Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

I am, as I have mentioned off and on before in this thread, without belief in god/s. I am being asked to provide evidence to substantiate my denial.

I argue with the word denial; denial implies something to deny, which gives the "something" some substance, at least in terms of argument.

As to proving my lack of belief, as opposed to my "denial",
proving the void doesn't interest me.

I do observe in this thread that the posters who are very demanding in establishing how we should think have not, apparently, imagination to apprehend the simple matter of being without belief.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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

Wrong to be gratified??? Or wrong that you wish to renew this debate???

You're not really clear on that.

BTW, I don't think the debate and discussion has been silly -- except for a few postings from....

...ahhh....well, except for a few postings.

Okay. I'll take a 15 yard penalty for taunting.

0 Replies

Take what you like . . . as you won't be taking anything within sight or hearing of me, it is a matter of indifference to me . . .

0 Replies

Quote:

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.

You've got it backwards, dys. Once you've got all that you don't need the religion.

So, have y'all settled the age old question yet? (That is, what the hell is wrong with the neighbor's kid, and when is he going to move out?)

0 Replies

I just now realized that Dys had not written "I'm thinking of becoming a moron . . . "

Although it actually works just as well that way . . .

As i am in fact, dyslexic, i do have lots of fun with words . . .

0 Replies

Lots of fun with swords? Wow.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Take what you like . . . as you won't be taking anything within sight or hearing of me, it is a matter of indifference to me . . .

Aha! Another "matter of indifference."

You sure do spend a lot of time telling people you are not interested in things, Setanta.

Reminds me of something Lloyd Betsen said to the Inpeachment sitting Senate:

When they say it ain't about the money -- IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY!

0 Replies

Oh, damn.

Another 15 yards.

Same penalty.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Lots of fun with swords? Wow.

Either that, or lots of sordid fun, one of the two . . .

0 Replies

Sword ferns exist, I know it.

0 Replies

Quote:

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

Most deists that I know don't have a god, impersonal or otherwise, they simply claim that the universe itself is god. That's all well and good, but in the end it's no different than picking a tree to bow down to. A god who has no interest in humanity isn't much of a god, is it?

Quote:

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.

There's no evidence that unicorns don't exist somewhere, but is it rational to say that they do? Until evidence is discovered, no rational person should take the position that they do. Stating that they don't, contingent on new information, is perfectly acceptable.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

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.

While you've shown yourself to be rational in other debates, you're way off base here. As I don't play with irrational people, I think I'll just let you go on your merry deluded way from this point forward. Farewell.

0 Replies

Portal,

I didn't suggest that the imagination necessarily belonged to the person that we may be speaking to. The dreams, revelations, or nightmares may well have originated in the mind of someone long since dead. Since in many cases it was personally profitable to "know Gods will" these phenomena tended to be perpetuated.

So as an Athiest I personally have given up denying the existence of any gods. In the mind of the pious they are just as real as the trees that I imagine, through my perceptions, grow outside my window.

The difficulty arises when the pious have perceptions that cannot be shown to exist for others. It is probably impossible to persuade a mind that sees a divinity or a divine purpose any more than you are likely to persuade me that the trees outside the window are figments of my imagination.

Personally I tend to regard religiosity as a mental or educational problem, and usually try to regard it as a quirk of personality. This is not always possible and when a persons imaginary world begins to infringe upon mine then we have a problem. Like Iraq and WWII. Palestine and Israel. India and Pakistan. Serbia and Bosnia.

I do feel guilty however, when I think of the human potential that is lost and that I am not doing anything much about it. A person that is forced to go through life as a sinner, hoping for salvation. A woman forced into virtual slavery because of her sex. Persons removed from society because they prefer the companionship of physically similar people. The waste is awful, the pain and misery as real as reality can be, the stealing and lying (on the part of the religious hierarchy) corrupts our people, our governments, and even makes the word "honorable" suspicious. Crying or Very sad

I guess the guilt is my problem Smile

Best, M

0 Replies

Dys, re Mormans,

My personal view of Hell is having two or three wives.
Imagine Smile

if they all got along well....
Imagine Smile

if they didn't get along at all well....

Polygamy may be related to the Mormon desire to get everybody into heaven Confused

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
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.

While you've shown yourself to be rational in other debates, you're way off base here. As I don't play with irrational people, I think I'll just let you go on your merry deluded way from this point forward. Farewell.

Sounds to me, Cephus, that your indignation thermostat is set much too low.

Either that, or you are looking for a way to get out of defending some of the less than rational arguments you are making.

Not sure which it is.

If you find out, do let me know.

'Til then, I'll try to survive without your company.

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.

Setanta wrote:

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.

I wrote a paper recently on Copley's painting "Watson and the Shark" and it's historical context, accompanied by a paper written by Roger Stein about "Watson and the shark" and art movements in the 1770's. This is where I learned about the fascination with the sea in romantic art and literature, and how it stood for the realm of g-d in many symbolic works of the ages. There are also a number of puritan poems/hymns/stories which liken the sea to g-d, especially from their experience crossing the unknown sea into the new world. This essay also involved looking into Charles wilson Peale's "The Mastodon." He was in correspondence with Washington, both of them scientists, and Peale promoted a theory about everything living all at once (no animals ever gone extinct.) peale purchaced the first find of mastodon bones from a farmer in new york, and declared that mastodons must exist. Washington had lewis and clark look for the mastodons in the unexplored territory, along with their other tasks of mapping and getting a feel for the indians (nativa americans). They came back with no mastodon sightings, so Peale's theory was not confirmed.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

I am, as I have mentioned off and on before in this thread, without belief in god/s. I am being asked to provide evidence to substantiate my denial.

I argue with the word denial; denial implies something to deny, which gives the "something" some substance, at least in terms of argument.

As to proving my lack of belief, as opposed to my "denial",
proving the void doesn't interest me.

I do observe in this thread that the posters who are very demanding in establishing how we should think have not, apparently, imagination to apprehend the simple matter of being without belief.

Sure, and I understand that. However, if you demand the religious to be logical and scientific, you've got to be logical and scientific yourself. I'm not saying people shouldn't hold certain views, I'm only saying those views aren't logical. I started this thread as a logical debate, not about personal beliefs. Personal beliefs are welcome, but I will subject them to logic as that's the point of this thread.

0 Replies

I am logical. My a-theism is not a belief but a lack of one. I don't have to prove anything.

I am not interested either in the details when theists prove their beliefs in gods or agnostics defend, or be aggressive with, their logic of not knowing.

I attend this thread with such diligence because I am rather amazed at the tenacity of people arguing over this. I am interested in the personalities interacting rather than the actual argumentation.

0 Replies

I agree. This thread has a lot of repitition, and is still consistently interesting. I get my definitions from the dictionary, so again it seems a contradition between individual belief and defined common belief (between which there are many shades of difference). This is a problem not only with feelings about g-d but with words themselves. Two people would imagine two completely different roses, but still think "rose."

I am undecided as to whether people should have logic supporting all their personal beliefs or not. I don't think it's necessary, there are many religious people who I respect or who are logical in other areas, or lead good lives. Dependence on logic isn't necessary to lead a good life or be a good person. However, if people are going to make a definate logical or scientific statements, I would demand evidence about their belief(s), and ask for normal argument procedure (logic is necessary to be a good philosopher, or a good scientist, historian, etc. - evidence-dependent academic things). I would ask for evidence supporting any theory on any subject for it to be valid (in my mind). -For it to be a communicatively valid logical argument.

0 Replies

"I don't want to argue but you are a ... and a .... and a..... etc etc etc".

The "I don't want to discuss this but have no qualm with taking parting shots and then coming back to restate that I don't want to argue but will take aother parting shot" tactics are really low. Not wanting to argue is admirable but the very notion is undermined by not wanting to argue but wanting to insult.

0 Replies

Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know