Dr S

(W) No, man is illogical in our context.
(S) This appears to be projectionism. "Man" is far from illogical.

(W)Atheism's bases (judgment about a truth) for a no-god belief is logically inconsistent.
(S) It is completely consistent with all observable facts. That is why you can't end this debate by saying, "here's god, he's right in front of you." And it is why you must rely on faith to hold your position because you have no proof. Had you proof faith would be meaningless.

(S) B asserts that you are using logic
(w) Yes, we don't have a choice, do we?
(S) But you just claimed that "man is illogical" now you claim that he has no choice but to use logic.

(W) Do you agree that logical necessity or logically necessary truths must exist?
(S) I think you've come up with some phrases that have meaning to you but not to the rest of us.
I would say that by observing facts people are quite able through the use of logic to make accurate deductions.

(W) And if you do, is a logically necessary Being absurd? And if so, how so?
(S) Your invisible superman in the sky is absurd because you have neither observed the facts nor have you applied logic.

(w) No, it says that atheists uses logic, particularly deductive logic, as the most convicing method for a no-god belief or a judgement about a claim over the possibility of one.
(S) But you began by condemning Atheists for not using logic to reach their conclusion and now you are saying that they do.

(W) Doc, if you answer b, I believe you will see the inconsistency in c. The inconsistency will be in the arbitrary application of which logic (empirical/apriori) in the face of what can be known thru such logic and the limitations thereof.
(S) I answered B. We are still faced with the problem of your inability to distinguish fantasy from reality.
(W) And there again, you should not be concerned or care about something that you know cannot and will not ever exist. and that is because the atheist [you] has somehow concluded that the Being God is not logically possible (in the formal apriori sense of logic).
(S) The problem isn't with the god, there is, after all, no god. The reason the god is not "logically possible" is simply because he isn't there. Not a very weighty problem of logic to deduce that something that isn't, isn't.
The problem is with the people who demand that there is a god and then take action against people who don't subscribe to their delusion.
And what is this business of highlighting the word "care". Do you think "care" has something to do with religion or god?

Malcolm_MacDohmnall

ReasonableDoubt

I don't see the Laws of Nature as optional.

You assume a God would be "SUPER"natural and could not be a natural one. Not all of the definitions I have heard. As to the Supernatural part I suspect that is the underlying nature of non-locality that we misinterpret as seperate from our local perception. Still a natural occurance under the true laws of nature.


Huh. My perception of a possible ultimate purpose would be limited to my abilities to concieve. Your statement should read: How is this anything other than another example of man attempting to interpret a purpose beyond his perception and being limited by his imagination. Which I would agree with.

WJ

Yikes! Seriously, are you a Dr? Did you not have to take philosophy in school?

I think at this point its best to say you're seemingly ignorant of what logic does and doesn't do. I don't know how else to put it. It seems you are not above the level of say Koy's 'peanut gallery' of political activists. I can only offer a critique at this point because of your replies in that there appears to be no basic understanding of the distinctions, say, between induction and deduction, from which of course we use and apply the appropriate methodology of human reason. And that's because of your replies...

"Man" is far from illogical."

"Not a very weighty problem of logic to deduce that something that isn't, isn't."

"Do you think "care" has something to do with religion or god?"

Have you studied psychology, philosophy or logic??

Let me leave you with this question which you might not 'care' to ponder: Are you Dr. Spock?

Dr S

(W) Yikes! Seriously, are you a Dr? Did you not have to take philosophy in school?
(S) Sure I am. And what would it matter if I had, you aren't making a philosophical claim. You are making an existential one, and that's right in my line of business. Existential claims are seperate from any philosophies-all they require is for something to exist.

(W) I think at this point its best to say you're seemingly ignorant of what logic does and doesn't do. I don't know how else to put it.
(S) I'm familiar enough with it to know when it isn't being used. And you, Walrus, aren't using it.

(W) It seems you are not above the level of say Koy's 'peanut gallery' of political activists.
(S) Flattery will get you nowhere.

(W) I can only offer a critique at this point because of your replies in that there appears to be no basic understanding of the distinctions, say, between induction and deduction,
(S) Induction is when you reach a general conclusion based on available facts and deduction through reasoning. Neither of which you have used but have relied solely on imagination.
When faced with questions that you don't know the answer to you invent one out of pure imagination.

(W) Let me leave you with this question which you might not 'care' to ponder: Are you Dr. Spock?
(S) The child psychologist? Were I he I would point out that if a child thinks that reality is controlled by his own ego and wishes (cannot distinguish between the subjective and the objective) past the age of four they are showing signs of an arrested development. And if they have an invisible friend that they are incapable of distinguishing from reality I would recommend that they receive immediate treatment.

Phil TK

I agreed with this whole post until the last paragraph. The atheist HAS to take the totalitarian position that 'gods(s)' do not exist to justify the title of atheist.
If certain groups (christians etc.) present an 'illogical' description of a diety and all his works then any counter arguement against them is purely an attack on that particular concept and NOT on the question of existance of a god.
This is an example of another 'atheist'who is really agnostic -and I've read a few posts this evening that let slip the same masquerade.
Maybe people think it is more cool to be atheist than agnostic.

Devilnaut

Is this what you're reduced to?

Devilnaut

Phil-TK:
No, this is another example of you getting your definitions mixed up. Atheism entails a lack of belief in any deity. Welcome to the club.

Dr S

And were more cool

Phil TK

Correct, but I reserve judgement on that until I know more, which makes me agnostic at the moment.

Devilnaut

Either you believe in a deity, or you don't!


Are you not sure which it is for you? Are you saying that an agnostic is someone who is either really an atheist or really a theist, but just hasn't figured out which one yet?