• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Rejection of God=logical?

RabidAlpaca said:
That is incorrect. Being an atheist is declaring "there is no god", while being a theist is declaring "there is a god". I, as an agnostic, admit that both cases are unproven.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Being an atheist is not believing in a god. Very few atheists declare there are no god(s). Atheists in general state there is no evidence for the existence of gods, thus they don't believe in gods. Non-belief is not the same as disbelief. Atheism/theism deal with belief.

Agnosticism/gnosticism, on the other hand, deal with the availability of knowledge. It answer an entirely different question.

What you're attempting to do is similar to someone asking what color the sky is and you answering "mashed potatoes".
 
RabidAlpaca said:
That is incorrect. Being an atheist is declaring "there is no god", while being a theist is declaring "there is a god". I, as an agnostic, admit that both cases are unproven.
Click to expand...

*Buzzer sounds* WRONG!

Atheists say there is no basis for the claim of a "god." Very few actually claim "there is no 'god'." I think Paralogic may be one of the very few.
 
Cephus said:
Wrong. Being an atheist is not believing in a god. Very few atheists declare there are no god(s). Atheists in general state there is no evidence for the existence of gods, thus they don't believe in gods. Non-belief is not the same as disbelief. Atheism/theism deal with belief.

Agnosticism/gnosticism, on the other hand, deal with the availability of knowledge. It answer an entirely different question.

What you're attempting to do is similar to someone asking what color the sky is and you answering "mashed potatoes".
Click to expand...

That is incorrect again. You're trying to say that agnosticism is equivalent to atheism, and that is not only factually untrue, but untrue by the very definition of both.

I have no idea if god exists or not. I haven't seen evidence for or against it. The only thing I personally declare is untrue is mainstream religion.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You're trying to say that agnosticism is equivalent to atheism, and that is not only factually untrue, but untrue by the very definition of both.
Click to expand...

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually incompatible. I consider myself both. You can deny the existence of gods without claiming absolute knowledge of their nonexistence. Similarly, you can be both agnostic and theist.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
That is incorrect again. You're trying to say that agnosticism is equivalent to atheism, and that is not only factually untrue, but untrue by the very definition of both.

I have no idea if god exists or not. I haven't seen evidence for or against it. The only thing I personally declare is untrue is mainstream religion.
Click to expand...

You're clearly not reading what is being written. I'm not only not saying agnosticism and atheism are equivalent, I'm saying they have nothing whatsoever to do with each other!

Atheism and theism are the answer to a single question: do you believe in a god? If you answer "yes", you are a theist. If you have any other answer, including "I don't know" and "I don't care", you are an atheist. It is a binary question, you either believe or you do not. You cannot be both an atheist and a theist, you cannot be neither. You are one of them whether you like it or not.

Agnosticism and gnosticism answer an entirely different question regarding the availability of knowledge regarding religion. It is a more difficult question because it depends on how it is phrased. In it's most common form, it wants to know if the individual thinks it is possible to know anything about the characteristics or existence of any god. If you answer "yes", you are a gnostic, if you answer anything else, you are an agnostic.

If you do not hold an active belief in the existence of a god, then you are, by definition, an atheist. Atheists do not necessarily hold an active belief in the non-existence of a god, they simply lack the active belief that one exists.

It's not that hard and words have meanings for a reason.
 
This thread has already been answered. From John Nolt's Logic:

A) No one has never proven that God does exist.
∴ God does not exist.

B) No one has ever proven that God does not exist.
∴ God does exist.

Both of these arguments are fallacious appeals to ignorance. Nothing about the existence of God follows from our inability to prove God's existence or nonexistence.
 
Wake said:
This thread has already been answered. From John Nolt's Logic:

A) No one has never proven that God does exist.
∴ God does not exist.

B) No one has ever proven that God does not exist.
∴ God does exist.

Both of these arguments are fallacious appeals to ignorance. Nothing about the existence of God follows from our inability to prove God's existence or nonexistence.
Click to expand...

It is true that both of those statements are fallacious, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That said though, without evidence, holding a position on blind faith is equally absurd. Holding any belief without any good, objective reason to think it is actually true is delusion. Rejecting delusion on the basis of a lack of evidence is logically cohesive.
 
Cephus said:
It is true that both of those statements are fallacious, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That said though, without evidence, holding a position on blind faith is equally absurd. Holding any belief without any good, objective reason to think it is actually true is delusion. Rejecting delusion on the basis of a lack of evidence is logically cohesive.
Click to expand...

That applies to both the religious and atheists, because it is illogical for either to make one of the fallacious arguments.

Thus, the logical approach is to state that, logically, there "may" be a God(s). It can't be proven, but regardless the possibility is there.
 
Wake said:
That applies to both the religious and atheists, because it is illogical for either to make one of the fallacious arguments.

Thus, the logical approach is to state that, logically, there "may" be a God(s). It can't be proven, but regardless the possibility is there.
Click to expand...

But most atheists aren't making that statement, they are saying that because the claimants, in this case theists, have so utterly failed to prove their case by providing any evidence, that they are rejecting the claims as unsubstantiated. There's only one atheist I know of here that is claiming no gods exist, period. Everyone else is rejecting empty claims on the basis of a failure to produce evidence.
 
stonewall50 said:
This is something I have been pondering. I am still trying to get my wording down. But I constantly see the words, "concerned with truth," or "all I want is the truth," or some combination of words and "truth."

So my pontifications have led me to wondering about atheism. The basis that there is no proof of any deity, and that rejection is the only plausible and logical action, how exactly does that work? Let me explain. In order to PROVE there is a diety, there must be an experiment to do so? Or perhaps a type of evidence? What would that evidence be? The idea that a provable point is can be made off of some experience? But perhaps that is not exactly what we are talking about? The existance of ANY diety? The standard of evidence would have to be repeatable correct?

So all that said. How is atheism:the complete rejection of a diety, logical? Would not skepticism be logical? Agnoticism be the LOGICAL choice? How can one completely reject the idea of a diety without at least being able to provide the failed experiment as the proof? One can make a PREDICTION that there is no diety of any kind, but is it not incorrect in terms of scientific method or logic to say that there is NOTHING? Is not atheism a denial based upon a prediction of a future experiment rather than hard evidence?
Click to expand...

That is just semantic nonsense. Few atheists reject the remote possibility that there might be something that someone could label as a god. It is not possible to do so because you cannot disprove something that has not been asserted. Many "spiritualists" and new age bsers will maintain some undefinable god may still exist.

An atheist would reject the idea that there is sufficient proof to entertain such flights of fancy and argue that there is no reason to do so. And agnostic would entertain the nonsense and may feel some need to do so.
 
Cephus said:
You're clearly not reading what is being written. I'm not only not saying agnosticism and atheism are equivalent, I'm saying they have nothing whatsoever to do with each other!

Atheism and theism are the answer to a single question: do you believe in a god? If you answer "yes", you are a theist. If you have any other answer, including "I don't know" and "I don't care", you are an atheist. It is a binary question, you either believe or you do not. You cannot be both an atheist and a theist, you cannot be neither. You are one of them whether you like it or not.

Agnosticism and gnosticism answer an entirely different question regarding the availability of knowledge regarding religion. It is a more difficult question because it depends on how it is phrased. In it's most common form, it wants to know if the individual thinks it is possible to know anything about the characteristics or existence of any god. If you answer "yes", you are a gnostic, if you answer anything else, you are an agnostic.

If you do not hold an active belief in the existence of a god, then you are, by definition, an atheist. Atheists do not necessarily hold an active belief in the non-existence of a god, they simply lack the active belief that one exists.

It's not that hard and words have meanings for a reason.
Click to expand...

a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

ag·nos·ti·cism   [ag-nos-tuh-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.
2.
an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.



Saying that you don't know is not confirming disbelief, it is confirming not knowing. Yes, atheism/theism, and gnosticism/agnosticism are different categories, however, you are not automatically in the atheist or theist category.

If I show you a box and tell you that there's a bird in it. I then ask you: "Is there a bird in this box?"
You have three possible answers:
- Yes. (because you trust me to tell the truth)
- No. (because you don't trust me to tell the truth)
- I don't know (because you haven't looked inside the box to find out.)

Answering I don't know does not automatically put you into the "There's-No-Bird-In-That-Box Believers" category
 
RabidAlpaca said:
a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

ag·nos·ti·cism   [ag-nos-tuh-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.
2.
an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.



Saying that you don't know is not confirming disbelief, it is confirming not knowing. Yes, atheism/theism, and gnosticism/agnosticism are different categories, however, you are not automatically in the atheist or theist category.

If I show you a box and tell you that there's a bird in it. I then ask you: "Is there a bird in this box?"
You have three possible answers:
- Yes. (because you trust me to tell the truth)
- No. (because you don't trust me to tell the truth)
- I don't know (because you haven't looked inside the box to find out.)

Answering I don't know does not automatically put you into the "There's-No-Bird-In-That-Box Believers" category
Click to expand...
Atheism refers both to an active disbelief in God and a more passive lack of belief in God. A newborn baby is an atheist.

People always seem to get that wrong....
 
iangb said:
Atheism refers both to an active disbelief in God and a more passive lack of belief in God. A newborn baby is an atheist.

People always seem to get that wrong....
Click to expand...

Yes, but it doesn't cover a person who has analytically examined the evidence of both sides, and decided that the evidence is lacking for either verdict.
 
stonewall50 said:
This is something I have been pondering. I am still trying to get my wording down. But I constantly see the words, "concerned with truth," or "all I want is the truth," or some combination of words and "truth."

So my pontifications have led me to wondering about atheism. The basis that there is no proof of any deity, and that rejection is the only plausible and logical action, how exactly does that work? Let me explain. In order to PROVE there is a diety, there must be an experiment to do so? Or perhaps a type of evidence? What would that evidence be? The idea that a provable point is can be made off of some experience? But perhaps that is not exactly what we are talking about? The existance of ANY diety? The standard of evidence would have to be repeatable correct?

So all that said. How is atheism:the complete rejection of a diety, logical? Would not skepticism be logical? Agnoticism be the LOGICAL choice? How can one completely reject the idea of a diety without at least being able to provide the failed experiment as the proof? One can make a PREDICTION that there is no diety of any kind, but is it not incorrect in terms of scientific method or logic to say that there is NOTHING? Is not atheism a denial based upon a prediction of a future experiment rather than hard evidence?
Click to expand...

Being strictly atheist does seem illogical, but more close-minded than anything. Our tests are limited by the technology we have. Maybe one day, we'll be able to prove there is a test. Until then, agnosticism seems more logical than atheism
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yes, but it doesn't cover a person who has analytically examined the evidence of both sides, and decided that the evidence is lacking for either verdict.
Click to expand...
Belief/no belief is a dichotomy - you either believe in something, or you don't. Someone who has decided the evidence is lacking for either verdict would then choose whether to believe or not, becoming an agnostic atheist (such as myself) or an agnostic theist (for example, someone who believes that their faith makes them a better person even if it turns out to be wrong). Since the default position is skepticism, 'agnostic atheist' is the logical default position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom