So, just so I understand whats going on right now, here in our friendly corner of the universe, Atheists are being accused indirectly of not being logical enough or not having formal training in logic, is that correct.
So I just have one question about this topic.
God any real proof of God? No? Wheres the logic in believing in something without proof?
Don't need to have any logic training for that one did I?
2006-10-06 15:47:07 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The poster has been direct in his/her accusation that we atheists do not have legitimate arguments because we are not formally trained in logic. My response is that he/she deliberately uses obscure rhetoric to hide the basic ignorance of his own arguments, just as his buddy, Jacques Derrida, a second-rate pseudo-philosopher, tended to do.
2006-10-06 16:22:56 · answer #1 · answered by Kathryn™ 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There's more proof for God (Jesus Christ) than there is against Him. Just cause you dont experience Him in your life, and you cant stick Him into you test tubes and beakers doesnt make Him not real.
More than likely if you dont believe in God, then you probably submit to the garbage that is called the big bang. Here's a question:
The universe is obviously organized;anyone with eyes or any type of perception can see that. A bang or explosion as scientist continually say would spread randomness; and the universe is not random it's organized. So How do you explain the organization of our world without God?
2006-10-06 16:01:48 · answer #2 · answered by Maurice H 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are many, many ways to respond. In short, proof is defined by certain criterion and not all people will agree what constitutes proof or if proof is possible. Furthermore, some people have a low view of what can and cannot be proven (regardless of theological questions). These are ordinary epistemological issues.
As pertaining to logic, one interesting response is to mention language and the post-structuralist critique of the way all human discourse breaks down (i.e. Derrida). This, meaning itself, hinges on language having predication. Many of these post-structuralist philosphers (including Richard Rorty) admit that if their view is wrong, the only possible alternative is Trinitarian Christianity with the full deity of Jesus as the Logos (or Logic) of John 1:1. In the beginning was the Logic. Justin Martyer, influenced by Hellenistic philosophy, held this view. As did Gordon Clark, a modern philosopher. In other words Christ is Logic incarnate and the predication of language itself.
2006-10-06 15:59:29 · answer #3 · answered by BABY 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
While there are mountains of evidence to support the existance of God including scientific, perhaps none moreso than "objective moral values" as recognized by author/theologian/debater William Lane Craig. Objective moral values prove that only God couldve been the author of morality.
For more information, there is a great book that holds a debate between a Christian and several atheists and relativists called "Can we be good without God" by Paul Chamberlain.
2006-10-06 16:04:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its not really logical to believe it, but its not logical to insult it. They haven`t disproven it and when it comes to magic, religion, miracles, whatever you want to call it, there`s no way to know. People need to realize that what they do or say, there`s still going to be religion in the world and other people will believe what they want to believe. Religoin has been around for a long time and doesn`t show any signs of leaving soon. I think that if people don`t learn to accept other people`s beliefs, the human race is going to get itself into some pretty big trouble.
2006-10-06 15:57:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I initially got here here on yet another account in April or would of 2006 to troll the situation. That replaced into my in basic terms reason of being here. I basically had to stir the pot slightly, brew up some complication, and function slightly relaxing. Then I met Debra M and and a Muslim consumer by the call of Poki Poki . They have been so forgiving of something I suggested that I rapidly have been given a case of the guilts and beat a hasty retreat. some months later I back to benefit approximately different religions and non secular paths (A). i'm nonetheless here for that reason, yet I stay particularly for the pals I even have made. ((((((Christy))))))
2016-10-15 22:28:50 · answer #6 · answered by shade 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, there seems to be a general idea that in order to qualify as an unbeliever, you need a degree in physics, another in biology, one in logic and still one more in astronomy.
I wonder how many people are believers JUST because they think it must be very difficult and take a lot of study to be an unbeliever.
2006-10-06 15:51:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Speaking for my self I enjoy what you have to say it doesn't shake my faith it challenges me to think deeper well some times any way but at first I was anode that Atheists would write under religion and spirituality as they don't believe them but then you are the negative of religion and spirituality you might say one needs the other to be all it can be so..... Thanks all you atheists who are great thinkers, may we learn from each other! Keep writing!
2006-10-06 16:00:46 · answer #8 · answered by esoreinna 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds logical.
2006-10-06 15:49:32 · answer #9 · answered by Hellsdiner 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Whats your definition of logical? Scientific facts...? Tell science to disprove God...it can't.
Anyway, who said athiest aren't logical?
2006-10-06 15:53:52 · answer #10 · answered by chara 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋