Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining

[coyote_sprit]

Without religion people would fight over what to call atheism...
http://www.xepisodes.com/southpark/episodes/1012/Go-God-Go!.html

 

[Bruno]

Well, honestly, i'm not even sure "see" would be the appropriate word. It was pretty surreal, and honestly, the most "spiritual" experience i've ever had, for lack of a better word. Words will not describe this experience properly, you must consider experiencing it for yourself sometime.

I started off my looking at the telescope in a normal state of mind, while eating the mushrooms. As i was exploring the vastness of our universe, I began to enter a state of mind where i truly felt that all of my senses had been wound into 1 supersense, and i could detect everything that existed, in all dimensions, at all times.

I would program the telescope to a star (it's remote controlled), and as i would look at it, i could hear it, feel it, smell it and sense it in other ways i can't even describe. This star was life, it was as at least as important as my own existence. I could literally feel, and sense every component that made up that star, as if it too was living, breathing and thinking, and analyzing me at the same time. I also got this very strong sensation that these stars are creating life. The pulsation of light, is more important and crucial to our existence than we can imagine.

I explored many astral objects, but as i pulled away and started to gaze at mother earth (my backyard), i realized that everything i was just looking at through the telescop, also exists right here, right now with me. The light from the stars, all over the universe are bouncing off the earth, and my body at all times. The light from our star, fuels all life on earth. The earth is made up of the same core elements that make up the stars. When i blow with my mouth, the wind patterns of this planet are changed forever. My existence, and the elements that allow for my existence are as crucial to the exitence of the universe, as any star, universe or Atom.

So basically, what i learned was that we are insignificant, but we are as significant everything else in this universe. There is a higher power, and we are all a part of it. The higher power, is everything, all the time.

Did that make any sense?

That's a pretty powerful experience, thank you for sharing it with us. I have had my own experiences with mushrooms, and it can indeed expand your mind in ways not capable without it.

A study a few years ago with adults that had never experienced mushrooms before resulted in the majority saying it was the most incredible experience they had had in their lives.

 

[ClayTrainor]

That's a pretty powerful experience, thank you for sharing it with us. I have had my own experiences with mushrooms, and it can indeed expand your mind in ways not capable without it.

Glad you enjoyed it, it's always hard to put into words :o

A study a few years ago with adults that had never experienced mushrooms before resulted in the majority saying it was the most incredible experience they had had in their lives.

Yea man. I think most people who do mushrooms for the first time, start seeing the whole world in a more positive way. CNN did a story on their long lasting positive effects.

YouTube - Magic mushrooms on CNN - Long lasting postive effects ..

Here is a quote from this next video.

"Of the volunteers who were given this, about 60% said that this would be within one of the top 5 experiences of their entire lives."

YouTube - Mushrooms and Spirituality

It's amazing how something completely natural that could improve the lives of so many people, can remain illegal and largely demonized.

 

[ARealConservative]

what collectivist drivel.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Personally, I've lost all patience for the god debate entirely because neither side can prove their cause and both sides are arrogant enough that even if it was proven they were wrong, they would never admit it, not even for the simple sake of maintaining peace. They will fight a losing battle to the death and feel a justified martyr for the cause in doing so.

I'm a devout agnostic and nobody can prove me wrong.

This kind of logic make me want to drive a power drill through my head. How the hell are you a "devout agnostic"? By being devout in your belief that knowledge of God is unknowable, arnt you being just as dogmatic as the theists and atheists you are trying to avoid being lumped in with?

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Nobody ever proved Zeus wrong. So where did he go? Maybe he just never existed to begin with.

 

[sevin]

But you do have faith in reason itself.

Again, there seems to be a lot of confusion among theists about what faith is. They throw this word around all the time, and I think it's because of what they hear in church (preachers saying things like, "You have to have faith in a chair before you sit it in, right?")

Faith is believing something even though there is no proof.

Reason does not require faith. Logic is axiomatic.

 

[TortoiseDream]

Faith is believing something even though there is no proof.

Sure I agree with that, and it follows that you have faith in reason.

Simply: You believe reason is correct, yet you have no proof that this is so. By definition this is faith in reason.

If I were to ask you to prove that reason is correct, I would be asking a false question. For I'm asking you to supply a reason that reason is correct, and there's fallacy written all over this. There is no "why" you believe in reason, you simply do because you simply have faith.

Reason does not require faith. Logic is axiomatic.

But axioms, by definition, are stated without proof. And so by definition again, we take axioms on faith. Thus faith is above reason.

 

[Bman]

believers haven't shut up for 2000 years and have had a much larger inpact than non-believers on society.

Shhhhh!!! People are trying to ignore this type of information.

 

[TGGRV]

If you don't think reason is correct and faith is, why don't you go to a shaman and go to a doctor when you are sick? QED.

If you have to do a risky thing, do you consult an astrologist or the Bible or do you consult your insurance broker? Thought so.

 

[sevin]

But axioms, by definition, are stated without proof. And so by definition again, we take axioms on faith. Thus faith is above reason.

Axioms don't need proof. They are the proof. You cannot prove them, and you cannot do without them. They are self-evident. This is the foundation of all logic.

Unfortunately, people spend a lot more time in church than they do studying logic or philosophy. I think it's part of the reason it's so difficult to reason with people these days.

 

[TortoiseDream]

If you don't think reason is correct and faith is, why don't you go to a shaman and go to a doctor when you are sick? QED.

If you have to do a risky thing, do you consult an astrologist or the Bible or do you consult your insurance broker? Thought so.

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying (if it is me you are addressing). One believes reason is correct because they have faith; effectively, then, he or she would adhere to both. In contrast you're saying that one can adhere to only one or the other.

Simply, there is no reason to believe reason is correct (you contradict yourself if you think you do), but nonetheless most people do believe it is - thus they have faith in reason, belief without proof.

So to put your example in perspective: I go to a modern doctor rather than a shaman because I believe in science, based on reason, and I myself have faith in reason.

Axioms don't need proof. They are the proof. You cannot prove them, and you cannot do without them. They are self-evident. This is the foundation of all logic.

Axioms are not proven statements (by definition), rather they are assumptions. We don't know if they are true or not because we have no proof that they are. Despite this, we carry out our lives based on them. Again, we're believing in something without reason - thus we have faith in the axioms.

Unfortunately, people spend a lot more time in church than they do studying logic or philosophy. I think it's part of the reason it's so difficult to reason with people these days.

Well I agree that there are many people who are closed minded to other ideas, and don't examine their beliefs with a critical eye. But...

In principle, that's no different than a Muslim not being able to understand a Christian, for example. Each one has faith in a different thing, and neither one understands the others faith. In your case, one who has faith in God (a religious fellow) cannot understand why you'd put your faith only in reason, and vice versa.

I'm really just beating the same drum as in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=195994

This is actually one of the only things I agree with Theocrat on. He is right to point out that an atheist, who might say that he believes in reason and doesn't have faith in anything like a "God", is actually being hypocritical. For he has faith in reason, just as the religious one has faith in God. In both cases morality et al. is derived from this faith, whatever it may be in.

The biggest question is, what should you put faith in? But it's a false question itself, because we're not allowed to use reason (faith is above reason, assuming you agree now). So there's no "reason" to put your faith in one thing over another. Ultimately a debate between any two persons on any subject can be reduced to that question; why put faith in A over B? And the debate simply cannot be resolved because no one can answer that question.

It is the dilemma of human life.

"When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you." - Nietzsche

 

[TGGRV]

Actually we know axioms are true because they are self-evident and if they would be false, everything that relies on them would lead to aberrant conclusions. Funny enough, it doesn't.

It's the same with religion - just that it is not self-evident and it does lead to aberrant conclusions. Like that the Earth is older than the Sun, the Earth is flat... Want me to go on?

And please drop the garbage relativism. Things are not relative, no matter how much you'd wish they were.

axiom - (logic) a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident

It isn't an assumption. Can't you people frigging read the definitions of the terms you're using? Same stupidity is found in those who think theory is an assumption or to observe means to actually see it happen. If we go by your road, the sky isn't blue, we have faith that it is blue. And Ron Paul might be a socialist, we just have faith that he's not. Give me a break.

 

[sevin]

If we go by your road, the sky isn't blue, we have faith that it is blue. And Ron Paul might be a socialist, we just have faith that he's not. Give me a break.

Very true.

Axioms are not proven statements (by definition), rather they are assumptions. We don't know if they are true or not because we have no proof that they are.

I didn't say they were proven statements. How can I have faith in something that is self-evident?

There are only a few axioms. If you say to yourself, "Something exists," that is an axiom. You don't assume that something exists. You know it. No proof is required, and no faith is required.

This is actually one of the only things I agree with Theocrat on. He is right to point out that an atheist, who might say that he believes in reason and doesn't have faith in anything like a "God", is actually being hypocritical. For he has faith in reason, just as the religious one has faith in God. In both cases morality et al. is derived from this faith, whatever it may be in.

I guess we could go around and around with this argument. But I'll try again and put it this way: You know that you exist. That is where reason begins. But you only believe that God exists. That is where faith begins.

 

[TGGRV]

sevin, creationists love circular arguments. That's because they'd lose any kind of debate. lol

 

[TortoiseDream]

Actually we know axioms are true because they are self-evident and if they would be false, everything that relies on them would lead to aberrant conclusions. Funny enough, it doesn't.

You've contradicted yourself.

There is this system called logic, and in this system we prove theorems by manipulating axioms according to certain, well-defined rules. An axiom is nothing but a starting point, and it cannot be derived from another axiom (axioms are independent from each other). One might ask, are the axioms true? Here you've provided two reasons why you think the axioms are true:

1. They are self-evident.
2. Without them, we would get contradictions.

But this defeats the purpose of the axioms in the first place! If you have to justify that an axiom is true, then you are saying axioms are derived from theorems. But we started by saying that theorems are derived from axioms. Which is it?

It doesn't make sense to justify axioms, that's why we assume them. I agree with sevin's definition of faith, belief without reason. Thus axioms are taken on faith, we believe them but we don't have a reason to believe them (otherwise they wouldn't be axioms!).

And please drop the garbage relativism. Things are not relative, no matter how much you'd wish they were.

Great argument.

Next you said (or quoted)

axiom - (logic) a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident.

Then you said.

It isn't an assumption.

If you're not going to be consistent with your own quotes, then you won't be very convincing.

If we go by your road, the sky isn't blue, we have faith that it is blue. And Ron Paul might be a socialist, we just have faith that he's not. Give me a break.

I think that's essentially true. Care to convince me otherwise? Or is that another one of your great, clever arguments.

I didn't say they were proven statements. How can I have faith in something that is self-evident?

There are only a few axioms. If you say to yourself, "Something exists," that is an axiom. You don't assume that something exists. You know it. No proof is required, and no faith is required.

You don't have the spirit of doubt, do you? See my comments above for TGGRV similar remarks. Ultimately you cannot justify why you believe in the axioms, otherwise you're trying to provide a proof for them, thus defeating the point of the axioms in the first place. Is it true that if something is self evident then it's true? Prove it! Or is it an axiom? But if it's an axiom, then we're back to where we started.

What is more, different people adhere to different axioms! Even if it were true, somehow, that all things self evident are true, not everyone thinks the same things are self evident! In fact, it has been said by formalists that mathematics (of which logic is a branch) is nothing but the exploration of axiom sets. In other words, people do different mathematics with different axioms! Logic, let alone human logic, doesn't make anything true. It's just a game with marks and rules, and that's the extent of it.

I guess we could go around and around with this argument. But I'll try again and put it this way: You know that you exist.

Actually I do not, and neither do you. I don't even know what it means to exist! I have my speculations, and I'm sure you do to. But it's all based on faith, and for that reason some doubt remains. Descartes' famous saying assumes reason is correct, so Descartes' has taken reason on faith.

That is where reason begins. But you only believe that God exists. That is where faith begins.

Having faith does not necessary mean faith in God, I think this is one erasno we disagree.

 

[TGGRV]

Well, start learning the way scientists use words because there are a lot of differences.

And the fact that there are no contradictions in science is a consequence of axioms being true, not a reason for it. Axioms being true is just as self-evident as the sky being blue. If you don't see the abysmal stupidity of your point about why axioms are true, you can't say that the sky is blue either or that the grass is green. Actually, you couldn't even say that the letter A isn't letter B. The fact that we can communicate isn't a cause of letter A being letter A, but a consequence.

If you believe the sky is blue and that Ron Paul isn't a socialist, but you don't believe in axioms, you're a moronic idiot. And if you judge by relativity, here's some relativity for you. Show me progress created by religious thinking and I will show you progress created by scientific thinking based on axioms. We can make a scales thing and put on a side what are the benefits of each system of thinking. It will show you the utter failure of the former and the success of the latter.

And the proof for axioms is logic101. False premises lead to false conclusions. The false premises in the Bible lead to things like everything was created by a God as there are now, the Earth is older than the Sun, the Earth is flat and the center of the universe. All were proven false. On the other hand, axioms lead to the picture below.

This image is funny only because it is true. Oh, and another thing. Look at societies that still have religious thinking - Muslim fundamentalists. They're still in the dark ages. Only 3 Muslims won Nobel prizes on anything except peace(which are made up anyway... there are instances of a Nobel for peace laureate having buds who were committing mass genocide - and you can't really subject this award to the scientific method).

 

[TortoiseDream]

Well, start learning the way scientists use words because there are a lot of differences.

I'm a pure mathematician, I think I know precise definitions in logic.

And the fact that there are no contradictions in science is a consequence of axioms being true, not a reason for it.

No! Wrong! We actually have had to CHANGE the axioms MANY times BECAUSE we found contradictions. If you can show that a contradiction follows from a valid manipulation of axioms, then you are logically able to prove anything as a consequence. It's a rule. This has happened many times in mathematics, and mathematicians have had to revise the axioms to make sure that contradiction cannot come up. We keep plugging along until another contradiction comes up, then we revise the axioms some more. This makes is pretty obvious that the axioms have nothing to do with truth.

Axioms being true is just as self-evident as the sky being blue. If you don't see the abysmal stupidity of your point about why axioms are true, you can't say that the sky is blue either or that the grass is green. Actually, you couldn't even say that the letter A isn't letter B. The fact that we can communicate isn't a cause of letter A being letter A, but a consequence.

We can't say that the sky is blue, or that the grass is green! These things are based on sensory perception, and surely you're not one to trust fully in your senses, believing them to be always correct. If you do, prove it, otherwise you have faith in the senses (which I think you do). The Matrix illustrates this. In fact, you're speaking just like Theocrat when you say this because you're demonstrating your faith in the senses as he demonstrates his faith in God. God is so "obvious" to him, just as the senses are so "obvious" to you.

In other words you've tried making the argument that my points lead to absurdities, namely that the grass may not be green etc. I've argued that what you've said is not absurd, and doubt is in it's proper domain here. And so the proper response you should give me is why these things are absurd, rather than simply stating they are and calling me an idiot.

If you believe the sky is blue and that Ron Paul isn't a socialist, but you don't believe in axioms, you're a moronic idiot.

I never said I don't believe in the axioms, I do. But my belief in the axioms follows from my faith in them. And so do yours. You cannot justify believing in the axioms because you'd be defending logic with logic itself!!! They must be taken on faith! What don't you understand!

And if you judge by relativity, here's some relativity for you. Show me progress created by religious thinking and I will show you progress created by scientific thinking based on axioms. We can make a scales thing and put on a side what are the benefits of each system of thinking. It will show you the utter failure of the former and the success of the latter.

Well that depends a lot on what you mean by progress or success. If by progress you mean scientific achievement, which I think you do, then you're stating the blatant obvious - namely that science makes progress in science more than anything else. If you think success is modern sky-scrapers and technology, then yes science trumps religion. But science wins by definition, it's corollary from the essence of science. So you're not really saying anything.

If progress is spiritual progress, or individual, or personal self-reflection, then religion trumps science any day.

And the proof for axioms is logic101. False premises lead to false conclusions. The false premises in the Bible lead to things like everything was created by a God as there are now, the Earth is older than the Sun, the Earth is flat and the center of the universe. All were proven false. On the other hand, axioms lead to the picture below.

You've killed yourself. There are NO proofs for the axioms, even sevin agrees with that. If you have to prove the axioms, then they AREN'T axioms! How can you prove the fundamentals of logic with the inferior parts of it, the theorems? I don't know how many times I can reiterate this.

In fact there is a mathematical proof that proves that logic is an incomplete theory, and that any theory will always be incomplete. There is no incomplete system, and so ultimately we must adhere to one by faith. In this way math is a religion, and Christianity is a science.

 

[sevin]

Is it true that if something is self evident then it's true? Prove it!

Something self-evident by definition is true. I don't know how else to explain that to you. You may as well ask, "How do you know things that are true are true?"

Actually I do not, and neither do you. I don't even know what it means to exist! I have my speculations, and I'm sure you do to. But it's all based on faith, and for that reason some doubt remains. Descartes' famous saying assumes reason is correct, so Descartes' has taken reason on faith.

You don't know that you exist? lol. You couldn't be making these arguments if you didn't exist, so obviously you do.

It's clear to me now that this argument is a waste of time. If you decided that 2 + 2 = 5, I don't think anyone would ever convince you otherwise.

 

[TGGRV]

If you're a mathematician, then why do you use proof as a scientific word outside of mathematics? Because proof is limited to math.

TD, that's the magic of the scientific method. When something is proven wrong, it is revised and when something new is proposed, the job of the other scientists is to take it apart - I have first knowledge of this since my mother is a scientist and works in research. Isn't it a natural process? Just like people before assumed the world is flat. If axioms wouldn't have anything with them being true, why revise those that lead to contradictions? This is the difference in between science and religion. When science is proven wrong, it is revised and improved. When religion is proven wrong... Do I have to get into it? lol

And let's assume you are right. I can't say that the grass is green or sky is blue. What has my way of thinking led to and what did his lead to? Scroll up a bit and look at the picture.

And in terms of self-reflection, religion is philosophy's retarded little cousin. It is deeply amusing to me that self-reflection is illogical by definition to you. And religion is a narrow minded way of seeing self-reflection because you have to be confined by the beliefs of your religion.

And I didn't say there are proofs of axioms(I know the definition of them). I just said that most religions and their way of thinking was proven erroneous. It's like saying that if someone was shot and you proved that X didn't do it, the dude wasn't shot.

If A implies B, this doesn't mean that A implies C.

A science is something subject to the scientific method. When religion will be, it will be a science.