Atheists, why do you attempt to apply logic? (philosophical, demon, origin)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I judge that strong atheism is the inability to be yourself in the face of the false God of promises. One turns out to hate being who he is. OR does this strong atheism accomplish the fact of achieving oneself by the shear mental delusion of achieving what the other recognizes YOU to already be. You must prove you are what they perhaps are lying that you are.
GOD does not lie but He doesn't exist even to tell the truth.
Some might argue that when we are dealing with religious and spiritual beliefs, the evidence of absence is all you need to show it is false. But, this assumes we know what we are looking for. For instance, God is often times compared to a invisible pink unicorn. Well, we know WHAT a unicorn is and what it looks. God has no description, many people get this idea God is some long white haired/bearded old guy floating on a cloud. But the reality is, we don't know. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack, when you don't know what a needle looks like and you can't tell the difference from a needle and hay.
What difference does it make that God is incomprehensible, and an invisible pink unicorn is not? If I replaced the unicorn with something incomprehensible, why should someone consider having faith in the existence of this new incomprehensible thing (let's call it "GodV2" for the sake of argument)?
Suppose that I defined "God+/-" as having those attributes you consider God to have, except that I either added or subtracted an attribute from God to define God+/-. Again why should someone consider having faith in the existence of God+/-?
BTW, you said that religion and spirituality are alogical. Would you say that God himself is not bound by the rules of logic? Could God create a contradiction, such as a thing which is both invisible (not seen) and pink (seen in a certain color/wavelength by humans)?
Last edited by austin944; 11-29-2011 at 09:17 PM..
What difference does it make that God is incomprehensible, and an invisible pink unicorn is not? If I replaced the unicorn with something incomprehensible, would you consider having faith in the existence of this new incomprehensible thing (let's call it "GodV2" for the sake of argument)?
Suppose that I defined "God+/-" as having those attributes you consider God to have, except that I either added or subtracted an attribute from God to define God+/-. Again would you consider having faith in the existence of God+/-?
BTW, you said that religion and spirituality are alogical. Would you say that God himself is not bound by the rules of logic? Could God create a contradiction, such as a thing which is both invisible (not seen) and pink (seen in a certain color/wavelength by humans)?
Your comparison of what some believe to be god and an invisible pink unicorn is a fallacy, as neither have anything to do with the other.
First, you say it is invisible, none of the theistic beliefs that I know of claim god to be invisible. Second, you assign it a color, one that most people know of and can point it out, the current theistic "god" does not have a defined skin tone or other physical attributes. Third, your use of the mystical animal the unicorn. Since the unicorn is supposedly an animal that we can describe. My question would be if the unicorn is invisible, how do you know it is pink,or even a unicorn for that matter?
The current theistic god has no physical description. As soon as you do give it a physical description, we know what to look for. You have to admit the theistic god that is currently subscribed to my many was a well thought out one.
As for defying logic, I don't believe in God, so I can't answer that question.
I wasn't suggesting anything about you. I was just pointing out why I debate on here. I don't have time for circular arguments. I have made several valid claims and you choose to ignore them. You don't even address most of them. My argument is valid, logical and reasonable. All things you claim to use in any argument, but I am failing to see it.
I have ignored nothing, this is just another cop out attempt. I have dealt with just about everything you have ever said to me in long, explanatory and well thought out posts. It is YOU who is doing the ignoring given that I keep correcting some of your errors and you keep repeating them and misrepresenting my position on many threads. The other thread I replied to today for example I have corrected your misrepresentation of my position once AGAIN and very far from the first time.
So start listening yourself before you start accusing others of not and I have seen nothing valid at all in your arguments nor in the arguments of those who subscribe to the entirely and totally unsubstantiated claims that there is a god.
So keep your cop out ad hominem comments to yourself and deal with the content of peoples posts and not the poster. If you can.
To go back on topic therefore, since one of us needs to be the bigger man and stick to the content rather than the posters, I repeat what I wrote in the first post I made on the thread. The conversation is not just limited to logic, that is what you are missing here. The conversation is about the fact that there is literally nothing on offer AT ALL to substantiate the claims that there is a god entity.
The question I ask all the time is: Have you any arguments, data, evidence OR reasons on offer to substantiate the claim in any way at all and lend it even a modicum of credence? The answer to that question from the theist side is, consistently, a very clear no. There simply is no basis at all on offer to think there is such an entity.
Literally the only thing you offer as "evidence" is personal testimony but this is entirely useless. There are very few deranged ideas you can make up in this world that you can not find someone to testify to it. Think of any cockamamie idea you have ever heard and I bet you will find someone testifying to it's truth or making up testimony to it. For example I am posting on a thread where someone believes you can record the voices of ghosts using cassette tapes. His only evidence was a made up story that he played that tape to a room full of people in his house and they all agreed with him.
Wow, guess we all need to believe HIM then don't we? And therefore you too. And therefore anyone who ever made up mad ideas, solely because someone somewhere agreed with them or they imagine someone somewhere does.
The conversation is not just limited to logic, that is what you are missing here. The conversation is about the fact that there is literally nothing on offer AT ALL to substantiate the claims that there is a god entity.
The conversation is about the use of logic when trying to debunk religions. Not if various religious beliefs are valid or not. This thread is done. If you want to discuss the validity of religious beliefs, start a new thread.
But the discussion of logic in relation to those beliefs MAKES this a thread about religious beliefs.
As I pointed out, it is heartening to read that someone recognizes that such beliefs are not in any way based on logic. If everyone realized that this would be massive progress. The next step would be to make them realize that such beliefs are not actually based on ANYTHING valid at all, much less logic.
Threads saying what is NOT evidence for god are all well and good, but they are just filling the gaps caused by the lack of any threads saying what IS evidence.
Plus, as I said, there are many many speakers in the religion community who very much disagree with you. From militant homophobe Dinesh DSouza to acomplished rhetoric artist William Craig, they very much do claim that the idea there is a god is logic based. So really it is people like them, not us, you need to take this up with.
What difference does it make that God is incomprehensible, and an invisible pink unicorn is not?
Wait, how is something which is simultaneously pink and invisible considered comprehensible?
ETA - Yes, I know the standard "She's invisible because we can't see her and we know she's pink through faith bestowed upon us" parody of trinitarianism, but I think that would make it more similar to an inherently incomprehensible god than anything else.
Actually, the question: 'to apply logic' to me means the awareness of Being for every minute detail in life over and against knowledge about the universe. But atheists persist to say that we can and must perform that attitude at the personal situation without God, the transcendent Being, existing. This kind of intuition (yes, now I can say intuition) is the most up to date for them.
Not rational based on what? Evidence, empirical data, proof, or just opinion?
Based on ancient middle eastern myths.
Quote:
You are making a claim that religious belief isn't rational, you now have the burden of proof for this claim.
The proof is in the baseless supernatural claims.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
