Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

For some, Fresco, not for others.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

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.

But this does not PROVE what you set out to prove. Can you truly not see that -- or are you just being stubborn?

Quote:

I don't see any flaws with my belief that agnostic is the only logical choice.

Neither do I. But this thread is not about you sharing your beliefs. This thread is about you PROVING that agnosticism is the only logical choice.

Quote:

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.

Too bad for you. That is illogical.

0 Replies

Frank, It's rather amusing to see Portal side-step your question, and conclude it is our responsibility to prove there is or there isn't a god. Interesting fellow. c.i.

0 Replies

Having read the thread up to this point (without necessarily retaining or even understanding every point) I feel compelled to add my observations.

I am an atheist. I don't believe it is possible to prove the superiority of my position, but nothing that has been written here persuades me that the agnostic position has a leg up on the truth. Or that the theistic position is necessarily weak either.

The crux of the matter is the definition of God as something or someone "supernatural (beyond the natural, material world, and thus beyond human senses)". It is on the basis of this definition that we diverge, not logically, but as a matter of choice.

The agnostic is principally responsible for the advocacy of this definition, which is a significant departure from the dictionary definition first put forth by Portal Star. If one accepts this definition, then agnosticism is of course a valid response.

However, the theist may conclude that if, by definition, God cannot be discovered through our senses, the use of logic, is, in fact, not logical.

And the atheist may find the whole issue a chimera. If there actually was an omnipotent God, even He could not disprove the existence of a God fitting this definition, who could exist in some realm or dimension above Him of which, by definition, He could not be aware.

For most atheists, who share with agnostics the conviction that there is no evidence for Gods who are asserted to exist, the step of proving the non-existence of Gods who, by definition, cannot be detected, is an exercise in futility rather than logic.

I am an atheist because I believe the burden of proof for the theist, to prove that a God or God interacts with humanity, has not been met. And the burden of proof for the agnostic, to prove that a God who does not interact with humanity can still be called a God, has also not been met and probably cannot be.

As I see it, all three positions are potentially valid given the state of human knowledge. But, of course, as Gods either exist or they don't, agnosticism is the only one of the three that has no chance of actually being correct.

0 Replies

Greyfan, WELCOME to A2K. The problem with trying to define god is that man has created over 2,500 of them. My dictionary defines God as "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal ojbect of faith and worship in monotheistic religion." The bible god expands it to include an afterlife for those that believe in him, but it's not a perfect god, because it demands "thou shalt have no other gods before me." Some passages in the bible also state that not believing will result in a eternity in hell (Luke 16:19-31). c.i.

0 Replies

Gee, it seems easy to me. An atheist is a person without any theism. I have not a smidge, nada, of theism. I am an a-theist.

This follows syllogistic reasoning, as I remember it...to call myself an atheist. I assume others here categorize themselves appropriately in regard to their own estimation.

Ah, you meant that one point of view is most logical? In that case, I resort to my poll choice, I don't care. I don't care what any of you have presently come down to as your position (well, I fib there, I am slightly curious) and assume you don't care about my view. Is Portal Star trying to nudge me into saying that if I were logical I would have a smidge of perhaps ambivalent theism? Or, that I should claim agnosticism because her or his view is more logical to her or him?

Grey person (sorry, just saw the name for a minute) made a lot of sense.

0 Replies

Tartarin

No - to all !

To stress the point crudely my atheism would not have saved me from "the God of others" had I been at Ground Zero on 9/11.

i.e. The "reality" for all is that since we are members of "theistic humanity" which uses such rationality to support its micro and macro social structures.

As I and others have stressed "logic" is essentially an irrelevence.

I perhaps used to think of myself as an atheistic activist in that I would call for all atheists to stand up and be counted, and rise up against the divisive evils of theism...but I now believe along with Dawkins and others that theism is an inevitable aberration of "cognition" and its thirst for "explanation". Communism spectacularly failed to impose state atheism and either forced theism underground or relaced the objects of belief by even more repugnant political icons. So it looks like the only practical course of action for us atheists is to try tolerate the afflicted ("respect" is definitely the wrong word here !) and personally try to avoid their worst excesses.

0 Replies

BTW Frank Apisa

Apologies for not adressing the "agnostic position" directly. You may remember that I hold the view that the only difference between "facts" and "opinions" is a matter of social concensus within a particular historical paradigm.

In science 18th centuary "indivisible atoms" became yesterdays "nuclear atoms" and todays "quarks, neutrinos etc" and tomorrow's ....."......." ?
And all this is in the domain of a "public observation"!
So the agnostic position of "holding open" the gathering of "evidence" fails to take into acount that "facts" are merely useful explanatory tools subject to change over time which tell us "what to expect". The fundamental error of agnostics, as many have said here is to ignore the function of the observer in defining the observed. Where there is no agreement between observers, there is no "objectivity" and logic breaks down.

0 Replies

Greyfan wrote:

I am an atheist. I don't believe it is possible to prove the superiority of my position, but nothing that has been written here persuades me that the agnostic position has a leg up on the truth. Or that the theistic position is necessarily weak either.

While I agree with many of the points you made, Greyfan, I disagree completely with the notion that the agnostic position does not have a "leg up" on the theistic or atheist positions.

The agnostics position, in it essence is: I do not know if there is a God. I do not know if there are no gods. I do not see enough unambiguous, probative evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess or estimate in either direction.

That is absolute truth -- with no fudge factor and with no guesses taking precedence over the acknowledgement that the KNOWLEDGE is not available to the person making the assertion -- and no guesses or estimates based on evidence that truly does not support such guesses or estimates.

Agnosticism absolutely is a "leg up" on both theism and atheism.

Quote:

The crux of the matter is the definition of God as something or someone "supernatural (beyond the natural, material world, and thus beyond human senses)". It is on the basis of this definition that we diverge, not logically, but as a matter of choice.

The agnostic is principally responsible for the advocacy of this definition, which is a significant departure from the dictionary definition first put forth by Portal Star. If one accepts this definition, then agnosticism is of course a valid response.

Not sure of where you were going with this, but if you flesh it out a bit, I will comment.

Quote:

I am an atheist because I believe the burden of proof for the theist, to prove that a God or God interacts with humanity, has not been met.

This seems illogical, but I'd love for you to defend it a bit more. You almost seem to be saying that absence of proof equals proof of absence -- which is illogical and incorrect.

Quote:

And the burden of proof for the agnostic, to prove that a God who does not interact with humanity can still be called a God, has also not been met and probably cannot be.

This makes no sense at all. You are, in effect, asking agnostics to make the same mistake in logic you are making -- and which I called to your attention up above.

Quote:

As I see it, all three positions are potentially valid given the state of human knowledge. But, of course, as Gods either exist or they don't, agnosticism is the only one of the three that has no chance of actually being correct.

I think we have discussed this elsewhere.

Agnosticism ALREADY IS CORRECT, because agnosticism simply acknowledges that the agnostic simply does not know if there is a God or if there are no gods.

One of the other two-- "there is a God" "there are no gods" may be correct -- but it is by no means certain. There may, for instance, be GODS -- which would make the atheistic position wrong completely -- and make the theistic position wrong in essence.

There also may be an explanation so weird -- reality may be so incomprehensible -- that neither "there is a God" or "there are no gods" really has any resonance.

Agnosticism, no matter how much **** it takes from atheists (thesists pretty much leave it alone) is the most logical and reasonable of the three.

0 Replies

I don't fault agnostics for being uncertain what to believe, Still, their position is hardly more relevant to the true state of things than the deists. Whereas atheism is founded on seeing the world without tinted glasses, agnostics are still hedging their bets. Nobody's perfect, Frank.

0 Replies

Frank ! A chink in the armour !!!!

"There also may be an explanation so weird -- reality may be so incomprehensible -- that neither "there is a God" or "there are no gods" really has any resonance.

Work on that "weird" - there could be hope for you yet ! Very Happy

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I don't fault agnostics for being uncertain what to believe, Still, their position is hardly more relevant to the true state of things than the deists. Whereas atheism is founded on seeing the world without tinted glasses, agnostics are still hedging their bets. Nobody's perfect, Frank.

They are not "hedging their bets", Edgar. They are not making any bets. They are acknowledging that there is not enough evidence to say "there is a God" or 'THERE ARE NO GODS."

If you feel comfortable saying "there are no gods" based on the evidence you have -- go with it.

Do not, however, suppose that I am hedging a bit by acknowledging that saying "there are no gods" makes a little sense as saying "there is a God."

Neither is supportable.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Frank ! A chink in the armour !!!!

"There also may be an explanation so weird -- reality may be so incomprehensible -- that neither "there is a God" or "there are no gods" really has any resonance.

Work on that "weird" - there could be hope for you yet !

Not sure why you think there is a chink in the armor, Fresco, but I have mentioned the idea that reality may be so distant from anything either theists of atheists can imagine -- as to be outside anything we can comprehend -- many, many times in the past.

If you want to be more specific, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

0 Replies

Well, okay, Frank. :wink:

0 Replies

Frank

Just examine what you think "comprehensible" means. You might end up with concepts like "pattern" or "prediction" which are unique reflections of homo sapiens "cognitive" abilities. We are happy when we can predict and control. We have a concept of "future" which involves our mortality or potential loss of control. Perhaps thats where the ad hoc "god" comes in, as well as his management duties in "maintaining the patterns" which we conveniently forget are a projection of our own cognition.

If you will admit that "ordinary logic" is only one limited possible path to "comprehension" and at best is just one mathematical abstraction of many possibilities in our modelling of "pattern" then the way is open to you to redefine "weird" as "surprising". Who would have thought prior to Einstein for example that "time" or sequences of events depend on the relative motion of observers.
So a simplistic "logical scenario" of event A "causing" event B could be problematic since the order of the events depends on the observer...and thats from a guy who apparently believed in God !

0 Replies

Listening to Dr. Demento this morning, i heard a great song--Thank God I'm an Atheist.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

If you will admit that "ordinary logic" is only one limited possible path to "comprehension" and at best is just one mathematical abstraction of many possibilities in our modelling of "pattern" then the way is open to you to redefine "weird" as "surprising".

I prefer the word "acknowledge" rather than "admit" in that sentence. "Admit" carries some baggage that acknowlege does not.

But I am certainly willing to acknowledge that ordinary logic may be only one of several paths to comprehension.

I have no problem with substituting a word for "weird" -- but "surprising" is probably the wrong word.

QUICK DIVERSION:

Noah Webster's wife comes into the parlor unexpectedly and finds Noah with his hand in the downstairs maids blouse.

"I am surprised," she exclaims.

Noah responds: "No, my dear, it is I who am surpised. You are astonished."

So if you want to substituted the word "astonishing" for my word "weird", Fresco, feel free.

What does this have to do with a "chink in the armor" though?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Listening to Dr. Demento this morning, i heard a great song--Thank God I'm an Atheist.

Sort of like the bumper sticker:

"God, please protect me from your followers!"

0 Replies

Portal Star, atheism does not have the same logical flaws as religion - it has an entirely different set.

And agnosticism is certainly not the only logical religious viewpoint.

If I live in a society where virtually everyone believes in the existence of a supernatural being who created life and the universe in its incomprehensible (to me) complexity, anecdotal evidence exists that said god listens to and occasionally answers prayers, documental evidence exists that god took human form and came to earth, performed miracles, died and was resurrected, and I can guarantee eternal life in paradise for myself and my loved ones just by believing in this god, it is perfectly logical for me to be a theist.

If I have taken the time to educate myself about the scientific theories of origins of the universe, biology, physics, mythology, psychology and the history of religious belief on earth, I can come to the logical conclusion that no supernatural being was needed to create life and the universe, there is no scientific evidence that any god exists who answers prayers, walked on earth, can or will intervene in human affairs, or desires worship. There is no indication that consciousness can exist in any form after the death of the organic brain. I see no reason to devote my time and resources to the worship of a mythological god for which not one shred of physical evidence actually exists, and it is perfectly logical for me to be an atheist as long as the society in which I live will not punish me for my lack of belief.

It may be that a god exists who is an incompetent designer, lacks empathy for suffering human beings or is impotent and cannot help them, is unjust and/or enjoys laughing at the antics of the human race. It may be that a supernatural being exist who just doesn't care about one planet out of billions. I cannot be sure that there is no guiding force behind the absurdities of life, and I cannot categorically state that no god of any kind exists anywhere. Therefore it is perfectly logical for me to be agnostic.

0 Replies

I see a bumper sticker around Houston that reads: "God Listens" and then it gives a radio station. I should have written it down to pass along so the religious could listen to the programs along with God.

0 Replies

Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know