Does logic exist in the atheist?

[charlesseamanj]

Yeah, we support our views to the point of stupidity.

So why exactly is that? Is it because they refuse to believe certain doctrines? Or is it because are just too stubborn to admit anything that goes beond their own personal view of reality.
Atheists do not believe in the spiritual. So they go on with their attempts at trying to explain everything according to the little they know. They try to form some kind of belief that will give them a grasp of things(this is human nature).
So by forming a belief, they create a faith for themselves.

Their are differences between Christian theists and atheists:
Christian theists have 4,000 years of human history to support their beliefs. Also, the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament were written only 150 years after they were supposedly written. Acording to the method used in determining historical accuracy, the New Testament letters are the most accurate ancient documents that exist in the world.(and I will not expand on this so do not ask me.)
_______
Atheists have less then 200 years of science (which is used by Christians to support their beliefs) to base their beliefs on.
___________

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Of course logic exists with atheists as they only use rational and demonstrably true arguments to support their ideas. Faith in the supernatural is by definition irrational and obviously won't follow logical reasoning. There's nothing wrong with having faith as that usually is a personal thing, at the same time, no one should try to pass faith off as being rational or logical as something that is actually tangible.

That being said, many things in faith can't be reproduced repeatedly, thus you can't come to the logical conclusion that it is real to everyone, as such it should be understandable that those that require demonstrable facts would not accept it. Faith is irrational, but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with having faith; moreover, that doesn't mean that those without faith lack some sort of logic. If anything, they're skeptical until it can be demonstrated with repeatability that something is true to them. For those with faith, they don't need this, whatever gets you through the day should be fine enough for you.

 

[charlesseamanj]

Of course logic exists with atheists as they only use rational and demonstrably true arguments to support their ideas. Faith in the supernatural is by definition irrational and obviously won't follow logical reasoning. There's nothing wrong with having faith as that usually is a personal thing, at the same time, no one should try to pass faith off as being rational or logical as something that is actually tangible.

That being said, many things in faith can't be reproduced repeatedly, thus you can't come to the logical conclusion that it is real to everyone, as such it should be understandable that those that require demonstrable facts would not accept it. Faith is irrational, but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with having faith; moreover, that doesn't mean that those without faith lack some sort of logic. If anything, they're skeptical until it can be demonstrated with repeatability that something is true to them. For those with faith, they don't need this, whatever gets you through the day should be fine enough for you.

The following is an example:
You believe in what can be shown or demonstrated.
Not everything true can be demonstrated. Hostory can not be demonstrated.
The Book Of Acts, which is historicly accurate in explaining the times soo detailedly that it is concidered historicaly accurate (according to the method of determining accuracy in ancient documents) is a fine example.
If you believe only what can be demonstrated, you are missing out.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

_______
Atheists have less then 200 years of science (which is used by Christians to support their beliefs) to base their beliefs on.
___________

And these 200 years have been a glorious triumph for, metholodogical at least, naturalism.

 

[charlesseamanj]

And these 200 years have been a glorious triumph for, metholodogical at least, naturalism.

Kind of wierd how many people deny the facts of science which contradict many of the most common beliefs among atheists.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

You believe in what can be shown or demonstrated.
Not everything true can be demonstrated. Hostory can not be demonstrated.
The Book Of Acts, which is historicly accurate in explaining the times soo detailedly that it is concidered historicaly accurate (according to the method of determining accuracy in ancient documents) is a fine example.
If you believe only what can be demonstrated, you are missing out.

I never ever said what I believe, don't jump to conclusions. You have no idea what my personal beliefs are.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Kind of wierd how many people deny the facts of science which contradict many of the most common beliefs among atheists.

Please elaborate.

 

[charlesseamanj]

I never ever said what I believe, don't jump to conclusions. You have no idea what my personal beliefs are.

I am sorry for that. I was giving an example. I should have stated that in my post.
Please tell me your beliefs in this matter so that I may know.

Please elaborate.

I would be happy to if it wouldent take 5 hours of typing to give you a few examples. I am sorry, but I have only so much time.
I would be trying a useless thing anyway, for only God gives understanding.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

I am sorry for that. I was giving an example. I should have stated that in my post.
Please tell me your beliefs in this matter so that I may know.

No, I don't feel like it. I like the fact that my beliefs are unknown, it just makes it harder to use assumptions and formulaic responses depending on what the person believes.

In addition, history can be demonstrated, unless you're theorizing that there is a conspiracy to create a "false history," forensics, artifacts, separate soruces and accounts of an event, etc. These are the tings that can be used to show events that happened. Perhaps you can't show exactly what happened unless you have a video or audio feed, but we're talking about logic here, right?

I would be happy to if it wouldent take 5 hours of typing to give you a few examples. I am sorry, but I have only so much time.
I would be trying a useless thing anyway, for only God gives understanding.

It seems you went with a cop out response that God gives understanding as a way to avoid answering the question. But why not at least give some examples of the things you say contradict "atheist beliefs". What science are you talking about? No doubt, but there are many pseudoscientists out there along with people that have flawed studies both "theists" and "atheists" (if you want touse those terms), so I guess say what the atheist belief system is and what in science contradicts that.

 

[charlesseamanj]

"The idea that we do not use all of our brain is a myth. There are not 'untapped powers' or anything of the sort. The idea is probably originated because in several degenerative conditions, greater than 90% of the neurons must be lost before there is a noticeable effect. It may also come from the fact that roughly 10% of the cells are neurons, the rest mostly glia. Different portions of the brain are used for different functions and there is some redundancy and some ability to transfer function following a stroke or other trauma." You may also be interested in information on this web page: http://www.dana.org/books/press/progressreport/update98.cfm#c. One of the things mentioned there is this: "What enables the brain to act as command center for the body and mind? The activities of 100 billion neurons are involved, each one forming connections with an average of 10 thousand others. Each neuron communicates with one or more others by sending a particular chemical messenger, called a neurotransmitter, across the gap that separates them. "Some 50 neurotransmitters have been identified. These messengers are important in maintaining an ever-changing yet stable environment. When their balance is upset, many disorders can result. The interplay between neurotransmitters and the sites on nerve cells that recognize them forms the basis for many effective medications and therapies."
In other words, we use all of our brains. The point then would not be how much brain we use, but how efficiently we use it and whether or not there has been damage either by heredity (mutations) or after birth which must be circumvented, as the brain does have redundancy ability in a number of areas so that the damaging of one portion need not permanently cripple in many instances.
One last note -- how did the brain evolve? It didn't. It was created.

This was writen to combat the theory of evolution. (I will not decuss this. This should only be decussed in the forum designated for it.)

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Kind of wierd how many people deny the facts of science which contradict many of the most common beliefs among atheists.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

This was writen to combat the theory of evolution. (I will not decuss this. This should only be decussed in the forum designated for it.)

Magick always helped us solve problems, did it?

 

[Ninja Turtles]

The idea that we do not use all of our brain is a myth.

This is already understood in science. Just look at PET or fMRI image. The 10% use of brain is a more a common saying that a core belief, so I think you'll need to provide something else to explain this.

In addition, the problem with this brain thing, although geared towards a evolutionary debate is that is states something without evidence. It says something was created without substantiation in the scientific method. The rule is, no scientific method, it's not science. It's rather simple.

 

[Asimov]

I would be happy to if it wouldent take 5 hours of typing to give you a few examples. I am sorry, but I have only so much time.
I would be trying a useless thing anyway, for only God gives understanding.

Hahahaha, what a load of garbage. Stop it, you're killing me.

Why don't you just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about, and therefore can't come up with anything, not even ONE example.

 

[corvus_corax]

Why is it that Atheists believe so strongly in the superiority of homosexuality?

Pardon me?
Since when do atheists believe in the superiority of a homosexual relationship?
Since when do atheists believe in the inferiority of a heterosexual relationship?

Methinks, sir, that you need to retract your statement, for it is (as an all inclusive statement) completely incorrect.

Some might say it's a lie.

I'll just say it's incorrect

 

[Asimov]

Why is it that Atheists believe so strongly in the superiority of homosexuality? Is it because the Ancient Pagans they admire so much who invented Logic also believed in homosexuality? It would seem that a belief in logic will lead to belief that Normal is wrong? Keith

Huh?

 

[charlesseamanj]

Why is it that Atheists believe so strongly in the superiority of homosexuality? Is it because the Ancient Pagans they admire so much who invented Logic also believed in homosexuality? It would seem that a belief in logic will lead to belief that Normal is wrong? Keith

It is not that they think normal is wrong, it is that they do not want to be told that they are wrong. They do not fit the godliness and holyness factor into what they are doing.
They go on trying to find ways of justifying their actions so they can believe everything is ok. Most reciently in the last few centurys they focused they'r attention on the atack of Gods' existence. Maby if there is no God, they do not have to answer to anyone for wickedness. The problem is, God canot be proven or dis-proven. They try to use the scientific method for their theorys, but to no end. Their is no way to prove or dis-prove God. God proves himself, and this eats away at atheists.

 

[charlesseamanj]

Hahahaha, what a load of garbage. Stop it, you're killing me.

Why don't you just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about, and therefore can't come up with anything, not even ONE example.

I have plenty of examples. I have in fact given you an example, but you did not see it. You did not see it because you do not have the understanding that comes only from God to understand such truth. You, being blind to truth, do not see it standing in front of you. So you say, " show it to me and I will believe", the whole time it is in front of you. Someone gives you more and you do not see that either. What needs to be done is for you to get past you opinions, and see the simple common sence truths in front of you.

 

[StainedClassKing]

Why do atheists try so hard to support their views to the point of stupidity. Some of the things I have seen or heard from athiests are so below common sence it makes me laugh.
Like the concept of morals. Why is the human body built the way it is? There has to be some degree of moral absolutes even for athists. But their is not(acording to the Humanist Manifesto 2000).

I just got here and haven't read the whole thread so I apologize if you already did this but could you provide an example? To my knowledge, all of my arguments are perfectly logical. As soon as someone is able to demonstrate to me that an argument is not logical, I recant. And I have recanted on CF before. after someone has shown me that a particular POV or argument is bad or illogical.

BTW, I suggest you might rephrase the OP or use different termonology next time. I never defer to common sense or intuition or use either as a standard or starting point because both are often wrong. I only defer to logic, reason, known facts (meaning mostly undisputed) and science.

I will not knowingly support my views to the point of stupidity. My number one goal is to find the truth and so any view or idea I have is subject to the grinder. If i have a stupid idea, I'm more than happy to have someone show it to me so that I can correct it.

 

[StainedClassKing]

I have a headache because of the remarks I see so often that are so quickly posted without for-thought. This is why I say that their is not any sence logic is atheists.

What is giving me a headache is reading you calling people stupid when you don't even know how to spell 'sense' or 'forethought.'