Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

You guys talk about logic like it's bulky and difficult and inapplicable to life. When you get down to the nitty gritty, all that logic really asks is that you not contradict yourself. Logic is not cumbersome, it's just deducive reasoning using available evidence.

Of course, logic is not the best method to use in all circumstances: the exercises of the emotions, for example. You can use elements of logic, but it's not necessary for things like poetry and painting, creative writing, emotional outpourings.

As for the agnositcism/theism/atheism debate: I would prefer that people held beliefs that evidence supported. If you don't have evidence to support your beliefs, you're just talking. Think scientifically in debate and it will yield more productive results.

0 Replies

PS, What planet do you live on? When people discuss the subject of religion and god, there is no evidence; none, nada, zilch. Yet, the majority on this planet believes in a god. That's fact; that's evidence that people "believe" in god. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.

0 Replies

Instead of endlessly asking for proof, why not post something pertaining to the subject?

0 Replies

Yeah, isn't a funny that we just talk on A2K.

0 Replies

Actually we don't talk at all.

0 Replies

Many of us do.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

You can use elements of logic, but it's not necessary for things like poetry and painting, creative writing, emotional outpourings.

Logic IS necessary in all of those things.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

PS, What planet do you live on? When people discuss the subject of religion and god, there is no evidence; none, nada, zilch. Yet, the majority on this planet believes in a god. That's fact; that's evidence that people "believe" in god. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.

Which is exactly what makes agnosticism logical. There is no proof.
Craven, what makes logic necessary in painting, poetry, and/or emotional outpourings?

0 Replies

Portal Star we would not be alive were it not for logic.

Painting:

Black + white equals a shade of grey.

Add more white and it is a lighter shade of grey.

Logic would imply that if you add even more white that...

etc etc

They may seem trite to you but logic is not a discipline. It's present in our every wise move.

Without human logic you would not have existed. Without using logic yourself you would probably be dead.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Portal Star wrote:
You can use elements of logic, but it's not necessary for things like poetry and painting, creative writing, emotional outpourings.

Logic IS necessary in all of those things.

Maybe the logic behind God is beyond our grasp. - None the less - it's there.

0 Replies

I don't know if mixing paint is the the realm of logic but it certainly is physics. Most artists have to delve into what one could easily call spiritual inspiration to achieve a finished painting. The mechanics may have some involvement with logical decisions but it nearly ends there.

0 Replies

husker wrote:

Maybe the logic behind God is beyond our grasp. - None the less - it's there.

That makes no sense. Logic is a way of deduction. There is no "way of deduction" "behind god".

What you are trying to do is logical though, you are trying to put your opinion on an untouchable shelf.

This is very a very common logical fallacy that is related to the "emperor's new clothes" arguments.

"You don't see the clothes? Well only smart people do."

"You don't believe in god? That's cause god is too big of an idea for your head."

The emperor's new clothes argument may be true, but the way you state it (with there being a "logic behind god") is what makes no sense.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

The mechanics may have some involvement with logical decisions but it nearly ends there.

Yep, the mechanics. What I think Portal was saying is that the abstract realm relies LESS on logic than the exact sciences etc.

But the need for logic is still inexorable from every aspect of life.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

PS, What planet do you live on? When people discuss the subject of religion and god, there is no evidence; none, nada, zilch. Yet, the majority on this planet believes in a god. That's fact; that's evidence that people "believe" in god. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.

It's evidence that people believe, it isn't evidence that the belief is valid. Most people used to believe the earth was flat too, didn't make it so. Heck, people *STILL* believe the earth is flat!

Truth has no place in religious belief.

0 Replies

Cephus, I agree that belief does not equate to fact. However, it is fact that many believe in a god.

0 Replies

God does exist. In minds. In concept in minds.

Would someone remind me what a phantasm is? I think god may exist as a phantasm, if I could remember what that meant for sure.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Portal Star we would not be alive were it not for logic.

Painting:

Black + white equals a shade of grey.

Add more white and it is a lighter shade of grey.

Logic would imply that if you add even more white that...

etc etc

They may seem trite to you but logic is not a discipline. It's present in our every wise move.

Without human logic you would not have existed. Without using logic yourself you would probably be dead.

Not what I would go out of my way to label logic, but I can see your pattern of thinking. If somthing is instinctual, is it logical? Like eating to live? Or do you need to follow steps or a deliberate thought process?
Logic is a discipline, because people tend to be illogical (instinct often follows emotions which are not rational) lt needs to be honed, fine tuned, worked at. Affirmed with testing.

Craven- "But the need for logic is still inexorable from every aspect of life."
I smell a new thread.

Husker: I disagree, but you haven't presented evidence to support your view. Start a thread, or elaborate on your comment. You seem to want to avoid discussing religion (understandable, knowing you are outnumbered on this forum as a theist) but if you are going to assert your views, you might as well follow through.

0 Replies

phan?tasm

Pronunciation: (fan'taz-um), [key]
?n.
1. an apparition or specter.
2. a creation of the imagination or fancy; fantasy.
3. a mental image or representation of a real object.
4. an illusory likeness of something. Also,fantasm.

0 Replies

When was Portal Star elected dictator? I missed that one.

0 Replies

Well, I stayed away for a couple of days.

I'm back.

Over in another thread, I read a post by a theist I thought was interesting.

Here is a quote:

Quote:

How do you know that this, or previous postings aren't just products of evolution?

How do you know that you aren't arguing with a bunch of monkeys typing away at keyboards in some zoo somewhere?

According to evolution theory, given enough time, its possible.

Maybe this posting is the result of a print shop explosion. And maybe as the type fell from the sky it decided to evolve and digitize itself (definitely the next step in evolution) forming this posting.

Why does everyone reading this know I'm be facetious?

They know because there is intelligence behind these letters, words, sentences, and paragraphs. Coherent thoughts (whether you agree with them or not is another issue.) There is order, complexity, and purpose.

They know that these things don't happen by accident. They know that some intelligent being was responsible (again, whether you agree or not is another issue.)

I look at creation and I see intelligence, order, complexity, and purpose behind it. Accidents never bring about any of these.

Remember the hurricane a couple of weeks ago? That's what "natural selection" leaves behind. And it will take intelligent beings acting many months to reestablish order and clean up the mess.

My faith is supported by the evidence and every discovery of science only shows the complexity of creation. It shows order. It shows purpose. Science shows creation to be well thought out, coherent even. We know in practice this can not happen by accident. Wherever we see these characteristics we automatically ask, "Who did this?"

My faith in Jesus is supported by the evidence. I've looked at the evidence thoroughly. How about you? Would you like to know why your here? If all of creation has a purpose, wouldn't you like to know yours?

Any of that sound familiar?

This person has "evaluated" all the evidence and has determined that it is more reasonable to guess there is a God than that there are no gods -- just as you folks have evaluated all the evidence and determined that it is more reasonable to guess there are no gods than that there is a God.

Personally, I think such "evidence" as there is points in only one direction -- that the "evidence" is not only inconclusive (something about which we all seem to agree) -- but that it so ambiguous it really cannot provide a basis for a reasonable guess in either direction.

Conger was over there. Conger mentioned that I owe some answers to questions over here.

I like to respond to all questions, so if some are outstanding, let's have 'em again.

And because I really would like to focus on just one person at a time, I am asking Craven to present any questions he still feels are outstanding. I'll deal with them first -- and then get to everyone else.

Craven, I hope that when I give my response, you actually discuss the response with me rather than just leaving it at "I was just interested in what you think." I hope you either point out what you see as logical inconsistencies in my thinking -- or acknowledge that I have made a valid point.

What questions do you have?

0 Replies

Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know