Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Please do so.



Really!

And you KNOW this to be a fact?

How very fortunate for you.

I still think agnosticism has an advantage over atheism because the agnostic acknowledges that he/she does not KNOW if there is a God and does not KNOW if there are no gods -- and says so.

That puts the agnostic in an ethically superior position to atheists who present their arguments the way you do, Setanta.

Atheists, like theists, very often insist that they KNOW there are no gods (or in the case of theists, they KNOW there is a God) -- and in my opinion, they are just shooting off their mouths.



When I used the expression "atheists are defending..." -- I was not talking about actually trying to convince others of what they guess about reality. I was just talking about the philosophical construct of defending. Sorry if my wording annoyed you.

Nicely done fresco.

My effort was to show our buddy that the application of the spatial/temporal tools of sensation one uses to deny God also could lead to self-denial, and therefore is to be discarded in this exercise.

Once the realm of the mind is breached, all bets are off as to using the direct locational verification of logic and reason that we employ to define the exterior world I mentioned earlier.

But the salient point is that if you cannot prove, or disprove the mind merely by examination of the sensate world, one could extrapolate that the same inadequacies arise when trying to prove or disprove God with the same tools.

With this, we arrive at the age-old question: "Does God exist only in the mind?"

So we come back to our dear friend, Saint Anselm and his ontological argument for God's existence, and rebuttals by Kant and Plantinga.

http://pages.quicksilver.net.nz/theonomy/ontological.html

I am so happy for you, Boss !

i'm feeling dyslexic today. but as i have no proof to the contrary, i will submit and agree that you are indeed a dog. all hail craven, our new dog!
<geez, i'm laughing, hope everyone else is...>
and remember kids, mud spelled backwards is dum! (dumb)

and kindly take you hand off of my knee

WOW! Now that's what I call feeling dyslexic! Hey, how about shaving those knees of yours? I thought I was petting the cat....

pffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttttt as you can clearly see, I don't shave anything

kuvasz.

Thanks for that reference. My argument seems to be Kantian in essence but this would be to take Kant out of historical context.

BTW theres some interesting stuff on "Second Order Cybernetics" where the observer-observed interaction is taken into account.
You might like this.

http://members.tripod.com/~TheHOPE/Bernard_Scott/

my argument is canine in essence, but this would be to take cats out of hysterical context.

Hey gadget

You're a long way behind the maestro!

http://www.scbd.connectfree.co.uk/unwin/02.html

truth
Fresco, I REALLY tried to read your link, but just couldn't. It really hurt. Anybody got a nickle?

Agnosticism
I agree with the premise of this forum to a certain extent. Of course I believe that we can not prove or disprove God. All we can do is weigh the evidence. So far I have seen no convincing evidence for the existence of a God. Therefore, I chose not to believe in him. I dont think it is necessarily illogical to choose to disbelieve. If God was created by man, then he can easily be disbelieved. Is it also illogical to disbelieve in Dracula, unicorns, and lepricauns?? I think saying that you are simply "not sure" about God is a cop out. We are human beings, and our minds tend to make decisions. I think most people who call themselves "agnostics" really do have an opinion as to whether God exists. Its not illogical to weigh evidence and make an opinion. In fact, its the best we can do.
Greg

the agreed definition of g-d is not that he was created by man. The point is that you can deal scientifically with anything in the material world - anything observable. Being that g-d is reportedly immaterial, unless there is some effect in the physical world no logical conclusion may be reached. I couldn't logically disproove that there was an unseeable, unsmellable, untouchable, untasteable, unhearable pink elephant standing behind me (that didn't affect anything in the material world). Sure, it's highly -unlikely- (improbable), but not impossible. Science, physics, and logic deal with the physical world. This is why saying it is absolute that there is no god (atheism) is illogical - it is illogical to think you could prove or disprove anything insubstantial beyond a doubt.

Note: Jesus and other g-ds have ascribed physical traits and ascribed physical presences attributed to them, so these dieties can be disproved, just not the general concept of g-d.

It's not a cop out, it's science.

With the brain god gave me, I have concluded that there is no god.

Re: Agnosticism


Great! It is a free country. You can "believe" anything you want to "believe."



Great!

So you don't "believe" in God.

It is a free country. You don't have to "believe" anything you don't want to "believe."






I'm not sure what "disbelieve" is supposed to mean, but I will hazzard a guess.

When you say you "disbelieve" God -- you are actually saying "I believe there are no gods."

Great!

It is a free country. You can "believe" anything you want to "believe."

However, I must point out that your reasoning here is marginal at best.

Essentially you are saying that because you see no evidence that God exists -- God does not exist.

Not very logical at all. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. In fact, I think a better characterization of your reasoning here is -- illogical.







Not sure of what you are getting at here, but it is a muddle.

Think it out a bit more and flesh out your thought. I certainly will respond to it if you do.




Yeah, sure.

It's like saying that I am not sure who is going to win the next Super bowl.

How much of a cop out is that?




Really!

I am a human being and my mind does tend to make decisions.

My decision is that I do not know for sure if there is a God -- or if there are no gods -- and I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a reasonable, meaningful guess.








It also is not illogical to weigh the evidence and come to the opinion that I do not know if there is a God or if there are no gods -- and that there does not seem to be enough unambiguous evidence to make a meaningful guess in either direction -- simply acknowledge all of that without any guesses -- like the ones theists and atheists make.

The guesses theists and atheists make are just that -- GUESSES.

They are both based on (for want of a better word) bullshit.

I consider it much more ethical, honest, and logical to simply make the agnostic acknowledgement.

And you, of course, are free to disagree.

God
I can see that Frank enjoyed picking apart my statements...that is fine..as he pointed out multiple times, its a free country
However, i think much of his criticisms stem from a slight misunderstanding of what I was saying. I think that fact is best shown when frank said "I do not know FOR SURE if there is a God"
Of course not...nobody does. But whether you want to admit it or not, i'll bet you have an opinion. I dont think that having an opinion or a "belief" equates to knowing for sure. For instance, if I think of a number between one and a thousand, and tell you to think of a number between one and a thousand, I BELIEVE that we will not think of the same number. But do i know for sure? of course not. I based my belief on evidence and knowledge of statistics.
All think you are totally wrong when you call theists and atheists beliefs bullshit-based. When someone chooses to "believe" there is no god, very often that belief is based on lack of evidence. The same reason I choose not to belief in ghosts. This "belief" is not the same as knowing for sure. Its just my opinion. There's nothing wrong with weighing the evidence and having an opinion.
My statements are only illogical if you read too much into them...as i think Frank has done.
Im sure he will dissect this post into numerous quotes and try to bad mouth each one. A very easy thing to do with any post.
But my main point is this: its okay to have an opinion....its not illogical.
Greg

truth
Frank, what do you mean by "a meaningful guess"? That would imply to me that it is not a guess, strictly speaking, but an implicit theoretically based judgement. To me--at least--all guesses are by themselves meaningless, 50-50 propositions, shots in the dark. Could you mean an educated guess, as opposed to an uneducated guess? I see only the latter as a reality; the former seems to be an oxymoron. All guesses are uneducated; that's why one must guess, for lack of information. This is all off the top of my head so I do anticipate (and welcome) some constructive criticism.

Everybody seems to define atheism as belief there is no god.

per Frank,
Atheists, like theists, very often insist that they KNOW there are no gods (or in the case of theists, they KNOW there is a God) -- and in my opinion, they are just shooting off their mouths.
and Portal just said something similar.

Back a whole bunch of posts ago I mentioned that I was without theism, and therefore I am an a-theist. People seem to be trying to talk me out of it.

May you all enjoy y'selves.