Is religion inferior to logic ?

[Valjean]

Usually belief in the superior intellect and reasoning powers of the one who declares, There is no God.

It's not superior intellect; it's simple logic. It's not that complicated an equation.

 

[Valjean]

Well, if you can show me integrity with evidence, I will listen to you. If you don't have any evidence, you have made it up as it suits you.
So learn to differentiate between facts and norms.

Wait -- didn't you just post (186) that Your epistemic metric for reality was what "makes sense to me?"

Gods are without evidence, therefore there are no good reasons to believe in them.
The problem is that the latter is not a fact, it is a norm.

It's the epistemic default.
Is logic or the laws of mathematics norms, or maths. Norms seem to imply human-made, not woven into the fabric of the universe.

Well, is logic universal or does it have limits like any other human behavior?

It's an algebra, not a behavior.

 

[blü 2]

But we've said over and over again that this is not what atheism is. Moreover, lack of belief is the logical, epistemic default position, is it not?
Belief in unevidenced things is not rational.

To that we can add that something that not only can't be found in reality / nature but has no description appropriate to a real / natural thing can only be conceptual / imaginary.

 

[blü 2]

Gods are without evidence, therefore there are no good reasons to believe in them.

You're getting ahead of the plot.

Gods as real entities (ie existing in nature) have no definition appropriate to real things, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was a god or not. So the idea of gods who exist other than as concepts in individual brains is incoherent.

Without such a definition, we're not even at the stage of looking for evidence.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It's not superior intellect; it's simple logic. It's not that complicated an equation.

All I’m seeing is people blinded by self imposed limitations, declaring their blindness as wisdom.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But we've said over and over again that this is not what atheism is. Moreover, lack of belief is the logical, epistemic default position, is it not?
Belief in unevidenced things is not rational.

As far as I can tell the bold one is not with evidence and thus not rational. Learn to check your claims before you think you it is just about the rest of us.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're getting ahead of the plot.

Gods as real entities (ie existing in nature) have no definition appropriate to real things, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was a god or not. So the idea of gods who exist other than as concepts in individual brains is incoherent.

Without such a definition, we're not even at the stage of looking for evidence.

But that is a good reason for believing in Gods, right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wait -- didn't you just post (186) that Your epistemic metric for reality was what "makes sense to me?"

It's the epistemic default.
Is logic or the laws of mathematics norms, or maths. Norms seem to imply human-made, not woven into the fabric of the universe.

It's an algebra, not a behavior.

Well, it happens in brains and there are humans who can't do, thus it is a human behavior.
As for default God is the default. You are stating a norm without evidence. That is irrational.

You have to learn when you use norms and that they are without evidence.

 

[blü 2]

But that is a good reason for believing in Gods, right?

If you're aware that they exist only as concepts in your brain, and that as such they can be anything you want them to be (so you might be likened to an author writing your own fantasy story) sure, why not?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you're aware that they exist only as concepts in your brain, and that as such they can be anything you want them to be (so you might be likened to an author writing your own fantasy story) sure, why not?

Okay, remember that when you debate facts and morality and please don't confuse those 2.

 

[blü 2]

Okay, remember that when you debate facts and morality and please don't confuse those 2.

But research has demonstrated a factual side of morality. We have good evidence to show that humans are born with moral tendencies built in ─ child nurture and protection (found throughout nearly all the animal kingdom), dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial ─ to which we can add the evolved conscience and capacity for empathy. You'll note they're not entirely concordant ─ eg your sense of fairness and your respect for authority or loyalty to the group may conflict.

Against that background, in my own morality I try to do no harm, and to treat others with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense, not always with 100% success, but the intention is there. Obviously a great many people don't share my view.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But research has demonstrated a factual side of morality. We have good evidence to show that humans are born with moral tendencies built in ─ child nurture and protection (found throughout nearly all the animal kingdom), dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial ─ to which we can add the evolved conscience and capacity for empathy. You'll note they're not entirely concordant ─ eg your sense of fairness and your respect for authority or loyalty to the group may conflict.

Against that background, in my own morality I try to do no harm, and to treat others with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense, not always with 100% success, but the intention is there. Obviously a great many people don't share my view.

Yeah, but it is not objective truth as you use it.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, but it is not objective truth as you use it.

It's objectively true to say that researchers have reported the findings in paragraph one. I accept you'll need to read their papers to find if you accept their experiments, their results and their conclusions. I may have mentioned I gave a short description of one such experiment >here<.

The second paragraph is my own view. I justify it simply by saying 'Works for me'. However, it has some relationship to the first two matters in the first paragraph.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's objectively true to say that researchers have reported the findings in paragraph one. I accept you'll need to read their papers to find if you accept their experiments, their results and their conclusions. I may have mentioned I gave a short description of one such experiment >here<.

The second paragraph is my own view. I justify it simply by saying 'Works for me'. However, it has some relationship to the first two matters in the first paragraph.

Yeah, they objectively report about subjectivity. I gat that.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, they objectively report about subjectivity. I gat that.

You can also observe behavioral trends in those subjectivities collectively. From them in certain circumstances you can make accurate predictions about the behaviors of a specified group. Maximizing objectivity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can also observe behavioral trends in those subjectivities collectively. From them in certain circumstances you can make accurate predictions about the behaviors of a specified group. Maximizing objectivity.

Yeah, but the urge to maximizing objectivity is subjective. I can also observe you using science.

 

[PureX]

You keep on making this sort of claim, without the slightest bit of evidence (reference to any atheist every saying anything like it, for example) but I know literally nobody who believes it. I can only conclude that you're just making it up.

Many of the atheists here have posted this exact reasoning for their atheism many, many, many times. So if you can't see it, I don't know what to tell you other than that you clearly don't want to.

 

[ratiocinator]

Many of the atheists here have posted this exact reasoning for their atheism many, many, many times.

I've never, ever seen it. If there are many, shouldn't be hard to reference one such post. Go ahead - you made the claim, so your burden of proof.

Most atheists don't even claim that "no gods exist", just that there is no reason to take the idea seriously, i.e. no reason to believe that some god or gods exist. Which is not nearly the same thing at all.

 

[PureX]

But we've said over and over again that this is not what atheism is.

Yes, I know. But then they immediately and repeatedly proclaim that they refuse to believe that any gods exist because they have not been given any evidence (that they will recognize as such) to convince them otherwise. So that out of one side of their mouths they claim they are agnostic, while out of the other side of their mouth they proclaim their atheism. And they try to justify this double-speak by hiding it behind some semantic nonsense about "unbelief". Even though their "unbelief" clearly defaults to disbelief: i.e., that no gods exist unless and until the theist can prove to them that they do.

Moreover, lack of belief is the logical, epistemic default position, is it not?

Belief is actually quite irrelevant to anyone but the believer. It's the claims we make about reality to each other that matter. And claiming not to know if gods really exist or not while also claiming that gods don't exist unless they are proven to exists by the atheist's chosen methodology is going to be perceived as a disingenuous and two-faced proclamation every time, especially when the contradiction is pointed out and the claimant tries to hide or deny it using silly semantic double-speak (like they "unbelive" but don't disbelieve in the existence of any gods).

Belief in unevidenced things is not rational.

Belief itself is not rational given the fact that we are not omniscient. Yet we engage in it all the time because we think we have to, to live in a world that we cannot ever fully understand or control. The "evidence" is everywhere, all around us, all the time. Nothing is ever "unevidenced". This claim of there being no evidence is more semantic double-speak meant to hide a bias against any evidence that does not serve our chosen methodology for achieving "belief".

And the fact that all these self-proclaimed "rational skeptics" fight so hard to defend and maintain that nonsensical double-speak only serves to exemplify the willful ignorance and bias behind it to those of us that have not fallen for it. (Not to say that we are not prone to our own examples of willful ignorance and bias.)

 

[PureX]

I've never, ever seen it. If there are many, shouldn't be hard to reference one such post. Go ahead - you made the claim, so your burden of proof.

Most atheists don't even claim that "no gods exist", just that there is no reason to take the idea (that any gods exist) seriously, i.e. no reason to believe that some god or gods exist. Which is not nearly the same thing at all.

See previous post.