The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Archbio]

I_Like_Swordchucks,

So really, your article explained nothing.

I said it might "give you a clue" as to why certain atheists use the word "enlightened".

And it does.

I didn't call anybody arrogant.

It wasn't a direct personal attack, no, but for it's lack of substance and relevance to this Religious Discussion or any discussion on the topic of religion, it basically boils down to a broadly cast insult, yes.

I said it seemed arrogant to me to if someone said they were enlightened

No, you said it seemed arrogant when present day atheists do it. If you think that anyone calling themselves enlightened (including the religious) is arrogant, then, while I wouldn't agree, I could at least respect that as a coherent opinion.

I said it also seems arrogant to say that a "theist" is less enlightened than an "atheist"

I think that definition of enlightenened never excluded theism outright, and no amount of present day atheists identifying with it will change that. It might seem to mean that we agree on this, but no, we don't. Atheism isn't a belief system.

seems to be a red herring fallacy in an attempt to discredit the opposing viewpoint

It's not a fallacy by itself. It's a fallacy when it's brought up in a discussion or debate as an argument: which is what you did, precisely as a red herring and an attempt to discredit.

Also, your article doesn't say at any point "atheism = enlightenment". It doesn't even say that "theism = unenlightened".

"My" article doesn't say that, and I never claimed it did. That's all your assumptions, and yours alone. I'm not going to try and dissect all of them. Many of the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenement tended to make a distinction between notions such as "philosophical theism" and "superstitious religion", by the way. I think a lot of atheists actually do. I'm certain a lot of atheist also understand that Enlightenement isn't a direct synonym of atheism, even if they consider themselves both atheists and enlightened, and that their enlightenement is incompatible with religion.

But how does that matter: it's not the "atheist opinion" you've decided to prop up.

Anybody Who Uses This And Thinks It's Novel,

You can't use a system of analysis to prove itself. So the conclusion that "only rational logic can give answers" is, by definition not logical. It's not necessarily false, but it's just as much an assumption as is faith.

See, you're using logic, still. Do I have the option to simply opt out of accepting your argument on the basis that it's logic? If I do, just how credible would my rebuttal be?

Try and rephrase this argument and use another "system of analysis". See if it retains any demonstrative power.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Archbio

I said it might "give you a clue" as to why certain atheists use the word "enlightened".

And it does.

Sooo... let me get this straight. The article doesn't say, or imply, that atheism is enlightened. Nor does it imply that theism is not enlightened. Yet it is still supposed to give me a clue as to why atheism is "enlightened". I think not. You're going to have to do better than just saying "yes it does", because that doesn't hold up.

Originally Posted by Archbio

It wasn't a direct personal attack, no, but for it's lack of substance and relevance to this Religious Discussion or any discussion on the topic of religion, it basically boils down to a broadly cast insult, yes.

Ahh... I apologize for implying that individuals who thinks of their ideology as superior to somebody else's ideology is arrogant. Clearly they are not. However, if I feel that they are, I have the right to think that.

Originally Posted by Archbio

No, you said it seemed arrogant when present day atheists do it. If you think that anyone calling themselves enlightened (including the religious) is arrogant, then, while I wouldn't agree, I could at least respect that as a coherent opinion.

Well thanks for respecting that as a coherent opinion. I think anybody considering themselves more enlightened has a bit of arrogance about them, its just that I hear atheists use the term much more often. And that would be what we were discussing. So I fail to see the problem here.

Originally Posted by Archbio

It's not a fallacy by itself. It's a fallacy when it's brought up in a discussion or debate as an argument: which is what you did, precisely as a red herring and an attempt to discredit.

.......... zuh? How did I attempt to discredit atheism? I never presented it as less that an equally rational viewpoint to theism, I merely said it was fallicious to refer to themselves as enlightened. So... you just made absolutely no sense, and you clearly don't understand at all what I'm saying. I'm pretty sure the rest of the folk here didn't feel discredited by what I said.

Originally Posted by Archbio

"My" article doesn't say that, and I never claimed it did. That's all your assumptions, and yours alone. I'm not going to try and dissect all of them. Many of the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenement tended to make a distinction between notions such as "philosophical theism" and "superstitious religion", by the way. I think a lot of atheists actually do. I'm certain a lot of atheist also understand that Enlightenement isn't a direct synonym of atheism, even if they consider themselves both atheists and enlightened, and that their enlightenement is incompatible with religion.

Then we don't have a problem do we? If rational atheism is merely one aspect of enlightenment in modern society, and rational theism is another aspect, they shouldn't feel the need to constantly being it up in debates. Which they do bring it up in debates. So then it is a red herring fallacy. Which means I'm right. So why are you arguing with me?

[Archbio]

I_Like_Swordchucks

Ahh... I apologize for implying that individuals who thinks of their ideology as superior to somebody else's ideology is arrogant. Clearly they are not. However, if I feel that they are, I have the right to think that.

Yes, you sure do, but that's also pretty irrelevant.

Sooo... let me get this straight. The article doesn't say, or imply, that atheism is enlightened. Nor does it imply that theism is not enlightened. Yet it is still supposed to give me a clue as to why atheism is "enlightened". I think not. You're going to have to do better than just saying "yes it does", because that doesn't hold up.

What I wrote was a clear, one line sentence.

I said it might "give you a clue" as to why certain atheists use the word "enlightened".

I think there's something you're missing here.

Also, since atheism isn't incompatible with the Enlightenement as defined (and that you agree), I don't see why I have to demonstrate that atheists calling themselves Enlightened isn't "fallacious".

I think anybody considering themselves more enlightened has a bit of arrogance about them, its just that I hear atheists use the term much more often. And that would be what we were discussing. So I fail to see the problem here.

The religious (not the particular subset of theists that's more presentable philosophically) have a plethora of other words to underline the supposed special status of their beliefs.

"What we were discussing"? You're the one who brought it up, attached to your own negatively charged interpretation of it, that you now freely contradict by agreeing that atheism and philosophical theism are not incompatible with a worldview worthy of the name enlightened, which kind of renders getting worked up over the use of the name rather misplaced, more than it was to begin with.

.......... zuh? How did I attempt to discredit atheism? I never presented it as less that an equally rational viewpoint to theism, I merely said it was fallicious to refer to themselves as enlightened. So... you just made absolutely no sense, and you clearly don't understand at all what I'm saying.

I don't understand what you're saying? It's clearly the opposite. You used atheists' use of the word Enlightened in a discussion and attributed to it a negative moral quality: arrogance. A discussion in which the word wasn't used in that way, as far as I know, despite the presence of several atheists.

But maybe I don't understand what you're saying, because you're pretty much arguing against a position that's known to yourself only. At one point you seem to be saying that atheists merely using the name Enlightened is fallacious and arrogant, and at other times it seem that you must be referencing a debate tactic that involves pointing out that only atheists are enlightened, specifically excluding philosophic theists. Maybe they only pointed out that they were Enlightened compared to some poor religious debater, in which case I'd approve.

It still seems to me that the gist of your original comment was "atheists have a tendency to be arrogant".

Then we don't have a problem do we? If rational atheism is merely one aspect of enlightenment in modern society, and rational theism is another aspect, they shouldn't feel the need to constantly being it up in debates. Which they do bring it up in debates. So then it is a red herring fallacy. Which means I'm right. So why are you arguing with me?

There are no words.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Archbio

The question is, why are you arguing with me, instead of debating with these other mean old atheists?

You have so much to teach them.

I asked a question in THIS forum why some atheists use the word enlightenment to describe their worldview. I didn't find your wikipedia based answer satisfactory, and your rationale behind your disagreement with me seems to be simply "I disagree with you" which also doesn't help at all. Get over it.


But on another another tangent, I feel a pressing need to discussing to make a clear distinction here. I keep seeing "rational thought", "logic", and "science". So just to clear things up, and everybody is using the same definitions here, I'm going to do a small Logic 101 lesson.

First of all, there are two basic types of reasoning. Deductive (more affectionately referred to as logic) and inductive.

Deductive reasoning, or logic, follows along arguments similar to this:

I am a man.
All men eventually die.
Conclusion: I will eventually die.

The basis behind logic is that if all premises are true, then the conclusion must therefore be true. Logical fallacies arise from situations where the premises do not lead to a solid conclusion. For instance:

You believe in the pink unicorn.
You are an insane person.
Conclusion: The pink unicorn does not exist.

This is a logical fallacy. First of all, both premises can be true without the conclusion being true Many similar arguments either attempts to improve one's own argument using a self-compliment, or diminish an opposing viewpoint by attacking it.

Of course, logical arguments need not be true. For instance:

Cows are ungulates.
All ungulates have horns.
Animals with horns are dangerous.
Dangerous animals should be killed.
Conclusion: All cows should be killed.

Logically, my argument is rock solid. It's indisputable as a deductive process. However, the whole basis of a true conclusion requires that the premises be true. So when a certain group (either theists or atheists) make a logical argument, a simple dispute over the accuracy of the premises is enough to make the conclusion fall. In a previous post I said that a theist may start the argument thinking "the universe could not have come about by itself", and the atheist might think "the universe could have come about by itself". As both of these premises are equal in terms of provability, both conclusions might be equally logically valid, in spite of being opposite. Logic in of itself, while a powerful method of thought, might actually prove very little.


Now the second method of thought... on contrary to popular belief on this forum, science is neither deductive nor logical. The entire scientific method is inductive reasoning, relying on probability and sample size.

Inductive reasoning requires seeing a pattern, and drawing conclusions based off this pattern. For instance:

COX2 inhibitor drugs cured 1000 out of 1000 people.
Conclusion: COX2 inhibitor drugs should be used.

Its a probability game. As it turned out in the real world, once COX2 inhibitor drugs were mass marketed, a certain percentage people were killed by them due to fatal arrhythmias. The thing about inductive reasoning is that even if all the premises are true, the conclusion might not necessarily be true. This is why science papers and experiments all require statistics. The p-value you see at the end of the paper is the probability that all the data generated in the research is somehow flawed. This value is often very small, but the possibility is always there, meaning it is not logic being used (logic has a 100% chance of being true if the premises are true).

In the defense of an Masters or Ph.D, the defendant is often asked "how do you know for sure if your conclusions are correct?" The correct answer is: "I don't, but this was the best guess I could come up with." This is not to say the conclusions aren't LIKELY to be true... it just means that they COULD be wrong. And any self-respecting scientist would say there's a small chance that every conclusion he's ever drawn has been wrong.


So there we have it. Both inductive and deductive reasoning are fallible, and are very different. When you say "I believe in science and logic", be aware that 95% of science has a complete absence of logic, and 95% of logic has a complete absence of science. Science and logic only draw conclusions as good as the premises, and premises are highly subject to interpretation by the individual. In that sense, theism might actually be just as scientific and logical as atheism, and even if it isn't thats okay, because no scientific or logical argument is inherently true.

Thus ends my rant.

[Archbio]

I asked a question in THIS forum why some atheists use the word enlightenment to describe their worldview. I didn't find your wikipedia based answer satisfactory

Of course. Why would you prefer it to the answer already firmly lodged in your "question"?

In that sense, theism might actually be just as scientific and logical as atheism, and even if it isn't thats okay, because no scientific or logical argument is inherently true.

So theism is true because you say so. Fascinating.

In a previous post I said that a theist may start the argument thinking "the universe could not have come about by itself", and the atheist might think "the universe could have come about by itself". As both of these premises are equal in terms of provability, both conclusions might be equally logically valid, in spite of being opposite. Logic in of itself, while a powerful method of thought, might actually prove very little.

I'd agree with this particular bit if only for a little flaw in phrasing. The statement equivalent to "the universe could have come about by itself" isn't "the universe couldn't have come about by itself".

"The universe could have come about by itself" merely suggests a possibility. Having no real data to rule it out, it's possible by default.

"The universe couldn't have come about by itself" rules out a possibility where there's no data that rules it out. It's an argument from ignorance and a bigger claim than the previous.

I'm not sure what the equivalent theist statement would be.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Archbio

So theism is true because you say so. Fascinating.

Again, I'm pretty sure most people here other than you doesn't see where I even remotely implied that, much less said it. Even what you quoted of me doesn't imply that, it merely implies that something doesn't have to be scientific and logical to be true, as many times both science and logic are wrong. So I really would appreciate it if you ceased with the putting of the words in my mouth, because you're doing it a lot, and you're actually just making yourself look bad.

Originally Posted by Archbio

I'd agree with this particular bit if only for a little flaw in phrasing. The statement equivalent to "the universe could have come about by itself" isn't "the universe couldn't have come about by itself".

"The universe could have come about by itself" merely suggests a possibility. Having no real data to rule it out, it's possible by default.

"The universe couldn't have come about by itself" rules out a possibility where there's no data that rules it out. It's an argument from ignorance and a bigger claim than the previous.

I'm not sure what the equivalent theist statement would be.

The claims are two logical opposites. "Some A" vs "No A". "All A" vs "No A" is a contrary claim, not a contradictory one. Thats why I worded it that way. Both premises can't be true, and both premises can't be false. In actuality the atheist claim is "the universe came about by itself", is it not? Isn't that also ruling out a possibility? What I actually gave was an agnostic claim, which believes either side could potentially be possible. And in fact, you're doing nothing more arguing semantics over what was intended to be a simple illustration.

And even if you think one premise is "ignorant", your argument is meaningless and does nothing to detract from what wasn't even an argument, but merely an example of how logic can be used to arrive at two different conclusions. The logic of each conclusion may be solid, though each premise may or may not be true. I don't care which premise you think is more likely, because as I said, thats subjective. And given the evidence, either premise COULD be true, despite the whatever probability you think of each.

That last post of mine wasn't something to be debated. There is no debate there. It is merely defining deductive versus inductive reasoning, and how it applies to science, atheism, and theism. It was not saying anything was wrong or right, or making any outrageous claims, so again I tell you... get over it.

[Archbio]

It was not saying anything was wrong or right, or making any outrageous claims, so again I tell you... get over it.

Get over what, exactly, you've said it twice, and now with how it's placed in your post I'm really wondering what I'm not over.

You're getting excessively defensive.

You're misinterpreting the third portion of my post. It's more or less a minor disagreement. But since you expressed the notion that you're not interested in input on this and possibly on several other questions, I'm not going to bother clarifying much.

I was going in much the same direction than the statement I was quoting, with the exception that I was disagreeing with the choice of theist argument. The former precludes that I was going to make a big show of favoring one possibility over the other.

I said "argument by ignorance", not that something or someone was "ignorant".

In actuality the atheist claim is "the universe came about by itself", is it not? Isn't that also ruling out a possibility?

There's no single atheist claim on this question, as far as I'm aware, but no, it doesn't rule out a possibility. It suggests a possibility. Of course, if that possibility would be true, all other possibilities that aren't compatible would be ruled out.

But that's not what the possibility does.

On the other hand, when you phrase something as "this isn't possible", a bigger claim is made, a claim that demands more data to justify than just stating that something could be possible. You could reverse the assymmetry in the examples and I still would have commented on it ("there couldn't be a god" as a false equivalent to "there could be a god").

I suggested that there was a better theist equivalent to the atheist statement you gave, not that the theist example wasn't equivalent by virtue of being theistic.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

The first get over it was because you kept proposing the wikipedia article as support for atheism as a form of enlightenment, which it doesn't.

The second get over it was to stop nitpicking at a small detail in an example that neither damages nor changes the example, nor the point at which I was getting it.

Here are four premises:
1. The universe came about by itself. "A"
2. The universe may have come about by itself. "Some A"
3. The universe may not have come about by itself. "Some not A"
4. The universe could not have come about by itself. "Not A"

I'm going to assume that your point was that you want to use premises 2 and 3 in the example, and thats fine. But if I used premises 1 and 4, or 2 and 4, or 1 and 3 the point being made is unaffected.

[Fifthfiend]

Any time I want to remind myself why this thread is unmoderated, I read any three posts in this thread.

"Get over yourself"! You guys, I could just hug you to death.

Incidentally

Of course, logical arguments need not be true. For instance:

Cows are ungulates.
All ungulates have horns.
Animals with horns are dangerous.
Dangerous animals should be killed.
Conclusion: All cows should be killed.

Uh no, you just fucked up your logic. Check lines three and four, and try again.

[Funka Genocide]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

I simply find it interesting that atheists often refer to themselves as "enlightened". I'd like for an atheist to explain what makes them any more enlightened than someone who believes in God... because there's an awful lot of wise, intelligent, self-aware people that believe in God for me to think that a 20 year old atheist is enlightened and others are not. In fact, it seems awfully arrogant to me.

Let's start at the beginning of this fracasse to try and determine exactly what you mean. You see, using deductive reasoning all I can assume is exactly what is stated. That you find it interesting that atheists often refer to themselves as (quotation marks!) and that this seems awfully arrogant to you.

However, all this really illustrates is your personal opinion, which means very little in the grand scheme of things, however through these opinions we can garner a few more details based on general human interaction and probable motivation. You feel atheism is incorrect and consider yourself more correct. That much is obvious, and you don't want to go so far as to propose an alternative statement, all you're trying to do is cast doubt on the initial statement.

It's an obvious debate tactic, but debate has little to do with an actual argument. Arguments are proposed to prove a thesis, debates are construed to prove a person is wrong or right.

So why keep beating around the bush? In the one unmoderated portion of this forum where you can say whatever you want about the topic you're still playing it safe, trying to out-reason or out-manipulate. What's the point? What do you truly believe in the first place?

What is logic? A process used to make life easier to handle, as the complexities compile it's becomes impossible to maintain that many variables in a globalistic mental construct, we have to resort to an analytical process eventually. This is the natural basis of logic, and I might add the main reason we are the dominant mammalian species on the planet.

Now let's look at the root of this matter, religion. Religions is wrong.

See how I just came out and said it? Watch, here I go again.

Religion is social construct that evolved out of the human necessity for answers, which in itself was a byproduct of an increased capacity for cogitation.

How do I know this? Well, as you've said it's inductive reasoning. I could illustrate all the main points and stereotypical realizations one should come to in order to make the process of transitioning from one viewpoint to another more accessible, but the information is obvious.

Man develops an improved mental capacity, giving rise to the advent of functional sentience. With the knowledge of self on levels never before obtained by any other organism comes all manner of strange phenomena. Fear of mortality becoming more than an instinctual response, but an obsession with the potential of disastrous species wide damage. With our ability to understand came psychological fear, and thusly the necessity for appeasement on a large level.

Can you see what I'm getting at here? Loom at the obvious natural evidence if you think I'm just whistling Dixie, burials go back tens of thousands of years, long before the Jews were even a forethought. Religion is an obvious social evolution process, and faith is an integral part of the human experience.

However, in this age of burgeoning enlightenment it becomes apparent that we know too much to keep fooling ourselves. Theists maintain their beliefs out of tradition, personal comfort and a sense of duty to their forbearers and descendants, a misguided sense of duty. Look at yourself, take an honest look. How many concessions have you made to the modern outlook? do you still truly believe the Earth was flooded and two of every animal on earth were stationed in an ark? Do you still believe that the earth was created in seven days, that woman was made from Adam's rib and that man was cast from paradise because he was thinking with his dick? Do you still think history began some four thousand years ago and that Christ rose from the dead? I mean really believe all of this happened, not just the standard answer that "of course I believe, I'm Christian" I mean in your head, in those places where nobody ever looks, can you look at yourself straight and swallow the lie without so much as a wince?

And what of the morals and ethics of the bible? What of the second class status of women, what of all the ridiculous Old Testament rules for butchery? What about the obvious nature of Christianity itself, just an add on to an old religion, an obvious reform for times just like these, when people were trying to become more enlightened than their predecessors. Read it, look at the difference, The Jews go from being God's chosen people, a warlike and driven race into being these feel good hippies that let everyone in. That's not divine providence, that's marketing.

But you don't have to answer this, because I know that no one raised in modern society and given all the facts we're brought up with could possibly truly think any of these things were true on a purely logical level, no you're forced to "believe" which in this case is just another word for "lie to yourself."

religion is a perversion of faith, faith is the ability to believe in something, to hope your desires become manifest. You can have faith in something real its easy. I believe in myself, I believe in other people, I believe in the Lakers, and sure these things might let me down, but that's the beauty of true faith. You know it's fallible but you believe in it anyways.

But God? That's not fallible, that's cowardice. Isn't that the old standby defense? You can't disprove god. Doesn’t that strike you as awfully convenient? You can't touch the face of god, hell it's even written into the bible that if you see it you die instantly, tell me that's not a fail safe. But you can touch the face of a human being, and theists scoff at faith in man?

How backwards can you be?

The point is that you can argue the minutiae of a simple statement or an personal distaste for arrogance all you want, but you can't deny the way the human mind works. Religion is a security blanket, get over it.