Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

1. Humans are not omnipresent or omniscent

2. Without omnipresence or omniscence, one cannot know with absolute certainty whether or not there is or is not a God/Gods

3. Humans cannot know with absolute certainty whether there is a God/Gods or not.

4. If one cannot be certain of there being or not being a God/Gods, then one cannot logically be an atheist

5. Therefore it's logically invalid for one to claim they are an atheist.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

I actually am an agnostic. But I'm sure someone is about to point out that you can say the same thing about leprechauns.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

1. Humans are not omnipresent or omniscent

2. Without omnipresence or omniscence, one cannot know with absolute certainty whether or not there is or is not a Flying spagheti monster that rules all of us

3. Humans cannot know with absolute certainty whether there is a Flying spagheti monster that rules all of us or not.

4. If one cannot be certain of there being or not being a
Flying spagheti monster that rules all of us, then one cannot logically be an atheist

5. Therefore it's logically invalid for one to claim they are an atheist.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

Using your logic humans can't know anything with absolute certainty.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

That is because leprechauns are logically possible.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
That is because leprechauns are logically possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?

Are you saying god isn't logically possible? If so, why are you rejecting atheism?

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

I am not rejecting god, I am saying it is not valid to call oneself an atheist.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
Using your logic humans can't know anything with absolute certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am not rejecting god, I am saying it is not valid to call oneself an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying that in your argument, as you've written it, you can replace god with 'leprechauns' or 'unicorns'. Are you saying that we can't deny the existence of these things either?

If you are, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to figure out what your position is...

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

Yes, you can replace leprechauns and unicorns. That doesn't change the strength of the argument as it relates to God/gods.

Almost anything you can think up is logically possible. 2+2 = 10 is not logically possible though.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you can replace leprechauns and unicorns. That doesn't change the strength of the argument as it relates to God/gods.

Almost anything you can think up is logically possible. 2+2 = 10 is not logically possible though.

[/ QUOTE ]
It depends on your underlying postulates. If you use the standard mathematical definitions of numbers, and addition, then no, 2 + 2 =/= 10. The problem, in my opinion, with all formal logic is that it requires a base of postulates, which by definition aren't proven. In this case you postulate that "Humans are not omnipresent or omniscent," which sounds likely to me, but isn't proven.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

Okay, I don't actually disagree with that. I believe there are two ways of establishing atheism as valid:

1. Demonstrate that god is in fact impossible.
2. Claim that our default position should be to reject the existence of things we don't have positive evidence for, instead of accepting the possibility of all things we haven't disproved.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

You can't say that the existence of a god is impossible, but you can say that it is an arbitrary claim and not worthy of thought or investigation given there has been no evidence ever for the existence of a God.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

Notice how I didn't say God, I said God/Gods. You may or may not be able to prove the mono-theistic God of judeaism, christianiy and islam to be false or true based upon internal evidence of their holy books, however, as my premesis state it is impossible to know whether God/Gods exist or not as a human mind.

You can also not reject the existance of things we don't have positive evidence for. That is not logically valid. And how positive do you have to be in order for you to say its ok to accept it? You basically throw inductive and abductive reasoning out the window.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can't say that the existence of a god is impossible, but you can say that it is an arbitrary claim and not worthy of thought or investigation given there has been no evidence ever for the existence of a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which, strictly speaking, is an agnostic claim.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

My real claim behind this is that being an atheist takes as much faith as being a theist.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

I believe in a God that loves all humans the same AND prefers black ppl over white ppl. This God is logically impossible because two of his characteristics bump into each other. You dont need to be omniscent to realize that the God that has logical contradictions doesnt exist.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

First, strictly logically speaking, it would not be impossible for God to love everyone and still have favorites.

You will notice I didn't say GOD in the premesis, I said God/Gods. Therefore you do not get to use the God arguments.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. Humans are not omnipresent or omniscent

2. Without omnipresence or omniscence, one cannot know with absolute certainty whether or not there is or is not a Flying spagheti monster that rules all of us

3. Humans cannot know with absolute certainty whether there is a Flying spagheti monster that rules all of us or not.

4. If one cannot be certain of there being or not being a
Flying spagheti monster that rules all of us, then one cannot logically be an atheist

5. Therefore it's logically invalid for one to claim they are an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

We know there is a flying spaghetti monster--
[image]http://www.repubblica.it/2003/e/gallerie/scienzaetecnologia/flyingspaghetti/esterne081336430809133729[/image]

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
My real claim behind this is that being an atheist takes as much faith as being a theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I can make up anything and say that its real. And then argue that anyone that doesn't believe its real is illogical and is relying on faith.

I'm not really sure what the value of what you're saying is since you can replace 'god(s)' with anything I choose to makeup on the spot and it will have equal value.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by valenzuela

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

I think the key piece is that the existence of God(s) is a proposition that's not falsifiable. Can't disprove those, no way no how.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

yes, technically, I consider myself and agnostic, but there is no reason to think of it in the technical sense...

I am technically an agnostic with regards to unicorns and leprechauns and god and many other things (actually all things)

would you say that you are 100% sure that your name is ..whatever you think it is?..no..you can't be, but there is no reason to add a comment that you are not sure of your name every time you introduce yourself

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

I deleted my post because I was posting something that the OP had already agreed on.

My main point is: I think that GOD has logical contradictions. Tell me the features a GOD has and I will either state that : a) The God you posted has logical contradictions or b) I dont consider that to be a GOD.

Also if you think the odds of God existence is 1*10^-100 then you are an atheist not an agnostic.( if you say that Im still an agnostic then we are discussing linguistic issues). I cant be 100% sure God doesnt exists because I accept that there is a small chance my logic reasoning is wrong.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
My real claim behind this is that being an atheist takes as much faith as being a theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the refutations you've received demonstrate that there is more than one way to play the game. You can't get from: the concept of god does not imply a logical contradiction to "being an atheist takes as much faith as being a theist." Though, like the idea of God, it's no doubt comforting to believe so.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
My main point is: I think that GOD has logical contradictions. Tell me the features a GOD has and I will either state that : a) The God you posted has logical contradictions or b) I dont consider that to be a GOD.

[/ QUOTE ]

So looking at the set of possible Gods that fits your definition of the term, each of them is internally inconsistent? Doesn't that mean that you've defined God based on inherently inconsistent terms?

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

theism: the belief in a god or gods.
atheism: the absence of a belief in a god or gods.

They are contradicting viewpoints. You HAVE to be one or the other. The reasons why you are an atheist (or theist) is not relevant to whether you can call yourself an atheist (or theist).

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My main point is: I think that GOD has logical contradictions. Tell me the features a GOD has and I will either state that : a) The God you posted has logical contradictions or b) I dont consider that to be a GOD.

[/ QUOTE ]

So looking at the set of possible Gods that fits your definition of the term, each of them is internally inconsistent? Doesn't that mean that you've defined God based on inherently inconsistent terms?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or to render god consistent, maybe you have to define him out of being "God." Either that, or this is the best of all possible worlds.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

You are right of course; it’s logically invalid to assert that something really does not exist.

Or to put it another way, proof can only exist inside a model; mapping of a model to the real world is purely subjective. So we can only say, “if my model is an accurate reflection of reality A is true, and look my model appears to fit quite well, hence I will treat A as true.”

I don’t claim to be an atheist; I just do not have a meaning for the word God. So the word God and atheist are equally without meaning. Although I am perfectly willing to temporally use someone else’s definition.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are right of course; it’s logically invalid to assert that something really does not exist.

Or to put it another way, proof can only exist inside a model; mapping of a model to the real world is purely subjective. So we can only say, “if my model is an accurate reflection of reality A is true, and look my model appears to fit quite well, hence I will treat A as true.”

I don’t claim to be an atheist; I just do not have a meaning for the word God. So the word God and atheist are equally without meaning. Although I am perfectly willing to temporally use someone else’s definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the standard or (pun-intended) canonical definition of God is: omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent. Mix those together, look at the world, and I think the contradiction case is fairly strong.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
theism: the belief in a god or gods.
atheism: the absence of a belief in a god or gods.

They are contradicting viewpoints. You HAVE to be one or the other. The reasons why you are an atheist (or theist) is not relevant to whether you can call yourself an atheist (or theist).

[/ QUOTE ]
NO.

Theism: The belief in a god or gods
Atheism: The belief in an absence of a god or gods.

You got the Atheism word order wrong. Your definition of Atheism, "The absence of a belief..." is one of the definitions of Agnosticism, the other definition being "The belief that it is impossible to know whether god or gods exist." The OP is just a way of attempting to argue that of these three, mutually exclusive views, only agnosticism is logically valid.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
NO.

Theism: The belief in a god or gods
Atheism: The belief in an absence of a god or gods.

You got the Atheism word order wrong. Your definition of Atheism, "The absence of a belief..." is one of the definitions of Agnosticism, the other definition being "The belief that it is impossible to know whether god or gods exist." The OP is just a way of attempting to argue that of these three, mutually exclusive views, only agnosticism is logically valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. Atheists don't believe in God(s). Just because one could conceive that there could be a God is not reason to say its illogical to not believe there is one.

I can conceive that there could be an invisible half-monkey/half-Tammy-Fay-Bakker that follows me around while farting odorless farts everywhere I go. I conceive that the reason my handwriting is so bad is that whenever I write by hand she influences my hands.

I don't believe this. By the logic you have posted, wouldn't this be illogical of me?

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

Weak atheism: I don't believe in God, but am not certain he doesn't exist.
Weak agnosticism: I don't know for sure whether God exists.
Strong atheism: God doesn't exist.
Strong agnosticism: Nobody can know whether God exists.

You'll notice that "weak" atheism is perfectly consistent with both kinds of agnosticism. "Strong" atheism is presumably what the OP refers to.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the standard or (pun-intended) canonical definition of God is: omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent. Mix those together, look at the world, and I think the contradiction case is fairly strong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, is that the standard definition of God as applied by the majority of people?

I thought that most people who used the words omniscient and omnipotent did not understand what they meant, and were thinking something different when they used these two contradictory words. Further an even greater number do not have omniscient and omnipotent in their working vocabulary.

Although I sometime I find it difficult to emphasise with people with a religious belief so perhaps I don’t understand.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

Although that was from my head.. dictionary shows.
Theism:
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

Atheism:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


My point being that atheism is your stance. Do you believe, or don't you. Not why or how.

Agnostic is the belieft that some things are unknowable. In the case of God, that it is not possible, or beyond our limits to know for certain whether there is a god.

For the record, you can be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
My real claim behind this is that being an atheist takes as much faith as being a theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your real claim behind this, then, is based on a misunderstanding of the term. I would venture that the vast majority of atheists would agree with what you've said here. But there is often a certain connotation to using the term 'agnostic' that some atheists dislike, and so they use the term atheist. I guess it would require faith to be an 'atheist' as you seem to think some people are...but these people don't really exist. Atheists are really just agnostics who don't want to be confused with 'theists who don't like church,' which is the message often conveyed by the term agnostic.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

I actually agree with this (although I think points 2 and 3 are the same).

The reason I consider myself an atheist and not an agnostic is because I think the odds are so low for a god that I am perfectly comfortable living my life and assuming there isn't one. Just as I feel comfortable getting in a car or plane and assuming it's not going to crash (and I am actually MUCH more comfortable that there are no such thing as gods).

But people who say they are "certain" are wrong. Unless you know how the universe came to be, you must allow some chance for any possibility. This includes a god or some higher dimensional being sneezing. You just can't know with 100% certainty.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
I actually agree with this (although I think points 2 and 3 are the same).

The reason I consider myself an atheist and not an agnostic is because I think the odds are so low for a god that I am perfectly comfortable living my life and assuming there isn't one. Just as I feel comfortable getting in a car or plane and assuming it's not going to crash (and I am actually MUCH more comfortable that there are no such thing as gods).

But people who say they are "certain" are wrong. Unless you know how the universe came to be, you must allow some chance for any possibility. This includes a god or some higher dimensional being sneezing. You just can't know with 100% certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. I honestly can't imagine that anyone who spends any time thinking about this can say they are entirely certain that there are no gods, of any type or of any characteristics, no matter how weak. I think its possible to be an atheist, as the OP means it, with regards to, say, the Christian God, or some other types of God. Perhaps we would need a more rigorous and specific definition of a god, but I don't know that 'god' implies logical contradictions.

But as I said before, people use the term atheist to more clearly convey where they stand. If I tell a bunch of Christians that I am an agnostic, they will say "Oh, well, you should come hear my preacher, maybe you just haven't found the right church for you." They dont really think that I find the chances of there being a God to be ridiculously low and the chance of it being their specific god nearly impossible. But if I tell them I am an atheist, they get the picture much more clearly.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
My real claim behind this is that being an atheist takes as much faith as being a theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was with you until here. The above is just a silly statement. You can look at evidence and logically form an educated opinion. It does not require *as much* faith to be an atheist as a theist. I can forgive someone if they feel 100% certain they were not re-incarnated. Even though they are wrong to be 100% certain. Believing you have been re-incarnated clearly takes more faith.

Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My real claim behind this is that being an atheist takes as much faith as being a theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was with you until here. The above is just a silly statement. You can look at evidence and logically form an educated opinion. It does not require *as much* faith to be an atheist as a theist. I can forgive someone if they feel 100% certain they were not re-incarnated. Even though they are wrong to be 100% certain. Believing you have been re-incarnated clearly takes more faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the only way this can be argued is if we say they both take an 'infinite' amount of faith or that faith is faith, there is no such thing as more or less faith. In which case, this is a useless point. But yes, I do get it, we must lash out at the atheists. So, strawmen and equivocation seem like great ways to go about it.