Atheism is not Logical

[3017Metaphysician]

Nope. Atheist bases their disbelief on something. That something is Theism. Hence by definition Atheism. Not logical?

The 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.......

Sure. 'As you say, "feelings" are not a part of logic, are they?

[3017Metaphysician]

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.

Your response just proves the point that atheism is not logical (?).

Labeling things does not an argument make.
[/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.

[Belindi]

Joshua, before you can tell the difference between "atheistic science" and "nature's science" you need to know what science is.

Why? I know that natures science makes sense and makes use of known forces that are opposites and divided.

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]

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?

I'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.

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.

[Joshua10]

Joshua, before you can tell the difference between "atheistic science" and "nature's science" you need to know what science is.

Why? I know that natures science makes sense and makes use of known forces that are opposites and divided.

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.

Atheistic science doesn’t do natures science and atheistic science is what is touted now.

[3017Metaphysician]

So it's logical to believe in Zeus?

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.

[Joshua10]

When atheistic science starts adopting full logic in its deliberations rather than half logic…only then can it say that it is adopting natures scientific,philosophical and psychological principles.

[Joshua10]

Atheists/Theists can never/will never get beyond dualistic thoughts and emotional reactions to those dualistic processes if they believe that is all they are.

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.

[Joshua10]

Merely believing a God exists won’t help you….

[Belindi]

Joshua, before you can tell the difference between "atheistic science" and "nature's science" you need to know what science is.

Why? I know that natures science makes sense and makes use of known forces that are opposites and divided.

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.

Atheistic science doesn’t do natures science and atheistic science is what is touted now.

When you say "atheist science" do you mean the method or the theories, or both?
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?

[Joshua10]

Why? I know that natures science makes sense and makes use of known forces that are opposites and divided.

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.

Atheistic science doesn’t do natures science and atheistic science is what is touted now.

When you say "atheist science" do you mean the method or the theories, or both?
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?

Both…..

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.

[Moreno]

Sure, I think you're still stuck in first gear.

There's no need I can see to make statements about me. You can just focus on the issues and not lose a thing.

As it relates to Atheism, it seems Atheism relies on Objectivity,

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.

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.

This was just some assertions with no justification.

Emotions seem to be driving its belief system. A Subjectivity of sorts... . You know, much like Einstein's observation of their behavior!!

More assertions and an appeal to authority.

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?

I found that very unclear.

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.

Is this their argument? Your argument?

Firstly, does this conclusion respond to the synthetic a priori judgment that all events must have a cause? If not, why not?

You tell me.

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.

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.

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.

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?

My own Metaphysical will? One's belief? What does will or Will have to do with this issue?

[Moreno]

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.

Your response just proves the point that atheism is not logical (?).

Labeling things does not an argument make.

[/quote]

Sure it is.

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.

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:

An A-theists belief is based upon Theism.

The concept of a God corresponds to that which has causal powers/properties.

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.

[Moreno]

Nope. Atheist bases their disbelief on something. That something is Theism. Hence by definition Atheism. Not logical?

The 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.......

Sure. 'As you say, "feelings" are not a part of logic, are they?

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.

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]

Sure, I think you're still stuck in first gear.

There's no need I can see to make statements about me. You can just focus on the issues and not lose a thing.

As it relates to Atheism, it seems Atheism relies on Objectivity,

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.

Sure, it's a belief system, agreed. But a belief system based upon Theism. Hence, A-theism.

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.

This was just some assertions with no justification.

The justification is the denial of analytical propositions that conclude otherwise. You know, like the cosmological argument.

Emotions seem to be driving its belief system. A Subjectivity of sorts... . You know, much like Einstein's observation of their behavior!!

More assertions and an appeal to authority.

Authority? You mean like spooky action at a distance?

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?

I found that very unclear.

Indeed, it's not clear. Its qualities are unseen. On the other hand, are you arguing that you can see the Will?

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.

Is this their argument? Your argument?

Firstly, does this conclusion respond to the synthetic a priori judgment that all events must have a cause? If not, why not?

You tell me.

I'm not an A-theist, you are(?).

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.

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.

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?

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?

My own Metaphysical will? One's belief? What does will or Will have to do with this issue?

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(?).