atheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
That's just silly.
Atheists, by definition, do not believe that sufficient evidence exists to indicate the existence of any god.
Period.
If you're going to try to point out fallacies in someone else's worldview, first start by accurately representing that worldview.
And by denying the existence of God proscribe to a naturalistic materialist worldview. If all that exists is the natural and matter.......
That being said, are you going to completely ignore the rest of the post?
atheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
Logic and Math are similar to Art.
Art can be literal or imaginative.
Can logic or maths be literal or imaginative? Are you saying that logic and maths, like art, are open to interpretation? Sometimes hitting yourself on the head with a blunt object with result in joyful singing, other times with blinding pain. Sometimes 2+2=4 but other times, according to whether we take it literally or not, it can be 5 or 17 or 24,003.
I don't see my question about the possible contradictory nature of the naturalistic materialist worldview being addressed; either everything is matter and constantly changing, or it isn't?
Where did logic and maths come from? How come all people around the world have logic and maths?
And what about thought; did thought pre-date logic or maths? Did 2+2 only = 4 whenever we thought about it? Surely, if all that exists is matter, then our thoughts are just neurons firing and chemical reactions going on in the matter that makes up our brains.
If that's true, 2+2 may = 4 for me but 18 for someone else. You say that logic makes sure we aren't contradictory. But that truth is contradictory to the naturalistic materialist worldview; if all that exists is matter, atoms colliding into atoms, where does logic come from?
If thought were the deciding factor in logic and maths, these laws would be subjective. But they aren't, are they? They're objective, constant and universal.
Atheists look for extraordinary proof of God. But how could they ever consider processing any proof that may be offered without having to use logic and reason, both or which are neither matter (things) or constantly changing.
atheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
Atheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e. they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no God.
Can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths? As far as I can tell, logic isn't a thing. And neither is maths. Logic isn't made of anything, it has no matter. And neither does maths.
Naturalistic materialists believe that the world is constantly changing, as 'proven' by evolution. Therefore, can an atheist believe in logic? Afterall, does logic ever change? And what about maths; does maths ever change? Or are both universal and unchanging? For example, are there parts of the world - or a time in history - when stubbing your toe wasn't painful? Was there a time when it was logical to hit yourself over the head with a blunt object? Was there ever a time where 2+2=5? Are there parts of the planet where this is true?
Of course not. Logic and maths are constant and universal. They're also not made of matter.
Is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory? Either there is only constantly changing matter or there isn't. Either their worldview is absolutely true, or it isn't. Logic has an excluded middle; something either is or it is not. There either is only a natural, material universe - and this worldview is absolutely true - or it is not.
Can an atheist - a naturalistic materialist - argue for their worldview without being fundamentally contradictory to it? And does that contradiction prove that their worldview is in fact false?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ilzaaami.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uazdcs-rmf4.
@ wobble - you seem to fall into the classic default position of the majority of ex-JWs; faith is blind and there is no God.
With that position comes all of the fundamentalism of the JWs and their refusal to look at or even consider the evidence that faith isn't blind and there is a God. Factor in a generous dose of typical JW circular reasoning and you're all set to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Since leaving the WTS almost 2 years ago, I accepted without question that God is real and that Jesus is the only way to salvation. But, as you'd expect, I started to question my assumptions and had to face up to the fact that I could easily drift into my old mindset of shelving my doubts and believing things that I'm told to believe without question.
As I'm a product of my environment (i.e. raised as a Jehovah's Witness) I didn't think it was possible to ask the tough questions about my faith and my beliefs without losing the former and having to to abandon the latter. This forum is replete with voluble atheist evangelists, and as this was the main place I went to online for "spiritual" conversation, I started to think that my faith would have to be a sort of blind, ear-covering, shouting "lahlahlahlahlah"-at-the-top-of-my-voice faith.
I started to realise a few things, though. Just because something is said frequently and by seemingly intelligent people doesn't mean that it's true. So, for example, you've just said that faith is blind and there's no evidence for god. You seem like an intelligent person and I've heard those statements countless times on this website before. But does the fact that you seem like an intelligent person mean your presupposition is true? Does the fact that your presupposition is parroted over and over and over again mean that it's true?
And here's where the circular reasoning comes in. Natural materialists demand evidence within the physical universe for God's existence. But Christians don't claim that God exists in the physical universe; we claim that God is immaterial, unchanging and transcendent. As such, there will be no evidence in the material universe to prove God.
"All that exists is the physical universe. So within that physical universe I demand evidence of a god who is immaterial, and that's the only evidence I'll consider," is the usual natural materialist mantra. But asking for such evidence is like asking for evidence that I feel love for my children. How can I prove something immaterial in a material way? And if you were absolutely set in believing that I don't have any love for my children, what would be the point in trying to prove otherwise?
If I could provide hard evidence for God, how would you evaluate that evidence? How would you process it? And how would it become evidence for you? If all that's going on in your brain is neurons firing and chemicals reacting, then how would processing that evidence prove anything to anyone?
The truth is, you'd use logic and reason to process the evidence and by doing that very thing you'd be proving my God. You see, my faith isn't blind. My faith is based on evidence. And my faith - and the evidence - tell me that there is a God.
It's amazing the stuff people come out with online, believing that just because it's essentially 1s and 0s rendered on a web browser that somehow they shouldn't be held to account for what they're saying. One guy posted on a Facebook discussion that there's absolutely no evidence that Jesus ever existed. People just spout stuff like that as if it's fact. That is blind faith. Just because a person wants there to be no evidence for Jesus (or God), doesn't meant that it's true.
Another person posted a ton of info about how Jesus' life was simply a retelling of the Horus myth. Again, this sort of rhetoric is offered without any evidence to support it. Anyone willing to do a few minutes of research into Horus finds out that the claim is completely bogus. But I'm sure enough people have blind faith in it being true.
JWs have blind faith that the Watch Tower Society was chosen in 1919. The Governing Body publish articles that talk about the abundance of evidence to prove their claim. But then neglect to publish the evidence. A JW will use circular reasoning to defend this lack of evidence and will resort to name-calling when their blind faith stance is exposed.
I see similar behaviour here on this forum whenever it's pointed out that atheism is, in fact, a blind leap of faith.
I'll leave you to consider 5 philosophical arguments that prove that God exists (I'll leave you to research them should you wish);
- cosmological argument from contingency
- the kalam cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe
- the moral argument based on values and duties
- the teleological argument from fine-tuning
- the ontological argument from the possibility of God's existence to his actuality
There are some very bright, intelligent, open-minded Christians out there who offer some incredible evidence for the existence of God. Just because you don't read about them in Hitchen's or Dawkin's books doesn't mean that they're not out there and it doesn't mean that what they have to say isn't important or truthful.
Who really are the free-thinkers? Who really are those with open minds? Those who consider all of the evidence no matter where it leads? Or those who stick to their world view despite the evidence or arguments to the contrary? Which of the two positions requires blind faith?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ilzaaami.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uazdcs-rmf4.
What does a person stand to gain by tearing down another's hope?
They get to try and make themselves feel better. Just because some may wish that God didn't exist, doesn't make it true. And it doesn't make those who choose to pray foolish or childlike.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ilzaaami.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uazdcs-rmf4.
It is definitely very hard to give up a habit which makes us feel warm and yummy in times of stress.
Unless there is a transcendent God who exists outside of the material universe and actually does care about us.
Jeremiah 29: 11 For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
i enjoyed this essay by psychologist valerie tarico.
the born again experience.
i prayed harder and just then i felt like everything i was saying was being sucked into a vacuum.
Is it absolutely true that the born again experience is borne out of "group dynamics", etc? I personally haven't had a euphoric born-again experience, but I tend to agree that the overly emotional ones come out of churches that foster and encourage that sort of 'behaviour'.
Does wishful thinking mean that the thing we think about wishfully doesn't exist or can't actually be real?
Finally, as a Christian, here's how the transformation that comes through being born again takes place;
Romans 5: 5 and h hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love i has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
Gal 5: 22 But e the fruit of the Spirit is f love, joy, peace, patience, g kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ilzaaami.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uazdcs-rmf4.
Phil 4: 4 p Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. q The Lord is at hand; 6 r do not be anxious about anything, s but in everything by prayer and supplication t with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. 7 And u the peace of God, v which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
my own faith did not survive an 'outside test for faith'.
below, the author gives an example of how outsiders to most religions examine those religions critically, and dimiss them.
turning a critical eye towards my beliefs was a bit scary, but i decided it was the only proper thing to do, for me.
I had a read at David Galloway's power-point, I was imagining how intensely frustrating it would have been to sit through that presentation without the opportunity to challenge the numerous fallacies. Preaching to the choir is easy.
You read the slides but you didn't listen to the talk? And you're getting frustrated by what you imagined he said? I should add that he wasn't preaching to the choir; this was at the Alpha Course.
Why don't you challenge Galloway on his numerous fallacies; he's in Scotland and can be contacted via his website. It may be helpful to post your challenges and his responses on this thread (or create a new one) to help everyone establish the reasonable logic of atheism over faith. I'll then post the conversation to our church website where the audio and PowerPoint slides are. That way a balanced, reasoned conclusion can be reached.
my own faith did not survive an 'outside test for faith'.
below, the author gives an example of how outsiders to most religions examine those religions critically, and dimiss them.
turning a critical eye towards my beliefs was a bit scary, but i decided it was the only proper thing to do, for me.
@ Farkel, well have a wee listen to what David Galloway says (see previous link).
