E
Epistemes
Guest
Is atheism logical or illogical?
- Status
T
tm30
Guest
It’s illogical because for everything in existence, there has to be a previous cause. Thus, even in scientific terms, the first atom of the universe could not have created itself. Only a Being, uncreated, and without a beginning, could cause nothing to become something.
Q
quasimodo
Guest
it takes a lot of faith to be an atheist
S
Sideline
Guest
It’s both.
All people tend to accept evidence that supports their position, and ignore or argue with the evidence that refutes it.
Atheists tend to have a combination of logical and illogical reasons for supporting their positions. Just as believers do.
Whether it is more logical than theism is debatable, but atheists can not completely escape illogic any more than their theist counterparts.
All people tend to accept evidence that supports their position, and ignore or argue with the evidence that refutes it.
Atheists tend to have a combination of logical and illogical reasons for supporting their positions. Just as believers do.
Whether it is more logical than theism is debatable, but atheists can not completely escape illogic any more than their theist counterparts.
C
Contarini
Guest
Atheism is illogical in the sense that it cannot give an adequate rational explanation of the universe.
However, the arguments are complex and difficult. Atheism is not illogical in the sense that saying “two plus two is five” is illogical. It’s not illogical in an obvious way that any sensible person can see at a glance. Indeed, there are many logical arguments that work in favor of atheism and that are difficult (not impossible) to refute (I’m thinking primarily of the argument from the existence of evil). So it depends on how strictly you are using the term “illogical.”
Edwin
B
buffalo
Guest
C
Catholicdeacon
Guest
It is illogical because it ignores the spiritual side of men. You can not have a logical system that based only on just part of the truth.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Atheism is illogical in its own self-evident contradiction.
It takes an absolute faith devoid of any reasonable doubt that is on par with papal infallability to be an Atheist.
Thus the intrinsic assertion “There is no God” contradicts the assumption that there are no objective absolutes while simultaneously making a subjective exception for its own absolute conjecture. Thus the assertion pretends to god-like wisdom but lacking a god-like face, at face-value it does not scale extrinsically to convince anyone of its own self-evident merits.
Thus an Atheist is illogical as well as arrogant and if she takes herself seriously is probably only one step removed from insanity.
James
It takes an absolute faith devoid of any reasonable doubt that is on par with papal infallability to be an Atheist.
Thus the intrinsic assertion “There is no God” contradicts the assumption that there are no objective absolutes while simultaneously making a subjective exception for its own absolute conjecture. Thus the assertion pretends to god-like wisdom but lacking a god-like face, at face-value it does not scale extrinsically to convince anyone of its own self-evident merits.
Thus an Atheist is illogical as well as arrogant and if she takes herself seriously is probably only one step removed from insanity.
James
Y
yesukristus
Guest
Now I’m not an atheist but I have seen a few of their posts (not on CAF though), so here’s my two-cents:
Atheists don’t see enough evidence to warrant belief in God. For some it’s because they don’t see the Bible as deserving of the belief Christians put in it (or holy books and religious people). Others are more “If God really exists then why doesn’t He prove it in a no-way-can-anyone-sane-deny-that-He-is-real manner”. Yet others see the bad effects religion has on people and say “Those are the kind of people that believe in God? Then I’m glad that I don’t believe in God.” And some more see the plethora of religions around and ask why they should choose one over the others. So atheism isn’t illogical- to those who put rationality above all else, atheism is very logical. We however put God’s rationality (i.e. His wisdom) above all else.
Atheists don’t see enough evidence to warrant belief in God. For some it’s because they don’t see the Bible as deserving of the belief Christians put in it (or holy books and religious people). Others are more “If God really exists then why doesn’t He prove it in a no-way-can-anyone-sane-deny-that-He-is-real manner”. Yet others see the bad effects religion has on people and say “Those are the kind of people that believe in God? Then I’m glad that I don’t believe in God.” And some more see the plethora of religions around and ask why they should choose one over the others. So atheism isn’t illogical- to those who put rationality above all else, atheism is very logical. We however put God’s rationality (i.e. His wisdom) above all else.
R
rossum
Guest
You need to be careful here. This form of your argument can be refuted:* P1 Everything that exists has a previous cause.
- P2 God exists.
- C3 God has a previous cause.
- P2 The universe has a beginning.
- C3 The universe has a previous cause.
rossum
R
R_McGeddon
Guest
Quite the opposite, it takes no faith to be an atheist.
R
R_McGeddon
Guest
Just what is this “self-evident contradiction” ?
How do you arrive at your wild ideas?
There is no intrinsic assertion, atheists just don’t believe the assertion made by the religious.
This is flawed because it relies on there being an assertion, as previously covered.
Throwing insults does not validate your argument.
I would be wary of playing the insanity card in regards to atheism, while seriously believing that someone walked on water, fed 5,000 with a little bread and fish, rose from the dead etc.
I
Isambard
Guest
Given that subjective nature of spiritual experiences, you’d be hard-pressed it has any relation to an objective truth.
That said, you statement is demonstrably false. See Buddhism for details.
T
tm30
Guest
Your first example is not a refutation, but an argument that ironically proves God’s existence anyhow. If the atheist is arguing that God has a previous cause, he is, in the least, admitting a belief in God. The mystery that God IS the cause, and not just a non-corporeal being, is a puzzle that no one can unlock. Yet, logic demands that there is a first-mover, and that first-mover is the Supreme Being, or God.
If the argument becomes, “well God can’t be God if He had a previous cause”, then that previous cause would be the Supreme Being, and thus God. The only answer to stop the chain of causes is to conclude that God has no beginning or end, the how’s and wherefore’s being a mystery…
R
rossum
Guest
Buddhism is technically not atheist:At that time Shakra Devanam Indra with his followers, twenty thousand gods, also attended. There were also the gods Rare Moon, Pervading Fragrance, Jeweled Glow, and the Four Great Heavenly Kings, along with their followers, ten thousand gods.
Present were the gods Freedom and Great Freedom and their followers, thirty thousand gods, Present were King Brahma, lord of the saha world, the great Brahma Shikhin, and the great Brahma Light Bright, and their followers, twelve thousand gods.
Lotus Sutra, Chapter 1
In Buddism gods are of very little importance, their main function in scripture seems to be to applaud when the Buddha has spoken.
No gods can enlighten us, we have to do that for ourselves.
rossum
I
Isambard
Guest
Atheism and Buddhism however are not mutually exclusive as the earlier writings attributed to the Buddha say nothing of deities.
I
Isambard
Guest
Or demonstrating that the one making the prime-mover arguement is indulging in a special-pleading fallacy.
Not it doesn’t. Reason invoke Occam’s Razor to remove the idea that uses more naked assertions. If you are going to indulge in asserted a non-created thing/entity/force, then you might as well make it energy given the law of conservation. WHy would you add another unknown to the first then declare it correct when there would be no logical reason to prevent a case of infinite regression?
Stating God did it is not only evidenceless, but unnecessary.
R
rossum
Guest
The argument shows that God cannot be the “uncaused cause” because God has a cause. It also invites an infinite regress: if God’s cause exists then it also has a cause and so on. An infinite regress usually indicates a problem with the logic somewhere.
No, the atheist is showing a logical fallacy in the argument that the theist has put forward.
In this sort of discussion an atheist will tend to translate “mystery” as “I do not have a logical argument at this point, you just have to believe me because I say so.”
Why supreme? All a first mover has to be is a) first (i.e. early in time) and b) a mover (i.e. a cause). Once the first mover has been first and moved then there is nothing left for him/her/it/them to do so they could easily be nonexistent now. There is no logical requirement for either “supreme” or “currently exists” here.
It is also worth pointing out that in order to be “first” the pre-existence of time is required. Without time then “first” has no meaning in this context.
There are fewer problems with the Kalam form of this argument.
rossum
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
You ask, ‘just what is this “self-evident contradiction”’ ?
Can’t you see it? If there is no God then there are no absolutes. Therefore it is oxymoronic to make the absolute assertion that there is no God since the form of the assertion itself contradicts the expression and thus enters the realm of unprovable conjecture while also both illicitly entering into a realm that is itself non-concrete. Further observe the The free standing assertion made with out proof that “there is no God” can exist independent to the necessity for advocating its counter assertion “There is a God”. Therefor the Atheist is creating her own religious belief and asking, no demanding, we accept her faith while denying anyone else the right to accept the opposing faith of belief of God. That itself is intrinsically inconsistent, arbitrary and therefor irrational. The difference for the believer in God is that they express their belief “there is a God” as an expression of faith and hope and based on preponderance of historical accounts and consistent inter-generational messages whose consistency is universal and whose probability for cooperative inter-generational conspiracy and fraud is so remotely distant that we have rational and plausible cause for reasonable doubt in favor of the assertion. The Atheist can offer not one shred of concrete evidence to support their subjective assertion. Therefor it is nothing but opinion - and shown to be irrational opinion at that.
You ask, “how do you arrive at your wild ideas”?
Throwing insults, in mild or moderate manner, ‘does not validate your argument’, nor your assertions, nor lend itself to sincere and objective credibility.
You state ‘There is no intrinsic assertion, atheists just don’t believe the assertion made by the religious’.
Are you a designated spokesperson for Atheists? Would Atheists not be Atheists if there were no religious? Or are you asserting that Atheists exist as some sort of parasitic creature that is dependent only through opposition to an opposing host view? I think what you are asserting is personal opinion. I can do that as well. I invite you to consider without prejudice that my opinion is that Atheists believe what they want to believe and what they are comfortable believing independent of any consideration but their own self-centered view.
You believe ‘This is flawed because it relies on there being an assertion, as previously covered.’
As previously covered I reject your belief as flawed.
You assert and judge that ‘throwing insults does not validate your argument.’ This was answered and shown to be an inconsistent and hypocritical assertion. See above.
You advise, “I would be wary of playing the insanity card in regards to atheism, while seriously believing that someone walked on water, fed 5,000 with a little bread and fish, rose from the dead etc.”
Your anonymous and singular advise is grossly outweighed by the testimony of many others who witnessed these things and died for refusing to rescind their witnessing of these occurrences. Are you willing to put your life on the line to hold to your negative skepticism just as the believers were willing to hold to their positive belief? I would be wary of holding your own council as superior to anyone else’s. It comes across as arrogant and a tad bit touched to think that objective advise can be proffered from a calendar context 2000 years distant from events that are subject here. In the face of the 11 million or so Christians who died as martyrs for their faith in these same messages during the early church formation your advise rings a few days late and is mute with regards to anything practical.
James
R
rossum
Guest
Assuming that your “earlier writings attributed to the Buddha” refers to the Pali Cannon, then you are mistaken. Gods appear but again are of very little importance. For example in the Kevatta sutta (Digha Nikaya 11) the gods are unable to answer a question:"When this was said, the gods of the retinue of the Four Great Kings said to the monk, ‘We also don’t know where the four great elements… cease without remainder. But there are the Four Great Kings who are higher and more sublime than we. They should know where the four great elements… cease without remainder.’
"So the monk approached the Four Great Kings and, on arrival, asked them, ‘Friends, where do these four great elements… cease without remainder?’
"When this was said, the Four Great Kings said to the monk, ‘We also don’t know where the four great elements… cease without remainder. But there are the gods of the Thirty-three who are higher and more sublime than we. They should know…’
"So the monk approached the gods of the Thirty-three and, on arrival, asked them, ‘Friends, where do these four great elements… cease without remainder?’
"When this was said, the gods of the Thirty-three said to the monk, 'We also don’t know where the four great elements… cease without remainder. But there is Sakka, the ruler of the gods, who is higher and more sublime than we. He should know… ’
"So the monk approached Sakka, the ruler of the gods, and, on arrival, asked him, ‘Friend, where do these four great elements… cease without remainder?’
"When this was said, Sakka, the ruler of the gods, said to the monk, ‘I also don’t know where the four great elements… cease without remainder. But there are the Yama gods who are higher and more sublime than I. They should know…’…
[Many gods do not know as far as the Great Brahma]
"So the monk approached the Great Brahma and, on arrival, said, ‘Friend, where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder?’
"When this was said, the Great Brahma said to the monk, ‘I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.’
…
"Then the Great Brahma, taking the monk by the arm and leading him off to one side, said to him, ‘These gods of the retinue of Brahma believe, “There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not know. There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not see. There is nothing of which the Great Brahma is unaware. There is nothing that the Great Brahma has not realized.” That is why I did not say in their presence that I, too, don’t know where the four great elements… cease without remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Blessed One in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go right back to the Blessed One and, on arrival, ask him this question. However he answers it, you should take it to heart.’
Typically for a Buddhist sutta there are many gods and all of them are inferior to the Buddha. The Buddha knows the answer to the question; the gods do not.
rossum
- Status