Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I suppose that you are an "agnostic" concerning the existence of Donald Duck or the Flying Spaghetti Monster...well are you ?

Check tax returns, I imagine Donald Duck's filed away in Disney somewhere, I expect he makes quite a bit. Flying spaghetti monster, does not file any tax returns, but could be some sort of bowel obstruction.

0 Replies

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

Sure, some atheists defend their belief, not all. I see plenty of atheists merely wishing to defend their right to choose.

As far as your original question, how could you possibly think that attempting to fault someone's logic is going to tell you anything.

I think you've found yourself in an untenable position and are now being disingenuous.

The title is a question. I've merely taken a position to get a response. Language and logic are limited but most of the time they do the job but there is no real deep truth to be found there just more questions.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

That was quite a vehement reply (in my opinion).

That was a matter-of-fact comparison of observable and reproducible behavior. I notice you're not saying that my comparison is mistaken. So if a sober and truthful comparison sounds vehement to you, perhaps you want to question your perceptions more.

1 Reply

@igm,

interesting...well, what are you beyond concepts ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

interesting...well, what are you beyond concepts ?

No, but I'm not relying on many of them to tell me any deep truths just the day to day ones.

1 Reply

@igm,

and you know why ?
Because they are functional...although they have an "extension" a " limited field" they work.
Truth is about relative functions...which are absolutes in themselves on that specific working relation...what else would truth be about if not this ?...people often magnify the concept of truth in order to dissolve it later on...

1 Reply

@igm,

Language may be limited, but it still means something when used with care.

Your question invites the atheist to defend their logic.
It seems pretty logical to assume that a response to that question is going to be a defense of logic.

If you want to engage in mental masturbation, fine, don't blame language for your failure to use it properly.

1 Reply

Believers always seem to think atheists should have to prove no god exists. Why? If somebody thinks he is Napoleon, should I have to prove otherwise? Both propositions are equally ridiculous and made up. Meanwhile, the agnostic wanders in a sort of no man's land, quixotically jousting with both atheists and believers. In the end, he appears to be hedging, not wishing to be inadequate in the eyes of either side.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

I'm not. Nor am I an atheist. Nor am I a theist. Concepts only go so far but not far enough to really settle anything.

Well let me make this easier for you. Do you believe that gods or a god exists? It doesn't matter what you are claiming that god to be or consist of.

If you say yes, then you are a theist.

If you say no, then you are an atheist.

There is no in between. Agnosticism is not in between theist and atheist.

From what it seems, you are a deist. But deists are theists.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

...most true, but as you also pointed out we all don´t know if any God or Gods exist...in fact if we downgrade it a little bit to demi god like status there may well be in our eyes god like creatures just as I am a "god" like being in a dogs eyes...

...the other, the all mighty god that we are speaking/assuming of for the sole purpose of speculating if existing it is nothing like the bible description...certainly more likely to be a kind of "mathematical machine" then anything else...

...between low and high entropy, "it" (God) is The one and only "perpetual motion machine"...to my view all else is a self centred "antropophormization" product of mediocrity lack of imagination and insight...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...most true, but as you also pointed out we all don´t know if any God or Gods exist...in fact if we downgrade it a little bit to demi god like status there may well be in our eyes god like creatures just as I am a "god" like being in a dogs eyes...

The problem with your analogy is that the dog can actually perceive you where as those who believe in a god can't. So there is a difference there. You can't really rework the whole thing by relabeling it "demi-god".

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...the other, the all mighty god that we are speaking/assuming of for the sole purpose of speculating if existing it is nothing like the bible description...certainly more likely to be a kind of "mathematical machine" then anything else...

Mathematical machines don't do anything other than math. They can't break the rules of math and therefore are limited in scope to mathematical principals. I highly doubt theists would say that a god would have that sort of limitation because they want their god to be omniscient and omnipotent without limitations. A mathematical machine has limitations and it wouldn't necessarily know everything. It would only be following a course of mathematical steps but then again I don't even know what that would even mean. So care to explain why a god would be a mathematical machine?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...between low and high entropy, "it" (God) is The one and only "perpetual motion machine"...to my view all else is a self centred "antropophormization" product of mediocrity lack of imagination and insight...

So now you go to include that god is a perpetual motion machine which by definition within thermodynamics and physics, is impossible. I think you want a god to include such a thing but show me where there is evidence for a god that suits its own energy needs by itself without any input necessary.

That's the thing about deists, they really only can argue for the existence of a god, however; they can not determine what properties that god would have. To do so requires some basis otherwise it is pure imagination or wishful wanting.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I agree with your general thesis except for your attempted distinction between "knowledge" and "belief". Many theists claim to know "God exists". Consideration of the inextricable relationships between ontology, epistemology and functionality seems to indicate that this is a doomed dichotomy. An "agnostic" is merely someone ignorant of the quagmire.

Speaking as an atheist, my own solution is that I cannot deny the existence of a "God" concept, but concepts are all we ever have of anything. What matters is nature of the relationship between concept of "self" and concept of "God", which in the case of an atheist is a negative one.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I agree with your general thesis except for your attempted distinction between "knowledge" and "belief". Many theists claim to know "God exists". Consideration of the inextricable relationships between ontology, epistemology and functionality seems to indicate that this is a doomed dichotomy. An "agnostic" is merely someone ignorant of the quagmire.

Knowing and thinking they know are two separate things. All theists think they know what god is but all they know is their what their imagination wants a god to be.

fresco wrote:

Speaking as an atheist, my own solution is that I cannot deny the existence of a "God" concept, but concepts are all we ever have of anything. What matters is nature of the relationship between concept of "self" and concept of "God", which in the case of an atheist is a negative one.

But there are degrees of reality. The concept of a god lacks the reality that the concept of a self has. Therefore the concept of self and god are not equal as you are trying to imply. Since that is the case the concept of a god in accordance with the self makes the self trump the god concept rendering it not negative but a reality. If you want to call reality negative, I wouldn't argue but instead ask, so what?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

The so-what question leads to a consideration of a deflationary view of "language" and "thought", as idiosyncracies of homo-sapiens.
As Wittgenstein put it, much of so called "debate" is Geschwatz (idle chatter or verbal dancing).

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Speaking as an atheist, my own solution is that I cannot deny the existence of a "God" concept, but concepts are all we ever have of anything. What matters is nature of the relationship between concept of "self" and concept of "God", which in the case of an atheist is a negative one.

In layman's terms I see the relationship as simple as where one places their faith.
The atheist places their faith in the concept of self, while the theist places their faith in the concept of god.
This is also the dangerous part of the relationship, people will do many things, because the boss says so, that they would not do of themselves.
That is not to say that all theists surrender their concept of self in the relationship.

0 Replies

Firstly, I’d like to thanks everyone for their contributions to this topic.

My position now after examining the posts is that because on the balance of probabilities there is no creator god and the evidence points overwhelming to that conclusion to say that I am an atheist is the more reasonable position to take.

To say I’m an agnostic because it can never be proved there isn’t a creator god is not a good enough reason as the evidence points too strongly in favour of there not being a creator god.

To say I’m a theist because I can’t find any evidence that there is a creator god but I want to believe it anyway is untenable.

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics? The answer to me is that they are not, if it is possible to talk in terms of logic. I’d say on reflection it’s probably not. Rather it’s coming to a conclusion based on the balance of probabilities. I am now clearer about why I’d say I was an atheist due to your posts. Once again thank you for the posts they helped to clarify what position I should take.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

The so-what question leads to a consideration of a deflationary view of "language" and "thought", as idiosyncracies of homo-sapiens.
As Wittgenstein put it, much of so called "debate" is Geschwatz (idle chatter or verbal dancing).

Well my point in asking is me trying to point out that calling something negative doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. The fact that I don't believe in a god, may sound like a negative statement but it is far from being a bad thing (despite what some may try to claim). There are many things that I accept that are negative but I don't really care that they are labeled negative.

In my opinion we as a species have out grown theology and I feel that it is holding us back from progressing as a society. Not only that but the old oppression of society done by theists has caused more harm to humanity than it has solved. It is time for that to be shed and the only way that can happen is if those who have escaped educate those who are still trapped believing the nonsense.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

and you know why ?
Because they are functional...although they have an "extension" a " limited field" they work.
Truth is about relative functions...which are absolutes in themselves on that specific working relation...what else would truth be about if not this ?...people often magnify the concept of truth in order to dissolve it later on...

Firstly, I’d like to thanks everyone for their contributions to this topic.

My position now after examining the posts is that because on the balance of probabilities there is no creator god and the evidence points overwhelming to that conclusion to say that I am an atheist is the more reasonable position to take.

To say I’m an agnostic because it can never be proved there isn’t a creator god is not a good enough reason as the evidence points too strongly in favour of there not being a creator god.

To say I’m a theist because I can’t find any evidence that there is a creator god but I want to believe it anyway is untenable.

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics? The answer to me is that they are not, if it is possible to talk in terms of logic. I’d say on reflection it’s probably not. Rather it’s coming to a conclusion based on the balance of probabilities. I am now clearer about why I’d say I was an atheist due to your posts. Once again thank you for posts they helped to clarify what position I should take.

0 Replies

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

Language may be limited, but it still means something when used with care.

Your question invites the atheist to defend their logic.
It seems pretty logical to assume that a response to that question is going to be a defense of logic.

If you want to engage in mental masturbation, fine, don't blame language for your failure to use it properly.

Firstly, I’d like to thanks everyone for their contributions to this topic.

My position now after examining the posts is that because on the balance of probabilities there is no creator god and the evidence points overwhelming to that conclusion to say that I am an atheist is the more reasonable position to take.

To say I’m an agnostic because it can never be proved there isn’t a creator god is not a good enough reason as the evidence points too strongly in favour of there not being a creator god.

To say I’m a theist because I can’t find any evidence that there is a creator god but I want to believe it anyway is untenable.

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics? The answer to me is that they are not, if it is possible to talk in terms of logic. I’d say on reflection it’s probably not. Rather it’s coming to a conclusion based on the balance of probabilities. I am now clearer about why I’d say I was an atheist due to your posts. Once again thank you for posts they helped to clarify what position I should take.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Believers always seem to think atheists should have to prove no god exists. Why? If somebody thinks he is Napoleon, should I have to prove otherwise? Both propositions are equally ridiculous and made up. Meanwhile, the agnostic wanders in a sort of no man's land, quixotically jousting with both atheists and believers. In the end, he appears to be hedging, not wishing to be inadequate in the eyes of either side.

Firstly, I’d like to thanks everyone for their contributions to this topic.

My position now after examining the posts is that because on the balance of probabilities there is no creator god and the evidence points overwhelming to that conclusion to say that I am an atheist is the more reasonable position to take.

To say I’m an agnostic because it can never be proved there isn’t a creator god is not a good enough reason as the evidence points too strongly in favour of there not being a creator god.

To say I’m a theist because I can’t find any evidence that there is a creator god but I want to believe it anyway is untenable.

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics? The answer to me is that they are not, if it is possible to talk in terms of logic. I’d say on reflection it’s probably not. Rather it’s coming to a conclusion based on the balance of probabilities. I am now clearer about why I’d say I was an atheist due to your posts. Once again thank you for posts they helped to clarify what position I should take.

0 Replies

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know