Atheism: new religion?

[six45ive]

I'm not going to argue with that definition- my dissagreement is with your interpretation of 'omnipotent'.

 

To say (as I do) that an omnipotent being cannot do impossible things, does not place a limit on their power, because 'omnipotency' doesn't mean the ability to perform the impossible- rather it's the ability to perform anything that's possible.

 

To put it in purely logical terms- 'impossible' means-

 

im·pos·si·ble (m-ps-bl)

adj.

1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.

2. Not capable of being accomplished: an impossible goal.

3. Unacceptable; intolerable: impossible behavior.

4. Extremely difficult to deal with or tolerate: an impossible child; an impossible situation.

 

(from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/impossible)

 

with 1 & 2 being the relevant points.

 

If a thing is impossible- it cannot be, under any circumstances.

 

No being, omnipotent or otherwise, can do that which is impossible- if it did do it, all that shows is that the task wasn't actually impossible.

 

Google it- there's loads out there, such as-

 

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/arguments-for-atheism/problems-with-divine-omnipotence/omnipotence-and-logically-impossible-rocks/

 

I'm well aware of what's out there and I've read various versions of your link and it all comes back to what is defined as omnipotent and I'll go along with the widely held freedictionary definition that there can be no limits on what constitutes omnipotence. Impossibility is clearly a limit leading to the objective and logical conclusion that an omnipotent being can't logically exist.

 

You know my opinion of the rational abilities of many vocal atheists, so forgive me if, just because a point has been debunked in the eyes of secular/humanist circles, i don't just roll over and accept it

 

Neither do I. As a sceptic I do my own research, put aside my own wants, needs and desires, look at all the available evidence (empirical and otherwise) and then form a conclusion based on that evidence.

 

And, i grant you that you do seem fairly intelligent, but when you say "(logic being a law of nature)", then you really do let yourself down.

 

Assuming that by law of nature you're refering to the laws of physics? (if not, please clarify what you mean), then that's just plain wrong.

 

Again, googling it should make that obvious and, if you still want to maintain that logic is a law of nature then you need to explain how and why.

 

Let me start by saying I have absolutely no interest in whether you find me fairly intelligent, very intelligent or thick as two short planks as my parents would say.

As I recall, earlier you wanted me to express myself in my own words without resorting to links to videos or somebody else's 'opinion' so I'll do so here.

So yes logic (or more accurately logical absolutes) are, by definition laws of nature (as are the laws of physics) in the respect that something is what it is and is not what it is not; ie a tree is a tree and is not not a tree (in other words a tree is not a rock for example). Everything in nature has a character that is unique to itself; ie a cloud is located in the atmosphere and consists (mainly) of water vapour and can be white and 'fluffy' etc. I could go on ad infinitum but I'm sure you get the point.

Basically logic is the mechanism by which we distinguish the natural world (reality) from the supernatural world with the logical absolutes being the fundamental apriori actualities that are the underpinning of our understanding.

[six45ive]

If it's difficult, that's for the excat same reason that you can't come up with an example of a person that has committed an atrocity on the sole position of being a believer (so ,for example, all psychopaths, who also just happen to have a religious cause).

 

It's not difficult at all. If somebody says they are about to commit an atrocity in the name of their god/religion then I'm prepared to believe them. If somebody says they are about to commit an atrocity in the name of their lack of belief in a god/religion then I'm also prepared to believe them.

I can find you plenty of the former but I challenge you to find me any of the latter.

[chorba]

Care to explain what a non-fundamentalist a'theist would be?

 

He is just like a non-fundamentalist religious person.

[onewheeldave]

When you can point to somebody that has committed an attrocity on the sole position of being an atheist ie; no other ideology, religious or political, was an influence on their actions, then I would be prepared to look at that evidence. My guess is that you're going to find it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a credible example.

 

Is what you said originally. 'on the sole position of being an atheist ' is a somewhat obscure phrase, which I assumed meant an atheist committing an atrocity soley on the basis of their atheism.

 

To which I replied-

 

If it's difficult, that's for the excat same reason that you can't come up with an example of a person that has committed an atrocity on the sole position of being a believer (so ,for example, all psychopaths, who also just happen to have a religious cause).

 

Now you're saying-

 

It's not difficult at all. If somebody says they are about to commit an atrocity in the name of their god/religion then I'm prepared to believe them. If somebody says they are about to commit an atrocity in the name of their lack of belief in a god/religion then I'm also prepared to believe them.

I can find you plenty of the former but I challenge you to find me any of the latter.

 

i.e. "If somebody says they are about to commit an atrocity in the name of their lack of belief in a god/religion then I'm also prepared to believe them."

 

which seems somewhat different.

 

And, in that case, I'm sure you can find plent you examples of people who say they are committing those acts in the name of their God- historically it's quite common for that type to justify their actions by referring to God.

 

Still, I maintain that, whatever they say, the fact is that mass murderers commit mass murders because they are sick, twisted, psycopaths.

 

So, to me, the root cause is their twisted mental state- to you it's their religious belief.

 

I'm sure we can both agree that that question can't be settled purely by reference to what they say is the cause- deranged mass murderers are hardly in a good position to know the true causes of their murderous actions and, even if they were, they can hardly be relied upon to be telling the truth.

 

So, how could we establish the true cause of their actions- are there any experiments, for example, that could settle it.

 

Because, as things stand, that question is far from settled.

[quisquose]

Care to explain what a non-fundamentalist a'theist would be?

He is just like a non-fundamentalist religious person.

 

We all know what is meant when we say somebody is a fundamentalist Christian, or a fundamentalist Muslim. It implies somebody with strict adherence to specific theological doctrines.

 

A'theists have no doctrines, and yet you happily use the term fundamentalist a'theist.

 

So I ask again, what exactly would be the characteristics of a non-fundamentalist a'theist be?

[Lockjaw]

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)?

 

 

 

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.

 

Hiya Dave.

 

Up to that point it appeared you were avoiding the question - bear in mind that I was typing as you were answering and you admitted that the answer you typed had failed to appear. Once I saw your answer I acknowledged it.

 

Regarding the other stuff; you, clearly, are struggling with the idea of a non human-centric universe so I don't see much point arguing the toss there but I'll leave you with this one since you are so certain that maths is independent of humanity:

 

What is 465786 multiplied by 76867676?

 

I assume your answer will be 35803887333336 but - and here is the point - how do you know that that is the correct answer?

[Lockjaw]

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.

 

OK, I'll take a few steps backwards; you are aware that logic means "reasoning" aren't you?

[onewheeldave]

Hiya Dave.

 

Up to that point it appeared you were avoiding the question - bear in mind that I was typing as you were answering and you admitted that the answer you typed had failed to appear. Once I saw your answer I acknowledged it.

 

Fair enough- thanks for the explanation

 

Regarding the other stuff; you, clearly, are struggling with the idea of a non human-centric universe so I don't see much point arguing the toss there but I'll leave you with this one since you are so certain that maths is independent of humanity:

 

What is 465786 multiplied by 76867676?

 

I assume your answer will be 35803887333336 but - and here is the point - how do you know that that is the correct answer?

 

For that example, I'd just use the calculator.

 

How do i know it gives the right answer. If i had doubts I'd just confirm with another calculator, maybe even work it out on paper.

 

The reasons I'm beleive maths to be independant of humanity are numerous. For examples-

 

1. maths is the basis of physics- physics operated fine well before humanity existed

2. some numbers, like Pi, cannot actually exist in the physical world & are not capable of being 'created' by humanity (due to it being an irrational number

3. etc, etc

 

in short, i find there are more compelling reasons to believe mathematical entites to be independant of humanity, than there are reasons to believe the opposite.

 

But then again, that very question has been tackled by mathematicians and philosophers for centuries- there's still no consensus, so, ultimately we have to come up with our own answer, hopefully backed up with valid reasoning.

[onewheeldave]

OK' date=' I'll take a few steps backwards; you are aware that logic means "reasoning" aren't you?[/quote']

 

A bit of a loaded question- if I say 'yes', then your way is clear to claim that 'reasoning' is a activity of the human mind and, therefore, that logic can't exist in the absence of humanity?

 

Personally, my view is that logic underlies and preceeds everything- the universe, the laws of physics and humanity.

 

Human reasoning, when it's valid, is simply a 'mapping' pre-existing logic.

 

'there are no human beings' is a logical statement that, in this period of time is false- however, prior to the origins of humanity, it was true: for a logical statement to be true, there must be logic (at a time when there were no humans).

[Cyclone]

It would be rather anthropocentric to assume that our squishy grey matter is the only thing capable of logical reasoning in the universe.