There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[HitchSlap]

Either one collects stamps, or they do not.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Either one collects stamps, or they do not.

Yes atheists don’t collect stamps, because stamp collecting is for dweebs...

 

[quatona]

Can we say an atheist is a person who neither accepts or rejects that God exists? Similar to how an amoral person neither accepts or rejects that something is right or wrong?

No - because atheists can reject that God exists quite fine. They just don´t have to, in order to be an atheist. Just like you don´t need to reject evolution, in order to be a Christian.

 

[bhsmte]

Lol you go ahead and keep on thinking that that's what it is. This is as bad as partisan politics. It would be so refreshingly honest if an agnostic in this forum were to come in and make a post saying "Wait a minute, how is 'I don't know' the position of an atheist?"

I dont know? I dont claim to not know regarding whether i believe the christian god exists. I can take the claims of christianity about this god and overlay the same with well evidenced reality and conclude; i dont believe this god exists. Now, if we are talking about a non personal god, that lacks the descriptions christians apply to god, then i would say i dont know.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Lol you go ahead and keep on thinking that that's what it is. This is as bad as partisan politics. It would be so refreshingly honest if an agnostic in this forum were to come in and make a post saying "Wait a minute, how is 'I don't know' the position of an atheist?"

Then that "agnostic" will get the same answer as all you people who keep insisting on knowing better then us what we believe and don't believe...

The position of the agnostic atheist is: "I don't believe what the theist claims. Can I prove gods don't exist? No... I also can't prove that fairies and leprechuans don't exist. Neither can you. I bet that doesn't stop you, the theist, of not believing fairies and leprechauns are real. So why would it stop me from not believing that god is real?"

 

[DogmaHunter]

Can we say an atheist is a person who neither accepts or rejects that God exists? Similar to how an amoral person neither accepts or rejects that something is right or wrong?

Please... stop already with this over complication and obfuscation... It has zero, absolutely zero, merrit and it is counterproductive.

It's not rocket science.

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe the claims of theism for whatever reason.
And that's it.

 

[Chriliman]

Please... stop already with this over complication and obfuscation... It has zero, absolutely zero, merrit and it is counterproductive.

It's not rocket science.

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe the claims of theism for whatever reason.
And that's it.

I agree. Atheists don't accept claims about God, but that doesn't necessarily mean they believe the claims are false.

You're right, it's not rocket science, it's just difficult to come to an agreement about it for some reason.

 

[bhsmte]

I agree. Atheists don't accept claims about God, but that doesn't necessarily mean they believe the claims are false.

You're right, it's not rocket science, it's just difficult to come to an agreement about it for some reason.

The reasoning is easy, some theists need to think they know more about what an atheist claims or doesnt claim, then the actual person. Likely from a need to create a strawman, to protect their own beliefs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I agree. Atheists don't accept claims about God, but that doesn't necessarily mean they believe the claims are false.

Thank you. Now, let's move on.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?

Can you provide a logical argument that fire-breathing dragons don't exist that doesn't amount to a critique of the claim that fire-breathing dragons do exist? How would you go about doing that?

My lack of belief in divine beings is just like a consideration of the claim that fire-breathing dragons exist, and finding that unsupported by sufficiently compelling evidence or arguments.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Hmm, this is a very interesting theory!! Why? Are you saying that if you dig too deep you can train yourself to get stuck in the abyss of thinking down too many layers all the time? Would you say that too much philosophy is the more dangerous of the two?

The more PHILOSOPHY! you know, the more tools you have at your disposal to justify anything and everything to yourself:

"Let's see, I'll throw in a little presupposition, add in some modal logic for flavor, Derrida the whole thing and...

I can now successfully argue that up is down."

Pro tip: if you ever get to the point where, when asked a simple question about something you believe, are unable to answer with anything but paragraph upon paragraph of Philosophy name dropping and buzz words, contradicting yourself several times in the process...

You have too much Philosophy.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Can you provide a logical argument that fire-breathing dragons don't exist that doesn't amount to a critique of the claim that fire-breathing dragons do exist? How would you go about doing that?

My lack of belief in divine beings is just like a consideration of the claim that fire-breathing dragons exist, and finding that unsupported by sufficiently compelling evidence or arguments.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Hi Sorry for the late response..

But my answer to this is that there is no trail of evidence that would lead one to logically believe that fire breathing dragons exist. It doesn't fit any logical thought process nor does it mesh properly with the things we understand about the universe.

The belief that a "Creative Process that everything extends from" is directly supported by logic and everything we use to navigate through existence. It's supported by the logical foundation that we use make predictable interactions with the physical world.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Can you provide a logical argument that fire-breathing dragons don't exist that doesn't amount to a critique of the claim that fire-breathing dragons do exist? How would you go about doing that?

My lack of belief in divine beings is just like a consideration of the claim that fire-breathing dragons exist, and finding that unsupported by sufficiently compelling evidence or arguments.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Hi Sorry for the late response..

But my answer to this is that there is no trail of evidence that would lead one to logically believe that fire breathing dragons exist. It doesn't fit any logical thought process nor does it mesh properly with the things we understand about the universe.

The belief that a "Creative Process that everything extends from" is directly supported by logic and everything we use to navigate through existence. It's supported by the logical foundation that we use make predictable interactions with the physical world.

 

[Caliban]

Hi Sorry for the late response..

But my answer to this is that there is no trail of evidence that would lead one to logically believe that fire breathing dragons exist. It doesn't fit any logical thought process nor does it mesh properly with the things we understand about the universe.

The belief that a "Creative Process that everything extends from" is directly supported by logic and everything we use to navigate through existence. It's supported by the logical foundation that we use make predictable interactions with the physical world.

You have made a categorical error by calling matter a "creative process." You are smuggling in the very thing you are trying to prove--creation. This line of thinking is a fallacy called Begging the Question, also called Circular Reasoning:
Begging the Question Fallacy

 

[Eudaimonist]

The belief that a "Creative Process that everything extends from" is directly supported by logic and everything we use to navigate through existence. It's supported by the logical foundation that we use make predictable interactions with the physical world.

I don't see how that is "directly supported by logic". That is certainly not how I "navigate existence".

Please explain to me how a supernatural entity that performs miracles allows one to make predictable interactions with the physical world. Predictability is a function of naturalism, in which entities have the nature that they do, and change and cause change according to their natures.

Out of theisms, only a Deist God could possibly satisfy predictability, because the Deist God would leave the universe well enough alone.

However, there is no good reason to believe even in the existence of a Deist God, and no need for one. A natural universe is enough, predictably.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Silmarien]

I don't see how that is "directly supported by logic". That is certainly not how I "navigate existence".

Please explain to me how a supernatural entity that performs miracles allows one to make predictable interactions with the physical world. Predictability is a function of naturalism, in which entities have the nature that they do, and change and cause change according to their natures.

Out of theisms, only a Deist God could possibly satisfy predictability, because the Deist God would leave the universe well enough alone.

However, there is no good reason to believe even in the existence of a Deist God, and no need for one. A natural universe is enough, predictably.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Are you a fullblown Aristotelian naturalist, teleological essentialism and all? I'm quite fond of the position--I think it's wrong, but I like it all the same, and would not be averse to exploring it further.

I would strongly deny that deism is the only theistic framework that allows for predictability, though. You can get there with forms of classical theism that prioritize the rationality and/or the steadfastness of God as well--the fact that he continues to maintain physical reality in existence from moment to moment doesn't necessarily mean that predictability is impossible.

I would also deny that predictability is necessarily a function of naturalism. Humean accounts, by which regularities are merely observations and need not have any ontological status at all, are a pretty strong current within naturalism, and that approach to the laws of nature is infamous for shattering the possibility of predictability altogether. Any problem theism might have with a willful God who cannot be trusted to maintain the "laws of nature" has been shown to exist on a naturalistic metaphysics as well. The naturalist, unlike the theist, does not have the luxury of falling back upon revelation to get around the problem of a potentially lawless reality.

Hume is actually one of the many reasons I'm a theist. I was exploring Aristotelian naturalism at one point as well, but it is very unclear to me why entities exist at all (assuming they do), much less why they would possess the essences that they do. I am sympathetic to grounding laws of nature in the essence of entities, but I don't think that avoids the question of why all entities of a certain type would exhibit a particular essence. You have to deal with the problem of metaphysical necessity--why must certain entities behave in the way that they do?

I do not know how to solve that particular problem without either invoking theism or abandoning Aristotle for Pythagoras and positing mathematical necessity as the reason why reality is what it is. The second option does not strike me as any better for naturalism, though, given that it entails that the abstract is more real than the physical.

 

[Ken-1122]

Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?

Not that the religious ideas of God. But that there is no God that designed the universe and created life purposefully.

I've seen that most atheist generally attack religion and ask for empirical evidence that shows God exists.. but I have never heard a logical argument against the existence of God ( not religion).

Thoughts and thanks

Disproving the existence of God is not necessary to be atheist. As an atheist I realize many versions of God do exist, but because I don't call them God, I am atheist. To be atheist it means to not believe in God ("believe in" means to not accept the claims of) not necessarily believe the being doesn't exist.

 

[Moral Orel]

Disproving the existence of God is not necessary to be atheist. As an atheist I realize many versions of God do exist, but because I don't call them God, I am atheist. To be atheist it means to not believe in God ("believe in" means to not accept the claims of) not necessarily believe the being doesn't exist.

I always wondered, if I was God, with my low self esteem, would it be blasphemy if I don't believe in myself?

 

[Ken-1122]

I always wondered, if I was God, with my low self esteem, would it be blasphemy if I don't believe in myself?

If you were God you wouldn't have low self esteem

 

[Moral Orel]

If you were God you wouldn't have low self esteem

Really? You're going to argue about the finer points of my joke?