Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

That's not true.

ok

Remember the paradox, if it has a downside there is something illogical about it.

"Inordinate dependence on logic is not logical."

would the converse, inordinate dependence on illogic be logical?

no

ok so just what would a nul-hypothesis be then?

Edit (to reflect your edit):

The correct null-hypothesis would have been:

"Inordinate dependance on logic is logical."

You did two reversals.

Skeptic

I cannot speak for all agnostics -- nor would I presume to do so.

I can tell you this about my agnosticism -- I do not know if God exists (or if gods exist) -- I do not know if there are no gods -- and I do not have enough information or evidence available to me to make the kind of guess you are asking me to make.

There is absolutely no way I can say anything about the PROBABILITY that there is a God; are gods; or are no gods. I can say this rather definitively: It is POSSIBLE there is a God -- and it is POSSIBLE there are no gods.

Any guess I would make would be a wild, pulled-out-of-the-air guess. I could (and in fact have) just as easily flip a coin and designate heads to mean I guess there is a God and designate tails to mean I guess there are no gods. But to what avail?

I truly am not sure why you are unable or unwilling to accept that.




I also want to comment on the use of the word "illogical" in some of my posts.

Look, I am not about to pretend that I cannot be agressive, confrontational, and even outright rude when I want to be. But mostly when I am using the word "illogical" I mean it in a fairly benign sense. If I say I consider an argument to be illogical -- I am saying that in my opinion, it does not meet certain minimum standards of logic. It is not meant as an insult; it is meant as an observation.

An example:

You wrote:

Okay, that is your prerogative. You can choose not to believe anything you want not to believe in. The fact that there is no convincing evidence is almost a non sequitur in this instance, but I understand your theme.

But you also wrote:



To which I responded:



That was an argument in logic/illogic that was not meant to be a slap in the face, but just my opinion that your reasoning was not logical -- in other words, illogical.



You wrote:

I honestly don't think I am misinterpreting what you are saying. Please point out an example -- and I will discuss it. And I honestly don't think we are arguing semantics here -- but basic individual philosophy. You are arguing the atheists position and I am arguing the agnostic positiion. They are not really that similar.


You wrote

That is totally wrong, Skeptic. Granted, I know many agnostic atheists -- but I also know many, many agnostic theists. Both groups are totally agnostic -- but the agnostic atheists are guessing there are no gods -- and the agnostic theists are guessing there is a God (of some sort). But both of these groups clearly identify their guesses as guesses -- and stress the agnostic part of their identification.

If you are saying that many agnostics GUESS that the god of the Bible is an absurdity and more than likely does not exist -- then I would agree with you. I know very few agnostic theists who hold that the god of the Bible is anything more than a rather silly myth.

I'll leave the description of atheism to others. But I have written on the subject many times -- and I can at least say this: Atheism does seem to have two general categories of being:

Atheists who say: I do not believe in God.

Atheists who say: I believe there are no gods.

The former never get an argument from me.

The latter often do, because they are expressing a belief -- offering a segment of a belief system -- and I tend to discuss beliefs.


NOTE: Please try to be more accepting of the quotes. I personally hate when someone paraphrases me rather than actually quoting what it is they are arguing against. Earlier you said:


How can I respond reasonably to that?

Quote something where I misinterpreted you -- and I will respond to that.

Quoting is a huge asset -- not a negative.

truth
Dyslexia, that's the most laconic repudiation of the correspondence theory of truth I've heard yet. As I understand it it states that truth propositions are true to the extent that they corresspond with the structure and nature of the physical world. To the extent that they try to "correspond" by means of logic, they do not describe an alogical world. The value of logic, as I understand it, is to keep us from contradicting ourselves, to keep our conclusions from denying our premises, or something like that. Logic is not, strictly speaking, an empirical research tool. It helps only to keep us from contradicting ourselves when we talk about our research designs.

I'm seldom logical but i strive for brevity.

no

Edit:

yes

Frank
Yes, we are mostly on the same page, I think. I was reading your earlier posts as more of an attack than a thoughtful response. Maybe partly my fault. And I do agree quotes can be an asset, or they can be negative, depending on how they are used.
But you did misinterpret at least one thing that I said: I am not unwilling to accept your view on the possibility of God. If you have weighed the evidence and have no opinion I truly respect that. I didnt mean to say that i didnt.
But I think in fairness you should accept my opinion, which is slightly different than yours, but in the same ballpark. I would call myself a weak atheist, but would also accept being called a strong agnostic. I am also not sure whether or not there is a God. But I have looked at alot of evidence (of course subjective evidence, as its really the only kind we can have concerning God) over the years, including the history of how Christianity and other religions began and grew, I have looked at evolutionary biology, physics, astronomy, spirituality, etc. And of course none of these fields offers anything close to a definate answer. But, in my opinion (I use the word opinion instead of "belief" because around here "belief" seems to carry connotations that I do not intent it to ), in my opinion, I see all these subjective evidence together as weighing in favor of the non-existence of God, at least any type of God that i have heard claimed so far. That's only my opinion!!! Therefore, I hold a slightly stronger agnostic view than you. I also think its possible there are no Gods, and possible that there are Gods. But I just go one step further than you and say I lean towards the conclusion of no gods. Surely you can accept that????
Also, you are correct that I mispoke in one of my earlier posts. I said that an agnostic was someone who is not sure about God, but GUESSES that there is no God. I didnt mean that this is how all agnostics are, i'm sorry it came out that way. You are right, there are theist agnostics and non-theist agnostics.
I dont think your thinking is at all illogical. But i dont feel mine is either. If i said "there is definately no God, i can prove it", that would be extremely illogical. But i say nothing remotely like that. I just have an opinion, a studied "guess" based on my view of the evidence. Thats all.
Hopefully this clears things up slightly, and we can view each other as allies in this "illogical" world of strong theists, fundamentalists, and Creationists.
Greg

Basicaly the only thing we got is belief there is no fact so this argument is supperflous and futile you will find your self chasing around in cirlces here....

One persons fact is anothers belief, one person right is another's wrong it's all context and perceptional frame works that we work on.

Each person lives in there version of reality and it is futile to try change some one else's beliefs with "fact" as beliefs are not fact based.

No one's beleif is superior to any body elses just as no person is superior to any body else (although some are more equal then others )

I prefer to remain an uncarved blockhead.

For the purpose of harmony this is true. For the purpose of truth it is false.

what is truth?
who's truth?
your or mine or my neighbours?

Why is truth so important?
And wheres these absolutes?

Beliefs
Actually, I agree with Craven on this one. I think it is an overgeneralization to say that "no ones beliefs are superior to anyone else's.."
Its a very good thing to be teaching our children, but I'm not sure its a statement that bode's well in a theological debate forum. I'm sure I will get much criticism for this, but i'll say it anyway: I feel that anyone who claims they can scientifically prove the existence of God, or anyone who feels that the Bible is "proof" of God and refuses to accept that it MAY have just been writin by man is holding an inferior belief. That kind of thinking is very narrow-minded, biased, and uninformed. It my opinion it is inferior.
Greg

There we go the key and most important word "my opinion" saying that due to your perceptional frame work you find these people to have inferior beliefs...

So in way it's narrow minded to consider your self superior to them. There's no need to think in tersm of black and white table topic logic of who's write and who's wrong does not work, espcially when it comes to beliefs and relgion.

Exactly
Exactly, there is no reason to think in black and white. And thats what fundamentalists are doing! But by saying that there is "no reason" for a certain type of thinking, arent you in effect stating that that type of thinking is inferior?? If you didnt think it was inferior, why would you say there was "no reason" for it??
Thought an observation..
Greg

truth
Skeptic, I must say that your rhetorical style contradicts my earlier impression of you. It is now something that encourages me to give serious consideration to your arguments. Happy to say so.
Cav. I prefer to remain a CARVED blockhead--so long as I can do the carving.
Oh, and I agree with Skeptic's and Craven's response to Tagged's well -intentioned gesture toward cultural and interpersonal relativism. Tagged, your statement is made in an excessively strong form. Watered down a bit, it might be more palatable. But I feel STRONGLY that Paul Tillich's Christian perspective is superior to that of Pat Robertson. But then, again, I am agreeing with Tagged to the extent that I am acknowledging my views as having no objective foundation, only a strong subjective one. And that's an objective fact.