Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

cicerone imposter wrote:

ye, It's just that I'd rather live my life without worrying about whether there is or there isn't or maybe, and I run my life as a atheist. Nothing I have observed in my life shows or proves any god exists. That's good enough for me.

cicerone imposter wrote:

ye, It's just that I'd rather live my life without worrying about whether there is or there isn't or maybe, and I run my life as a atheist. Nothing I have observed in my life shows or proves any god doesent exist. That's good enough for me.

I edited one word and one letter to show the flaw in your statement, and why atheism has the same logical flaws as religion.

Apisa- gotcha. Individual dieties denied Smile

.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

Portal Star wrote:
It is of definition arguments, which is what you were arguing about. If not from the dictionary, where do you get your definitions of words from? It's not like you personally invented the english language. You can interpret a word however you would like, but the dictionary is the standard philosophical and english agreement on the definitions of words. Do you have a better suggestion for common agreement of definitions?

The agreement on the meaning of words is what makes those words meaningful and communicative.

Definitions vary slightly from place to place and person to person, that's why we have several different dictionaries with slightly different definitions. Language is a living, breathing entity, not some dead thing you can mount in a book. The dictionary only lists the most widely accepted definitions at the current moment and they are constantly updating themsleves, changing definitions and adding new words as the language evolves.

sure, they aren't perfect, but they're the best option for agreement of words I can think of. I posted two definitions from two dictionaries. If you find a different dictionary definition I would accept that also. There is too much variation of the perception of words in minds to make any one mind a common standard for argument.

Mechnismith: Lack of belief is not equal to lack of imagination. It sounds like you are trying to stretch science and logic into your personal beliefs - not a bad thing - but when you argue and use logic starting with an assumed base of knowledge which is non-observational (ex. the g-d of the bible, heaven, etc), all of your arguments must fit into this framework and your results can get very skewed.

0 Replies

PS, You can take your logic and take it to a place where the sun doesn't shine.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Nonsense!

The only nonsense around here has been what you are spouting.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

And it is my experience that most of the time when someone uses that argument, they are doing so simply because they have nothing to back up whatever objections they actually have.

Then perhaps your experience is faulty. You're the one demanding with an almost religious zeal that you hold the moral, philosophical and ethical high ground above everyone else.

Quote:

Quote:
He is *BOTH* an agnostic *AND* an atheist.

Oh really! And is that because you say so -- or has that been ordained in some Holy Book to which you have access?

Do you believe in a deity? No? Then you're an atheist. I think it's funny that you keep demanding that all atheists state that god(s) are impossible when only one person on this forum seems to hold that position (well... and you, of course). What, did an atheist scare your mother or something?

Quote:

Give me your definition of agnostic and your definition of atheist -- and then tell me why you are guessing that I am both.

Gnosticism/agnosticism deals with knowledge. An agnostic believes that it is impossible to know about the existence or characteristics of god(s). A gnostic believes it is possible.

Theism/atheism deals with belief. An atheist does not believe in the existence of god(s). A theist does.

Every person is either gnostic or agnostic, depending on their stand on knowledge of the supernatural. Every person is also either theist or atheist, depending on their beliefs.

This really isn't that hard.

Quote:

How do you know what every single person on this planet is or is not? Sounds to me as though you are biting off a great deal more than you can chew.

Because it's definitional. That's like saying every person on this planet might not be human.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

I prefer to define an Athiest as a person who is unable ( due perhaps to a mental insufficiency ) to imagine any god that would be worthy of the name.

I can imagine plenty of gods, I have a very good imagination. The problem is, I refuse to believe in the existence of a figment of my imagination without objective evidence that it really exists. It does no good to believe in a falsehood and every deity invented by man that I've ever examined has the same problem: They're all fantasies. There is no evidence to support the existence of *ANY* of them, hence I won't believe.

You find me a real god, I'll believe in it. Worship, of course, is another matter.

0 Replies

Good post, Cephus. Couldn't have made it any plainer myself!

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

akaMechsmith wrote:
I prefer to define an Athiest as a person who is unable ( due perhaps to a mental insufficiency ) to imagine any god that would be worthy of the name.

I can imagine plenty of gods, I have a very good imagination. The problem is, I refuse to believe in the existence of a figment of my imagination without objective evidence that it really exists. It does no good to believe in a falsehood and every deity invented by man that I've ever examined has the same problem: They're all fantasies. There is no evidence to support the existence of *ANY* of them, hence I won't believe.

You find me a real god, I'll believe in it. Worship, of course, is another matter.

what do you think about the impersonal god of deism? no possibility that it exists either?

there is no evidence to support the countless claims of extraterrestrial sightings. they are all fantasies. but it doesn't necessarily follow that alien life doesn't exist somewhere.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
And it is my experience that most of the time when someone uses that argument, they are doing so simply because they have nothing to back up whatever objections they actually have.

Then perhaps your experience is faulty. You're the one demanding with an almost religious zeal that you hold the moral, philosophical and ethical high ground above everyone else.

And what does that have to do with your comment that I am dealing with apples and oranges? Sounds like another in a long line of strawmen coming from you Cephus.

Regarding your contention that I am both an agnostic and an atheist, you wrote:

Quote:

Do you believe in a deity? No? Then you're an atheist.

That is not correct.

Quote:

I think it's funny that you keep demanding that all atheists state that god(s) are impossible...

Another strawman. I defy you to show me one post of mine anywhere in A2K or Abuzz where I demanded that all atheists state that gods are impossible.

Don't bother to try. That comment was straight out of your imagination.

Quote:

... when only one person on this forum seems to hold that position (well... and you, of course). What, did an atheist scare your mother or something?

Don't know what in hell that means???

Quote:

Quote:
Give me your definition of agnostic and your definition of atheist -- and then tell me why you are guessing that I am both.

Gnosticism/agnosticism deals with knowledge. An agnostic believes that it is impossible to know about the existence or characteristics of god(s).

Anyone who calls him/herself an agnostic and then holds that it is impossible to know about the existence or charateristics of gods -- is not an agnostic.

In any case, I HAVE NEVER SAID IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OR CHARACTERISTICS OF GODS.

This is yet another strawman. I defy you to show any quote of my saying that. Don't waste your times looking, though, because this is just another thing pulled from your imagination.

For the record, I have on dozens of occasions mentioned that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know if it is IMPOSSIBLE to know about the existence or characteristics of gods.

How could I possibly be an agnostic and aver that such a thing is impossible?

Why do you make this stuff up? What possible fun can it be arguing against yourself instead of against someone else?

Quote:

A gnostic believes it is possible.

I could not care less what gnostics, theists, atheists, or anyone else believes. Their beliefs are their beliefs. So be it.

Quote:

Theism/atheism deals with belief. An atheist does not believe in the existence of god(s). A theist does.

For what I think is the tenth time -- I have absolutely no problem with atheists who do not believe in god. I am an agnostic -- and I do not believe in god either. I have no problem with atheists who believe there are no gods either -- although as an agnostic, I do not believe there are no gods any more than I believe there are gods. I LEAVE IT AT "I do not know."

The reason for this discussion, Cephus, deals with one poster simply saying definitively that there are no gods -- and my question, as yet unanswered, of: How do you know that to be true.

Quote:

Every person is either gnostic or agnostic, depending on their stand on knowledge of the supernatural. Every person is also either theist or atheist, depending on their beliefs.

This really isn't that hard.

Maybe not for someone who doesn't bother to think. But for those of us using our brains, it really is nothing more than self-serving garbage.

Quote:

Quote:
How do you know what every single person on this planet is or is not? Sounds to me as though you are biting off a great deal more than you can chew.

Because it's definitional. That's like saying every person on this planet might not be human.

No it is not definitional. And it is my guess that you do not know what every single person onl this planet is or is not. But you don't seem to be able to acknowledge when you are talking through you hat. So live with it.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Good post, Cephus. Couldn't have made it any plainer myself!

I'm sure we don't mean the same thing -- but I agree with your second sentence, ci.

0 Replies

ye, When I see it myself, I "might" believe in it. However, our imagination that there are gods and martians will be kept in my "do not believe" category for now.

0 Replies

Frank,

We'll have to talk later. I need to finish a lot of work and I can't keep up with this thread.

0 Replies

To everybody that commented on my "imagination" comment Smile

God has been described as "unimagineable". Knights of Columbus website amongst others.

Therefore can we describe Diests as persons who imagine that they can imagine an unimaginable thing. Confused

Frankly due to a paucity of imagination I am unable to imagine such a thing sufficiently to assume that one may exist or affect our physical universe.

I surmise that if one was to attempt to describe one then soon the impossibilities encountered would render the task ridiculous thus rendering "belief" in the existence of one irrational.

Portal, I beg to differ. It takes a tremendous amount of imagination to "believe" in something which does not seem to have any physical manifestation. This does not imply that each Baptist must imagine a God for himself. Simply because they do not realize the enormity of what they have been told they "believe in". In my experience most "believers" have not the foggiest notion of what they "believe in" as regards a deity,or an infinity, an eternity, or even the indeterminism of Quantum Mechanics.

I must remark that "running" theories past all limits of inductive reasoning is not strictly confined to Deists.

0 Replies

I don't know if it's imagination - most dieties come out of books. The people who wrote the books would have to imagine them, or form them out of concrete knowledge of people and places and attributing super powers to them. This is common human practice - look at comic book heroes. It does take imagination to fill in the gaps. Or if you created your own diety, could take a lot of imagination. Or you could say "My friend Beth created the universe."

Through history, dieties have filled the space of the unknown, and explained strong emotions. As science has progressed, the realm of the unknown has grown smaller, and the hold dieties have has grown weaker, except in those who have a lack of understanding, a distrust of, or a denial/lack of acess to conventional science. G-ds have long been associated with human birth and death, the weather, and forces beyond individual human control - the realm of the unknown. In the romantic era, many felt g-d's realm was the ocean, with it's mystery and vastness. We explored the ocean, and now g-d's realm is the sky. Trips to outer space have made people question g-d even more, and some to rely on g-d more for the increased area of the unknown brought from a small understanding of the universe. Hopefully science will continue to conquer the territory of the g-ds.

Don't confuse dieties with the general concept of g-d.

and Cephus, yes it is impossible to have information about somthing immaterial. The concept of g-s is immaterial, but you can have information or lack of information on individual dieties ascribed material characteristics, and make arguments backed with evidence.
To have progress, people must trust in science and logical reasoning. That is why I want people denying g-d to use logic and science in their personal views, to demand understanding of the universe through science. If using logic and science, one must have evidence, and there can be no evidence of somthing immaterial. This is why atheists make the same mistake as the religious folk, they assume evidence supporting the existance or non-existance of g-ds.
When Lewis and Clark explored middle America, washington had them look for Mammoths. Washington (who was a scientist, as were many men of his day) didn't deny their existance until he had collected evidence - exploring the globe and finding only bones, showing they had become extinct.

Cephus- I have no idea where you got your definitions from, other than pulling them out of someplace dark and wet. Your argument is interesting, find me a source for your new definitions and I will listen to your argument.

0 Replies

I haven't the least interest in starting anew an argument in which you attempt to preen yourself on the logical superiority of your agnostic views. However, i did want to point out that your references here to "history" are exercises in pure fantasy-whether of your own creation, or borrowed, i neither know nor care.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I haven't the least interest in starting anew an argument in which you attempt to preen yourself on the logical superiority of your agnostic views. However, i did want to point out that your references here to "history" are exercises in pure fantasy-whether of your own creation, or borrowed, i neither know nor care.

Well, I don't know about the rest of you fine folks...

...but it sounds to me that Setanta does have some interest in starting this argument anew...

...and it also sounds to me that, despite his protests to the contrary, Setanta does care.

In fact, it sounds as though he cares very much.

Hummm! Wonder what to make of that???

0 Replies

I am thinking about becoming a mormon, moving into the hills of southern Utah and get a few wives, after that i may look into becoming religious.

0 Replies

dys, YOu may even find a woman goddess or two.

0 Replies

I don't care about the provenance of PS's historical fantasy, which is what i wrote. I do care that anyone tries to underpin any argument with specious references to "history"--there is nothing of the least historical reliability in that post.

0 Replies

I'm sure it would gratifty you, Frank, to believe that i wish to renew this silly debate--but you would be wrong.

0 Replies

Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know