Atheists/Agnostics/Pagans/Kaffirs are better human beings

Originally posted by Omar Al Hashim You cannot prove me wrong by proving me right. I have yet to meet an atheist who understands the muslim concept of God.

Originally posted by docyabut Edgewaters, even the cave man felt lost and would scrafice a animal to this invisable spirit or God, when losing a member.�

Definately not. Sacrifice can be traced back to a specific period in time, when early Chalcolithic societies were becoming more complex. It's an innovation we simply didn't have for a large part of our history. The idea of ritual sacrifice is one that occurs in the context of increasing symbological and abstract sophisitication. Most likely, animal sacrifice evolves out of the practice of making offerings to animal spirits to give thanks after a succesful hunt. Ritualistic slaying of animals probably took on increasing mythological signifigance as belief systems became more complex.

Likewise, the most primitive views of the supernatural don't appear to figure anything like a deity as we understand it. They figure spirits, which are something like ghosts living in the world in all things. As I've said before, unless you can call a ghost a god, you can't really call the earliest supernatural beliefs theistic.
    
    

Edited by edgewaters - 03-Jun-2006 at 19:31

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim No it doesn't. Science is forming a logical theory to explain many measureable and observable phenomenom. You can't measure or observe a proton, but you can determine its existance from things you can.

The proton "exists" as a theory or model (a very solid one) until it is observed. Science is divided into theory - models for how the universe works - and empirical observation (fact). For instance, that the sun rises and sinks over the horizon is an observed fact; that the earth revolves around the sun is a model for predicting that behaviour, called heliocentric theory.

A theory is as good as its predictive value, in predicting the behaviour of observed phenomena. It is an assumption of science that anything that exists in nature, that is anything that has any effect at all in nature, in any way, will have measurable effects; and from measuring its effects, a model can be built that will predict those effects. In short, what this means is that anything that exists has measurable effect. All knowledge is rooted in empirical observation and repeatable, predictable and measurable phenomena (which are predicted via theoretical construct - for instance, we may construct a theory of some particular subatomic particle without ever seeing it, but it is based in the measurable effects that particle has on things we can observe. The more the theory can predict these phenomena, the more accepted it will be).

As I said science does not require you to be able to observe and measure everything, and it does not rule out the existance of things that cannot be observed and measured.

It rules out the existance of things whose effects cannot be observed and measured. If the thing doesn't have any effect, then it is irrelevant to understanding the world around us. If it does produce observable phenomena, then we can measure those effects and build a model to explain and predict its behaviour.

Actually I shouldn't really say that it rules out the existance of things without measurable effect. Such things certainly might exist, but since they don't interact in any way with this world they're not really relevant.
    

Scientific advancement does not cause any problems for religion assuming that no contradictions arise from the new knowledge and the religion.

The contradictions are fundamental. Both ideologies propose to give an accounting of how the universe was created and why things happen as the very basis of their entire outlook. It's politic these days for each group to avoid conflict and present a happy face to the world, but on a philosophical level, the basic principles of science and its assumptions about why things happen the way they do is at fundamental odds with religion's assumptions about the same experiences that we have. For instance, you have a crappy day. The religious train of thought is absolutely focussed on searching for supernatural reasons; God didn't approve of something, perhaps, or he's testing me. Science says that God doesn't affect the world around you and your crappy day was a random occurence, the product of your own interaction with purely natural forces. Not just some of the time, or most of the time, but all the time.
    

Edited by edgewaters - 04-Jun-2006 at 02:18

Originally posted by Roadkill Atheism has existed for as long as humans have existed. Throughout history you can find writings excluding any divine entitiy. Many of these texts have been destroyed but some still exist.

What it's the oldest text excluding any divinity? I will bring you as counterexample an older text affirming the existence of the divine

Edited by Chilbudios - 04-Jun-2006 at 08:45

I think atheists are basing on the idea that is wrong to say that there is a Being beyond the material word without having reasons for that. So it's a trial to be objective.



But saying that there is not any Being like that is again wrong.



Also, when we ask ourself about the posibility that a Being to exist beyond the material world, we got a feeling which could be expressed like that: "If there is such a Being, why it's not perceptible? How could exist an unperceptible Being?" When we say that we subconscious refering to our physical sensations.

But can we feel right now what is in the other part of the world, say, in China?

So, if something is not perceptible that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.


In fact our physical sensations are ratherly an illusion, we dont actualy see the things of feel their touch. The colors and light are just illusions, they exist just in our brains.


So, why could not exist an extra-material Being?

Hwo could mattery to be the principle of existence?


I think the last question is more corect starting point in establishing us in the truth about existence.



What if the Principle of Existence is a spiritual, even Personal Being and all our senzations and life experiences are it's creations?

Originally posted by Menumorut I think atheists are basing on the idea that is wrong to say that there is a Being beyond the material word without having reasons for that. So it's a trial to be objective.But saying that there is not any Being like that is again wrong.

The issue isn't actually whether or not there are beings "beyond" the material world. The issue is that nothing that affects nature can possibly be supernatural, by definition. There's room in materialism for beings to exist in other worlds; but the question of whether they do or not is irrelevant since they have no effect on this world.

But can we feel right now what is in the other part of the world, say, in China?So, if something is not perceptible that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

"China" doesn't exist in the real world anymore than any other abstract construct. China is an idea, as is any other state. On the other hand, you certainly can go and see, touch, feel etc the land that is in that place. You don't have to be perceiving something right this minute to satisfy the demands of empiricism as to existance; it is enough that you can perceive it if you chose to do so. The bicycle you're riding on doesn't disappear when you're not looking at it. In quantum physics, subatomic particles do behave something like this but their behaviour gives rise to classical physics, in which the bike is there whether you're looking at it or not.

In fact our physical sensations are ratherly an illusion, we dont actualy see the things of feel their touch. The colors and light are just illusions, they exist just in our brains.

Solipsism is a dead end, especially ethically. This would mean that other people are nothing but an illusion in your own mind, so you can do whatever you like to them, for instance. Empiricism assumes and believes that our senses are reliable to some degree.

So, why could not exist an extra-material Being?Hwo could mattery to be the principle of existence?I think the last question is more corect starting point in establishing us in the truth about existence.What if the Principle of Existence is a spiritual, even Personal Being and all our senzations and life experiences are it's creations?

If that's true then there's no point in trying to use science to understand the world around us. If you devise a chemical test to detect a protein in some substance, for instance, by a chemically reactive process that will turn the substance pink when you add another chemical; how can you really know if the result is actually true if supernatural beings beyond our understanding are influencing the material universe? Maybe, for its own purposes, such a being would magically turn the substance pink just to fool you. Science presumes that *all* natural events are the result of natural processes and further, that any of these processes is reproducible given the right conditions (because the same factors will always repeat the same result - there are no spirits or gods to alter them).
    
    

Edited by edgewaters - 04-Jun-2006 at 12:13

Originally posted by Chilbudios But the answers were given in a theological manner. Most of these theorists were clerics or at least had a proper religious education. Many of them developed worldviews where God was part of. Most of them attempted to unify the religious worldview with the natural worldview into a single one, hence their resolution that nature is understandable by reason and mathematics because God acts in a rational way is theological.

You're putting the cart before the horse here. This all happened before Descartes, before the development of the scientific method and the philosophy behind it, and well before the crystallization of materialism. We are talking about precursors to the development of materialism. Before that, the world was understood in a theological sense, and all attempts to understand that world were phrased in a theological context; this is hardly surprising. You really cannot expect that the precursors of a thing would carry the full qualities of a thing in its final form.

And although these ideas developed in a theological context it doesn't mean they were born of theology so much as they were born of a widespread rediscovery of Classical philosophy, which initially took place within the contexts of educational institutions which were a part of the religious infrastructure of the time. It took time for things to move outside theology - and although, as you say, many of the initial developments attempted to include a theological viewpoint, as a whole, such reconciliation was ultimately unsuccesful.

Arguing that the religion inspired these viewpoints is not, in my opinion, as accurate as saying that it was simply the context in which they occurred. Divorced from the true catalyst - the Latin tradition - nothing of the sort happened in the Orthodox east, despite, in many cases (eg England, and various parts of northern and western Europe), a much longer history of established Christianity! If the catalyst were the religion, this is clearly impossible.

There's no proof that nature is�understandable.

Right ... the material monism upon which modern science is based is an assumption or belief. One that's been incredibly succesful at explaining virtually all of the everyday world in which we live, from the reason why flowers smell nice (not because God made them that way for our pleasure) to why thunder happens and how come it hit your house (not because God was mad at you).
    

Few actually held that religion can explain the world.

Not in its particulars, necessarily, but in those early days the universe was certainly viewed as a teleological construct of God, and science was bounded by the limits of questioning imposed by religion. Teleology is about all that's left of this era, but it must be understood that the teleology of that era defined all understanding of natural events; everything according to a master plan, even the coin that you found on the ground. This wasn't implicitly rejected until the time of Bacon.
    
    

Edited by edgewaters - 04-Jun-2006 at 13:23

If we say that only matter exist, that is very strange. Why was not a total  vacuum?

 -That is an irrelevant arguement as we could not at all have an arguement if that were so. That fact alone rules out your arguement.

 -As for the rest of your statements, they have absolutely no weight whatsoever, in logic or fact and so I'm not going to bother answering them.

Until now, we haven't seen the three-eyed invisible goblins that lurk around, but they are there - I know they are!! They control everything, they made the world, and they talk to me and everybody should listen, because I have been specially selected by the invisible goblins to give you important...

I dont say to believe something. Just to not say that only matter exists.

If you can't trust your senses, how can you know anything at all?

If you say that you have the duty to trust your senses, isnt that a sort of religion?

You don't have to try to explain, say, gravity or thunder; it's the will of God. That's the easiest way possible.

If you say that you have to chose what is hard, isnt that again a sort of religion?

Maybe it's always been there. Perhaps time has no beginning, or works differently the farther back you go.

Than how do you explain the aparent laws of the particles (electrons etc)?

How come that from eternity?

Anyway, presuming supernatural forces behind creation doesn't really answer that question it all, it just adds a step: what created the supernatural forces? Did they come from nothing?

The answer is that the existence is more diferent than we think. The supernatural is UNCREATED. Is more logical to think that.

But a vacuum is a lack of any existing things, by definition. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Although when we say a vacuum we usually do not mean a total vacuum, just an abscence of gasses, solids, and liquids. Most things we call vacuums contain light (photons), and the forces of space-time/gravity. Something that didn't have these features would be outside existance and therefore, wouldn't exist. Do you want something to exist in a state of non-existance? It's a contradiction in terms.

Your position is wrong because you start from considering that tridimensional space is the content of all existing beings. But what if the tridimensional space doesnt exist?

Originally posted by Edgewaters The contradictions are fundamental. Both ideologies propose to give an accounting of how the universe was created and why things happen as the very basis of their entire outlook. It's politic these days for each group to avoid conflict and present a happy face to the world, but on a philosophical level, the basic principles of science and its assumptions about why things happen the way they do is at fundamental odds with religion's assumptions about the same experiences that we have. For instance, you have a crappy day. The religious train of thought is absolutely focussed on searching for supernatural reasons; God didn't approve of something, perhaps, or he's testing me. Science says that God doesn't affect the world around you and your crappy day was a random occurence, the product of your own interaction with purely natural forces. Not just some of the time, or most of the time, but all the time.

I think you are generalising too much about religion again here. I disagree that how the universe was created and why things happen are the basis of a religous outlook. I say that a moral code is the very basis of a religious outlook and that references to creation and how and why events occur are there to offer proof that the author of the work is in a position to know what they are talking about and has an opinion that you should respect

Originally posted by Barbarossa You have given me no evidence whatsoever to make me conclude that Islam is logical. You have given me some stupid book not even written by Muhammed. You cannot use that to prove a thing.

If I can't use a scientific analysis of the Quran to prove the existance of God, then you have no right to use one of the bible to attack Christianity. Nor can you claim that logic and proof are on your side if you disregard it!
btw, Muhammed couldn't write his own name let alone a book!

Originally posted by Edgewaters This all happened before Descartes, before the development of the scientific method and the philosophy behind it,

I think you'll find scientific method was used in Arab times

Arguing that the religion inspired these viewpoints is not, in my opinion, as accurate as saying that it was simply the context in which they occurred. Divorced from the true catalyst - the Latin tradition - nothing of the sort happened in the Orthodox east, despite, in many cases (eg England, and various parts of northern and western Europe), a much longer history of established Christianity! If the catalyst were the religion, this is clearly impossible.

I don't think that these views, (good scientific method and wanting a better reason than 'Because God said so') are the cause of atheism either. They have been around for hundreds of years but only in the last 50 has atheism become popular.

Until now, we haven't seen the three-eyed invisible goblins that lurk around, but they are there - I know they are!! They control everything, they made the world, and they talk to me and everybody should listen, because I have been specially selected by the invisible goblins to give you important announcements. They even dictated a special book to me, which you should all read, because it has the rules for how you're supposed to behave. Rule no. 1, of course, is that bad things will happen to everyone who doesn't believe in the invisible goblins and you can't really be a good person unless you do. Rule no. 2 says that people like me, who believe in the invisible goblins, are the bestest. So, now, if you'll all just make a donation to the glory of the invisible goblins and change a couple of laws that I ... err, I mean, they ... have told me they don't like, everything should be fine.

this is what I meant above, religion providing evidence that it isn't just a three-eyed invisible goblin.

You don't have to try to explain, say, gravity or thunder; it's the will of God

Ah yes, but How did God do it?
That question can only be answered with science. And for many centuaries was the very definition of it.

Edited by Omar al Hashim - 04-Jun-2006 at 23:00