Logic Conclusion: Atheism doesn't exists

1. 57

   IntroduceCroatiaposted 12 years ago

   Well, I just want you to say that Atheism doesn't exist.
   Why ?
   Because atheism means in a broad sense, the rejection of belief ( Wikipedia) But atheists BELIEVE that God DOESN'T exist, so how come you're an atheist ?
   
   If God doesn't exist how come we have MIND and SOUL. I mean that (mind) cannot evolve because animals don't have minds. And MIND is not BRAIN. I'm studying philosophy and I'm not defending any religion and I'm trying to be objective.
   
   Can atheists explain me what's the thought ?
   You don't see your mind so that means that it doesn't exist ?
   
   I expect no childish comments and insults, I just want you to have an argument against Mine because my job as philosopher is to explain the TRUTH.
   
   Hope to hear your thoughts.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      autumn18posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The fact that we have minds doesn't lead to the conclusion that a God exists. Atheists simply don't hold a belief that God or Gods exist. It's not a belief system.

      replyreport
   2. 91

      Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Computers don't exist either.  They do stuff we can't see.
      
      Gravity doesn't exist and neither do x-rays.    Air almost doesn't exist - good thing we can feel it!

      replyreport
   3. 86

      Marisa Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The word "believe" can be used in two different ways. You're deliberately conflating the two.
      
      If you say "I believe in God", you're using the first meaning - "to accept God as true without the need for evidence".
      
      If you say "Atheists believe that God doesn't exist", that doesn't mean they "accept God as not true without the need for evidence", because the point is, they have considered the evidence and found it lacking.  So in that sentence, the word believe means something completely different - it means, "to hold an opinion" or "to think".

      replyreport
   4. 60

      hawkdad73posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Someone said in an earlier post, atheism isn't a belief system. It's more of a broad conclusion based on what we can see and what we have evidence (scientific explanations for miracles, carbon dating, etc.).
      
      So, you're right atheism doesn't exist. In the sense that atheism doesn't require brainwashing and worship of something based on heresay.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      writeronlineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      How can you possibly write this kind of inane drivel, set yourself up as 'the philosopher', and demand no childish replies. Your whole premise is less logical than your average 5yr old would be smart enough to reject as a self-indulgent waste of time. It's already taken more of my time than it's worth.

      replyreport
2. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   First. Atheists don't think they believe there is no God. They think they know there is no god. Just as you appear to think you know there is one.
   
   Second. Prove you have a soul. You can't. That is a belief.
   
   Third. Who told you animals don't have a mind? Explain why you think that.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Odd - those were the three things I would have commented as well.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Wow, me, too. Weird.
         
         But yes, as a philosophy student, you need to be aware that you've* got preconceptions, and those preconceptions must be examined and vetted if you're going to arrive at something close to Truth. If you start your discussion unconsciously assuming that (for example) all acorns are self-aware and send us messages via ESP, which we mistake as original thoughts, and base all of your reasoning on this assumption, then your entire discussion is going to be useless to anyone who notices this assumption and doesn't accept it as true (and they'll probably laugh at you).
         
         *Not just you; all of us.

         replyreport
3. 58

   MelissaBarrettposted 12 years ago

   My thoughts are this:  On a writer's site, I wish we could at least make our forum topic titles error free.  I know it's too much to ask for the responses.

   replyreport
   1. 91

      Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I liked "Can atheists explain me what's the thought ?"
      
      And I thought, "Hell no, I can't even parse it!"

      replyreport
      1. 66

         aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Please.
         
         Have a go at writing in Croatian.
         See how well you do!
         
         I recon they need some room for mistakes, don't you?

         replyreport
         1. 91

            Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            And you think that's his only problem?
            
            
            
            Yes, of course you are correct and language is part of the problem here.  The gentleman is at a disadvantage because he can't express his thoughts as accurately as he might like.  Still, we get the gist of it - animals can't think,  only religious people have morals, his soul will escape his body and ascend to Heaven.

            replyreport
4. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   "If God doesn't exist how come we have MIND and SOUL."
   You can't prove soul.
   "I mean that (mind) cannot evolve because animals don't have minds." Animals do have minds if mind is making decisions.
   Agnostics neither believe or disbelieve.

   replyreport
5. 57

   IntroduceCroatiaposted 12 years ago

   The proof that we have soul is simple. ''Conscience''. It didn't show from nowhere and you know what's right and what's wrong. Other names are moral or ethics. If you don't have conscience/soul then you can easily kill another human being or steal from someone or do anything wrong without the BAD feeling you have. If you reply to this as Justice among humans then I'll reply to you from where comes this justice if not from supreme being ?
   
   As of mind and animals it's pretty clear, Imagine that monkey wants to climb the very high tree which is in front of him and he has a little ladders behind him. Would he turn around and use those ladders to climb the tree ?
   No, because he doesn't think.
   He only has basic instincts.

   replyreport
   1. 91

      Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You are very wrong about monkeys.  We know now that they have morals and empathy.  They do think and so do many other animals.
      
      We do have some hard wired morality, but most of it we have to learn.  There is no magic and no "soul".
      
      All but a very tiny number of people threw out mind - body dualism long ago.  You are on very weak ground.

      replyreport
   2. 94

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Incorrect again.  Experiment with a very small childs ideas of what is right and wrong and you will find they have no conscience.  It is instilled into them by their parents and other people - they are not born with a conscience.  In addition, different cultures find different "rights" and "wrongs"; if it were a matter of soul all cultures would have the same conscience.
      
      Animals have no mind?  Tell that to the signing gorilla.  Or the elephant crying over the death of a mate.  Or to a dolphin learning what the trainer wants.  Or to the monkey using tools to get food or the otter using tools to crack open mussels.
      
      Sorry, animals most definitely DO think and have minds.  Ever watch a pet whose owner has died in their presence?

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Are you taking  a high school course in philosophy? If you are enrolled in a college, is this your first class in your first year?

      replyreport
   4. 60

      hawkdad73posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      IntroduceCroatia-
      
      All that you have mentioned are theories.  A soul doesn't necessarily beget ethics and morals.
      
      The monkey doesn't use the ladder because he has an awesome tail and claws--much more efficient than a ladder.

      replyreport
   5. 86

      Marisa Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Funny, I see chimpanzees and monkeys climbing little ladders in the zoo all the time.  Chimps use tools.  Crows use tools.  Many animals think.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         hawkdad73posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Okay, they can use tools. But they don' need them to be efficient and survive.  Left to climb a tree without, the monkeys would win.

         replyreport
   6. 74

      Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "The proof that we have soul is simple. ''Conscience''. It didn't show from nowhere and you know what's right and what's wrong. Other names are moral or ethics. If you don't have conscience/soul then you can easily kill another human being or steal from someone or do anything wrong without the BAD feeling you have."
      That seems a bit too easy for philosophy.
      
      If you follow the logic,
      Given: "Conscience" is proof that the soul exists.
      Therefore, if a person has a conscience, then that person has a soul.
      Therefore: If a person has no conscience, then that person has no soul.
      
      Query: what is "conscience?"
      Query: How do you prove the existence of conscience?
      Query: what are the implications for soulless persons as opposed to persons who have souls? Should the soulless be treated differently? Have different rights/privileges?

      replyreport
6. 57

   IntroduceCroatiaposted 12 years ago

   Explain me how animals can make decisions ?
   Give me an example.

   replyreport
   1. 91

      Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 114602.htm
      
      And many, many more.

      replyreport
7. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   " Imagine that monkey wants to climb the very high tree which is in front of him and he has a little ladders behind him." So why would a monkey want to climb a very high tree if it was only instinct.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Michele Travisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Or a hungry horse had the choice to eat oats or a big rock.  What would the horse eat.
      1) The Rock
      2) The Oats

      replyreport
8. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   Don't rock the oats.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Michele Travisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Rock the oats, don't tip the oats over

      replyreport
9. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   Michele did appreciate your effort on the historical origins of Christ of another thread.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Michele Travisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you,  it took some work, but I had worked on it already so I had it.

      replyreport
10. 83

    psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

    OP's tortured non-logic is "childish" enough for me.
    
    It is possible to not believe anything, including not believe there is a god.
    
    Saying otherwise is as nonsensical as saying there is no planet Earth or no such thing as the color blue.

    replyreport
    1. 78

       kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       This just has to be said, the greeks did not have a word for blue, the sky was bronze. I learned this on the show QI and found this interesting article on the subject, http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/ju … deutscher. Seems that many ancient languages did not have a proper word for blue. We are a very odd species, thats about all I can say on us Homosapiens

       replyreport
11. 57

    IntroduceCroatiaposted 12 years ago

    Pcunix, moral and empathy comes from soul, if you think that that's not true, then whats your explanation for those two. Why do we have empathy and moral ?
    And what's they origin ? --Something cannot be created from nothing--
    You said that we learn about moral from others, and I agree but I'm asking you who was the FIRST who teached moral. I'm asking you about the very begging of the moral as it is.
    
    wilderness, doesn't all cultures know that killing another human is bad or that stealing is bad. There are few differences among cultures of the world but the basic idea is the same. ''Experiment with a very small childs ideas of what is right and wrong and you will find they have no conscience''
    How old are children ? The children in kindergarten have conscience because they feel when something  ''wrong'' or something ''unfair'' happens to them. They have conscience but it's not that developed for them to know what's wrong and what's right.
    
    
    ''Animals have no mind?  Tell that to the signing gorilla.  Or the elephant crying over the death of a mate.  Or to a dolphin learning what the trainer wants.'' Gorilla sings because trainer taught him how to sing, he learned it. but if gorilla had a mind then she wouldn't had to learn it she would figure it out. About the crying elephant that's not related to mind, because that's the feeling and I connect it towards the soul. Animals do have soul but not mind, that's difference between humans and other beings.

    replyreport
12. 57

    IntroduceCroatiaposted 12 years ago

    To respond a topic in general:
    If atheists don't believe that God exists then they KNOW that God doesn't exist. So tell me the EVIDENCE about the non-existence of a God ?
    Otherwise you just believe in it. Which returns to my previous theory.
    I really enjoy the discussion

    replyreport
    1. 74

       Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       "If atheists don't believe that God exists then they KNOW that God doesn't exist. So tell me the EVIDENCE about the non-existence of a God ?
       Otherwise you just believe in it."
       
       Challenge accepted.
       
       Consider the following:
       
       I believe that penguins can't fly. How do I know? Take a thousand penguins, throw them off of a tall cliff. They flap their little wings like mad, but they all go *splat* on the ground. Therefore, penguins can't fly. Right?
       
       But wait a minute! I haven't proven that penguins can't fly. I have only proven that those penguins can't fly.
       
       But wait! I haven't proven that those penguins can't fly. I've proven that those penguins, when placed in a situation where flying would probably prevent their sudden and painful death, didn't fly.
       
       So, why didn't those penguins fly to preserve their lives? There are two possibilities: 1) They were unable to fly. 2) They were unwilling to fly.
       
       Could the penguins have been able to fly, but for nefarious reasons of their own, were willing to die to prevent humans from discovering their ability to fly? We have no way of knowing.
       
       Is any of the above likely? Not really. We have no evidence that penguins are capable of conspiracy, either. Based on the data we've gathered in this thought-experiment, we can safely assume that penguins can't fly, and can make all future penguin-related decisions on the assumption that they can't fly. But! We haven't tested every penguin, so we don't know that no penguin anywhere is able to fly, or that no future penguin will ever be able to fly.
       
       But it's still a fairly safe assumption.
       
       Atheists make a similar assumption about the existence of God. They imagine what would be a good test of the existence of God, and they try the test, in many ways, in many conditions, with multiple subjects, etc. If the results consistently point to the non-existence of God, then the philosopher decides that he can assume one of three things:
       1) God exists, and chooses not to intervene in human affairs for reasons of his own. (This is the Deist philosophy, in a nutshell.)
       2) God exists, but is unable to intervene in human affairs. (This is a subset of Deist philosophy.)
       3) God does not exist. (This is atheism.)
       
       So, atheists "know" that God does not exist in the same way that we "know" that penguins can't fly.
       
       This was a long explanation, so, thanks for staying with me if you've come this far.

       replyreport
       1. 91

          Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I know that know such thing can not exist because logic precludes it. 
          
          Simply:
          
          A god is a complex being.
          All complex things are composed of simpler parts.
          The simpler parts had to exist before the alleged "god".
          The "god" could therefore only be a natural product of evolution or an accidental assembly of parts.
          In neither case is it a "god" - it is bound by the physics that surround it just as we are.
          
          Of course the theists wave all that aside with "My god transcends logic".  Shrug.  If that's what they want to think, so be it.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             The believer "believes" in the logic "All complex things are composed of simpler parts.
             The simpler parts had to exist before the alleged "god".
             The "god" could therefore only be a natural product of evolution or an accidental assembly of parts.", if you can just change the name of god to anything else in this world. They "know" even a stone has to be "created", but somehow their god is an exception.

             replyreport
       2. 0

          Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I think it's important to note that no penguins were hurt in this example. I am, however, disturbed that you would consider throwing penguins from a tall cliff simply to see if they've been lying about their ability to fly.
          
          ***Forums readers are advised to leave experiments such as the one outlined in the above post to professional atheists. Do not try this at home.

          replyreport
          1. 74

             Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             You made my day!

             replyreport
       3. 78

          kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I knew it! Those crafty penguins! http://youtu.be/8kvWS1XwCMM

          replyreport
13. 65

    2uesdayposted 12 years ago

    There have been instances of apes learning sign language and communicating with their keepers. Koko the gorilla is probably the most famous. Some wild birds use tools to extract food.

    replyreport
14. 84

    sparksterposted 12 years ago

    Everybody has valuess, and beliefs.  Atheism doesn't mean someone who has no beliefs.  It means someone who doesn't believe in a creator.

    replyreport
15. 91

    JKennyposted 12 years ago

    Both Theism and Atheism require an enormous leap of faith, in regards to belief. You cannot confidentally declare that there is no God, when you cannot prove it with concrete evidence. Therefore to state that fact means displaying belief or making a leap of faith, meaning that Atheism almost becomes a religion of its own.

    replyreport
    1. 78

       kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       

       replyreport
    2. 91

       Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I can and do confidently declare that there are no gods except in the imagination of believers.
       
       I hasten to add that I have no objection to their fantasy if they let it interfere with others.

       replyreport
    3. 84

       sparksterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       and you cannot prove a negative.  It's not up to the person who claims it doesn't exist to prove it, it's up to the person who claims it does exist to prove it.

       replyreport
    4. 74

       Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       JKenny, is it a leap of faith to say "Penguins can't fly?"
       
       What, if anything, is the difference?

       replyreport
16. 91

    JKennyposted 12 years ago

    Good point.

    replyreport
17. 59

    Ana Teixeiraposted 12 years ago

    saying someone is an atheist doesn't mean they don't believe ANYTHING... because obviously everybody had beliefs, political or social or whatever.. but in the broad sense, the word simply means atheists don't have a specific religious belief system. As simple as that.

    replyreport