Reply With Quote
now explain why the USSR's economy collapsed and please demonstrate why religion factored in
Theistic dictatorships are definitely out there, but isn't it funny how the atheistic ones suck so much harder? I would say that Iran could be considered a theistic dictatorship. They seem to be doing fine.
now explain why the USSR's economy collapsed and please demonstrate why religion factored in
Yes you have the power to think and use thought.
Your thought process leads you to a conclusion based on the information at hand. For an atheist, the same information doesn't lead them to the same conclusion. It doesn't mean they think less. Belief is a thought process, belief in anything. Conscious disbelief in a god is as much a conclusion as conscious belief in one, if both people have the same information. A baby has no information, so the baby is by default atheist. It's not agnostic, as much as those people like to walk the epistemological line out of fear of commitment. The baby isn't unsure of a god's existence. The baby simply doesn't have the belief, ergo a-theist.
The problem generally arises when folks like you attempt to make atheism a religion or a belief in itself. It's neither, just as baldness isn't a hair style.
Sure, after you explain why theist ones don't fall apart so easily.
Do atheists believe god does not exist?
Atheists haven't been convinced a god exists. Negative existential belief is just a talking point, can't be a reality. Belief is a positive assertive acceptance, not a negative one. You cannot form a belief of nothing. You can only form a belief of something. The statement "gods do not exist" seems positive enough, but in reality it's a negative form of the statement "god exists". So the question is "do you believe a god exists" and the atheist concludes "no".
Now on your atheist civilization, these societies you think were secular were in large theistic, they just made their leaders gods. That's still a belief in a god. Hitler was blessed by a religious figure upon command. There was blood worship. Any worship of a god or godlike figure is theism, be it Yaweh or Kim Jong Il.
should i provide a list of theist civilizations that have fallen apart? its quite the list
So, why is the positive form of the statement so bad?
right because making up a sky friend means you are intellectually hard at work.
what's your opinion on why theist societies succeed.
Is it divine force? Humans striving to please their god(s)?
Lay it out.
The first step for the forming of a civilization is coming together. The second step is bonding through supers ion. The biggest reason not to belive in any kind of god is the variance between civilations on what "God" or religion is. The reasonable person realizes that humanity is inclined to seek out patterns, even when none exist.
To dumb it down, all religions can't be true. But they can all be false.
What positive form are you referring to? If you mean "god exists", first and foremost it's non-specific to the point of being almost meaningless. If you clarify which god you're referring to, with every characteristic you paint yourself into a corner, since characteristics can be shown to be contradictory, and that's often where special pleading comes in. If logical fallacies are required to give your version of a god concept wings, it's probably not going to fly. That doesn't mean some people won't believe it. , there are thousands of gods, someone has believed in each of them at some time.
This is an important point. Religions themselves aren't false, but their deity most certainly is. Even if one were true, that would make religion as a whole about 99.99% false. That fact alone makes the concept of the one true god very questionable, enough so that investigation by people who now consider themselves atheist have all led to the same conclusion; theres no compelling evidence to suggest the existence of any god or supernatural presence.
It's not like atheists looked for evidence to support their bias. Many were raised in theist households and were under the grip of religion for a good part of their upbringing. Eventually their internal doubts led them to seek out answers and what they found led them to where they are now. Historically Christians and other theists haven't investigated the veracity of their belief, even if they have sought to validate the teachings through pilgrimages and "science", like searching for the lost Ark, as if it actually exists and just needs to be found. Why look for something you firmly believe already exists? Higgs boson notwithstanding (different reason for positing it's existence), if you're looking for it already and you don't find it, you just figure you've not looked enough. Belief should be the other way around, it should come from discovery.
Last edited by DMC; 05-30-2015 at 07:18 AM.
You all have some mighty fine thoughts on this.
Your response kind of proved my point. You have limited your concept of s God to s "friend in the sky". It's a snappy, cute retort, but it's a shallow view of the concept of a higher being. Understand, I don't believe everyone has to believe. You are free not to do so. But likewise, I am free to believe and should be without ridicule or assumption that if I believe it somehow indicates a lesser level of intelligence. That's my point. It seems to me that atheism has developed its structure of argument on the idea that to believe in a higher being is to be stupid or less evolved. I contend the contrary. To accept the possibility is to open the human mind to the exploration of that which is unseen yet which has so influenced humanity that it bears consideration.
How can you claim something as being a logical fallacy when the very logic used to determine these things is born of something that has been proven to be fallible. There are many times in science has been wrong and had to correct itself. This is where I get confused with atheism.
This guy gets exactly where I am coming from. Well done purist.
Try to stay on one topic at a time until it's put to rest.
Go read about logical fallacies then read about "fallible". They aren't the same things, you're using a logical fallacy (false equivocation) in making that comparison. Too often the atheist has to educate the theist on these things, because the theist has a superficial understanding of them. That leads the atheist to think the theist also has a superficial understanding of their own belief system, since at your age you haven't delved into it more before forming your opinion on it.
It actually does indicate a lesser level of intelligence. You formed an existential belief based on feelings. You should avoid using "intellect" and "supernatural" in the same context. Yes your god is supernatural by necessity, unless you worship a corporeal being.
What if I told you I believe Santa Claus exists? Would you question my intelligence? How about my sanity?
Umm... a fallacy is usually created by something fallible is it not? Science is fallible therefore perfectly capable of creating fallacies of it's own. It isn't that difficult to make that connection.
Do emotions exist?
In my personal experience I have found emotions to be a very real thing. I cannot prove I love my children, I just feel it. That feeling will make me go to great lengths, even death, to protect my children. I just don't understand how someone can say that something that powerful can not exist.
Last edited by xellos88330; 05-30-2015 at 12:12 PM.
Do you realize how many theist civilizations have fallen?
Your bull refers to himself as a god?
Did you read the definitions like I suggested?
Let me help you out:
fal·la·cy
ˈfaləsē/
noun
?
- a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
- vs
- fal·li·ble
ˈfaləb(ə)l/
adjective
capable of making mistakes or being erroneous)
An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises may fail to adequately support its proposed conclusion. The problem with an informal fallacy often stems from reasoning that renders the conclusion unpersuasive. In contrast to a formal fallacy of deduction, the error is not a flaw in logic.
There are a host of arguments out there that have been shown to have formal fallacies at the center of them, ontological argument, Pascal's wager, etc...
Fallible is a good thing, it's how science maintains integrity. Claims must be falsifiable, therefore scientists must allow that they are fallible. Religion, not so much. In religion you start off with a conclusion and work to support it, disregarding anything that doesn't agree with it like trimming away portions of a T-bone steak to call it a filet mignon... because that's what the label said it was.
So scientists don't create fallacies. They don't use flawed reasoning to come to conclusions, they misinterpret data and sometimes lie about it. Fallacies would be more like "hey this tree has an apple growing on it, therefore all trees have apples growing on them" where as fallible would be "hey there's an apple under this tree, this must then be an apple tree" when it's possibly not.
That's a red herring. Your emotional episode doesn't have any historical significance where supernatural existence is concerned. Don't try to equivocate again between existence of a god and existence of an emotion.
You just created a strawman (changing existence of god to existence of emotion) and now you cannot believe it.In my personal experience I have found emotions to be a very real thing. I cannot prove I love my children, I just feel it. That feeling will make me go to great lengths, even death, to protect my children. I just don't understand how someone can say that something that powerful can not exist.
Your children exist. No one is questioning your emotions. Your emotions don't prove that your children exist, you have to have a SSN for them at school, and probably they have to actually be there to get credit.
Since your emotions make you do probably irrational things, it could therefore be irrational that you believe in a supernatural being just because you feel emotional about the concept.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions