Atheism is a belief.

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Tht1Gy!, Nov 3, 2007.

?

I know how to use a dictionary.

  1. Yes, and I incorporate its info.

    57.1%
  2. Yes, but I still like to make up definitions as I go along.

    20.4%
  3. No, I believe in "Truthiness"

    34.7%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Tht1Gy! Life, The universe, and e... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    780
    Bullshit! I know/have known of scientists who believe in god in some fashion.

    There is a quote that speaks to this: "Science is god's way of revealing himself" Jimmy Carter.

    Now I disagree with much of his view of god but this quote does not require me to agree.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. snake river rufus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    855
    I can't agree that everything is based on logic. Properly applied logic should lead everyone to the same end. Assuming the same facts are understood by all.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    there is no universal logic that all comes down to. logic works in perspective to the individual.

    Killing yourself is logical, or is it? It is logical to the guy who killed himself, but it is illogical to the guy who sees life's hardships as essential experience.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. snake river rufus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    855
    Then you have read it wrong.
    I wasn't there at the decision making process concerning the A-bomb but I do agree that it was the best way to end the war with minimal to U.S. troops. In the end, that's what war boils down to.
    No, improperly applied logic caused said suffering.
    Yes, and you seem to be one of those
    You need to clean up that bit about witch trials- doesnt make sense as it is.
    GWB believe in the supernatural, that rules out true logic. If he claims something to be reasonable based on that belief,,he's wrong.
    Have you been stifled? Seems to me that you are free to post all the bunk that you wish.
     
  8. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Let's remember that it is the CLAIMS OF THEISTS for gods existence which gave rise to atheism, and not just the existence or non-existence of gods.

    Atheism, as a concept unto itself is meaningless without those theists beating their breasts from the sermon mount.
     
  9. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    Properly applied logic can cause much suffering as well. I don't think you can boil everything down to reason and logic. Things like ethics and morals come into it as well.
     
  10. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Why can't ethics and morals be derived from reason and logic?
     
  11. snake river rufus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    855
    My point would be that the person killing himself may not have the same knowledge as the the other guy and vice-versa. Emotions play a big part in our lives. We can't get rid of them and I wouldn't want to. Emotions have no place in the scientific process, do they?
    And the scientific process is based on?
     
  12. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    They can of course. I'm just pointing out that the most logical decision isn't always the most moral or ethical one (the one that causes the least suffering).
     
  13. snake river rufus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    855
    Properly applied logic would bring suffering to its minimal level. Ethics and morals do enter into the human equation, but should they? IMO, only if both parties share the same ethics and morals.
     
  14. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    Suffering to its minimal level for whom? The one who applied the logic, or the one who was on the receiving end of it? Dropping the A-bomb might have been the most logical action for us and definitely reduced a lot of American suffering, but what about the suffering of the many innocent Japanese who were effected by it?

    Note, I'm neither disapproving nor condoning the dropping of the A-bomb.
     
  15. snake river rufus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    855
    How many innocent Japanese might have been harmed by an invasion?
    Dropping the A-bomb just might have been the better option for them as well.
    Properly applied logic, in this case was to drop the bomb. 150,000 dead from the bomb against the estimates of up to a million if we fought on the ground.
     
  16. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    You use the word might. You tell me, how many innocent Japanese might have been harmed by the invasion? Are you so sure the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered before we reached 150,000 deaths on both sides?

    (to add to that 150k body count, you also have the survivors who lived with severe medial problems for the rest of their lives)

    PS: I'm agreeing that the nuke was the fastest, most logical way to end the war. I'm just not so sure it was the path to the least suffering that you claim it might have been.
     
  17. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    If one of my main moral and ethical tenets was to try to cause the least amount of harm to others when making decisions, wouldn't I want to use logic?

    What other arsenal would one have to use in their decision making process?
     
  18. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    That wasn't about properly applying logic. It was a decision about what would be more feasible, according to particular criteria of feasibility.
     
  19. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    Yes atheism is 100% faith-based to very very very highest degree, it is entirely based upon "belief without evidence"
     
  20. snake river rufus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    855
    Severe medical problems also come from shell fire. I think that one evens out.
    As I recall the est. was nearly 1,000,000 from invasion.
    as for Japan surrendering, if the emperior didn't surrender after the first bomb, do you really think that he cared how many of his people died? The A-bomb was horrible but I remain convinced it resulted in the least loss of life on both sides. And one thing to the good, Japan seems to be staying out of that arms race. That's not much, but it is a positive.
     
  21. snake river rufus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    855
    Actually that issue was raised by an earlier poster as a slam against using logic. I'll have to take your word as to how the decision was reached. I wasn't there.
     
  22. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    I have to admit Q, I fucked myself over. First I (perhaps wrongly) agreed with you that morals and ethics can be derived from reason and logic. Now I've been hit with a question of logic being derived from morals and ethics.

    Let me clarify my position. I take back what I said earlier about morals and ethics being derived from logic and reasoning because I'm not sure what the answer to that is. However, I do agree that logic is taken from someone's morals and ethics. Thus, I disagree with snake river rufus' claim that properly applied logic causes the least suffering, because no such thing as objective logic exists. An example would be the logic of a serial killer. His logic would certainly cause more suffering than necessary.
     
  23. snake river rufus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    855
    My point is that we should try to make logical decisions.
    And serial killers do not use logic. They may think that they do but logic isn't just what makes sense to me or you or him. Logic is a template to apply to a problem.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2007

Share This Page