Is Atheism Logical?

[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.
http://URL="http://www.planetary.org..._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.

[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.]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: lilpixieofterror

Naturalism 101 is for non-theist only. Thanks.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Jimmy Higgins]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[McX.]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[Wyman]

• Edited by a Moderator •

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

Smith, "Time Began With a Timeless Point"

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....

© source where applicable

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]

• Edited by a Moderator •

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, Raptor, ApologiaPhoenix, The Almighty Sheepdog

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?)