Is Atheism a logical belief?

The most import thing to remember when reading any of these guys (Aristotle, Aquinas, Hawking, etc., etc.) is that they too are just guessing in the end. They just spent a great deal more time that the average person does, thinking about and formulating their arguments. Aquinas hit the brick wall of First Cause and said "that is what we call God" i.e. it cannot be known. Hawking hit the brick wall and shrugged.

In my opinion, the only rational answer is "I don't know." But that most definitely does mean, that there could be a God.

 

Might I suggest the use of bold or italics above all caps for emphasis. It does seem like you yell a lot.

But my point remains. I am not claiming that every tiny little thing has a purpose. I am only pointing out that a purpose does not have to be obvious to exist. Like many things, a simple lack of evidence only proves lack of evidence.

 

LOL
I disagree; always argue with stupid people and instead prove how stupid they really are!

 

If you step back and take a logical look at this, you'll find that there have been hundreds of gods, but most of them are defunct: the Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Norse, Aztecs ones etc etc. Still there are different ones today, all preaching different stuff. Some offer 72 virgins, some make you wear a turban or carry out ritual cannabalism or decline beef or pork. Which is the one true god? None, since there is no proof for any of it.
You could say that no proof is not evidence of no god. But at what point do you say, enough is enough, and stop believing any of it?
Then you look at the motives of the people pushing religion: power, influence, money, reputation. Crowd control.
Before you take advice you should ask yourself three questions:
Do they know what they're talking about?
Are they qualified to give advice?
Do they have your best interests at heart?
The answers here are no, no and no.
Still; some suckers will buy a nice used car without looking it over.....

 

If you seriously believe that, I'd respectfully suggest you have a lot of basic reading to do before you start thinking about the complex questions like the one(s) you raised in the OP.

Many theists don't believe in God (i.e. the singular monotheistic universe-creating deity you're assuming). There are plenty of non-creator gods and pantheons people have and/or do believe in. Westerners do often make the mistake of presuming all believe and religion is essentially like Christianity, though I thought your having a Native American in your profile picture would have indicated a wider viewpoint.

 

Of course there COULD be a god, as mankind does not know everything. Mankind does not have proof of what the environment was from which our universe sprang so many billions of years ago.

Therefore, we can not prove there is no god - even if proving a negative like that could possibly make sense. And, that's the problem. Postulating a god when we have no evidence, when we literally do not know, is not acceptable for me.

The next issue is that when we can not even answer the question of the existence of a god, it's preposterous to suggest we know what such a god demands of us. This is just not a valid foundation for some sort of philosophy.

 

So in your mind there is evidence for a creator because you don’t believe the universe came from nothing, with that mindset where did the creator come from?

If a creator always has been then why couldn’t the universe always have been?

Do you see the disconnect here?

 

OK CHRISTIANS - there, I said it, but I didn't want to upset you...

 

I never said there was evidence for a Creator, and I never said there wasn't always a Universe - Hawking did! All I asked of atheists, or to be more concise, atheists that get angry when topics like this come up, is, what caused Hawking's spark?

Nevertheless, You must have rushed to post, and missed this...

In the end, atheists can, in fact, turn out to be as ignorant and vile, as they claim believers in a God, are.

 

The same holds true for no/not God. We can not prove a God does not exist, just as much as we can not prove a God does exist. Each belief, is a choice.

 

If you want to parse words, and ignore the larger question that I presented in total sincerity, you're just going to have to get over it.

 

What Hawking said has been given various interpretations. If THAT is what anyone is basing their belief system on, they are nuts.

I think the problems arise when someone appeals to their religious beliefs as justification for attempting to control others by use of law or terrorism.

 

I'm not so sure that changes the discussion in any meaningful way.

The problems arise when someone sees their own belief system as an absolute that must be applied to others by force.

Whether that absolute is called "god" or something else doesn't seem to me to make that much difference.

 

There absolutely could be a God, there could be numerous God’s or intelligent designers could exist. Anyone saying they know for sure X Y or Z is the truth are the epitome of arrogance.

Atheists are human so they are as easily caught up in their own belief as the most devout religious person. I only see one group trying to make laws based on their beliefs or getting angry when they are not given special consideration however — and it isn’t atheists.

Personally, I am agnostic — I do not pretend to know the truth and even if I did I doubt I would be capable of comprehending it.

 

Here is a pretty good article that gives Hawkins’s position on the origin of the universe. I pulled some of the quotes that I liked, the part about the universe being a hill and a hole was best but too long to quote.

https://www.themarginalian.org/2019/07/17/stephen-hawking-brief-answers-to-the-big-questions/

“For centuries, it was believed that disabled people like me were living under a curse that was inflicted by God. Well, I suppose it’s possible that I’ve upset someone up there, but I prefer to think that everything can be explained another way, by the laws of nature. If you believe in science, like I do, you believe that there are certain laws that are always obeyed. If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence.“

“I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science.“

“Imagine a river, flowing down a mountainside. What caused the river? Well, perhaps the rain that fell earlier in the mountains. But then, what caused the rain? A good answer would be the Sun, that shone down on the ocean and lifted water vapour up into the sky and made clouds. Okay, so what caused the Sun to shine? Well, if we look inside we see the process known as fusion, in which hydrogen atoms join to form helium, releasing vast quantities of energy in the process. So far so good. Where does the hydrogen come from? Answer: the Big Bang. But here’s the crucial bit. The laws of nature itself tell us that not only could the universe have popped into existence without any assistance, like a proton, and have required nothing in terms of energy, but also that it is possible that nothing caused the Big Bang. Nothing.”

 

Classic God of the gaps. Newton did the same thing. When reaching the limit of understanding people have a tendency to get uncomfortable with not knowing, so they pretend to know and bring in "Gods did it".

Yes. God's COULD exist. So could faeries. So could invisible weightless space aliens visiting your refrigerator.

 

Actually JFK was killed by the lizard people, members of GOP.

 

JFK wasn't killed. He is living with Elvis on the far side of Pluto. They hitched a ride on a UFO and recently had Pluto named not-a-planet in hope it would throw us off their trail. Admit it atheists, this could be true

 

Sorry, I was too busy with all the raping and killing to read that issue of the atheist’s newsletter. I hope they don’t take away my membership card.

 

Nope!

The basis of UNCONDITIONAL LOVE is ATHEISTIC in principle.

To LOVE another has NOTHING whatsoever to do with an IMAGINARY deity.

Anyone who has pets or children can attest to the concept of unconditional love.

My dogs would give their lives to defend me and my family and as a parent I would give my life to protect my family. Those are actions of SELFLESS love AKA the willingness to SACRIFICE oneself for those you love.

The FALLACY that an IMAGINARY deity INCAPABLE of DYING went to the trouble of "sacrificing" a part of itself out of "love" doesn't pass the Laugh Out Loud test. If it was UNABLE to DIE then all it did was spend a long weekend hiding out in a mancave for dramatic effect in order to fool the gullible.

Love EXISTS irrespective of SUPERSTITIOUS beliefs in FICTIONAL skybullies.

ALL religions could be WIPED off the face of the planet and love would still remain as long as there were sentient creatures still around.

So the BOGUS allegation above has ZERO IMPACT on the existence of Atheism.

Sad!

 

If the Universe is eternal that would NEGATE the concept of an IMAGINARY "creator" since there would be NOTHING for it to "create".

It is entirely possible for "beings" that possess "godlike powers" to exist in our universe. When you consider that the Ancient Greeks and Romans imbued their imaginary deities with the power to remotely strike down someone from the sky they would consider our own ability to use drones to strike down our enemies on the opposite side of the planet as possessing a "godlike power" in their eyes.

So beings that could change the orbits of planets or travel interplanetary distances in short spaces of time would possess "godlike powers" from our current perspective. That doesn't make them "gods", it just means that they possess more advanced technology than we do. That same advanced technology could enable them to exist across periods of time that are unimaginable to ourselves.

In summary we have our CURRENT knowledge base and that enables us to use logic and reason to hypothesis various scenarios. Our knowledge base has effectively negated the concept of a "creator" of the Universe. As far as the rest is concerned whatever is BEYOND our knowledge base fits into the category of WE DON'T KNOW as opposed to Stone Age superstitions pretending to have access to some MYTHICAL "truth".

 

Atheism predated those unsophisticated, primitive, nomads and yes, atheism is still intact today.

 

Impossible - Zuckerberg is the leader of the Lizard People, and he is a democrat.

 

This isn't going to upset me (any more than the general divisive labelling does anyway and we can all be guilty of that). The key point is that this completely reframes your question; It isn't about whether being atheist (generally not believing in any god or gods) is logical but about whether not believing Christianity is logical. That is an entirely different question with an entirely different context.

I think it's important to recognise the nuance, complexities and influences behind these kind of questions because it makes it clearer how imperfect and inconclusive they actually are (at least on their own). I don't think the direct answer to your question (by any interpretation) is the most interesting part, it's why the question event exists, why it (and ones like it) are asked so much and what are people really saying when they ask them.

 

I will thank you to let ME decide what my post MEANS. If you have trouble following it, oh well. A few of the more polite posters here seem to have understood it perfectly.

I am an INTJ, and in that, one of our greatest flaws is that we presume that people will focus on the core of what we say, and we believe it is a waste of time writing a 10,000-word thesis so that some belligerent can follow along.

I.e. we cant stand bullshit - which is 90% of people's permanent diet.