. In the absence of a time machine, any theory on how or why a trait was selected is just guesswork.


Originally posted by andrewh7
In this sense, morality kept you alive


As presumably, did a belief in God, considering the propensity for people to believe.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake
Stealing the guy's money would, in fact, be forever connected to the event at some point in time where your wallet was lost and someone else had to choose between turning it in and giving it back. Because, either you accept the money back and become a hypocritical ass, or you don't get your money back.


The problem with that is I don't think someone who would steal 100s of pounds/dollars from another person's wallet would be too bothered about acting hypocritically.
And that's the thing; stealing the money does not in any way change the likelihood of whether someone will hand in your wallet, should you lose it in future.
So, ignoring any moral aspect, it appears the most logical thing to do is to take the money.


Originally posted by darkbake
If this wallet example is a typical slice of your everyday life, then it is likely that you will have a hard time keeping friends or meaningful relationships.


I don't necessarily agree with that. I've come across many people that I would consider at the very least to be amoral, and some of them are very popular/successful.
At school, many of the nasty children were amongst the most popular - although I know there's an element of peer-pressure there.
An American serial killer had many female fans, even after the nature of his crimes were publicised !


Originally posted by darkbake
Even if "no one will ever know" seems to be the case, do you really want to be walking around with thousands of "no one will ever know" situations weighing you down? And, most importantly, don't you want to live in a society where someone else will give you back YOUR lost wallet?
How can you expect this from anyone else while not being willing to do it yourself? At the very least, it makes any argument for wanting to get your wallet back completely illigitimate coming from your own mouth.


But it's not really going to weigh on your conscience, if you are perfectly ok to do these things.
Stealing money from someone's wallet does not alter the probability of someone returning your wallet in the future.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:50 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.


Do you know that for a fact ? How do you know which evolved first, belief in God or morality ? How do you know they are not intertwined ?

Nihilism is the default position for an atheist; any other philosophy is contradictory to logic.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes
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.


I like your style, but can't tell whether you are being entirely serious.


I agree with your point, though. Some atheists do have a tendency of selecting the negatives of religion, and falsely tarring all religious people with the same brush.
As mentioned earlier, I could easily cite Pol Pot to try and point out that atheists and morals don't get along, but I wouldn't do that because it's false and intellectually dishonest.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
 


Does agnosticism lead to a different result morally, if we follow through with your logic?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Do you know that for a fact ? How do you know which evolved first, belief in God or morality ? How do you know they are not intertwined


They are intertwined for believers in personal deities, they are not intertwined for followers of religions with no deities, and are not intertwined for agnostics or atheists. Since moral behavior operates independent of religious belief it should be clear that they are not derived from religion. Moral codes also exist in societies of the earth's animals and they have no religion. Human morality is derived by social contract and is sourced to empathy.

Recommended reading: The Human Origin of Morals by Joseph McCabe



Nihilism is the default position for an atheist; any other philosophy is contradictory to logic.


Incorrect. While some atheists may choose to be nihilists there is no "default position" on morality for atheists. Many, in fact, apply the moral universalism of humanism instead.

Recommended reading: try the wikipedia page on atheism for a start...



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
And that is my exact position.


My apologies if I've misquoted you, but I think earlier on in the thread you made a definitive statement along the lines of: ''There's no evidence for the existence of God''.
That's a different statement than: ''I personally have not come across any evidence for the existence of God''.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
No scientific discovery nor claims from the devout have presented any objective evidence of deities, gods or creators.


Again, what you're actually saying is that you haven't personally come across any scientific discovery or claims of the devout for the existence of God.
Which is a belief formed from your own personal experiences.
As I outlined in my previous post, there is no difference in your stance and the stance of someone that doesn't believe that the earth orbits the sun.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Although there is a remotely slim possibility that evidence could be presented otherwise, I feel fine with reasoning a certitude based on these facts.


How can you work out if the possibility is slim or not ? That doesn't make sense. Either God is 100% true or 0% true - there is no likelihood, probability or possibility involved.
You can't form a balanced opinion on the likelihood of something existing without knowing whether that thing exists or not - which renders the probability and likelihood redundant.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
There is a remotely slim possibility that evidence could be presented for tooth fairies and easter bunnies too but based on the facts I have formed certitudes about them also.


Is ''forming a certitude'' different to the argument from personal incredulity or argument from ignorance logical fallacy ?

I don't understand the logic behind forming a certitude of something's non-existence. Following your logic, your certitudes must be proven wrong on a weekly basis with the discoveries of new species that had no evidence for their existence other than anecdotal evidence.





top topics
 
35
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join