Disproving the Existence of God

[metaphoria]

Perhaps we've come a long way since cave paintings, considering sunflower seed carpet displays being shut down over health and safety fears.

[flamingjimmy]

So why do you get these feelings?

Where does our appreciation of art or music come from?

 

My brain....

[plekhanov]

My brain....

Yes Jimmy but where did your brain come from? I mean it's not as if there are millions of examples of brains in other organisms with different levels of complexity or anything is it? And there's certainly no fossil record showing ancestral hominids with progressively larger brains.

 

Clearly your appreciation of art must be the result of a magic man who lives in the sky magically instilling that quality in humans, it's the only logical explanation.

[redwhine]

Yes Jimmy but where did your brain come from? I mean it's not as if there are millions of examples of brains in other organisms with different levels of complexity or anything is it? And there's certainly no fossil record showing ancestral hominids with progressively larger brains.

 

Clearly your appreciation of art must be the result of a magic man who lives in the sky magically instilling that quality in humans, it's the only logical explanation.

Now all you have to is to explain, logically, where the magic man came from.

 

Another magic man? And another magic man made that one? "It's the only logical explanation.":loopy:

 

Turtles all the way down.

 

:hihi:

[Smithster]

So why do you get these feelings?

Where does our appreciation of art or music come from?

There is no evolutionary basis for it, indeed in purely evolutionary terms, it is probably a distraction, therefore evolution should select against it.

 

Quite incorrect actually. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that certain sounds oscillating on certain frequencies can have either positive or negative effects on the electrical patterns in your brain. Some will be quite pleasing, others will be distracting or uncomfortable.

[onewheeldave]

Mod Note

 

Return to the topic and cease the personal attacks or the thread will be closed and the perpetrators will be dealt with.

 

Oh dear, the threads gone downhill in my absence. I wish people could discuss these issues without the nastiness and name calling- it would be a real shame if a thread of this length got pulled.

 

 

 

Do you think that rationality is flawed? If so why?

 

I did write a long, detailed reply to your question, but, my pc went down big style and i lost the lot.

 

Currently I'm on a library pc, so can't really say too much.

 

Briefly though- I think it's more a case that rationality is limited in scope- a tool that's incredibly useful, but, which doesn't apply well to life issues like metaphysical angst, dealing with negative emotions like anxiety, depression, dissatisfaction etc.

 

Came to that conclusion after years of studying western philosophy, then delved into eastern philosphies, which are much more non-rational, or, in some cases, actaully attribute lifes problems to the mis-application of thought/rationality (e.g. zen).

[onewheeldave]

As I have repeatedly tried to point out, theism and atheism, faiyism and afairyism, ufoism and aufoism, bigfootism and abigfootism, etc, are not ideologies.

 

Christianity, Socialism, Islam, Nazism, Humanism, Communism, Vegetarianism, etc, are ideologies.

 

The latter can motivate actions and behaviour, the former cannot.

 

Well i never claimed that the atrocities of communist russia were caused by the atheism of the rulers.

 

IMO, the cause was their human nature.

[onewheeldave]

Liar you declared:

 

"More recently however, we have had a society based on atheism and can assess whether an athiestic society is necessarily more tolerant and less aggressive/oppressive than religious ones.

 

That society was communist Russia with it's policy of state atheism- was it more tolerant?"

 

Your absurd charge that the Soviet Union was "based upon atheism" was the 11th post in a thread in which there had been no "suggestion that, historically, all such violence had been performed in the name of religion" nor had anyone implied that atheists "are immune to the possibility of carrying out the violent oppression that some religious organisations have".

 

Your argument that the USSR was 'abased upon atheism' was anything but rational and the your excuses for making such a slanderous attack upon atheism are nothing but lies. Such behaviour is typical of how you approach atheists and atheism and a prime reason why you're delusional if you think us 'new atheists' will take adivce from you about how to conduct ourselves.

 

 

This latest bit of squirming just doesn't hold up for a number of reasons.

 

1. There is a direct logical line between many theists beliefs and coercive acts including censoring art. In contrast there is no logical line between not believing in gods and doing anything.
   
2. As has already been pointed out "Dawkins supporters (and possibly Dawkins himself" who you attempted to depict as would be censors are a broadly liberal lot. My unscientific surveys of us suggest anger at theistic attacks upon the rights of women, homosexuals and free speech are the prime causes of people becoming active 'new atheists'. As such becoming censors as you bizarrely claim we want to would go directly against one of our prime reasons for our activism.
   
3. Given that the only thing that unites 'new atheists' aside from generally being in favour of liberal democracy is being opposed to theistic attacks upon people's basic rights your attempt to depict us as a group that could seize power "in certain circumstances" and "end up behaving like immoral monsters" is beyond silly. There's simply no way a group consisting of socialists to libertarians, Green, Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative party activists could ever seize power as the things which divide us on pretty much every aspect of social and economic policy far outweigh the single issue we do agree on.
   

The more you try and defend your most recent slanderous attack the more it becomes clear that you are once again trying to conflate atheists with Stalinists.

 

Do you often find that people who you keep on trying to depict as Stalinists take advice from you?

 

plekhanov- in much the same way that i don't discuss/debate with that subset of atheists who preface their posts with 'fail' (for reasons I've covered already): I'm certainly not going to engage with and spend my time replying to a post which, with it's first word, calls me a 'liar'.

 

If you really think I'm such a low life that i would post lies, then there's really not much point having a discussion (IMO).

[flamingjimmy]

Briefly though- I think it's more a case that rationality is limited in scope- a tool that's incredibly useful, but, which doesn't apply well to life issues like metaphysical angst, dealing with negative emotions like anxiety, depression, dissatisfaction etc.

Of course it does. We've all been through a 'life is meaningless' phase, and many of us have been depressed. I for one didn't need to turn to some wishy washy exotic pretentious foreign philosophy to get through it.

[plekhanov]

plekhanov- in much the same way that i don't discuss/debate with that subset of atheists who preface their posts with 'fail' (for reasons I've covered already): I'm certainly not going to engage with and spend my time replying to a post which, with it's first word, calls me a 'liar'.

 

If you really think I'm such a low life that i would post lies, then there's really not much point having a discussion (IMO).

You clearly do post lies, a few of which I just pointed out. Given your general level of conduct your hypocritically taking refuge in offence when confronted by hard evidence of your lack of honesty and yet again ignoring all the substance in a post you find too much to deal with is hardly a surprise.