Atheism: new religion?

[llamatron]

Doesn't it?

 

How does that work then?

 

If atheists think the world would be a better place if religion was absent, doesn't that imply that a world full of atheists would be a better world than a world full of believers?

 

And doesn't that imply that the people in the first world, are, on the whole, better than the people in the second?

 

(in the sense that your average vocal atheist, given the choice of living their lives out in the world full of atheists, would prefer to do so?)

 

If you think otherwise, then great

 

But, with the vocal atheists currently claiming that, pretty much by definition, a religious believer is irrational, non-scientific and, given the opportunity for any kind of power, potentially dangerous, I do assume that they tend to rate them a bit low, especially in comparison to atheists.

 

That's certainly the impression given when vocal atheists claim that religious belief, in and of itself, is the cause of so much of the worlds suffering and violence.

 

And that religious belief is incompatible with rationality.

 

I agree, it does sound really bad, but, when wild claims are made, there are consequences, and a lot of vocal atheists do make some pretty wild claims.

 

Yes but it does not imply that the atheist that says it thinks they are better than any religious person.

 

A believer is being irrational on the point of religion. Again your next point is a totally invalid conclusion. I thought you were a philosophy student?

[llamatron]

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)

 

Now that is a stupid statement!

 

Seriously have you got a degree in philosophy?

[llamatron]

'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.

 

nope you have spent the entire thread making things up that you claim (vocal) atheists have said or :hihi:implied:hihi: and then you have disagreed with these absent and invisible atheists that you have made up.

[onewheeldave]

nope you have spent the entire thread making things up that you claim (vocal) atheists have said or :hihi:implied:hihi: and then you have disagreed with these absent and invisible atheists that you have made up.

 

Point me to one thing that I've claimed vocal atheists have said, that you reckon one hasn't said.

[onewheeldave]

Yes but it does not imply that the atheist that says it thinks they are better than any religious person.

 

A believer is being irrational on the point of religion. Again your next point is a totally invalid conclusion. I thought you were a philosophy student?

 

Philosophy graduate.

[onewheeldave]

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

 

It would, and, I wouldn't (assume it)

[Lockjaw]

 

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..

 

So here you are making an assumption and inadvertantly thinking of maths as a human invention. We know that the calculator and the paper method work for relatively small numbers because we can check them. I can get three sets of four items and count them up to make sure there are twelve in all. For larger numbers we are extrapolating and, as such, making an assumption that what works for small numbers works for big ones. If maths is a natural phenomenon then that assumption, which is similar to the assumptions which led Newtonian Physics to be flawed, may not be correct.

 

 

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

 

 

Or - Physics is the basis of physics - maths is a human invention which helps to explain the physics.

 

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.

 

This point was made earlier and seems to me to be evidence to the contrary. The fact pi is an irrational "number" reveals the limitations of the human-made number system.

 

Yes it exists outside of human influence but it's a proportion, rather than a number. Isn't it?

 

Of course, none of this clarifies why you think these ideas existed before the "creator". Was the creator created then?

[onewheeldave]

So here you are making an assumption and inadvertantly thinking of maths as a human invention. We know that the calculator and the paper method work for relatively small numbers because we can check them. I can get three sets of four items and count them up to make sure there are twelve in all. For larger numbers we are extrapolating and, as such, making an assumption that what works for small numbers works for big ones. If maths is a natural phenomenon then that assumption, which is similar to the assumptions which led Newtonian Physics to be flawed, may not be correct.

 

Maths is not a human invention.

 

I'm not a mathematician- I do know that mathematicians have produced proofs that there are certain characteristics of integers (whole numbers e.g. 1, 2, 3.....1001, etc)which basically apply, across the board, to all integers- this is how they know that the laws of multiplication which apply to small numbers (the ones we can check) also apply to very big numbers (in fact all numbers).

 

As a non-mathmetician, I pretty much leave them to deal with such things, in the same way that, though I know a bit about fixing my computer, when it comes to building a chip, I leave it to the experts.

 

If you have doubts about the validity of what the mathematicians have decided constitutes proof of the above, you'll do better to take it up with them, than me.

 

 

 

Or - Physics is the basis of physics - maths is a human invention which helps to explain the physics.

 

 

I don't see how a thing can be the basis of itself, and, like I said above, maths is not (IMO) a human invention- in previous posts in the past few pages, I give several of the reasons why I think that- feel free, if you disagree with any of those reasons, to offer rebuttals here.

 

Alternatively, put up some equivalent reasons of your own to back up your hypothesis that maths was invented by humans, and, I'll have a go at them.

 

 

 

 

 

This point was made earlier and seems to me to be evidence to the contrary. The fact pi is an irrational "number" reveals the limitations of the human-made number system.

 

Yes it exists outside of human influence but it's a proportion, rather than a number. Isn't it?

 

Of course, none of this clarifies why you think these ideas existed before the "creator". Was the creator created then?

 

Why is a numbers irrationality indicative of that?

 

(Just to clarify to any non-math savvy readers stubling across this post, the 'irrationality' of Pi is nothing to do with the non mathematical meaning of the word 'irrational'- it simply refers to particular characterists of Pi (and some other numbers) i.e. the fact that it's digital form contains an infinite number of digits and does not repeat (i.e. effectively random).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number

 

When it comes to the creator I can't really give an answer can I? You are aware that, at no point in this thread have I claimed that I beleive in God?

 

Just because I've argued (strongly) against what I see as faulty reasoning in (some) vocal atheists, should not lead anyone to conclude that I'm a beleiver.

 

I have in a previous post said that I believe logic preceeds everything- it preceeds humanity, the universe and God.

 

In the light of this post, perhaps not worded in the best possible way, but, to clarify- what I meant there was simply that logic preceeds everything, including God, if God did happen to exist.

 

I think I did also say that the reason logic preceeds everything including God, was that if god did exist, that would be the opposite of God not existing, which is indicative of the fact that logic would have to be in operation, as the distinction between A and not-A (e.g. God existing vs God not existing) is a logical one.

[llamatron]

Maths is not a human invention.

 

I'm not a mathematician- I do know that mathematicians have produced proofs that there are certain characteristics of integers (whole numbers e.g. 1, 2, 3.....1001, etc)which basically apply, across the board, to all integers- this is how they know that the laws of multiplication which apply to small numbers (the ones we can check) also apply to very big numbers (in fact all numbers).

 

As a non-mathmetician, I pretty much leave them to deal with such things, in the same way that, though I know a bit about fixing my computer, when it comes to building a chip, I leave it to the experts.

 

If you have doubts about the validity of what the mathematicians have decided constitutes proof of the above, you'll do better to take it up with them, than me.

 

 

 

 

I don't see how a thing can be the basis of itself, and, like I said above, maths is not (IMO) a human invention- in previous posts in the past few pages, I give several of the reasons why I think that- feel free, if you disagree with any of those reasons, to offer rebuttals here.

 

Alternatively, put up some equivalent reasons of your own to back up your hypothesis that maths was invented by humans, and, I'll have a go at them.

 

 

 

 

Why is a numbers irrationality indicative of that?

 

(Just to clarify to any non-math savvy readers stubling across this post, the 'irrationality' of Pi is nothing to do with the non mathematical meaning of the word 'irrational'- it simply refers to particular characterists of Pi (and some other numbers) i.e. the fact that it's digital form contains an infinite number of digits and does not repeat (i.e. effectively random).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number

 

When it comes to the creator I can't really give an answer can I? You are aware that, at no point in this thread have I claimed that I beleive in God?

 

Just because I've argued (strongly) against what I see as faulty reasoning in (some) vocal atheists, should not lead anyone to conclude that I'm a beleiver.

 

I have in a previous post said that I believe logic preceeds everything- it preceeds humanity, the universe and God.

 

In the light of this post, perhaps not worded in the best possible way, but, to clarify- what I meant there was simply that logic preceeds everything, including God, if God did happen to exist.

 

I think I did also say that the reason logic preceeds everything including God, was that if god did exist, that would be the opposite of God not existing, which is indicative of the fact that logic would have to be in operation, as the distinction between A and not-A (e.g. God existing vs God not existing) is a logical one.

 

the generalisation is getting much more specific as the thread progresses. Now we are on some vocal atheists!

[onewheeldave]

the generalisation is getting much more specific as the thread progresses. Now we are on some vocal atheists!

 

On the whole I've mainly been referring to 'some' vocal atheists- it is only a minority of atheists who do put forward those, what i see as, irrational or unsubstatiated points (and indeed are somewhat prone to generalisations).

 

You'll notice that i also take take to expalin why I consider those points to be irrational or unsubstatiated- I'm not just sniping at them.

 

You may not agree with the arguments I put forward, but that's to be expected.

 

I see that you're persistently accusing me of generalisations about atheists (or 'vocal' atheists, I'm not clear on which it is you have the issue with, you may want to clarify), isn't it time you point out a specific example, so I can either defend myself, or, admit that you are right?

 

When it comes to the part you highlighted in bold-

 

Just because I've argued (strongly) against what I see as faulty reasoning in (some) vocal atheists, should not lead anyone to conclude that I'm a beleiver.

 

I'm not saying anything other than some vocal atheists use faulty reasoning- what's the problem with that- do you believe that it's not the case that some vocal atheists use faulty reasoning? Because that would be saying that vocal atheists are somehow immune to making mistakes, which seems somewhat unlikely.

 

It also indicates that, if I am generalising, I'm not very good at it- a real generalisation would be-

 

"atheists are irrational"

 

Which, interestingly, if you substitute 'believer' for 'atheist', yields-

 

"believers are irrational", which, in this thread alone, has actually been stated by at least two atheists (though, in one case, in a stronger form i.e. claiming that believers were irrational by definition)- I didn't notice you pointing out to them that they were generalising.