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

[Quiddity]

It could be you`re attaching meaning in the wrong context for the subject.
We aren`t having a discussion of the possible spiritual methods God might or might not have used to spread his word.
We`re having a discussion concerning the objective authorship of the gospels.

I have in this thread told HeroSpirit that the only way he can get around this objectivity to defend the belief in his sources is to fall back on desires and emotions, faith if you will.

He was presenting his support for his sources in an objective manner.
I was merely responding to that.

Alrighty then...don't mean to derail the convo. Continue on...

 

[linwood]

Alrighty then...don't mean to derail the convo. Continue on...

Actually I believe I aided in derailing the whole thread when I responded to the Gospels questions as this isn`t the intent of the OP.

Your input merely helped to define what our derail was about.

 

[jado]

random life, and the creation of such complex systems and oganisms by mere chance with odds of their happening way beyond what anyone with a hint of rational thought would deem impossible is logically ignorant

 

[gnostic]

I thought this was topic about atheism being a religion.

Anyway, getting back on the topic of atheism.

I don't believe that atheism is a religion, because religion by definition, and in the most simplest term, is the worship of some divine or spiritual beings. Since atheists don't believe in deity or spirit, then it is not a religion.

Of course, that doesn't prevent advocates of atheism from teaching their own dogma and philosophy of why religion is false. I considered atheism more of philosophy that there are no gods.

Agnositcism is similar to atheism; agnosticism is a concept, not a religion. But since atheism and agnosticism deal with the subject of religion, therefore it is tightly linked with religion, but as either disbelief in the supernatural, or their reaction against theism.

 

[linwood]

random life, and the creation of such complex systems and oganisms by mere chance with odds of their happening way beyond what anyone with a hint of rational thought would deem impossible is logically ignorant

Yet another person who has no grasp of "logic"

 

[askeptic]

A- without
theism - belief in a god or gods

Without belief or non-belief

There is no philosophical content. Why is this so hard to understand?

atheists have different philosophical lifestances and viewpoints. If two people don't believe in astrology, that doesn't mean that they share some philosophical belief. There is no philosophical content in the fact that they share non-belief in astrology. It's that simple. Sheesh!

All religions have some kind of belief system. non-belief is not a belief system.

 

[hero]

linwood,

I have a question. Do or do you not agree: Great cities are brought down from the inside.

 

[mr.guy]

I hope you're not trying to convince linwood that hurricanes start in cities....that would be mean.

 

[linwood]

linwood,

I have a question. Do or do you not agree: Great cities are brought down from the inside.

That would depend on how the city was brought down .

 

[Fade]

That would depend on how the city was brought down .

And it's also completely irrelavant

 

[Fade]

Firstly, I'm protestant. Secondly, I didn't get that from any catholic religion. Matthew chapter 10 lists the disciples. That alone will account for 2 of gospels.

Firstly, I didn't say you weren't.

Secondly, uh yes you did. Or do you not base your faith on what you read in the bible? :biglaugh:


Anyone else find the statement 'I didn't get that from any catholic religion' amusing?

 

[hero]

That would depend on how the city was brought down .

Consider that as logic for war. I am not saying sending in a nuke wouldn't destroy it or bombs of the likes. And as for its relevancy, you will find out if I get a staight answer.

 

[hero]

For the 50th time...You cannot evidence spirituality with logic.
If the premise is wrong or unfounded then it is not "true".
The logic may be correct but it is ultimately untrue.
QUOTE]

How can you prove a statement wrong or right unless you use logic where evidense is not found. Evidense is factual. But truth is not defined by factuality alone. (define meaning essense) Where none is due, you use a theory, and logic off of that. You can prove the logic of a theory. And if all logic is correct then the theory is genarally accepted as correct. Look at science and you can see truth in this. It has been done in such a manner for a long time. You say that the logic "untrue" because the belief is wrong. The belief is wrong in your opinion. No one believes that what they do or believe is wrong (generally). So I can understand why you might make a statement from what you believe, but do not post it as though it is the "truth".

 

[Fade]

How can you prove a statement wrong or right unless you use logic where evidense is not found. Evidense is factual. But truth is not defined by factuality alone. (define meaning essense) Where none is due, you use a theory, and logic off of that. You can prove the logic of a theory. And if all logic is correct then the theory is genarally accepted as correct. Look at science and you can see truth in this. It has been done in such a manner for a long time. You say that the logic "untrue" because the belief is wrong. The belief is wrong in your opinion. No one believes that what they do or believe is wrong (generally). So I can understand why you might make a statement from what you believe, but do not post it as though it is the "truth".

Reading this makes my head hurt. :bonk:

 

[Bishadi]

Although it may seem irrelevant, I want to say thanks for this thread, there are many quality points and mod comments that really put a lot of depth into the needs and thoughts of theist and atheist logic.

Victor 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.

Wisdom! Yes sir, you set the tone with this statement.

linwood

There is no single moral standard for anyone.



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.

This is so correct.



No point here but a thank you, as reading is doing more for me right now than writing.

 

[Ceridwen018]

How can you prove a statement wrong or right unless you use logic where evidense is not found.

Scientists do this often--its called theorizing. Oftentimes, a scientist will use given data to draw logical conclusions about a hypothesis. For instance, if I were to take the fact that rocks sink when placed in water, I could then theorize that wood would also sink when placed in water. My theory would be logically based on the knowledge that some rocks and some pieces of wood are of equal weight, and the weight of something is what causes it to sink, right? However, as I hope you can see from this example, theories, although able to be formulated by logic, cannot be proven by it. As we all know, wood does not sink in water, and weight is not the determining factor for whether or not something will sink.

 

[linwood]

Consider that as logic for war. I am not saying sending in a nuke wouldn't destroy it or bombs of the likes. And as for its relevancy, you will find out if I get a staight answer.

That would depend upon the reasons for the war.

 

[herospirit]

Scientists do this often--its called theorizing. Oftentimes, a scientist will use given data to draw logical conclusions about a hypothesis. For instance, if I were to take the fact that rocks sink when placed in water, I could then theorize that wood would also sink when placed in water. My theory would be logically based on the knowledge that some rocks and some pieces of wood are of equal weight, and the weight of something is what causes it to sink, right? However, as I hope you can see from this example, theories, although able to be formulated by logic, cannot be proven by it. As we all know, wood does not sink in water, and weight is not the determining factor for whether or not something will sink.

Bull. They have different densities. We have evidense of this. Whose point are you trying to prove hero's or yours? "unless you use logic where evidense is not found" What I think(key word think) hero meant was that science says prove it and religion says disprove it. Obviously their is no evidense, only theories. And we try to prove the logic within the theories in varieties of ways. Logic, when their is no evidense. If their is evidense to prove it, such as woods density, it would not be logical to make your assumption that wood will sink, even if it is an example. "Oftentimes, a scientist will use given data to draw logical conclusions about a hypothesis." Apparently you didn't use "given data" in your example. Funny how you used the opposite of the guidlines you gave for a logical conclusion in your 'logic'. No offense, but, this is an example of using logic to disprove logic. Or in this case logical examples.

 

[hero]

That would depend upon the reasons for the war.

You are thinking too deep. All I wont to know is whether or not you see true logic in it. It is not a political issue. It goes along with proving statements wrong within the statements, but is not necessarily what it has to mean. Not being pushy, but just answer already. Can you understand what it means, and why it is true (or why not).

 

[linwood]

Bull. They have different densities. We have evidense of this. Whose point are you trying to prove hero's or yours?

Ceridwens logic was immaculate
It`s conclusion was wrong because her premise was false but the logic she used was perfect.
Where is TVOR when you need him?

This is what I`ve been saying in this and a couple of other threads and she just presented it better than I have so far.
Yet, you still don`t understand.

This tells me that you do not understand what logic is, you have an incorrect idea of it`s definition.

Logic is not a pathway to "truth".
It is an system that may or may not lead to "truth" depending upon it`s premise.

This goes to the heart of my original statement that you cannot debate spirituality using logic as neither side can come to an agreement on premise.
In order to use logic to support spirituality you must always assume your premise therefore it never leads to "truth".
You must assume your premise because spirituality cannot be evidenced as a fact.

From Wiki...

Modern logicians usually wish to ensure that logic studies just those arguments that arise from appropriately general forms of inference; so for example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says of logic that it does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality.

"theory of rationality."

This is what you can debate/discuss spirituality with.

Logic is nothing without a rational premise.