Atheist logic

[2dimes]

But I can theoretically know wether someone is eating when they are posting on CC via any number of methods.

Ok, was I and how do you know?

Dude, there's a difference between something being unanswerable and me not having an answer to something.

Maybe.

[rdsrds2120]

But I can theoretically know wether someone is eating when they are posting on CC via any number of methods.

Ok, was I and how do you know?

Dude, there's a difference between something being unanswerable and me not having an answer to something.

Maybe.

I might not have an answer to your question, but someone else might.

-rd

[Woodruff]

Fastposted x2:
Woodruff: I don't see the existance of an objective reality as a prerequisite for science.

Perhaps not so much of a prerequisite as a motivation...that was really the angle I was going fo.

[natty dread]

But I can theoretically know wether someone is eating when they are posting on CC via any number of methods.

Ok, was I and how do you know?

Dude, there's a difference between something being unanswerable and me not having an answer to something.

Maybe.

Perhaps you're misquoting for all you know?

[Gillipig]

I love lamp!

[pmchugh]

I disagree with your self-centered approach to the universe. I don't think I have to know anything for it to be true.

But you can't perceive the universe from anything other than a self-centered approach. Every thought, action, notion must by definition come from a self-centered approach.

This is very true, doesn't change a thing though. My point was that you devalue the existence of everything else to the point at which it may as well not exist purely because you cannot know it to be true, which is a bit ridiculous. Why is your knowing of something critical to its existence?

The question of whether or not an all-knowing all-powerful being is solely and directly responsible for the creation all other things has an objective answer, because things definitely exist.

Do you think the answer is knowable?

It doesn't matter. Take the same argument about a dead relative of yours, it is not knowable whether they ever existed and somehow you seem to suggest that this means; their existence is irrelevant, if I cannot know them to have existed then they may as well have not existed at all. I would say; the fact it is unknowable is irrelevant, they appeared to exist to me so I may as well presume they did until something otherwise contradicts it.

[BigBallinStalin]

um wut? Your analogy doesn't hold. The evidence used for determining the existence of a dead relative is more convincing than evidence in support of a particular type of God (caveat: evidence for a Super Sky Man is different with deism).

E.g. birth cirtificate, an actual photo or video helps, people talking about the dead relative, etc.

[AAFitz]

But I can theoretically know wether someone is eating when they are posting on CC via any number of methods.

Ok, was I and how do you know?

Dude, there's a difference between something being unanswerable and me not having an answer to something.

Maybe.

Perhaps you're misquoting for all you know?

or the links maybe dont work...

[AAFitz]

Also,

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

And from Indiana Jones: [You] have chosen...poorly.

In any case for me atheism absolutely is not a choice at all.

I simply can not believe in a God because it makes no logical sense to do so, since there is absolutely no logical, empirical reason to believe there is one. I could however, choose to ignore all reason and choose one of the many constructs of a Creator, or create one for myself, as most seem to do, but have not chosen to do so. I could however just choose to believe as one can choose to believe anything, but conversely, am not choosing to not believe.

Well it's the occam's razor or what ever if we want to invoke the Last Crusade quote.

If we die and I killed less people that pissed me off, missed out on partying completly inappropriately for a man my age, then I just cease to be after the last electrical impulses cause my brain to function. I can't spend a moment being angry in regret for not banging as many sluts of all genders potentially catching some STDs and physically harming myself further with substance abuse. Because, Even though I don't miss it, I'm not one of those guys that claims. "I used to party but I hated it and myself. I was only looking for God." I loved getting hammered. I drank lots and loved it big time. Most people told me I was an alcoholic.

Giving myself to Jesus mostly improves the lives of my kids and a bunch of losers that don't deserve me to show mercy towards them. However to God even though by human standards I may be above average. I'm just a loser that does not deserve his mercy.

If on the other hand if I reject God and he ends up being Catholic (I can't imagine but...) I'd get to spend eternity with all the cool bands but the party's over. The only consolation being Satan won't be enjoying tourturing me because he'll be chewing his own tongue too.

Which is the poor choice, miss out on 8-50 years of sex and drugs or miss out on the possability of spending eternity with Yahusua's flock enjoying things that are even better, I can't imagine what God could make that would beat that but I believe he made it and promised something better so I'm kind of excited to find out.

I'm pretty choked at my wife right now but I have really great kids (maybe that's subjective) I'm fat, warm and dry while it rains a cold rain outside the window. I'm in a band, I flew some airplanes this year and had some really great bourbon the other night. My life is blessed. Like I said I don't miss partying even though I know I'd slip right into the routine and love it. Right up to the part where I get killed by some other nasty dude I pissed off.

Do you wonder if there could be a creator?

Sorry, by poorly, I simply meant the choice that was not true. However, fiction very much can help in many ways if used responsibly, and to some degree we must rely on guesses anyways to function, so by all means believe in God, so that it helps you psychologically.

However, suggesting to others that they should believe it is something entirely different, and possibly even more dangerous, since in reality, you cant possibly have any idea whatsoever if that which you preach is true in any way. Its just your guess, and while it works for you, such a delusion could very much be assimilated in a different person in the wrong way...which for the most part...is what happens with every religious based disagreement/war in history.

I believed in God for nearly half my life. I was told he was there, and had no reason to question it. Eventually, the reality of the situation simply became obvious, and while sometimes I may miss that veil of ignorance...once lifted, it is difficult to lower it once again.

As far as suggesting some higher power is necessary to feel responsible for hurting other humans, I would suggest that if you only care because there might be a God, then you dont actually care at all, whereas someone who cares about other people, and tries to do the best by them morally, just because they are people, is ironically, viewed more favorably by a God if he truly existed, since praise and thanks, would be completely lost on him, and like any responsible parent, he could only ever care about his children anyways.

[2dimes]

I did not mean to suggest there is no middle ground between being a saint and running amuck.

As far as suggesting some higher power is necessary to feel responsible for hurting other humans, I would suggest that if you only care because there might be a God, then you dont actually care at all, whereas someone who cares about other people, and tries to do the best by them morally, just because they are people, is ironically, viewed more favorably by a God if he truly existed, since praise and thanks, would be completely lost on him, and like any responsible parent, he could only ever care about his children anyways.

Reasonable points.

I might not be able to explain many things well, especially in text. I don't think we all need to believe in God to have compassion. Actually there are many cases where people claim the reason they lack compassion is because of a god. If we're a random accidental gathering of cells in a temporary form, what causes me to value another person? Shouldn't our motives be completly selfish?

How much effect does my action toward a blade of grass have on the lawn of a football field? Yet our treatment of others often has as much effect on ourselves as them, sometimes more. Helping a random stranger might be forgotten. Harming one seems to cause ripples. Their friends and family feel the effects.

I believe there are certain truths outside of a human's perception of God that are still from him. I have sensed faith being a powerfull force. The faith was not allways directed at believing in God. Examples being many non religious motivational speakers, books and courses. "Believe in yourself." That sort of thing.

It makes no sense. In some ways it should make you perform tasks worse. Instead of focusing on doing something perfectly, people are distracted thinking, " I can do this." yet it seems to work.

Of course I don't perceive a logical reason it would work. That leaves it open for interpretation. Was it was a coincidence? Did God do it? Is it just a force of nature?

[Dibbun]

I did not mean to suggest there is no middle ground between being a saint and running amuck.

As far as suggesting some higher power is necessary to feel responsible for hurting other humans, I would suggest that if you only care because there might be a God, then you dont actually care at all, whereas someone who cares about other people, and tries to do the best by them morally, just because they are people, is ironically, viewed more favorably by a God if he truly existed, since praise and thanks, would be completely lost on him, and like any responsible parent, he could only ever care about his children anyways.

Reasonable points.

I might not be able to explain many things well, especially in text. I don't think we all need to believe in God to have compassion. Actually there are many cases where people claim the reason they lack compassion is because of a god. If we're a random accidental gathering of cells in a temporary form, what causes me to value another person? Shouldn't our motives be completly selfish?

Some people are completely selfish. You can get away with that now, but back in the day (caveman times) if you didn't work together you died. Then your genes were not passed on. Genetically we are predisposed to have traits which ensure our survival, such as a cooperative disposition.

[2dimes]

Ok, but as cavemen I co-operate with you because you are part of my group. We work together for survival. Therefore you provide me with value. Sure I help you but the motive is survival that's self preservation.

I know a guy who has told me he was an atheist. On Sepember 11, 2001 he went to the airport and offered some complete strangers a place to stay until they could get a flight out. It was a pure act of selfless compassion. What was the motive for that? Could be genetic.

um wut? Your analogy doesn't hold. The evidence used for determining the existence of a dead relative is more convincing than evidence in support of a particular type of God (caveat: evidence for a Super Sky Man is different with deism).

E.g. birth cirtificate, an actual photo or video helps, people talking about the dead relative, etc.

By dead relatives I think he was talking about one's from thousands of years ago. Unless you're family was only created after photography.

With lot's of looking on the Internet I found records recently of my grandfathers mothers parents. They are kind of scetchy and difficult to consider conclusive. They are however very probably my relatives. I believe they must have had parents dispite the fact that there seems to be no existing record.

How does technology factor into our perceptions of life?

300 years ago your ancestors if literate could write a message to someone in another country and exchange drawings.

Now you can use Skype to look at their image and hear their voice.

[Woodruff]

If we're a random accidental gathering of cells in a temporary form, what causes me to value another person? Shouldn't our motives be completly selfish?

Yes, and no. I tend to think our compassionate side developed out of the social need (like the wolfpack) and the fact showing compassion can draw individuals more closely together which can increase survival odds.

Yet our treatment of others often has as much effect on ourselves as them, sometimes more.

Absolutely true.

[BigBallinStalin]

Also,

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

And from Indiana Jones: [You] have chosen...poorly.

In any case for me atheism absolutely is not a choice at all.

I simply can not believe in a God because it makes no logical sense to do so, since there is absolutely no logical, empirical reason to believe there is one. I could however, choose to ignore all reason and choose one of the many constructs of a Creator, or create one for myself, as most seem to do, but have not chosen to do so. I could however just choose to believe as one can choose to believe anything, but conversely, am not choosing to not believe.

Well it's the occam's razor or what ever if we want to invoke the Last Crusade quote.

If we die and I killed less people that pissed me off, missed out on partying completly inappropriately for a man my age, then I just cease to be after the last electrical impulses cause my brain to function. I can't spend a moment being angry in regret for not banging as many sluts of all genders potentially catching some STDs and physically harming myself further with substance abuse. Because, Even though I don't miss it, I'm not one of those guys that claims. "I used to party but I hated it and myself. I was only looking for God." I loved getting hammered. I drank lots and loved it big time. Most people told me I was an alcoholic.

Giving myself to Jesus mostly improves the lives of my kids and a bunch of losers that don't deserve me to show mercy towards them. However to God even though by human standards I may be above average. I'm just a loser that does not deserve his mercy.

If on the other hand if I reject God and he ends up being Catholic (I can't imagine but...) I'd get to spend eternity with all the cool bands but the party's over. The only consolation being Satan won't be enjoying tourturing me because he'll be chewing his own tongue too.

Which is the poor choice, miss out on 8-50 years of sex and drugs or miss out on the possability of spending eternity with Yahusua's flock enjoying things that are even better, I can't imagine what God could make that would beat that but I believe he made it and promised something better so I'm kind of excited to find out.

I'm pretty choked at my wife right now but I have really great kids (maybe that's subjective) I'm fat, warm and dry while it rains a cold rain outside the window. I'm in a band, I flew some airplanes this year and had some really great bourbon the other night. My life is blessed. Like I said I don't miss partying even though I know I'd slip right into the routine and love it. Right up to the part where I get killed by some other nasty dude I pissed off.

Do you wonder if there could be a creator?

Sorry, by poorly, I simply meant the choice that was not true. However, fiction very much can help in many ways if used responsibly, and to some degree we must rely on guesses anyways to function, so by all means believe in God, so that it helps you psychologically.

However, suggesting to others that they should believe it is something entirely different, and possibly even more dangerous, since in reality, you cant possibly have any idea whatsoever if that which you preach is true in any way. Its just your guess, and while it works for you, such a delusion could very much be assimilated in a different person in the wrong way...which for the most part...is what happens with every religious based disagreement/war in history.

I believed in God for nearly half my life. I was told he was there, and had no reason to question it. Eventually, the reality of the situation simply became obvious, and while sometimes I may miss that veil of ignorance...once lifted, it is difficult to lower it once again.

As far as suggesting some higher power is necessary to feel responsible for hurting other humans, I would suggest that if you only care because there might be a God, then you dont actually care at all, whereas someone who cares about other people, and tries to do the best by them morally, just because they are people, is ironically, viewed more favorably by a God if he truly existed, since praise and thanks, would be completely lost on him, and like any responsible parent, he could only ever care about his children anyways.

Not to be a jerk and all, but that was the most painful run-on sentence that I have ever experienced.

[pmchugh]

um wut? Your analogy doesn't hold. The evidence used for determining the existence of a dead relative is more convincing than evidence in support of a particular type of God (caveat: evidence for a Super Sky Man is different with deism).

E.g. birth cirtificate, an actual photo or video helps, people talking about the dead relative, etc.

It is unknowable. It doesn't matter if all the evidence in the world points towards it, you still cannot be certain that it is not an illusion. The point I am making is that if you are going to use the "unknowable" argument about God, you can also use it about almost anything else, so it is a bit silly to do so.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I disagree with your self-centered approach to the universe. I don't think I have to know anything for it to be true.

But you can't perceive the universe from anything other than a self-centered approach. Every thought, action, notion must by definition come from a self-centered approach.

This is very true, doesn't change a thing though. My point was that you devalue the existence of everything else to the point at which it may as well not exist purely because you cannot know it to be true, which is a bit ridiculous. Why is your knowing of something critical to its existence?

Because me(or someone else) knowing of it is how we define existance.
Everything that we say exists is because some human thinks he has observed it's effects in some way.

Like I say, I posit the existance of an invisible intangible weightless gnome living on your shoulder. This gnome doesn't interact in any way with our universe. Does it make a sense to make a statement regarding it's existance?
It might exist, but from our point of view it might as well not exist.
The same seems to me to apply to any thing that is perpetually out of our reach.

The question of whether or not an all-knowing all-powerful being is solely and directly responsible for the creation all other things has an objective answer, because things definitely exist.

Do you think the answer is knowable?

It doesn't matter. Take the same argument about a dead relative of yours, it is not knowable whether they ever existed and somehow you seem to suggest that this means; their existence is irrelevant, if I cannot know them to have existed then they may as well have not existed at all. I would say; the fact it is unknowable is irrelevant, they appeared to exist to me so I may as well presume they did until something otherwise contradicts it.

Well, of course you'll presume they exist, you have very strong evidence they did, namely that you exist.

If however I were to say that your greatX10 grandfather lost his big toenail in a hilarious accident at the age of 15. What would you make of this statement?
Can you say anything more than that it is irrelevant?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Ok, but as cavemen I co-operate with you because you are part of my group. We work together for survival. Therefore you provide me with value. Sure I help you but the motive is survival that's self preservation.

I know a guy who has told me he was an atheist. On Sepember 11, 2001 he went to the airport and offered some complete strangers a place to stay until they could get a flight out. It was a pure act of selfless compassion. What was the motive for that? Could be genetic.

The theory I've heard goes as follows.

Social animals like us spent most of our time in small groups where most of us were related. By being altruistic in these groups we not only helped our chance of survival but also helped our genes survive(since the same genes also resided in the other members of our family group). Evolution has no way of determining specifically which members of the group should be protected though (except for age/sex differences) so we tended to be altruistic towards any member of the group, even if perhaps that member wasn't a direct relative.
This is the same mechanism by which cuckoos are able to place their eggs in other bird's nests and the other bird will feed the cuckoo's baby, even though it is clear to us it is a different species. The bird simply knows it must feed small shouting things in its nest.

Anyway, our culture subsequently developed far to fast for evolution to keep up, so now we have the same group based altruism only our groups keep getting bigger. City, then state, (maybe race?) now it's leaning towards global.
It's probably why many more people will donate money if they actually see people in disaster areas rather than just read/hear about them. By seeing them our altruistic habbit kicks in, since in caveman ages most people we would see would be in our family group.

Anyway, this is one possible explanation. If you're interested in stuff like this you might like: The Selfish Gene

[notyou2]

Now I'm thinking about fruity pizza again. Haven't made that for ages.

Do you count fresh tomatoes as fruit? Tomatoes on pizza is freaking amazing.

-rd

Corn!

Would that be corn or maize?

You might (or might not) be surprised by this, MeDeFe, but the first time I ever had
corn on pizza was in Germany. Specifically in Landstuhl (admittedly pretty Americanized).
It really is very good.

I was rather referring to the fact that "corn" means something other in the USA than it does throughout pretty much the entire rest of the world.

What does the rest of the world call those little yellow nuggets in their poo?

[2dimes]

I'd like to pause and express appreciation for the fact that everyone is being Vivaldi and the discussion has brought out many excellent logical points.

I'm not going to change it because it's funny. iPad thinks civil should be Vivaldi. ^

[MeDeFe]

Do you count fresh tomatoes as fruit? Tomatoes on pizza is freaking amazing.

-rd

Corn!

Would that be corn or maize?

You might (or might not) be surprised by this, MeDeFe, but the first time I ever had
corn on pizza was in Germany. Specifically in Landstuhl (admittedly pretty Americanized).
It really is very good.

I was rather referring to the fact that "corn" means something other in the USA than it does throughout pretty much the entire rest of the world.

What does the rest of the world call those little yellow nuggets in their poo?

They're usually referred to as "a bloody nuisance". The "bloody" may or may not be meant literally.

[pmchugh]

If however I were to say that your greatX10 grandfather lost his big toenail in a hilarious accident at the age of 15. What would you make of this statement?
Can you say anything more than that it is irrelevant?

I am now completely misunderstanding you. Are you saying that whether God exists or not is irrelevant? The example you proposed is irrelevant because it does not matter, not because we cannot know whether it happened.

Unless I have read you wrongly then you are making a bizarre claim that nothing exists outside of consciousness, yet you claim that other consciousnesses exist outside of your own. Is this correct?