The Logicality of Atheism & Why It Is Superior to Religion

[Dumbat]

Quote:Well that sounds like misinterpretation. There is nothing to my knowledge in the Quran about the shape of the earth. But the link I put up is a translation. It literally says there is a part in the sea that does that specifically, no interpretations or any of that. Weather you want to think it is an interpretation or not is up to you. But since you believe in science, there are also pages (of written Quran) that by carbon dating are way older then any science of sea temperature or anything of that nature is.

I just thought the flat Earth one was an interesting thing to put up, afraid I've spent too long arguing against Christian Young Earth Creationists to want to debate further as it's something that would take too long and be ultimately fruitless.

Don't trick yourself into believing any belief is based on science or fact, I've seen far too many intelligent people ignore evidence to suit their beliefs to believe that is possible. Even us atheists are guilty of that at times.

Quote:Though, one that sticks out the most is the claim that, 'well, you're right that there is no evidence to prove in God's existence, but there's no evidence to prove that God DOESN'T exist either. So to be an atheist, you have to have just as much faith, if not more, as a christian does'. I'm sure this has popped up at least once in your debates, & really it is a good counter-argument because they're right to an extent that both christians & atheists give out a certain input of 'faith' in a belief.

A useful analogy to bring up when asked this is as follows:

"Do you believe in Big Foot? What about the Loch Ness Monster? Well does it require faith to believe that they don't exist."

Also their claim that there isn't any evidence against God is potentially counter able, but you have to take on one religion at a time and it probably isn't worth it.

Quote:Too bad, no one tried "debunking" my article

The more I discover about logic the more you realise it is simply a human construct and therefore is useless in taking on religion - as others logic may be different or they might simply say "Your logic is inferior to Gods' and is therefore invalid."

I've given up trying to convert or debate, here is an actual argument used against me by a Christian friend:

Quote:The Bible states that those who stray from the Lord will become incapable to interpret evidence correctly, furthermore as a naturally sinful creature your instinct is to want to prove God wrong - so the fact that you don't believe and think you have evidence for it just proves that the Bible is correct and therefore God exists.

Good essay though dude, one I've been trying to deal with is the morality of atheism, how is it determined? (Nietzsche's philosophy, etc..) although I'm far from able to write anything on it. The closest I can come to an answer is that it's merely a social tool, like an unwritten law, but then why bother abiding by it? Would be interesting to hear your thoughts man.

[The Vegan Marxist]

(07-29-2010 12:03 AM)Dumbat Wrote:  

Quote:Too bad, no one tried "debunking" my article

The more I discover about logic the more you realise it is simply a human construct and therefore is useless in taking on religion - as others logic may be different or they might simply say "Your logic is inferior to Gods' and is therefore invalid."

I've given up trying to convert or debate, here is an actual argument used against me by a Christian friend:

Quote:The Bible states that those who stray from the Lord will become incapable to interpret evidence correctly, furthermore as a naturally sinful creature your instinct is to want to prove God wrong - so the fact that you don't believe and think you have evidence for it just proves that the Bible is correct and therefore God exists.

Good essay though dude, one I've been trying to deal with is the morality of atheism, how is it determined? (Nietzsche's philosophy, etc..) although I'm far from able to write anything on it. The closest I can come to an answer is that it's merely a social tool, like an unwritten law, but then why bother abiding by it? Would be interesting to hear your thoughts man.

There's logic on both sides, & so the logic, itself, is not what determines it's "superiority", but rather pertains from the rationale behind said logic. You need justification on anything for it to be true. Take the thoughts of murder for example. When religion was of superiority, murder was merely taken as act against God, in which led to such accusations like s/he was being cursed by the Devil. blah blah blah. Though, we now have learned how environmental conditioning plays into the roles of human thoughts & actions. Hell, even genetics play into this as well, where we've learned how the damage of the frontal lobe of one's brain could cause for someone to not think rationally, or not be able to determine the difference between what is right & wrong. Doesn't necessarily make you a serial killer, but it does make a pathway for one to slip into.

Logic can be debated for as long as one wants to, but that doesn't prevent the rationality behind such to decrease or increase. If evidence is not there, you need a rational justification to determine such thoughts instead. Law courts participate in this way of thinking as well (despite the contradictory "left hand on the bible" nonsense).

And it's not something one can abide by or not. There are no rules except the given fact that, if you're an atheist, you simply do not believe in the divine being. Now, whether you want to abide by scientific observation or through a religious metaphysical observation is up to you. That's when one must determine whether they'll abide to such or not. Which, again, really bases itself on which is more rationally justifiable. And of course, science always wins within these circles.

[Retrash]

I just have something to point out, forgive me if it has been mentioned before or anything i didn't read the 13 pages >.<

Being an Atheist, i think, includes the theory that men originated from apes and went through evolution. Well, has anyone seen evolution? a scientist could easily come along and tell people that evolution takes a thousand years to progress and show change, except written records of life forms around the globe did not exist a thousand years earlier, it was only recently (within a few hundred years) that men took interest in such matters. People believe scientists' and researchers' theories because they do tests and research matters with proven evidence, and basically something you could see and believe. Well till now, nothing has been proven of evolution, its just talk. Much like how it was believed that the earth was the center of the world and the sun revolves around it, that was said without evidence and everyone believed it. Man looks like Ape and "OMG WE CAME FROM APES".
Atheists blindly believe that and go against every proven fact in God's Books and then call us blind followers.

I don't really know where this was going to be honest it was just a point of view i had.

[Fuzzly Bear]

Do atheists necessarily have to believe in evolution?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6896753.stm
http://www.lepidopterology.com/news/arti...y-bacteria
I remember reading an article where a team of researchers were watching a species of butterfly evolve into two separate species.

Evolution isn't based on blind speculation. There is a good deal of scientific research (and evidence? Oo ) behind it. Is there any evidence at all for God beyond speculation and individual accounts?

There may be facts in a book but that doesn't mean that everything in the book is factual.

[FlammableMongoose]

Like Hamish said, it isn't blind speculation and not all atheists believe in evolution. One atheist I'm friends with doesn't believe in evolution. He really has no theory about our origins, he just told me he doesn't believe in God.

Anyway, atheism isn't bullshit. Also, I think around the time before Copernicus came along, science didn't come around full circle yet. Metaphysics was once before "science" but then science branched and formed on its own due to it being empirical unlike Metaphysics. Also, I believe the Church popularized the idea that the Earth was in the center of the universe. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.