Rejection of God=logical?

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?

Religious assertions about causes of disease did not live up to scrutiny. Religious assertions about timetables about the age of the Earth and of life on it did not live up to scrutiny. Experiments have been conducted about the efficacy of prayer in overcoming injury or disease, and found no correlation at all. Religious assertions about the interactions of the Earth, sun, and moon did not live up to scrutiny. Supposedly divine miracles are found to have mundane explanations.

There have been many many many experiments, and all have yielded the same result.

To say 'there is definitely no God' is, indeed, an illogical, unfounded assertion. To say 'there probably is no God' is not.

Agnostic atheism FTW.

stonewall50 said:

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...

All existing evidence fits the model that gods and religion were created by humans. The very concept of a god is nothing more than taking natural phenomenon and declaring there is human-like intelligence guiding it. Gods look like humans, talk like humans, share human morality, have human emotions and often even look like humans. Above all, gods provide for human emotional needs. God will give you an afterlife for your fear of death, divine judgement to satisfy the desire for justice and let you pray so you never feel totally helpless. All in all, God was much more likely created by humans to satisfy our emotional needs, rather than the other way around.

stonewall50 said:

Agnoticism be the LOGICAL choice?

Click to expand...

I'm agnostic so it may be self serving for me to say so, but I believe it is the most logical choice.

That being said, I take the Victorian stance that even if you don't believe in a God, the concept is necessary for a large segment of society, and it is socially appropriate if not necessary to pay it lip service as if you did believe. So in that sense, I would argue that rejection of God would be irrational as it only stirs up resentment among those who do believe and could undermine the social cohesion that religion creates in society.

iangb said:

To say 'there is definitely no God' is, indeed, an illogical, unfounded assertion. To say 'there probably is no God' is not.

Agnostic atheism FTW.

Click to expand...

Well that is the point I am making. To be STRICTLY atheist is illogical. Regardless of how many science experiments come up with a conclusion in the form of "no," it does not mean that they can conclusively used as future proof.

I know I probably angered some atheists with this question, but I am merely highlighting a point that nags at me. How can one claim there is no possibility as "logical and scientific" when it is not? Logic dictates that it IS possible, perhaps highly improbable, but still possible. Skepticism might be the logical choice, but not total denial.

Perhaps "pure" atheists are simply challenged in the spirtuality department.

I consider myself to be a deist more than an atheist, but most organized religions come across as a bunch of superstitious fools to me.

CriticalThought said:

I'm agnostic so it may be self serving for me to say so, but I believe it is the most logical choice.

That being said, I take the Victorian stance that even if you don't believe in a God, the concept is necessary for a large segment of society, and it is socially appropriate if not necessary to pay it lip service as if you did believe. So in that sense, I would argue that rejection of God would be irrational as it only stirs up resentment among those who do believe and could undermine the social cohesion that religion creates in society.

Click to expand...

That is precisely the point. Agnosticism is the "logical choice." To claim that atheism is...ignores the laws of science and math. If one were to believe in Science and math and truth, one would consider themselves a skeptic and Agnostic. Not an atheist. An atheist would have to deny ALL possibility correct? An atheist view can be proven wrong, if evidence were to be provided. So if one were concerned with TRUTH, one would claim the position of skepticism, deny the current views of the world, but not fully reject the notion that it is POSSIBLE, albeit unlikely for a diety to exist?

Rejection of belief in anything for which there is insufficient (or any in this case) objective evidence is the epitome of logic.

stonewall50 said:

Well that is the point I am making. To be STRICTLY atheist is illogical. Regardless of how many science experiments come up with a conclusion in the form of "no," it does not mean that they can conclusively used as future proof.

I know I probably angered some atheists with this question, but I am merely highlighting a point that nags at me. How can one claim there is no possibility as "logical and scientific" when it is not? Logic dictates that it IS possible, perhaps highly improbable, but still possible. Skepticism might be the logical choice, but not total denial.

Click to expand...

Lets suppose I claim you are a pedophile. Since you can't prove that you have never molested children, the proper position is to be agnostic about the possibility, right? Saying "I am not a child rapist" would be incorrect, since it is possible that you have engaged in predatory behavior.

In real life, there comes a point at which probabilities become low enough you can practically consider them to be 0. If a guy being hauled off to jail says his twin brother who was hidden at birth is the real criminal, I will dismiss the possibility if there is no evidence, even though it is theoretically possible. Maybe we are living in the matrix and maybe gods exist, but I can live my entire life assuming they don't and be the better for it.

So.... God can neither be proved nor disproved. Gotcha.

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...

The force that created the universe could certainly be viewed as a "god".

Does that force watch over us, require certain customs and demand money and prayer? The universe is a pretty big place. So quite possibly not.

Have no purely "scientific" assertions ever been disproved over the years?

Paschendale said:

Religious assertions about causes of disease did not live up to scrutiny. Religious assertions about timetables about the age of the Earth and of life on it did not live up to scrutiny. Experiments have been conducted about the efficacy of prayer in overcoming injury or disease, and found no correlation at all. Religious assertions about the interactions of the Earth, sun, and moon did not live up to scrutiny. Supposedly divine miracles are found to have mundane explanations.

There have been many many many experiments, and all have yielded the same result.

Click to expand...

"Big" is a relative concept.

specklebang said:

The force that created the universe could certainly be viewed as a "god".

Does that force watch over us, require certain customs and demand money and prayer? The universe is a pretty big place. So quite possibly not.

Click to expand...

I feel like you're trying to make a point but I can't figure out what it is.

Peter Grimm said:

"Big" is a relative concept.

Click to expand...

Easy. You were saying that God doesn't likely watch over us because the universe is a big place. What I'm saying is something that seems big to you or me may not be to God.

specklebang said:

I feel like you're trying to make a point but I can't figure out what it is.

Click to expand...

stonewall50 said:

That is precisely the point. Agnosticism is the "logical choice." To claim that atheism is...ignores the laws of science and math. If one were to believe in Science and math and truth, one would consider themselves a skeptic and Agnostic. Not an atheist. An atheist would have to deny ALL possibility correct? An atheist view can be proven wrong, if evidence were to be provided. So if one were concerned with TRUTH, one would claim the position of skepticism, deny the current views of the world, but not fully reject the notion that it is POSSIBLE, albeit unlikely for a diety to exist?

Click to expand...

It depends on what kind of atheist you are talking about. You seem to be thinking that all atheists are the same, which is similar to arguing that all theists are the same. There are varying degrees. There are some atheists who argue from a fundamentalist standpoint that there is no God. There are also those that argue from a probability standpoint that it is incredibly unlikely that there is a God. The former is far more likely to reject even the possibility of a God than the latter even though they both generally don't believe in a God.

rathi said:

Lets suppose I claim you are a pedophile. Since you can't prove that you have never molested children, the proper position is to be agnostic about the possibility, right?

Click to expand...

Wrong. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between atheism and theism, or in this case, between apedophilism and pedophilism (?), it is an entirely separate question on the availability of knowledge. It would answer the question of whether it is possible to know if our subject is a pedophile or not, or if pedophilia exists or not, depending on how you phrase the question. It tells us nothing whatsoever about what someone believes regarding the claim of pedophilia.

Good point. I understand what you are saying.

Peter Grimm said:

Easy. You were saying that God doesn't likely watch over us because the universe is a big place. What I'm saying is something that seems big to you or me may not be to God.

Click to expand...

Henry David said:

Perhaps "pure" atheists are simply challenged in the spirtuality department.

Click to expand...

Spirituality? What the hell do you need that for?

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...

You left out an important stages that economizes our energies so we do not waste time on silly questions.

You went straight from asking the question to doing experiments. That just is not how science works.

1. Ask a Question
2. Do Background Research
3. Construct a Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6. Communicate Your Results

Is there a deity?
Then you research to learn what exactly is a deity and where would they be? Is the a reason for deities to exist?

With extensive non biased research to prove the plausibility of the question,you either acquired enough information to support that the question is worth investigating or not.
You must have a solid base of discovery to go forward. If you cannot bring forth supportive data to frame the question properly then you cannot move forward to constructing an Hypothesis.
And you cannot start testing anything without an working hypothesis.

SO humanity has never made it past asking the question so therefor its a dead end question that leads nowhere. There is no need to go any further since the question is not even plausible.

The people that go any further than step one are relying solely on faith or wishful thinking.


Which brings me to theists and faith. If you admit to needing faith in a diety and that there can be no proofs of gods, why do you guys keep insisting that god exists? The reality is that you believe that god(s) exists and thats the end of the story you have nothing more to add. You only have an opinion and thats all you can have and the fact that you need faith to believe in gods proves the point. The existence of something has to have some basis in reality. Just about all religions assert that gods exist outside of nature. Or that they have powers that defy nature. You need to prove that something can exit outside of the natural world and that something can act outside of the laws of the natural world.


The scenario for gods that we have to go on all turn out to be social and cultural constructs of society or an individual that can only base those ideas on their faith that they exist. Which proves that there isnt any gods to look for that they all are just yarns told by humans for various provable reasons. To be agnostic at this point seems to me a bit unwarranted IMO. An agnostic is holding out that gods perhaps might exist since they cannot prove it in their minds. Logically what are they trying to leave room for existing, can any agnostic explain what it is that can be a plausible reality? I challenge any agnostic to come forward from step one and make it step 4. I do not expect for you to do an actual test of any sort, but an agnostic position presumes that we have made it to step 4 but it is impossible to complete step 4. So show me that steps 2 and 3 are completed? Show your work please, dont just assume that we enjoy the same faith that has brought you to step 4 without addressing steps 2 and 3.

Peter Grimm said:

Have no purely "scientific" assertions ever been disproved over the years?

Click to expand...

Like what? And what do you mean by "scientific"?

The logic you used to attempt to disprove the existence of God was that certain assertions, specific to one particular religion, have been disproved.

Use the same standard of logic, then, on what you believe.

In the 19th century, scientists believed that a planet existed between Mercury and the Sun. It was called Vulcan. Since that didn't hold up, clearly Astronomy as a study has to be thrown out the window.

It was once understood that Earth is constantly expanding. This was the explanation for the continents, for earthquakes, etc. Since that didn't hold up, clearly Geology should no longer be taught.

See the pattern here?

Paschendale said:

Like what? And what do you mean by "scientific"?

Click to expand...

rathi said:

Lets suppose I claim you are a pedophile. Since you can't prove that you have never molested children, the proper position is to be agnostic about the possibility, right? Saying "I am not a child rapist" would be incorrect, since it is possible that you have engaged in predatory behavior.

In real life, there comes a point at which probabilities become low enough you can practically consider them to be 0. If a guy being hauled off to jail says his twin brother who was hidden at birth is the real criminal, I will dismiss the possibility if there is no evidence, even though it is theoretically possible. Maybe we are living in the matrix and maybe gods exist, but I can live my entire life assuming they don't and be the better for it.

Click to expand...

Crime is a different beast alltogether. A crime is something that you would have to prove. It isn't about evidence that I don't have. I don't have to PROVE I am innocent, you must prove I am guilty. The scenario of which you are reffering would ONLY be relevant in a situation like the movie, "Minority Report" where you had foreknowledge of a future possible crime. You would have to discuss proof of an incident that has not happened.

You must consider what we are discussing. We are discussing a diety. An infinite being. Something that deals with after death. That existed before humans. That there for which there is no experiment. Like I said before...the skeptical belief is logical. That you find it unlikely. But to say that it is TOTALLY impossible? That to me is illogical. It isn't that you need evidence of your claim. That is not at ALL what I am trying to say. It is that our claim is only a prediction. It isn't LOGICAL or based on science. Agnososticism is. Agnosticism is logical because it says that, and keep in mind this next part is the important part: It is POSSIBLE that a diety exists, just highly unlikely. It doesn't reject the notion that perhaps there is something we have not found out. Atheism makes a claim and says we will NEVER find evidence. Agnosticism says it is unlikely that we do, but we could.

My beef is with Atheists who try to claim logic as their own, when in fact, making a concrete claim on something for which there is no experimental data, no information, no existing hypothesis...that is illogical. You can't experiment on something for which you do not have the appropriate hypthesis for...let alone make a prediction for it.

(Btw please try to avoid calling someone a child rapist...I understand the metaphor, but it would cause some people to get personal. I don't take offense because I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and hoping you were not trying to sneak in a little slight).

Peter Grimm said:

So.... God can neither be proved nor disproved. Gotcha.

Click to expand...

Well that is really my point. That would be the LOGICAL assertion. Atheism makes a claim, as does religion. I have reached a better understanding of my faith. I understand that my religion is based on something other than logic. It is based on faith. I am ok with that, and that is not the topic that I am discussing here. I am saying that atheism does not stand up to the "logic debate" either. It is picking a side to a question that has not been asked yet.