Atheism Defined

[scameter18]

In my time talking to various types of atheists, I have come to think that simply calling all atheists “atheist” is a bit too general. Here is my list, which I’m sure goes against most of the dictionary definitions, of how I would define atheisms, in a sort of scale from the least “atheistic” to the most atheistic:

Atheist: the denial of a personal theistic God or gods, against all theisms including monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, etc.

Adeist: the denial of any form of deity, whether the deity is personal or not, divine or not, ancient or not, plural or not, one with nature or not, etc.

Spiritual Materialist: an adeist who believes that nothing else exists but physical nature, but that nature has an inherent spiritual aspect to it, this includes most Buddhists, philosophical Taoists, Wiccans, and others

Unspiritual Materialist: an adeist who believes that only physical nature exists, and that absolutely nothing spiritual or supernatural, whether apart of or beyond nature, exists

This list of course excludes agnosticism and it’s forms, because while theism, atheism and agnosticism do not deal with certainty, but rather belief, agnosticism doesn’t have a belief either way, whether atheism has a specific belief that a personal God does not exist, as do all the forms I listed above. Feel free to comment or refute.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

It will be interesting to see how the atheists here weigh in on your definitions of atheism. Good luck.

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

It will be interesting to see how the atheists here weigh in on your definitions of atheism. Good luck.

I think it takes much greater faith to be an atheist than a Christian. How could they say there is no God? It is almost amazing to me! The hardening of one’s heart is such a terrible disease! It is very sad
youtube.com/watch?v=f6NvC4uyNcI

Kyrie Eleison; Erchomai Kyrios.

 

[wanstronian]

I guess by your definition I’d be an adeist. I’m happy with that - I don’t mind what manner of atheist I’m labelled as.
However, I have a small percentage of agnosticism, because I’m logical enough to know that even though the chances of God existing are infinitesimal, his non-existence hasn’t been proven, and I’m not so narrow-minded that I won’t listen to logical argument based on empirical evidence (although if the bible is presented as ‘evidence’ I’ll give it the disdain it deserves).
If it’s ever proven that God exists, I’ll happily admit I’m wrong and take my punishment (although I’d like to think that if God exists, he’ll judge me on my moral character and treatment of others, rather than on such inconsequential frippery as whether I believe in him or not.)

I think it takes much greater faith to be an atheist than a Christian. How could they say there is no God?

How can you say there is? What evidence do you have? Which God do you believe in? Why not one of the others - millions believe in them too? Why are you right and they wrong?

Belief in God is illogical by its very nature.

 

[MVPujols777]

I think it takes much greater faith to be an atheist than a Christian. How could they say there is no God? It is almost amazing to me! The hardening of one’s heart is such a terrible disease! It is very sad
youtube.com/watch?v=f6NvC4uyNcI

Kyrie Eleison; Erchomai Kyrios.

Your “good book” says we should kill all the gays, adulterers, and people who eat red meat. It contradicts itself over and over and causes people to kill and feel good about it because they think they’ve got God on their side.

I was raised a catholic and was vehemently catholic for 15 or so years, then I realized it was a big fairy tale. You know deep down inside that it is, but you’re too afraid to admit it to yourself.

Be free. Live for yourself, not for made up things.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I’m logical enough to know that even though the chances of God existing are infinitesimal.

?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Why do theists think it is such a negative thing to “have more faith” then they have by not taking leaps of faith on so many things? Is it a good thing to have leaps of faith? How do you know it is?

 

[liquidpele]

In my time talking to various types of atheists, I have come to think that simply calling all atheists “atheist” is a bit too general. Here is my list, which I’m sure goes against most of the dictionary definitions, of how I would define atheisms, in a sort of scale from the least “atheistic” to the most atheistic:

Atheist: the denial of a personal theistic God or gods, against all theisms including monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, etc.

Adeist: the denial of any form of deity, whether the deity is personal or not, divine or not, ancient or not, plural or not, one with nature or not, etc.

Spiritual Materialist: an adeist who believes that nothing else exists but physical nature, but that nature has an inherent spiritual aspect to it, this includes most Buddhists, philosophical Taoists, Wiccans, and others

Unspiritual Materialist: an adeist who believes that only physical nature exists, and that absolutely nothing spiritual or supernatural, whether apart of or beyond nature, exists

This list of course excludes agnosticism and it’s forms, because while theism, atheism and agnosticism do not deal with certainty, but rather belief, agnosticism doesn’t have a belief either way, whether atheism has a specific belief that a personal God does not exist, as do all the forms I listed above. Feel free to comment or refute.

Ugh… why do people assume they can just invent their own definitions for things?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism

Atheism doesn’t define anything except for disbelief in a deity (with only the certainly of the belief being a differentiator). You can mix and match with other beliefs that do not violate that one claim of atheism. Agnosticism claims you can’t know and/or that there is no proof regarding the topic (or that it’s not worth discussion), and thus is typically a rejection more of organized religion than that of a deity.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Why do theists think it is such a negative thing to “have more faith” then they have by not taking leaps of faith on so many things? Is it a good thing to have leaps of faith? How do you know it is?

What is on your mind here jam? Strawberrys?

Are you saying that its a bad thing to put your hope in to something you have little proof for, even if its vital to your fulfillment as a living person?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Ugh… why do people assume they can just invent their own definitions for things?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism.

Didn’t wikipedia create its own definition?.

 

[liquidpele]

Why do theists think it is such a negative thing to “have more faith” then they have by not taking leaps of faith on so many things? Is it a good thing to have leaps of faith? How do you know it is?

The problem with that argument is that we take leaps of faith every day. You assume your house was built to code and won’t burn down while you’re asleep, you eat food you bought and assume it won’t kill you, and you believe what was in your textbooks without doing very much actual research on the topics to confirm everything. This is a necessity because there is simply too much information out there to verify everything.

The question is then, how do we determine what is a good leap to make and what is not? When should we be critical? The answer is evidence… which comes in many forms including experimental data and logic, but mostly in the forms of personal experience and believing what those you trust tell you. Now, imagine you grow up or find God through those you trust, and you start to see the wonders in life and see those as personal experiences proving God. Do you now see how for theists, their beliefs are as logical to them (given their views and what they view as evidence) as your beliefs are to you?

There are some differentiators here though: conflicting evidence and predictability (maybe others I didn’t think of)… which is where the boundaries of theism in most people lie. For instance, you can’t say that God made Earth the center of the universe anymore.

 

[liquidpele]

Didn’t wikipedia create its own definition?.

If you’re defining wikipedia as the collaboration of millions of atheists and theists alike, then yes… which is why it’s such a good way to define new terms. Dictionaries only include new words after they are in popular use… for instance “bling” was just added last year I believe.

 

[E_F_G]

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg
hnfhjgfgggggggggg

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

I guess by your definition I’d be an adeist. I’m happy with that - I don’t mind what manner of atheist I’m labelled as.
However, I have a small percentage of agnosticism, because I’m logical enough to know that even though the chances of God existing are infinitesimal, his non-existence hasn’t been proven, and I’m not so narrow-minded that I won’t listen to logical argument based on empirical evidence (although if the bible is presented as ‘evidence’ I’ll give it the disdain it deserves).
If it’s ever proven that God exists, I’ll happily admit I’m wrong and take my punishment (although I’d like to think that if God exists, he’ll judge me on my moral character and treatment of others, rather than on such inconsequential frippery as whether I believe in him or not.)
Erchomai Kyrios:

How can they say there is no God?

1. How can you say there is?
2. What evidence do you have?
3. Which God do you believe in?
4. Why not one of the others - millions believe in them too?
5. Why are you right and they wrong?
6. Belief in God is illogical by its very nature.

Hi Wanstronian, It is nice to meet you and correspond. I don’t mind answering but I should first state that it was I who asked the question first and further state the obvious. You have not answered the question, which illustrates a lack of debate protocol In fact somehow you have propounded this issue by half a magnitude of order by asking 5 questions to my 1. I should first say that it was I who asked the first question, “How can one say there is no God?” The point illustrates somewhat of a deficit with respect to rules of debate protocol. In fact, after somehow after not answering my single question, you simply decided to up the ante by half a magnitude of order by asking me 5 additional questions of me. You then followed up by just simply stating that belief in God is illogical by its very nature, without the offer to show any steps by which you derived that conclusion. In a way you have made my original point because you made a leap of faith without any offer of proof on your part. Would you also believe Einstein was illogical? However, even though etiquette & protocol appears to be somewhat of a casualty I will summarize from the 50k foot level why I believe what I do.
1. (a) I believe the combinational complexity of the universe and the complexity of life points to a universe uniquely designed as a valid hypothesis – even Einstein thought so. (b) This complexity of design points to designer with a intelligence far beyond man’s ability to adequately comprehend it, or even provide an alternate hypothesis that would explain its beginnings or that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. No one as of yet has been able to explain how the universe came into being or how life in all its complexity came into being. (c) Because we see that the universe was caused, even space time coming into being with the birth of its physical existence the cause of it points to something outside a ‘physical causality’, since if it were physical it would exist within the domain of time; or to be more correct space/time. Like Augustine I call that causality God, who from the earliest Scriptures point to Him as a Being outside of Time. d) I further believe that temporality is a subset of the infinite or the eternal and cannnot be vice versa (2nd law of thermodynamics). The Big Bang as it is so called definitely means there was a beginning. Where did that beginning come from? I await your answer. (e.) I believe there is such a thing as truth. Without it we would not have been able to use truths, postulates, axioms and other mathematical methods by which to discover and prove the existence and realities of the laws which govern the Universe. Why does the universe have laws if it is based on a series of random events. I also believe God is the arbiter of Truth, as did the apostles who recorded Jesus saying I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. (f.) This is an argument from the negative - No one I has been able to postulate or prove that chance exists. It is not a thing per se but convenient way by which to order statistical tools in order to provide solutions that are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

2. (a.)When asked by the prophets who God was He said, “I Am”, in other words existence itself is sourced in God. Why do I believe the prophets? I believe them because they have more than satisfactorily shown themselves to be true and have predicted events outside of the domain of time, which implies they were actually inspired by a Being outside the domain of time (again I call this Being, God; who was, is and will forever will be) (b.) Fulfillment of Scripture is an historical fact and is verifiable. (c.) Miracles attest to the the supernatural power of God. (d.) This one is only self verifiable: I have personally tasted of God’s Holy Spirit and this personal experience has more than proven to me that His indwelling presence is real. Although I can only personally attest to this God has fulfilled something innate within my human heart like nothing else can or ever will. (e) There is a great cloud of witnesses both historically and presently which also attest to the same thing as I mention in 2d. They are called the Church which is everyone past, present and future who belongs to Him (f. There the invisible reality of both love and evil within the world. Though it is invisible it is tangible and we see the effects of both all around us.

(cont’d)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Wanstronian

*Belief in God is illogical by its very nature. *

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein

So Newton, Darwin, and Einstein were illogical? But you are?

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

(cont’d)

Erchomai Kyrios:

How can they say there is no God?

1. How can you say there is?
2. What evidence do you have?
3. Which God do you believe in?
4. Why not one of the others - millions believe in them too?
5. Why are you right and they wrong?
6. Belief in God is illogical by its very nature.

3. The God of Abraham who sent His only begotten Son to die in atonement for my sins.
4. Are there other gods who died for my sins and rose from the dead, and predicted the future, and that can provide the peace I have in Christ? Jesus said, I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father except through me. Either He was a liar or He was who He said he was – there is no room in between for pantheistic theologies which conflict with each other to begin with.
5. Before I embraced a saving faith I dabbled a bit in many of them and none of them could answer #4. I spent some time on the answering Islam apologetics site before 9-11 they couldn’t answer me either. The Judeo Christian tradition as recorded in the Bible has integrity like no other book I’ve ever read and I’ve read many. I am more than convinced of God’s truth in this tradition, however, I do not expect everyone to be convinced of the same through an intellectual process. The Christian tradition also tells us that God did not intend an intellectual process to be the means by which hearts are converted. Jesus said, you must become like a child to enter the kingdom of heaven. We have to die to the things which harden our hearts, such as pride, in order to receive Him. It is God’s choice and not ours by which we attain to Him but the Bible also says,

Psa 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.
Mic 6:8 He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?
So if we submit to God and repent of our sin we know He is gracious and will lovingly accept us
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning [His] promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

6. Your turn to define the factors that led you to postulate a conclusion that faith in God is illogical.

Have a Goodnight wanstronian,
Here’s some music to end by
youtube.com/watch?v=1CBNE25rtnE&feature=related
Erchomai Kyrios

 

[wanstronian]

Hi Wanstronian, It is nice to meet you and correspond. I don’t mind answering but I should first state that it was I who asked the question first and further state the obvious. You have not answered the question, which illustrates a lack of debate protocol In fact somehow you have propounded this issue by half a magnitude of order by asking 5 questions to my 1. I should first say that it was I who asked the first question, “How can one say there is no God?” The point illustrates somewhat of a deficit with respect to rules of debate protocol. In fact, after somehow after not answering my single question, you simply decided to up the ante by half a magnitude of order by asking me 5 additional questions of me. You then followed up by just simply stating that belief in God is illogical by its very nature, without the offer to show any steps by which you derived that conclusion. In a way you have made my original point because you made a leap of faith without any offer of proof on your part. Would you also believe Einstein was illogical?

I thought this was an internet forum, not a formal debate. You’re obviously upset that I didn’t answer your question and asked more of my own! I apologise if I didn’t conform to your strict rules, maybe you should add them to your signature to avoid being upset by other contributors.

To answer your question: I can say there is no God due to the utter lack of any empirical, objective, independent, repeatable evidence for his existence.

My statement that a belief in God is illogical is simple:

1. There is more than one religion.
2. They can’t all be right.
3. There’s no evidence to suggest that any one is more valid than any other (or indeed, that any of them are valid at all, in terms of reality)
4. Therefore all religions hold equal validity.
5. With reference to point 2, religion is illogical.
   It’s not a leap of faith I made, but a series of small steps of logic. No, I wouldn’t say that Einstein was illogical, but Einstein didn’t believe in God, other than as a metaphor.

However, even though etiquette & protocol appears to be somewhat of a casualty I will summarize from the 50k foot level why I believe what I do.

1. (a) I believe the combinational complexity of the universe and the complexity of life points to a universe uniquely designed as a valid hypothesis – even Einstein thought so.

Hypothesis yes. Scientific theory no.

(b) This complexity of design points to designer with a intelligence far beyond man’s ability to adequately comprehend it, or even provide an alternate hypothesis that would explain its beginnings or that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. No one as of yet has been able to explain how the universe came into being or how life in all its complexity came into being.

So who designed the designer? Who created the creator?

(c) Because we see that the universe was caused, even space time coming into being with the birth of its physical existence the cause of it points to something outside a ‘physical causality’, since if it were physical it would exist within the domain of time; or to be more correct space/time. Like Augustine I call that causality God, who from the earliest Scriptures point to Him as a Being outside of Time.

But you have no evidence, just belief.

(d) I further believe that temporality is a subset of the infinite or the eternal and cannnot be vice versa (2nd law of thermodynamics).

Ah, the good old misapplication of the Second Law.

The Big Bang as it is so called definitely means there was a beginning. Where did that beginning come from? I await your answer.

Nobody can be sure. That doesn’t mean it was God. If it were, it would beg the question, “Where did God come from?”

(e.) I believe there is such a thing as truth. Without it we would not have been able to use truths, postulates, axioms and other mathematical methods by which to discover and prove the existence and realities of the laws which govern the Universe. Why does the universe have laws if it is based on a series of random events.

The laws of physics do not preclude seemingly random events (I say seemingly because I believe that the events could, theoretically, be modeled. It’s just that there would be an infinite number of (name removed by moderator)uts, to a level of fidelity that makes it impossible to model in practice).

I also believe God is the arbiter of Truth, as did the apostles who recorded Jesus saying I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Your choice, but again this is just belief, not evidence

(f.) This is an argument from the negative - No one I has been able to postulate or prove that chance exists. It is not a thing per se but convenient way by which to order statistical tools in order to provide solutions that are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

Not sure how this adds to the argument, I think I’m missing your point here.

(cont’d)

 

[wanstronian]

1. (a.)When asked by the prophets who God was He said, “I Am”, in other words existence itself is sourced in God. Why do I believe the prophets? I believe them because they have more than satisfactorily shown themselves to be true and have predicted events outside of the domain of time

Really? I must have missed that, can you explain?

, which implies they were actually inspired by a Being outside the domain of time (again I call this Being, God; who was, is and will forever will be)

“…implies…” “I call this being God…” - again, no evidence.

(b.) Fulfillment of Scripture is an historical fact and is verifiable.

Can you give examples?

(c.) Miracles attest to the the supernatural power of God.

By “miracle”, presumably you mean “highly improbably event?” No evidence for God here.

(d.) This one is only self verifiable: I have personally tasted of God’s Holy Spirit and this personal experience has more than proven to me that His indwelling presence is real. Although I can only personally attest to this God has fulfilled something innate within my human heart like nothing else can or ever will.

Firstly, as you allude to, self-verification doesn’t prove anything. Secondly, there are plenty of bio-chemical reasons why you might have felt euphoric at one time or another - no reason for God to have played a part

(e) There is a great cloud of witnesses both historically and presently which also attest to the same thing as I mention in 2d. They are called the Church which is everyone past, present and future who belongs to Him

And my response to 2d still holds. Validity by numbers is not evidence. It’s just mass, instead of individual, delusion

(f. There the invisible reality of both love and evil within the world. Though it is invisible it is tangible and we see the effects of both all around us.

And this relates to God how???

1. The God of Abraham who sent His only begotten Son to die in atonement for my sins.
2. Are there other gods who died for my sins and rose from the dead, and predicted the future, and that can provide the peace I have in Christ?

No - nor is there any evidence that yours did.

Jesus said, I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father except through me. Either He was a liar or He was who He said he was – there is no room in between for pantheistic theologies which conflict with each other to begin with.

Or he could have been delusional. What practical difference is there between this alleged event, and the tv evangelists that say many similar things? In fact, how do we know he even said it? Because it’s in the bible???

1. Before I embraced a saving faith I dabbled a bit in many of them and none of them could answer #4. I spent some time on the answering Islam apologetics site before 9-11 they couldn’t answer me either. The Judeo Christian tradition as recorded in the Bible has integrity like no other book I’ve ever read and I’ve read many.

I can’t see a link between a consistent story and that story being true.

I am more than convinced of God’s truth in this tradition, however, I do not expect everyone to be convinced of the same through an intellectual process.

I’m genuinely pleased for you, but your belief means nothing from an objective point of view.

The Christian tradition also tells us that God did not intend an intellectual process to be the means by which hearts are converted.

That’s convenient for him.

Jesus said, you must become like a child to enter the kingdom of heaven. We have to die to the things which harden our hearts, such as pride, in order to receive Him. It is God’s choice and not ours by which we attain to Him but the Bible also says,
6. Your turn to define the factors that led you to postulate a conclusion that faith in God is illogical.

Hopefully I did this earlier in my response.

Have a Goodnight wanstronian,

You too, I’ve enjoyed this thread!

 

[wanstronian]

Wanstronian

*Belief in God is illogical by its very nature. *

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein

So Newton, Darwin, and Einstein were illogical? But you are?

Firstly, none of these distinguished gentlemen had the benefit of the scientific advances we have made since their lives ended. Newton was born over 350 years ago! At a time, incidentally, it was pretty much suicide to publicly declare oneself an atheist.

Secondly - “This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt – can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as the possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such a grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.
I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin - The next two paragraphs in fact
If you’re going to cherry-pick quotes from Darwin without revealing his ultimate stance, then you’re wasting everybody’s time.

Thirdly - “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.” - Albert Einstein.

Do you have anything more valid?

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

I thought this was an internet forum, not a formal debate. You’re obviously upset that I didn’t answer your question and asked more of my own! I apologise if I didn’t conform to your strict rules, maybe you should add them to your signature to avoid being upset by other contributors.

Hi Wanstronian - I really wasn’t upset at all but if we are going to have an intelligent discussion shouldn’t we follow the normal ground rules? I certainly wasn’t trying to be insensitive to you.

To answer your question: I can say there is no God due to the utter lack of any empirical, objective, independent, repeatable evidence for his existence.

Then do you have empirical evidence for how the universe was created, which can be proven through the means of repeatable experiment? Please post it for us!

My statement that a belief in God is illogical is simple:

1. There is more than one religion.
2. They can’t all be right.
3. There’s no evidence to suggest that any one is more valid than any other (or indeed, that any of them are valid at all, in terms of reality)
4. Therefore all religions hold equal validity.
5. With reference to point 2, religion is illogical.
6. It’s not a leap of faith I made, but a series of small steps of logic. No, I wouldn’t say that Einstein was illogical, but Einstein didn’t believe in God, other than as a metaphor.

1. I fail to see how point #1 makes belief in God illogical. Just because theists disagree with respect to divine revelation does not mean that faith is illogical. Other religions are shadows of a greater truth and some are completely false. Counterfeit money does not negate that the genuine article exist but rather it infers there is a ‘genuine article’. Aristotle for centuries was the world’s arbiter of mini scientific truths. He was, however, in many statements proven incorrect and overthrown by greater truths of both Galileo and Newton. We still use Newton’s mechanics but Einstein theory of relativity proved Newton measured the arrow of time incorrectly. Religion is no different with regard to this aspect than science was. Do you believe science is also illogical?
2. Couldn’t agree more, as I stated above in #1. How does that make faith illogical?
3. To the contrary there is overwhelming evidence. I’ll present just two for a taste of the prophetic. These two accounts match what happened to Christ on the cross. One is from king David c.a. 1000 BC the other from Isaiah the prophet 700BC.

Psalm 22
I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look [and] stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

Isaiah 53, written in 700 BC
WHO has believed our report? He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment, And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living; For the transgressions of My people He was stricken. And they made His grave with the wicked-- But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence, Nor was any deceit in His mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.

1. Obviously they do not. If you have proofs that they do please present them.
2. Sorry, but I believe your logic is illogical

Originally Posted by Einstein
I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with many book in many languages. The child knows someone must have wriiten those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. - Walter Isaacson, "Einstein and faith, Time , 4/5/2007.

He also said:
“As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and the Talmud… I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.” One skeptic expressed amazement that Einstein even believed Jesus existed (that was the liberal argument 60 and 70 years ago now wholly discredited of course) Einstein replied, “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.” - The Delusion of Disbelief, Aikman, Ch.4, p 89.