Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

It’s a false argument, what would you rather be the case as opposed to what you think would be the case.

It’s like the part in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where a company escapes censure for telling the complete opposite by calling Keats as a witness.

“Beauty is truth and truth beauty,” means you can lie about anything as long as it sounds better.

What would you rather have, that the Jewish people deported east by the Nazis lived full and productive lives in their own purpose built communities or gassed in death camps?

Now we’d all prefer the former but we know the latter occurred, and none of us are to blame for that either.

What Asimov seems to mean was, "I do not know that no gods exist and I certainly cannot prove that no gods exist...but despite the lack of evidence, I am going to guess that none do."

That is sorta what most theists do...in reverse, of course. They do not know their GOD exists...and they certainly cannot prove their GOD exists...but despite the lack of evidence, they decide to guess that IT does.

Nothing whatever wrong with either of those things...and one of them might be correct.

But, with all the respect in the world, all Asimov and those theists are doing is making a guess about the REALITY.

What I find more interesting than his guess...is the limited scope of his comments. He spoke of "he" doesn't exist...and referred to it as "God" rather than saying "gods." I'm sorry he did not expand the scope of the comment. Like to have heard what he would have said if more expansive.

Good morning,
Oh true. I wasn't implying God was incapable of spreading life everywhere in the universe, just commenting on the possible reasons why he might not.

But why would a benevolent God grant eternal life (and God-like powers) to sentient beings who chose evil over good? ( Evil here meaning wishing to do harm to another sentient being.) And then there are those who sincerely believe even plants and rocks are sentient. What do you mean by 'sentient'?

And it really makes sense to listen to an 'agnostic' (or atheist) about what a theist thinks, believes and knows.

This is Frank's hubris. He KNOWS what thiests And atheists CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW. That is some God-like power there.

I think it's a satisfactory state of affairs that God allows some people to be wealthy and others to be dirt poor and near starving to death (hmmmm there must be something you can do with that excess...)

Here's a choice. Why don't YOU do something about it?

If I were to force you to, you'd be cursed to spend your life doing a job you don't want to do. But you have free will.

You're thinking of God as an indifferent Big Man in the Sky. But Christianity actually talks about the Body of Christ, as in, each of us is a part of God. That is, the atheist blames God for human suffering, but human suffering lies squarely in decisions we make. I've decided not to take any jobs, despite some of them offering up to $700 for new employees. That means some of them will be shorthanded. But I haven't any desire to grow richer when my folks care for me, and I am blessed by their presence. These choices, they affect people. You taking some big lawyer job might mean you have money to spend on that new suit... or you can donate that money to Heifer or the Single Mother's Foundation or Some Other Charity.

I don't know that you're going to Hell if you don't, I think Hell is a misunderstanding. But I think some of us are in a hell of our making. Parents just came back from this church where the priest was completely depressed, talking about death and gloom as her sermon, crying during the communion, and telling people that she's basically shrunk her own world to her backyard and the inside of her house. She's obviously miserable, so I would ask someone to keep her company.

I'm a writer, I can't do much, but I can inspire other people to make choices.

If dying children bothers you that much, instead of blaming God, do something about it.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=DxSlX1hfj6I
https://youtube.com/watch?v=j-TUd9x6us4
https://youtube.com/watch?v=O8VFSpC2PF0

Asimov said he has enough understanding to be an atheist. He just can't prove the negative. So he proclaims himself an atheist rather than an agnostic. Pretty simple.

I don't have to put up with I guess this and I guess that bullshit. Either there is a god or there isn't. If there is, produce it, him, her. If not you've got nothing but endless harangues built out of emotion.

That's pretty much what I said. He did not know there are no gods, but he blindly guessed there were none, so he proclaimed himself to be an atheist.'

No problem with that.

Not sure why he wasn't more honest with himself and leave it at "I do not know and can only guess", but that is his choice.

You absolutely do not have to put up with "I guess this and I guess that bullshit."

You can simply make your own guess...and stick with it. Christians do it all...as do all other theists. Most of them say it straight forward: "I BELIEVE there is a GOD...and the GOD is the GOD described in my 'scriptures.'"

I used to do that myself.

Then I decided to just go with, "I do not know...and there is NO UNAMBIGUOUS evidence in either direction, so I will stick with the 'I do not know.'"

When you base your decision on an assertion, it doesn't mean a whole lot.

It is simple as long as you leave out the 'emotional' aspects of Asimov's statement.

That is the aspect i was wondering about.

<damnit, why don't all devices automatically capitalize standalone 'i's>

Intelligent and self aware.

Good call.

Sure, such as when you dismiss evolution on an assertion that the making of a protein can only be attributed to ID.

'Evolution ' is an entirely different discussion than abiogenesis. The view of the later will necessarily affect how one would view the former. And so we have to settle things in the order in which they obviously had to have happened. Evolution second.

abiogenesis: The original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances. But from what did those inanimate substances evolve?

The Theory of the BIG BANG as the origin of this universe, begins with an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small ‘SINGULARITY’ which was spatially separated and spewed out, as an extremely hot liquid like plasma of electromagnetic energy in the trillions upon trillions of degrees, in fact our scientists claim that the universal temperature at the instant of the Big Bang, was 100 million trillion trillion kelvins, or 180 million trillion trillion degrees Fahrenheit.

Nothing physical can exist in that temperature, only that super-hot energy which has evolved to become this universe and every life form within the universe that ‘IT’ which cannot be created nor ever be destroyed has become.

The Big Bang was not the origin of the universe.Magnetism preceded it.Space is full magnetism….but then where did magnetism come from?

The Big Bang/ Big Compression is just “prisoner of consciousness” stuff.

There was neither space or time before the BB. Sorry kid, you're wrong again.

Ha Ha....we see the big bang and big compressions happening in the cosmos all the time my friend...Space and time have nothing to do with this process. They precede it. Big Bangs and Big Compressions are made to happen because there is a master system already in place...I'm not wrong.LOL

There have been many periods of universal activity before this one, and there will be others after this universe has returned to the singularity of Origin, but each generation of the universe, is locked in it own separate position in Space-time.

A singularity is a region of space-time in which matter is crushed so closely together that the gravitational laws explained by general relativity break down.

In a singularity, the volume of space is zero and its density is infinite. General relativity demands such a singularity must exist at the beginning of an expanding universe. (Before this expanding universe even began.)

According to our best scientific minds, ‘which puts you way out of the picture kiddo,’ before the space in which our universe would be created began to expand, there was only the singularity in which, the volume of space is zero and its density is infinite. No space, no time, proving you to be wrong once again.