Why Atheism is Not Logical or Rational (no bible thumping)

[Rubato Garcia]

That's a false equivalence.

The desert and the table.

1. We are Human.

2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.

3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.

How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.

The Universe and Earth.

1. We are Human.

2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.

3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.

We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.

I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.

As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.

Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and God. At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.

BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god has no existence then he very well could exist.

Never said it wasn't possible

 

[The Lonious Monk]

I'm a believer and all, but believing in God isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.

Believing in God isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of God?

Believing in a God in general. There isn't any hard proof supporting the existence of a God. At the end of the day, faith is your only reason to believe. You can't really make a fully logical argument for why there must be a God. You can make good arguments, but they will always include some speculation or faith based assertions.

 

[zombie]

That's a false equivalence.

The desert and the table.

1. We are Human.

2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.

3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.

How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.

The Universe and Earth.

1. We are Human.

2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.

3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.

We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.

I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.

As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.

Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and God. At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.

BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god has no existence then he very well could exist.

Never said it wasn't possible

Good so that means atheism is not logical.

 

[Rubato Garcia]

That's a false equivalence.

The desert and the table.

1. We are Human.

2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.

3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.

How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.

The Universe and Earth.

1. We are Human.

2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.

3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.

We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.

I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.

As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.

Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and God. At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.

BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god has no existence then he very well could exist.

Never said it wasn't possible

Good so that means atheism is not logical.

I disagree. But I also never said I was an atheist.

 

[Stiff]

Your argument fails on a couple grounds

Those are all man made objects you mention in the OP

It injects a bias into the analogy similar to the intelligent design argument

"When I see a watch I know a human made it, therefore the universe has a maker too"

Except watches are human creations

If you had no prior experience to watches, say you were a papoose that had never seen one before, you would not necessarily know it is a human creation

the bias of your experiences with watches informs you that humans made it

Much like it would in your example



Your conclusion that the universe needs a creator because of its complexity fails to realize it's own shortsightedness:

If the complexity of the universe necessitates an intelligent designer then surely the complexity of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being does too.

So then you say what, that God made himself? Then you commit the same alleged transgression you just criticized.

See my reply to BoldChild about the underlined.

To the bolded,I say the explanation of a Supreme Being that always was answers this. Science says that because of the way the Universe is expanding, it most likely had a definite point in space/time where it "started". It's not likely that the Universe has always existed. The existence of a theoretical (for the sake of argument) Creator that predates the existence of the Universe would clear this up, because it itself wouldn't need a creator because it always was, unlike human life, the universe, and the man-made objects in the o/p .

If the Universe has a starting point then that being would seemingly need to exist outside of space and time in order to create it. How exactly would such a being function?

It's a huge assumption to believe that it is even possible when as far as I know it is not.

Also, atheism derived from skepticism is not resolved by your issue

If beliefs are to be based on evidence, and there is none for a God, then the belief is not reasonable

I stated the underlined myself. My main point was that most atheists are just as dogmatic as theists. @ the bolded, who knows? Perhaps a multiverse? All speculation. Show me some science or evidence that disproves the existence of a Creator, or that explains the beginning of the universe.

I pose to you the same question that I asked Ruberto, if you're an atheist what reason do you have to discount the possibility of the universe being intelligently designed?

 

[Stiff]

I'm a believer and all, but believing in God isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.

Believing in God isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of God?

Believing in a God in general. There isn't any hard proof supporting the existence of a God. At the end of the day, faith is your only reason to believe. You can't really make a fully logical argument for why there must be a God. You can make good arguments, but they will always include some speculation or faith based assertions.

A logical argument that supports the belief in a God is the existence of the universe. Unless something is infinite then it had to have a starting point. Most astronomers believe that the Universe had a starting point, so how would it be illogical to believe that an outside force contributed to the starting point? I don't think it's illogical to come to the conclusion that a created thing had a creator.

 

[LUClEN]

Your argument fails on a couple grounds

Those are all man made objects you mention in the OP

It injects a bias into the analogy similar to the intelligent design argument

"When I see a watch I know a human made it, therefore the universe has a maker too"

Except watches are human creations

If you had no prior experience to watches, say you were a papoose that had never seen one before, you would not necessarily know it is a human creation

the bias of your experiences with watches informs you that humans made it

Much like it would in your example



Your conclusion that the universe needs a creator because of its complexity fails to realize it's own shortsightedness:

If the complexity of the universe necessitates an intelligent designer then surely the complexity of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being does too.

So then you say what, that God made himself? Then you commit the same alleged transgression you just criticized.

See my reply to BoldChild about the underlined.

To the bolded,I say the explanation of a Supreme Being that always was answers this. Science says that because of the way the Universe is expanding, it most likely had a definite point in space/time where it "started". It's not likely that the Universe has always existed. The existence of a theoretical (for the sake of argument) Creator that predates the existence of the Universe would clear this up, because it itself wouldn't need a creator because it always was, unlike human life, the universe, and the man-made objects in the o/p .

If the Universe has a starting point then that being would seemingly need to exist outside of space and time in order to create it. How exactly would such a being function?

It's a huge assumption to believe that it is even possible when as far as I know it is not.

Also, atheism derived from skepticism is not resolved by your issue

If beliefs are to be based on evidence, and there is none for a God, then the belief is not reasonable

I stated the underlined myself. My main point was that most atheists are just as dogmatic as theists. @ the bolded, who knows? Perhaps a multiverse? All speculation. Show me some science or evidence that disproves the existence of a Creator, or that explains the beginning of the universe.

I pose to you the same question that I asked Ruberto, if you're an atheist what reason do you have to discount the possibility of the universe being intelligently designed?

The intelligent design argument was squashed pretty easily by Neil Degrasse Tyson


TLDW: It's an unintelligent design

Furthermore it's an argument by analogy, which is basically the weakest argument that could be made

There is little evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being

Also a lot of the intelligent design stuff can be explained by evolution

But evolution has more proof

So it is the more believable view

 

[zombie]

Your argument fails on a couple grounds

Those are all man made objects you mention in the OP

It injects a bias into the analogy similar to the intelligent design argument

"When I see a watch I know a human made it, therefore the universe has a maker too"

Except watches are human creations

If you had no prior experience to watches, say you were a papoose that had never seen one before, you would not necessarily know it is a human creation

the bias of your experiences with watches informs you that humans made it

Much like it would in your example



Your conclusion that the universe needs a creator because of its complexity fails to realize it's own shortsightedness:

If the complexity of the universe necessitates an intelligent designer then surely the complexity of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being does too.

So then you say what, that God made himself? Then you commit the same alleged transgression you just criticized.

See my reply to BoldChild about the underlined.

To the bolded,I say the explanation of a Supreme Being that always was answers this. Science says that because of the way the Universe is expanding, it most likely had a definite point in space/time where it "started". It's not likely that the Universe has always existed. The existence of a theoretical (for the sake of argument) Creator that predates the existence of the Universe would clear this up, because it itself wouldn't need a creator because it always was, unlike human life, the universe, and the man-made objects in the o/p .

If the Universe has a starting point then that being would seemingly need to exist outside of space and time in order to create it. How exactly would such a being function?

It's a huge assumption to believe that it is even possible when as far as I know it is not.

Also, atheism derived from skepticism is not resolved by your issue

If beliefs are to be based on evidence, and there is none for a God, then the belief is not reasonable

I stated the underlined myself. My main point was that most atheists are just as dogmatic as theists. @ the bolded, who knows? Perhaps a multiverse? All speculation. Show me some science or evidence that disproves the existence of a Creator, or that explains the beginning of the universe.

I pose to you the same question that I asked Ruberto, if you're an atheist what reason do you have to discount the possibility of the universe being intelligently designed?

The intelligent design argument was squashed pretty easily by Neil Degrasse Tyson


TLDW: It's an unintelligent design

Furthermore it's an argument by analogy, which is basically the weakest argument that could be made

There is little evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being

Also a lot of the intelligent design stuff can be explained by evolution

But evolution has more proof

So it is the more believable view

evolution is not about the creation of life it's about the change in life and there is no real proof for any of the scientific answers to why the universe exists. The only thing that we can know for sure is that we think that we exist. and the so called called squashing done by mr tyson only boosters the argument that life on earth is special exactly because the universe seems so harsh. but yet we are here when quite frankly maybe we should not be.

 

[Stiff]

^^ Watched the video. So your belief in a nutshell is that since this universe isn't utopian there must be no god.

Argument by analogy is basically the weakest argument by what standard? That's purely a subjective statement.

I said nothing of omniscient,omnipotent,or omnibeneveloent, don't know where you got that idea from. I said creator of the universe only.

The theory that life originated from a single celled organism has some major flaws that are typically and conveniently glossed over by those who tote that stance.

So nah not really buying that.

 

[LUClEN]

If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove shit now does it?

DERP

Arguments by analogy are trash

look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain

Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined

It's well established in logic and philosophy

Abiogenesis is a completely different topic

even if it is not true it does not prove a God exists, which is the topic of the thread

Atheism = No belief in God

Basically, you feel a god exists so you think it's true

that's fine

I don't think with my feelings though

 

[Stiff]

If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove shit now does it?

Who are you to say the design isn't intelligent? Have you seen how complex DNA is? You believe that since the universe isn't utopian and purely utilitarian then it's not possible that it could have been intentionally created. That's irrational. That's the point of the thread.

DERP

English please.

Arguments by analogy are trash

look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain

Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined

It's well established in logic and philosophy

Subjective. The first comments in this thread were varied

Abiogenesis is a completely different topic

even if it is not true it does not prove a God exists, which is the topic of the thread

Either life originated from nothing or life originated from something. There's no evidence that supports the idea that life originated from nothing. There's only speculation. That's relevant to the thread topic.

Basically, you feel a god exists so you think it's true

that's fine

I don't think with my feelings though

Straw man much?

 

[alissowack]

I'm a believer and all, but believing in God isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.

Believing in God isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of God?

This is a very good question to ask. It seems like whenever someone makes the case for the existence of God, those against the notion presuppose this conclusion that it means the God of the Bible or the Quran...or any other monotheistic religions. Then it becomes an attempt to debunk religion instead of looking past the teachings and rituals.

 

[SneakDZA]

Say you were wandering through the desert. Walking and walking. You see the standard desert things as far as the eyes can: rocks, sand etc. And then out of nowhere you stumble upon a a table, fully set with chairs, plates, and silverware. You look around and there's nobody around at all. No traces of civilization anywhere in your vicinity. No footprints, nothing. And it looked like it had put there relatively recently.

It would be irrational to deduce that the tableset simply must have created and set itself. The salad fork placed itself in the correct spot next to the... (wherever the salad fork goes). It would be illogical to reach the conclusion that the entire table set was generated just randomly and coincidentally naturally. Even though you didn't see it, most reasonable people would reach the conclusion that at some point this table, these chairs, and this silverware was created by someone. And SOMEBODY set this table out in the desert, as odd as it seems. Who knows why, but they did it.

And yet we have a wide spread belief that an entire Universe can be put into existence randomly. We look at the immutable laws of science and reach the conclusion that they must have wrote themselves. We look at the world and see how an ecosystem was set to perpetuate life through a "barter system": the plants need carbon dioxide and create oxygen. Animals and humans need Oxygen and create carbon dioxide.

I consider myself Christian, but if you look at Christian beliefs and be like "ehhh nah" then that's understandable. But to sit up and denounce all form of spirituality and deny that the universe has a creator just comes off as pretty unreasonable. A table can't set itself, but a universe can? Nah that's not adding up.

I'm sorry but that is one of the most illogical and irrational analogies I've ever read. If I was a christian that shit would probably have me rethinking my whole belief system just out of spite.

The oddest part is that what you described has actually happened many times throughout history - and every time no one ever assumes the "table" (or tomb or pyramid or tablet or whatever) randomly created itself - they ask who created it and why and what does it mean. that's the nature of science.

To use your same analogy but in reverse that would be like discovering Tutankhamen's tomb and just assuming that it was created by some random god because you either can't or don't want to bother trying to explain it any other way. To assume the object created itself would be more in line with religion than science.

Also, no scientist worth listening to has ever said the universe just spontaneously created itself out of nothing. Ever.

But since you brought it up... does god have a mother? Or did it just create itself out of nothing?

 

[SneakDZA]

as an aside, science doesn't disprove the existence of god and it likely never will. but it can and has disproved many tenets of religion. historically if a religion doesn't somehow adapt itself over time to incorporate what becomes explainable by science it becomes mythology.

this guy knows this...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...snt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

 

[Jabu_Rule]

I'm a believer and all, but believing in God isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.

Believing in God isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of God?

This is a very good question to ask. It seems like whenever someone makes the case for the existence of God, those against the notion presuppose this conclusion that it means the God of the Bible or the Quran...or any other monotheistic religions. Then it becomes an attempt to debunk religion instead of looking past the teachings and rituals.

Those religions and books came about their conclusions in the same exact fashion as anyone that believes in a God. If those religions weren't around and didn't present the concept, would you independently imagine a higher being that created us? Maybe you would. Before the Abrahamic religions, people thought trees had spirits, and the Gods were many. Christians have no issue laughing their theories off because they are looked at as unsupported fables. It's not a matter of a particular religion but a particular concept presented, and debunked. There shouldn't even be a word like atheism because it gives more credence to theism as if it has a foundation to stand on. You can't be anti what isn't (as in nothing has been presented factually). To even call these presentations theories is laughable. They haven't even gone past hypothesis stage. Or at least it shouldn't default to mean anti belief in God, rather then anti blind acceptance of unfounded ideas presented by other people.

 

[BoldChild]

That's a false equivalence.

The desert and the table.

1. We are Human.

2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.

3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.

How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.

The Universe and Earth.

1. We are Human.

2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.

3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.

We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.

I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.

As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.

A laptop or any man object for that matter cannot be compared to the universe, once the person from the 60's observes it, he would easily be able to tell it's some kind of man made object, unless he is some kind of primitive.

 

[LUClEN]

If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove shit now does it?

Who are you to say the design isn't intelligent? Have you seen how complex DNA is? You believe that since the universe isn't utopian and purely utilitarian then it's not possible that it could have been intentionally created. That's irrational. That's the point of the thread.

DERP

English please.

Arguments by analogy are trash

look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain

Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined

It's well established in logic and philosophy

Subjective. The first comments in this thread were varied

Abiogenesis is a completely different topic

even if it is not true it does not prove a God exists, which is the topic of the thread

Either life originated from nothing or life originated from something. There's no evidence that supports the idea that life originated from nothing. There's only speculation. That's relevant to the thread topic.

Basically, you feel a god exists so you think it's true

that's fine

I don't think with my feelings though

Straw man much?

The creation contradicts the nature of the creator. Not only that but there is no reason to believe there is intention behind it as there is no direct evidence, only speculation. In the face of the support for the more scientific theories there is no reason to believe theistic accounts.

It's not subjective if it can be empirically shown

Pick up any text of assorted philosophical writings

There will typically be works written in response to others, and the arguments by analogy are by far the most often refuted b/c of how easy it is to counter them

It's a type of inductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning will always be inferior to deductive logic

 

[nex gin]

I hate to oversimplify things.....but are we really still debating about shit that can't be 100% proven as fact?

be·lief

bəˈlēf/

noun

noun: belief; plural noun: beliefs

1.

an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

"his belief in the value of hard work"

something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

"contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language"

synonyms: opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion

"it's my belief that age is irrelevant"

a religious conviction.

"Christian beliefs"

synonyms: ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; More

2.

trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

"a belief in democratic politics"

synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence

"belief in the value of hard work"

antonyms: disbelief, doubt

Faith is belief that is not based on proof.[1] It can also be defined as confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant.[2][3] The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.[6]

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.

Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste.

 

[jono]

This is a ridiculous analogy.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson also obliterated believing when he came up with his story about "the god of the gaps" or humans applying the supernatural once our ability to explain things through science begin to diminish.

We see this today with what the Pope came out with recently. Gods or dieities have always explained what science could not and once science began to explain it there was no need for dieities anymore.

Zeus used to be as real as Jesus but now we call him a myth, we can explain lighting now and have no need for a supernatural explanation.

I don't blame the religious for believing. The universe is confusing and not welcoming at all, sometimes you want to feel like someone is watching over you, it makes you feel safe. Unfortunately, I have no need for that most times.

I'm agnostic by the way, so I don't totally rule out God but it isn't looking good as far a a evidence is concerned.

 

[Stiff]

as an aside, science doesn't disprove the existence of god and it likely never will. but it can and has disproved many tenets of religion. historically if a religion doesn't somehow adapt itself over time to incorporate what becomes explainable by science it becomes mythology.

this guy knows this...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...snt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

My analogy was so flawed and irrational that it made you see the point of the thread.

I just need one atheist to explain to me without all the emotion: if science has not disproved the existence of God and likely never will how is it logical to rule out the possibility of a Creator of the Universe, which atheism does? I'm not talking about an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent , all loving God. I'm talking about simply a being that created the Universe.

I'm not arguing tenets of religion. I already said most religions aren't rational, including Christianity. People's arguments are falling flat because they're trying to debunk the existence of a God that exists as described in The Bible, which isn't what this thread is about.

If you want to dodge the question by focusing on how a table is not the exact same thing as a universe, than so be it. At least contribute intellectually by answering the underlined.

I saw what Neil De Grasse Tyson had to say and his reasoning was flawed. Because the universe wasn't created as he would have done it in all of his earthly knowledge, it's impossible or unlikely that it was created with intention by a being. That's not Science. That's philosophy that's projecting human intentions and sensibilities onto whatever it is that would have created universe. That debunks nothing.

Yes, historically there were certain people in the world who believed that lightning came from a pedophile called Zeus who lived on a mountain. The fact that we have science that explains how lightning actually works doesn't debunk every tenent of every theistic line of thought known to man.

And because I want no dodging I'm going to ask this again: if science has not disproved the existence of God and likely never will how is it logical to rule out the possibility of a Creator of the Universe, which atheism does?