Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

truth
Fresco, it's good to see you back. My sensibilities are not really what are at stake here, it is the quality of discussion that is. The aggression in some posts seems to have set some good minds off the track of constructive (in favor of combative) thinking. If I thought that the use of aggressive gestures and insults would advance the quality of our discussions I'd be all for it--God damn it!

JLN, once again, you are correct. My very statement was already making value judgements....hmm...I still like to think of myself as a somewhat selfish humanist. I have no problem bending definitions. I am quite mutable that way. As for god, not interested, and not an atheist either.

truth
Cav, still, your point(s) were not without merit and interest.

cav, You're absolutely correct. Atheist is only a label like catholic or protestant. Who needs it?

JLN

Point taken...though I'm not certain that "religion" can ever be "debated" in a depersonalized mode.
...and this is all pretty tame compared to the alleged incident of Wittgenstein threatening Popper with a poker !

Well...let me put it this way: It is true, one's philosophy, personality, upbringing, socialization does influence one's treatment of others. For me, working as a private caterer, I have learned to read people's personality, philosophy, upbringing, and tastes quite well. It makes me feel strange and sympathetic sometimes, but catering is catering, and learning to read people, and reply in a manner appropriate to their tastes is a true trick of the trade. :wink:

truth
Yes, Cav, an important "trick" of any trade.
Fresco, wasn't Wittgenstien's Poker great? Have you also read The Cambridge Quintet?

JLN....is it a "trick", or just a development of benign sensitivity to others through honest work? I would vote for the latter.

Greg you make a mistake arguing about Jesus and christianity. The concept of g-d is not the same as individual dieties. This is why the santa claus analogy doesn't work. Santa claus, and for example, Jesus and Isis have ascribed physical traits and world presences. They may be proved non-existent if these physical traits or presences are proved non-existent, in theory if we gathered enough evidence, we could logically conclude that Jesus, Santa Claus, and Isis, did/do not exist.

The concept of g-d

1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.


Is superfluous, and avoids physical description. Somthing supernatural, immaterial, etc. In some definitions, g-ds are not responsible for the creation of earth. Think historically. G-d as a concept has no physical qualities or traits, is immaterial, un observable, and therefore unlike santa claus or individual dieties.

Re: Frank


I hereby present the theists arguments that go to the question: What evidence do you have that God exists?

I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God or any gods.

None whatsoever.

Nada.

Nothing.

But I am interested that you think you have evidence that goes to the question: What evidence do you have that there are no gods.

I'd like to discuss that now if we could?

I have indeed seen theists attempt to "pin the religion label to the atheist", Edgar, but to be honest, I have never personally seen an agnostic do that.

I'll take your word for the fact that you have -- and I will agree with you without reservation, that doing so -- whether by theist or agnostic -- is pure, unmitigated bullshit.

Atheism is not a religion by any stretch of the imagination -- and I have argued that point (with theists) at great, great length in Internet forums. It is not a notion that comes up infrequently!



Bottom line, though, Edgar, your great pride in atheism is, in my opinion, misplaced.

It is not a religion -- but it sure as hell is a belief system -- and when defended by the like of some in this thread -- is a belief system far too wedded to much too little of substance.

There are some, Edgar, who deal with their atheism in a way that is so reminiscent of a theist torturing logic to defend theism - it jars the mind when observed. And the similarities between the way the two diametrically opposed philosophies handle challenges to their orthodoxy -- is hilarious. Hilarious!

Too bad it is hidden from so many of you atheists; I really would love to have you enjoy it with me.

In any case, your attempt to distance yourself from theists and agnostics with this word "disbelieve" was inspired -- but you get no cigar.

Your "disbelief" is still nothing more than belief, just in a different direction.

You atheists and your theists brothers and sisters are to the very core -- believers -- albeit believers in vastly different things.

And you both seem to resent those of us who disdain that kind of nonsense.

The agnostics stand alone with the truth being accented: "I don't know!"

You guys don't either.

You atheists don't and neither do the theists.

Some of you actually acknowledge that. But all of you want to emphasis your guesses rather than the acknowledgement of ignorance -- and then compound the deed by trying to make that seem more logical and more honest than simply standing back.

Even more laughs hidden from view!


FINAL THOUGHT:

No -- what I espouse and comment on so frequently is not a belief system.



Peace, Edgar.

Merry-go-round anyone?

I like the carousel music

Evidence
Frank,
i am interested to hear your statement that there is NO evidence for the existence of God. But let me ask you this....if there was truly NO evidence, why would we even be arguing about it???
I agree, its not GREAT evidence, far from being proof in either direction, but its still evidence, however weak it is.
The Bible IS evidence for God. Before you laugh at that statement, try to understand what i mean. Extremely weak evidence is still evidence. Of course on my personal opinion the Bible is nothing more than a book, written by man. I think's its very POOR evidence and has countless flaws but its still evidence. In the same way that explaining that the earth likely formed by natural causes is also evidence. Not strong evidence, but evidence nontheless.
Obviously the idea of a God in itself is an unfalsifiable concept. Believe me, I already know this. But arguing some of the concepts that relate to God, such as creation, evolution, organized religions, logic, etc, is the only way we can argue evidence for God. By definition we must argue INDIRECTLY....
In a court of law, when someone is charged with murder....the fact that he purchased a train ticket to the town where the murder occured that same night, is EVIDENCE against him. It doesnt prove anything, but its' still a piece of EVIDENCE. Just as what i presented in my argument were pieces of evidence.
The reduction of God to an independant, unfalsifiable entity is, in my opinion, more evidence against him.
Greg

So, agnosticism is not a "belief." It just is.

Edgar has "great pride in atheism?" Is that right, edgar?

I would not have described it thusly. Outside of this site, I don't really talk about my thoughts on the subject. If I were like O'Hare or even Frank, I suppose I could be said to have this "great pride" he speaks of.

truth
Cav, I don't think it's a "trick"; it is a skill, a sensitivity, granted. I was just repeating your usage.

truth
Frank, it's not only because I have no evidence for the existence or non-existence of god(s) that I prefer to call myself an (passive) atheist. It is because NOBODY has any evidence. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned there is neither a god nor a no-god. I would call myself an active atheist if I had evidence that there is no god, but I do not. But as far as I'm concerned that is no reason to call myself an agnostic, suggesting that I'm open to the possibility of the existence of a god. There's no reason to even consider that possibility. You, remember, I hope, my distinction between passive and active atheism.

truth
Frank, I do agree with you that atheism--the "active" kind--is a belief system, indeed, the other side of the coin containing theism. I have noted elsewhere that the arguments advanced by active atheists, evangelical atheists, have the same faults as do the arguments of theists, at least fundamentalist theists. I believe that active atheists are also operating at the same "dumb" level as fundamentalist theists.
I believe, however, that the atheism of many people here, including Edgar, is "passive" atheism, like mine (they can correct me on this): the arguments for theism just don't make sense to me, so I turn away from them. THIS "passive" atheism is no belief system. It's just rejecting what is senseless, not because it contradicts my belief system.