Atheism is a belief.

[Tht1Gy!]

Atheists are not believers, they are observers. Scientists don't believe in God because they observe that he doesn't exist.

Bullshit! I know/have known of scientists who believe in god in some fashion.

There is a quote that speaks to this: "Science is god's way of revealing himself" Jimmy Carter.

Now I disagree with much of his view of god but this quote does not require me to agree.

 

[snake river rufus]

everything is based on logic. Perspectives of that logic, is what truly matters. Whose logic is it? What is perceived as chaos of thought?

I can't agree that everything is based on logic. Properly applied logic should lead everyone to the same end. Assuming the same facts are understood by all.

 

[draqon]

I can't agree that everything is based on logic. Properly applied logic should lead everyone to the same end. Assuming the same facts are understood by all.

there is no universal logic that all comes down to. logic works in perspective to the individual.

Killing yourself is logical, or is it? It is logical to the guy who killed himself, but it is illogical to the guy who sees life's hardships as essential experience.

 

[snake river rufus]

... which can be read as "I know you are but what am I".

Tell me, are these the same folks who used "reason and logic" to decide to drop the atom bomb.

My point is "reason and logic" have been the cause of much suffering in the world.
Many 'think' they are are reasonable and logical but don't have a clue.
The witch hunts and the trials were convinced of their logic and reason.
GWB and crew think that they are very reasonable folks.
The "Flags of Reason" hide much insanity. And are used to stifle response.

Then you have read it wrong.
I wasn't there at the decision making process concerning the A-bomb but I do agree that it was the best way to end the war with minimal to U.S. troops. In the end, that's what war boils down to.
No, improperly applied logic caused said suffering.
Yes, and you seem to be one of those
You need to clean up that bit about witch trials- doesnt make sense as it is.
GWB believe in the supernatural, that rules out true logic. If he claims something to be reasonable based on that belief,,he's wrong.
Have you been stifled? Seems to me that you are free to post all the bunk that you wish.

 

[(Q)]

Let's remember that it is the CLAIMS OF THEISTS for gods existence which gave rise to atheism, and not just the existence or non-existence of gods.

Atheism, as a concept unto itself is meaningless without those theists beating their breasts from the sermon mount.

 

[ashura]

No, improperly applied logic caused said suffering.

Properly applied logic can cause much suffering as well. I don't think you can boil everything down to reason and logic. Things like ethics and morals come into it as well.

 

[(Q)]

Properly applied logic can cause much suffering as well. I don't think you can boil everything down to reason and logic. Things like ethics and morals come into it as well.

Why can't ethics and morals be derived from reason and logic?

 

[snake river rufus]

there is no universal logic that all comes down to. logic works in perspective to the individual.

Killing yourself is logical, or is it? It is logical to the guy who killed himself, but it is illogical to the guy who sees life's hardships as essential experience.

My point would be that the person killing himself may not have the same knowledge as the the other guy and vice-versa. Emotions play a big part in our lives. We can't get rid of them and I wouldn't want to. Emotions have no place in the scientific process, do they?
And the scientific process is based on?

 

[ashura]

Why can't ethics and morals be derived from reason and logic?

They can of course. I'm just pointing out that the most logical decision isn't always the most moral or ethical one (the one that causes the least suffering).

 

[snake river rufus]

Properly applied logic can cause much suffering as well. I don't think you can boil everything down to reason and logic. Things like ethics and morals come into it as well.

Properly applied logic would bring suffering to its minimal level. Ethics and morals do enter into the human equation, but should they? IMO, only if both parties share the same ethics and morals.

 

[ashura]

Properly applied logic would bring suffering to its minimal level. Ethics and morals do enter into the human equation, but should they? IMO, only if both parties share the same ethics and morals.

Suffering to its minimal level for whom? The one who applied the logic, or the one who was on the receiving end of it? Dropping the A-bomb might have been the most logical action for us and definitely reduced a lot of American suffering, but what about the suffering of the many innocent Japanese who were effected by it?

Note, I'm neither disapproving nor condoning the dropping of the A-bomb.

 

[snake river rufus]

Suffering to its minimal level for whom? The one who applied the logic, or the one who was on the receiving end of it? Dropping the A-bomb might have been the most logical action for us and definitely reduced a lot of American suffering, but what about the suffering of the many innocent Japanese who were effected by it?

Note, I'm neither disapproving nor condoning the dropping of the A-bomb.

How many innocent Japanese might have been harmed by an invasion?
Dropping the A-bomb just might have been the better option for them as well.
Properly applied logic, in this case was to drop the bomb. 150,000 dead from the bomb against the estimates of up to a million if we fought on the ground.

 

[ashura]

How many innocent Japanese might have been harmed by an invasion?
Dropping the A-bomb just might have been the better option for them as well.
Properly applied logic, in this case was to drop the bomb. 150,000 dead from the bomb against the estimates of up to a million if we fought on the ground.

You use the word might. You tell me, how many innocent Japanese might have been harmed by the invasion? Are you so sure the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered before we reached 150,000 deaths on both sides?

(to add to that 150k body count, you also have the survivors who lived with severe medial problems for the rest of their lives)

PS: I'm agreeing that the nuke was the fastest, most logical way to end the war. I'm just not so sure it was the path to the least suffering that you claim it might have been.

 

[(Q)]

They can of course. I'm just pointing out that the most logical decision isn't always the most moral or ethical one (the one that causes the least suffering).

If one of my main moral and ethical tenets was to try to cause the least amount of harm to others when making decisions, wouldn't I want to use logic?

What other arsenal would one have to use in their decision making process?

 

[greenberg]

How many innocent Japanese might have been harmed by an invasion?
Dropping the A-bomb just might have been the better option for them as well.
Properly applied logic, in this case was to drop the bomb. 150,000 dead from the bomb against the estimates of up to a million if we fought on the ground.

That wasn't about properly applying logic. It was a decision about what would be more feasible, according to particular criteria of feasibility.

 

[VitalOne]

Yes atheism is 100% faith-based to very very very highest degree, it is entirely based upon "belief without evidence"

 

[snake river rufus]

You use the word might. You tell me, how many innocent Japanese might have been harmed by the invasion? Are you so sure the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered before we reached 150,000 deaths on both sides?

(to add to that 150k body count, you also have the survivors who lived with severe medial problems for the rest of their lives)

PS: I'm agreeing that the nuke was the fastest, most logical way to end the war. I'm just not so sure it was the path to the least suffering that you claim it might have been.

Severe medical problems also come from shell fire. I think that one evens out.
As I recall the est. was nearly 1,000,000 from invasion.
as for Japan surrendering, if the emperior didn't surrender after the first bomb, do you really think that he cared how many of his people died? The A-bomb was horrible but I remain convinced it resulted in the least loss of life on both sides. And one thing to the good, Japan seems to be staying out of that arms race. That's not much, but it is a positive.

 

[snake river rufus]

That wasn't about properly applying logic. It was a decision about what would be more feasible, according to particular criteria of feasibility.

Actually that issue was raised by an earlier poster as a slam against using logic. I'll have to take your word as to how the decision was reached. I wasn't there.

 

[ashura]

If one of my main moral and ethical tenets was to try to cause the least amount of harm to others when making decisions, wouldn't I want to use logic?

I have to admit Q, I fucked myself over. First I (perhaps wrongly) agreed with you that morals and ethics can be derived from reason and logic. Now I've been hit with a question of logic being derived from morals and ethics.

Let me clarify my position. I take back what I said earlier about morals and ethics being derived from logic and reasoning because I'm not sure what the answer to that is. However, I do agree that logic is taken from someone's morals and ethics. Thus, I disagree with snake river rufus' claim that properly applied logic causes the least suffering, because no such thing as objective logic exists. An example would be the logic of a serial killer. His logic would certainly cause more suffering than necessary.

 

[snake river rufus]

My point is that we should try to make logical decisions.
And serial killers do not use logic. They may think that they do but logic isn't just what makes sense to me or you or him. Logic is a template to apply to a problem.