• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Logic vs Religion

A

andys

Andys
Dunemeister,
You just don't get it, as revealed by your words, "Christian belief is not irrational, period. Quite the contrary. Atheists, who may otherwise be quite rational, have completely let go of their rational faculties, at least with respect to their nonbelief in God".

Asserting the existence of god or the Tooth Fairy without any reason to assert it is rational, according to you?
That IS a shame.
 
R

RedRain

Member
Asserting that there is no God is similar to asserting that there is a God. The more forcefully you assert either position the more your own arrogance shines through. You cannot know that something does not exist that cannot by definition be sensed by physical senses.

Who is it up to to decide what rational evidence is? The fact that so many people believe in a God is a sort of evidence for his existence and the rationality of it comes from the sheer number. On the other hand, this fact could be evidence for the mass stupidity of humanity.

andys, I think you are missing that, yes, most of people's belief in God arises from their will to believe in a God, but there is also a will on your part to not believe in God that equally draws you away from rationality. How can either side be so adamant?
 
A

andys

Andys
What IS an Atheist?
So many of you haven't a clue what we are. Let me restate what I wrote previously:

1) Atheist DO NOT have beliefs, per se. We are not a movement with a dogma or an agenda. We wouldn't dream of making such an assertion that one-celled organisms can evolve from inert matter. We're not Biologists. All we are is a group that is "A-" to "Theism''. Bluntly put, Atheists are not FOR something—we are AGAINST something.

2) We do not claim to know there is NO god; we know only that there is NO REASON for this belief. When a jury finds a man "Not guilty" the jurors are not saying the man IS innocent; they conclude only that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim "That man is guilty". In the same way, the Atheist examines the claim "God exists" and concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support it. We must conclude that this wild claim is "Not true". That is the only reasonable response.

ATHEISM DOES NOT ADVOCATE OR ADVANCE ANY POSITION ABOUT ANYTHING. IT ONLY ASSERTS THE FOLLOWING: "THEISM IS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, THEREFORE IT IS FALSE."

There are many Atheists, like me, who, ipso facto (as a direct result of their own rationality and its attendant appetite for evidence) also support the justified laws and theories of science. Not surprising, therefore, all atheists (I trust) support the Theory of Evolution. And we will refer to it in arguments against Creationists, for example. But that does NOT mean that the Theory of Evolution, or any other theory or viewpoint can be attributed to Atheism. Because—to repeat myself—Atheism does not have, or wish to propose or advance theories or explanations about anything. We simply reject Theism as unsubstantiated and false. We are all about reason and patiently welcome the slightest shred of evidence to contradict our conclusion.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
mball1297 said:
mball1297 said:
I see no logical reason to believe in any God I've come across in any organized religion. So, at this point, I can confidently say that there is no god, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Now this is a non sequitur. (Actually, two ...) :yes:Then maybe you can explain exactly how it's a non sequitur. (or, two...)
Click to expand...
The statement ...
I see no logical reason to believe in any God I've come across in any organized religion. So, at this point, I can confidently say that there is no god, in my opinion.​
is simply the bloated equivalent of ...
I acknowledge no evidence warranting belief in specific Gods, therefore there is no God.​
This is pathetic at best. First of all, the viability of "any God [you've] come across in any organized religion" says nothing about the viability of the more general concept of God as preternatural and purposeful creative force. Second, and more important, while the [perceived] absence of evidence may well be deemed circumstantial evidence of absence,
  • the strength of that evidence is legitimately debatable, and
  • evidence of absence is not equivalent to proof of absence.
Before talking about "Logic vs Religion" you would be well served to learn a bit more about both ...
 
Dunemeister

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
andys said:
Dunemeister,
You just don't get it, as revealed by your words, "Christian belief is not irrational, period. Quite the contrary. Atheists, who may otherwise be quite rational, have completely let go of their rational faculties, at least with respect to their nonbelief in God".

Asserting the existence of god or the Tooth Fairy without any reason to assert it is rational, according to you?
That IS a shame.
Click to expand...

No, I have reasons to support my belief.
 
Dunemeister

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
andys said:
1) Atheist DO NOT have beliefs, per se. We are not a movement with a dogma or an agenda. We wouldn't dream of making such an assertion that one-celled organisms can evolve from inert matter. We're not Biologists. All we are is a group that is "A-" to "Theism''. Bluntly put, Atheists are not FOR something—we are AGAINST something.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. There were atheists before there was Darwinian theory. So the belief in evolution does not amount to atheism and vice versa. This is a useful clarification.

2) We do not claim to know there is NO god; we know only that there is NO REASON for this belief. When a jury finds a man "Not guilty" the jurors are not saying the man IS innocent; they conclude only that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim "That man is guilty". In the same way, the Atheist examines the claim "God exists" and concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support it. We must conclude that this wild claim is "Not true". That is the only reasonable response.
Click to expand...
This is wrong in at least two ways. First, there are reasons to believe. Every Christian has them. (They at least have a shred.) Obviously, you don't share them. So what?

As for the legal analogy, all that follows is that there's not enough evidence presented to legally permit the state to take action against the accused. The event may still have happened as the prosecution alleges. The correct parallel in our situation is possibly to say, "Well, there might well be a god, but based on what I've seen so far, I'm not willing to take action on the claim that there is a god." In other words, the only reasonable response (or at least, a reasonable response) is a more or less gentle agnosticism. For some reason, you're mistaking that for atheism (or you're an atheist trying to look like an agnostic -- I'm not sure which.)

ATHEISM DOES NOT ADVOCATE OR ADVANCE ANY POSITION ABOUT ANYTHING. IT ONLY ASSERTS THE FOLLOWING: "THEISM IS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, THEREFORE IT IS FALSE."
Click to expand...
Of course there is evidence. You don't find it convincing, but although that's an interesting psychological claim about you, it says nothing about the truth of the claim that God exists.

We simply reject Theism as unsubstantiated and false. We are all about reason and patiently welcome the slightest shred of evidence to contradict our conclusion.
Click to expand...
All about reason! I don't think so. The atheist has as big (or bigger) chip on her shoulder as their opponents. Atheists are not, by and large, a group of epistemologically and ethically virtuous folks who dispassionately assess the evidence and come to neutral conclusions in contradistinction to theists who are generally irrational or gullible people who believe what they believe quite apart from their rational faculties. The fact that you parody the debate by trying to paint atheists as rational and theists as irrational is proof that your particular chip is large indeed.
 
Starfish

Starfish

Please no sarcasm
andys said:
When a jury finds a man "Not guilty" the jurors are not saying the man IS innocent; they conclude only that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim "That man is guilty". In the same way, the Atheist examines the claim "God exists" and concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support it. We must conclude that this wild claim is "Not true". That is the only reasonable response.

"THEISM IS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, THEREFORE IT IS FALSE."
Click to expand...
I have a small problem with this comparison. You said if a jury finds a man "not guilty" they are not saying he is innocent, just that there was insufficient evidence to convict.

So if theism lacks sufficient evidence, wouldn't it follow that it doesn't mean it's not true, just that there was insufficient evidence to proclaim it true?
 
R

RedRain

Member
andys said:
What IS an Atheist?
So many of you haven't a clue what we are. Let me restate what I wrote previously:

1) Atheist DO NOT have beliefs, per se. We are not a movement with a dogma or an agenda. We wouldn't dream of making such an assertion that one-celled organisms can evolve from inert matter. We're not Biologists. All we are is a group that is "A-" to "Theism''. Bluntly put, Atheists are not FOR something—we are AGAINST something.

2) We do not claim to know there is NO god; we know only that there is NO REASON for this belief. When a jury finds a man "Not guilty" the jurors are not saying the man IS innocent; they conclude only that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim "That man is guilty". In the same way, the Atheist examines the claim "God exists" and concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support it. We must conclude that this wild claim is "Not true". That is the only reasonable response.

ATHEISM DOES NOT ADVOCATE OR ADVANCE ANY POSITION ABOUT ANYTHING. IT ONLY ASSERTS THE FOLLOWING: "THEISM IS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, THEREFORE IT IS FALSE."

There are many Atheists, like me, who, ipso facto (as a direct result of their own rationality and its attendant appetite for evidence) also support the justified laws and theories of science. Not surprising, therefore, all atheists (I trust) support the Theory of Evolution. And we will refer to it in arguments against Creationists, for example. But that does NOT mean that the Theory of Evolution, or any other theory or viewpoint can be attributed to Atheism. Because—to repeat myself—Atheism does not have, or wish to propose or advance theories or explanations about anything. We simply reject Theism as unsubstantiated and false. We are all about reason and patiently welcome the slightest shred of evidence to contradict our conclusion.
Click to expand...

Why should one start with the assumption that God does not exist and then seek to prove the opposite? That doesn't seem logical to me. How about we first know nothing?
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Jay said:
The statement ...
I see no logical reason to believe in any God I've come across in any organized religion. So, at this point, I can confidently say that there is no god, in my opinion.​
is simply the bloated equivalent of ...
I acknowledge no evidence warranting belief in specific Gods, therefore there is no God.​
This is pathetic at best. First of all, the viability of "any God [you've] come across in any organized religion" says nothing about the viability of the more general concept of God as preternatural and purposeful creative force. Second, and more important, while the [perceived] absence of evidence may well be deemed circumstantial evidence of absence,
  • the strength of that evidence is legitimately debatable, and
  • evidence of absence is not equivalent to proof of absence.
Before talking about "Logic vs Religion" you would be well served to learn a bit more about both ...
Click to expand...

I have never seen a unicorn in any of the places I've looked. Therefore I can confidently say that there are no unicorns.
 
R

RedRain

Member
mball1297 said:
I have never seen a unicorn in any of the places I've looked. Therefore I can confidently say that there are no unicorns.
Click to expand...

I know this might make sense in your head, but you have to fill it out a little more. I haven't seen an atom or electron in any of the places I've looked, but I certainly can't confidently say that they do not exist.
 
M

Michel07

Active Member
Dunemeister said:
Fair enough. There were atheists before there was Darwinian theory. So the belief in evolution does not amount to atheism and vice versa. This is a useful clarification.

This is wrong in at least two ways. First, there are reasons to believe. Every Christian has them. (They at least have a shred.) Obviously, you don't share them. So what?

As for the legal analogy, all that follows is that there's not enough evidence presented to legally permit the state to take action against the accused. The event may still have happened as the prosecution alleges. The correct parallel in our situation is possibly to say, "Well, there might well be a god, but based on what I've seen so far, I'm not willing to take action on the claim that there is a god." In other words, the only reasonable response (or at least, a reasonable response) is a more or less gentle agnosticism. For some reason, you're mistaking that for atheism (or you're an atheist trying to look like an agnostic -- I'm not sure which.)

Of course there is evidence. You don't find it convincing, but although that's an interesting psychological claim about you, it says nothing about the truth of the claim that God exists.

All about reason! I don't think so. The atheist has as big (or bigger) chip on her shoulder as their opponents. Atheists are not, by and large, a group of epistemologically and ethically virtuous folks who dispassionately assess the evidence and come to neutral conclusions in contradistinction to theists who are generally irrational or gullible people who believe what they believe quite apart from their rational faculties. The fact that you parody the debate by trying to paint atheists as rational and theists as irrational is proof that your particular chip is large indeed.
Click to expand...

Hear! Hear!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top