Atheism doesn't mean much.

[paarsurrey]

Originally Posted by paarsurrey
They are not ethically pushed to be reasonable .

Do you think theists are, paarsurrey?
If so, why? How?

Religion is for ethical, moral and spiritual uplift of human beings. The truthful religions supports reason.

So the Theists must be reasonable and rational.

Regards

 

[jonathan180iq]

So the Theists must be reasonable...

Regards

Doesn't this imply that they are able to be reasoned with, as opposed to, say, digging in their heels on a certain topic and refusing to budge from certain preconceived notions even when faced with logical fallacies and historical evidence to contradict such notions?

 

[Skwim]

Did you read the entire post? If it isn't clear then I'm stuck as how to better explain it. Maybe you should ask someone else.

No because you have to look at supposed religious adherence very critically.

Then why should I or anyone else bother with you?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Religion is for ethical, moral and spiritual uplift of human beings. The truthful religions supports reason.

So the Theists must be reasonable and rational.

Regards

From my viewpoint, though, none of them are truthful.
From your viewpoint, not all of them are truthful.

So, how can theists (as a whole) be pushed to be more ethical or moral? It's not logically compatible or possible that all theists are right.

 

[suncowiam]

I am an Atheist. Respect me!

Or not... I don't care.

Only people in these forums know that I'm an atheist. People outside of these forums know me as family, a coworker or as a friend...

What's the big deal?

 

[paarsurrey]

From my viewpoint, though, none of them are truthful.
From your viewpoint, not all of them are truthful.

So, how can theists (as a whole) be pushed to be more ethical or moral? It's not logically compatible or possible that all theists are right.

It's not logically compatible or possible that all theists are right

I never said that. To err is human. Anybody and everybody do make mistakes, religious or non-religious.

Regards

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I never said that. To err is human. Anybody and everybody do make mistakes, religious or non-religious.

Regards

I know, mate.
Honestly, I'm just trying to understand your whole perspective.
I'll make a couple of assumptions here, just to try and explain, but happy for you to correct them.

I'm assuming you believe in the truth of Islam. So for the sake of argument, let's assume Islam is truth.

Christianity (in simple terms) is therefore NOT true. At best, it's partially true.

So, would Christianity push it's adherents to be more moral/ethical than atheism, even though it's not true?

(I mean, the argument is consistent, but other people can substitute any religions, really. Does Hinduism make someone more ethical/moral than an atheist if Christianity is true, for example)

 

[Thief]

Em, so no one has a useful model? That includes you! You do not believe Einstein's relatively had any use?

Again, please share your reason to believe. Please share you method of determining what should be believed.

Someone did ask what Einstein was working on.....in his later years.
He said he was trying to catch God in the act.

His famous equation....he doubted.
He was still looking for that 'definitive item' long after.

 

[outhouse]

Then why should I or anyone else bother with you?

I keep him on ignore for that reason

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Bull Crud! Logic cannot verify ANYTHING until you have a premise.

1) Premises are part of logic. The formation of (necessarily well-defined) premises is part of logic, so you are essentially saying that logic cannot verify anything without logic:

"Traditionally, logic has concerned itself with the connection of premises with conclusions, and thus with the issue of transferring justification. Informal logic’s raising the question of premise acceptability, to our mind, raises the question of whether one is justified in believing or accepting the basic premises of an argument."
Freeman, J. B. (2005). Acceptable Premises: An Epistemic Approach to an Informal Logic Problem. Cambridge University Press.

You may wish to write the author, as the entire monograph is devoted to the ways in which logic is relevant not just to formulate premises and see whether or not conclusions follow from them, but to the logic of determining the acceptability of premises quite apart from their formulation or their connection to an argument or its conclusion.

2) Without premises, we can prove all tautologies and disprove all logical contradictions.
3) Frequently, we rely not on hypotheses but on other inferential methods, from exploratory surgery to ethnography.
4) Then there is accidental discovery and lucky shots in the dark. For example: "In 1900, without any underlying rational justification other than strictly mathematical purposes, [Max Planck] applied Boltzmann’s probabilistic reasoning to calculate the entropy of the energy distribution in a black body by means of an unheard-of assumption: that the energy E of electromagnetic radiation of a given frequency f emitted or absorbed by the walls of a cavity could not take on any arbitrary value but had to be proportional to that frequency, E = hf, or integer multiples thereof. The constant of proportionality, h, now considered one of the most fundamental in nature, came to be known as Planck’s constant."
&

"...the French physicist Henri Becquerel (1852–1908) quite accidentally found radioactivity. In his investigation to determine if the fluorescence of certain crystals when exposed to light produced Röntgen’s X-rays, he had left some uranium salts wrapped in paper on a photographic plate in a drawer. Since the salts were in the dark, they could not fluoresce. To his astonishment he later found that the plate was clouded, which indicated that the uranium salt must have emitted a new kind of radiation that penetrated the paper and clouded the plate."
(both from Newton, R. G. (2007). From Clockwork to Crapshoot: A History 6of Physics. Harvard University Press.
6) The single most pervasive error in modern research in the sciences is the use of hypothesis testing whereby one develops a premise/hypothesis, tests it (usually with one out of a small set of inadequate statistical techniques), and if it reaches some meaningless "alpha-level" it is invalidly claimed that the premise/hypothesis has been verified. For a very short treatment of this issue see here: How Hypothesis Testing Doesn’t Test Hypotheses (and relatedly: Lies, Damned Lies, and Research: Systematic misuse of statistics in the sciences)

Logic does NOTHING to verify the premise.

It's quite literally the only way to verify a premise or set of premises. And, again, it is essential to the entire structure of scientific inquiry:

Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. Cambridge university press.

"If false hypotheses had no logical consequences we should not thus be able to test falsity.
That a proposition has definite logical consequences even if it is false follows also from the fact that these logical consequences or implications are part of its meaning.
...logical principles are confirmed and exhibited in every inference that we draw, in every investigation which we successfully bring to a close. They are discovered to hold in every analysis which we undertake. They are inescapable, because any attempt to disregard them reduces our thoughts and words to gibberish." (emphasis added)

Cohen, M. R. & Nagel, E. (1934). An Introduction to Logic and the Scientific Method

"Two different measurement methods have to be distinguished, direct and indirect measurement...According to this logical scheme [direct measurement], the measure X(G) of the quantity G is the ratio between the quantity G and the unit standard U...
In the great majority of instruments, the logical structure is more complex: the comparison with the unit standard is made through a calibration, which is generally performed by the manufacturer. The quantity G can undergo various manipulations and transformations to other quantities...It can often be convenient to represent the instrument as a measuring chain, decomposing its logical structure into a sequence of functional elements, each one devoted to a well-defined task."

Fornasini, P. (2008). The Uncertainty in Physical Measurements: An Introduction to Data Analysis in the Physics Laboratory. Springer.

"An explanation is rational if it follows the rules of logic and is consistent with known facts. If the explanation makes assumptions that are known to be false, commits logical errors in drawing conclusions from its assumptions, or is inconsistent with established fact, then it does not qualify as scientific."

Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (2011). Research Design and Methods: A Process Approach (8th Ed.). McGraw Hill.

Logic is USELESS until you have a true statement.

How do you determine if a proposition is true?

Who cares if you 'accept' the moon is made of cheese, and then proceed logically.

Your computer, for one. It is a physical instantiation of classical formal logic. It computes by evaluating "statements" in this way, strictly logically. Logic in general is not restricted to classical (formal) logic, because as humans capable of reasoning and conceptual processing we require more flexible logics both formal and informal. Computers do not tolerate ambiguity, and thus they rely on the kind of strict interpretations which can lead to ridiculous conclusions. For a computer program, this will generally mean it has some flaw that causes it not to run or not to run correctly. For a human, this means the necessity of distinguishing a "sound" vs. a "valid" argument. A valid argument is simply one for which the conclusion follows from the premises (or, put differently, an argument that, if you accept the premises, you must accept the conclusion). A sound argument is one which is valid AND the premises are true.

Rubbish and not what I said.

Another miracle of logic. What you said entails certain things, regardless of whether you explicitly said them or even if you realized that they were entailed by your statement.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Someone did ask what Einstein was working on.....in his later years.
He said he was trying to catch God in the act.

His famous equation....he doubted.
He was still looking for that 'definitive item' long after.

Well, if you believe the models of einstein are useless, there's nothing much you and I will ever agree on.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

1) Premises are part of logic. The formation of (necessarily well-defined) premises is part of logic, so you are essentially saying that logic cannot verify anything without logic:

"Traditionally, logic has concerned itself with the connection of premises with conclusions, and thus with the issue of transferring justification. Informal logic’s raising the question of premise acceptability, to our mind, raises the question of whether one is justified in believing or accepting the basic premises of an argument."
Freeman, J. B. (2005). Acceptable Premises: An Epistemic Approach to an Informal Logic Problem. Cambridge University Press.

You may wish to write the author, as the entire monograph is devoted to the ways in which logic is relevant not just to formulate premises and see whether or not conclusions follow from them, but to the logic of determining the acceptability of premises quite apart from their formulation or their connection to an argument or its conclusion.

2) Without premises, we can prove all tautologies and disprove all logical contradictions.
3) Frequently, we rely not on hypotheses but on other inferential methods, from exploratory surgery to ethnography.
4) Then there is accidental discovery and lucky shots in the dark. For example: "In 1900, without any underlying rational justification other than strictly mathematical purposes, [Max Planck] applied Boltzmann’s probabilistic reasoning to calculate the entropy of the energy distribution in a black body by means of an unheard-of assumption: that the energy E of electromagnetic radiation of a given frequency f emitted or absorbed by the walls of a cavity could not take on any arbitrary value but had to be proportional to that frequency, E = hf, or integer multiples thereof. The constant of proportionality, h, now considered one of the most fundamental in nature, came to be known as Planck’s constant."
&

"...the French physicist Henri Becquerel (1852–1908) quite accidentally found radioactivity. In his investigation to determine if the fluorescence of certain crystals when exposed to light produced Röntgen’s X-rays, he had left some uranium salts wrapped in paper on a photographic plate in a drawer. Since the salts were in the dark, they could not fluoresce. To his astonishment he later found that the plate was clouded, which indicated that the uranium salt must have emitted a new kind of radiation that penetrated the paper and clouded the plate."
(both from Newton, R. G. (2007). From Clockwork to Crapshoot: A History 6of Physics. Harvard University Press.
6) The single most pervasive error in modern research in the sciences is the use of hypothesis testing whereby one develops a premise/hypothesis, tests it (usually with one out of a small set of inadequate statistical techniques), and if it reaches some meaningless "alpha-level" it is invalidly claimed that the premise/hypothesis has been verified. For a very short treatment of this issue see here: How Hypothesis Testing Doesn’t Test Hypotheses (and relatedly: Lies, Damned Lies, and Research: Systematic misuse of statistics in the sciences)



It's quite literally the only way to verify a premise or set of premises. And, again, it is essential to the entire structure of scientific inquiry:

Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. Cambridge university press.

"If false hypotheses had no logical consequences we should not thus be able to test falsity.
That a proposition has definite logical consequences even if it is false follows also from the fact that these logical consequences or implications are part of its meaning.
...logical principles are confirmed and exhibited in every inference that we draw, in every investigation which we successfully bring to a close. They are discovered to hold in every analysis which we undertake. They are inescapable, because any attempt to disregard them reduces our thoughts and words to gibberish." (emphasis added)

Cohen, M. R. & Nagel, E. (1934). An Introduction to Logic and the Scientific Method

"Two different measurement methods have to be distinguished, direct and indirect measurement...According to this logical scheme [direct measurement], the measure X(G) of the quantity G is the ratio between the quantity G and the unit standard U...
In the great majority of instruments, the logical structure is more complex: the comparison with the unit standard is made through a calibration, which is generally performed by the manufacturer. The quantity G can undergo various manipulations and transformations to other quantities...It can often be convenient to represent the instrument as a measuring chain, decomposing its logical structure into a sequence of functional elements, each one devoted to a well-defined task."

Fornasini, P. (2008). The Uncertainty in Physical Measurements: An Introduction to Data Analysis in the Physics Laboratory. Springer.

"An explanation is rational if it follows the rules of logic and is consistent with known facts. If the explanation makes assumptions that are known to be false, commits logical errors in drawing conclusions from its assumptions, or is inconsistent with established fact, then it does not qualify as scientific."

Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (2011). Research Design and Methods: A Process Approach (8th Ed.). McGraw Hill.


How do you determine if a proposition is true?


Your computer, for one. It is a physical instantiation of classical formal logic. It computes by evaluating "statements" in this way, strictly logically. Logic in general is not restricted to classical (formal) logic, because as humans capable of reasoning and conceptual processing we require more flexible logics both formal and informal. Computers do not tolerate ambiguity, and thus they rely on the kind of strict interpretations which can lead to ridiculous conclusions. For a computer program, this will generally mean it has some flaw that causes it not to run or not to run correctly. For a human, this means the necessity of distinguishing a "sound" vs. a "valid" argument. A valid argument is simply one for which the conclusion follows from the premises (or, put differently, an argument that, if you accept the premises, you must accept the conclusion). A sound argument is one which is valid AND the premises are true.


Another miracle of logic. What you said entails certain things, regardless of whether you explicitly said them or even if you realized that they were entailed by your statement.

LOL. I'd like to know if the sun has risen. I think I'll stick my head out the window and check. Now your method of verification is what?

I've read literally 1000s of primary research papers. I'd like it if you could show me a single one that has any sort of a formal logical argument? Can you do that?

Observation! Statistics!

I don't discount logic, but it does not predicate data, it does not predicate observation. There is no logic in the world that can tell you if the sun has risen, that does not precipitate from observation (or assumption). Logic is only as good as the premises which it assumes. Without observation logic is nothing but a IF/THEN GAME!

Any conclusion verified by logic, rests on the truth of the premises, which must be verified by observation.

 

[Ultimatum]

Ignorance and unbelief are different things.

What does this have to do with what I typed?
Not having a notion of a" God" doesn't imply ignorance. In fact, you're ignorant for typing such a thing.
What about those very few uncontacted tribes on the Earth today? Sure, they most likely have gods within each tribe, but assuming they don't: would you call these people ignorant? I certainly would not.

 

[Robert.Evans]

to me it shows they are logical and have done some serious thinking for themselves unlike many who are not atheists.

Haha... yeah fine. So thinking that luck, chance, coincidence, randomness can bring about everything, to the point that there is sentient conscious beings... sure that makes sense. It just happened and then you die. Great sense in that. The complexities of the universe forbid that it is mere luck... and by necessity there has to be something there for all things to come from. Why not call that God?

One has their minds opened and one has there mind closed.

The mere fact taht there is atheist on a religious site suggests that there is a God, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

I am thinking of writing a book as I don't like Golf. I shall call it: The Golf Delusion. I shall argue that the game is stupid and anyone who does it does not think clearly or is deluded. Anyone who tries to explain it I shall dismiss. I shall make million of it and be asked onto TV to explain my wonderful negative position... haha. Anyone who says they like the game or understand it I shall ignore. I shall say that I understand it better because I don't play it (secretly it will be because I used to be in a gold club and was thrown out... Hell has to fury like a golfer scorned)

 

[The Sum of Awe]

When someone says, 'I'm an atheist', my reaction is pretty much, "so what"? I mean, it's not telling me anything, it's basically a statement in the negative. It doesn't tell me that the person is excercising some 'rationale' to reach that conclusion. It could just as easily be assumed that atheism is the default position for that individual when not thinking about the ideas at all.

The same can apply to many theists. There are some deep-thinking atheists, and some not-so-deep thinking atheists. There are some deep-thinking theists, and some not-so-deep thinking theists.

 

[jonathan180iq]

LOL. I'd like to know if the sun has risen. I think I'll stick my head out the window and check. Now your method of verification is what?

I've read literally 1000s of primary research papers. I'd like it if you could show me a single one that has any sort of a formal logical argument? Can you do that?

Observation! Statistics!

I don't discount logic, but it does not predicate data, it does not predicate observation. There is no logic in the world that can tell you if the sun has risen, that does not precipitate from observation (or assumption). Logic is only as good as the premises which it assumes. Without observation logic is nothing but a IF/THEN GAME!

Any conclusion verified by logic, rests on the truth of the premises, which must be verified by observation.

I love you.

 

[Willamena]

What does this have to do with what I typed?
Not having a notion of a" God" doesn't imply ignorance. In fact, you're ignorant for typing such a thing.
What about those very few uncontacted tribes on the Earth today? Sure, they most likely have gods within each tribe, but assuming they don't: would you call these people ignorant? I certainly would not.

Ignorance and stupidity are different things, too.

The person who has no notion of "god" is ignorant of god. That person is not an atheist for being ignorant of god.

 

[Ultimatum]

Ignorance and stupidity are different things, too.

The person who has no notion of "god" is ignorant of god. That person is not an atheist for being ignorant of god.

The quote that I previously quoted you on simply says "ignorance" and not "ignorance OF GOD".
Therefore, you implied the hypothetical person that had no notion of any god was generally ignorant, which is false.

 

[Willamena]

The quote that I previously quoted you on simply says "ignorance" and not "ignorance OF GOD".
Therefore, you implied the hypothetical person that had no notion of any god was generally ignorant, which is false.

Taking it as not being about "god" would be taking atheism out of context.

Edit: Just to be clear, I meant to say the hypothetical person that has no notion of any god is ignorant of god.

 

[Ultimatum]

Taking it as not being about "god" would be taking atheism out of context.

Edit: Just to be clear, I meant to say the hypothetical person that has no notion of any god is ignorant of god.

Remember that clarity of content is very important, no matter what the subject matter.
Heedless-ly, I agree with the Edit.