News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Atheism is abnormal human behavior

Started by Givemeareason, April 20, 2015, 11:25:44 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Savior2006

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 31, 2015, 11:11:31 AM
Well, I guess I was wrong about Odoital--he did not leave us.  Which is fine with me. :)

That's okay. I got another bag of popcorn for the ocassion.
It took science to do what people imagine God can do.
--ApostateLois

"The closer you are to God the further you are from the truth."
--St Giordano

SGOS

#121
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 31, 2015, 10:49:40 AM
I agree that falleness is our default position, but specifically, atheism?  I don't think so.  Merely not being religious doesn't make someone an atheist.

Falleness?  My spell check keeps identifying this as "not a word."  But I get it.  You're talking about original sin.  Well, that's nice, but it's not what people here are talking about.  We are talking about atheism, and since you came here without knowing much about it, we are trying to explain it to you.

Whether or not falleness is a default position, or not, has nothing to do with atheism being a default position.  The default is a blank slate, that includes no belief in the Christian god.  And no belief in Thor either, by the way.  Where you get this idea that everyone, Hindus and Taoists included, are born believing in the construct of a God is a silly perception IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT.  And being born with a belief in Jesus Christ would be nothing short of idiotic.

I don't believe there is even a genetic predisposition to believe in a god.  There have been several written articles in scientific journals speculating on it, but most of the written articles are in places like People Magazine.  As a result, I hold no belief as of yet that this might be true.  I tend to think such a predisposition is actually nurtured into consciousness by significant others.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Savior2006 on May 31, 2015, 11:17:29 AM
That's okay. I got another bag of popcorn for the ocassion.
:)))))))))))))))))))
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

leo

Religion is Bullshit  . The winner of the last person to post wins thread .

Mike Cl

Quote from: leo on May 31, 2015, 12:05:19 PM
I got popcorn and coca cola. :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
I envy you your coca cola.  Drinking it for me is like drinking poison.  (My body chemistry is so screwed up) But that shit sure does taste good!  and I like popcorn, too, but the butter gets all over my keyboard, so I don't eat--only for movies.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Munch

#125
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 31, 2015, 10:49:40 AM
I agree that falleness is our default position, but specifically, atheism?  I don't think so.  Merely not being religious doesn't make someone an atheist.

Your confusing atheist for anti-theist.
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin

Hydra009

#126
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 31, 2015, 06:22:40 AM
That might have been the case, but the point I was making is that now we have myriad ways of rationalizing and contriving all kinds of exits from one belief and entry into another.  And while they can be an example of dropping a false belief for something that more closely responds to reality, it certainly doesn't have to be.
What a convoluted and terrible way of saying "people change their beliefs all the time, but new beliefs aren't necessarily more accurate than old beliefs".

QuoteIt's rather like the old Dawkins' quote that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."  So Darwin's theory gave atheism some level of scientific plausibility and therefore respectability that it probably didn't have before.
Let me stop you right there.  That's not actually true.  Atheism isn't based on any particular scientific theory, let alone evolution.  And I have a real problem with creationist attempts to portray the two as if they're joined at the hip.  No.  They're stand-alone.  If you want to debate them, you've got to do it separately.

* Before Charles Darwin, people knew that evolution happened.  Hell, there were theories of evolution before Darwin.  He's just the one who came up with a rigorous treatment on the subject and came up with a verifiable mechanism for it that passed muster in the scientific community.

*  Even at the height of human ignorance, it's still possible to not go with the theistic explanation and go with the more intellectually honest "I don't know".  By the way, that's what atheist still do in stark contrast with God-of-the-Gaps arguments.

*  And according to your logic (well, not really your logic, whoever came up with that quote's logic), every single scientific field makes it possible "to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" since they all replace supernatural explanations with naturalistic, empiricism-based explanations.

QuoteToday, given our level of knowledge, there are all kinds of ways of exiting one view and adopting another.  The proliferation of knowledge leads to a proliferation of views, not because all of the views are true, but because we often prefer to believe things for other reasons apart from their veracity.
No.  A proliferation of views tends to happen in the absence of knowledge.  Incidentally, how many Christian denominations are we up to now?  As we amass data about a phenomenon (astronomy or biology or climatology), it tends to lead to a few inescapable conclusions.  Though, obviously, pseudoscientific ideas are still championed long after they've been debunked.  Hence the fact of me talking to an Intelligent Design advocate (aka creationist) in 2015, long after even its political campaign ended in the Kitzmiller court case.

QuoteWith regard to your other comment, I think the evidence is likely on the side of the divine entity.
Well yeah, of course you would think that.  Yet as we've already been over, you can't provide actual evidence for your conclusion, simply arguments which frankly, have been debunked for centuries before either of us were even born.

QuoteDue to the fact that the Universe itself came into being at a point in the finite past, you don't have a lot of options.  That Universe that began either came into being from nothing and by nothing, or it came into being from something and by something.  The first statement is a violation of our repeated and uniform experience as human beings.  Generally speaking, or as a rule, things to not pop into being from a state of non-being.  In addition, I actually like the simple deductive argument, which I'm sure you're well aware of:

1) Whatever beings to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) Therefore the Universe has a cause.


This stuff again?  Do you have any idea how much we've hashed out that argument?!  Do me a favor and search the forum for "Kalam".  It's there, I guarantee it.

QuoteAre there objections to the argument?  Sure there are.
Well, there you go.  Now all you have to do is look into the objections with a scrap of intellectual honesty and you'd...

QuoteEven if that statement is 100% true, I expect a certain number of people to object.  Having said that, I'm persuaded that it's true, and I've not heard or seen an objection that has been persuasive enough to unseat that reality in my mind.
...believe whatever you want to believe anyway.   :wall:

QuoteI'm further persuaded by the kind of world that I live in that the cause involved is likely transcendent and personal.  There are of course logical and philosophical reasons behind that, but I think that it's much more plausibly true than the alternative.
Whatever those "logical and philosophical reasons" are, they're likely on exactly the same level as everything you've said so far, essentially wishful thinking with a cheap veneer of science.  Hardly worth my time.  Or anyone's, really.

Mermaid

Quote from: Givemeareason on May 22, 2015, 10:25:08 AM
Yes, but put yourself in their shoes.  Isn't it better to believe in anything than believe in nothing.
Uh. No.
A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities â€" all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. -TR

Savior2006

Quote from: Mermaid on May 31, 2015, 01:33:05 PM
Uh. No.

Atheists believe in many things. Deities that can't even remotely be perceived in nature simply aren't one of them.
It took science to do what people imagine God can do.
--ApostateLois

"The closer you are to God the further you are from the truth."
--St Giordano