Atheism is not Logical

[Atla]

If you don't understand the nature of existence (including your own-how/why the first species emerged, consciousness, essence/existence, cause and effect, etc. etc.), how do you or any a-theist make judgements about understanding the non-existence of a God? Using your words, is it just a "guess" too? Emotive reasons?

Logically, you seem to be struggling with that question. Should I make it more succinct, or word it differently so you could answer it?

Please share your thoughts if you are able.

You seem to cling to certainties so you don't seem to understand that ultimately everything is a guess. But again, we can only work with what we have, we can only base our guesses on what we have.

And this God fellow simply doesn't seem to be part of the known world. So atheists don't believe in God. Their best guess is that there are cats and dogs, but there is no God.

Are you trolling this thread?

Well let's find out which one of us is trolling. Do you have any counter-argument to the above?

[Pattern-chaser]

Again, absolute certainty about the existence of a larger, aggregated intelligence (aka a deities) is illogical but scepticism towards such things in lieu of evidence is logical.

I am surprised that this is not obvious to anyone and everyone who considers it. Is it just me? Isn't it 'obvious'? It seems so to me.

As I wrote to Sculptor1:

Logic - a rational, serious, and structured mode of thought - dictates that we accept a theoretical possibility if, and only if, we have sufficient reason.

Exactly the same logic dictates that we reject a theoretical possibility if, and only if, we have sufficient reason.

If we have insufficient reason, logic dictates that we stop short of a conclusion. The theoretical possibility in question goes back into the maybe-bucket, and that is the "scepticism" that Sy Borg refers to, I think.

The first line is the non-contentious one, the one everyone knows and understands. It introduces the 2nd line, which (somehow) logicians never seem to realise. Funny that...

Oddly, he didn't respond, except to misquote me to (seem to) say the opposite of what I actually said. As per my ending, above: funny that.

I did respond to you several times.
It's just that you are stuck in your own prejudice and stopped listening.

You have been offered a clear and logical refutation of your position, stated several different ways, and your 'response' has been to ignore it, or to ridicule it. Emotion, not "logic". Your latest 'response' was to deliberately misquote me, and thereby pretend that my argument supports your position. It does not; it refutes it. Your position - an active assertion that God does not exist - is illogical.

[3017Metaphysician]

Again, absolute certainty about the existence of a larger, aggregated intelligence (aka a deities) is illogical but scepticism towards such things in lieu of evidence is logical.

I am surprised that this is not obvious to anyone and everyone who considers it. Is it just me? Isn't it 'obvious'? It seems so to me.

As I wrote to Sculptor1:

Logic - a rational, serious, and structured mode of thought - dictates that we accept a theoretical possibility if, and only if, we have sufficient reason.

Exactly the same logic dictates that we reject a theoretical possibility if, and only if, we have sufficient reason.

If we have insufficient reason, logic dictates that we stop short of a conclusion. The theoretical possibility in question goes back into the maybe-bucket, and that is the "scepticism" that Sy Borg refers to, I think.

The first line is the non-contentious one, the one everyone knows and understands. It introduces the 2nd line, which (somehow) logicians never seem to realise. Funny that...

Oddly, he didn't respond, except to misquote me to (seem to) say the opposite of what I actually said. As per my ending, above: funny that.

I did respond to you several times.
It's just that you are stuck in your own prejudice and stopped listening.

You have been offered a clear and logical refutation of your position, stated several different ways, and your 'response' has been to ignore it, or to ridicule it. Emotion, not "logic". Your latest 'response' was to deliberately misquote me, and thereby pretend that my argument supports your position. It does not; it refutes it. Your position - an active assertion that God does not exist - is illogical.

PC!

Just an observation. In the past, and as evidenced here, poster's such as Sculpor1 and Alta are basically trolling this thread, perhaps for political reasons. Ironically enough, in the cyber world we come to know, trolling is a emotional need to cause emotional reactions. Hence, the angry a-theist syndrome rears its ugly head once again...LOL.

Much like them, I still wonder if ALL a-theist's base their specific belief system on emotion? I'm sure there are some that don't, I just haven't come across many (which is one reason why I started the OP). They must hate the thought of 'a God'... .

The question remains, what actually causes (epistemology) an a-theist to believe in no-God...logic, opinion, emotion... .

[Sculptor1]

Again, absolute certainty about the existence of a larger, aggregated intelligence (aka a deities) is illogical but scepticism towards such things in lieu of evidence is logical.

I am surprised that this is not obvious to anyone and everyone who considers it. Is it just me? Isn't it 'obvious'? It seems so to me.

As I wrote to Sculptor1:

Logic - a rational, serious, and structured mode of thought - dictates that we accept a theoretical possibility if, and only if, we have sufficient reason.

Exactly the same logic dictates that we reject a theoretical possibility if, and only if, we have sufficient reason.

If we have insufficient reason, logic dictates that we stop short of a conclusion. The theoretical possibility in question goes back into the maybe-bucket, and that is the "scepticism" that Sy Borg refers to, I think.

The first line is the non-contentious one, the one everyone knows and understands. It introduces the 2nd line, which (somehow) logicians never seem to realise. Funny that...

Oddly, he didn't respond, except to misquote me to (seem to) say the opposite of what I actually said. As per my ending, above: funny that.

I did respond to you several times.
It's just that you are stuck in your own prejudice and stopped listening.

You have been offered a clear and logical refutation of your position, stated several different ways, and your 'response' has been to ignore it, or to ridicule it. Emotion, not "logic". Your latest 'response' was to deliberately misquote me, and thereby pretend that my argument supports your position. It does not; it refutes it. Your position - an active assertion that God does not exist - is illogical.

Rubbish.
No, complete rubbish.
If you think I have a position then state it!

[Atla]

As usual I blame Kant. All that abstract apriori nonsense that certainly exists.

[3017Metaphysician]

Just an observation. In the past, and as evidenced here, poster's such as Sculpor1 and Alta are basically trolling the thread, perhaps for political reasons (to advance an agenda). Ironically enough, in the cyber world we come to know, trolling is an emotional need to cause emotional reactions. For some reason, they allow their emotions to get the best of them. Hence, the angry a-theist syndrome rears its ugly head once again...LOL.

Much like them, I still wonder though whether ALL a-theist's base their specific belief system on emotion? I'm sure there are some that don't, and are more level-headed, I just haven't come across many (which is just one reason why I started the OP). They must just hate the thought of 'a God'... .

The question remains, what actually causes (epistemology) an a-theist to believe in no-God... ?

Are there other more sophisticated a-theists on-board willing to use reason to support their belief system here?

Remember, as David Hume (and Einstein in many ways) suggested:

Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behavior, famously proclaiming that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."[12]

[Atla]

Just an observation. In the past, and as evidenced here, poster's such as Sculpor1 and Alta are basically trolling the thread, perhaps for political reasons (to advance an agenda). Ironically enough, in the cyber world we come to know, trolling is an emotional need to cause emotional reactions. For some reason, they allow their emotions to get the best of them. Hence, the angry a-theist syndrome rears its ugly head once again...LOL.

Much like them, I still wonder though whether ALL a-theist's base their specific belief system on emotion? I'm sure there are some that don't, and are more level-headed, I just haven't come across many (which is just one reason why I started the OP). They must just hate the thought of 'a God'... .

The question remains, what actually causes (epistemology) an a-theist to believe in no-God... ?

Are there other more sophisticated a-theists on-board willing to use reason to support their belief system here?

Remember, as David Hume (and Einstein in many ways) suggested:

Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behavior, famously proclaiming that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."[12]

Sorry for beating you in an actual debate. But it's all right, you can still believe in Kantian apriori stuff and get to God from there, I see you have the emotional need for it.

[3017Metaphysician]

Just an observation. In the past, and as evidenced here, poster's such as Sculpor1 and Alta are basically trolling the thread, perhaps for political reasons (to advance an agenda). Ironically enough, in the cyber world we come to know, trolling is an emotional need to cause emotional reactions. For some reason, they allow their emotions to get the best of them. Hence, the angry a-theist syndrome rears its ugly head once again...LOL.

Much like them, I still wonder though whether ALL a-theist's base their specific belief system on emotion? I'm sure there are some that don't, and are more level-headed, I just haven't come across many (which is just one reason why I started the OP). They must just hate the thought of 'a God'... .

The question remains, what actually causes (epistemology) an a-theist to believe in no-God... ?

Are there other more sophisticated a-theists on-board willing to use reason to support their belief system here?

Remember, as David Hume (and Einstein in many ways) suggested:

Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behavior, famously proclaiming that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."[12]

Sorry for beating you in an actual debate. But it's all right, you can still believe in Kantian apriori stuff and get to God from there, I see you have the emotional need for it.

I'm sorry too, that you were embarrassed by your own equivocations, particularly when I forced you to use reason rather than your emotion(?) That certainly could explain why now you've relegated yourself to one-upmanship and one-liner trolls. You feel begrudged that I've exposed you.

Nonetheless, now that you've revealed your intentions (of a somewhat angry troll) which quite honestly, wasn't all that surprising (you know, it's a human condition thing), I'll offer you a mulligan. If you would like to debate me one-on-one, appeal to the moderator's and we'll set it up. Let me know if you'd like to accept the challenge. Otherwise, should we conclude now that you've embraced your 'emotional grudges'... :

“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.”. -Albert Einstein

LOL

[Atla]

Just an observation. In the past, and as evidenced here, poster's such as Sculpor1 and Alta are basically trolling the thread, perhaps for political reasons (to advance an agenda). Ironically enough, in the cyber world we come to know, trolling is an emotional need to cause emotional reactions. For some reason, they allow their emotions to get the best of them. Hence, the angry a-theist syndrome rears its ugly head once again...LOL.

Much like them, I still wonder though whether ALL a-theist's base their specific belief system on emotion? I'm sure there are some that don't, and are more level-headed, I just haven't come across many (which is just one reason why I started the OP). They must just hate the thought of 'a God'... .

The question remains, what actually causes (epistemology) an a-theist to believe in no-God... ?

Are there other more sophisticated a-theists on-board willing to use reason to support their belief system here?

Remember, as David Hume (and Einstein in many ways) suggested:

Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behavior, famously proclaiming that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."[12]

Sorry for beating you in an actual debate. But it's all right, you can still believe in Kantian apriori stuff and get to God from there, I see you have the emotional need for it.

I'm sorry too, that you were embarrassed by your own equivocations, particularly when I forced you to use reason rather than your emotion(?) That certainly could explain why now you've relegated yourself to one-upmanship and one-liner trolls. You feel begrudged that I've exposed you.

Nonetheless, now that you've revealed your intentions (of a somewhat angry troll) which quite honestly, wasn't all that surprising (you know, it's a human condition thing), I'll offer you a mulligan. If you would like to debate me one-on-one, appeal to the moderator's and we'll set it up. Let me know if you'd like to accept the challenge. Otherwise, should we conclude now that you've embraced your 'emotional grudges'... :

“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.”. -Albert Einstein

LOL

You have yet to "expose" anything other than your own confused assumptions. Still no real arguments yet, just ad homs.

[3017Metaphysician]

Just an observation. In the past, and as evidenced here, poster's such as Sculpor1 and Alta are basically trolling the thread, perhaps for political reasons (to advance an agenda). Ironically enough, in the cyber world we come to know, trolling is an emotional need to cause emotional reactions. For some reason, they allow their emotions to get the best of them. Hence, the angry a-theist syndrome rears its ugly head once again...LOL.

Much like them, I still wonder though whether ALL a-theist's base their specific belief system on emotion? I'm sure there are some that don't, and are more level-headed, I just haven't come across many (which is just one reason why I started the OP). They must just hate the thought of 'a God'... .

The question remains, what actually causes (epistemology) an a-theist to believe in no-God... ?

Are there other more sophisticated a-theists on-board willing to use reason to support their belief system here?

Remember, as David Hume (and Einstein in many ways) suggested:

Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behavior, famously proclaiming that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."[12]

Sorry for beating you in an actual debate. But it's all right, you can still believe in Kantian apriori stuff and get to God from there, I see you have the emotional need for it.

I'm sorry too, that you were embarrassed by your own equivocations, particularly when I forced you to use reason rather than your emotion(?) That certainly could explain why now you've relegated yourself to one-upmanship and one-liner trolls. You feel begrudged that I've exposed you.

Nonetheless, now that you've revealed your intentions (of a somewhat angry troll) which quite honestly, wasn't all that surprising (you know, it's a human condition thing), I'll offer you a mulligan. If you would like to debate me one-on-one, appeal to the moderator's and we'll set it up. Let me know if you'd like to accept the challenge. Otherwise, should we conclude now that you've embraced your 'emotional grudges'... :

“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.”. -Albert Einstein

LOL

You have yet to "expose" anything other than your own confused assumptions. Still no real arguments yet, just ad homs.

We all kind of thought you'd chicken out. LOL

[Astro Cat]

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.

I think you may be overthinking some of this. I'm an atheist, though I often identify simply as a non-theist to avoid some of the baggage that comes with the term. Perhaps these terms mean different things to different people (ha, "perhaps"), but I embrace the privative nature of the prefix: if I say that I'm an atheist, I simply mean that I am not a theist.

What does it mean not to be a theist? It just means that of all the ontological theistic propositions out there, I'm not convinced that any of them are true: sometimes this comes from noncognitivist complaints (when I think the statements aren't propositional at all by being metaphysically confused, empty references without a cognizable referent), sometimes this comes from evidential doubt, sometimes it comes from simply thinking another explanation is more likely than a theistic explanation, etc. At the end of the day, if I ask myself, "do I hold any theistic ontologies to be true" and I answer "no," that makes me an atheist.

It doesn't mean I submit that all theistic propositions are false or non-cognitive (though I do hold this for many). So I suppose you couldn't call me what some would call a "strong" atheist. But there is nothing illogical about withholding belief due to epistemological limitations.

[3017Metaphysician]

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.

I think you may be overthinking some of this. I'm an atheist, though I often identify simply as a non-theist to avoid some of the baggage that comes with the term. Perhaps these terms mean different things to different people (ha, "perhaps"), but I embrace the privative nature of the prefix: if I say that I'm an atheist, I simply mean that I am not a theist.

What does it mean not to be a theist? It just means that of all the ontological theistic propositions out there, I'm not convinced that any of them are true: sometimes this comes from noncognitivist complaints (when I think the statements aren't propositional at all by being metaphysically confused, empty references without a cognizable referent), sometimes this comes from evidential doubt, sometimes it comes from simply thinking another explanation is more likely than a theistic explanation, etc. At the end of the day, if I ask myself, "do I hold any theistic ontologies to be true" and I answer "no," that makes me an atheist.

It doesn't mean I submit that all theistic propositions are false or non-cognitive (though I do hold this for many). So I suppose you couldn't call me what some would call a "strong" atheist. But there is nothing illogical about withholding belief due to epistemological limitations.

AC!

Thank you for that. I can certainly appreciate you post on many levels, particular relative to existential finitude. Accordingly, one has to always ask, as you so well articulated in "...withholding belief..." what does that really mean? For instance, metaphysically, one has to wonder why they themselves hold on to a certain belief system. If the answer is emotive, then that is an acceptable reason for holding a belief. However, that in and of itself, is not logical.

Even empiricist David Hume conceded that behind all human motivation to philosophize is an essential ontological emotive quality of consciousness (human sentience). BTW, if you would like the quote, I'll be happy to provide... .

Anyway, thank you kindly for those thoughts. Can you see that beyond logic (ontological argument/cosmological argument) on a humanistic level, there is some thing that also causes one to hold this belief, as we understand human nature to be, despite a given logical conclusion. For example, one may love some one or something, that really doesn't relate to logic other that the cause is that it makes one feel good and provides for happiness and purpose. Or one may agree all that thigs which exist have a cause, and still not be consistent in their thinking.

Nonetheless, the fundamental either/or proposition:

1. I am an a-theist for a reason.

2. I am a theist for a reason.

(I am an agnostic for a reason, I am a painter for a reason, I am a doctor for a reason, etc..)

That sense of causation (cause and effect) also, relates to the why's of existence (what causes a person to belief what they believe). For instance, if feelings are neither right or wrong, what are they? What is their purpose? Why should we care (atheism v. theism)?

[Charlemagne]

Hello!
I am an 'atheist' in that the mere thought "god" is absurd for me but that also means that the assertion "there is no god" is absurd for me. Why? Because forming an affirmative or negative thought in the context of 'god' is absurd because the concept 'god' is absurd.

But of course, if there is a God, he must be laughing at your argument by now.

He would be thinking you need to choose to get off that fence you are sitting on before you fall off it.

[stevie]

But of course, if there is a God, he must be laughing at your argument by now.

He would be thinking you need to choose to get off that fence you are sitting on before you fall off it.

You should not betray readers. Don't disguise as quote what actually are your own words.

[Sculptor1]

I popped back to this thread to see if anyone had offered any specific logical flaws in atheism, yet no one seems to have begun this task.
Atheism follows from the illogic of belief without evidence of theism. So any logical reflections on atheism would have to include a statement, or statements about theism.
Nothing formal of the sort has been offered either. Since "logic" implies a systematic and formal process, this is a significant failure of the thread.