Is Atheism a logical belief?

I sure do!
By all means prove it.



you are going to have to do far better than the constant battery of contradictions you have been posting though.

As you can see my logic is both precise and incontrovertible!

no that is not evidence or proof

 

Nope. Already did. Just debunked your agenda-driven posts again. The definitions for the terms are posted in #350. Agnosticism is about what you believe you know, Atheism is about what you believe. They are not inconsistent. You are not an agnostic. You are a theist who's scared of being bullied by atheists on this forum.

 

You guys realize this is entirely off topic, right? I mean, the question in the OP was - where did Hawking's spark come from?

 

Your hero Bertrand Russel says you are dead wrong!

Are Agnostics Atheists?

No.

An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. 1953, Bertrand Russell: https://books.google.com/books?id=Lm58AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA557#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Is Atheism a logical belief?
or not!

I have a thread that argues these exact points, and you dont see them in there they prefer yours.

 

I don't want to nit pick but:

 

well you realize that your reasoning that you use to get to that point is all subject to argument dont you?

Sure I welcome them into my thread but they dont like it because their propositions have long since been debunked in my thread.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-neo-atheism-a-rational-religion.564784/page-80

There is only one person left trying to spin little webs in my thread

 

That is a really simply question to answer you know

Aristotle noted that things in nature are caused and that these causes in nature exist in a chain, stretching backward.
First Cause - New World Encyclopedia

Cause and effect is one of the three philosophical relations that afford us less than certain knowledge, the other two being identity and situation. ... Causation is a relation between objects that we employ in our reasoning in order to yield less than demonstrative knowledge of the world beyond our immediate impressions.

David Hume: Causation - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy


Otherwise understood as cause and effect, not sure how you intend to make a fruitful thread out of that narrow focus alone however.


Eventually cause and effect takes you all the way back to the source, understood as the god 'chaos'

 

Lookie. Kokomojo all riled up again because not everybody uses his terminology.

And lookie. Last Great American disappointed his thread got hijacked after people answered him and he dodged their answers.

Fun times.

 

Ever notice all the false accusations leveled by sore losers

 

Is that why you hijacked this fellow's thread? Because you are a sore loser?

Go on, tell us all again how we can make ourselves believe we are elephants and that "I don't believe the is a God" means exactly the same as "I believe there is no God", but also that agnostics can't be atheists. Dazzle us with such brilliance.

 

I made a good faith effort and tried to take your thread back on course, in post
Kokomojojo, 14 minutes ago #358, hopefully the trolls will take a vacation and no one will troll from this point forward.

 

You can certainly ask the question, but there will always be an infinite series of previous causes that require identity and definition.

IOW it is a question without bounds. Therefore the question is not answerable.

 

As long as you don't know what atheism really means, and as long as you don't understand that there are two different definitions for agnosticism - Huxley's and the definition in your dictionaries - you won't be able to understand neither Russell, nor Huxley, nor why an agnostic can be an atheist. Russell himself, in the same essay you quote, admits an agnostic doesn't believe in God.

What differentiates between agnostic and atheist, according to Russell, is not the content of their beliefs, but the method used to reach conclusions. He uses Huxley's definition, not the one in the dictionaries. He's of course correct, but if we look at the content of beliefs, then an agnostic can be an atheist, since both lack belief in god(s), something he admits in the other, earlier essay.

By the way, "belief" and "faith" are not always synonyms. Their meaning greatly depends on context, which you choose to ignore when it suits you. Coloring, bolding, and generally shoving the word "belief" right in the eye of the unhappy reader as if it always means "faith in god(s)" is simply wrong.

By the way number two, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

I'll tell you what's my problem with agnosticism. Claiming that we can't know if gods exist is a sound philosophical position, but we still have to define "gods". Saying that undefined beings - with powers and weaknesses that wildly differ between cultures, intent on rewarding, punishing, or torturing humans just because, who eternally battle each other for our souls (yet another poorly defined term) - exist in some (again undefined) realm sometimes called "supernatural" - is not something for which enough evidence could ever be presented. What is it we want evidence for, exactly?

Keeping the above in mind, it follows that I can be agnostic regarding one particular god, one that would be thoroughly defined, but I'm still an atheist. That's one way a person can be both agnostic and atheist.

 

THE TOPIC IS: IS ATHEISM A LOGICAL BELIEF? WHERE DID FIRST CAUSE COME FROM?

 

FYI, I am no longer going to respond to these people here, they can take it to my thread where I will happily respond.

Pisa and anyone else, simply repost it here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-neo-atheism-a-rational-religion.564784/page-80

 

Thank you, sir!

 

This question isn't unique to atheism. It exists for theism as well. Your whole OP is based on special pleading.

 

Asked and answered. Are you going to respond to people who answered you previously? You dodged them initially. Seems odd that you'd get upset somebody else hijacked a thread you abandoned.

 

Yes, and this has been pointed out to him numerous times. Each time, he ignored it.

 

Your questions have no answer. There are faulty premises in both. Atheism is not a belief. There's no evidence for a first cause. You'll have to either change the questions to eliminate faulty premises, or try to prove your premises are correct. I wouldn't recommend the latter, as the definition of atheism precludes it from being a belief.

 

In a rare move, I'm going to agree with a post of Koko's. It seems to me the topic whether atheism is a logical belief. Atheism in itself contains no references to any Hawking's spark.

I read your OP to start with a lengthy description of your understanding of atheism, with a question mark at the end. I challenged that understanding, but all I got in return was comments about beratement (that I hadn't committed), your grandmother, progressive politics, and then silence. I don't have a problem with you bringing up all of those things, but it seems to me you shouldn't be surprised that things go off topic if you actively work towards it.

I don't think atheists as a whole have committed to any particular source of the universe, we simply don't know. There are some ideas out there, quantum fluctuations, "Hawking's spark" (whatever that means), the universe being maintained from within time and space, pixies, time travel, infinite regression, Greek gods, Christian gods, or that it relates to parts of the material world that we haven't discovered yet etcetc.. So far, none of them have provided any significant evidence or justification for belief, so aren't warranted to hold a belief in any of them.

To the best of my knowledge, most atheists have no particular interest in the difference between the various non-god explanations (or at least, it's just not very related to atheism). Theism does not get a free pass just because there are details that are unknown.

 

They've been arguing about ATHEISM vs. AGNOSTICISM for 3 DAYS!!!! Nothing to do with the SPIRIT of the OP.

 

What this entire thread proves is 2-things:

• no one can say if there IS, or is NOT a God - either choice is a belief, period, and
  
• many so-called science-based atheists can not bring themselves to admit that, without the prerequisite "magic man in the sky" put-down, or some other insult related to it.

The paradox of all of this is that the people that have themselves convinced that they are wiser, and intellectually and morally superior to the Christian believers that they hate, are woefully not, because a wiser, intellectually and morally superior being would not insult anyone, for what they believe.

Then when I or someone else gives you guys a taste of your own medicine, you cry (I've never insulted what anyone believes, but I have insulted adolescence and belligerence, because I find it sickening).

And for the last time - Hawking is who proposes that "something" popped into existence, from absolutely nothing, in the middle of absolutely nothing - instead of being a humble decent human and admitting that he "just does not know - and cannot figure out" where the "something" came from - so his answer is the equivalent of "magic - to make himself feel good about himself" to quote another contributor...

A'ho

 

Of you want to get back to the spirit of the OP, then I suggest perhaps you could pick up on what somebody said and you ignored earlier. It may help.