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
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Atheism is not Logical

Post by 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.
“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
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by stevie »

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?
I don't know who rightly may be called "atheist". However you seem to assume that the term "atheist" affirms a belief system. That may be so but taking the "a" in "a-theist" as a mere negation of the affirmative belief in a 'god' there does not necessarily result an alternative belief system.
See? One might just negate the affirmative belief (in a 'god') without affirming the negation as such, i.e. without believing 'there is no god'. That isn't agnosticism because agnosticism relies on the impossibility of knowing for sure.
I might be called "atheist" because I do not believe in a 'god'. But I do not have an alternative belief system. 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.
User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1401
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Newme »

Yes, illogical & stupid. I don’t say that lightly.

What is God?! Monks spend lifetimes meditating on that & STILL don’t know. How pridefully ignorant for theorists or a-theists to assume they know! And I purposefully wrote plural of both since both are herd mentalities. Except Atheism involves the Strawman logical fallacy- taking the easiest idea of God to refute, while ignoring things like “God is love…truth.”

Atheism is like the pride of a lame man preventing him from using a cane. Intuition and inner-well-being are real. Life is hard & in a way we get knocked down, “lame” - needing something to buoy us up. Belief in something greater than us helps access that “crutch” to make life better. It’s smart to utilize whatever is in our power - stupid to refuse it simply because of herd mentality strawman.
“Empty is the argument of the philosopher which does not relieve any human suffering.” - Epicurus
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Tegularius »

What's not logical is the assumption that metaphysics incorporates the same reality as physics.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Gertie »

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.
I found that quite hard to follow, and as has been mentioned, not believing in one thing doesn't constitute a belief system. Atheists can have all types of non-theistic beliefs about all types of things for all types of reasons.

One of the probs with belief in god debates is not first specifying what god means in your opinion. Because ''god'' can mean all kinds of things to different people. So I think the onus is on you to first clearly define what your god is. (If it's something you believe exists, then you should know what you believe exists). Then I can think about if I believe it exists, and why/why not. The reasons might involve logic/reason, and if they do, you can then explain why reason/logic supports the particular characteristics of your god. But the burden is on the person making the claim to initially provide persuasive argument/evidence, as well as define what they're arguing for.

So what is your clear definition of ''god''? And stated concisely what is your evidence/argument/intuition for believing such a thing exists?
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Nick_A »

Hi 3017Metaphysician

I appreciate your efforts but I've learned by experience that only a small minority are willing to transcend the struggle between blind belief and blind denial. Barabbas in the Bible represents the public demand to rely on either blind belief or blind denial and rejects the alternative. I'll support your effort but don't expect the majority to. They demand: "Give us Barabbas" or don't knock the status quo.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by LuckyR »

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.
Wow, where to start?

At the beginning, I guess... Ok let's lay some groundwork. First, their is no objective proof of gods. Of course there is no objective proof against the existance of gods either. That's why belief in gods is based on faith, that is: belief in the absence of proof.

I agree that such faith is "logical", that is: "predictable", because human psychology seeks to answer the question, why? When faced with things they are not equipped to explain. Why is there lightning? Zeus's thunderbolts. Why are there solar eclipses? The gods are angry. So I agree that inventing gods and religions is completely logical. Thus why it is essentially universal among early man.

Okay, fast forward to today. Religions and their gods still exist. They have been forced to adapt to science coming along and owning realms that in previous eras belonged to their gods. Depending on the education level of particular societies religions can be just as popular as they were in antiquity (essentially ubiquitous) or they can be giving up ground to the non-religious (as in the US and Europe). Of course, statistically a higher education level is correlated with lower birth rates so religion has a rosy future in pure numbers, especially in the third world.

Naturally, I don't believe the OP is using the above definition of "logical" though the traditional meaning of logical can't apply to gods since the metaphysical exists outside the concepts of evidence, proof and logic.
"As usual... it depends."
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Steve3007 »

3017Metaphysician wrote:Atheism is not Logical...
3017Metaphysician, I think it would be a good idea to try to distill from your long OP one point that you regard as the most important.

If that point was just the title "Atheism is not logical" then you'd have to tell us what you mean by "logical" in this context (or point to where you believe yourself to have done that in the text of the OP). To me, to be logical is to conform to a set of rules that have been devised to govern the way that language/arguments are used. So, for example it could be said that the statement "God does and does not exist" is illogical (although even that is open to interpretation) but I see no obvious sense in which either of the statements "God exists" or "God does not exist" could be seen as illogical in themselves.

Another brief point: As has been discussed a lot in other topics, belief is not the same thing as certainty. I think some people confuse the two, with the result that they interpret somebody saying "I believe X" as "I am certain of X". I think comments like the one by Newme above stem from conflating those two different statements.

To believe something is simply to think, based on current evidence, and understanding of the terminology being used, and on the balance of probabilities, that it is the case.

One final point for now:
3017Metaphysician wrote:Not being an Atheist myself, I’ve often wondered about how an Atheist thinks.
I think it's worth noting that almost all atheists probably think, in most ways, the same way that you do. They're not a different species. I've grown up in an environment where most people around me (friends, family and colleagues) are not religious. It's not a big deal. They're just not. I don't know for sure, but I suspect you've grown up in an environment where most people are religious. I think with any differences between people, if we grow up in an environment in which most people are the same with respect to that difference it's easy to get a an exaggerated sense of the significance of the difference. That's one reason why I like to talk to people who differ from me in various ways, including religion. But with religion, I generally have to go online to find them, to places like this. Maybe it's the same for you, but in reverse?
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Pattern-chaser »

stevie wrote: August 6th, 2021, 4:25 pm However you seem to assume that the term "atheist" affirms a belief system.
That depends. If someone actively denies the existence of God, that is (what I call) an atheist. If someone is indifferent to the concept of God, in which they find no use or purpose in their lives, that is (what I call) an agnostic. An atheist "affirms" a belief system; an agnostic does not.

Someone like Richard Dawkins, who prominently denies and dismisses everything to do with God, is an atheist. He has a belief system; specifically, he actively believes that God does not exist. Someone who lives their life without even considering God, they have no belief system.

N.B. A belief system encompasses much more than just God. In saying that an agnostic has no belief system, I mean only in the is-there-a-God sense.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Nick_A wrote: August 6th, 2021, 10:56 pm ...only a small minority are willing to transcend the struggle between blind belief and blind denial.
As I have said before, this binary view is preventing you from seeing the nuances that this issue embraces. There are options other than "blind belief" and "blind denial" that you fail to consider.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Consul »

Newme wrote: August 6th, 2021, 8:41 pmBelief in something greater than us helps access that “crutch” to make life better.
Nature is "greater than us", but I don't call it God.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Nick_A »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 7th, 2021, 9:03 am
Nick_A wrote: August 6th, 2021, 10:56 pm ...only a small minority are willing to transcend the struggle between blind belief and blind denial.
As I have said before, this binary view is preventing you from seeing the nuances that this issue embraces. There are options other than "blind belief" and "blind denial" that you fail to consider.
There is only one option; becoming willing and able to open ones eyes and ears

Matthew 13
16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
If there is another option; what is it?
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Consul »

Gertie wrote: August 6th, 2021, 10:49 pmAtheists can have all types of non-theistic beliefs about all types of things for all types of reasons.
Right. One typical mistake is to equate atheism with materialism. For example, there can be an atheistic version of Berkeley's immaterialistic worldview.
Gertie wrote: August 6th, 2021, 10:49 pmSo what is your clear definition of ''god''?
People usually spend a lot of time arguing about whether atheism is to be defined as a belief or a nonbelief, but they forget defining "god/dess", "deity", or "divinity". The conceptual problem seems to be that these are basically role-concepts that per se tell us nothing or only little about the nature of what is called a deity or a divine entity. For something or somebody to be divine is for it/he/she to play a certain role for certain people, and this role can be played by many different sorts of things: material and immaterial ones, natural and supernatural ones, personal and impersonal ones.

It is clear that the god of Abrahamic (Jewish, Christian, and Islamic) monotheism is an eternal superhuman and supernatural/superphysical person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omni-whatever, and who is the creator and sustainer of the physical universe.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Ecurb »

“You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.” G.K. Chesterton

Logic is a systematic method of thinking by which one can discover contradictions. All logical proofs are simply restatements of the postulates. The OP (like many others) misuses the word.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Consul »

Steve3007 wrote: August 7th, 2021, 6:20 amAnother brief point: As has been discussed a lot in other topics, belief is not the same thing as certainty. I think some people confuse the two, with the result that they interpret somebody saying "I believe X" as "I am certain of X". I think comments like the one by Newme above stem from conflating those two different statements.
Right, belief doesn't entail certainty qua (total) absence of doubt. To be more precise, with certainty coming in different degrees or strengths, belief does entail some degree of certainty >50% but not =100%.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
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