Is religion inferior to logic ?

[RestlessSoul]

IMHO, Conscious Mind is like a die-hard soldier. Once, it has taken a position, logical or illogical, it will never retreat, come whatever.

Once the ego is involved, it certainly won’t retreat in the face of full frontal assault from a perceived adversary. Best to walk away from ‘debates’ when they reach that point imo.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's a term of convenience. What alternative would you suggest?

Make it about claims of authority. That is where it ends every time. It is in effect never about what the world is, but how it matters to human.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Let's not forget a Being capable of creating all this has a High Intellectual and Reason working as well. See how and why things fit together.

Hackneyed argument. Life develops and takes turns according to environment. That is how Castorocauda turned into humans over 165 million years.
Castorocauda - Wikipedia: Placental Mammal (1.1–1.8 lb), Middle to Late Jurassic, Inner Mongolia.

 

[PureX]

Now you've got it!
Finally -- we've been explaining this since RF began.

To contrast it with the various beliefs of the theists?

But there is no "contrast" according to you. As atheism asserts nothing.

It's the theists who seem obsessed with their gods and exceedingly annoyed at the idea of people who neither believe in nor feel any need for supernatural beings.

Theists believe what they believe just like anyone else. And they assert what they believe just like anyone else. All different kinds of belief, in fact. You're the one's constantly asserting nothing (or so you claim). Which makes no sense at all. If you believe nothing and have nothing to assert, why are you even debating them? After all, according to you, you have no basis upon which to debate. Or to even care.

No! How many times do we have to go over this?

Perhaps until you finally start getting honest about wat you actually believe, and are constantly asserting.

There are different kinds of atheists.

But there is only one kind of atheism. That is the adherence to the ideal that gods do not exist. Just as there is only one kind of theism: adherence to the ideal that God/gods exist. The ways these gods are conceptualized vary from person to person. But that's not theism. That's religion.

 

[PureX]

• Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive categories.
• A reasonable person will recognize that "the justification for your conclusion is crap" does not imply "your conclusion is necessarily wrong."

A reasonable person will recognize that when making assertions to others about what one believes to be true, they are expected to justify them. The agnostic theist can and will do so, logically, using the power and value of faith. The agnostic atheist could the same, but almost never does, because he not only rejects theism, he also reject the value and power of faith. And so he rejects the very avenue that he could have used to defend being an atheist while also being agnostic. And that leaves him with no defense at all. Which is why he has to then lie and pretend that he believes nothing. When that is very clearly and demonstrably not true.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A reasonable person will recognize that when making assertions to others about what one believes to be true, they are expected to justify them. The agnostic theist can and will do so, logically, using the power and value of faith. The agnostic atheist could the same, but almost never does, because he not only rejects theism, he also reject the value and power of faith. And so he rejects the very avenue that he could have used to defend being an atheist while also being agnostic. And that leaves him with no defense at all. Which is why he has to then lie and pretend that he believes nothing. When that is very clearly and demonstrably not true.

This argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

1) An agnostic atheist can still value faith. There are agnostic atheists who have spiritual or religious beliefs based on faith.

2) How is faith the only avenue a person can use to defend being an atheist?

3) How is it logical to defend a position based on faith?

4) What would you say to agnostic theists who feel that they have logical, non-faith reasons for accepting their position?

 

[ratiocinator]

A reasonable person will recognize that when making assertions to others about what one believes to be true, they are expected to justify them.

Indeed.

The agnostic theist can and will do so, logically, using the power and value of faith.

Such a person is pretty much admitting that they don't care about the truth of the matter, they're going to believe because they want to for some other reason. I mean, I guess that's okay but it is no basis from which you can criticise those who care more about the truth.

The agnostic atheist could the same, but almost never does, because he not only rejects theism, he also reject the value and power of faith.

The agnostic atheist has a perfectly logical justification. They actually care about the truth, so in the absence of any good reason to take god claims seriously, they don't accept them. Exactly the same approach stops them from making the opposite assertion that it is certain that no god(s) exists.

And so he rejects the very avenue that he could have used to defend being an atheist while also being agnostic. And that leaves him with no defense at all. Which is why he has to then lie and pretend that he believes nothing. When that is very clearly and demonstrably not true.

Nonsense.

 

[MikeF]

Traal is a town in Kashmir. It used to be a hot-bed of terrorism in the State.
Read about it here: Tral - Wikipedia
Photographs here: Traal, KASHMIR - Google Search
Marsar Lake

Beautiful! Love the picture.

Any bugblatter beasts in Tral Kashmir by chance?

 

[PureX]

This argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

To you.

1) An agnostic atheist can still value faith.

Yes, but they very rarely do. They think that trust without verification is foolishness. Even though they do so all the time.

There are agnostic atheists who have spiritual or religious beliefs based on faith.

A very small handful. And it could be debated that they aren't atheists at all. They would be the exception that proves the rule.

2) How is faith the only avenue a person can use to defend being an atheist?

It's the only logically presentable avenue of justification if they claim agnosticism.

3) How is it logical to defend a position based on faith?

It is the reasoned alternative to not knowing. We trust, we act on that trust, and we gain a positive outcome. Thus justifying our trusting without knowledge. Faith is based on the hope for a positive outcome, not on knowing it will result.

4) What would you say to agnostic theists who feel that they have logical, non-faith reasons for accepting their position?

i would be curious to learn what they are.

 

[PureX]

Indeed.


Such a person is pretty much admitting that they don't care about the truth of the matter, they're going to believe because they want to for some other reason. I mean, I guess that's okay but it is no basis from which you can criticise those who care more about the truth.

They are choosing to trust and act in hope of the positive outcome. That is quite logical when knowledge of the outcome is not available to us.

The agnostic atheist has a perfectly logical justification. They actually care about the truth, so in the absence of any good reason to take god claims seriously, they don't accept them. Exactly the same approach stops them from making the opposite assertion that it is certain that no god(s) exists.


Nonsense.

If the atheist is also agnostic, then he has already agreed that he cannot gain the truth.

So your whole "we love the truth" argument flies out the window. Leaving you with either faith as justification for your constant assertion that no one else's belief in God is valid, or with no justification at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A reasonable person will recognize that when making assertions to others about what one believes to be true, they are expected to justify them.

Sure... they'll justify their assertion (e.g. "the justification for your conclusion is crap"). This doesn't mean that they'll justify some other assertion you wish they were making but aren't (e.g. "your conclusion is necessarily wrong").

The agnostic theist can and will do so, logically, using the power and value of faith.

Most theists I run into aren't as irrational as you're portraying them.

The agnostic atheist could the same, but almost never does, because he not only rejects theism, he also reject the value and power of faith. And so he rejects the very avenue that he could have used to defend being an atheist while also being agnostic.

IOW, agnostic atheists don't fall victim to the sort of irrationality that you do, and that you assume theists in general fall victim to.

That's a nice thought on your part, even if you seem to have decided it's something negative.

And that leaves him with no defense at all. Which is why he has to then lie and pretend that he believes nothing. When that is very clearly and demonstrably not true.

Agnostic atheists don't say they believe in "nothing." Agnostic atheists believe in whatever they want except for two things:

• That at least one god exists, and
• That they know with certainty that no gods exist.

(Edit: or rather, agnostic atheists believe in whatever they want, but if they believe in either of those things, they stop being agnostic atheists)

Do you enjoy misrepresenting the positions of others? You do it a lot, so hopefully you get something out of it.

 

[ratiocinator]

If the atheist is also agnostic, then he has already agreed that he cannot gain the truth.

No. They have come to a provisional position that the case for god(s) has not been made, so there is no good reason to accept it. We all live with the fact that there are true things that we don't know yet.

Once again we're back to your desire for god(s) to be an exception to how rational people approach every other unevidenced proposition. People don't generally worry about rejecting alien abductions, conspiracy theories, ghosts, fairies, and so on, even though they can't be 100% ruled out. Nobody has made a convincing case, so we don't accept them.

So your whole "we love the truth" argument flies out the window. Leaving you with either faith as justification for your constant assertion that no one else's belief in God is valid, or with no justification at all.

That nobody to date has come up with a reason to take the various god-concepts seriously as true proposition is just a fact. That is the justification to reject them.

Again, this is not intellectually difficult. It's just what most people do with any other unevidenced claims.

 

[MikeF]

I meant you and me.


You're right. I wasn't clear. Let's say I'm referring to atheists in general responding to theistic apologists in general.

Common arguments tend to revolve around personal feelings emotions or, false analogies or invalid comparisons,or erroneous facts and logical errors.
More specifically I see ad pop/bandwagon arguments, circular/question-begging arguments, post hocs, hasty generalizations, equivocation, burden shifting, correlation-causation arguments, arguments from incredulity and from ignorance, false dilemmas, and other non-sequiturs. These come up over and over in these threads. People are simply not reasoning rationally or logically.

Since it is your explicit intent to engage in a serious discussion, I would be very interested in your intellectually honest answer as to what your working assumption is or has been regarding where I might fall on the theism vs non-belief divide.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. They have come to a provisional position that the case for god(s) has not been made, so there is no good reason to accept it. We all live with the fact that there are true things that we don't know yet.

Once again we're back to your desire for god(s) to be an exception to how rational people approach every other unevidenced proposition. People don't generally worry about rejecting alien abductions, conspiracy theories, ghosts, fairies, and so on, even though they can't be 100% ruled out. Nobody has made a convincing case, so we don't accept them.


That nobody to date has come up with a reason to take the various god-concepts seriously as true proposition is just a fact. That is the justification to reject them.

Again, this is not intellectually difficult. It's just what most people do with any other unevidenced claims.

Well, the case for what objective reality is other than being independent of the mind has never been made.
So I don't know that the universe is physical or from God. Do you know that the universe is physical?

Yes, you don't like this so you ignore it. Now ask yourself how rational that is? And try to make the case for how relevant it is, what you don't like.
That is the double standard of your side. You are allowed to ask for evidence, but we are not, because you don't like that. Go figure.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Any bugblatter beasts in Tral Kashmir by chance?

Yeah, we have some Pakistan-trained terrorists carrying Pakistani/Chinese arms in Kashmir.

"The number of terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir is at an all-time low, hovering around 50, sources told India Today, .. 29 of them locals. ..
For the first time since militancy began in the Kashmir valley, the number of terrorists in operations has fallen below 70, he said." (Purport)
Number of militants in J&K at all-time low, near about 50: Sources

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, but they very rarely do. They think that trust without verification is foolishness. Even though they do so all the time.

Again, no. You're making very broad generalisations here. There are religious agnostic atheists.

A very small handful.

No. There are lots of non-theistic religions and lots of non-theistic spiritual beliefs. We're talking all beliefs in any form of afterlife, any belief in spirits in general, any beliefs that can remotely be described as religious. It's absurd to say there are "Only a handful" of such people.

And it could be debated that they aren't atheists at all. They would be the exception that proves the rule.

They're atheists as long as they don't believe a God exists. They can still believe literally anything and everything else.

Again, you're making absurd generalisations. What do you think an atheist is?

It's the only logically presentable avenue of justification if they claim agnosticism.

No, it isn't. You can still believe something without claiming to know with certainty, and you don't need faith for that.

It is the reasoned alternative to not knowing. We trust, we act on that trust, and we gain a positive outcome.

Faith and trust are not quite the same thing. You can have a good reason to have trust in something, or you can deny trust for good reason. Faith doesn't necessarily require good reasons, but is belief in spite of a lack of reasons to believe or an abundance of reasons to not believe.

Thus justifying our trusting without knowledge. Faith is based on the hope for a positive outcome, not on knowing it will result.

So, just wishful thinking, then?

i would be curious to learn what they are.

There existence makes your argument reductive.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Faith and trust are not quite the same thing. You can have a good reason to have trust in something, or you can deny trust for good reason. Faith doesn't necessarily require good reasons, but is belief in spite of a lack of reasons or an abundance of reasons to not believe.

...

Yeah, you know what the universe is, right? Or have good reasons?

Otherwise good points.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yeah, you know what the universe is, right? Or have good reasons?

Otherwise good points.

I have good reasons to know the Universe exists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have good reasons to know the Universe exists.

Then give them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then give them.

I experience it directly and have done since I was born.