Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Greyfan wrote:

Frank

We are in agreement on more points then not, I think.

Your explanation of why you are an agnostic is cogent, and, given your feelings, it would obviously be wrong for you to adopt either a theist or atheist position; but what is missing now is the proof of why agnosticism is a more logical stance than atheism or theism.

I understand that it is the best position for you, but where then is the leg up over the other positions, given that they reflect the understanding of their adherents as well?

I am curious about your take on the definition of God part of my last post as well --the definition of God is crucial to my own understanding of whether I define myself as an atheist or an agnostic.

Please excuse any delays in replying. I am unable to get to these boards every day, though I try.

The logic is simple. You cannot logically confirm or deny the existence of somthing on which no evidence can be gathered. That is the core of my argument.

(modified to say: I thought this post was directed towards me, but I see now it is for Frank.)

0 Replies

The logic is indeed simple. Using it you can't confirm or deny that I am a god.

You keep saying I am human but you have no evidence. :-)

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

The logic is indeed simple. Using it you can't confirm or deny that I am a god.

You keep saying I am human but you have no evidence. :-)

If you are g-d, in order to be able to affect the physical realm (post), you must have a point of intervention, a portal of sorts. There must be some contact point where the non-physical becomes physical in order to be able to affect the physical realm. Doing so may create an imbalance in certain physical properties of the world, like space and time, and we could search for that contact point where physics doesn't work, where there is an unexplained imbalance. (hmm... I wonder if that would cause an explosion?)

Or, I could have someone hack the system, find out where you're from, look for some info on your computer tracing you. Then, I could find you and examine you, question those who know you about your past and abilities. I could subject you to physical exams. I could reasonably conclude that you did not have the properties listed under the definition of g-d, making you not = g-d.
This is a valid thought experiment, no?

0 Replies

If you conclude all those tests you can make a reasonable decision as to my godliness.

Until then, please remain agnostic about the issue as it is the only logical choice.

BTW, as a god, affecting the physical realm is small fry. It does get tedious bringing about the rain and sun though.

Every now and then I forget to do the rain thing for whole countries. You wouldn't believe what a hugh fuss they make about it.

In any case, I think that while you are keeping your options open about my godliness a tithe is in order.

Gods consume large quantities of beer you know, I do like to pay for it. Makes me feel human.

0 Replies

I proclaim my godliness

0 Replies

(Setanta

Its nothing to do with English, nor in semantic balance of logical analogies.

Compare out loud: "les hommes contemplent le leur" with "les hommes contemplent le notre".

Both are grammatically correct, but the second has more phonetic impact because it ends in a dental plosive. This is a major consideration in constructing a "one-liner". Compris ?)

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

The logic is simple. You cannot logically confirm or deny the existence of somthing on which no evidence can be gathered. That is the core of my argument.

You can logically deny the existence of something which violates the physical laws of the universe and defies logic.

You can logically confirm the existence of something whose non-material presence is felt by millions of followers, unless you can show that they are all deluded.

And you can logically decide that you can neither confirm nor deny its existence given the available evidence.

In any case, you have failed to prove your initial assertion.

0 Replies

There are no flaws.
Only features.

Certainly CdK is God, beyond any doubt.
As are we all.

Are we not part of everything?

0 Replies

Craven - sorry to go miles back in this thread - but you said this:

"Prove to me that we are not living in "The Matrix". That our lives are not just a big delusion.

I can use lateral thinking to make that impossible to prove."

What do you mean by lateral thinking here? To me, it is simply impossible to prove (that anything we perceive is a reality) and that is that. No lateral thinking needed.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

(Setanta

Its nothing to do with English, nor in semantic balance of logical analogies.

Compare out loud: "les hommes contemplent le leur" with "les hommes contemplent le notre".

Both are grammatically correct, but the second has more phonetic impact because it ends in a dental plosive. This is a major consideration in constructing a "one-liner". Compris ?)

Je compris bein que vous veuillez construire ce qu'on ne puisse point construire en français.

0 Replies

Greyfan wrote:

Frank

We are in agreement on more points then not, I think.

We are in agreement on more point than no -- I know.

Quote:

Your explanation of why you are an agnostic is cogent, and, given your feelings, it would obviously be wrong for you to adopt either a theist or atheist position; but what is missing now is the proof of why agnosticism is a more logical stance than atheism or theism.

I understand that it is the best position for you, but where then is the leg up over the other positions, given that they reflect the understanding of their adherents as well?

Well, let's take a look at what each discipline is defending.

Theists are defending: There is a God.

Atheists are defending: There are no gods.

Agnostics are defending: I do not know if there is a God or if there are no gods.

Now you asked: Where is "the proof of why agnosticism is a more logical stance than atheism or theism."

COMMENT #1: I have no proof -- and I never would assert that I could prove it. I am simply asserting that agnosticism is more logical, honest, and ethical than either of the other two. And I am making the assertion based on what each discipline is defending.

It appears as though one cannot logically get to "There is a God." That is a notion that ultimately has to be taken on faith. There appears to be no way to confirm that there is a God (unless the God actually exists and decides to reveal Itself in an unambiguous way.)

It appears as though one cannot logically get to "There are no gods." That is a notion that ultimately has to be taken on faith. There appears to be no way to confirm that there are no gods.

But if one does not know if there is a God or if there are no gods (which seems to include everyone currently alive) -- the statement, I do not know if there is a God or if there are no gods does not have to be defended. It is true on its face.

So emphasizing the "I don't know" part -- at the expense of "I estimate there is a God" or "I estimate there are no gods" -- simply is more logical.

I don't know that I am skilled enough to defend that position any better than that -- although if you have questions, I certainly will give it more tries.

Quote:

I am curious about your take on the definition of God part of my last post as well --the definition of God is crucial to my own understanding of whether I define myself as an atheist or an agnostic.

Please excuse any delays in replying. I am unable to get to these boards every day, though I try.

Tough question -- and I may not completely understand what you are asking.

Let me make a few statements -- and if any of them fit, great. If not, ask more specifically and I will respond.

The god described in the Bible is pathetic -- and no matter how agnostic I am, I certainly feel there is more than ample evidence to make a guess, conjecture, supposition, estimate about that god.

I reject the god of the Bible as a God for a variety of reasons that I have enumerated at length over in Abuzz in several dozens of threads. I don't want to go over all the territory again, but suffice to say that the god of the Bible is almost certainly a fictional character invented by relatively unknowledgable, relatively unsophisticated, superstitious ancient Hebrews.

Anyone who is a theist because of the god of the Bible should direct all of his/her prayers towards asking any God that actually exists to give him/her a sense of reality!

None of the other gods offered by any of the cultures that have gods appeal to me much more than the god of the Bible does.

Absolutely nothing I have said in the preceeding few paragraphs leads me in any way to say "Therefore it is my opinion, my estimate, my guess, my supposition, my belief -- that there are no gods.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Craven - sorry to go miles back in this thread - but you said this:

"Prove to me that we are not living in "The Matrix". That our lives are not just a big delusion.

I can use lateral thinking to make that impossible to prove."

What do you mean by lateral thinking here? To me, it is simply impossible to prove (that anything we perceive is a reality) and that is that. No lateral thinking needed.

Lateral thinking just makes it easy to illustrate a point. It gives multiple answers to a set of criteria or "evidence" and illustrates that through the ealm of almost-infinite possibility there is nothing certain.

0 Replies

We are forgetting something here, & that thing is that WE CAN ONLY LEARN THROUGH OUR SENSES, & THEN WE PROCESS THAT INFORMATION THROUGH OUR REASON, we comunicate thanx to our sense, we sense the world, so most of our answer for the big questions are extremely influenced by our senses, it can affect our sense of reality, it can do a lot of things to change our perception, our reason, even our logic, so SENSE MATTER WHEN WE TAKE A DECISION.

My point with this is that my senses tell m that tehre is no god, I don't see one, I don't smell one, I don't hear one, I don't touch one, I don't taste one, & united to that, I know that the concept of god was inveted by humans, my result is a truth that tells me that there are no gods.

Sometimes is funny, we demand evidence, but maybe our own senses are incorrect, making us sense evidence in a wrong way, or maybe we can't sense it, & by not sensing it we can't know it, because sensing is knowing, since without sense we could not survived in our own.

Have a nice day! Very Happy

0 Replies

Frank, i wish to take exception to your contention that atheism is a discipline which is defending a statement that there is no god.

There are no gods nor goddesses. I care not a fig whether you nor anyone else agree with me, and haven't the least interest in convincing you nor anyone else of the fact.

0 Replies

Does the universe exist?

(I guess nobody here worships the universe).

0 Replies

Dux wrote:

We are forgetting something here, & that thing is that WE CAN ONLY LEARN THROUGH OUR SENSES, & THEN WE PROCESS THAT INFORMATION THROUGH OUR REASON, we comunicate thanx to our sense, we sense the world, so most of our answer for the big questions are extremely influenced by our senses, it can affect our sense of reality, it can do a lot of things to change our perception, our reason, even our logic, so SENSE MATTER WHEN WE TAKE A DECISION.

My point with this is that my senses tell m that tehre is no god, I don't see one, I don't smell one, I don't hear one, I don't touch one, I don't taste one, & united to that, I know that the concept of god was inveted by humans, my result is a truth that tells me that there are no gods.

Sometimes is funny, we demand evidence, but maybe our own senses are incorrect, making us sense evidence in a wrong way, or maybe we can't sense it, & by not sensing it we can't know it, because sensing is knowing, since without sense we could not survived in our own.

Have a nice day!

oh what rubbish.

you have a mind?

can you see it?

can you smell it?

can you hear it?

can you touch it?

can you taste it?

if you can't, you have no mind?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I proclaim my godliness

You're right. With no physical evidence I cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are not g-d. Of course, that doesn't prove that are g-d. Do you grant requests? I'm a little short on cash... Smile

0 Replies

While you're at it, I'm a lot short of cash. Wink

c.i.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Dux wrote:
We are forgetting something here, & that thing is that WE CAN ONLY LEARN THROUGH OUR SENSES, & THEN WE PROCESS THAT INFORMATION THROUGH OUR REASON, we comunicate thanx to our sense, we sense the world, so most of our answer for the big questions are extremely influenced by our senses, it can affect our sense of reality, it can do a lot of things to change our perception, our reason, even our logic, so SENSE MATTER WHEN WE TAKE A DECISION.

My point with this is that my senses tell m that tehre is no god, I don't see one, I don't smell one, I don't hear one, I don't touch one, I don't taste one, & united to that, I know that the concept of god was inveted by humans, my result is a truth that tells me that there are no gods.

Sometimes is funny, we demand evidence, but maybe our own senses are incorrect, making us sense evidence in a wrong way, or maybe we can't sense it, & by not sensing it we can't know it, because sensing is knowing, since without sense we could not survived in our own.

Have a nice day!

oh what rubbish.

you have a mind?

can you see it?

can you smell it?

can you hear it?

can you touch it?

can you taste it?

if you can't, you have no mind?

If you have absolutely no senses you couldn't even learn the language, the senses are the path for the start of knowledge, if you never have senses then you'll probably be dead is through our senses that our logic has been developed, it's through our senses that our reason has been developed, so if have never sense anything we would be nothing better than a vegetal.

0 Replies

Dux

Your argument rests on the assumption of an "external objective reality". Kuvasz' s argument aknowledges that "reality" is a function of the observer and the observed.

Perception is active not passive. Change the observer - change the observed and vice versa. What we call "senses" are more than sets of apparatus like video cameras - they are linked to a "director" wilth all the ideosyncracies of a hollywood mogul, and one days shooting influences the next.

What we call "logic" is an adult abstraction which cannot of itself know "the truth" of its objects of application. (See Piaget for more).

If we can accept this, then all this talk of "proof" is mere word salad. Exclamation

0 Replies

Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know