Atheism

[Existentialist]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you in any way.

No need to apologise. What makes you think I'm the least bit offended?

It was just a 'tone' thing to do with your earlier reply to me - must have been a misreading on my part, born of my imperfect experience, a 'seeming', if you like - you seemed offended.  Obviously if this wasn't the case and there's no need for me to apologise, I withdraw the apology.  

Then you would be wrong. The way I use language, especially employing a wide variety of words, has nothing to do with belief, it is merely the use of linguistic devices. The word didn't just seem to be the right word, it was the right word, because it's a perfect description of how people treat their beliefs.

But it did seem to be the right word, even if it was perfect.  'Seem' was the word you used.  What's the difference between something 'seeming' to be right to you, and you 'believing' it's right.

Nope. Phrases like 'it seems to me' are merely linguistic devices. Read above.

So what's the difference between 'it seems to me' being a linguistic device, and 'I believe' being a linguistic device?

[Existentialist]

This is starting to sound like an Achronos argument. The statement that logic, reason and rational thinking are correct is an axiom. It is completely and utterly necessary. Without it, we wouldn't be able to do anything.

Sorry I don't know what Achronos argument is.  I don't see the necessity for likening my 'argument' to someone else's - and if you're saying it's 'starting to sound like', aren't you jumping to a conclusion before you've digested the full facts?  That's got to be a departure from the requirement for adequate evidence.  Logic, reason and rational thinking should be able to deal with my argument (whatever it is) or anyone's argument without being compared to someone else's - and I'd have thought it would take just one or two posts, not go on and on.

If the statement that logic, reason and rational thinking are 'correct' are an axiom, then obviously they must demonstrably stack up as the only source of decision-making about anything.  So why the necessity to bring in necessity?  If logic, reason and rational thinking led to a conclusion that was not 'necessary', then by this new argument they would fall down.  And why the need to bring in practicality ("we wouldn't be able to do anything")?  You seem to be saying that if logic, reason and rationality led to a solution that wasn't practical, that didn't enable us to 'do' something, then they would by definition not be logic, reason and rationality - that's not logical.

And where do your feelings fit into all this?  What happens when you get a gut feel that something or someone is a problem, but you can't put your finger on it, you can't explain in logical, reasonable and rational terms why you feel something is wrong, but then it turns out you were right.  Do you discard that emotion, and take no notice of it?  What happens when you fall in love with someone?  Maybe you don't, maybe they just fall in love with you because of your pointy ears.  I feel and believe, and it seems to me, that there is a lot that's not being said about this doctrine of logic, reason and rationality.

I'm not denying that rationality is a significant contributor to human survival and human thriving.  But there is an emotional side to humans too.  I'd be interested in how that fits in with the whole 'if it's not logical, it's not right' approach to getting through the day.

[LegendarySandwich]

This is starting to sound like an Achronos argument. The statement that logic, reason and rational thinking are correct is an axiom. It is completely and utterly necessary. Without it, we wouldn't be able to do anything.

Sorry I don't know what Achronos argument is.  I don't see the necessity for likening my 'argument' to someone else's - and if you're saying it's 'starting to sound like', aren't you jumping to a conclusion before you've digested the full facts?  That's got to be a departure from the requirement for adequate evidence.  Logic, reason and rational thinking should be able to deal with my argument (whatever it is) or anyone's argument without being compared to someone else's - and I'd have thought it would take just one or two posts, not go on and on.

If the statement that logic, reason and rational thinking are 'correct' are an axiom, then obviously they must demonstrably stack up as the only source of decision-making about anything.  So why the necessity to bring in necessity?  If logic, reason and rational thinking led to a conclusion that was not 'necessary', then by this new argument they would fall down.  And why the need to bring in practicality ("we wouldn't be able to do anything")?  You seem to be saying that if logic, reason and rationality led to a solution that wasn't practical, that didn't enable us to 'do' something, then they would by definition not be logic, reason and rationality - that's not logical.

And where do your feelings fit into all this?  What happens when you get a gut feel that something or someone is a problem, but you can't put your finger on it, you can't explain in logical, reasonable and rational terms why you feel something is wrong, but then it turns out you were right.  Do you discard that emotion, and take no notice of it?  What happens when you fall in love with someone?  Maybe you don't, maybe they just fall in love with you because of your pointy ears.  I feel and believe, and it seems to me, that there is a lot that's not being said about this doctrine of logic, reason and rationality.

I'm not denying that rationality is a significant contributor to human survival and human thriving.  But there is an emotional side to humans too.  I'd be interested in how that fits in with the whole 'if it's not logical, it's not right' approach to getting through the day.

First, lighten up. I simply said that your argument sounds like an argument that Achronos has recently used. No need to make a big deal out of it.

Second, the entire rest of the post seems to be an entire straw man.

"If the statement that logic, reason and rational thinking are 'correct' are an axiom, then obviously they must demonstrably stack up as the only source of decision-making about anything."
Uhh...no.

"You seem to be saying that if logic, reason and rationality led to a solution that wasn't practical, that didn't enable us to 'do' something, then they would by definition not be logic, reason and rationality - that's not logical."
Uhh...no.

Logic and rational thinking would tell you that in a solution where there is no obvious logical solution, your emotions are most likely correct.

[Existentialist]

My parents raised me in a secular home, there was no mention of religion.

Children tend to believe what their parents believe.  What are your reasons as an adult for deciding that logic, reason and rational thinking are the best ways to come to a conclusion about anything?

My parents are actually christian, they decided to let us choose for ourselves.

No mention of religion?  Christian parents?  They never talked about religion in the house?  That's distinctly odd.  They must have been in some really weird sect.  

I would suggest that the Judeo-Christian culture is in fact extremely logical, far from resting on illogical arguments it rests on a very logical set of arguments, for example about the consequences of contradicting or resisting the logical demands of authority.  Far from being a fairy tale, it is the story of deeply-ingrained imperialistic position which started with the Romans and has led us to the dominant position of Western culture we see to day, which by the 20th century had reached such a level of self-confidence that it could discard its deity completely, and just rely on its residual assumptions: logic, rationality, empiricism.  Your secular upbringing sounds much like mine, much like many of us - but is it what we think it is, the last few breaths of a dying faith, or the full maturing of an unstoppable, self proclaimed logical authority that is so powerful it only explains itself in terms of itself?  In which case, isn't the way to overthrow it (because it doesn't seem to be functioning very well), not to embrace logic, but to embrace human feelings, and human subjectivity?   Just a thought!

As for my reason, I don't understand the question, I came to logic because logic dictated so, it's how I think, literally, don't know a better way to explain that.

So in that case explain the logical process by which you arrived at logic as the best determinant of any course of action.  I'm just not getting any sense of your logic here.

[LegendarySandwich]

Logic > emotions
That's all I've really got to say.

[Existentialist]

First, lighten up.

Oh, come on.  No need to get heavy on me!  I'm light already!

I simply said that your argument sounds like an argument that Achronos has recently used. No need to make a big deal out of it.

If I had a Euro for every time that the word 'simply' has been used in this thread, I could buy you all a drink!

Second, the entire rest of the post seems to be an entire straw man.

What's your logic and reasoning for that?

"If the statement that logic, reason and rational thinking are 'correct' are an axiom, then obviously they must demonstrably stack up as the only source of decision-making about anything."

Uhh...no.

Why no?  You said they are correct.  What are they not correct for?

"You seem to be saying that if logic, reason and rationality led to a solution that wasn't practical, that didn't enable us to 'do' something, then they would by definition not be logic, reason and rationality - that's not logical."

Uhh...no.  Logic and rational thinking would tell you that in a solution where there is no obvious logical solution, your emotions are most likely correct.

Right so emotions are a determinant of probability when logic, reason and rationality do not provide a solution?  I would have thought you'd say that emotions can't provide a solution, not that they're a back-up.  So what's the logic to emotions providing one?  By what logical process do you trust your emotions?  I don't think there is one, but you've said there is, so what is it?

[Ultima22689]

Just because one is Christian doesn't mean once concerns themself with bothering to go to church every week and practicing religion all the time. They didn't belong to any sect.  As for the rest of the whole christianity culture being logical, no comment, i'm not opening up that can of worms, not in the mood in some drawn out debate about a subject that has been beaten to death.


Guy: The Earth is flat.
Me: Really? That's interesting, can you prove it?
Guy: No, I can't but i'm really sure.
Me: No empirical data at all?
Guy: Nope not a lick
Me:....goodbye

I don't get what is so hard to understand about that process, someone claims something, it may or may not be interesting, I ask for some form of empirical information proving their claim or at least giving said claim some clout, they produce none, I don't believe their claim, it's a simple as that. Someone walks up to me and tells me he has a million dollars in his suit case, I ask him to show me, he refuses, I deduce the man is probably lying. Come on, this is simple critical thinking, common sense, is that so hard to grasp?

[LegendarySandwich]

First, lighten up.

Oh, come on.  No need to get heavy on me!  I'm light already!

I simply said that your argument sounds like an argument that Achronos has recently used. No need to make a big deal out of it.

If I had a Euro for every time that the word 'simply' has been used in this thread, I could buy you all a drink!

Second, the entire rest of the post seems to be an entire straw man.

What's your logic and reasoning for that?

"If the statement that logic, reason and rational thinking are 'correct' are an axiom, then obviously they must demonstrably stack up as the only source of decision-making about anything."

Uhh...no.

Why no?  You said they are correct.  What are they not correct for?

"You seem to be saying that if logic, reason and rationality led to a solution that wasn't practical, that didn't enable us to 'do' something, then they would by definition not be logic, reason and rationality - that's not logical."

Uhh...no.  Logic and rational thinking would tell you that in a solution where there is no obvious logical solution, your emotions are most likely correct.

Right so emotions are a determinant of probability when logic, reason and rationality do not provide a solution?  I would have thought you'd say that emotions can't provide a solution, not that they're a back-up.  So what's the logic to emotions providing one?  By what logical process do you trust your emotions?  I don't think there is one, but you've said there is, so what is it?

Just because logic and rational thinking are correct doesn't mean that they have to be the only solution to everything, though I would argue that logic and rational thinking would point to your emotional preference in situations where there is no logical outcome.

Should I eat a grape or an orange? I prefer oranges, so logic and rational thinking should tell me that getting an orange would be the better option, unless there are other factors I haven't considered yet. Really, this is simple.

(Time for you to buy me a drink.)

[LegendarySandwich]

Just because one is Christian doesn't mean once concerns themself with bothering to go to church every week and practicing religion all the time. They didn't belong to any sect.  As for the rest of the whole christianity culture being logical, no comment, i'm not opening up that can of worms, not in the mood in some drawn out debate about a subject that has been beaten to death.


Guy: The Earth is flat.
Me: Really? That's interesting, can you prove it?
Guy: No, I can't but i'm really sure.
Me: No empirical data at all?
Guy: Nope not a lick
Me:....goodbye

I don't get what is so hard to understand about that process, someone claims something, it may or may not be interesting, I ask for some form of empirical information proving their claim or at least giving said claim some clout, they produce none, I don't believe their claim, it's a simple as that. Someone walks up to me and tells me he has a million dollars in his suit case, I ask him to show me, he refuses, I deduce the man is probably lying. Come on, this is simple critical thinking, common sense, is that so hard to grasp?

I think it's more complicated than that, but yet, if you want to simplify it like that, that's what it really comes down to. No religions have any compelling evidence for me to believe their claims (not to mention all the errors, contradictions, absurdities, etc.).

[Ultima22689]

Just because one is Christian doesn't mean once concerns themself with bothering to go to church every week and practicing religion all the time. They didn't belong to any sect.  As for the rest of the whole christianity culture being logical, no comment, i'm not opening up that can of worms, not in the mood in some drawn out debate about a subject that has been beaten to death.


Guy: The Earth is flat.
Me: Really? That's interesting, can you prove it?
Guy: No, I can't but i'm really sure.
Me: No empirical data at all?
Guy: Nope not a lick
Me:....goodbye

I don't get what is so hard to understand about that process, someone claims something, it may or may not be interesting, I ask for some form of empirical information proving their claim or at least giving said claim some clout, they produce none, I don't believe their claim, it's a simple as that. Someone walks up to me and tells me he has a million dollars in his suit case, I ask him to show me, he refuses, I deduce the man is probably lying. Come on, this is simple critical thinking, common sense, is that so hard to grasp?

I think it's more complicated than that, but yet, if you want to simplify it like that, that's what it really comes down to. No religions have any compelling evidence for me to believe their claims (not to mention all the errors, contradictions, absurdities, etc.).

Yes it is more complicated than that, i'm just lazy at the moment so I intetionally made a nice simple post that I think explained the bottom line.

[Existentialist]

Just because one is Christian doesn't mean once concerns themself with bothering to go to church every week and practicing religion all the time. They didn't belong to any sect.  

No I was joking.  But for Christians to never mention religion - in 18 years?  Or however long you were at home - that's quite a feat!

As for the rest of the whole christianity culture being logical, no comment, i'm not opening up that can of worms, not in the mood in some drawn out debate about a subject that has been beaten to death.

I was talking really about Western culture and its Judeo-Christian origins, rather than christian culture.  But if you don't want to comment I couldn't possibly read anything into that.  To elaborate what I said: logic, rationality and reasoning are what western dominance of world cultures is about.  They derive from Judeo-Christian origins.  My hypothesis is that a house where children are given the freedom by Christian parents to decide for themselves what to think seems to me to be the final relinquishment by the culture of the essential personality of a deity, subject to the retention of the logic, rationality and reasoning base, but  only with the demotion of human emotions (fear, anger, grief).

A re-telling of your scenario with some human emotion added:-

Guy: The Earth is flat.
Me: Really? That's interesting, can you prove it?
Guy: No, I can't but i'm really sure.
Me: No empirical data at all?
Guy: Nope not a lick
Me:....goodbye
Guy:  Haven't you noticed that I just put a gun to your head
Me:...oops sorry, yes I see now the Earth is flat

Various manifestations of oops, sorry yes I see now the Earth is flat (ie I'm frightened to think differently) might be

Me: Yes I see I must study physics not philosophy because that would give me a better income  
Me: Yes I see I must not demonstrate against political injustices because the police might smash my head in
Me: Yes I will vote for a reformist party rather than a revolutionary party because the revolutionaries will destroy the economy

All simple logic, apparently

I don't get what is so hard to understand about that process, someone claims something, it may or may not be interesting, I ask for some form of empirical information proving their claim or at least giving said claim some clout, they produce none, I don't believe their claim, it's a simple as that. Someone walks up to me and tells me he has a million dollars in his suit case, I ask him to show me, he refuses, I deduce the man is probably lying. Come on, this is simple critical thinking, common sense, is that so hard to grasp?

So many of these scenarios seem to contain the word simple, simple, simple...

[Existentialist]

Time for you to buy me a drink.

I'm not buying anyone a drink.  I haven't had my euros yet.

[LegendarySandwich]

You seem to not understand what logic and rational thinking are.

Logic is a very powerful, and necessary, tool, but does not have the answer to every question. The rest of the questions can be answered with rational thinking, which may point to emotions or opinions if necessary.

[Existentialist]

You seem to not understand what logic and rational thinking are.

Logic is a very powerful, and necessary, tool, but does not have the answer to every question. The rest of the questions can be answered with rational thinking, which may point to emotions or opinions if necessary.

How does rational thinking help you decide whether fight or flee from your enemy?  And bear in mind I don't do simple.

[LegendarySandwich]

You seem to not understand what logic and rational thinking are.

Logic is a very powerful, and necessary, tool, but does not have the answer to every question. The rest of the questions can be answered with rational thinking, which may point to emotions or opinions if necessary.

How does rational thinking help you decide whether fight or flee from your enemy?  And bear in mind I don't do simple.

...Are you serious?