Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Portal Star
You could refine the definition of god until he was a collar button and then I suppose I would have to believe in him. But, practically speaking, it ain't happening.

0 Replies

But thats the whole point !...by evoking a "dictionary definition" you are setting up a "straw man" whose function is to serve as a focus of pseudo-debate. You forget that all definitions are themselves subject to an infinite linguistic (=social) regress of words defining words. Simplistically you might find yourself arguing about which dictionary to use...the dictionary of choice perhaps aspiring to the same elevated status some ascribe to "holy books".

......and here it is but a short step to the mystical "In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God"...sort of cognitive incest don't you think ?

0 Replies

I'm an atheist in search of universal truths, I HAVE NOT GIVEN UP ON THE QUEST, like agnostics, they simply say they don't know to avoid the problem, it's a rather simple position, & like most simple, are wrong, since things are always complicated!

Agnostism is a rather pessimistic way of thinking, since it says you can't know, they are giving up, it's for those who lost the will of find the truth or people who rather live a simple life in a lie.

Religions & the concepts of God are false, since they are all a human creation, the concept of God has always been created with an objective, be it immortality or a simple favor, or just to be in grace of the so called god, just like a person in the court of the king tries to be in grace with his king, the only difference is that their king is false, it doesn't exist. The concept of god is a CONSOLATION for the weak, the hopeless, the ignorant & the tired people.

Those who defend the position of theist expect some kind of reward from their false god, which is rueful.

The concept of god is one of this society's greatest evils.

0 Replies

Dux

I'm sort of with you on that last sentence, but its entirely possible that the concept of "evil" relies much on a concept of "God".
Also the concept of divisive "societies" per se epitomise, evil with different versions of theism used as the rationality for strife.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

But thats the whole point !...by evoking a "dictionary definition" you are setting up a "straw man" whose function is to serve as a focus of pseudo-debate. You forget that all definitions are themselves subject to an infinite linguistic (=social) regress of words defining words. Simplistically you might find yourself arguing about which dictionary to use...the dictionary of choice perhaps aspiring to the same elevated status some ascribe to "holy books".

......and here it is but a short step to the mystical "In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God"...sort of cognitive incest don't you think ?

Asking that you use the dictionary isn't asking for much. It's just standardization, and it's definitions are accepted for the purpose of debate, unless your debate is against the dictionary. There was a whole philosophical movement based on the definition of words, and they didn't get anywhere because they couldn't agree on anything.

0 Replies

Dux wrote:

I'm an atheist in search of universal truths, I HAVE NOT GIVEN UP ON THE QUEST, like agnostics, they simply say they don't know to avoid the problem, it's a rather simple position, & like most simple, are wrong, since things are always complicated!

Agnostism is a rather pessimistic way of thinking, since it says you can't know, they are giving up, it's for those who lost the will of find the truth or people who rather live a simple life in a lie.

Religions & the concepts of God are false, since they are all a human creation, the concept of God has always been created with an objective, be it immortality or a simple favor, or just to be in grace of the so called god, just like a person in the court of the king tries to be in grace with his king, the only difference is that their king is false, it doesn't exist. The concept of god is a CONSOLATION for the weak, the hopeless, the ignorant & the tired people.

Those who defend the position of theist expect some kind of reward from their false god, which is rueful.

The concept of god is one of this society's greatest evils.

I don't believe you've been reading the previous posts. We aren't talking about specific religions, or good or evil, or even the perception of truth. We are talking about which view is logically correct: Atheism, Theism, or Agnosticism. I am arguing for agnosticism, as my previous posts indicate. We are not using our personal beliefs, we are using logic. There is a difference, as personal beliefs are not required to be logical. Debates should be.

Agnosticism doesn't say a darn thing about giving up. I don't know where you got that from. Science and logic are all about the quest for knowledge. I'm not asking that we stop seeking out knowledge, just that we don't hold logically false beliefs in debate.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Portal Star
You could refine the definition of god until he was a collar button and then I suppose I would have to believe in him. But, practically speaking, it ain't happening.

I am not setting the definition of g-d, I'm using the definition in the dictionary (and there is not much conflict between different dictionary definitions). Just to be sure, I'll list the definition of "God" again, from dictionary.com:
for the full list:
God

god
n.

1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot

I don't see "button" anywhere in there. :wink:

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

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.

And are you saying the truth of that statement has been revealed to you through an oracle of some sort -- or because you just made it up and want me to accept it as a universal truth?

I suspect it is the latter -- and will proceed as though it is.

Why are you asserting that this particular argument is not open to more than one logical choices?

What proof do you have that this is the case? What arguments are you going to offer that it is the case?

Or do you actually think you can simply assert it -- and that we will have to accept it?[/quote]

Quote:

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.

Well, Portal, earlier you wrote:

Quote:

I am new to philosophy...

Comments like the ones above cause me to suspect that you understated that notion.

There is no real "mutually exclusive" argument to be made here -- but I would certainly give careful consideration to any you would attempt to make. But you seem disposed to simply assert things -- and expect those assertions to be accepted as, you will excuse the expression, gospel.

That may have happened back in your other forum, but it ain't gonna happen here.

If the question is: Is there a God? -- logical choices can include "Yes there is" "No, there are no gods" or "Possibly." (The last one being equivalent to "I do not know.")

They are perfectly logical choices -- and they are not mutually exclusive of each other from the standpoint of them being choices.

One happens to be true on its face. The other two are guesses or estimates.

All are logical.

Quote:

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.

Don't know what in the hell you are trying to say here -- but you have come into this forum and announced with a great deal of pompacity that you were going to prove that the agnostic position is the "only logical religious viewpoint."

I am not asking you to "submit any knowledge to back up agnosticism" -- I am asking you to make the arguments you intend to use to PROVE that agnosticism is the only logical choice.

What gives?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa-
I have limited philisophical experience, and I had a class on mind/body philiosophy. This is how I know what I know about the basis of logic.
You cannot simultaneously have somthing exist and not exist.
They are opposites, and cannot both be logically correct at the same time.

Now, a possibility is not the same as not having any evidence. If you have no evidence, you cannot state one way or the other about somthing existing or not existing. They are related, but they are not exactly the same idea. Atheism and theism aren't saying that it's -possible- that g-d does or does not exist, they are saying that g-d does or does not exist.

Therefore, if you choose agnosticism (lack of evidence), you cannot have atheism or theism because there is no evidence pointing to either.

If you choose atheism, you must have evidence to back it up (for it to be logical: I'm sure you've heard of the trial analogy for proving logical statements). If you have evidence, you are not agnostic. And you cannot simultaneously believe in the nonexistence and existence of g-d, so theism is out.

If you choose theism, you must have evidence to back it up. If you have evidence, you are not agnostic. If you believe in the existence of g-d you cannot simultaneously believe in the non-existance of g-d, which would be atheist.

Hope that clears it up for you.

0 Replies

Portal,

There IS evidence. Not that can lead one to absolute certainty but as I keep trying to tell you there is nothing other than ignorance that one can be absolutely certain about.

In any case if you choose to believe that I am not god then you must show evidence.

Please proove to me that I am not a god. :-)

Your logic here is laughable.

0 Replies

Portal, You cannot prove a negative. Atheists believe there is no god. I take it one step further and say there is no god created by man. That we must first prove there is no god is stupid on the face of it. If I say something doesn't exist, it's not up to me to prove it does exist. It's for others who believe it to exist to show it exists. Your understanding of logic is lacking. c.i.

0 Replies

Actually you can prove a negative, but it is quite difficult and in many cases it's impossible.

But you make a valid point about both proving a negative and burden of proof ci.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Actually you can prove a negative, but it is quite difficult and in many cases it's impossible.

But you make a valid point about both proving a negative and burden of proof ci.

I agree!

I agree!

0 Replies

Portal,

Before I respond to your last post directed to me -- a tangental word, if I may.

Whatever happens between you, me, Craven, ci, or anyone else in this thread -- please stick around and become a regular member of the group.

We need people like you.

****

You are placing me in a very uncomfortable position here. I am probably the most vocal agnostic here or in Abuzz -- and you have me in the unusual position of arguing against a fellow agnostic.

I am only doing it because I see your position as completely wrong headed.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Frank Apisa-
I have limited philisophical experience, and I had a class on mind/body philiosophy. This is how I know what I know about the basis of logic.
You cannot simultaneously have somthing exist and not exist.
They are opposites, and cannot both be logically correct at the same time.

That is correct -- and it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue we are discussing.

The issue at hand is not whether there is a God or are no gods -- a circumstance I acknowledge has mutually exclusive components.

The issue at hand is whether or not the agnostic position "I do not know if there is a God or are no gods" is the ONLY logical choice when dealing with the issue.

Now granted, it either IS the only logical choice or it IS NOT the only logical choice -- which would be another mutually exclusive circumstance. BUT your assertion that agnosticism "is the only logical religious viewpoint" is independent of both those mutually exclusive circumstances.

A "viewpoint" by its very nature is independent of WHAT IS.

A viewpoint (or more properly, a point of view) is a position from which something is considered or evaluated.

Different people using differing criteria and different standards of establishment -- can, and very, very often do, come to viewpoints 180 degrees out of phase (and mutually exclusive of) other viewpoints -- or choices.

Fact is, Portal, one of the two viewpoints other than the agnostic position IS, more than likely, CORRECT.

There either IS a God -- or there are no gods. (There may be gods -- which would make both those others, technically, incorrect.)

Quote:

Now, a possibility is not the same as not having any evidence.

That is correct.

Quote:

If you have no evidence, you cannot state one way or the other about somthing existing or not existing.

That is not correct. You certainly can guess one way or the other. And if there are people guessing there is a God and others guessing there are no gods -- one of them (barring that minor matter I mentioned earlier) IS CORRECT.

So not only can they state it -- they MAY BE correct -- and if you have both sides represented -- ONE SIDE IS CORRECT.

We don't know which -- and the agnostic position stresses that. But to suppose that the agnostic position is the only logical religious viewpoint is absurd -- and presumptuous.

Quote:

They are related, but they are not exactly the same idea. Atheism and theism aren't saying that it's -possible- that g-d does or does not exist, they are saying that g-d does or does not exist.

Not entirely correct -- particularly as regards the atheistic position. I've covered this extensively in several threads -- and I don't want to get into it in depth here, but here is a link to a thread at another forum that details my objections to your assertion above.

http://nytimes.abuzz.com/interaction/s.169766/discussion

Quote:

Therefore, if you choose agnosticism (lack of evidence), you cannot have atheism or theism because there is no evidence pointing to either.

But if you don't choose agnosticism -- you still have the others as logical choices -- and one of those other logical choices has the distinct advantage of being correct.

0 Replies

I see nothing so far but the same old run around. People invent their gods and then expect me to have evidence of it. Ridiculous.

0 Replies

Same song . . .

Dja ever read Island by Huxley? Certainly one of his less well written novels--and there was a little passage in it about a society in which children were given pastboard toys of all the major gods. Those sorts of toys in which one pulls a string on the back and the arms and legs jump around. Their parents did not want to fear gods, later in life, when they ran across the notion.

0 Replies

thats what the Zuni do with their kachina dolls, the children play with them as toys even as they represent their gods

0 Replies

That's what the little plastic Jesuses are for, isn't it?

0 Replies

And many show the little jesus on a cross. Talk about good marketing, what product sells more? c.i.

0 Replies

Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know