CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:202
Arguments:116
Total Votes:253
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Atheism is illogical. (116)

Debate Creator

flabingobabe(33) pic



Atheism is illogical.

Atheism makes no sense!
Add New Argument
11 points

If we can pause the semantic nonsense for a minute, atheism is simply a rejection of the completely bonkers claim that there's a recognisably intelligent, non-human entity responsible for creating the universe and for whom a minority of humans (pick the minority) have a special significance. Atheism as a response is just as valid as ajabberwockyism.

beevbo(295) Disputed
1 point

It's difficult to parse what you're getting at. So, Atheism, the belief that there is no God or higher power, is illogical because . . . yeah, that's where you lose me. Is it really a response to religion? Atheist aren't atheist because people believe God, they're atheist because they believe in something different, just like Buddhists believe in something different.

geoff(738) Disputed
2 points

No, it's a response. Atheists don't believe in whatever god/deity/ghost is being postulated. They don't necessarily believe in anything specific nor is atheism any sort of 'world view' as you can have communist, collectivist, Marxist atheists.

4 points

Wrong. Show how.

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
3 points

Agnosticism is the only logical choice. It is the only option that takes the total lack of evidence for any view and concludes that we have no way of knowing.

Side: Agnostic
Klepto(8) Disputed
4 points

While I agree that agnosticism is logically sound, it doesn't directly answer the question of whether god(s) exist. It is very possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist or theist. Russell's teapot is designed to be unknowable, but most would feel it foolish to believe it exists. Thus one can be both an agnostic about the teapot (accepting that its existence is unknowable) and an atheist (believing that it isn't real, in light of the lack of evidence).

Side: Agnostic
Spoonerism(831) Disputed
1 point

While I agree that agnosticism is logically sound, it doesn't directly answer the question of whether god(s) exist.

Isn't that kind of the point of agnosticism? ;-)

Side: Agnostic
Bobtat(1) Disputed
1 point

"(believing that it isn't real, in light of the lack of evidence)."

Define "real" and you will clearly see the lack of understanding from your argument.

Side: Agnostic
Constant(28) Disputed
1 point

Agnosticism isn't exactly logical. It holds that it cannot decide between a point of view that has almost no strong evidence backing it and a view that has a huge amount of strong evidence backing it.

Or, it holds that it cannot decide between a position without evidence and a position stating that the former position has no evidence backing it up.

In other words, this is Agnosticism:

Theist: A magical, all-powerful being visited me yesterday and told me that when we die we go to a distant planet where we'll eat ice cream all day.

Atheist: I don't believe you, you have no evidence backing you up.

Agnostic: I can't tell if either of you are correct. I will therefor assume your positions are equally valid.

Atheist: But they could just make up anything that conveniently cannot be disproven!

Agnostic: That may be so, but I am sticking to my position that simply because you cannot die, find out if they are telling the truth, and come back to life to tell everyone what you saw (or didn't see)....I will go ahead and rule this one a "tie".

Atheist: So how do you function when you cannot choose a side whenever you cannot disprove what someone is saying, no matter how improbable?

Agnostic: La la la la la la la

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
msamworth(4) Disputed
1 point

Although, if the agnostic were smarter, it would not have said la la la la la la la. instead, it might say...

Agnostic: If the existence of something is extremely improbable, I will side against it's existence. It is very very unlikely that aliens from another galaxy have visited earth, but it cannot be completely disproven. I do not believe aliens from another galaxy have, to this point, visited earth. However, the existence of a higher being is not extremely improbable. Yes, the idea that we all eat ice cream in a field of white clouds is improbable--that is oddly specific. I am claiming nothing specific when I acknowledge the possible existence of a higher power. Higher power is a pretty broad subject.

Athiest: la la la la la la

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
Eclypsis(1) Disputed
1 point

Agnostics are only atheists without balls, instead of manning up and making a statement about themselves other than their spinelessness they decide to state a fact instead of a belief. God may or may not exist. WELL DUH! That's not saying much i suppose you don't think that science doesn't prove anything or that video camera evidence of evolution in progress isn't enough to prove that evolution, a theory that contradicts god is a fact!

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
msamworth(4) Disputed
1 point

Evolution does not contradict the existence of god, but rather the tenets of certain religious denominations. Or, more simply put, the word of the bible. The idea of a higher power and the idea creationism can be mutually exclusive, and, for many people such as myself, are.

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
3 points

This debate underhandedly tries to debunk atheism through clever word play. It is, at best, the equivalent of saying your refusal to believe in invisible pink munchkins is illogical. Logically provable, but an utterly useless stand point.

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
msamworth(4) Disputed
1 point

That's not true. The situations really are not analogous. A belief in invisible pink munchkins would be highly specific. A belief in purely a higher power would not be (and is not). No one is born with an inherent belief in invisible pink munchkins. Many humans are inherently born with a belief in god, or a questioning of his existence. The fact that such a questioning is inherent, and that you and I can speak of this inherent thing, proves a potential existence.

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

Belief in God per se isn't an inherent trait that one is born with, but rather disposition towards belief in supernatural agency. That is to say-- belief that intelligent non-physical forces are the cause behind many occurrences. This something that people are hardwired to believe. This belief has manifested itself into what we understand as God or Gods. The oldest belief is animism. Over the course of history, belief gradually shifted from:

Animism -> Polytheism -> Monotheism

However that being the case, I don't think this lends any credibility to such beliefs.

Side: Atheism is the only logical position

This debate is illogical. And very, very stupid.

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
2 points

Atheism is illogical in the sense that any denial of god, whether of the weak or strong variety inherently appeals to ignorance. So atheism is literally illogical. But atheism certainly is rational. If there is no evidence present for some "thing" existing, then it's rational to disbelieve in the existence of that thing.

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
xaeon(1093) Disputed
5 points

What a load of rubbish. Logic is all about using correct and valid reasoning. Evidence, observation, and all logical conjuncture points to atheism as the most logical reasoning.

"...any denial of god, whether of the weak or strong variety inherently appeals to ignorance"

Not when you consider, as God is unprovable and undisprovable, that the concept of God occupies infinite space. If God can be anything and everything, the moment you define God, you pluck one of the infinite versions out of that infinite space and into the finite regions. With infinite Gods to choose from, when you define God, logic (and probability) states that you are most definately wrong. So, the only logical thing to do here is to pick the most probablistic and evidential stance, which is that of Atheism.

That's just one single reason why you're wrong (One of many).

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
2 points

"What a load of rubbish. Logic is all about using correct and valid reasoning."

Yes and no. Not all logical arguments are valid, hence inductive arguments, which are sound or unsound and not valid or invalid. Validity only arises when we are considering deductive propositional logic.

"If God can be anything and everything, the moment you define God, you pluck one of the infinite versions out of that infinite space and into the finite regions. With infinite Gods to choose from, when you define God, logic (and probability) states that you are most definately wrong."

Unless you define god as everything existent, at which point you are definitely correct. The fact that one could hypothetically draw any definition of god into the semantic realm is ultimately a moot point to introduce here.

"That's just one single reason why you're wrong (One of many)."

Considering that I'm not, point them out.

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
emptyhands(64) Disputed
1 point

How does not believing in a god appeal to ignorance, any more then believing in a god appeals to ignorance? Also, logical and rational are synonyms.

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
pvtNobody(642) Disputed
4 points

Logic and reason are not the same. They are similar but different. Though I do agree that the statement and reasoning presented here are flawed.

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
1 point

You're obfuscating the issue. We're not making any comparisons here. The issue at hand is whether we accept that atheism is illogical or not. But when we have a consideration: x, such that x is any issue for which there is neither affirmative or negative evidence, any claim about x must necessarily be an appeal to ignorance by virtue of the consideration: x.

An appeal to ignorance arises when any claim refers to any phenomenon with evidence of that phenomenon in absentia. Hence, any claim about god or gods, or goddesses - whether affirmative or negative - are appeals to ignorance. Atheism is illogical because it appeals to ignorance.

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
lolocaust(3) Disputed
1 point

people are born atheists and have do be convinced of religion. this makes religion a positive claim, thus the burden is on the believers.

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
2 points

Atheism is relatively illogical.

"Atheism" means: the theory or belief that God does not exist.

"Illogical" means: lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.

"logical" means: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Reason conducted or assessed via empirical validity would suggest that there is no god. The theory of there being no god, if tested via empirical means, would logically prove there to be no god in existence unless the popular meaning of god were different.

Side: Empirical atheism is not illogical
2 points

The belief that there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Side: Empirical atheism is not illogical
2 points

I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in Fairies, Godzilla, or Flying Spaghetti monsters, so atheism is logical in that sense.

Side: Empirical atheism is not illogical
jstantall(178) Disputed
1 point

Do you have a hard time telling the difference between make believe and reality?

Side: Empirical atheism is not illogical
1 point

Wait! We need to define and prove logic first.

Side: Empirical atheism is not illogical
5 points

Yes, we should. It seems like there is a lot of misunderstandings going around.

The link below will bring you to a set of online materials for a logic class that I took at UCSD. The more salient lessons are: 2 (Arguments, statements, and recursion pg 4-5), and 13 (For appeal to ignorance, pg 1).

Basically, the point is that Mahollinder is right. At its core, Atheism is illogical because it rests on the claim that God doesn't exist.

The argument for Atheism goes like this:

1. There is no proof of God.

2. Therefore, God does not exist.

3. Therefore, Atheism is the logical religion.

However, the statement "There is no proof of God" cannot be proven or disproven: it is an argument from ignorance. You cannot logically use it to argue a position, because more often than not, you can use that same fact to argue the opposite point. Example:

The argument for God's Existence:

1. Nobody has proven that God doesn't exist.

2. Therefore, God must exist.

The whole debate over "logical" is also won by Mahollinder. If you read the second lecture, there are two parts to a deductive argument: Validity and Soundness. Validity simply means that the argument makes logical sense. His

example of "All birds have feathers. Penguins do not have feathers. Therefore penguins are not birds" is valid, since it makes logical sense. However, it fails the second test, which is soundness. Soundness means that all the premises (The statements you use to derive your conclusion) are all true. Obviously, penguins have feathers, so his argument, while valid, is not sound. A deductive argument must pass both tests of validity and soundness to be true, so his argument is overall false, although it does pass the test of validity.

Hope this helps.

Supporting Evidence: All you need for this debate, and more! (mind.ucsd.edu)
Side: Empirical atheism is not illogical
phuqster(123) Disputed
4 points

Mahollinder is not correct, you have not proved that atheism is illogical, only that the argument "There is no proof of God." is an argument from ignorance. That doesn't, ipso facto, make atheism illogical. You are falling into the assumption that because one possible argument is illogical that the subject must then also be illogical.

Side: Empirical atheism is not illogical
1 point

Wow, I'm impressed. Somebody who actually thinks well on here.

Side: Empirical atheism is not illogical
1 point

As an atheist myself, of course I find my position logical; I'd be an incredible and rather special idiot if I couild continue to believe something that I found illogical.

However, there's one thing that could make deism seem more logical: Pascal's Wager.

It goes like this: "We cannot determine whether God exists by human means, but if there is a God, you gain a lot by believing, while if there is not, you lose nothing."

Certainly a rather logical position, from the position of game theory. I can't say that atheism is the only position with any logial grounds, but it's where I stand.

Supporting Evidence: Pascal's Wager (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: Empirical atheism is not illogical
xaeon(1093) Disputed
4 points

Pascal's wager only works if you consider there to be a single god and that you will gain by believing in him. The reality is that there are thousands of religions who all believe in a different god, and sometimes believing in a different god rather than no god at all is actually worse.

In reality, it should read like this:

There are an infinite number of possible gods. By defining a god you are plucking one of those infinite possibilities out of infinite space and into finite space, leaving a still infinite number of possible other gods. With this logic, no matter what god you believe in, you'll be wrong.

Side: Empirical atheism is not illogical
1 point

Yes, that and it assumes that there is some reward for belief or faith given by any particular god you go for; If Great Cthulhu were real, then by being a worshipper you'd get the amazing treat of being eaten first. I'm not actually a proponent of Pascal's wager, I'm just trying to stop this being so hopelessly one-sided. It's no fun if everything runs smoothly, so a spanner in the debate may liven things up.

Side: Empirical atheism is not illogical
Tenku(64) Disputed
2 points

Pascal's Wager also assumes that God is an idiot; otherwise you would be even more in trouble.

From the Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb:

"Pascal's argument is severely flawed theologically: one has to be naive enough to believe that God would not penalize us for false belief. Unless, of course, one is taking the quite restrictive view of a naive God. (Bertrand Russell was reported to have claimed that God would need to have created fools for Pascal's argument to work" (210).

Side: Empirical atheism is not illogical
iChrispy(2) Disputed
1 point

Pascal's wager is not logical. If you are a theist and there is no God, it is false that you lose nothing. You have lead an entire life of delusion, as well as losing all those Sundays. Atheism is where I stand as well.

Side: illogical
msamworth(4) Disputed
1 point

Hah! But if it god does not exist, you will never know, you'll be dead. Therefore, you will never know you wasted your Sundays. Let's say, hypothetically, one could know. The church-goers might be bumming, by how about theists that don't go to church? Just believe. What's wrong with a life-time of delusion, when that delusion makes one, overall, happier (theists are usually happier than atheists, other factors related to happiness notwithstanding)?

Side: illogical
1 point

Atheism is based on logic and all other religions are based on faith and believing.

Side: atheism equals logic
Corbindallas(3) Disputed
1 point

So your forefathers came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys. Did they not go to the school of evolution?

Side: atheism equals logic
DaWolfman(3321) Disputed
1 point

Dear Corbindallas,

I am not an Atheist so do not act as though I am one. The debate question at hand is "Atheism is illogical" to which I replied with the first thing that rose into my cerebellum; Atheism is logical and Theists believe in blind faith.

I myself am a Deist. So I am going to break it off right here. And leave your question unanswered and ask you this; Which statement is true?

The statement below is false.

The statement above is true.

I believe it falls into the same category as your question.

Sincerely,

Dawolfman

Side: atheism equals logic
1 point

Ahahahaha. The only logical statement that anyone can ever make about the universe and its origin is that they know absolutely nothing on an astronomic scale of that size.

Because it's true.

Side: atheism equals logic

Atheism is illogical. An Atheist must acknowledge the possibility that God exist in order to claim that he doesn't. One cannot take sides if there is only one side.

Side: illogical
lolocaust(3) Disputed
1 point

not at all. people are born without belief in the supernatural (as atheists). this places the burden on the believer to convince them otherwise.

Side: illogical
shaggytheclo(1) Disputed
1 point

Atheism is likely the most illogical religion mankind has ever had the misfortune to have even if it is very insignificant, why do I say atheism is a religion, because it requires faith. Atheists like to believe theyre intelligent for not believing in God or if you want to sugarcoat it be skeptical, its when a person makes the illogical opinion that is an opinion being misused as a false statement "there is no god" it pretty much throws logic to the side and the only things that are personal feelings and imagination held together by anger or even hate, fuled by selfish intentions poorly masked as a twisted form of self rightiousness.

I have had the pleasure of winessing many atheists admit that atheism has nothing to do with science nor logic and that it is simply a belief like any other, what annoys me is that those same people come back a few hours later saying things like "religion is killing people, religion is illogical and atheism is science!" And the whole thing starts over again. I'm not going to bother taking the time to defuse all the atheist bullcrap however.

If any atheists here actually have the ability to think for themselves and actually want to believe in God rather than hate him, look around because there is evidence for him everywhere and I'm sure you've heard that before and didn't give it any actual thought, its true.

Anyway getting back to lolocaust, its really really sad when a person tries to use the old "the burden of proof is on you" defense mechanism because it doesn't work as I have said, there are many of these "scapegoats" that atheists use and they do so to try and confuse people so they can steer the convorsation away from weak spots.

Anyway, I respect people for their right to believe in whatever they want as long as it doesn't involve satan or endorse violence (don't get me started on the whole religious war bullshit, I've heard enough and have demolished hem before)

So atheists may want everyone to respect them and their little relgion, to stop bitching at people for believing in something different and assuming themselves as being more intelligent would be a good start, if you want people to stop bitching at you, you should set the example and if they don't, oh well.

Side: illogical
1 point

Atheism is just as illogical as religion. Both positions make the claim that they definitively know the truth, but neither can actually back it up. It's arrogant to claim you know the truth about the universe, because you can't.

Agnosticism is the only sensible choice, as it admits that the big questions are too big for us to answer. The truth is out of our range, and you can have ideas about it, but to have a definitive stance regarding God's existence and nature is just plain silly.

It's just as arrogant to believe definitively in God and allow no room for doubt that you may be wrong as it is to disbelieve definitively and allow no room for error in the opposite direction. Afterall, to err is human.

Side: Agnostic
Avedomni(78) Disputed
1 point

Atheism is just as illogical as religion. Both positions make the claim that they definitively know the truth, but neither can actually back it up. It's arrogant to claim you know the truth about the universe, because you can't.

Atheism is not the position that deities certainly do not exist. While some atheists take this position, that is a belief beyond the basic tenets of atheism.

Agnosticism is the only sensible choice, as it admits that the big questions are too big for us to answer. The truth is out of our range, and you can have ideas about it, but to have a definitive stance regarding God's existence and nature is just plain silly.

Agnosticism is not an alternative to atheism or theism, but rather an answer to a different, albeit related, question—is it possible to know whether or not god exists. One can be an agnostic atheist (which is what most people who claim to be agnostic really are) or an agnostic theist, just as one can be a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist.

Side: Agnostic
Spoonerism(831) Disputed
1 point

Main Entry: athe·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Date: 1546

1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity Atheism as defined by Merriam-Webster

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3] Atheism as defined by Wikipedia

I agree with the way you've defined agnosticism, as the stance that a certain thing is unknown or possibly unknowable, but I'm not sure where your definition of atheism comes from.

How can an atheist believe in a deity? If atheism is not defined strictly as the absence of belief in a deity, what are the basic tenets of atheism in your opinion?

Side: Agnostic
hercules(4) Disputed
1 point

You don't make any kind of sense whatsoever.

You say that "no one knows the truth". That's a contradicting statement.

So you're telling me that you absolutely and truthfully know that "no one knows the truth"???

You also say that its arrogant to say that God exists?? Atheism is a minority in comparison to the entire world! You guys are a small bunch but yet you know the the truth? Now how arrogant can you possibly get??

Spoonerism, you're an idiot.

Side: Empirical atheism is not illogical
msamworth(4) Disputed
1 point

I'd assumed that the people on this website might have the intellectual capacity to use reason and logic rather than name calling and insulting. Really, hercules? Grow up.

Side: Empirical atheism is not illogical
memememe(1) Disputed
0 points

I just discovered all this, and I joined to make only the following comments (and I won't be back):

1. Do you really think this argument is worth having? Who cares? What difference does it make? In an agnostic kind of way, you'll never know who's right - and more importantly, you'll never change anyone's mind. So basically, you're all wasting your time.

2. Hercules is so mean-spirited and foul-mouthed that if there is a god, his (Hercules', not god's) long-term future is dim. I suggest a change of attitude. It would be the smart thing to do.

Side: illogical
1 point

The belief in something without evidence is the same as not believing in something without evidence. If Atheism is illogical, then you must conclude that Theism is illogical. I think the only logical conclusion here is that this thread is illogical.

Side: This debate is illogical
1 point

Before deciding that God is illogical, you may want to look into paranormal phenomenon (indirectly looking for God). There is unofficial evidence for a supernatural component to reality. To add to the old prime mover arguments, let me remind you that God cannot have a creator, since God exists outside of time, and that that exists outside of time cannot have a point of origin. Honestly, an awareness of God seems to be a part of an intelligent mind, and just about every single human society throughout history believed in something in "The God Department".

Side: This debate is illogical
1 point

Before deciding that God is illogical, you may want to look into paranormal phenomenon (indirectly looking for God). There is unofficial evidence for a supernatural component to reality. To add to the old prime mover arguments, let me remind you that God cannot have a creator, since God exists outside of time, and that that exists outside of time cannot have a point of origin. Honestly, an awareness of God seems to be a part of an intelligent mind, and just about every single human society throughout history believed in something in "The God Department".

Side: Consider the Paranormal
1 point

Well, I'm not necessarily trying to convince anyone but here's my perspective on the situation. I am in full agreement with agnosticism at the moment, because at this time we cannot supply a logical argument if God exists or not. However, I still believe that there is a creator--not the Judeo-Christian God. So far scientists have theorized that evolution created us and have proven that it takes matter and energy to make about anything (the two can make each other.) What I believe is that our creator started this process which in turn created everything that is. A common atheistic argument is "it is". Personally, I could not comprehend how all of this was a random process, and to me, that is about as logical as the belief in God. Now the religious folks have something unique: faith. A true theist realizes that they do not have any form of evidence, because in the end it is about what YOU believe.

Side: Consider the Paranormal
1 point

Not more illogical than theism.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Side: Agnostic
1 point

Please PLEASE SPARE ME this Atheism is the only right way to life ,I mean all these crusades wars from religion. If they were all atheist lives could've been spared.

Side: atheism equals logic
1 point

Please PLEASE SPARE ME this Atheism is the only right way to life ,I mean all these crusades wars from religion. If they were all atheist lives could've been spared.

Side: atheism equals logic
1 point

Okay okay 'athiesm is illogical' the most illogical debate ever of course it is'nt

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
1 point

I attended the Atheism convention, nobody had anything to believe in and nothing to say so we all went home. Is that logical?

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
ap0110(70) Disputed
1 point

There are actually plenty of things that atheists believe, and many things to discuss. Science, philosophy, art, etc are all subjects. A major one these days is education, and how to help the superstitious citizens of our country realize that believing in unicorns and gods is irrational and helping them embrace reality. Trust me, there's plenty to discuss! ;)

Side: Atheism is the only logical position
1 point

to be honest atheism makes more sense than any religion. Its the only fact based way of explaining the universe. I mean i can point out one major plot hole in any god based religion. if god created everything who created god? and is there any hard evidnce that god is real?

Side: Atheism is the only logical position

an atheist is anyone who doesn't believe in a god, in this sense of logic an agnostic can be defighned by atheism no matter how open to the possibility they are. I find it funny response, its "god may or may not exist" obviously atheists never disagreed with that, but that doesn't answer the question of wheather or not you believe or not believe in a god. If you believe in a god your a theist, if you don't your an atheist, its that simple. A is a prefix for not; without, theism is a belief in god, A+theism= not;without belief in god. agnostics in my book are all technically atheists wheather they realize it or not, or label themselves as such. a lack of belief or simply not believing does not need any justification, however if a belief is to be considered logicall it needs proper justification. agnostics lack a belief in a god therefore they are "without belief in a god"=atheism or "not a belief in a god"= atheism. atheism covers anything thats not a theist. like fiction and NONfiction or blue and NONblue, anything that is not blue wheather it be red, orange, green, yellow, etc. is NOT blue. anyone that does not believe in a god, wheather agnostic, nonreligous, or whatever is an atheist by defenition.

Side: atheism equals logic
1 point

I shall keep within the bounds of the debate topic.

If we are to be purely logical then we must be agnostic. As per the work of Godel, we know that formal logic cannot produce either: (1) all truth, or (2) justifiable truth. That is, logic either won't tell us everything, or it we can't trust it.

Now, take the idea of scepticism. It is not logical. It is a device employed by logicians (in fact most effectively by the theist Descartes). However it is not logically justified. As an axiom it is unsupported, so everything on top of it is moot. Scepticism has pragmatic usefulness but it is not logical.

And, only scepticism can lead one to atheism. Because the other logical root to atheism is a universal negative proof: which requires omniscience, which would qualify one to be a god (of sorts). Only god can disprove God.

The theist has it simpler, the theist needs only one instance of God to prove Him.

Atheism has failed to produce the necessary universal disproof; theism has failed to provide the logical proof: agnosticism.

"All I know is that I know nothing" - Plato (Socrates)

Side: atheism equals logic

I was raised a catholic and attended a former boys seminary for secondary school. My experiences have turned me into a failry strange person. I dont have many friends and i find dealing with people difficult so ive always been interested in death and what more is out there. I have a masters degree in engineering and have been interested in science most of life so you might think im wither an agnostic now or else an athiest but im neither. I have subsribed to both these views one after the other 1st agnosticism then athiesm. I am now a panthiest and i doubt it will change for the remainder of my life. I want to quote a famous mythologist Joseph Campbell: "Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies." That basaically sums it up. For anyone who bothered to read this i strongly urge you to study Alan Watts, can assure you if you do you'll be panthiest in no time.

Side: atheism equals logic
1 point

Agnosticism is the logical response to a claim that doesn't supply enough evidence to justify belief. Agnosticism (without knowledge) is based off of what we know. When a person makes a claim that does not have evidence, then we don't know whether the object claimed really exists. In this case, the rational response is to be agnostic about whether we know if the object exists or not.

Atheism comes into play for most atheists when we are asked what we believe about god(s). For most, when claiming to be an atheist, it is a weak atheism which says we haven't been presented with enough proof to justify belief in a god. Thus, there is no rational reason to go about one's life believing in a god.

Many people claim that they have seen a fairy. Their evidence is sketchy, and very subjective. The rational response is that while we can't prove whether they exist or not, since we haven't looked everywhere, we do not believe in them. Most people do not live their lives with the belief that they exist and tiptoe around hoping not to offend them. This would be ridiculous.

Agnosticism is a statement of what we know, and atheism is a statement of what we believe. These are the only rational responses if evidence has not been provided to establish the existence of a god and justification of belief.

Side: atheism equals logic
1 point

If logic is ontologically immaterial (a abstract reality) and atheism is, by definition, materialistic (a purely concrete reality). Then atheism denies the reality of things it affirms and is therefore a self refuting position. In other words atheism is illogical.

Side: Atheism is illogical
1 point

Please come back everyone atheists and whatever specially Christians.

Why have everyone stopped posting here?

The topic is "Atheism is illogical," which means that atheists are illogical, who say that? but atheists are saying that Christians are irrational which means also illogical.

Now, suppose we use instead of the words irrational and illogical the word "intelligent" the opposite of which is unintelligent.

Now, what is intelligent the adjective?

Without defining what is intelligent the adjective, I guess we can all see some action or behavior of a human to be intelligent or unintelligent without being able to verbalize what is intelligence.

Of course atheists say that Christians are not intelligent, and they say that IQ tests of atheists disclose that atheists have higher IQ scores than Christians.

Let that pass, however.

Let us instead everyone agree to answer this question from each one's intelligence:

Which answer is intelligent to this question:

"The observable universe ultimately came about from 1. God, 2. itself, 3. randomness, 4. nothing, 5. infinite regression, 6. I don't know, 7. It always exists.

Remember, just answer as from an intelligent human.

If you don't know what is meant by the word God, then if you are aware that Christians believe in the existence of God, I think you must try to know correctly what is the most crucial concept of God in the Christian faith in God's fundamental relation to the universe.

I hope a lot of people will join this debate now.

Side: Atheism is illogical
1 point

Atheism is a non belief system thus logical.Why should one be forced socially to believe in something that never has been proven as a reality,that being a god? We need to believe in what we individually accomplish or not accomplish as humans.So logically when we plan for something that works out in our lives it is only ourselves that accomplish or not accomplish this feat,and should only thank ourselves for this accomplishment,and not attribute it to some outside source.If one prays or not, the outcome is the same.If one is serene in their lives and realize that the future is not planned for them and then life becomes easier for them.It is like a meditation without being judged.Morality is not a religious thing,but a human thing,it is in our being,as humans.

Side: Atheism is illogical
0 points

It depends on which part...in regards to cosmology, yes.

#1.

The belief that nothing created everything is pretty retarded. Anyone, religious or non-religious, that believes that is insane. I don't care what ivy university you graduated from its still insane to believe that.

Believing in a "talking snake" is less stupid than the belief that "nothing eventually created the humans who wrote about that talking snake"

#2.

A lot of atheist tend to side with science. Scientific method is based on observation, testing, and retesting. No one observed the universe being created, we can't test it, and we will never be able to test it so now a scientific explanation is rendered useless and it now demands a philosophical explanation. However, science presupposes logic and philosophy. It's not a matter of science vs. religion, its a matter of good science vs. bad science.

#3.

Also science points out that the universe, consisting of time, space, and matter was created meaning that the natural laws in science we use were created.

We CAN NOT use a natural explanation to explain its own origin if nature wasn't even created yet so we must go outside the domain of the natural that is not bounded by time, matter, and space. That now requires a super-natural explanation.

#4. We know the infallible truth that non-intelligence CAN NOT create intelligence. Only intelligence can create intelligence and an intelligent product is a sign of intelligence. That's pretty #$%&ing;stupid to believe otherwise. That contradicts reasoning itself. Now here is a double edge sword: If atheist considers themselves intelligent then obviously that potential was created from an intelligent agent. However if they believe that a non-intelligent source started it all, then why should they believe what their brain, the most intelligent organ, tells them at all????

#5.

Furthermore, the big bang started it all. The big bang is an explosion but as we have scientifically observed, tested, and retested, we know that explosions, bangs, and chaos DO NOT produce design, order, and complexity. That is 100% factual and consistent in our natural universe. To say it does is pretty stupid.

#6.

Last but not least, atheist will substitute what they do not know with "chance" as the cause. That is illogical. In "this" natural dimension there is always a cause for everything. Chance is not a cause. We might have a 50/50 chance for heads or tails in a coin but nonetheless it still had a cause. Objectively that "cause" was due to several variables: me willingly moving my hands with a certain amount of force and from friction. So chance is never is a cause. Chance is what rocks dream.

Other than that..that's about it

Side: Atheism is illogical
HGrey87(750) Disputed
1 point

#1.

The Big Bang Theory does not posit that the universe came of nothingness. Part of the Big Bang Theory is that it's not singular, it's one bang in many, and the collapse and expansion of the universe are cyclical. The way I look at it is we "start" with all matter condensed into its smallest configuration, which must expand (the big bang). Entropy takes its course ever more slowly, until all matter has occupied its largest possible area. At that point, the universe must contract the matter into its center, until it is once again compressed. Another big bang. Cyclical exertions of gravity and energy.

#3.

That's super-dimensional. NOT super-natural. Super-dimensional existence is most likely also governed by natural laws. I see what you tried to do there :P

#4.

We know the infallible truth that non-intelligence CAN NOT create intelligence.

Where are you pulling that factoid from, besides your ass? It makes you sound an awful lot like you don't believe in evolution, in which case I should probably use shorter words, phonetically misspelled for your benefit. But I digress. I think the fact that you're writing arguments on this site directly disproves the italicized thesis. In any case, do explain to me your reasoning behind this ridiculous assertion.

#5.

The big bang is an explosion but as we have scientifically observed, tested, and retested, we know that explosions, bangs, and chaos DO NOT produce design, order, and complexity.

While the universe is expanding, entropy is inevitable. You're right in a way, but consider your viewpoint. What you perceive as design, order, and complexity are all in reality fleeting organizations, little whirlpools in the larger chaotic ocean.

#6.

Sorry, but that was stupid as fuck.

Side: Atheism is illogical
hercules(4) Disputed
1 point

Oh I forgot to mention why your oscillating theory doesn't work.

#1. Its unsupported by science and any objective evidence. No evidence, just wishful thinking.

#2. The scientific community almost dismissed that idea so now there looking for another theory ( ie: quantum cosmology theory and string theory) to evade that creation theory.

#3. in order for the universe to contract it would have to be dense enough to generate sufficient gravity that would eventually slow its expansion to a halt and then with increasing rapidity contract it. But estimates have shown that the universe is far below the density needed even when you include luminous matter and dark matter. Its dependent on critical mass which is not met so the universe will probably expand forever. The universe is also accelerating

#4. The reason that the universe would not "bounce" if it were to contract is that the universe is extremely inefficient (entropic). In fact, the universe is so inefficient that the bounce resulting from the collapse of the universe would be only 0.00000001% of the original Big Bang (see table above). Such a small "bounce" would result in an almost immediate re-collapse of the universe into one giant black hole for the rest of eternity.

Guth, A.H. and M. Sher. 1983. The impossibility of a bouncing universe. Nature 302: 505-506.

#5. there are no known physics that could reverse a contracting universe and make it bounce before it hits singularity.

#6. You forgot one important thing. It wasn't just mass and space that were created but linear time was also created during the Big Bang so no other universe could have existed prior to ours. The only way that would be possible is if this supposed fictitious universe was operating from another dimension of time.

The Nature of Space and Time, Hawking stated, "Today virtually everyone agrees that the universe and time itself had a beginning at the Big Bang."5

Hawking, S.W. and Penrose, R. 1996. The Nature of Space and Time, p. 20.

Nice attempt though but like I said, that was dumb as fuck

Side: Atheism is illogical
hercules(4) Disputed
0 points

Super dimensions huh? what fuckin evidence are you getting this from retard?..give me one evidence for multi dimensions...just one! You must know some unknown, Nobel peace prize winning shit that scientist aren't aware about. The only thing that is in another dimension is your head.

what physics indicates the oscillating theory? There are no known science that proves that. I am bringing up facts based on what up-to-date science reveals to us so far, what science leads us to discover, and you bring up some dumb shit from your head with zero evidence. It's make-believe irrational bullshit and you actually believe that its absolutely true with ZERO, NADA, evidence supporting it!! I find it tolerable and more reasonable to say "we don't know" then to actually make shit up. Get that cut and paste wacko-pedia shit out of here. Dude, you're funny...instead of the Big Bang theory you believe its the Big Bang Bang Bang Bang theory...kinda like your mom, dumbass.

How can you say that the universe is infinite? Infinite is conceptual and abstract. Can you fit "infinite" books in a finite bookshelf, retard?? You got to be on some drugs to believe that. How can you use "infinite" to depict a natural world?

Its now good science vs. your retarded make believe bullshit

And who said we were talking about evolution?

Science insinuates that only intelligence produces intelligence 100% of the time ALL the time. That is 100% consistent, 100% observable, 100% testable and I'm sad to say that also includes you.

So where is the evidence that says that non-intelligence produces intelligence? You got to be looking through some distorted lens.

I see what you're trying to do here :P

You're using non-scientific reasoning to postulate your own theories and label it a fact. (I call the bullshit flag on that one)

You're so transparent. I find it amusing how you're selective: you use science as the groundwork to support your claim and then you fill the rest with pathetic unorthodox science mixed with delusional BS outside the parameters of science...

Now that was dumb as fuck..It seems as evolution completely forgot about you...go back in your mom's basement and play some video games...

Side: Atheism is illogical
0 points

I tried atheism for a while but my faith wasn't strong enough.

Side: Atheism is illogical
0 points

No... I would say it's the opposite... but this debate is old as hell and no one care!

Side: Atheism is illogical
-1 points

This debate as a whole is illogical.

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes,

Side: This debate is illogical
-2 points
lyle91(87) Disputed
1 point

My atheism doesn't say any of that so..... I don't know where you got hose definitions from. Whoever believes that would be a gnostic atheist which is just as bad as a gnostic theist. You have to agnostic either way to be intellectually honest, because you can't know anything without knowing everything. You can only make assumptions based on the evidence.

Atheism doesn't state that they only reality is the natural reality, it states that any other realities that may exist are natural.

Side: Agnostic
jstantall(178) Disputed
1 point

Really, that's interesting. Tell me then how you get something from nothing because I can't figure that one out.

Side: Agnostic