Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

An uninterested God
Thankyou Frank that puts quite a different perspective on it. Very Happy

By the way, just so you know, I say He just for want of a better word. I'll use It if you prefer.
How likely do people think it is that there is God who didn't create us? I f so, how is he - sorry, it - our God? And if it did create us but isn't loving, why did he bother? Any thoughts? Question

Oh, and happy thanks giving, even though I'm English and I don't really know what it's all about!

0 Replies

Seeker, WELCOME to A2K.

0 Replies

Lets see now, "Thanksgiving"...who would we be thanking exactly?... Laughing

....A jocular point but an opportunity to restate my definition of "existence". I am an atheist but "God exists" in as much as it is a concept which affects my life i.e my social interactions whether I personally "believe" or not. In a nutshell, "reality" is socially constructed, ..is a mesh of interconected concepts, ....is dependent on zeitgeist...and is subject to constant revision of its structural and functional status.

For me then it is futile to talk about the logical status of "theism" "agnosticism" or "atheism" because the real issue is the social status of "the God concept" within the fabric of society. There is clearly some form of psychological need being satisfied by the concept in many people and "logic" is merely used as a tool within their subsequent rationality. Each rationality with respect to "belief" has its own "rules of evidence" and "event boundaries", or in short is a different ball game.
(EDIT Thus is not to argue that belief or otherwise is socially equivocal - on the contrary I base my atheism on the argument that organized belief systems tend to be socially pernicious)

So "Happy Thanksgiving" to all ball players and I thereby re-cement my ties with my fellow a2k-ers !
(EDIT But note that "Thanksgiving" means I had George Bush's image thrusting itself into my British living room, and consequently may have led to untold numbers of Iraqi's reaching for their weapons !)

0 Replies

Quote:

This also gives trouble to atheists, because lack of evidence does not = non-existance. Believing in the non-existance of g-d logically requires some evidence of the non-existance of g-d. And being that g-d by definition cannot be defined and can be supernatural (beyond the natural, material world, and thus beyond human senses), there is no material evidence pointing either way. Because of this, atheists are equally logically incorrect with theists.

You don't need material or empirical evidence to prove that God does not exist. Simple, cold, rational thought will lead you to this conclusion. You are also wrong when you said that there is no conventional definition for God. There is one aspect which is agreed upon in the religious community and it is that God is omniscient and omnipotent.

That is a foundation on which to build a rational argument against the existance of God. For if God is truly the above than he knows all that will and has ever come into existance and all possible outcomes to all possible scenarios. Therefore He should have known the outcome of His creation (i.e. man). Why than did He create us if He knew what we would become? It isn't logical or rational, which are two traits I believe God I supposed to have possession of.

0 Replies

You don't need material or empirical evidence to prove that God does not exist. Simple, cold, rational thought will lead you to this conclusion.

Really? Rational thought leads me to think that it is just as likely that there is a God as that the correct balance of molecules etc. met in the correct way at the correct time unsder the orrect circumstances, of which there are very many, just by chance. People say God is irrational, but I think this is. No matter how many big bangs etc. you talk about, you always come back to WHY. What is so unreasonable about God compared to these ideas? :wink:

0 Replies

The question of why IS being asked of the Big Bang. Physics is now attempting to answer this question, as is evident by GUTs and things of that sort. God currenlty offers, nor looks like he will attempt to offer, the answers to the why, but physics will (I believ so) answert the why of the Big Bang. God depends on faith, the Big Bang will be answered by science and rational thought.

0 Replies

Yottos wrote:

Quote:
This also gives trouble to atheists, because lack of evidence does not = non-existance. Believing in the non-existance of g-d logically requires some evidence of the non-existance of g-d. And being that g-d by definition cannot be defined and can be supernatural (beyond the natural, material world, and thus beyond human senses), there is no material evidence pointing either way. Because of this, atheists are equally logically incorrect with theists.

You don't need material or empirical evidence to prove that God does not exist. Simple, cold, rational thought will lead you to this conclusion.

Nonsense!

There is absolutely no way "simple, cold, rational thought" will lead you to ANY conclusions on the question: "Does God (or do gods) exist?"

Quote:

You are also wrong when you said that there is no conventional definition for God. There is one aspect which is agreed upon in the religious community and it is that God is omniscient and omnipotent.

Not sure what you mean by "the religious community" -- but if you mean theists in general, I can tell you that there are many (several right here in this forum) who theorize a GOD without any of the "omni" qualities.

Quote:

That is a foundation on which to build a rational argument against the existance of God. For if God is truly the above than he knows all that will and has ever come into existance and all possible outcomes to all possible scenarios. Therefore He should have known the outcome of His creation (i.e. man). Why than did He create us if He knew what we would become? It isn't logical or rational, which are two traits I believe God I supposed to have possession of.

Illogical -- and indefensible.

But in any case, considering my response immediately above -- it is a straw man.

WELLCOME TO A2K. It is a great forum. Hope you stick around and have fun here.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Yottos wrote:
You don’t need material or empirical evidence to prove that God does not exist. Simple, cold, rational thought will lead you to this conclusion.

Nonsense!

Why is it nonsense? We have no data either way, so cold, rational thought would suggest that we cut through the crap and discard the assumption of a god -- or gods -- as meaningless.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
You are also wrong when you said that there is no conventional definition for God. There is one aspect which is agreed upon in the religious community and it is that God is omniscient and omnipotent.

Not sure what you mean by "the religious community" -- but if you mean theists in general, I can tell you that there are many (several right here in this forum) who theorize a GOD without any of the "omni" qualities.

On this point I agree with frank. For example, the gods of the ancient Romans and Greeks strike me as obvious counterexamples.

0 Replies

I didn't take into account the God(s) of old, but rather the beliefs that have been expressed to me by Christians and Catholics I know. They believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God. Since Roman and Greek Gods no longer have the acceptance they once did I discarded them. My statement was far too broad.

Quote:

Illogical -- and indefensible.

But in any case, considering my response immediately above -- it is a straw man.

I have revised my statement so I believe it stands once again.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Yottos wrote:
You don't need material or empirical evidence to prove that God does not exist. Simple, cold, rational thought will lead you to this conclusion.

Nonsense!

Why is it nonsense? We have no data either way, so cold, rational thought would suggest that we cut through the crap and discard the assumption of a god -- or gods -- as meaningless.

I understand where you are coming from, Thomas, but...

I think that would simply be conceding the atheistic position.

There is no way one can apply logic, cold and rational or hot and irrational, to nothing.

And you acknowledge that there is nothing.

The idea that Yottos is applying logic to arrive where he/she is -- is self-serving -- and NONSENSE, in my opinion.

0 Replies

Quote:

And you acknowledge that there is nothing.

The idea that Yottos is applying logic to arrive where he/she is -- is self-serving -- and NONSENSE, in my opinion.

I'm going to take some advice from your signature and admit that I dont have a clue as to what you are talking about. How is applying the methods mentioned above to a problem which has plagued man since time-unknown an act of NONSENSE? I dont see how using rational thought can fail someone in this particular instance.

And its he for future reference. :wink:

0 Replies

Yottos wrote:

Quote:
And you acknowledge that there is nothing.

The idea that Yottos is applying logic to arrive where he/she is -- is self-serving -- and NONSENSE, in my opinion.

I'm going to take some advice from your signature and admit that I dont have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Ahhh...I am delighted that you did.

Quote:

How is applying the methods mentioned above to a problem which has plagued man since time-unknown an act of NONSENSE? I dont see how using rational thought can fail someone in this particular instance.

Well, here is why I say it is nonsense.

You wrote:

Quote:

You don't need material or empirical evidence to prove that God does not exist. Simple, cold, rational thought will lead you to this conclusion.

And you have absolutely nothing to work with -- essentially no data, no facts, no nuthin'! (In fact, nearly as I can see, the ONLY thing you have to work with is the fact that theists cannot establish that there is a God!)

So, let me ask a comparable question:

How many pencils do I have on my desk right now?

Apply all that "simple, cold, rational thought" to that problem.

And explain to me how it leads to whatever conclusion you come to.

0 Replies

I see.

Well I was basing my statements off of the believed traits that God supposedly possess as stated by Catholics and Christians. Based off the assumption he is omniscient and omnipotent and perfect (i.e. not flawed), there would be no rational reason for God to have created man if he knew what would become of his creation. That was the cold, rational thought I was applying to the question of does God exist based on the traits he is believed to possess.

I believe there are three possible answers to my train of thought.

1.) I was misguided in my thinking, which is entirely possible.

2.) God does not exist because the above doesn't make sense.

3.) God does exist but not the God Catholics and Christians believe in.

[EDIT] And you have no pencils on your desk. Smile

0 Replies

Yottos wrote:

I see.

Well I was basing my statements off of the believed traits that God supposedly possess as stated by Catholics and Christians. Based off the assumption he is omniscient and omnipotent and perfect (i.e. not flawed), there would be no rational reason for God to have created man if he knew what would become of his creation. That was the cold, rational thought I was applying to the question of does God exist based on the traits he is believed to possess.

I believe there are three possible answers to my train of thought.

1.) I was misguided in my thinking, which is entirely possible.

2.) God does not exist because the above doesn't make sense.

3.) God does exist but not the God Catholics and Christians believe in.

Well, it seems to me that the most logical comment that can be made on the Ultimate Question "Does a God exist?"...

...is...

...there really doesn't seem to be any way to know right now.

I'm an agnostic. I acknowledge that I do not KNOW if God exists -- and I do not KNOW if there are no gods. I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a reasonable guess in either direction.

I hope you give the agnostic position some of that cold, rational logic you spoke of.

In any case, when dealing with the question "Is there a God?" -- it probably is a good idea not to fix on the currently fashionable crop of gods. They seem about as likely as Zeus and Thor -- and that might influence you to jump to unreasonable conclusions during your considerations.

Glad to see you are here, Yattos. Great participation on your part.

0 Replies

Quote:

You don't need material or empirical evidence to prove that God does not exist. Simple, cold, rational thought will lead you to this conclusion. You are also wrong when you said that there is no conventional definition for God. There is one aspect which is agreed upon in the religious community and it is that God is omniscient and omnipotent.

That's an unfounded assumption. Check out the Gods database http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/index.php The concept of g-d changes throughout history, culture, and space.

(I read that you modified your statement, but I'll leave the post up b/c I am amused by the gods database. I think its a great project. )

0 Replies

To atheists: Don't you find not knowing an dissatisfying answer? I mean, if there si a God and he is expecting something from us, you could be throwing away something vital. Doesn't the inkling that there might be a God make you want to know more? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Seeker wrote:

I mean, if there si a God and he is expecting something from us, you could be throwing away something vital.

Sure. Then again, If there is no God and I make an effort to find out more, I'm wasting my time which is also something vital. You also have to account for the possibility that there's a wicked God who expects us to spot the obvious inconsistencies of the Bible, and who wants to sort out the gullible zealots so he cen fry them in hell for eternity. That possibility creates a strong disincentive against spending time with religion. And since I don't know how to assign probabilities to the various scenarios, my best bet is to be an agnostic atheist.

0 Replies