Is atheism (or strong atheism if you prefer) inherently illogical?

Question

When I have in the past asked atheists why they are atheists, I have been told that there is no evidence that God exists and therefore atheism is the logical result.

But as you can see from:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmmS5qLOB3f6R8fl6sDG6Lzsy6IX?qid=20060828134500AAAHZVg

and:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkMzAvzs40njVz19YoztMVrsy6IX?qid=20060828140324AAMIk7D

Atheism is NOT the logical result of a lack of evidence for God's existence. Rather agnosticism is the strictly logical response to a lack of evidence.

So is there any logical basis at all for atheism?

devlsadvoct:

While you are certainly free to express an opinion, why do you think I would take advice on the "logical mind" from a person who could not produce a truth table for an if/then statement even after permission was given to check a textbook?

Gluon: So the word "logic" means pretty much the same thing as "opinion" to you?

KHAEOS: Good point.

Resurrectionist: Yes, I can validly say "I don't know whether or not an earthlike planet orbits Alpha Centauri" without discussing whether or not a giant wheel of cheese orbits Alpha Centauri.

Answer 1

I do not believe there is empirical evidence for strong atheism. I do not believe it is a question open to empirical study.

One can hold the belief of atheism on certain "logical" grounds, if you agree to certain premises. But not empirical or scientific grounds.

Also, certain religious beliefs can be proven wrong, but that does not mean *all* religious beliefs are proven wrong.

So, I agree - agnosticism is the "logical" result, based solely on evidence.

Answer 2

You can't simply ask "does god exist" without either explicitly or implicitly defining the god you are referring to. Any god that is defined incoherently is explicitly disproven by that fact. In the west, if you say "God", you have implied the creator god of monotheism. It's trivial enough to prove that the concept of a creator is incoherent, and thus explicitly prove that a creator god does not exist.

Is it possible to redefine the word 'god' in such a way as to show your newly defined god exists? Of course, but that's an act of equivocation, which you should well know is a form of fallacious argument. Such arbitrary definitions are really just games you are playing for the sole purpose of trying to claim that agnosticism is the right answer.

Assuming your links manage to prove that some randomly selected atheists don't understand that p->q does not necessitate q->p, that does not in the least demonstrate that atheism is unreasonable.

For deductive reasoning, lack of evidence is not proof of nonexistence, but we aren't discussing deductive logic in these discussions for the most part. We're discussing inductive reasoning. With inductive reasoning, all positive claims are assumed false until demonstrated. This is axiomatic of inductive reasoning, and is no doubt the way you live virtually all aspects of your life.

But since you're into logic, let's explore formal agnosticism. Formal agnosticism is the position that god is unknowable. For such a statement to be true, one of the following two is necessary:

- god does not exist
- god exists, but is unknowable

But both of these possibilities demand knowledge about god, which contradicts the formal agnostic claim that god is unknowable. So formal agnosticism is not a coherent position.

Everyone is either a theist or an atheist whether they like it or not. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist, because that's all the word 'atheist' necessarily implies. You can't get around this by calling yourself an agnostic. You are still either an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist.

Answer 3

Actually I think that atheists are more illogical than believers.

Believers accept the fact that they cannot comprehend how the world was made and they have invented the concept of God, to fill that blank. So in simple words what they say is that we believe in that great power that we cannot comprehend but has created us and protects us. It's a quite logical thought (except from the self centered "protects us" part, which I find too self-centered).

Atheists on the other side say that there is no God? Probably they mean that there is no God as most believers perceive him. I would agree with that. But If they are trying to actually prove logically that there isn't some greater power arranging things in the universe that would be really insane.

Because it is a fundamental law of science that you cannot reach to logical conclusions when you are part of the experiment.

Anyway, I don't believe that there are any true atheists at all! There are just believers of different idols. Some believe in human idols like Christ, Mohamed while others believe in human idols like Darwin, Einstein etc.

( There are also those who believe in human idols like David Beckam but that's another story)

Answer 4

No. There is no logical basis for either believing or not believing in God. Some people feel it and some don't. There is plenty of bad logic in scripture and in the belief-systems of the various fundamentalists and that is what so-called atheists are usually rebelling against. God is no more logical than love or art. God has less physical existence than music. Music is an invisible vibration in the air that carries a non-verbal idea and God is less physically real than that. Logic can't address that type of reality. God is (or isn't) a spiritual reality. Is if you believe, isn't if you don't.
No religion and no lack of religion is logical- not even remotely.
I hope this helps.

Answer 5

Agnostics have no proof of god but usually believe in some sort of entity. An Atheist, as I am does require logic as in science. Faith based persons believe in passed down theories and stories, that does not seem logical to me. Our brain is the most advanced on the earth which has allowed us to question our existence and create a reason as in religion. The animal kingdom on the other hand has no belief system other than inherited survival which to me is basic logic.

Answer 6

So... let me get this straight. If I propose something, and you can't disprove it, the "logical" thing for you to do is accept the possibility of it being true? Can you *really* do that, no matter how insane the idea is? Take the ever-so-famous FSM for example. Can you actually tell me, with a straight face, that you think there's a possibility that that is how the world began?

Edit: I think the idea of god has a lot more in common with the wheel of cheese than the earth-like planet. Don't you? Bad try at evading that.

Answer 7

There is no requirement that anyone take an agnostic view just because you say "can't disprove it!"

Any of billions unverifiable things could be posited, and you would correclty say, with all your formalisms, "can't disprove it". But there is little to no survival logic in believing fantastical assertions without evidence. Much better to get a handle on those things we can percieve, measure and live with. So, being an evil mofo strong atheist I will rephrase the question:

Is strong atheism (pointedly debasing fantastical claims) inherently logical as a life strategem, as compared to wasting time sucking up to religious (or any other) unprovable and wholly unlikely assertion? And yes, we can deal with this on a balance of probablilities given we live in a statisitical universe.

Strong atheism is a logical stratagem.

Answer 8

If there was a logical basis for god-worship, then there wouldn't be a logical basis for atheism. Were there in fact no basis for any kind of god-worship, it is only logical to assume that there is no god. I believe that there is no logical basis for god-worship.

Because there is no logical basis to believe that Haley's comet is really a spaceship meant to carry away our souls, is it better to think that we have no proof that it isn't a spaceship, and continue to accept the beliefs of those who do believe it so, or deny the existence of such a spaceship/comet? I believe agnostics may have it right, but no more so than atheists.

Answer 9

I am agnostic my self and I see your point, but I think you are not understanding the true meaning of the word logic. Logic can be used in any case. If they think that they see no evidence of God, then it is completely logical for them to be Atheist, just as a Christian thinks that they see evidence is God, then logic would only dictate that they believe. I on the other hand, believe that we can not know one way or the other, no proof against or for. Rational thought and logic are two different things.

Answer 10

The talking snake instructed Eve that they might replace into like gods in the event that they ate the fruit, so needless to say atheism had no longer something to do with it. after all, in those days God talked directly to Adam and Eve, so they won't often be atheists. Atheism might desire to in elementary terms have been around for the reason that he stopped making such appearances.