Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining

[TGGRV]

Oh, and another thing, if you discount religion as having nothing to do with logic, then religion is false by definition because our language system is based on logic.

 

[georgiaboy]

impressive, TD.

 

[TortoiseDream]

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?"

Ah, here is the critical point of our disagreement, I'm glad you brought it up.

We disagree because you define truth as the set of self evident things. But this is a poor way to define truth because it leads to infinite regression. I could ask you, how do you know this is true? And your reply would be, of course, "It's self evident." But then I could ask you how that is self evident, and we'd be going in circles. Eventually at the nth iteration of this useless back-and-forth, you'll have to concede that we'll just "assume" it's true. Thus you're taking this on faith because you cannot justify it with reason.

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

I don't know what it means to exist, how can I know if I am doing it?

And your argument follows from reasoning, which now we see is faith based. So your conclusion is contingent on the above assumption, and you can't be certain in it.

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.

It depends on which axioms we start from, and what kinds of marks we use. In a mathematical system of different axioms, 2+2 does equal 5. And these axioms are taken on faith, so I don't know either way whether 2+2=4 or 5.

But essentially mathematical language has no connection to reality. It's just a symbol manipulation game. The number 2 does not exist.

If axioms wouldn't have anything with them being true, why revise those that lead to contradictions?

We revise them because we don't want the rules of logic to be broken. Why don't we want the rules to be broken? I think you're right, it's a natural process; we as human beings simply like consistency and order, but that's not a rule itself. Of course one could invent a logical system that allows the rules to be broken! This is possible in principle, but just very rarely done because of our nature.

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

This is nothing more than a clash of two faiths. You have faith in reason, thus you will use reason to "prove" certain conclusions that contradict a given religion. Others have faith in the religion, and so they will find some of their beliefs, namely the "word of God" contradict reason. You think they are foolish because you so obviously "proved" them wrong. However, they think you are so foolish because you think your human logic is superior to the "word of God". Do you see what's going on? You have faith in the axioms of standard logic; they have faith in the axiom called God; and you derive contradictions between them. How to know which is right and which is wrong? You cannot provide a logical argument because that's the subject of the debate! And the religious fellow cannot cite a verse from his holy text for the same reason!

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.

Just because you don't know for sure that the grass is green or the sky is blue doesn't prevent me nor you from having faith that they are. The reason that you see that trend in your picture is because of faith, namely faith in empirical evidence (the senses) and reason (logic). And again, your graph is very discriminatory towards what one might call progress or success.

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.

Philosophy is a religion unto itself. The atheist's "God" is reason, it's equally as romantic. Plato's "God" was the Forms.

And religion is a narrow minded way of seeing self-reflection because you have to be confined by the beliefs of your religion.

That's true for your religion as well, the religion of reason and logic. I think at the same time, however, those limitations provide for infinite self-reflection. After all, religion is self reflection.

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.

See the 2nd block of text I wrote to you in the message.

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

Haha, well if those are the only pieces of info you're giving me, that's just blatantly wrong. Let me fill in the blanks for you to see:

1. If running implies exercise, this doesn't mean that running implies movement.
2. If water implies wet, this doesn't mean that water implies H20.
3. If grass implies plants, this doesn't mean that grass implies life.

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

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 [science] is a religion, and [religion] is a science.

Science adhere's to the scientific method because it is logical. Thus scientists have faith in reason.

Oh, and another thing, if you discount religion as having nothing to do with logic, then religion is false by definition because our language system is based on logic.

Well first of all this is nothing but semantics; it depends on how you define true and false, and it looks like you're defining it with some logic.

But more to the point, I think religion is very logical and logic is very religious (like I've been saying).

 

[TGGRV]

First of all, the word of God was written by humans for humans. So give me a break with the word of God being separate from reason and logic. Language functions on the same reason and logic we use in science. If that logic is false, the word of God is false because it uses the same premises and reasoning in it's expression.

Another thing, religion is a type of philosophy, not the other way around. By the way, to cut this bullshit short because I am pissed off right now. Compare the results of each type of thinking. One lead to things that are constantly evolving and improving, leading to progress and advancement, one lead to constant falsities that were disproved over and over again and that lead to stagnation.

Anyway, we can agree on this. The two systems are mutually exclusive. Go ahead and believe the Earth is the center of the universe, that it was created before the Sun, that seeds were planted before there was light, that we were created as such and that the Earth is flat. You can't use the two systems of thinking in the same time. By the way, my post is the word of God and isn't subject to your understanding. You have to accept it as such and read it each time before bed.

 

[TortoiseDream]

First of all, the word of God was written by humans for humans. So give me a break with the word of God being separate from reason and logic. Language functions on the same reason and logic we use in science. If that logic is false, the word of God is false because it uses the same premises and reasoning in it's expression.

Well I personally share your opinion, but my point was that a religious person could claim that the word of God is divine, not human. He might also claim (as Theocrat has) that God, in being omni-potent, can circumvent the problems you've named. I don't buy it, but that's what one might say.

Another thing, religion is a type of philosophy, not the other way around.

This is just more semantics. They are quite interrelated, for sure, but for now who cares what they precisely could be. We can debate the differences later.

By the way, to cut this bullshit short because I am pissed off right now. Compare the results of each type of thinking. One lead to things that are constantly evolving and improving, leading to progress and advancement, one lead to constant falsities that were disproved over and over again and that lead to stagnation.

You don't like to read my posts, do you? What is improvement? What is progress? What is advancement? I personally think technology is something that has robbed man of the richness of life, for example. If you try to measure science by science, it will always defeat religion (in the practical sense of the word). But equally if you measure religion with religion, it will always defeat science.

Anyway, we can agree on this. The two systems are mutually exclusive. Go ahead and believe the Earth is the center of the universe, that it was created before the Sun, that seeds were planted before there was light, that we were created as such and that the Earth is flat. You can't use the two systems of thinking in the same time.

Two systems are mutually exclusive if their intersection is null. Thus religion and reason are mutually exclusive if their axiom sets don't contain anything in common. Although they are quite different when it comes to conclusions, I think you can find some things in common between both.

Another thing to consider is that everyone has their own unique religion, no two are the same.

By the way, my post is the word of God and isn't subject to your understanding. You have to accept it as such and read it each time before bed.

I'm not a logical recipient of this remark, I don't do anything of the kind.

 

[sevin]

Ah, here is the critical point of our disagreement, I'm glad you brought it up.

We disagree because you define truth as the set of self evident things. But this is a poor way to define truth because it leads to infinite regression. I could ask you, how do you know this is true? And your reply would be, of course, "It's self evident." But then I could ask you how that is self evident, and we'd be going in circles. Eventually at the nth iteration of this useless back-and-forth, you'll have to concede that we'll just "assume" it's true. Thus you're taking this on faith because you cannot justify it with reason.

That's the trouble with circular logic. It doesn't make sense to you because you've trapped yourself in a vicious cycle. Tell me, if a barber only shaves men who don't shave themselves, does he shave himself?

I don't know what it means to exist, how can I know if I am doing it?

And your argument follows from reasoning, which now we see is faith based. So your conclusion is contingent on the above assumption, and you can't be certain in it.

If you don't know what existence means, you should look it up in the dictionary.

It depends on which axioms we start from, and what kinds of marks we use. In a mathematical system of different axioms, 2+2 does equal 5. And these axioms are taken on faith, so I don't know either way whether 2+2=4 or 5.

Yes, yes, and maybe blue is actually green. Maybe up is really down. These are the kind of "ideas" stoners come up with.

 

[Sheepdog11]

This is nothing more than a clash of two faiths. You have faith in reason, thus you will use reason to "prove" certain conclusions that contradict a given religion. Others have faith in the religion, and so they will find some of their beliefs, namely the "word of God" contradict reason. You think they are foolish because you so obviously "proved" them wrong. However, they think you are so foolish because you think your human logic is superior to the "word of God". Do you see what's going on? You have faith in the axioms of standard logic; they have faith in the axiom called God; and you derive contradictions between them. How to know which is right and which is wrong? You cannot provide a logical argument because that's the subject of the debate! And the religious fellow cannot cite a verse from his holy text for the same reason!

Assuming that God exists already assumes other axioms: an existence outside of oneself, a state of identity, non-contradiction, etc. Thus, both groups are assuming axioms of logic, but one group is taking it a step further and also assuming God on top of that.

Just thought I'd chime in.

 

[Ian A.]

If you try to measure science by science, it will always defeat religion (in the practical sense of the word). But equally if you measure religion with religion, it will always defeat science.

This isn't necessarily true. Science cannot always measure itself, and science cannot account for everything:

YouTube - Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins

YouTube - Is Nature all There is?: Craig vs Shook

 

[TortoiseDream]

That's the trouble with circular logic. It doesn't make sense to you because you've trapped yourself in a vicious cycle. Tell me, if a barber only shaves men who don't shave themselves, does he shave himself?

The circle is unavoidable, what makes you think you can break it without assumption? In order to break out, you must assume something, thereby taking faith.

If you don't know what existence means, you should look it up in the dictionary.

Come on man, that's such a cop out answer. Is the dictionary the answer to all of our problems? The dictionary is a man made thing; what is more, different dictionaries can define the same words differently, albeit usually with subtle differences. The dictionary is almost like a axiom set for language, and all words must be taken on faith.

Yes, yes, and maybe blue is actually green. Maybe up is really down. These are the kind of "ideas" stoners come up with.

So in other words you have no rebuttal. Okay.

Assuming that God exists already assumes other axioms: an existence outside of oneself, a state of identity, non-contradiction, etc. Thus, both groups are assuming axioms of logic, but one group is taking it a step further and also assuming God on top of that.

Just thought I'd chime in.

I suppose that's true, but nonetheless you'd agree that both groups must start assuming things somewhere; the starting points (the axioms) may be different, but the fact remains that it is all faith based.

This isn't necessarily true. Science cannot always measure itself, and science cannot account for everything

No no, I'm in total agreement with you there. I was trying to say that if you define progress as strict, scientific progress (as TGGRV has), then science will always win that contest (by definition, in fact). I think physicalism is quite shallow.

 

[Ian A.]

I think physicalism is quite shallow.

An academic question: is there a difference between physicalism and naturalism?

 

[TortoiseDream]

An academic question: is there a difference between physicalism and naturalism?

I really don't know, honestly. Maybe you can explain to me?

 

[Ian A.]

Maybe you can explain to me?

I had never heard the word "physicalism" before actually. Naturalism is the belief that there is nothing beyond nature, and there is nothing supernatural. Which pretty much refutes itself.

 

[TortoiseDream]

I had never heard the word "physicalism" before actually. Naturalism is the belief that there is nothing beyond nature, and there is nothing supernatural. Which pretty much refutes itself.

How so? I think physicalism is quite similar, it just asserts that anything and everything can be completely described in terms of its physical nature, i.e. physics.

 

[Ian A.]

Basically, naturalism believes there is NOTHING beyond what can be measured by science, reason, and experience. Since we ultimately don't know if there is anything beyond nature, and we have no way of testing such an assertion based on those three criteria, then naturalism can't be proven by natural means.

When you assert that anything can be described in physical terms, what you really mean is everything that you know about can be explained in physical terms. Everything unknown is open to question.

Seriously, watch the vid of Craig and Shook I posted.

 

[sevin]

So in other words you have no rebuttal. Okay.

Nope. I can't reason with someone who doesn't use reason. I'm done.

 

[TGGRV]

Two systems are mutually exclusive if their intersection is null. Thus religion and reason are mutually exclusive if their axiom sets don't contain anything in common. Although they are quite different when it comes to conclusions, I think you can find some things in common between both.

I actually like debating people who know how do it. So no, I don't mind reading your posts. I was pissed off last night. Anyway, you can't have the same premises and reach two different conclusions - the whole point of them being mutually exclusive.

And the dictionary, just like the Bible/Torah/Quran are man made things.

 

[thevinci]

First of all, a very civilised debate, and secondly TD thank you for writing in such a way that even a layperson such as myself is able to grasp your points.

Since I start from a traditional faith position i'm already part of the choir, nonetheless you make some very convincing points that in effect we all start from a faith position.

At least that seems to be my understanding.

 

[constituent]

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.

Logic can be correct or not (as in "true" or "false" "1" or "0"). I'm not so sure that "reason" can be "correct."

I might be wrong, if so, hopefully someone will explain it better.

 

[constituent]

he dictionary is a man made thing; what is more, different dictionaries can define the same words differently, albeit usually with subtle differences. The dictionary is almost like a axiom set for language, and all words must be taken on faith.

Agreed. That's why I start w/ the OED, even though it is entirely too anglo-centric to consistently reflect reality (sorry OED, not EVERY word in English began as English). At the very least it attempts to explore the etymology of all its entries.

 

[TGGRV]

Logic can be correct or not (as in "true" or "false" "1" or "0"). I'm not so sure that "reason" can be "correct."

I might be wrong, if so, hopefully someone will explain it better.

reason=think logically; "The children must learn to reason"