Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Craven

You may have missed my earlier comment that "logic" is only applicable to what we consider "objective" not "subjective". The corollary of this is that the demand for logic implies "potential objectivity" and hence "reifies" in the traditional sense.

My second order position on this is that ANY debate/interaction with respect to theism whether logical or not, "reifies" in the social constructionist sense (subjectivity-objectivity themselves being defined by social consensus) This position was expanded by kuvasz.

Yes, it does. But think of it this way. I'm willing to lend the topic a validity of sorts in order to avoid being the guy who just determines it's lacking in merit and does not wish to explain.

Let's say someone decides the moon is made of cheese. You can decide not to dignify the notion with comment or not.

Yes, taking anything seriously lends validity to some extent but I don't appreciate my notions being dismissed without the underlying ratiocination being given.

so if someone tells me they believe the moon is made of cheese I might "validate" the notion with comment simply because my other alternative would be to point and laugh.

Edgar:

The etymology of God comes from Elohim, a plural noun which means 'powerful heavenly beings'. 'Heaven' was once synonymous for 'space'.

Do you need more tips or you managed to assemble the puzzle?

We've moved from "reification to "validation".

The first, for me is "the process of interaction which gives reality to a concept"(Ref Piaget assimilation accommodation producing "schemas") For example, we reify the concept "nation" by thoughts and actions which grant this notion "reality".

The second is about "successful predictions of outcomes of interactions with respect to a concept". So the "existence" of say "electrons" is supported by predicted observations of their ascribed properties. (We are essentially involved in "logical validity" to the extent that we are testing the truth table for the statement IF electrons exist THEN observation x will happen).
Note here that "validity" only apples to binary logic or universals, not to statistical probability - the modus vivendi of social consensus.

reification is to diety, validation. anywho, we better stop talking about it. It's getting realer. :-)

we could determine whether or not the moon was made out of cheese. People have been to the moon. We can see he moon from earth, both with naked eye and telescope. We have cheese we can compare to the moon. We would be able to determine this, both physically and theoretically, because the moon exists in the physical realm.

I actually considered myself to be atheist until I was talking to someone who knows a lot about philosophy, and is agnostic. He explained it to me and his points followed the logic used in my mind/body class.

Do not confuse the concept of g-d with religion. I could disproove anything that was defined as being supernatural, like Jesus or Muhammed, Zeus, Asherah, Loki, or other dieties. Religions have been using the concept of g-d throughout history. I do not agree with any religions of which I know, and do no believe in the exisance of those "god's". Religions use the concept of g-d, but religion and g-d are not synonomous things. G-d could be another word for whatever energy, gasses and so on created the universe. G-d could be (the example before) to us what a cell in the thumb is to the body. The possibilities are limitless, this g-d doesn't even have to exist in the material world.

There is no evidence of g-d, there is not even a definition of g-d under which to look for evidence. One cannot logically confirm or deny the concept of g-d. This is why agnostic is the only logical choice.

Rather say, upon that set of contentions, you base your contention that agnosticism is the only logical choice. "Logic" is no more a certainty than any other human mental construct.

Portal

Your intention was to PROVE that agnosticism "is the only logical religious viewpoint."

I say you have not even come close to doing that -- and I am, as I mentioned earlier, probably the most vocal agnostic in his forum.

I doubt you will get many people who have heard your arguments -- or who have noted the absence of any substantive arguments -- to agree that you have proved what you set out to prove.

Fact is, even you acknowledge that there either IS a God -- or there are no gods -- which essentially means that one of the two "religious viewpoints" -- theism or atheism IS CORRECT -- IS TRUE.

We agnostics acknowledge that we do not KNOW which is correct -- and we (most of us) say that that there is not enough unambiguous, probative evidence for us to make a meaningful guess or estimation in either direction.

Some people do not see the evidence that way -- and some say there is compelling evidence to warrant a guess or estimate that "There is a God" and some a guess or estimate that "There are no gods."

You are being presumptuous -- not logical -- to suppose they are not acting logically, reasonably, or ethically.

If your argument had been that agnosticism makes more sense -- or better emphasizes the truth of what we know and do not know -- I would be on your side completely. But instead, you chose to defend an untenable position.

My discussions with theists indicate that there are, as you earlier noted, many who claim that their "beliefs" that there is a God -- constitutes absolutely certainty -- KNOWLEDGE -- that there is a God.

My guess is that is a bunch of bluster and blather -- and I would defend that impression if it were your thesis. Theists have a lot of pressure on them not to doubt the existence of their gods in any way.

My discussions with atheists indicate that there is a great deal of willingness to acknowledge that their "suggestion" that there are no gods -- is not certainty -- in any sense of that word. (In other words, more than just an exercise in sophistry.

Most, I suspect are actually agnostics -- but most seem to consider agnosticism to be a cop-out -- fence sitting. And despite the protestations from Craven that "fence sitting" carries no pejorative connotation for him, it does for most people. Most people consider it an example of someone who will not (or cannot) make a decision on the question.

But agnosticism for me is the dead certainty that I do not know the answers to Ultimate Questions -- and the dead certainty that the evidence available to me is not sufficient for me to make a meaningful guess or estimate in either direction.

It is anything but "fence sitting" as most people understand that word.

You have blundered here, Portal.

Your best move would be to acknowledge that you allowed your mouth to write a check your brain couldn't cash.

There will be many discussions between agnostics and theists/atheists in A2K. I hope you are part of them. Best to enter them clean.

Frank's quote: "Your best move would be to acknowledge that you allowed your mouth to write a check your brain couldn't cash." I love it! Can I steal it? Maybe "borrow' is a better word. c.i.

One does not live by logic alone, unless you're a Vulcan. Proof of God has been bandied about for millennia. What is proof to one is not to another. So this proof is subjective. But is it less true than an objective fact? One's God needs no other proof but self-evident proof. In this, no exterior proof, no logic based upon reason and objective reality is necessary.

It seems that to which you refer, a logic system based upon objective reality is in fact, actually a subjective reality of your own making, and I mentioned it earlier, "it is the imposition of a traditional cultural superstructure determining the infrastructure of your recognition of your God." And of your reality.

There is "truth" and there is "truthfulness," and they do not arise from the same source. The former term is grounded in empirical evidence (and was the very basis of Charles Pierce's and later, William James' view of "pragmatism," and neither of which are like Wil Durant's view of the term). The latter term is derived from the subjectivity of the mind and one can think that they are being logical about God, because "they know". So, it seems to me that we are talking past one another in this discussion.

Reason can be defined as a collection of common, agreed on concepts that aid in the search for truth. Generally, truth is used to mean representational truth, viz., simple mapping, or correspondence. For example, I say it is raining outside. To find out the validity or the "truth" of this statement, we walk outside and if it is raining, the statement "it is raining outside" is true. Likewise for a true proposition, again, simple mapping and one checks to see if the proposition corresponds with or fits the facts. The essence is that with representational or propositional truth, each refers to an objective state of affairs.
So, this sort of truth deals basically with the exterior and contains the observable, empirical aspects of perception. They all have simple location.

The question at hand, is that the beliefs some folks seem to espouse of reality and their Gods is not based upon a matter of objective truth, but of subjective truthfulness. And these are two very different criteria. The requirement for the subjective is that events are located in states of consciousness, not the objective states and one cannot empirically nail them down with simple location. The subjective truthfulness of anything must be accessed with communication, interpretation, (and symbolism) and not with the monological gaze employed for defining of objective truth. The interior world of theists who proclaims God's existence because "they know in their hearts" is not subject to empirical validity.

You can't find God by logic, otherwise faith would have no meaning.

kuvasz, Very good post; it delineates subjective and objective truths very clearly. Thank you, c.i.

I remember a discussion on Abuzz in which somebody described their belief in their religion somewhat similar to being in love. It's there, but it's impossible to prove. c.i.

Yes, that was very good, Kuv. It's the basis for the divide between those who recognize America as a secular nation and those who see it as a nation "under god." It's why one can respect one's neighbor for his belief in god even if one doesn't believe, but loses respect for him if he seeks power to impose your rights and beliefs by overriding the rights and laws of the secular state.

ci

Borrow away!

I borrowed it from an expression that deal with men of a certain age (ours) making moves on young ladies:

Don't let your mouth write any checks your body can't cash, Pops!

So far, no woman has used that line on me, but...

Some have bounced some checks on this thread due to insufficient
fun.

I hold my stance. A positive or negative logical statement requires evidence of some kind, of which there isn't any, both because of the defintion of and lack of evidence about god. You could not gather any information about g-d for logic or for the scientific method, and therefore you cannot logically conlude god exists or doesn't. I don't see any flaws with my belief that agnostic is the only logical choice. The only way I could be swayed would be if someone had evidence supporting or not supporting the existance of g-d as defined in the dictionary.

Lightwizard, you always say such entertaining things!

And I say bull; and I check out of this thread.

Edgar epitomizes the famous Wittgenstein position...

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

...however in as much that his life will continue to be affected by his interactions with theists, "God" still remains in place !