Atheism is not Logical

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Sculptor1 »

Sy Borg wrote: February 15th, 2023, 3:12 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: February 13th, 2023, 7:42 am
Sy Borg wrote: February 13th, 2023, 1:17 am
Sculptor1 wrote: February 12th, 2023, 6:56 pm

The New Testament upon which Xity is based is penned by at least 9 authors and is a collection of stories amongst many which were not gathered together until the Council of Rome 382 CE, where many texts were rejected and proscribed.
It was in this selection and rejection process that some coherence to their chosen message was attempted.

It is hardly the basis for a logical religion
"Logical religion" strikes me as an oxymoron.
Well... the whole point of my post, obviously.
And why the entire thread is an exercise in futility, as the thread assumes that.

After all, if religion always accorded with logic we would not need it, we could simply be logical.

Still, not all religions are equally illogical. Buddhism has plenty of superstitions too, but there seems to be more appreciation of the metaphorical approach of the ancients. At least their practice of going deep into meditation and reporting what they find so as to to build a body of knowledge is logical, even if they have a range of myths and contestable concepts.
I see no logic here.
The Budddhists were conducting scientific experiments to examine the subconscious mind. That is logical, as opposed to the Abrahamic approach of pleading (aka praying) in the hope that a phantasm projected from unconscious human fears will reply.
I not heard of these experiments.
Perhaps you should cite?
But I do not think some sort of post-hoc justification is going to be that convincing from a cult that thinks no one really dies.

I'm still struggling to see where any of this might be actually "logical".
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Sy Borg »

Sculptor1 wrote: February 15th, 2023, 3:57 pm
Sy Borg wrote: February 15th, 2023, 3:12 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: February 13th, 2023, 7:42 am
Sy Borg wrote: February 13th, 2023, 1:17 am
"Logical religion" strikes me as an oxymoron.
Well... the whole point of my post, obviously.
And why the entire thread is an exercise in futility, as the thread assumes that.

After all, if religion always accorded with logic we would not need it, we could simply be logical.

Still, not all religions are equally illogical. Buddhism has plenty of superstitions too, but there seems to be more appreciation of the metaphorical approach of the ancients. At least their practice of going deep into meditation and reporting what they find so as to to build a body of knowledge is logical, even if they have a range of myths and contestable concepts.
I see no logic here.
The Budddhists were conducting scientific experiments to examine the subconscious mind. That is logical, as opposed to the Abrahamic approach of pleading (aka praying) in the hope that a phantasm projected from unconscious human fears will reply.
I not heard of these experiments.
Perhaps you should cite?
But I do not think some sort of post-hoc justification is going to be that convincing from a cult that thinks no one really dies.

I'm still struggling to see where any of this might be actually "logical".
A small issue, but yours is a loose usage of the word "sect", more loose than my use of "logical". If major religions are sects, then the word "sect" has no separate meaning. Given the etymology - stemming from the Latin "secare", meaning "to cut" - the word "sect" refers the breakaway "sections".

From my readings decades ago I remember that Buddhist teachers build bodies of knowledge based on their own and others' reported experiences during meditation. They put the information together and check commonalities and differences. Thus, when a teacher instructs newcomers in meditation, they know the stages people go through over time when meditating, the usual sensations, the usual pitfalls and opportunities and how to influence these with mental discipline.

Based on my readings, Buddhism is indeed often not logical, but it does have aspects that I see as more logical and "modern" than Abrahamic creeds.

Alas, this issue doesn't matter enough to me to bother playing the "show me your references" game. If you don't trust my word by now after all these years, then no references will make a difference.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Sculptor1 »

Sy Borg wrote: February 15th, 2023, 7:26 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: February 15th, 2023, 3:57 pm
Sy Borg wrote: February 15th, 2023, 3:12 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: February 13th, 2023, 7:42 am
Well... the whole point of my post, obviously.
And why the entire thread is an exercise in futility, as the thread assumes that.


I see no logic here.
The Budddhists were conducting scientific experiments to examine the subconscious mind. That is logical, as opposed to the Abrahamic approach of pleading (aka praying) in the hope that a phantasm projected from unconscious human fears will reply.
I not heard of these experiments.
Perhaps you should cite?
But I do not think some sort of post-hoc justification is going to be that convincing from a cult that thinks no one really dies.

I'm still struggling to see where any of this might be actually "logical".
A small issue, but yours is a loose usage of the word "sect", more loose than my use of "logical". If major religions are sects, then the word "sect" has no separate meaning. Given the etymology - stemming from the Latin "secare", meaning "to cut" - the word "sect" refers the breakaway "sections".
Okay. Buddhism breaks away from the rest of humanity.
From my readings decades ago I remember that Buddhist teachers build bodies of knowledge based on their own and others' reported experiences during meditation. They put the information together and check commonalities and differences. Thus, when a teacher instructs newcomers in meditation, they know the stages people go through over time when meditating, the usual sensations, the usual pitfalls and opportunities and how to influence these with mental discipline.
How is this "scientific"?
Since it is all just subjective reporting its not immune to observer error, confirmational bias, and witness leading.
Where''s the "logic"?

Based on my readings, Buddhism is indeed often not logical, but it does have aspects that I see as more logical and "modern" than Abrahamic creeds.
All cults have their own, what you might call, "internal logic", as long as you accept some wierd and in credible premises then you could call most of them logical.
Obviously the premise that we re-incarnate is pretty off the charts.
Alas, this issue doesn't matter enough to me to bother playing the "show me your references" game. If you don't trust my word by now after all these years, then no references will make a difference.
I was genuinely interested.
User avatar
Bahman
Posts: 213
Joined: July 3rd, 2016, 11:51 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Bahman »

3017Metaphysician wrote: August 6th, 2021, 3:48 pm Hello!

Not being an Atheist myself, I’ve often wondered about how an Atheist thinks. What would comprise their specific belief system, I wonder? There is an old cognitive science meme that says: What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you. Accordingly, we may be able to learn from each other’s arguments here, as I hope we can question and answer each other’s concerns with a high degree of transparency and impart our knowledge accordingly. As such, much can be said about that so-called sense of understanding in the way of subjectivity or subjective truth if you will, which we all hold so dearly to us; our own truth, our own way of Being. Our own sense of self. And, a truth that far exceeds verbal formulation.

But with respect to one’s belief system, logic and language, what about any sense of objective truth, and its significance relating to our thought processes vis-à-vis the concept of God? And similarly, what could philosophy tell us about any kind of synthesis between those so-called subjective and objective truths in understanding some sense of universal truth? Although a universal truth or, a priori truths (mathematics/ontological argument) may also include a belief system that logically conceives of a God, how should we understand the actual concept of a God?

In that sense, should an anthropic concept of a cosmological God somehow make him or it, a perfectly 'objective yet sentient mathematician’ as one might consider a kind of ontological ‘universal truth’ to be? In cosmology or otherwise, why or how can there be self-aware conscious Beings in a material universe whose existence doesn't require say, musical or mathematical genius to survive in the jungle? Why have Will and all of the other metaphysical features of consciousness and self-awareness when emergent instinct is all one needs? For the materialist, that would seemingly not square with quantity causation, because we are talking about a thing’s quality (qualia). Further, what about one’s empirical experiences that we assign to such a concept of a God? Similar kinds of questions may serve as a backdrop to debating one’s belief system and one’s own logical inferences from (human) nature and other phenomena.

And so, in pursuit of some sense of logic or pragmatism, although the concept of a God may simply be a paradigm/axiomatic, or even an archetype as often used for a causational criterion (super-turtle) in the various domains of philosophy, why should one invoke the concept of God to begin with? One could easily argue that it is no different than making a cosmological/metaphysical judgement such as: all events must have a cause. Is that judgement purely of a logical nature? What kind of truth is that and why should we believe that? Why should we Will to believe that or even care to believe that? Are those kinds of synthetic propositions critical to science and physics to advance a theory? In other words, can logic itself help us define any causal relationship, or any other notion or concept of a God? Or is it human Will causing this problem? Perhaps a better proposition/judgement is: all events must not have a cause? Please feel free to address any of those concerns.

With all that being said, I would like to argue against the Atheist belief system and prove that their belief system is not of a purely logical nature (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Instead, I will use this same sense of finitude or logic (obvious paradox), in uncovering the truth about A-theism as being superfluous...like emotion or some other irrelevant cognitive, psychological, existential, or even metaphysical phenomena as found in our conscious existence. One irony that I hope to discover or uncover is, that which seems irrelevant to the Atheist may in fact be very relevant in its own rite.

To this end, let us be reminded of the infamous quote that is central to my argument from Einstein, that suggested sentience as perhaps relevant to the human condition and one’s dis-belief in a God.:

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

In trying to understand that definition/ judgement, value or (dis)belief system, I ask myself how should logic itself, provide for such insight, such conclusion, and such an Einsteinian grudge against a type of religious feeling associated with one’s disbelief in God? Because as common sense would guide us, if an A-theist posits the concept of a God’s non-existence using pure reason or logic, by advancing such a proposition (or theory, much like that of the Theist), he puts himself in an awkward, ironic situation of defending same. It seems then, by default that one is put in an untenable position of arguing an antecedent. (And oddly enough, perhaps not too dissimilar to the Taoist unity of opposites; something v. no-thing.)
Accordingly, notwithstanding the foregoing concerns, let’s safely assume that the Atheist ‘s disbelief is based on the logical impossibility surrounding the Omnipotence paradox. Hence, philosophical question one for the Atheist to respond:

1. If you consider part of your disbelief (your belief system) on the illogical concept of an Omnipotent God, in what sense did logic allow you to arrive at that conclusion (of disbelief)? If you do not consider part (or all) of your disbelief on that, why not? And is that not typical for most A-theists who reject the logic associated with Omnipotence, as their primary basis of disbelief?
My exceptions to those questions relate to use of certain synthetic propositions (as alluded to earlier) which are analogous to the supposition ‘all events must have a cause’. And that both philosophically and cognitively, there is little difference to the judgement/proposition known as the logically necessary Omnipotent paradox. Meaning, something beyond pure reason causes a person, to deny (or affirm) the existence (logical necessity/possible) of both a causational God and in this instance, a logically necessary yet impossible Omnipotent God. And that same reason of course would apply to either Theist/Atheist.

More important to the notion of logical impossibility and synthetic judgements, if logically, it is unreconcilable to any given concept of God, that paradox, uncertainty and incompleteness exists in the universe, and logically impossible explanations (contradictions) exist relative to the explanations of our own conscious existence and cognition as we understand it, then it essentially becomes blind leading the blind. In that context, what follows is human belief systems in general, are flawed. (In this context, that may comprise a partial justification for Agnosticism.) However, as I think maybe one can see, the broader issue obviously relates to temporal-ness and finitude, not to mention the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe (Metaphysics and the nature of reality) itself.

To state my case differently there, and perhaps more lucid, I submit that the blind person who cannot see red, can still believe red exists (what does it mean to believe). But in the postmodern era, the Atheist blind person who denies red, does so for irrelevant or superfluous emotional reasons that seem to suggest acrimony and arbitrariness at worst, ignorance and subjectiveness at best. With that, to the Atheist I say: What beliefs did Helen Keller deny? And if red is your strawman, so is your Atheism.
First, please define God. Second, please bring out an argument about the existence of God given the definition.

I have an argument against God given the definition: God is the creator of everything out of nothing. Please find my argument here.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by JackDaydream »

Bahman wrote: February 16th, 2023, 1:01 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: August 6th, 2021, 3:48 pm Hello!

Not being an Atheist myself, I’ve often wondered about how an Atheist thinks. What would comprise their specific belief system, I wonder? There is an old cognitive science meme that says: What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you. Accordingly, we may be able to learn from each other’s arguments here, as I hope we can question and answer each other’s concerns with a high degree of transparency and impart our knowledge accordingly. As such, much can be said about that so-called sense of understanding in the way of subjectivity or subjective truth if you will, which we all hold so dearly to us; our own truth, our own way of Being. Our own sense of self. And, a truth that far exceeds verbal formulation.

But with respect to one’s belief system, logic and language, what about any sense of objective truth, and its significance relating to our thought processes vis-à-vis the concept of God? And similarly, what could philosophy tell us about any kind of synthesis between those so-called subjective and objective truths in understanding some sense of universal truth? Although a universal truth or, a priori truths (mathematics/ontological argument) may also include a belief system that logically conceives of a God, how should we understand the actual concept of a God?

In that sense, should an anthropic concept of a cosmological God somehow make him or it, a perfectly 'objective yet sentient mathematician’ as one might consider a kind of ontological ‘universal truth’ to be? In cosmology or otherwise, why or how can there be self-aware conscious Beings in a material universe whose existence doesn't require say, musical or mathematical genius to survive in the jungle? Why have Will and all of the other metaphysical features of consciousness and self-awareness when emergent instinct is all one needs? For the materialist, that would seemingly not square with quantity causation, because we are talking about a thing’s quality (qualia). Further, what about one’s empirical experiences that we assign to such a concept of a God? Similar kinds of questions may serve as a backdrop to debating one’s belief system and one’s own logical inferences from (human) nature and other phenomena.

And so, in pursuit of some sense of logic or pragmatism, although the concept of a God may simply be a paradigm/axiomatic, or even an archetype as often used for a causational criterion (super-turtle) in the various domains of philosophy, why should one invoke the concept of God to begin with? One could easily argue that it is no different than making a cosmological/metaphysical judgement such as: all events must have a cause. Is that judgement purely of a logical nature? What kind of truth is that and why should we believe that? Why should we Will to believe that or even care to believe that? Are those kinds of synthetic propositions critical to science and physics to advance a theory? In other words, can logic itself help us define any causal relationship, or any other notion or concept of a God? Or is it human Will causing this problem? Perhaps a better proposition/judgement is: all events must not have a cause? Please feel free to address any of those concerns.

With all that being said, I would like to argue against the Atheist belief system and prove that their belief system is not of a purely logical nature (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Instead, I will use this same sense of finitude or logic (obvious paradox), in uncovering the truth about A-theism as being superfluous...like emotion or some other irrelevant cognitive, psychological, existential, or even metaphysical phenomena as found in our conscious existence. One irony that I hope to discover or uncover is, that which seems irrelevant to the Atheist may in fact be very relevant in its own rite.

To this end, let us be reminded of the infamous quote that is central to my argument from Einstein, that suggested sentience as perhaps relevant to the human condition and one’s dis-belief in a God.:

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

In trying to understand that definition/ judgement, value or (dis)belief system, I ask myself how should logic itself, provide for such insight, such conclusion, and such an Einsteinian grudge against a type of religious feeling associated with one’s disbelief in God? Because as common sense would guide us, if an A-theist posits the concept of a God’s non-existence using pure reason or logic, by advancing such a proposition (or theory, much like that of the Theist), he puts himself in an awkward, ironic situation of defending same. It seems then, by default that one is put in an untenable position of arguing an antecedent. (And oddly enough, perhaps not too dissimilar to the Taoist unity of opposites; something v. no-thing.)
Accordingly, notwithstanding the foregoing concerns, let’s safely assume that the Atheist ‘s disbelief is based on the logical impossibility surrounding the Omnipotence paradox. Hence, philosophical question one for the Atheist to respond:

1. If you consider part of your disbelief (your belief system) on the illogical concept of an Omnipotent God, in what sense did logic allow you to arrive at that conclusion (of disbelief)? If you do not consider part (or all) of your disbelief on that, why not? And is that not typical for most A-theists who reject the logic associated with Omnipotence, as their primary basis of disbelief?
My exceptions to those questions relate to use of certain synthetic propositions (as alluded to earlier) which are analogous to the supposition ‘all events must have a cause’. And that both philosophically and cognitively, there is little difference to the judgement/proposition known as the logically necessary Omnipotent paradox. Meaning, something beyond pure reason causes a person, to deny (or affirm) the existence (logical necessity/possible) of both a causational God and in this instance, a logically necessary yet impossible Omnipotent God. And that same reason of course would apply to either Theist/Atheist.

More important to the notion of logical impossibility and synthetic judgements, if logically, it is unreconcilable to any given concept of God, that paradox, uncertainty and incompleteness exists in the universe, and logically impossible explanations (contradictions) exist relative to the explanations of our own conscious existence and cognition as we understand it, then it essentially becomes blind leading the blind. In that context, what follows is human belief systems in general, are flawed. (In this context, that may comprise a partial justification for Agnosticism.) However, as I think maybe one can see, the broader issue obviously relates to temporal-ness and finitude, not to mention the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe (Metaphysics and the nature of reality) itself.

To state my case differently there, and perhaps more lucid, I submit that the blind person who cannot see red, can still believe red exists (what does it mean to believe). But in the postmodern era, the Atheist blind person who denies red, does so for irrelevant or superfluous emotional reasons that seem to suggest acrimony and arbitrariness at worst, ignorance and subjectiveness at best. With that, to the Atheist I say: What beliefs did Helen Keller deny? And if red is your strawman, so is your Atheism.
First, please define God. Second, please bring out an argument about the existence of God given the definition.

I have an argument against God given the definition: God is the creator of everything out of nothing. Please find my argument here.
Having mentioned this thread to you, I actually thought your argument in your own was that it was illogical to argue that God does not exist. Of course, I may have misinterpreted what you wrote. However, it is worth you checking your own thread because as it is I am unclear what you are trying to say at all, about the idea of creation, nothing and how this relates to the existence or non existence of God.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Bahman wrote: February 16th, 2023, 1:01 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: August 6th, 2021, 3:48 pm Hello!

Not being an Atheist myself, I’ve often wondered about how an Atheist thinks. What would comprise their specific belief system, I wonder? There is an old cognitive science meme that says: What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you. Accordingly, we may be able to learn from each other’s arguments here, as I hope we can question and answer each other’s concerns with a high degree of transparency and impart our knowledge accordingly. As such, much can be said about that so-called sense of understanding in the way of subjectivity or subjective truth if you will, which we all hold so dearly to us; our own truth, our own way of Being. Our own sense of self. And, a truth that far exceeds verbal formulation.

But with respect to one’s belief system, logic and language, what about any sense of objective truth, and its significance relating to our thought processes vis-à-vis the concept of God? And similarly, what could philosophy tell us about any kind of synthesis between those so-called subjective and objective truths in understanding some sense of universal truth? Although a universal truth or, a priori truths (mathematics/ontological argument) may also include a belief system that logically conceives of a God, how should we understand the actual concept of a God?

In that sense, should an anthropic concept of a cosmological God somehow make him or it, a perfectly 'objective yet sentient mathematician’ as one might consider a kind of ontological ‘universal truth’ to be? In cosmology or otherwise, why or how can there be self-aware conscious Beings in a material universe whose existence doesn't require say, musical or mathematical genius to survive in the jungle? Why have Will and all of the other metaphysical features of consciousness and self-awareness when emergent instinct is all one needs? For the materialist, that would seemingly not square with quantity causation, because we are talking about a thing’s quality (qualia). Further, what about one’s empirical experiences that we assign to such a concept of a God? Similar kinds of questions may serve as a backdrop to debating one’s belief system and one’s own logical inferences from (human) nature and other phenomena.

And so, in pursuit of some sense of logic or pragmatism, although the concept of a God may simply be a paradigm/axiomatic, or even an archetype as often used for a causational criterion (super-turtle) in the various domains of philosophy, why should one invoke the concept of God to begin with? One could easily argue that it is no different than making a cosmological/metaphysical judgement such as: all events must have a cause. Is that judgement purely of a logical nature? What kind of truth is that and why should we believe that? Why should we Will to believe that or even care to believe that? Are those kinds of synthetic propositions critical to science and physics to advance a theory? In other words, can logic itself help us define any causal relationship, or any other notion or concept of a God? Or is it human Will causing this problem? Perhaps a better proposition/judgement is: all events must not have a cause? Please feel free to address any of those concerns.

With all that being said, I would like to argue against the Atheist belief system and prove that their belief system is not of a purely logical nature (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Instead, I will use this same sense of finitude or logic (obvious paradox), in uncovering the truth about A-theism as being superfluous...like emotion or some other irrelevant cognitive, psychological, existential, or even metaphysical phenomena as found in our conscious existence. One irony that I hope to discover or uncover is, that which seems irrelevant to the Atheist may in fact be very relevant in its own rite.

To this end, let us be reminded of the infamous quote that is central to my argument from Einstein, that suggested sentience as perhaps relevant to the human condition and one’s dis-belief in a God.:

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

In trying to understand that definition/ judgement, value or (dis)belief system, I ask myself how should logic itself, provide for such insight, such conclusion, and such an Einsteinian grudge against a type of religious feeling associated with one’s disbelief in God? Because as common sense would guide us, if an A-theist posits the concept of a God’s non-existence using pure reason or logic, by advancing such a proposition (or theory, much like that of the Theist), he puts himself in an awkward, ironic situation of defending same. It seems then, by default that one is put in an untenable position of arguing an antecedent. (And oddly enough, perhaps not too dissimilar to the Taoist unity of opposites; something v. no-thing.)
Accordingly, notwithstanding the foregoing concerns, let’s safely assume that the Atheist ‘s disbelief is based on the logical impossibility surrounding the Omnipotence paradox. Hence, philosophical question one for the Atheist to respond:

1. If you consider part of your disbelief (your belief system) on the illogical concept of an Omnipotent God, in what sense did logic allow you to arrive at that conclusion (of disbelief)? If you do not consider part (or all) of your disbelief on that, why not? And is that not typical for most A-theists who reject the logic associated with Omnipotence, as their primary basis of disbelief?
My exceptions to those questions relate to use of certain synthetic propositions (as alluded to earlier) which are analogous to the supposition ‘all events must have a cause’. And that both philosophically and cognitively, there is little difference to the judgement/proposition known as the logically necessary Omnipotent paradox. Meaning, something beyond pure reason causes a person, to deny (or affirm) the existence (logical necessity/possible) of both a causational God and in this instance, a logically necessary yet impossible Omnipotent God. And that same reason of course would apply to either Theist/Atheist.

More important to the notion of logical impossibility and synthetic judgements, if logically, it is unreconcilable to any given concept of God, that paradox, uncertainty and incompleteness exists in the universe, and logically impossible explanations (contradictions) exist relative to the explanations of our own conscious existence and cognition as we understand it, then it essentially becomes blind leading the blind. In that context, what follows is human belief systems in general, are flawed. (In this context, that may comprise a partial justification for Agnosticism.) However, as I think maybe one can see, the broader issue obviously relates to temporal-ness and finitude, not to mention the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe (Metaphysics and the nature of reality) itself.

To state my case differently there, and perhaps more lucid, I submit that the blind person who cannot see red, can still believe red exists (what does it mean to believe). But in the postmodern era, the Atheist blind person who denies red, does so for irrelevant or superfluous emotional reasons that seem to suggest acrimony and arbitrariness at worst, ignorance and subjectiveness at best. With that, to the Atheist I say: What beliefs did Helen Keller deny? And if red is your strawman, so is your Atheism.
First, please define God. Second, please bring out an argument about the existence of God given the definition.

I have an argument against God given the definition: God is the creator of everything out of nothing. Please find my argument here.
Bahman!

Thank you for your reply! Basically it would be the cosmological argument or The cosmological God as it were. Just an excerpt from my Atheism is not logical part 2:

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.

True, false or something else?

If I was an Atheist, I think I could perhaps somehow argue that there was no beginning. An ‘eternity’ of sorts. Or based my belief on a kind of steady-state theory or Multiverse, I could revise the logic to:

A whatever exists has a cause of its existence
B the universe exists
C therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence

But is the Atheist still in a pickle? How would they deny such a conclusion? Regardless if it's the various concepts of eternity, multiverse, Singularity, etc., because there is something and not nothing, Atheism remains a nonsensical belief system...
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
Bahman
Posts: 213
Joined: July 3rd, 2016, 11:51 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Bahman »

JackDaydream wrote: February 16th, 2023, 1:20 pm
Bahman wrote: February 16th, 2023, 1:01 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: August 6th, 2021, 3:48 pm Hello!

Not being an Atheist myself, I’ve often wondered about how an Atheist thinks. What would comprise their specific belief system, I wonder? There is an old cognitive science meme that says: What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you. Accordingly, we may be able to learn from each other’s arguments here, as I hope we can question and answer each other’s concerns with a high degree of transparency and impart our knowledge accordingly. As such, much can be said about that so-called sense of understanding in the way of subjectivity or subjective truth if you will, which we all hold so dearly to us; our own truth, our own way of Being. Our own sense of self. And, a truth that far exceeds verbal formulation.

But with respect to one’s belief system, logic and language, what about any sense of objective truth, and its significance relating to our thought processes vis-à-vis the concept of God? And similarly, what could philosophy tell us about any kind of synthesis between those so-called subjective and objective truths in understanding some sense of universal truth? Although a universal truth or, a priori truths (mathematics/ontological argument) may also include a belief system that logically conceives of a God, how should we understand the actual concept of a God?

In that sense, should an anthropic concept of a cosmological God somehow make him or it, a perfectly 'objective yet sentient mathematician’ as one might consider a kind of ontological ‘universal truth’ to be? In cosmology or otherwise, why or how can there be self-aware conscious Beings in a material universe whose existence doesn't require say, musical or mathematical genius to survive in the jungle? Why have Will and all of the other metaphysical features of consciousness and self-awareness when emergent instinct is all one needs? For the materialist, that would seemingly not square with quantity causation, because we are talking about a thing’s quality (qualia). Further, what about one’s empirical experiences that we assign to such a concept of a God? Similar kinds of questions may serve as a backdrop to debating one’s belief system and one’s own logical inferences from (human) nature and other phenomena.

And so, in pursuit of some sense of logic or pragmatism, although the concept of a God may simply be a paradigm/axiomatic, or even an archetype as often used for a causational criterion (super-turtle) in the various domains of philosophy, why should one invoke the concept of God to begin with? One could easily argue that it is no different than making a cosmological/metaphysical judgement such as: all events must have a cause. Is that judgement purely of a logical nature? What kind of truth is that and why should we believe that? Why should we Will to believe that or even care to believe that? Are those kinds of synthetic propositions critical to science and physics to advance a theory? In other words, can logic itself help us define any causal relationship, or any other notion or concept of a God? Or is it human Will causing this problem? Perhaps a better proposition/judgement is: all events must not have a cause? Please feel free to address any of those concerns.

With all that being said, I would like to argue against the Atheist belief system and prove that their belief system is not of a purely logical nature (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Instead, I will use this same sense of finitude or logic (obvious paradox), in uncovering the truth about A-theism as being superfluous...like emotion or some other irrelevant cognitive, psychological, existential, or even metaphysical phenomena as found in our conscious existence. One irony that I hope to discover or uncover is, that which seems irrelevant to the Atheist may in fact be very relevant in its own rite.

To this end, let us be reminded of the infamous quote that is central to my argument from Einstein, that suggested sentience as perhaps relevant to the human condition and one’s dis-belief in a God.:

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

In trying to understand that definition/ judgement, value or (dis)belief system, I ask myself how should logic itself, provide for such insight, such conclusion, and such an Einsteinian grudge against a type of religious feeling associated with one’s disbelief in God? Because as common sense would guide us, if an A-theist posits the concept of a God’s non-existence using pure reason or logic, by advancing such a proposition (or theory, much like that of the Theist), he puts himself in an awkward, ironic situation of defending same. It seems then, by default that one is put in an untenable position of arguing an antecedent. (And oddly enough, perhaps not too dissimilar to the Taoist unity of opposites; something v. no-thing.)
Accordingly, notwithstanding the foregoing concerns, let’s safely assume that the Atheist ‘s disbelief is based on the logical impossibility surrounding the Omnipotence paradox. Hence, philosophical question one for the Atheist to respond:

1. If you consider part of your disbelief (your belief system) on the illogical concept of an Omnipotent God, in what sense did logic allow you to arrive at that conclusion (of disbelief)? If you do not consider part (or all) of your disbelief on that, why not? And is that not typical for most A-theists who reject the logic associated with Omnipotence, as their primary basis of disbelief?
My exceptions to those questions relate to use of certain synthetic propositions (as alluded to earlier) which are analogous to the supposition ‘all events must have a cause’. And that both philosophically and cognitively, there is little difference to the judgement/proposition known as the logically necessary Omnipotent paradox. Meaning, something beyond pure reason causes a person, to deny (or affirm) the existence (logical necessity/possible) of both a causational God and in this instance, a logically necessary yet impossible Omnipotent God. And that same reason of course would apply to either Theist/Atheist.

More important to the notion of logical impossibility and synthetic judgements, if logically, it is unreconcilable to any given concept of God, that paradox, uncertainty and incompleteness exists in the universe, and logically impossible explanations (contradictions) exist relative to the explanations of our own conscious existence and cognition as we understand it, then it essentially becomes blind leading the blind. In that context, what follows is human belief systems in general, are flawed. (In this context, that may comprise a partial justification for Agnosticism.) However, as I think maybe one can see, the broader issue obviously relates to temporal-ness and finitude, not to mention the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe (Metaphysics and the nature of reality) itself.

To state my case differently there, and perhaps more lucid, I submit that the blind person who cannot see red, can still believe red exists (what does it mean to believe). But in the postmodern era, the Atheist blind person who denies red, does so for irrelevant or superfluous emotional reasons that seem to suggest acrimony and arbitrariness at worst, ignorance and subjectiveness at best. With that, to the Atheist I say: What beliefs did Helen Keller deny? And if red is your strawman, so is your Atheism.
First, please define God. Second, please bring out an argument about the existence of God given the definition.

I have an argument against God given the definition: God is the creator of everything out of nothing. Please find my argument here.
Having mentioned this thread to you, I actually thought your argument in your own was that it was illogical to argue that God does not exist. Of course, I may have misinterpreted what you wrote. However, it is worth you checking your own thread because as it is I am unclear what you are trying to say at all, about the idea of creation, nothing and how this relates to the existence or non existence of God.
I already defined God in our conversation who is the creator of everything out of nothing. My argument is against the act of creation out of nothing so I am also attacking God who is the creator of everything from nothing.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by JackDaydream »

Bahman wrote: February 16th, 2023, 1:47 pm
JackDaydream wrote: February 16th, 2023, 1:20 pm
Bahman wrote: February 16th, 2023, 1:01 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: August 6th, 2021, 3:48 pm Hello!

Not being an Atheist myself, I’ve often wondered about how an Atheist thinks. What would comprise their specific belief system, I wonder? There is an old cognitive science meme that says: What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you. Accordingly, we may be able to learn from each other’s arguments here, as I hope we can question and answer each other’s concerns with a high degree of transparency and impart our knowledge accordingly. As such, much can be said about that so-called sense of understanding in the way of subjectivity or subjective truth if you will, which we all hold so dearly to us; our own truth, our own way of Being. Our own sense of self. And, a truth that far exceeds verbal formulation.

But with respect to one’s belief system, logic and language, what about any sense of objective truth, and its significance relating to our thought processes vis-à-vis the concept of God? And similarly, what could philosophy tell us about any kind of synthesis between those so-called subjective and objective truths in understanding some sense of universal truth? Although a universal truth or, a priori truths (mathematics/ontological argument) may also include a belief system that logically conceives of a God, how should we understand the actual concept of a God?

In that sense, should an anthropic concept of a cosmological God somehow make him or it, a perfectly 'objective yet sentient mathematician’ as one might consider a kind of ontological ‘universal truth’ to be? In cosmology or otherwise, why or how can there be self-aware conscious Beings in a material universe whose existence doesn't require say, musical or mathematical genius to survive in the jungle? Why have Will and all of the other metaphysical features of consciousness and self-awareness when emergent instinct is all one needs? For the materialist, that would seemingly not square with quantity causation, because we are talking about a thing’s quality (qualia). Further, what about one’s empirical experiences that we assign to such a concept of a God? Similar kinds of questions may serve as a backdrop to debating one’s belief system and one’s own logical inferences from (human) nature and other phenomena.

And so, in pursuit of some sense of logic or pragmatism, although the concept of a God may simply be a paradigm/axiomatic, or even an archetype as often used for a causational criterion (super-turtle) in the various domains of philosophy, why should one invoke the concept of God to begin with? One could easily argue that it is no different than making a cosmological/metaphysical judgement such as: all events must have a cause. Is that judgement purely of a logical nature? What kind of truth is that and why should we believe that? Why should we Will to believe that or even care to believe that? Are those kinds of synthetic propositions critical to science and physics to advance a theory? In other words, can logic itself help us define any causal relationship, or any other notion or concept of a God? Or is it human Will causing this problem? Perhaps a better proposition/judgement is: all events must not have a cause? Please feel free to address any of those concerns.

With all that being said, I would like to argue against the Atheist belief system and prove that their belief system is not of a purely logical nature (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Instead, I will use this same sense of finitude or logic (obvious paradox), in uncovering the truth about A-theism as being superfluous...like emotion or some other irrelevant cognitive, psychological, existential, or even metaphysical phenomena as found in our conscious existence. One irony that I hope to discover or uncover is, that which seems irrelevant to the Atheist may in fact be very relevant in its own rite.

To this end, let us be reminded of the infamous quote that is central to my argument from Einstein, that suggested sentience as perhaps relevant to the human condition and one’s dis-belief in a God.:

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

In trying to understand that definition/ judgement, value or (dis)belief system, I ask myself how should logic itself, provide for such insight, such conclusion, and such an Einsteinian grudge against a type of religious feeling associated with one’s disbelief in God? Because as common sense would guide us, if an A-theist posits the concept of a God’s non-existence using pure reason or logic, by advancing such a proposition (or theory, much like that of the Theist), he puts himself in an awkward, ironic situation of defending same. It seems then, by default that one is put in an untenable position of arguing an antecedent. (And oddly enough, perhaps not too dissimilar to the Taoist unity of opposites; something v. no-thing.)
Accordingly, notwithstanding the foregoing concerns, let’s safely assume that the Atheist ‘s disbelief is based on the logical impossibility surrounding the Omnipotence paradox. Hence, philosophical question one for the Atheist to respond:

1. If you consider part of your disbelief (your belief system) on the illogical concept of an Omnipotent God, in what sense did logic allow you to arrive at that conclusion (of disbelief)? If you do not consider part (or all) of your disbelief on that, why not? And is that not typical for most A-theists who reject the logic associated with Omnipotence, as their primary basis of disbelief?
My exceptions to those questions relate to use of certain synthetic propositions (as alluded to earlier) which are analogous to the supposition ‘all events must have a cause’. And that both philosophically and cognitively, there is little difference to the judgement/proposition known as the logically necessary Omnipotent paradox. Meaning, something beyond pure reason causes a person, to deny (or affirm) the existence (logical necessity/possible) of both a causational God and in this instance, a logically necessary yet impossible Omnipotent God. And that same reason of course would apply to either Theist/Atheist.

More important to the notion of logical impossibility and synthetic judgements, if logically, it is unreconcilable to any given concept of God, that paradox, uncertainty and incompleteness exists in the universe, and logically impossible explanations (contradictions) exist relative to the explanations of our own conscious existence and cognition as we understand it, then it essentially becomes blind leading the blind. In that context, what follows is human belief systems in general, are flawed. (In this context, that may comprise a partial justification for Agnosticism.) However, as I think maybe one can see, the broader issue obviously relates to temporal-ness and finitude, not to mention the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe (Metaphysics and the nature of reality) itself.

To state my case differently there, and perhaps more lucid, I submit that the blind person who cannot see red, can still believe red exists (what does it mean to believe). But in the postmodern era, the Atheist blind person who denies red, does so for irrelevant or superfluous emotional reasons that seem to suggest acrimony and arbitrariness at worst, ignorance and subjectiveness at best. With that, to the Atheist I say: What beliefs did Helen Keller deny? And if red is your strawman, so is your Atheism.
First, please define God. Second, please bring out an argument about the existence of God given the definition.

I have an argument against God given the definition: God is the creator of everything out of nothing. Please find my argument here.
Having mentioned this thread to you, I actually thought your argument in your own was that it was illogical to argue that God does not exist. Of course, I may have misinterpreted what you wrote. However, it is worth you checking your own thread because as it is I am unclear what you are trying to say at all, about the idea of creation, nothing and how this relates to the existence or non existence of God.
I already defined God in our conversation who is the creator of everything out of nothing. My argument is against the act of creation out of nothing so I am also attacking God who is the creator of everything from nothing.
You have tried to define God in an extremely simplistic way, rather like defining an object, such as a pen as a tool for writing with. Of course, I am sure that some people define God as a creator but this does not do justice to the idea of God. One of my own threads is the one also going currently is the one near this one on 'How Do You Understand the Idea of 'God'? because the conceptions of God differ so much. So, in saying that you are attacking 'God' you are simply attacking your subjective understanding of the what the idea of God means.
User avatar
Bahman
Posts: 213
Joined: July 3rd, 2016, 11:51 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Bahman »

3017Metaphysician wrote: February 16th, 2023, 1:27 pm
Bahman wrote: February 16th, 2023, 1:01 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: August 6th, 2021, 3:48 pm Hello!

Not being an Atheist myself, I’ve often wondered about how an Atheist thinks. What would comprise their specific belief system, I wonder? There is an old cognitive science meme that says: What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you. Accordingly, we may be able to learn from each other’s arguments here, as I hope we can question and answer each other’s concerns with a high degree of transparency and impart our knowledge accordingly. As such, much can be said about that so-called sense of understanding in the way of subjectivity or subjective truth if you will, which we all hold so dearly to us; our own truth, our own way of Being. Our own sense of self. And, a truth that far exceeds verbal formulation.

But with respect to one’s belief system, logic and language, what about any sense of objective truth, and its significance relating to our thought processes vis-à-vis the concept of God? And similarly, what could philosophy tell us about any kind of synthesis between those so-called subjective and objective truths in understanding some sense of universal truth? Although a universal truth or, a priori truths (mathematics/ontological argument) may also include a belief system that logically conceives of a God, how should we understand the actual concept of a God?

In that sense, should an anthropic concept of a cosmological God somehow make him or it, a perfectly 'objective yet sentient mathematician’ as one might consider a kind of ontological ‘universal truth’ to be? In cosmology or otherwise, why or how can there be self-aware conscious Beings in a material universe whose existence doesn't require say, musical or mathematical genius to survive in the jungle? Why have Will and all of the other metaphysical features of consciousness and self-awareness when emergent instinct is all one needs? For the materialist, that would seemingly not square with quantity causation, because we are talking about a thing’s quality (qualia). Further, what about one’s empirical experiences that we assign to such a concept of a God? Similar kinds of questions may serve as a backdrop to debating one’s belief system and one’s own logical inferences from (human) nature and other phenomena.

And so, in pursuit of some sense of logic or pragmatism, although the concept of a God may simply be a paradigm/axiomatic, or even an archetype as often used for a causational criterion (super-turtle) in the various domains of philosophy, why should one invoke the concept of God to begin with? One could easily argue that it is no different than making a cosmological/metaphysical judgement such as: all events must have a cause. Is that judgement purely of a logical nature? What kind of truth is that and why should we believe that? Why should we Will to believe that or even care to believe that? Are those kinds of synthetic propositions critical to science and physics to advance a theory? In other words, can logic itself help us define any causal relationship, or any other notion or concept of a God? Or is it human Will causing this problem? Perhaps a better proposition/judgement is: all events must not have a cause? Please feel free to address any of those concerns.

With all that being said, I would like to argue against the Atheist belief system and prove that their belief system is not of a purely logical nature (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Instead, I will use this same sense of finitude or logic (obvious paradox), in uncovering the truth about A-theism as being superfluous...like emotion or some other irrelevant cognitive, psychological, existential, or even metaphysical phenomena as found in our conscious existence. One irony that I hope to discover or uncover is, that which seems irrelevant to the Atheist may in fact be very relevant in its own rite.

To this end, let us be reminded of the infamous quote that is central to my argument from Einstein, that suggested sentience as perhaps relevant to the human condition and one’s dis-belief in a God.:

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

In trying to understand that definition/ judgement, value or (dis)belief system, I ask myself how should logic itself, provide for such insight, such conclusion, and such an Einsteinian grudge against a type of religious feeling associated with one’s disbelief in God? Because as common sense would guide us, if an A-theist posits the concept of a God’s non-existence using pure reason or logic, by advancing such a proposition (or theory, much like that of the Theist), he puts himself in an awkward, ironic situation of defending same. It seems then, by default that one is put in an untenable position of arguing an antecedent. (And oddly enough, perhaps not too dissimilar to the Taoist unity of opposites; something v. no-thing.)
Accordingly, notwithstanding the foregoing concerns, let’s safely assume that the Atheist ‘s disbelief is based on the logical impossibility surrounding the Omnipotence paradox. Hence, philosophical question one for the Atheist to respond:

1. If you consider part of your disbelief (your belief system) on the illogical concept of an Omnipotent God, in what sense did logic allow you to arrive at that conclusion (of disbelief)? If you do not consider part (or all) of your disbelief on that, why not? And is that not typical for most A-theists who reject the logic associated with Omnipotence, as their primary basis of disbelief?
My exceptions to those questions relate to use of certain synthetic propositions (as alluded to earlier) which are analogous to the supposition ‘all events must have a cause’. And that both philosophically and cognitively, there is little difference to the judgement/proposition known as the logically necessary Omnipotent paradox. Meaning, something beyond pure reason causes a person, to deny (or affirm) the existence (logical necessity/possible) of both a causational God and in this instance, a logically necessary yet impossible Omnipotent God. And that same reason of course would apply to either Theist/Atheist.

More important to the notion of logical impossibility and synthetic judgements, if logically, it is unreconcilable to any given concept of God, that paradox, uncertainty and incompleteness exists in the universe, and logically impossible explanations (contradictions) exist relative to the explanations of our own conscious existence and cognition as we understand it, then it essentially becomes blind leading the blind. In that context, what follows is human belief systems in general, are flawed. (In this context, that may comprise a partial justification for Agnosticism.) However, as I think maybe one can see, the broader issue obviously relates to temporal-ness and finitude, not to mention the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe (Metaphysics and the nature of reality) itself.

To state my case differently there, and perhaps more lucid, I submit that the blind person who cannot see red, can still believe red exists (what does it mean to believe). But in the postmodern era, the Atheist blind person who denies red, does so for irrelevant or superfluous emotional reasons that seem to suggest acrimony and arbitrariness at worst, ignorance and subjectiveness at best. With that, to the Atheist I say: What beliefs did Helen Keller deny? And if red is your strawman, so is your Atheism.
First, please define God. Second, please bring out an argument about the existence of God given the definition.

I have an argument against God given the definition: God is the creator of everything out of nothing. Please find my argument here.
Bahman!

Thank you for your reply! Basically it would be the cosmological argument or The cosmological God as it were. Just an excerpt from my Atheism is not logical part 2:

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.

True, false or something else?
(a) is not essentially true for everything that exists in the universe. I have an argument against the act of creation of everything most importantly time from nothing. So I think that time cannot be created and it is acausal. Therefore, nothing to me has the potential to bring up time. So time is one exception but that rise a question about whether nothing has the potential to bring other things up. Sure, there are infinite possibilities to have things out of nothing provided when you sum them up you get nothing. Here I am talking about the possibility though. In fact, I can imagine a God who can create stuff (excluding time) out of nothing provided that He respects that the sum of stuff is nothing. So you don't need a God who is all-powerful and whose nature cannot be understood. I don't know how to do the trick though!
3017Metaphysician wrote: August 6th, 2021, 3:48 pm If I was an Atheist, I think I could perhaps somehow argue that there was no beginning. An ‘eternity’ of sorts. Or based my belief on a kind of steady-state theory or Multiverse, I could revise the logic to:

A whatever exists has a cause of its existence
B the universe exists
C therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence

But is the Atheist still in a pickle? How would they deny such a conclusion? Regardless if it's the various concepts of eternity, multiverse, Singularity, etc., because there is something and not nothing, Atheism remains a nonsensical belief system...
I don't think that the universe is eternal, cyclic, etc.
User avatar
Bahman
Posts: 213
Joined: July 3rd, 2016, 11:51 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Bahman »

JackDaydream wrote: February 16th, 2023, 2:05 pm
Bahman wrote: February 16th, 2023, 1:47 pm
JackDaydream wrote: February 16th, 2023, 1:20 pm
Bahman wrote: February 16th, 2023, 1:01 pm
First, please define God. Second, please bring out an argument about the existence of God given the definition.

I have an argument against God given the definition: God is the creator of everything out of nothing. Please find my argument here.
Having mentioned this thread to you, I actually thought your argument in your own was that it was illogical to argue that God does not exist. Of course, I may have misinterpreted what you wrote. However, it is worth you checking your own thread because as it is I am unclear what you are trying to say at all, about the idea of creation, nothing and how this relates to the existence or non existence of God.
I already defined God in our conversation who is the creator of everything out of nothing. My argument is against the act of creation out of nothing so I am also attacking God who is the creator of everything from nothing.
You have tried to define God in an extremely simplistic way, rather like defining an object, such as a pen as a tool for writing with. Of course, I am sure that some people define God as a creator but this does not do justice to the idea of God. One of my own threads is the one also going currently is the one near this one on 'How Do You Understand the Idea of 'God'? because the conceptions of God differ so much. So, in saying that you are attacking 'God' you are simply attacking your subjective understanding of the what the idea of God means.
Yes, to me God is the creator. Plain and simple. People define God differently, as the highest imaginable thing, a positive being, etc., and try to make an argument for His existence. They however all have a difficult time showing that what they prove as God is really the creator.

I have to say that I agree with you that I am attacking the subjective understanding of God as I propose it. I have problems with all sorts of ontological arguments though.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Sy Borg »

Sculptor1 wrote: February 16th, 2023, 6:08 am
From my readings decades ago I remember that Buddhist teachers build bodies of knowledge based on their own and others' reported experiences during meditation. They put the information together and check commonalities and differences. Thus, when a teacher instructs newcomers in meditation, they know the stages people go through over time when meditating, the usual sensations, the usual pitfalls and opportunities and how to influence these with mental discipline.
How is this "scientific"?
Since it is all just subjective reporting its not immune to observer error, confirmational bias, and witness leading.
Where''s the "logic"?
Buddhist meditators build a body of knowledge based on observation and testing. That is also what science does. Each accumulates many individual impressions and puts them together to find the commonalities and trends.

I already noted that observation of conscious states is not hard science like physics and chemistry. It is more akin to the soft sciences and IMO more sophisticated than the devotional Abrahamic approach, who tended to simply pray to a phantasm and hope that "He" will "listen".
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Sculptor1 »

Sy Borg wrote: February 16th, 2023, 5:58 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: February 16th, 2023, 6:08 am
From my readings decades ago I remember that Buddhist teachers build bodies of knowledge based on their own and others' reported experiences during meditation. They put the information together and check commonalities and differences. Thus, when a teacher instructs newcomers in meditation, they know the stages people go through over time when meditating, the usual sensations, the usual pitfalls and opportunities and how to influence these with mental discipline.
How is this "scientific"?
Since it is all just subjective reporting its not immune to observer error, confirmational bias, and witness leading.
Where''s the "logic"?
Buddhist meditators build a body of knowledge based on observation and testing. That is also what science does. Each accumulates many individual impressions and puts them together to find the commonalities and trends.
No.
You cannot "observe" a mental act of a subject.

I already noted that observation of conscious states is not hard science like physics and chemistry. It is more akin to the soft sciences and IMO more sophisticated than the devotional Abrahamic approach, who tended to simply pray to a phantasm and hope that "He" will "listen".
I do not think there is that much difference.
Even Xians have applied science to prayers.
New York heart patients "enjoyed" prayers from believers and were compared to a control groups that did not have prayers directed at them.
Sadly for the Xians the control group showed a better post op survival rate. Had the boot been on the other foot , no doubt the Xians would have been proudly trumpeting their success.
And whilst atheists would not claim that prayers were harmful, this study was just buried like so many other inconvenient results tend to be in "science".
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Sy Borg »

Mental dynamics are observed second-hand via report. Gather enough reports and patterns will emerge. No sense saying that this is not logical because it's subjective because the subject matter is inherently subjective.
User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1401
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Newme »

Sculptor1 wrote: February 7th, 2023, 7:17 am You have not said why you think Atheism is illogical.
Well maybe I didn’t explain in a way that you understood.

Agnosticism is the strictly logical approach because it doesn’t make claims that cannot be proven, unlike Theism & Atheism. But life is not strictly logical, is it?
“Empty is the argument of the philosopher which does not relieve any human suffering.” - Epicurus
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Sculptor1 »

Newme wrote: April 23rd, 2023, 10:48 am
Sculptor1 wrote: February 7th, 2023, 7:17 am You have not said why you think Atheism is illogical.
Well maybe I didn’t explain in a way that you understood.

Agnosticism is the strictly logical approach because it doesn’t make claims that cannot be proven, unlike Theism & Atheism. But life is not strictly logical, is it?
It's no wonder you think life is not logical is a valid response given your point of view.
I understood your litany of misconceptions perfectly well.
Atheism makes no claims.
In this it is even more logical than agnosticism, which is just fence sitting.

For a belief; skepticism is the default. We are all born atheistic until we are force fed the notion of god which children accept uncritically untilo they start to question their indoctrination.
The wide range of theisms available are self defeating since they contradict on another.
Surely it is perfectly logical to reject groundless assertions about the existence of an inherently unlikely thing. That is the logical basis of an atheists position. It requires no positive belief; just a rejection of cant and dogma, for which there is no little reason and less evidence.
How much more ridiculous to be agnostic about such things as mythical beings.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021