Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Atheism: Hypocracies.

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
LouSalome
Posts: 8
Joined: June 13th, 2008, 12:29 am

Post by LouSalome » June 15th, 2008, 5:22 pm

May I venture to say that I think these conversations can be and have been had without the decorative ad hominem attacks in between?

I would further note that, in my own experience and observation, it is almost always the case (except in a mentoring situation) that a person--regardless of the genius of the other's argumentation--will not change her mind unless she wants to. People today rarely have epiphanies from the arguments that others have used. Ad hominems are not going to help the matter.

I wish for the sake of philosophy that this weren't the case, but people do not seem to be very plastic in their beliefs.

anarchyisbliss
Posts: 515
Joined: February 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by anarchyisbliss » June 15th, 2008, 6:18 pm

LouSalome wrote:May I venture to say that I think these conversations can be and have been had without the decorative ad hominem attacks in between?

I would further note that, in my own experience and observation, it is almost always the case (except in a mentoring situation) that a person--regardless of the genius of the other's argumentation--will not change her mind unless she wants to. People today rarely have epiphanies from the arguments that others have used. Ad hominems are not going to help the matter.

I wish for the sake of philosophy that this weren't the case, but people do not seem to be very plastic in their beliefs.
Unfortunately, I agree.
"If there is hope, it lies in the proles." - George Orwell, 1984

Dewey
Contributor
Posts: 819
Joined: October 28th, 2007, 1:45 pm
Location: California

Atheism: Hypocracies

Post by Dewey » June 23rd, 2008, 2:19 am

LouSalome wrote:
"May I venture to say that I think these conversations can be and have been had without the decorative ad hominem attacks in between?"

"I would further note that, in my own experience and observation, it is almost always the case (except in a mentoring situation) that a person--regardless of the genius of the other's argumentation--will not change her mind unless she wants to. People today rarely have epiphanies from the arguments that others have used. Ad hominems are not going to help the matter."

"I wish for the sake of philosophy that this weren't the case, but people do not seem to be very plastic in their beliefs."



I see, hear, and read about people modifying or even reversing their opinions all the time. Didn’t most of us ardently believe not so long ago that a war was needed? Today we abhor the very idea. We undoubtedly change our beliefs more often because of events, study, and emotional reactions than because of argumentation. But I find it hard to dismiss good argumentation (in which ad hominen remarks have no part) as a powerful agent of persuasion. It may not lead to epiphanies, but gradual, thoughtful change may be the best way to go.

jonbrown111
Posts: 12
Joined: August 26th, 2008, 12:46 pm

Re: Atheism: Hypocracies.

Post by jonbrown111 » August 26th, 2008, 12:59 pm

Science has been disproven, by itself let alone any other source, more times than religion thus far. This can be 'played off' as trial and error, or scientific growth, but then it is hypocritical if the same cannot be held true for religion.
This is pure nonsense. Science has not been disproven; various beliefs about the natural world, uncovered by science, have been disproven. This is neither interesting or damaging to science. Science is not merely a fact about the world -- it is a method for obtaining facts about the world. Certain facts science has uncovered have been corrected, but the method of science remains intact.

In fact, science is the ONLY epistimological system that human beings are able to use to obtain knowledge. There is no alternative. The only method of gathering information human beings have is through sensory perception. We cannot do otherwise.

Religion cannot hide behind "it is a different system than science! Science cannot touch it." This is false. Believers use sensory perception the same as rationalists -- they use their eyes to see the written words on the pages of the bible.

It would be impossible to go through a single day (or a single minute) of your life without using your sensory perceptions. The hypocricy is that the superstitious people try to have it both ways -- let us use empirical senses in our daily lives, but we refuse to believe in empirical evidence when it contradicts our nonsensical irrationalities.

User avatar
Akhenaten
Posts: 209
Joined: August 29th, 2008, 6:22 pm

Post by Akhenaten » August 30th, 2008, 7:44 am

This is pure nonsense. Science has not been disproven; various beliefs about the natural world, uncovered by science, have been disproven. This is neither interesting or damaging to science. Science is not merely a fact about the world -- it is a method for obtaining facts about the world. Certain facts science has uncovered have been corrected, but the method of science remains intact.
- Any abstract that is assigned a value, in conjunction with, and in general gramatical sense, is therefore being spoken of as a Noun. Hence, the Abstract of what science is has nothing to do with the conception of the intended target of his (Abiathar's) statement. There again I could be wrong.
It would be impossible to go through a single day (or a single minute) of your life without using your sensory perceptions. The hypocricy is that the superstitious people try to have it both ways -- let us use empirical senses in our daily lives, but we refuse to believe in empirical evidence when it contradicts our nonsensical irrationalities.
- Though it appears that someone may have irritated you before with these arguments, re-reading his posts a few times, I do not see any where that Abiathar said that Science was wrong, he meerly said those that ascribe values to science and dismiss religion based on that science are hypocritical. If one can accept that science can disprove religion, then if the selfsame individuals are not willing to accept that religion can disprove science, they are being hypocrits... in the most basic and mundane sense of the word.

Besides, if you think about it at the most basic of levels, as all religions were, are, and have always been researched by its following, in a fanatical detail, methodology, and merticulous anal-retention that is generally not rivaled by their scientific compatriots, one might say the Spiritual are more scientific than the Non Believer... as they are simply researching the other side of the great debate, and though different in its very nature, this does not remove it from the ranks of the definition of Science... Doctors were once considered, by the scientific community, to be hacks and pseudoscientists... and now we have Bioengineering available at your local community college.

LouSalome wrote:
"May I venture to say that I think these conversations can be and have been had without the decorative ad hominem attacks in between?"
- How dull would that be?

Belinda
Contributor
Posts: 13760
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda » August 30th, 2008, 5:31 pm

then what is your purpose in attempting to disprove their existance to those you deem naive and ignorant?
(wrote Abiathar i.e. 'their' refers to gods' existences)

My purpose is sometimes to rebut some idiotic pseudo -scientific proof that they exist because I like science, and preudo- science tells lies.

Another purpose that I have in attempting to disprove the existence of gods is when someone is trying to get religious indoctrination established in a school.

Another reason for me to attempt to disprove the existence of gods is that I like reason, and it is not reasonable to assume that the theory of a supernatural Creator-god is true.

A further purpose that I may have in trying to disprove the existence of gods is to try to curtail the excessive power of religious people who think they have a remit from God to withold dignity in dying from terminally ill people.

User avatar
Akhenaten
Posts: 209
Joined: August 29th, 2008, 6:22 pm

Post by Akhenaten » August 31st, 2008, 7:17 am

As it appears that the original thread creator has left, I will carry on the argument, if only for the sake that this thread amuses me.

My purpose is sometimes to rebut some idiotic pseudo -scientific proof that they exist because I like science, and preudo- science tells lies.
- What is and what is not pseudoscience is meerly a matter of perception, as we have deemed all new sciences this term within the past two centuries... even to the life long scholars and scientists of the day, Copernicus was meerly an 'idiot,' and they backed this claim with thousands of years of compiled research.
Another purpose that I have in attempting to disprove the existence of gods is when someone is trying to get religious indoctrination established in a school.


- Do not get me wrong, I agree with you, however what means of justification do you have to disprove of this practice?

Another reason for me to attempt to disprove the existence of gods is that I like reason, and it is not reasonable to assume that the theory of a supernatural Creator-god is true.
- I will argue that, through the logarithmic functioning of our viewable universe, and its abilities to act counter-intuitive to mathematical calculation, shows logical infustructure. Though, granted logic meerly being a concept created roughly 3,000 years ago, the logic that we use is on a human scale, and as such we ask whether bacteria truly understand the petry dish.

I do, however, grant the fact that the concept of some watchful guardian, or even an omnipotent being that sits in the sky and issues out the occasional commandment, is almost completely unreasoning. This, however, does not negate the fact that the pathing, layout, and trajectory of bodies within our universe all conform to a logical structure that even we, after 25 million or so years of evolution (I have strange views), can understand. If we accept a 25 million year history of Mankind as we recognize him, which I assure you is a vast ammount greater than science allocates, then we are barely evolved in comparison to even the Dinosaurs. Having roamed for a vast less time than most of the species we interact with, and to see the logic behind it all, it is fairly obvious that it was, indeed, logically plotted.

As we're fully aware that humans did not create the universe (aside from a few outside theories), then something had to... granted this something may have meerly been a spark that resembled a thought, this thought formulating the fundamental basis of our 'physical laws.' Scientifically speaking, we would call this a Quantum Phase Variance, inwhich we know can happen, where-in there is a universal shift in atomic physics... aka changing everything from as it was before.

Hopefully the fact that Hawkings and many other mainstream scientists accept Quantum Mechanics as fact, this should be scientific enough, using only logic as a basis.

(P.S. again, I said nothing about the existance of an invisible man whom makes old men build boats and climb mountains. Infact I have a wonderful dissertation on how the begin/rise of Christianity appears to be a remnant of the cult following of Aten after the death of Akhenaten II... fairly boring but you seem to bear the topic interest, and it provides refutes as I know all anti-christians love them ((P.P.S Always go with what sells.)))

A further purpose that I may have in trying to disprove the existence of gods is to try to curtail the excessive power of religious people who think they have a remit from God to withold dignity in dying from terminally ill people.
- Unfortunately, there will always be a judgement placed on the dead, and generally only by those living. Morals and standards having been created by man in the first place, and having no 'supernatural' backing to them, the dignity of the dead is only determined by those still living... fairly certain, one way or another, the dead don't really care any more.

In this, we find that the action of refuting these individuals whom declare that others will be tormented is much akin to trying to turn Everest to sand using a pick-axe. There will, though whether held by the dogmatic law of religion, or simply the judgemental mind that is simply part of the human condition, we will bless and condemn others to our own imaginary heavens and hells. The concept that there is simply a ceassation of process upon physical death is one that is hard to accept by mankind... and with that concept would be the only way to consider the dead without dignity... a dignity that cannot be condemned by others.

Whether gods exist, or they do not, has no bearing on what people believe or think. Therefore, attempting to refute the structure of something that may or may not exist, is moot by default... as it will continue to exist or not-exist either way.

Belinda
Contributor
Posts: 13760
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda » September 1st, 2008, 7:02 am

From Akhenaten Aug 31 I
do, however, grant the fact that the concept of some watchful guardian, or even an omnipotent being that sits in the sky and issues out the occasional commandment, is almost completely unreasoning. This, however, does not negate the fact that the pathing, layout, and trajectory of bodies within our universe all conform to a logical structure that even we, after 25 million or so years of evolution (I have strange views), can understand. If we accept a 25 million year history of Mankind as we recognize him, which I assure you is a vast ammount greater than science allocates, then we are barely evolved in comparison to even the Dinosaurs. Having roamed for a vast less time than most of the species we interact with, and to see the logic behind it all, it is fairly obvious that it was, indeed, logically plotted.
Claims based on fine tuning of the universe have to be compared with the probability that there are countless universes some of which can bear life, some of which can bear conscious life.

It is illogical that Creator-god both established a universe that is fine-tuned for conscious life, and also that this same Creator-god can choose to intervene in his creation: the fine-tuning theory is consistent with deism only and not with Trinitarian Christianity or Islam.

Belinda
Contributor
Posts: 13760
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda » September 1st, 2008, 7:12 am

Quote:
Another purpose that I have in attempting to disprove the existence of gods is when someone is trying to get religious indoctrination established in a school. (Belinda wrote)


- Do not get me wrong, I agree with you, however what means of justification do you have to disprove of this practice?
(Akhenaten wrote)

My justification is that indoctrination is inconsistent with education in any free country. Education teaches skills of scepticism,reasoning,compassion. Training can be and often is compatible with education, but there is a qualitative difference between training and indoctrination. Indoctrination contradicts the value to the individual and to a free society of scepticism, reason and compassion.

Post Reply