Atheism, Logical?

gop_jeff said:
I have history to look at, which tells me that Jesus' followers proclaimed Him as the Christ. I have the church, which (as history says) has been around for 2000 years or so, proclaiming that Jesus is the Christ.
This is all based upon the Bible is it not? There are no references to Jesus Christ being the Son of God outside of the Bible, and even very few references to his existence outside of it. Moreover, no one accepts proclaims Jesus to be the Christ unless they accept the Bible to be true, and they proclaim Jesus to be the Christ only because they believe in the Bible. Hence, if it is impossible to determine the Bible to be true to a large degree, belief in Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) is not an ounce more rational than belief in, say, Mother Goose's fairy tales.

gop_jeff said:
I also have many non-Christian references to the Christian faith, showing that the faith has been around for a long time. I also have many arguments for the historical facts that surround Christianity (i.e. facts about Jesus' life, His death, and His resurrection).
Now, Greek myths have also been around for a very long time, and the ancient Egyptians practiced their faith for several millennia. We now know for certain that the Sun is not Ra. How long a belief is adhered to, is completely irrelevant in justifying that belief. As to non-Christian sources describing the events in the Bible which could be doubted (i.e. the events that one cannot see on a more or less daily basis), I am not aware of them. Perhaps you could point me in their direction?

gop_jeff said:
For example, I have never seen God. But I believe that He exists, based on the evidence on Christianity. I have never seen heaven, or angels, or demons, but I believe they exist as well, for the same reason. So I take these things which I have not (and cannot) observe on faith, because I do have some evidence about some parts of Christianity which causes me to believe.
Now what you are describing is the epitome of irrationality. It is a clear and blatant logical fallacy to assume a set of highly unlikely things to be true given proof of likely things being true, with those likely things being described in the same work as those unlikely things. Say I tell you that I have been to Australia. I even give you my ticket stubs, and show some pictures of myself in front of the Sydney Oper House. Clearly, it would be rational to believe my claim. Then I proceed to claim that Australia is being run by three-legged aliens from another galaxy, giving you no evidence to support that claim. You could believe me, but that faith would be irrational.

This irrationality could be shown from another perspective. Rational things can all be arrived at independently. One can argue that specific historical events are difficult to independently discover - that it is as unfair to expect a child barred from all references to Christianity to discover God as it is for said child, barred from all references to WWII to discover Hitler. However, religion is not history. Religion, is very, very current. God still exists right now. If the belief in Him were rational, one could arrive at it independently. One cannot. Different societies that never interacted with one another, have never arrived at a similar religion (even if those societies were contemporaries - the Hindus still existed at the time of Jesus Christ - it is eyebrow raising that God apparently never bothered to tell them of his Son's sacrifice). Moreover, no adherents of a particular religion can make any arguments that would privilege their religion over any other religion.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
There is faith on the left too. Science is hardly in agreement that our ways will ruin the world, yet envirowackjobs preach it like the gospel, and anyone who tries to verify their faith, is demonized.
Absolutely. I would view the more rabid of "envirowackjobs" to be about as rational as adherents to a particular organised religion. Nonetheless, a crucial difference must be kept in mind, the difference between being not quite in agreement, and in full disagreement. Our effects on the environment have not yet been conclusively proven. However, there is good logical reason and empirical evidence to believe that the truth is not inherently different from what the "envirowackjobs" preach it to be. There is no good logical reasons or empirical evidence to justify religion. This means one of two things. Either religion as we view it today is utterly false, or we simply have not yet discovered the the logical reasons or empirical evidence to support it. Hence, religious faith may still turn out to be right, but until such reasons or empirical evidence are discovered, it continues to be irrational.
 
rei_t_ex said:
Absolutely. I would view the more rabid of "envirowackjobs" to be about as rational as adherents to a particular organised religion. Nonetheless, a crucial difference must be kept in mind, the difference between being not quite in agreement, and in full disagreement. Our effects on the environment have not yet been conclusively proven. However, there is good logical reason and empirical evidence to believe that the truth is not inherently different from what the "envirowackjobs" preach it to be. There is no good logical reasons or empirical evidence to justify religion. This means one of two things. Either religion as we view it today is utterly false, or we simply have not yet discovered the the logical reasons or empirical evidence to support it. Hence, religious faith may still turn out to be right, but until such reasons or empirical evidence are discovered, it continues to be irrational.

Right, it's faith, and religious people will tell you it's faith. Envirowackjobs run on faith, but insist it's science, and the science is just not there.
 
rei_t_ex said:
While it is true to point out that newer religions tend to be somewhat more advanced than older ones (in particular due to a greater preoccupation with the metaphysical rather than rudimentary banalities of solar motion/seasons/elements/crop growing etc.), the particular religions in and of themselves have changed little. I would hesitate to believe that a Christian in 200 CE, if transported to the present day would struggle with identifying current Christianity for what it is, and vice versa. Moreover, it is also highly dubious in my mind that new major religions will emerge any time soon, if ever. Hence, the evolution of religious views is likely, by and large, complete. Sure, some things will be tweaked, especially with the expanding body of scientific knowledge, but fundamental paradigm shifts in religious are highly unlikely.

Somewhat more advanced? From worshipping or fearing a rock, thunder
and /or a large animal to an everlasting, eternal omnipotent entity?
In the 2nd century Anno Domini there were perhaps dozens of Christian sects that were consolidated at the council of Nicea in 300(or so) AD. Transporting him to the present day would put him into an arena as close to heaven as he could imagine. (Can you understand more than your worldview, your sum total of experiences? A little more maybe because the human brain is non linear.)
There was a famous prominent 19th century scientist that wanted to close the patent office because everything that had been invented had been invented. Read James Burke about how seemingly unrelated inventiveness has had startling results throughout history.
There is little else to count on except; The principles of order from chaos and the fact that nothing can be repeated, all knowledge, thought must be reinterpreted each and every time stated. ( famous eastern thought, (can't step in same river twice) will produce those "new" religions, inventions etc.
Most mean progression when they say evolution. By deninition evolution must be blind, random, non progressive, caused by mutations and based upon a simple cell structure,(Ax Darwin he wrote it).
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ol Perfessor
To paraphrase both Aquinus and Augustine there is no conflict between science and religion.

I would never argue against that. In my mind, religion and science deal with very different and non-overlapping phenomena. There simply cannot be any conflict, since there is no interaction. Conflict may emerge if people attempt to use religion to describe the physical world (rather than keeping it strictly metaphysical, as they should). Conflict may also emerge if people are to claim that religious beliefs are rational. They are not. That does not necessitate that they are untrue (indeed, at one point in human history, our body of knowledge dictated the belief in a spherical Earth to be irrational), but they most certainly are irrational.

To review the scientific method; Form a hypothesis,(I.E. define what it is you are looking for) It is well established that science is not looking for God in the entrails. Therefore the need to bend the facts to form to the "hypothesis".
Another way to say this is you find what you are looking for and see what you want,( or are able) to see.

You are Clintonizing beyond belief with your argument concerning conflict-interaction. The interaction is; Religion is what, science is how. That is the sense of both Aquinis and Augustine.
Resolving the issues of a quantum world, relativity, the beginning of life, needs the framework of ethics that is embodied in all religion,
( independently I might add), that prevents or decries the abortion through the 144th month in Holland, and makes Nazis villians in history. Jesus is as much the Word as the Man.
 
[QUOTE='ol Perfessor]Somewhat more advanced? From worshipping or fearing a rock, thunder and /or a large animal to an everlasting, eternal omnipotent entity?[/QUOTE]
The rock, thunder or large animal were merely representative of an everlasting, omnipotent entity in early religion. Latter religions dissociated the abstract notion of deity from any physical manifestations. The shift is quantitative, not qualitative, so I stand by my characterisation.

[QUOTE='ol Perfessor]In the 2nd century Anno Domini there were perhaps dozens of Christian sects that were consolidated at the council of Nicea in 300(or so) AD. Transporting him to the present day would put him into an arena as close to heaven as he could imagine. (Can you understand more than your worldview, your sum total of experiences? A little more maybe because the human brain is non linear.)[/QUOTE]
I am not sure what you are trying to say. That the state of Christianity right now would seem Heaven-like to an early Christian? How is Christianity today so inherently different from what Christ taught? Indeed, if it is so inherently different how would this (human inspired) deviation from the word of the Son of God "as close to heaven" as can be imagined?

[QUOTE='ol Perfessor]There was a famous prominent 19th century scientist that wanted to close the patent office because everything that had been invented had been invented. Read James Burke about how seemingly unrelated inventiveness has had startling results throughout history.[/QUOTE]
Religion is inherently different from science. Science has shifted fundamentally and multiple times over the past 2000 years. Christianity is yet to make a single fundamental shift. And I fail to see how such a fundamental shift would occur - why would anyone wish to deviate from teachings of an entity he or she believes to be God in a human body? Scientific beliefs will shift many times in the future; religious beliefs will not.
 
[QUOTE='ol Perfessor]To review the scientific method; Form a hypothesis,(I.E. define what it is you are looking for) It is well established that science is not looking for God in the entrails. Therefore the need to bend the facts to form to the "hypothesis".
Another way to say this is you find what you are looking for and see what you want,( or are able) to see.[/QUOTE]
The scientific method most certainly does NOT consist solely of forming the hypothesis as you suggest above. Though I have a feeling that you wished to suggest something more... In any case, let me clarify the scientific method myself.

1. Observe the particular phenomenon that interests you. Measure it as best you can, in as many different ways as you can, as many different times as you can.

2. Work with the data. Manipulate it in as many different ways as possible. Try to find a pattern or a connection.

3. Once the pattern is found, attempt to explain the pattern by using previously explained phenomena. Make sure that your explanation does not contradict previously accepted explanations without very, very good reason.

4. Once you have come up with a systemic explanation, make multiple predictions based off it. If you can explain how something works, you can predict what will happen given particular conditions.

5. Test your predictions repeatedly. If all of them turn out to be correct, submit your work for peer review (and hope no glaring omissions are found). If not, go back to "1."

You MOST CERTAINLY are not guaranteed to find what you are looking for, and see what you want. Intentional bending of facts is also incredibly hard to do, highly unsatisfying (after all, scientists primarily work to satisfy their their curiosity, not to earn accolades) and will almost certainly fail review by your peer scientists who, largely, do not want you to succeed and become more prominent than them.

[QUOTE='ol Perfessor]You are Clintonizing beyond belief with your argument concerning conflict-interaction. The interaction is; Religion is what, science is how. That is the sense of both Aquinis and Augustine.[/QUOTE]
"Clintonizing?" What exactly does that mean? There is no interaction between science and religion for a very simple reason - religion deals with things that inherently cannot be measured. Science deals EXCLUSIVELY in things that can be measured. Measuring requires no faith. As to your "religion is what, science is how" comment, it makes no sense without further explanation. Is the existence of a rock or its density science or religion in your mind? I would maintain that it is science. However, there is certainly no "how" involved.

[QUOTE='ol Perfessor]Resolving the issues of a quantum world, relativity, the beginning of life, needs the framework of ethics that is embodied in all religion, ( independently I might add), that prevents or decries the abortion through the 144th month in Holland, and makes Nazis villians in history. Jesus is as much the Word as the Man.[/QUOTE]
That is patently untrue. Solving the Schroëdinger to find the expectation value of some particle in some space requires no ethical framework whatsoever. Establishing the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole does not need religion either. These are all inherently numerical and/or algebraic matters. They are whatever the mathematics dictates them to be. There are no morals or values involved. Indeed, whether others happen to find scientific findings evil (as the claim of a heliocentric solar system was once found) is utterly irrelevant to scientists and to the scientific value of their findings. On a side note, scince does not deal with Nazism, and abortion is a term applicable only to a foetus; certainly not to a 12 year old (144 month) child. Not that Holland allows the killing of 12 year old children, or ANY children for that matter.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top