Is religion inferior to logic ?

[ratiocinator]

Yes, I know. But then they immediately and repeatedly proclaim that they refuse to believe that any gods exist because they have not been given any evidence (that they will recognize as such) to convince them otherwise. So that out of one side of their mouths they claim they are agnostic, while out of the other side of their mouth they proclaim their atheism. And they try to justify this double-speak by hiding it behind some semantic nonsense about "unbelief". Even though their "unbelief" clearly defaults to disbelief: i.e., that no gods exist unless and until the theist can prove to them that they do.

I really don't know what you find so hard about this. Most atheists I know are agnostic atheists. Agnosticism is about knowledge and atheism is about belief. Claims about god(s) are, for the most part, unfalsifiable, so nobody can claim they are definitely false because there is simply no way to disprove them. It is certainly possible that there is some entity, somewhere in the whole of reality that might deserve the title 'god' but, absent any reason to take the idea seriously, I'm not going to just accept it as true - i.e. I'm not going to believe that it is true.

This is doubly the case if there is a omnipotent creator because, if it doesn't want to be known, then it would certainly be able to make sure that there was no hint of its existence available to us.

See previous post.

See above. And you haven't managed to point to any atheist who has made the claim that you said atheists make.

 

[PureX]

I really don't know what you find so hard about this. Most atheists I know are agnostic atheists.

Maybe, but almost none of them can seem to explain how or why without reverting to semantic nonsense.

There are many agnostic theists, but they can very easily explain the how and why of their position because theism offers them a course of action that provides them with results that they can then use as their reason for maintaining their theism in spite of their unknowing (agnosticism). In other words, for them, faith works.

But the atheist rejects faith, and so he has no course of action that can produce results that he can then use to justify his choosing to deny the existence of gods (atheism) while still lacking any such knowledge (agnosticism). And because he can offer no alternative rationale for this contradictory position he then tends to become disingenuous and duplicitous as he is trying to excuse his demand that everyone else justify their god-belief choices while he, himself, cannot do so.

Agnosticism is about knowledge and atheism is about belief.

Belief is irrelevant to anyone but the believer. No one cares what anyone else believes.

What matters is what is being accepted and then proclaimed as being real and true to everyone else.

Claims about god(s) are, for the most part, unfalsifiable, so nobody can claim they are definitely false because there is simply no way to disprove them. It is certainly possible that there is some entity, somewhere in the whole of reality that might deserve the title 'god' but, absent any reason to take the idea seriously, I'm not going to just accept it as true - i.e. I'm not going to believe that it is true.

There are a great many reasons to take the theist proposition seriously, and to even accept it as being true. But they are not based on knowing that any gods exist, they are based on the results of acting on the presumption that gods exist. Anyone that is not completely blinded by their own bias against the idea of gods existing would surely be able to recognize this as it is very, very commonplace.

The reasons for rejecting the idea that gods exist in spite of not knowing that gods do not exist, however, leaves very little in the way of logic, experiential evidence, or positive results to support choosing that position. Which is why we almost never see any atheists offering any. And why, instead, we only see them attacking everyone else's chosen position.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

All I’m seeing is people blinded by self imposed limitations, declaring their blindness as wisdom.

What I see are people who have learned to believe without faith being called blind by people who seem to have no criteria for belief themselves better than gut feeling, who are declaring their special way of knowing to be wisdom despite being unable to show any benefit from such thinking other than comforting them.

Incidentally, those self-imposed limitations are by design. They're a feature of critical thought, not a bug as you suggest. They protect the critical thinker from unfalsifiable ("not even wrong") beliefs imbibed uncritically (faith).

they immediately and repeatedly proclaim that they refuse to believe that any gods exist because they have not been given any evidence (that they will recognize as such) to convince them otherwise. So that out of one side of their mouths they claim they are agnostic, while out of the other side of their mouth they proclaim their atheism.

You seem to think that those two ideas are contradictory, which appears to be your chief impediment to understanding what you read from atheists. Critical thinking, which protects from faith-based belief, only supports agnostic atheism, which does not include the claim that no gods exist as you keep mistakenly assert.

And they try to justify this double-speak by hiding it behind some semantic nonsense about "unbelief". Even though their "unbelief" clearly defaults to disbelief: i.e., that no gods exist unless and until the theist can prove to them that they do.

"Clearly defaults to disbelief"? The double-speak is all in your head as you have been told countless times. Nobody can disabuse you of your error without your cooperation and unbiased attention. What you are saying is that agnostic atheism is an impossible position to maintain without quickly degenerating into gnostic atheism, like a coin standing on its edge in a moving vehicle quickly becoming tails. You have no supporting evidence for that claim, but plenty that contradicts you, but that doesn't seem to impact your thinking. Maybe you're confusing the fact that the gnostic and agnostic atheist live the same life free of gods and religions, and so conflating their beliefs.

Belief is actually quite irrelevant to anyone but the believer. It's the claims we make about reality to each other that matter.

Our claims about reality are among our beliefs. Maybe by belief you mean what I call faith-based or unjustified belief, including unfalsifiable beliefs, distinct from facts. If so, I agree. Such ideas are of little value to others. But I call that which I consider fact my belief. In fact, I don't hold any beliefs that I don't consider fact.

claiming not to know if gods really exist or not while also claiming that gods don't exist unless they are proven to exists by the atheist's chosen methodology is going to be perceived as a disingenuous and two-faced proclamation every time

Yes, it is disingenuous and two-faced, but it's you making that claim above, not atheists. You won't find an atheist making that claim. Well, *you* might, but nobody else will see what you see. Once again, you have conflated the gnostic and agnostic atheist. You simply refuse to believe that atheists are one or the other and that most are agnostic and remain so indefinitely, usually until death.

Belief itself is not rational given the fact that we are not omniscient.

Your comment isn't rational. We don't need to be omniscient to reason properly.

Yet we engage in it all the time because we think we have to

We do have to engage in believing. You're expressing your beliefs now. So am I.

 

[ratiocinator]

Maybe, but almost none of them can seem to explain how or why without reverting to semantic nonsense.

Well other people don't seem to have your difficulty understanding, so I think the problem is probably with you.

But the atheist rejects faith, and so he has no course of action that can produce results that he can then use to justify his choosing to deny the existence of gods (atheism)...

There you go again. Atheism is not denying the existence of gods (at least not in many cases), it's not believing that there are god(s). I can't deny the existence of (say) ghosts because there is no way to 100% rule them out but since I have never seen any good evidence for them, I don't believe they exist. If somebody come up with some new evidence, I may change my belief about them. Same with god(s).

Belief is irrelevant to anyone but the believer. No one cares what anyone else believes.

Great sweeping generalisation. You may not care what people believe but please don't presume to speak for everybody. I'm interested in what people believe and why.

There are a great many reasons to take the theist proposition seriously, and to even accept it as being true. But they are not based on knowing that any gods exist, they are based on the results of acting on the presumption that gods exist. Anyone that is not completely blinded by their own bias against the idea of gods existing would surely be able to recognize this as it is very, very commonplace.

The fact that some people seem to need, or want, or think they benefit from, believing something says exactly nothing about its truth.

The reasons for rejecting the idea that gods exist in spite of not knowing that gods do not exist, however, leaves very little in the way of logic, experiential evidence, or positive results to support choosing that position. Which is why we almost never see any atheists offering any.

That because it the normal, rational, everyday, approach people normally take towards any and every fantastical proposition that is offered without evidence. It's the only way to maintain sanity. If you just uncritically accepted everybody's unevidenced beliefs, you'd end up with endless contradictions. You seem to want god(s) to be put in a different category to everything else.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, I know. But then they immediately and repeatedly proclaim that they refuse to believe that any gods exist because they have not been given any evidence (that they will recognize as such) to convince them otherwise. So that out of one side of their mouths they claim they are agnostic, while out of the other side of their mouth they proclaim their atheism. And they try to justify this double-speak by hiding it behind some semantic nonsense about "unbelief". Even though their "unbelief" clearly defaults to disbelief: i.e., that no gods exist unless and until the theist can prove to them that they do.

Straw man.
You're comparing a colloquial definition of agnosticism: "I don't know," with a colloquial -- outdated and frequently corrected -- definition of atheism: "there is no God." The double-speak is an illusion.

Belief is actually quite irrelevant to anyone but the believer.

Yet it's the crux of this particular thread.

It's the claims we make about reality to each other that matter.

In casual social situations, yes. In discussions of ontology and epistemology, the specifics and justifications of the claims are crucial.

And claiming not to know if gods really exist or not while also claiming that gods don't exist unless they are proven to exists by the atheist's chosen methodology is going to be perceived as a disingenuous and two-faced proclamation every time,

Again, this is not the claim of atheism, as has been explained here on RF hundreds of times -- yet the misunderstanding keeps popping up.
It seems a useful straw man, convincing to the philosophically unsophisticated.

especially when the contradiction is pointed out and the claimant tries to hide or deny it using silly semantic double-speak (like they "unbelive" but don't disbelieve in the existence of any gods).

It's not double-speak; not a contradiction.
Definitions are crucial to any argument, and "disbelieve" is definitively ambiguous. This is why we use "lack of belief" or "non-belief" instead. We're clarifying, not hiding, nor are we denying anything but your misrepresentation of the argument.

Belief itself is not rational given the fact that we are not omniscient. Yet we engage in it all the time because we think we have to, to live in a world that we cannot ever fully understand or control. The "evidence" is everywhere, all around us, all the time. Nothing is ever "unevidenced". This claim of there being no evidence is more semantic double-speak meant to hide a bias against any evidence that does not serve our chosen methodology for achieving "belief".

True, there are gradations of evidence, but assessment of reliability seems to be a rare skill. Most people put a high value on gut feeling or conventionalism. Few seem to rationally and dispassionately analyze the truth-value of a proposition. Few seem to recognize a lack of concrete, objective, empirical evidence, in the face of general belief, as problematic. Some don't seem to grasp the invalidity of drawing conclusions despite a genuine lack of objective evidence.

Withholding belief, pending objective evidence, under the "methodology" of logic," is not semantic double-speak.

And the fact that all these self-proclaimed "rational skeptics" fight so hard to defend and maintain that nonsensical double-speak only serves to exemplify the willful ignorance and bias behind it to those of us that have not fallen for it. (Not to say that we are not prone to our own examples of willful ignorance and bias.)

We "fight so hard" because theists and conventionalists keep bringing the subject up. It's you fighting; we're just replying.

We make and defend a rational conclusion. We assume the subject's been put to bed, only to find it dragged back into the parlor, propped up with the same invalid arguments we'd previously debunked.

 

[Bird123]

Are all facts known or proven? One can state a fact that is unknown and has never been proven. Granted the statement will be a belief until one seeks to Discover whether the statement is a fact. The burden of proof rests upon the one who seeks. Even great science starts with a belief. Of course, unlike yourself, scientists seek the facts.

Logic and reason reaches beyond beliefs and feelings. If God exists then God can be found. God can be found. On the other hand, how many really seek God? It seems those beliefs everyone throws around back and forth is easier than Discovering the Facts. Of course, Discover has always taken work. Ask any scientist.

For those who seek God, there is a base one should never fall below. Everything about God will add up perfectly. If what you Discover does not add up perfectly, you wander from the true course you are seeking.

Look at this world. Do you see a mess?? Look again. Widen your view. Put the pieces of Discovery together. This world is a Masterpiece!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Valjean]

Are all facts known or proven? One can state a fact that is unknown and has never been proven. Granted the statement will be a belief until one seeks to Discover whether the statement is a fact. The burden of proof rests upon the one who seeks. Even great science starts with a belief. Of course, unlike yourself, scientists seek the facts.

A "belief" remains a belief whether it's rational or not; whether it's true of not.
The burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim.

Logic and reason reaches beyond beliefs and feelings. If God exists then God can be found. God can be found. On the other hand, how many really seek God? It seems those beliefs everyone throws around back and forth is easier than Discovering the Facts. Of course, Discover has always taken work. Ask any scientist

"If God exists then God can be found?" This doesn't follow. Show your work.

.For those who seek God, there is a base one should never fall below. Everything about God will add up perfectly. If what you Discover does not add up perfectly, you wander from the true course you are seeking.

Please explain "...add up perfectly."

Look at this world. Do you see a mess?? Look again. Widen your view. Put the pieces of Discovery together. This world is a Masterpiece!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Ah! -- The pointillist school of philosophy.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, but the urge to maximizing objectivity is subjective.

Indeed, but if religion is the alternative, you have that hurdle of proceeding in ignorance of what real thing a god might be. God exists solely as an idea, same as any (other) fictitious character exists only as an idea. The difference is that God has more followers than Superman does ─ for the time being.

True, numbers as well exist only as ideas, but the further difference is, they're actually quite useful in the right hands.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Indeed, but if religion is the alternative, you have that hurdle of proceeding in ignorance of what real thing a god might be. God exists solely as an idea, same as any (other) fictitious character exists only as an idea. The difference is that God has more followers than Superman does ─ for the time being.

True, numbers as well exist only as ideas, but the further difference is, they're actually quite useful in the right hands.

That is the trick. The idea of God can be useful, if you understand it is a limited tool. It is not different than trying to get science to carry all the load. Or philosophy. All 3 are useful, but limited.
As for garbage in, garbage out, you can learn to spot that for all 3, if one of them is used to do more than it can.

 

[blü 2]

That is the trick. The idea of God can be useful, if you understand it is a limited tool. It is not different than trying to get science to carry all the load. Or philosophy. All 3 are useful, but limited.

But only reasoned enquiry, not least scientific method, is pre-eminent when you wish to explore, describe and seek to explain nature.

And a clear view of nature gives the best chance for an objective test of truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But only reasoned enquiry, not least scientific method, is pre-eminent when you wish to explore, describe and seek to explain nature.

And a clear view of nature gives the best chance for an objective test of truth.

Well, that is true, since I am in non-nature and not a part of nature. In fact, I didn't write this post in nature and it didn't come to you through nature. You are hallucinating and it is all in your mind, as this is not in nature.

 

[RestlessSoul]

A "belief" remains a belief whether it's rational or not; whether it's true of not.
The burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim.

"If God exists then God can be found?" This doesn't follow. Show your work.

Please explain "...add up perfectly."

Ah! -- The pointillist school of philosophy.

The failure to communicate here may be due to one person speaking the language of the heart, while the other refuses to come down from his icy intellectual mountain to listen.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The failure to communicate here may be due to one person speaking the language of the heart, while the other refuses to come down from his icy intellectual mountain to listen.

The joke is that they use emotions, they just call e.g. pointless and don't understand that it is first person and not objective. They use their heart all the time, they just with their heart deny that it is relevant.

 

[blü 2]

Well, that is true, since I am in non-nature and not a part of nature. In fact, I didn't write this post in nature and it didn't come to you through nature. You are hallucinating and it is all in your mind, as this is not in nature.

Of course. But the bad news for you is, I'm imaginary, too, a demon sent to taunt you into learning ...

You can, of course, believe that if you want to ─ pity you have no way of checking it for truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course. But the bad news for you is, I'm imaginary, too, a demon sent to taunt you into learning ...

You can, of course, believe that if you want to ─ pity you have no way of checking it for truth.

Yeah, stop treating me like a theist. Or I will treat you as a really bad negative, but that is then true, right?
We are playing reductio ad absurdum and we cope differently for that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, stop treating me like a theist. Or I will treat you as a really bad negative, but that is then true, right?
We are playing reductio ad absurdum and we cope differently for that.

 

[MikeF]

I really don't know what you find so hard about this. Most atheists I know are agnostic atheists. Agnosticism is about knowledge and atheism is about belief. Claims about god(s) are, for the most part, unfalsifiable, so nobody can claim they are definitely false because there is simply no way to disprove them. It is certainly possible that there is some entity, somewhere in the whole of reality that might deserve the title 'god' but, absent any reason to take the idea seriously, I'm not going to just accept it as true - i.e. I'm not going to believe that it is true.

This is doubly the case if there is a omnipotent creator because, if it doesn't want to be known, then it would certainly be able to make sure that there was no hint of its existence available to us.


See above. And you haven't managed to point to any atheist who has made the claim that you said atheists make.

I'm not sure how one can be an agnostic atheist. Whether atheist or agnostic, either -ism is in reference to some defined thing. How does one know and not know the status of a defined thing at the same time?

 

[PureX]

Indeed, but if religion is the alternative, you have that hurdle of proceeding in ignorance of what real thing a god might be. God exists solely as an idea, same as any (other) fictitious character exists only as an idea. The difference is that God has more followers than Superman does ─ for the time being.

True, numbers as well exist only as ideas, but the further difference is, they're actually quite useful in the right hands.

God, Superman, and numbers are all representational labels. They are each labeling different kinds of ideas. And they are each useful in that capacity.

 

[Valjean]

I'm not sure how one can be an agnostic atheist. Whether atheist or agnostic, either -ism is in reference to some defined thing. How does one know and not know the status of a defined thing at the same time?

Agnosticism: Belief that the existence of God is unknowable.
Atheism: Lack of belief in God or gods.

 

[MikeF]

Agnosticism: Belief that the existence of God is unknowable.
Atheism: Lack of belief in God or gods.

And if someone defines "God" as "all that is", does an atheist not believe in things that are and the agnostic not know whether or not the things that are, are?