To Atheists who said atheism is the logical choice?

Question

I'm just curious. Why do you guys say it is the logical choice when logic and reason once told us the world was flat long ago?

Disclaimer: I did not generalize, I merely refer to those who are. And back then people do think the world was flat because it's logical to them.

I simply wonder.....how do you prove your shirt is red to a blind man?

Wonderous wonders......

Answer 1

They believed the world was flat based on the information they had. When they were given new information, they changed their conclusions. That's logical. What changed their minds was evidence that the earth was not flat, and that is what would change our minds about God. Evidence.

Answer 2

The argument that atheism is the logical choice would best go like this.

Let us assume we do not fully understand how the world works. Let us also assume we are such a small part of the universe that any real fullness will likely forever be beyond us, although we will probably understand far more than we will ever need to know from an operational perspective. (How many black holes will we really need to worry about in the near term?)

Good learning would imply using the smallest number of assumptions about how the world works. If accepting a God is not to be an assumption, then it should be supported by the independent evidence. Things like scriptures, whether the Gita, the Koran or the Bible are not really evidence. They are more observations by people who have already decided how the world works and then conform their views to fit their preconceptions.

So lets go with the smallest set of assumptions and not presume the existence of a God.

Then it falls to each religion to show why their beliefs are affirmatively correct. Moreso, if you lack the specific belief can you still function in the world. If so, what value or function does that belief add. They must, like any good proponent, prove their are right and the countervailing points of view are wrong based on independent evidence. So, if you believe in the tooth fairy, it is up to you to provide independent evidence of the correctness of your view, or in Zeus or in Jesus or as in the cargo cults, that the cargo will come.

Atheism is the logical choice in the absence of compelling observable evidence. Accepting the tooth fairy is not a logical choice, neither is being a Christian. Simply going with your gut also isn't evidence and that is the definition of illogical.

It is logical because we do not know how the world works. If we did know then if a God exists, that would be the logical choice. If one does not, then that would be the logical choice.

Answer 3

The belief that the world was flat was obviously a mistaken view shared by the majority of the earths population. Please note that it was a belief because no evidence was produced to show that it was true or false. Beliefs are often false for the very same reason, that they are not based on verifiable evidence.
Obviously a belief in God is not in the same category because the belief is shared by the majority of the earths population and the belief is not based on verifiable fact.
No. That can't be right can it?
OK
Believing the world is flat and believing in God have the same logical basis. Therefore, now we know that the world isn't flat we can doubt the logical basis for the existence of God.
No, that cannot be right either.
Sorry. I am having a problem applying your logic to the proof of the existence of God. Let me think about it and see if I can come up with an answer. It will probably involve relying on an old book as being the word of God or on claiming that I don't know everything therefore God must be possible and if he is possible then he must exist but that doesn't matter. It is the type of thing we have to do to maintain our faith. Isn't it?

Answer 4

"Our two minds .... One is an act of the emotional
mind, the other of the rational mind. In a very real
sense we have two minds, one that thinks and one that
feels" (Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence,
Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 1996, page 8). This
rational mind is also called the faculty of logic and
reason. It has got its own limitations:

In the 1930s, Austrian mathematician Godel proved a
theorem which became the "Godel theorem" in cognition
theory. It states that any formalized 'logical' system
in principle cannot be complete in itself. It means
that a statement can always be found that can be
neither disproved nor proved using the means of that
particular system. To discuss about such a statement,
one must go beyond that very logic system; otherwise
nothing but a vicious circle will result. Psychologist
say that any experience is contingent - it's opposite
is logically possible and hence should not be treated
as contradictory.

The mind is the distinguishing factor betwee humans
and animals. Is there any other factor which is exclusive
to humans?

During 1800s, Anthropologists had a problem as to how
to classify human beings. One researcher proposed the
expression "intelligent animal". After advanced studies
on monkeys, it was dropped. Another researcher proposed
"tool using animal". After observing some animals
making wooden tools and sharpening them with knife like
stones, it was dropped. Another researcher proposed
"weapon using animal". A decade ago, a rare film was
shot in African forests. One short monkey was hit very
badly by a big monkey. The short monkey prepared a
wooden knife using stones and hid it on the top of a
tree. After some days, when the big monkey came to
attack the short monkey, it ran up to the tree for the
weapon it has hid and killed the big monkey. The one
thing that the anthropologists found with any group of
human beings, even if they did not have contacts with
the out side world for thousands of years, is
spirituality with some form of religion. So, man is a
"spiritual animal" if you want to call him that way.

The Upanishads say that "Manush" (human) was so named
because he has "Manas" a mind higher than that of the
animals which realises the divinity in creation. It was
present since the creation of human beings. Religion is
the characteristic feature of most of the human beings.
It is as eternal and and as unchanging as the Almighty.
Disbelief by a few will not affect it.

Answer 5

You're getting mixed up. Common sense told us the world was flat, not logic. The scientific approach was applied by some ancient races that found that the world was round through measuring experiments.

Common sense also told us there were gods and angels since we couldn't explain the stars and the sun in the sky. Once again, science gave us the knowledge of planetary bodies.

People once believed that angels lived in the clouds and that Hell was under our feet. Even though this has been proven wrong, fear of death caused people to adapt their beliefs so that now Heaven is not 'beyond the clouds', but some kind of place in another dimension.

Answer 6

Logic and reason never told us that the world was flat. It was assumed that the world was flat because that seemed to be the simplest explanation for the evidence (the evidence being the apparent shape of the observable world).

However, since the ancient Greeks at least it was known by many, as a direct result of more critical and reasoned analysis and the gathering of more substantive and conclusive evidence, that the Earth was not flat. So, it is incorrect to say that "logic and reason once told us the world was flat"; rather, our inferences from the evidence told us that, and in retrospect we can identify those inferences as hasty and unwarranted by the actual evidence available.

This is a cautionary tale against making hasty inferences and not considering possible alternatives; to mischaracterize it as a cautionary tale against relying on logic and reason altogether is simply absurd, and misunderstands both logic and history, as well as the very nature of empiricism.

You are also misusing the word "logical". "Logical" means conforming to logic, not conforming to intuition or prima facie plausibility. To say that "people do think the world was flat because it's logical to them" is as nonsensical as saying "people thought the world was flat because it was true to them"; logic is not subjective. The error was in their explanation for the evidence, not in their logic. They could have had perfectly functional logic, though they clearly didn't have the scientific method.

Your argument, incidentally, is actually an argument against theism, not atheism. Or at least, it would be if it actually worked. The reason it is a critique of theism is because theism was once thought to be the only rational choice, much like belief in a flat Earth. One could argue that more advanced and intellectually rigorous philosophy has demolished this assumption, just as more advanced understandings of geography and mathematics have demolished the assumption that the Earth is flat.

Answer 7

back then science wasn't as good as it is now but everyone makes mistakes. well if you have read the bible like i have i thought there was no logic in it none of it made any real sense most of it by logic COULD NOT have happened and i see the bible as a way of getting power over people, by using peoples fears. i spent many years looking at it and the more i do the more I'm against it. this is a long answer shorten. also there is not prove that a god EVER HAPPEND part from what it says in a book.... that's not evidence that's a story evidence is traces of him whats in writing can be anything.what i am saying is its not full proof.

Answer 8

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

It is upsetting when we try to apply mans logic to the creation of the universe. God created the universe and ever thing in it. How can anybody see the wonders of the world, indeed our own body, and deny God.

He exists, many would like to deny he does to excuse their actions, but that still does not change the fact that he exists.

He loves us so much that he sacrificed his own son so that we may be reconciled to him!

I say that all of you who say he does not exist, prove that he does not!

if you look at the world, even through a scientists eyes, there is more proof for creation than anything else!

I leave you with this scripture:

John 3:16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

God Bless

Answer 9

Logic and reason didn't tell people the world was flat. In fact, it told them the opposite. Thinking the world was flat was not logical.

Logic is not subjective: something is either logical or it is not. Even if you think something is logical, the fact that you think it doesn't make it true.

Answer 10

I would qualify that... atheists can be illogical or irrational.

It's skepticism that's logical/rational, and it just so happens that lots of atheists are skeptics.

Therefore, the method that brought those skeptics to atheism is what is logical, not the atheism itself.

Should evidence ever be presented to support the existence of a god, it would be accepted by these.

That is not a flaw in the position... change of position in light of new evidence is not a weakness, but a strength. Religion has steadfast texts, doctrines, and rules - even when these are proven false, people stick to them quite vehemently.

Answer 11

what does atheism have to do with logic? what does having a religion have anything to do with logic? Faith n logic are two different things. You can have faith n logic and no faith but you still have logic. By what you're question is saying, it's like implying that atheists have logic and theists don't! :p

i follow my faith because it is what is logical to me. lol! there is such a thing called mistakes, logic thought that the world was flat but logic also drove us to prove it. Simply what we are all trying to do, to prove it. Peace out!:D