WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Post Reply New Topic

Rationality and Logic are objective. Atheists come to their conclusions through their best application of reason and logic. I'd like to think that the conclusions I have come are unavoidable for anyone who applies logic and rationality given the same axioms I've worked from. So I'd like to think they are objective to some degree.

Logic itself isn't objective, it's merely a formula for consistency and completeness. You can make a logically valid argument but have a ridiculous premise. Like I could easily argue the world is flat and it would be logically valid but the premise would be ridiculous since we have satellites these days. The premises are only as good as the givens.

well, wether someone claims this or not it doesn't really matter, usually it is based on the ideas one person holds, and his ideas seem more compatible with 'agnosticism' than strong-atheism, and it doesn't look to go along with Theism (unless you have a definition for theism or a branch of theism which makes "disbelief in deities" compatible with it).


Yeah, pretty much their arguments are aimed towards conservative christians mostly, and sometimes, depending on how its done, that can be quite dishonest, but I think it can be valid sometimes, for example, an atheist can believe that the literal interpretation of the Bible is the only valid interpretation, and a liberal interpretation an ad hoc way to save their religion.

Last edited by blunnet on 24 Apr 2011, 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That is not possible since I seldom imply anything at all and since I do not see religion as illogical and since I actually have a lot of difficulty keeping the differences between subject and objective in mind as I analyze things and I very seldom even try to analyze other people anyway ...

... but maybe what you have said there is your own personal analysis of something, and that is fine.

page 12, post #1. Given that this would be about the 3rd time you've told me that I've misinterpreted something you've said, I have no doubt that that is the case here; however, would you care to explain exactly what you did mean in that post, if not that atheists' interpretation of religion as irrational is merely subjective?

I was only trying to point out that the kinds of conclusions being mentioned were still only opinions in need of being presented as mere opinions rather than "findings", as such -- "opinions" and "findings" are not synonymous -- and all of that was said within the context of discussion about how or why people are at times offended by things said ...

... and I was only meaning to suggest being cautious about how those mere feelings get expressed as part of helping WP be ...

Personally, I do not believe that must be an either-or option as you had happened to present it.

From what I've seen Atheists can be about as objective as religious fanatics.

Logic can be used to argue ridiculous positions. Logic is simply a stucture of argument. However, if one chooses sound axioms, their conclusion via logic should be sound.

To the original question. I was overjoyed when I found PPR. Religion has long been a fascination for me. I'm not a Christian. I believe in god(s), and for lack of a better label, consider myself an omnist.
In the few debates I've jumped into, I find it very interesting that I seem to come out (mostly) on the atheist side. This is probably because I think no religion is anymore valid than another. The very real truth is that god itself can't really be debated. "Proof" of god is based on personal interpretation and experience. Like love, your faith can only be "real" to you. It's not tangible. When you base your "proof" on the Bible or other doctrine, it falls flat because your supporting evidence isn't considered valid to the other side. No one can ever win the debate. The best you can hope is that you will explain your stance and reach a truce.

I think that the Christian tendency to adhere to words like 'proof" and "truth" tend to annoy and piss-off the other side because you can't prove your "proof" which defies the definition of proof.

I just wish there was more "This is what I believe..." discussion... and less "You're crazy..." discussion... though I do have to say, there has been once or twice I've thought that... *pops a cursed chocolate egg in her mouth*

Only the religious atheists who faithfully practice their lack of subjective faith.


Your curse-popping sense of humor there is refreshing!

Being a religious fanatic, are you in a position to comment of objectivity then? Brainteaser

This thread was both intriguing and slightly aggravating to read through.
A few comments.
God is often excluded and refuted because it cannot be proven or definitively explained. And it is done so because of the fervorous manner in which it gets arbitrarily, from a scientific pov, interjected into explanations of existence. One could easily replace god, or Jesus, or Mohammad etc with any other noun and it would be just the same. There is not a reason to do so, thus it isn't done (typically). You can believe that the almighty yellow highlighter created the cosmos in six days and on the seventh rested, and that it sent it's only son, the paper clip, to save mankind. And it is just as plausible as anything else. These unprovable, and arbitrary creations, flights of fancy if you will, are not science. They have no place in discussions about truth, or fact. They are however relevant to faith, and belief. You can choose to believe anything. This is a choice each and every one of us makes. Often within organized religions everything possible is done so that individuals are unaware there even is a choice, yet the choice to believe or not, and in what, remains within the individual. And belief, faith, these things are potent. They are powerful forces within the human psyche. They can cause dramatic shifts in personality, perspective, behavior, thought patterns. There is evidence that faiths and beliefs can be good, healthy endeavors. There is also evidence of the harm and destruction faith can bring. But there cannot be evidence of faith's claims, for if there were, it would no longer require faith to believe in them.
There will always be a schism between science and religion so long as people attempt to blur the very distinct line between them. You can be both scientific and religious. They are not polar opposites, they are not exclusive. They are two different approaches to reach a destination. With practice and care, you can fully realize them both.
On a side note. I often feel that people make strange claims in regards to Atheists. Or perhaps people claim to be one, when they really don't quite fit that descriptor. I know I am one, but that is because I'm incapable of belief in anything. Even my own existence is questionable. I hold nothing as concrete, solid, definitive, no belief or faith in anything at all. Am I writing this? I have no answer to questions like this. Well, I could arbitrarily answer with either yes, no, or otherwise. But it's trivial and pointless (in my opinion) to claim to know anything with that degree of confidence. I make arbitrary assertions continuously, due to the peculiar limits of language and human communication...maybe we all do?

I digress,
~NS

I do think we owe it to each other to avoid calling any belief system crazy or illogical per fact, although an "I feel it is illogical" is probablyOK. But I, too, get frustrated with how predominant the view is that Christian equals literalist when the largest Christian church in the world, Catholicism, teaches the opposite.

As for Noah, there is evidence there may have been such major flooding in the region it seemed like it covered the entire world to the group of people whose history is the basis of the record in the Bible. But truth or not is actually irrelant to the point of the story. I read the stories about the search for proof as an interesting side story, but it has little to do with what I believe.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 25 Apr 2011, 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Stepping stones topic

Could not wait until the 17th+ page was read.

The basis does not have to be real. and I would not care if there was a god. Not relevant.

I am Not Interested. If Lee likes it, it works for him. End of problem. And as I often write:

NEXT.

Well, at least the rest of us and even the "you" that might actually be there can see it has certainly been written!

Quite apropos, actually ...


NEXT.

Last edited by leejosepho on 25 Apr 2011, 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.