|
|
|
|
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/7/2008 7:23:20 PM | Where does the geological column exist,protected and unmolested? Look at the rest of that sentence,and sequence.
Are abiogenisis and evelution separate?
As to your erosion reference,look to the Grand Canyon in the American Southwest.Were those sharp corners cut by the Colorado? At twice it's current speed and volume,would'nt it still have a smoothing/rounding effect? Even more so? Consider that area as a silt plain,after a global flood. Plate shift after such an event might cause a freshly formed lake or sea to drain rapidly,causing that kind of erosion in the mud plain before the drying process changed the rest to sedimentary rock.
And to the fake human footprints with dinosaur footprints,in Glen Rose ,Texas, back in the Thirties[I think,if memory serves] ,a local flood exposed a long series of dinosaur prints.In the bottom of those were the prints of a human[oid{i think they were size 18 or so}].Someone suggested as you that they were fake.Being in Texas,some body called their bluff,using that days earth movers,peeled back around a quarter mile of the strata above those prints.Huge multi ton plates of rock.Yup,you guessed it. More sets of the double prints.
Which gender evolved first,friend? Producing itself would negate the need for its sexual counterpart,if it was pruduced without sexual reproduction. Why,then would the other be needed?
Personally,I think macro-evolution is mathmatically impossible.Micro-evolution in a specific environment might be a whole 'nuther mule.
I'll have to ask God about that,too. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/7/2008 8:23:22 PM | Lucky Vet, I bought 7 of these DVDs (Zeitgeist) and asked that they be distrubuted after viewing. We all know -- research is slanted -- Yes?
JustA Little Crazy, thank you so much for your investment here -- OMG -- where, now did you get this information? It was a total class act 101 basic arguement -- I could get an A by the way -- I was listening.
Counter argument: Rockondon -- name calling and/or demeaning another is a profession of a professed arguement loser -- not that I disagree with your counter, but can you please stick with data?
JustALittleCrazy ... thank you -- huge contribution of your time and obvious investment - I'd of told you thanks personally but your email settings exclude me. To all others, I have no contention ... still listening to those who have invested themselves in this topic ... (sliding out of here now) ... had to say thanks though .....(hunkering down). | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/7/2008 8:49:43 PM |
RE msg 20 by themadfiddler:
Normally, I love your posts, but I have to point out a few things here. I hope you don't mind.
Not at all, always appreciated.
There is a similar argument that every set must be contained in a set. This led to Russell's Paradox. However, as a direct result, Russell decided to rewrite the foundations of Mathematics, and Ernst Zermelo had to play with the basic axioms of Mathematics to exclude the paradox, because it showed that Mathematics was inherently paradoxical. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox
...
As you can see, you can never properly define R(L), even though we do.
One can bring a similar argument to show that any number is a representation of a set that has a similar problem, and just about anything in logic can be shown to suffer the same problem, and one can by this method show that nothing can ever be defined.
It's just not a simple argument, and no-one has a good way to deal with it.
And I perhaps overly reduced it...but as a matter of simplification to a certain degree, I think the key here might be a matter of consistency and ability to relax dogmatic thinking. If the atheist or non-believer is being portrayed in a light here that is a sense a polar opposite to the fanatic, then we have as much of an illusion as the description of the fanatic with unshakable blind faith. Portraying Dawkins or Hitchins as hideabound to one point of view is quite inaccurate. They just happen to use scientific methodology as their cornerstone rather than religious belief. The two views can be entertained by an individual even though they are essentially mutually exclusive if taken to their extremes.
That is true of practically any field of interest. But then, it might be wise to talk to someone who has been religious for a while, rather than someone who has newly changed their opinions, as it can take a while for any new idea to settle in to someone's consciousness. It might also be wise to consider that many religious people have interests in science, archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, comparative religion, psychology, and many other fields, and there have been many religious polymaths.
Agreed. I don't think the depiction of the atheists/non-believers versus the believers is really that accurate.
The shoe can be turned around equally as well.
Atheism isn't logically necessary by definition, because it is a simplistic answer to a difficult problem. It's an answer, and an answer that many intelligent people believe in, with no delusions whatsoever. But there are as many questions that can be brought to bear on atheism as can be brought to bear on religion, if only people will be logical about it.
I'm assuming you mean logical necessarily by definition. Is it a simplistic answer? I don't agree. I think it follows Occam's Razor strictly in this case and does not multiply entities unecessarily, not positing a divine being or world when one need not do so. Anti-theism might be taking it that extra step further and putting a bee in some bonnets but really, I think they on the whole would be few and far between. The greatest noise one seems to be hearing from atheists of late is due to the teaming of neo-conservatives and religious conservatives of several cultural stripes in dangerous positions of political power potentially endangering the liberties of all people...as that is the possible case it is little wonder that some of them might be worried.
Currently there are few news stories of humanist atheist outrages, pogroms and suicide bombings worldwide...not to put too fine a point on it, but it would seem the rational and logical theists need to grab their less rational brothers and sisters and give them all a stern talking to. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/7/2008 9:19:48 PM | This thread should be titled:
The logical error made by atheists and theists.
The error is in assuming either or both are logical.
There is no logic in the belief(s) of atheist.
If their was their belief(s) would not be based on theory.
There is no logic in the belief(s) of theist.
If their was their belief(s) would not be based on faith. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/7/2008 9:33:15 PM | Christians, a must watch:
zeistgeistmovie dot com, first 30 minutes.
Jesus was a clone of 3000BC Horus egyptian Sun god. Pagan in origin. Over 30 such gods with same attributes existed centuries prior and after the alleged Jesus period.
This was a poorly researched movie. The writers have as much integrity as a typical Creationist (i.e. none). | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/7/2008 9:37:39 PM | Catholics ARE Christians; saying "Catholics and Christians" is like saying "black people and humans" or "German shepherds and dogs". If you go to countries like Spain, Italy, or the Philippines and you say "I'm a Christian", most people there will assume you're a member of the Catholic Church unless you specifically say otherwise.
I agree with you, but I'm surprised you haven't run into people claiming that you're not a Christian because you're a Catholic. There seems to be a widespread Protestant belief that Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and Mormons are not Christians. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/7/2008 10:01:02 PM | Are abiogenisis and evelution separate?
Yes. Evolution cannot occur until life already exists. Evolution doesn't care how life came into existence. Evolution would occur whether life popped up spontaneously from the primordial soup or if god created life last Tuesday.
And to the fake human footprints with dinosaur footprints,in Glen Rose ,Texas, back in the Thirties[I think,if memory serves] ,a local flood exposed a long series of dinosaur prints.In the bottom of those were the prints of a human[oid{i think they were size 18 or so}].Someone suggested as you that they were fake.Being in Texas,some body called their bluff,using that days earth movers,peeled back around a quarter mile of the strata above those prints.Huge multi ton plates of rock.Yup,you guessed it. More sets of the double prints.
Even mainstream Creationists have given up on these tracks.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
Which gender evolved first,friend? Producing itself would negate the need for its sexual counterpart,if it was pruduced without sexual reproduction. Why,then would the other be needed?
Having two genders allows for more genetic diversity. It's a survival advantage. Some species can reproduce both sexually and asexually. Evolving gender doesn't mean that asexual reproduction is necessarily lost.
Personally,I think macro-evolution is mathmatically impossible.Micro-evolution in a specific environment might be a whole 'nuther mule.
"Macro-evolution" is not mathematically impossible, it's observational reality!
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/7/2008 10:41:19 PM | CountIbli said:
I agree with you, but I'm surprised you haven't run into people claiming that you're not a Christian because you're a Catholic. There seems to be a widespread Protestant belief that Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and Mormons are not Christians.
Oh, all the time. But a lot of people are just innocently ignorant of the distinctions, so I wanted to make that clarification. Actually, to be honest, I've heard more than one Catholic say, "I'm not a Christian, I'm Catholic." That makes me even more annoyed because that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 5:05:07 AM | The biggest logical mistake Atheists make is the insistence upon knowledge verifying belief.
You often here the Atheist say, " How can you believe in something you don't know exists " ?
Well of course, you can only believe in something you don't know exists !
Believing is outside the realm of knowledge.
If there is no way of intellectually knowing something, then it can only be believed.
I know the glass exists, I know the car exists, the table, the flag pole.
We have no way of knowing God exists.
Therefore, it's possible only to believe God exists since we have no way of truly knowing Gods existence.
The religious frequently claim that they know God exists and this is also a logical fallacy.
If it were possible to know God, in the same way as to know a table or chair, then it wouldn't be possible to believe God exists anymore.
Any God which can be known to exist is an obvious fraud. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 6:45:09 AM |
The biggest logical mistake Atheists make is the insistence upon knowledge verifying belief.
You often here the Atheist say, " How can you believe in something you don't know exists " ?
Well of course, you can only believe in something you don't know exists !
Believing is outside the realm of knowledge.
If there is no way of intellectually knowing something, then it can only be believed.
I believe I'll go out to dinner tonight, that doesn't mean I have to put aside all reason & logic to believe so... | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 9:30:30 AM | The thing I notice about alot of Atheists is that they link all beliefs in (G)god(s) together... It's like the 3 main monotheisms don't make any sense to them so they throw out all perspectives over 3... There are beliefs in the divine which don't contradict logic, compliment the big bang and attempt to make sense of the creators creator paradox.
When I found out there was no Santa Clause, I stopped believing in the Christian perspective of God... My neices and nephews still believed and when their faces lit up, my Mom leaned over and said "See? The spirit of Santa still lives"... That made me realize that although that perspective of God was a lie (imo) that the spirit of It lived in us... The search for my Path immediately followed and I even went through an Atheist phase but it was cut short when I figured out I was agnostic... I still have agnostic tendancies even with my own beliefs which only help me fine tune and and keep a somewhat open mind.
All I'm saying is that if you find one belief to be nonsensical, doesn't mean they should all be looked down on... You never know if or when something not empirically proven will show empirical or comparative evidence and make sense to you.
Ignoring something that makes sense to you just because it lacks empirical proof seems... Illogical.
Not that I'm saying there's any that have to make sense to you, but why rule out the possibilty when all the facts have not been heard? | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 9:56:55 AM | One can believe they will go to dinner tonight but that doesn't mean it will happen.
Until you've eaten the meal, dinner is only a possibility. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 11:33:24 AM |
The religious frequently claim that they know God exists and this is also a logical fallacy.
If it were possible to know God, in the same way as to know a table or chair, then it wouldn't be possible to believe God exists anymore.
Any God which can be known to exist is an obvious fraud.
What about the existence of a 'God' as an idea, a thought, a concept or a 'presence' within oneself? These are undeniably very real within the individual, to the individual, as much so as an atheist's brain insisting to them that the 'facts', proof and evidence not adding up is real to them.
If a person feels or experiences something, is it not logical for them to assume it exists? Just because you can't sit on love, or put a plate on it, doesn't mean love doesn't exist. The pain of grief or heartache is every bit as real to the individual as that which they'd feel pulling a burning log out of a fire.
From my point of view, that there are so many people on the planet who interpret that *energy* which they feel inside themselves to be a 'God', and find comfort and guidance in doing so, confirms for me 'God's' 'existence'.
(*Energy* = call it what you will...'God', ego, spirit, life force, self awareness, the mind ...whatever...if people interpret and define it for themselves as 'God', why care? It is like arguing about whose favourite colour is the best colour.)
We each are alone behind our eyes, with our thoughts, feelings and questions about what we see and experience. It seems to me to be natural for us to want to seek answers and to be part of something bigger, which - I think - is where team religions come into play, for better or worse.
Team religions, scriptures, doctrines and dogmas - to my mind - are simply historical attempts, kept alive by generational tradition, to define, explain, quantify and claim the experience - again, for better or worse. They are tool kits, and instruction manuals, for those who find them useful. Their content, and whether the original intent was to control, to divide or to bring people together is a matter of opinion and debate, certainly.
But those things are different and separate from the idea of a 'God'. To tell someone that their personal, internal experience - and the name they choose to attach to it - is invalid ... is perhaps the biggest mistake atheists make.
Opinions shared are great; opinions pushed, imposed or discounted - not so great. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 11:46:32 AM | RE msg 30 by themadfiddler:
Normally, I love your posts, but I have to point out a few things here. I hope you don't mind. Not at all, always appreciated.
And I perhaps overly reduced it...but as a matter of simplification to a certain degree, I think the key here might be a matter of consistency and ability to relax dogmatic thinking. Science and Mathematics rely upon rigorous thinking, in order to ensure that inaccuracies and fallacious arguments are kept out of those 2 subjects as much as possible. So while "dogmatic" thinking is not acceptable, thinking that just stops at a certain point, and says "we don't need to think any more about it, is NOT acceptable. Rigorously, the argument that all effects must have a cause is extremely problematic, and speaks to our innate assumptions about existence. It's an observation, but it's an observation that most people don't understand all that well, and those that do, can see how illogical it truly is.
If the atheist or non-believer is being portrayed in a light here that is a sense a polar opposite to the fanatic, then we have as much of an illusion as the description of the fanatic with unshakable blind faith. By the same token, if the theist or "believer", is portrayed in a light that is close to the fanatical, that is just as much of an illusion. I have no interest in portraying atheists as nutcases or extremists, and I hope I made that clear in my last post, when I put:
Atheism isn't logically necessary by definition, because it is a simplistic answer to a difficult problem. It's an answer, and an answer that many intelligent people believe in, with no delusions whatsoever. But those theists who give atheists that latitude of sanity, are only asking for the same latitude, because it is only their sanity that gives them the moral requirement to consider that atheists may be sane in the first place.
Portraying Dawkins or Hitchins as hideabound to one point of view is quite inaccurate. They just happen to use scientific methodology as their cornerstone rather than religious belief. I cannot consider Dawkins or Hitches to be any form of authority whatsoever. Dawkins, because his writing is not considered logically consistent by anyone that I know who has extensive knowledge of areas in science, that is of a much greater depth and breadth than my own. For example, I was thinking the other day, that psychologists and psychiatrists point out that only they are entitled to give a diagnosis, because no-one else has the proper training. Further, they will not give a diagnosis to anyone unless they have done a one-to-one assessment. Dawkins is not a known psychologist, or a known psychiatrist, or known to have worked in that capacity, and certainly has never given a one-to-one assessment on the millions of theists in the world. So how can Dawkins make a claim that theism is delusional, when he doesn't have the training, the experience or have followed the required procedure to make any such claim. This is practice of Medicine without a licence. One has to ask: How can anyone reputable ever trust Dawkins about anything in Science, given that he's broken a fundamental of Science, that being never to publish without being in the position to make the appropriate claim?
When we look at Dawkins' history, that of holding such positions such as the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, which means that his skill is in writing books about science that others read and of making similar talks, that of being a good writer and a good speaker, not of being an objective scientist, it occurs to me that his skill is in making others believe what he writes and says, not because it is true, because if that was his basis, then every scientist would have the same popularity, but because he has the skill of manipulation to make others believe what he writes and says. I conclude that Dawkins would make an excellent diplomat and a fantastic lawyer, and if I was on trial, I would have Dawkins brought in as an expert witness, because people believe what he says, irrespective of the truth, but I wouldn't ever rely on Dawkins in Science or Mathematics, because there I want to find the truth, and not be manipulated into believing what I am told.
Christopher Hitchens has the same issue, because he is noted for his skill and acerbic wit as a polemicist and intellectual. So he would make a good lawyer too. He is very good at winning debates and arguments. So I would want Hitchens to testify on my behalf in a trial, but never to discuss truth with him.
This is exactly the issue that Pirsig talked about in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", that the love of study and truth was perverted by those who sought to make it political, in that Phaedrus was pushed out of his English-teaching position, solely because he engendered a love of English in his students, and the other teachers were jealous of him, and rather than ask him how he did it, so they could teach their students to love their subjects too, they chose to subtly force him out of office.
The two views can be entertained by an individual even though they are essentially mutually exclusive if taken to their extremes. Consideration of scientific methodology and religious belief are not mutually exclusive, but it would be a fallacy to assume that atheism can be the only conclusion or that only atheists are capable of such duality of belief and practice. The foremost complaint against the Talmud is that it "splits hairs", in that every situation is evaluated according to the most rigorous scientific and analytical methodology, to the extent that Rav even spent 18 months as a shepherd, just so he could learn the differences between animals so that he could understand a particular part of Talmudic law. I have yet to find any other book that analyses logic, scientific observation, or literary analysis in such a detailed way, both in breadth and in depth.
I'm assuming you mean logical necessarily by definition. Is it a simplistic answer? I don't agree. I think it follows Occam's Razor strictly in this case and does not multiply entities unnecessarily, not positing a divine being or world when one need not do so. This depends on your definition of "entities". If one is considering a purely physical argument, where the only entities are those of physical origin, then this would be an appropriate interpretation of Occam's Razor.
However, our arguments are of the intellect, and abstract in origin. For every abstract argument, there is an equivalent physical arugment, because the abstract argument is only a short-hard for following the manual process, such as the abstract proof of the Pythagorean Theorem, rather than making the same argument in a geometric and physical form, in each situation. We choose the abstract argument over the physical argument, because it is much quicker and less prone to human error, by means of innacurate measurement.
So whenever one is considering an argument of the intellect, those entites are not physical at all, but are logical concepts, because the argument itself is abstract, and only the initial situation and the result of such an argument are translated into physical terms, not the argument itself.
So from my perspective of this, Occam's Razor means "don't make any unnecessary ASSUMPTIONS", because unnecessary assumptions will translate into unnecessary logical propositions, and those entities will affect your logic off the straight and narrow.
I learned of this viewpoint, when my sister gave me a piece of paper quoting Spock from an episode of Star Trek, where he said:
"An ancestor of mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the solution." Which apparently was also a maxim of the fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes, known for his great dedication to logical deduction.
I will give you the example of the solutions of the cube root of 27, of which there are 3: 3, 3*e^(2*Pi*i/3) and 3*e^(4*Pi*i/3), of which the last 2 are complex numbers. According to the maxim "Don't multiply entities unnecessarily", one can only consider 3, because the other 2 introduce the complex number i, which is not technically necessary to find a solution.
According to the maxim "Don't introduce unnecessary assumptions", one must list all 3, because it would be unnecessary assumption to assume that complex numbers don't exist, and the non-existence of complex numbers must be proven beyond any doubt before we can consider it a necessary assumption.
I will give you a more practical example, that of the child who has an imaginary friend, who comes to his mother, and tells her that "daddy touched me in a forbidden place".
The mother knows that children imagine things that don't exist, including her child, who has an imaginary friend. The mother also knows that her husband, the child's father, has never been accused of child abuse before.
According to the maxim "Don't multiply entities unnecessarily", it would be a new entity to suggest that the husband is a paedophile, and an existing entity that the child makes things up, so the most logical conclusion is that the child imagined it
According to the maxim "Don't introduce unnecessary assumptions", one cannot be sure that it did not happen, just because the father had never been accused of abuse before, because that would be an assumption. It would also be an assumption to assume that it did happen, because the child may have imagined it.
As a result, the more logical mother would put a baby monitor hidden in her child's room, that only she can listen to, and then leave the house, so that she can hear if her husband actually does abuse the child. Most mothers just follow the maxim "Don't multiply entities unnecessarily", and just claim the child is making it all up.
I will give you another practical example, that of a robbery that takes place, with no forensic evidence found, where a paroled felon, who was convicted of robbery, lives in the vicinity, and was home alone that night, because his wife and children left him due to his being previously incarcerated, and so he is now single.
According to the maxim "Don't multiply entities unnecessarily", it would be an existing entity to suggest that paroled felon committed the crime, and a new entity to suggest that someone else did the robbery.
According to the maxim "Don't introduce unnecessary assumptions", one cannot be sure of either, because either would be an assumption, and more evidence is required to be found, before one can determine the truth.
As a result, the more logical policeman would first check other facts, such as whether the robbery was performed by a left or right-handed man, and whether the felon is right or left-handed, and this often eliminates him from suspicion. As a result, the search for suspects is widened, and it turns out that a certain man in the vicinity, who has no criminal record, and usually has very little money, is spending large amounts of money, and has just bought himself an expensive sports car, which he clearly cannot afford. A quick visit to the car dealer and other businesses that the new suspect has visited, reveals some of the money he used as payments, which turn out to have the same serial numbers as the money that was taken in the robbery, and the correct suspect is apprehended and convicted of the robbery.
Too many policemen just follow the maxim "Don't multiply entities unnecessarily", and just pin the crime on the felon, and then it turns out 10 years later, that someone comes to the police and gives a sworn statement that the other man bragged about how he did this robbery, with exact details of how the robbery happened, that could only have been known to the robber himself.
So the maxim "Don't introduce unnecessary assumptions" provides us with ALL the answers.
The maxim "Don't multiply entities unnecessarily" provides us with the answers that fit our viewpoint the easiest, and are the least challenging to the status quo, which are the easiest to accept, but are not necessarily the truth, and I don't think is a reliable principle of logic.
Anti-theism might be taking it that extra step further and putting a bee in some bonnets but really, I think they on the whole would be few and far between. It would be nice to think so. But I have great delight in discussion with atheists, because they have a different viewpoint to religious people, and sadly, the number of non anti-theistic atheists who actually think about deep subjects, like the validity of religion and theism, are in the vast minority, in my experience. In my experience, most people who are atheists simply don't even want to discuss or even think about such issues at all, or they are of the anti-theistic variety.
The greatest noise one seems to be hearing from atheists of late is due to the teaming of neo-conservatives and religious conservatives of several cultural stripes in dangerous positions of political power potentially endangering the liberties of all people...as that is the possible case it is little wonder that some of them might be worried. From what I have seen, there seem to be 3 camps of extremist opinion from religious groups:
1) Hate groups such as Westboro, who seem to just take one verse from the Bible, and twist it to suit their meaning, completely ignoring the rest of the Bible.
2) Christian-supported schools, where students are trained in debate and other highly intellectual skills, to make their points much better than their atheistic contemporaries in a debate, and as debate is the accepted form of resolution of issues in our society (something I think has too many faults to work feasibly in a society for the long term), alumni of such schools tend to get their opinions accepted far more than their opinions really deserve, and often lead to non-consideration of mitigating situations.
3) Self-interest groups, which tend to be a combination of the two, where they are just promoting their own self-interests, but hide them using clever rhetoric, and never quite come out as extremist as the hate groups, but usually are proposing changes whose conclusions in the long term will benefit the minority who paid for those groups to be set up and run in the first place.
However, there are just as many such organisations who are secular in origin. The only difference is that it is now socially accepted that religion has been used as an excuse for selfish actions, some of them horrific. But it is not yet widely accepted that excuses for such behaviour can be made for non-religious reasons, such as the excuse of National Security.
Currently there are few news stories of humanist atheist outrages, pogroms and suicide bombings worldwide... The biggest story in the news in the UK right now, are the Human Rights abuses done by the Chinese government against Tibet, where the Chinese government is atheistic, and communist, and opposed to religion, probably on the basis of Marx's writings that religion was invented by capitalists to suppress the people's unhappiness with the inequality of capitalism, and the fact that Tibet has a national religion, and it's national identity is indistinguishable from it (http://www.tibet.com/whitepaper/white7.html). It's so big that there is a big call from Britions for the UK to boycott the Chinese olympics, and for other countries to do the same. In support of this, few days ago, many British people demonstrated in London against the Chinese olympics while the Olympic torch was carried though London, just as the torch was passing them by. Someone even tried to put the flame out.
Over 20 years ago, while I was in Israel, Shulamit Aloni, a known activist against religion, and a former MK, once questioned the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament) on why the vast majority of the abortions in Israel were from female Israeli soldiers, which represented a very small part of the population, as they are mostly aged 18-21, and any woman can request not to join the army on religious or personal grounds and can serve by helping people instead, such as helping the blind or the disabled, and where they had access to contraception. This is considering the Israeli army is primarily run as a secular army, although some consideration has been grudgingly given to religious men, simply because of the vast numbers of men who serve in the army who are religious, and who are vital to the good-functioning of the Israeli Army. She also asked why this high number of abortions is not taken seriously, when the common slang for a female Israeli soldier was "Matza'ot", "Mattresses" (I've heard this from several ex-soldiers).
There are much, much more.
What you have to consider is that these issues which are often directly as a result of atheism, are largely ignored by the media, or played purely in a humanistic light, completely ignoring the role that atheistic beliefs have in them and the effect that atheism has in increasing these abuses and allowing them to happen in the first place.
One has to wonder why.
When one considers that in the words of Gordon Gecko, that:
Greed is good! One realises that our society does seem to succeed the most greedy of individuals. When one further considers that Greed is amongst the things that religion considers the most immoral, and that even among the religious factions that state that "all you have to do is believe", such as Protestantism, that Greed is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, one clearly sees that the success of greedy corporations is against the fundamentals of almost all religious factions, and that Greed is a successful trait only as a result of a lack of religion, or the corruption of religious belief, to promote such views, as in the viewpoint that it is a corruption of Calvinism.
However, we can see that the most successful companies are those that will employ any tactics to gain further subscribers, and more income, such as the investment of MacDonalds of something like $20 million to design a seat that becomes uncomfortable after 20 minutes, to guarantee that more people will eat and run, and that their restaurants will always have seating for new customers, or that MacDonalds has for many years directed their advertising to children, so that children will whine and complain until their parents take them to MacDonalds.
We also see that Greed works, because most people want an easy life, and paraphrasing one philosopher, people will do almost anything to avoid the effort of thinking. So if you are willing to put all your effort into getting what you want, irrespective of the consequences, and others just want an easy life, you will play hardball, and they will play softball, and they will end up "losing their shirt".
You can see this most often in the situation of players dating women. To quote one self-admitted player:
as a player myself, I can see how women and guys hate us. I use are charm to pick up women. I'll do what ever i can to get a girl to fall for me. I lie to make myself to look as perfect as i can for the girl. players don't look for a girlfriends, we get women attach to us. it could be for a day or up to a month, i will go out on dates with the girl but right around the time when the girl is expecting you to ask her out or things are getting alittle to serious we blow off the girl, and start the hunt over again. i don't do it for the sex, i do it for the thrill and challege of trying to get the next girl to fall for me. you mite think thats a messed of way of life, but for me its the joy in life. players work in packs, its not a solo job. i mean the main hunter does most of the talking but his friends will back up his lies to try and make the hunter the seem like a a decent person. my bait is my sports car, then my fake charm sets the hook. i don't at all think im doin the right thing, but honestly i don't care cause i'll just pick up the next girl i run into. as a player you learn not to get attached to a certain women, mainly cause she will eventually found out that your not who you say you are. the only thing the player is worried about is gettting dumped, cause that will kill his ego.
i just wanted to fill you in a "players" point of view. http://forums.plentyoffish.com/9694724datingPostpage2.aspx, msg 34.
When we consider the Media, the most successful companies in our society are going to be those companies who will do anything to get readers and viewers, no matter how low their techniques, or how damaging it will be to their readers and viewers in the long run. Many Soaps will only use the most good-looking and thin women to attract viewers, even though this is known to damage the self-esteem and body image of their viewers, causing untold numbers of women suffering from bulimia and anorexia. Many newspapers will only put the most gossipy, negative and reactionary stories on their headlines and front pages, because people seeing those headlines will be likely to buy the newspaper, if only to confirm that such headlines are indeed false, playing on human nature to hate the most abominable acts and to act on them the most.
As a result, the most successful Media companies are generally those who act in the most immoral ways to gain readers and viewers. That goes counter to the doctrine of most religions. So religious people who practise what they preach, are the least likely to work for such companies, partly because they despise the policy of those companies to make as much money as possible off the misery of others, and partly because those companies don't want to employ people who are opposed to their most successful policies of making money, and who will try and hold off on their best-selling articles and programmes.
So the most successful Media companies are most likely to employ either people who are religious but have no problem with working for a company that is opposed to their religious beliefs, or people who are religious hypocrites, or people who are atheists but who have no such strong moral beliefs, or people who are atheists but who don't stand up for their convictions.
There are many moral atheists who work as jounalists. But I doubt that they would continue to see themselves as moral if you clarified that their newspaper has printed many articles in the past in a way that was inflammatory to suspects in an ongoing criminal investigation who later were found innocent, and was a clear cause of the extreme abuse suffered by those innocent people from people who read that newspaper, and got so angry and inflamed that they acted without thinking, with proper sources to this clarification, in a way that directly shows that the newspaper was not only directly responsible for that abuse, but knew it and published the articles anyway, in a deliberately inflammatory way, for the purpose of making a lot more money. Those atheists never think about it in that light.
The same is true of many religious journalists who also never think about it, or put it as less of a priority than making a living.
As a direct result, you get very few very-successful large-scale Media companies that follow a truly moral approach. It seems to me that you only get religious Media companies that promote news of their own group, or their own beliefs, and which are pretty small fry compared to the large-scale Media companies, or small-scale local Media companies, that copy the main headlines of the large-scale ones, and the local news, or very-successful large-scale Media companies that are just in it for the money, and whatever that entails.
However, we live in a global economy, where the most publicised stories and approaches to those stories, tend to be the ones with the most global forms of publication, which are driven by the Media companies with the most forms of publication and the most money, and those tend to be the very-successful large-scale Media companies, which are devoted to the goal of making as much money as possible, no matter what the cost.
As those companies are most likely to be run by corrupt religious people and atheists, the LAST thing they want to do is to say that they are in the wrong. The corrupt religious people want a society with the most freedoms, because that allows them to live our their worst corruptions, and the atheists don't want to be cast as bad people.
Plus, it's no big deal to say that an atheist was a paedophile, because he just DOESN'T belief in G-d. That doesn't mean that he won't abuse children. So it doesn't sell a lot of newspapers or get much in the way of ratings. But saying you are a Christian minister is putting yourself out there as a public example of human decency, and so everyone will want to read about it if such a figure turns out to be a hypocrite and the more sordid the story, the bigger the hypocrisy, and the more people are outraged, and the more people want to read about it, so the more newspapers it sells, and the more ratings a story like that will get in the news.
In short:
1) The big Media companies are secular, and so they don't want any negative press about themselves, in case everyone realises they are making money by precisely following immoral principles, so they don't want to run horror stories about secular people.
2) Horror stories about secular people are not as newsworthy as horror stories about religious people, because there is no increased feeling of moral outrage and hypocrisy with the concurrence of human rights abuses and secularism.
These 2 factors mean that religious people and religion in general is likely to get pulled up for abuses than secular people and secularist beliefs, simply because religion is identified with a moral position against human rights abuses, and secularism is not.
However, I can honestly say that it's probably about equal. Jacobus101 has posted on a thread about paedophiles that all denominations of religious ministers are accused and convicted of sexual abuse to the same percentages and that the same percentage is found in secular organisations as well. I and also know that when I my friend saw a burglar coming out of my friend's flat, we chased the burglar, but he got away. So we went down to the local police station and reported it. The very next day, we went back to check out their book of mug shots, and I would say that the number of people who were very religious, traditional, and non-religious in those mug shots, were about the same as my observations of people in Jerusalem. On top, I've met plenty of atheists who were immoral, and were quite vocal about the sort of things they liked to do.
not to put too fine a point on it, but it would seem the rational and logical theists need to grab their less rational brothers and sisters and give them all a stern talking to. They would love to. I've tried that on many an occasion. The problem is that fundamentalism has been associated with extremism and abuse by the Media, and conformism has been associated with good practice. Fundamentalism means keeping with the integrity of the fundamentals of your beliefs, especially when such fundamentals oppose all forms of abuse of others, however slight. However, that viewpoint has been co-opted by the Media, as leading to extreme forms of abuse, and has led the Media to proclaim that the highest form of morality is conformism, to conform to the most popular forms of social practice and belief at the time, even though many of those practises and beliefs indirectly lead to many forms of abuse, some of them extreme, such as the social policy of never getting involved in other's business, leading to people turning a blind eye to women wearing dark sunglasses, claiming they "walked into a door", or with frequent cuts and broken arms, claiming they are "clumsy". You can argue with a fundamentalist that his religious book says to treat all people with respect, and never kill, unless in the extreme situation where it is absolutely necessary to protect others from extreme harm, and if you have a solidly logical case, he cannot argue with that, and will change his view, often on the spot. I've argued that very thing, and done it. But it's very, very difficult to argue with a religious conformist that his actions contravene human rights on the basis of a religious book, or even on the basis of moral principles to "do no harm", because his view is that conformity comes first, and so his counter-argument is that "everyone does it", which is of more of a priority in his priorities of which principle comes first. You have to first show such a conformist that moral action dictates that integrity comes before conformity. Only once this is done will he be able to conclude that just because his friends take advantage of others, that he shouldn't do it anyway, because it's not right. Otherwise, people say that you are "rocking the boat", and are acting against the current status quo, thus trying to overturn the delicate balance of society, making you a reactionary revolutionary, and quite possibly proposing treason against society itself.
It's easy to educate a fundamentalist that he should treat others well, as you can quote from his own religious scriptures.
It's incredibly difficult to educate a conformist that he should treat others well, in a society where many abuses exist, as you can only quote from accepted social practice, and if some of those lead to abuse, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
I'm all for equal acceptance of atheism. But I am of the view of Occam's Razor that it means to never make any unnecessary assumptions, and in any society, it is the unstated assumptions that end up hurting us the most, and atheism is far more prone to assumptions than religious beliefs, simply because far less is actually stated. It makes atheism a belief that requires far more inspection than is currently practised. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 12:28:46 PM |
Among a whole bunch of facts that got snipped, I said: The often taught precision of the fossil record, simply isn't.
Mr. Mxyzptlk said: Lack of precision is one thing, but if an animal which the fossil record tells us vanished 65+ million years ago had actually lived only a few thousand years ago, that's more than lack of precision, it's an unimaginably gross error. The dating techniques used may be off by a few decimal places, but not by tens of millions of years.
Where did I say that the Behemoth and Leviathan lived only a few thousand years ago? Or was that a Straw Man? Hmmm. Sure burns like one! 
I am aware of the coelocanth, but one or two exceptions do not throw out the whole premise. I never suggested they did (BTW, there were more than one or two). I simply pointed out that strict adherence to the fossil record as a fixed, linear table is dangerously unscientific. In fact, it's "dogmatic".
the Biblical account states that man was created before the Earth was a week old. Did I say that? Another Straw Man? Poof! Smells like one as it burns. Unless you mean that you believe the "days' are 24 hour periods. I disagree, but I support your right to believe thusly.
I said: Claiming that it's impossible is dogma that refuses to acknowledge the evidence that is contrary to that dogma. An act of faith if you will.
Mr. Mxyzptlk replied: Stating that it's impossible is following, not ignoring, the evidence. After all, if I was able to substitute blind dogma for evidence, I'd believe the Bible. Trying to ignore some of the evidence and rewrite the rest to support some religious claim is an old game, and one I'm not going to play. That you respond with another Straw Man shows the desperation of your need to adhere to your dogmatic view. A "you're a Bible believer! Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah" insult OMG! Grow up and be a man. Show the grasp of logic that you so proudly boast you have. I'm not trying to produce a religious argument. I'm not even trying to prove dinosaurs and man co-existed. I'm simply stating that the evidence in Job does not describe a contemporary animal and does describe a possible dinosaur like creature. I'm also stating that rejecting out of hand the possibility that the fossil record is in error is dogma and an act of faith. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 12:48:24 PM | "...and in any society, it is the unstated assumptions that end up hurting us the most, and atheism is far more prone to assumptions than religious beliefs, simply because far less is actually stated. It makes atheism a belief that requires far more inspection than is currently practised."
And that would be YOUR opinion and your ASSUMPTION only... right?
Because I personally assume to know NOTHING! And before I get accused that this isn't all about me, please rest assure that I am very well aware of that. But I also know that most atheists feel exactly the same way that I do.
Like me, most atheists simply LACK the belief in a deity or deities. There are NO BELIEFS! This lack of a belief in a deity that we do share in common has NOT been replaced by another BELIEF or BELIEFS...it's a negative...a hole...it's a LACK....call it what you will, but atheism is NOT A BELIEF!
Now if you want to talk about an atheist who's an EXTREMIST, then let's talk about extremists. But your average everyday atheist
is no more an extremist than the average Christian, Muslim or Jew is an extremist.
And for anyone to even ASSUME such a thing, it puts them in the exact same boat as the people who judge ALL Christians on the actions of the Westboro Church members or some other extremist group who call themselves Christians.
And in my opinion, that's a VERY narrow boat to be in.
JMHO
| |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 1:00:19 PM | AGREE AGREE AGREE with you Oldsoul..
People saying atheism is a belief are just playing with words.... semantics if you will.
Atheism is NOT a belief | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 1:11:11 PM | romanticoptimist:
I'm simply stating that the evidence in Job does not describe a contemporary animal and does describe a possible dinosaur like creature.
I don't think Job's testimony should be regarded as hard evidence, any more than we should take seriously Greek myths of flying horses and minotaurs
I'm also stating that rejecting out of hand the possibility that the fossil record is in error is dogma and an act of faith.
If so called "living fossils", like coelicanth are discovered it does not mean that the fossil record is in error, merely that our data on currently extant species may be incomplete. Unlike religious dogma, scientific knowledge is always subject to revision if new evidence becomes available.
It would be wonderful if more living fossils do come to light. I for one would welcome and be fascinated by the discovery of the Loch Ness Monster, theorized by some to be a surviving example of a plesiosaur, an animal thought to have become extinct with the Dinosaurs. | |
|
| |
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 1:51:36 PM | | The coelacanth is less a living fossil than humans or cats or a huge number of extent species. The living coelacanths are absent from the fossil record. What there is, are very old fossils that share with coelacanths a large number of traits by which taxonomic relationships are assigned. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 1:54:25 PM | I don't know about you guys.... but I can't be bothered to completely, wholly, and thoroughly read through a half-hour long post that equals a 1000 word essay each and every time that particular person posts.....
Conciseness is next to godliness.
Just sayin' is all  | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 2:25:16 PM |
"...and in any society, it is the unstated assumptions that end up hurting us the most, and atheism is far more prone to assumptions than religious beliefs, simply because far less is actually stated. It makes atheism a belief that requires far more inspection than is currently practised." And that would be YOUR opinion and your ASSUMPTION only... right?
Because I personally assume to know NOTHING! So how many times a day do you check for sudden tornadoes and earthquakes? How many times do you ring up your family and friends, just to make sure they are still alive? EVERYONE makes assumptions. I am of the firm opinion that it would be almost impossible to live without making assumptions. You are free to disagree. But I would question how often you challenge your assumptions, because if you do, as I used to every day, you would be incredibly likely to find the same.
And before I get accused that this isn't all about me, please rest assure that I am very well aware of that. But I also know that most atheists feel exactly the same way that I do. Do you know most atheists? American statistics estimate at least 30 million in the USA alone? Have you even spoken PERSONALLY to 30 million people? No? Then how do you know this? Statistics? Statistics are a measure of a partial population, on the ASSUMPTION that such a partial group represents a true cross-section of the whole, and that the whole will have the same result. So that would be an ASSUMPTION too. The only true study would be a global census, and unless you have a census of asking every possible assumption that atheists make, you wouldn't have a true assumption. Further, I question you: when did you first discover that Christianity claimed that the Earth was Flat? I am sure that if you ask this question of all of your friends, they will give similar answers to you. But unless you answer that was a trick question, then you made an un-true assumption, because it is a complete fabrication that Christianity ever claimed that. Like me, most atheists simply LACK the belief in a deity or deities. There are NO BELIEFS! This lack of a belief in a deity that we do share in common has NOT been replaced by another BELIEF or BELIEFS...it's a negative...a hole...it's a LACK....call it what you will, but atheism is NOT A BELIEF! There are 2 forms of atheism: 1) That you believe that there is no G-d or gods 2) That you believe that there is no evidence for a G-d, and that your POV is not to believe in a G-d until proven otherwise, as you LACK a definite belief in G-d. So what's the difference? That you would accept G-d if you had definite evidence? Do you seriously think that someone who believes there is no G-d would not believe in a G-d even in the spite of overwhelming evidence that proves the existence of G-d? The only difference between the two, is that someone who believes in that there is no G-d believes that no evidence will be found, and you aren't sure that any evidence will be found. Further, what makes you think that all theists are 100% sure that there is a G-d? Most theists have some level of doubt, and some have a lot of doubt, but they aren't going to chuck our their religion just because they aren't sure, in the same way that you wouldn't chuck out your S/O just because you are not 100% sure that he is always faithful. 100% sure that there is no G-d is definitely an atheist. 100% sure that there is a G-d is definitely a theist. The vast majority of the world is somewhere in between. According to you, most theists are atheists, because they lack a definite 100% belief that there is a G-d. The issue of theism vs atheism is of whether you believe in a G-d or not, RIGHT NOW, in the absence of substantial physical evidence, because you can change your opinion, and so your current opinion is what matters. If you side with a belief in G-d then you are a theist, if you side with a belief in no G-d then you are not a theist, making you an atheist, and if you sit on the fence then you will court both sides, making you BOTH a theist and an atheist. You can believe anything you want, and there is no requirement that any or all of it makes sense. But don't expect to post, especially when directing critical posts against others, without those people applying their skill in critical and logical analysis against what you write as well. When atheists get off the moral high ground, and admit that they are just as likely to do evil as religious people, they will find that they are far less criticised, because they aren't claiming they are a goody-two-shoes. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 4:13:26 PM | ("Atheism is NOT a belief -- It is the absence of belief")
Splitting hairs? Aren't "isms" beliefs?
If that's the case, there is no such thing as "Atheism." | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 4:43:49 PM |
Splitting hairs? Aren't "isms" beliefs?
If so, I could have chosen a lot worse - botulism, alcoholism, negativism...hypnotism might be a neat one.
I have skepticism and cynicism about the absurdism and mannerism of equating isms with theisms, a sophism and malapropism of realism and rationalism. | |
|
| |
|
| Page 2 of 17
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
|
Home
login 
