Is Atheism Logical?

[autoartist]

As some of you know my faith in the Bible is pretty much gone.
But I do think there might be a God. I cannot get over the complications of the Universe and all that is in it.

So my question is:

How does an atheist know there is no God?

Is Agnosticism more logical? I think it might be.

Thanks for your time.

[Bagger_Vance]

Agnostic atheism is the way to go. We can't know everything therefore some god might exist but we can know somethings and the all knowing, loving, and powerful god of the bible can't logically exist in the world in which we live. We can know that the Bible is a bunch of stories passed down through generations that has been modified by each writer and teller to the point that it is nothing but the most popular myth in the western world.

So I don't claim to know that absolutely no god exists whatsoever because no one can know that either way. But it is logical to look at the fables presented to us and reject them as nonsense.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Agnostic atheism is the way to go. We can't know everything therefore some god might exist but we can know somethings and the all knowing, loving, and powerful god of the bible can't logically exist in the world in which we live. We can know that the Bible is a bunch of stories passed down through generations that has been modified by each writer and teller to the point that it is nothing but the most popular myth in the western world.

So I don't claim to know that absolutely no god exists whatsoever because no one can know that either way. But it is logical to look at the fables presented to us and reject them as nonsense.I make with a big DITTO!!! to that.

[Seasanctuary]

"Reasonable" is a nice word that doesn't denote a certain branch of mathematics.

I consider the beliefs of most theists and atheists to be reasonably held. By this I mean their religious beliefs fit with their own experience and other more mundane beliefs well enough, even if their beliefs aren't true.

Humans can put up with a certain amount of apparently conflicting beliefs just fine. We're fallible enough that we can't always be immediately sure if the conflict is real or imagined. When it does get to the point that we're sure of the conflict, we tend to resolve the situation somehow. That's being reasonable. Nothing unreasonable about not resolving a possible conflict simply because other people are sure it's a conflict and tell you so.

It may still be reasonable for you to believe as you do even when it's unreasonable for another person to believe the same thing, given what they know (or think they know).

- Sea

[EvoUK]

It is difficult to credit any one religion as being True or any one god as being True when there have been so many throughout human history. None appears to have any greater claim to being more credible or reliable than any other.

Why Christianity and not Judaism? Why Islam and not Hinduism? Why monotheism and not polytheism? Every position has had its defenders, all as ardent as those in other traditions. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

Perhaps the most important and common reason for not believing in any gods and for not following any religions is the absence of any good reason for doing so. Once a person gets beyond the bias in favor of belief, though, they can realize something critical: the burden of support lies with those claiming that belief is rational and/or necessary.

Believers fail to meet this burden, however, and as a consequence fail to provide any really good reasons to accept their claims. As a consequence, those who don't already believe and/or who are not biased in favor of belief aren't given a reason to start.



As for atheism vs agnosticism- practically speaking, most agnostics you meet are by definition atheists. Perhaps they don't like the negative connetations that go with atheism- not suprising, seeing as we live in a mostly religious society- I believe jinxy-poo recently started a thread saying atheists are the least trusted minority in the USA for example, perhaps "agnostics" feel that atheism is too strong a word.

Either way, you common agnostic is little different to your common weak atheist. They have similar views on gods, and you'll also find most are both weak AND strong atheists- they weakly disbelieve in some kind of higher power "out there" type god, but strongly disbelieve in defined, man-made gods such as the christian one.

[Griggsy]

Evouk , I am astrong atheist .because after thousands of years theist only put old garbage into new cans.The merriment is just where lies the fallacy. A spook wants veneration ,because it has low self-esteem!Why write God when agod , gods or a spook shows we have contempt for such a notion.I find it rough going ,but Michael MARTIN and Ricki Monnnier's 'The Impossibility of God" is strongly atheistic.Well, I admit I could be wrong;afterall there oculd be an unicorn.A good joke book is I don't have enough Faith to be an Atheist." You are avaluable source of information . In Science and Theology News, Richard Stannard bemoans that Stephen Hawkin s does not acknowledge arole for agod in hisbools on time.Stannard alleges that science deals with origins while theology deals with creation.I t seems to me ,he is begging the question for the question is : is there a creation beyon d his saying so?What so you think?[books]

[Griggsy]

Evouk , I am astrong atheist .because after thousands of years theist only put old garbage into new cans.The merriment is just where lies the fallacy. A spook wants veneration ,because it has low self-esteem!Why write God when agod , gods or a spook shows we have contempt for such a notion.I find it rough going ,but Michael MARTIN and Ricki Monnnier's 'The Impossibility of God" is strongly atheistic.Well, I admit I could be wrong;afterall there oculd be an unicorn.A good joke book is I don't have enough Faith to be an Atheist." You are avaluable source of information . In Science and Theology News, Richard Stannard bemoans that Stephen Hawkin s does not acknowledge arole for agod in hisbools on time.Stannard alleges that science deals with origins while theology deals with creation.I t seems to me ,he is begging the question for the question is : is there a creation beyon d his saying so?What so you think?[books]Morgan-LYNN Lamberth,new member

[mentored1]

Hello auto...

As some of you know my faith in the Bible is pretty much gone.
But I do think there might be a God. I cannot get over the complications of the Universe and all that is in it.

I know this isn't the question but I thought it might help to share some of what I've experienced regarding this. My faith in the Scriptures eroded over time but was radically renewed in a new and very different light.

Look at all the mythology and symbolism that is part of human culture. The varied attempts to explain, qualitatively, man's being. All the symbols and archetypes contained in the Bible are expressions of this search - they are markers of man asking existential questions. Symbolism and archetypes are the language of faith: they can become immortalized, incorruptible; and can be concealed within historical records and legends. Reading the Bible in the mythic tongue is a fresh experience.

How does an atheist know there is no God?

I'm sure the colorful atheists here on TWEB will be happy to answer that. I think SeaSanctuary captured the idea well in saying that there is no certitude in knowing of God's existence or non-existence. Personal experiences with the divine determine that question for an individual - and in the end all of us are concerned about some sort of meaning and that meaning can take on many different symbols and forms.

Is Agnosticism more logical? I think it might be.


Interesting question. You're probably the only one who'll be able to answer that, however. While I don't deny that logic has its uses and is generally sound it is still a systematic way of reasoning based on rules and precepts discovered in the human mind. Do we know for certain that logic is infallible? :shrug: I don't think so but if it works for someone so be it. I guess I'm just suggesting that mental faculties aren't all there is when asking the question of meaning.

Take care

[Jimmy Higgins]

Interesting question. You're probably the only one who'll be able to answer that, however. While I don't deny that logic has its uses and is generally sound it is still a systematic way of reasoning based on rules and precepts discovered in the human mind. Do we know for certain that logic is infallible? :shrug: I don't think so but if it works for someone so be it. I guess I'm just suggesting that mental faculties aren't all there is when asking the question of meaning.

Take careThe problem I have with logic is that logic is based solely on our observations and human beings are terribly limited in our ability to observe. A baby has no use for logic. The baby has no basis for it. So some people when they grow up used logic proofs created by smart people, but they are all falliable.

Logic is only great for hind-sight. As a tool for foresight, it is severely limited.

[mentored1]

Well met Jimmy

The problem I have with logic is that logic is based solely on our observations and human beings are terribly limited in our ability to observe. A baby has no use for logic. The baby has no basis for it. So some people when they grow up used logic proofs created by smart people, but they are all falliable.

Logic is only great for hind-sight. As a tool for foresight, it is severely limited.

I have to agree with your assessment and I wanted to compliment you on putting it so succinctly! :thumb:

Logic is definitely a learned ability given the example of a human baby with, as far as we know, only sensory input to guide it. There's an interesting notion: since Logic is a learned function of observation - learning and observation are both points subject to weakness. Very well put amigo.

Take care

[EvoUK]

Evouk , I am astrong atheist .because after thousands of years theist only put old garbage into new cans.The merriment is just where lies the fallacy. A spook wants veneration ,because it has low self-esteem!Why write God when agod , gods or a spook shows we have contempt for such a notion.I find it rough going ,but Michael MARTIN and Ricki Monnnier's 'The Impossibility of God" is strongly atheistic.Well, I admit I could be wrong;afterall there oculd be an unicorn.A good joke book is I don't have enough Faith to be an Atheist." You are avaluable source of information . In Science and Theology News, Richard Stannard bemoans that Stephen Hawkin s does not acknowledge arole for agod in hisbools on time.Stannard alleges that science deals with origins while theology deals with creation.I t seems to me ,he is begging the question for the question is : is there a creation beyon d his saying so?What so you think?[books]

Firstly, you may need to sort out how you phrase yourself- one big paragraph is harder to read than several smaller ones. Also, the punctuation you used made it difficult to read what you were saying properly and I had to read it several times to get it all. Just a friendly hint for the future :thumb:

Firstly, you say you are a strong atheist- I assume you mean to all gods- how do you view the more deistic, "something out there" type god? I agree with you that most of the man-made religions, both ones existing now, and ones which ran out of followers and became "myths" (funny that, isn't it?) is merely putting old ideas into pretty new boxes. Mentored1 explained this pretty well in his forst paragraph.

However, after you said you were strong atheist- you went on to describe the christian myth. I assume, that like myself you've been brought up in a western, and therefore mostly christian society. Thus, your reference to the christian myth is understandable- and I can fully understand why you're strong atheist towards it (the fall is my fave bit of nonsense), but I wonder about your position on other gods.

I haven't actually read any specifically atheistic books- just visited several websites, looked up religious beliefs over the ages etc. Its taken me little under a decade to get to my current position (perhaps if I read atheistic books I might have taken less time, lol), and I have no doubt I'll keep adding to it with the more I find out.

[zorathruster]

How does an atheist know there is no God?



Before you can say something doesn't exist, there needs to be a definition of what is asserted. The atheist statement, "There is no God", begs the question as well. What are we talking about when you ask and when the Atheist declares there is not one.

The only way to prove something doesn't exist assuming one is not right before your eyes thus countering any objection, is to prove that the definition is contradictory. If I declare that God is red all over but also white all over. I have presented two contradictory characteristics that cannot both be right. If we present a characteristic that is obviously contrary to observation, such as God is what causes all water to run uphill, we can discount that a God which does such a thing does not exist because we observe that thusly defined, water runs downhill and therefore that type of God cannot exist.

God as defined in most theological circles is omnipotent, all loving, omnipresent, and exists outside of time. Yet these characteristics are contradictory in themselves and with observation (as well as contradicted in stories asserted in the bible).

For example, if God does infact love everyone and is endowed with powers that would allow him to prevent evil on the lowest level, lets say prevent a child from being kidnapped raped and murdered, and yet does not prevent such occurances: Either God is not all loving or he is not omnipotent.

He cannot be described as Christians describe him and allow for the instances that we observe.

Therefore, it is logical to demand a definition that is not contradictory in and of itself and contradictory to observation. Christianity and most other revealed religions fail to present such a definition although many have tried, therefore theism as asserted by these people is contradictory and false.

It might be possible to describe a being in various ways that might circuitously be referred to as a God, like a super advanced civilization (like westerners when they arrived in remote regions of stone age cultures). But the definition as proposed and asserted by theists -- fails.

[EvoUK]

Before you can say something doesn't exist, there needs to be a definition of what is asserted.

Agreed, but when it's a christian theist on hedre asking you the question, you can bet they're only talking about their god. Quite which version of the christion god it is is naturally up for grabs- it could be the pansy, cuddly bear-type christian god, the irrelevant to our daily lives-type christian god, or the spiteful, atheist-hating, queer-bashing god of hellfire and damnnation which some theists get off on. Most of the more notable christian theists on here are referring to the latter version.

The atheist statement, "There is no God", begs the question as well. What are we talking about when you ask and when the Atheist declares there is not one.

Hense why you'll find most atheists are both strong and weak atheists- depending upon which type of god you're discussing. I agree it's very important for the theist in question to define the god they're talking about first before asking us if we believe in it or not.

The only way to prove something doesn't exist assuming one is not right before your eyes thus countering any objection, is to prove that the definition is contradictory.

Hmm... I disagree- I think the mere fact that there is no valid reason to accept X god exists is perfectly valid reason to disbelieve said god exists until evidence is presented. "Faith" is worthless in this context, and I have no time for it.

It's amusing how whilst in our everyday lies, we at least make some effort to check the truth of claims for ourselves, but a significant majority decide to suspend this rational inquirey for their fave myth- be it someone walking on water, lifting a mountain or raising from the dead having copped it several days earlier etc.

At the same time, however, they expect these gods to have normal feelings. Take the christian god- he's meant to be jealous as well as being an inept creator (for an omnipitent, all-knowing being, I find the fall to be either a monumental lapse of concentration, or incredibly poor and callous design).

This is probably one of the reasons why I find the scorn some theists in here heap upon atheists so laughable- they're trying to tell us, with no verifiable evidence what so ever- that a jealous, inept creator-god created the entire universe, for a species of bald ape on a backwater planet on the spiral arm of one of the millions of galaxies out there. That, due to his foul up in creating man, he had to send himself to sacrifice himself to himself, to attone for a mistake he ultimately created. Then after being dead for a couple of days, he jumped up and wandered off to heaven somewhere.

That's a mouthful however you want to dress it up- and we're being mocked for not believing, despite it being self-evidently laughable and unverified. :ahem:

[zorathruster]

Hmm... I disagree- I think the mere fact that there is no valid reason to accept X god exists is perfectly valid reason to disbelieve said god exists until evidence is presented. "Faith" is worthless in this context, and I have no time for it.



Well that is what I tried to say that must have been worded poorly. The direct evidence being "one standing right before you" and ready for examination and testing. My wording must have been confusing: It is always the burden of the communicator to properly communicate the idea. My failure. I agree with your statement which conveys the same idea I was attempting to put forward. THX

Z

[ExtraBold]

An omnimax god is incompatible with the existence of evil, particularly natural evil - suffering not caused by human agency.

There is such evil, therefore there is no omnimax god.

A being that is not omnimax does not deserve the title god.

[omnimax = omnipotent, omniscient and good]

Are there clever aliens around? Maybe, who cares?

Gods are more complicated than universes, so their origins are harder to explain, not easier.

Gods are alive, so creation of life by a god is merely a continuation of life. Abiogenesis must happen somewhere if life is ever to start.

Gods are complex, so they cannot be responsible for the origin of complexity, but nature can account for it. We see the spontaneous emergence of complexity in nature.

Likewise Gods are conscious, so cannot be responsible for the origin of consciousness.

Everything the god hypothesis is supposed to explain, it fails at. To assert that X is a prime mover has little meaning unless you can say something else about X based on more than speculation. Theism is believing the impossible, barely meaningful and of no explanatory value. So atheism is logical.

[Gaytheist]

I speak only for myself, not atheists in general.
I don't know whether there is a God, but I believe there is not.
Again, speaking purely personally, I believe that the very definition of God is of a thing which, effectively speaking, does not exist. That is, a God is (among other things) a being who cannot be perceived. For me, "unable to be perceived" is the functional equivalent of not existing. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, I believe that god does not exist. For that reason, I believe I am classified as a strong atheist.
Another way to put this may be that I adopt naturalist materialism, or that I apply scientific/materialist methodology to my own life. If it can't be perceived, experienced, known, measured, shared...I have no use for it. I call that not existing.

Once I got there, I found that the evidence seemed to be consistent with this position, so I'm sticking with it.

[lao tzu]

(Good to see you posting here, TBM)

Greetings, autoartist,

By "as some of you know my faith in the Bible is pretty much gone," I assume you mean that you can no longer support the idea that the bible itself is the revealed word of the creator of the universe. I concur, for many reasons.

But you go on to ask if atheism is logical, begging the question of whether "abiblicism", if you'll allow me the neologism, is equivalent to atheism. In fact, it is not. Certainly, there are more than a billion muslims who lack "faith" in the bible, yet still hold belief in the god of Abraham, or Ibrahim.

More, we have the example of millions of jews who do not read their contribution to the christian bible as inerrant, and still manage to hold belief in the god of Abraham. Mere rejection of one biblical hermeneutic is insufficient to imply atheism as a logical alternative.

__________

To answer the question posed by your thread title, however, I would have to say that by any logic confined to deductive reasoning, atheism is not logical. But then again, neither is science, and we have found no better method of arriving at new truths than the induction that underlies the scientific method.

Insofar as we can assert "there is no god", and define the aspects we wish to ascribe to this god, and from these presumed aspects examine the implications of the existence of such a god, we can draw greater and greater confidence of the truth of our negative proposition. Lacking contradiction, atheism is thus inductively reasonable but not logically deductive.

__________

But, like science, atheism is not satisfying in the sense that theists have come to expect. That is, as the provider of absolute truths that can allay all doubts and thus remove insecurity, atheism, like science, will forever fail. In return for this insecurity, atheism, like science, allows us the freedom to explore our universe without the assumption that our explorations are essentially contrived by a deus ex machina.

Exactly because we do not know an ultimate destination, we are not misled into ignoring the path under our feet.

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

Still a leap of faith though. I mean, you say, "I don't know if God exists or not." Then you go go on to pretty much say that you chose to believe God does not exist. That is a faith statement. On its face it would seem no more logical and no less logical than saying you believe there is God.

Greetings, Pilgrim,

I'm afraid this neglects Occam's razor and its injunction against mutiplying entities without necessity. God, as usually conceived, is the most complex of all possible entities, and so it is of course much simpler, and thus, by Occam, more logical, to choose to exclude its existence.

As ever, Jesse

[bandecoot]

As some of you know my faith in the Bible is pretty much gone.
But I do think there might be a God. I cannot get over the complications of the Universe and all that is in it.

So my question is:

How does an atheist know there is no God?

Is Agnosticism more logical? I think it might be.

Thanks for your time.


Why are you asking us? We each came at this position from a different way. You have to come to whatever position on your own.

I never believed...then I did Military Service. I stayed an athiest. ( so much no aths in foxholes)

Others believed and stopped and are pacifists.

Others are Aths and are pacifists and serve in the miltary

Its YOUR decision son, not ours.

Theist agnostic or atheist ..its up to you. Its an individual thing.

[Griggsy]

Evouk ,yes,strong in relation to any god. Zorathustthra an Gaytheist,y'all are so right.Has anyone comments on mine on Russel Stannard's two category mistake ? Martin Diamond maintains that when theists make the two category assertion that the world is contingent and their god is a necessary being,they are begging the question about that being. Sahakian in one of his books on philosopy maintains that we committ the falllacy of multiple questions when we ask: who made god ? But I do not think so ,for I think he begs the question in maintaining that his god is has the attributes he claims for it.To make the claim that his god is exempt from from questions asked about the world ,he is also special pleading , as Austine Cline atheism@about.com maintains. And at her last utterrance,the theist asserts ,one has to have faith,yes ,she once agains begs the question,for in order to have trust ,one must have evidence.Logic is the bane of theists. Reason saves!

[Griggsy]

I speak only for myself, not atheists in general.
I don't know whether there is a God, but I believe there is not.
Again, speaking purely personally, I believe that the very definition of God is of a thing which, effectively speaking, does not exist. That is, a God is (among other things) a being who cannot be perceived. For me, "unable to be perceived" is the functional equivalent of not existing. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, I believe that god does not exist. For that reason, I believe I am classified as a strong atheist.
Another way to put this may be that I adopt naturalist materialism, or that I apply scientific/materialist methodology to my own life. If it can't be perceived, experienced, known, measured, shared...I have no use for it. I call that not existing.

Once I got there, I found that the evidence seemed to be consistent with this position, so I'm sticking with it. Existence is the First Cause , Ultimate Explainer and Greatest Being and natural selection causes forms to come into existence. Thus , the cosmological, ontological and teleological arguments are null .I t woud be committing the fallacy of compositon to aver that what is true of it s parts is true of Existence. Threr is also no need to invoke [ bu t one of them would help] the bouncing universes or the budding ones or Burbage's semi-steady state theory to show an eternal polyverse or just an eternal universe! See Quentin Smith's book on analysis ,ethics and religion on Existence and his essays at Talk Reason why no deity is required.

[Zeluvia]

Atheist is not my word.

I picked up each religion, looked it over, rejected it for one reason or another.

I picked up each concept of god, looked it over, rejected most of them, and found a few intriguing.

But for all practical purposes when someone says the word "god" they mean a concept I have rejected. And being intrigued by a concept isn't the same as having "faith" or "belief".

[Griggsy]

Atheist is not my word.

I picked up each religion, looked it over, rejected it for one reason or another.

I picked up each concept of god, looked it over, rejected most of them, and found a few intriguing.

But for all practical purposes when someone says the word "god" they mean a concept I have rejected. And being intrigued by a concept isn't the same as having "faith" or "belief".
Zeluvia, welcome aboard! I also use the term naturalist[ as opposed to supernaturalists], rationalist[ the religious are irrationalists] and skeptic as also oppoes to the paranormal as some atheists are paranormalists . And non-theist so as to include the agnostic. I will also use the term humanist for morality sake. Oh, and ignostic for each sense of god makes no sense . I define faith as the I just say so of gullibility!Faith is a circular argument .

[Jayhawker Soule]

The question is less than helpful in that: it invites/suggests a caricature of 'atheism', while it invites/suggests the vernacular usage of the term 'logic'.Logic is the application of formal rules of inference, and the view that a belief in God is unwarranted by the evidence is the result of an appropriate inferrential chain, i.e., ...Inference to Best Explanation [IBE] -->
Methodological Naturalism -->
Ontological Naturalism -->
Atheism

[Stabbytheclown]

I see nothing logically wrong with atheism. There is no evidence of Luke Perry in my house, therefore I conclude Luke Perry is not in my house. I cannot prove that he is not here, hiding in some cunning fashion, but the absence of evidence is adequate for me to reach my conclusion. Any evidence to the contrary would change my conclusion. If you can accept that reasoning as logical, surely atheism is the same?

[bandecoot]

I see nothing logically wrong with atheism. There is no evidence of Luke Perry in my house, therefore I conclude Luke Perry is not in my house. I cannot prove that he is not here, hiding in some cunning fashion, but the absence of evidence is adequate for me to reach my conclusion. Any evidence to the contrary would change my conclusion. If you can accept that reasoning as logical, surely atheism is the same?



Did you check the downstairs loo. I hear he hides there.


Oh and my IP.... is 50 k away frome me .....have a nice day

[Griggsy]

Did you check the downstairs loo. I hear he hides there.


Oh and my IP.... is 50 k away frome me .....have a nice day
Atheism is the logical conclusion . No evidence for a god . Existence just is as I have shown here. A god is no more warranted than angels are for the movement of the planets around the sun .The Center is afraid that if we openly show no need for a god ,then we scare away fundamentalists from seeing the light.Why not both approaches ? With Dawkins ,Dennett,Kurtz and Provine , I say science admits of no god and philosophy shows no god. The Center and others can say there are no conflicts between religion and science if they want to . Each to her own! Shadydragon and Bandecoot , thanks. I'm looking forward to more good input from you two.

[freethinker]

Yes, atheism if logical.
It is true that you can't prove that supernatural beings do not exist, but some properties attributed to them can be proven to be false.
One such property is that of being all-knowing. Goedl proved this wrong seventy years ago.
Another property is that of being all-powerful: nothing is impossible to God. This is proven wrong with the question "can God make a stone so heavy that He can't lift it?"
In the end you are left with a possible little God whose existence is irrelevant to the universe.

[pladecalvo]

As some of you know my faith in the Bible is pretty much gone.
But I do think there might be a God. I cannot get over the complications of the Universe and all that is in it.

So my question is:

How does an atheist know there is no God?

.

Atheist don't know there is no god.

Atheists do not say 'There is no god'. If they do say that, they are making a 'positive' statement and therefore the burden of proof lies with them to prove there is no god.

Atheists only say that they have no belief in god.

[patwil]

As some of you know my faith in the Bible is pretty much gone.
But I do think there might be a God. I cannot get over the complications of the Universe and all that is in it.

Take your time. As many have said this is going to be an individual question. If you've given up on the bible, have you also given up on the concept of salvation - in which case you have all the time in the world to be confused. Enjoy the exploration and keep an open mind.

So my question is:

How does an atheist know there is no God?

We don't. At least in the philosophical definition of "to know". In the common vernacular we can say we know there is no god (assuming a defined particular religion god and not a nebulous deist god). However, that tends to get into pointless debates on the internet - so when arguing most atheists tend to stick with "I lack belief in god". The more defined a god is, the more the lack of belief slides to certainty that god does not exist based on logical contradictions.

Is Agnosticism more logical? I think it might be.

This really is a semantic issue - am I agnostic because I don't know for sure or because I am open to the possibility? I just go with atheist which covers that whole range. Most of those who push the agnostic/atheist division seem to express that agnosticism allows for one to choose theism if the evidence allowed - but really atheism is the same. Prove to me a god exists and I will be a theist. That's all we really ask, just show us proof we can believe.

Thanks for your time.

No problem, hope I helped.

Pat

[zorathruster]

The reason we know the commonly defined Christian God does not exist is that the attributed definition is contradictory.

ex. God is omnibenevolent God is omnipotent. Evil exists. Therefore, either God is not omnibenevolent or he is not omnipotent but because evil exists, he cannot be as described.

He might not care about individuals, but then the Christian definition would be in error.
He might not be able to handle stamping out all the evil in the world, in which case the Christian definition would be in error.

[freethinker]

Your logic is faulty, you've created an excluded middle and a false dichotomy. What you have not considered is that perhaps our understanding of what is good and what is evil is mistaken.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Bible supposed to be a guideline here? I also seem to remember that Adam and Eve ate the fruit that gave them knowledge of good and evil. Have we lost that knowledge?

[tasman]

First we need to define what 'god' is, before we say we can/can't believe in it.

Gods are objects of veneration and reverence for human beings. Therefore we know that there are literally thousands of gods. I believe they exist, if only in statue form, or in the imaginations of their adorers, who use them to explain mysteries and rationalize human experience. So in that sense I am a theist.

But to the questions

- "Does one or more of these gods exist independently of human imaginings, and

- Act as a creative force in the universe?

- Decide what is moral in human behavior?

- Pay attention judgementally (or for diversion) to our internal states and motives, and our daily actions?

- Reward or punish us for our choices (or for our attributes) during our lives?

- Create a method whereby our memories and consciousness can persist after the dissolution of our brains?

- Give a damn one way or another whether we pray, kill and burn animals in it's honor, or perform rituals?"

I for one have to answer 'no'. I do that with the same certainty that I have when I say that there exists a 'material' world apart from my own consciousness, or that life requires a source of energy in order to arise or to persist.

In other words, I don't know absolutely that my opinion is correct; but I think it the probability that I am wrong is vanishingly unlikely .

That is why I call myself a 'hard' atheist. I am as sure that there is no real presence behind any notion of 'god' as I am that I exist.

Only people who believe there is such a thing as absolute truth think atheism is illogical. And Agnostics are wimps.

[freethinker]

Actually, all humans are atheists but most don't know it. A-theos (Greek) means without God.

[London Chambers]

I think that being an Agnostic is the best way to go if you choose not to pick a religious institution. There is no logical reason to deny that a God or higher being exists in our world. The way that I foud explained this best to me was Thomas of Assisi's explaination called "the first mover". Because all of the planets and galaxies, stars etc. Have a gravitational pull and orbit around planets/suns with a greater gravitational pull, something had to start out that first movement. The "hand" that made the first movement and eventually started all things is motion is God.

Please note that this area is for non-theists only. If you wish to respond, please start a thread in an appropriate forum.

[Soundsurfr]

I think that being an Agnostic is the best way to go if you choose not to pick a religious institution. There is no logical reason to deny that a God or higher being exists in our world. The way that I foud explained this best to me was Thomas of Assisi's explaination called "the first mover". Because all of the planets and galaxies, stars etc. Have a gravitational pull and orbit around planets/suns with a greater gravitational pull, something had to start out that first movement.

Not really, although I'm not arguing against a "first mover" here - I'm just arguing against the assertion that if something is moving relative to something else, it did not "start out" that way. That is not a necessary condition.

[casaba]

First we need to define what 'god' is, before we say we can/can't believe in it...

But to the questions

- "Does one or more of these gods exist independently of human imaginings, and

- Act as a creative force in the universe?

- Decide what is moral in human behavior?

- Pay attention judgementally (or for diversion) to our internal states and motives, and our daily actions?

- Reward or punish us for our choices (or for our attributes) during our lives?

- Create a method whereby our memories and consciousness can persist after the dissolution of our brains?

- Give a damn one way or another whether we pray, kill and burn animals in it's honor, or perform rituals?"

I for one have to answer 'no'. I do that with the same certainty that I have when I say that there exists a 'material' world apart from my own consciousness, or that life requires a source of energy in order to arise or to persist.

In other words, I don't know absolutely that my opinion is correct; but I think it the probability that I am wrong is vanishingly unlikely...

Only people who believe there is such a thing as absolute truth think atheism is illogical. And Agnostics are wimps.


I would second everything Tasman said, particularly the importance of his first line (note that the emphases are mine).

I also take offence at the last note! I choose to define atheist as one who believes that through reason, we can attain complete knowledge. I would suggest that human understanding is limited--there will always be something we do not understand--and for this reason I choose the term agnostic. But really, as far as the current state of things, I agree with Tasman and he explains it much better than I can.

You have argued to be considerd a theist, therefore you cannot post here

[deeyogini]

atheism usually does not implicate knowledge, but belief.

Most atheist will say they do not believe there is a god. Not, "I know there is no god".

[Soundsurfr]

atheism usually does not implicate knowledge, but belief.

Most atheist will say they do not believe there is a god. Not, "I know there is no god".


Yes, and most theists will refuse to accept that as the atheist position.

[deeyogini]

Yes, and most theists will refuse to accept that as the atheist position.

Is it because of the preconceived notions about atheist/atheism? Which, usually, are quite negative.

I don't understand why people don't take a minute to get to know the person and their philosophy before formulating an idea about who they are.

[freethinker]

It is impossible to prove that God does not exist. One can prove however that an effect attributed to God does not exist. This has been done in the case of intercessory prayer. In two separate cases a double blind test has been arranged a hospital. 1/3 of patients were prayed for, 1/3 were not prayed for and 1/3 watched Daffy Duck cartoons. Observers and patients were unaware of who was being prayed for. In accordance with atheist expectations prayer had no effect on patient outcome. Watching cartoons had a positive effect. Admittedly control was not absolute and family members probably prayed for patients without observers knowing. There should have been a statistically significant effect however. Note that all Holy Books assure that prayers are answered.

[casaba]

atheism usually does not implicate knowledge, but belief.

Most atheist will say they do not believe there is a god. Not, "I know there is no god".

I liked it when I first read it but eventually I began to have problems with the difference between 'knowledge' and 'belief'. I would say that knowledge is made of up beliefs that are deemed very likely to be true according to logic. I do not think that anyone can be certain of any one truth and thus all knowledge is really a set of beliefs. It is logic that enables us to determine which beliefs are so likely to be true that they should be deemed knowledge.

So, yes, an atheist believes that there is no god. Whether this 'belief' falls into knowledge, for me, depends on the definition of 'god'. If it is the God of the major religions that I am familiar with, then yes, I would claim to 'know' that God does not exist. However, if a god can be any supernatural, incomprehensible entitity which may well be aware of human existance, then not only do I not 'know' is such a god exists, I would tend to believe that such a god exists.

So, does such a set of beliefs make one an atheist or an agnostic? I choose the word agnostic partly because of the antipathy to the term atheist that you mention in your later post.

I would say most of this comes down to semantics. In another discussion I came up with the following definition of an agnostic: Agnosticism is the belief that one cannot be certain of a truth unless it can defined by logic, i.e. human intelligence.
You have argued to be considerd a theist, therefore you cannot post here

[Soundsurfr]

I liked it when I first read it but eventually I began to have problems with the difference between 'knowledge' and 'belief'. I would say that knowledge is made of up beliefs that are deemed very likely to be true according to logic.

I wouldn't say logic. Logic in and of itself does not impart knowledge. I would say knowledge is obtained through the application of critical inquiry to empirical evidence. Logic is a tool in the process.

I do not think that anyone can be certain of any one truth and thus all knowledge is really a set of beliefs.

There is a difference between knowledge and belief. And yes, knowledge may be considered a subset of belief, however it is interesting to examine the level of belief upon which one bases one's knowledge.

It is logic that enables us to determine which beliefs are so likely to be true that they should be deemed knowledge.

Hmm. OK. I would probably qualify that further, but no need to get into it.

So, yes, an atheist believes that there is no god. Whether this 'belief' falls into knowledge, for me, depends on the definition of 'god'. If it is the God of the major religions that I am familiar with, then yes, I would claim to 'know' that God does not exist. However, if a god can be any supernatural, incomprehensible entitity which may well be aware of human existance, then not only do I not 'know' is such a god exists, I would tend to believe that such a god exists.

And I would not, but I would not rule it out. Just out of curiousity, why would you tend to believe that an incomprehensible supernatural entity exists?

So, does such a set of beliefs make one an atheist or an agnostic? I choose the word agnostic partly because of the antipathy to the term atheist that you mention in your later post.

Depends on who you ask. I think you might qualify as what some around here call a "weak atheist".

[Soundsurfr]

Is it because of the preconceived notions about atheist/atheism? Which, usually, are quite negative.

No, actually. It's usually because they cannot argue strongly against the "I don't believe there is" as oppposed to the "I believe there is no" position. So they insist on setting up the latter position as a straw man and attacking it.

I don't understand why people don't take a minute to get to know the person and their philosophy before formulating an idea about who they are.

That's good advice for all of us.

[Griggsy]

As an ignotist and hard atheist,I state that there is probaly no god. Administrator, I regret having posted in that theistic forum and please expunge my comments there if necessary.I value highly this site. The people are friendly and there is no profanity. Theists can post at my threads as far as I am concerned.Oh, everybody who has the time, try Kansas City Skeptics and the theistic Planet Wisdom.

[SlapShot]

As some of you know my faith in the Bible is pretty much gone.
But I do think there might be a God. I cannot get over the complications of the Universe and all that is in it.

So my question is:

How does an atheist know there is no God?

Is Agnosticism more logical? I think it might be.

Thanks for your time.

How does an atheist know there is no God?

The unfathomable vastness of the universe is what tells me there are no gods.
URL="http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/space_missions/voyager/pale_blue_dot.html"]http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/space_missions/voyager/pale_blue_dot.html

The multitudes of gods, and their silence throughout history tells me they don't exist.

The multitude of religions and factional groups tells me there are no gods.

Nonsensical theistic claims tells me there are no gods.

Scientific facts all point away from the supernatural.

A total lack of evidence for any religious belief.

These are some of the things that lead me to atheism.

Is agnosticism more logical?

I guess that depends on how you define it. I think saying ,"I don't know and may never know if there's a god(s)" is a logical statement. I don't think it's more logical than saying "I don't believe in a god(s) or the claims of theists."

Most atheist will say they do not believe there is a god. Not, "I know there is no god". I think you're probably right. We've all seen post where the definition of atheism is debated and hairs are split between soft/hard atheism and all the variations of being agnostic. I won't go into that in this thread.

Yes, and most theists will refuse to accept that as the atheist position. Projection of their own beliefs stop them from it.

Actually, all humans are atheists but most don't know it. A-theos (Greek) means without God. I like that. :lol:

[Griggsy]

Evaluating arguments for God show me there are none. The ignostic and Occam arguments show that there is no need to call for a creator. We can dismiss God as an explanation just as we dismiss phlogiston as a substance: natural explanations suffice. Science does indeed give the why and the how.Victor Stenger in 'Has Science found God/" and 'God: the failed Hypothesis" shows science indeed does show no god! God is just a vapid term,not heuristic.

[nogapedq]

Agnosticism is not more logical, and is in fact equivalent to atheism. You should not consider atheism as a set of beliefs. Atheism is a lack of belief in theism, involving no positive statements. Insofar as agnosticism withholds judgement it is also a lack of belief. All agnostics are atheists.

[McX.]

I speak only for myself, not atheists in general.
I don't know whether there is a God, but I believe there is not.
Again, speaking purely personally, I believe that the very definition of God is of a thing which, effectively speaking, does not exist. That is, a God is (among other things) a being who cannot be perceived. For me, "unable to be perceived" is the functional equivalent of not existing. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, I believe that god does not exist. For that reason, I believe I am classified as a strong atheist.
Another way to put this may be that I adopt naturalist materialism, or that I apply scientific/materialist methodology to my own life. If it can't be perceived, experienced, known, measured, shared...I have no use for it. I call that not existing.

Once I got there, I found that the evidence seemed to be consistent with this position, so I'm sticking with it.
Gaytheist,

You said you don't know whether God exists (this should make you an agnostic at best), but then you call yourself a "strong atheist." Your reason was that you couldn't "see" God. You claim that something exists if and only if that thing is (or can be) seen. Let's call this statement "Gaytheist's Claim."

Gaytheist's Claim: If you can't see it, it doesn't exist.

I will argue that this is radically false. Here is just one counterexample to it: electrons are in principle unobservable--we infer them from effects we see. But notice the same can be said of God: he best explains our universe. Thus, if your reason for thinking God doesn't exist is that you can't see him, this is no reason at all. (Plus, it's a category fallacy to ask to "see" God since his nature is such that it isn't visible for us to see).

Best,

McX.

Naturalism 101 is for non-theist only. Thanks. :smile:

[Jimmy Higgins]

I will argue that this is radically false. Here is just one counterexample to it: electrons are in principle unobservable--we infer them from effects we see.That isn't unobservable. We can't both know where an electron is and the direction it's heading, but we can observe their existence.
But notice the same can be said of God: he best explains our universe.No, god doesn't best explain the universe. Because a huge arbitrary necessity is applied to god in order for him to be your solution, ie the whole, The Universe needs a cause, so we'll create a causeless Creator to be it. That's just not an awful assumption.
Thus, if your reason for thinking God doesn't exist is that you can't see him, this is no reason at all. (Plus, it's a category fallacy to ask to "see" God since his nature is such that it isn't visible for us to see). Dude a much better argument would have been the leg of a table. You go walking along, blissfully unaware that the leg is there and then *WHACK* el-stubbo-dos-toes.

[McX.]

You're correct that we cannot both know the velocity and location of an electron simultaneously, but your just mistaken that we can see electrons. But let's suppose we can (contrary to fact); there are yet other smaller unobservable particles: quarks, leptons, etc. these too are unobservable. What's the point? That something can exist even though we can't see them.

Regarding God being the best explanation of the universe, postulating him isn't "arbitrary" at all. Before the universe began to exist 15-20 billion years ago, there literally was nothing. Whatever caused the universe's beginning must have been timeless, changeless, very powerful, and I would argue personal. So it's not arbitrary at all. God is the best explanation of what we DO know: the universe began to exist from nothing 15-20 billion years ago.

Best,

McX.

[Wyman]

Whatever caused the universe's beginning must have been timeless, changeless, very powerful.... So it's not arbitrary at all.

Yes, even naturalists like Quentin Smith would agree. In a recent article, he claims that


there is a cause of spacetime’s beginning to exist. Further, I agree with many theists that a simple being caused space- time, where “simple” means here “has no parts.” ... I also agree with some theists, such as Brian Leftow, that the cause of spacetime exists timelessly. And I agree with theists that the cause of spacetime is essentially uncaused and exists a se (i.e., is not dependent upon any concrete object). And I agree with Plantinga and most other contemporary analytic theists that the cause of spacetime has a metaphysically necessary existence. I also share the view of these theists that this metaphysically necessary being contingently causes spacetime to exist (such that this necessary being exists in some merely possible worlds where it does not cause spacetime). I further agree with theists that the act of causation is a case of singularist causation that relates a necessary being to a contingent being, spacetime. Moreover, I agree with theists that the cause of spacetime is transcendent, at least in the sense explicated in this passage from Plantinga: “Perhaps we can also give an explanation of what it is for a being to be transcendent: such a being transcends the created universe; and a being transcends the created universe if it is not identical with any being in that universe (if it is not created) and if it depends on nothing at all for its existence.” Note that a being is transcendent, by this definition, only if it transcends the created universe, such that a being can possess the property of being transcendent only in the possible worlds where there is a created universe....

Smith, however, goes on to say that he thinks this being is a point-sized object (a point-sized object is an object with zero dimensions), rather than a being with real volitional capacities. Regardless of whether Smith is right or wrong, the conclusion is clear: postulating a necessary being (a being whose existence was not caused) that caused spacetime is not arbitrary.

Cheers,

Wyman

[lao tzu]

Gaytheist,

You said ...

Best,

McX.

Welcome to TWeb, McX,

The owners of this board have declared a number of subforums "theist only," meaning that atheists must be given special permission to post there. You too, can be given special permission to post in this unique "non-theists only" subforum. But to do so, you must send a PM to one of the Naturalism forum moderators ... lilpixieofterror (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/member.php?u=10420), Raptor (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/member.php?u=2687), ApologiaPhoenix (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/member.php?u=2652), The Almighty Sheepdog (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/member.php?u=144)

As ever, Jesse

[neonmagek]

Yes, Atheism is logical. However, not everyone has logical reason to be Atheist. I don't really see how the complixity of the universe would be any indication of there being some sort of god. Humanity has made much progress in showing how the universe got to be the way it is. It is interesting stuff, if you like physics.

[Griggsy]

Yea, atheism is logical, because it relies on evidence and since there is no real evidence for God, then atheism is the default position.
There are now the no-asking why God of the gaps theists: they find God without asking why such and such by introducing Him as the answer to a non-question as Keith Miller does when he finds that possibly God intervenes in the sub-atomic realm. There is no question posed to get that answer but just a it must be, a guess or the argument from ignorance! Yea, he will not state that God does that only that He might do that so he has a way out! Nay, he still has no reason to posit God period.
In the New Republic, Jerry Coyne shows up Miller and Giberson in his article ' Seeing and Believing' as the obfuscators that they are.
Their shield of faith keeps them from fathoming that God has no place period in the cosmos. They violate the Razor. Their use of Him is fatuous- affirming ignosticism!
That bane! Theists ever make silly arguments for Him. So by default they show atheism as logical!
Google Jerry Coyne for that article and others. PZ Myers also is involved in all this @ Pharyngula.and so is the Edge. Google Pharyngula for all the articles on this subject to date of the thirteenth.
This obfuscatory theism is one reason that I 'm a new atheist..

[Oolon Colluphid]

I can't totally dismiss the possibility that there is a mind at work in the universe, so yes, in a sense agnosticism may appear more reasonable. But remember Russell's teapot and and the burden of proof.

If the word atheist is only to be used about those who are 100% certain that there is no God then the term becomes almost pointless, and describes a very infrequent minority view. Also, most theists will readily admit that they have doubts too, technically making them agnostic. To be overly strict and pedantic in our use of words like theist, agnostic and atheist doesn't help anyone. I think Dawkins's scale of 1 - 7 is helpful. I'd say ones and twos are theists, sixes and sevens are atheists and agnostic describes those in between.

[rach12]

Honestly, I never understood why atheism would ever be illogical. And I'm the type that actively believes there is no such thing as a god.

I also don't believe in the tooth fairy or elves. Nobody questions the logic in that.

[FLovell]

As some of you know my faith in the Bible is pretty much gone.
But I do think there might be a God. I cannot get over the complications of the Universe and all that is in it.

So my question is:

How does an atheist know there is no God?

Is Agnosticism more logical? I think it might be.

Thanks for your time.

I (an atheist of the agnostic variety respecting the existence of any supernatural creator God that is not described to possess logically contradictory properties/attributes, and an atheist of the gnostic variety respecting the existence of any supernatural creator God -- like Yahweh -- that is described to possess logically contradictory attributes/properties), just "found" this dialogue subboard, and wish to reply to the opening post above (I confess I have not the time presently to peruse the dialogue already posted to see others have answered as I wish to answer).

HOW DOES AN ATHEIST KNOW THERE IS NO GOD?

An atheist is one who lacks theism (that is, who lacks belief in the existence of supernatural deity); thus, while some atheists claim to know there does not exist any supernatural deity, not all atheists claim to know there does not exist any supernatural deity, some atheists simply do not believe supernatural deity exists without denying all possibility that a supernatural deity may exist about whom one simply has no knowledge and -- lacking knowledge of diety -- withholds from believeing supernatural deity exists. That is to say, some atheists are gnostic (knowing) atheists who claim to know there is no God, and some atheists are agnostic atheists who do not believe any God exists but do not claim to know that no God exists (just as some Christians are gnostic theists who claim to know that God does exist, while some Christians are agnostic theists who do not claim to know that God exists but who do believe (on "faith") that God exists.

As to which -- a gnostic atheist, or an agnostic atheist -- I am depends on the particular description of God that is presented to me when I am asked if I believe that particular God exists.

For example, if I am asked if I believe a supernatural God who started all physical reality (the universe) and having started it, got out of the way and let the universe evolve without in any way interfering in in the workings of the universe or the affairs of any intelligent life that may have evolved in the universe, my answer is that I do not know whether or not any God of that description exists but I also do not believe any God of that description exists -- that is, with respect to a God of that description, I am an agnostic atheist.

But if I am asked if I believe in the existence of a supernatural creator God who created all physical reality and is described to be all-knowing (but sometimes does not know everything) and all-powerful (but sometimes is not all powerful) and all-just (but sometimes does not act justly) and all-good/ethical/moral (but sometimes acts baldy/unethically/immorally) and all merciful (but sometimes is unmerciful), my answer is that I not only do not believe any God of that description exists, I KNOW (on grounds of logical contradiction) that no God of that description actually exists (because nothing actually exists which possesses logically contradictory attributes/properties) -- that is, with respect to a God of that description, I am a gnostic atheist (and you should be, too!).

IS AGNOSTICISM MORE LOGICAL? I THINK IT MIGHT BE.

Gnosticism-agnosticism relates to knowledge vs.lack-of-knowledge, while theism/atheism relates to belief vs. lack-of-belief. Thus agnosticism is not an alternative to atheism (or theism), but rather is a modifier or describing adjective of atheism (or theism).

There are gnostic theists and agnostic theists and gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists. The difference between these is not necessarily a difference in valid logic, but rather is a difference in burden of proof/demonstration if they want others to think as they do.

That is, gnostic theists and gnostic atheists bear a burden of proof/demonstration (which entails not only valid logic but sound premises supported by crucial objective/empirical evidence) if they want others to think as they do, while agnostic theists and agnostic atheists do not bear a burden of demonstration (since they do not claim to know their positions are for certain correct, and others are completely free to disagree with them and to bleieve/not-believe differently from them).

Said another way, belief in the truth of X and knowledge of the truth of X are not the same things, and people believe in all manner of things they do not know to be true (with just a little effort, you can think of all sorts of examples).

Additionally, "truth" and "knowledge of truth" are not the same things; "truth" is whatever's actuallt true (whether or not anyone knows it is true and even if nobody can know if it is true), while "knowledge of truth" is forever fallible in that it could be shown wrong by subecquent discoveries (and the history of empirical science runneth over with examples).

Hope this helps!

By the way, you said, "I cannot get over the complications of the Universe and all that is in it." I don't understand what you mean by "can't get over" it. If you mean you find it all astonishing and beyond complete comprehension, well then you are in mighty good company, for as far as I can tell NOBODY completely comprehends it all! Thing is, I (for one) don't find anything about the concept of an immaterial supernatural creator intelligence that has always existed to be any more comprehensible than " the complications of the Universe," nor does "God did it" render anything about " the complications of the Universe" any more comprehensible to me.

Said another way, how does one explain the unexplained by invoking the unexplainable???

-- Frank

PS: I think I saw something posted here that suggests this particular sub-board is for non-theists only; if that is the case, someone please confirm that, for I am interested in participating only in dialogue here on Tweb in which both theists and atheists are free to participate (for there is WAY more I need to learn and understand about theism from theists than about atheism from my fellow atheists, and vice-versa), THANKS!

[ReligionFails]

Claiming to know the absolute truth about god is illogical. This applies to atheists and theists alike. However, logical people will agree that the chance of god existing is extremely low.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Claiming to know the absolute truth about god is illogical. This applies to atheists and theists alike. [/QUOTE]

Agreed.


However, logical people will agree that the chance of god existing is extremely low.

Do you mean that those who disagree are illogical? There are logically coherent arguments for the existence of God. I don't accept them for various reasons but they do exist. One is not automatically illogical if one believes in God. (I'm not sure if you meant to imply that they are illogical or not. Care to clarify?)

[FLovell]

Claiming to know the absolute truth about god is illogical. This applies to atheists and theists alike. However, logical people will agree that the chance of god existing is extremely low.
I agree, except in the case of any putative supernatural creator god defined/described to possess logically contradictory properties/attributes (f'instance, a god who is defined/described to be [a] always merciful, and [b] sometimes unmerciful, or, [a'] all-knowing, and [b'] sometimes doesn't know everything, and so forth); to the extent that we know anything at all, we know there does not actually exist any object or being possessing logically contradictory properties/attributes. At least, in my (feeble, admittedly fallible) present thinking, I know there does not actually exist any object or being for which both X and not-X is true.

-- Frank

[FLovell]

[quote=Oolon Colluphid;2712778]...There are logically coherent arguments for the existence of God...

Are there any logically coherent arguments for the existence of God which are successful (that is, which employ only sound premises and no logical fallacies)?

-- Frank

PS: Is this a dialogue thread that is restricted for the participation only of atheists? If so, I'd like that confirmed/clarified so I can bow out, for as a rule I (an atheist) only have time for Internet dialogue that can be accessed and considered by theists (as I explained in a recent post here; I limit my arguments with my fellow atheists to one closed group I've long participated in). THANKS in advance to anyone who can clarify this question for me.

[CamyCamy]

I don't think it's logical...or any more logical than believing. I've always though atheism is self-serving ...

Welcome to TheologyWeb. Before posting in any forum, please read the forum guidelines post that is stickied at the top of every forum. It would inform you that, for instance, Naturalism 101 is intended for non-theists only.

[Stabbytheclown]

I've always though atheism is self-serving ...

How on earth do you figure that out?

[Yankee_Doodle]

As some of you know my faith in the Bible is pretty much gone.
But I do think there might be a God. I cannot get over the complications of the Universe and all that is in it.

So my question is:

How does an atheist know there is no God?

Is Agnosticism more logical? I think it might be.

Thanks for your time.

Atheism and agnosticism are both more logical than theism. As Martin Luther said "reason is the whore of the devil."

There is no rational argument that can support theism (besides the historicity argument .... but I've heard the historicity argument effectively debunked by atheists). I've even heard plenty of good arguments challenging the veracity of the bible (and all theistic systems). In short you either believe or you don't (but not because it's logical)!
Naturalism 101 threads are for non-theists only.

[FLovell]

* edited by a moderator *
Moderated By: Mountain Man Welcome to TheologyWeb. Before posting in any forum, please read the forum guidelines post that is stickied at the top of every forum. It would inform you that, for instance, Naturalism 101 is intended for non-theists only. * moderator notice *

Well, that finally anwers my question -- this is an area for dialogue just between fellow atheists, not theists allowed.

Bummer.

Not that I don't enjoy dialoguing with fellow atheists -- I do, and I do that on other websites dedicated to atheist-atheist dialogue -- but respecting the question of whether there is any objective reason for believing a supernatural creator God exists, we are all in essential agreement! So I will withdraw from this tread of dialogue.

If there is another active thread of dialogue here on Tweb having the same essential focus-of-subject as this one but which also has the participation of theists too, please let me know, THANKS!

-- Frank

[Yankee_Doodle]

my apologies (I haven't been around Tweb for a while ... so I didn't realize this was an exclusively non-theist forum). We need one for soft theists (but oh well) :smile:Theist cleanup...

[Griggsy]

Fr. Griggs alone here has objurgated theism such that one can view it as the scam of the ages! Begged questions, guesses and it must be's underpin it. As the two threads on ignosticism reveal, God is a square circle- no there there!
So, t'is a matter of conveying this to every one else. The evangel of naturalism gives that more abundant life.
Whilst logic is the bane of theism, atheism relies on it.
Yea, atheism is logical. Now some argumentation is faulty, but we ever correct that whilse theists just dig one hole after another for themselves.

[FLovell]

As some of you know my faith in the Bible is pretty much gone.
But I do think there might be a God. I cannot get over the complications of the Universe and all that is in it.

So my question is:

How does an atheist know there is no God?

Is Agnosticism more logical? I think it might be.

Thanks for your time.
An atheist doesn't have to know there is no God in order to not believe any God exists. I am an atheist because I lack theistic belief in the existence of any God, not because I know that no God exists. There may indeed be a God out there somewhere about whom I simply have no objective knowledge nor any personal-purely-subjective-knowledge-of-my-own either.

In short, I am an atheist of the agnostic variety -- agnostic because I lack knowledge of any God (that is, I do not know nor claim to know whether or not any God exists), and an atheist because I lack theistic belief in any God (just the way that something asymmetrical lacks symmetry).

"Agnosticism" is every bit a logical as the phrase "I don't know" -- namely, it is PERFECTLY logical, for anyone who does not know whether of not any God exists.

But "agnosticism" is about lack of knowledge, not about lack of belief -- (people believe in the truth of ALL MANNER of things they do not know to be true -- think about it.

Hope that helps. -- Frank

[Griggsy]

Oolon Olophid, however, if we ignostics are right, He is as a square circle- no there ther- so He cannot exist!

[FLovell]

Oolon Olophid, however, if we ignostics are right, He is as a square circle- no there ther- so He cannot exist!
Yes, there are some descriptions/definitions of (alleged) God the non-existence of which we can know -- namely, any (alleged) God whose description/definition assigns to that God logically contradictory properties/attributes. We know that no such God exists because to the extent we can be said to truly know anything, we know that no object or being which is simultaneously both X and not-X can even possibly exist.

And so, respecting the existence of any (alleged) supernatural creator God whose description/definition does NOT assign to that God contradictory attributes/properties, I am an agnostic atheist (in that I do not claim to know that said God does not exist, but I nonetheless also do not believe that said God exists, which leaves open the possibility that that said God does exist but I simply have no objective and no personal-purely-subjective knowledge about said God's existence).

But respecting the existence of any (alleged) supernatural creator God whose description/definition DOES assign to that God contradictory attributes/properties, I am a gnostic atheist (in that I do claim to know that said God does not exist, period, end of that said God's "story"). And so should everyone be.

That's MY (feeble, fallible) present position on this at any rate, and for now I'm stickin' with it.

-- Frank

[zorathruster]

As some of you know my faith in the Bible is pretty much gone.
But I do think there might be a God. I cannot get over the complications of the Universe and all that is in it.

So my question is:

How does an atheist know there is no God?

Is Agnosticism more logical? I think it might be.

Thanks for your time.


First primary method: Self contradicting definition. for example: if we define a god as all red and all blue that is a contradiction in the definition. Thus this specific type of god does not and cannot possibly exist. Many definitions of god are contradictory. Specifically the dilemma of omnipotence and loving. If he is all loving and omnipotent and there is evil in the world, obviously a god cannot be both. If loving and omnipotent and evil exists he cannot be as described. Once theists begin trying to define god they necessarily limit him. A god cannot be evil and good, he must be either or.

Frequently as theists describe god they hit a bump and at that point (catholics anyway) begin to use the word "mystery". At that point, mystery has a meaning, which is unknown. They must at that point cease further descriptions because mystery by definition is "unknown". Any definition that includes such a tactic has as much a probability of characteristics totally different than expressed because a god then by definition is a "mystery". Can't be both known and mysterious.

As for the origins of the universe. YOu need more physics. Specifically, the temperature of a vacuum. Temperature can be measured which means there is something occurring in the void. This something is currently postulated as Hawking Radiation. It is the sizzle between the dimensions as they bang into each other. Also observed at the event horizon on a black hole. This implies before the big bang these "membranes" were banging and wave theory says in any active surface there are additive waves that occationally create large waves called rogue waves. Without a universe if two rogue waves hit each other there would be an overlap of the dimensions. The lack of pressure means the fizzle of loop type particles would explode into being and the dimensions would push an entire universe into being while maintaining their previous integrity. After the universe explodes into being we would still observe the effects previously mentioned.

All that is in it. The observed progression of the universe is toward greater complexity. Stars initially formed and fuzed hydrogen into helium but more important the heavier elements. Iron, carbon, oxygen... After about three solar cycles, 3 times sun formation, heavy element formation, star goes supernova and blasts all that "star stuff" out into the local area eventually planets of heavier elements start forming. Odds come into play and eventually a planet with earthlike qualities begin to show up. The heavy elements are what is critical.

The evolution of life follows a similar path. Simple toward more complex. Starts out single cell, some get eaten and can't be digested others might invade and cant kill the host. Complex cell formation with Mitochondria appear. Multicell organisms appear. Fish, animals, and eventually an animal is so inept with a lack of survival features that it can develop brains instead of capitalizing on some other survival tactic. Brains will lead to the emergence of hardwired intellegence, and eventually that substrate will expand out into the galaxy. Simple to greater levels of complexity. Seems to be a recurring theme.

Look for recurring patterns...that is actually what humans are very good at.

[robertb]

As some of you know my faith in the Bible is pretty much gone.
But I do think there might be a God. I cannot get over the complications of the Universe and all that is in it.

So my question is:

How does an atheist know there is no God?

Is Agnosticism more logical? I think it might be.

Thanks for your time.

I assume that prior to your fall, you probably were quite happy not believing in a multitude of gods, for one reason or another.

Would you say that, during your days as a believer, that you were agnostic towards Zeus or did you simply know that Zeus does not exist?

As has been stated, there is nothing illogical about lack of belief in any specific god, when one can examine the supposed characteristics of the being in question and make a determination as to it's probability, or lack thereof.

On the other hand, to make any definitive statement with regards to all possible gods would be much more difficult and will usually lead to the default and, in my mind, more rational position of agnosticism.

So it is not really a case of one or the other. It is, more or less, situational.

[Griggsy]

Strong atheism is not dogmatic as it means only that there is no evidence for Him and with ignosticsm as part of it, then how could one even approach making sense of Him [ See the ignostic-Ockham, where I'll engage om questioning my form of it [igtheism].
The it must be [those theological it must be's- an intlelligence behind all is the arguments from beauty and pareidolia, which I describe elsewhere here.
Dr. Quentin Smith -yes!

[Griggsy]

Of ocurse atheism is logical as it defeats theism - that series of begged quesions.