Can you be an atheist and believe in logic and maths? (page 7)

Psychotic Parrot

I have two questions for Password Protected. I hope that he answers them both. If he doesn't answer them, i may feel that i've wasted my time with this post, & that's not a pleasant feeling

But that said, anyone can answer them if they wish to.

Firstly though, i'd like to aplogise for the amount of brackets i'm going to use in this post. Secondly, i disagree with the premise of the question, as i do not agree that an atheist (or anyone in fact) with a naturalist / materialist worldview only believes in physical matter & energy, & i genuinely believe that Password Protected is being disingenuous (albeit maybe on a mere subconscious level) in asserting such a thing. A naturalist / materialist worldview means that someone only accepts (& even then, only tentatively accepts) what can be demonstrated to be real / true, whether it is counterintuitive or not. Physical matter & energy can be demonstrated to be real (yes the universe could be an elaborate hoax, an illusion, but there is no pressing reason to think that) & logic & mathematics can be demonstrated to be real. From a pragmatic perspective, which is arguably the scientific perspective, concepts such as logic & maths are just as real as matter & energy due to their usefulness & effectiveness in achieving certain things, they are a means to an end. So i see no contradiction.

BUT (here is my first question), if i were to accept that there were a contradiction, purely for the sake of argument, which i am willing to in this thread, then i would like to ask this: If the 'atheist worldview' is contradictory, then does that mean that the 'theistic worldview' is automatically, by default, the best worldview to have? What do you think? Is the theistic worldview void of any contradictions of it's own? Would you be willing to claim that it isn't? I'm not going to say that it is, i'm just asking what you think.

Also (here is my second question), if i were to come to the conclusion that the theistic worldview is the sound alternative that you evidently think it is (& that's not just based on reading this thread, your posts in previous threads have informed that observation of you), then what should i do about it? Would just accepting it as a fact be enough? I know i'm going off topic here, but i think it's important. If i accept theism, & agree that there is a God, can i leave it at that? Or is it imperative that i take some further steps in order to be on God's good side. You know what i'm asking here, is it enough to just accept that God exists? Or do i have to have 'faith' as well. Do i have to accept Jesus as my lord & saviour? Do i have to go to church & give money to the church & vote how the church wants me to vote & evangelize, either explicitly by preaching the word, or implicitly by leading a certain way of life for others to see.

I would appreciate an answer to both of those questions, thanks in advance

wobble

Password seems to have done a bit of a hit and run, but what I cannot understand about his question ,which as I said sounded like a JW argument , was, who are these people who are supposed to be "Naturalist-Materialists" who believe that only matter exists and that there are no constants in the universe ?

Could you please come back Password, and explain what you are arguing against, and who supports that argument, the Atheists I know don't have the World- view you seem to be saying they have, which you have also not clearly defined.

How can we support. or refute, an argument that we are not clear about what it is ?

Wobble

Anti-Christ

Psychotic Parrot, good questions. I will use them in debates so you will not have wasted your time.

Psychotic Parrot

The argument that Password Protected made was a total strawman. I hesitated to call it one, because i know it's a word that Password Protected loves to throw at atheists all the time, so i thought he might be offended if it were levelled at him. But it is true, his definition of a materialist / naturalist was completely false & he knows it, he just (naively) thought that no one else here would notice, but unfortunately for him, everyone here noticed it. As with all strawman arguments, it isn't worth arguing as it isn't a real issue. No one believes what he claims we all believe & thus we have no such position to defend. But it is worth clearing that up i think, even though it probably isn't necessary since i'm sure he already realises that it's a lame duck of an argument.

I would appreciate it if he would answer my two questions though.

fokyc

YES;

Professor Stephen William Hawking

"Hawking takes an agnostic position on matters of religion. He has repeatedly used the word "God" (in metaphorical meanings) to illustrate points made in his books and public speeches. His ex-wife, Jane, however, said that he was an atheist during their divorce proceedings. Hawking has stated that he is "not religious in the normal sense" and he believes that "the universe is governed by the laws of science."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#Religious_views

wobble

I was talking to a guy the other day who felt that because of the beauty he sees in Nature and in Art and in people, he felt there just had to be a Higher intelligence behind it all.

I know we could argue against that view too, but I said "O.K if I go with that view, I still do not think that it would be the god of the Bible"

He said we must agree to differ.

getting back to the thread title, the answer, Password, is YES.

Wobble

notverylikely

So you're actually saying that the laws of science are made of matter? Or you're suggesting that it's my responsibility to prove that they are? That's bizarre. Good luck with it!

I did not say that. I am trying to ascertain what you are saying since you started this thread. You seem to be saying they can't exist because everything that exists is made of matter and the "laws of science" aren't matter. I am asking you to prove that since that seems to be what you are saying.

When was it proven that I'd even beaten her? Again with the loaded questions? Seriously, guys, hanging around this forum is making you flaccid and lazy in your arguments.

That's an example of the question that creates a false dichotomy, the same as your question, assuming a premise that restricts the answer to one of two false answer.

I'll take it as a no that you haven't stopped beating her.

notverylikely

Sorry, there is no middle ground with logic.

False/True

On/Off

etc.

Otherwise, how would we know anything.

I'm not convinced you guys have thought this through.

That just means all you understand is binary logic as used by extremely simple circuits. You didn't think it through, not because you aren't trying, but because you don't know a lot of things. You don't know what you don't know.

So, on = yes = 1, of = no = 0. Did you stop beating your wife yet?

notverylikely

oh, PP ran away when he realized he weren't so bright. Dang.

BurnTheShips

If Passwordprotected could clarify his argument, it would clear up some confusion. However, PP seems to be somewhat confused himself right now.

Can you be an atheist and believe in logic and maths?

Share this