Sure. 'As you say, "feelings" are not a part of logic, are they?Moreno wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 2:58 amThe grammar of that second sentence is odd. It's written as if 'Atheist' is a name. It's not a name. Atheists may base their disbelief or lack of belief on something. They may have argued, if only with themselves, towards a conclusion that there is no God, or to no longer believing in God, or to not having a belief in God. Or they may simply lack a belief in God. Or they may simply have found that they no longer believe there is a God. Or they may just have a very strong gut feeling that there is no God. Or they may never have been convinced there is a God. Or.......3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 8:22 pm Nope. Atheist bases their disbelief on something. That something is Theism. Hence by definition Atheism. Not logical?
Atheism is not Logical
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
― Albert Einstein
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Labeling things does not an argument make.Moreno wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 3:45 amYour response just proves the point that atheism is not logical (?).3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 10:40 pm
Well, you don't believe in the claims of Zoroastrianism, so that makes you an atheist too. You also don't believe in Zeus. Atheist.
[/quote]
Sure it is. For example, unpack the following:
An A-theists belief is based upon Theism.
The concept of a God corresponds to that which has causal powers/properties.
― Albert Einstein
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Atheism is not Logical
There is no need to invent the term 'atheistic science'. There is only nature's science . Scientific method deals only with nature. There is no such thing as atheistic science.
Christians and Moslems can do proper science because they believe that exploring the ways of nature is a means to better understand God.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Moreno wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 2:49 amI'm sure they use a variety of arguments. Each of them may or may not make logical errors in their arguments. None of that means that your assertions are correct. Nor does it mean that things or even beliefs are logical. Arguments can be logical or illogical (or nonsense, say). Lacks of beliefs and beliefs however are facts - not the content of the beliefs, those may or may not be true. But if a person says they do not believe in God, that is likely correct and is certainly correct in some cases, at least. If they say they disbelieve there is a God...same thing. That is probably a correct report of their beliefs and certainly when some people say it, they are accurately reporting their belief.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 6:02 pm Intriguing question thank you very much ! Let's unpack some of that. Firstly, if atheism is a belief system, how do they use logic to arrive at their so-called conclusions?
If they go through some intended proof or deduction related to the existence of God, they may or may not be logical. One can then label their argument logical or illogical (and make one's own argument about that).
Sure, I think you're still stuck in first gear. As it relates to Atheism, it seems Atheism relies on Objectivity, yet analytical propositions don't seem to help them either. They are in a bit of a conundrum. Hence, another idea why Atheism is not logical. Emotions seem to be driving its belief system. A Subjectivity of sorts... . You know, much like Einstein's observation of their behavior!!
Accordingly, the paradox that ensues relates to things that are seen and unseen. Meaning, their subjectivity (what they base their belief system on) in itself (the Will), is that which is not seen. How should they go about reconciling the two?
Otherwise, they can't seem to use logic very well at all:
a Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
b The universe began to exist.
c Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Firstly, does this conclusion respond to the synthetic a priori judgment that all events must have a cause? If not, why not?
Secondly, is this conclusion true, false, logically necessary, or something else? If false, please feel free to explain your answers using a similar form of logico-deductive reasoning if you can.
And finally, does that define the concept of a God? You know, a final cause, a prime mover, a thing-in-itself that controls both the matter narratives and information narratives? Or does the concept relate to a' thingy' that has causal properties or power, kind of like your own metaphysical Will that causes people to do stuff?
Atheism definition: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: March 20th, 2021, 4:07 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Atheistic science doesn’t do natures science and atheistic science is what is touted now.Belindi wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 8:59 amThere is no need to invent the term 'atheistic science'. There is only nature's science . Scientific method deals only with nature. There is no such thing as atheistic science.
Christians and Moslems can do proper science because they believe that exploring the ways of nature is a means to better understand God.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Great question SB! Using logic, if the definition, meaning or concept of 'Zeus' is not the same as the definition, meaning or concept of a God, then they would be two different belief systems. No?
Now, let's take your argument a bit further. In Christianity, is the story about Zeus the same as the story about Jesus?
And lastly, should people believe in history, and how should they decide which history is most accurate or most suitable to their needs?
Again, great question. I'm looking forward to your replies.
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: March 20th, 2021, 4:07 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: March 20th, 2021, 4:07 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Prisoners of the dualistic process who will remain trapped on the hamsters wheel,with no understanding of consciousness,awareness and their relationship to them.
Atheists exist as do Theists but both can be termed as dead if they don’t progress beyond robotic machine like double mindedness.
An understanding of consciousness and awareness as well as a CONTROL element needs to be realised by both parties.
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: March 20th, 2021, 4:07 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Atheism is not Logical
When you say "atheist science" do you mean the method or the theories, or both?Joshua10 wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 9:04 amAtheistic science doesn’t do natures science and atheistic science is what is touted now.Belindi wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 8:59 amThere is no need to invent the term 'atheistic science'. There is only nature's science . Scientific method deals only with nature. There is no such thing as atheistic science.
Christians and Moslems can do proper science because they believe that exploring the ways of nature is a means to better understand God.
If you have encountered the "atheist science" you write about you should provide at least one example of it. Otherwise how do we know such a thing exists?
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: March 20th, 2021, 4:07 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Both…..Belindi wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 10:51 amWhen you say "atheist science" do you mean the method or the theories, or both?Joshua10 wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 9:04 amAtheistic science doesn’t do natures science and atheistic science is what is touted now.Belindi wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 8:59 amThere is no need to invent the term 'atheistic science'. There is only nature's science . Scientific method deals only with nature. There is no such thing as atheistic science.
Christians and Moslems can do proper science because they believe that exploring the ways of nature is a means to better understand God.
If you have encountered the "atheist science" you write about you should provide at least one example of it. Otherwise how do we know such a thing exists?
The atheistic or theistic science that claimed everything started with a single Big Bang and was touted as fact.
A total nonsense theory utIlising made up forces and flowery maths made up by atheistic or theistic scientist which is now proving to be utter nonsense.
You won’t hear many atheistic or theistic scientists backing the theory now which was the theory that did away with a God according to atheists.
They don’t have a credible theory and never did and are and still floundering on sand.
-
- Posts: 158
- Joined: December 13th, 2011, 7:23 pm
Re: Atheism is not Logical
There's no need I can see to make statements about me. You can just focus on the issues and not lose a thing.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 9:00 am Sure, I think you're still stuck in first gear.
People can rely on objectivity - though that term needs to get looked at - but Atheism doesn't need to rely on anything. It's a state of belief or lack of belief.As it relates to Atheism, it seems Atheism relies on Objectivity,
This was just some assertions with no justification.yet analytical propositions don't seem to help them either. They are in a bit of a conundrum. Hence, another idea why Atheism is not logical.
More assertions and an appeal to authority.Emotions seem to be driving its belief system. A Subjectivity of sorts... . You know, much like Einstein's observation of their behavior!!
I found that very unclear.Accordingly, the paradox that ensues relates to things that are seen and unseen. Meaning, their subjectivity (what they base their belief system on) in itself (the Will), is that which is not seen. How should they go about reconciling the two?
Is this their argument? Your argument?Otherwise, they can't seem to use logic very well at all:
a Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
b The universe began to exist.
c Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
You tell me.Firstly, does this conclusion respond to the synthetic a priori judgment that all events must have a cause? If not, why not?
I don't think that science has taken a stand that premise a must be the case. There are certainly scientists who think that the universe has always been. There are many others who are not decided. That's within physics. Outside of physics, I don't know what scientists believe on this issue, but there no consensus that a has been demonstrated.Secondly, is this conclusion true, false, logically necessary, or something else? If false, please feel free to explain your answers using a similar form of logico-deductive reasoning if you can.
But I don't even know if you are saying they think a and b must be true - if so, you are incorrect that there is consensus on this - or it is your opinion.
My own Metaphysical will? One's belief? What does will or Will have to do with this issue?And finally, does that define the concept of a God? You know, a final cause, a prime mover, a thing-in-itself that controls both the matter narratives and information narratives? Or does the concept relate to a' thingy' that has causal properties or power, kind of like your own metaphysical Will that causes people to do stuff?
-
- Posts: 158
- Joined: December 13th, 2011, 7:23 pm
Re: Atheism is not Logical
[/quote]3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 8:57 amLabeling things does not an argument make.Moreno wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 3:45 amYour response just proves the point that atheism is not logical (?).3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 10:40 pm
Well, you don't believe in the claims of Zoroastrianism, so that makes you an atheist too. You also don't believe in Zeus. Atheist.
I made a statement with the first verb being 'to do'. Your response was a form of 'to be'. Sure it DOES, would make it clear you are saying my statement was incorrect and what you are likely referring to. I am not trying to be a stickler, but I find your writing very unclear and that it jumps from point to point, possibly using some terms idiosyncratically.Sure it is.
Here you seem to be disagreeing with me when I say 'labeling things does not an argument make.' If I repond to your post and say 'that's illogical' and end my response, I haven't demonstrated anything since my labelling is alone without justification. It is not an argument, it's an opinion/assertion.
For example, unpack the following:
It corresponds to a certain specific posited something that has a great deal of power, sometimes with attributed infinite power. It depends on the particular believer. It doesn't correspond to 'that which' since most theisms allow that other entities - such as humans - can also have causal powers. I have no idea if those two sentences were supposed to be an argument or how it fits in with my post or supports anything you've said.An A-theists belief is based upon Theism.
The concept of a God corresponds to that which has causal powers/properties.
-
- Posts: 158
- Joined: December 13th, 2011, 7:23 pm
Re: Atheism is not Logical
You did notice that I had a list, right? Your response is incomplete. It doesn't address my point, nor does it support your assertion which I was responding to.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 8:53 amSure. 'As you say, "feelings" are not a part of logic, are they?Moreno wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 2:58 amThe grammar of that second sentence is odd. It's written as if 'Atheist' is a name. It's not a name. Atheists may base their disbelief or lack of belief on something. They may have argued, if only with themselves, towards a conclusion that there is no God, or to no longer believing in God, or to not having a belief in God. Or they may simply lack a belief in God. Or they may simply have found that they no longer believe there is a God. Or they may just have a very strong gut feeling that there is no God. Or they may never have been convinced there is a God. Or.......3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 8:22 pm Nope. Atheist bases their disbelief on something. That something is Theism. Hence by definition Atheism. Not logical?
Beliefs and lacks of beliefs can be the results of all sorts of processes and experiences. Some conscious, some not. Arguments can be logical or illogical, for example. IOW a process where one justifies a conclusion using sentences and presenting it as if it is logical. That if a and b are the case, for example, this entails c because...and so on.
If someone said John Kennedy's corpse is in my fridge, I'd easily say I disbelieve that. I would not base that on an argument, though perhaps in some cases I might, but in generally it would be that I disbelieve it.
There might be one. I, right now, can't rule it out. But I disbelieve it. There are all sorts of things I disbelieve or would disbelieve if the topic came up and these disbeliefs and lack of beliefs would not be based on purported logical processes, though for many of these things I could mount such an argument, but IT IS NOT THE BASIS OF MY LACK OF BELIEF OR BELIEF.
The process, intuitive on some, for example, can be neither logical nor illogical. And certaily with lacks of beliefs, there need be no process AT ALL.
You are, repeatedly, making a category error. Every time you lable a belief as illogical in and of itself. Your posts are nearly incoherent and you just keep making assertions without justification. That's not logical. It's not illogical. It's not an argument. It's the assertion of opinions.
Asserting opinions is, of course, part of participation in discussions, but it presents no reason at all to believe your assertions.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
The Will has causal power or properties. And you yourself have firsthand experience with same. Does it correspond to any 'thing'? You know, a thing that controls both the information and matter narratives(?).Moreno wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 11:40 amThere's no need I can see to make statements about me. You can just focus on the issues and not lose a thing.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 9:00 am Sure, I think you're still stuck in first gear.
People can rely on objectivity - though that term needs to get looked at - but Atheism doesn't need to rely on anything. It's a state of belief or lack of belief.As it relates to Atheism, it seems Atheism relies on Objectivity,
Sure, it's a belief system, agreed. But a belief system based upon Theism. Hence, A-theism.
This was just some assertions with no justification.yet analytical propositions don't seem to help them either. They are in a bit of a conundrum. Hence, another idea why Atheism is not logical.
The justification is the denial of analytical propositions that conclude otherwise. You know, like the cosmological argument.
More assertions and an appeal to authority.Emotions seem to be driving its belief system. A Subjectivity of sorts... . You know, much like Einstein's observation of their behavior!!
Authority? You mean like spooky action at a distance?
I found that very unclear.Accordingly, the paradox that ensues relates to things that are seen and unseen. Meaning, their subjectivity (what they base their belief system on) in itself (the Will), is that which is not seen. How should they go about reconciling the two?
Indeed, it's not clear. Its qualities are unseen. On the other hand, are you arguing that you can see the Will?
Is this their argument? Your argument?Otherwise, they can't seem to use logic very well at all:
a Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
b The universe began to exist.
c Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
You tell me.Firstly, does this conclusion respond to the synthetic a priori judgment that all events must have a cause? If not, why not?
I'm not an A-theist, you are(?).
I don't think that science has taken a stand that premise a must be the case. There are certainly scientists who think that the universe has always been. There are many others who are not decided. That's within physics. Outside of physics, I don't know what scientists believe on this issue, but there no consensus that a has been demonstrated.Secondly, is this conclusion true, false, logically necessary, or something else? If false, please feel free to explain your answers using a similar form of logico-deductive reasoning if you can.
Great! So what comprises the A-theists belief system?
But I don't even know if you are saying they think a and b must be true - if so, you are incorrect that there is consensus on this - or it is your opinion.
It's a cosmological argument, no?
My own Metaphysical will? One's belief? What does will or Will have to do with this issue?And finally, does that define the concept of a God? You know, a final cause, a prime mover, a thing-in-itself that controls both the matter narratives and information narratives? Or does the concept relate to a' thingy' that has causal properties or power, kind of like your own metaphysical Will that causes people to do stuff?
― Albert Einstein
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023