QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
It becomes a viable human individual when it is no longer biologically dependent upon another entity.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Folly of Atheism
- Thread starter usfan
- Start date
It becomes a viable human individual when it is no longer biologically dependent upon another entity.
Yes but when exactly is this and why is this the criteria? Is a newborn baby biologically dependent upon another entity? It wouldn't manage to live long alone would it...
No effort at all to disprove nor prove anything, and by the way not the subject of the thread. In fact the search for Truth is a vain egocentric goal.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
A biologically independent human individual is one that is not biologically dependent upon another biological entity in order to get oxygen, blood flow, and nutrients into its system. An entity that is biologically dependent upon another cannot be considered an individual.
Another conclusion so circular it bites you in the butt.
And how would a newborn baby get nutrients into its system without the help of another? Does it become viable when it can eat by itself?
Likely that like all humanity throughout history he is compassionate and understanding, but for those who arrogant claim that there way is the only way, like the Roman Church ((RCC) they may be in trouble,
Even adults are interdependent with the family and group. Without them they would likely perish. The issue is viability outside the womb.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's biochemistry not God. Our entire composition is a community of cells comprised of atoms. We already know how we come about without a great degree of conjecture and speculation.
If any type of God is involved, it would be nice to know exactly where this supposed interaction takes place .
Science is descriptive of the nature of our physical existence and our universe, and cannot by the nature of science to explain how it came to exist. That is the subject of philosophical and theological speculation.
Science dos not try to answer the question.
No, it is an honest view of limits of science and fallible human ability to have ultimate explanations.
Neutral Name
Active Member
I am always intrigued at the attention given to philosophical beliefs, and the dogmatic confidence some have in those beliefs. Many religious beliefs are examined, criticised, ridiculed & psychoanalyzed in this forum, but not much is given to atheism The title may put some off, but since the 'folly of religion' is a constant topic here on the forum, i thought it only fair to consider the folly of atheism.
And, since there is a disproportionately high number of vocal, proactive atheists here, a light hearted look at atheism should be welcome relief from the seriousness and intensity that some display.
A false dilemma
A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option. (from wiki)
The dilemma presented is usually like this:
'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'
But, there are other possibilities, not just the 'either/or' of this dilemma.
1. God may have reasons, unknown to us, for not presenting a conspicuous presence.
2. God may reveal to some, but leave others wondering.
3. The Majesty and holiness of God may be too much for sinful man to observe, so God waits, to give opportunity to be reconciled.
4. Something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to perceive spiritual reality.
5. God does not reveal Himself, because He does not exist.
We do not have enough evidence, individually, to categorically declare one of these possibilities as 'truth!', and dismiss all others. Therefore, this argument is fallacious, based on a false dilemma.
I would make the point that just because someone has not seen or experienced something doesn't mean it does not exist. I have never seen a living octopus but I do believe that they exist. Yes, I have seen pictures but they could be Photo-shopped. I have heard of them but people lie and make up stories. So, what makes me think that they are real? Because there is enough of a group consensus for me to think so but I could be wrong. Maybe living octopuses don't exist at all. Maybe I am deluding myself.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Why must there be a first cause?
If there has to be, why invent god?
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
That's an example of an entity being physically dependent upon another for its survival, NOT an example of an entity being biologically dependent upon another for its survival. It becomes a viable independent entity once it is no longer biologically dependent upon another.
A random quantum fluctuation. A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
Altfish
Veteran Member
You are indoctrinated.
I'm not promoting abortion, it is a choice of last resort, but giving birth can ruin a woman's life.
Do you believe in free health care, free schooling, payment for stay at home mothers, Planned Parenthood, free contraception, sex education in all schools, etc,. etc., ??
So the only criteria is if they are physically connected or not? Just cut the umbilical cord and suddenly a baby is viable even though it would be dead in a few days without help?
leov
Well-Known Member
My greatest problem with atheism is that it is material, and they want material type of proof of God .
dfnj
Well-Known Member
I am always intrigued at the attention given to philosophical beliefs, and the dogmatic confidence some have in those beliefs. Many religious beliefs are examined, criticised, ridiculed & psychoanalyzed in this forum, but not much is given to atheism The title may put some off, but since the 'folly of religion' is a constant topic here on the forum, i thought it only fair to consider the folly of atheism.
The reason atheism is not examined, criticized, ridiculed & psychoanalyzed as much as theism is there's nothing to criticize. Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in God. Atheism is NOT the denial of God's existence which you seem to be assuming.
Since atheism is just not having something it's very hard to criticize something that is not there. Not having something is NOT something. So you can't say much about it.
I hope my comment clarifies it for you. However, choosing to have a belief in the Old Testament God without any evidence or proof requires faith. A choice is not a decision based on reasons. Since most atheists seem refuse to accept the idea of choosing something to be true without any evidence both sides are at an impasse. One side if foolish for thinking the other should make choices in faith that seem obvious. And the other side if foolish for thinking someone would ever change their choice because there's no evidence. Many people choose to believe in God precisely because there is no existing "good" evidence to provide them comfort with their own difficult existential questions.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
What I said is that the criteria is that they be biologically dependent upon another. It just so happens that a physical connection is required for an entity to be biologically dependent. Once an entity can survive without that biological physical connection they become an independent individual human being.
Real evidence is objective, ie: independent of human opinion or belief. Opinions and perceptions are subjective, ie: features of the individual -- the subject.
Proof is a mathematical term, not scientific. Science doesn't prove anything, it just amasses and tests evidence. Scientific theories are always provisional and subject to change pending new evidence.
I'm not angry. I'm responding to opinions already voiced, that I may agree or disagree with. That's what one does in public forums. Outside RF, in fact, issues of religion and atheism never come up.IMO, it is for several reasons:
1. Pent up anger and resentment toward God needs an outlet.. a scapegoat for relief.
2. Competing ideologies are at odds with each other, and bring sparks when they come together.
3. Reality show hysteria is morbidly fascinating. Calm reason is boring. Yelling and emotion sells.
4. Insecurities need justification and affirmation. What better way, than a flame war?
Competing ideologies? Like Catholicism vs Islam?
I hope you're not including atheism as an ideology. It has no particular beliefs, doctrines, moral codes, ethics or rituals. It's no more an ideology than lack of belief in unicorns is.