Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

What I don't understand is Frank's criticism of atheists, since he claims we can't know there is a god or gods. So what makes his position as a agnostic superior? What's the difference between 1) I don't know, and 2) there is no god(s)? It seems to me that how an individual lives their life is much more important than trying to figure out there is or there isn't a god or gods. So his superior position is what?

0 Replies

Re: Logic

skeptic wrote:

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

Greg

no, you missed mine. Although you are right about the definition, you just didn't take it far enough. Logical in that definition can be an expectation, but I was talking about eventualities. If somthing logical is ever given a reason that it is illogical, it is no longer logical, right? Therefore, in theory, if a logic statement was given all possible available evidence with an unlimited time frame, it would have to be logical or illogical, in absolutes. I'm talking about absolues becuase these apply to g-d argument, which is based soley around theory.

If your coin flip was an absolute statement, it would be reasonable but not logical. There is an equal amount of chance on each flip. It is not impossible to have it land 100 times on heads, just improbable. So if your statement read:

The coin will never land on it's head 100 times when flipped 100 times
it would be illogical.

now if it read:
The coin will usually not land on it's head 100 times when flipped 100 times
that would be logical.

No, I'm not taking a beginning philosophy course. But I had a super mind body class, which is why I started this thread. I have been interested in the g-d arguement for a long time, because so many members of the world are religious. I do a lot of reading, and my father is big into philosophy, law, and debate. What classes have you taken?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

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.

What evidence exists for the existence of gods? None. What evidence exists for the existence of unicorns? None. Leprechauns? None. Is there any real functional difference in this case between a god and a fantasy creature? Nope. So is it also wrong to say that no unicorns exist? If so, the vast majority of people have irrational positions.

0 Replies

Frank,

Show me a subject that by your criteria one should not hold an agnostic position.

There is only one such example.

Every time you claim to be male or to exist there are a host of fanciful arguments that can be used to throw that into doubt.

Certainty is impossible, we operate under less strident criteria daily.

0 Replies

Monger wrote:

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.

Monger

I want to make some assumptions here -- only for the purposes of seeing if I am reading you correctly.

Please look them over and tell me if my assumptions are correct -- and, of course, if you are in disagreement with the conclusions I draw from the assumptions, please engage me in discussion on those disagreements.

You seem to be saying that you think I am incorrect is supposing that the POSSIBILITY of...

... "God exists" and...

..."There are no gods"...

...should be deemed equal.

I guess I have to respond with a question:

Why not?

I do, indeed, think (judge, estimate, suppose) they are equally possible.

You seem to be saying that if that is the case...

...(if I do think that the possibility of "There is a God" and "There are no gods" are relatively equal)...

...I should also think that the possibility "Heaven is a city inside the interior of the Moon" and "Heaven is not a city inside the interior of the Moon" are equal.

Why on Earth do you think that to be the case?

Why do some of the others suggest that if I think a God or gods might possibly exist -- I also have to think that Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny might possibly exist?

I do not see the reasoning behind your question (or theirs) -- but I am willing for you to discuss it with me -- and if it starts to make sense, I'll treat it further.

HOWEVER -- along these same lines -- allow me to present a hypothetical for your consideration and comment:

We have no idea if intelligent life exists anywhere else in the universe. But in order to make this manageable, I want to limit my hypothetical to the 100 stars nearest to our sun.

The question: Does intelligent life exist on any of the planets orbiting any of those 100 stars?

Obviously some people would answer that question with: I believe (think, suppose, estimate) intelligent life is fairly common in the universe, and I believe there is intelligent life somewhere among the planets of those 100 stars.

Some would answer: I believe intelligent life is very rare, and I believe there is no other intelligent life that close to us.

Many would answer: I have no idea -- and I have not got anywhere near enough information on how common intelligent life is in the cosmos (there are estimates, but none of those estimates have ever been tested and they may be completely off base) -- so I cannot make a meaningful guess about it. But until someone comes up with DATA suggesting how common life is among the stars -- I will assume that either side on this issue has a fairly equal chance of being correct.

Now I think we all would agree that anyone who INSISTS that there definitely HAS TO BE life somewhere among those 100 stars -- or anyone who insists, THERE IS NO POSSIBLITY that there is life there -- is talking through his/her hat.

But my point has nothing to do with those few.

Since the analogy is very obvious here, Monger, let me ask you this:

If someone were to say to you:

"I have no idea if there is or is not intelligent life among the 100 stars -- and I have not got anywhere near enough information on how common intelligent life is -- so I cannot make a meaningful guess about it. But until someone comes up with data suggesting how common life is among the stars -- I will assume that either side has a fairly equal chance of being correct"...

...would you propose that since they feel that way, they should also feel that way about the possibility of Heaven being a city buried beneath the surface of our Moon?

0 Replies

Franks' quote, ""I have no idea if there is or is not intelligent life among the 100 stars -- and I have not got anywhere near enough information on how common intelligent life is -- so I cannot make a meaningful guess about it. But until someone comes up with data suggesting how common life is among the stars -- I will assume that either side has a fairly equal chance of being correct"... "
So whether there is or there is not intelligent life amont the 100 stars is how important to our life today? In my life, it's zilch.

0 Replies

Frank,

While you've not yet given any reason why you place more plausibility in the idea of gods than other religious &/or fanciful notions, the position is indeed more manageable when it's applied only to ideas of your choosing rather than reality in general (in which case there'd be no good argument against the idea that spirits live in the moon or that you aren't living inside the matrix).

Aliens and god are not on the same level since few people claim aliens are beyond all science & understanding.

I'll say along with you that there may or may not be aliens on other planets. That's based on the known conditions that life exists on Earth & is therefore possible elsewhere, but it hasn't been discovered yet.

frank apisa wrote:

You seem to be saying that you think I am incorrect is supposing that the POSSIBILITY of...
... "God exists" and...
..."There are no gods"...
...should be deemed equal.
I guess I have to respond with a question:
Why not?
I do, indeed, think (judge, estimate, suppose) they are equally possible.

Saying that gods existing/not existing are both possibilities is not the same thing as saying the 2 are both logical.

No one needed to invent the idea that life can exist in the universe.

You can believe that gods may exist all you want, but that's not based on logic, it's based on the fact that it's possible.

Why do you refuse to extend this unsupported possibility to a number of other religious &/or spiritual ideas?

0 Replies

Folks

I've tried on many occasions to share my agnostic notions with theists -- especially with Christians.

Not surprisingly, they reject the approach I take to dealing with questions about REALITY.

As far as most of them are concerned, my agnostic approach is a cop-out. Most of them argue that THERE IS a God -- and there is plenty of evidence that there is a God if you are willing to open your mind and accept it as evidence.

I also have tried on many occasions to share my agnostic notions with atheists.

Not surprisingly, most reject what I have to say -- and aver that my position is a cop-out -- often calling it fence straddling. Most argue that there is absolutely no evidence that there are any gods -- and that even supposing there MIGHT be gods is like supposing there are purple certified public accountants doing business on one of Saturn's moons.

Hey...to each according to his/her need.

This discussion is going nowhere!

Here is my opinion: As Portal Star originally suggested, atheism does indeed have the same logical flaws as theism. They are damn near identical.

Atheists are just as loathe to recognize and acknowledge their logical failures as are theists and are just as likely to rationalize and dissemble in order to avoid confronting the inconsistencies of their belief systems.

There is no easy or inoffensive way to say this next series of thoughts, so let me just blurt them out:

I would suggest you all wake up and take a long hard look at yourselves.

Come to consciousness.

Recognize your agnosticism and embrace it.

Atheism deserves the same fate theism so richly deserves.

Extinction!

Humanity will best be served by both disappearing.

And the sooner the better!

0 Replies

Frank,

Are you agnostic about who your dad is?

Are you agnostic about whether you are straight or gay?

Are you agnostic about whether you are real or an illusion?

If you answered no to any of those I'd like to discuss empirical evidence with you.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
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.

What evidence exists for the existence of gods? None. What evidence exists for the existence of unicorns? None. Leprechauns? None. Is there any real functional difference in this case between a god and a fantasy creature? Nope. So is it also wrong to say that no unicorns exist? If so, the vast majority of people have irrational positions.

*sigh* circles again. Leprachauns, Unicorns, and invidual gods fall into the same cateory

Hoever, the conept of g-d is a completely separate thing from, say, Jesus. One can deny the existance of christ but not the general concept of g-d (being immaterial and undefined), and that is agnostic.

0 Replies

Just came across a great quote while arguing in a thread over in Abuzz. Maraso posted this -- and I told him I was stealing it.

I'm sure you atheists will all love it as much as I do.

Robert Heinlein as Lazarus Long:

"The most preposterous notion H. Sapiens has ever dreamed up is
that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes,
wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by
their prayers, and becomes putulant if He does not receive this
flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to
bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and
least productive industry in all history."

Pretty much says it all!

0 Replies

Does that fit between Revelations and that dude, Paul, or elsewhere in the scripture, Frank?

0 Replies

"least productive industry in all history"

And how about the quality of the product?

For one thing, those wafers are pretty bad. But they have made some really great liquor.

0 Replies

Frank

From the same author there are these quotes.

"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it. "

"The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes on to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man.
But it's lovely work if you can stomach it."

On the other forum I submitted this website that covers some of your favorite Biblicial subjects.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I've tried on many occasions to share my agnostic notions with theists -- especially with Christians.
Not surprisingly, they reject the approach I take to dealing with questions about REALITY.
As far as most of them are concerned, my agnostic approach is a cop-out. Most of them argue that THERE IS a God -- and there is plenty of evidence that there is a God if you are willing to open your mind and accept it as evidence.

That's irrelevant to our discussion. You have never claimed as much -- you say that absolutely no evidence exists.

I'm not trying to make a case against the collective theists of the world here. I have no need to, you've already done so.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I also have tried on many occasions to share my agnostic notions with atheists.
Not surprisingly, most reject what I have to say -- and aver that my position is a cop-out -- often calling it fence straddling. Most argue that there is absolutely no evidence that there are any gods -- and that even supposing there MIGHT be gods is like supposing there are purple certified public accountants doing business on one of Saturn's moons.

I agree that the fence-straddling bit doesn't apply to your mindset.

But if the argument you invented against yourself was adapted to, "Supposing there MIGHT be gods is as LOGICAL as supposing there MIGHT be purple accountants on Saturn's moons," well, you haven't made any case against that.

While there're more believers in god than aliens on Saturn, I think you agree that alone says nothing about any sense in the claim.

So what sense DO you see in the claim? If "theists haven't got a leg to stand on," as you've said before, then why do you feel the existence of gods is more plausible than the existence of other religious/spiritual concoctions (such as spirits living in the moon)?

If you ever change your mind and say you believe there's evidence of gods/goddesses (whether I accept the evidence or not), or if you ever show why their existence is a plausible idea (rather than *possible*) even without any supporting evidence, I'll stop comparing your argument to having an open mind about spirits living in the moon & purple businessmen on Saturn.

Frank Apisa wrote:

...
Hey...to each according to his/her need.

This discussion is going nowhere!

This certainly isn't the only thing everyone will never agree on, Frank -- People disagree about everything (which doesn't mean it's impossible for anyone to ever come to a rational conclusion on anything). As such, I think your claim that "humanity will best be served by both [atheism & theism] disappearing" is among the most foolish arguments I've heard ... humans would still have everything else in the world to disagree on. People's religious beliefs or lack thereof will never serve humanity as well as just trying to live humanely.

At any rate, I have no intention of clinging to "logical failures" in my arguments. If you'd point mine out to me, that wouldn't be going nowhere in this discussion as far as I'm concerned.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Here is my opinion: As Portal Star originally suggested, atheism does indeed have the same logical flaws as theism. They are damn near identical.
Atheists are just as loathe to recognize and acknowledge their logical failures as are theists and are just as likely to rationalize and dissemble in order to avoid confronting the inconsistencies of their belief systems.

A lack of evidence against a claim that holds no logic cannot induce a logical failure.

Setanta wrote a few pages back that "religionists are asking that we believe something absent evidence--atheists are saying that they don't believe it, absent evidents." Is it possible you really don't see any difference there?

Let's analyse this further, Frank. You've claimed that "theists haven't got a leg to stand on." That would mean their belief is absolutely illogical.

Here's an example of nonsense & a word game: It's logical to believe an illogical idea *MIGHT* be true.

On the other hand, there's plenty of logic that supports an atheistic viewpoint (As a very obvious example, there's no evidence of gods or goddesses!)

While all the logic in the world doesn't prove anything, it's certainly a strong leg to stand on.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

One can deny the existance of christ but not the general concept of g-d (being immaterial and undefined), and that is agnostic.

One need not say the concept of an immaterial & undefined god is impossible. One can say, with logic (not evidence or proof) to support them, that such a concept is senseless.

0 Replies

Monger

You are persisting is supposing that because you can show that theists have no (or precious little) evidence that God or gods exist -- you therefore can say authoritatively that gods do not exist.

That is ILLOGICAL in the extreme.

Apparently I am not capable of explaining that to you in a convincing way -- but that doesn't make it any less true.

You can logically say: I do not believe in gods.

You can logically say: I believe there are no gods.

But the moment assertions are made without the caveat of "belief"(which is to say without the caveat of "this is a guess" -- a line has been crossed which enters the realm of ILLOGIC.

Insofar as anyone asserts that there are no gods -- especially if they are basing that assertion on the fact that the cartoon god of the Bible seems absurdly unlikely -- they are being ILLOGICAL.

You wrote:

Quote:

Setanta wrote a few pages back that "religionists are asking that we believe something absent evidence--atheists are saying that they don't believe it, absent evidents." Is it possible you really don't see any difference there?

I DO NOT HAVE A GODDAM PROBLEM WITH WHAT YOU OR SETANTA OR ANYONE ELSE "BELIEVES" OR REFUSES TO "BELIEVE."

How many times do I have to write those words before they finally penetrate?

My argument with Setanta had to do with his comment "There are no gods or goddesses."

And my argument was nothing more than a polite question: How do you know that to be true?

But Setanta and you at various times -- are intent on asserting that it can be logically deduced that gods do not exist because theists cannot produce evidence that they do.

That is as absurd and as illogical as asserting that no intelligent being other than humans exist in the universe simply because scientists cannot produce evidence that they do.

WHAT ON EARTH IS SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?

And everything I have said here has been my position right from the start. I have never varied from that position one iota.

0 Replies

It is so self eveident that gods and goddesses are constructions of the human mind there shouldn't even be a need for debate.

0 Replies

edgar (and others)

Re "need for debate" you might like to participate on the thread I've recently started.

0 Replies

Those who would wish to further a theistic argument, or to bolster an agnostic resort to the possiblity of support for a theistic argument, in so far as it aids such an argument to attempt to invalidate an atheistic postion--all are willing to contort a definition of god in order to preserve their case. As a pragmatic matter, i reject such a lack of precision in the definition of what constitutes a deity. Given that any concept of god used would of necessity refer to a "general" human concept of a deity, absent any consensual decision on the part of everyone here as to what specifically constitutes a deity--it follows, to my mind, that EB's remark about constructions of the human mind is very much to the point in assigning any value to what is offered by any of us. I posit that a "general human concept of a deity" is that of a sentient, independent and eternal being, with an omnipotent capacity to ignore those physical laws which are observable to us (or at least we have so convinced ourselves) and which were put into operation by that being. It is in reference to such a concept of a deity that i assert that this is an extraordinary claim, inadmissable, in so far as i know, of proof or even reasonable demonstration. For me to thereafter refute the concept as implausible in no wise equates me "logically" or "rationally" with the maker of such a claim.

Edgar is absolutely right--and the concept reeks of superstitious human credulity to put it in the terms i would use.

0 Replies

Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know