Is Atheism Logical?

[FLovell]

You're completely right, sir. Nobody has to. I will remember to be less colloquial in the future.

It would seem to me that non-belief is a combination of good many philosophical persuasions, none of which anyone is forced to subscribe to. If anyone were, the term "freethinker" would very quickly lose relevance.

Those who are guilty of forcing persuasions, however, are generally the religious. Faith-heads that believe their local orthodoxy should -- because god somehow tells them -- be the universal orthodoxy are by-and-large the ones who attempt to force beliefs and persuasions. And if any of them were right that it is god's will that the local orthodoxy should be the universal orthodoxy, then god is misleading people all over the place. And if it's not god, then it's the people who love god who are misleading each other, and thereby making mock of god (which he apparently seems fine with because he's not doing much to fix it).

Hmmm...sounds reasonable, I won't argue with any of that!

Frankly, I do not think anyone can force anyone else to believe something (though I do agree that someone can be forced to SAY or CONFESS that they believe something they do not really believe). And as a freethinker, I do not even try to force anyone to my perspectives; I do on occasion try (with mixed results <grin>) to persuade with reason and evidence when invited to do so by religious believers, since those (reason and evidence) are what led me as an adult to shrug-off the religious beliefs my upbringing had bestowed on me in my youth.

I am an atheist of the gnostic variety respecting the existence of any supernatural God whose definition or description bestows logically contradictory properties/attributes, and I am an atheist of the agnostic variety respecting the existence of any supernatural creator God of any other description.

-- Frank

[YourMaster]

I was simply responding to a post. If you don't like it feel free to frequent other message boards. No one is forcing you to read this stuff after all.

However, given all your aprior, I would agree, it is foolishness.

The preacher man in the heathen section .... awesome! Trying to save some souls are we

I'm a bona fide heathen (but I warn you ... I'm super educated dude, and the likelihood of me discovering the merits of an ancient character from a bad horror myth -- is pretty low).

[Pilgrim]

oops. I posted before I realized I was in the restricted area. Please accept my apologies.

[Seasanctuary]

oops. I posted before I realized I was in the restricted area. Please accept my apologies.

80% of the point of this forum is to snag well meaning Theists into a rule violation.

[SlapShot]

Autoartist, yes atheism is logical. As we all know atheism in nothing more than the lack of belief in a deity or deities.

I'm open to any evidence that could be put forth as to the existance of any god(s). Until such time I'll remain an atheist.

[Kane]

oops. I posted before I realized I was in the restricted area. Please accept my apologies.

I think we've found our first "witch" to burn, boys! ;)

Honestly, I'm not sure what the problem is with having theists challenge non-theists in the Naturalism section. I was booted out of the Mormonism section for making the same innocent mistake as Pilgrim. I thought the "theists only" clause to be just as silly as I think the "non-theists only" clause.

But, that's just my opinion. Maybe segregation by title is healthier...

[YourMaster]

oops. I posted before I realized I was in the restricted area. Please accept my apologies.

I certainly don't mind. However, if you enjoy the self-torture of trying to convince atheists to turn to Jesus, you can always find people like me in the tektonics section (but it's pretty much a free for all in there, so if you want a forum where everyone is nice to each other; that ain't it). There's also apologetics 301 (probably the best forum for trying to capture us lost souls ... the decorum is pretty good).

[Seasanctuary]

Autoartist, yes atheism is logical. As we all know atheism in nothing more than the lack of belief in a deity or deities.

What does that have to do with logic?

[SlapShot]

If the truth exists, then falseness also must exists. If falseness exists, then skepticism is a justified logial position.

[Kane]

Atheism: Not logical in and of itself. It is simply a noun.

Theism: Not logical in and of itself. It is simply a noun.

A better question would be, is Joe Atheist or Joe Theist logical? Logic is how human minds work (and some work better than others). Logic is not a quality of a noun.

[SirYapAlot]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Raphael

Sorry, non-theists only are allowed to post in Nat101

***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.

[FLovell]

Atheism: Not logical in and of itself. It is simply a noun.

Theism: Not logical in and of itself. It is simply a noun.

A better question would be, is Joe Atheist or Joe Theist logical? Logic is how human minds work (and some work better than others). Logic is not a quality of a noun.

Good point!

The two questions I ask myself when I am presented an argument (by anyone, theist or fellow atheist) are: (1) Does this argument employ only valid logic? (2) Does this argument employ only sound premises?

If the logic it employs is valid (free of fallacies) and the premises it employs are all sound, I judge it to be a logical and successful argument.

If the logic it employs is NOT valid then I judge the argument to be an illogical argument, and thus a failed argument (on grounds of being illogical).

If the logic it employs is valid but the premises are not all sound, then I judge it to be a logically valid argument that nonetheless fails (on grounds of at least one unsound premise).

Is this not how everyone evaluates (or should evaluate) arguments, regardless of who it is that makes those arguments?

-- Frank

[Kane]

Good point!

The two questions I ask myself when I am presented an argument (by anyone, theist or fellow atheist) are: (1) Does this argument employ only valid logic? (2) Does this argument employ only sound premises?

If the logic it employs is valid (free of fallacies) and the premises it employs are all sound, I judge it to be a logical and successful argument.

If the logic it employs is NOT valid then I judge the argument to be an illogical argument, and thus a failed argument (on grounds of being illogical).

If the logic it employs is valid but the premises are not all sound, then I judge it to be a logically valid argument that nonetheless fails (on grounds of at least one unsound premise).

Is this not how everyone evaluates (or should evaluate) arguments, regardless of who it is that makes those arguments?

-- Frank

Frank,

Yes, it is how everyone should evaluate an argument. Unfortunately, it is not how most people actually do evaluate an argument, as I'm sure you already know.

What I notice amongst theists most often is their inability to examine their own presuppositions. I don't think it is an obstinate refusal to do so, so much as it is an inability to do so. It is quite difficult to apply a subjective standard of reasoning predicated on preferred suppositions within the context of a given belief to what should be an objective, fact-finding, and evidence-based look at reality. By way of a simile, it would be about as difficult as attempting to simultaneously see the picture you are taking of yourself -- which can be done through the use of screens and fancy gadgets. In the same way, a theist can step back from their beliefs to examine them from an outside perspective by properly employing evidence-based reasoning uncluttered from assumptions they already hold.

Few theists, however, are willing to do that, though most of them are capable of it if they'd just be willing to risk being wrong.

[mikeledo]

Frank,

Yes, it is how everyone should evaluate an argument. Unfortunately, it is not how most people actually do evaluate an argument, as I'm sure you already know.

What I notice amongst theists most often is their inability to examine their own presuppositions. I don't think it is an obstinate refusal to do so, so much as it is an inability to do so. It is quite difficult to apply a subjective standard of reasoning predicated on preferred suppositions within the context of a given belief to what should be an objective, fact-finding, and evidence-based look at reality. By way of a simile, it would be about as difficult as attempting to simultaneously see the picture you are taking of yourself -- which can be done through the use of screens and fancy gadgets. In the same way, a theist can step back from their beliefs to examine them from an outside perspective by properly employing evidence-based reasoning uncluttered from assumptions they already hold.

Few theists, however, are willing to do that, though most of them are capable of it if they'd just be willing to risk being wrong.

Good Point. It is amazing how every theist (except universalists) can logically conclude that all other religions are false except their own. I am amazed to find Christians writing about how illogical or impossible all other religions are, but they apply that same logic to their own beliefs. I read Josh McDowell claim Buddhism as being false because it had so many different sects. Really? How many do they have and what is the limit before we declare a religion false?

[Griggsy]

The most advanced theologians make no more sense, talking of Him as the ground of being,for which they propose no evidence but which Paul Edwards would call bombastic redescription of reality.No matter the language or modal logic or what not, none make any more sense than their fellow superstitious, the paranormalists. Pope Benny Ratz, the Dolly Llama and Rev. Billy Crackers rank with John Edward,Jane Dixon and Sylvia Brown[e].
Faith doth that to people!