Question for ATHEISTS...?

Question

I recently posted this question... and I got no answers, So i changed the title to this from "LOGIC... REASONING... AND REALITY" -please read-

So, from most of the comments I've read from atheists (and I'm saying "most" so don't get all defensive if you are not one of them), they claim their logic and reasoning are reality. So this claim is based on knowledge attained from your senses right? It must be so, because you rely so heavily on "evidence" right? And evidence is perceived only through your senses, right? What then do you say about deception? About magic tricks that deceive your senses... (Metaphorically speaking)... Is that then your reality? What if your logic does not allow you to see past your senses... And how can you call this reality? Evidence and science is everchanging... A few hundred years ago, the world was flat... And everyone who disagreed was killed... Why are you trying to do the same thing here (without actually killing....)?

I understand your point about CHURCH being the killers... But the actuality is the goverment were the killers... And unfortunately, at the time, the Catholic Church was the government... But I don't know of any regular church that would kill people for their beliefs... It was a tyrannical reign of a government, who used the Church as it's foundation... So, it wasn't the Church necessarily... It was the government.

Answer 1

Your question itself is outside the realm of my senses.

Narrow it down to two questions, and I might consider answering that mess.

Answer 2

I am not aware that anyone was killed claiming that the Earth was round. Scientists from the Egyptians on have known that it is a sphere.

A few scientists over the ages have been persecuted for making conclusions from their observations that disagreed with Church dogma. (And were 99% correct BTW)

Magic tricks are entertaining, but everyone knows it's a trick. Magicians do not allow 100% inspection of their equipment, recording of their act from multiple angles etc. because then people would realize how it is done.

Science works the other way, when a scientist comes up with a hypothesis he and other scientists then do everything they can to prove it wrong. If they fail to prove it wrong then after enough work it becomes a theory, and then everyone in that field tries to prove it wrong. If it does get proven wrong in a detail then maybe it gets modified in accordance with the test results. If it gets proven wrong in a big way then it gets thrown out.


And that is the big difference between science an religion. Science is quite willing to tear down all it's ideas if they are shown to be wrong. In fact it is eager to do so, agreeing with what the universe really is is more important than ego or dogma.

Religion refuses to change in the light of new evidence. Dogma and doctrine are held in much higher accord than reality. Look how long it took the Catholic church to accept evolution. Look ho many wingnuts there are still who refuse to accept it.

Answer 3

You might be thinking that most Atheists have a disbelief in god as powerful and absolute as the Faithful's belief in Him. Not so, while an Atheist is not undecided, like an Agnostic, he typically won't have the same kind of unshakeable belief as a believer. Logic and evidence don't lead you to unshakable beliefs, just valid conclusions. New evidence can always change such conclusions, and logic can always be re-examined.

I think you're also mixing up atheism and science. The scientific method is the thing that's based on collecting and analyzing evidence of the senses. Philosphy, even non-religious philosphy, can exist and can speculate and draw conclusions that are not based soley (or at all) upon the senses. It doesn't get you very far - "I think therefore I am" - but it doesn't rely on the evidence of the senses.

Answer 4

Actually my concept of reality is obtained through empirical evidence that is reproducible by other people, not simply though personal experience. The skeptical nature of science reduces the possibility of being deceived (I said reduces, not eliminates). Of course there have been misunderstandings in science in the past and many of our current theories will evolve and improve over time. This is the beautiful thing about science and the search for knowledge - it's always evolving (sorry I couldn't think of a better word) and has a system of internal checks and balances. There are thousands of scientists in the world who have as many individual personal beliefs, motives and dogmas. I aways get a kick out of someone saying that "the scientists are covering something up" like there is some solidarity and unity among the worlds scientists.

Your assertion that Atheists are doing something akin to killing round-earthers is ironic. It was the religious right of the time that could not accept change and forced their view with the sword. The Atheists were the ones trying to spread the truth but were prosecuted for it. Atheists are truth seekers by and large. We are looked upon as nay-sayers but the fact of the matter is Atheists are much more open minded than most religious people. Open to new ideas, and open to dropping our beliefs if they are proven wrong by overwhelming evidence. When a bible verse comes head to head with an opposing scientific discovery elaborate spinning goes on to back it up and explain away the discrepancy. When a scientific theory is proven wrong, it's believers say "oops" got that one wrong, and move on.

I personally find the person that owns their mistakes much more altruistic than the person who weaves a story to validate their mistakes.

Answer 5

I see your point. Could the evidence deceive us? Certainly. But, that's the beauty of science. There is no dogma. We can research, learn and change our hypothesis as necessary to fit the evidence.

The other beauty is that it's pretty hard to deceive 'science'. I remember when a claim of cold fusion came out 15 years ago. But it couldn't be repeated by others, and was quickly dismissed by the scientific community. It's a tough group, and for every person that makes a claim, there are 100 who challenge and attempt to refute it. So- it's not easy to fool science.

Can we see past our senses? Of course. That is what we base theory upon. Einstein didn't sense that light would bend in a gravitational field, he theorized it based on amazing powers of reasoning and tremendous understanding of ...math. It was later shown to be true. did he 'sense' his famous relationship, E=MC^2? No. So research is not limited to our 'senses' and humans DO have the ability go perceive the world far beyond sight, taste, touch, etc.

There is still much we don't know, and much we have to learn.

May study, research and understanding continue and evolve our knowledge about the world around us, and not be limited to what was written down in some bronze age text.

Answer 6

Sigh.

Evidence is perceived through the senses - directly or indirectly. For example, x-ray machines save lives daily by translating x-ray waves into the visible spectrum.

Deception requires somebody to perform it, and a victim to miss it.

Logic dictates we evaluate all the available evidence, whether it's directly available or indirectly.

Actually, the ancient greeks knew the world was a sphere.

Every decade we know more about the world; that means we have a better understanding of it and more evidence of all scientific theories (those that are proven wrong are discarded).

And the killing, for the most part, was done by theists. Scientists are interested in actual knowledge.

Answer 7

I would say 'logic' and reality are based on the five senses we have. Reasonability is more of a psychological trait.
There are magic tricks I can't explain or reproduce myself, so I base my belief on other related 'evidence' I can understand. Then I can choose whether a statement is reasonable, based on my research, the knowledge I've obtained, the reality involved.
I haven't learned, or researched, everything there is, but I have done enough to be thoroughly convinced that belief in a singular male-oriented deity is unreasonable.

Answer 8

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, but logic involves thought and reason that is more than what physical senses give. The mind has more inputs than sensory ones because it can grasp ideas and concepts outside of them. Just because belief in deities is not part of this for an atheist, does not mean any of us are incapable of abstract thought.

BTW it was the churches who killed dissenters at the time you are speaking of, not atheists. Just so you know. Maybe want to think about that before using that as an argument against us.

Answer 9

It is correct to suppose that evidence ultimately derives from the senses. It is also correct to suppose that sometimes the sensory evidence is misinterpreted. It is for that reason that all such evidence, to be acceptable for scientific use, must be scrupulously documented as to how obtained, and re-obtainable by anyone who is interested in doing so. Of course the scientific picture of reality changes from time to time; Newtonian mechanics ruled the scientific world for three hundred years before Michelson and Morley proved that the Newtonian rules for velocity addition did not work for light and Einstein came up with a new mechanics which worked in this case (and in all other cases that have been tried since, as the inhabitants of Hiroshima found out to their dismay in 1945). The bottom line: only sensory evidence has any value toward portraying the nature of the world; that portrayal continues to improve with every bit of research that is done.

Answer 10

You did get answers, don't lie, God doesn't like it and its bad for your health:

Thats the whole point, trust logic when you cannot trust your senses. In a magic trick, something happens that all your senses say "This is true" however there is a voice of logic saying "This can't possibly be true".

When a magician tells me what my card was when my senses say "He never saw that card" I stick to my logic which say "He can't know what your card is without forcing a specific card on you, or looking at the one you picked without you noticing"

When I see a magician cutting someone in half my eyes say "This is amazing, how is this possible" but my logical mind says "This is impossible, there's no blood, and someone simply cannot survive being cut in half, those legs are probably fake, and why isn't he showing me the open wound?"

Logic comes first, then perception. Always trust pure, first order propositional logic before trusting anything else. It's infallible.

With religion, my ears hear "God created the world in 7 days" , my eyes read "Jesus rose from the dead in 3 days" but my logical mind says "Big bang theory explains creation very well, as does evolution, why should I believe in God?" and "I know that people dont just come back to life, everyone knows that, so why should Jesus be any different"

You can deny logic all you want, it will still be there even when you're done renouncing it. It's the only thing you can trust beyond all doubt.

Besides, by your argument you believe in magic. Good for you.

Answer 11

Hang on, Pardner! I am no atheist, but please do not distort their position. Knowledge comes from more than just one's senses. Knowledge is "justified", "true", "belief." Beliefs can be justified in more than one way.

The fundamental problem with most atheists here is that the claim to "rationality" is in fact a disguised "dogma." Offers to look at a sound argument for god usually goes unheralded, and if one does look, the response is (usually): "Well, I don't believe *that*! When asked what seems to be faulty, there is in general no reply.

I am not being condemnatory here. It is just that like many theists the opportunity to explore what one believes and why one believes it is just too unnerving for people, atheists included. Sometimes it is the recognition that what one believes doesn't have good reasons (which by the way need not be a ground for changing what one believes), or if one does have good reason one is not able to articulate them very well. Finally, people recognize that the dogmatic views they so despise, they hold themselves, and they simply cannot admit that fact.

It really is too bad.

HTH

Charles