Are some people incapable of being religious?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do atheists believe ?

whatswrongwithatheism.wordpress.com

Do Atheists Believe?

Many atheists believe they have no beliefs. Like many beliefs within Atheism, this is not only self-contradictory but ultimately self defeating. When I moved from Christianity to a weak atheism, I …
whatswrongwithatheism.wordpress.com whatswrongwithatheism.wordpress.com

Atheism and Delusion

whatswrongwithatheism.wordpress.com

Atheism and Delusion – Think about it.

I understand an atheists reluctance to ‘not base his whole life on something he sees no evidence for’. Nobody wants to ‘waste his life’ on delusions. You have to do what your mind thinks is sensibl…
whatswrongwithatheism.wordpress.com whatswrongwithatheism.wordpress.com
 
Care to address what is the main subject of my post which is the definition of an axiom and that a belief in principles or ideas that cannot be empirically proven is not just in the domain of theology but of philosophy and mathematics?

What you did was assume a lot about me from a post dealing essentially with axioms and their role in logic. How do you know that I am uninterested in reality? Seriously, this is what you understood from my post?

I have a degree in Physics with a minor in Mathematics. I spent a significant portion of my working life as an aerospace engineer designing weather satellites and helping with satellite tracking. Before that I worked as a researcher studying solar electromagnetic fields and the role they play in the formation of sun spots. Also spent a summer studying volcanoes on Io, one of the moons of Jupiter. Does that seem like a person who is totally uninterested in reality?

I tried to use reason with you and you respond with baseless accusations.

Very disappointing.
 
Last edited:
There’s an entire new thread here about how Atheists use the words Atheist and Atheism. That should clarrify things a bit for you. Just do a search for Atheist and Atheism
 
Taking your phrase “within demonstrated reality”. You mentioned about believing a friend about having a puppy because puppies do exist.

An axiom does not necessarily have to be limited to within demonstrable reality. Take my example In Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry.

Is it within demonstrated reality that two parallel lines either do or do not meet? You have two separate branches of geometry which take as its axioms two mutually opposing views on parallel lines.

Take into account Platonic philosophy. This has as one of its axioms, the existence of world of the abstract. A totally different world to the world accessible to our senses, the sensible world, and the world of our internal consciousness.

Clearly this cannot also be within demonstrated reality. Yet mathematics and philosophy are two recognized branches of human knowledge which does not limit itself to your definition of reality.
 
Last edited:
Damian said:
Regardless of how logically consistent the story is for the invisible pet dragon.
Click to expand...
God is a logical explanation for the material things we see around us in combination with the processes observed in Creation augmented by our own spiritual experiences and that of others throughout history.

An invisible pet dragon does not have any connection with our reality.

It is incorrect to equate the two when talking about evidence of existence.
 
Last edited:
Damian said:
There’s an entire new thread here about how Atheists use the words Atheist and Atheism. That should clarrify things a bit for you. Just do a search for Atheist and Atheism
Click to expand...
Part of the message in the links provided talk about how some atheists are not willing to engage with contrary arguments, partly as a self ideological protection to keep from admitting a delusional position.
 
Last edited:
Change out god with magic and you get the exact same statement. Of course its a god, god solves everything we don’t understand. Of course its magic, magic solves everything. Both are exactly interchangeable and not demonstrated to be part of reality and still logically consistent.
 
Last edited:
Damian said:
Change out god with magic and you get the exact same statement. Of course its a god, god solves everything we don’t understand. Of course its magic, magic solves everything. Both are exactly interchangeable and not demonstrated to be part of reality and still logically consistent.
Click to expand...
How does magic solve EVERYTHING. What is EVERYTHING and what is magic?

You are introducing the words EVERYTHING and MAGIC. Please detail what you mean coherently.

If I can detail what I mean coherently and you can’t then the two words are not interchangeable.

Over to you.
 
Last edited:
Everything is in reference to anything you want an explanation for. Magic is the same thing as the idea of god, souls, spirits, demons, spells, etc. They’re just a place holder for an unknown solution but attempts to solve it by just making something up that solves it. Just like comic book writers, they imagine a logically consistent back story for their magical world and creatures, but actually are not demonstrated to be part of actual reality. Magical place holders waste our time to entertain and distract people from actual processes to solve our unknown issues of reality. No one takes the belief in the force from the jedi religion seriously but we have to take the magical claims of abrahamic religions seriously for their claims about reality?
 
Last edited:
You still have not defined exactly what you mean by magic.

Magic usually refers to something that is done by a magician.

Who is your magician when explaining EVERYTHING?
 
Good to know, but what was the definitions that was used for atheist and atheism from that thread? There was a thread by an atheist, so how about looking that up instead of the threads from religious bigots that are not actually atheists? If I was to look up what it means to be christian and the terms they use, should I ask an atheist? Pretty sure you’d immediately point out why that’s not a good source.
 
Damian said:
Good to know, but what was the definitions that was used for atheist and atheism from that thread? There was a thread by an atheist, so how about looking that up instead of the threads from religious bigots that are not actually atheists? If I was to look up what it means to be christian and the terms they use, should I ask an atheist? Pretty sure you’d immediately point out why that’s not a good source.
Click to expand...
You are backing away from your ‘magic’ claim now. One issue at a time.

Do you withdraw the ‘magic’ analogy and if so would you like to try responding to the comment again?
 
Last edited:
Sarcelle said:
Is it within demonstrated reality that two parallel lines either do or do not meet?
Click to expand...
Logic is about agreed upon terms for describing an idea to make conclusions about. If I define what the word parallel means, and you agree with the definition, then we can come to logical conclusions based on the agreed upon starting point of the terms. But when we test this in against reality and our logical conclusions fail, we have to update our terms because reality is the reference point for our logical definition when we reference reality. That is why you can be logically correct and still factually wrong. Since we don’t know enough about reality, we have to test our logical models against what reality indicates. Currently there is zero data from reality that we can use that indicates the existence of the supernatural. So the supernatural is indistinguishable from the imaginary at this point. Religious superheros from comic book superheros.
 
Data is what we understand to be associated to the claim made to justify its existence in our reality. Just like there could be an asteroid coming to wipe out the planet, but we have zero data on this. But we do have data of asteroids actually existing in reality and we can distinguish data of asteroids from non-asteroids. We have no data of the supernatural that distinguishes it from the imaginary. Since we already have the word ‘imaginary’, I’ll just use the word ‘imaginary’. At least that way it clarrifies what is being talked about and claimed by others.
 
ok I have to leave now to watch Nicolas Cages latest movie. Will reply when I return.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top