Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Here is something else to ponder on this topic:

Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.

The problem is: "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist."

That is preposterous...about as lacking in logic as any other arguments being made for "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods."

First of all...there is as much an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that no gods exist...as there is an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that God (or gods) exist. The assertion "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist" is about as gratuitous as it is possible to get.

Two, even if it made sense (which it doesn't) would one say (as one could) that the absence of good reasons to "believe" that sentient beings exist on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol is a good reason to "believe" that no sentient beings exist on any of those planets.

Hell, no...is the correct answer to that.

Gary Gutting's argument is a joke...and an affront to logic.

Here is his biography just to add some flesh to the bones of the late American philosopher and holder of an endowed chair in philosophy at the University of Notre Dame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gutting

"Work
Gutting was an expert on the philosopher Michel Foucault and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Through his publications in such media outlets as The New York Times and The Stone, he adopted the role of a public intellectual. He dealt with both continental and analytic philosophy and had written on bridging the analytic-continental divide.[14]

Books
Talking God: Philosophers on Belief, W. W. Norton & Company, 2016"

Wow...excellent credentials for him, igm.

I cannot imagine how he managed to get this one thing so very wrong.

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Here is something else to ponder on this topic:

Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.

The problem is: "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist."

That is preposterous...about as lacking in logic as any other arguments being made for "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods."

First of all...there is as much an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that no gods exist...as there is an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that God (or gods) exist. The assertion "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist" is about as gratuitous as it is possible to get.

Two, even if it made sense (which it doesn't) would one say (as one could) that the absence of good reasons to "believe" that sentient beings exist on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol is a good reason to "believe" that no sentient beings exist on any of those planets.

Hell, no...is the correct answer to that.

Gary Gutting's argument is a joke...and an affront to logic.

Here is his biography just to add some flesh to the bones of the late American philosopher and holder of an endowed chair in philosophy at the University of Notre Dame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gutting

"Work
Gutting was an expert on the philosopher Michel Foucault and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Through his publications in such media outlets as The New York Times and The Stone, he adopted the role of a public intellectual. He dealt with both continental and analytic philosophy and had written on bridging the analytic-continental divide.[14]

Books
Talking God: Philosophers on Belief, W. W. Norton & Company, 2016"

Wow...excellent credentials for him, igm.

I cannot imagine how he managed to get this one thing so very wrong.

This appears to me to be a valid deductive argument (see below) and if premise (1) is true then the conclusion is true and that makes the argument a sound argument. To argue against premise (1) it would require having good reasons to believe God exists which would be fatal to the agnostic’s argument that there are no good reasons to believe that god exists. Therefore the agnostic position is untenable whether one accepts premise (1) or attempts to prove premise (1) is false, and those are the only two possibilities.

This argument is included in the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy and wouldn’t be included there if it wasn’t a valid deductive argument against the type of agnosticism which says they are agnostic because: we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist.

To reiterate for the sake of clarity: Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Here is something else to ponder on this topic:

Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.

The problem is: "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist."

That is preposterous...about as lacking in logic as any other arguments being made for "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods."

First of all...there is as much an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that no gods exist...as there is an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that God (or gods) exist. The assertion "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist" is about as gratuitous as it is possible to get.

Two, even if it made sense (which it doesn't) would one say (as one could) that the absence of good reasons to "believe" that sentient beings exist on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol is a good reason to "believe" that no sentient beings exist on any of those planets.

Hell, no...is the correct answer to that.

Gary Gutting's argument is a joke...and an affront to logic.

Here is his biography just to add some flesh to the bones of the late American philosopher and holder of an endowed chair in philosophy at the University of Notre Dame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gutting

"Work
Gutting was an expert on the philosopher Michel Foucault and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Through his publications in such media outlets as The New York Times and The Stone, he adopted the role of a public intellectual. He dealt with both continental and analytic philosophy and had written on bridging the analytic-continental divide.[14]

Books
Talking God: Philosophers on Belief, W. W. Norton & Company, 2016"

Wow...excellent credentials for him, igm.

I cannot imagine how he managed to get this one thing so very wrong.

This appears to me to be a valid deductive argument (see below) and if premise (1) is true then the conclusion is true and that makes the argument a sound argument. To argue against premise (1) it would require having good reasons to believe God exists which would be fatal to the agnostic’s argument that there are no good reasons to believe that god exists. Therefore the agnostic position is untenable whether one accepts premise (1) or attempts to prove premise (1) is false, and those are the only two possibilities.

This argument is included in the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy and wouldn’t be included there if it wasn’t a valid deductive argument against the type of agnosticism which says they are agnostic because: we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist.

To reiterate for the sake of clarity: Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Here is something else to ponder on this topic:

Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.

The problem is: "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist."

That is preposterous...about as lacking in logic as any other arguments being made for "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods."

First of all...there is as much an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that no gods exist...as there is an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that God (or gods) exist. The assertion "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist" is about as gratuitous as it is possible to get.

Two, even if it made sense (which it doesn't) would one say (as one could) that the absence of good reasons to "believe" that sentient beings exist on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol is a good reason to "believe" that no sentient beings exist on any of those planets.

Hell, no...is the correct answer to that.

Gary Gutting's argument is a joke...and an affront to logic.

Here is his biography just to add some flesh to the bones of the late American philosopher and holder of an endowed chair in philosophy at the University of Notre Dame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gutting

"Work
Gutting was an expert on the philosopher Michel Foucault and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Through his publications in such media outlets as The New York Times and The Stone, he adopted the role of a public intellectual. He dealt with both continental and analytic philosophy and had written on bridging the analytic-continental divide.[14]

Books
Talking God: Philosophers on Belief, W. W. Norton & Company, 2016"

Wow...excellent credentials for him, igm.

I cannot imagine how he managed to get this one thing so very wrong.

This appears to me to be a valid deductive argument (see below) and if premise (1) is true then the conclusion is true and that makes the argument a sound argument. To argue against premise (1) it would require having good reasons to believe God exists which would be fatal to the agnostic’s argument that there are no good reasons to believe that god exists. Therefore the agnostic position is untenable whether one accepts premise (1) or attempts to prove premise (1) is false, and those are the only two possibilities.

This argument is included in the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy and wouldn’t be included there if it wasn’t a valid deductive argument against the type of agnosticism which says they are agnostic because: we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist.

To reiterate for the sake of clarity: Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.

To try to explain the premise: (1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Let's remove the word god and replace it with the word 'something' and simplify the premise:

The absence of good reasons for something to exist is a good reason to believe that something does not exist?

For example: If the prosecution has a lack of evidence (the absence of good reasons) in a case against a defendant then the judge, in that case, will deem that to be evidence (good reason) for the defendant to be found not guilty and move to acquit the defendant or direct the jury to do so. The Jury may also understand that the lack of good reasons (lack of evidence) for them to find the defendant guilty, put forward by the prosecution, is a good reason to find the defendant not guilty. Similarly, the defence will draw the jury's attention to the lack of evidence (lack of good reasons) in the case put forward by the prosecution, and thereby persuade the jury that this is a good reason for them to find the defendant not guilty.

There are many real-world examples of how the lack of good reasons for something is a good reason against it.

Therefore, this makes perfect logical sense but there will be some who agree and some who disagree and some who don't care and any other combination you can think of, ...such is life:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:
Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.

...ingrained in enough that they would die to protect a figment of the imagination. I wouldn't believe people could remain so gullible...