Is God Santa Claus for adults?

Post Reply New Topic

You just said that Atheist can create their own values and moral system. It's as simple as "Today, I will be an atheist" and that's it. That's how easy it is?
What's the catch? Do you see how that statement does not hold water when confronted with reality. You must have something you value, otherwise you wouldn't have taken the time to talk to me.

Best Regards,

Jake

I don't think anyone can chose on a whim whether to be an atheist or a believer. I owe my atheism to my scientific education. There are plenty of things I value, good food, good company and a good movie on TV. I've taken the time to talk to you today out of curiosity. Curiosity is a good thing... despite what it did to the cat!

I stand on reason and logic instead of barbaric old fairy tales.

My frame of reference is that same reason and logic.

An Atheist does not say god is dead, he says god was never born.

Why would that imply deistic anything? That's simply reason and logic. Treat others well and you'll be more likely to be treated well in turn.

You reason and logic is subjective. You cannot provide me the reason why you think the way you do simply because you set you own rules.
Your frame of reference is whatever you claim it to be. With that logic I can claim "Pigs fly!" Think deeply about that.
An atheist believes in "Whatever they want and set their own morals and values" So if I believe "God never existed" does that in my own mind make it true?

Using an Atheist logic of setting my own rules and values, I cannot provide myself a solid moral framework and cannot even challenge my own rules.
The logic simply drifts, no frame of reference other than subjective thought, which can change in a moment.

I would definitely consider spending time thinking about your logic and reasoning. If you claim to make your own rules and values as an individual whose to say the claim" God never existed" is a subjective opinion? You define your own parameters, using that same logic I can claim 2+2=5. Do you see the fallacy in the logic?


Best Regards,

Jake

Best Regards,

Jake

Actually it is the believers who claim 2 + 2 = 5 because their foundation is belief not logic or facts. Atheists are grounded in facts and reality, not religious dogma.

You ceased making sense around the second line of your post.

Yes, reason and logic are subjective. So is morality. There is no concrete moral good. Never has been, never will be. You want a reason for why I think the way I do? I sat down and thought about what would work, given my experience. I adjust my morality as I gather more experience, and sometimes depending on the situation.

Sure, you can claim pigs fly. Now I'll ask you for the proof of that, and when you can't give it I'll dismiss your claim as foolish ramblings.

I have no idea how to read your third line. Can you clarify?

False. You can provide your own moral framework by deciding what kind of person you want to be. You challenge that framework by examining whether or not it's having the intended effect. That's basic reason right there. If you can't grasp that, you are in serious need of some lessons on critical thinking.

Yes. Morality changes as well. That which is right to do in one situation can be exactly the wrong thing to do in another. Denying that is foolish.

Actually, I'm not defining my own parameters. I'm deciding how to work within those that already exist. To use your example of 2+2=5, that goes against the established framework of mathematics, and while it can be proven technically correct by redefining the number two it makes no sense to do so. Saying god never existed is less a subjective opinion and more a conclusion based on what we know of reality. We have seen no evidence of god, therefore it's entirely reasonable to say there never was a god. A claim as fantastic as that requires some very firm evidence backing it before it can be taken as a serious possibility. We lack that evidence, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to dismiss the claim.

I spend plenty of time thinking about my reasoning and logic. Especially on weekdays, I find it helps pass the slower days at work. Other people critique as well, many of them far more experienced than I am. That's how I grow, through research and the redefinition of myself as new experiences and input teach me more about how to be what I want to be, as well as occasional redefinitions of what exactly it is that I want to be.

Your logic of "I can create my own values and principle's" leaves a lot to be desired. I can claim 2+2=6 using your logic.
Atheist are not grounded in facts, their grounded in their own principles and values. Your feet are firmly planted in the air my friend.


Best Regards,

Jake

I'm simply using your own words and logic. You previously said and I will qoute "Atheist believe in setting their own rules and morals"

Ok. I am an atheist, I can set my mathematical standard to 2+2=6 because I set my own rules and morals. Do you see now?

I am not in anyway implying that I believe anything, using that argument is distasteful. I am using your own words.

You almost make the statement that believers think "2+2+=6 and lack reason and logic" In defense of believers, I will say that your logic does not hold water. You believe in setting your own moral standards and values, so whose to say I cannot make the claim that "Pigs fly"? I am using your logic, not mine.


Best Regards,

Jake

Last edited by NAKnight on 02 Dec 2012, 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Is God like Robin Hood?

I'm simply using your own words and logic. You previously said and I will qoute "Atheist believe in setting their own rules and morals"

Ok. I am an atheist, I can set my mathematical standard to 2+2=6 because I set my own rules and morals. Do you see now?

I am not in anyway implying that I believe anything, using that argument is distasteful. I am using your own words.

You make the statement that believers think "2+2+=6 and lack reason and logic" In defense of believers, I will say that your logic does not hold water. You believe in setting your own moral standards and values, so whose to say I cannot make the claim that "Pigs fly"? I am using your logic, not mine.


Best Regards,

Jake

Last edited by NAKnight on 02 Dec 2012, 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mathematics have nothing to do with morals or rules. Your argument makes no sense.

As I said in my previous post, one can make the statement 2+2=5 technically correct by redefining two (or through a few other methods, actually), but there is no reason to do so. Numerical definitions already exist and work well (for the most part), so why redefine a number?

When you can provide me with a logical and reasonable explanation for why you would redefine the number two, you'll have the beginnings of an argument. Right now, you're just kind of rambling.

I am using your own logic against you. Please explain to me how the logic of "I can set my own rules" can provide solid ground in a time like this when I'm challenging you. Please do tell. Otherwise, consider deep thought about what you debate so hard to prove.



Best Regards,

Jake

Sorry, but you are talking complete rubbish now.

Religious believers believe whatever their (contradictory) religious texts tell them. The biblical account of creation is a good example of this... or maybe the Mayans were correct... or maybe the Hindu's with their account of it. Depends on an accident of birth when/where you are born as to what religious beliefs you absorb and believe as being the truth.

On the other hand, atheists and scientists make no such assumptions and look at the reality of the situation and probe the facts. The facts show that life originated many millions of years ago and the creatures alive today evolved from primitive ancestors over that time. That is a fact. Now since the facts disagree with what is claimed in some text written thousands of years ago do you continue to accept the false claims in that text or do you accept the reality?

Last edited by TallyMan on 02 Dec 2012, 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You're also not arguing anything remotely like the topic at hand. Mathematics and morality are not the same thing. The logic that applies to morality is not relevant to mathematics and vice-versa.

Give me a challenge in the area of morality, and I'll gladly show you my ground, but you're trying compare two entirely different things here, and it makes no sense to do so. I would advise you to think deeply on how much difficulty you seem to have in understanding basic concepts.

Exactly.

He is trying to equate moral relativism with scientific facts & mathematical absolutes. Totally unrelated.

If an old religious text claimed that 2 + 2 = 5 it is part of the doctrine & dogma that must be accepted by the believers of that religion.

On the other hand, atheists, scientists and mathematicians use tools of investigation and from the facts and logic deduce that 2 + 2 = 4.

Personally, I'll take the latter approach; because the nature of reality and truth is more important to me.

"That's exactly what Atheist values are; whatever the individual decides. There is no decision made for you as an Atheist. You decide your own morality, values, etc

Okay, using this logic. I am deciding that my values are to make the statement 2+2=6. Simply because my value system says it to be so. I make my own rules and values and determined under the rules that I have set for myself that mathematical statement is true. It is true because I say it's true and believe it to be so and it agrees with my morals and values as an Atheist.

It has everything to do with morals and values it is a metaphor for those who don't understand. You say you can claim your own value system but when I use that as an an example, you get frustrated because my statement is true. Explain to me how the statement above provides any realm of logic or reasoning when you are the first to call a believer delusional.


Best Regards,

Jake