Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

@carnaticmystery,

You sound more like a pantheist to me.

Pantheism is an interesting way to view the universe. However, I think the definition of "god" is now in question.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

wrong, pantheism is asserting that god=universe. i reject all concepts including god and universe. i am simply saying all religions are proving god, all sciences are proving universe, neither are absolutely true.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

You and I have different definitions of "proof".

As far as I'm concerned, religion hasn't proven much of anything.

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Or you're just copping out because you know that you'll end up looking silly by entertaining the idea of santa.

Being unable to prove a negative does not make atheists "illogical". We can't fully disprove a flying spaghetti monster, or the tooth fairy, but we can reasonably assert that they aren't real.

You're an atheist arguing with another atheist believing I'm an agnostic???!!! ... this is a previous post of mine... keep up!!!

igm wrote:

igm wrote:

Who needs to prove there is not a God? Just let go... that is where happiness can be found... it's not found by holding onto useless concepts.

To be clear I am an atheist... I can see how some could interpret my previous quote (see above) to mean something other than I intended... to me, God is a useless concept.

Also, the OP was a question and not my view... after discussing it with others (over nine pages and back in 2011), I concluded that if I had to be labelled an atheist or an agnostic then I would call myself an atheist.

0 Replies

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
Finally decided to make an appearance (on this thread) Frank... what took you so long?

he thought i was too harsh on fil. what is fil gay or something? i didn't think my response was that harsh. just demolishing any possible idea that current physics proves finiteness in the universe, on any scale. all possible scales existing in the universe are infinite by definition and by observation and experience.

I don't disagree... i.e. about infinity.

0 Replies

For years scientists and astronomers said the universe was expanding but that the rate of expansion was decelerating because of mutual gravitational attraction, and therefore the expansion would slow to a stop, then the universe would begin shrinking back in on itself.
That seemed logical, but in recent years they're saying the rate of expansion is NOT slowing, but is actually SPEEDING UP!
If so, I can't see what forces are at work to make that happen?

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

You're a little late to the party.

"Dark energy" is the force responsible. Look up some research on it.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

"Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" both are a mere theoretical bi-products of mathematical models about inflation, it remains to be seen they have any validity whatsoever...in any case in recent years there's been some research in new cycling models for an "open" flat Universe. Leonard Susskind is one of the well known theoretical physicists heavy weights seriously thinking about the possibility that the 2 law of thermodynamics may only work most of the time but not always...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

There's been a lot of research on dark energy coming out of Astrophysics even here in the US. I read a wonderful paper by some Dartmouth guys on it just last week.

In any case, I guess the point of my response was that just because we don't have an explanation for something doesn't mean "god did it" as Romeo suggests. This is one of the biggest fundamental flaws in many creationists thinking process.

0 Replies

Quote:

JimmyJ said: just because we don't have an explanation for something doesn't mean "god did it"

If there was no bible you might have a point, but the bible is a chronicle of thousands of years of human close encounters with offworld beings, so it's illogical for atheists to dismiss their eyewitness testimony

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

The Bible is a work of fiction, any historical accuracy is more by luck than anything else. Whenever you've been shown historical evidence that disproves the biblical account, you blame it on the prejudices of PC atheist historians. You abandoned logic in favour of blind faith long ago.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

The Bible is a book written by a bunch of desert wanderers and nomads that lived a long time ago.

The historical accuracy of the Bible is almost completely non-existent. It's a book of fictitious stories. If Harry Potter were written a couple thousand years ago it would have the same validity that the Bible has now.

Not to mention you're ignoring the "testimonies" of thousands of other people to thousands of other holy texts. For example, you don't think a follower of Islam would say the same about the Qur'an?

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

The Koran has a lot more going for it. Arabic is a language that is as visual as it is phonetic. Moslem scholars claim that the Koran is perfect, that to change just one letter would change its pattern/synchronicity. They also claim that if anyone doubts its divinity they should attempt to do something similar, and that nobody has.

This isn't a claim I'm making, just one I'm repeating, and I've yet to meet a fluent speaker of Arabic who isn't a Moslem so I could get their take on it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Izzy said: The Bible is a work of fiction

But what possible reason would anybody have for making it up?

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

The same reason that leads people to make up stuff more then 400 times a day in average...

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

What possible reason could anyone have for claiming they spoke for God? What advantage is there to claiming the divine right of Kings? What advantage is there in being able to excommunicate anyone who disagrees with you?

0 Replies

Quote:

Fil said: The same reason that leads people to make up stuff more then 400 times a day in average...
Izzy said: What possible reason could anyone have for claiming they spoke for God? What advantage is there to claiming the divine right of Kings? What advantage is there in being able to excommunicate anyone who disagrees with you?

The life expectancy of the prophets was very low because the Authorities killed them, Jesus himself only lasted 3 years, so again I ask what was the MOTIVE for anybody to "make up" the bible and put their neck on the line?
As for the "divine right of kings", and "excommunication", that's just organised religionist cultist nonsense and I don't give a rat's ass about it.. Smile

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

There's none so blind as those that will not see.

0 Replies

Let me ask for the THIRD time why anybody would want to cook up Christianity?
It can't have been for money-
"Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit"- (2 Cor 2:17)

And it can't be because they wanted to be control freaks-
"Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them, not lording it over those entrusted to you" (1 Peter 5:2-3)

So why on earth would anybody want to sit down and invent something called Christianity?

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

I don't think is the case, no one is suggesting, deliberate intention in "cooking up" anything...often taking advantages can be quite an unconscious process...as most mythologies "cook ups" emerge out from linear reasoning and association of ideas with poor but simple explanatory models that satisfy the average computing power of most people..."cook ups" work like fashion does n propagate very much like flews or viral videos...

...on a second moment out of this spontaneous crowd phenomena leaderships steer for political advantage and control...the Bible and many other similar books are the result of both things.

0 Replies

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know