Is Atheism a logical belief?

No, it's a fact that humans created gods. You obviously are afraid to even study the issue.

 

That is not proof of any god-thing. Correlation is not causation.

 

Gosh, your god-thing didn't even give you the moral courage to respond.

 

The Ignore feature works like God - I mean magic...

 

Then again you say what you say from a place of safety and ease. So perhaps in some cases correlation and causation are linked. My point which was also my Brother's is that his first instinct was to call out in thought to God. That his light began to work is a wonder.

 

You should also have the moral courage to say that one day you might discover that it was a supernatural god-thing.

 

All Gods but the one true God. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

That is my view. The lack of chaos to me is what we call mother nature or the laws of physics. Calling it god is fine with me as well. I don't care what people call it. Why the laws of physics exist is just a mystery. People can attempt to explain it in any way they like but it is still a mystery. Since it is a mystery then it makes little sense to me for people to be intolerant of other peoples' approach to it.

 

Because they claim the opposite condition.

If you are a rock I suppose, everyone knows its the belief no Gods exist, are you kidding?

Yes belief there are no Gods is the atheist position

OH? Well then feel free to join these guys and prove it!
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-neo-atheism-a-rational-religion.564784/page-79
their latest arguments have taken the thread into the twilight zone
They need all the help they can get.

But it can be!

 

Certainly not OK, as in the cliche, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

 

All you atheists here should watch the Denzel Washington movie: The Book of Eli - a stunningly underrated movie. It will explain it all to you. It will teach you all about Good and evil.

 

I've seen this movie some months ago. Eli saved the religious scriptures from oblivion. Books, unable to save mankind from destructing themselves.

But that's the point. Why do people believe in a God who doesn't help and never did?

 

You missed the entire point of the movie - no offense. Watch it again - pay attention to every detail. Listen to what Denzel says in the movie. Pay attention to what kind of man Carnegie was. You may not know this but Denzel believes in a "magic Man in the sky."

I am not asking you to become a Christian - I am asking you to watch the movie, and think.

Those that tried to kill The Book are who brought about the post apocalyptic condition Eli is living through in the movie.

 

Same place any magical god creator would come from.

Energy is neither created not destroyed.

 

That's right, but God allowed this.

If you believe in God you have to accept that God doesn't love his creation. Earth is His match field where He enjoys the eternal fight between Good and Evil.

 

So, there was energy, for longer than eternity?

 

2 pages. Perty good.

 

There are always exceptions.

 

Wise math professor.

 

Or for the same length.

 

It is more about what has been modeled in the Eden story of Genesis. Religion is about how life will continue (i.e., after death). It is thus a Tree of Life. Science is about the the Tree of Knowledge. Atheism in a nutshell is a misunderstanding of both. Humans are blocked from accessing how life will continue after death, as Genesis mentioned. Generally humans lack the capability to tell a future (more specifically we can't tell how life will go on). We can thus get info from a God who knows. That's basically what religion is, that is, to tell a future which only a God knows.

Science on the other hand is to identify a truth by telling a future repeatedly and precisely. As mentioned above, humans lack the ability to tell a future. If a theory allows us to predict a future (of a repeating pattern) precisely, we thus know that such a theory holds a truth. That's the nature of what science is. To a phenomenon which doesn't repeat or not repeatable, all science can conclude is that "whatever theory one can come up with is deemed not falsifiable". "Not falsifiable" simply means "if the theory is not true we can't tell", simultaneously it means "if the theory is true we can't tell either". Science's answer to something not repeatable is thus "it's out of my scope to determine it's true or false". If something doesn't repeat, science already gave up on it to begin with. To theories such as BBT and ToE, what science can conclude (from the very beginning) is, "science can't determine if a theory is true or false" or "science doesn't work in this scenariao. By the very nature of science it says that science doesn't work on this non-repeatable scenario. Our scientists' works are thus based on this prerequisite condition that "we can't determine if our theory is true or false, we only are trying our best to see what it is in an alternative way (i.e., naturally a non-scientific way)". To something not repeatable the "science" in our mouth is an attempt to use an alterative but non-scientific way to try our (scientists') best to approach such a non-repeatable phenomenon, which in the end will inevitably turn out to be "we can't know if our theory is true or false".

To something not repeatable (or even a science), humans mostly rely on testimonies to get to a truth. We go through someone witnessed the truth to reach such a truth. A typical example is history. History is a one time event recorded down by a historian who examined the credibility of a historical occurence reported by eyewitnesses then recorded it down for later humans to get to this piece of fact (mostly by faith). This is also the way of the Tree of Life. We actually can't know a past as well as a future. Science by its nature already gave up on these two sectors by saying that "whatever will not be falsifiable". The nature of creationism thus is, since science gave up on it, we trust a witness' testimony. The only eyewitness is God. We are getting to a historical fact by means of a testimony. A testimony can be a lie, however in the case of a truth it remains the only way for humans to get to such a truth. This is the nature of what testimonies are.

Another typical example is, death tolls of covid-19 are listed on a daily basis. The correct way we shall reach the truth is thus, of course, by means of a testimony. We thus trust (with faith) what have been listed by our media. We trust (with faith) that the figures are collected and reported sincerely from the original source (i.e., the direct eyewitnesses) who is responsible for counting the death tolls. There's no science in it as it's not a repeatable patern following any rules, the death tolls don't fit for a repeatable pattern.

Genesis also put the remark that atheists are fooled (by the devil) to think that they can reach a non-repeatable event (such as how our universe begins) by means of a science, while the very nature of science itselt already says that "whatever is not falsifiable". The only possible way for humans to get to such a truth is by means of the "Word of God" as a testimony from the one and only one legit source (of course provided that God is true). So the best bet (it doesn't matter whether you consider this a Pascal's Wager or not) here is, if God is true the only way to get to such a truth is by means of God's own testimony. If God is not true then humans mostly can't get to such a truth. Science in this case is just a phantom god for you to believe it while it already says from the very beginning that "I don't know".

 

Selectively quoting from my post, changing its meaning - noted.

Hasty generalization "all atheists think the same" - noted.

Attempt to drag me into an endless dispute about meaning of words and concepts, meaning you twist until tortured words and concepts beg for mercy - noted.

I will rephrase my post, to make it easier to understand: god is not needed to explain how the Universe functions and why it functions like this. The "god-did-it" hypothesis becomes thus irrelevant. The question "does god exist" becomes thus irrelevant too.

To this particular atheist, god - any one of the many gods, and the concept itself - is simply irrelevant.

The "everyone knows" argument is a logical fallacy. Did you seriously expect me to fall for it?

 

Hahahahaha

 

Excellent!

 

You could have said that from the outset, the vast majority of people would agree with you and it would have likely be a much shorter thread. That doesn't mean atheism isn't logical though, just as it doesn't mean theism isn't logical either. It is ultimately about what is most likely or what the most practical approach is in the context of that lack of proof.

A side point but a common misunderstanding; This isn't about any choice. None of us can actively choose what we believe or simply change it on a whim. What we each believe is a complex mix of our individual knowledge, understanding, experience and the weird and wonderful workings of the human brain. You can add to those sources of information and experience, but you can't control what your brain will do with that.

There are loads of potential sources of help. Gods (and certainly not your specific image of God) are far from the only options, even if you're ignoring all the mundane, temporal ones.