The logical rationalisation of Atheism.

[Furrowed Brow]

In the thread Ask an Atheist confused posed a question.

Can you logically rationalize the non-existence of God to confirm your foundation as an atheist?

So can you?

I'm sure many of the atheists here will cite lack of evidence of God. We've done that to death. So I'd like to focus on personal convictions. I have said before I am an irrational atheist. I can rationalise why the resurrection is a fraud, or that there are no such things as miracles, or that evolution is correct. But when I stand under a clear night sky and stare up at the stars those arguments fade away. I feel awe and wonder at the immensity of the university, but my sense of the universe is one that means there is no God. God spoils the picture for me. I just like to think of the universe as self sufficient. I hanker for minimalism over chintz, and I cannot but help see theism as a preference for chintz.

So question for atheists. Place yourself under the night sky contemplating the wonders of the universe. Is you atheism rational or irrational? Is it down to cold hard logic, or does a matter of taste come into it? Are the foundations of your atheism purely rational?

[Young McGrath]

By "we must accept it and move on", I meant we must accept that induction is logically flawed (irrational by my definition) and move on, lest we accept counter-induction.

You have not made that case at all. simply repeating that assertion, and not dealing with the methodology that induction is part of shows a stubbornness that avoids looking at the available data.

Induction is not used by itself, but it is used to try to find out possible models that can be tested for.

This method has allowed for the construction of roads,cars, computers, bridges, all sorts of electronics, medicines, and all aspects of modern life.

What induction has done has no relevance here.

If you use what induction has done to predict what it will do, you're only supporting my case (that support of induction is based on circular reasoning).

You have a personal definition of "induction" like you do with "irrational". Debating like this isn't very productive, do you agree?

1. No, I'm going with the general definition of induction.
2. It wouldn't matter, anyway. "Induction" is just a way of saying "deriving general principles from specific instances". I'm not saying the word is irrational, I'm saying the idea is irrational.

[Beto]

By "we must accept it and move on", I meant we must accept that induction is logically flawed (irrational by my definition) and move on, lest we accept counter-induction.

You have not made that case at all. simply repeating that assertion, and not dealing with the methodology that induction is part of shows a stubbornness that avoids looking at the available data.

Induction is not used by itself, but it is used to try to find out possible models that can be tested for.

This method has allowed for the construction of roads,cars, computers, bridges, all sorts of electronics, medicines, and all aspects of modern life.

What induction has done has no relevance here.

If you use what induction has done to predict what it will do, you're only supporting my case (that support of induction is based on circular reasoning).

You have a personal definition of "induction" like you do with "irrational". Debating like this isn't very productive, do you agree?

1. No, I'm going with the general definition of induction.
2. It wouldn't matter, anyway. "Induction" is just a way of saying "deriving general principles from specific instances". I'm not saying the word is irrational, I'm saying the idea is irrational.

You're right, it's time to move on. Just think if it's productive debating on the "rationalization" of something if you're the only one defining the word like you do. It's called inductive reasoning. "Irrational reasoning" is an oxymoron.

[Young McGrath]

By "we must accept it and move on", I meant we must accept that induction is logically flawed (irrational by my definition) and move on, lest we accept counter-induction.

You have not made that case at all. simply repeating that assertion, and not dealing with the methodology that induction is part of shows a stubbornness that avoids looking at the available data.

Induction is not used by itself, but it is used to try to find out possible models that can be tested for.

This method has allowed for the construction of roads,cars, computers, bridges, all sorts of electronics, medicines, and all aspects of modern life.

What induction has done has no relevance here.

If you use what induction has done to predict what it will do, you're only supporting my case (that support of induction is based on circular reasoning).

You have a personal definition of "induction" like you do with "irrational". Debating like this isn't very productive, do you agree?

1. No, I'm going with the general definition of induction.
2. It wouldn't matter, anyway. "Induction" is just a way of saying "deriving general principles from specific instances". I'm not saying the word is irrational, I'm saying the idea is irrational.

You're right, it's time to move on. Just think if it's productive debating on the "rationalization" of something if you're the only one defining the word like you do. It's called inductive reasoning. "Irrational reasoning" is an oxymoron.

Yea...

[ShadowRishi]

In the thread Ask an Atheist confused posed a question.

Can you logically rationalize the non-existence of God to confirm your foundation as an atheist?

So can you?

I'm sure many of the atheists here will cite lack of evidence of God. We've done that to death. So I'd like to focus on personal convictions. I have said before I am an irrational atheist. I can rationalise why the resurrection is a fraud, or that there are no such things as miracles, or that evolution is correct. But when I stand under a clear night sky and stare up at the stars those arguments fade away. I feel awe and wonder at the immensity of the university, but my sense of the universe is one that means there is no God. God spoils the picture for me. I just like to think of the universe as self sufficient. I hanker for minimalism over chintz, and I cannot but help see theism as a preference for chintz.

So question for atheists. Place yourself under the night sky contemplating the wonders of the universe. Is you atheism rational or irrational? Is it down to cold hard logic, or does a matter of taste come into it? Are the foundations of your atheism purely rational?

Are there matters of taste to it?


I would say that there are matters of taste with regards to all theological philosophies. At the end of the day, there's mounds of evidence for people to interpret either way.

For me, when I look at the evidence, I can only conclude the following:

1. The "tri-omni" God, a priori, seems to not make sense. The Greek philosopher Epicurus and David Humes have solid (In my manner of thinking) proof that such a God is impossible.
2. From my knowledge of Mesopotamian mythology joined with mythographer's opinions, such as those of Joseph Campbell, Judaism seems to only be based largely off of various Semetic mythologies, largely coming from Sumeria (Gilgamesh comes to mind, as well as the Hebrew term for god being "El" in both Judaism and Levite societies, and other large or small similarities between Judaic cultures and local Semetic cultures). Then Christianity seems to absorb Greek mythology (The tri-omni God comes from Hellenist Greecian philosophy on Gods being good, the worship of virgins, how similar the virgin Mary is to Gaia, God having children, God having children with humans, et cetera).
3. Once I accept 1 & 2, I am left to conclude that the following religions are in fact false:

Judaism, Christianity, Mandaeism, Manichaeism, Yazidism (the Sabians), Islam, Babism, and Baha'i Faith.

Therefore, I am left with the remaining theistic Dharmic and pagan religions. (

Well, clearly the African and Chinese gods are not well known, and thus I cannot really accept that they are 'true' gods, because I as a human would expect something better out of them. So then we look at the pre-Christian European, pre-Islamic Persian, Hittite, and Indian (Dharmic) faiths. They all, if you study mythography, come from the same source. In roughly 4,000 BC, we speculate with great certainty that a group of people existed who had a religion called the Proto-Indo-European religion. From it sprouted Hinduism, Zoroastrianism (Persian), Buddhism, Jainism (ancient Indian religion, still around), Asatru (Norse religion), Graeco-Roman mythologies, and Hittite, Slavic, Germanic, Gaelic, Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, et cetera. It seems unlikely that any of those Gods are "true" versions, unless we take a very liberal approach to gods; they would have to not care what names you called them when you prayed to them. It is possible, but then they'd have to be ... And even still, Joseph Campbell's model for gods and mythology and religion still make more sense.

So, I'm left to conclude that there's probably no god(s/esses).

We call this definition of an atheist a weak atheist. I classify as one; the other version of atheism is a strong atheist, who says that there's no proof for god. I see no reason to state that. Personally, I prefer the terminology "epistemologically agnostic", because that's more what it is. I live my life, however, with the assumption that there's no god.


(Do note that that was a very shortened version of arguments against god(s), please)

By "we must accept it and move on", I meant we must accept that induction is logically flawed (irrational by my definition) and move on, lest we accept counter-induction.

You have not made that case at all. simply repeating that assertion, and not dealing with the methodology that induction is part of shows a stubbornness that avoids looking at the available data.

Induction is not used by itself, but it is used to try to find out possible models that can be tested for.

This method has allowed for the construction of roads,cars, computers, bridges, all sorts of electronics, medicines, and all aspects of modern life.

What induction has done has no relevance here.

If you use what induction has done to predict what it will do, you're only supporting my case (that support of induction is based on circular reasoning).

You have a personal definition of "induction" like you do with "irrational". Debating like this isn't very productive, do you agree?

1. No, I'm going with the general definition of induction.
2. It wouldn't matter, anyway. "Induction" is just a way of saying "deriving general principles from specific instances". I'm not saying the word is irrational, I'm saying the idea is irrational.

You're right, it's time to move on. Just think if it's productive debating on the "rationalization" of something if you're the only one defining the word like you do. It's called inductive reasoning. "Irrational reasoning" is an oxymoron.

People state that inductive reasoning is implausible. However, inductive reasoning is, I believe, the only way humans can reason.

For example, how did you know not to put your hand on the stove? You did it once (you empirically tested it, and got your results!), and never did it again. Have you proven that all stoves are hot? No, but you don't need to. It's simply logical that all stoves will burn you. (assuming, of course, that we're looking at an already hot stove, in which case we continue determining this by color [orange])


Yes, sometimes we're wrong (after we do tests, that is). Then we re-analyze our assumptions and move on.


I reject the notion that humans can ever know anything for certain. We test everything, find out it's mildly wrong, fix our notion about that concept/object, then we test it again. This is basically the only way to acquire any objective human knowledge. Subjective is a different story, but as far as finding ways to live, we always test them and tweak them.

The concept of induction may not seem effective, but it is all we have.

[otseng]

1. The "tri-omni" God, a priori, seems to not make sense. The Greek philosopher Epicurus and David Humes have solid (In my manner of thinking) proof that such a God is impossible.

I think it depends on how one defines the "tri-omni". Could you also expound on this proof?

[ShadowRishi]

omni-benevolent, omniscient, omni-potent. I could go at length on God's responsibility as creator, but there's simple proofs for it on Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

[QED]

Hello ShadowRishi, welcome to the DC&R forums

1. The "tri-omni" God, a priori, seems to not make sense. The Greek philosopher Epicurus and David Humes have solid (In my manner of thinking) proof that such a God is impossible.
2. From my knowledge of Mesopotamian mythology joined with mythographer's opinions, such as those of Joseph Campbell, Judaism seems to only be based largely off of various Semetic mythologies, largely coming from Sumeria (Gilgamesh comes to mind, as well as the Hebrew term for god being "El" in both Judaism and Levite societies, and other large or small similarities between Judaic cultures and local Semetic cultures). Then Christianity seems to absorb Greek mythology (The tri-omni God comes from Hellenist Greecian philosophy on Gods being good, the worship of virgins, how similar the virgin Mary is to Gaia, God having children, God having children with humans, et cetera).
3. Once I accept 1 & 2, I am left to conclude that the following religions are in fact false:

Judaism, Christianity, Mandaeism, Manichaeism, Yazidism (the Sabians), Islam, Babism, and Baha'i Faith.

Does the "tri-omni" God need to make sense to us mere mortals before we can accept it? No interpretation of Quantum Mechanics "makes sense" but we can use our limited numerical understanding of it to make fantastically accurate predictions. In this way we are assured of the reality of this thing that "makes no sense".

I would think that 2. pointed the way towards a more rational rejection of theism in general. There are unmistakable signs of evolution in religion, and this in itself reveals the importance of belief in belief of God. Daniel Dennett presents a description of religion as a natural phenomenon, and while we see human motives for belief dominating all other reasons, we are justified in our caution.

[otseng]

omni-benevolent, omniscient, omni-potent. I could go at length on God's responsibility as creator, but there's simple proofs for it on Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

I believe you're the first to mention the problem of evil in this thread. And I had expected it to be one of the first arguments given.

My posts refuting the PoE is in The Problem with the Problem of Evil.

[ShadowRishi]

omni-benevolent, omniscient, omni-potent. I could go at length on God's responsibility as creator, but there's simple proofs for it on Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

I believe you're the first to mention the problem of evil in this thread. And I had expected it to be one of the first arguments given.

My posts refuting the PoE is in The Problem with the Problem of Evil.

Hmm... Certainly, though if you'd like to continue the debate over here, I'd have no problem.

The problem of evil and the mythography of Judaism and Christianity are my two most powerful reasons against Christianity.

[otseng]

Hmm... Certainly, though if you'd like to continue the debate over here, I'd have no problem.

I'd ask you to read through the thread first so that we don't go through covered ground. We can debate it either here or over there. Either way is fine with me.