Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

skeptic wrote:

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.

You either KNOW something -- or you do not KNOW it. The "for sure" can be disregarded. It is a figure of speech and does not affect the sense of what I wrote.

So allow me to say it without the "for sure": I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE IS A GOD -- OR IF THERE ARE NO GODS.

Quote:

But whether you want to admit it or not, i'll bet you have an opinion.

Make the bet for a huge amount and make it with me. I'll give the money to charity. I DO NOT HAVE AN OPINIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A GOD -- OR IF THERE ARE NO GODS.

(Suggestion: Ask me if I have an opinion about the god of the Bible -- if I have enough unambiguous information upon which to base an informed guess.)

I could not care less what you "believe", Skeptic. But if you want to "believe" some of the crap you do about agnostics and agnosticsim, I am going to come at you like thunder and show you that your "beliefs" and reasoning are hackneyed.

Quote:

All think you are totally wrong when you call theists and atheists beliefs bullshit-based.

Think whatever you want to think. It is a free country.

I happen to think differently from you on this issue -- and I am especially convinced that your reason for atheism is bullshit.

Quote:

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.

As I said before (and will repeat) I could not care less what you "believe" or think. But you are not an especially logical debater -- and I have to call that to your attention. That is best illustrated by the Freudian comment you made "...very often that belief is based on lack of evidence."

For the record, there is a huge difference between the following two expressions:

1) I do not believe in God

2) I believe there are no gods.

You apparently do not understand that difference -- and you seem to use the two concepts interchangably. They shouldn't be.

If you want to say you do not "believe" in God -- fine. I do not "believe" in God either. But you are going one step further. You are saying that you "believe" there are no gods.

In my case, just as I do not "believe" in God, I also do not believe there are no gods.

I DO NOT KNOW EITHER WAY -- AND I DO NOT SEE ENOUGH UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO BASE A REASONABLE, MEANINGFUL, CONSIDERED GUESS.

In any case, to base a "belief" on the fact that there is no evidence for the opposite side of your belief is absurd. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for life anywhere else in this universe, Skeptic. Are you about to tell us that you do not believe there is any life anywhere else because of that? Of course not, because it would be ridiculous.

Neither of us knows if there is life elsewhere. But to base a belief that there is no life elsewhere based onl the lack of evidence that there is -- is laugahable.

Quote:

My statements are only illogical if you read too much into them...as i think Frank has done.

Many of your statements are not illogical at all. Some of them are illogical on their face. The illogic of the latter has nothing whatever to do with how much I do or do not "read into them."

Quote:

Im sure he will dissect this post into numerous quotes and try to bad mouth each one.

I'm not "bad-mouthing" your post, Skeptic -- I am giving both you and your post the courtesy of an honest response. That, in case you have forgotten, is the purpose of this forum.

Quote:

A very easy thing to do with any post.

Actually, it's not all that easy. Give it a try.

Quote:

But my main point is this: its okay to have an opinion....its not illogical.

At no point have I ever inferred that having an opinion is illogical -- so don't create that strawman and try to pin it on me.

I do happen to think that some of your reasoning is illogical -- and I have mentioned that.

You really should not confuse the two.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

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.

Not at all, JL. For the record, I have toyed with the wording of the "meaningful" guess many times and have used "educated guess" "reasonable guess" and a few others that I cannot remember.

Quote:

To me--at least--all guesses are by themselves meaningless, 50-50 propositions, shots in the dark.

We just interpret "guess" differently. I sometimes "guess" about who is going to win a particular sporting event -- and put money on the line backing my guess. That is pretty 50/50.

But I also think estimates are guesses -- and many of them are not truly 50/50.

Quote:

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.

We may part company here, but I consider all guesses (or estimates) about whether or not there is a God or are no gods -- to be uneducated, uninformed guesses. I understand that reasonable, decent, well-intentioned people can disagree strongly with me on that.

I do not see "educated guess" to be an oxymoron. Some guesses simply are based on more evidence than others -- but still have to be guesses because the evidence is not conclusive -- or even compelling, in some cases. Some guesses -- especially the ones made by determined thesists and atheists are based, in my opinion, on either NO EVIDENCE -- or manufactured evidence.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

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.

As I have mentioned several times -- there are two kinds of atheists.

One kind simply says, "I do not believe in God" -- and leave it at that.

The second kind says, "I believe there are no gods."

The second kind express a belief. It is a belief system just as certainly as theism is a belief system.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

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.

While I agree with you that anyone who says there absolutely are no god(s) anywhere is just as religious as those who say there are, there are certainly many formulations of deities which are internally inconsistent, contradictory and silly and it isn't wrong to say that those particular deities cannot, by their own internal evidence, exist. There are many formulations of God which simply cannot exist because they are self-contradictory.

0 Replies

So are Buddhist actually athiests?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

So allow me to say it without the "for sure": I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE IS A GOD -- OR IF THERE ARE NO GODS.

Frank, nothing in life is sure, anyone who says they know *ANYTHING* for certain is an idiot. In science, we evaluate the evidence and make a determination based on the evidence, either for or against a proposition. That determination is open to revision in the future as more evidence is gathered.

If you're waiting for absolute certainty, you'll be waiting a hell of a long time.

0 Replies

For my part, when i state that there are no gods, i state it with the same certitude, and for the same reasons, that i state that there is no Santa Claus, that there is no Easter Bunny. Frankly, i find Mr. Apisa's self-promotion on the basis of his allegedly pre-eminently logical view of all things to be tedious.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
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.

While I agree with you that anyone who says there absolutely are no god(s) anywhere is just as religious as those who say there are, there are certainly many formulations of deities which are internally inconsistent, contradictory and silly and it isn't wrong to say that those particular deities cannot, by their own internal evidence, exist. There are many formulations of God which simply cannot exist because they are self-contradictory.

Could not agree more -- which was the reason I invited Skeptic to ask me about my guesses regarding the god of the Bible.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
So allow me to say it without the "for sure": I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE IS A GOD -- OR IF THERE ARE NO GODS.

Frank, nothing in life is sure, anyone who says they know *ANYTHING* for certain is an idiot. In science, we evaluate the evidence and make a determination based on the evidence, either for or against a proposition. That determination is open to revision in the future as more evidence is gathered.

If you're waiting for absolute certainty, you'll be waiting a hell of a long time.

I am not waiting for certainty.

You neglected part of what I have to say on this issue:

I DO NOT KNOW EITHER WAY -- AND I DO NOT SEE ENOUGH UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO BASE A REASONABLE, MEANINGFUL, CONSIDERED GUESS.

As I said, I am not waiting for certainty. I am waiting for anything upon which to make a reasonable, meaningful, considered guess.

As of the moment, I see almost nothing upon which to base a guess in either direction.

That truly is how I see things, Cephus.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

So are Bhuddist actually athiests?

I don't think so, LW -- but I think a Buddhist should answer you.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

For my part, when i state that there are no gods, i state it with the same certitude, and for the same reasons, that i state that there is no Santa Claus, that there is no Easter Bunny.

Oh, I find that incredibly interesting.

Quote:

Frankly, i find Mr. Apisa's self-promotion on the basis of his allegedly pre-eminently logical view of all things to be tedious.

Who really gives a rat's ass what you 'find', Setanta?

0 Replies

Obviously, i do. You have provided the evidence that you do in responding, a reaction of which i was fairly certain. Just taking a poke at your habit of pontification . . . especially as when i came back to this thread to read Cephus' reply, i saw at the top of the previous page your arrogant response to what i had written previouly. Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you'd not be able to resist the urge to reply.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Obviously, i do. You have provided the evidence that you do in responding, a reaction of which i was fairly certain. Just taking a poke at your habit of pontification . . . especially as when i came back to this thread to read Cephus' reply, i saw at the top of the previous page your arrogant response to what i had written previouly. Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you'd not be able to resist the urge to reply.

Always glad to bring a little sunshine into what must be a very drab life, Setanta.

BTW -- I do not pontificate. In fact, of all the people in A2K, I probably do less pontificating than anyone else.

I am an agnostic, remember?

As for the reply at the top of the previous page -- I don't see that as arrogant. Perhaps you will point out why you think it is.

Nearly as I can see, it was in part a response to you pontificating that there are no gods or godesses -- where I asked how you know that.

0 Replies

truth
That's nice; don't fight. Frank, your response to my comments on educated guesses are well taken, but let me ask: if you consider a guess to be "educated" and another considers it to be "uneducated," are you both just guessing? Laughing

I feel that "certainty" is a subjective state, since I do not believe in objective or absolute truths. But like Setanta I "know" (remember, I'm referring to personal subjective conclusions which is all there really is) that there are no unicorns, and no gods as believers describe them. I'm even more confident, however, in disbelieving in round squares, because that belief is tautologically true. Squares are not round BY DEFINITION; but, then, that's a trivial truth. I agree with your agnosticism to the extent that I rarely feel certain about my assertions. My head contains mainly a series of working hypotheses which seem to do the job of getting me through life. And as a pragmatist that's quite enough. But when the feeling of certitude comes I do not reject it, on absolutist grounds, because nothing can be known "for sure."
I say this with the knowledge that your agnosticism applies mainly (or exclusively?) to theological matters.

0 Replies

Sorry, I know this is lengthy but bear with me:

Using Dictionary Definitions

Atheist - I go by textbook definitions, as do the majority of philosopers, otherwise you're just going by semantics. If you know what it is that you believe, good for you. But know if you use the word Atheist that it doesn't mean "not a theist" it means the opposite of theist, that no gods exist as opposed to gods exist.

Addressing Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny

Setana - "For my part, when i state that there are no gods, i state it with the same certitude, and for the same reasons, that i state that there is no Santa Claus, that there is no Easter Bunny. "

It's intersting you brought this up. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny have reported contact with the material world, with ascribed physical characteristics and traits. They are not said to be immaterial, so it would be perfectly logical to deny the existance of the easter bunny and santa claus. Data could be collected at the north pole, cameras set up on easter and christmas, even double blind data research could confirm that the easter bunny and santa claus, as defined do or do not exist.

G-d as a concept is indefinate and has no material traits or material interactions, a soley immaterial concept. This is why I said individual dieties with ascribed physical world traits and presences can be disproven logically.

About Dualism

The base of the argument is "I don't know" but it will forever be "I don't know" if the concept of g-d remains immaterial. Thinkof the world in two spheres: immaterial and material. This is called dualism. I personally believe in only a material world, but one can only test and observe things that are physical, so I cannot logically deny somthing "immaterial" because it would be impossible to test or observe it.

Those Mysterious Buddhists

Light- I don't think most buddhists believe buddha was a g-d, but it depends on the sect. I don't remember whether some thing there is a g-d, that send buddha as a scholar or somthing like that... I should know more about these things. Do let us know if you find out.

Response to Immaterial World Argument

Fresco- sure, you could deny the existance of everything or say it's all in your mind, but this is a pretty outlandish view. It also doens't get humans as a species or most philosophical arguments anywhere. There are certain constants within our physical realm that apply relatively. I don't think these things are any less valid even with an immaterial view, because there are consistent logical relationships within the observed world. These constants are reaffirmed through testing.
Not that immaterialism isn't an interesting route of study, but it adds nothing to the arguments into which it's introduced, only points out flaws in observation. Yes, there are limitations to and variations within the human senses, but we have very nice scientific tools which help much with observation. Double blind testing helps eliminate individual slanted perception, and mechanical data collection also helps add stability to observation.

0 Replies

JL

Almost every time we have discussed this topic, and we have discussed it many times, you have stated your atheism in a very logical way -- and you tend to go out of your way to indicate that you are expressing a view, estimate, or consideration about the topic.

If I may, you often express your atheism with deference to things that are important to agnostics.

Even here, you wrote: "...and no gods as believers describe them."

No problem with me at all.

But Setenta had written: There are no gods or goddesses!

There is a huge difference between those two references.

My question to him was appropriate: How do you know there are no gods of goddesses?

(Never have gotten a reasonable answer to that, by the way!)

I have absolutely no idea of what "ALL THIS" is all about -- how "ALL THIS" came into being -- or if it ever came into being. I have no idea if I am alone in the universe -- and you and everyone and everything else is a figment of my imagination. I may be God; you may be God; there may be billions of gods; there may be a God so different in makeup from anything we can relate to that there is no way we could ever understand it at our present stage of evolution.

And there may be no gods.

I DO NOT KNOW -- and there is not nearly enough unambiguous evidence available to me upon which I can base a reasonable, meaningful guess about it. In fact, I do not see any unambiguous evidence at all.Theists and atheists often use the same evidence to back up their claims.

I AM NOT LOOKING FOR CERTAINTY! (Caps for emphasis, not yelling!)

I do not think there can be any certainty about this.

In any case...
I laugh when I hear a theist talking with any degree of certainty about the existence of God -- and I laugh at the truly laughable reasoning that goes into their assertions.

This may hurt, JL, but I laugh when I hear an atheist talking with any degree of certainty about the impossibility of the existence of gods -- and I laugh at the truly laughable reasoning that goes into their assertions.

Nearly as I can tell (I am not certain of this!) -- none of us knows if there is a God -- or if there are no gods -- and none of us has enough evidence upon which to base the assertions theists and atheists regularly make.

To my way of thinking, that means that the most ethical, most honest was to deal with that is not to assert...

...that there is a God, or...

...that there are no gods.

Agnosticism!

0 Replies

Frank
Frank, I have just read your response to my last post, and I have made 2 observations. One, you seem at times more here to just argue and try to prove that you are right all the time rather than to promote a viewpoint. I do know why this forum is here, Frank. Do yo? You enjoy tearing apart other people's posts because you disagree with them, rather than simply countering with your own beliefs. Your system of picking apart posts and confronting each sentence is a testimony to that fact. I know, because I used to argue the same way....its not the most productive way to go about doing things.
Two: you still seem to be misinterpreting what I am saying. We basically are on the same side of the argument which is why it confuses me that you react to aggressively to my comments. Aggressiveness is good in debate, but I think your aggressiveness is much over mere semantics. We basically have a very similar life view, i think. Let me try to make you see this:
Our problem is that we have slightly different definitions of agnostic and atheist. Correct me if i'm wrong, but your view of agnostic seems to be one who has NO opinion about God(s). Not even a guess! My view is slightly different. I view an agnostic as someone who is not sure about a God, but GUESSES based on the evidence that it is more likely than not that he does not exist. Thats just my view, and if you disagree, why dont you try intelligently just telling me your view, instead of pulling out these sentences in quotes and calling them illogical. (i have read many of your previous posts, and can tell you are an intelligent guy...I wish we could have more of an intelligent discussion..i think it would be interesting)
My view of an atheist is someone who more STRONGLY denies God. His response to "is there a God?" would more likely be "no". An agnostics response could be anything from "i dont know" to "based on the evidence so far, I dont think so."
Also , dont feel that there is not a black and white division between the two terms. I think it is more of a spectrum, and the distinction between agnostic and atheist is more subjective.
I would love to hear your response to this, Frank. Telling me your views, without all the rhetoric, talk about illogic, quote pulling,etc....just a nice discussion of your views. I wont call them illogical, i promise Very Happy

Greg

0 Replies

How can you indicit both rhetoric and logic? You seem to be asking him not to illustrate that you are wrong but to continue to disagree.

0 Replies

truth
I have not read Setanta's last post, but I want to respond to Frank before I forget my point. Frank, I think I understand our difference now. I have no argument with your agnosticism. You don't feel that you know and you incorporate this feeling into your worldview. I agree: I believe/feel that we never OBJECTIVELY KNOW the truth of theological matters or even scientific truths, for we know that the latter will eventually be replaced by better models and theories. That's the assumption behind "progressive" science. But I'm talking about the subjective, personal knowledge (not scientific public intersubjective knowledge), by which we really live. I "know" the theological statements of Pat Robertson are false. If I didn't "know" this to be true, I might be having a nervous breakdown right now. I do not know if the theological statements of Paul Tillich, however, are false. His truths have more depth than I can address with simple empirical facts. His God Above God, is mysterious and intriguing to me; it is not absurd to me. I don't understand it with the clarity that I understand most theses I entertain. But I do not want to dismiss it for fear that there is really something in it of value to me. You see what I mean by the personal or subjective nature of the "truths" I believe in? I suspect this is true for all of us, for your agnosticism and for Husker's theism. It's the way we cope and provide meaning for our subjective lives. I "know" this to be so. But, I'll go this far toward your position: I won't bet my life on it. My house perhaps, but not my life.
By the way, in response to the question regarding buddhist atheism, as I understand Buddhism, it contains no God or gods. At the more popular corrupt levels, spin-offs of the original orientation there are gods, demons, all kinds of supernatural beings. But that is not Buddhism in the great tradition. But you are not likely to get a buddhist to argue for atheism with you. They will simply not state either way whether or not there is a God. This is not because they are agnostics. It's because they do not find the notion to have any relevance to their spiritual practice. They are passive, not active, atheists.

0 Replies

you can't be a rationalist in an irrational world, it isn't rational.

0 Replies

Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know