Is Atheism logical?

[Brick-top]

A lot of people think Atheism is a collection of beliefs/opinions/ideas that usually revolve around science (Evolution, The Big Bang, Radiometric Dating, Genetics etc) I've even heard some people claim that Atheists worship Darwin, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Sagen etc as if Atheists see these people as deities.

However, this is all bullshit. Atheism is merely ONE beliefs, a singular concept where as Religion is a set of beliefs. You can be an evil dictator or a charitible billionaire and still be an Atheist either way. You can believe in Ghosts, Aliens, the Moon landing conspiricy, alternate Universes etc and still be an Atheist.

We do not have any type of scripture to tell us what to do and think. Theists (some not all) are 'tied down' by their holy text and told to accept whatever is written. Usually these things involve the creation of life, the creation of the universe, what happens after death etc regardless of what anything says otherwise. Atheists on the otherhand are free to make their own conclusions based on what is known rather than what is believed because Atheism is simply a single belief.

It's our subjective mentality that makes us more logical than Theists. Many Religions try to explain the creation of life, universe etc so when Science contradicts this some simply deny the evidence (basically creationists and a few others) meaning they're close minded.

Atheistic (and agnostic) beliefs do not try to contradict or deny knowledge or the quest for knowledge. This makes it the more logical choice.

Thank you for reading my post and I'm sorry for the poor presentation.

[Korriken]

the same can be said the other way around. I have heard MANY athiests just flat out say, "God doesn't exist." is this not also closed minded? anyone can be open minded or closed minded. the big bang is a good theory, but can it be proven? of course not. what makes the big bang any more logical than god creating everything? I can't say I have ever seen a big bang occur. I only hear about it from people saying that it happened. the truth of the matter is, people can say they are open minded, but everyone is limited by what they think they know. for all we know the universe was made by the Stay Puft Marshamallow Man.

[Elfer]

At 5/22/08 08:35 PM, Korriken wrote: the same can be said the other way around. I have heard MANY athiests just flat out say, "God doesn't exist." is this not also closed minded?

Yes, it is. However, outside of say, high school, those people represent the vast, vast minority of atheists.

[Brick-top]

At 5/22/08 08:35 PM, Korriken wrote: the same can be said the other way around. I have heard MANY athiests just flat out say, "God doesn't exist." is this not also closed minded?

My beliefs say half-man, half-scorpion creatures live on a planet and they built everything out of a walnut. Now you're close minded for not believing in it.

You can claim there is no God because it's an educated assumption based on what is known at the present time. Meaning if there is no proof, logically you can dismiss his existience. If I claimed these scorpion like creatures existed and you had to disprove them, then you would call me an idiot. The same rules apply for God, you have to prove something in order to assert it's existience. You'll never hear a scientist say he's discovered a new element but you need faith lol

anyone can be open minded or closed minded. the big bang is a good theory, but can it be proven?

I think you've got a dodgy idea of what a scientific theory actually is.

of course not. what makes the big bang any more logical than god creating everything?

Nothing...

....for the exception of this, this, this, this, this, and this

I can't say I have ever seen a big bang occur. I only hear about it from people saying that it happened.

If you ever watch a real life crime show you can't say you were there either. You can only hear about it from the investigators and police who weren't there either. But I'm sure that a man lying on the floor with an axe in the back of his is a sure sign someone wanted him dead.

the truth of the matter is, people can say they are open minded, but everyone is limited by what they think they know. for all we know the universe was made by the Stay Puft Marshamallow Man.

This argument can be once again refuted with my points made earlier. We make conclusions based on what we know, not what we believe or speculate. If you want to claim that we were created by the marshmallow man then you're going to have to prove it just as I would have to prove it if I claimed we were made my scorpion creatures that I mentioned earlier. I burdon of proof would be on you.

[Sentio]

At 5/22/08 08:35 PM, Korriken wrote: the same can be said the other way around. I have heard MANY athiests just flat out say, "God doesn't exist." is this not also closed minded? anyone can be open minded or closed minded. the big bang is a good theory, but can it be proven? of course not. what makes the big bang any more logical than god creating everything? I can't say I have ever seen a big bang occur. I only hear about it from people saying that it happened. the truth of the matter is, people can say they are open minded, but everyone is limited by what they think they know. for all we know the universe was made by the Stay Puft Marshamallow Man.

Ah, the classic argument that just because you can't absolutely conclusively prove either (in this case God or the big bang) they are therefore equally likely. Which of course is nonsense, because although there is no definitive proof of the Big Bang there is still evidence to support it (red shift for starters), where as god has precisely zero evidence in his favour. So the probability of one over the other is far from 50/50, the Big Bang is a great deal more likely than 'God magically poofed everything into existence'.

[Memorize]

The only thing more idiotic than a religious belief is an atheistic one.

[ImaSmartass2]

At 5/22/08 09:12 PM, Memorize wrote: The only thing more idiotic than a religious belief is an atheistic one.

So then everyone is an idiot except agnostics?

[Brick-top]

At 5/22/08 09:12 PM, Memorize wrote: I'm just going to make a stupid comment because I have nothing relevent to say.

You should speak your mind more.

Also, are you saying that Theism is less idiotic? Wow, you can have two lunatics on the same psych ward yet one of them is MORE insane! lol

[T-W-I-D]

i think we're all idiots for arguing about it. i don't care what your theories say, i don't care what your book says, theres no way for us to know so stop worrying about it and get on with your lives. imagine there is a god and he didnt want us to know he exists so he only allowed us to observe a certain amount of the physical world, he only allows us to know a certain amount of stuff. and the bible is a true connection to god that surpasses that boundary he set up. then you atheists would look retarded. so just stop arguing about it lol, nobody knows, and no living person ever will.

[Earfetish]

I think not holding one religion as the definitive truth is the only logical approach to the phenomenon of religion. Of course atheism doesn't necessitate logic, but you can't ignore the illogical jumps people make to believe in one particular religion.

You can spend the rest of your life deciding how is best to understand the universe, trying with futility to logically deduce what's the best way you can infer/understand God/the Universe/the Human Condition using all the tools mankind has provided so far. But it is only a secure case that one particular religion is the logical choice that would make the irreligious position illogical, and it is only with the irreligious philosophy that one could find that secure case.

[Brick-top]

At 5/22/08 09:23 PM, T-W-I-D wrote: i think we're all idiots for arguing about it. i don't care what your theories say, i don't care what your book says

My books? I haven't published any I'm afraid. I was thinking about several (several novels, a few joke books etc) however none of those projects got off the ground.

so stop worrying about it and get on with your lives.

Yet you come into a thread (like this) and do the exact same thing as everyone else yet you tell them not to? Hypocrite much?

imagine there is a god and he didnt want us to know he exists so he only allowed us to observe a certain amount of the physical world, he only allows us to know a certain amount of stuff. and the bible is a true connection to god that surpasses that boundary he set up.

Quick question, why would he do that? What would be the point? If God loves us and wants all of us to join him wouldn't he reveal himself and tell us what to do so we can all believe in the same Religion and go to heaven? If Christianity is true then (acording to some denominations) 4 billion people are destined for hell. Wouldn't it seem logical that God would show himself in a form where we could prove him so everyone was consistant in their beliefs?

then you atheists would look retarded. so just stop arguing about it lol, nobody knows, and no living person ever will.

And if it was vice versa you would look retarded also. Considering that retarded means to hold back and that single word has nothing to do with mental capabilities.

[Memorize]

At 5/22/08 09:16 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 5/22/08 09:12 PM, Memorize wrote: I'm just going to make a stupid comment because I have nothing relevent to say.

You should speak your mind more.

Also, are you saying that Theism is less idiotic? Wow, you can have two lunatics on the same psych ward yet one of them is MORE insane! lol

Atheistic Response #1: "If religion is false, therefore God must not exist."

Logical? No.

[hippl5]

At 5/22/08 10:17 PM, Memorize wrote: Atheistic Response #1: "If religion is false, therefore God must not exist."

Logical? No.

Atheists don't just say "It's false because we say so". There's no evidence to prove that it's real.

[Memorize]

At 5/22/08 10:22 PM, hippl5 wrote:

At 5/22/08 10:17 PM, Memorize wrote: Atheistic Response #1: "If religion is false, therefore God must not exist."

Logical? No.

Atheists don't just say "It's false because we say so". There's no evidence to prove that it's real.

And there is no evidence to suggest that "it" does not.

But to imply that a God/Deity does not exist despite the world you see, is just plain, as I said, idiotic.

Einstein had it right.

[Elfer]

At 5/22/08 10:17 PM, Memorize wrote: Atheistic Response #1: "If religion is false, therefore God must not exist."

Logical? No.

Just like how all Christians think that just because the bible exists, then there must LIZARDMEN REPTOIDS BLACK HELICOPTERS THEY'RE CONTROLLING OUR MINDS WITH CATTLE MUTILATION.

Now, this is just me, but that seems sillier than the atheist argument which you claim that all atheists have without actually providing any evidence that they do.

[hippl5]

At 5/22/08 10:24 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/22/08 10:22 PM, hippl5 wrote:

At 5/22/08 10:17 PM, Memorize wrote: Atheistic Response #1: "If religion is false, therefore God must not exist."

Logical? No.

Atheists don't just say "It's false because we say so". There's no evidence to prove that it's real.

And there is no evidence to suggest that "it" does not.

Guess you have to acknowledge the existence of the flying spaghetti monster too then. No evidence that he doesn't exist.

[SmilezRoyale]

I'm going to tally these threads, I'll treat this one as number 5 [it's probably much higher than 5, but i'm sure we can agree that it is AT LEAST five, which is somewhat advantageous.]

the VAST MAJORITY of atheists are tied to the scientific consensus on the issue being discussed. [Most likely, the creation of life] And they'll treat and defend that consensus as true; So Atheism is only about as flexible as the scientific consensus; and since most discoveries eventually become solidified [or so is entreated] the beliefs become as well. I am to assume that if a highly comprehensive scientific journal was released stating X, X would be treated as the truth. Most people, not even atheists, treat all facts with a sense of it being a non-absolute. [either it is or it isn't]

If the pope released a message saying Y about religious doctrine, the perfect atheist image of a catholic [one who is most ripe for using as an excuse to pursue an evangelic agenda] would treat it as the truth. [gospel truth?]

[Korriken]

At 5/22/08 08:59 PM, Brick-top wrote:

My beliefs say half-man, half-scorpion creatures live on a planet and they built everything out of a walnut. Now you're close minded for not believing in it.

it wouldn't be closed minded to not believe in it, it would be closed minded to say it simply does not exist because you don't believe in it.

You can claim there is no God because it's an educated assumption based on what is known at the present time. Meaning if there is no proof, logically you can dismiss his existience. If I claimed these scorpion like creatures existed and you had to disprove them, then you would call me an idiot. The same rules apply for God, you have to prove something in order to assert it's existience. You'll never hear a scientist say he's discovered a new element but you need faith lol

at the present time? so basically, if you don't see it at the present time, then it simply doesn't exist?

anyone can be open minded or closed minded. the big bang is a good theory, but can it be proven?

I think you've got a dodgy idea of what a scientific theory actually is.

oh i think i know what a theory is when i see one.

....for the exception of this, this, this, this, this, and this

theories.... lots of theories... none can be proven for certain. the universe is expanding, sure, but does that mean is has always been this way?

If you ever watch a real life crime show you can't say you were there either. You can only hear about it from the investigators and police who weren't there either. But I'm sure that a man lying on the floor with an axe in the back of his is a sure sign someone wanted him dead.

poor analogy. i can walk up to a headless corpse on a guillotine and figure he was executed, that's very short term. however, science is looking into things such as the creation of the universe, which is VERY long term. that is like finding a skull in a cave and trying to figure out how the person the skull belonged to died. you would have to somehow retrace its life to see how it ended. it could have died of old age, from an illness, or from being sodomized with a jagged piece of rock. you can sit there and look at it and come up with theories, but a theory is not a fact. unless you found the rest of the body, flesh intact, you could never know for certain how the person died.

This argument can be once again refuted with my points made earlier. We make conclusions based on what we know, not what we believe or speculate. If you want to claim that we were created by the marshmallow man then you're going to have to prove it just as I would have to prove it if I claimed we were made my scorpion creatures that I mentioned earlier. I burdon of proof would be on you.

or what you THINK you know. scientists see an expanding universe and speculate that it has always been this way. how do you know that the universe does not expand out so far, hit the edge of the universe and bounce back to the middle? how do we know the universe does not wrap around itself? the truth is, scientists see and theorize, but prove little. you can prove that the heart pumps blood through your body, but to prove for certain how the universe works is impossible with the small amount of info we have.

what we SEE is expanding, but we cannot see the whole universe. what if further out from what we can see the universe is contracting? then what?

[Earfetish]

At 5/22/08 10:29 PM, hippl5 wrote: Guess you have to acknowledge the existence of the flying spaghetti monster too then. No evidence that he doesn't exist.

I think comparing God to the FSM / Goblins / Harry Potter is a good argument and seems sensible from the atheist point of view, especially when charged with 'you can't disprove it' or 'you have to call youself agnostic' or whatever, but I do think you have to keep in mind that the religious person considers their experience of the universe 'proof' that God exists, and they have no reason TO believe that Harry Potter exists.

There are, of course, several defences to this, too. Like that the believer has only experienced an tiny corner of the universe and the rest of it doesn't look like it was made for any particular purpose. Or that the shared beauty we all understand would easily stem from evolution and how we evolved to appreciate sunsets and Mozart. Or that 'God' is taking up an increasingly small space. And it is worth pointing out 'any other answer for these questions is just as good', which is why I've always preferred 'The Matrix' as a comparison point to something else unprovable that answers questions. Or 'the beetle's 5-minute daydream in a parallel universe'.

And, of course, the discrepancy between God and religion. And you need to define God, and of course the less involved your definition is, the more likely it is to be correct. You can't say 'God doesn't exist' and end the philosophical discussion there, but if you really want my opinion, God doesn't exist. However you define him, either your definition doesn't make sense or is too unlikely, in my experience. But with such a wishy-washy multi-meaning word anyway, you can't really say 'God doesn't exist' when the person you're talking to will say 'God is just love and surely love exists' or 'God is the ultimately simple answer for everything and has no defined characteristics'.

[Brick-top]

At 5/22/08 10:17 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/22/08 09:16 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 5/22/08 09:12 PM, Memorize wrote: I'm just going to make a stupid comment because I have nothing relevent to say.

You should speak your mind more.

Also, are you saying that Theism is less idiotic? Wow, you can have two lunatics on the same psych ward yet one of them is MORE insane! lol

Atheistic Response #1: "If religion is false, therefore God must not exist."

Logical? No.

No, not logic. Like i've already said. You can claim God does not exist because at the moment there is no physical evidence to prove his existience.

Before you say "there is no evidence to DISPROVE God" that's an invalid argument. Simply because I could claim my scorpion like creatures exist and you cannot DISPROVE them so they must exist. But you would logically dismiss their existience because I have not supplied evidence for it. The same rules apply for God, if we do not prove it with physical evidence then we can make all sorts of outrageous claims without needing a single shred of evidence.

[Kleinhans]

but thats also true with the big bang theory and our exsitence. we have no physical evidence of how everything came to be so is everything non-exsistant?

[Korriken]

At 5/22/08 09:37 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Quick question, why would he do that? What would be the point? If God loves us and wants all of us to join him wouldn't he reveal himself and tell us what to do so we can all believe in the same Religion and go to heaven? If Christianity is true then (acording to some denominations) 4 billion people are destined for hell. Wouldn't it seem logical that God would show himself in a form where we could prove him so everyone was consistant in their beliefs?

who is to say any 1 religion is the correct choice? who is to say that the same god brought all religions into being and any religion can get you into heaven.

using logic, Messianic Judaism would be the correct religion anyway, not christianity. Jesus, or whatever you call him, was not a Christian, he was Jewish... a Hebrew Jew. He never said to break away from Judaism and form a whole other religion.

[poxpower]

At 5/22/08 10:49 PM, Kleinhans wrote: but thats also true with the big bang theory and our exsitence. we have no physical evidence of how everything came to be so is everything non-exsistant?

There's extremely strong evidence that the big bang happened and also extremely strong evidence that other people than me exist.
I know 100% that I do exist, but I'm fairly sure everyone else also exists and I see no reason to act as if they didn't.

btw why does anyone still talk to memorize? holy balls that guy is aggressively stupid.

[Earfetish]

At 5/22/08 10:49 PM, Kleinhans wrote: but thats also true with the big bang theory and our exsitence. we have no physical evidence of how everything came to be so is everything non-exsistant?

what?

We have no physical evidence of HOW everything came to be?

We have physical evidence THAT everything came to be because there is stuff about, the entire universe. It's that 'how' word where your logic is stumbling.

Perhaps you want to rephrase.

[JackPhantasm]

Any belief that is 100% certain is foolish. But people just think I'm crazy for saying that. I guess they confuse researched facts with beliefs. Facts deal with reality, we can have beliefs about reality, but we can also have beliefs about things reality, and researched facts, may never answer.

I would say agnostic would be more logical than atheism or theism.

[JackPhantasm]

At 5/22/08 10:53 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:
I would say agnostic would be more logical than atheism or theism.

That is to say, if something is beyond reality, there's no way to know what it is, if it is, where it is, when it was, etc.

You can have certainty in reality but philosophically I'd have to say no.

[Earfetish]

At 5/22/08 10:52 PM, Earfetish wrote: what?

We have no physical evidence of HOW everything came to be?

We have physical evidence THAT everything came to be because there is stuff about, the entire universe. It's that 'how' word where your logic is stumbling.

Perhaps you want to rephrase.

Although I suppose 'how' would be the evidence like the red shift or whatever, from which we can infer how things started

and all that stuff they're doing in the hydron colliders or whatever they're called

I don't quite get it, like there is evidence supporting the scientific theories, they didn't just have divine revelations or something

[Kleinhans]

their is no real evidence of how everything came to be except for the fact that everything is here. so saying theirs a god is just as believable as the big bang theory. reason being how did all the matter from the big bang come to be, it just be their. im not saying god is real but im not dismissing it either. just like im not dismissing the big bang theory, both are equally plausible

[SmilezRoyale]

At 5/22/08 10:44 PM, Brick-top wrote:

No, not logic. Like i've already said. You can claim God does not exist because at the moment there is no physical evidence to prove his existience.

Before you say "there is no evidence to DISPROVE God" that's an invalid argument. Simply because I could claim my scorpion like creatures exist and you cannot DISPROVE them so they must exist. But you would logically dismiss their existience because I have not supplied evidence for it. The same rules apply for God, if we do not prove it with physical evidence then we can make all sorts of outrageous claims without needing a single shred of evidence.

I have to disagree,

"God does not exist because at the moment there is no physical evidence to prove his existience." - The problem with this logic is that A CURRENT [meaning, at this moment] lack of evidence for something is not logical for stating that something does not exist indefinitely; this implies that if something cannot be proven at this moment, it has never existed in the past, present, or future. Also, if something can't be proven at this very moment. [Take for example, a cure for cancer] then by this logic, no cure exists, therefore, a cure can never be proven since it never exists. Now go into the past 1000 years; this logic demolishes the existence of many scientific postulations.

Revise your logic to "if it is fact that something cannot be proven and has never been inarguably demonstrated to have exist, it's existence is improbable"

Keep in mind that you can't round improbable down, [to impossible] just like you can't round probable up. [total certainty] doing this defeats the purpose of probability.

[JackPhantasm]

How is the events and their characteristics.

It's the why that goes from the beginning of everything. Because at the beginning of it all there's a 50/50 chance that something will happen and something won't. Or is there? Would the infinite amount of time be like the probablity coin of the big bang flipping over and over, eventually it reaches an infinite number on both sides?

I think that any belief that assumes a definite outlook on the entire universe and all existence is a little heavy handed.