bolaino:
I see you guys have become more intelligent.

I've been doing some reading and following the events happened in the US. Its a pity, to hear, for example that an incumbent president doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. And mumus for there still vote the guy again sha !

plaetton:

The problem with you, as well as many others like you is that after many years of debating with atheists, you still don't know what atheism is.
It baffles me that atheists have to repeat it a more million times, and yet, you still don't get it.

This is the problem with religious folks. You have a problem accepting facts that do not fit into your entrenched belief system. You still think that atheism is a competiting belief system that has dos and don'ts just like your religion.

It gets frustrated trying a million times to educated religion-infused knuckheads that atheism is simply a disbelief in a puppetmaster god , nothing else.

Is it right to say that because there is no proof of the existence of nothing, it doesn't exist?

UyiIredia:


I've been doing some reading and following the events happened in the US. Its a pity, to hear, for example that an incumbent president doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. And mumus for there still vote the guy again sha !

you have to understand that the present crop of Americans are very ignorant, what they know is what they are being told in TV programs and soaps, there is a deliberate dumbing down of the American society. Plaetton I greet you.

sinequanon:


Rational is just another word for "conformance to scientific ASSUMPTIONS".

It plays the same role as "holy" does in mainstream religions.

Ironically, the word "rational" plays on various politically established psychological connotations -- not on the the profoundness it purports to convey.


And born again Christians come out of church believing less in scientific ASSUMPTIONS. What is the difference?

Rational:
1 a : having reason or understanding
b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable<a rational explanation>< rational behavior>

One does not need science or 'scientific assumptions' to discard the idea of a God or to be considered rational.

timmy2409:


Rational:
1 a : having reason or understanding
b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable<a rational explanation>< rational behavior>

One does not need science or 'scientific assumptions' to discard the idea of a God or to be considered rational.

Dictionary definitions are not so useful in philosophical discussions.

All you have done is push the question to "what is reasonable?"

When you reason, you must have rules and logic. What is the repository of these rules and logic?

A dictionary will not tell you. But when scientists use the term "rational" they refer to the basic logic and rules of science, which are assumptions.

sinequanon:


Dictionary definitions are not so useful in philosophical discussions.

All you have done is push the question to "what is reasonable?"

When you reason, you must have rules and logic. What is the repository of these rules and logic?

A dictionary will not tell you. But when scientists use the term "rational" they refer to the basic logic and rules of science, which are assumptions.

The most common arguments for nonbelief in a supernatural deity are the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the lack of empirical evidence (at least as far as the human senses go).

No scientific assumptions are required to arrive at the conclusions of any of these arguments, but the same processes of logic and reason that my religious father applies when purchasing an automobile at the dealership.

Unless you want to argue that human reason is an inherent derivative of science, then I cannot help you.

timmy2409:


The most common arguments for nonbelief in a supernatural deity are the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the lack of empirical evidence (at least as far as the human senses go).

No scientific assumptions are required to arrive at the conclusions of any of these arguments, but the same processes of logic and reason that my religious father applies when purchasing an automobile at the dealership.

Unless you want to argue that human reason is an inherent derivative of science, then I cannot help you.

Well, I am not asking for your help.

sinequanon:


Well, I am not asking for your help.

LOL of course not. Was just pointing out how absurd a position that would be to take.

timmy2409:


LOL of course not. Was just pointing out how absurd a position that would be to take.

The problem is that you refer to "rational", "reasonable", "consistency" in a vacuum, as well as what constitutes "evidence".

What you don't realize is that you are implicitly referring to your preferred type of logic.

But in reality, religious logics have their own "rationality", "reasonableness", "consistency" etc., so does scientific logic, philosophical logic, etc.

By talking as if there is only one version, you invoke your preferred version without explicitly mentioning it.

sinequanon:


The problem is that you refer to "rational", "reasonable", "consistency" in a vacuum, as well as what constitutes "evidence".

What you don't realize is that you are implicitly referring to your preferred type of logic.

But in reality, religious logics have their own "rationality", "reasonableness", "consistency" etc., so does scientific logic, philosophical logic, etc.

By talking as if there is only one version, you invoke your preferred version without explicitly mentioning it.

In what way does my preferred version of reason differ from that of religious logics, or anyone else's for that matter?

Reason is a definitive characteristic of human nature, no? The conclusions that one arrives at are based on the evidence and information available to them, and concerning the initial argument, science is not necessary to arrive at a conclusion of nonbelief.

Using the problem of evil as an example,
- God is omnipotent and all-benevolent
- There is evil in the world

What scientific evidence or assumption do I require to know that these statements are contradictory, and hence at least one of them must be wrong?

That one person chooses to draw their premises about the existence of a God from old religious texts does not make their way of reasoning any different from mine. It just means that they're willing to discard the realities apparent in the world.

timmy2409:

Using the problem of evil as an example,
- God is omnipotent and all-benevolent
- There is evil in the world

What scientific evidence or assumption do I require to know that these statements are contradictory, and hence at least one of them must be wrong?

I see nothing inherently contradictory in these statements, actually, although I can see how some implicit assumption and scientific logic can lead to something contradictory.

The obvious assumption is that you have the perspective of 'God', know what is ultimate benevolence and know how God ought to act.

But it is worse than that. You are applying something called formal logic, perhaps without realizing it, as well as heaping it on a load of assumptions.

Even philosophy (let alone religion) questions the applicability of formal logic. And even if you believe that this is a characteristic of "human nature", religion stipulates that its 'logic' transcends human logic, and can only be discovered through prayer and guidance. So you are misappropriating your "human logic".

bolaino:
you have to understand that the present crop of Americans are very ignorant, what they know is what they are being told in TV programs and soaps, there is a deliberate dumbing down of the American society. Plaetton I greet you.

Salutations to you sir.

timmy2409:


The most common arguments for nonbelief in a supernatural deity are the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the lack of empirical evidence (at least as far as the human senses go).

No scientific assumptions are required to arrive at the conclusions of any of these arguments, but the same processes of logic and reason that my religious father applies when purchasing an automobile at the dealership.

Unless you want to argue that human reason is an inherent derivative of science, then I cannot help you.

Thank you.
At the age of 5, I didn't need the knowledge of science to ask my mom who created god, nor did my daughter have science to as why god has not killed the devil.
Most atheists are not grounded on the scientific method and it's precepts.

My observations are that no one is actually sure that god exists, but many hope that he does.

sinequanon:


The problem is that you refer to "rational", "reasonable", "consistency" in a vacuum, as well as what constitutes "evidence".

What you don't realize is that you are implicitly referring to your preferred type of logic.

But in reality, religious logics have their own "rationality", "reasonableness", "consistency" etc., so does scientific logic, philosophical logic, etc.

By talking as if there is only one version, you invoke your preferred version without explicitly mentioning it.

I have never witnessed this religious rationality, reasonableness and consistency.
If I did, we probably not have religious debates on Nairaland.

sinequanon:


I see nothing inherently contradictory in these statements, actually, although I can see how some implicit assumption and scientific logic can lead to something contradictory.

The obvious assumption is that you have the perspective of 'God', know what is ultimate benevolence and know how God ought to act.

But it is worse than that. You are applying something called formal logic, perhaps without realizing it, as well as heaping it on a load of assumptions.

Even philosophy (let alone religion) questions the applicability of formal logic. And even if you believe that this is a characteristic of "human nature", religion stipulates that its 'logic' transcends human logic, and can only be discovered through prayer and guidance. So you are misappropriating your "human logic".

It's either you don't get it or you are deliberately playing on words for the purpose of obfuscation.

Let me put it in simple words.
If Mr A comes to me to claim that 1+1=3 in the spiritual nonmechanistic world, I would say wow, but I don't live in a spiritual world, so I don't care whether it's true or not.It has no effect on me and my mechanistic universe.

If Mr A now goes on to promote that the mathematical equations of his spiritual universe should be accepted here to supersede our own proven laws , then I would say to him that he is delusional and irrational.

The mumbo jumbos of the spiritual nonmechanistic universe have no place in a mechanistic universe.

In other words, if a person wants to live a spiritual life, then person should hasten his departure from Terra firma, so that he can go to the spiritual realm to live a spiritual life.
Simple.

Living a so-called spiritual life in the earthly domain, where you are still bound by the laws of our physical universe to hunger, eat, defecate , etc is folly and irrational.

plaetton:

...but [size=16pt]I[/size] don't live in a spiritual world, so [size=16pt]I[/size] don't care whether it's true or not.It has no effect on [size=16pt]me[/size] and [size=16pt]my[/size] mechanistic universe.

Fine.

If Mr A now goes on to promote that the mathematical equations of his spiritual universe should be accepted here to supersede [size=16pt]our[/size] own proven laws , then I would say to him that he is delusional and irrational.

That is how bigots think, I am afraid. They are not even aware when they substitute I for we.

A religious person can do what you have done. Start by saying "I" live in a world ruled by God, and then switch to "we" to brand you evil.

Happy fighting.

sinequanon:


Fine.



That is how bigots think, I am afraid. They are not even aware when they substitute I for we.

A religious person can do what you have done. Start by saying "I" live in a world ruled by God, and then switch to "we" to brand you evil.

Happy fighting.

You get my gist, but you prefer to play word games.

Hiswordxray:


Do converting Christians make atheist feel good about their rebellion?

There's only one rebel here, and it's you because you have decided to rebel against Allah and his prophet Mohammed.

plaetton:


You get my gist, but you prefer to play word games.

I get your drift.

You are so sure that you are right that the world is an entirely material world that you feel you are justified in talking for everyone.

So you slip from "I think" to "we know" without even realizing that you are doing it.

And you think you are so justified in doing this, that it is just semantics to you.

That is how religious fundamentalists think.

You also use the word "proof" as if everybody's basic assumptions about the world are the same as yours. You don't say, "proof, according to how I see the world" -- because you think that how you see the world is how everybody should see it.

Using the word "proof" like that is like a baseball player talking about the rules of sport, forgetting that different sports have different rules. For such a baseball player, everything revolves around baseball.

It is no good trying to sweep what you are doing under the carpet by asking me to look at the "gist" of what you are saying.

The problem is in the detail and the words you are using, which disguise a form of bigotry.

And religious fundamentalists can, and do, do the same thing.

Any thing you say they will refer to the Bible for validation (their proof). But they won't call it conformance with the Bible. They will just call it general proof -- dismissing whatever other perspective you may have.

You do know what I am talking about, because you only have to imagine for a second that the world is just 0.001% non material for all the words you are using to break down. You are the one playing word games, perhaps without realizing it all the time.

UyiIredia:


I've been doing some reading and following the events happened in the US. Its a pity, to hear, for example that an incumbent president doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. And mumus for there still vote the guy again sha !

lol....how ridiculous!!

I cant believe a black Nigerian is supporting the xenophobic and ignorant ideology called "american exceptionalism".


Good lord.

Uyi, stop talking nonsense

UyiIredia:


However at the present moment the new enemy is the hold of materialism in science and its twin evil of liberalism in the political sphere. To the extent that a core part of any and all religious enterprise has been bettering man's ethics, religion is very much a partner in science and governance.

Ethics existed before religion
Ethics exist outside religion
Ethics is independent of religion

JackBizzle:



Ethics existed before religion
Ethics exist outside religion
Ethics is independent of religion

Hey! my friend how is your heartache?
Have you find a solution to it?
When will you stop deceiving yourself that you will find it outside Christ?

Anyway good luck trying.

sinequanon:


I get your drift.

You are so sure that you are right that the world is an entirely material world that you feel you are justified in talking for everyone.

So you slip from "I think" to "we know" without even realizing that you are doing it.

And you think you are so justified in doing this, that it is just semantics to you.

That is how religious fundamentalists think.

You also use the word "proof" as if everybody's basic assumptions about the world are the same as yours. You don't say, "proof, according to how I see the world" -- because you think that how you see the world is how everybody should see it.

Using the word "proof" like that is like a baseball player talking about the rules of sport, forgetting that different sports have different rules. For such a baseball player, everything revolves around baseball.

It is no good trying to sweep what you are doing under the carpet by asking me to look at the "gist" of what you are saying.

The problem is in the detail and the words you are using, which disguise a form of bigotry.

And religious fundamentalists can, and do, do the same thing.

Any thing you say they will refer to the Bible for validation (their proof). But they won't call it conformance with the Bible. They will just call it general proof -- dismissing whatever other perspective you may have.

You do know what I am talking about, because you only have to imagine for a second that the world is just 0.001% non material for all the words you are using to break down. You are the one playing word games, perhaps without realizing it all the time.

You sound more intelligent than I am, but still I am able to dictate that something is wrong somewhere. Stop the grammer bro... U are making no sense.

If you believe in what you types up there why do you think Christians will go to heaven while sinners or Muslims will go to hell

frank317:


You sound more intelligent than I am, but still I am able to dictate that something is wrong somewhere. Stop the grammer bro... U are making no sense.

There is nothing wrong with the post. The topic itself is complicated and requires precise language, so you have to improve your language to be able to follow, just as I and other people have done.

I don't know if you are religious, but if you were, you would choose to improve your understanding of the language of the Bible/Koran/Torah rather than complain that they were "making no sense", no?

frank317:
If you believe in what you types up there why do you think Christians will go to heaven while sinners or Muslims will go to hell

I don't know how you concluded that from what I wrote.