How does logic lead to Atheism?

Question

Proving that the Bible is unreliable does not seem to challenge the existence of God...

Answer 1

becaues religions are filled with contradictions, thus logic negates contradictions leaving athiesm the a logical choice, however athiestm has its flaws too agnostic is the only logical choice.

Answer 2

Atheism is not something that is stumbled on in the dark or in a blinding flash. To achieve rationality is a developmental process that has to overcome the mindless programming that has been shoved at you since childhood. I'm amazed that I started asking the right questions when I was eleven and even more amazed that I was able to take the "because" answers of religion with a jaundiced eye at such a young age. Still it took three more years before I called myself an agnostic and three hard years more before being to call myself an Atheist. Happy about it? Sometimes I envy delusionalists who think they are going to end up in some cosmic Disneyland when they die, instead of the void on non-existence, but in the end, I'm happy I do not live in the delusional haze that seems to keep them anesthetized to reality.

Answer 3

Logic alone does not infer any set beliefs. It is merely the study of criteria for the evaluation of arguments. Some arguments for theism are valid, others not. The same is true of atheism. Usually the difference between the two is the premises the person is willing to accept.

Kurt Godel was one of the most famous logicians of the 20th century and good friends with Einstein. He was a theist and wrote a modal argument (unpublished, but known among his friends) for the existence of god. I doubt he would claim logic implies any set belief (especially given his well known Incompleteness Theorem). And I doubt there is any greater authority on the applications of and limits to logic.

Answer 4

Logically, for a claim to be considered true, it must be proven to be true through evidence (observation and experimentation) or reasoning. Logic requires skepticism in that regard. If the claim is not proven true, it is assumed to be false.

Every religion is a set of claims, referred to as beliefs. If these were provable, they would belong in a science, and not a religion. However, these beliefs that religions hold are not able to be proven.

Since they are not able to be proven, they are assumed to be false.

Atheism is the absence of belief in god. It is the assumption that religion is false, which is required by skepticism and logic. Therefore, Atheism is the logical choice.

Others below me say that Agnosticism is the logical choice. This is false, as logic requires skepticism, wherein something not proven true is assumed to be false. That assumption is made by the standard of logic we all use, and therefore we are free to make it. However, for a second, assume that Agnosticism is the logical choice. Then it is logical to be agnostic in reference to all beliefs. Then you are claiming it is logical to respond 'I don't know' when someone asks if there are invisible elephants flying all around us. Logically, we assume that there are no elephants (notice that it's not possible to actually prove this), and so logically we assume that god does not exist.

Answer 5

It doesn't. Generally, it leads to agnosticism. People like to take the information given to them, and make deductions beyond what is actually represented by the relevant information. Really, saying that God isn't proven (and that god CAN'T be proven) *DOES NOT MEAN THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.* You can prove individual INTERPRETATIONS of God wrong, but no one has proven that there is absolutely nothing beyond the coherent physical realm surrounding us (as a simplification) and in fact, it is impossible to disprove such things, if the realms don't interact at all. Of course, if that's the case, then the existence of other realms is largely irrelevant, but atheism just oversimplfies things.

Answer 6

Some might argue that, logically, one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god because god has nothing to do with objective evidence, it has to do with faith. It is a logical fallacy to argue something is false just because there is no evidence to prove it is true. Theists are theists because they have faith that God exists. The null set of that (no god) is atheist -- no faith. It is logical to be an atheist because faith alone does not prove anything to be true. It is perhaps more reasonable to be agnostic -- one cannot prove it either way.

Answer 7

It doesn't. If you read the Descartes Discourse on Method you will see he comes to a logical conclusion that God must exist since the idea of perfection exists.

However, some find it to be a good excuse to live their lives how they want. Of course atheists will say he was coerced into writing this by the church. However its easy to argue with a dead guy right?

Answer 8

When you have a source - bible - that contradicts itself, has been proved to be written 35 to 120 years after Jesus died, has been edited and re-edited by thousands of people and then to have faith you have to claim it as the unadulterated word of god. Sorry - logic and intelligence wins out.

Answer 9

Atheism is the disbelief[1] in the existence of a deity or deities.[2] It is commonly defined as the positive denial of theism (ie. the assertion that deities do not exist),[3] or the deliberate rejection of theism (i.e., the refusal to believe in the existence of deities).[4] However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities[5][6][7] (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as the unchurched or newborn children, as atheists as well.[8][9] In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief no gods exist, or of negative unbelief.[10]

Many self-described atheists share common skeptical concerns regarding empirical evidence for supernatural claims. They cite a lack of evidence for the existence of deities. Other rationales for atheism range from the personal to the philosophical to the social to the historical. Additionally, while atheists tend to accept secular philosophies such as humanism, naturalism and materialism, they do not necessarily adhere to any one particular ideology, nor does atheism have any institutionalized rituals or behaviors.[11]

Atheism is very often equated with irreligion or non-spirituality in Western culture,[12] but they are not the same. Some religious and spiritual beliefs, such as several forms of Buddhism, have been described by outside observers as conforming to the broader, negative definition of atheism due to their lack of any participating deities.[13] Atheism is also sometimes equated with antitheism (opposition to theism) or antireligion (opposition to religion). Some philosophers and academics, such as philosopher Jurgen Habermas call themselves "methodological atheists" (also known as or methodological naturalism)[14] to denote that whatever their personal beliefs, they do not include theistic presuppositions in their method.

Want to know more of their logic look here....

Answer 10

http://www.godisimaginary.com

Take your pick from this list.

Otherwise, here's a concise explanation of why many atheists not only don't believe in religions, but are actually opposed to them...

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto


Edit - We don't have to challenge the existence of god. We challenge the accuracy of religion in describing said god. Your typical atheist could care less if a god exists or not. We just don't want to hear any more people professing to know what this god likes and dislikes, etc.

Otherwise, you can believe in god all you want. It doesn't concern us in the slightest.

Answer 11

It doesn't.

The argument of atheism vs. a belief in God can better be handled by first starting with how we view the origin of man.

Do you believe in Darwinism type theories or intelligent design? If you answer that question first, you can then begin to decide the logic of believing in God or not.

But here is the kicker - both creationism and "big bang" theory must be accepted by FAITH. We have many pieces of evidence that help to support both sides, but without an eye-witness - they must both be accepted by faith.

I personally believe in one God who created the world in 6 days and who sent his son to die for us, but that is not a readily accepted belief of those that want scientific proof of everything.

Just remember that we all accept things everyday that we cannot see - "Have you seen God? Have you seen Him? I've never seen the wind. I've seen the effects of the wind, but I have never seen the wind. There is a mystery to it"
Dr. Billy Graham