The Atheist Contradiction and Reasoning

[johnhanks]

Response: That doesn't answer the question.

This is a waste of time. Goodbye, Fatihah.

 

[Eliot Wild]

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.

I respectfully disagree. The original post clearly stated that Atheism is a product of scientific inquiry. As a matter of fact, it was a precept of the OP's reasoning established in the very first sentence of his/her post:

"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."

I would contend that while I may not have responded to OP's questions or central thought, I was still responding to his/her post. Because I believe it is essential to clear away any false presumptions and/or precepts before a proper debate or discussion can really take place on any particular issue.

You can debate all day long on whether or not Eric Clapton was the best bandmember in the Beatles, but you will never reach an adequate conclusion because Clapton never was in the Beatles. More to the point, before an individual or group can answer the question of how an Atheist perceives emotions, it needs to be determined upon what an Atheist is basing his or her belief that gods do not exist. If the OP had said something, like, "For the sake of discussion, let's assume that all Atheism is a product of scientific study and/or reasoning . . . ", then I would agree with you that my response was inappropriate, but that is not the case.

However, all that being said, thank you for welcoming me to RF. I love the debates and discussions; they are very stimulating . . . even if I am wrong and you happen to be right in this case, which I will concede is a possibility.

 

[Fatihah]

A "pattern which repeats itself" is by definition designed without intelligence. Nothing repeats it but itself.

Response: How so? How does a pattern designed to repeat itself developed without intelligence?

 

[Fatihah]

I can see your having a real hard time understanding this but it replicates ITSELF!

Maybe chemistry isn't your strong point?

Intelligence comes from the brain, a complex organ made of cells. Cells replicate because of DNA. Without RNA their would be no DNA. Without DNA there would be no brains to become intelligent and self aware. Intelligence wouldn't exist.

You have it all backwards by saying that intelligence must exist first.

Response: In other words, according to your logic, unintelligence creates intelligence. Which is exactly the flaw in atheist logic, when clearly one contradicts the other. Unintelligence can't create intelligence, because by definition.......it's not intelligent.

 

[Fatihah]

Fatahah;

Well, I can see that you have received a multitude of reasonable answers to your initial questions from the OP.
I can also see that you intended from the beginning to not accept any of the answers you received.
So why even ask in the first place?

Response: Well for starters, none of the answers are logical. I can accept any logical answer. Earlier, someone stated that they can see feelings in the body. But they don't know its color or size. Just an example of how truly logical the answers are.

 

[Gharib]

To claim that intelligence can only be caused by intelligence immediately begs the question: What intelligence caused god?

every creation has a creator. since Allah is not a creation but a creator (as one of his snames states) then no one created Allah.

 

[Gharib]

To ask what sadness looks like is nonsensical. Kind of like asking "What is the smell of hope?"

yeah, what is the smell of hope? can scientists draw it on a parer?

We know what emotions are and where they come from by studying the brain while a person experiences these emotions. Certain areas in either the reptilian or mammalian parts of brain 'light up' depending on the emotion. Once we know what part of the brain governs a particular emotion we can recreate it by stimulating that part of the brain with current. Doing so, we can make a person feel happy, sad, terrified, euphoric, and even have them experience 'near-death' type phenomena, all without any kind of external stimuli (other than the current).

the brain is different to the emotion itself. i could say the same thing about hunger, i'm hungry and my stomach hurts, but how do we know hunger exists when we can't see it? the stomach tells us that hunger exists yet we can't see hunger, pretty much like god and his creation. we can see gods creation but we can't see god. make sense doesn't it?

 

[Gharib]

That's like asking "what does a punch look like in the body". It's an action. You can analyze the physical makeup of a punch (muscles, bones and other parts involved) just like you can analyze the physical makeup of an emotion (neurochemicals, dendrites, axons, synaptic potentials and so on). It's not nearly as mysterious as your lack of knowledge makes it appear to you.

nice diversion from the topic at hand. can you answer the questions if you have an answer?

 

[Gharib]

The emotion is the result. Stimulation in the brain is the cause.

so if there is a cause there is a result, what is that result and how do we accept its existence if we can't see it?

 

[Gharib]

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".

good post. don't get electrocuted though just to prove a point.

 

[Gharib]

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?

would it work if we put an animal to decorate it? they say we are close raltives with apes, so maybe a chimp could do it. couldn't it, we are relatives right?

 

[Gharib]

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".

very true.

so does everyone agree that atheism is a belief system and they say god doesn't exists because they say so?

 

[Gharib]

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

what does hunger look like?
we all know it exists, we can feel it in our tummy and our brain.

 

[Fatihah]

Read my answer again.

Snowflakes.

Well, if you want to say that nature "designs" things using the laws of physics, I don't have a problem with that. I don't think that's the most accurate way to think of it, myself.

Response: A snowflake is the result of a particular reaccurring weather system. How can a system which repeats itself be developed without intelligence? Can you create a pattern or system that repeats itself without using your intelligence? If so, what.

 

[Fatihah]

You disprove you own argument, because a supposed god, the most intelligent thing in the multiverse, must not have been created by intelligent design by definition.

POOF!

Response: I never stated an argument to begin with. Your assumption has no validity.

 

[Gharib]

Well, that's what our modern technology shows us. If you'd rather believe that emotions exist outside the brain in some esoteric and intangible form then you're welcome.

if emotions come from the brain, then why does our facial language change? for example the following images:

:drool: you wanna see some more?

 

[Gharib]

Asking "What colour is sadness?" or "How big is sadness?" is nonsensical and asinine in the highest imaginable degree.

You may as well ask "Does joy smell funny?" or "Is happiness greener than anger?"

Simply because you can phrase a question in a grammatically correct way does not entitle it to an answer.

If you believe it does then please answer my question:

Why are unicorns hollow?

so you're saying that if we can't fully understand something we still accept it, that sounds like a belief system. why don't you say the same thing about god, we can't fully understand him but we should accept him, no?

 

[monta]

Response: A snowflake is the result of a particular reaccurring weather system. How can a system which repeats itself be developed without intelligence? Can you create a pattern or system that repeats itself without using your intelligence? If so, what.

Are you a meteorologist?

 

[Gharib]

So do you think that just because we can't see the rest of the galaxies they don't exist? Or that somehow this forces us to conclude they're designed by god? Or that when we do see then through a telescope we're not really seeing them?

again nice diversion from answering the question.

Honestly, if you truly think that's true, then I doubt you have the ability to understand any explanation I could come up with. When you toss a rock into a pond and the ripples move outward, did the rock design the ripples? Did you design the ripples? No, you didn't design the ripples, but you caused them. Water ripples, just like everything else natural around us, is a result that had nothing to do with design.

and who created the rock and the water? and all that "everything else natural around us"?

 

[monta]

if emotions come from the brain, then why does our facial language change? for example the following images:

:drool: you wanna see some more?

Like this one :banghead3: you do get that your brain works the rest of you right?