-
This debate took place on Channel 4.
“The Genius of Charles Darwin”
August 2008
C4 Editor said:
Tonight on C4 at 8pm we are showing The Genius of Charles Darwin, the ultimate guide to Darwin and his revolutionary theory of evolution by natural selection presented by Richard Dawkins.
You can discuss the issues and post your comments below
TheReformedPastor said:
Here we go again, yet another attack on Biblical Christianity by Dr. Dawkins - I predict that this series has little to do with Darwin, Darwin is merely the vehicle that Dr. Dawkins is using to attack Biblical Christianity.
I believe that the reason for this is that Dr. Dawkins knows that Atheism is in trouble. After 60 years or so of being the predominant philosophy in this country and having a huge influence over all areas of our lives and public bodies such as Education, Social Services, Penal policy etc, it has totally failed as a philosphy.
1cantell said:
It's not about religion. It's about reviewing facts, checking evidence and coming to conclusions based on what we know.
On that basis religion is a basket case and if we stopped indoctrinating our kids with it - so brilliantly illustrated in tonight's programme -it would wither and die.
Shame about the tooth fairy,too!
MissLittler said:
You are absolutely right, and let us be clear; it most certainly is not about religion.
It is about establishing the facts and coming to a measured conclusion.
This broadcast has yet to produce any new 'evidence' thus far and I have severe doubts if it will in subsequent programs. There is nothing 'brilliant' in 'indoctrinating’ our children that; out of mud came mind!!
And on that basis, bring back the tooth fairy all is forgiven!
Molecular Machine said:
Dawkins is a master at presenting a "Staw Man" argument and then demolishing it! Almost nothing presented in the programme was contrary to the understanding of creationists - save for the introduction of common ancestry, which crept in without firm evidence.
The evidence for 'variation' which was the main thrust of the programme is, of course, undeniable. No creationist I know thinks that all the 'Darwins Finches', for instance, were separate creations!!
The real issues lie ahead, such as the origin of complex cellular information - and life itself - I suspect a Just-So story coming....
mike the h said:
A number of evolutionists have argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution, since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.
Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.
The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?
Similarities—whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else—are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?
The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.
Like a lot of Dawkins work the programme was laughable by anyone who has slightly more witt than an ape.
stve said:
Good programme, but nothing new.
The problem I have with Dawkins, as with other evolutionists, is they start from the premise that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive. ie. Evolution is a fact therefore God does not exist. Their argument against the existence of God is the contradiction in the Bible about th eorigins of life on earth; that the Bible claims an earth far younger than the evloutionary evidence suggests, means the Bible is incorrect and consequently God does not exist. The Bible was written by people, modified and edited by religious leaders with politcal agendas and consequently may not be an authority on all things. (a different topic). If Dawkins was to argue that evolutionary evidence shows the Bible's account of how or when the world began is incorrect then I could go along with it; but then the evolutionists make this huge leap to the conclusion "therefore God does not exist".
I offer an example. Suppose God, standing on the top of a mountain, pushes a large rock from the top and it rolls down the mountainside. Suppose now that Newton comes along and sees this rock and in his genius, describes why this rock is rolling down the mountain. Dawkins comes along and does a series saying how smart Newton was, the Law of Gravity exists, the evidence is overwhelming; Gravity, not God, is alone responsible for the motion of this rock down the mountain. Therefore God does not exist. How does that follow?
Come on Dawkins; get real. yes, Evolution exists, but how does it follow that God and evolution are mutually exclusive?
Omrow said:
We know that the tale of men emerging from monkeys is only a theory.
In other words, its nothing but a guess.
In schools and universities, it is still taught as a theory and NOT as a fact.
Dr Dawkins has been lying on TV. He said it is a fact.
Many scientists would disagree with him on this issue.
Scientists are divided on the theory of evolution.
This matter is not yet settled.
Many scientists do not accept that we can say for sure that man came from monkeys.
Dawkins is just like a religious fundemantalist who gets carried away by his fanaticism.
Dawkins is overzealous. He is desperate to convert people to accept his point of view.
I think he has degraded himself by not being honest with the public.
Channel 4 program should, therefore, be seen as nothing more than a propaganda campaign led by Professor Dawkins.
Jezzy29 said:
Unfortunately, Omrow, I have been informed by people on here that theory actually means fact in science circles. and fact doesnt have to be proven fact. But don't mention Evolution is unproven because that upsets people. afterall, nothing is proven therefore evolution is just as much fact as gravity.. even though we can see gravity in action every minute of every day... this is all starting to get on my nerves..
Omrow said:
You cannot say nothing is proven by scientists.
Earth is now proven to be round and NOT flat as ancients used to believe.
It is also now proven that Earth goes around the Sun, and that the Sun does NOT go around the Earth.
It is also proven that the Moon is NOT made of cheese.
So, dont try to protect the Evolution Theory by saying it it is not proven because nothing is ever proven. Its a pathetic tactic.
Jezzy29 said:
I don't think my sarcasm came through very well in my last post. I was trying to make the point that comparing the fact of gravity to the theory of evolution is ridiculous because one we can see acting on us every minute of every day and one is something that has evidence but will never be able to prove unless we can travel in a time machine. But scientists are saying that both are fact. Just silliness isn't it?
Omrow said:
No they are not. Scientists are NOT trying to say that monkey theory is a FACT. It is only the likes of Dick Dawkins that preach such rubbish.
Many scientists are sceptical about evolution.
They still catagorise it as a THEORY.
As we all know that "THEORY" is NOT same as a "FACT".
Some scientists write books for schools and universities.
These books say:
Gravity is a FACT.
Moon of Jupiter are a FACT.
Earth's rotation is a FACT.
Evolution is a THEORY.
Even on things like climate change scietists are divided on whether it is fact or a thoery.
American scientists tend to say that there is no global warming. Europeans scientists disagree.
Similary, the monkey theory is causing a big diffrence of opinion among the scientists.
There is no agreement as yet whether human emerged from apes or not.
Until they agree, how on earth can we claim anything for sure on evolution.
I cant put it any simpler than that.
Jezzy29 said:
I'm just telling you what the people on this forum say. I think there is a problem here because scientists have a different definition for 'theory' and 'fact' than we do in general usage.
Have a look at wikipedia.Fact in science is something that has observable evidence, but isn't necessarily proven, theory in science is an interpretation of evidence. Please, someone, correct me if I am wrong.
The problem is, the lay person doesnt know this and thinks 'fact' means 'proven fact' when really it means 'there is observable evidence to suggest this'. Therefore, scientists and Dawkins are misleading us.
Omrow said:
There is a BIG difference as to what a THEORY is, and what a FACT is.
Everyone knows. Fact is true. A "theory" MAY be true, or, it may be wrong.
Scientists do not have a different definition as to what a THEORY is.
Lets not confuse the matter.
I always ask this to my university teachers. They say theory is a "hypothesis" that may turn out to be wrong.
Whereas a "FACT" can never turn out to be wrong. It will always be correct.
No matter how much Dr. Dick Dawkins continues to yell, we know the scientists still say that evolution of man from monkeys is a THEORY which has not yet been established as a FACT. It might be proven false tomorrow or in ten years time.
Bloodthorn said:
I don't know why religious people get so upset about evolution. Just because evolution proves that creatures have evolved over billions of yeara it doesn't say that god doesn't exist. I mean come on if your a supreme being immortal and eternal you can surely take the time to watch the evolution of simple creatures on planet earth. As for the religious texts that people keep on saying that they are facts of gods truth remember that they have been written not by god himself but by a mere fallible creature called man.
RDSG said:
I am myself a scientist, and think Darwin was a genius. Even though I agree with Richard Dawkins that it should be taught at schools, I am chocked by the way he attacks religion and tries to force people into his beliefs(atheism).
As a scientist you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a being which might be considered a God, and which could exist outside our universe, and could even have played a part in its creation.
Therefore if you cannot disprove the existence of a God scientifically, it is appalling for him to discount it so aggressively. Even worse is the fact that he does not realize himself that atheism is a faith as well.
The only difference is that you believe that there is no God, but you cannot prove it. Whilst other religions believe that there is a God, and cannot scientifically prove it.
Therefore I think it is scientifically incorrect to be so close minded, and to not be open to possibilities which have not been scientifically disproven.
leesparky said:
As a scientist, can you disprove the existence of fairies? Are you in fact, open to the possibility that they exist too????
RDSG said:
Until proof is given that they never existed, I cannot say for certain that they haven't. Although I'm pretty sure they don't have a bank account to store their money, so that they can pay for the kid's teeth. And since there is no evolutionary evidence for any creature resembling a ferry we can deduce that it is highly unlikely they ever exist in our planet.
-
Showing posts with label atheist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheist. Show all posts
Saturday
Atheists and Logic
-
Logic and Religion
This debate took place on Channel 4:
November 2008
malcolm/monia said:
"my LOGIC,might be diferent to another person's LOGIC".
Fair point I am thinking,but..Oxford Concise...the science of reasoning,proof,thinking or inference.
Particular scheme of or treatise on this.
A chain of reasoning.
The correct or incorect use of reasoning
It goes on at length....
Kinder Bueno said:
what an interesting point.
Firstly, let me just go a little off track in order to make a point.
Many people such as Athiests or Agnostics, may not be convinced God exists because of unanswered prayers.
There "logic" is that, there is no god, hencewhy prayers do not get answers.
Also, when prayers are answered for other people, it may be coincidential.
Well thats one way of looking at it...
In Islam, the "logic" is that unanswered prayers is actually a test. I believe (and many Muslims) believe that Allah is testing us to see if we have enough faith in him, and carry on praying to him even if he doesnt answer our prayers, its just a test of how strongly we believe in him.
This is what Athiest/Agnostics and Muslim believe (well the points I've made..seperatley ofcourse)
Secondly, with the idea of evil occuring on Earth.
An athiest/agnostic believe that if God was all powerful, wouldn't he be able to stop evil from taking place?
Which leads them to believe that there is no god - and thats fair enough...It is pretty logical to believe that way.
However, a Muslim believes that again Allah is testing us.
With Natural evil; earhtquakes, draughts etc, he wants to see more fortunate people helping the poor and by causing natural pain and suffering, it is testing if we will donate money to help the les fortunate (I know it sounds cruel, and this is what causes the big argument about if God was "good", why would he do - but this is what we believe)
With Moral evil such as robbery etc, this again is a test.
It seems sometimes that evil people are getting the more luxirious things in life by stealing etc, an Athiest may argue, if there was God, why would he let evil people have a good life...which again is their "logic".
A muslims "logic" is that, again it is a TEST. (I know Im boring you with just using 1 explanation for this, but this is the simplest way of putting it)
We believe that, again "Good things come to those that wait" and if someone has enough faith in God, it will lead them to paradise, as they had trust and faith in God...which is what he tests.
There is a Muslims logic, which differs from an Athiest.
Sory for being ignorant, but I'm unsure what Christians believe about this; Can any christian give any points on what they believe evil is taking place etc...?
Hopefully I have stuck to the point...?
The Carpenter said:
"my LOGIC,might be diferent to another person's LOGIC".
Strictly, no. E.g. If someone told you that their mathematics was different to yours you'd probably start smiling nervously & edging towards the door.
Logic, in the "if A then B" sense is formally structured and in the same way that maths questions have correct & incorrect answers, logic has correct & incorrect chains of reasoning.
Less strictly, logic still provides a very useful framework and can tell us when someone has drawn an erroneous conclusion and where the error has occurred.
I suspect the real difference though is in the "real" world rather than the "logical" world. Here we're looking at the evidence, some of which may be contradictory & deciding how much weight can be attached to each part. Chances are, you're attaching more importance to some pieces of evidence and they are attaching more to others. The point here is to be clear about what is evidence and to establish whether the logic (/ reasoning) is sound.
(In religious debates, there are clearly some source of evidence that are better than others, but sooner or later you'll probably run into the "But god wrote this book" argument & the "I think my anecdotes are really important" argument, there don't seem to be many others. I'm guessing this is a religious argument btw.)
Try asking how their logic differs to yours; what their evidence is; and to show their reasoning (just like a maths exam really)
malcolm/monia said:
May you GOD bless you for your views.I am so gratefull for your caring approach to this sensitive topic!
Yes TESTING appears to be the core 'raison d'etre' of apparant poor or nil response from 'god'.But logic now tells me that this is strong evidence of 'his' non existance.It also seems to me a 'heads,he wins,tails we lose,situation.
I would furthermore like to appogise to you and your tolerant brothers & sisters for what might come accross as an arrogent posture,with a tendancy to ridicule.
I am a very kind and caring person who just does not 'buy' God,and get Soooo angry with the extreemists in your,or in any religion,but it does appear that your religion is the worst.
I really feel that we you and your moderate scholars are not proactive enought to head off Muslims who advocate that God is the only power to punish,and our police are sinners,etc,etc.This attitude is corrosive not only to the stability of the moral framework of any society,but nothing to engender a better relationship between religious & non religious world wide.
Sorry to moralise & go off topic,but much work needs to be done by good & caring folk like us.
Faith is ilogical,in it's entireity by definition.
So Yuze has postulated that logic has a gradient & you have implied that 'they' have evidence, by the use of the word 'others'...I am now even more confused.
The Carpenter said:
Logic has a gradient!? I have no idea what that even means. Maths doesn't have a gradient, neither does logic.
I'm a bit more sure about what "evidence" actually is, though so I'll deal with that. It's fair to say I probably wasn't clear enough on this point.
There are some pieces of evidence that are reliable, these are called evidence.
Then there are the types of "evidence" that religious types tend to use in their arguments. These tend to fall into two categories:
1 - "But god wrote this book" &
2 - "But my anecdotes are really important".
Religious types tend to call these things "evidence", often they actually think that they are evidence, but they aren’t. They should be called anecdotes, or irrelevant, or anything else, just not evidence. The argument is in showing that they are not evidence & why they are not evidence (but anecdotes/ not provable etc etc) and, to a lesser extent, what is evidence & why it is evidence.
So, I agree. There is no evidence that god(/s) exist (*); there are anecdotes; there are (badly written) books claiming divine providence; and there are some really strange attempts to string these into a coherent world view. But evidence? NIL.
Hope that helps.
(* - That I'm aware of/ that stands up to scrutiny.)
one other point, you'll frequently see that a religious argument runs out of steam at exactly the point you or I might think it gets interesting.
Kinder Bueno's initial response, is probably quite a good example of this. With God "testing" us (/ humanity/ Muslims/ etc) by making other people suffer. The idea of God wanting to test 'us', probably does satisfy (on some level) KB's curiosity.
At this point you or I might want to start asking about why 'we' need testing; why god couldn't find some other test that doesn't involve torturing other people; why does an omniscient god need to test anyone etc etc. But KB seems happy with the answer that we're being tested without needing/ wanting to explore further.
KB - I really don't mean to put words into your mouth or misrepresent you. I'm using your post as an example purely because it's to hand and is fairly typical of this type of response. I hope you do think of and ask the sort of questions I've suggested and that you keep thinking through whatever answers you get.
You have to apply logic to the answers you get as well as to the initial premise.
malcolm/monica said:
I have just read that the Islamic fifth article of faith states that paradise is a physical place where MEN will be allocated a harem of beautifull WOMEN who will bear them children.
NOW....logically who will raise them?,the women,the angels or God ? ...Or as Yuze would say,who knows,who cares Allah knows best...or was it Osman.To tell you the truth,it is all becoming a bit of a blur.
I think that is the game plan.
I think that this is the 'muddy pool' that you,Carpenter,are looking for!
The Carpenter said:
...and why are these children given free entry to heaven without going through the whole earthly life tests process first?
Fundamentally, this whole "afterlife" malarky (whether Xian/ Islamic or whatever) is just an excuse to get round the absence of evidence of God operating in a just way. By pushing the rewards/ punishments into the realm of the unknowable they gain an excuse for the lack of evidence they have for a just (/benevolent) god here on earth, without then going on to examine whether the position they put themselves in is in anyway reasonable/ logical.
Mycor said:
Presumably it's a test of your faith, so if you lose faith or question god as a result then you've failed.
The points KB made about prayers, evil etc being a test make sense within the constructed world of a religion and are a man made explanation of why things happen based on the premise that a god exists. They are not logic as they arrive at a conclusion based on information that cannot be confirmed ie that a god exists.
Pure logic will be the same for everyone, but as TheCarpenter said we live in the real world and people come to conclusions about 'evidence' based on their preconceived ideas. That's why I don't think logic can really effectively be used to argue against religions. I wonder whether, since in the real world not all information is available or reliable, that strictly speaking you can never come to a purely logical conclusion on anything anyway - perhaps those with a wider knowledge of logic and philosophy would like to comment on this please.
I think you can lay out a pretty good logical argument for the non existence of a god to someone of faith but they will still keep their faith. Why is this? What is it in the human mind that makes someone have faith and someone else not to? That's the bit which fascinates me.
A couple of general thoughts; since, as I said above, logic seems to be irrelevant to faith why do some people of faith try to argue that their position is logical? This seems wrong to me, why not just stick to the 'I believe' line, it would seem much simpler. I saw a program about the Medieval Mind recently and was interested that although they talked in those days about natural disasters being acts of god and believed comets to be portents and signs, they also understood that these events were natural. It was bit like 'we know a comet is natural but it is a bad idea to do something important on a day when one is in the sky. I thought that was an interesting way of thinking and maybe not how we would imagine it.
malcolm/monica said:
I think that they keep the faith really to hedge their bets,but that can't be right cos God would know.
I think maybe they are just gullable or stupid...but that can't be right either.
I think that the average human suffers from the survival instinct of 'save me ,save me'syndrome.
That's gotta be it!!!!
thank you for your comments Mycor.
As a non-believer,the Coran states that I shall not be befriended by a true Muslim.Why is this,where is the logic,& who has the hidden agenda?
Omrow said:
Obviously, God would have the true logic.
He made the stuff.
Therefore, no matter how much we may try,
we cannot change the rules of the game.
Since God is said to be the "most logical" Being in the Universe,
it should be obvious to any thinking person that all of God's laws would be reasonable.
And, as is evident in this thread, as well as many other discussions,
most Atheists are incapable of using simple logic.
Also, the Atheists have no understanding of what religion is.
They make up their own twisted definitions and try
to make the rest of humanity swallow their irrational crap.
I mean, what do Atheists know anything about how to reason.
Most Atheists are intellectually bankrupt.
Just take a look at their own words.
Freethinker15 said:
Who ever said god was logical? There are countless examples of where this is not the case; if you are attributing logic to the logic in this world, which is the only logic that is worth caring about anyway. Any other logic outside this is irrelevant to our well being as it does not exist.
None of god's law are reasonable; only those created by man as man knows man
(god has no clue, btw I am talking as if he exists which has not yet been proven so I should say fairy dude). If god was reasonable he should have known that the kind of demands put on human are impossible to adhere to and are counter to reason and evidence.
I think (which can be verified with evidence) ultimately logic and reason is universal, no matter one's viewpoint.
The only thing that stands in it's way is the god virus as demonstrated on this forum and many others.
It's no surprise that where ever you are born in the world as soon as you start to think and embrace science etc, people become atheists. Religion, on the whole, depends on your geographical and cultural location.
so why do reguarly either not answer my questions or, by your own admission, fail to understand them?
You should try picking up a book that challenges your own narrow preconceptions of the world for a change. Of course, your books of myths wont let you as you might miss out on all the goddies in heaven (which is hilariously materialistic btw).
Omrow said:
Because, as is the case with silly statements put forward by most Atheists, many of your questions and claims are replete with irrationality.
Basically, you do not know how to talk sense.
Kinder Bueno said:
I think you are being disprectful to an Athiest's views. How can you expect them to respect your views, if you don't do the same.
Omrow said:
They dont. Thats the problem.
They want to force their Atheism on everyone else. Just take a look at them.
Atheists say all religious people are deluded.
That is their opinion.
As for me, I think Atheists tend to use absurd methods. They dont stick to scientific way of establishing the facts.
Any thinking person can easily see that most Atheists cannot use their brain properly.
Freethinker15 said:
hmm, sorry I forgot your love of the scientific method. lol. Note your respect for the scientific method! If you truly respected it you would try to learn all that it has to offer instead of mindlessly repeating the same old garbage.
well, yeah religious people are deluded that's invit if you can't provide any facts or evidence. You et al have to prove this is not so.
Instead of being derogatotory, I dear you to actually back up your claims with reason and evidence independent of the Koran! If the Koran is true, should be easy. Now, lets hear of your scientific expalanations for life etc.
The Carpenter said:
[Omrow claims Atheists tend to use absurd methods. They dont stick to scientific way of establishing facts. ]
Let's pretend for just a few more seconds that you can actually answer questions without resorting to pointless insults.
- What exactly do you mean by the "scientific way of establishing facts"?
- What "absurb methods" are used by atheists?
sinic said:
I suppose the clever dick who created the title of this thread thought that he had identified a contradiction ...ie religious contemplation cannot possibly have a logical basis.
It really depends on what you mean by religion.
If you believe that religion is only identified by the silly anthropomorphic trivial moral directives found in say Catholicism or Islam then of course it is possible to argue that logic and religion are incompatible.
Pointing this fact out is what makes Dickie Dorkins feel so good about himself.
However if you are intelligent enough to recognise, and it seems not many are, that limits appear to exist to the logical insights of which puny dangerous socio pathological humans are capable then the so called dilemma is seen for what it is...a dichotomy for dimwits.
Mr Whizz said:
Science's approach is as follows:-
1. Be sceptical about claims and explanations.
2. Demand evidence before believing something to be true.
3. Test to see whether the evidence supports the claims.
4. Consider whether alternative explanations better explains the evidence.
5. Look for evidence that shows the claim to be false.
6. Repeat from the top.
It's the best way of exposing explanations and claims as being false. It's also the best way of homing in on what might be true.
It's striking how different the above approach is to religious dogma.
Regardless of what particular explanations you might believe to be true, applying the above method should help highlight where you need to be doubtful.
Again, science sees doubt as a strength and absolutely necessary in improving our understanding/knowledge. Religion sees it as a weakness and strongly advocates having "faith" rather than having "doubts".
One advances knowledge. One holds it back.
It's not about differences in logic - it's about differences in attitude.
-
Logic and Religion
This debate took place on Channel 4:
November 2008
malcolm/monia said:
"my LOGIC,might be diferent to another person's LOGIC".
Fair point I am thinking,but..Oxford Concise...the science of reasoning,proof,thinking or inference.
Particular scheme of or treatise on this.
A chain of reasoning.
The correct or incorect use of reasoning
It goes on at length....
Kinder Bueno said:
what an interesting point.
Firstly, let me just go a little off track in order to make a point.
Many people such as Athiests or Agnostics, may not be convinced God exists because of unanswered prayers.
There "logic" is that, there is no god, hencewhy prayers do not get answers.
Also, when prayers are answered for other people, it may be coincidential.
Well thats one way of looking at it...
In Islam, the "logic" is that unanswered prayers is actually a test. I believe (and many Muslims) believe that Allah is testing us to see if we have enough faith in him, and carry on praying to him even if he doesnt answer our prayers, its just a test of how strongly we believe in him.
This is what Athiest/Agnostics and Muslim believe (well the points I've made..seperatley ofcourse)
Secondly, with the idea of evil occuring on Earth.
An athiest/agnostic believe that if God was all powerful, wouldn't he be able to stop evil from taking place?
Which leads them to believe that there is no god - and thats fair enough...It is pretty logical to believe that way.
However, a Muslim believes that again Allah is testing us.
With Natural evil; earhtquakes, draughts etc, he wants to see more fortunate people helping the poor and by causing natural pain and suffering, it is testing if we will donate money to help the les fortunate (I know it sounds cruel, and this is what causes the big argument about if God was "good", why would he do - but this is what we believe)
With Moral evil such as robbery etc, this again is a test.
It seems sometimes that evil people are getting the more luxirious things in life by stealing etc, an Athiest may argue, if there was God, why would he let evil people have a good life...which again is their "logic".
A muslims "logic" is that, again it is a TEST. (I know Im boring you with just using 1 explanation for this, but this is the simplest way of putting it)
We believe that, again "Good things come to those that wait" and if someone has enough faith in God, it will lead them to paradise, as they had trust and faith in God...which is what he tests.
There is a Muslims logic, which differs from an Athiest.
Sory for being ignorant, but I'm unsure what Christians believe about this; Can any christian give any points on what they believe evil is taking place etc...?
Hopefully I have stuck to the point...?
The Carpenter said:
"my LOGIC,might be diferent to another person's LOGIC".
Strictly, no. E.g. If someone told you that their mathematics was different to yours you'd probably start smiling nervously & edging towards the door.
Logic, in the "if A then B" sense is formally structured and in the same way that maths questions have correct & incorrect answers, logic has correct & incorrect chains of reasoning.
Less strictly, logic still provides a very useful framework and can tell us when someone has drawn an erroneous conclusion and where the error has occurred.
I suspect the real difference though is in the "real" world rather than the "logical" world. Here we're looking at the evidence, some of which may be contradictory & deciding how much weight can be attached to each part. Chances are, you're attaching more importance to some pieces of evidence and they are attaching more to others. The point here is to be clear about what is evidence and to establish whether the logic (/ reasoning) is sound.
(In religious debates, there are clearly some source of evidence that are better than others, but sooner or later you'll probably run into the "But god wrote this book" argument & the "I think my anecdotes are really important" argument, there don't seem to be many others. I'm guessing this is a religious argument btw.)
Try asking how their logic differs to yours; what their evidence is; and to show their reasoning (just like a maths exam really)
malcolm/monia said:
May you GOD bless you for your views.I am so gratefull for your caring approach to this sensitive topic!
Yes TESTING appears to be the core 'raison d'etre' of apparant poor or nil response from 'god'.But logic now tells me that this is strong evidence of 'his' non existance.It also seems to me a 'heads,he wins,tails we lose,situation.
I would furthermore like to appogise to you and your tolerant brothers & sisters for what might come accross as an arrogent posture,with a tendancy to ridicule.
I am a very kind and caring person who just does not 'buy' God,and get Soooo angry with the extreemists in your,or in any religion,but it does appear that your religion is the worst.
I really feel that we you and your moderate scholars are not proactive enought to head off Muslims who advocate that God is the only power to punish,and our police are sinners,etc,etc.This attitude is corrosive not only to the stability of the moral framework of any society,but nothing to engender a better relationship between religious & non religious world wide.
Sorry to moralise & go off topic,but much work needs to be done by good & caring folk like us.
Faith is ilogical,in it's entireity by definition.
So Yuze has postulated that logic has a gradient & you have implied that 'they' have evidence, by the use of the word 'others'...I am now even more confused.
The Carpenter said:
Logic has a gradient!? I have no idea what that even means. Maths doesn't have a gradient, neither does logic.
I'm a bit more sure about what "evidence" actually is, though so I'll deal with that. It's fair to say I probably wasn't clear enough on this point.
There are some pieces of evidence that are reliable, these are called evidence.
Then there are the types of "evidence" that religious types tend to use in their arguments. These tend to fall into two categories:
1 - "But god wrote this book" &
2 - "But my anecdotes are really important".
Religious types tend to call these things "evidence", often they actually think that they are evidence, but they aren’t. They should be called anecdotes, or irrelevant, or anything else, just not evidence. The argument is in showing that they are not evidence & why they are not evidence (but anecdotes/ not provable etc etc) and, to a lesser extent, what is evidence & why it is evidence.
So, I agree. There is no evidence that god(/s) exist (*); there are anecdotes; there are (badly written) books claiming divine providence; and there are some really strange attempts to string these into a coherent world view. But evidence? NIL.
Hope that helps.
(* - That I'm aware of/ that stands up to scrutiny.)
one other point, you'll frequently see that a religious argument runs out of steam at exactly the point you or I might think it gets interesting.
Kinder Bueno's initial response, is probably quite a good example of this. With God "testing" us (/ humanity/ Muslims/ etc) by making other people suffer. The idea of God wanting to test 'us', probably does satisfy (on some level) KB's curiosity.
At this point you or I might want to start asking about why 'we' need testing; why god couldn't find some other test that doesn't involve torturing other people; why does an omniscient god need to test anyone etc etc. But KB seems happy with the answer that we're being tested without needing/ wanting to explore further.
KB - I really don't mean to put words into your mouth or misrepresent you. I'm using your post as an example purely because it's to hand and is fairly typical of this type of response. I hope you do think of and ask the sort of questions I've suggested and that you keep thinking through whatever answers you get.
You have to apply logic to the answers you get as well as to the initial premise.
malcolm/monica said:
I have just read that the Islamic fifth article of faith states that paradise is a physical place where MEN will be allocated a harem of beautifull WOMEN who will bear them children.
NOW....logically who will raise them?,the women,the angels or God ? ...Or as Yuze would say,who knows,who cares Allah knows best...or was it Osman.To tell you the truth,it is all becoming a bit of a blur.
I think that is the game plan.
I think that this is the 'muddy pool' that you,Carpenter,are looking for!
The Carpenter said:
...and why are these children given free entry to heaven without going through the whole earthly life tests process first?
Fundamentally, this whole "afterlife" malarky (whether Xian/ Islamic or whatever) is just an excuse to get round the absence of evidence of God operating in a just way. By pushing the rewards/ punishments into the realm of the unknowable they gain an excuse for the lack of evidence they have for a just (/benevolent) god here on earth, without then going on to examine whether the position they put themselves in is in anyway reasonable/ logical.
Mycor said:
Presumably it's a test of your faith, so if you lose faith or question god as a result then you've failed.
The points KB made about prayers, evil etc being a test make sense within the constructed world of a religion and are a man made explanation of why things happen based on the premise that a god exists. They are not logic as they arrive at a conclusion based on information that cannot be confirmed ie that a god exists.
Pure logic will be the same for everyone, but as TheCarpenter said we live in the real world and people come to conclusions about 'evidence' based on their preconceived ideas. That's why I don't think logic can really effectively be used to argue against religions. I wonder whether, since in the real world not all information is available or reliable, that strictly speaking you can never come to a purely logical conclusion on anything anyway - perhaps those with a wider knowledge of logic and philosophy would like to comment on this please.
I think you can lay out a pretty good logical argument for the non existence of a god to someone of faith but they will still keep their faith. Why is this? What is it in the human mind that makes someone have faith and someone else not to? That's the bit which fascinates me.
A couple of general thoughts; since, as I said above, logic seems to be irrelevant to faith why do some people of faith try to argue that their position is logical? This seems wrong to me, why not just stick to the 'I believe' line, it would seem much simpler. I saw a program about the Medieval Mind recently and was interested that although they talked in those days about natural disasters being acts of god and believed comets to be portents and signs, they also understood that these events were natural. It was bit like 'we know a comet is natural but it is a bad idea to do something important on a day when one is in the sky. I thought that was an interesting way of thinking and maybe not how we would imagine it.
malcolm/monica said:
I think that they keep the faith really to hedge their bets,but that can't be right cos God would know.
I think maybe they are just gullable or stupid...but that can't be right either.
I think that the average human suffers from the survival instinct of 'save me ,save me'syndrome.
That's gotta be it!!!!
thank you for your comments Mycor.
As a non-believer,the Coran states that I shall not be befriended by a true Muslim.Why is this,where is the logic,& who has the hidden agenda?
Omrow said:
Obviously, God would have the true logic.
He made the stuff.
Therefore, no matter how much we may try,
we cannot change the rules of the game.
Since God is said to be the "most logical" Being in the Universe,
it should be obvious to any thinking person that all of God's laws would be reasonable.
And, as is evident in this thread, as well as many other discussions,
most Atheists are incapable of using simple logic.
Also, the Atheists have no understanding of what religion is.
They make up their own twisted definitions and try
to make the rest of humanity swallow their irrational crap.
I mean, what do Atheists know anything about how to reason.
Most Atheists are intellectually bankrupt.
Just take a look at their own words.
Freethinker15 said:
Who ever said god was logical? There are countless examples of where this is not the case; if you are attributing logic to the logic in this world, which is the only logic that is worth caring about anyway. Any other logic outside this is irrelevant to our well being as it does not exist.
None of god's law are reasonable; only those created by man as man knows man
(god has no clue, btw I am talking as if he exists which has not yet been proven so I should say fairy dude). If god was reasonable he should have known that the kind of demands put on human are impossible to adhere to and are counter to reason and evidence.
I think (which can be verified with evidence) ultimately logic and reason is universal, no matter one's viewpoint.
The only thing that stands in it's way is the god virus as demonstrated on this forum and many others.
It's no surprise that where ever you are born in the world as soon as you start to think and embrace science etc, people become atheists. Religion, on the whole, depends on your geographical and cultural location.
so why do reguarly either not answer my questions or, by your own admission, fail to understand them?
You should try picking up a book that challenges your own narrow preconceptions of the world for a change. Of course, your books of myths wont let you as you might miss out on all the goddies in heaven (which is hilariously materialistic btw).
Omrow said:
Because, as is the case with silly statements put forward by most Atheists, many of your questions and claims are replete with irrationality.
Basically, you do not know how to talk sense.
Kinder Bueno said:
I think you are being disprectful to an Athiest's views. How can you expect them to respect your views, if you don't do the same.
Omrow said:
They dont. Thats the problem.
They want to force their Atheism on everyone else. Just take a look at them.
Atheists say all religious people are deluded.
That is their opinion.
As for me, I think Atheists tend to use absurd methods. They dont stick to scientific way of establishing the facts.
Any thinking person can easily see that most Atheists cannot use their brain properly.
Freethinker15 said:
hmm, sorry I forgot your love of the scientific method. lol. Note your respect for the scientific method! If you truly respected it you would try to learn all that it has to offer instead of mindlessly repeating the same old garbage.
well, yeah religious people are deluded that's invit if you can't provide any facts or evidence. You et al have to prove this is not so.
Instead of being derogatotory, I dear you to actually back up your claims with reason and evidence independent of the Koran! If the Koran is true, should be easy. Now, lets hear of your scientific expalanations for life etc.
The Carpenter said:
[Omrow claims Atheists tend to use absurd methods. They dont stick to scientific way of establishing facts. ]
Let's pretend for just a few more seconds that you can actually answer questions without resorting to pointless insults.
- What exactly do you mean by the "scientific way of establishing facts"?
- What "absurb methods" are used by atheists?
sinic said:
I suppose the clever dick who created the title of this thread thought that he had identified a contradiction ...ie religious contemplation cannot possibly have a logical basis.
It really depends on what you mean by religion.
If you believe that religion is only identified by the silly anthropomorphic trivial moral directives found in say Catholicism or Islam then of course it is possible to argue that logic and religion are incompatible.
Pointing this fact out is what makes Dickie Dorkins feel so good about himself.
However if you are intelligent enough to recognise, and it seems not many are, that limits appear to exist to the logical insights of which puny dangerous socio pathological humans are capable then the so called dilemma is seen for what it is...a dichotomy for dimwits.
Mr Whizz said:
Science's approach is as follows:-
1. Be sceptical about claims and explanations.
2. Demand evidence before believing something to be true.
3. Test to see whether the evidence supports the claims.
4. Consider whether alternative explanations better explains the evidence.
5. Look for evidence that shows the claim to be false.
6. Repeat from the top.
It's the best way of exposing explanations and claims as being false. It's also the best way of homing in on what might be true.
It's striking how different the above approach is to religious dogma.
Regardless of what particular explanations you might believe to be true, applying the above method should help highlight where you need to be doubtful.
Again, science sees doubt as a strength and absolutely necessary in improving our understanding/knowledge. Religion sees it as a weakness and strongly advocates having "faith" rather than having "doubts".
One advances knowledge. One holds it back.
It's not about differences in logic - it's about differences in attitude.
-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)