"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist"

[nosos]

nonsense. you can deny that there are any non-rational decisions at all, bizarre versions of self-interest, any old thing.

Was that to me or In Bloom?

 

[Fruitloop]

No but the cognitive category of 'emotions' is the only way we're capable of understanding non-rational actions iyswim.

No it isn't.

I've always wondered what psycho-emotional need hardline anti-theism serves in people. It often reminds me of the kind of homophobia that may or may not be linked to the person in question secretly wanting to take one up the arse . . .

Surely there are more justifiable reasons for being anti-religious? If there had been gay wars, a gay inquisition, or murderous gay-justified imperialism I might be anti-gay as well (well, probably not, since gayness doesn't represent a choice on the part of the individual, but that's a bit of a sidetrack)

 

[belboid]

Was that to me or In Bloom?

well, it fits for either I think really - tho twas to you.

(add 'the sub-conscious' to the list as well!)

 

[In Bloom]

well, it fits for either I think really - tho twas to you.

So you wouldn't regard any of the following:

• Self-harm
• Sacrificing one's life for another
• Belief in ghosts/spirits/God/the supernatural despite the total lack of evidence

As irrational then?

 

[belboid]

It's not about what I believe, or what you believe, the point was that your argument contained a number of unspecified assumptions within it that actually negate its logical 'proof'.

Your examples above are all arguable as well, I might very well agree with you about them (tho I may not as well, the inclusion of the category 'self harm' seems a meaningless one, its either wrong or tautological).

 

[In Bloom]

It's not about what I believe, or what you believe, the point was that your argument contained a number of unspecified assumptions within it that actually negate its logical 'proof'.

Your examples above are all arguable as well, I might very well agree with you about them (tho I may not as well, the inclusion of the category 'self harm' seems a meaningless one, its either wrong or tautological).

My point was that irrational behaviour occurs and that emotions explain this. Also, what is wrong with the inclusion of self harm? Doing yourself damage with a sharp object can hardly be described as rational.

 

[belboid]

sigh.....

You have not established that irrational behaviour occurs. Whilst I might well generally agree with you, you have not established the point. See Donna Ferentes' 'human nature' thread in general for more on that kind of argument.

Self harm - well, 'doing yourself damage with a sharp object' might be rational if it led to a decrease in/decreased risk of other kinds of harm.

You are asserting your own opinions as incontrovertible fact - its just like St. Augustine (??) did in his proofs of the existence of god (the something ological proofs, the ones that weren't Anselm's ontological argument), this is my assumption, so everything fits with it and proves it. Logically very very weak.

 

[Azrael23]

So you wouldn't regard any of the following:

• Self-harm
• Sacrificing one's life for another
• Belief in ghosts/spirits/God/the supernatural despite the total lack of evidence

As irrational then?

Why do you find it so difficult to understand that belief in spirituality or the supernatural is based on personal experience....you don`t just wake up one day and go "oooh I believe in ghosts" Jeeeez.
I don`t mean to be rude but your actually quite arrogant, simply because you have no wish to believe something because you somehow consider yourself above such concepts thats not to say other people don`t know better.

 

[In Bloom]

Before we continue, can we agree upon a definition of irrational?

 

[In Bloom]

Why do you find it so difficult to understand that belief in spirituality or the supernatural is based on personal experience....you don`t just wake up one day and go "oooh I believe in ghosts" Jeeeez.
I don`t mean to be rude but your actually quite arrogant, simply because you have no wish to believe something because you somehow consider yourself above such concepts thats not to say other people don`t know better.

Its not about what I wish to believe or what anybody else wishes to believe, its about what is logical and what is shown by the evidence.

 

[Fruitloop]

Innit. Nowt wrong with having the courage of your convictions, IMO.

 

[Azrael23]

Its not about what I wish to believe or what anybody else wishes to believe, its about what is logical and what is shown by the evidence.

Said who? Like I said some knowledge cannot be found using the scientific method. Science isn`t perfect, get over it. People who tie themselves to this black and white perception of reality are simply constraining themselves. IMHO of course

 

[belboid]

Said who? Like I said some knowledge cannot be found using the scientific method. Science isn`t perfect, get over it. People who tie themselves to this black and white perception of reality are simply constraining themselves. IMHO of course

well logic obviously isn't for you then...

 

[In Bloom]

Said who? Like I said some knowledge cannot be found using the scientific method. Science isn`t perfect, get over it. People who tie themselves to this black and white perception of reality are simply constraining themselves. IMHO of course

Call me crazy, but I'm quite happy constraining myself to reality.

 

[Azrael23]

I simply believe we need a balance of logic and intuition. A balance of the hemispheres, not an enforced doctrine of logic even in subjects where the rules of logic do not apply.
If i`m honest I hate the way some people see that spiritualism doesn`t conform to what they judge reality by and then see fit to write it off. In reality they simply do not understand it.

 

[In Bloom]

I simply believe we need a balance of logic and intuition. A balance of the hemispheres, not an enforced doctrine of logic even in subjects where the rules of logic do not apply.

Which subjects are these then? Sounds like special pleading to me.

 

[Azrael23]

What subjects?

Music, Spirituality, Ethics, literature, Art etc.

You know, all the things that set us apart from animals.

 

[Fruitloop]

You can make an assertion that relies on non-logical evidence - illumination, revelation or insight etc - but you can't use it as a premise from which to reason, or to oppose some rational contention - it has to remain just an assertion.

 

[belboid]

What subjects?

Music, Spirituality, Ethics, literature, Art etc.

You know, all the things that set us apart from animals.

rules of logic apply quite strictly in much of music, at the very least. many many artists have insisted on the role of logic in art, and absolutely in ethics as well. You are doing just what IB was earlier, but from 'the other side' as it were.

 

[In Bloom]

What subjects?

Music, Spirituality, Ethics, literature, Art etc.

In what way does logic not apply to the above?

You know, all the things that set us apart from animals.

We are animals.

 

[gurrier]

I simply believe we need a balance of logic and intuition. A balance of the hemispheres, not an enforced doctrine of logic even in subjects where the rules of logic do not apply.

My intuition tells me that your intuition is a load of crap and your spirituality is nonsense and just formed from whatever random fluffy nice things float through your head. Happier now that logic doesn't come into it and the argument is based on intuition?

I thought not. You aren't arguing for intuition as a way of evaluating the world, you're arguing for _your_ intuition, or to put it another way, you're arguing for your right to spout whatever you like without anybody daring to ask you what evidence you have. Of course you have a right to spout your vague and wooly nonsense, but you don't have a right to stop people pointing out just how silly it is and some of them will. Tough world.

 

[phildwyer]

In The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins asserts that the theory of evolution makes is possible to be an "intellectually satisfied atheist". Personally, I think this is nonsense, in the absense of positive evidence for a deity, there is no logical alternative to atheism, whether or not we can explain the diversity of life on Earth. Of course it does make it easier to debate with some theists, who won't take "How the fuck should I know?" for an answer.

Bloom, what "positive evidence" for the existence of a deity would you like to see? The empirical evidence that confronts us can be interpreted with equal coherence to "prove" the existence or non-existence of God. The significant evidence is rational, not empirical, and those who have thought about the issue rationally, as opposed to empirically, have virtually always arrived at a theistic position. As for Darwin, he has long been discredited by empirical means. To take only the most daramtic instance, he did not know about, and his theory denies the possibility of, comet impacts that determine the course of evolution.

 

[belboid]

those who have thought about the [existence of a deity] rationally, as opposed to empirically, have virtually always arrived at a theistic position.

did you really just say that?

 

[kyser_soze]

The significant evidence is rational, not empirical, and those who have thought about the issue rationally, as opposed to empirically, have virtually always arrived at a theistic position.

Tosh. I've thought about God's non-existance from the perspective that there hasto be a God because the universe exists and I found my arguments unconvincing to say the least.

Thinking about it rationally is no more or less likely to make you end up a theist - unless you classify believing that massively random chance events imply the existance of God, which I don't.

 

[phildwyer]

My intuition tells me that your intuition is a load of crap and your spirituality is nonsense and just formed from whatever random fluffy nice things float through your head. Happier now that logic doesn't come into it and the argument is based on intuition?

I thought not. You aren't arguing for intuition as a way of evaluating the world, you're arguing for _your_ intuition, or to put it another way, you're arguing for your right to spout whatever you like without anybody daring to ask you what evidence you have. Of course you have a right to spout your vague and wooly nonsense, but you don't have a right to stop people pointing out just how silly it is and some of them will. Tough world.

While I have my own difficulties with the concept of "intuition," Gurrier's violent and aggressive attacks on anyone who dares question the tired verities of empirical science recalls nothing so much as the Catholic Inquisition. Scientists form a self-interested, priveleged and dogmatic caste in our society that acn be aptly compared to the priests of the middle ages. The differene being that priests only wanted to rule the world, while scientists are actively destroying it. As Gurrier's fury clearly shows, the merest hint of opposition drives them into a witch-burning, heretic-hunting frenzy of vengeful spite. Well, some of them anyway.

 

[In Bloom]

Bloom, what "positive evidence" for the existence of a deity would you like to see? The empirical evidence that confronts us can be interpreted with equal coherence to "prove" the existence or non-existence of God. The significant evidence is rational, not empirical, and those who have thought about the issue rationally, as opposed to empirically, have virtually always arrived at a theistic position.

Please, just stop waffling and demonstrate the supposedly self-evident existence of God. What possible evidence or argument exists which proves the existence of God?

As for Darwin, he has long been discredited by empirical means. To take only the most daramtic instance, he did not know about, and his theory denies the possibility of, comet impacts that determine the course of evolution.

The modern theory of evolution (which has changed and developed since Darwin, Dawkins tends to attribute way to much importance to Darwin, IMO), makes no claims about comet impacts, afaik.

 

[In Bloom]

While I have my own difficulties with the concept of "intuition," Gurrier's violent and aggressive attacks on anyone who dares question the tired verities of empirical science recalls nothing so much as the Catholic Inquisition. Scientists form a self-interested, priveleged and dogmatic caste in our society that acn be aptly compared to the priests of the middle ages. The differene being that priests only wanted to rule the world, while scientists are actively destroying it. As Gurrier's fury clearly shows, the merest hint of opposition drives them into a witch-burning, heretic-hunting frenzy of vengeful spite. Well, some of them anyway.

You really are mad, aren't you?

 

[Fruitloop]

Although it would be fair to say, I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition

 

[kyser_soze]

The difference being that priests only wanted to rule the world, while scientists are actively destroying it.

I'm pretty sure that any of the inidigenous populations wiped out or 'saved' by priests would have a very different perspective on this. That allied to the fact that more primitive societies were just as destructive to the natural environment as we are - it just happened over longer time scales.

 

[phildwyer]

Tosh. I've thought about God's non-existance from the perspective that there hasto be a God because the universe exists and I found my arguments unconvincing to say the least.

The rational argument for the existence of God doesn't depend on the fact that the universe exists, it depends on the fact that the human mind exists in its current form. The mind exhibits qualities that do not arise from experience but make experience possible. So where do these qualities come from? Your answer to that question will be your definition of "God."