Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

This whole discussion is too semantical. Words are traps if you don't try to get back to the physical world.

Asking logical evidence for god is like asking logical evidence for respect. You can't provide it, because providing proof for a word is a trivial attempt. The only evidence for mental concepts such as god -- as fresco noted -- is that they exist within our human societies as linguistical symbols.

Until words reflect something real from the ontological realm -- which is up to science to prove -- they remain legends or merely words that don't reflect anything ontologically factual. (Boy, Wittgenstein would have loved this.)

My personal view on the origin of the god-concept departs from the same notion as edgar blythe's point: that god was an explanation for something physically unknown and manifestly overpowering to humankind. I'm more and more convinced that the etymological root for the god-word --'powerful beings in the sky' -- should be taken more at face value than we dare to...

0 Replies

To which powerful beings in the sky do you refer, wolf?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

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.

I'll check out the other thread when I'm not on an e-machine. People, don't buy e-machines.

I agree with the other points you made, especially the one that g-d either exists or doesn't. I know that agnosticism isn't an answer to the argument. However, I'm not saying that agnostic is the logical choice for the rest of eternity no matter what. If some evidence prevented it's self, say in the future, it could be worked with. If you would like, I could say agnostic is the only current logical position. However, I feel that there will continue to be a lack of evidence on either side. If some evidence is prevented, then one side or the other could be logically chosen. It has not, so agnosticism is the only logical choice.

0 Replies

wolf wrote:

This whole discussion is too semantical. Words are traps if you don't try to get back to the physical world.

Asking logical evidence for god is like asking logical evidence for respect. You can't provide it, because providing proof for a word is a trivial attempt. The only evidence for mental concepts such as god -- as fresco noted -- is that they exist within our human societies as linguistical symbols.

Until words reflect something real from the ontological realm -- which is up to science to prove -- they remain legends or merely words that don't reflect anything ontologically factual. (Boy, Wittgenstein would have loved this.)

My personal view on the origin of the god-concept departs from the same notion as edgar blythe's point: that god was an explanation for something physically unknown and manifestly overpowering to humankind. I'm more and more convinced that the etymological root for the god-word --'powerful beings in the sky' -- should be taken more at face value than we dare to...

while linguistics bring up interesting problems of their own, they are not akin to g-d. Many people could identify respect if they saw it. They would know what to look for, certain body language signals and words, etc. People can generally agree on what "respect" is. Try to do this for "god." Can you identify "God"? If you saw g-d would you know what it was? Would other people?

0 Replies

Portal,

Evidence exists. Certainty only exists about one's ignorance. Each must take the evidence at hand and draw a conclusion.

There are many conclusions the predominant trends being:

Yes, no and maybe.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

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.

What evidence do you have? If you do have evidence, about 5 billion people and I would like to know what it is.

(btw, the bible/Quaran argument is circular and doens't count. The basis for g-d is the bible, and the basis for the bible is g-d. That doesn't give me any information, other than the nature of the argument.)

Craven de Kere wrote:

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.

Well, who am I trying to prove isn't g-d? You, a human, in _____state, or from my present information about you,as text on screen? [These require different arguments].

0 Replies

Sigh, don't make this tedious, concede obvious points.

Let's say I decide to contest taht I am not human. I am a god, invisible to humans and with a knack for using their technology to communicate.

Now, you might consider that to be silly, but you can't prove otherwise.

Reasonable logic would suggest that if I make such a claim the burden of proof is on me.

0 Replies

One more try...

By engaging in this debate we are all reifying the "existence of God". The "proof" is our interaction - nothing more and nothing less.

In pre-20th century medicine "doctors" interacted with with the concept of the "four humours" (Phlegm, bile etc ...hence words such as "phlegmatic"). Thus the humours had "existence" by virtue of their effect on social behaviour. No doubt there were medical sceptics (=atheists) at that time but their scepticism was meaningful only with repect to the original concept. They had no viable alternative world view supported by consensus.

0 Replies

fresco,

I have a quibble, IMO, asking that burden of proof be observed is a far cry from reifying anything.

If to speak of is to reify, then to utter the word "asbtract" would be a paradox.

0 Replies

Quote:

If you saw g-d would you know what it was?

It would probably identify itself as such, there are precedents you know.

0 Replies

Not merely to "speak"but to engage in debate - including internal debates of self with self...but no paradox...the continuity of the "existence of a concept" will depend on its "utility". Thus "humours" have historical utility, "Unicorns" have literary and artistic utility, "Santa Claus" has child rearing and cultural utility etc. The word "abstract" is except for rhetorical debate always uttered in "context" (artistic etc) and therein lies its utility.

0 Replies

Is not the dismissal of diety as a foregone conclusion (implying the need to debunk) about as "in context" as it gets?

0 Replies

Mr Stillwater wrote:

Quote:
If you saw g-d would you know what it was?

It would probably identify itself as such, there are precedents you know.

Yup . . . i was at a Dead concert once, doin' psylocybin--you know, shrooms--an god was standin' right by the big speakers at the side of the stage, boogy-in' like one of the people. So i walked up to her, an' said: "Say, ain't you . . . "

"Yeah, yeah, kid, i am . . . now beat it, i'm in a groove."

0 Replies

Craven

The "problem" with theism stems not from its lowly intellectual status but from its high level utility in fulfilling emotional needs.
Marx may have been correct when he called religion the opium of the masses, but it seems that the masses NEED their opium. Addicts don't play the logic game (or they don't play fair). Thats the problem with the original question on this thread.

0 Replies

You can't prove God exists just as you can't prove pink elephants exists. The popularity of the God concept doesn't imply there's something to it. It hasn't even been philosophically defined. So we're trumpetting out of our behinds here.

Quote:

To which powerful beings in the sky do you refer, wolf?

Edgar, I'm referring to real living beings, not to mythical assumptions. This may be sobering to many fellow human beings. That is only because Western traditional religions have drugged us into near schizophrenia.

0 Replies

wolf
I give up.

0 Replies

Got a deck a cards, EB?

Know how to play gin?

0 Replies

I'm willing to learn.

0 Replies

How about people who are "highly developed, spiritually" but who are avowed atheists or agnostics? What do you do about people who say they aren't religious but who believe, strongly and firmly, in (for example) astrology? Why should logic "win" over belief or faith? How much of the time is logic, like faith, a matter of what we choose to accept? To what extent is religion (or lack of) simply an inherited set of beliefs, relevant to one's time on earth, culture, nationality? And above all, what is it in our culture which has made our form of Christianity so domineering, prideful, and boring?

0 Replies

Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know