Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

I voted, that I believe in God. Does anyone else believe in God? Cool

0 Replies

I get emails from friends from all over the world that are religious in nature more often than I like, but what can we do when most believe in a god? Those chain letters are the ones that I detest the most. Wink

c.i.

0 Replies

My problem is that if someone accepts an incorrect view as fact, it can corrupt their other logical conclusions. I think that's part of the problem the Greek philosophers had in their discussions, most accepted peganism as fact, and used that as a basis for argument.
I have no problem with one's personal beliefs, and encourage people to have their own beliefs. However, these beliefs, if not backed by fact, have no place to act as fact in logical places such as science and philosophy.

0 Replies

I am an atheist. Even if you could prove to your own satisfaction that my position is unsupportable, I would remain an atheist. There is simply no rationale that supports belief in a god. God is an invention of the mind to explain what early man could not know. Man being a territorial animal, religion built a territory in the human imagination before we had enough knowledge of things. Now the religious defend their "territory" just as hard as a nation defends against foreign invaders. That is not my problem and I have no sympathy.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Portal,

My argument was that YOU don't know your sex, not me.

Sure you can poke around but can you be sure? How do you know that a higher power is not playing a cruel joke on you and making you see and feel genitalia that nobody else does?

When you allow burden of proof to be ignored, allow supernatural forces to be introduced without proof, and require certainty the result is that anything can be argued into "don't know".

You are using a non-materialist argument. Non-materialism is a pretty out there view. We as humans base all our knowledge and experience on our senses. I could test that my genetalia were the same as I viewed them, by having other humans observe (say, if I was hallucinating this would confirm I was incorrect), or by indirect observation (through photographs or camera). If somehow my genetalia did physically change, than I would have physically changed my sex. I don't see how this relates to the g-d argument, unless you're arguing that the world is im-material.

What is the burden of proof? There is no burden of proof for the existence or non-existence of g-d because it is defined as immaterial. I didn't argue that g-d was a supernatural force, the dictionary listed it as such.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

I could test that my genetalia were the same as I viewed them, but having other humans observe, or by indirect observation (through photographs or camera).

Sure you could, but remember that god that I told you was making you see certain genitalia that is different from what is really there? He is also doing that to photographs of your genitalia and to what you hear described about your genitalia as well. :-)

That is just one crude example. Here is another one:

Prove to me that we are not living in "The Matrix". That our lives are not just a big delusion.

I can use lateral thinking to make that impossible to prove.

The bottom line is that we can be certain of nothing except what we don't know. You think you will die but maybe you will be the first human to never die.

We don't "know" anything with certainty, but for practical purposes we must make educated guesses. Yes, there is no way to be certain that there is or is not a god either. But there is no way to be 100% certain about who your father is either. That doesn't mean you should call him "Dad?".

0 Replies

Re: Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

New Haven wrote:

Quote:
Portal Star"]I had this debate on another forum http://www.terminalpacketloss.com, but would like to bring it here
.

What is the purpose of this "proof"?

In case you wanted to access the other debate/ post on their forum about it. It went a little diffrerently.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

" I could test that my genetalia were the same as I viewed them, but having other humans observe, or by indirect observation (through photographs or camera)."

Sure you could, but remember that god that I told you was making you see certain genitalia that is different from what is really there? He is also doing that to photographs of your genitalia and to what you hear described about your genitalia as well. :-)

That is just one crude example. Here is another one:

Prove to me that we are not living in "The Matrix". That our lives are not just a big delusion.

I can use lateral thinking to make that impossible to prove.

The bottom line is that we can be certain of nothing except what we don't know. You think you will die but maybe you will be the first human to never die.

We don't "know" anything with certainty, but for practical purposes we must make educated guesses. Yes, there is no way to be certain that there is or is not a god either. But there is no way to be 100% certain about who your father is either. That doesn't mean you should call him "Dad?".

you're using an immaterial view which is a pretty incredible view. There are educated philosophers who hold immaterial views. They cannot be proven wrong because it is a self-centered view- others are immaterial so their viewpoints are not valid. This could be somthing seen as all in you head or a matrix-like scenario. However, I feel that this is a pretty outlandish view, as certain properties hold true throughout the universe that we have observed, and if I leave a room things are still there in the room, doing things without my knowledge or consent.
I believe that I will die because I am human, and all humans I know of die. It doesn't mean that it's not possible for me to live forever, but it's not probabable.

If you believe there is no way to be certain that there is or is not a god, then I assume you agree with my original argument, that agnosticism is the logical choice. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I am an atheist. Even if you could prove to your own satisfaction that my position is unsupportable, I would remain an atheist. There is simply no rationale that supports belief in a god. God is an invention of the mind to explain what early man could not know. Man being a territorial animal, religion built a territory in the human imagination before we had enough knowledge of things. Now the religious defend their "territory" just as hard as a nation defends against foreign invaders. That is not my problem and I have no sympathy.

I personally don't believe in the credibility of, say, Jesus or Muhammed or Zeus who have been labeled as "god." But, the definition of g-d is so open-ended, logically g-d could be to us like a cell in the thumb is to a human. The cell is not aware of the entire human, and yet it is a part of it. In that way, we could be labeled as g-d to the cell. And, if g-d is immaterial, there would never be any evidence either way.

How can you logically disagree with somthing you cannot define?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Not trying to be petty, here, Portal, but if you truly intend to try to prove what you say you will -- you really would be better off spelling the word "prove" correctly. You've misspelled it several times.

Thank you. I will try to be more careful. As you seem to have noticed, spelling is one of my weaker points.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I usually handle this by indicating what I mean when I use the words "agnostic" and "agnosticism" -- which at least clears the table for the duration of any discussion involved.

well, the only problem with that is that if you can create your own definitions, so can anyone else, and it gets awfully confusing.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The use of the word "believes" in that context is unnecessary -- and illogical.
portal: why?
Frank:
Theists "believe" such and such.
Atheists "believe" such and such.

It makes no sense to assert the superiority of agnosticism -- but to define agnosticism in terms of what one "believes."

Better to simply state: I do not know the answers to Ultimate Questions -- such as Is there a God or are there no gods -- and I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess in either direction.

what makes that different than a belief?

Frank Apisa wrote:

See my response up above. The moment a "belief" is asserted, we have left the province of agnosticism -- and are simply guessing or believing differently from theists and atheists.

I don't think the word belief assumes that there is knowledge behind it. I think it's just a positive statement about your mental feelings towards a subject. But I think I see what you mean. I can see where that gets a little sticky, but it's easier to follow mentally than "I know I don't know about knowing....".

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I usually handle this by indicating what I mean when I use the words "agnostic" and "agnosticism" -- which at least clears the table for the duration of any discussion involved.

well, the only problem with that is that if you can create your own definitions, so can anyone else, and it gets awfully confusing.

Not really. You are not creating your own definition -- you are merely telling people what you mean when you use a word.

The is analagous to telling people at a bridge table what your conventions will be -- so that everyone knows.

It is not the problem that you think it is.

In any case, whenever there is a word that different people use in different ways -- it is always best to let the people with whom you are discussing -- know what you mean when you use the word.

Portal Star wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

The use of the word "believes" in that context is unnecessary -- and illogical.
portal: why?
Frank:
Theists "believe" such and such.
Atheists "believe" such and such.

It makes no sense to assert the superiority of agnosticism -- but to define agnosticism in terms of what one "believes."

Better to simply state: I do not know the answers to Ultimate Questions -- such as Is there a God or are there no gods -- and I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess in either direction.

what makes that different than a belief?

A "belief" is a way of stating a guess or estimate or supposition in a way that does not necessarily indicate that it is a guess, an estimate, or a supposition. (Any better, Craven?)

I prefer to state my guesses as guesses; my estimates as estimates; my suppositions as suppositions.

I do not "believe" I do not know the answers to Ultimte Questions -- I KNOW I do not know the answers to Ultimate Questions.

Portal Star wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

See my response up above. The moment a "belief" is asserted, we have left the province of agnosticism -- and are simply guessing or believing differently from theists and atheists.
I don't think the word belief assumes that there is knowledge behind it. I think it's just a positive statement about your mental feelings towards a subject. But I think I see what you mean. I can see where that gets a little sticky, but it's easier to follow mentally than "I know I don't know about knowing....".

I am pretty sure that most people who use the word "believe" or "belief" are not asserting knowledge.

I'm not sure why you suppose it is easier to follow "I believe I do not know the answers to Ultimate Questions" than to follow "I know I do not know the answers to Ultimate Questions -- but I do not have that problem.

In any case, rather than go through all this stuff right now -- why not get to your proof that agnosticism "is the only logical religious viewpoint.

That is what you propose to do, correct?

Once again, I think you ought to reword what you are setting out to do. That word "only" is going to be a major impediment to your arguments.

0 Replies

The title of this thread is just so absurd--the theist asserts the existence of that which cannot be demonstrated. The atheist simply states that, absent any evidence, no deity exists. Atheism is not a religion, although many who claim to be atheists make a religion of scientific certainty. Apples and oranges, Boss, you're way off base . . .

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

If you believe there is no way to be certain that there is or is not a god, then I assume you agree with my original argument, that agnosticism is the logical choice. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

I believe there is no way to be certain about anything but one's own ignorance. This applies to everything.

Since we must, for the sake of practicality, operate with assumptions regardless of this we "know" things that we are not "certain" of all the time.

We use methods like burden of proof to decide which side ought to proove something.

Since absolute certainty is impossible we use "beyond a reasonable doubt".

So no, I do not think agnosticism is the logical choice.

I think the logical choice is atheism for me and agnosticism for those who feel the evidence leads to that. I see no logic whatsoever in theism.

0 Replies

Portal

In your response to Craven, the following conversation took place:

Craven de Kere wrote:

Portal Star wrote:

If you believe there is no way to be certain that there is or is not a god, then I assume you agree with my original argument, that agnosticism is the logical choice. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

Hummm! Interesting wording there.

Originally you said that you were going to "prove" that "is the only logical religious viewpoint."

Now you are saying it is the "logical choice."

That may not be a drastic change -- and you may see it as no change at all -- but I still find it interesting that you didn't assert:"...then I assume you agree with my ORIGINAL ARGUMENT that agnosticism is THE ONLY LOGICAL CHOICE."

I agree that it is "a" logical choice -- but as Craven pointed out, it is not "the" logical choice -- and certainly not "the ONLY logical choice. The use of the indefinite rather than the definite article makes a difference.

Still waiting for a presentation of your "proof." That seems to be absent so far -- and you appear to be happy just doing some counterpunching.

Considering your initial assertion, you really have an obligation to present your proof and allow it to be challenged.

Where is the proof?

0 Replies

Having not fully read every post I apologise if the following contribution is not unique.

Arguing from the postion of "reality" as a social construction for me the key issues are the status of "logic" and the meaning of the word "existence". Starting with the latter I would argue that "X" exists if "I am in relationship with the concept X". Thus my position as an atheist is that "God exists" ! because I have a relationshipwith the concept. albeit a negative one ! Similarly I would argue that agnostics reify the "existence of God" by virtue of their own relationship. "Logical proof" cannot be evoked to support the position of any of the three parties because such proof relies the idea of "existence" or "reality" as being objective as opposed to subjective. And whereas "objectivity" and its handmaiden "logic" might be successfully evoked in a non-contentuous "physical domain", such qualities are innapropriate in domains of low social consensus.

0 Replies

...of course the "quality" of the relationship significantly differs both within and between the three positions, and as a function of the interactions between them....for example if my partner is a "theist" but I am "an atheist" then "status of the existence of God" (for either of us) is a function of "our own relationship" and vice versa.

0 Replies

Craven,
I don't remember
"Since absolute certainty is impossible we use "beyond a reasonable doubt". " As part of the Atheist argument.

Like I was saying, g-d cannot be defined. You don't even know what it is you're doubting. To even have ideas about what this g-d may be like casts doubt onto atheism. What if g-d is the name for whatever is responsible for creation, science or otherwise? What if g-d would be synonomous with energy? What if g-d was completely immaterial, and so on... Because g-d can never be defined as it's nature is not to be,
you cannot confirm or deny it.

Unlike my sexuality, which, being material and defined, can theoretically be direclty observed. This would hold true even if it was being tampered with by some perverted supernatural force.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Portal

In your response to Craven, the following conversation took place:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Portal Star wrote:

If you believe there is no way to be certain that there is or is not a god, then I assume you agree with my original argument, that agnosticism is the logical choice. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

Hummm! Interesting wording there.

Originally you said that you were going to "prove" that "is the only logical religious viewpoint."

Now you are saying it is the "logical choice."

That may not be a drastic change -- and you may see it as no change at all -- but I still find it interesting that you didn't assert:"...then I assume you agree with my ORIGINAL ARGUMENT that agnosticism is THE ONLY LOGICAL CHOICE."

eh, piddlesquash. Logic doesn't allow for two distinct logical choices to co-exist in this particular argument. It either is, isn't, or is not known.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I agree that it is "a" logical choice -- but as Craven pointed out, it is not "the" logical choice -- and certainly not "the ONLY logical choice. The use of the indefinite rather than the definite article makes a difference.

These are exclusive choices. You cannot have both, so there is only one logically correct answer. That would be the "logical choice".
You cannot simultaneously have "is" "is not" and "don't know" as your personal answers, because if you don't have any evidence you cannot come to the conclusion of "is" or "is not." And "is" and "is not" can not simultaniously co-exist. *

*unless you're talking about a particle physics theory, but that's not for sure.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Still waiting for a presentation of your "proof." That seems to be absent so far -- and you appear to be happy just doing some counterpunching.

Considering your initial assertion, you really have an obligation to present your proof and allow it to be challenged.

Where is the proof?

The point that I'm trying to prove is that we have a lack of knowledge. therefore, I cannot submit any knowledge to back up agnosticism, as I don't have any. That's the point. I'm arguing that no one has material proof to back up theism or atheism, and therefore, agnosticism is the only logical choice.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

I don't remember
"Since absolute certainty is impossible we use "beyond a reasonable doubt". " As part of the Atheist argument.

It's not an "atheist argument". It's a part of life. People say things like "so and so is my dad". Even if there is no such thing as certainty about it.

Portal Star wrote:

Like I was saying, g-d cannot be defined. You don't even know what it is you're doubting.

I do, and this kind of response makes me disinclined to debate this with you.

Portal Star wrote:

To even have ideas about what this g-d may be like casts doubt onto atheism. What if g-d is the name for whatever is responsible for creation, science or otherwise? What if g-d would be synonomous with energy? What if g-d was completely immaterial, and so on... Because g-d can never be defined as it's nature is not to be,
you cannot confirm or deny it.

That is a poor argument.

"Do you believe you are a murderer?"

"no"

"you don't even know what murder means, what if when I say murderer I am talking about a person who is able to walk?"

Regards, if you wish to debate without such ploys I'll join in again.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Having not fully read every post I apologise if the following contribution is not unique.

Arguing from the postion of "reality" as a social construction for me the key issues are the status of "logic" and the meaning of the word "existence". Starting with the latter I would argue that "X" exists if "I am in relationship with the concept X". Thus my position as an atheist is that "God exists" ! because I have a relationshipwith the concept. albeit a negative one ! Similarly I would argue that agnostics reify the "existence of God" by virtue of their own relationship. "Logical proof" cannot be evoked to support the position of any of the three parties because such proof relies the idea of "existence" or "reality" as being objective as opposed to subjective. And whereas "objectivity" and its handmaiden "logic" might be successfully evoked in a non-contentuous "physical domain", such qualities are innapropriate in domains of low social consensus.

I think you are defining g-d based on your own definitions, whereas we are using dictionary definitions. If g-d were defined as merely a social convention, than believing in g-d would = believing in that social convention, and the opposite for atheism. However, that is not the dictionary definition of g-d (the dictionary definition implies some sort of independent being or force), so I will not treat it as a social convention.

The dictionary definitions are at the front of the article. If you find a better dictionary definition, please post it.

0 Replies

Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know