However, atheism couldn't possibly gain you any divine favor, and therefore it is irrational to hold atheist beliefs. — Scarecow

Sure it could. Organizations receive donations from people they've never heard of all the time.

However, atheism couldn't possibly gain you any divine favor, and therefore it is irrational to hold atheist beliefs. — Scarecow

Religious beliefs are, on the whole, irrational.

Hurdle has been stumbled upon.

However, atheism couldn't possibly gain you any divine favor, and therefore it is irrational to hold atheist beliefs. — Scarecow

Such thinking makes you vulnerable to erntirely fictional threats, basically spiritual terrorism. All someone has to do is invent a narrative where you end up in hell, give you no evidence that that narrative is true, and they have you in the palm of their hands.

If god is good, he's better than that. If god is evil, no reason to suppose "believing in him" will keep you safe.

Is atheism illogical? — Scarecow

The answer depends on the argument. I find the OP's argument is illogucal (unpersuasive).

The answer depends on the argument. — 180 Proof

Indeed. The argument seems to be some kind of Pascal's wager. But if I were God I would likely look more favourably on atheists who made some effort to figure things out than someone who confuses the American constitution with the Bible.

atheism couldn't possibly gain you any divine favor — Scarecow

Yes it could.

Your reasons make me ask, "Is being a theist about what I can get for myself?"

My biggest complaint, is that your argument doesn't actually attempt to demonstrate that atheism is illogical...even if I were to grant everything you said.

Another complaint, is that you seem to believe that doing anything non-egoistically is irrational.

What's it to do with logic?
Reasons aside, you either believe something or you don't.
Sometimes it's rational to refrain from identifying as an atheist. If you don't believe, but fear persecution for your disbelief, it's logical to pretend that you believe.
Whatever rewards there might be in Heaven for believing, you don't get them: I've heard you can't con God. If he exists, it would be illogical to lie about you unbelief. Anyway, if you die and discover that he exists after all, you'll believe, so you won't need to lie about it.

one of the most bizarre aspects about the pascals wager family of arguments

Your reasons make me ask, "Is being a theist about what I can get for myself?" — Philosophim

Another complaint, is that you seem to believe that doing anything non-egoistically is irrational. — Bob Ross

:up:

It is like the reproductors of this strawman [...] admit that only ethical egotism is possible, one justified by wanting to go to heaven (or not be reborn as a pig) and the other justified by hedonism. It says more about the accuser than the accused. — Lionino

one of the most bizarre aspects about the pascals wager family of arguments — flannel jesus

It is. Pascal's Wager is about practice. And in practice, if you are all about Pascal Wagerism, you are more likely to go to hell than most people in almost every situation, as my chart shows.

Practicing a religion could gain you divine favor in the afterlife. — Scarecow

Practicing a religion could gain you nothing, and could be seen as a waste of every moment spent practicing it.

However, atheism couldn't possibly gain you any divine favor, — Scarecow

It could if gods exist that reward us for reasons other than practicing any, or a particular, religion.

I voted yes.

That doesn’t mean it is logical to believe in God, but that is not what you asked.

It just means that, as a thinking being, there is no reason to conclude the Non-existence of anything.

We make conclusions about existing things with reason.

We are talking about a being, not some sort of logically necessary axiom or proof. We are asking about the conclusion that God doesn’t exist. We can conclude there are no square circles, but that’s because we defined a square (which is an idea that can’t be physical) and a circle (which can’t be physical) in such a way that “square circle” cannot represent anything meaningful, and squares and circles are not physical beings anyway.

Someone says “God is in this shoebox”, hands me the box and I open it and see shoes. Do I have to logically conclude that God does not exist? God isn’t in the box - but of course I can’t conclude anything about God’s existence elsewhere. Someone else says “Shoes are in this shoebox” and I open it and see some tissue paper but nothing else. Must I conclude that shoes don’t exist, and become an a-shoe-ist?

Atheists don’t need “beliefs” in the religious sense. Scientifically, there is no evidence for God (unless you believed eyewitness accounts of miraculous physical events maybe). Without evidence, there is nothing to examine, so nothing to conclude. Therefore, it is illogical to conclude there is no God.

I am not an a-unicorn-ist. I don’t believe unicorns exist or ever did, but I wouldn’t just rule it out and call anyone who saw evidence to the contrary not worth listening to, not rational, and delusional (at least until after I heard their evidence).

Atheists don’t need “beliefs” in the religious sense. Scientifically, there is no evidence for God (unless you believed eyewitness accounts of miraculous physical events maybe). Without evidence, there is nothing to examine, so nothing to conclude. Therefore, it is illogical to conclude there is no God. — Fire Ologist

Atheists do not always conclude there are no gods. I am an atheist. My position, like that of many other contemporary atheists, is that I have encountered no good reason to believe the proposition that gods exist. I am familiar with the classical arguments but none of them resonate.

I do not believe in gods. This is all it takes to be an atheist. Whether gods can be demonstrated to exist by some evidence in the future, or an as yet to be identified compelling argument remains open.

Whether gods can be demonstrated to exist by some evidence in the future, or an as yet to be identified compelling argument remains open. — Tom Storm

Perfectly rational position to take from my standpoint.

Then I stand corrected. Atheism is not illogical.

I guess I meant people who “know” there is no god. I don’t think it’s rational to conclude as fact that something does not exist. Don’t know how you prove a negative. Hard enough to prove a positive.

:up: Indeed. I can't imagine saying that I know there are no gods.

I don’t think it’s rational to conclude as fact that something does not exist. Don’t know how you prove a negative. — Fire Ologist

Here's a "rational" example of "how to prove a negative" from a 2020 thread Belief in Nothing ...

[P]redicates of X entail search parameters for locating X (i.e. whether or not X exists where & when).

E.g. (A) Elephant sitting on your lap ... (B) YHWH created the world in six days ... (C) In 2024 George Bush lives in the White House ... (D) UFOs take-off & land at JFK Airport ... etc

So: absence of evidence entailed by (A/B/C/D) is evidence - entails - absence of (A/B/C/D): search (A) your lap, (B) the geophysics of the earth, (C) who is currently POTUS, and (D) control tower logs, arrival / departure gates & runways at JFK Airport ... — 180 Proof

I think this proves we can prove a negative.

I guess I meant people who “know” there is no god. — Fire Ologist

We can know only that particular deities do not exist but not that 'every conceivable deity' does not exist. To wit:

IF 'absence of evidence entailed by a particular X's predicates', THEN this 'absence of entailed evidence' necessarily is evidence of the absence of that particular predicated-X.

So, more to the point, absence of evidence that is entailed by "your god" entails the absence of "your god".

If a deity in question is described with predicates – attributed in scriptures? by theology? by ontology? – which entail changes (events) the deity has caused in (to) the world – and given that the world is scientifically observable – then such changes (events) purportedly unique to such a deity must also be observable.

(A) If, however, such changes (events) are not observed, then a deity with those predicates cannot exist; otherwise,

(B) if these entailed changes (events) are observed, then such a deity must exist.

So yes, in this way, it is quite reasonable to expect that such a deity can be demonstrated either to exist or not to exist.

(C) And insofar as a deity is described without any predicates which entail this deity has caused changes (events) in the world, then there are not any purported facts of the matter to investigate, and such a deity is ontologically indistinguishable from an idea or fiction.

In sum, positive atheism (i.e. to claim this or that god does not exist) is not illogical as per (A) above.

...insofar as a deity is described without any predicates which entail this deity has caused changes (events) in the world, then there are not any purported facts of the matter to investigate, and such a deity is ontologically indistinguishable from an idea or fiction. — 180 Proof

Fair enough. How do you respond to those who might argue that the Bible is allegorical and that it contains a 'broader truth' about Yahweh, who does not always conform to the stories, except through fable?

My questions around this have generally been: if so, then what do we know about this deity if all we have are stories? Do we have any reason to accept this deity exists, except as a character in allegorical tales? Etc.

Out of interest are there any other frames you know of a believer might use to preserve belief in Yahweh without literalist scripture?

I think this proves we can prove a negative. — 180 Proof

It only proves this if you can definitively say that and where the missing item ought to be. Which is absurd. The only way you could say that would be if the missing item actually existed, then disappeared. You are conflating a "disappearing existent" with an unknown. Anything which is to whatever extent unknown can not be definitively identified sufficient to this putative "proof of non-existence." This is exactly what Dennett failed to appreciate.

How do you respond to those who might argue that the Bible is allegorical and that it contains a 'broader truth' about Yahweh, who does not always conform to the stories, except through fable? — Tom Storm

I'd respond "Okay". Stories and fables exist, but not "YHWH (except as one of the main characters).

Out of interest are there any other frames you know of a believer might use to preserve belief in Yahweh without literalist scripture?

All that comes to mind at the moment is Paul Tillich's notion that to say either "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" is idolatrous / blasphemous / meaningless (I can't remember which) or Quentin Meillassoux's "inexistent God" that is yet to come to be (or something like that) à la waiting for godot... :smirk:

I don't know what you are talking about. As far as I can tell, sir, your reply has nothing to do with what I've written.

You did not write the following?
[P]redicates of X entail search parameters for locating X (i.e. whether or not X exists where & when).

Because it sure looks like you did. Which is what I disputed. You are searching for something that is well-defined. You are not proving the non-existence of an unknown something, you are proving the absence of a known something. I fail to see exactly what it is you are failing to see.

[P]redicates of X entail search parameters for locating X (i.e. whether or not X exists where & when). — 180 Proof

That makes sense but is it absolute? Our abilities to “search” are certainly limited. Must there be no things that exist for which searchable predicates are not entailed by their existence? And what do you mean by searchable - is that sensible searching only, or searching metaphorically with the mind? I think you mean sensible.

Are there sensible predicates of an illusion itself? What are the sensible predicates that distinguish a goblin from a unicorn from a deity? Or are all illusions indistinguishable from each other as constructions that can have no searchable predicates? Is it an illusion to call one illusion different in any way from another illusion?

so absence of evidence entailed by (A/B/C/D) is evidence - entails - absence of (A/B/C/D — 180 Proof

I think you have just shown that it is logical to deny the existence of things like deities. But it does not prove you must deny the existence of these things. No negative has been proven. It means to rationally believe them you must find more evidence or refute the finding of no evidence.

Evidence or lack or evidence shows it is rational to conclude something does or does not exist. That is what Tom clarified. It would only prove something does or does not exist if you could prove the evidence or lack of evidence MUST be the case. This leads to all of the problems of epistemology. It’s not proof of the existence or non-existence of anything, only proof of the rationality of drawing certain conclusions based on certain presumed (asserted, searched) evidence or lack of evidence.

I don’t think we can prove existence or prove non-existence. So we can’t say “I KNOW God exists” or “I KNOW God does not exist.” Just like I can’t prove the sun exists. I can only prove things about relations (such as evidence relates to conclusions logically or not) as in Copernicus proving that if we believe our senses, the sun in fact does NOT revolve around the earth. He’s proven something about the relation of the earth to the sun, but not proven anything in particular exists.

Well, it may sound ridiculous, but who's to say that a god wouldn't punish the theists? — Scarecow

Hardly ridiculous. You must know that gods of all sorts routinely punish those who believe in them. It's part of the job.

I fail to see exactly what it is you are failing to see. — Pantagruel

You took the words right out of my mouth.

It just means that, as a thinking being, there is no reason to conclude the Non-existence of anything. — Fire Ologist

Except things that quite obviously made up. Even if it's not proved 100% beyond doubt, the preponderance of evidence precludes paying homage or tithes to, making sacrifices for or obeying the rules of an improbability.

An atheist doesn't necessarily claim (though some may) that no kind of supernatural entity could possibly exist, or that no entity which might seem like a deity to humans could possibly exist. Most of us simply reject the god-forms that have so far been held up to worship by human agencies of one kind or another. It's perfectly rational to trace both the provenance of a deity-figure and its mythology to a human culture, human attitudes and concerns, human ideas and human interests. Interesting, but not faith-inspiring.

An atheist doesn't necessarily claim (though some may) that no kind of supernatural entity could possibly exist, or that no entity which might seem like a deity to humans could possibly exist. Most of us simply reject the god-forms that have so far been held up to worship by human agencies of one kind or another. — Vera Mont

Which kind of atheism is essentially a socio-cultural critique, which is the most reasonable version of atheism I have heard. Unlike the nonsensical version that seeks to prove that "god cannot exist." Quantum physics is rife with things that defy reasoned existence, until they are discovered.

If there are Q's in the continuum who haven't bothered me, I promise not to bother them.

...atheism couldn't possibly gain you any divine favor, and therefore it is irrational to hold atheist beliefs. — Scarecow

One can't just turn on a belief, so let's say I take a pill that causes me to believe in a god, because I want to have that chance at getting a reward. Is my belief in a god rational?

A belief that is established by reason is rational. It was rational to create a chance of getting the reward, so one might argue that my belief was indeed established by reason. However, it was actually the pill that established the belief - not a reasoning process.

So it's actually irrational to believe in a god in order to have a chance at a reward.

An atheist doesn't necessarily claim (though some may) that no kind of supernatural entity could possibly exist — Vera Mont

You’re right. Tom S pointed that out to me above. I was speaking more to the illogic of someone claiming that necessarily God cannot exist. So point taken.

It's perfectly rational to trace both the provenance of a deity-figure and its mythology to a human culture, human attitudes and concerns, human ideas and human interests. — Vera Mont

I don’t see that as the case with Christianity. I don’t think we could have thought of Jesus as the Messiah prophesized in Judaism.

It’s all so absurd. Yet it’s really, as an extension of Judaism, many thousands of years old.

Who would have thought of dying humiliated on a cross, to save all of humanity?

By a son who utterly bows to his father, dying willingly tortured on a cross?

Yet this son and the father are one and the same spirit and one God, as three distinct persons?

Already the religious institution committee would have said “nope - preposterous - it will never stick! Let’s go back to Zeus or Baal, or Odin and work around them.”

Or why was it God himself becoming a man, living poor and being killed, so that he could rise again? Why is the incarnation leading to poverty and bloody death needed?

And if God was here, walking the earth to found a church, why did he not write one word down, not one written word by Jesus, to found a 2000 plus year old institution?

Why throw in the sacrament of gathering to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life?

Absurd, yet it works - shows me something more at work than the human mind, interests, cultures - this absurdity should have died within years, even if he did rise from the dead. Why the absurdity?

Most religions capture pieces of this story. So they seem incomplete or more easily traced to culture, interests, etc. But no other religion captures all of the absurdity of being a human being while also capturing the rationality of being a creature like God.

And the message of action - love, sacrifice for others, forgiveness, the value of life, that God cared so much, held each one of us in such esteem, that he would rather die on a cross to lead us to him than leave us with nowhere to go, but preserving our freedom to live by our own choices, like creatures in the image of God.

Or why was it God himself becoming a man, living poor and being killed, so that he could rise again? Why is the incarnation leading to poverty and bloody death needed?

And if God was here, walking the earth to found a church, why did he not write one word down, not one written word by Jesus, to found a 2000 plus year old institution? — Fire Ologist

Let's face it, this God is a sloppy worker and doesn't pay attention. Hence we now have thousands of Christian sects, some mutually hateful towards each other over doctrine and dogma. All interpreting god's will differently. God could settle this in a minute if he intervened.

Jesus being sacrificed was really just a weekend ruined. I think gods can take this kind of stuff in their stride. I never understood this tale of ritualistic blood sacrifice, which seems absurd more than anything else. God could have provided redemption any number of ways but settled on this piss-poor piece of theatre. What do some atheists say - Why did God sacrifice Himself to Himself to save us from Himself because of a rule He made Himself?