Why do atheists follow false beliefs?

So, just because atheists don't believe in your God, that means they cannot have morals and should just all go around stealing and murdering just because they feel like it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well my god is bigger then your god so whatever, religion isn't really a joke... It's yust the people who put to much tought in it that are you generelly recognise them by their explosive characteristics or the fact that they where dresses etc etc, I don't consider myself a atheist because frankly that would insuniate that I give the subjection more tought then it's worth it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Atheist =>> 'A'(=not) 'theist'(=person that beliefs in a deity)
So if you dont belief in a deity you are an atheist, wether or not you call yourself one is another matter.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

dont belief in a deity... wel I believe in myself, I also believe in "the mass" that by the way can't be descibed as any individual, their proberly others and some have a high influence on my actions (like my girfriend, society, hunger etc).

 

The label "Naturalistic Fallacy" does not make it a fallacy. You don't like it, so you label it and call it a fallacy. Nevertheless, our instinctual moral guide is far closer to the "truth" in terms of what nature intended, then the man made ideas we create such as humanism. The idea that we are pack animals with empathy and do what's best for the group and ourselves has some evidence. But, there is also evidence that survival of the fitest also is in our genes. However, I have a hard time believing that cave men acted like modern humanists.

 

Did you visit my links ??

 

Your sites are interesting.

 

hum. They actually answer your question..

 

Why is your definition of "natural", that it is about instinct and abstract ideas? You do seem to like defining things to suit yourself.
You do realise that people choose between religion/ not religion, since obviously atheism is a natural product as well. Or indeed, between many kinds of religion. Is your religion correct or not, or is it simply an artefact of your brain wiring?

 

Really? Do you have any evidence that free will does not exist?
Where is this deterministic scientific world of which you speak?

 

Yeah humans should murder other humans in order to eat them all of the time.

I always keep an eye out for cannibalistic atheists.

psik

 

That's ridiculous. There can be true beliefs about nature, but not all true beliefs need to be "based" on nature.

 

And it's become quite clear that John doesn't have a clue as to what Humanism means.

While I can agree with you that emotion can be a source of knowledge, that is really irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Again, empathy is not demonstrably a neurological function, regardless of how many times you state that it is. At best, empathy can be described as a description of some purported behaviour in others, as well as a description of a particular mental state that one has experienced. Thus, we have nothing but a semantic definition.

 

Of course, proof by assertion is a logical fallacy.
But that isnt the proof I am using:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy
Seems expert opinion, and scientific data, disagrees with your assertion glaucon. Furthurmore, it is well known emotions are a neurological function, and since only certain things have emotions, it is a ginetic trait, for instance, despite having neurons, insects have no emotions.

But, Id say your right about John being lost in his own disscussion. I shouldnt have even tried. >.>

-Andrew

 

Not at all. You seem to be misinterpreting the article. Notice how it is states that empathy seems to be "concomitant" with certain brain processes. This is not the same as arguing that brain processes are related in any causal relationship with empathy, merely that there is an apparent correlation between the two. For my own part, I would surmise that what is in fact occurring is the election of an emotive state (stimulated by the observation of another person's state) which in turn has a neurological affect.

Again, fallacious.
Simply because an organism has genes, this doesn't entail (as you point out here..) the ability to emote. What's more, you're assuming only certain members of organic species 'have' emotions, when this assertion (or denial) cannot be verified.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with attempting to get a discussion back on track.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But we do digress.

 

That seems more like disputing terminology, my point is: there is evidence that ones brain is 'wired up' so that perceiving anothers emotion fires the corresponding neurons in the brain, therby inducing that emotion in the observer. Thus, it is natural(instinctual, insert a better word here?) for a human to feel the emotion of another human they percieve.

Perhaps my terminology is incorrect: what I meant is:
the ability for ones brain to grow in such away as to devellope emotions is determined by the species DNA, thus different species may or may not have emotions, eg compare a hydra and a monkey. An organisms DNA will determine its ability to emote. And of course, the DNA of a species is determined by millions of years of evolution.

What this all means is that humanism is a natural ideology, DNA determins our emotional capabilities, and has made our brain wired to experiance the emotions of others, and thus we have humoured John's search for humanism being determined by evolution.

-Andrew

 

Not at all. This is not a question of semantics. You yourself just there imlied that neurological activity causes an emotion ("..therby inducing that emotion in the observer.").

You've got it backwards.
This very issue is at the heart of the 'failure' of empiricism, which ended up stimulating alternative philosophies like phenomenalism, for example. Is it the case that an external real object can have a causative affect upon an observer, or, is it the case that the only causative affect one can be certain of is that which one makes oneself ????

(We're cruising right into epistemology here....)

Sorry, your conclusion doesn't follow. Regardless of the limiting affect our evolutionary processes may have upon our physical reality, this doesn't mean that an ideology is thereby supported. Strictly speaking, an ideology is a political entity and not subject to, nor derived from, physicality. Memes are ephemeral, but DNA is predictable.

 

The basis of it is the fact that perceptual evidence (ie scientific observation) supports that emotions (and indeed all thoughts) are neurological, and that they come about from outside stimulents. So rather, not that neurological activity causes the emotion, but it is the emotion.
Of course, I cannot proove that my evidence is true any furthur than that, at the point when the disscussion turns to empiricism and rationalism etc... most proof breakes down.

Oh of course, I was simply seeking to present the idea in a way John was seeking (throughout the posts he wanted some evolutionary and natural basis for the idea) So, I gave him a natural basis. Of course this does not proove the idea is correct, I do not claim that, nor do I think that such is the basis for an ideology (or should be.)

Finally, it looks like this thread is dead, apart from this, so it doen't much matter anyway, thank you for your critique, if you point out any more problems with my argument, I will read your comments, however I will not post to support my argument furthur. T'was a good disscussion.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

-Andrew

 

No. Atheists claim the existence of god is false.
Religion is not necessarily cut out of the picture. Humanism is a religion devoid of theology. So is Buddhism, or least some sects of it.
Hell, there are even atheist Christians.

All religion is, is the measure of devotion to a particular philosophy. Theology is not a necessary aspect thereof.