Dear Atheists - Religion - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Dear Atheists (623 Views)
Dear Atheists, How Are You? / Global Study: Atheists In Massive Decline, Only 1.8% Of World Population By 2020 / Atheists And Morality. A Question! (2) (3) (4)
| Dear Atheists by NnennaG6(f): 2:12pm On Nov 09, 2021 |
If you as an atheist are nothing but particles bumping one onto other, deterministically or indeterministically, you should not be able to claim that you are reasonable. I understand that for many atheists, atheism is no more than lacking belief in god. But if there is no all-encompassing one being who transcends all, if there is no all encompassing truth who can empower other beings, if your concepts are just local, if your syllogisms are no more than epiphenomenal, what might be your basis for reason? Some of you may be believing in spirits, or emergence, or ... I do not think any of these can be a basis for reason. But anyway, I would like to see on what basis you claim (if you do) to be acting on reason. And I think that without an all-encompassing transcendent basis of knowledge and freedom you cannot have such a basis, hence you cannot claim to be behaving on reason. I hope I did not offend anyone. I just articulate my sincere thoughts. Maybe you will convince me that without god you may have what is necessary for reason. Thanks in advance |
| Re: Dear Atheists by JujuSugar(f): 2:20pm On Nov 09, 2021 |
This is an issue that existence of god doesn't fix. Even if we assume that there is some transcendent basis for reason, we have no good reason to believe that we have any sort of reliable access to it. People behave irrationally most of the time. That's something really hard to explain away, if we have some god-given capacity for reason. Consider this simple syllogism: P1: If god exists, reason is justified. P2: God exists. C: Therefore reason is justified. It might seem like a valid syllogism, but it's actually not. In order to infer C from P1 and P2, you need to apply reason (specifically modus monens). Which you can't do (justifiably) unless you already have prior justification for reason. If you do have it, that defeats the purpose of the argument. The problem is not specific to god. You can substitute anything for "god" in that argument and you'll end up with the exact same issue. Even if one of those things is in fact what makes reason work, there's no rational basis to come to that conclusion. You can never really justify reason itself. Not by invoking god, spirits, epiphenomena or anything else. The least "damaging" position is to just presuppose it. |
| Re: Dear Atheists by advanceDNA: 2:33pm On Nov 09, 2021 |
NnennaG6: Don’t waste your time...?? Their strength lies only insulting your beliefs, God, and the human accounts of scriptures |
| Re: Dear Atheists by NnennaG6(f): 2:50pm On Nov 09, 2021 |
JujuSugar: If you presume that you have no reasoning power, maybe. But since we make claims, and we transcend concepts in unity, there is good reason. Otherwise, you should not have posted anything at all. Or, you must be admitting that what you write has no truth value at all. JujuSugar: You should say "always" instead of most of the time. But, as I noted above, you should not even say that as something with any truth value. JujuSugar: While you write these, you already assume that you have reason. The syllogism must be revised as: 1. If there is reason, it has a transcendent, unitary, and coherent basis irreducible to particles bumping one onto another. 2. There is reason since we transcend and communicate in unity that which is true and that which is false and able to confirm or falsify the results of reason and truth. 3. Therefore there is the transcendent, unitary, and all-encompassing basis of reason. JujuSugar: You mean without reason? 1 Like |
| Re: Dear Atheists by JujuSugar(f): 3:02pm On Nov 09, 2021 |
NnennaG6: Why? What is it about reduction to mechanistic particle movements that would make it inadequate as a basis? Why would reason need a transcendent unitary basis? There is reason since we transcend and communicate in unity that which is true and that which is false and able to confirm or falsify the results of reason and truth. This premise is simply false. Truth is undefinable. Whatever consistent formula/test for identifying true propositions you can come up with, you can always use Cantor's diagonalization to generate a true proposition that the formula/test will fail to identify as such. The only reason why truth seems transcendent and universal is because when two people meet in practice, their intuitive vague notion of truth is similar enough to communicate effectively. That does not actually require truth to be truly transcendent. Here's how I avoid the issue: Step 1. Replace classical definition of knowledge (true justified belief) with something that does not hang on ill-defined and/or anthropocentric concepts. For example, I use definition that is based on fields of game theory and artificial intelligence: Knowledge is information that gives an agent power (the ability to willingly choose) over the outcome of a nontrivial scenario. It dodges the truth bullet, because information does not have inherent truth value. It doesn't arbitrarily limit knowledge and reason to human-like minds that hold beliefs. It defines knowledge based on its observable effects, instead of inherent qualities. And it captures the only aspect of knowledge that ultimately matters - power. Step 2. Redefine reason. Reason is the ability/process of deriving knowledge from information. In other words, before you perform reasoning on given information, you have less power than after you perform the reasoning. It is validated by whether the resulting information actually constitutes knowledge. There is no one singular reason. Rather you can compare the "reasonability" of processes, based on the efficacy of results they produce. That does not require there to be some ultimate maximal reason (though it is not inconsistent with that notion). Under this model, truth is just a concept. A tool for manipulating information into knowledge. The ultimate arbiter of truth is the reality itself, or at least the part of it you occupy. You may notice, this model does not make any proclamations/assumptions about ontological or metaphysical nature of reality. It just defines concepts that you may (or may not) identify in reality. I know this is a big bone to chew on. It approaches reason from a completely different direction than classical philosophy does. But then again... classical philosophy has been circlejerking on a treadmill for at least the last 200 years. Meanwhile other branches of philosophy (natural science, mathematics, computer science, humanities) are progressing in leaps and bounds. |
| Re: Dear Atheists by Piptocoin: 3:14pm On Nov 09, 2021 |
NnennaG6, are you trying to win people to Christ through argument? It won't work if that is the goal. Sure you know that. |
| Re: Dear Atheists by advanceDNA: 3:25pm On Nov 09, 2021 |
Piptocoin: I think she’s trying to use the baby steps approach...Get them to the idea of a creator first before even going near Jesus... I always say it’s a waster of time...anyone who believes this world came to be by some random chance in the cosmos will require an encounter bigger than the Big Bang to make him or her believe..... 1 Like |
| Re: Dear Atheists by Workch: 3:27pm On Nov 09, 2021 |
Everything that you typed still doesn't make sense if we don't have evidence for a god. No one will take all the fallacies in the Bible seriously if you can't back them up with evidence. I'm not sure about a Deistic God but I'm very sure that the Christian description of a God is hoax. It doesnt exist 1 Like |
| Re: Dear Atheists by Workch: 3:33pm On Nov 09, 2021 |
advanceDNA:The belief that this world came into existence by random chance is not science. This is a misinformed narrative peddled by scientific Ignoramuses who are bent on forcing their God on everyone without evidence. Science doest know how universe eventually started, big bang only explained how it started from expanding from a singularity, we don't know the age of the singularity and we don't know how it got there. we are not going to be like religious people who always feel like they know everything but actually are hugely sciolists. We will wait until we find out, filling the gaps with God will never happen in science. |
| Re: Dear Atheists by Piptocoin: 5:15pm On Nov 09, 2021 |
advanceDNA: it is great but then it takes the Spirit of God to convict them. this is why...Christ is always knocking on their hearts. it is left to them to open their heart or shut it tight. nevertheless, it is worth a try.... |
| Re: Dear Atheists by Piptocoin: 5:21pm On Nov 09, 2021 |
Workch: you would need a cryogenic chamber to extend your wait into another millennium or its half...hopefully, the myth of random creation should have been scientifically unraveled. |
| Re: Dear Atheists by LordReed(m): 6:49pm On Nov 09, 2021 |
NnennaG6: Why is a body and brain capable of experiencing the universe insufficient as a basis for reason? What is desirable about having someone else do your thinking for you? 1 Like |
| Re: Dear Atheists by sonmvayina(m): 10:39pm On Nov 09, 2021 |
LordReed: Legit. Million dollars question.. 1 Like |
| Re: Dear Atheists by NaijaSatanlst: 4:59am On Nov 10, 2021 |
NnennaG6:Where did you get this information? |
(1) (Reply)
Christmas is idolatry / Lawlessness: Do You Wonder Why The Society Is The Way It Is Even With All Your / See What I Saw Today And Got Me Thinking If I Should Do It Or Not
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 55 |