Atheism...the religion of...science?

[flupke]

Im more than considerably well read. The entire point was not to fiddle around with such definitions. I really like the analystic philosophy known as logic in this thread, and it does not rely on eyesight, but reason.

I thought the entire point was to tell that science was a belief. I just showed you it's not.
"Fiddling with definitions" has nothing to do with that.

and if you like logic:

A has the attribute 'X'
B has the attribute 'not X'

therefore, B cannot be a subset of A.

clue: A = belief, B=science, X=accepting without any further tests

 

[hero]

I thought the entire point was to tell that science was a belief. I just showed you it's not.
"Fiddling with definitions" has nothing to do with that.

and if you like logic:

A has the attribute 'X'
B has the attribute 'not X'

therefore, B cannot be a subset of A.

clue: A = belief, B=science, X=accepting without any further tests

Alright. That is not logic, and your formula is broken beyond repair...my advise, get a new one. You did in no way do such as to prove anything. You are missing variables, so of course you lack vision. So as to save me a lot of time retyping, check out what has already been posted on this thread, then get back to me.
:jiggy: :jiggy:

 

[painted wolf]

um... dude... that is logic.

Logic isn't always right... but it is always logic.

wa:do

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Attempting to convince Hero of a given proposition using logic is like trying to trying to eat beef broth with a fork. Its not the right tool for the job, and after trying for hours, you just end up frustrated, and still not satisfied.

B.

 

[linwood]

So it's not a matter of you being able use logic in matters of religion/subjectivity, correct? The dilemma seems to be the lack of not being able to come to a universal understanding.

Yes thats how I see it.

BUT, this is a key to why your mind and my mind work differently .

I don`t see it as a dilemma, I see it as a blessing.
I don`t think I want a universal understanding as they seem very dangerous.
There could be only one point of view, one frame of reference to the world.
Anyone who found it difficult to stay in that accepted frame of reference would be in danger as history has already proven way too many times.

I don`t want that.

So how do you know if your standard is right or wrong?

It can`t be "right or wrong".

Saying that the statement "There is no true right or wrong" is right, to what are you comparing that bit of correct information? If it's false, again, to what are you comparing it?

I`m not sure what you mean by "comparing".

 

[spookboy0]

It can`t be "right or wrong".

then why do you agree with it? what "standard" of yours does it meet for you to agree with it?

I`m not sure what you mean by "comparing".

Like "measuring." To what are you measuring it? Note that a "measure" is the comparison of a standard unit (i.e. an inch, a meter, a gallon, etc.) to an unknown (i.e. anything that can be measured).

There is something to which you are measuring your morale. The statement "it can't be right or wrong" is either right to you or wrong to you. What allows you to decide for yourself if it's right or wrong for yourself?

 

[linwood]

So if you consider it by what you see from other religious people, have you yourself looked into the meaning of the Christian doctorine?

Yes, I have looked into Christian doctrine.
Past, present, and have a good idea where it is heading in the future.
I`ve said many times before that I have no problem with Jesus, my problem lies in the ways his followers present him.

Something is not true merely because you believe it to be.
Am not I the one preaching logic?
....and listen to logic, which this statement lacks. If it is true...elaborate.

Indeed, but it doesn`t have to be "true" for me to believe it either.
It just has to be evidenced.
And yet again, this has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with rationalism.

When I say that there is no "true" right or wrong I am refering to a frame of reference.
How you see things is affected by where you are watching them from.
The only evidence I can give for elaboration is the differences between global cultures in their levels of tolerance and what will be tolerated.
However, it goes even beyond that as often times members of a culture disagree on what is accepted morality within their own culture.
While within our culture we may all agree on broad concepts of acceptable morality we all differ on different levels of thought.
Your ethical center is not identical to mine, Spookboys is not identical to Pahs, Sunstones is not identical to Victors ad infinitum.

Someone can know what is right and wrong and still not to whats right. Simply because the world reflects evil does not mean they are ignorant. Perhaps if you really think this is true you should do a study over it, because I have already seen it done.

This is why we cannot see eye to eye.
You are thinking in broad generalizations while I`m thinking of shades of grey.
I do not see anything as "Good" or "Bad" because "Good"and "Bad" are both dependent upon the earlier mentioned frame of reference.

That is not logic, and your formula is broken beyond repair

It is logic and it looks solid to me.
My point is that the use of logic is dependent upon these two variables mentioned in Flupkes post....

A has the attribute 'X'
B has the attribute 'not X'

"Logic" in any given situation is dependent upon it`s premises.
Your premises are different from mine which is the root of our trouble communicating.
Niether of our premises are necessarily "Wrong" or "Evil" or even "Good" or "Right".

Either set can be evidenced or not evidenced, rational or not rational, but never "right" "wrong" in the ultimate sense of the concept.

 

[linwood]

There is something to which you are measuring your morale. The statement "it can't be right or wrong" is either right to you or wrong to you. What allows you to decide for yourself if it's right or wrong for yourself?

For me it`s pretty much as long as it harms no one, do it.

However there are a million shades of grey and situations in which no matter what path you take someone will be harmed.
It`s these moments when your standards are altered or accepted by judging each situation by your knowledge of your environment and the people involved.

However, that is not an "atheistic" worldview, that simply "my" worldview and yes it influenced by my atheism just as it`s influenced by my daughter, and cat, and my social situation, and everything else that is a part of "Me".

Many atheists have a very different way of looking at life.

 

[Bangbang]

Attempting to convince Hero of a given proposition using logic is like trying to trying to eat beef broth with a fork. Its not the right tool for the job, and after trying for hours, you just end up frustrated, and still not satisfied.

B.

Ever eat gravy with a fork? I do because you get to ....ummmmm....well ...mmm...I lost my thought.......Oh! .....savor it. I think thats why I don't take the step from being an agnostic to being an athiest....I want to savor the change. No what I mean?

 

[askeptic]

I thought this thread was entitled Atheism...the religion of...science?

As we've seen Hero is not really intersted in what an atheist thinks, he just put the topic there in order to preach his nonsense.

A- "without" Theism-"Belief in one or more gods or goddesses"

so atheism is a person without belief in a god or goddesses. I know this is an extremely difficult concept for some, but that is it!

No belief is implied or expressed. NO BELIEF. Get it?

Just because atheists happen to use reason and rationalism to determine what is most probably true, there is no tenet of atheism requiring it or anything else.

A person could be a completely irrational being, never even having heard of logic, or science and still be an atheist. For example, babies are atheists - they don't believe in a god, a goddess , or anything else supernatural. You have to instill that into them. Non-belief in theism - that's all it is. It isn't a belief - it's non-belief.

So the discussion topic itself is bogus. You want to talk about a person who uses reason and rationalism to decide what is probably true? OK. But reason and rationalism, and the demonstration of evidence to support one's contentions and positions, existed long before there was any formal discipline known as "science". It just happens to be the best method at arriving at truth, so science uses it too. The legal system uses it, ethics uses it. Inference, induction, deduction.

What do you think modern medicine consists of? Science! So if you go to the hospital when you are sick, or seek cures through medicine insead of staying home and praying to get well, then you are expressing confidence in science. Is that confidence in science "religious faith"?

 

[spookboy0]

It`s these moments when your standards are altered or accepted by judging each situation by your knowledge of your environment and the people involved.

Funny. Most, if not all, of a thiest's standards aren't as unsturdy, if unsturdy at all.

 

[Bangbang]

I messedthis up.

 

[linwood]

Funny. Most, if not all, of a thiest's standards aren't as unsturdy, if unsturdy at all.

Define "sturdy" in this context and support your statement.

 

[Bangbang]

Define "sturdy" in this context and support your statement.

Oh Christ! We are back in school!:biglaugh:

 

[linwood]

Oh Christ! We are back in school!:biglaugh:

If you have something to add then do it.

Spookboy seems to prefer "sturdy" standards on which to base his morality.
Sturdy to me means unyeilding and unmovable.
I don`t find this an advantage when speaking of morality so I don`t seek "sturdy" standards.
The fact that Spookboy does shows me his inexperience in life.
Nothing more.

I`d like him to "support" his statement by showing why "sturdy" is a laudable property of his standards.

 

[spookboy0]

Define "sturdy" in this context and support your statement.

Gladly.

Above, you stated the word altered in reference to one's moral, altered from this context meaning "changed."

A theist's moral doesn't alter or change

by judging each situation by your knowledge of your environment and the people involved.

He is much sturdier, or stubborn, in his beliefs, after testing them for falsehood and putting himself through trials.

However, an atheist's moral can change and is more apt to change at the sight of evidence that "proves" him right. He gladly goes on without checking for flaws.

 

[spookboy0]

I`d like him to "support" his statement by showing why "sturdy" is a laudable property of his standards.

Could a house stand on an unsturdy foundation?

 

[flupke]

Alright. That is not logic, and your formula is broken beyond repair...my advise, get a new one. You did in no way do such as to prove anything. You are missing variables, so of course you lack vision. So as to save me a lot of time retyping, check out what has already been posted on this thread, then get back to me.
:jiggy: :jiggy:

For somebody who goes on about overuse of 'pride', you definitely have quite some. I see 2 options:

1. you don't know anything about logic and therefore don't see you're wrong
2. you're too proud to admit you're wrong
3. you know you're wrong but you just want to create some havoc 'for the hack of it'

Whatever your reasons, you won't get respect in either case.

And for the small chance that you really DO believe you know logic: show me what's missing. You have the typical reasoning of a 15-year old who doesn't want to admit being wrong even when being completely overpowered.

 

[linwood]

Could a house stand on an unsturdy foundation?

We`re not talking about a house.
If you want a discussion I`m all for it but if you want to just post single line analogies for the next 3 pages I`ll pass.

I`m still waiting for you to contribute something beyond inanity.

 

[linwood]

A theist's morale doesn't alter or change He is much sturdier, or stubborn, in his beliefs, after testing them for falsehood and putting himself through trials.

No, a theist accepts the morality inbedded within his or her religion.
This is why most religions are inherently intolerant.

However, an atheist's morale can change and is more apt to change at the sight of evidence that "proves" him right. He gladly goes on without checking for flaws.

Again, we are not talking about an atheist morality.
We are talking about my morality.
Atheism is not a philosophy that comes with a guide to morality, we find our own.

We`re discussing the one I`ve found, most other atheists will be different for whatever reason.

The property of flexibility I have within my morality is what enables me to constantly correct for "flaws" on an almost daily basis.
An objective morality cannot do this due to it`s very nature, it is "sturdy".
Thats why they call it "objective".
It is stuck in one single frame of reference and can only percieve the world through this narrow viewpoint.
Thats where intolerance is born.

However, we`ve gotten way off track.
If you want to discuss atheist morality make a thread or find one of the numerous threads about it already and post.

I`ll answer.