The Logic of Atheism debate got me thinking about something. If atheism is defined as a disbelief in the existence of gods, then how does logic apply to that? I’m not sure logic is needed to justify a non-belief. Non-beliefs aren’t really based on arguments, they’re based on a lack of them. Convincing arguments supporting theism are lacking, therefore atheism. If logic is just a tool used to justify/support arguments, then how could it apply to a non-belief that is based on a lack of convincing arguments? — Pinprick

I wondered if the term 'logic' was being used in a formal, or colloquial sense. I think maybe 180 used the term 'logic' colloquially, and was then challenged to defend it - and the debate blew up out of his refusal to back down. Maybe if there's a round 3 - they can revise the question; have a straight up, free wheeling theist/atheist debate - using any of all arguments at their rhetorical disposal.

I prefer to make the strongest case for unbelief — 180 Proof

Please do. Don't limit yourself to logic on my account. Because I think, when all is duly considered, one must eventually arrive at agnosticism.

I’m not sure logic is needed to justify a non-belief. — Pinprick

A logical belief needs evidence.
There is no evidence for the existence of unicorns.
Therefore, it follows that a belief that unicorns exist is not logical.
IE, it is logical to believe that unicorns don't exist
Putting it another way, it is logical to disbelieve in the existence of unicorns.

IE, logic can justify a disbelief.

By my logic, agnosticism with respect to any 'theistic deity' is incoherent (as pointed out
here).

If theism is cognitive, then its claims (e.g. "the Abrahamic Deity exists") are demonstrably true or not true.

Our claims about events outside our light cone are cognitive but not demonstrably true or not true. Could not theistic claims be the same?

By my logic, agnosticism with respect to any 'theistic deity' is incoherent (as pointed out here). — 180 Proof

I can see why you italicized the my. Perhaps you should also have put quote marks around the term "logic."

Further, your link refers specifically to 'Abrahamic deities' throughout - in a thread entitled: "Agnosticism is the most rationally acceptable default position." If your intent is to show the Bible is not literal truth - there are lower hanging fruit!

My agnosticism refers to the possible existence of a Creator God. I don't know if such a God exists, but it's one possible explanation for the existence of the universe; to say nothing of apparent order in the universe, that gives rise to life and human intellect.

I'm not agnostic with regard to religion. Religion is the politics of people's past - and God was necessary as an objective authority, to justify moral laws in multi-tribal society. Religion is essentially a social contract between ruler and ruled, and so it seems to me - your atheism, is atheism with regard to specific definitions of God.

Now you claim to show:

By my logic, agnosticism with respect to any 'theistic deity' is incoherent — 180 Proof

Not with reference to that link.

Read your "sacred scriptures". All attributed ("revealed") theistic claims are within (our) light cone.

So you’re specifically referring to religious claims? One can believe in something like a creator deity without believing that it interferes in everyday life.

Even regarding religious claims, whether or not Jesus rose from the dead seems cognitive, but I don’t know how it could be demonstrably true or not true, any more than Shakespeare eating an apple on his twentieth birthday would be.

One can believe in something like a creator deity without believing that it interferes in everyday life. — Michael

I would have said:

One can reasonably argue that religion may be pointing at something real, without considering religion definitive of what it points at.

The existence of a God of some kind is a reasonable hypothesis, given the existence of the universe, apparent order in the universe, and the fact the universe fosters intelligent life. Then consider the ubiquity and utility of the concept of God in human civilisation, and one is forced to conclude that, as an hypothesis, God exists - and thus the atheist claim "I see no God, therefore there is no God" fails on grounds of inductive reasoning, i.e. no swans are black.

The atheist may argue that the burden of proof is on the theist, but I don't believe so. The individual theist did not originate the concept. The concept exists; and still constitutes a viable hypothesis, even in face of the sum of scientific knowledge.

You can believe in a 'creator deity' that does not 'intervene' in the world but 'creating the world' amounts to a claim which can be evaluated in terms of evidence to warrant or defeat the claim. To my mind, since theism consists of at least one deity which both created and intervenes in the world (i.e theism), defeating both of those claims also simultaneously defeats the 'creator deity that does not intervene' claim (i.e. deism).

Fortunately, I've long left behind such sophomoric arguments (see my first post on p.1).

Fortunately, I've long left behind such sophomoric arguments (see my first post on p.1). — 180 Proof

I read your post at the time - if you refer to this:

'weak atheism' doesn't satisfy me philosophically (hasn't for decades, in fact). I prefer to make the strongest case for unbelief regardless of how weak or non-existent the argument for belief may be. — 180 Proof

It was in response to this, I said, "please do." Make an argument for atheism, as strong as you like. "Don't confine yourself to logic...!" I said. Still, nothing. So far, you haven't made an argument. All you've done is debate the debate, and make sarcastic dismissals. Tell me about your atheism. I feel like, for me - atheism was an angry phase in my twenties, I've grown out of.

I maintain that science is important, and that it's important to acknowledge what you can and cannot know. Both theism and atheism make knowledge claims without evidence; and I'd like to identify and point that out with regard to your claim to know there's no God.

Atheism is not justified in terms of a valid epistemology, or with regard to scientific method. You don't know if God exists or does not; and yet locate yourself beyond the bounds of what you can reasonably claim to know, and then claim logic as your authority. That can't be right.

You can believe in a 'creator deity' that does not 'intervene' in the world but creating the world amounts to a claim which can be evaluated in terms of evidence to warrant or defeat the claim. — 180 Proof

Neither of which I think are required for the claim to be cognitive. We can make cognitive claims about events outside our light cone which cannot be proven or disproven and we can make cognitive claims about what Shakespeare ate on his twentieth birthday that cannot be proven or disproven. So I see no prima facie reason why we can't make cognitive claims about the existence of a creator deity that cannot be proven or disproven.

It appears to me that you need to support your claim that "if theism is cognitive, then its claims (e.g. "the Abrahamic Deity exists") are demonstrably true or not true" is true; it cannot simply be accepted as an axiom as you have done.

It's also worth mentioning that agnostism covers both the claim that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven and the claim that the existence of God hasn't been proven or disproven, and so even if theistic claims are demonstrably true or not true, they might just not have been demonstrated true or not true yet, and so agnosticism is a rational position to hold until sufficient evidence either way is found.

Recently had a debate on this very question that was DOA. I'm at a truck-stop near Salt Lake City for gas and grub, not really conducive to making my case at the moment. Search my post history for "antitheism" or "anti-theism" or "theistic deity" ... if you're interested. I'm not ducking your request, just not home yet with time to kill, not with c1900 miles ahead of me.

My argument is that theism is not true. My argument is N O T "god does not exist". The latter is futile but the former is realist-cognitive insofar as theism consists of realist-cognitive claims. It's not merely an "axiom" but a warranted (demonstrable) assumption. Let's agree to disagree on that point of contention for time being. I'll get back to you ...

Your mother doesn't believe that my name is Michael, which is to say that "your mother believes that my name is Michael" is false. That's different to your mother believing that my name isn't Michael. — Michael

I think I agree. When you say “‘your mother believes that my name is Michael’ is false,” you’re assigning a truth value to a statement, rather to an actual real world referent.

What’s logical about it if you’re not presenting an argument? Rational perhaps, but I don’t see where logic fits in.

They don't believe us, so they are atheist. Sounds logical.

I've been pulling my hair out over this issue for a long time with little by way of progress.

What does "lack of belief" mean? Well, theism is a belief (God exists) and, oddly, atheism is too (God doesn't exist). We can set aside theism for the moment and focus our attention on atheism. If atheism is, as some claim, a "lack of belief" then it implies, as per the justified true belief theory of knowledge, that atheism isn't knowledge - it isn't a belief ergo, it doesn't have to be true and nor does it need to be justified. That, no doubt, isn't what the atheist thinks atheism is. Perhaps I'm being too pedantic and "belief" is being used in some other sense by atheists. I'm not sure but from a philosophical perspective, to the extent I'm capable of some rigor, atheism as a "lack of belief" makes zero sense. If belief is lacking, there's nothing that can be true/false and there would be no need for justifications of any kind and yet, atheists are falling over each other to both claim that their position on God is the truth and well-justified. It doesn't add up, does it? :chin:

What does "lack of belief" mean? — TheMadFool

Try this analogy on for size:

watching "Star Trek" : theism :: not watching tv : atheism.

Try this analogy on for size:

watching "Star Trek" : theism :: not watching tv : atheism. — 180 Proof

I did think along those lines but it doesn't make sense. Here's a more elaborate version of your analogy.

1. Blank paper (the mind)
2. Written on the blank paper: God exists (theism)
3. Written on the blank paper: God doesn't exist (atheism)
4. Written on the blank paper: Don't know if God exists or not (agnosticism)

Clearly the blank paper is what everyone would agree is "lack of belief" - no belief ergo, nothing to write on the blank paper and so, nothing that's truth-apt that needs justification.

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist i.e. there's something written on the blank paper that can be true and so needs to be demonstrated.

Atheism can't claim to be the blank paper state of mind because,

1. They'd have to accept that they have no idea about God. They would be like little children who first hear the word God. That's clearly false because a negation (atheism) means that they know what the affirmation (theism) is. They would be contradicting themselves.

2. They would also have to admit that their sales pitch that they're rational, their position justified, is an illusion. There's no proposition on a blank page. What are they justifiying?

Clearly you didn't understand my previous analogy, Fool. Here's another:

sodomy : theism :: celibacy : atheism.

Clearly you didn't understand my previous analogy. Here's another, Fool:

sodomy : theism :: celibacy : atheism. — 180 Proof

Dirty old man! :rofl:

But, celibacy is not the negation of sodomy. We could be a-sodomy and yet not celibate. Your analogy fails!

Atheism is not the negation of theism, so your objection is incoherent, Fool. Sodomy is a sexual position whereas celibacy is abstinence from sex; likewise, a theist trusts in (a) creator-intervener deity and an atheist withholds trust in (any) so-called "creator intervener deity".

Atheism is not the negation of theism — 180 Proof

:chin: Somehow, I can't say that I didn't see that coming.

This is exactly what Wittgenstein was talking about. A brief glance of the Wikipedia entry on atheism proves that I've got the wrong end of the stick. Atheism is more nuanced than I thought. :up:

Non-beliefs aren’t really based on arguments — Pinprick

I believe that snow is white - my argument is that I observe snow is white
I disbelieve that snow is black - my argument is that I observe snow is white

IE, my disbelief is based on an argument

If logic is just a tool used to justify/support arguments — Pinprick

IE, I am using logic as a tool to support my disbelief that snow is black based on my argument that I observe snow is white

If atheism is defined as a disbelief in the existence of gods, then how does logic apply to that? I’m not sure logic is needed to justify a non-belief. Non-beliefs aren’t really based on arguments, they’re based on a lack of them. Convincing arguments supporting theism are lacking, therefore atheism. If logic is just a tool used to justify/support arguments, then how could it apply to a non-belief that is based on a lack of convincing arguments? — Pinprick

Think of it this way. If theism/a-theism is based on Omniscience (Omnipotence Paradox), descriptions of a deity or God, then the negation of same, is also based on that same illogical premise. In other words, a logically impossible God is certainly a concept that is used as evidence to counter theism.

And so for both the Theist/Atheist, their belief systems (in this descriptive case) are both illogical. And in turn, that it is not necessarily a bad thing, considering other things in life (the nature of existence itself) have illogical descriptions/explanations (consciousness, etc.) in themselves.

Rationality requires a conclusion to be consistent with rational premises: A conclusion that is inconsistent with rational premises is both illogical and irrational. A conclusion that is compelled by irrational premises is logical, but irrational. And a premise that is not sound or valid (unclear) can be incoherent.

Maybe more practically speaking, those kind of logical descriptors beg other questions about what belief systems really are... . For example, what does it really mean for something to be illogical, irrational, logically impossible, so on and so forth. Then, parsing it even further, the angst of recognizing that the laws of nature and logic itself cannot reconcile things like uncertainty (think Heisenberg) and other phenomena (the paradox of time, laws of non-contradiction, etc.), leaves many belief systems in a state of finitude.

One should ask what kind of belief system is appropriate for a given truth value. In laymen's terms, being reasonable means treating like cases likely, different cases differently. And when it comes to ideas about the concept of a God (conceptions of God-cosmological, humanistic, monotheistic, pantheistic, Christian, Buddhist, etc. etc..) what kind of truth value are we looking to understand. Using logic, what is our desire(s) or need to know (Will) about the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe.

In this respect, I agree with physicist Paul Davies in that the complete understanding of existence and its properties may lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought. And that certainly includes pure reason and mathematical structures. Hence one notion of a God.

logically impossible God — 3017amen

Even if the theist/atheist assumed both i) a god that is all-knowing and ii) a complete understanding of an all-knowing god would lie outside human rational thought, it does not follow that the theist/atheist would not be able to use logic to strive for a partial understanding of the truth.

Sure, and using that same sense of logic, synthetic a priori proposition's are alive and well: all events must have a cause. Perhaps that, in a strange way, is your partial truth.

your partial truth. — 3017amen

It certainly is.

:100: :up:

If theism/a-theism is based on Omniscience (Omnipotence Paradox), descriptions of a deity or God, then the negation of same, is also based on that same illogical premise. In other words, a logically impossible God is certainly a concept that is used as evidence to counter theism. — 3017amen

The conclusion seems inescapable. Though it may still somehow escape the atheists.