I was just wondering - what with my recent succesful and logical argument concerning a Conclusion of consciousness - about why atheists/agnostics hold a belief that they "own" logic, reason and science?
We don't "own" it. But we believe what we believe because of the successful prosecution of reason and science.
If you employ reason and science, but arrive at a position where you believe in miracles and the supernatural, then you did something wrong. It's as inescapable a conclusion as if you used mathematics and proved that 2+2=5. If you got that result, you did something wrong.
It seems that many get defensive if we try and justify our beliefs with reasoning etc..
It's not that we get "defensive." It's that we get pissed to see people misuse science and logic, which is what you have to do to "prove" Christianity or any other supernatural position with science.
Basically, I am asking if you infact believe we are the emotional steryotypes you make us out to be, and therefore - no logical argument will ever hold water with you, because deep down you have to obey your inner dudeguy - who preaches "they're emotional chumps"?
No, I pretty much believe that believers like you have the same mindset as victims of domestic violence. In fact, the arguments are usually almost always the same in that they exonerate the abuser (God) and blame the victim (people to whom bad things happen) for the misfortunes that are visited upon them. Abuse victims will often go to great lengths to exonerate and even defend, voiciferously, their abuser.
Yeah, I'm sure that's going to piss you off. Well, victims of abuse get pissed off too, when you tell them their boyfriend/girlfriend is abusing them.
Why can't science logic or reason justify belief?
Because you believe in something that, by definition, can't be substantiated by science. Hey, it's not our fault. You believers are the ones that defined God in such a way as to be outside the purview of science, and that's a pretty reasonable action on your part, because otherwise, we would prove your God doesn't exist.
If it is your turf - does that mean atheists/agnostic invented all categories and rules concerning the three?
No, actually, the bulk of it was developed by Enlightenment Christians trying to understand God's clockwork universe.
The "scotsman fallacy" for example.
Eh, that's one that cuts both ways. For instance, as much as I'd like to have a rational basis to say that Joseph Stalin or Jeffery Dahmer weren't "true" atheists, I'd be committing the "True Scotsman" fallacy to say that "no true atheist would commit those crimes."
Those two guys didn't believe in God. So, they were atheists, as true atheists as I am.
Does this mean you infact invent rules to remove God?
Since the "rules" were largely drafted by believers during the Enlightenment, I'd say that's bogus.
However - we are all human, and so we have some level of intellect that requires satisfaction. I know my belief isn't based on science or reasoning etc.. But there is also a part of me that "thinks" about it.
Well, no one's saying you can't think about your faith, or ponder theological questions, or couch your beliefs in a personal narrative that makes sense to you. Go ahead and do all that to your heart's content.
But science and logic have certain rules for the prosecution of their methods, and those rules mean that you can never reach conclusions that are unscientific if you follow them. That's a blessing and a curse, because on one hand it means that the conclusions of science are always verifiable; on the other hand, it means that science can never substantiate or refute the supernatural. As much as I'd love to disprove the existence of God with science, I can't. Just as you can't prove the opposite with science.
What could be more fair than that?
This means that if I use logic correctly - and say 2+2=4 - you are infact saying that God is 5. What if he is 4?
He's not, though. The definition of God is such that he can never be substantiated by scientific reasoning. Hey, don't complain to me. I'm not the one who defined the word "God." In other words, you're the one that defined God as "5", not me. If you want to propose a God that can be substantiated by science, then you need to realize that opens the possibility of disproving the existence of that God. Maybe that's a risk you're comfortable with.
So, if some purported scientific reasoning actually does substantiate God, then we know the reasoning is wrong.
But Crash - I thought believers all disagreed with each other, and so they can't be right?