Religion

[pudding]

I've already stated that humans are irrational creatures capable of rational thoughts. Whenever I talk about logic, I cast aside my human emotions to answer the problem. Emotions are not logical. You cannot use them in a logic argument. Without emotions, it doesn't matter if the person getting killed is a child or an adult or whatever. All that matters is the number of people who die as a result of the options and choosing the one with less wasted resources. Even if those resources are kittens.

 

I choose the one with less wasted resources. Lives are resources. Kittens are resources. Trains are resources. Everything is a resource, it just depends on the amount of time put into it. But it still isn't something to be revered. You seem to be using strange definitions of words between assuming I revere human life and saying that people who do not believe in god are denying it somehow.

 

I already answered that question. If matter cannot be created or destroyed, it must exist forever. The paradox would be if it had a birthing point. I say that matter has always existed and has no birthing point so there is no paradox. The paradox only exists if you claim that matter had a starting point.

 

No, all I get from you is mixing up what I am saying (typing?), several assumptions, mixed up dictionary definitions and a flawed understanding of how scientific laws are used.

[Pixxelation]

http://500questions.wordpress.com/2011/04/...t-always-exist/

 

I think this link is pretty relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Tazzay]

That actually proves a good point, and with a decent explanation.

[vivo]

It's neither good nor bad. It's just that since secular science almost univocally declared that the universe had a point of origin, it seems like most atheists/agnostics have had a cosmology centered around some sort of definite, bangy origin to the universe. Most don't like confessing the eternality of matter because then they realize that they're stuck believing in eternal somethings just like theists believe in eternal somethings.

 

So based on observation and reason, we determine that logic exists?

How is believing in eternity believing in an internal "something" (you're clearly implying a conscious eternal something). And while we don't know whether this is true we do know that the Universe is expanding. Who knows. Trillions of years from now even that may seize to exist.

[7Deadly$ins]

It's just because I've grown up only knowing one religion and disagree with a lot that's been taught about it. Others have told me that it's best to consider myself a Unitarian Universal instead. In title, at the moment, I'm Christian, but there are a LOT of things in the Bible I seriously disagree with. I'm on a quest for my own set of truths as it were. That's what's making me a cherry picker for now until I find something that I don't have to cherry pick my way through.

 

Edited for better grammar and typos. (Typo queen here.)

But why do you need the religion, then? If you're going to make up your own version of what's acceptable anyway... I guess you said you're looking, but I don't see the point in needing to swap out one for another when you can just live by what you already think is right.

[Awdz]

I choose the one with less wasted resources. Lives are resources. Kittens are resources. Trains are resources. Everything is a resource, it just depends on the amount of time put into it. But it still isn't something to be revered. You seem to be using strange definitions of words between assuming I revere human life and saying that people who do not believe in god are denying it somehow.

 

I already answered that question. If matter cannot be created or destroyed, it must exist forever. The paradox would be if it had a birthing point. I say that matter has always existed and has no birthing point so there is no paradox. The paradox only exists if you claim that matter had a starting point.

 

No, all I get from you is mixing up what I am saying (typing?), several assumptions, mixed up dictionary definitions and a flawed understanding of how scientific laws are used.

OK, you are missing my point about the language. I'm trying to point out that frame of reference is critical to whether or not something makes sense.

 

Take my saying you use logic as your god. There are some defining characteristics applied to God: omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. Omniscient: you say nothing cannot be explained by logic; Omnipotent: you say everything is subject to it; Omnipresent: you say there is no where it does not apply; and Eternal: you say it has always existed. When you apply god-like characteristics to something and it is what you turn to in your time of need, you are revering it. Logic is your god. Similar reasoning can be applied to how you describe matter/energy.

 

The paradox about matter/energy is inherent in the fact that it exists in the first place, when scientific law absolutely insists that it cannot be created from nothing. I'm not saying the law is wrong, I am saying that the existence of matter/energy in your frame of reference IS a paradox.

[pudding]

OK, you are missing my point about the language.  I'm trying to point out that frame of reference is critical to whether or not something makes sense.

 

Take my saying you use logic as your god.  There are some defining characteristics applied to God:  omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal.  Omniscient: you say nothing cannot be explained by logic; Omnipotent: you say everything is subject to it; Omnipresent: you say there is no where it does not apply; and Eternal: you say it has always existed.  When you apply god-like characteristics to something and it is what you turn to in your time of need, you are revering it.  Logic is your god.  Similar reasoning can be applied to how you describe matter/energy.

 

The paradox about matter/energy is inherent in the fact that it exists in the first place, when scientific law absolutely insists that it cannot be created from nothing.  I'm not saying the law is wrong, I am saying that the existence of matter/energy in your frame of reference IS a paradox.

You aren't getting the fact that if it always existed in the first place, there is no paradox. Unlike deities, this is supported and encouraged by science. There is no starting point for matter. It always was and, therefore, there is no paradox.

 

You are using a flawed definition of god as many gods are not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal. In fact, the ones I would be more likely to worship would be further away from these perfections. But you are incorrect in your reasoning. I'm saying that our universe is run by logic but humans, animals, anything with emotions are illogical. And I do not 'turn to it in my time of need', it is the principle in which I base my actions off of. Logic is my philosophy, not my deity.

 

Why do you need to center things that have absolutely no grounding in religion in religious terms. This is like saying there is no such thing as platonic love and all love is automatically sexual and then describing asexual in these terms. It doesn't work. You need to accept that not all people have a god and their viewpoints cannot be summarized in religious terms.

[MasterWeavile898]

http://500questions.wordpress.com/2011/04/...t-always-exist/

 

I think this link is pretty relevant to the discussion at hand.

There is much waste and disorder in the Universe. Why would God carefully design hundreds of billions of galaxies if He only really needed one? And why design them, and then crash mindlessly into one another? Or continuously pelt random planets with space-debris? Is He bored? Nature’s behavior is wasteful, unguided, indifferent, not the stuff you might expect from a thoughtful designer.

This made me laugh. Seeing as this is something humans do, and humans are supposedly made in God's image

 

And Pudding, Awdz is somewhat right. A different starting point will give a different result

 

Might I ask, is Law always good and Chaos always bad?

[pudding]

This made me laugh. Seeing as this is something humans do, and humans are supposedly made in God's image

 

And Pudding, Awdz is somewhat right. A different starting point will give a different result

 

Might I ask, is Law always good and Chaos always bad?

If that starting point is past experiences or emotion, it should have no play in your logical proof.

 

And no, that is not the case. Chaos within a herd is bad but the universe requires it. If there was no chaos, chemical reactions would not have occurred and we would not have the atoms we have today. I'd say if you have a creature or some kind of ecosystem, chaos is bad for it. But anything else (planets, universe, atoms, etc.), chaos is favorable.

[MasterWeavile898]

Your starting point is equally emotional as anyone else' starting point, so then how can you discount theirs and say yours is correct?

 

I would disagree that Chaos is bad for creatures. Chaos brings change. If you'll forgive me for using an overdone reference, it's like a forest fire

 

Then again, I'm Chaotic, so my views are logically going to be very different from yours

 

Also, my apologies for my lame half-posts, I have little time to truly fill out these posts

[pudding]

Your starting point is equally emotional as anyone else' starting point, so then how can you discount theirs and say yours is correct?

 

I would disagree that Chaos is bad for creatures. Chaos brings change. If you'll forgive me for using an overdone reference, it's like a forest fire

 

Then again, I'm Chaotic, so my views are logically going to be very different from yours

 

Also, my apologies for my lame half-posts, I have little time to truly fill out these posts

Emotions are illogical so they should have no place in a logic proof. That is why in all situations, they should be discredited. Notice in my proof earlier, there was no reference to emotion of any kind. That's because it has no place in logic or reason.

 

That kind of chaos is acceptable, just like disease. But too much of it can drive animals to extinction. Extreme weather change caused the extinction of many creatures. For the animals, the chaos is bad because it kills them. But in the grand scheme of things, it could be beneficial for other animals (say, if the animals were an invasive species).

[philpot123]

I'm just following the conservation laws, that's all. If matter cannot be created and destroyed and we have matter, it must have existed forever and will exist forever. There is a point of origin (The site of the repeated big bangs), but not a "birthing" point, per-say. The eternal existence of matter is difference from the eternal existence of a deity because deities (or at least the Christian god) went on to make matter. That's a big no-no for conservation laws.

 

It seems redundant to put it that way but since there is no other way to prove things, logic shall have to be proved that way as well. Unless there is some other manner for proving things that I was not aware of but those seem to be the only two.

I would agree with you that it seems to be the only way. My question is, how do you know you are observing and reasoning correctly? How do you validate your senses and reasoning? It seems that the only way to validate your senses and reasoning is with your senses and reasoning. You can test your reasoning by means of observation, but what is your basis for trusting your observations? You can test your observations according to what you would logically expect to see, but what is your basis for trusting your own reasoning?

 

So we are going in the direction of "how do you know you exist? No but really, how do you know you exist?" I hate these discussion points. I find them useless and irrelevant to what actually matters.

 

Because I know, in the realm of things that matter and are relevant, that I exist. There needs to be some base point. I can trust my observations because electromagnetic waves reach my eyes, which are reflected or emitted off of objects, which convey information about what the object is, which my brain decodes. I can use past actions and results to predict future ones, and, using said light, as well as my brain, which draws connections between various similar things, such as memory and information, can think and relate patterns and therefore produce a reasonable assumption of what will happen. If the parameters and conditions the observations were done in were reasonable, and not afflicted by too many variables, I can usually trust the observation unless new information comes up, in which case I will revise my thoughts and predictions based upon new proof. That is the basis of science. I don't need a deity to tell me "trust your observations. This is what is moral, according to me. This is what is logical, according to me. This is what is reasonable and valid, according to me. Here is what and what not to do, according to me. I am the law. No thinking is involved; do what I say, because it is law.

I'm going in the direction of epistemological nihilism, which is what an atheistic worldview is forced into. Your exposition of how you use senses and reasoning to arrive at knowledge is great, but there's still not explanation for its validity within your worldview. You're relying on your senses and reasoning to validate your senses and reasoning. Your basis for knowledge collapses in circularity, but that doesn't sit well with you because you have knowledge, right? You know that you're seeing things. You know that you're thinking. I would even say that contrary to centuries of silly existential philosophy that you know you exist. You just don't know how you can know those things. Within a world of chance that lacks transcendent standards, you can't know anything.

 

Just so I'm making sure I don't misrepresent you, what is your epistemological foundation? How are you able to have knowledge?

Edited March 4, 2014 by philpot123

[pudding]

I would agree with you that it seems to be the only way. My question is, how do you know you are observing and reasoning correctly? How do you validate your senses and reasoning? It seems that the only way to validate your senses and reasoning is with your senses and reasoning. You can test your reasoning by means of observation, but what is your basis for trusting your observations? You can test your observations according to what you would logically expect to see, but what is your basis for trusting your own reasoning?

 

 

I'm going in the direction of epistemological nihilism, which is what an atheistic worldview is forced into. Your exposition of how you use senses and reasoning to arrive at knowledge is great, but there's still not explanation for its validity within your worldview. You're relying on your senses and reasoning to validate your senses and reasoning. Your basis for knowledge collapses in circularity, but that doesn't sit well with you because you have knowledge, right? You know that you're seeing things. You know that you're thinking. I would even say that contrary to centuries of silly existential philosophy that you know you exist. You just don't know how you can know those things. Within a world of chance that lacks transcendent standards, you can't know anything.

 

Just so I'm making sure I don't misrepresent you, what is your epistemological foundation? How are you able to have knowledge?

The most irritating thing about epistemological nihilism is I cannot logically disprove a negative. So I can't do anything with this and expecting me to do something with it is obviously not understanding the basics of logic at all. I can no more prove the universe exists than you can disprove there were aliens at the Thanksgiving dinner. It cannot be done.

 

However, epistemological nihilism is not what atheists move towards. Not at all. Atheists are usually more inclined to believe the universe because it can be observed (or at least what we believe to be observed [damn semantics]). Deities, on the other hand, cannot be seen, heard, touch, tasted or smelled at all. Their very nature defies observable laws. I am a nihilist but I am not a epistemological nihilist. I am a existential nihilist and a moral nihilist (to some degree as society's influence on me has altered my own perception of other people and their actions). But epistemological nihilism is counterproductive and pointless except to annoy people and get in the way of scientific research by claiming nothing at all is real.

[TikindiDragon]

Pudding - you are, unfortunately, missing something quite major in your view and application of logic. Logical progression has to come from a defined starting point. There can be no [x] therefore logically [y] if you do not define [x] to begin with. It is impossible for a human (*any* human, including yourself) not to drawn on life experience when understanding something. That is the reference points with which we frame our understanding of the universe. But differing experiences will lead people to percieve [x] differently, which can lead to very different logical progressions from the same point. You have even noted of yourself that your experiences have changed the way you perceive things - and your perception of anything will colour your logical progression, because your perceptions form the basis of your understanding.

 

It is possible for two entirely different, but both utterly logical, conclusions to be drawn from the same set of data. This does not mean that one conclusion is false and the other true - especially in circumstances where 'false' and 'true' are not quantifiable. A large number of human experiences cannot be reduced to numbers, and it is also impossible for every person to be aware of every possible variable.

 

It is also impossible for decisions based purely and soley on logic that takes no account of emotion to be broadly beneficial to society. For the simple reason that, as you have pointed out, humans are creatures of emotion. Emotion therefore becomes a variable - and if you deliberately discount variables from your calculations then the end result of an action will not be the one you expect it to be.

 

One cannot possibly hope to understand the world around them if one discounts a major variable in the behaviour of ones fellows. They will constantly do things that one is not expecting. And it will appear illogical. If, however, one was to factor emotions in as a variable in the logical reasoning then ones predictions become that much more accurate.

[Shienvien]

Abstention is NOT the same thing as consciously deciding.

Choosing to not do something *is* choosing. If you see something happening and opt to just walk past it, you've made the decision to not intervene.

 

 

(I am, amongst other things, a person who very strongly believes that inaction should, under many circumstances, be considered a crime.)

[pudding]

Pudding - you are, unfortunately, missing something quite major in your view and application of logic. Logical progression has to come from a defined starting point. There can be no [x] therefore logically [y] if you do not define [x] to begin with. It is impossible for a human (*any* human, including yourself) not to drawn on life experience when understanding something. That is the reference points with which we frame our understanding of the universe. But differing experiences will lead people to percieve [x] differently, which can lead to very different logical progressions from the same point. You have even noted of yourself that your experiences have changed the way you perceive things - and your perception of anything will colour your logical progression, because your perceptions form the basis of your understanding.

 

It is possible for two entirely different, but both utterly logical, conclusions to be drawn from the same set of data. This does not mean that one conclusion is false and the other true - especially in circumstances where 'false' and 'true' are not quantifiable. A large number of human experiences cannot be reduced to numbers, and it is also impossible for every person to be aware of every possible variable.

 

It is also impossible for decisions based purely and soley on logic that takes no account of emotion to be broadly beneficial to society. For the simple reason that, as you have pointed out, humans are creatures of emotion. Emotion therefore becomes a variable - and if you deliberately discount variables from your calculations then the end result of an action will not be the one you expect it to be.

 

One cannot possibly hope to understand the world around them if one discounts a major variable in the behaviour of ones fellows. They will constantly do things that one is not expecting. And it will appear illogical. If, however, one was to factor emotions in as a variable in the logical reasoning then ones predictions become that much more accurate.

 

Of course logical deductions need an axiom but they do not need emotions. Emotions are actually notorious for distorting reason and should be minimized in any logical deduction. You keep referencing different, logical conclusions but I have yet to see a single one where one logical conclusion was more logical than another. I invite you to provide me with such a case where the logic is not distorted too much by emotions (which are considered illogical and, thus, should not be included in a logical argument) and the answers are both logically sound, where one is not more rational than the other.

 

 

And Shievien, I agree. Inaction is an action and choosing not to stop something when you can (if you can, reasonably) should be a crime. Depending on the circumstances, naturally.

[TikindiDragon]

Of course logical deductions need an axiom but they do not need emotions. Emotions are actually notorious for distorting reason and should be minimized in any logical deduction. You keep referencing different, logical conclusions but I have yet to see a single one where one logical conclusion was more logical than another. I invite you to provide me with such a case where the logic is not distorted too much by emotions (which are considered illogical and, thus, should not be included in a logical argument) and the answers are both logically sound, where one is not more rational than the other.

 

 

And Shievien, I agree. Inaction is an action and choosing not to stop something when you can (if you can, reasonably) should be a crime. Depending on the circumstances, naturally.

The emotion does not have to come from the person making the logical deductions. If there is any other human involved *their* emotions have to be taken into account as a variable, otherwise the conclusion drawn will differ from the actual progression of events.

 

Also, as you yourself have admitted, it is impossible for any human to be entirely emotionless. If A (humans) cannot be B (emotionless), and C (logic) cannot be achieved without B (lack of emotional input), then A (humans) cannot attain C (pure logic).

 

That said you are failing to notice the problem I was attempting to point out in your arguments - namely that you assert that humans are creatures of emotion, and then go on to say that the only correct way of looking at the world is to ignore emotion entirely. Doing so is actively ignoring a variable in any argument, which can only ever lead to drawing an incorrect conclusion.

 

To demonstrate a point on how conclusions can differ depending on which variables are accounted for:

 

Person X knows that point A is 10 miles away from point B. The speed limit on the road is 30 miles per hour. Person X logically concludes that it would take 20 minutes to get from point A to point B. This is simple mathematics. For an appointment at point B at 11:00 person X therefore leaves point A at 10:40.

 

Person Y knows in addition that the 10 miles between point A and point B contains 6 intersections. Understanding this, person Y concludes that probability suggests they are likely to stop at at least 3 of them. Person Y would therefore depart point A at 10:30 in order to arrive at point B for an 11:00 appointment.

 

Person X made a completely logical deduction, and came to a completely logical conclusion based on the information they had available. Person Y, understanding a greater number of variables, came to a different, likewise logical, conclusion. Whether person X arrives at their appointment on time now comes down to their luck in arriving at every intersection on a green light. Person Y, on the other hand, is unlikely to be late because they understood all of the variables involved. Person X was not illogical, nor did they come to an illogical conclusion, but because they failed to take into account all the variables the end result is not the one they expected.

 

You can see the difference, yes? Variables effect outcome. By failing to take emotions into account you become person X in this example - the conclusions you draw may be logical, but the emotions of other people mean that the outcome of your dealings with them will not be the one you expect.

 

This can then be taken further. You have, again, said yourself that chaos and instability in a group or society is bad. If a person fails to take into account the emotions of those around them then there is a high probability of their actions *causing* said chaos and instability - because the outcome of their actions will not necesarily be the outcome they predicted.

 

One cannot, therefore, completely ignore emotion when dealing with humans - because the emotions of other humans *will* effect their behaviour.

 

I would also like to point out a logical conclusion that can be drawn from some of the statements you have made.

 

Morality aligns with rationality. If something is irrational, it is amoral.

Humans are not rational creatures. Nothing in our history points to us being rational.

 

I can therefore conclude from these two statements that you believe nothing humans do can be considered moral.

 

I would also like to quote something else you have said during this discussion

God (Or the concept of him) always struck me as a major ass.

I find it interesting that, while you are now falling back onto defending yourself with 'logical' reasoning and arguments, you have posted things that are pure emotional reaction.

 

Edit to add: You hvae also said this

Athiesm is technically a religion. Not an organized one, mind you, but a religion.

And I therefore find it quite odd that you were recently denying that you deified logic.

Edited March 4, 2014 by TikindiDragon

[High Lord November]

I'm going in the direction of epistemological nihilism, which is what an atheistic worldview is forced into.

 

(Edited to make more clear my fix): Atheist's just someone who does not believe that any god exists.

 

I find these discussions - "but you can't really know that you're valid" - to be ridiculous, because they have no end result. There is no point in them. It affects nothing. It has no basing in reality. We have to make some base assumption in order to progress, but I don't see any point in saying that because we made that base assumption that everything we've done is invalid, or can't be really proven. So what's the purpose of saying that? Does it matter? We can't move forward without it. Also, what you're saying has very little actual place in reality behind it. It's like playing the ultimate game of "what if". I have plenty enough information to make it almost beyond reason that I exist, and that I can trust what I see.

 

Why does having a god that may or may not exist fix whatever you're saying?

 

 

Your exposition of how you use senses and reasoning to arrive at knowledge is great, but there's still not explanation for its validity within your worldview. You're relying on your senses and reasoning to validate your senses and reasoning. Your basis for knowledge collapses in circularity, but that doesn't sit well with you because you have knowledge, right? You know that you're seeing things. You know that you're thinking. I would even say that contrary to centuries of silly existential philosophy that you know you exist. You just don't know how you can know those things.

I do know how I can know these things. I am relying on the fact that my eyes perceive and my brain decodes a particular wavelength as the colour blue in order to call the sky what we call the colour blue, which we only call blue because my eyes and my brain decode that particular wavelength as the colour blue. Everything is just a set of physical reactions. My knowledge comes from a series of physical reactions, provided by outside stimulus. I can then relate and compare that input with other input, to provide output (making connections, new ideas, et cetera). I know things because my brain has stored the previous input, which can be brought up again by new situations with similar or linked input.

 

I think it's fairly obvious that I need to rely on my senses to know that I am sensing something. I can't do anything else.

 

And I'll ask again; what is the non-lala land importance of this discussion?

 

Within a world of chance that lacks transcendent standards, you can't know anything.

I can very certainly know things, not even using any assumptions. I don't need a standard to compare myself to, least of all transcendent; we make our own standards. There isn't some ultimate blue I need to see, know, and memorize in order to know what other blues look like. I don't need to know that ultimate blue in order to say "that green is not blue." Blues that aren't that ultimate blue are still blue. I know stuff based on the fact that I know stuff. If I didn't know stuff (i.e. I was dead, or didn't exist), then I wouldn't know stuff. The presence of fire confirms the presence of fire. What if there were no fire? Then there is no fire.

 

How do you know that your god's knowledge confirms your knowledge? How do you know that you have knowledge, and that your god is just a figment of the imagination? Why would having some god's opinion suddenly confirm that you have knowledge? How can you do the former if you don't even know if your god does exist or not, in the realm of reality?

 

Just so I'm making sure I don't misrepresent you, what is your epistemological foundation? How are you able to have knowledge?

I am able to have knowledge based on my knowledge that I have knowledge. I know I can have knowledge, because I can take that assumption and test it until a point where it is reasonable to confirm, or, if you will, assume, that I do have knowledge.

 

I can tell you the fire is there, because the fire is there. Prove it? I can throw something in the fire. I can show you how the fire raises the temperature of the surrounding environment. I can show you that there is a light source the area that the fire is located in. I can show you the smoke, and measure what happens to it when I douse it with water or put more wood in it.

Ah yes, it could still not be fire. It could still not exist. But with each new level of confirmation, it becomes more and more reasonable that it does to the point that it is almost baseless to assume that it doesn't, or that it safe enough to assume that it does. That's how science works, and I think it's safe enough to assume that I have enough proof that I do exist. Trying to debate the point that I can't observe proof, or that all the proof I'm seeing doesn't actually exist, is bordering on the line of ridiculousness. It isn't worth anyone's time to do that, because we would get nowhere.

Edited March 4, 2014 by High Lord November

[Shienvien]

An atheist view is simply that we trust in things that we can observe and prove.

It is not "atheist view" - there is no such thing as the singular view of people who don't happen to believe in the existence of god(s). It is the materialist and ... now there was some other, more defining word for it, but my memory fails me at this point.

[High Lord November]

It is not "atheist view" - there is no such thing as the singular view of people who don't happen to believe in the existence of god(s). It is the materialist and ... now there was some other, more defining word for it, but my memory fails me at this point.

Yeah, I had gone back to correct it. I'll just remove that entirely, seeing as it wasn't clear enough.

[Pixxelation]

I highly suggest looking up quantum fluxes--they are currently the popular belief of how energy first transformed into matter, or something like that. I don't know much about the subject myself, but from what I do know, it seems very likely.

[pudding]

The emotion does not have to come from the person making the logical deductions. If there is any other human involved *their* emotions have to be taken into account as a variable, otherwise the conclusion drawn will differ from the actual progression of events.

 

Also, as you yourself have admitted, it is impossible for any human to be entirely emotionless. If A (humans) cannot be B (emotionless), and C (logic) cannot be achieved without B (lack of emotional input), then A (humans) cannot attain C (pure logic).

 

That said you are failing to notice the problem I was attempting to point out in your arguments - namely that you assert that humans are creatures of emotion, and then go on to say that the only correct way of looking at the world is to ignore emotion entirely. Doing so is actively ignoring a variable in any argument, which can only ever lead to drawing an incorrect conclusion.

 

To demonstrate a point on how conclusions can differ depending on which variables are accounted for:

 

Person X knows that point A is 10 miles away from point B. The speed limit on the road is 30 miles per hour. Person X logically concludes that it would take 20 minutes to get from point A to point B. This is simple mathematics. For an appointment at point B at 11:00 person X therefore leaves point A at 10:40.

 

Person Y knows in addition that the 10 miles between point A and point B contains 6 intersections. Understanding this, person Y concludes that probability suggests they are likely to stop at at least 3 of them. Person Y would therefore depart point A at 10:30 in order to arrive at point B for an 11:00 appointment.

 

Person X made a completely logical deduction, and came to a completely logical conclusion based on the information they had available. Person Y, understanding a greater number of variables, came to a different, likewise logical, conclusion. Whether person X arrives at their appointment on time now comes down to their luck in arriving at every intersection on a green light. Person Y, on the other hand, is unlikely to be late because they understood all of the variables involved. Person X was not illogical, nor did they come to an illogical conclusion, but because they failed to take into account all the variables the end result is not the one they expected.

 

You can see the difference, yes? Variables effect outcome. By failing to take emotions into account you become person X in this example - the conclusions you draw may be logical, but the emotions of other people mean that the outcome of your dealings with them will not be the one you expect.

 

This can then be taken further. You have, again, said yourself that chaos and instability in a group or society is bad. If a person fails to take into account the emotions of those around them then there is a high probability of their actions *causing* said chaos and instability - because the outcome of their actions will not necesarily be the outcome they predicted.

 

One cannot, therefore, completely ignore emotion when dealing with humans - because the emotions of other humans *will* effect their behaviour.

 

I would also like to point out a logical conclusion that can be drawn from some of the statements you have made.

 

 

 

 

I can therefore conclude from these two statements that you believe nothing humans do can be considered moral.

 

I would also like to quote something else you have said during this discussion

 

I find it interesting that, while you are now falling back onto defending yourself with 'logical' reasoning and arguments, you have posted things that are pure emotional reaction.

 

Edit to add: You hvae also said this

 

And I therefore find it quite odd that you were recently denying that you deified logic.

That is a good example. However, it isn't exactly what you are trying to accomplish. Person A did not have the information of person B about the street lights. This is another set of data that, had person A been exposed to, should have logically altered his time schedule to leave earlier to accomodate for it. Thus, this is not an example of two people with the same data and information coming to seperate, equally rational answers.

 

It is also not an example of why emotions should be placed in logical arguments. Emotions are illogical so putting them in a logical argument would be illogical. The addition of the new point is not an illogical data set so, thus, it cannot be compared to emotions.

 

Let's take childbirth. There is a mother who discovers that her fetus does not have a brain and will never develop one. Logic says that this fetus will not form into a functional member of society, will most likely die within the first few days and will be a waste of resources while it is alive. Logic says get rid of it.

Emotions come in with the silly notion that perhaps a miracle will happen and the baby will turn out alright. It doesn't have a brain so it won't be able to see, hear, touch, taste or smell. But emotions say give birth to it. This is illogical but overpowers the system and many choose to keep the fetus and give birth to it in hopes it will turn out okay. This is a waste and we can see emotions corrupting the logical system and skewing it away from rationality.

This is why emotions should not be counted as a variable. They ultimately interfere and overpower the other, logical variables in the dataset and usually lead to irrational decisions.

 

I can therefore conclude from these two statements that you believe nothing humans do can be considered moral.

 

I would also like to quote something else you have said during this discussion

 

I said that humans are illogical but we can demonstrate logical. By my standards (Morals vary from person to person, mine happens to be based upon logical arguments), humans are capable of moral acts when they think logically and rationally.

 

I find it interesting that, while you are now falling back onto defending yourself with 'logical' reasoning and arguments, you have posted things that are pure emotional reaction.

I recognize that I do have emotional reactions, however this label of this god being an ass is not based purely upon an emotional reaction, but rather his supposedly being omniscient and permitting slavery, human sacrifice, etc. These things are logically quite condemnable and characteristics of a person or creature that should be scorned. That is, he has the traits of an ass.

 

 

 

Edit to add: You hvae also said this

 

And I therefore find it quite odd that you were recently denying that you deified logic.

"The terms "atheist" (lack of belief in any gods) and "agnostic" (belief in the unknowability of the existence of gods), though specifically contrary to theistic (e.g. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) religious teachings, do not by definition mean the opposite of "religious". There are religions (including Buddhism and Taoism), in fact, that classify some of their followers as agnostic, atheistic, or nontheistic. The true opposite of "religious" is the word "irreligious". Irreligion describes an absence of any religion; antireligion describes an active opposition or aversion toward religions in general." Source

Athiesm in itself is a religion does not mean you worship a god or gods. It is a set of beliefs that relates humans to the universe. Lack of a god or creator is a belief that relates humans to the universe.

[Fightandspawn]

Everyone hates on me for being an atheist. Well, I was since I was 6. Big deal.

[PrinceVertigo]

This dragon raiser doesn't think that's an acceptable age to make such mature decisions, but whatever.

 

Also, I like how this conversation is going! Really sharpens the mind. He says, not contributing anything to the topic at hand in any way, shape, or form at this point.

[BlitzDrake]

Everyone hates on me for being an atheist. Well, I was since I was 6. Big deal.

Uhm, well, I think that's a bit young to be firm in anything you believe, mainly cause plausible/logical formation of questioning and the like really isn't something a 6 year old could do.