onewheeldave Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Religious belief is by definition irrational, that's why it requires faith. Generally speaking if someone is irrational about one thing, is it safe to assume that they're rational about anything else? Religious belief is not by definition irrational. It's totally possible to be a religious believer and rational, as the huge number of eminent and accomplished scientists, logicians and mathematicians clearly shows. It is also possible to be irrational about one thing and rational about others- it's pretty bizarre that anyone could think otherwise. (Vocal atheists are a prime example of people who can be rational about some things and totally irrational about others) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Of course nobody had expressed that opinion until just now on this thread, so onewheeldave is busy setting up lots of targets here in order to knock them down. Whilst ignoring the original topic of whether atheism is a religion (ie not rational and requiring faith). 'Setting up targets in order to knock them down'- typical vocal atheist-speak: what does it mean? what targets? I'm replying to the posts of ahteists, pure and simple. The original topic of whether atheism is a religion- personally, I do not consider atheism a religion, but fully sympathise with the view that, in some ways, some atheists, display behaviour that is disturbingly similar to that of religious extremists. As it happens, I don't find that particular subject of that much interest, but, this is an online discussion thread, with no requirement whatsoever to stay rigidly on-topic, and, to the extent that I've discussed things that were simply related to the OPs post, it has been in reply to the posts of other atheists: I make no apology for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 they couldn't- that was my point. it was in reply to someone who claimed that humanity invented logic How could humans invent numbers? a 'numbering system' probably is a human invention, because it's a systemisation of something already around (numbers), but numbers, like logic, preceeded humans. For example, there's one Earth, and, before humanity, there was one earth. And 'x' number of stars, both after and before humans came on the scene. post 233 was- my answer to the first question was- Nope ... sorry ... not making any sense, I'm afraid. Are you suggesting that the one Earth is the same as, for instance, one moon ... or one Sun? The post 233 you quoted was, actually, post 240. Are you suggesting 233 = 240. If so, is this human or pre-human logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Nope ... sorry ... not making any sense, I'm afraid. Are you suggesting that the one Earth is the same as, for instance, one moon ... or one Sun? no, I'm saying that, before humanity, there was 1 earth- so 'one-ness' clearly was around before humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Nope ... sorry ... not making any sense, I'm afraid. Are you suggesting that the one Earth is the same as, for instance, one moon ... or one Sun? The post 233 you quoted was, actually, post 240. Are you suggesting 233 = 240. If so, is this human or pre-human logic? fair enough, post 233 was- Are you, therefore, suggesting that something existed before the "creator"? Why ever would humanity have done that then? I thought I had replied to the first question (i certainly typed it) but it looks like it didn't make it to the thread I'm not suggesting 'something' existed before the 'creator' (very much depends of what you mean by 'something'), but logic most certainly applied. Any creator must have had characteristics, which themselves rest upon logic. The mere fact of a thing existing (as opposed to it's not existing) is a logical distinction, therefore logic must have preceeded God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 no, I'm saying that, before humanity, there was 1 earth- so 'one-ness' clearly was around before humanity. Until humanity popped along the Earth was just a part of a solar system which was just part of a galaxy which was ... etc. It only achieved the status of a discrete object when that was assigned to it by the invention of numbers by humans. "One-ness" was invented by humans. The Universe has no need for its individual parts to be labelled as such. Now then, how's about an answer to the question you've been (rather brilliantly in the case of your post 246) avoiding .... ah; I see you've answered it now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 An odd choice of words. Atheism is only an obsession when the person holding the view is obsessed. Beyond that it is no more or less an obsession than holding any other idea. That's an incredibly twee interpretation. That may be your personal experience, and I would agree with it to a point because the handful of religious people I know are lovely people, but fundamentalists do exist. There are people who would force their beliefs onto others. But doesn't some of that also apply to certain atheists? I'm not sure what twee is except for sounding rather effeminate. Its not in Webster's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 I'm not suggesting 'something' existed before the 'creator' (very much depends of what you mean by 'something') Then logic must have preceeded God. Nope ... Got me again ... Are you applying human or pre-human logic in this instance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Until humanity popped along the Earth was just a part of a solar system which was just part of a galaxy which was ... etc. It only achieved the status of a discrete object when that was assigned to it by the invention of numbers by humans. "One-ness" was invented by humans. The Universe has no need for its individual parts to be labelled as such. So there wasn't one Earth before humans? Hmmm... And presumably, all other logical concepts also didn't exist prior to humanity? In which case, how is it that we can't say the earth was 1, yet can use other logical concepts freely (e.g. the concepts of 'the earth', the 'solar system', etc)? Now then, how's about an answer to the question you've been (rather brilliantly in the case of your post 246) avoiding .... ah; I see you've answered it now... Careful- that sounding like an accusation that I'm deliberately evading answering selected questions: let me make it clear, if I don't want to answer a question (usually because I've decided the asker is either rude, or trolling) then I'll simply not answer it, and I'll be totally open about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Then Nope ... Got me again ... Are you applying human or pre-human logic in this instance? I'm applying logic- I see no need to distinguish between logic post and pre humanity, as, unlike you, I don't believe either that humanity created logic, or indeed that logic altered when humanity appeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.