The Atheist Contradiction and Reasoning

[Eliot Wild]

Isn't it possible that an Atheist could be acting on faith, or some sort of assurance/reliance that parallels religious faith?

Let me explain . . . Most "believers", at least most of the ones I know, regardless of their particular religion, are acting on faith. They have no substantive proof of God, at least nothing empirical/material that could be brought in as evidence of God's existence. Their belief in God is a matter of pesonal faith.

What if an Atheist simply has "faith" in the ABSENCE of a creator. Their own personal moral choices would be a matter of "faith" and would not based on any particular institution or dogmatic precepts. Their belief in an afterlife or lack thereof, if they believed in an afterlife (one can be an Atheist and believe in an afterlife, I suppose, albeit an afterlife without a god), would be a matter of personal "faith" and, again, not tied to a particular religion or belief in a god.

I guess my point would be that Atheism doesn't necessarily have to be a product of any sort of formal personal inquiry, scientific or otherwise. One could simply disbelieve in a god with the sort of faithlike equivelance that others believe in God, right?

 

[Fatihah]

You seem to have missed the entire point of my post. So much of the 'design' of organisms is anything but beautiful, anything but intelligent. How could an intelligent designer have given us such a flimsy backbone? Why would an intelligent designer loop the laryngeal nerve around the ligamentum arteriosum? Where is the intelligence in designing a gut with a potentially lethal appendix?

Response: I haven't missed your point. It just doesn't answer the question. The question is how can a room be beautifully decorated without intelligence?

 

[MSizer]

If I wanted to understand how World of Warcraft works, would I open my computer and poke at the circuit boards? Sure, I might get a response from the monitor, but am I closer to understanding World of Warcraft?".

That's a fallacious comparison, because WoW is not hardware, it is software. So if you actually looked at the code, then yes, you would indeed know exactly what it's all about.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

If I wanted to understand how World of Warcraft works, would I open my computer and poke at the circuit boards? Sure, I might get a response from the monitor, but am I closer to understanding World of Warcraft?

Emotion is not just the chemical reaction, it is symbolized in interpretation of that event; and it is the symbols we "look at" to understand things, not the "hardware".

But World of Warcraft does not exist outside the computer. It is not some esoteric thing that your computer helps you interpret. Everything you see on your computer screen is nothing more than hardware and software.

 

[MSizer]

Isn't it possible that an Atheist could be acting on faith, or some sort of assurance/reliance that parallels religious faith?

Let me explain . . . Most "believers", at least most of the ones I know, regardless of their particular religion, are acting on faith. They have no substantive proof of God, at least nothing empirical/material that could be brought in as evidence of God's existence. Their belief in God is a matter of pesonal faith.

What if an Atheist simply has "faith" in the ABSENCE of a creator. Their own personal moral choices would be a matter of "faith" and would not based on any particular institution or dogmatic precepts. Their belief in an afterlife or lack thereof, if they believed in an afterlife (one can be an Atheist and believe in an afterlife, I suppose, albeit an afterlife without a god), would be a matter of personal "faith" and, again, not tied to a particular religion or belief in a god.

I guess my point would be that Atheism doesn't necessarily have to be a product of any sort of formal personal inquiry, scientific or otherwise. One could simply disbelieve in a god with the sort of faithlike equivelance that others believe in God, right?

With all due respect, I think this would deserver a separate thread, as it is a bit off topic. I'm not trying to be rude, you're certainly welcome to start a separate thread on the matter.

Welcome to RF.

 

[Fatihah]

Isn't it possible that an Atheist could be acting on faith, or some sort of assurance/reliance that parallels religious faith?

Let me explain . . . Most "believers", at least most of the ones I know, regardless of their particular religion, are acting on faith. They have no substantive proof of God, at least nothing empirical/material that could be brought in as evidence of God's existence. Their belief in God is a matter of pesonal faith.

What if an Atheist simply has "faith" in the ABSENCE of a creator. Their own personal moral choices would be a matter of "faith" and would not based on any particular institution or dogmatic precepts. Their belief in an afterlife or lack thereof, if they believed in an afterlife (one can be an Atheist and believe in an afterlife, I suppose, albeit an afterlife without a god), would be a matter of personal "faith" and, again, not tied to a particular religion or belief in a god.

I guess my point would be that Atheism doesn't necessarily have to be a product of any sort of formal personal inquiry, scientific or otherwise. One could simply disbelieve in a god with the sort of faithlike equivelance that others believe in God, right?

Response: I've always said that atheism is a belief. For if you were to ask an atheist as to how they know that the science they claim to be true is in fact true, the answer will be, "because science says so". Which is no different than a religious person saying that there religion is true because "their holy book says so".

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Response: I've always said that atheism is a belief. For if you were to ask an atheist as to how they know that the science they claim to be true is in fact true, the answer will be, "because science says so". Which is no different than a religious person saying that there religion is true because "their holy book says so".

Scientific knowledge has nothing to do with faith. Science is based on real-world, verifiable evidence.

 

[Fatihah]

Yes.



No, an MRI.

Response: Then if you can see emotions in the body, then what does sadness look like?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Response: Then if you can see emotions in the body, then what does sadness look like?

Why are unicorns hollow?

 

[Willamena]

That's a fallacious comparison, because WoW is not hardware, it is software. So if you actually looked at the code, then yes, you would indeed know exactly what it's all about.

It's not a fallacious comparison, it's the point.

 

[johnhanks]

Response: I haven't missed your point. It just doesn't answer the question. The question is how can a room be beautifully decorated without intelligence?

OK, we'll play it your way.

Where is the intelligence in designing the laryngeal nerve such that (in giraffes) it takes a 15-foot detour on a 9-inch journey?

Where is the intelligence in designing a vertical backbone with two contrary curves, either of which can collapse to the utter prostration of its possessor?

Where is the intelligence in designing a gut with a small side-branch that confers a barely perceptible advantage but is potentially lethal?

The room is not beautifully decorated; it is a minefield.

 

[MSizer]

Response: Then if you can see emotions in the body, then what does sadness look like?

INSIDE STORY: MRI Scans

 

[Willamena]

But World of Warcraft does not exist outside the computer. It is not some esoteric thing that your computer helps you interpret. Everything you see on your computer screen is nothing more than hardware and software.

Neither do emotions exist outside the "computer". I'm not taking the "soul" side, just a side against the solely materialistic perspective.

 

[Fatihah]

I already did, the brain.

Response: Can you show us a picture of what sadness looks like in the brain? How big is it? Does it have color?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Response: Can you show us a picture of what sadness looks like in the brain?

INSIDE STORY: MRI Scans

MSizer's link should do it.

 

[MSizer]

Response: Can you show us a picture of what sadness looks like in the brain? How big is it? Does it have color?

How big is 65kHz? Does it have a color? Am I to assume then that obviously science can't explain 65kHz? Obviously that is false reasoning.

 

[Fatihah]

OK, we'll play it your way.

Where is the intelligence in designing the laryngeal nerve such that (in giraffes) it takes a 15-foot detour on a 9-inch journey?

Where is the intelligence in designing a vertical backbone with two contrary curves, either of which can collapse to the utter prostration of its possessor?

Where is the intelligence in designing a gut with a small side-branch that confers a barely perceptible advantage but is potentially lethal?

The room is not beautifully decorated; it is a minefield.

Response: Your answering my question with questions, which doesn't answer the question. In other words, you don't know how a room can be beautifully designed without intelligence. Thanks anyway.

 

[MSizer]

Response: Your answering my question with questions, which doesn't answer the question. In other words, you don't know how a room can be beautifully designed without intelligence. Thanks anyway.

But your question didn't make sense. It's impossible to explain something that doesn't exist.

 

[Autodidact]

If you were to ask an atheist about how the universe, life itself, and all that exists came to be, the answer would be scientific. Scientific study requires a key element, observation. And after extensive study through observation, atheists conclude that there is no God, or rather, there is no proof that God exist. Thus they conclude, through scientific study and observation, the origin of the universe, life itself, and all that exist. This being the case, how does an atheist view emotions? Love, happiness, sadness, laughter, etc. Where are these emotions derived from? What is it's origin? For if we look through a microscope, we can see atoms, microorganisms, etc. But you can not see sadness. Or happiness. Or love. So where do these emotions originate from and derive from, if not the human soul? And how do you know where it's derived from, if you can't see it? This alone should demonstrate that it's origin and where emotions are derived from is not visible as well, thus the human soul. Many atheists say that there is no proof of God because no one can see God. Yet they have no delay in accepting that humans have emotions, yet they can not look inside any body and see emotions. A contradiction. How do atheists explain this?

You're mistaken. Emotions are activities of the brain, and that activity can be observed with modern technology.

Then, the atheist denies the idea of intelligent design. That the beautiful design, perfect detail, and consistancy in which things were created was not done by intelligent design. In other words, it was done by chance. Let's look deeper. When you walk into a room, and see things placed and organized in a nice manner, do you accept that it happened by chance? That something beautifully organized and arranged, can be created without intelligence? Take the Mona Lisa painting for example. Do you believe it possible to create the Mina Lisa by chance? That someone can throw or splatter paint on paper, and the end result can be a beautiful piece of art work like the Mina Lisa? Or would it be more reasonable to believe that the Mona Lisa was created by intelligent design?Do you accept that something by chance or unintelligence, can create something intelligent? Is it not more logical, that something made of intelligence can only be created by intelligence? Thus the intelligence and conformity in the creation of the universe, life itself, and all that exists, had to be created by intelligent design?

No, your bifurcation is inadequate. There are not only two options: design and chance. If the universe is not designed, it may have developed according to the laws of physics. Therefore your argument is irrelevant.

 

[Fatihah]

MSizer's link should do it.

Response: That link is supposed to be a picture of what sadness looks like in the body? If that's the logic you want to push, suit yourself. Thanks.