Quote:instinct ,in a purely biological sense ,doesn't exist in humankind.

OK - where do you get from?

How does a baby know to look its mother in the face and make eye contact?
Why does a new born baby automatically turn its head to the mother's chest when it is picked up? How does it know that's where the food is?
Why do we respond to puppies and kittens? What do we find appealing, and why?

There are probably hundreds of other examples of instinctive behaviour in us.
There are also examples of moral behaviour in other species. Sometimes that behaviour is even inter-species morality.

In terms of our evolution the ability to reason, logically, to plan ahead and play out "what if" scenarios would all carry biological advantage - particularly for an upright walking ape on the planes of Africa which was relatively small, lightly armed and slow moving.

Couple that to the freeing up of the hands - and the sheer brain powered required to utilize that freed up resource and you get.........us.

Surely you don't think that humans have stopped evolving?

(May 27, 2014 at 7:25 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: But the problem for the godless is how to explain rational thinking.

Ok. The consequence of your argument here is that the godless cannot think rationally without god if I understand. So essentially you're saying that god is neccessary for rational thought.

I'd like to know what your definition of godless is. Is it anyone that doesn't believe in your god or is it anyone without a god? I'm going to proceed on the assumption that it is the former. We see atheists capable of rational thought time and again. Seems not to interfere with their thought processes. What about people of other religions? They too seem capable of making rational thought without god.

You didn't tell us what you'd expect to see as a result of an irrational mind. How else are we to judge that the godless are irrational in thought or not?

Lastly we see god's people acting irrationally all the time. What about those people that negligently kill their kids by denying medication for faith healing. This by all counts is irrational. What about speaking in tongues? You got grown people speaking babble and you saying this is the result of a rational mind? What about believing in a carpenter that walks on water with no contemporary accounts of these claims? Rational or irrational? That's right, it's irrational!

I have shown that god is not neccessary for rational thought. In fact the more likely consequence for belief in god is irrationality. Gods make men strap bombs on their chests in the Middle East, kidnap innocent girls in Nigeria, fly planes into buildings in New York and get people to oppress each other all over the world.

(May 27, 2014 at 7:47 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote:

(May 27, 2014 at 7:37 pm)Bittersmart Wrote: Got anything else for the thinking woman?

Support the leader!

The leader of what?

(May 27, 2014 at 7:25 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: Atheism is a close ended belief system where everything is explained in terms of the natural order of things.
And so ,no god or gods , only nature .

Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. You can still totally believe in unicorns, ghosts, and leprechauns and be atheist. You're describing something more like naturalism.

(May 27, 2014 at 7:25 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: But the problem for the godless is how to explain rational thinking.
Since thoughts are events, all of our thoughts should be fully explainable in mechanical terms, and not to a person’s free-will .. But any thought which is not guided by what is “true” but only by mechanical , physical needs ,is not rational.

First of all rational "thinking" is out we experience our own consciousness. It's not an entity unto itself. Secondly, a thought process is rational if it follows logic. Regardless of whether it came from a person's brain in a deterministic set of chemical reactions or came from a person's soul is beside the point.

(May 27, 2014 at 7:25 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: No belief is rational if it can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes.

Now this makes no sense. Both because it's a completely baseless non sequitur, and also because theism has never "fully" explained anything. Every theistic argument raises more questions than it answers. By your logic, I could explain rational belief with leprechauns.

(May 27, 2014 at 7:25 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: but there's more : any notion of good and evil, right and wrong, love and hate, etc., must also be treated as mythical. nothing more than helpful ideas , but ideas with no existence ( ontology) of their own. Life would then be essentially meaningless since its ultimate goal is mere survival, an unattainable goal in a world where death is guaranteed and final.

I wouldn't say it's meaningless. I find plenty of meaning in my own life. Just because I don't believe in any gods doesn't mean I can't enjoy my time here.


Now, I see where you're trying to go with this, but your theistic way of thinking has tainted your entire thought process, and you're not really looking into what it is to be atheist, or looking at what atheists believe.

to OP

You have allot of "if" in there. Get rid of them and bring it down to a few axioms. Keep them in terms of "absolute values". And bring your ideas to people that disagree with ya to hone them. You will see that "belief" will lose its "blind faith" component.

---

(May 28, 2014 at 2:30 am)BlackMason Wrote:

(May 27, 2014 at 7:25 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: But the problem for the godless is how to explain rational thinking.

Ok. The consequence of your argument here is that the godless cannot think rationally without god if I understand. So essentially you're saying that god is neccessary for rational thought.

I'd like to know what your definition of godless is. Is it anyone that doesn't believe in your god or is it anyone without a god? I'm going to proceed on the assumption that it is the former. We see atheists capable of rational thought time and again. Seems not to interfere with their thought processes. What about people of other religions? They too seem capable of making rational thought without god.

You didn't tell us what you'd expect to see as a result of an irrational mind. How else are we to judge that the godless are irrational in thought or not?

Lastly we see god's people acting irrationally all the time. What about those people that negligently kill their kids by denying medication for faith healing. This by all counts is irrational. What about speaking in tongues? You got grown people speaking babble and you saying this is the result of a rational mind? What about believing in a carpenter that walks on water with no contemporary accounts of these claims? Rational or irrational? That's right, it's irrational!

I have shown that god is not neccessary for rational thought. In fact the more likely consequence for belief in god is irrationality. Gods make men strap bombs on their chests in the Middle East, kidnap innocent girls in Nigeria, fly planes into buildings in New York and get people to oppress each other all over the world.

err what? where did god act irrationally? I'll take any god?

(May 27, 2014 at 10:31 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: At some point the ego develops which leads into the psychic progression enabling social coexistence .

Did that come from that Deepak Chopra phrase generator?

(May 28, 2014 at 2:30 am)BlackMason Wrote:

(May 27, 2014 at 7:25 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: But the problem for the godless is how to explain rational thinking.

Ok. The consequence of your argument here is that the godless cannot think rationally without god if I understand. So essentially you're saying that god is neccessary for rational thought.

I'd like to know what your definition of godless is. Is it anyone that doesn't believe in your god or is it anyone without a god? I'm going to proceed on the assumption that it is the former. We see atheists capable of rational thought time and again. Seems not to interfere with their thought processes. What about people of other religions? They too seem capable of making rational thought without god.

You didn't tell us what you'd expect to see as a result of an irrational mind. How else are we to judge that the godless are irrational in thought or not?

Lastly we see god's people acting irrationally all the time. What about those people that negligently kill their kids by denying medication for faith healing. This by all counts is irrational. What about speaking in tongues? You got grown people speaking babble and you saying this is the result of a rational mind? What about believing in a carpenter that walks on water with no contemporary accounts of these claims? Rational or irrational? That's right, it's irrational!

I have shown that god is not neccessary for rational thought. In fact the more likely consequence for belief in god is irrationality. Gods make men strap bombs on their chests in the Middle East, kidnap innocent girls in Nigeria, fly planes into buildings in New York and get people to oppress each other all over the world.

All Im saying is for you to explain rational thought in purely materialistic terms .

If you can't ,then that opens the possibility that there exists a reality beyond the physical.

you're overthinking this and getting too worked up over it.

(May 28, 2014 at 6:16 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 2:30 am)BlackMason Wrote: Ok. The consequence of your argument here is that the godless cannot think rationally without god if I understand. So essentially you're saying that god is neccessary for rational thought.

I'd like to know what your definition of godless is. Is it anyone that doesn't believe in your god or is it anyone without a god? I'm going to proceed on the assumption that it is the former. We see atheists capable of rational thought time and again. Seems not to interfere with their thought processes. What about people of other religions? They too seem capable of making rational thought without god.

You didn't tell us what you'd expect to see as a result of an irrational mind. How else are we to judge that the godless are irrational in thought or not?

Lastly we see god's people acting irrationally all the time. What about those people that negligently kill their kids by denying medication for faith healing. This by all counts is irrational. What about speaking in tongues? You got grown people speaking babble and you saying this is the result of a rational mind? What about believing in a carpenter that walks on water with no contemporary accounts of these claims? Rational or irrational? That's right, it's irrational!

I have shown that god is not neccessary for rational thought. In fact the more likely consequence for belief in god is irrationality. Gods make men strap bombs on their chests in the Middle East, kidnap innocent girls in Nigeria, fly planes into buildings in New York and get people to oppress each other all over the world.

All Im saying is for you to explain rational thought in purely materialistic terms .

If you can't ,then that opens the possibility that there exists a reality beyond the physical.

you're overthinking this and getting too worked up over it.

Why, because you can't understand it?

You're attempting -- and failing miserably -- to equivocate between thoughts, for which there is substantial empirical evidence, with a deity for which by definition no empirical evidence is possible, and then pointing to that purported entity as the reason rational thought is possible.

You're skipping a metric tonne of steps along the way.

This is your argument:

p1 A cure for cancer is theoretically possible.
p2 No cure for cancer is currently known.
p3 If a cure is unknown, it is impossible.

c1 Cancer will never be curable.


p1 I can't figure out how rational thought is possible.
p2 I assume you also can't figure out how rational thought is possible.
p3 I need to know right now how rational thought is possible, so I'm going to fabricate an explanation.

c1 The Lucky Charms leprechaun makes marshmallows magically delicious; and also makes rational thought possible.

(May 28, 2014 at 2:36 am)Losty Wrote:

(May 27, 2014 at 7:47 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: Support the leader!

The leader of what?

Judging by the commentary, I'm assuming AA's opinion of a leader is anyone with a penis.