Atheism – The complete disregard of scientific fact

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

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
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.


How is that not logically sound ? What laws of science would a 14-mile high human fall foul of ?




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
I don't understand the logic behind forming a certitude of something's non-existence.


You would a form a certitude that there exists no 14 mile high human beings in Washington, D.C. Follow the understanding of how you reached that certitude and the logic will become more clear. Although, your personal thought process may be more prone to claiming you just haven't seen any evidence for it and therefore it's just a belief, though few would find any logic in that mode of thought.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
How is that not logically sound ? What laws of science would a 14-mile high human fall foul of ?


Gravity, for one.

If you wish to believe in it, so be it. Few will share your "logic".



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
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.


Your argument would be more accurate if everybody in society followed the same morals and ethics.
You don't have to have morals to live by the rules of a society; it's illogical. That is why having morality is faith based, rather than logically driven.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
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.


My position isn't illogical. I think you're misinterpreting what I say.
As far as I can see, there is no real difference in the morals of atheists and theists.

A theist can justify their morals by genuinely believing that it's the way that God wants people to believe, yet an atheist has full knowledge that their morals are arbitrary.

So why continue with morality when you know there was an evolutionary purpose for it that is not so relevant in today's more fragmented and disparate societies ?

Just as atheists may believe that belief in God is a redundant evolutionary advancement, why don't they also have the same view on personal morality ?
This is why having your own moral code is based on faith or emotions, rather than logic.
Logically, you'd adopt the moral code of your society rather than have your own.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
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.


What, no logical atheists ?!

I'm not going wrong anywhere in this debate, so there's nothing for me to discover.
The only replies I've had are from atheists attempting to explain their own personal ethos, which is faith and emotionally driven, rather than logically.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

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


It all depends on the agnostic in question. Many agnostics have their own personal beliefs/disbeliefs, yet concede that that is all they are.

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



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
What, no logical atheists ?!

I'm not going wrong anywhere in this debate, so there's nothing for me to discover.
The only replies I've had are from atheists attempting to explain their own personal ethos, which is faith and emotionally driven, rather than logically.


Incorrect again. Most atheist's morals are driven by reason and empathy using a logical process. No atheist derives their moral set from faith. With all due respect that is patently absurd.

At some point you'll need to back up your claims regarding the morality of agnostics and atheists because they seem to evade all facts on the matter.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
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.


What I meant was how do you the predisposition to act morally was intertwined with the predisposition to believe in God when we were evolving ?
A society of humans would not know the origin of morality, and may well have ascribed their moral behaviour to deities.

I think it's perfectly plausible that tying in religion to morality would have helped group survival.
There would be much more likelihood of rebellion and discontentment amongst a group if they thought their actions were being controlled by arbitrary rules from their hierarchy.

If, on the other hand, they believed that the way they acted was defined as right or wrong by deities, then they would be less likely to challenge those rules.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Moral codes also exist in societies of the earth's animals and they have no religion.


You don't know whether some animals believe in God or not; I think it's highly likely that some do.



Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
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.


As I said earlier, I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the logical relationship between atheism and nihilism.

I don't intend to offend any humanists, but I've always looked at their philosophy to be a cop-out for atheists to believe in something, without wanting to commit to believing in God.

It's completely contradictory, because what they believe in impacts on other people that don't believe in it.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Recommended reading: try the wikipedia page on atheism for a start...





posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

As I said earlier, I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the logical relationship between atheism and nihilism.


I don't. I believe you have made a claim and an assertion of which you need to back up with some facts.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
You would a form a certitude that there exists no 14 mile high human beings in Washington, D.C. Follow the understanding of how you reached that certitude and the logic will become more clear.


Yes, because you would be able to see a 14 mile high human being in Washington DC. They would be clearly visible for miles as they would have to be standing or sitting up, and is confined to a small, searchable place.
It's an erroneous analogy. Again, comparing a finite scenario with an infinite one.
Clearly, we don't understand how the universe works, so we cannot say with any level of logical certainty, whether something does or does not exist in slightly broader parameters than Washington DC !
To form a certitude on that is the argument from ignorance logical fallacy.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Keith Ward wrote a good book in reply to Dawkins. as did Anthony Flew who was once one of atheisms greatest champions but found God in new science.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Gravity, for one.

If you wish to believe in it, so be it.


Why would that defy the laws of gravity ? ( genuine question, please excuse my ignorance
)


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Few will share your "logic".


Is that the Argumentum ad populum creeping in ?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Yes, because you would be able to see a 14 mile high human being in Washington DC. They would be clearly visible for miles as they would have to be standing or sitting up, and is confined to a small, searchable place.
It's an erroneous analogy. Again, comparing a finite scenario with an infinite one.
Clearly, we don't understand how the universe works, so we cannot say with any level of logical certainty, whether something does or does not exist in slightly broader parameters than Washington DC !
To form a certitude on that is the argument from ignorance logical fallacy.


Only if we expand your parameters indefinitely as you seem to wish to do can we employ the argument you present. However, the universe operates within some finite parameters, therefore the indefinite expansion of parameters is illogical.

"Anything goes" is not a reasonable stance if it includes things beyond the realm of possibility, such as 14 mile high human beings. You asked for the logic in forming certitudes and I have presented fair descriptions of such. Until and unless irrefutable evidence of deities is presented, neither I nor the universe has any problem existing without them nor do I have a reason or need to consider the eventual discovery of one within the realms of possibility.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
If a meteor was to strike the Earth destroying it entirely, then religion would be gone in one stroke and it would not matter one bit to the rest of the universe. We are so insignificant in the grand scale of things, yet so egotistical to think we're so important.


You may claim other beings maybe worshipping a god in some other part of the universe, but it would not be to your god, it would be some others opinion or story of how they became. If a christian was born in a muslim country then odds on they'd have been brought up a muslim.


In wars, mass famines, deseases, why does god not drop by and help out? because religion is just guidelines, a coping mechanism to help people get by, a justification in war, an insufficient answer to our existence and one that belongs back in the days from where it came.


You could describe mankind as a god, we heal people, we can judge people, we can end lives and perform miracles such as life saving operations. We can feed and house people, destroy countries and rebuild them.


Im 100% athiest and have no fear of divine retribution or the wrath of a god.

Maybe people should worship the world around them and treat it with more respect, because when its gone then so are we.


Look from where your religions came, they are the influence of leaders past, tyrannical dictators, religious conquerers. Its just man made laws with "you will be damned if you dont obey them" thrown in. And you were killed if you didnt anyways.


God did not write your holy book and you cannot deny that those who did could not manipulate it to how they saw fit.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Incorrect again. Most atheist's morals are driven by reason and empathy using a logical process. No atheist derives their moral set from faith. With all due respect that is patently absurd.


Yes, moral codes are faith based. It is absolutely clear that there is no empirical definition of wrong or right, so to follow an arbitrary moral code of ''right'' and ''wrong'' is based on faith.

Having a moral code is not based on reason. As I demonstrated earlier, someone pocketing money that they found in a wallet is the reasonable thing to do, yet most moral people would not do so.

Basing your actions on empathy is emotionally driven. There's no logic involved in succumbing to your emotions. I would think that logic should stray away from emotions as much as possible.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
At some point you'll need to back up your claims regarding the morality of agnostics and atheists because they seem to evade all facts on the matter.


What claims ?
All I've said is that it is illogical to follow a moral code, when you know yourself that it's arbitrary. It's logical for a theist to follow a moral code if they genuinely feel that the morals stem from divine sources.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I don't. I believe you have made a claim and an assertion of which you need to back up with some facts.


The facts are:
We are all born pretty much the same; while genetics have some part to play in how we turn out, it's undeniable that nurture also plays a huge part.
My earlier mention of cannibals is an example of this; I feel slightly sick just thinking about it, yet if I'd been raised in a cannibalistic society then I may well have been ok with it.

Clearly we can see that cannibalism is neither wrong or right and our attitudes towards it are based on societal indoctrination.
The logical conclusion to this is to eradicate our knee-jerk, conditioned responses to it and take a neutral stance to the rights and wrongs of this activity.

Now extrapolate the example of cannibalism to any other moral that was taught to us by society and it is clear to me that the closest logical fit is amorality or nihilism.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Only if we expand your parameters indefinitely as you seem to wish to do can we employ the argument you present.


It is not my parameters. To define any parameters is illogical, because it's saying that our current knowledge is definitive.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
However, the universe operates within some finite parameters, therefore the indefinite expansion of parameters is illogical.


The universe operates within certain parameters that we have currently defined. The very fact that these parameters have been changed and tweaked over the years, should give us cause to temper any opinions based on our current understanding.

Isn't the universe considered to be infinite anyway ? How do you know that the laws of physics apply to the universe as a whole ?


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
"Anything goes" is not a reasonable stance if it includes things beyond the realm of possibility, such as 14 mile high human beings. You asked for the logic in forming certitudes and I have presented fair descriptions of such.


14-mile high humans are potentially possible. 6-foot humans would have seemed impossible when some early lifeforms started breeding in the Primordial Soup.

Sorry mate, but you have not presented fair descriptions.
The 14-mile high human existing in a relatively small location such as Washington DC is not comparable to an ethereal concept within an infinite universe.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Until and unless irrefutable evidence of deities is presented, neither I nor the universe has any problem existing without them nor do I have a reason or need to consider the eventual discovery of one within the realms of possibility.


Science wouldn't have flourished without open-minded individuals considering unproven possibilities. Let's not forget that many of our scientific discoveries wouldn't have even been considered a few centuries ago.

I think the most open-minded and logical stance is to adopt the ''anything goes'' approach to questions that have not been answered.


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



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
Now extrapolate the example of cannibalism to any other moral that was taught to us by society and it is clear to me that the closest logical fit is amorality or nihilism.


I see. So the arbitrary nature of morals as defined by cultures essentially indicates that morals are not derived from deities then, as they would demand a subset by which all would follow. Interestingly, a cannibalistic tribe called the Caribs were polytheistic and not, in fact, agnostic nor atheist.

This still doesn't answer your claim that "the default position of atheism is nihilism". It can easily be reasoned that, for example, we do not kill members of our own family or tribe. This is done without the need for deistic moral parameters nor is it derived from a matter of faith or emotion. It is derived logically as a matter of social contract. Atheists, agnostics, members of the Abrahamic religions, Buddhists, Hindus and even the polytheistic Caribs operate in this manner. Deities have little to do with morality unless they lay claim to certain moral behaviors as their own.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

14-mile high humans are potentially possible.


Uhhh. Right.



Science wouldn't have flourished without open-minded individuals considering unproven possibilities. Let's not forget that many of our scientific discoveries wouldn't have even been considered a few centuries ago.


This much I agree with and I'm open to all sorts of new scientific discoveries.



I think the most open-minded and logical stance is to adopt the ''anything goes'' approach to questions that have not been answered.


Within reason. Again, the possibility monkeys flying out of one's butt is an anything-goes proposition yet it is unreasonable and irrational to operate as though this could be considered a possibility. The concept of invisible cosmic tyrants demanding worship is equally as unreasonable and irrational as the aforementioned monkeys.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

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.


Until I see some proof of God's existence, there isn't a God in my opinion. I see proof of man's belief in God, but none in the existence of God. I won't discount all the good that belief in God has brought, but it's brought MUCH more terror, oppression, death, and horror. Some people need to believe in God so that everything makes sense to them, but I'm not one of those people. And for people claiming that the beauty of existence is proof of God, what about the ugliness of existence? All the horrible terrible things that happen every day which their God allows to happen.

Atheists don't need God for things to make sense...





new topics
top topics
 
35
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join