How can any logical person be an atheist?

I understand agnosticism. It makes sense. It makes no concrete claims in any direction and essentially remains indifferent to the idea of God. Atheism, however, takes a concrete stance on something it can never prove. Effectively utilizing the exact same element of faith that it criticizes about belief in God. As we all know, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Thus making unprovable assertions such as "there is no God" just empty statements of faith. Now, that's fine if that's what you want to believe, but you should at least be honest enough to acknowledge what you are truly doing. And it cannot really be argued to be logical. If faith is illogical, then so is atheism. It is merely the other side of the theist coin.

Most atheism is merely pseudo-intellectualism backed by hubris. A logical intellectual approaching the subject objectively would typically tend to remain agnostic.

 

How can any logical person believe in fairy tales and fables? Ex: Talking snakes, jackasses etc....where do you people come up with these stupid threads?

 

aren't these in our evolutionary chain?

 

Your understanding of "agnosticism" is flawed.
All it means is that you believe the existence or non-existence of god can not be known.
You can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.
I agree that to be anything other than an agnostic is a bit silly, though perhaps for different reasons.

Be careful how demonstrative you are against atheists. They are simply stating their lack of belief, just like the theist is declaring he has it. Theists also are taking a stand FOR something they cannot prove.
Neither is saying they "know".

 

No: snakes nor donkeys have never possessed the ability of speech, firstly. Secondly, we're cousins, not descendents, of snakes and donkeys.

 

You're absolutely positive that snakes or donkeys have never spoke?

 

I agree that the statement "there is no God" is an empty statement of faith. The same can be said of the statement "There is a God".

Well... at least there is some form of intellectualism. The same can not be said for Religion.

 

Firstly: proving negatives is difficult. The philosophy of science instead relies on the idea of falsifiability. Ideas that can be falsified and have not been are generally considered strong candidates when they are based on observable and repeatable phenomena.

Not really. Disbelief is not the same as belief.

Deities in general are either unfalsifiable (YHWH when the Bible is interpreted nonliterally, Ahura Mazda, and other deities that exist in a dualistic universe wherein one universe can interact with another but not vice versa) or are falsifiable and have been so (YHWH when the Bible is interpreted literally, the Aesir, the Olympian deities).

See: falsifiability.

Again: not really.

Fixed that for you. :V

Again: not really.

 

How does anyone take a concrete stance or make a logical conclusion without proof? In either direction.
I can see it would be easier to take the no proof no existence stance.

 

For all intents and purposes, yes. The only things that have ever shown talking snakes and donkeys have been fairy tales and myths. Thus, while it would be philosophically untenable to say that there has never been a single instance of a snake or donkey creating speech, I'd say the likelihood of it actually having occurred is essentially nil.

Note: speech is different from a donkey making an approximate sound of human phonemes to sound like some human word. Speech requires syntax, grammar, semiosis, etc.

 

Richard Dawkins has identified himself as an agnostic before in at least one interview despite the fact that he is considered to be one of the most famous atheists out there. I believe this is consistent with what you said about agnostic atheists and theists. Can a Christian have faith if he knows God exists as opposed to believing That God exists?

 

As an engineer, I've learned to never say anything is 100%. But I'd put this in the 99.9% category.

 

Sure they are....does the evolutionary chain say they could talk? Show me that anywhere other than a Bible.

 

So would you say you're agnostic to talking snakes and donkeys?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not real sure........

 

So theres a chance?

 

Yeah I don't know how by this standard anyone could claim to be a logical person and claim to believe in God.

I just don't believe in God- I accept that there might be a God, along with there might be aliens or Bigfoot- I just haven't seen anything that makes be consider any of them believe in them.

I don't care if others chose to believe in God. Why does anyone care whether I don't believe in a god?

 

Animals can communicate. It just may not be talking in the way most people think of. I'm sure the people living at the time these stories knew better than us if animals talked. With that being said, it's more likely that talking donkeys and snakes are not meant to be taken literally.

 

In a world/universe full of infinite possibilities, there is statistically always a chance.

 

Not really. Until I see positive proof for their existence, I'm not going to believe they exist. However, I'm not going to say that there is no chance of them having existed, but I'd put the likelihood of their existence as being so low as to be essentially zero, but non-zero nonetheless. Essentially, I'm following the null hypothesis here: until I see proof to the contrary, I'm saying that it doesn't happen.

 

Faith is a belief, which isn't based on proof! Atheist simply don't believe in God based on the fact that their is no substantial physical evidence, which is reasoned from the said! They do have faith, they put their faith in the physical, something tangible! They dont worship the concept of "no God". They simply don't believe in God like people don't believe in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny or aliens for that matter!

I don't believe it is an appropriate to argue religion on this premise. If you have faith in your religion and deity, then simply believe! You don't need to convince others. The only way to convince people of say Cristiantiy, is fulfill tangible responsibilities as directed by Jesus, such as loving others without discrimination or conditions! People will feel your love, now that would be tangible!

 

I would tend to agree. I don't believe in the God of the Bible, but I believe something exists. I don't like thinking that seventy years is all we get.

 

I know, I feel the same way about folks that categorically deny that there is no such thing as a purple cenotaur riding a brontosaurus who will come down from the heavens some day and inform us he is jesus returning.

 

Funny, theological non-cognitivists think it's a bit silly to be agnostic, lacking any coherent definition of what the word "God" represents.

 

Cognitivism is still in the theoretical status. It has not been proven nor completely accepted.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/cognitivists

- - - Updated - - -

Cognitivism is still in the theoretical status. It has not been proven nor completely accepted.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/cognitivists

 

It's astonishingly simple. A logical person can still believe a thing that has no logical basis, like "god definitively does not exist" or "god definitively does exist", because nobody is perfectly logical.

However, "atheist" does not exactly mean "a person who believes that god definitively does not exist", so there is a slight flaw in your question. Some think god is merely not proven yet. Some think god is irrelevant. Some, like my son, have never even heard the word 'god'. Nothing about their atheism is illogical.