Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you're rational
138 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ricool06;49800570]You don't seem intellectually robust enough to be able to debate Mr. Scorpio on his opinion, and instead just cite how other people might disagree with him.
Besides, you tend to enter threads like this only to ignore questions that just make you uncomfortable anyway.
You can go on all you like about who or what created the universe, but while you're sitting in your philosopher's armchair pretending that you are not just trying to justify something that has never been observed, and therefore as arbitrary as any other untruth, there are real people conducting real and effective research that will make you move your goalposts every. Single. Time.[/QUOTE]
I disagree, I think he's making some very strong arguments.
I just think that his premise is at best a hypothetical. And even if it were demonstrated, his explanation would still be illogical by virtue of being unfalsifiable.
I don't feel like anyone in this conversation is being insincere.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49800609]I disagree, I think he's making some very strong arguments.
I just think that his premise is at best a hypothetical. And even if it were demonstrated, his explanation would still be illogical by virtue of being unfalsifiable.
I don't feel like anyone in this conversation is being insincere.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]I'm sorry, but I'm tired of arguing these ideas that are agreed upon by the vast majority of secular, non-religious, thinkers on the subject. You are the one welcome to think what you want, but you need to know that you're not standing alongside atheists who are a whole lot smarter than you.
There's a reason atheists don't respond in that way during real debates.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Whatever, you are obviously smarter than every atheist I've ever seen debate the issue. So, congratulations, I guess.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]You sound like a climate change denier. The vast majority of people in the field disagree with you, but hey, you must be smarter than them all![/QUOTE]
These are the arguments I am criticising from sgman. I never said he was being insincere, I said he was citing how other people may or may not disagree with you as if that argument holds any weight.
In fact you said it yourself:
[QUOTE]hey if you have anything to say that isn't just appealing to authority or ad hominem, I'm all ears[/QUOTE]
sgman, what makes your conclusion before observation of "There is a creator" any less arbitrary than any other conclusion before observation?
[QUOTE=Ricool06;49800692]These are the arguments I am criticising from sgman. I never said he was being insincere, I said he was citing how other people may or may not disagree with you as if that argument holds any weight.
In fact you said it yourself:
sgman, what makes your conclusion before observation of "There is a creator" any less arbitrary than any other conclusion before observation?[/QUOTE]
Obviously arguments from authority are stupid, but he's since started actually discussing his arguments with me. So I don't think it's fair to say he isn't "intellectually robust enough to be able to debate Mr. Scorpio", or that he's purposefully avoiding "uncomfortable questions".
I just think people should stick to the logic and the evidence and leave the people part out of the equation.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49799647]My point is that it's a logical argument for God. It's based on the logical issue of infinity or infinite regress as opposed to it being based on a pure inability to provide a natural explanation.
In a sense it's still trying to explain the natural world, but in a very different way. To treat both types of explanations as equivalent is overly reductive.[/QUOTE]
Even ignoring the special pleading, there's zero reason why this "first cause" needs to be an intelligent entity. It's just the next step in the endless backpedaling of sticking God in the next remaining place we don't understand.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49800733]I just think people should stick to the logic and the evidence and leave the people part out of the equation.[/QUOTE]
Precisely why my criticism is a fair one.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49800361]It's not that "current models fail." It's that current models suggest a beginning that requires an explanation.[/QUOTE]
god would require an even bigger explanation, it's not an answer. And first of all you have to explain why you go from "the universe must have a cause" to the cause being a sentient almighty divine figure. As it stands we just don't know. We don't know if the universe has always existed or not, we don't know if it's the only one, we don't know if there are metaphysical or supernatural worlds, we don't know that every effect has to have a cause, etc. god is a non-answer and is illogical because it's simply jumping to a conclusion.
let alone theism, that's another bafflingly illogical leap.
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49799911]we literally know that the stories of gods come from things like volcanoes and lightning[/QUOTE]
so were gonna ignore the whole 'creation of the universe and omnipresence' part
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;49801738]so were gonna ignore the whole 'creation of the universe and omnipresence' part[/QUOTE]
so were gonna ignore the whole 'human consciousness and the sense of self' part
[QUOTE=sgman91;49799990]Well, there's scientific reasons like those presented in the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin (all atheists and top cosmologists, I believe) paper. ([URL]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf[/URL])[/QUOTE]
You are abusing this paper hard. Basically all that it's saying is that inflation does not modify the big bang idea that there was an initial singularity. This isn't any more evidence than big bang theory is for your first mover argument (and you're responding to a claim that we don't know what happened pre-big bang so it seems like you think it is). Moreover, the paper changes nothing about the fact that we need a full theory of quantum gravity to have any idea what the universe was like near the big bang, so all it is is still a classical argument that the universe was dense and hot a long time ago. Current physics cannot describe the initial singularity or determine whether it really existed.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;49801738]so were gonna ignore the whole 'creation of the universe and omnipresence' part[/QUOTE]
Arbitrary characteristics that would describe an "Absolute" for ancient people, be everywhere, know everything, be able to do everything, also eternal and immortal. We know that omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience are contradictory to each other anyway. [i]Most likely[/i] that's a result of a snowball effect, started with volcanoes and lightnings, slowly evolving into much more sophisticated (although not any more complex or believable) piece of folklore, accumulating required characteristics along the way of the natural progression of human world-view, animism, panpsychism etc.
[QUOTE=JesterUK;49794956]well yeah, and being religious doesn't mean you are or aren't rational either
attributing intelligence or stupidity to a single belief someone has is dumb as fuck[/QUOTE]
It's possible to be rational and believe in God, in fact that's the fundamental premise of catholic Christianity.
Seems like sgman has vacated the thread. Oh well, guess that isn't too surprising.
[editline]24th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49803535]It's possible to be rational and believe in God, in fact that's the fundamental premise of catholic Christianity.[/QUOTE]
It's certainly possible to be rational in other respects, despite a belief in god, but belief in the Abrahamic god, in any of it's forms, is a pretty irrational belief in itself.
It's irrational to think that using rational arguments can persuade people out of an irrational opinion.
But we still try anyway.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49803535]It's possible to be rational and believe in God, in fact that's the fundamental premise of catholic Christianity.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that and also Trinity. And miracles. And virgins giving birth to human-god hybrids. And life after death.
[QUOTE=elowin;49803612]It's certainly possible to be rational in other respects, despite a belief in god, but belief in the Abrahamic god, in any of it's forms, is a pretty irrational belief in itself.[/QUOTE]
It's not any more irrational than any other philosophical system in all honesty. Even philosophers that believe themselves to be rational don't usually end up following their arguments to their logical conclusions (and if they do they get called insane weirdoes).
[editline]24th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=gudman;49803973]Yes, that and also Trinity. And miracles. And virgins giving birth to human-god hybrids. And life after death.[/QUOTE]
I don't get your point
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49800609]I disagree, I think he's making some very strong arguments.
I just think that his premise is at best a hypothetical. And even if it were demonstrated, his explanation would still be illogical by virtue of being unfalsifiable.
I don't feel like anyone in this conversation is being insincere.[/QUOTE]
Most of his arguments seem to be "we don't know, therefore goddidit", typical god of gaps crap.
The idea of a preexisting super entity creates for more questions than it answers to the point where it's completely ridiculous to propose as a hypothesis of the universes start, it pretty much only serves to try and keep out dated unbacked beliefs relevant for no particular reason.
There are already better hypotheses out there for explaining the beginning of the universe.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49804307]It's not any more irrational than any other philosophical system in all honesty. Even philosophers that believe themselves to be rational don't usually end up following their arguments to their logical conclusions (and if they do they get called insane weirdoes).
[editline]24th February 2016[/editline]
I don't get your point[/QUOTE]
It's more irrational than not believing in one. We already went over how the first cause argument holds no water, and without that, there's no more reason to believe in him than the other conceivable unseeable, untestable entities that are beyond counting.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49804307]
I don't get your point[/QUOTE]
Fundamental premise of Catholic Christianity is "believe in this garbage", and at some point the amount of garbage you're required to believe in exceeds your capacity, as a rational person, to do so. I'm not going to view someone who actually believes in Heaven, Hell and eternal punishment as a rational person, under no circumstances. A couple hundred years ago - sure, but not now.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;49804361]It's more irrational than not believing in one.[/quote]
Well why? People argue over whenever utilitarianism or deontological ethics is better, but you aren't any less rational for favouring one over the other - you just have different views or priorities.
[QUOTE=gudman;49804380]Fundamental premise of Catholic Christianity is "believe in this garbage", and at some point the amount of garbage you're required to believe in exceeds your capacity, as a rational person, to do so. I'm not going to view someone who actually believes in Heaven, Hell and eternal punishment as a rational person, under no circumstances. A couple hundred years ago - sure, but not now.[/QUOTE]
The fundamental premise of Catholicism is that people can use reason to work out the existence of god instead of relying solely on mystical revelations and shit. A massive chunk of it is based in Greek philosophy.
I mean I don't give much of a shit about jewish myths - I'm more interested in the philosophy and law.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49804390]Well why? People argue over whenever utilitarianism or deontological ethics is better, but you aren't any less rational for favouring one over the other - you just have different views or priorities.[/QUOTE]
Is believing in mermaids, gnomes and wood elves more irrational than not believing in them?
[QUOTE=gudman;49804380]Fundamental premise of Catholic Christianity is "believe in this garbage", and at some point the amount of garbage you're required to believe in exceeds your capacity, as a rational person, to do so. I'm not going to view someone who actually believes in Heaven, Hell and eternal punishment as a rational person, under no circumstances. A couple hundred years ago - sure, but not now.[/QUOTE]
What if those beliefs do not conflict with or have no relevance to current scientific understanding?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49804390]Well why? People argue over whenever utilitarianism or deontological ethics is better, but you aren't any less rational for favouring one over the other - you just have different views or priorities.
[/QUOTE]
I said most of why in my post. The amount of things that could conceivably exist somewhere beyond observation and/or according to some special physical laws unknown to us is limited only by our imagination. To believe in one specific thing that can never be observed or tested, and fills no necessary role in the structure of the universe simply because other people do is irrational.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;49804462]I said most of why in my post. The amount of things that could conceivably exist somewhere beyond observation and/or according to some special physical laws unknown to us is limited only by our imagination. To believe in one specific thing that can never be observed or tested, and fills no necessary role in the structure of the universe simply because other people do is irrational.[/QUOTE]
Then what do you do with questions that can't be answered with the scientific method?
[QUOTE=nerdster409;49804530]Then what do you do with questions that can't be answered with the scientific method?[/QUOTE]
You accept that you can't have the answer to it. Not that it matters anyway because those kinds of questions don't affect us in the slightest.
[QUOTE=nerdster409;49804530]Then what do you do with questions that can't be answered with the scientific method?[/QUOTE]
The [url=http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm]Dragon in My Garage[/url] can't be explained or answered with the scientific method. Does that mean that it's likely to be true? No, the exact opposite is the case.
[QUOTE=_Axel;49804556]You accept that you can't have the answer to it. Not that it matters anyway because those kinds of questions don't affect us in the slightest.[/QUOTE]
You aren't even a bit curious as to the answer? I know I've pondered the question "What happens to my perspective (or spirit, or self) when I die?" multiple times in my life.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49804390]
The fundamental premise of Catholicism is that people can use reason to work out the existence of god instead of relying solely on mystical revelations and shit. A massive chunk of it is based in Greek philosophy.
I mean I don't give much of a shit about jewish myths - I'm more interested in the philosophy and law.[/QUOTE]
The reason the Catholics say that is to attempt to counter the idea that expecting people to follow something they can't prove exists is silly and brings up a moral dilemma in respects to punishing people over not believing the unbelievable. So instead they just say you can prove god to reorient guilt onto the unbeliever, even though you actually can't prove it (but then when have they ever cared about facts).
[editline]24th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=nerdster409;49804610]You aren't even a bit curious as to the answer? I know I've pondered the question "What happens to my perspective (or spirit, or self) when I die?" multiple times in my life.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but how does making up answers with no proof bring you any closer to finding out the truth in regards to that question?
[QUOTE=nerdster409;49804610]You aren't even a bit curious as to the answer? I know I've pondered the question "What happens to my perspective (or spirit, or self) when I die?" multiple times in my life.[/QUOTE]
I think "nothing" is a likely possibility. Your perspective is something that is inherent to your body. I see no reason to believe that there exists something undetectable and immaterial that nonetheless has an influence on the material world. That would basically be an effect without a cause, and we have yet to witness anything like that. Until we do, any form of afterlife is highly unlikely.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49804612]
Yeah but how does making up answers with no proof bring you any closer to finding out the truth in regards to that question?[/QUOTE]
You have a better chance at getting a question correct if you guess the answer than if you didn't guess it.
[QUOTE=nerdster409;49804610]You aren't even a bit curious as to the answer? I know I've pondered the question "What happens to my perspective (or spirit, or self) when I die?" multiple times in my life.[/QUOTE]
I cease to exist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.