Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

It doesn't even have to be "unambiguous evidence." It can be "any evidence."

ci, ambiguous evidence is very easy to provide. believer's are not in short supply of the stuff

No, no I am a materialist and definately do not believe in the existance of g-d or the supernatural, however, for logical reasons I am an agnositc, I acknowledge that without any potential for proof, there can be no clear decision on the matter. This is not that I believe in g-d, just that it would be illogical to say that g-d doesn't exist.

I grew up writing it g-d and it just feels weird the other way. You know, slap on the wrist in sunday school kind of thing. I don't think I'll get smited down, except perhaps by my mother.

Yes, I do, Monger.

But that does not mean that since unambiguous evidence cannot be found -- it is okay to make guesses and pretend they are more than merely guesses.

I have absolutely no problem with people who make guesses -- but I do tend to respond to people who profer their guesses as knowledge -- as you-know-who has done several times in this thread.

The evidence for or against the existence of gods simply is not there.

Why not leave it at that -- rather than making guesses that really are no better than can be derived from tossing a coin -- and then arguing that those guesses make a lot of sense.


Do you honestly not see where I'm coming from on this?

I do see where you're coming from, Frank.

I'll agree with you that it's a perfectly logical viewpoint.

But there is quite a difference between insisting on not ruling god out because there's good reason to believe she exists (as theists undoubtedly do), and insisting on not ruling god out simply because it's impossible to prove she doesn't exist.

Your insistence on people accepting the agnostic viewpoint as the most logical one without ever providing reason to assume god may exist in the first place is what makes your argument here seem a bit tedious to me, not the fact that you are stating, correctly, that someone cannot prove god ain't out there.

It is just as impossible to prove that giant immaterial bunnies or any number of other imaginary things aren't out there. That in itself will never lend such an idea any good reason whatsoever to stay open-minded about it.

Those are my assumptions.

Frank's quote: "The evidence for or against the existence of gods simply is not there." One has to have "faith" to believe there is a god. To the extent that many believe in god(s) is not "evidence." To argue that "evidence for or against the existence of gods simply is not there" is a fallacy. In our world, it's either there or not there. Our "reality" can't assume things to exist just because we cannot produce 'evidence.' One can have faith that Harvey exists, but in our world, it cannot be part of "truth."

truth
I think Frank has been perceived as "fence sitting" not because he says there is not enough unambiguous evidence for or against the proposition for God's existence, i.e., he does not accept either proposition. It is because he has said, I believe, that there is just as much likelihood that there IS as that there IS NOT a God.
I would not argue--nor would he--that the evidence suggests that it is just as likely that there IS a Santa Claus as that there IS NOT a Santa Claus. (pardon my construction) This is not because of the issue of logical or empirical "proof" but because of our knowledge of how parental society has conspired to present childhood society with a "pleasant myth". If we look at the history and anthropology of religion in many societies we come to understand how and why religions emerge, their functional value for society. We see how they have been invented to serve functional ends. This knowledge tends to generate in us an emprically grounded belief that there are no gods, only useful inventions of God and gods. This is more than a guess (perhaps an educated guess?)

Frankly, I am not insisting at all -- but that is besides the point. In any case, I definitely am NOT "insisting on not ruling god out simply because it's impossible to prove that she doesn't exist."

If I am insisting on anything, I am insisting on not ruling out the possibility of God or gods existing BECAUSE IT IS ILLOGICAL TO DO SO.

There is absolutely nothing upon which to base such an assertion -- and that has nothing to do with the inability of theists to PROVE -- or even give evidence of -- the existence of a God.

It simply is illogical to do it.

So your assertion that somehow I am insisting on not ruling god out simply because it's impossible to prove that she doesn't exist -- is a strawman.




I have NOT said that someone cannot prove god ain't out there. I don't think people can prove either way on this issue -- but I make a point of not dealing with questions of proof in either direction.

As for "providing reason to assume god would exist" -- well, all I can say is that I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE NATURE OF REALITY IS.

All I can do is to make gusesses about what could possibly explain existence -- and, after acknowledging that the actual explanation may be so foreign to what I am able to even imagine -- deal with those items that could account for it.

Existence -- reality -- MAY always have existed in and of itself with absolutely no spiritual component whatsoever. The physical space; time; all the components of existence MAY ALWAYS HAVE EXISTED and will always continue to exist -- WITH NO SPIRITUAL OR METAPHYSICAL component at all.

Many, many people who have lived and are still living consider that POSSIBILITY to be the most reasonable and most probable of any that can be considered or imagined.

I am sure you have no problem with that concept.

But can you not see that one of the other POSSIBILITIES is that a God (or gods) existed in purely spiritual form for all of eternity -- and at some point the God (or gods) decided to create substance -- of which we and our universe are a part -- AND THAT IS THE REALITY.

Many, many people who have lived and are still living consider that POSSIBILITY to be the most reasonable and most probable of any that can be considered or imagined.

Beats the piss out of me if either of those factions are correct -- or if neither is correct. Beats the piss out of me if THE REALITY is either of those possibilities -- or is something so remote and unimaginable that none of us puny humans could possibly fathom.

Why, Monger, do you consider it reasonable and logical to completely eliminate one of the possibilities? Why do you treat one of the possibilities so dismissively as to suggest that there is no reason to even assume the possibility of God or gods existing?

With as much respect as possible considering what I am about to say -- your position on this is totally illogical.

AND ineffective. I argue even counterproductive.

Listen to what Skeptic has said so often about banding together to fight the excesses and dangers of theism.

In my opinion, the only reasonable, logical, and effective way to fight the excesses and dangers of theism is by using agnostic arguments --NOT ATHEISTIC ARGUMENTS.

They are saying "I believe there is a God." Atheists are saying "I believe there are no gods."

Terrific argument! Sounds like the kind of thing David and Ricky Nelson use to go through on the Nelson Family radio show.

But the agnostic argument is different. It, unlike much of atheism, does not share the same logical flaws as religion.

Oh horseshit . . . religionist are asking that we believe something absent evidence--atheists are saying that they don't believe it, absent evidents, those are not polar equivalents.

Saying "Many, many people who have lived and are still living consider..." adds nothing to a claim.

You go right ahead and believe it's conclusively illogical to disagree with groups of people who make claims with no evidence to support them. We part ways there.

Monger, You got that right!

No, Setanta.

Some atheists are indeed saying "We do not believe it!"

But you are going a step further and saying "Gods do not exist."

That is quite different -- and you either do not have the intellectual ability to understand that -- or the ethical standards necessary to acknowledge it.

God
I dont think that the problem is a lack of evidence against the existence of God. It's a lack of DEFINITIVE evidence. It one could gather ALL the evidence against intelligent design (i.e God) and all the evidence for it, I think this evidence can be quantified and qualified and that when put on a scale, it would weigh in favor of the NON-existence of God. If fact, heavily in favor. Of course this proves nothing. But it's strong enough support for me to choose to make an educated guess about the existence of God. This is where Frank and I disagree. Frank implies that it is a blind Guess in the wind, where i say not true....it may be a guess, but its a well educated one. The same way I can "guess" that there is no Santa Claus.
Greg

The "Santa Claus" analogy that has been bandied about in this thread by atheists is a joke.

In order for it to have an analogous relationship to the atheistic position on the possible existence of God or gods, it would have to read like this:

I see no evidence for the existence of Santa Claus, so I reject the possibility of the existence of Santa and I also conclude it is impossible for anyone to be anonymously giving presents to kids at Christmas except for relatives and friends of those kids.

Folks, whether or not there is a Santa Claus has absolutely nothing to do with the blanket statement that there can be no anonymous benefactors of children at Christmas giving presents.

As an analogy, atheists like Setanta are saying that since there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of the gods presently worshipped -- that is evidence that there are no gods.

That is illogical -- and one hell of a lot more illogical than all the "illogical" charges that have been sent my way in this thread.

Fact is, to an impartial observer, atheists act just like theists when their belief systems are challenged. They hunker down; get heated; and start with absurd rationalizations.

Atheism, like theism, is untenable -- and people on either side who allow themselves to go into denial rather than face up to that fact -- are doomed to argue illogically.

But, in keeping with my philosophy of "something good comes of everything" -- I thank you atheists for continuing this discussion with me. One of the charges your mirror brothers and sisters over on the theistic side often charge me with is: You are a closet atheist, Frank, because you always argue against theism, but never against atheism.

Now I've got a link I can send them to.

Santa
The Santa Claus analogy may have started as a joke, but I think it is a logical analogy, even without going into too much detail about presents, etc. Santa Claus is a figure, such as God, in which there is no definitive proof. But there are arguments for and against him. Of course the arguments against him are greater than the arguments against God...but it still holds as a rational analogy.
Again, I want to point out that there are different types of atheists. There are the type who say "there is no God(s)" and there are the type who say "i'm skeptical...after weighing the evidence I am going to doubt the existence of God, but no one can know for sure"...that type is me.
Call me whatever you want...atheist, agnostic, i dont care. But calling all atheists illogical is too general a statement.
Greg

Re: Santa


Perhaps you will point out where I called ALL atheists illogical.

Frank

This is both logical and epistemological tripe !

From the logical point of view, the logical operator IF/THEN as in: IF"evidence"THEN "belief" has no symmetrical corollary with: IF "no evidence" THEN "no belief". Atheists go for the entirely separate proposition of "evidence" for "non-belief" as in "the holocaust" implying"no benign deity".

From the epistemological point of view, neither "existence" nor "knowledge" can be satisfactorally defined without assuming a "static objective reality". Such an assumption has largely been superceded in physics and other sciences by a consideration of the dynamic relationship between the observer and the observed. (I will not labour the point here.)

The agnostic position of "not knowing" is simply a statement of their entrenchment in a simplistic concept of "knowledge".

You stay in your trench Frank and we'll allow you to hurl the odd insult at the "unsporting" enemy who nip round the side or fly their jets over the top !

Skeptic

You wrote:



I challenge you on that.

It is my opinion that the only real arguments I have heard from anyone in this thread against the existence of gods are variations on: There is no evidence that gods exist.

In other words, the atheists arguing here seem content to say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence - absence of evidence that gods exist is evidence that they do not exist.

Very, very illogical.

Since I think most of us can agree that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence -- let us leave that single argument (and its variations) out of the equation.

I'd like you to follow up on the statement I quoted above and present your five most compelling pieces of evidence that there are no gods -- and since there apparently are no theists here anymore, I will attempt to produce five comparable pieces of evidence that there are gods.

Then we will weigh both sides and see which way the scale falls.

Oh...by the way, if you don't want to give all five at one time -- just give the best three.

We can still evaluate them and weigh them and see if the scales show your arguments outweigh, perhaps even "heavily" outweigh, the arguments in favor of no gods.

I think it will be interesting.

One last thing.

If you really don't want to submit three pieces of evidence - we can work with just one.

So if you choose, you can submit just one piece of evidence for consideration - so long as it is not a variation on "There is no evidence the other way."

The we will discuss it for as long as is necessary.

I think we'll have fun with this.

Thank you for sharing, Fresco.

I hope next time, you actually have something to say.

No Frank, you're playing a word game, and using it to support your claims to a superior logical understanding and ethical position, a truly disgusting performance. Your thesis only holds up on a strawman basis of putting a statement into the mouths of atheists. Precisely like the ludicrous example you provide above of the Santa Claus analogy. The ability to play a rhetorical game is not evidence of logical superiority; the conclusions draw from that word game are not evidence of ethical superiority. Your crapola would be less crappy if you'd refrained from investing it with so much egotistical crowing.

I state that there are no gods or goddesses because the idea is predicated upon a transparently fallacious premise, for which there is no evidence. That is precisely the same basis for denying the existence of Santa Claus and Easter Bunny. Your wording puts the atheist in the position of making a claim which requires proving that something does not exist--convenient to your argument, but a specious statement of what the atheist has said.

You'd do much better in these conversations if you dismounted your high horse first.