Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

jl and I are in accord on this point.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

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.

If you make claims without any supporting evidence in a court of law, you're going to lose. I'd agree that absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence, but you know very well the impossibility of disproving something once people have put it outside the realm of science or even understanding. Therefore, my personal feeling is that a total lack of evidence on both sides does more to hurt the theist's claim than the atheist's. It is illogical to say that zero evidence supporting a particular idea still lends it 50/50 odds of being true.

Since you object so strongly to your agnosticism being compared to having an open-minded belief in Santa, how 'bout we compare it to a widely held religious belief. I'm interested to see if you'll hold yourself to the same order of staying open-minded on this one until someone out-&-out proves it one way or the other...

10,000 cultists believe heaven is an enormous spiritual golden pyramid city somehow inside the moon.

Can you provide 5 pieces of evidence that this is not so beyond all shadow of a doubt? (Three? -- One?)

If you are able to provide unambiguous evidence in either direction I'd be very interested, as I could then turn around & present your case to my family who believe this tripe. I think it's impossible to provide such evidence, but I also think it's illogical to be open-minded to the possibility that there may be billions of people living in the moon when there is no evidence whatsoever to support that. The fact that there is also no proof against it isn't gonna change my mind on this point.

Applying your argument for/against god/s, the way I understand it thus far, to other widely held beliefs that're also based on no evidence would result in me responding to this claim with something along the following lines: "Since there is no proof for or against your belief, I think you are being illogical in saying that heaven is definitely a city inside the moon, and furthermore I believe anyone who says there's definitely no heavenly city in the moon is just as illogical as you. While I have no particular reason to believe this, it would be illogical for me to say otherwise because no one knows the nature of reality."

I'd support a theist's argument before I supported that one, Frank, but if you find logic in that statement please explain it to me. If you feel it is an unfair comparison to a belief in god/s (I'm guessing you will), please explain a legitimate difference.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

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.

Well said, JLN!

0 Replies

I too agree with JLN. I am void of consideration there may be a god.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

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

I'd like to second that, c.i., if i am an atheist, it is because i am so described by others, it is a term which has no relevance to my view of the cosmos we inhabit.

0 Replies

Seems I'm on the same wavelength as several people here. Thanks for the clarification JLN. Smile

0 Replies

Yes
Monger wrote:

Quote:

If you make claims without any supporting evidence in a court of law, you're going to lose. I'd agree that absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence, but you know very well the impossibility of disproving something once people have put it outside the realm of science or even understanding. Therefore, my personal feeling is that a total lack of evidence on both sides does more to hurt the theist's claim than the atheist's. It is illogical to say that zero evidence supporting a particular idea still lends it 50/50 odds of being true

WELL SAID.....it is exactly what I was trying to say to Frank earlier, but I did not word it as well as you.

It is illogical to lead any credance to claims with no evidence. An incredible claim with no evidence is more likely to be false than true.

We have to have opinions and weigh statements in life to make decisions about what we think is likely to be true. Otherwise chaos would result, people would have no opinions and we would believe all things equally. Going thru life necessarily includes forming opinions and beliefs about things which we can not KNOW FOR SURE. Its not illogical to make these judgements.
I think this is where Frank's argument goes too far and becomes illogical itself.
Greg.

Greg

0 Replies

Actually, the bible isn't a valid argument for g-d. It's a circular argument. Bible proves g-d exists, g-d proves the bible isn't false with no outside sources. This is why christians are so keen on finding historical evidence corresponding with the bible (of course, this doesn't make the entire thing true, think illiad.)

Did you read my last post Greg? It was directed at you. About santa claus. Also, you seem mistaken in "logic." I think you are thinking of reasoning, which may or may not be logical. Logic needs evidence, like science, with a basis. If somthing is logical it cannot by definition be incorrect or it is illogical. Logic statements deal in exactitudes, to which there can be no exceptions. You may enjoy a mind/body philosophy class.

0 Replies

Portal star wrote:

Quote:

If somthing is logical it cannot by definition be incorrect or it is illogical

Not true. Logic does not necessarily equate with truth. It just a means of searching for truth. Its not an absolute.

Portal star wrote:

Quote:

Logic needs evidence, like science, with a basis

Close. But not quite true. Logic needs evidence at its starting point. The subsequent steps in a logical process do not need physical evidence. They can run on pure reasoning. That is what defines logic.

But i do agree with you that the bible is circular. It is POOR evidence for the existence of a God. I admitted that before. Unfortunately POOR evidence is still a piece of evidence...whether we like it or not.

Greg

0 Replies

To "passive atheists".

Whereas I agree with your "non-impingement" sentiments most of the time at the interpersonal level, is there not an argument at the macro-level which says we have a duty to oppose the worst excesses of "religion" ? As an educationalist for example I am dismayed at the early social separation of children on religious (=tribal) grounds.

Because we now live in a world where tribalism is under threat from the converging technologies of globalism perhaps there is a case for preparing the ground for the inevitable transition instead of suffering the irrational backlash from those who correctly see their parochial worldviews and social structures under siege. Such preparation would not to be the simplistic substitution of one ideology for another, as in the failed state atheism of communism, but perhaps to make it mandatory for schools to teach children both the advantages and disadvantages of any "religious faiths". I would further argue that a parent should have no "right" of withdrawal of "their child" from such teaching which essesentially puts "the right to faith" in the same camp as "the right to smoke" vis a vis "world health".

The deeper philosophical issues of course revolve around "self identity" and "parental rights" and this is where our passivity insulates us from potential minefields!

0 Replies

fresco
When I see wrondoing by the religious over others I act out as I would confronting any other criminal behavior. By saying "passive" I mean I don't preach atheism. That doesn't mean I fail to stand up to the excesses you mentioned.

0 Replies

Hmm....I think that the truth of things lies in the details, no matter how silly. For example, a theist could very well become an atheist. Wordplay, yes, but still indicative of a movement from one belief to another, captured very logically in our beautiful language. I think we need to think beyond what we feel about religion or non-religion in general if we are all to get along down the road.

0 Replies

skeptic wrote:

Portal star wrote:

Quote:
If somthing is logical it cannot by definition be incorrect or it is illogical

Not true. Logic does not necessarily equate with truth. It just a means of searching for truth. Its not an absolute.

log·i·cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lj-kl)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
2. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year.
3. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.

The use of logic can be incorrect, but a logical statement becomes illogical when it is contradicted. Thus, for a statement to be logical it must hold no contradictions, in which case it is true.

So, you could have reasoned using logic:
The sky appears blue
my pants appear blue
therefore my pants have the same material as the sky

but form an illogical statement.
It only becomes logical when it is correct:

The sky appears blue
My pants appear blue
light wave patterns affect color perception
Therefore the light must be effecting my color perception in a similar way on blue objects.

That statement is logical, unless it is proven wrong, making it illogical.

skeptic wrote:

Portal star wrote:

Quote:
Logic needs evidence, like science, with a basis

Close. But not quite true. Logic needs evidence at its starting point. The subsequent steps in a logical process do not need physical evidence. They can run on pure reasoning. That is what defines logic.

But i do agree with you that the bible is circular. It is POOR evidence for the existence of a God. I admitted that before. Unfortunately POOR evidence is still a piece of evidence...whether we like it or not.

Greg

Yes, not all of the steps need observation. But you need to start with observation (evidence).
It's widely acknowledged by both dualists and materialists that the bible is a circluar argument. However, to defend the bible, dualists say that circular arguments are valid sumbission of evidence (which they aren't, they only speak of the nature of the understanding.

0 Replies

There has been interesting program on our local NPR talk radio station today, so i've started a new thread. I invite the "warriors" of this thread to stop by for some R & R, if they think they might be interested in a topic entitled:

spiritual but not religious[/color]

0 Replies

Re: Yes

skeptic wrote:

It is illogical to lead any credance to claims with no evidence. An incredible claim with no evidence is more likely to be false than true.

We have to have opinions and weigh statements in life to make decisions about what we think is likely to be true. Otherwise chaos would result, people would have no opinions and we would believe all things equally. Going thru life necessarily includes forming opinions and beliefs about things which we can not KNOW FOR SURE. Its not illogical to make these judgements.
I think this is where Frank's argument goes too far and becomes illogical itself.
Greg.

Well, perhaps by responding to these comments, I will be responding to the many excellent comments of the others who are involved here.

I'll try to make this short, but this issue does not lend itself to brevity.

Quote:

It is illogical to lead any credance to claims with no evidence.

I could not agree more --and since I personally see NO evidence backing up the contention "There is a God" -- I give that assertion no credance.

Likewise, since I personally see NO evidence backing up the contention "There are no gods" -- I give that assertion no credance.

Some atheists (not all) seem to think that because the former is true -- they can logically assert the latter.

I think that is illogical -- and I think "not asserting the latter" is not equivalent to "lending credence to the former."

I honestly do not know how to explain that any better.

Let me repeat some things I have stated several times in this thread already:

Any atheist who avers that theists haven't got a leg to stand on will never get an argument on that score from me.

Any atheist who argues that the theological components of the Bible seems to more likely to be fiction than fact -- will never get an argument on that score from me.

What I will challenge -- and in fact have challenged in this thread -- is the flat assertion that there are no gods.

In my opinion, it is no more logical for an atheist to assert that THE REALITY is that there are no gods -- than for a theist to assert THE REALITY is that there is a God.

We simply do not know what THE REALITY is.

It occurs to me at this point that perhaps a question is in order at this moment:

What specificially do you folks see as wrong-headed or illogical about that take on things?

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

Quote:

I too agree with JLN. I am void of consideration there may be a god.

I would appear that your participation in this thread contradicts your statement above.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Quote:

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.

0 Replies

Logic
Portal, you sound like someone who is currently taking an introduction to philosophy course. Very Happy

You shouldn't see things in such black and white. The definition you posted actually proved MY point:

Quote:

log·i·cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lj-kl)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
2. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year.
3. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.

Look at number two. Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year. Yes, but if by chance it did not rain that day, that doesnt make your previous reasoning illogical....it was still the logical expectation...its just that the unlikely occured.
If I flip a coin 100 times, it is logical for me to assume that all 100 flips will NOT turn up heads. But, if by rare change, they all did come up heads, that wouldnt have made my reasoning illogical. Its the OCCURANCE that was against the odds, not the logic. The logic is still fine.

Its fairly obvious that reasoning does not have to be correct to be logical.

Ask your philosophy teacher, he will tell you. Very Happy

Greg

0 Replies

Frank,

Anyone who claims it's false to say there's proof god/s don't exist will get no argument on that score from me. (As I've said before though, that fact alone gives precious little reason to believe god/s may exist.)

I have less of a problem with your explanation here than I did with some of your previous posts.

What I do have a problem with is arguments implying that the ideas that god(s) exist or not are somehow equally logical/reasonable/plausible.

frank apisa wrote:

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.

One last thing.. I'd appreciate your opinion on some questions of mine. Right before you posted your latest I'd gone to edit my last post in order to add 2 requests on the end. Since you probably haven't seen the adjustment I'll repost it here...

monger wrote:

Applying your argument for/against god/s, the way I understand it thus far, to other widely held beliefs that're also based on no evidence would result in me responding to this claim with something along the following lines: "Since there is no proof for or against your belief, I think you are being illogical in saying that heaven is definitely a city inside the moon, and furthermore I believe anyone who says there's definitely no heavenly city in the moon is just as illogical as you. While I have no particular reason to believe this, it would be illogical for me to say otherwise because no one knows the nature of reality."

I'd support a theist's argument before I supported that one, Frank, but if you find logic in that statement please explain it to me. If you feel it is an unfair comparison to a belief in god/s (I'm guessing you will), please explain a legitimate difference.

I'll try to make my objection as clear-cut as possible... While I have no problem with the fact that I can't prove there couldn't be billions of spirits in a city inside the moon, I believe that saying the idea has plausibility is very illogical.

I apply the same reasoning to a belief in deities.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

Any atheist who avers that theists haven't got a leg to stand on will never get an argument on that score from me.

Any atheist who argues that the theological components of the Bible seems to more likely to be fiction than fact -- will never get an argument on that score from me.

What I will challenge -- and in fact have challenged in this thread -- is the flat assertion that there are no gods.

In my opinion, it is no more logical for an atheist to assert that THE REALITY is that there are no gods -- than for a theist to assert THE REALITY is that there is a God.

We simply do not know what THE REALITY is.

It occurs to me at this point that perhaps a question is in order at this moment:

What specificially do you folks see as wrong-headed or illogical about that take on things?

I think it is too generalized Frank, the latter part that is.

One individual simply cannot say as you constantly do, We simply do not know what THE REALITY is. to me, it makes no sense to me, to my understandings etc.

0 Replies

Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know