• 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!

A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Augustus

Augustus

…
PureX said:
Belief" is illogical and unnecessary in relation to effecting probability. Also, you have no logical method of establishing the probability of God's existence. I respect that you THINK you do (just as theists also often think they do). But it's not logically possible. We humans don't have the cognitive scope for it.
Click to expand...

Belief is a necessary aspect of probabilistic judgement. If you were certain it wouldn't be probabilistic.

That you think it is "illogical" means you haven't understood the concept.

Also you don't need much "cognitive scope" to operate under the assumption that things don't exist until there is good reason to judge that they do exist.

Again, you do this all the time with other issues.

PureX said:
Atheist are constantly claiming themselves to be operating on "evidence and logic", while the claim theists are not. Since there is no evidence to support choosing atheism as opposed to simply remaining agnostic, I am asking for the logic of it.
Click to expand...

Some atheists putting great stock in their own sense of rationality is completely irrelevant.

PureX said:
So far ya'll aren't doing very well at presenting it.
Click to expand...

People have presented it just fine, you just aren't doing very well in understanding it without tying yourself in knots based on incorrect assumptions about the basic concepts involved ;)
 
Azrael Antilla

Azrael Antilla

Active Member
PureX said:
... And a whole lot more. It's leaving this part last out that fails materialism as a philosophical paradigm. Also, that little addendum of "inferred" really tosses a grenade into the soup. All kinds of things can be logically "inferred". Including God, intelligent design, and universal morality just to name a few that I suspect you would really like not to be included.

And the "testing" thing is rife with bias and limitation from start to finish; from what we choose to test, to how we choose to test it, to how we interpret the results.
Click to expand...
Universal morality makes no sense. Since it demands an absolute moral authority. For which there is no evidence based method of inferring from the physical universe, that such an authority exists. Intelligent design is a pseudoscientific attempt at science denialism. It has no rational validity. It is without any supporting evidence whatsoever. It has no place in reasoned debate.
 
PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
Augustus said:
Belief is a necessary aspect of probabilistic judgement. If you were certain it wouldn't be probabilistic.
Click to expand...
Yes, but belief in not required, only a choice to trust in our established probability is required to act on it. That's not belief (the invalid presumption that we are right), that's faith (the willingness to act on our hope that we are right even though we know we may not be).

Augustus said:
Also you don't need much "cognitive scope" to operate under the assumption that things don't exist until there is good reason to judge that they do exist.
Click to expand...
No, you don't. All you need is sufficient hubris, and the ability to ignore the truth.
Augustus said:
Again, you do this all the time with other issues.
Click to expand...
Actually, I don't. We all have to live by faith, it's true. We don't all presume we're right while doing it.
 
Azrael Antilla

Azrael Antilla

Active Member
Azrael Antilla said:
Universal morality makes no sense. Since it demands an absolute moral authority. For which there is no evidence based method of inferring from the physical universe, that such an authority exists. Intelligent design is a pseudoscientific attempt at science denialism. It has no rational validity. It is without any supporting evidence whatsoever. It has no place in reasoned debate.
Click to expand...
Additionally. For example. We infer the theoretical presence of dark matter surrounding our galaxy, by measurement of its gravitational effect on the rotation of the milky way galaxy, and comparison with the expected values, predicted by theoretical mathematical equations. This is all above board and completely reasonable.
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
PureX said:
You are confusing theism with religion. Theism proposes that God/gods exist (in a way that effects humanity, or the claim would be moot). Atheism counter-proposes that God/gods don't exist (same criteria). The proposed God's' relationship with/to physical matter is an individual theological issue to be debated with individual theists/religionists. Theism does not propose that God exists as a material/immaterial phenomena, but as a philosophical ideal. Same goes for the counter-proposition of atheism.
Click to expand...
Many, many theists claim god is immaterial, so that negates your claim above. Of course theists claims all sorts of contradictory things, and you are no exceptions.

Yes, it's a favorite pastime of 'atheists' to attack individual theist's conceptualizations of God and pretend that they are attacking (and defeating) theism, itself. We see it all the time. But what's the point, really?
Click to expand...
You started this thread and made many claims that you've not explained. How do atheists chose to be atheist? I can't choose to be an atheist because the lack of evidence supporting theism isn't under my control. I can't pretend to believe in religious ideas that lack evidence.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Azrael Antilla said:
Universal morality makes no sense. Since it demands an absolute moral authority. For which there is no evidence based method of inferring from the physical universe, that such an authority exists. Intelligent design is a pseudoscientific attempt at science denialism. It has no rational validity. It is without any supporting evidence whatsoever. It has no place in reasoned debate.
Click to expand...

No, while you are at it, show that your rational validity is not a norm and avoids being an assumption without evidence.
 
PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Yes, the closest, I can get, is non-reductive physicalism. The mental is caused by, but can't be reduced to the physical.
Unless you can show us the physical scientific theory of ethics for example
Click to expand...
Not to muck up the conversation, but also there is 'Gestalt'. The awareness that the whole can (far) exceed the sum of the parts. 1 + 1 = 3. The physical realm has often and spectacularly manifested this phenomenon. As in animate life from inanimate matter, and conscious self-awarenes from animate life. And now a whole realm of metaphysical possibility not evident in any way in the physical components from which it arose.
 
Last edited:
Azrael Antilla

Azrael Antilla

Active Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Yes, the closest, I can get, is non-reductive physicalism. The mental is caused by, but can't be reduced to the physical.
Unless you can show us the physical scientific theory of ethics for example
Click to expand...
I could attempt to explain human ethical ideas and morality and social contracts etc as the end product of reducible evolutionary principles. I guess.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Azrael Antilla said:
I could attempt to explain human ethical ideas and morality and social contracts etc as the end product of reducible evolutionary principles. I guess.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you could try, but you would have to violate that the 4 Fs takes place within the human race and thus that I can steal from you, is biological in the end. There is no objective morality in biology. There is the replication of the fittest gene and that doesn't rule out "bad" behavior.
 
Azrael Antilla

Azrael Antilla

Active Member
PureX said:
Not to muck up the conversation, but also there is 'Gestalt'. The awareness that the whole can (far) exceed the sum of the parts. 1 + 1 = 3. The physical realm has often and spectacularly manifested this phenomenon. As in animate life from inanimate matter, and conscious self-awarenes from animate life. And now a whole realm of metaphysical possibility not evident in any way in the physicality from which it arose.
Click to expand...
How can 1 + 1 = 3 in a decimal base system?
 
Azrael Antilla

Azrael Antilla

Active Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Yeah, you could try, but you would have to violate that the 4 Fs takes place within the human race and thus that I can steal from you, is biological in the end. There is no objective morality in biology. There is the replication of the fittest gene and that doesn't rule out "bad" behavior.
Click to expand...
There is only one objective for the gene. Survive until replication occurs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top