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

[Ajackson17]

The Univeralist exists and I met him when I gained all 6 infinity stones

 

[PapaDoc223]

Awesome thread. lots of knowledge and gems dropped here.

 

[Fosheezy]

I've never heard one sound reason as to why it's logical to assume the ultimate source eternal being has to have a creator to exist just because he's the ultimate creator. I seriously don't know how yall brains aint never collapse trying to rationalize the implications behind what that would mean. How do you never end up vomiting in r/l behind such reasoning?

 

[whar]

" 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?"

Atheism does not rule out the possibility of a God. It simply treats the concept of God as any other idea without elevating as religion does. The core of this position and the core of atheism is based upon this approach to God. It was outlined by Bertrand Russel in his Teapot Argument. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot )

It goes something like this. I claim there is a teapot orbiting Saturn. (It was placed there by a passing ET that thought it would be funny to do it.) You can not produce evidence to prove I am wrong, however this does nothing to bolster my claim of the teapot's existence. I could also claim, as religion does, that the teapot is sentient and wants us to dance the Hokey-Pokey each morning because the ET that put it in orbit will vaporize the earth on his return if we do not.

Unsurprisingly, I doubt anyone will start dancing each day to ward off this alien based on my claims. This is the same result an atheist has when confronted with claims of Gods by theists.

Why accept them when there does not seem to be any actual evidence.

 

[The Iconoclast]

I've never heard one sound reason as to why it's logical to assume the ultimate source eternal being has to have a creator to exist just because he's the ultimate creator. I seriously don't know how yall brains aint never collapse trying to rationalize the implications behind what that would mean. How do you never end up vomiting in r/l behind such reasoning?

So it's illogical to ponder about the origin of such a creator and apply the very same logic many theists use to argue for said creator's existence?

If that's the case then how logical is it to assume that there is something out there that has an eternal existence, without incontrovertible evidence?

 

[zombie]

the nothing as defined by scientists is not the common usage that average people use. but even by that definition the universe cannot come from nothing for the reasons I already detailed

It would seem we are not certain on that

We do not have a full theory of quantum gravity

we can trace the universe back 13 billion some odd years but at a certain point we simply have no way of knowing what exactly transpired nor how it was initiated



It would also seem that if the birth of the universe marks the beginning of time, then whatever happened prior to it that led to the creation of everything we experience would have had to happen outside of time

which in is unintelligible imo

We could speculate about what it is that could be responsible for this

and if for reference sake we call it God, it still does not establish any of the assumptions made in the OP

1) We see no evidence there was intention or purpose when the universe was created

2) Nor is there undeniable evidence of a deity which would render atheism illogical

3) There is also an issue where something which has always existed or created itself is more believable when it's deity rather than the universe itself. What evidence is there for the latter than the former, when both rest on an equally absurd assumption if contrasted to things we have observed?

The bolded should be the end of the conversation. WE don't have the information to say a god exist or not. therefore using science to bolster one's atheism is not rational.

1) WE SEE NO EVIDENCE that there was not an intention behind the universe the universe being hostile to life is no evidence.

2) there is no undeniable evidence that any kind of deity does not exist.

3) the thing is we know that the universe had a starting point so we know the universe has not always existed. however the same cannot be said for a deity because we can not objectively rule out his existence using science.

people can decide to be irrational atheist but many atheist have to much of pride to admit this plus they like to feel superior to theist which is arrogant and foolish because when you get down to it both positions are not rational. AT LEAST THEIST ADMIT to not be objectively rational.

 

[LUClEN]

" 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?"

Atheism does not rule out the possibility of a God. It simply treats the concept of God as any other idea without elevating as religion does. The core of this position and the core of atheism is based upon this approach to God. It was outlined by Bertrand Russel in his Teapot Argument. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot )

It goes something like this. I claim there is a teapot orbiting Saturn. (It was placed there by a passing ET that thought it would be funny to do it.) You can not produce evidence to prove I am wrong, however this does nothing to bolster my claim of the teapot's existence. I could also claim, as religion does, that the teapot is sentient and wants us to dance the Hokey-Pokey each morning because the ET that put it in orbit will vaporize the earth on his return if we do not.

Unsurprisingly, I doubt anyone will start dancing each day to ward off this alien based on my claims. This is the same result an atheist has when confronted with claims of Gods by theists.

Why accept them when there does not seem to be any actual evidence.

You nailed it

Hume's writing about coming to our beliefs by weighing evidence in favor and against, as well as his critique of religious miracles also influenced a lot of secular thought

But when they are assuming the conclusion without establishing why, and then maintaining their belief simply because there is not enough evidence to prove otherwise, the argument looks really circular

 

[alissowack]

" 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?"

Atheism does not rule out the possibility of a God. It simply treats the concept of God as any other idea without elevating as religion does. The core of this position and the core of atheism is based upon this approach to God. It was outlined by Bertrand Russel in his Teapot Argument. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot )

It goes something like this. I claim there is a teapot orbiting Saturn. (It was placed there by a passing ET that thought it would be funny to do it.) You can not produce evidence to prove I am wrong, however this does nothing to bolster my claim of the teapot's existence. I could also claim, as religion does, that the teapot is sentient and wants us to dance the Hokey-Pokey each morning because the ET that put it in orbit will vaporize the earth on his return if we do not.

Unsurprisingly, I doubt anyone will start dancing each day to ward off this alien based on my claims. This is the same result an atheist has when confronted with claims of Gods by theists.

Why accept them when there does not seem to be any actual evidence.

The teapot argument seems to suggest that when someone is making a claim about God's Existence, they are trying to smuggle in religion. Unfortunately it seems as though the only ones who are interested in making this argument are the religious, but the intent is not to...get people to dance the Hokey Pokey once convinced of the arguments presented. It's to take what little we understand about the beginning of the universe and narrow it down to one cause for it...which it un-caused. All religions could be wrong in how they depict the nature and actions of God, but it shouldn't do anything to disturb the logic behind it.

 

[whar]

The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.

If someone claims there is a God then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of God's non-existence.

 

[LUClEN]

" 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?"

Atheism does not rule out the possibility of a God. It simply treats the concept of God as any other idea without elevating as religion does. The core of this position and the core of atheism is based upon this approach to God. It was outlined by Bertrand Russel in his Teapot Argument. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot )

It goes something like this. I claim there is a teapot orbiting Saturn. (It was placed there by a passing ET that thought it would be funny to do it.) You can not produce evidence to prove I am wrong, however this does nothing to bolster my claim of the teapot's existence. I could also claim, as religion does, that the teapot is sentient and wants us to dance the Hokey-Pokey each morning because the ET that put it in orbit will vaporize the earth on his return if we do not.

Unsurprisingly, I doubt anyone will start dancing each day to ward off this alien based on my claims. This is the same result an atheist has when confronted with claims of Gods by theists.

Why accept them when there does not seem to be any actual evidence.

The teapot argument seems to suggest that when someone is making a claim about God's Existence, they are trying to smuggle in religion. Unfortunately it seems as though the only ones who are interested in making this argument are the religious, but the intent is not to...get people to dance the Hokey Pokey once convinced of the arguments presented. It's to take what little we understand about the beginning of the universe and narrow it down to one cause for it...which it un-caused. All religions could be wrong in how they depict the nature and actions of God, but it shouldn't do anything to disturb the logic behind it.

The teapot argument illustrates how illogical it is to assume your conclusion and then maintain the belief because it can't be disproved absolutely

If by religion you mean blind faith then yeah basically

 

[Fosheezy]

I've never heard one sound reason as to why it's logical to assume the ultimate source eternal being has to have a creator to exist just because he's the ultimate creator. I seriously don't know how yall brains aint never collapse trying to rationalize the implications behind what that would mean. How do you never end up vomiting in r/l behind such reasoning?

So it's illogical to ponder about the origin of such a creator and apply the very same logic many theists use to argue for said creator's existence?

If that's the case then how logical is it to assume that there is something out there that has an eternal existence, without incontrovertible evidence?

We're considering the idea of the existence of an eternal creator being. And in itself the very idea of eternal doesn't allow for the possibility of origin. We might not have the ability to fathom that, but we do have the ability to understand enough to accept and believe it. So the argument is that it's not possible for an eternal being to have an origin. Therefore it isn't reasonable to assume the Ultimate Creator has a creator. I'm just explaining the way the belief works.

 

[beenwize]

How is Jesus supposed to knock us off guard and come like a theif in the night if nuclear world war, famine, disease, Mark of the beast, and all this other shyt is supposed to occur first?

 

[alissowack]

The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.

If someone claims there is a God then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of God's non-existence.

I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of God. Despite not really know if there is a God or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of God to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of God argument is not about religion either.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.

If someone claims there is a God then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of God's non-existence.

I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of God. Despite not really know if there is a God or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of God to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of God argument is not about religion either.

Most here are arguing against the theist position which most religions hold. Truncating theistic religion doesn't help the God argument. Creating erroneous scenarios that conflict with reality doesn't help either.

 

[Rubato Garcia]

I've never heard one sound reason as to why it's logical to assume the ultimate source eternal being has to have a creator to exist just because he's the ultimate creator. I seriously don't know how yall brains aint never collapse trying to rationalize the implications behind what that would mean. How do you never end up vomiting in r/l behind such reasoning?

So it's illogical to ponder about the origin of such a creator and apply the very same logic many theists use to argue for said creator's existence?

If that's the case then how logical is it to assume that there is something out there that has an eternal existence, without incontrovertible evidence?

We're considering the idea of the existence of an eternal creator being. And in itself the very idea of eternal doesn't allow for the possibility of origin. We might not have the ability to fathom that, but we do have the ability to understand enough to accept and believe it. So the argument is that it's not possible for an eternal being to have an origin. Therefore it isn't reasonable to assume the Ultimate Creator has a creator. I'm just explaining the way the belief works.

What if I told you that very idea is a myth? I'm not aware of anything in this universe that's truly "eternal."

 

[alissowack]

The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.

If someone claims there is a God then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of God's non-existence.

I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of God. Despite not really know if there is a God or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of God to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of God argument is not about religion either.

Most here are arguing against the theist position which most religions hold. Truncating theistic religion doesn't help the God argument. Creating erroneous scenarios that conflict with reality doesn't help either.

I did point out in a previous post that an unfortunate aspect of the argument that it is mostly the religious that hold it. But it doesn't mean that the argument supports religion. If anything, it means the religious are more in favor of the argument for an explanation for God's Existence than the religion they serve. It's like saying that because the cosmological argument is logically sound and true, then we should all worship Thor. The cosmological argument and Thor are two different issues. And you may not like the outcome of the answer, but it doesn't make it erroneous.

 

[Fosheezy]

I've never heard one sound reason as to why it's logical to assume the ultimate source eternal being has to have a creator to exist just because he's the ultimate creator. I seriously don't know how yall brains aint never collapse trying to rationalize the implications behind what that would mean. How do you never end up vomiting in r/l behind such reasoning?

So it's illogical to ponder about the origin of such a creator and apply the very same logic many theists use to argue for said creator's existence?

If that's the case then how logical is it to assume that there is something out there that has an eternal existence, without incontrovertible evidence?

We're considering the idea of the existence of an eternal creator being. And in itself the very idea of eternal doesn't allow for the possibility of origin. We might not have the ability to fathom that, but we do have the ability to understand enough to accept and believe it. So the argument is that it's not possible for an eternal being to have an origin. Therefore it isn't reasonable to assume the Ultimate Creator has a creator. I'm just explaining the way the belief works.

What if I told you that very idea is a myth? I'm not aware of anything in this universe that's truly "eternal."

I don't think there's any such thing as eternal physical matter as all matter has a starting point and eventually fades. So the ultimate creator if exists would have to be a spiritual being. Not something you can see but you can feel and see the effects of. like wind.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.

If someone claims there is a God then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of God's non-existence.

I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of God. Despite not really know if there is a God or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of God to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of God argument is not about religion either.

Most here are arguing against the theist position which most religions hold. Truncating theistic religion doesn't help the God argument. Creating erroneous scenarios that conflict with reality doesn't help either.

I did point out in a previous post that an unfortunate aspect of the argument that it is mostly the religious that hold it. But it doesn't mean that the argument supports religion. If anything, it means the religious are more in favor of the argument for an explanation for God's Existence than the religion they serve. It's like saying that because the cosmological argument is logically sound and true, then we should all worship Thor. The cosmological argument and Thor are two different issues. And you may not like the outcome of the answer, but it doesn't make it erroneous.

My statements apply to the non religious as much as it applies to the religious that fall under the umbrella of theism. Their central claims are the same. It is that claim that I've been contesting this entire time because it is presented without evidence, and it is a grand conclusion based on faith rather then research. The additional drivel that religions present is only icing on the cake to illuminate the propensity to grasp at straws and abridge information to fit ones desires.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

I've never heard one sound reason as to why it's logical to assume the ultimate source eternal being has to have a creator to exist just because he's the ultimate creator. I seriously don't know how yall brains aint never collapse trying to rationalize the implications behind what that would mean. How do you never end up vomiting in r/l behind such reasoning?

So it's illogical to ponder about the origin of such a creator and apply the very same logic many theists use to argue for said creator's existence?

If that's the case then how logical is it to assume that there is something out there that has an eternal existence, without incontrovertible evidence?

We're considering the idea of the existence of an eternal creator being. And in itself the very idea of eternal doesn't allow for the possibility of origin. We might not have the ability to fathom that, but we do have the ability to understand enough to accept and believe it. So the argument is that it's not possible for an eternal being to have an origin. Therefore it isn't reasonable to assume the Ultimate Creator has a creator. I'm just explaining the way the belief works.

What if I told you that very idea is a myth? I'm not aware of anything in this universe that's truly "eternal."

I don't think there's any such thing as eternal physical matter as all matter has a starting point and eventually fades. So the ultimate creator if exists would have to be a spiritual being. Not something you can see but you can feel and see the effects of. like wind.

So you saying god is blowing its hot breath all around us? Interesting. I didn't know Wind was a being.

 

[alissowack]

The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.

If someone claims there is a God then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of God's non-existence.

I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of God. Despite not really know if there is a God or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of God to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of God argument is not about religion either.

Most here are arguing against the theist position which most religions hold. Truncating theistic religion doesn't help the God argument. Creating erroneous scenarios that conflict with reality doesn't help either.

I did point out in a previous post that an unfortunate aspect of the argument that it is mostly the religious that hold it. But it doesn't mean that the argument supports religion. If anything, it means the religious are more in favor of the argument for an explanation for God's Existence than the religion they serve. It's like saying that because the cosmological argument is logically sound and true, then we should all worship Thor. The cosmological argument and Thor are two different issues. And you may not like the outcome of the answer, but it doesn't make it erroneous.

My statements apply to the non religious as much as it applies to the religious that fall under the umbrella of theism. Their central claims are the same. It is that claim that I've been contesting this entire time because it is presented without evidence, and it is a grand conclusion based on faith rather then research. The additional drivel that religions present is only icing on the cake to illuminate the propensity to grasp at straws and abridge information to fit ones desires.

Have you even studies the claims of monotheistic religions? Though they stress the existence of a deity, at it's core, they teach something very different from each other. And there is more to the aspect of evidence than what you can see, hear, taste, touch and feel. We can't measure consciousness but we trust that it's there.