Is atheism logical?

[Servant of Jesus]

I think so, yes. Your point?

Well, being a Wiccan seems to require a lot of faith too- and, in my opinion, a lot more trust and faith than being a Christian.

Faith and trust are part of the human psyche- but we have a free will, and therefore do need to be careful about what we put our faith and trust into.

1 Thessalonians 5

21Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22Avoid every kind of evil.


Romans 12:

2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
3For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.

1 John 4

1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, being a Wiccan seems to require a lot of faith too- and, in my opinion, a lot more trust and faith than being a Christian.

How so?

Faith and trust are part of the human psyche- but we have a free will, and therefore do need to be careful about what we put our faith and trust into.

Quite.

1 Thessalonians 5

21Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22Avoid every kind of evil.


Romans 12:

2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
3For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.

1 John 4

1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Since I do not take the NIV Bible to be anything more than religious text, I fail to see your point.
I'm also still wondering how the beauty of the natural world convinces you of the existance of your (or any other) deity.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

How so?

The Bible has considerable historical and archeological evidence to back it up. It also was written by numerous independent authors, and not just revealed through visions to one person. It also has remained essentially unchanged for about 2000 years.

Since I do not take the NIV Bible to be anything more than religious text, I fail to see your point.

Aside from being the Word of God for Christians, the Bible also contains a lot of sage advice that has a more universal appeal.

I'm also still wondering how the beauty of the natural world convinces you of the existance of your (or any other) deity.

Because it is there.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The Bible has considerable historical and archeological evidence to back it up.

A misleading claim, to say the least. Archaeological evidence supports the more mundane aspects of some of the OT, and pretty much all of the NT.
However, it is telling that there is exactly zero evidence for the more paranormal instances: the miracles of Jesus and Moses, the acts of God, the resurrection, etc.
That their mundane counterparts are evidence is irrelevant, and it is fallacious to claim otherwise.

It also was written by numerous independent authors, and not just revealed through visions to one person.

I disagree. My personal belief is that the NT was started when St. Peter had an epileptic fit and hallucinated the whole Jesus fiasco. He then started the cult of Christianity. Later, the other gospels (which were merely alluded to by Peter) were retroactively written. This explains why the later books of the NT contain increasing amounts of Pagan mythology (notice how Peter barely pays attention to Jesus, while later books can't get enough of his Pagan-esque superpowers).

But that's just me.

It also has remained essentially unchanged for about 2000 years

Which explains why there is only denomination of Christianity, and only one version of the Bible worldwide.
Oh, wait, that's not right...

Aside from being the Word of God for Christians, the Bible also contains a lot of sage advice that has a more universal appeal.

Indeed it does. And the Qu'ran contains much beautiful poetry. And the Vedas are staggering in their antiquity. However, this is simply incedental: the Bible's words of wisdom are not accentuated merely because they are Biblical.
You quote 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 ("Test everything. Hold onto the good. Avoid every kind of evil"). Tell me, do you consider this sage advice irrespective of it's Biblical nature? If so, does this mean you consider some Biblical advice to be less than sage? If not, then you contradict your previous statements.

Because it is there.

I'm sorry? You are just asserting the same thing again. I know it is there. What does it have to do with anything?

 

[NotreDame]

True, the fallacy is this general. But since weak atheists affirm neither the existance nor non-existance of deites, they still do not commit the fallacy. Strong atheists, on the other hand, are susceptible: they claim deities do not exist, for whatever reason.

I never said anything about weak atheists and so referencing them does nothing to weaken my argument. My argument was predicated upon a specific qualification and I suppose the manner in which I qualified it, one could and can legitimately infer my argument is not applicable to weak atheists.

Because we are talking about atheists, of which weak atheism is by far prevalent.

Well, as you have so aptly demonstrated, atheism is fragmented into weak atheism and strong atheism. Consequently, since I never specifically addressed weak atheism, and more importantly my qualification would demonstrate my remarks are not applicable to weak atheists, then your demonstrated persistence in referencing them is puzzling.

My point? Anyone can go out to look for evidence. Whether it is accepted by one's peers and the relevant establishments is another thing altogether.

Okay....but my point was whether atheism is logical is predicated upon the "content" of the belief. It appears to me you do not disagree with this remark?

 

[NotreDame]

Care to share this evidence? Any evidence supporting, and/or rationale justifying, the existance of any deity topples weak atheism from its position as the logical stance. I daresay such evidence is crucial to the debate.

Would you consider our existence, and the material universe, as evidence?

If not, then allow me to ask you this question. Do you believe in the Big Bang? If so, then what evidence do you have for the Big Bang?

 

[NotreDame]

The existance of the universe is evidence of nothing more than the universe.

So be it. Then the existence of the universe is not evidence for the Big Bang or any other cause?

Finally, while I have much respect for nature (I am, after all, Wiccan), biological diversity is remarkably well explained by the theories of abiogenesis and common descent.

What you are referring to here is explanatory power, but explanatory power is not evidence of the validity for some proposition. Intelligent design can also explain biological diversity but this does not make it a valid proposition.

 

[Morcova]

I guess the fact that the universe exists or that there is sustainable life created from dust, or that there is so much order and beauty evident in nature is not evidence enough for you?

It no more proves your god than it proves any other god.

 

[Morcova]

Fun fact, we know what makes the sun go down and come back up, no god needed. But your willingness to attribute anything you can't explain to god is noted.

 

[Morcova]

With hell to pay and heaven to gain, why anyone would committ fully to atheism is beyond me. Is the pleasure of this life so great that you don't want to turn from sin and embrace the sacrifice of Christ?

Probably the same reason you haven't devoted your life to the worship of odin.

 

[anonymous1515]

So be it. Then the existence of the universe is not evidence for the Big Bang or any other cause?

No, I don't think the existence of the universe (as in the mere fact that the universe exists) is evidence for the Big Bang. Rather, there is lots of empirical evidence, as well as mathematical evidence, that suggests something of the sort. Check it out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#evidence

Scientists didn't just dream up the theory without having evidence in support of it.

To say "The fact that we exist is evidence of God" is fallacious. You have to show us what about our existence (i.e. evidence) should lead us to believe in God. Let me show you why:

Observation: the universe exists
Explanations:
1) Goddidit
2) It was always here
3) The Big Bang created it
4) It is part of a bubbling mass called the multiverse
Etc...

The fact that it exists does not explain what created it, or why it exists. We could dream up an infinite number of possibilities. Rather, we need evidence to start eliminating certain possibilities, and strengthening others. Do you have any other evidence, other than the mere fact that the universe exists?

However, you could easily take another stance, and say "I concede that there is no solid evidence of God's existence, however I have faith he exists nonetheless." I think that this position is the most logical one you can hold if you are a theist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I never said anything about weak atheists and so referencing them does nothing to weaken my argument. My argument was predicated upon a specific qualification and I suppose the manner in which I qualified it, one could and can legitimately infer my argument is not applicable to weak atheists.

My point is that your argument requires further clarification. Specifically, that it applies to strong atheists and not weak atheists. You say atheists commit the fallacy. I say that it is only the strong atheists among them that do this; the weak atheists commit no such fallacy.

Okay....but my point was whether atheism is logical is predicated upon the "content" of the belief. It appears to me you do not disagree with this remark?

I don't understand it, so I'll withold judgement for now . Atheism, as the logical conjugate to theism, is not a belief system, and as such I don't understand what you mean by 'the content of the belief'. Are you alluding to the ill-defined nature of the word 'deity'?

Would you consider our existence, and the material universe, as evidence?

Would you consider a spoon evidence of a platypus? If this question makes you non-plussed, then you know how I feel. The argument you present (or offer to present) has been espoused to me thrice now, in this thread alone.

So no, I do not consider it evidence. Not without some accompanying logical argument, at any rate.

If not, then allow me to ask you this question. Do you believe in the Big Bang? If so, then what evidence do you have for the Big Bang?

I believe in the Big Bang theory because the following lines of evidence point to it:

"The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:

• Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.
• The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.
• The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.
• The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.
• The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.
• The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.

Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them."

From here.

So be it. Then the existence of the universe is not evidence for the Big Bang or any other cause?

No. The mere existance of the universe is evidence of nothing more than the existance of the universe. Various philosophical things could be derived, but not much.
It is the state of the universe that interests us. There are an infinite number of universes we could have found ourselves in, yet we are in this particular state. By analysing this universe, we have learnt that, 13.5 billion years ago, it was smaller than subatomic particles.

The mere existance of the universe didn't tell us that, did it?

What you are referring to here is explanatory power, but explanatory power is not evidence of the validity for some proposition. Intelligent design can also explain biological diversity but this does not make it a valid proposition.

Actually, it does: until it is disproven, it remains a valid possibility.

Now, I agree that explanatory power itself is not evidence of anything. If it were, Pastafarianism would dominate scientific circles. But it is for this reason that I said "biological diversity is remarkably well explained", rather than simply explained; it is remarkably well explained because of the evidence in favour of it, and because of its high scientific validity.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

Dear Wiccan,

I enjoy talking to you. I am not asking you to explain your faith, or to describe your beliefes, here are my comments. Everything you have described about the big bang theory is what I agree with being true to the best of my memory, good job explaining the evidence for the big bang. You could be a real good astronomy teacher if you got the credentials that are needed for that. I agree with your statement about the diversity of life, and how biological evolution explains that really well. It explains the fossil record, and goes with the evidence that the Earth is billions of years old. Even abiogenisis fits in with the geological evidence of the Earth being billions of years old. Because really the theory goes that it took over a billion years before life devoloped on the Earth.

Now given all these scientific theories and explanations that fit with the evidence and make so much sense, you're still able to remain a theist? Is that right? Or are you like an atheist wiccan, if that is possible? I have heard of atheists buddhists, but not an atheist wiccan.

Personnally I feel that I have to give no creedence to supernatural explanations, because of my mental illness quite frankly. I cannot entertain the idea of angeles or demons, or any kind of superstious what not. I prefer natural scientific explanations for things, and you know what I have never seen a ghost. So there you go I remaina an atheist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Dear Wiccan,

I enjoy talking to you. I am not asking you to explain your faith, or to describe your beliefes, here are my comments. Everything you have described about the big bang theory is what I agree with being true to the best of my memory, good job explaining the evidence for the big bang. You could be a real good astronomy teacher if you got the credentials that are needed for that. I agree with your statement about the diversity of life, and how biological evolution explains that really well. It explains the fossil record, and goes with the evidence that the Earth is billions of years old. Even abiogenisis fits in with the geological evidence of the Earth being billions of years old. Because really the theory goes that it took over a billion years before life devoloped on the Earth.

Agreed. Ironically, only the Hindu religion got the cosmological timescales about right (billions, instead of millions or thousands).

Now given all these scientific theories and explanations that fit with the evidence and make so much sense, you're still able to remain a theist? Is that right? Or are you like an atheist wiccan, if that is possible? I have heard of atheists buddhists, but not an atheist wiccan.

Atheistic Wicca... now that's a new one. Yes, I suppose that's possible; Wicca is a reconstruction of pre-Christian fertility cults, and as such revolves around the reverence and worship of nature. Though the Goddess (and, to a lesser extend, her counterpart, the God) is central in the theology of most Wiccans, I don't think she is required.

That said, I am not an atheist. I am Wiccan, and I believe in and worship the Horned God and Mother Goddess.
I have been careful in this thread to say that atheism is the logical theological stance in the absence of evidence and/or rationale. As a scientist (specifically, a mathematician and theoretical physicst), I go we'ere the evidence leads. And since I began my exploration of Wicca, I have been pleasently surprised by the surmounting evidence for it (mostly subjective, mind you, but evidence nonetheless).

Bemusingly, my religious faith and scientific rigour have never been called into question. I'm usually shooed for being Pagan, or (in the case of beamishboy), disregarded as a 'British Paki' for defending Islam. Gods help us .

Personnally I feel that I have to give no creedence to supernatural explanations, because of my mental illness quite frankly. I cannot entertain the idea of angeles or demons, or any kind of superstious what not. I prefer natural scientific explanations for things, and you know what I have never seen a ghost. So there you go I remaina an atheist.

And that is your perogative. Like I said, atheism (specifically, weak atheism) is the logical theological stance in the abscence of evidence and/or rationale.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

Thanks for responding Wiccan, that is nice of you. Are you a professor of physics, or still working on your degrees? Physics is a hard science, a lot of formulas for all the different actions in nature. I averaged about an A or A- out of my college and high school physics classes. I think biologial evolution is far more interesting to study though, learning about all the different animals, that have come into existance, and the plants too.

May the God of your choice bless you in your studies!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thanks for responding Wiccan, that is nice of you. Are you a professor of physics, or still working on your degrees?

I'm still studying. Second year at Birmingham Uni!

Physics is a hard science, a lot of formulas for all the different actions in nature. I averaged about an A or A- out of my college and high school physics classes. I think biologial evolution is far more interesting to study though, learning about all the different animals, that have come into existance, and the plants too.

Agreed. Part of the appeal of evolution, to me, is its ability to be applied to all of biology, to explain any biological phenomenon (potentially, at least). The evolution of flowering plants threw me for a few years though...

May the God of your choice bless you in your studies!

Haha, thank you! I'd say the same, but I'll just wish you a statistically favourable outcome to your endeavours .

 

[NotreDame]

To say "The fact that we exist is evidence of God" is fallacious. You have to show us what about our existence (i.e. evidence) should lead us to believe in God. Let me show you why:

Observation: the universe exists
Explanations:
1) Goddidit
2) It was always here
3) The Big Bang created it
4) It is part of a bubbling mass called the multiverse
Etc...

The fact that it exists does not explain what created it, or why it exists. We could dream up an infinite number of possibilities. Rather, we need evidence to start eliminating certain possibilities, and strengthening others. Do you have any other evidence, other than the mere fact that the universe exists?

However, you could easily take another stance, and say "I concede that there is no solid evidence of God's existence, however I have faith he exists nonetheless." I think that this position is the most logical one you can hold if you are a theist.

No, I don't think the existence of the universe (as in the mere fact that the universe exists) is evidence for the Big Bang. Rather, there is lots of empirical evidence, as well as mathematical evidence, that suggests something of the sort. Check it out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astr....html#evidence

Scientists didn't just dream up the theory without having evidence in support of it.

How do you or the scientist's know the empirical evidence supports it? It is ASSUMED as true the empirical evidence supports it. Allow me to explain.

The observations scientists make in regards to space do not in and of themselves do not speak to us, or come with an inscription as to what happened in the past. In other words, the evidence in and of itself does not talk. We, human beings, conjure up ideas and explanations to explain what we see but to some degree, there is the presence of "guessing."

Let's use gravity as an example. Newton observed an object falling to the ground. To explain this phenomenon, Newton espoused the idea of "gravity." But does an object falling to the ground really demonstrate gravity exists, i.e. demonstrate the human explanation is correct? Well, no. Rather, it is ASSUMED as correct. Gravity is a great explanation as to why objects fall to the ground but it is still assumed the explanation is correct.

Another example is scientists find all of these fossils, buried in the earth, in gradations, descending from complex to less complex. They also observe a lot of uniformity among different species, both presently walking the earth, and those preceding us, and in an effort to explain this phenomenon, they espouse the idea of evolution. Does this make evolution correct? No, they assume their explanation of the facts are correct.

Similarly, with the Big Bang, scientists have all this phenomenon occurring in the universe and in an effort to explain and account for it, they come up with the idea of a "Big Bang."

There is always a gap between the evidence and the human explanation.

Creationists, and intelligent design advocates, offer an explanation for the diversity we see. Rather than entertain the merits of intelligent design, they espouse some arguments answering your question of, "what is about US which suggests a creator."

The fact is, both evolutionists and creationists/intelligent design advocates are examining the same evidence but taking different interpretations of the evidence. The question is, whose interpretation is right?

In the end, there is some degree of "faith" in both camps.

 

[NotreDame]

My point is that your argument requires further clarification. Specifically, that it applies to strong atheists and not weak atheists. You say atheists commit the fallacy. I say that it is only the strong atheists among them that do this; the weak atheists commit no such fallacy.

Great....well if you comprehended my argument applies to strong atheists as opposed to weak atheists, then this renders null and void any need for a clarification doesn't it? Yes.

Atheism, as the logical conjugate to theism, is not a belief system, and as such I don't understand what you mean by 'the content of the belief'. Are you alluding to the ill-defined nature of the word 'deity'?

I never said anything about atheism being a "belief system." In regards to "content of the belief," I was referring to the substance of their reasons as to why they disbelieve.

"The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:

• Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.
• The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.
• The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.
• The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.
• The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.
• The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.

Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them."

Isn't is possible that although the prediction has occurred the idea can still be false?

Actually, it does: until it is disproven, it remains a valid possibility.

Explanatory power is not evidence for the validity of the explanation.

 

[anonymous1515]

I both agree and disagree with your post, NotreDame. The scientific method procedes along the lines (roughly) like you say. We make an observation, we design a hypothesis, and we test it. Our hypotheses, I suppose, could be considered "educated guesses." However, the guessing stops when we begin to test our hypotheses. If our results to not match our predictions, we discard the hypothesis.

I agree, both "evolutionists" and creationists have hypotheses about the overwhelming observed diversity on the planet. However, upon testing hypotheses in relation to the theories, we can begin to discard those hypotheses whose predictions are not validated by results. The predictions of the theory of evolution have been shown in a variety of fields. Creationism (especially young-earth creationism) has been tested and rejected by many independent fields of science. As such, yes, both are hypotheses. The difference is, one is far more convincing than the other.

I agree with your point, some degree of faith is required in both camps. However, I do not agree that each are then equally justified.

 

[anonymous1515]

Isn't is possible that although the prediction has occurred the idea can still be false?

Yes, exactly. It can be. But that does not mean that it IS wrong. It only makes sense for us to accept it until it is rejected by means of other evidence. If you reject it before you find falsifying evidence, you are leaving the realm of faith and entering the realm of superstition.