Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism

Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism

There are 289 comments on the News24 story from May 10, 2013, titled Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism. In it, News24 reports that:

Awarded after your tenth article is published on MyNews24. You've got 15 more to go to reach the next level! All children are born Atheist, without the knowledge of God or whatsoever.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News24.

Misa

Radstock, UK

#41 May 16, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>You have managed to cram so much that's wrong into one post that it's hard to know where to start - humans haven't evolved from trees is one correction to make, perhaps? Then, you confuse something being true but unknown with making something up like Abrahamic god(s) and then believing in them regardless of reason or evidence.
According to such 'logic' as is in your post there could be pixies and god could be Blackbeard, but there's no more reason to believe in those than in Abrahamic gods. We could all make stuff up and call them 'our beliefs' but that is hardly to be recommended.
The point is that belief in god(s) might have been understandable when people thought the Earth was flat. There's no excuse for such gibberish in the 21st century. Abrahamic gods are superstitions, plain and simple.
LOL, you owe me a new irony meter.

First, I never said humans are descended from trees. Try reading my post again, but this time make an effort to understand it.

Second, I never mentioned Abrahamic gods.
Lincoln

United States

#42 May 16, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>You have managed to cram so much that's wrong into one post that it's hard to know where to start - humans haven't evolved from trees is one correction to make, perhaps? Then, you confuse something being true but unknown with making something up like Abrahamic god(s) and then believing in them regardless of reason or evidence.
According to such 'logic' as is in your post there could be pixies and god could be Blackbeard, but there's no more reason to believe in those than in Abrahamic gods. We could all make stuff up and call them 'our beliefs' but that is hardly to be recommended.
The point is that belief in god(s) might have been understandable when people thought the Earth was flat. There's no excuse for such gibberish in the 21st century. Abrahamic gods are superstitions, plain and simple.
Sincere educated people still believe in God.
Sincere educated people who believe in God vote.
President Obama and Vice President Biden believe in God and made this known during the 2012 campaign.
Peace
Misa

Radstock, UK

#43 May 16, 2013
Hint for EdSed: having common ancestry with something doesn't mean you're descended from it...
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#44 May 16, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Sincere educated people still believe in God.
Sincere educated people who believe in God vote.
President Obama and Vice President Biden believe in God and made this known during the 2012 campaign.
Peace
That wouldn't be wise.

I don't question their sincerity, only the sanity of such attitudes. They remind me of the people who were cheering the Emperor who had no clothes - it seemed a reasonable thing to do at the time.

And I do doubt which god Obama and Biden believe in, if any. I doubt if its any of the Abrahamic ones and people tend to carry-on with religious behavior they were taught as a child. I felt obliged to do that myself. So don't mistake overt accommodation of religion for superstitions such as you may hold.
Lincoln

United States

#45 May 16, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>That wouldn't be wise.
I don't question their sincerity, only the sanity of such attitudes. They remind me of the people who were cheering the Emperor who had no clothes - it seemed a reasonable thing to do at the time.
And I do doubt which god Obama and Biden believe in, if any. I doubt if its any of the Abrahamic ones and people tend to carry-on with religious behavior they were taught as a child. I felt obliged to do that myself. So don't mistake overt accommodation of religion for superstitions such as you may hold.
If President Obama had run as an atheist Mitt Romney would most likely be president today.
Difficult to generalize on religious belief?
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#46 May 16, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Testing the various "holy" book's promises? Always prove that no god is willing to honor those promises.
Always.
That is more than sufficient to dismiss the "holy" books as fraud.
Without a "holy" book? There is no RATIONAL reason to believe in any gods.
None.
Conclusion: there are no gods.
NEXT!
Misa wrote:
<quoted text>
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premisses. There once was no rational reason to believe that humans share ancestry with trees, but it was still true.
Hi Misa. Okay, I retract the post. Perhaps it made more sense in a wider context because I saw little sense in it by itself. Sorry, I couldn't be bothered to re-read the whole thread but Bob's post didn't seem to justify your response which struck me as badly worded at best - but now perhaps the same might be said for mine :-)

I thought Nightserf maybe made the most useful comment in post 27.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#47 May 16, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
If President Obama had run as an atheist Mitt Romney would most likely be president today....
Exactly. So I'm unsure if anyone knows what he believes regarding what most religionists (or 'faithists'?) would call a god.
Misa

Radstock, UK

#48 May 16, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Hi Misa. Okay, I retract the post. Perhaps it made more sense in a wider context because I saw little sense in it by itself. Sorry, I couldn't be bothered to re-read the whole thread but Bob's post didn't seem to justify your response which struck me as badly worded at best - but now perhaps the same might be said for mine :-)
I thought Nightserf maybe made the most useful comment in post 27.
Thank you, sincerely. And my apologies for being short.

Yes, I agree NightSerf pretty much nailed it.
Lincoln

United States

#49 May 16, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly. So I'm unsure if anyone knows what he believes regarding what most religionists (or 'faithists'?) would call a god.
Motivation and belief are difficult to determine in the study of history.
Peace

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#50 May 16, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Sincere educated people still believe in God.
Sincere educated people who believe in God vote.
President Obama and Vice President Biden believe in God and made this known during the 2012 campaign.
Peace
Red herring ... AGAIN.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#51 May 16, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Motivation and belief are difficult to determine in the study of history.
Peace
Cop out, one would only make such an assertion to avoid the reality of history. Most people who are influential in history write their thoughts in diaries, most people on the planet keep a diary of some sort. It's not hard to read what one thinks.
Lincoln

United States

#52 May 16, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Cop out, one would only make such an assertion to avoid the reality of history. Most people who are influential in history write their thoughts in diaries, most people on the planet keep a diary of some sort. It's not hard to read what one thinks.
Try to prove - "Most people who are influential in history write their thoughts in diaries."
Unfortunately for historian, they don't.
-
Hope you are feeling better from the operations.
Peace

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#53 May 16, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
It would be more accurate to say that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. For example, if someone claimed that a strong magnetic field existed in a particular spot, the absence of any effect on a metal in which iron was the main component would be definitive evidence that no such field was present. In many experiments, the absence of effects predicted by a hypothesis are evidence that that hypothesis is false.
Likewise, many of the arguments I've seen attempting to validate atheists' positions have highlighted the absence of effects that would indicate a god at work. Why would anyone suppose that something as enormously powerful as a god would fail to produce predictable and observable effects? Yet all of the gods I've heard of seem to do exactly that.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. But sometimes it is.
"A god at work"

Why would anyone assume that a god would want to produce predictable and observable effects?
I don't get it.

You presume to know the mind of god - the one that you seem to think does not exist.

Do you see the irony?
"There is none, but if there were, this is what would happen....."

I see it just the opposite.
Why would a god care if mankind was aware of his presence or not?

Scientific evidence has no need to be in the concerns of philosophy.
The question of god, and indicators of such, do not require science or its techniques.
Philosophers will for the most part agree with this, scientists will often not, as they tend to be science-centered, myopic.

~~~

If you want to know 'facts', science is a very good system, possible 'the best'..
I have never heard a successful argument that says the best way to do something should be the only way.

In science some fairly notable individuals say non-rational techniques lead to very productive results.
~~

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

"The only real valuable thing is intuition."

"The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why".
- Albert Einstein

~
Science does not have a theory that explains or predicts the characteristics of intuition, and yet, many great scientific discoveries relied heavily on intuitive insights. The connections between intellect and intuition are one of the great mysteries of our universe.
Isaac Newton supposedly watched an apple fall from a tree and suddenly connected its motion as being caused by the same universal gravitational force that governs the moon's attraction to the earth. John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, said "Newton owed his success to his muscles of intuition. Newton's powers of intuition were the strongest and most enduring with which a man has ever been gifted."
http://www.p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue19/Physics ...

~~~~
Steve Jobs reflects in Walter Isaacson's much-discussed biography of him, one of the 11 best biographies and memoirs of 2011:
The people in the Indian countryside don't use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and the intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world... Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That's had a big impact on my work.

Western rational thought is not an innate human characteristic, it is learned and it is the great achievement of Western civilization. In the villages of India, they never learned it. They learned something else, which is in some ways just as valuable but in other ways is not. That's the power of intuition and experiential wisdom."

~~~

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#54 May 16, 2013
In recent years neuroscience has made great strides in explaining how flashes of insight work. We find reference to flashes of insight as well in a variety of older fields that seek to explain how good ideas for action happen. They appear in Asian philosophy, classical military strategy, business strategy, the history of science, and the newer field of cognitive psychology. By pulling together these various sources, we are able to arrive at a modern discipline that puts flashes of insight at the center of a philosophy of action across all fields of human endeavor.

I call this new discipline strategic intuition. It is very different from ordinary intuition, like vague hunches or gut instinct. Ordinary intuition is a form of emotion: feeling, not thinking. Strategic intuition is the opposite: it’s thinking, not feeling. A flash of insight cuts through the fog of your mind with a clear, shining thought. You might feel elated right after, but the thought itself is sharp in your mind. That’s why it excites you: at last you see clearly what to do.
http://columbiapress.typepad.com/strategic_in ...

~~~~

Although intuitions may often lead to suboptimal decisions, it is still possible that intuitions are sometimes as good or better than judgments derived from deliberation. This quality of intuitions is not necessarily a default circumstance due to deliberative strategies falling short when overused (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Schooler, Ohlson, & Brooks, 1993; Wilson & Brekke, 1994), but rather may be the result of the structural properties of intuition once it is considered in its proper information processing context.
http://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/Intuition.pdf

~~~
If you want to know something about science, go to science.

You think Science is the only path to knowledge and understanding, you need to expand your horizons.
Philosophy, the mother of science, disagrees.
Misa

Radstock, UK

#55 May 16, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
If you want to know something about science, go to science.
You think Science is the only path to knowledge and understanding, you need to expand your horizons.
Philosophy, the mother of science, disagrees.
What do you think the useful areas of philosophy are? Other than science (if you do still categorise it as such).

I'd say logic, and perhaps ethics. Anything else?

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#56 May 16, 2013
Misa wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think the useful areas of philosophy are? Other than science (if you do still categorise it as such).
I'd say logic, and perhaps ethics. Anything else?
Philosophy is about critical thinking.

What is there that mankind might do, that does not require critical thinking.

Philosophy spawned all endeavors, and remains with them.

In science, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, are all critical, indispensable.
In other areas, not so much.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#57 May 16, 2013
'Logic' is simply a systematic method of critical thinking.
Critical thinking does not require the system of logic that it developed.
It is much more encompassing.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#58 May 16, 2013
Misa wrote:
<quoted text>
Very little was rational until the discovery of DNA? Surely some mistake...
My point, which you apparently missed, is that just because there is no rational reason to believe something, doesn't make that thing false. The history of science is filled with examples.
Are you having visions? Seeing things that aren't there? The words were "Prior to the return to reason, after the Dark Ages, where irrationality was normal, there was little in the way of rationality.".

Now if you can concentrate, I think it just may be possible for you to read and actually understand his post.
Misa

Radstock, UK

#59 May 16, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>Philosophy is about critical thinking.
What is there that mankind might do, that does not require critical thinking.
Philosophy spawned all endeavors, and remains with them.
In science, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, are all critical, indispensable.
In other areas, not so much.
I agree with regards to critical thinking.

Epistemology, slightly less so. Obviously it played a _major_ role in the historical development of science, but its relevance as an area of study for scientists today is fairly minimal.

Ethics is a dubious one. Obviously ethical choices are involved in project funding and so on, but I'm not sure that studying ethics as a _discipline_ is useful. I'm 50-50 on that one.

But as for metaphysics... I am totally unconvinced that it's useful to anyone, including scientists. I think I'm with Hume on that one:
Hume wrote:
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
Misa

Radstock, UK

#60 May 16, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Are you having visions? Seeing things that aren't there? The words were "Prior to the return to reason, after the Dark Ages, where irrationality was normal, there was little in the way of rationality.".
Now if you can concentrate, I think it just may be possible for you to read and actually understand his post.
I can read his words fine. What was a mystery is how they related to my post, to which they were replying.

But we have long since moved on from that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 min Demon Slayer 532
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 51 min Demon Slayer 52,431
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Aura Mytha 24,924
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr Demon Slayer 22,198
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 4 hr Bob Zanotti 233
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 4 hr Passion of the Ma... 1,684
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 5 hr Ian McFarland 11,462
More from around the web