Virtual Teen Forums
 

Go Back   Virtual Teen Forums > >
Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read Chat Room

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 14th, 2018, 11:20 AM   #1
Vlerchan
unadulteratedReason
 
Vlerchan's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 22
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48
At some point you have to stop waiting for the evidence and come to the conclusion that the constant lack of evidence means the answer is no.
This is profoundly unscientific.

There are numerous theories of physics that we are a long way off empirically testing--some might remain impossible to test--but this at no point suggests that these theories are incorrect. This includes the theories you highlighted as being capable of replacing the requirement that god created the universe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48
At some point you have to stop waiting for the evidence and come to the conclusion that the constant lack of evidence means the answer is no.
You are free to outline what this difference is, as opposed to insisting it exists.

By your own words though, a lack of belief implies active denial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48
At some point you have to stop waiting for the evidence and come to the conclusion that the constant lack of evidence means the answer is no.
I'm not sure what this means, but I am just going to take it as you don't understand what I was saying.

Though, to be honest, if you haven't covered the basic mechanics of logic proofs before and don't seem to be getting that previous explanation, we will probably have a difficult time bridging this gap. Nevertheless, I will persist.

The point of a proof is to demonstrate that a certain set of conditions--previously derived statements--necessitates a certain result. In what I have been suggesting we start with an axiom.

1: If I have a migraine, I must have a throbbing headache.

We then state the first line of our argument:

2: I do not have a throbbing headache.

Given condition 1, this implies our result:

3: Therefore, I do not have a migraine.

The result is necessitated by a pre-established set of conditions, 1 and 2. It's a rather simple proof, and that's where I think your problem lies. You can disagree with the premises, but the argument remains logically consistent and, conditional on premise 1 and 2 holding true, demonstrate a negative.

To be honest, it likely will come across like I am repeating myself because I'm referring to the most basic of proofs, and all I can hope for is that by re-arranging it in a different wording it might eventually click with you. Though, I can't be sure of that.

If you want, I can go through a number of more complicated ones in an economic context. For example, for an agent who lacks complete, transitive or reflexive preferences, a utility function--i.e. a systematic ranking of preferences--cannot exist. By showing one of the three to be false, you can demonstrate the negative (and it's rather simple).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48
Why would it be impossible? We have tigers, we haven't driven them to extinction yet. And even then we would still have bones and other physical evidence of their existence like we have with other extinct species.
It's a thought experiment, though perhaps I should contextualise it.

For an uncountable number of generations, Bronze Age Irish people, restricted to their island, had no evidence that tigers existed.That these people possessed no evidence of tiger's existence, even if it was the case for thousands or tens of thousands of years, does not suggest that tigers do not exist.

In the same sense, having no evidence that god exists does not suggest that god doesn't exist. Like with the tigers, it suggested one of two outcomes: (1) god doesn't exist, or (2) we simply haven't found the evidence yet.

You can suggest that we have waited long enough for this evidence, but to reject god on this basis would be, as I suggested, profoundly unscientific.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48
*lack of evidence
You want to use a framework designed for deciding the course of law to determine truths and untruths, despite the framework you're relying on being explicit about it's incapacity to construct truths or untruths (hence the language of non-guilty v innocent, etc.).

It's irrational, and you shouldn't do it.

".... the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth, and truth be defamed as lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world - and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed ... [H.A.]"
Likes: (1)
Vlerchan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2018, 11:39 AM   #2
HeyCameron
Member+
 
HeyCameron's Forum Picture
 
Name: Cameron
Join Date: August 15, 2016
Location: SoCal
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Why Atheists are Irrational Continued

I think I understand what you're saying, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But is it irrational to acknowledge that truth, but still be an atheist? I.e. still lean toward thinking that there probably isn't a God, while acknowledging that you don't or can't know for sure?

I spent a year suspended in air
My mind on the gap, my head on the stairs
HeyCameron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2018, 11:53 AM   #3
West Coast Sheriff
Legendery Veteran
 
West Coast Sheriff's Forum Picture
 
Name: F.
Join Date: July 17, 2012
Location: Southern California
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Default Re: Why Atheists are Irrational Continued

As an agnostic I don't know. I personally think it is impossible to know. Last September, I remember speaking to an expert catholic teacher I know. When I was in high school I was a die hard catholic, one of the best students in our class and I was always debating the atheists and agnostics in our class. But after becoming an atheist last year and wanting to debate him, my lack of evidence and his lack of evidence ultimately lead to the discussion faith and the choice to believe or not. It was interesting because we both honestly admitted neither of us were sure. There is no way. The uncertainty of it all is kind of what it's about. There is no proof to support or deny the existence of God. How does one live their life? As if there is God or as if there is not?
Scientifically, I thought that chemistry and biochemistry both supported a lack of existence of God but, for me, going deeper and looking at physics, I think it's like this oh shit moment where I was like "this is how He works". The bible and the Quran are just ways of expressing God in a way that common people can understand. Because the complexity of God's nature is so advanced. The smartest man to ever live, Isaac Newton, I think nailed and broke down Christianity better than just about anyone.




THESHERIFF
Visit the links below if you'd like


West Coast Sheriff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2018, 07:03 PM   #4
ShineintheDark
Awesome Poster
 
Name: Magnus
Join Date: April 11, 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Gender: Male
Default Re: Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

I'll admit I haven't read any of the previous discussion on the last thread and have done my best to digest the arguments above but I just wanna answer the premise independently.

The premise stated is completely irrational and baiting for a fight. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no God: the key word being 'belief'. To believe does not necessarily have the per-requisite of hard evidence nor unchallenged logic, belief persists no matter what because belief is a feeling and instinct. Therefore, atheism as a belief in a lack of a deity cannot necessarily be 'irrational'. Even the arguments stated above at best deconstruct the idea of Anti-theism ie. believing that theists are wrong. They do not in their own ways prove the existence of God and therefore cannot carry any sort of superiority in the logical debate beyond sitting on the sidelines and criticising. Would it not be best for theists to look for proof of a deity and atheists to look for proof of a lack of a deity and just respect each other's beliefs as opposed to pointless baiting?
ShineintheDark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2018, 07:24 PM   #5
Vlerchan
unadulteratedReason
 
Vlerchan's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 22
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyCameron
But is it irrational to acknowledge that truth, but still be an atheist? I.e. still lean toward thinking that there probably isn't a God, while acknowledging that you don't or can't know for sure?
I don't think this is logically consistent with any true premise so concluding it would be irrational.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShineintheDark
Atheism is simply the belief that there is no God: the key word being 'belief'.
Sure. But I'm arguing against the people who suggest this is true or who believe it is a reasonable belief to hold. I don't believe either of those cases are correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShineintheDark
Therefore, atheism as a belief in a lack of a deity cannot necessarily be 'irrational'.
The fact that the belief is steeped in feeling and instinct and not the consistent application of reason is the basis to it being irrational.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShineintheDark
Even the arguments stated above at best deconstruct the idea of Anti-theism ie. believing that theists are wrong.
Anti-theism is an opposition to Theism--Both anti-Theists and Atheists believe that Theists are wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShineintheDark
Would it not be best for theists to look for proof of a deity and atheists to look for proof of a lack of a deity and just respect each other's beliefs as opposed to pointless baiting?
This is what I'd prefer of course.

I'm also not baiting. I think most atheists overestimate how strong their arguments are and it's important to address this because it underpins their entire attitude toward a number of social issues--for example religious freedom.

".... the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth, and truth be defamed as lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world - and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed ... [H.A.]"

Last edited by Vlerchan; June 14th, 2018 at 07:38 PM.
Vlerchan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2018, 08:34 PM   #6
HeyCameron
Member+
 
HeyCameron's Forum Picture
 
Name: Cameron
Join Date: August 15, 2016
Location: SoCal
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

So can the existence (or non-existence) of God be determined through reason?

I spent a year suspended in air
My mind on the gap, my head on the stairs
HeyCameron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2018, 11:13 PM   #7
Vlerchan
unadulteratedReason
 
Vlerchan's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 22
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

Potentially. I won't rule it out. But I'm not aware of any satisfactory attempts.

".... the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth, and truth be defamed as lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world - and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed ... [H.A.]"
Vlerchan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2018, 02:56 AM   #8
Uniquemind
VT Lover
 
Join Date: April 1, 2015
Location: USA
Gender: Other
Default Re: Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

As someone whose parents came from mildly religious (not fanatics) parents (my grandparents), rebelled due to their college education, raised me to be a foreword thinker, and me kind of getting an interest in Christianity and various spiritual topics of my own accord.

It’s interesting to me because I’ve been on both sides of the fence at least environmentally.

But for me I’ve always been, how should I say, sensitive to things; and my mom is too but she kind of denies it. I also remember my infancy pretty well too, better than many of my peers, and the memories are always first person perspectives, never 3rd person.

I also really like reading scientific breakthroughs, and when physics becomes more theoretical and reliant on abstract theoretical mathematics such as issues with quantum entanglement. It really shakes one’s scientific and philosophical understanding of not only how the universe came into existence, but also how it maintains itself, and how it could potentially end.


You also have to remember that even the prophets are using written language as a model to describe future and supernatural (maybe super scientific) beginnings and endings of the universe as shown to them by spiritual angels and demons, at the behest of God Vs Devil (fallen angels, nephilm and demons).

Not only that but in modern day we have weird quagmires of haunted business establishments and homes, that cause people to forsake real profit (and we all know how much society likes profit) and also UFO abductions which also show circumstantial techno-spiritual overlaps in reports consistent with alleged witnesses and abductees over 70+ years.


There is evidence but one has to use a combination of logical induction and deduction to really piece things together.


So one must ask if perhaps evidence is there, and we’re just boxing context and calling them separate contexts when really we should be piecing dots together.
Uniquemind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2018, 11:11 AM   #9
ShineintheDark
Awesome Poster
 
Name: Magnus
Join Date: April 11, 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Gender: Male
Default Re: Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
I think most atheists overestimate how strong their arguments are and it's important to address this because it underpins their entire attitude toward a number of social issues--for example religious freedom.
I understand your frustration with certain atheistic individuals who have literal to no respect for those who believe differently to them because ultimately neither theists nor atheists have concrete proof that they are correct and therefore have no right to say you're wrong either. If all you wanna do is honestly debate and deconstruct atheist arguments then go right ahead; the only thing that made me uncomfortable is that you chose to attack atheism in the same way you criticise atheists for attacking theism: but outright declaring that no argument that the other side can make can possibly be true because the very belief itself can never be justified. If you're in no way convinced by any of the atheist arguments you've heard, you of course have the right to believe in God and point out logical fallacies so that the entire debate can be more sophisticated. Your titling just betrays that premise.

As for religious freedom, well that's an argument for another thread.
ShineintheDark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2018, 01:33 PM   #10
mattsmith48
VT Voice of reason
 
Name: matt
Join Date: March 8, 2014
Location: canada
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Default Re: Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

@Vlerchan quoting the same post 3 times? A little excessive don't you think?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
This is profoundly unscientific.

There are numerous theories of physics that we are a long way off empirically testing--some might remain impossible to test--but this at no point suggests that these theories are incorrect. This includes the theories you highlighted as being capable of replacing the requirement that god created the universe.


You are free to outline what this difference is, as opposed to insisting it exists.

By your own words though, a lack of belief implies active denial.


I'm not sure what this means, but I am just going to take it as you don't understand what I was saying.

Though, to be honest, if you haven't covered the basic mechanics of logic proofs before and don't seem to be getting that previous explanation, we will probably have a difficult time bridging this gap. Nevertheless, I will persist.

The point of a proof is to demonstrate that a certain set of conditions--previously derived statements--necessitates a certain result. In what I have been suggesting we start with an axiom.

1: If I have a migraine, I must have a throbbing headache.

We then state the first line of our argument:

2: I do not have a throbbing headache.

Given condition 1, this implies our result:

3: Therefore, I do not have a migraine.

The result is necessitated by a pre-established set of conditions, 1 and 2. It's a rather simple proof, and that's where I think your problem lies. You can disagree with the premises, but the argument remains logically consistent and, conditional on premise 1 and 2 holding true, demonstrate a negative.

To be honest, it likely will come across like I am repeating myself because I'm referring to the most basic of proofs, and all I can hope for is that by re-arranging it in a different wording it might eventually click with you. Though, I can't be sure of that.

If you want, I can go through a number of more complicated ones in an economic context. For example, for an agent who lacks complete, transitive or reflexive preferences, a utility function--i.e. a systematic ranking of preferences--cannot exist. By showing one of the three to be false, you can demonstrate the negative (and it's rather simple).

It's a thought experiment, though perhaps I should contextualise it.

For an uncountable number of generations, Bronze Age Irish people, restricted to their island, had no evidence that tigers existed.That these people possessed no evidence of tiger's existence, even if it was the case for thousands or tens of thousands of years, does not suggest that tigers do not exist.

In the same sense, having no evidence that god exists does not suggest that god doesn't exist. Like with the tigers, it suggested one of two outcomes: (1) god doesn't exist, or (2) we simply haven't found the evidence yet.

You can suggest that we have waited long enough for this evidence, but to reject god on this basis would be, as I suggested, profoundly unscientific.


You want to use a framework designed for deciding the course of law to determine truths and untruths, despite the framework you're relying on being explicit about it's incapacity to construct truths or untruths (hence the language of non-guilty v innocent, etc.).

It's irrational, and you shouldn't do it.
I keep telling you no matter the example you come up with it is impossible to directly prove a negative. That's why eventually if you keep not getting any evidence to support your claim e.g. There is a God, at some point you have to realize the answer is no, especially when you have other proven theories and better, more realistic hypothesis that could replace the need for a God. There is nothing unscientific or irrational with that.

Straight Canadian boy
feel free to pm me will talk about anything
mattsmith48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2018, 06:18 PM   #11
Vlerchan
unadulteratedReason
 
Vlerchan's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 22
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaneintheDark
outright declaring that no argument that the other side can make can possibly be true because the very belief itself can never be justified.
Please note that earlier I said:
Potentially. I won't rule it out [that nonexistence can be demonstrated through reason]. But I'm not aware of any satisfactory attempts.
In other words I'm not claiming the belief itself cannot be justified.

I'm also not a theist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48
quoting the same post 3 times? A little excessive don't you think?
I quoted all the points referred to in that thread once and that was in the opening post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48
I keep telling you no matter the example you come up with it is impossible to directly prove a negative.
You keep insisting this but have no pointed out logical inconsistencies in the argument I made demonstrating the negative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48
That's why eventually if you keep not getting any evidence to support your claim e.g. There is a God, at some point you have to realize the answer is no
It doesn't follow that (1) I can't demonstrate a claim therefore (2) the claim is false.

Truth is independent of my capacities to verify it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48
There is nothing unscientific or irrational with that
You abandoning theories because they are difficult to prove is unscientific.

I'm also not claiming you have to recognise any truth value in these theories--just not dismiss them out of hand.

".... the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth, and truth be defamed as lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world - and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed ... [H.A.]"
Vlerchan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2018, 11:16 AM   #12
mattsmith48
VT Voice of reason
 
Name: matt
Join Date: March 8, 2014
Location: canada
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Default Re: Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
You keep insisting this but have no pointed out logical inconsistencies in the argument I made demonstrating the negative.


It doesn't follow that (1) I can't demonstrate a claim therefore (2) the claim is false.

Truth is independent of my capacities to verify it.


You abandoning theories because they are difficult to prove is unscientific.

I'm also not claiming you have to recognise any truth value in these theories--just not dismiss them out of hand.
I'm not abandoning or dismiss any theories because they are difficult to prove, first because God is not a theory its an hypothesis and I'm saying they are better theories and realistic hypothesis that replace the need for a God that we never had any evidence of their existence since humans first started creating Gods.

Straight Canadian boy
feel free to pm me will talk about anything
mattsmith48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17th, 2018, 11:50 AM   #13
Vlerchan
unadulteratedReason
 
Vlerchan's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 22
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48
I'm not abandoning or dismiss any theories because they are difficult to prove, first because God is not a theory its an hypothesis
Let's call them hypothesis then. Point still stands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48
I'm saying they are better theories and realistic hypothesis
I might be wrong but none of them have an ounce of empirical backing. If I am wrong would you mind providing it?

Realistic also sounds like code for confirmation bias but I am prepared to be amazed on this front too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48
that we never had any evidence of their existence since humans first started creating Gods
Irrelevant to the truth value of the claim.

".... the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth, and truth be defamed as lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world - and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed ... [H.A.]"
Vlerchan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2018, 12:16 AM   #14
lliam
Awesome Poster
 
lliam's Forum Picture
 
Name: Liam
Join Date: July 29, 2015
Location: The road opposite the big lake on the island in front of the big city on the mainland.
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

I wonder why this thread turned so irrational.





"Life is that prison you'll never leave alive."



Likes: (1)
lliam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2018, 03:51 AM   #15
Uniquemind
VT Lover
 
Join Date: April 1, 2015
Location: USA
Gender: Other
Default Re: Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

Quote:
Originally Posted by lliam View Post
I wonder why this thread turned so irrational.
Because faith topics are inherently irrational.

But it’s not disrespectful nor have any better theories about how the universe and creation of space-time and the laws of quantum and general relativity physics been proven to usurp the concept of a God.

Everything I’ve read too says that we probably have theories at best, and a window into alternative dimensions with Higgs discovery. Once you start bending the laws of observable certainty, everything feels like illusion and that creation and destruction are part of the same coin.

Last edited by Uniquemind; June 18th, 2018 at 03:56 AM.
Uniquemind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2018, 05:11 AM   #16
plasmaspirit
Banned
 
Name: J.
Join Date: March 18, 2018
Location: Some Little Spot in the East
Gender: Male
Default Re: Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uniquemind View Post
Because faith topics are inherently irrational.

But its not disrespectful nor have any better theories about how the universe and creation of space-time and the laws of quantum and general relativity physics been proven to usurp the concept of a God.

Everything Ive read too says that we probably have theories at best, and a window into alternative dimensions with Higgs discovery. Once you start bending the laws of observable certainty, everything feels like illusion and that creation and destruction are part of the same coin.
Don't forget how moral relativism is usually used to judge how some theories are better than others here...
plasmaspirit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2018, 06:58 AM   #17
lliam
Awesome Poster
 
lliam's Forum Picture
 
Name: Liam
Join Date: July 29, 2015
Location: The road opposite the big lake on the island in front of the big city on the mainland.
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

I'm not particularly impressed by all these theories. For the reality I experience daily, they have as little significance as the theories of the faithful folks.

To me, rational is, e.g.: You just farming in the most energy-efficient way in order to survive or to live reasonably well.

Anything beyond that is irrational because it isn't important to survival.





"Life is that prison you'll never leave alive."



lliam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2018, 03:56 PM   #18
Uniquemind
VT Lover
 
Join Date: April 1, 2015
Location: USA
Gender: Other
Default Re: Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

Quote:
Originally Posted by plasmaspirit View Post
Don't forget how moral relativism is usually used to judge how some theories are better than others here...
I think its more like do we really ever know moral objectivity in the first place? I am not certain we do, because if we did wed figure out the grey areas all the time and run into a lot less of them because objectivity is absolute.


Morals derived from a culture model environment seems to be where problems arise due to culture clashes which religion is largely a part of both in homes and in communities or even countries.

But subjectivity is where most people develop opinions, developed by mostly by the 5 senses and the pattern of experiences endured. This is partly why those who deny God cant make that leap of faith, they expect measurable evidence to comply with the 5 senses, and thats a bit of a limitation on perception.


Even the prophets of various faiths are limited to vocabulary and metaphors of their era to describe what supposedly is a supernatural testimony of worlds beginning and ending and merging.

To have an infinite plane of existence which is what heaven and hell are, space-time itself and the driving forces behind its existence would have to be looped or warped so infinity would be possible.
Uniquemind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2018, 10:38 PM   #19
plasmaspirit
Banned
 
Name: J.
Join Date: March 18, 2018
Location: Some Little Spot in the East
Gender: Male
Default Re: Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uniquemind View Post

Morals derived from a culture model environment seems to be where problems arise due to culture clashes which religion is largely a part of both in homes and in communities or even countries.
This is what I meant to be honest and its disturbing most people who argue in religious matters don't acknowledge this. Especially if they were atheists or agnostics who grew up in another religion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uniquemind View Post
I think its more like do we really ever know moral objectivity in the first place? I am not certain we do, because if we did wed figure out the grey areas all the time and run into a lot less of them because objectivity is absolute.


But subjectivity is where most people develop opinions, developed by mostly by the 5 senses and the pattern of experiences endured. This is partly why those who deny God cant make that leap of faith, they expect measurable evidence to comply with the 5 senses, and thats a bit of a limitation on perception.
Err I agree and disagree. With your criteria it seems very much like most of the arguments here wherein just because one thing cannot be achieved 100% due to human limitations its not possible. I think to use the psychological concept schema would be apt for this. We tend to simply and generalise an idea into a recognisable state because it is something out minds can accept. Its doesn't have to be the most accurate and most representative due to our limited capacity but a high probability or likelihood should be enough for us to make a definition for it.

What I mean is there might not be true moral objectivity but we can try our best to achieve it by removing ourselves from convention and with the aid of proper discussion and DISCOURSE from other people we might further refine this thought process.

This is in contrast to some of the arguments usually presented in these topics where in mostly Christian users would judge certain aspects of other religions, atheism agnosticism and such within their own moral framework and fail to acknowledge the origins of such arguments. The most apt example of this is the Islam Violence thread where it just devolved in judging the Islamic teachings in a Christian context while failing to apply some of the considerations theologians and religious leaders do when analysing certain violent or questionably worded bible passages (most of the arguments can even be said to be cherry picked as most avoided discussing the Old Testament and other minor books in the Bible and only focused on the New Testament).
plasmaspirit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2018, 12:27 AM   #20
max02
Member++
 
max02's Forum Picture
 
Name: Max
Join Date: November 25, 2017
Age: 16
Gender: Male
Default Re: Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

Gravity is closest thing to an all powerful being.
max02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright©2000 - 2018
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, VirtualTeen.org