Isn't atheism illogical?

Question

If you are an atheist you would have to admit that there is a vast amount of information that you have never perceieved. Based on this it would be illogical to suggest that there is not God just because you have not seen one. Have you seen the moon slowly gravitate away from earth? Yet you assume that it's true based on calculations. What I say here is that there are many avenues so to speak that we have never gathered the possibile information on. Is it possible for you to not know of God unless you were God? I don't understand how an Atheist can say their belief is logical. I understand an agnostic view where they believe there is no way to know if there is a god or not. Please let me understand how atheism is logical.
Thanks

I may add that "proving" things is relative to our understanding. We can"prove" gravity but it's not an absolute truth, it's a matter of what we percieve. Think a 1000 years ago people who thought that gravity exsisted they would be discarded as people of "believeing in a God" are. Is it possible that in many many years from now perhaps we could prove God's existence?

Thanks, there have been some good points. Especially "BrianKSE2006." I just think there are a lot of ignorant claimed "atheists." They base most of their views on assumptions, not all of them do nor am I trying to prove there is a God, I just think it's illogical to say their isnt just because you don't have the ability to perceieve it.

I don't believe that everything developed on my own but thats my opinion of what I believe to be evidence of that. You have to start at the point of a God creating things or that things created themselves.

Who created God?
I believe God created himself as an entity however I do not understand God and his methods therefore I can't say for sure but only have faith that he want's me to behave in a certain manner which makes sense to me. I still haven't firgured it out, I still debate within myself, so I'm not one of religion but one who beleives in a God.

Where did all of the mass come from if the Big Bang Theory is correct?
The big bang theory is nothing more than a theory that explains how the universe was created. It is based on the assumption that a God did not create a universe that we percieve.

Basically, I'm just tired of ignorant people who claim to be atheist attack religions when they too have "blind faith."
I'm not trying to convince I'm trying to understand.

Again thank you all for intelligent debate and viewspoints. I think telling other people you perspective opens up thought.

I still will remain on the fact that some of you assume that natualism is the explination of our existence. When in fact we cannon prove evolution we only have "evidence" that suggests/supports the idea that evolution was possible, however there are too many gaps and holes, maybe one day we will understand our existence but at this point I cannot deny or accept evolution. Also I know Christians believe the earth and it's occupants are about 6-7K years old. This is historically acurate to know that man existed and so did the teachings of a god at this time. Before this time period cannont be historically true but only assumed by methods of percieving scienece with the assumption of no creator. Please understand a creationists view before making claims held by certain "churchs" a creationist and a person whom believes in God does not subject him to the views and thoughts of any church necessarly.

From a factual historical account the "cannon" of the new testiment was in circulation as early as 40AD. Thus it was only re-enforced and made official by Constantine and the council of Nieciem almost 200-300 years later. The Christ beleiving Jew would have believed the same new testiment modern day Christians believe. As far as your claims of religions omitting facts etc. That is based within a religion/individual effort. I'm not advocating for any paticular religion as within religions there are people whom are just like everyone else, they are compossed naturally to do wrong and bad things. John Lennon was an idealist and couldn'd understand reality there is evil in this world and always will be. Many people stereotype Christians by the acts of some individual claiming to be Christian this does not mean that the religion refects that or indiviuals who are Christains are necessarly like that. As for questioning and debate any intelligent congregation or creationist is open for debate

If anyone wants to debate why evolution is nothing more then a great assumptions that are based on godless acts please let's debate. I don't understand why any intelligent person who has done research (objective) and researched the experiements and sources for articles would actually beleive that the general evolution theory, microevolution, macroeveolution, have any revelence to actual SCIENCE! People like to label evolution as science when in all reality it's a theory based on a godless naturalistic and materialistic view. Both people whom beleieve in God and not are presented the same evidence, that is the science. Evolutionists like to connect things that don't connect by the assumptions that it happened. There still is NO EVIDENCE that intelligent forms have evolved in anyway, no evolutionist can scientifically explain how a transformation species evolved intelligence. Please let's debate.

Answer 1

ALL religion is illogical. Get over it already.

Answer 2

I see a lot of the replies to this question and wonder if those who claim atheism really know what it means. To be atheist means that you deny a god. This would mean that they can answer all the questions in the universe and explain all the unexplainable. With that being said, one can only come to their own opinion that based on the evidence they have, they believe there is no god. They are not atheists, they are agnostic.

I saw someone say that they have a scientific explaination for everything...ummm please list sources. The latest finding which caused the big news story about "intelligent design" points to the opposite. Chemical evolution and general evolution have been prooved inadequate at explaining creation. THE CREATORS OF THESE THEORIES HAVE ADMITTED IT. How can Darwin admit to his defeat while he isn't even alive....ask me and I'll gladly answer with a quote. Scientists have found an organism known as bacterial flagellum which has a microscopic outboard motor used for propulsion. It can spin up to 500,000 RPM and in an instant change the direction of rotation at the same RPM. The point is that there are dozens of parts that make this work and without a SINGLE part, the whole thing is useless. Therefore scientists have found an organism that can't be explained by evolution. You can't gradually work up to the final product because each addition would not help the organism until the final product is developed which is not how evolution works. Natural selection means that ever addition has to benefit the organism.

If interested I can explain how chemical evolution or "primal soup" doesn't come close to explaining creation either. So what you have here is God being more probable than chance....all signs are pointing to an intelligent creator but science books are not going to be quick to reprint books.

I didn't start out believing in God but the question of how we got here and what we are doing here is the most important question there is. I'm in school searching for this answer and my beliefs reflect what I've researched. You can't just say I don't understand and become a non-believer by default. "Seek the truth."

-bruce baisch
afireleftburning.com

Answer 3

You have taken a one-side view. Since you accept your church and the ideas of your religion, you assume that others must accept the same. Atheism is simply admitting that a person does not accept a god.(whichever one). The same is true with agnostics which confess that they don't know if god exists. All cultures have established a belief in a supreme being or beings but definitive proof of the deities is lacking. We know that Jesus Christ lived and was a teacher, but we also know that Buddha lived and too was a teacher. Their teachings are the basis for much of the theology of today. How we link these teachers to the infinite or divinty is mostly by oral history until at some point in time, it was compiled in to holy scriptures...they are not the words of god...but the words of men. Within the Christian religion, we are expected to accept certain events that are both illogical and improbable and those stories strain credibility and cause doubt. I was born as a Christian but due to changing family situation (my parents passed away and I became a foster son of a Chinese family...I am white). I became Buddhist. In Buddhism we too have things that are hard to accept but, they are more acceptable to me than Christianity. I would never promote Buddhism to you, and no one should promote their own beliefs...it is what satifies you and puts your heart at ease. If people feel comfortable being without a deity or an afterlife. It is their choice. When we talk about creation (I am a scientist), there is no hand of god that is proven...yes, we can see orderly progression but the church rejects the very idea of evolution which seems more the work of a creator than of accident.

Answer 4

As someone who doesn't believe in God, I can honestly say that I don't feel my viewpoint is any more or less logical than those with religious faith. It's simply my way to reconcile questions I have about life and the universe.

It doesn't make sense for me to believe in something that, so far, can't be evidenced through any kind of scientific or empirical data.

The most troubling aspect of trying to imagine that there is a God is the idea that God "always was." If religous people believe that we were created, then wouldn't it make sense to assume that our Creator was also created? And then who created the creator of the Creator? And so on? This is a concept I could never accept.

For me personally --and religion or lack thereof really is something that should be examined on a personal level-- the answer that makes the most sense is that there is no Supreme Being that controls/creates everything. Introducing a supernatural element to an otherwise physics-oriented universe is something my brain can't accept.

Answer 5

Okay, I haven't seen the moon move away from the earth, But since there are calculations and "proof" I believe this. The key word is proof, meaning evidence of this happening. Now there are many things that may suggest that there is a God, but there are many many more instances of evidence supporting my side, the logical side. The bible, the quaran, anything to do with most religions in the end contradicts itself and holds no value to a person looking for the truth. Haven't you noticed religions have evolved from one another? Just take a look at Christian holidays! Easter for example..The bunny and the egg? Now where do you think that came from, The Resurrection on Jesus? It doesn't make sense..now if you really cared you would find out that this is a tradition from the Wiccan religion, not Christian. Christmas, Jesus' birthday, yeah...it's been proven that he was born in August. Pretty big gap there. But whatever, you people will believe whatever it is you need to believe to live, obviously the weak minded need a leader and in today's culture it is completely normal to follow a figment of your imagination. Good Luck.

Answer 6

The enterprise of knowldege, particularly science concerns the continous search for truth, which is why scientists perform research.

Your logic is that God should exist since we can't fathom why He shouldn't, correct?

Well the idea is shaky to researchers because truth demands that the physics of nature has determined features, there is no need for a higher being because everything is self-explanatory or self-contained.

But here comes the intriguing part, complexity. If everything is isolated and it involves at most, 2 body interactions, no problem, there is determinism.

But as the complexity of a system increases, we usually have to resort to the tried and true method of probability. Which of course isn't exactly solid-undeniable proof.

So the question remains, can God see what's behind these complexities?

Answer 7

Firs I will defend the strongest position -- agnosticism.
In particular the strongest position is so called "soft agnosticism"
It says that-- RIGHT NOW there is not enough information to decide if there is a God or not, so people should withhold their Judgment either way.
This position makes the most sense to me, I see no God, nor calculations that will prove God, neither do i see a DISPROOF of God. So i withhold judgment.

Next i will attempt to defend Atheism.
In short atheism is based on a principle of Occam's razor[1], the principle holds that a person should assume as little things as possible.
As it happens God is not really necessary in explaining anything i experience, so i assume that God does not exist. Much like you assume that "pink unicorns" and "invisible dragons" do not exist. Sure pink unicorns might exist after all, but why should you waste your time believing in them?

In short not believing in God is as logical as not believing in "invisible dragons" or "space pirates" as far as there is not any EVIDENCE for their existence.

Answer 8

Personally I think religion is more illogical but it's hard to argue with "faith". The rest is just semantics!

Religion is based on belief in something regardless of ever "experiencing" it. Science is based on ... science. Some of it has proof and some of it is conjecture and theory.

Is it easier to believe God created everything or is it more likely that everything developed on it's own?

Two questions for you...

Who created God?
Where did all of the mass come from if the Big Bang Theory is correct?

Neither has an answer because we don't know... neither side is right and there is NO proof of either... so why argue? Its like trying to figure out who is more usless... Hillary or Bill Clinton, lol!

just believe in what you believe in and don't knock the other side... because either side could be the one that's wrong!

Answer 9

the same thing can be said to theists. I believe because i can never understand everything then i cannot just accredit everything that i don't understand to a God. Have you ever thought that if there is an omnipotent God then there is no way you could have any free will if God knows everything you are going to do before you do it? If you are a christian then how do you attribute a multiracial earth of humans that came from two people. I can't prove that there is not a God, but i do not want to waste my time.

Answer 10

Your very first sentence is not exclusively true. You say, "If you are an atheist you would have to admit that there is a vast amount of information that you have never perceieved". There are things that also theists don't perceive (see), but they still believe in it, making it a subjective matter, in which case it's not absolutely true. So both of these groups have the same lack of visual perception, but it's their interpretation of this that makes them who they are.

In addition, you talk about agnostics and atheists as only two separate entities, when you could be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist or a gnostic atheist.

Answer 11

To believe in God you need to have faith and not logic because logic will only lead you to question the apparent proofs or lack of causing you to question if god really exist. Hence, a person with a good sense of logic will arrive at an inconclusion since God cannot be proven or disproven. To be an atheist, you have to believe that God does not exist and that again needs faith. Those who claims to come to the conclusion that god does not exist by the way of reasoning and logic are not true logicians and possessed flawed reasoning.