Do atheists use circular logic?

Question

As an atheist, I notice the flaws in religious arguments more than in atheist ones. So I'm wondering if anyone can give an example of circular reasoning that atheists commonly employ?

Answer 1

The best one I can think of is good old C.S. Lewis's puzzle about the naturalist. If human thought is the result of a series of "natural" random events, like the bang, how can we then depend upon these randomly produced events to give us reliable information. It looks very much like you are trying to eat your cake and have it too. Simply, science ultimately says that "truth or knowledge" is not possible, but does this using logic and making a truth or knowledge type of claim. Burn the bridge and you keep me from crossing, but then you don't get to use it either.

Answer 2

Most of these potential circular logic arguments don't stem from atheism directly, but secularity. All atheism is is the lack of belief in a higher power, after all. We're atheists; we don't believe in God, end of story. Since the definition of atheism is that brief and undebatable, there's no possible way to use circular logic.

Answer 3

The most commonly believed scientific paradigms (characteristic of this particular time though not necessarily of the past) are believed to be true because the majority of scientists believe them, and they believe them because they do not belong to the realm of non-widely-believed paradigms, which (at this present time though not necessarily in the future) are regarded as pseudo-science.

OK so it's not just atheists that do this, but many of them do.

Also atheists reject faith, but scientific method itself is dependant on faith. For example, the preference for Occam's razor (prefer the simple answer that accounts for all the relevant evidence) is faith-based, because there is no logical reason why simplicity should be preferred to complexity, or for that matter elegance to unwieldiness, etc. Also there is no logical reason to believe one thing causes another (we just have faith that it does) or that because the sun rises (or appears to rise) every day that it will necessarily do so tomorrow. These are all faith-based beliefs.

I'm not sure that's circular reasoning, but it's certainly contradictory: the rejection of faith on the basis of a scientific method that is itself faith-based. What is the difference between believing in intangible values like simplicity, elegance, truth etc. on the one hand, and God on the other?

In fact, if you define God as entirely spiritual and intangible, then the divine realm is precisely that of intangible and spiritual values (such as truth, love etc.) In that sense science and religion can be reconciled, because someone who strives for the beautiful, the good and the true is precisely striving for God, whether he or she would put that name to the object of their goal or not. Since "God" is simply a word to describe the underlying principle (if there is one) behind moral and aesthetic values or qualities, then everyone who has those values in their life could be said to serve God in some sense. Consequently, the selfless Buddhist, the charitable atheist and the non-judgemental Christian may have more in common with each other than with their counterparts with whom they may identify, but who do not share their values of non-self-centredness.

Answer 4

Ha, good luck. Circular logic from an atheist about atheism is a rare thing indeed. Secular fundies do exist, but again, pretty rare.

Think about it--someone who's able to identify and, in turn, reject the circular logic of theists is someone who is naturally going to be a lot less likely to employ the same faulty logic.

Answer 5

Im guessing that the "Ti" in "TiBarbie" means she has a Titanium skull that no knowledge can ever penetrate... At least this chimp can spell "commonly" correctly...


Cant give a response to the question, so she attacks ALL that believe in evolution. Amazing logic there, eh?

As for me, I cant think of one instance where our logic is circular.

Answer 6

I have seen several in the answers to your questions, by atheist, although they were arguing that there isn't one.

but my favorite is I don't believe in god, god is evil, he killed all of those babies.

or I don't believe in heaven, and even if there was one i wouldn't want to go there,(insert various reasons)

by the way I really enjoyed your question.

but then Atheist like Christians, are not all the same, or hold the same beliefs.

Answer 7

Atheists use straight logic. Unless you can see it, hear it, taste it, and touch it, it does not exist.
God does not exist because no one has seen it/him/her. There are only second hand stories of hearing it/him/her.
When you use scientific reasoning there is no result.
Religious logic is faith based. You have to believe the dogma in order to be a member of the faith. The Bible says so, therefore it is. I have used this logic in many religion classes and got A's.

Answer 8

i'm an athiest too....but maybe i have one for you.

how about what came before the big bang? thats a stumper for me. matter always existed? what exists outside of time.

the christian argument is just as flawed with god coming before all....but neither argument really satisfies our curiosity. its just something we can't know i guess.

really, how can an atheist argument be circular? we don't believe in anything until its proven scientifically.

Answer 9

I'm sure I do it all the time, especially when my partner in debate is not that bright.

However, I don't see a circular argument in "There is no evidence for god, so I don't believe in one."

I'm usually quite aware of the weaknesses in my own arguments, and there are not many in the common atheist arguments.

Answer 10

atheists dont really need religious arguments, all they need to say is "i dont believe in a god" or "there is no god" and that's it.
most circular arguments that i've seen here were put up by theists who pretended in a provocational way to be atheitsts.