|
Atheism Undermines Knowledge
|
 (May 8, 2013 at 12:58 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (Could I at least get a cool dragon once in a while) We don't use dragons in reverence to Carl Sagan. 
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
  (May 9, 2013 at 10:24 am)ChadWooters Wrote:(May 9, 2013 at 3:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: What, of the evidence we have, points to the existence of a god?The regularity of natural laws. If there is not a reason for things happening according to order then there is no reason why they should happen at all. (details above) This seems to be a large leap of logic without anything backing it up; what is your justification for your entire last sentence? I'm not brash enough to deny I may have missed something, but all I see is a huge gap between "ordered things not having an exterior reason," and "therefore there's no reason for things to happen." How would you bridge that gap?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!  (May 9, 2013 at 10:24 am)ChadWooters Wrote: The regularity of natural laws. If there is not a reason for things happening according to order then there is no reason why they should happen at all. (details above) 18 pages of the same argument from ignorance... You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence. RE: Atheism Undermines Knowledge
May 9, 2013 at 11:26 am
(This post was last modified: May 9, 2013 at 11:27 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
(May 9, 2013 at 10:40 am)Esquilax Wrote: This seems to be a large leap of logic without anything backing it up; what is your justification for your entire last sentence?The sentence summarizes the substance of the OP to which later elaborations add. Asserting that regularity is a brute fact inhibits thinking about why things are indeed regular. Does this lead to god or gods? I think that eventually it does, although that need not be the case. Regardless, that stance undermines the validity of knowledge. So long as an intellectual commitment to atheism leads you to consider physical reality the only solid ground for knowledge then you are always ignoring the world of subjective experience and intentionality. And without those, worship of the scientific method is without justification. (May 9, 2013 at 11:20 am)Simon Moon Wrote: 18 pages of the same argument from ignorance...And 18 pages of rationalizing ignorance. 
To have faith in God with no physical evidence justifying this belief, one must have total faith in one's own judgement and cognition. If you see what you call a revelation from God, you are making an assumption of insane arrogance : I know this is not my brain playing tricks on me. How can one actually know this, when it is so easy and so common an experience, you could call it ubiquitous?
Do you know why we place such value on empiricism? Because we know better than to place complete trust in anything that comes out of our minds. This isn't ignorance. It is accepting the eminently fallible nature of subjective experience. I don't have faith in my own perception to the point that I would trust anything I perceive without being able to verify it with others.  (May 9, 2013 at 11:26 am)ChadWooters Wrote: And 18 pages of rationalizing ignorance. Ah so you admit it! You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis. (May 9, 2013 at 12:21 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Ah so you admit it!??? No, I'm saying that you guys, in the most generic sense, have spent 18 pages saying "nothing to see here." In other words, you have not questioned certain presuppositions and that limits what you can know to a narrow field of knowledge to the exclusion of others.
In terminator (the original film) they mention a self supporting delusion that requires no proof.
That delusion is all you ever present. Come up with some evidence or I will continue to think that. You cannot "logic"™ things into existence You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis. (May 9, 2013 at 12:26 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(May 9, 2013 at 12:21 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Ah so you admit it!??? No, I'm saying that you guys, in the most generic sense, have spent 18 pages saying "nothing to see here." In other words, you have not questioned certain presuppositions and that limits what you can know to a narrow field of knowledge to the exclusion of others. That's because, once more, our standard of what qualifies as 'knowledge' is a lot higher than that which you subscribe to. If you can't show it, then you don't know it, and you're not smarter or more open-minded than we are just because you pretend otherwise. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
