Is Atheism Logical?

[Griggsy]

See my comment in the theist,agnostic,atheist thread just made.

It is quite logical to dismiss God's existence as He is like a married bachelor or square circle.
See the ignostic-Ockham thread.

[Griggsy]

Flovell, that answers Plantinga's argument from reason- the self-refutation of naturalsim in part.

We naturalists have the facts as we start from the presumption of naturalism that order and regularity and natural laws inhere in Nature as the pre-Socratic maintain.

[SirYapAlot]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Raphael

You've been told before that Nat101 is reserved for non-theists only. Please stop posting in here.

***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]

The "logic" (or lack thereof) of atheism is phenomenally easy to dismantle

Why do you believe without evidence there is no other life forms in our vast universe other than what is observed on planet earth?

If you say you DO believe other life can or does exist in this universe, this conclusion is based on either 100% FAITH without evidence or it is based on logical inferences.

The logical inferences are we exist, therefor other life can exist

AND

We co-exist with a vast range of intellects, a vast range of intellects can exist throughout the universe.

The atheists that do not believe a God can exist but do believe aliens can exist are so far removed from critical thinking its not funny. Once you open the door of possibility (BY FAITH) for other life to exist in this universe, you then need a LOGICAL not emotional reason to limit this other life forms attributes to be less that God-like.

What is it?

"But an atheist has to regard the orderliness of the universe as an axiom, a proposition accepted without proof, and which bears no relation to his other axiom of atheism. The Biblical theist is in a better position because he can treat the orderliness of the universe as a theorem, derived from his axiom that the Bible’s propositions are true, including that the universe was created by a God of order, not confusion.

Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D."

Yapper, you know not what you (and Sarfati) do!

Sarfati slays another strawman of atheism -- at least, it is a strawman respecting MY atheism and the atheism of 95+% of the atheists I know or have read (and I know and have read A BUNCH of my fellow atheists!).

You see, most atheists do not hold that a supernatural God of any description CANNOT exist (as in: the existence of any supernatural creator God is impossible -- I certainly do not make any such claim!) -- the vast majority of we atheists simply do NOT BELIEVE any supernatural creator God of any description exists.

Neither do I hold that other NATURAL intelligent beings for sure exist out there somewhere in the universe -- they might, such MAY or may NOT exist out there somewhere, but presently I simply just do not BELIEVE there are any others out there; I will reconsider of course upon the first objective evidence that crucially supports the proposition that we are not alone in the universe.

And same respecting the existence of a supernatural creator God -- show me objective evidence that crucially supports the proposition that a supernatural creator God exists, and I will have to reconsider my present atheism.

Respecting what you quoted up above from Sarfati, if it refutes what you (and Sarfati) THINK we atheists think and believe (and what we don't think and don't believe) and why, fine, enjoy yourselves -- celebrate even!

But what you quoted up above from Sarfati is utterly irrelevant to what most atheists actually think and believe (and don't think or believe) and why.

-- Frank

PS: By the way (and in order to be complete), there are some specific descriptions of supernatural creator Gods which assign to those Gods logically contradictory properties/attributes; the existence of any supernatural creator God possessing logically contradictory properties/attributes indeed CANNOT exist! To the extend we can know anything, we know that it is impossible that there can exist a thing or being possessing logically contradictory properties/attributes.

[YourMaster]

The "logic" (or lack thereof) of atheism is phenomenally easy to dismantle

Why do you believe without evidence there is no other life forms in our vast universe other than what is observed on planet earth?

If you say you DO believe other life can or does exist in this universe, this conclusion is based on either 100% FAITH without evidence or it is based on logical inferences.

The logical inferences are we exist, therefor other life can exist

AND

We co-exist with a vast range of intellects, a vast range of intellects can exist throughout the universe.

The atheists that do not believe a God can exist but do believe aliens can exist are so far removed from critical thinking its not funny. Once you open the door of possibility (BY FAITH) for other life to exist in this universe, you then need a LOGICAL not emotional reason to limit this other life forms attributes to be less that God-like.

What is it?

"But an atheist has to regard the orderliness of the universe as an axiom, a proposition accepted without proof, and which bears no relation to his other axiom of atheism. The Biblical theist is in a better position because he can treat the orderliness of the universe as a theorem, derived from his axiom that the Bible’s propositions are true, including that the universe was created by a God of order, not confusion.

Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D."

Silly argument (I hope you didn't spend much on your PhD). Where to start with this babble ... first, atheism is not a positive belief, it's disbelief or non-belief. We say theism is based on sketchy proof (or I'd say, no credible proof, it's unverifiable, and thus cannot form the basis for a positive belief).

The problems with religion are much deeper than merely lack of evidence, it is OBVIOUSLY rubbish. Forget about the fact that evolutionary biology has evaporated the possibility that genesis could be literally true, or archeologists have determined that Exodus never happened, or that all we have for the Christian religion is copies of copies of copies .... etc. of inconsistent manuscripts, no contemporaneous substantiation for even a single miracle claim, and all religious claims can be sufficiently explained from an evolutionary and sociobiological perspective (and all reduce to the absurd) .... you can forget about all that, and theists should still have pause because with all the different religions, all the different variations within each religion, many of which claim an exclusive monopoly on the truth, just as a matter of sheer probability, it is far more likely the religious will be damned rather than saved (even if one of those ancient stories are right).

What is the mythic archetype you ask ... open your bible and see for yourself. Indeed there are common themes throughout mythology (for me, this term includes religion). Lightening, water, the sun, fire, wind, death, redemption, tribal exclusivity, the hero archetype, etc. This isn't because there's been a god whispering in the ears of myth makers all the centuries of our existence, this is because everyone experiences lightening, water, the sun, fire, wind, and death.

[SirYapAlot]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[SirYapAlot]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[YourMaster]

That said the argument for intelligent design far outweighs that of naturalism and abiogenesis.

We have a suffiently explantory understanding of the concept of self-organization in nature, to understand guidance is not necessary (or for that matter apparent in the least way).

Atheists DO NOT BELIEVE God exists
Atheists BELIEVE God does NOT exist

Theists DO NOT BELIEVE God does not exist
Theists BELIEVE God exists

Agnostics DO NOT BELIEVE its possible to know if God exists
Agnostics BELIEVE its NOT POSSIBLE to know if God exists

I DO NOT BELIEVE Santa Claus exists
I BELIEVE Santa Claus DOES NOT exist

Both of those statements mean the EXACT same thing. Atheists BELIEVE (have faith) that God does NOT EXIST. So therefore atheism does not use logic or critical thinking in its decision making. its uses FAITH

Guy X walks up to you and states that he just saw a giant pink elephant spirit. Knowing that there's never been a verified report of a pink elephant spirit anytime in recorded history, you ask X if he can prove his claim. X admits he cannot, so you're reasonably certain that he's mistaken (or he fabricated his claim, or maybe X is just plain nuts). This doesn't require you to take an affirmative position on whether pink elephant spirits may or may not exist, you're simply taking the justified view that X failed to provide a reasonable degree of proof (that could form the basis of an affirmative belief).

You may also validly arrive at a position that holds it's reasonably certain that these pink elephant spirits don't exist. You might say pink elephants are a common comical device (and thus it sounds too contrived). Yet this is technically a separate issue. You don't believe X because of the statistical unlikelihood that pink elephant spirits could exist, and the fact that he provided no evidence whatsoever (much less evidence that could overcome the intrinsic unlikelihood of such a claim being true). You also don't think it's likely these pink elephants could exist, because it sounds too contrived (but again, this is separate from the fact that X failed to meet his burden of proof).

Do I "believe" god doesn't exist? I don't know whether a god, or something like a god, exists. I simply say theists have not provided a reasonable amount of proof to sustain this claim, under the standards of proof we apply to everything else. We know that a man who was truly dead for three days (losing all his bodily fluids), cannot come back to life naturally. The existence of supernatural phenomena has never been empirically verified. Therefore, sustaining a claim that a man who was dead for three days before being supernaturally resurrected by a god (whom we have absolutely no verification exists) requires a high degree of evidence. If a person, or even several people, came up to us today, making similar fantastic claims, our default position would be to dismiss the claims. I don't apply a different standard just because a claim is contained within an ancient holy book (this requires a logically fallacious special pleading).

Even if those people tell me there were several hundred witnesses, I certainly wouldn't be inclined to view their claims as credible until I at least had a chance to question those alleged witnesses. If I was reading a newspaper article about a few men who made such claims, who also claimed there were other witnesses (but the journalist never interviewed those other witnesses, and they were unidentified by the claimants), the claims wouldn't become more compelling just because they appeared in a newspaper article. Knowing people commonly believe baseless fantastic claims (there's millions who believe their favorite guru has performed all sorts of magical feats, the first followers of Joseph Smith believed claims that were utterly absurd, made by a known con man, etc.), the fact that the first Christians were able to attract numerous followers, is uncompelling (and does not add to the intrinsic reliability of the claims). If one operates from a presumption god exists, Christianity may have more merit compared to say Islam. However, there is no basis for a presumption that god exists (it's just comfort food for the brain). All the different commonalities writers throughout the centuries have noted about the human race, is well explained by evolutionary biology, sociobiology, our emergent characteristics, things like reciprocal altruism, the social dynamics of tribes and groups, etc.

[FLovell]

First of all its not a straw man...<balance SNIPped for equal lack of merit>...

Yapper, one more time: about what most atheists (in general, and THIS atheist in particular) think(s) and believe(s) AND WHY, you know not what you (and Sarfati) do!

But if indeed my position and perspectives (my actual ones or whatever you misunderstand mine to be) make no good sense to you, then you have not only the right but the duty to yourself (and my full blessing!) to reject my (or any others') position and perspectives in favor of whatever makes the most genuine good sense to you -- after all, that is just exactly what I do for my own self!

Have a Yappy day! -- Frank

[Oolon Colluphid]

It must be very nice for the atheists on this thread to be told by someone who isn't an atheist what they ought to believe, according to his conveniently selected definitions.

Would you like the atheists to tell you what you ought to believe as a Christian, since you describe yourself as a Christian? I'm guessing you'd prefer to decide for yourself what you mean by Christian...

[SirYapAlot]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[SirYapAlot]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[YourMaster]

The original response to that statement ("This statement can only come from someone....") came to my email. I wont include it in the quote as you did edit it out.

Genome self reorganization came from Barbara McClintock's work with maze in the 1940s. McClintock showed genome reorganization rebuilds the damaged sections back to its prior state. This is far from a random undirected process. It would be impossible for the cells to rebuild the damaged sections BACK to a prior state without detailed information/understanding of both the damaged sections and the same sections before damage occurred. This is a part of the multiple error correction mechanisms built into the DNA blueprints.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/bl...matics-of-dna/

"In the 1940’s, the eminent scientist Barbara McClintock damaged parts of the DNA in corn maize. To her amazement, the plants could reconstruct the damaged section. They did so by copying other parts of the DNA strand, then pasting them into the damaged area."

Attempting to use a already written, highly sophisticated error correction mechanism that reverts the damaged parts back to the original as evidence of evolution is quite amusing to say the least. You do the same thing every atheist I have ever debated does, that is attempt to prove the theory of naturalistic evolution AFTER the species is already built and the many codes/error correction mechanisms for the biological machines operation are already written.

This puts the cart before the horse in your theory. The naturalist must show how the many (overlapping) codes/error correction mechanisms can be slowly built by random copying errors and selection. Genome reorganization proves two things. It proves the already written error correction mechanism for genome reorganization is the source of the change, meaning it is a DIRECTED process not a mindless undirected process as Darwinian evolution predicts.

And it proves the error correction mechanisms (if working properly) will prohibit the changes needed to produce radical new body plans. I suggest you read the article "A Third Way" by James Shapiro. He is an evolutionary biologist also studying genome reorganization.

Shapiro understands just as the Altenberg 16 understand, random copying errors and selection can NOT account for the multiple information systems in the cell. So to prove your theories validity, you must show how the mechanisms of random copying errors and selection can write BOTH ends (sending and receiving) of a complex information system. Of course you can never do this because the very concept is absurd and will never be shown valid. This is why the atheist has no choice BUT to start the theory AFTER the adaptive codes/error correction mechanisms that direct genome change are already in place.

Code writing by a natural mindless process at the molecular level is the only thing that can prove Darwinian evolution. And all atheists fail to grasp this.

In fact I'm surprised you even brought up directed genome reorganization, as its existence is a huge problem for Darwinian evolution. Most evolutionists understand its implications and do not discuss it.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07...ont009001.html

" I decided to ask [NCSE Executive Director Eugenie Scott] some questions since I'd interviewed her colleague [NCSE President] Kevin Padian about the "evolution debate", and he'd hung up on me. ...

..When I introduced myself to Eugenie Scott, who was unfamiliar with my stories on evolution, I asked her what she thought about self-organization and why self-organization was not represented in the books NCSE was promoting?

She responded that people confuse self-organization with Intelligent Design and that is why NCSE has not been supportive." Creationist Casey Luskin


This is a typical atheist analogy that fails on many levels. valid analogies must have valid similarities. yours does not. You start with your source "giant pink elephant spirit" that has no relation to your target comparison of God. We have no examples of giant pink elephants existing. We do have examples of intellectual hierarchies existing which is what intelligent design predicts. So to equate a superior intelligence existing in the universe with invisible pink elephants is a analogy based on illogical concepts. The atheists logic fails at ever level it is tested

"You don't believe X because of the statistical unlikelihood that pink elephant spirits (GOD) could exist,"

You will quickly see how the atheists ability to critically think is non-existent. Give me the statistics that suggest it is highly unlikely that another life in the universe with God-like attributes can exist. There are no such statistics. STATS are DATA. there is NO DATA that prohibits God-like life forms from existing. To put it simply, why can small life exist but BIG LIFE CAN NOT?. The atheist has no logical response to this question, so the atheist must respond with faulty emotionally based analogies that compare the irrational and unverifiable "large pink elephant" with the rational and verifiable "intellectual hierarchies" that are clearly not comparable.

Everytime I read the musings of theists, and their deluded perception of their own intelligence, I feel all the more concerned for our national fortunes. Perhaps you might try studying scientists a little more contemporary. We can trace the evolutionary process back 3 billion years, we see self-organization and emergence in nature, abiogenesis research is ongoing (and beginning to show promising results), and from all the available data, we can infer that self-organization triggered the evolutionary process (since evolution itself is a process of self-organization).

You need your arguments against young earth biblical creationism and intelligent design separated. You can not combine both subjects in the same argument as they are different arguments. You can reject the Bible and still believe in I.D. as many do.

That said your mindset is not based critical thinking. There ARE ways to keep dead meat from spoiling. So to say you reject the concept of God based on your lack of understanding of how things (flesh preservation) can "logically" happen is based solely in emotion and your LACK of understanding. A vastly superior intelligence would have the means to keep the body from decay for 3 days. I have no doubt there is an energy source that if known and applied properly, can prevent the entropy of a decaying body.

Oh no .... not the critical thinking theist

That's what we call an oxymoron.

I find it funny you need the claims for Gods existence verified but the claims for abiogenesis in a primordial soup you accept on FAITH. You do understand there are only two ways life in the universe could have arisen, either by intelligent design or natural abiogenesis.

I've expressed no hard position on abiogenesis, you extrapolated it from the same place you extrapolate god from (thin air).

And you do realize (unlike Dawkins) that abiogenesis is the naturalists foundation, NOT Darwinian evolution as erroneously believed by most atheists. If abiogenesis is proven invalid, intelligent design is the ONLY other option. Do you understand this?

I understand you're arguing against a strawman .... and (ahhh, why bother).

I have never met an atheist that knew the problems for abiogenesis. Former evolutionist Dean Kenyon and author of one of academias leading text books on abiogenesis "biochemical predestination" had no choice but to abandon naturalism when he understood all that was necessary to get the process going. Mr. Kenyon realized when you only have two options (A&B), And option A can be proven invalid. Option B is the only other LOGICAL choice you can make.

The god of gaps .... don't you guys have any new material?

Atheist Francis Crick (discoverer of DNA) also abandoned abiogenesis in favor of panspermia (via aliens) because his logic could not find away for abiogenesis to work.

Atheists are jumping out of a plane with an imaginary parachute (abiogenesis) And you exercise FAITH that your parachute will open, even though you have never examined the contents of the bag on your back. If you had you would find its a backpack with no parachute in it.

I suggest you study the contents of the bag on your back you exercise FAITH will open and save your life before you jump.

Okay I'll say it ... you're a retard

[FLovell]

It must be very nice for the atheists on this thread to be told by someone who isn't an atheist what they ought to believe, according to his conveniently selected definitions....

That does take some chutzpah, eh Oolon?! I encounter such colossal hubris on occasion -- and it is almost always from a Christian (and most often a young 'un at that, someone under 30 -- except for preachers, most preachers utterly mis-characterize atheists right up 'til they die, retire or get caught) who is telling me what I (an agnostic atheist) do and don't think and believe and why -- and I can hardly recognize any of it!

-- Frank

[FLovell]

...IM trying to get them to abandon atheism in favor on intelligent design....

Yapper, I just gotta ask: You are a young person, am I right?

Regardless, if what you said above is true, then all you need to do to get ME to abandon atheism (my absence of belief in the exisence of a supernatural creator God) in favor of believing that an intelligent supernatural creator God exists is show me OBJECTIVE evidence which CRUCIALLY SUPPORTS the truth of the proposition that a supernatural creator God exists.

Know any? -- Frank

PS: By the way, I (an agnostic atheist) do not try to convert Christians to atheism; I am happy for people to decide for themselves what makes the most genuinely believe-worthy good sense to them (just as I do for my own self). And so, I'm happy to consider your logically valid arguments employing only sound premises for the existence of a supernatural creator God if you have any to present, but I am not going to try to convert you to atheism -- I genuinely do NOT CARE if you are a theist, why the heck SHOULD I care what you believe -- and besides, you MAY (or may NOT) be right.