Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

religion was invented as a comfort. people dont want to feel like they are alone. so they made up god. it seems like nearly all religions have a god, so id be curious to see if a child grew up with zero knowledge of religion (not possible obviously but im still curious) would he still create some sort of religion, and would he chose a central god?

what do you think?

Frank, How'd you guess?

I assume that there is quite a bit of knowledge beyond my grasp.

But I have Faith that jointly and severally humans can know it all.

Hopefully our priests' physicists, and philosophers would be able to distill knowledge sufficiently so that we, the body politic, can understand without the necessity of individually knowing everything.

Need I remark that this has often not been the case so far.

Unfortunetly, sometimes I suspect that we (the great unwashed) are not getting fair value for our taxes, tithes and endowments.

Hi! I am new here and I'd just like to explain my beliefs. I've always been a Christian but recently I've wondered about it all and so I'm trying to find out more.
A q. for all agnostics. Don't you think a loving creator would want us to be sure about him and understand him?

Well, you are assuming a creator...

...and you are assuming that the creator is loving...

...and then you are assuming that the creator would "want us to be sure about him." (Which itself means you are assuming the god is male.)

I see no reason to assume there is a creator.

If there is a creator, I see no reason to assume the creator would have to be loving.

And if there happens to be a creator and if that creator happens to be loving -- I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that the creator would "want us to be sure about"...it.

If there is a creator -- and if the creator is loving (whatever that means) -- and if the loving creator wanted us "to be sure" about its existence...

...it sure as hell would have done a much better job of revealing itself.

If there is a creator -- the creator created the Earth and everything on it, including molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles, quanta, quarks and the like. It also created the other planets and our sun. It also created the 200 plus billions of stars that make up our galaxy; the hundreds of billions of galaxies that we can detect; and the vast space in which they are all located.

If a god that powerful exists -- and wants us to know that it exists -- no one on the planet would ever have to ask the question you asked, because we would all know without a scintilla of doubt that the god exists.


Was that what you were looking for?

Hey Frank, isn't that an atheist's argument

heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

okbye

Nope! Not at all! :wink:

Jumping in late, as usual. I'm an atheist. I don't believe in god{s}, and for the same reason I don't believe in unicorns, (and fairys, and ghosts, and....). It's not so much because I find the alternative of believing in these things obviously wrong. They're just obviously pointless. While it's theoretically possible that unicorns (...) exist, the assumption that they do adds nothing to my understanding of the world, so I don't believe in them. The same logic applies to god{s}. Again, the reason is not that they obviously don't exist, but that the assumption that they do is a waste of brain cells.

How is this particular variant of atheism logically inconsistent?

The people in this thread really like to use unicorns in their arguments, and I've explained this several times, but I'll explain it again, in the words of Cecil Adams, "For the teeming masses."

Here goes:
You can define a unicorn, and by definition a unicorn has at some point physical presence on the earth in order to exist. If a unicorn has never had physical presence on the earth as described, we know it does not exist. It is logical to be aunicornist.

You can define a specific diety, such as Jesus, as Jesus is described to have had physical impact in the universe. If you can find that there is no evidence pointing to this being's physical impact on the earth as described (as defined) then you can logially prove the diety does not exist. You can logically be achristist.

G-d is not definable. There is no steady definition or description of g-d. G-d, to exist, could be wholly immaterial - having never interacted physically with the universe. We don't have any definition for what g-d looks like, we wouldn't know if we saw one, and unless there was some change in the definition of g-d to be more constant or to be somthing which is at some point physical, we cannot logically say, in concept, g-d does not exist. For the same reasons, a pink elephant which cannot be seen, smelled, heard, touched, tasted, observed by machines, (sensed in any way) and which does not impact the physical world -in any way- cannot be proven or disproven. So that is why the logical choice would be agnostic (impossible to know.)

Keep in mind that you need evidence to rationally prove or disprove anything, but in the realm of logic, thought-evidence is allowed (thought problems which follow linear logic and are subject to contradiction.)

If he's not definable, then how does his existence or non-existence tell me anything? And why bother with concepts that don't tell me anything?

Again, the reason I'm an atheist, not an agnostic, is not that the disbelief in god has any importance to me -- rather it's because it's a waste of brain to be agnostic about a meaningless concept. Better to forget about the concept altogether.

"Maybe" doesn't cut it for me too!

Hey, we're not talking about which view is more -interesting- you asked which was logical, and why. You got you answer, I can't add sprinkles to it.


mmm.... g-d sprinkles...

Hi, and welcome Thomas. Same pov w/me so far. But hang a hat and join in the fray...

Thomas and Osso -- Here's a question which comes up particularly at this time of the year: how do you react to moving about in a culture which is so full of the gloss of religious belief? I grant you that Christmas decor is commercial, but its intention is to coast on its association with religion. Is it more or less your culture because it has this stuff floating about?

I am a stranger now in a strange land, a community I moved to relatively recently and no one cares about this question re me, here. Not to whine, that is just how it is.

Re other friends in other places, they mostly know me, and a lot of us connect via some kind of mail or phone around holidays.

I am not threaded into a communty of churchgoers who would pull at my sleeves - thank goodness, from my pov -
but do live in a small town with more churches than I have perhaps seen ever before in one place, at least in US, almost as many as in Rome (is it 1 per block?)

I am not hostile to them, and they don't know me. I love the look of the churches, but then that would sound condescending to me if I was a member of one of those churches.

I am not pillowed in here in the arms of the community, but I am not objected to either. Really, it is pretty comfortable.
In part because I shop at the coop, which makes efforts toward their idea of avant. Actually I recommend this area. The air is good, the land has much beauty.

It's still more or less my culture. European and American culture isn't that strongly influenced by religion, and to the extent that it is, it's mostly through rules that make sense to me even though I don't believe in the underlying religion. Think "Thou shalt not kill", "Love thy neighbor", and so forth.

Christmas stuff doesn't bother me at all. To me, Christmas is a simply time the of the year at which I spend time with my family and exchange gifts with them by social convention. That's a good thing, no matter if the official reason is Jesus's birthday, the change of the year, or winter solstice like in old Germanic cults.

The situations that make me feel uncomfortable as an atheist are not public displays of faith, but friendly private events. For example, I don't know what to do when I'm invited for dinner by a Christian family, and my hosts pray before they start to eat. If I join into the prayer, I feel dishonest, and I come across as dishonest as soon as my hosts find out about my atheism. If I don't join in, that's rude, and I don't want to be rude as a guest.

I don't care about Christmas trees in the streets. I wouldn't personally care if the ten commandments were carved in stone in public buildings. I live in a country where religion classes in school are mandatory for Christian children. None of this public stuff bothers me. It's the private incompatibilities I find difficult do deal which, and for which I haven't found good solutions yet.

Thomas- I have never been in a private situation where people prayed before a meal. I HAVE been in semi-public gatherings, like dinners in my community. I simply stand quietly and respectfully, and let the others "do their thing". I don't think that is rude at all. It WOULD be rude if the other guests took umbrage at the fact that I did not pray.

I didn't respond at the time, but, i had much the same reaction as Phoenix to that one. I would further ask if Thomas' christian acquaintance were not sufficiently aware of his belief to understand his position. Most people who have known me well, if even for a brief time, have usually come to a point at which they tell me they have assumed, or a point at which they ask me, if i am atheist.

As for being such a stranger in a strange land as is the burden of Tart's question, it only impinges on my situation to the extent that there are inconveniencies. With public places and government agencies closed on a Sunday, and often on a Saturday (yes, i know those folks deserve weekends as much as do i), and certainly on christian holidays--it is inconvenient to both me, and to the religiouly inclined, given that we work at our own professions during the business hours of said public places and institutions.

But then, the convenient stores and Wally World are going to be open 24/7/365--so, its not a big deal.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too, Frank, and to all A2Kers!