The Illogic of Atheism? (if you like math and logic - no bible quotes pls)
- Thread starter riddarhusetgal
- Start date
- Status
But some people roll the wrong way, which causes them to do stupid things. Encouraging stupidity goes against natural selection in my book. All this "making everything fair" bollocks is stupid, I mean we have already killed off natural selection partly with society and technology and now we are wielding the final blow with fairness and equality.
The scary part is that some people would follow it. Hell their are crazier religions out there [scientology imho].
and in case you've never seen this southpark episode
Sexual Harassment Panda
Sexual Harassment Law - Clips - South Park Studios
This argument is what should shut must intelligent athiest up. I have never had an atheist explain to me where that first speck of matter came from. Possibly there are some athiest here that can enlighten me??
In reference to your question, we don't know.
We have theories, and science is getting closer to finding out our history everyday, but to say that "god" did it is not intelligent and is the answer people who don't think for themselves will chose because it's easier.
People don't like "not knowing shit" so when they have a blanket answers to cover an incomprehensible question they take it, just like the people throughout history who used different "gods" to explain things the didn't understand or couldn't comprehend.
For example in ancient Greece many people believed the "god" Apollo made the sun rise everyday. If we were both living in that time period, I'm sure we could be having the exact same argument as to why the sun really rises in the morning. You would probably ask me to prove it wasn't Apollo and if I lived back then I couldn't, but today with our current technology and advances in science we can prove that Apollo does not make the sun rise, and we can prove what does. The same thing will happen in 2000 years or so with this whole "Hey Bill, where do you think we come?" "Well I don't know Jerry it must have been 'insert diety here'."
The problem with saying "God" did it, is that it leaves no room for questioning. When you say Apollo did it, or "god" did it you are taking out the most important thing in why we are so advanced today as a society today, and that is questioning shit and testing it until your theories are correct. That's what makes science so awesome is that it can be wrong, just like in Aff Marketing. The more you fail the closer you are to success. The more you test out a theory, the more likely you are to find an answer, and the problem with "god" is that he leaves no room to testing. (And he didn't leave any scientific evidence for his existence)
The existence of god is not based on logic, rationality, math, or science. End of argument; he doesn't exist.
If I was God I wouldn't be hiding myself in unexplainable miracles or secretly talking to select individuals. And I sure wouldn't trust some dudes back in the day to write down great insights or stories about my kid.
No, every morning I'd rise, 10 times larger and brighter than the Sun. And in a great booming voice I'd say "Greetings my children .... waaaazzzzzzzzuuuuuuuuuuuuupppp!!!!!!"
No, every morning I'd rise, 10 times larger and brighter than the Sun. And in a great booming voice I'd say "Greetings my children .... waaaazzzzzzzzuuuuuuuuuuuuupppp!!!!!!"
Hey,
Chill out everybody...wow, 34+ posts in like 24 hrs?
A couple of things though before the punch line.....
1. Perhaps this kind of conversation is best had among academics, people who don't have an emotional attachment to their beliefs - atheists or not - or agnostics.
2. Why the assumption that I am not an atheist???
Someone said:
A ^ B does not imply C. If A were "Everything that man CAN observe has a creator", (and if A were true), then A ^ B would imply C. In fact you could weaken B to be "Man has observed himself in the natural world" and A ^ B would obviously still imply C. But your assumptions that A and especially A ^ B -> C are both true are completely unproven.
The two things that would contradict your logic are anything that have no proven creator (eg the universe) or possibly something man has not observed yet.
IF THIS COUNTER-ARGUMENT PROVES TO BE THE CASE, MY CONCLUSIONS ARE WRONG
A quick note though, would the hard core bible-waivers or card carrying atheists please stay away from this thread??
This is not link bait for the 700 Club/The Bible Channel (one extreme) or the Godless American PAC (another).
I started this thread
1) for fun and out of boredom
2) as a social experiment of sorts
What kind of social experiment you may ask? Well, I got to thinking this week about a comment a Swedish friend of mine made. Living between the southern US and Europe, I'm often struck by how scarily close the largely religious south is to the largely irreligious, hard-core atheistic North is (northern Europe I mean).....
By similar I mean that if I'm talking to an atheist in Stockholm about religion, they react the same way (example: above save Xentech's response) a Jehovah Witness would in the South if you tell them you think their beliefs are irrational and don't make much logical sense.
To tell you the truth, it's scary how similarly they react - the atheistic, "rational" Swede and the ultra religious American
Then, I got to thinking about how these emotional triggers can be used in business as well.....
But I'll get back to that later....
Anyway, most people who consider themselves atheists say they value reason and logic - if you read any studies on atheism, you will most certainly come across one of the central arguments of atheism: that they are rational, logical individuals and henceforth can't bring themselves to act irrationally - i.e. believe in the irrational or illogical.
Yet, we have people who are obviously atheists right here on this thread immediately reacting with illogical and irrational responses to the argument first presented...think about that for a second (responses like "Man was created by a jelly fish....prove that bitch", "close this thread", etc) - emotional reactions to a discussion about logic, Aristotle and the transitive law of math?? Huh?
A note of warning for all the hard core rationalists here: don't think for a second you aren't as susceptible as we all are to psychological triggers as if you are an atheist and responded above you have probably demonstrated to any social scientist who might observe this how much emotions will almost always beat logic anyday of the week (all the atheists assumed I was a religious nut out to disprove their beliefs and convert them to God-believers and immediately acted on the defensive)
Anyway, If you get bored check out the following:
1) Jon F's post about 1+ years ago on psychological and marketing - Super Affiliate Marketing Blog Affiliate Marketing With The Power Of Influence Marketing
2) The Psychological of Persuasion by Cialdini
3) Edward Bernay's book on Propaganda (an author mentioned in the thread)
Here's another one written by Perry Marshall the guy who wrote the google adwords guide on Intelligent Design:
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
Chill out everybody...wow, 34+ posts in like 24 hrs?
A couple of things though before the punch line.....
1. Perhaps this kind of conversation is best had among academics, people who don't have an emotional attachment to their beliefs - atheists or not - or agnostics.
2. Why the assumption that I am not an atheist???
Someone said:
A ^ B does not imply C. If A were "Everything that man CAN observe has a creator", (and if A were true), then A ^ B would imply C. In fact you could weaken B to be "Man has observed himself in the natural world" and A ^ B would obviously still imply C. But your assumptions that A and especially A ^ B -> C are both true are completely unproven.
The two things that would contradict your logic are anything that have no proven creator (eg the universe) or possibly something man has not observed yet.
IF THIS COUNTER-ARGUMENT PROVES TO BE THE CASE, MY CONCLUSIONS ARE WRONG
A quick note though, would the hard core bible-waivers or card carrying atheists please stay away from this thread??
This is not link bait for the 700 Club/The Bible Channel (one extreme) or the Godless American PAC (another).
I started this thread
1) for fun and out of boredom
2) as a social experiment of sorts
What kind of social experiment you may ask? Well, I got to thinking this week about a comment a Swedish friend of mine made. Living between the southern US and Europe, I'm often struck by how scarily close the largely religious south is to the largely irreligious, hard-core atheistic North is (northern Europe I mean).....
By similar I mean that if I'm talking to an atheist in Stockholm about religion, they react the same way (example: above save Xentech's response) a Jehovah Witness would in the South if you tell them you think their beliefs are irrational and don't make much logical sense.
To tell you the truth, it's scary how similarly they react - the atheistic, "rational" Swede and the ultra religious American
Then, I got to thinking about how these emotional triggers can be used in business as well.....
But I'll get back to that later....
Anyway, most people who consider themselves atheists say they value reason and logic - if you read any studies on atheism, you will most certainly come across one of the central arguments of atheism: that they are rational, logical individuals and henceforth can't bring themselves to act irrationally - i.e. believe in the irrational or illogical.
Yet, we have people who are obviously atheists right here on this thread immediately reacting with illogical and irrational responses to the argument first presented...think about that for a second (responses like "Man was created by a jelly fish....prove that bitch", "close this thread", etc) - emotional reactions to a discussion about logic, Aristotle and the transitive law of math?? Huh?
A note of warning for all the hard core rationalists here: don't think for a second you aren't as susceptible as we all are to psychological triggers as if you are an atheist and responded above you have probably demonstrated to any social scientist who might observe this how much emotions will almost always beat logic anyday of the week (all the atheists assumed I was a religious nut out to disprove their beliefs and convert them to God-believers and immediately acted on the defensive)
Anyway, If you get bored check out the following:
1) Jon F's post about 1+ years ago on psychological and marketing - Super Affiliate Marketing Blog Affiliate Marketing With The Power Of Influence Marketing
2) The Psychological of Persuasion by Cialdini
3) Edward Bernay's book on Propaganda (an author mentioned in the thread)
Here's another one written by Perry Marshall the guy who wrote the google adwords guide on Intelligent Design:
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
Forgot the the link - Information Theory and DNA: The Origin of Life
Once again, I'd probably choose to read something else if I am a hard-core atheist or hard core religionist as both are the type emotionally tied to beliefs.
If you are emotionally tied to beliefs FOR or AGAINST a belief in god, it's close to impossible to be able to think, speak or write rationally about it....
Once again, I'd probably choose to read something else if I am a hard-core atheist or hard core religionist as both are the type emotionally tied to beliefs.
If you are emotionally tied to beliefs FOR or AGAINST a belief in god, it's close to impossible to be able to think, speak or write rationally about it....
I'm agnostic, but will point out that in the absence of knowledge saying *poof* the all powerful omnipotent dude did it is not the peak of rational thought
Again, the logic breaks down at number 2.
We do know of a natural process that creates coded information, it is called evolution.
Even if you argue against "macro-evolution" (as ID followers often do), we can proove this with "micro-evolution", which even creationists agree exists (like one strain of bacteria evolving an immunity against certain medications)
Obviously, coded genetic information is obtained, stored, and retrieved again.
So, even without going against anything creationists say, this logic fails.
In the end, we could argue:
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) Not all codes are created by a conscious mind; there is a natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA does not have to be designed by a conscious mind.
Regards,
::emp::
- Status