Atheism: new religion?

[onewheeldave]

You seem to be suggesting that "God" is bound by a human invention - logic.

 

You also appear to be assigning a limitation to the meaning of "all powerful".

 

Are you happy with this?

 

I'm as happy as a pig in **** with that

 

I don't believe humanity 'invented' logic- logic preceeds humanity, the universe and God.

 

Humanity 'discovered' logic, or perhaps 'mapped' it.

 

Otherwise humanity could have invented a logic where 4=5.

 

My previous post explains this-

 

Sorry, this is something I covered during my degree in philosophy, so maybe I'm guilty of assuming that people in general also distinguish between physical and logical impossibility.

 

The laws of physics cover actual physical systems, such as the universe and the matter/energy contained within. Those laws are contingent- the strength of gravity and the other forces are determined by whatever intial conditions were around at the big-bang.

 

If those conditions had been different, the strengh of gravity could be entirely different to what it is.

 

That's what I mean when I say the laws of gravity are contingent- in other universes they could be different.

 

In contrast, the laws of logic are necessary- they cannot be other than what they are.

 

So, if a triangle is defined as 'a three-sided figure', then, necessarily, it cannot have 4 sides.

 

If someone claims to possess a '4 sided triangle' (assuming they accept our definition of tirangle), then we can say 'no you don't' without even having to look at it.

 

Because a '4 sided triangle' cannot be- if we expand it out to include the original def of a triangle, we get 'a 4 sided 3 sided object', which is logically impossible.

 

Anyone claiming to possess such a thing is deluded- what they've probably got is a square

 

Now- that applies not just in our universe, but in every possible universe.

 

There could be a universe where gravity is a different value to ours, but not a universe that contains a 4 sided triangle.

 

So, if an omnipotent being created a world, they could vary the laws of physics at will, but they can't dabble with the laws of logic.

 

An omnipotent being, by definition, can do anything that is possible- it cannot do what is (logically) impossible.

 

And, if you think about it, it's easy to see why, the very act of creating a world, and indeed of being an omnipotent being in the first place, pre-supposes the laws of logic.

 

To be omnipotent is a characteristic, in opposition to not being omnipotent and that distinction is one of logic- for any characteristics to be, including those of God logic must be prior to them i.e. logic precedes God.

[llamatron]

Well, i did deal with it- maybe you were'nt satisfied with what i said, but it did address it.

 

The fact is that, whereas a minority of believers today are indeed deranged fanatics, the rest aren't.

 

You'll get no arguement from me that a great deal of harm has (and is) been done by religious believers.

 

It's just that I believe that when people do evil, it's fundamentally because they are evil, not because they are religious.

 

I've previously given the example of stalinist atheists and the similar evils they committed- that example does not go down well with atheists, who insist that, in reality, the stalinists were not atheists, attributing to them a belief in some kind of personality cult which=religion, despite the fact that they did not believe in God.

 

Nevertheless, I maintain that athiests, when given the opportunity to form large communities capable of these kind of atrocites, will commit them with the same level of probability as believers.

 

Now you can insist that, at the point they do that, they are not atheists anymore, due to the afformentioned 'personality cult' which becomes their 'god', but, at a practical level, that doesn't alter the fact that you've got a community of non-believers (in God) perpetrating great evil.

 

Which is why I say the root cause of such evil has far more to do with human nature, that it does with religious belief.

 

Do you think "bloody mary" was a mental psycho rather than a religious fanatic? I doubt she would have just murdered her subjects if she was not religious

[onewheeldave]

Do you think "bloody mary" was a mental psycho rather than a religious fanatic? I doubt she would have just murdered her subjects if she was not religious

 

I think all mass murderers are mental psychos. I have no doubt that, if such a person, filled with such hatred, were in a position to carry out evil, they would do so, regardless of whether they were believers or atheists.

 

You are presumably aware that many murderers happened to be atheist? Murder is not the sole occupation of believers.

[llamatron]

I think all mass murderers are mental psychos. I have no doubt that, if such a person, filled with such hatred, were in a position to carry out evil, they would do so, regardless of whether they were believers or atheists.

 

You are presumably aware that many murderers happened to be atheist? Murder is not the sole occupation of believers.

 

yes many murders are carried out by atheists, again that does not prove that religion never causes murder. I don't think on any level that Mary would have killed them in the absence of religion.

 

I reckon the crusades would not have happened in the absence of religion, there may have been wars over land but no way would they have had the numbers of people willing to fight if they didn't believe in a god.

[onewheeldave]

yes many murders are carried out by atheists, again that does not prove that religion never causes murder. I don't think on any level that Mary would have killed them in the absence of religion.

 

Well, if Mary was a psycho murderer, then I think she would, given the opportunity, have killed them.

 

you seem very certain she wouldn't, but, if you're a rationalist atheist who bases their beliefs on reason/evidence, presumably you've got some?

 

 

I reckon the crusades would not have happened in the absence of religion, there may have been wars over land but no way would they have had the numbers of people willing to fight if they didn't believe in a god.

 

Good example! Probably the best example there is.

 

But, as you seem pretty clued up on the fact that the real cause was land and the role of religion was simply to motivate the peasants to fight, do you not feel that, in the absence of religion, the leaders would simply have found another motivating factor to exploit?

 

You may recall that atheists, when presented with the atrocities of stalinist atheists, tend to claim that the stalinists where not in fact atheists, but followers of a 'personality cult' similar, in effect, to religious belief.

 

So, in the absence of religion, could not the initiators of the crusades, simply have created such a 'personality cult' and used that to motivate the peasants?

[Cyclone]

Does it really matter? Nobody is claiming that all atrocities are carried out by the religious are they?

[llamatron]

Well, if Mary was a psycho murderer, then I think she would, given the opportunity, have killed them.

 

you seem very certain she wouldn't, but, if you're a rationalist atheist who bases their beliefs on reason/evidence, presumably you've got some?

 

 

 

Good example! Probably the best example there is.

 

But, as you seem pretty clued up on the fact that the real cause was land and the role of religion was simply to motivate the peasants to fight, do you not feel that, in the absence of religion, the leaders would simply have found another motivating factor to exploit?

 

You may recall that atheists, when presented with the atrocities of stalinist atheists, tend to claim that the stalinists where not in fact atheists, but followers of a 'personality cult' similar, in effect, to religious belief.

 

So, in the absence of religion, could not the initiators of the crusades, simply have created such a 'personality cult' and used that to motivate the peasants?

 

no I said I don't think she would have. I think it is more likely that she was a religious fanatic than a psycho murderer and that she believed (mistakenly) that she did it for the good of her people.

 

I don't believe that there would have been nearly so many people willing to fight a war for land than for their religion, and I believe there would have been far less persecution throughout the ages if religion had never been invented. However there may well have been plenty of murders for money etc

 

2nd bold: I recall no such thing, which atheists?

[llamatron]

Does it really matter? Nobody is claiming that all atrocities are carried out by the religious are they?

 

I believe onewheeldave is claiming that atheists believe that! He loves projecting random accusations onto others!

[onewheeldave]

Does it really matter? Nobody is claiming that all atrocities are carried out by the religious are they?

 

The vocal atheists (Dawkins et al) claim that religion is the root cause of much of the worlds troubles, and claim that the world would be a better, less violent place, if there was no religion.

 

They don't claim that all atrocities are carried out by the religious, at least not directly.

 

They do tend, however, when confronted with examples of atheists committing atrocites, for example, the Stalinist regime, that, in fact the Stalinists were not actually atheists, but followers of a personality cult that made them, in effect, religious.

 

I can't really think of many atheist regimes other than the Stalinists who carried out atrocities (historically atheism has been heavily suppressed by religious organisations), so, if vocal atheists do believe that all, apparently atheist regimes guilty of atrocities, were in fact, not actually atheists, but religious (see above) then, by implication, that would suggest that, yes, in their eyes all atrocities would then have been committed by the religious.

 

Of course, that would only apply to the more vocal atheists who support the theory that Stalinists, despite claiming themselves to be atheists, were in fact religious.

[onewheeldave]

I believe onewheeldave is claiming that atheists believe that! He loves projecting random accusations onto others!

 

see my post above- I'm saying that some atheists believe that. i should add that it's almost certainly a small proportion of atheists.