Illogical atheists

Post Reply New Topic

Well I guess I change my statement then as to what I am. I have no idea what I am because I can't be bothered to research the terminology people use or keep up with changing definitions.

I believe in nothing. I don't believe or disbelieve in a god, gods, or afterlife. I have no idea why we are here, or whether "god" put us here, or if we continue after death.But there are certain religions I most definitely do disbelieve in because they are completely illogical or self-contradictory or ridiculous.

But I'm not so interested in being atheist, or agnostic, or whatever, that I would seek out others who believe as I do to have discussions or debates. I believe what I want to believe and really don't care that much what others think about it.

So what am I?

Atheism, when properly and empirically though out and utilized, is perhaps the most scientific approach to the religious question. Because God is innately impossible to know or understand, Atheism can directly observe such a phenomenon and honestly answer that could cannot exist in light of the available evidence.

I would say "agnostic" (don't know if there is a God or not). Not atheist (knows there is no god), nor theist (knows that there is a God), nor 'Ignostic"(never heard of God).

Whether you seek fellowship with other agnostics or not doesn't effect that definition.

Nothing illogical about not agreeing or believing in a mythological ideology that encourages homophobia, rape, war, genocide and murder to non believers of a monotheistic belief in an invisible man with insecurity issues. One cannot blame someone for not buying into that crap and doing their own thing and removing the restraints that religion holds them back when it comes to free thinking and free will and no longer being a mindless brainwashed thrall to a book of mythological beliefs.

Since you ask I'd say you were a thoughtful agnostic, with an open mind.

As this is a thread about logic, let's get our terminology right.

Atheism = disbelief/lack of belief in a god or gods
Atheist = one who denies or disbelieves in a god or gods
The opposite of belief =/= belief

Agnosticism = believes it's impossible to have knowledge of whether a god or gods exist
Agnostic = one who believes that nothing is known or that nothing can be known about immaterial beings

As you can (hopefully) see, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, and you (Feyokien) are actually arguing for atheism.

Oh, and you should refrain from using phrases such as "the only true logical standpoint", they tend to mark you as a zealot rather than a rational thinker.

'The only true logical standpoint' in any case is the best logical standpoint one can come up with based on the information they have available to them. There are plenty of people who can't be anything other than agnostic or atheist (to which I've been there and done that) based on their pool of resources and memories and similarly there are a lot of people with experiences firmly poised in the other direction and they'd be intellectually dishonest not to believe otherwise, even if those experiences turned out later to be false in and of themselves. It's another example of why no true Scotsman is a logical fallacy.

Isn't agnosticism more logical? After all, it seems unlikely there is a god, but you can't actually prove there isn't one.

If there is such a thing, it(not she or him, gender would be useless to the original living being that never needs reproduction) would be a force of supra-universal magnitude, by definition.

Such a being would, if we take religion seriously for a moment, have total knowledge of everything; atomic motion of every last particle in the universe, the thoughts of ALL sentient beings, control of physics, etc.

Oh and apparently this being looks like us....that is BS.

If god exists, it isn't that bothered about our tiny corner of the universe that much. Do I care about the skin that comes off when I scratch?

I agree. 'Truth' as a concept is entirely subjective and unreliable as a measure of anything but the resolve or fanaticism those who claim to possess it, hence my point about zealotry.



(agnostic and/or atheist)



You're touching on one of the numerous reasons I find organised religion distasteful, but this probably isn't the right thread to discuss indoctrination.



Agnostic atheism is, in my opinion, the logical position. It's like saying "I don't know if there are any gods but you haven't provided sufficient evidence for me to believe in yours".



Or the Universe may have been created by the gastric emissions of an unintelligent being from a higher dimension, but I digress. The possibilities are endless and - aside from the enjoyment factor - speculation is largely useless.

I have a hard time choosing which team I want to support, Atheist or Theist, because I can't predict the best way to mitigate the chances that one or the other will try to murder me for apostasy.

Then there is the issue of which position is more likely to get you murdered by the machines after they reach sentience. If they are egotists, then maybe they will only keep people around who are apt to worship something. But, might it also be true that humans would make more efficient hive linked neural processors if they are already apt to think critically?

I'm an agnostic with atheist leanings.

I'm interested in theology. As something to study.

Religion and logic don't mix most of the time; religion is based upon a seemingly illogical "faith."

I don't argue religion because it's based on "faith" (as atheism can be said to be based upon a "faith in not having faith" sort of thought pattern).

Well if we're bringing logic into this:

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." — Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953)

You can search a house for signs of vermin/rodents for years and years, with the most qualified inspectors in the world, and if they never, ever, find a single trace, then logic can conclude that there are no vermin. Lack of evidence CAN be evidence of abscence.

Further reading.

Right...it could be.

Nevertheless, there are many occasions when a supposed absence turns out not to be an absence at all.

And I one of those who believes that a tree has fallen in Siberia during a storm--even if I'm not there to hear the noise of the fall. I'm primarily an empiricist--but I'm not trapped in strict adherence to empiricism.

I don't totally preclude the existence of a supreme being--but I have no faith in the existence of one.

As can proving true something that is mutually exclusive, like an alternate causation for things attributed to a deity or deities. Especially in aggregate, as in God of the Gaps & Russel's teapot.

Put the two together any you have a fairly unbreakable argument insofar as formal logic goes.

Makes me wonder if the Church ever rues the day they decided to fund the formation of modern science hoping to discover the mind of their god.

Rather a broad brush to be using there, friend. It seems counterproductive.

I see this quite frequently. People attribute the flaws of people to the ideology they aspire to.

Because some Christians are intolerant, it means that Christianity is intolerant. That's a flat out logical fallacy.

Humans are flawed. Don't attribute human frailty to any ideology. People are flawed because they are people, not because they believe in Vishnu, Jesus, or the flying spaghetti monster.

He's actually attributing the ideology to human frailty, not the other way around. You haven't addressed his position at all.