Jump to content


Photo

The "ill" Logic Of Atheism An D Agnosticism


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 August 2017 - 07:16 AM

The "Ill" Logic of Atheism and Agnosticism

There are over 7.5 billion beings on planet earth. The average person will know approximately 2300 people in their lifetime. That's far less than 1% which would be 75 million people.

Let's look at the alleged athist's logic. At any point in time most of us will know someooone that the other will not know. We believe our friends who may not be know by the other side actually exist. We often have close relationships with people others may not know. Is there anybody you don't know? How about 7.5 billion intelligent beings? Do you see how ridiculous the alleged athists' reasoning is? He or she can't name !% of the earth's population but claims to know who can't exist in the entirety of the universe and beyonnd! I call such foolishness arrogant and grandiose--downright laughable! Definitely "Ill Logic!" LOL

It was Clint Walker that made the infamous stateeeement in the motion picture, Cool Hand Luke; "A man needs to know his limitations."

Last year I was in the hospital for a couple of weeks. I met 12 new people, I never knew existed (of my alloted 2300). What if I were agnostic about them and doubted they existed before I met them? How much sense would that make? Would my doubt have had any effect on them existing? "Oh, Nice to meet you, Jamie. I beelieved for a long time you didn't exist!"



#2 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 26 August 2017 - 12:49 PM

There's a difference between recognizing that there are people that we don't personally know, and the claim that an invisible, incorporeal, anthropomorphic, magical being that no one has any hard evidence for exists.

 

Your analogy is comical.



#3 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 26 August 2017 - 04:14 PM

Why do the creationists on here let Mike Summers utter nonsense fly by here without comment ? Its just embarrassing

#4 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 August 2017 - 04:56 PM

Goku said:

Posted 26 August 2017 - 01:49 PM
There's a difference between recognizing that there are people that we don't personally know, and the claim that an invisible, incorporeal, anthropomorphic, magical being that no one has any hard evidence for exists.

What you don't wish to acknowledge is that your mind is a finite souce of information and you don't know what you don't know which my post demonstrated!

Your analogy is comical.

So is your know it all attitude!

So is the claim that an invisib non testable hypotheis called evolution caused the human mind body the most complicated mechanism (for want of a better term) in the known universe.

Evolution is your puppet not mine! I think evo is a very silly idea.



#5 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 August 2017 - 05:02 PM

Wibble  said:

[quote]

 August 2017 - 05:14 PM
Why do the creationists on here let Mike Summers utter nonsense fly by here without comment ? Its just embarrassing

‚Äč[/quoe]

 

It's called freedom of speech!



#6 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 26 August 2017 - 07:36 PM

What you don't wish to acknowledge is that your mind is a finite souce of information and you don't know what you don't know which my post demonstrated!

 

My mind is infinite - thank you very much!

 

So is your know it all attitude!

So is the claim that an invisib non testable hypotheis called evolution caused the human mind body the most complicated mechanism (for want of a better term) in the known universe.

Evolution is your puppet not mine! I think evo is a very silly idea.

 

I suppose it is a character flaw; even an infinite mind cannot be perfect, although it is a perfect imperfection.

 

As you say information is non-physical, so it is any surprise that an invisible theory is behind the most complicated mechanism in the known universe?

 

You have it backwards; we are the puppets of evolution, and eternal non-opposition is just ghastly so evolution created creationists.



#7 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 August 2017 - 11:37 PM

 
Goku said:

My mind is infinite - thank you very much!

 

Then name my three brothers.
Also I though you were polytheistic?

Goku said: 
I suppose it is a character flaw; even an infinite mind cannot be perfect, although it is a perfect imperfection.
 
As you say information is non-physical, so it is any surprise that an invisible theory is behind the most complicated mechanism in the known universe?
 
You have it backwards; we are the puppets of evolution, and eternal non-opposition is just ghastly so evolution created creationists.

Evo is not a theory but an hypothosis

Or you have it backwards. I can see your mouth moving. LOL


 



#8 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 27 August 2017 - 01:04 AM

Then name my three brothers.

Also I though you were polytheistic?

 

I wouldn't want to show off.

 

I'm pantheistic; I am a manifestation of God. Thou shalt not tempt God, no?
 

Evo is not a theory but an hypothosis

Or you have it backwards. I can see your mouth moving. LOL

 

Odd given that it is called the "theory of evolution". After all isn't evolution 'just a theory'.

 

Are you able to distinguish between the phenomena itself and the human theory about the phenomena?



#9 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 27 August 2017 - 08:50 AM

Goku,

Then name my three brothers.
Also I though you were polytheistic?
 
I wouldn't want to show off.

LOL Humor me! Draw from your all knowing mind. Speak from the chair.

I'm pantheistic; I am a manifestation of God. Thou shalt not tempt God, no?

Well, you do believe in God (I guess)
Why do you claim to be an atheist? Don't you think you exist?

Mike: Evo is not a theory but an hypothosis

Or you have it backwards. I can see your mouth moving. LOL

Odd given that it is called the "theory of evolution". After all isn't evolution 'just a theory'.

It's supposed to become a theory when it is tested and results in a repeatable effect (like the theory of gravity). That hasn' been done for evo. Show me a living transitional on its way to morphing into a different body type!
 

Are you able to distinguish between the phenomena itself and the human theory about the phenomena?

It's not a phenomena unless it is observable. It's not a theory unless it has been tested with repeatable results. Gravity is a theory because we observe things fall to earth! Get it?



#10 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 27 August 2017 - 09:13 AM

It's not the best argument, but it's a fact that virtually everybody believes in the existence of beings, events or facts he doesn't have a shred of evidence for. A lot of this is believed, simply because some books told him so or because other people do the same. 

 

One of my favorites is that XY is a fact, because it was on TV or written in an reputable publication. There they usually cite "a scientist" saying something. Then people believe it, because this man has studied it and hence must be correct. This is the same way people believe in religious teachings, because their priest tells them so and apparently everybody in the parish does do the same. 

 

Taken faith is based of an inner conviction which isn't testable for another person. But there is plenty of rational arguments for a believe in a supreme being that indeed is compliant and congruent with the biblical based Christian teachings about God. One can of course chose to not believe this and with some creativity and sophistry shoot down those arguments. 


  • Mike Summers likes this

#11 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 27 August 2017 - 09:34 AM

Well said Mark!

#12 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 27 August 2017 - 10:42 AM

My mind is infinite - thank you very much!

ah yes, it's so nice to be young and dumb.
i used to be that way, i was even bullet proof at one time in my life.

#13 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 27 August 2017 - 11:38 AM

 

 

What If: ah yes, it's so nice to be young and dumb.
i used to be that way, i was even bullet proof at one time in my life

 

Well you've still got a fair way to go if you think Goku's dumb mate.

 

He does make a logical delineation between a natural being and a supernatural God. The former being proven. After all it's not amazing if a human exists we didn't think existed.

 

Natural persons are 100% known or "1/1" if you like. From a purely sceptical outlook, it isn't all that unreasonable to not entertain a being that is unproven, or a nature which has no direct evidence as such. (supernature)

 

Mike's point is also valid; that we don't know who or what exists from our limited perspective. An agnostic position might be more reasonable, in being strictly neutral, but if a person deems God to be an absurd notion, you can't force them to believe something which is unbelievable to them.

 

It seems to me there's only two possibilities;

 

1. Goku said it tongue in cheek. Or;

2. He meant there is no barrier to thought.

 

He didn't say he was omniscient, remember, which is different from infinite. There is a type of inifinity to our thinking in that there is no barrier to our creativity and learning, etc...the only thing that really stops us is a finite lifespan.



#14 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 27 August 2017 - 03:28 PM

Well you've still got a fair way to go if you think Goku's dumb mate.

it was friendly banter.
no, i'm not going to put you on ignore. 

He does make a logical delineation between a natural being and a supernatural God. The former being proven. After all it's not amazing if a human exists we didn't think existed.
 
Natural persons are 100% known or "1/1" if you like. From a purely sceptical outlook, it isn't all that unreasonable to not entertain a being that is unproven, or a nature which has no direct evidence as such. (supernature)

question is, what is "supernature"?
IMO, any kind of "nature" that doesn't follow our natural laws cannot exist.
water will never run uphill, perpetual machines will never be invented or discovered.
 

Mike's point is also valid; that we don't know who or what exists from our limited perspective. An agnostic position might be more reasonable, in being strictly neutral, but if a person deems God to be an absurd notion, you can't force them to believe something which is unbelievable to them.

the meaning of "absurd" needs qualification.
it isn't god per se, but what everyone says he is.
furthermore, what is the nature of this god?
what enabled this "being" to "create" life?

my position on all of this is there may have been a "god" at one time, but not now.
then again i'm in no position to say that.

#15 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 27 August 2017 - 04:13 PM

Here is the incongruency I observe in Goku et al. While he does not claim to be omnicient, he makes statemnts which would rquire being all knowing to to justify.
"Most illogical captain!"



#16 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 27 August 2017 - 04:16 PM

 

 

What If: it was friendly banter.
no, i'm not going to put you on ignore. 

 

Fair enough.

 

 

 

What If: question is, what is "supernature"?
IMO, any kind of "nature" that doesn't follow our natural laws cannot exist.
water will never run uphill, perpetual machines will never be invented or discovered.

 

Nobody can know supernature. What exists in this universe and it's laws, may only belong to this universe. That's one reason I don't accept Big Bang because if something comes before the universe, which is basically some element of the universe, it's to put the cart before the horse. So to say any "nature" that breaks the laws of this particular universe doesn't exist, is a non-sequitur, IMHO.

 

I see this universe as designed to be what it is, supernature, is a realm of existence that can't be scientifically defined, "if" it exists. 

 

 

 

What If: the meaning of "absurd" needs qualification.
it isn't god per se, but what everyone says he is.
furthermore, what is the nature of this god?
what enabled this "being" to "create" life?

 

I was only saying that from Goku's perspective he may find God unbelievable in the way that I would find Santa Claus unbelievable, meaning that some people can't treat God as a possibility because to their minds they just can't see God as an entertainable notion. Can we demand they be agnostic? It's up to them if they choose to believe God can't be taken seriously. I don't think Goku is saying "God certainly doesn't exist", anyway, he just doesn't believe in God/s as an atheist.



#17 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 27 August 2017 - 04:28 PM

 What if said:
 

What If: question is, what is "supernature"?
IMO, any kind of "nature" that doesn't follow our natural laws cannot exist.

A god like decree if ever there was one! No such thing as miracles and anomolies?



#18 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 28 August 2017 - 04:06 AM

Why do the creationists on here let Mike Summers utter nonsense fly by here without comment ? ...

.
And the answer.
.

...
Evolution is your puppet not mine! I think evo is a very silly idea.



#19 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 28 August 2017 - 04:31 AM

...
Last year I was in the hospital for a couple of weeks. I met 12 new people, I never knew existed (of my alloted 2300). What if I were agnostic about them and doubted they existed before I met them? How much sense would that make? Would my doubt have had any effect on them existing? "Oh, Nice to meet you, Jamie. I beelieved for a long time you didn't exist!"

.
Unbleeping believable. The asylum for the insane.

If we were to freeze the Earth for a moment, then we may take a count and discover X billions of people. Now, un-freeze the Earth.

The Agnostic is told there are approximately X billions people on Earth and that he is to take X to be it's population for the purposes of an illustration. He is told to write on a piece of paper all the names of people whom he knows and provide the total count. Let's assign that to be N. He subtracts N from X and we are led by the OP to believe that the Agnostic doubts the existence of X-N people on Earth.

Did I convey that properly?

Who leads the asylum for the insane? Perhaps, a better, less-combative question is, who is the arbiter of the definition of "agnostic?"

#20 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 28 August 2017 - 05:48 AM

LOL Humor me! Draw from your all knowing mind. Speak from the chair.

 

Names are pretty things, but useless. Your brothers are who they are regardless of what vocalization you humans attach to them.

 

Well, you do believe in God (I guess)
Why do you claim to be an atheist? Don't you think you exist?

 

I am but a fragment cast within the whole. The label of atheism is there to highlight that I am not 'on the fence' regarding your religion.

 

 

It's supposed to become a theory when it is tested and results in a repeatable effect (like the theory of gravity). That hasn' been done for evo. Show me a living transitional on its way to morphing into a different body type!

 

 

evolution.jpg

 

 

 

It's not a phenomena unless it is observable. It's not a theory unless it has been tested with repeatable results. Gravity is a theory because we observe things fall to earth! Get it?

 

So unless your finite mind observes it, it doesn't exist? - The arrogance!

 

We do observe evolution; we observe 'micro' evolution all the time in the real time, and we observe various patterns in the fossil record which constitute macro evolution. Gravity is not a theory because we observe things fall; it is a theory because it explains 'why' things fall. When we observe the patterns in the fossil record that is analogous to observing objects fall, and it is the theory of evolution that explains why we see the patterns we see similar to how the theory of gravity explains why things fall. Get it?

 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users