Somali Atheist Argument that following Humanoid Europhile God's Blindly is rational

[Inquisitive_]

This is the fundamental conundrum with this community, believing in an all powerful benevolent creator is very simple, even a Bedouin can grasp this as would anyone that hasn't gone insane come to the same conclusion (creation, creator) (design, designer)

The rejection of this would mean being well versed in all the disciplines that are being falsely used to reject this, from cosmology, biology, astrophysics, physics, chemistry etc and the list continues.

This presents a major problem as well as an important question, since none can master all (not even the purported experts in the field) thus each has to rely on the other blindly in this great jigsaw puzzle, even worse so is the laymen at the bottom of that pyramid.

That stupid dumb worthless peasant sheep that lacks even rudimentary understanding in all disciplines has no choice but to follow blindly and believe in the collective integrity/honesty/truthfulness/benevolence of the Europhile occultic community (while throwing his own intellect/rational into the dust bin)

The Somali atheist above recognizes this conundrum (unlike the brain-dead others) but argues following blindly is "rational" regardless of understanding.

In Islamic discourse when you engage in this type of "blind following" you have taken such entities as God's besides Allah, hence this falls under polytheism.

How pathetic that the community that's exclusively composed of white Europhile racists/bigots/women-hating/white supremacist/satanists/occultists males have become your humanoid God's besides Allah.

This is the absolute epitome of self-humiliation and self-degradation, you cannot go lower then this in self-hate.

 

[simulacrum]

 

[SuldaanGuled]

I tend to believe that everyone blindly follows something to a certain extent, the important question is whether or not such a belief is justified. That's why i try to look at the reasoning behind such beliefs as it's more productive. Coming to the question of science and it's role as the ultimate criterion to assess the validity of claims is a problematic endeavour.

I say this for a couple of reasons but the most important one would be it's limitations. Science in and of itself simply doesn't have the capacity to answer or even explain all the aspects of any phenomena that occurs in the natural world. Secondly science is done by fallible beings meaning mistakes and errors are to be expected. We know from experience that science and it's methods of investigation only apply to certain fields go beyond it and the risk of failure increases dramatically.

Currently science is utilized as a weapon to discredit any religious claims after all it's supposedly the best means of finding out the truthfulness of any subject matter. When questioned as to why this is so, you're told look at what we've achieved so far using science, without science we wouldn't be here today i mean who could argue against such a claim. The logical flaw in this argument is that science in general has been good at answering or explaining certain things that occur in the natural world but it has been really inadequate when it comes to other things eg origin of life, universe, morals etc.

So there's extrapolation of what it can actually answer to what it can't. Why would people be supporting it's universality despite having such a limitation ? the simply answer is that science as we know and understand today is based on a certain paradigm whereby the proponents have invested heavily on. The belief that everything can be explained using mere physics and chemistry alone is what's driving them accepting that there are things which transcends them would have a disastrous effect. Such admittance will simply lend support to the alternative ie using God as an explanation. As you can see there's a need that the paradigm remains in place.

Demarcation arguments that are usually cited in support of science are applied selectively and most importantly the end result leads to a debate about semantics ie whether or not a claim is scientific. There's no assessing of the claims on an evidential basis but rather on a definitional basis which isn't productive at all. Even the claims of the theories which many happily support are accepted on a dogmatic basis and they tell us we're the only ones who are subjective. Sheeko The evidence of God's existence is ubiquitous and easily accessible to everyone, most importantly it's of sound logic unlike it's counterpart.

As they say it takes more of a leap of faith to disbelieve in God than to believe in God.

 

[Inquisitive_]

@SuldaanGuled

I am always amazed by the futile pathetic logic "we can explain why this happened, therefore we don't need God for this" this is then followed up by the even more stupid reasoning "just because we can't explain a particular phenomenon or have all the answers yet doesn't mean that God did it"

That's the abysmal state their entire logic boils down to, had they reflected a little bit they would see the obvious flaws and irrationality they wallow in,

I can explain how a phone/watch/laptop works intricately from component to component but that never excludes "the manufacturer, the designer" from that paradigm (it's presumed in the question itself)

The second line of logic is even worse, if I don't have the capacity to explain a particular phenomena which assumes complexity beyond my own understanding, it elevated the creator/designer of that phenomena/object.

Again the designer/creator is in the paradigm and the logic/question itself won't make sense if you leave it out much like the phone example, because creation/design assumes creator/designer, which the question they pose presumes.

 

[SuldaanGuled]

@SuldaanGuled

I am always amazed by the futile pathetic logic "we can explain why this happened, therefore we don't need God for this" this is then followed up by the even more stupid reasoning "just because we can't explain a particular phenomenon or have all the answers yet doesn't mean that God did it"

That's the abysmal state their entire logic boils down to, had they reflected a little bit they would see the obvious flaws and irrationality they wallow in,

I can explain how a phone/watch/laptop works intricately from component to component but that never excludes "the manufacturer, the designer" from that paradigm (it's presumed in the question itself)

The second line of logic is even worse, if I don't have the capacity to explain a particular phenomena which assumes complexity beyond my own understanding, it elevated the creator/designer of that phenomena/object.

Again the designer/creator is in the paradigm and the logic/question itself won't make sense if you leave it out much like the phone example, because creation/design assumes creator/designer, which the question they pose presumes.

Waa sidsas walaal

There are different causes in operation for any observed phenomena yet they only pick the ones that validates their dogma so as to speak. We know from our own experiences and infer from them the causality of what we observe. That's why it's easy to postulate that a given occurrence is due to let's say intelligence/designer rather than natural laws etc. The reason for this is that the cause we've cited is the only one known to produce the occurrence in question.

They act like as if we can't infer from the material world a designer/intelligent agent etc. At this point it isn't about lacking an explanation per say but more to do with the lack of a "material/naturalistic " explanation. They're conflating the need to cite a cause/explanation for a phenomenon with the need to cite a mechanistic/naturalistic cause/explanation. The latter is more specific as it puts an extra clause to validate any causality. So Any other cause other than a materialistic/naturalistic one is rejected.

The second line of logic is a good example of what i call "materialist of the gaps" argument since it's based on faulty reasoning. Funny enough it has the potential to be used against them . As you know the logic behind that argument is that science will be able to explain it eventually but here is the catch what if it can't just like many other things that it can't answer now nor could it answer in the past ? what then ? Whether they like it or not they've to concede this point otherwise it just shows their bias even though they claim not to have it. It's a double edged sword

I believe it's because people attribute all sorts of things to science that such types of logic persist.