Reason for Atheism
I M Notajoiner
Ben, you are beginning to sound like a Freethinker!
Freethinker FAQ:
http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/nontracts/freethinker.html
free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of
reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief.
Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.
No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or
messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy
is no guarantee of truth.
How do freethinkers know what is true?
Clarence Darrow once noted, "I don't believe in God because I don't believe
in Mother Goose."
Freethinkers are naturalistic. Truth is the degree to which a statement
corresponds with reality. Reality is limited to that which is directly
perceivable through our natural senses or indirectly ascertained through the
proper use of reason.
Reason is a tool of critical thought that limits the truth of a statement
according to the strict tests of the scientific method. For a statement to
be considered true it must be testable (what evidence or repeatable
experiments confirm it?), falsifiable (what, in theory, would disconfirm it,
and have all attempts to disprove it failed?), parsimonious (is it the
simplest explanation, requiring the fewest assumptions?), and logical (is it
free of contradictions, non sequiturs, or irrelevant ad hominem character
attacks?).
Notajoiner:
What you say in your concise post makes a lot of sense to me. I just want to
suggest that you consider a couple of alternative explanations of science,
and behavior.
Science can be defined as knowledge or a system of knowledge covering
general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and
tested through scientific method, or such knowledge or such a system of
knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena. Scientific
methodology is neceessary to overcome errors that are possible in one person
(or even a group, if it is not using scientific methodology!) relying on
personal observations, personal experiences and personal conclusions.
Concerning behavior, you say, "Man and his behaviour is governed by previous
experiences and conclusions drawn from experiences." This smacks of the free
will idea, that man governs his behavior by deciding from moment to moment
what he will do next. This, I want to suggest to you, may be one of those
possible errors of personal experience, mentioned above. As humans, we all
report that we feel we are making choices from moment to moment, but
examined scientifically, is it the conscious choice that is determining
behavior, or something else?
Objectively, man is an animal, operating in the environment common to all
animals here on Planet Earth. Logically, the same laws should govern all
animal behavior. Scientifically speaking, it is not choice that determines
animal behavior, but contingent reinforcement of the right choices. Consider
food. As animals operating in the earth environment, free to move about and
explore, animals require the intake of nutrients to survive. Behavior that
leads to securing food is rewarded, thereby reinforcing that behavior.
Behavior involved in choosing what to do from moment to moment to secure
food is therefore lawfully determined by contingent reinforcement, and not
the choice itself, which is just part of the operator's behavior (see
'operant behavior' in Psychology).
Speaking of Earth environment, is '.za' Zaire, Africa? Are you finding
enough food to continue operating there?
I am surviving near Seattle, Washington, USA. We are harvesting our gardens
now, and putting something away for winter, but we purchase most of our food
at the local restaurants, and supermarkets, because we seem to have acquired
lots of money, somehow. Reinforcement for the right choices, I guess.
May the IPU (pbuhhh) keep you pink.
(Pbuhhh is an alleged invisible pink unicorn
that many atheists in alt.atheism have logically
deduced is supported by just as much evidence
as there is for any other supernatural entity.)
Notajoiner
Freethinker FAQ:
http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/nontracts/freethinker.html
sci.skeptic FAQ
http://www.xnet.com/~blatura/skeptic.shtml#contents
OtherFAQ's:
http://www.infidels.org/
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/overview.html
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/alt.atheism/top.html
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-huxley.html
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Jehovah's Witnesses and Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-evolution.html
and last but not least:
This Is the Story of Archibald Frisby : Who Was As Crazy for Science
As Any Kid Could Be (Reading Rainbow Book)
by Michael D. Chesworth
http://www.amazon.com
/exec/obidos/ASIN/0374404364/qid=902909328/sr=1-10/002-4575647-1723610
Ben <951...@firga.sun.ac.za> wrote in message
6ssh0e$1c1$1...@news.adamastor.ac.za...
>I recently realised that I can't accept a god.
>
>Reason :
>
>Man and his behaviour is governed by previous experiences and conclusions
>drawn from experiences. That is all that can be trusted to provide
accurate
>forcasts.
>
>Science is : creating theories from observations, experiences and
conclusions.
>These theories are used to make forcasts, making possible things like
>computers, TV, cars, satellites and the rest of human technology.
>
>Since I know of no happenings or events/observations that doesn't have a
GOD
>as ONLY conceivably possible reason, I cannot accept the concept "GOD".
>I consider only repeatable (thus verifiable) events/observations, since
>mankind's or ANY species' behaviour/thought etc. is not affected by any
>single event. OK, maybe a global event would have an effect (immediately
too,
>possibly), but for it to get a GOD into the picture, it would need to be of
no
>known natural origin, nor have ANY other possible explanation.
>
>I need comments or criticism here.
>
>Ben
>(9_51...@firga.sun.ac.za)
>To email me, remove the _ from the number.
Lord Loki
previous
>experiences and conclusions drawn from experiences." This smacks of the
free
>will idea, that man governs his behavior by deciding from moment to moment
>what he will do next. This, I want to suggest to you, may be one of those
>possible errors of personal experience, mentioned above. As humans, we all
>report that we feel we are making choices from moment to moment, but
>examined scientifically, is it the conscious choice that is determining
>behavior, or something else?
>
>Objectively, man is an animal, operating in the environment common to all
>animals here on Planet Earth. Logically, the same laws should govern all
>animal behavior. Scientifically speaking, it is not choice that determines
>animal behavior, but contingent reinforcement of the right choices.
Consider
>food. As animals operating in the earth environment, free to move about and
>explore, animals require the intake of nutrients to survive. Behavior that
>leads to securing food is rewarded, thereby reinforcing that behavior.
>Behavior involved in choosing what to do from moment to moment to secure
>food is therefore lawfully determined by contingent reinforcement, and not
>the choice itself, which is just part of the operator's behavior (see
>'operant behavior' in Psychology).
Ah, but due to reason and awareness of self, this is not necessarily the
complete truth. Animals indeed do not choose....they follow the paths
reinforced for them for centuries. However, man hath reason (some of em)
leaving him more than one easy path...introducing the element of choice and
thus some amount of free will. Just because he is motivated by natural
forces does not mean the choice is not his to make. A wolf will hunt....it
will take a deer if it can, rabbit if it can....whatever it comes across to
eat and stay alive. A man will decide he is a deer hunter....he will hunt
deer....if a rabbit comes along, it will go on it's way....for the man takes
pride in being a deer hunter....and this sort of thing. Yes, cash is the
path to survival for man, but there are so many paths to get where on is
going that some amount of free will must come into play....you could be a
lawyer, you could be an author....you could be both....the choice, etc.
>May the IPU (pbuhhh) keep you pink.
>(Pbuhhh is an alleged invisible pink unicorn
>that many atheists in alt.atheism have logically
>deduced is supported by just as much evidence
>as there is for any other supernatural entity.)
Very cute....like this....new to group, BTW....salutations all.
Lord Loki