Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten
Your statements here do not add anything to your original position, nor do they address the points I brought up about it. Furthermore, why would someone need to justify being an atheist?
|
You said atheism was
Quote:
|
It's a conclusion of logic based on a complete absence of verifiable data, independent corroboration, or repeatability of a given phenomenon.
|
I implied that you were being a bit ostentatious, and that all atheism really is is a lack of belief in a deity. You said some stuff that I thought had something to do with that, but I guess I was mistaken.
Quote:
|
Randomness is illogical? Therefore the Universe is flawed?
|
Randomness places a certain limit on the predictability of phenomena, which seems like the kind of thing you wouldn't expect in a completely "logical" universe. It is one thing for deterministic process to be treated randomly for lack of information, it is another thing for a process to be intrinsically probabilistic.
And I never said the universe was flawed, I said that's its difficult to claim that it is absolutely logical, and that any argument that attempts to prove the universe inherently logical that also happens to be argued from an empirical perspective must necessarily be flawed.
Quote:
|
We can never know everything about the Universe, therefore... God might exist? Therefore one cannot really know anything? I don't think you're arguing very clearly here either. And I'm not going to bother defending the opinions of theoretical people. There are a "great many" of people who do all kinds of stupid shit.
|
I'm not a theist. I don't mind if you don't bother to defend the opinions of theoretical people. You didn't seem to mind claiming for them a sincere and robust commitment to reason and logic, though so your refusal to defend their opinions seems odd.
Quote:
|
And as for your talking about the differences between science and logic, I don't know where you're going with that either. Yes, they are distinct elements, like red and blue and up and down. You wanted to separate them, whatever. Does it matter? Not really.
|
You're the one who said:
Quote:
|
separating logic and science this way is, frankly, ridiculous. Logic is used by science all the time. Math is logic, only defined with numbers instead of words. Science is observation, with logic (often math) used to determine what the observed phenomenon is.
|
Apparently, now that it obviously isn't ludicrous it is irrelevant. Well, if it's irrelevant, why did you bring it up?
Quote:
|
But what I can tell you is that atheism is not a "perspective." It is a conclusion. There is no logical support for faith. That's why it's called "faith," and not "reason."
|
Well, if atheism is a conclusion, then certainly so is theism, not that that phrase really means anything; belief in the supremacy of mountain dew is a conclusion too. All can be perspectives, in that they inform the way one perceives and interacts at the world. Just because you don't see atheism as your perspective doesn't mean it can't be. The kind of atheist that you are isn't necessarily the same kind of atheist that other atheists are.
And why is there no one who says things like "There is no logical support for faith." who can also explain what it means for something to be logical?
Quote:
|
For someone who claims to be agnostic, you sure do work up a sweat for the theists.
|
Well apparently agnostics are now atheists, so i guess we're members of the same club. Be that as it may, I don't really think of this as "working up a sweat for theists" as much as "being annoyed by vapid atheist cheerleading", not that what you said was necessarily vapid.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
It's tough to speak in generalities on the differences because people are theistic and atheistic for a myriad of reasons. Generalizing seems to ignore this reality.
|
That's kind of my point. It is a mistake to claim that folks only choose to be atheists out of a commitment to reason or the scientific method. That's all I was really trying to say.
Quote:
|
There is no scientifically valid reason in believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that a thing or person for which there is no evidence absolutely exists. So in being atheist or theist, there is a definite difference in the evidentiary standards of the reasoning involved, but neither position necessarily shows a lack of reason.
|
I changed it to reflect what I think it should say. I'm clever.
Quote:
|
There is no evidence. Logic and science are two different things, yes. So are science and math. But they team up quite often.
|
Tru dat. Chocolate and coffee team up quite often in my house, but they are also fully appreciated on their own.