- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Mar 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMany scientists are motivated by wonder at nature, immense curiosity, a love
But its not a motivating force the same as religious belief and atheism is not the same thing as rationalism, is it.
of problem solving, a desire to make the world better...
There are no shortage of reasons and motivations for scientists.
And many can be very powerful.
That you can only see religion as a motivator is purely your lack of imagination
and experience.
However atheism is indeed not the same as rationalism.
Although any rationalist that is doing it right will also be an atheist,
by no means are all atheists rationalists.
But given that I am not claiming that atheism is a motivation to do science,
trying to defeat that idea is simply you trying to knock down a strawman.
Originally posted by googlefudgeYes but how many are motivated by their atheism, you fuggleyfudge and your friend feepthought keep widening the goal posts. How many are motivated by their atheism to unravel the mysteries of the universe, not a single one! this is not true of the sceintific theist, is it.
Many scientists are motivated by wonder at nature, immense curiosity, a love
of problem solving, a desire to make the world better...
There are no shortage of reasons and motivations for scientists.
And many can be very powerful.
That you can only see religion as a motivator is purely your lack of imagination
and experience.
However ath ...[text shortened]... ation to do science,
trying to defeat that idea is simply you trying to knock down a strawman.
As for being accused of a lack of imagination one only has to remind you of the hordes of museums and art houses filled to the rafters with religious motifs, in fact some of the most sublime of all of humankind's artistic achievements are religiously motivated. Where is the atheistic art? there is none. Why? because it provides very poor motivation in comparison to religion. I would go as far to say, empty and devoid.
Now I understand that this must be a very bitter pill to swallow for such a rampant materialist, never the less, it is what it is, you simply need to accept the fact.
15 Mar 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's you that has been moving the goal posts mister. It is you who introduced this topic of motivation to do science. Not us. What is more you also throw little insults into your posts in order to induce a flame from one of your debating opponents. I have no interest in debating this further with you, because I do not wish to become angry and I do not wish to flame.
Yes but how many are motivated by their atheism, you fuggleyfudge and your friend feepthought keep widening the goal posts. How many are motivated by their atheism to unravel the mysteries of the universe, not a single one! this is not true of the sceintific theist, is it.
As for being accused of a lack of imagination one only has to remind yo ...[text shortened]... uch a rampant materialist, never the less, it is what it is, you simply need to accept the fact.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Mar 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes but how many are motivated by their atheism, you fuggleyfudge and your friend feepthought keep widening the goal posts. How many are motivated by their atheism to unravel the mysteries of the universe, not a single one! this is not true of the sceintific theist, is it.
As for being accused of a lack of imagination one only has to remind yo ...[text shortened]... uch a rampant materialist, never the less, it is what it is, you simply need to accept the fact.
[b]But given that I am not claiming that atheism is a motivation to do science,
trying to defeat that idea is simply you trying to knock down a strawman.[b]
Learn to read you illiterate and ignorant peasant.
Where is the atheistic art? there is none.
If you believe this to be true then you are even stupider and more ignorant than you look.
There is indeed plenty of religious art, much of it not very good.
There is even more non-religious art, much of it considerably better.
And again, you mindless twerp, as I tell you repeatedly, atheism isn't another religion.
It's not a belief system or a motivator.
It's the result of a belief system [sometimes].
Lacking belief in a god does not in any way mean you lack beliefs in anything.
There are many different motivating forces, of which religions are but one... And by no means the
best.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI on the other hand am more than happy to articulate what a pathetic little scumbag RC is to his face.
It's you that has been moving the goal posts mister. It is you who introduced this topic of motivation to do science. Not us. What is more you also throw little insults into your posts in order to induce a flame from one of your debating opponents. I have no interest in debating this further with you, because I do not wish to become angry and I do not wish to flame.
15 Mar 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeGee that pill was more bitter than I thought, its turned you from a relatively harmless and unassuming janitor into a slobbering and drooling one man zombie apocalypse.[b]But given that I am not claiming that atheism is a motivation to do science,
trying to defeat that idea is simply you trying to knock down a strawman.[b]
Learn to read you illiterate and ignorant peasant.
Where is the atheistic art? there is none.
If you believe this to be true then you are even stupider and ...[text shortened]... many different motivating forces, of which religions are but one... And by no means the
best.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtOn the contrary I am perfectly willing and perfectly capable of contending with you on a purely logical basis. It was you who widened the goal posts from atheism to rationalism not I! How that metamorphosis manifested itself is your affair, not mine. If you have no further interest then fine, its no big deal, the point has been proven though, religion is a far better motivation for studying the sciences than atheism and the premise that religious belief pushes aside logic and reason is unfounded.
It's you that has been moving the goal posts mister. It is you who introduced this topic of motivation to do science. Not us. What is more you also throw little insults into your posts in order to induce a flame from one of your debating opponents. I have no interest in debating this further with you, because I do not wish to become angry and I do not wish to flame.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTo the contrary, you and your ilk prove day in and day out how much logic and reason suffer when religion gets involved.
... the premise that religious belief pushes aside logic and reason is unfounded.
Have you decided yet whether or not you believe Santa Clause exists?
15 Mar 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, I don't think it has. The O.P. asked whether religiosity leads to dogmatic thinking and intolerance. Your logic defence doesn't work, because it misses something about the nature of logic. Logic will find the conclusions to be drawn for any given set of premises, it will also tell us if the premises are contradictory. What it cannot do is correct for incorrect, but mutually consistent, premises. So you can be as logical as you like about anything and still get the wrong answer.
On the contrary I am perfectly willing and perfectly capable of contending with you on a purely logical basis. It was you who widened the goal posts from atheism to rationalism not I! How that metamorphosis manifested itself is your affair, not mine. If you have no further interest then fine, its no big deal, the point has been proven though, religi ...[text shortened]... s than atheism and the premise that religious belief pushes aside logic and reason is unfounded.
Asking atheism to inspire people is not reasonable. It is simply the absence of belief in gods. So there isn't a belief system to inspire people with. By making the comparison you were introducing a category error in the first place. I used the nearest available belief system, rationalism, in order to demonstrate that a belief system without a God or gods at its centre could inspire people and you started moaning about a shift in goalposts.
Originally posted by Great King RatSomehow I don't think we shall be taking lessons in logic from the likes of you, you seem pretty much incapable of proffering anything but your own propaganda, contorted, twisted, grotesquely disproportionate and laced with copious amounts of slobber and drool.
To the contrary, you and your ilk prove day in and day out how much logic and reason suffer when religion gets involved.
Have you decided yet whether or not you believe Santa Clause exists?
16 Mar 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI would appreciate it if you could refrain from personal attacks, Robbie.
Somehow I don't think we shall be taking lessons in logic from the likes of you, you seem pretty much incapable of proffering anything but your own propaganda, contorted, twisted, grotesquely disproportionate and laced with copious amounts of slobber and drool.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtlogic can and reason can and does correct for the incorrect, its how in fact we subject chess variations to falsification. We use logic to determine their veracity or otherwise. Intuition may come into play but its no substitute for pure cold logic.
No, I don't think it has. The O.P. asked whether religiosity leads to dogmatic thinking and intolerance. Your logic defence doesn't work, because it misses something about the nature of logic. Logic will find the conclusions to be drawn for any given set of premises, it will also tell us if the premises are contradictory. What it cannot do is correct ...[text shortened]... d or gods at its centre could inspire people and you started moaning about a shift in goalposts.
Atheism is a belief system, its a belief system in the absence of Gods, like any other. People who are atheists hold values central to that belief system. There is therefore no category error. Fine if you want to use another belief system like rationalism but as was pointed out by fuggelyfudge before he lept over the precipice and started gnawing on the end of his sofa, they are not one and the same. But we are in danger of losing site of the original premise, that being that a religious disposition will cause someone to dispense with logic and reason.
I am not saying that this does not happen, southern baptist snake dancing or evangelicals rolling around on the church floor allegedly filled with Holy Spirit is not very logical nor very reasonable and its clear that their religious disposition has led them to behave in a bizarre manner and hold some rather strange beliefs. Is this a result of their faith? It appears to me to be a lack of understanding for its clear that they have substituted emotional content for intellectual content. I regularly meet these kind of theists and its impossible to have a reasonable conversation with them on the matter of their faith because its not based on reason but emotion and the strange thing is that they may be entirely rational on any other given subject.
So what can we say? Yes there are people of faith who will substitute emotional content for logic and reason and that this will lead them to behave in unusual ways and that the catalyst for this may indeed be their faith, but it cannot be said as the OP suggested that faith itself will lead a person to dispense with logic because we have already seen that it may infact inspire the theist to engage in scientific discovery or some sublime artistic endeavour.