Is atheism self-contradictory ?

[Court Jester]

Hello everyone ,

This is my first thread on the forum, and I hope to get convincing responses to a question I stumbled upon concerning atheism.

Assuming no God can be proven by logic, how can one trust his judgment about religions/existence of god if his mind itself cannot be trusted ? How can I trust any atheist/agnostic's claim that all kinds of proofs that have been given by scholars or philosophers of religion throughout history are false ?

Therefore, rejecting belief is in itself belief that your mind possesses some kind of an absolute power that makes you distinguish between good arguments and fallacies. I don't want to talk about evolution in this thread, but since the brain is the product of random alterations of our genome, how can it be trustworthy ? 

You'll say to me that this power is simply logial reasoning, but, you see, logic is based on axioms, i.e. basic FACTS taken for granted. What are you taking for granted to refute any logical argument whatsoever ? And why do you TRUST your thinking in the first place ?

Satan told me that it was all fake and I listened.

[Cyberman]

Actually, you should trust the physical reality only if it is consistent and logical, not the other way around. When you see a mirage before you, you immediately reject its appearance based on your inner knowledge that it is a natural optical phenomenon.

I'll just point out that natural optical phenomena like mirages are part of physical reality, the physics governing how and why they operate being totally "consistent and logical".

[Minimalist]

Whatever you think about the prophet of Islam

Trust me on this, mon ami.  You do not want to know what I think of the "prophet of islam."

[Parsim0ny]

We've (the forum, note it is more than just I) discussed all of those arguments that you site and I have found them lacking. You might try a search here in the forum for past threads that address them. And yes, if not absurd, I find them flawed. However, if you'd like to discuss them yet again and add your own perspective feel free. You might want to start individual threads for each. 

If god exists it would not need assumptions of logic, debate or argument. This simply indicates that god(s) was made by man for mans own purposes. 

You found them lacking in what sense ? I'll take the cosmological argument as an example, which is based on two premises :

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The Universe began to exist.

To refute the argument you need to reject one of its premises. The relationship between causes and effects is fundamental to all natural science. The second premise is based on the empirical observation that our universe is expanding. So what am I missing ? 

And if all kinds of proofs are lacking from your point of view ? What kind of proof do you require in order to accept that a divine entity exists ?

I'll trust my brain because it's just that, my brain. I'm sorry that you think you have an untrustworthy monkey brain. 

Ad hom.

I'm sure that your brain didn't come up with the arguments that you site but your brain has made the determination to accept or discard them.  Plus you indicate that "The Qur'an repeatedly challenges everyone who reads it to come up with his own impressive Arabic book". How are you able to do that if you can't trust your own brain? Are you suggesting that I trust a god(s) brain? That a god actually wrote your book?

You didn't answer my question, because now you're talking about my brain. I assume that a divine entity created the human brain, simply because this assumption is essential, just as any kind of a priori knowledge or axiom of two-valued logic.  

Aside from this, have you actually read the Qur'an ?

[Fireball]

An axiom is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. It isn't taken as a FACT. I trust my thinking (for the most part) because I can base it on the physical reality I see/feel/hear around me. Yes, those transducers can give me false information. How have you lived to your current age, with your "untrustworthy" brain?

Actually, you should trust the physical reality only if it is consistent and logical, not the other way around. When you see a mirage before you, you immediately reject its appearance based on your inner knowledge that it is a natural optical phenomenon.

Well, shit, Min ninja'd me. If I'd read down to this point before posting, I wouldn't have posted. OP, Islam is no more true than an Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Scientology (which is demonstrably false, as people have seen the formation of that "religion" in real time. Ascribing to a religion that has its roots in antiquity doesn't make it any more true. If you live in the US, did you vote for Donald Trump? If not, why not? This is an actual homework assignment.

Nobody asked for your baseless thoughts about Islam ...

Thank you for replying.

Baseless? I'm done with this troll. It's just inciting to riot.

[Magilla]

You found them lacking in what sense ? I'll take the cosmological argument as an example, which is based on two premises :

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The Universe began to exist.

To refute the argument you need to reject one of its premises. The relationship between causes and effects is fundamental to all natural science. The second premise is based on the empirical observation that our universe is expanding. So what am I missing ? 

And if all kinds of proofs are lacking from your point of view ? What kind of proof do you require in order to accept that a divine entity exists ?

This is incorrect. Whomever makes a statement has the burden of proof. Neither (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause, nor (2) The Universe began to exist is supported by any "proof" or evidence in the argument. A more accurate statement would be: To not accept the argument is the better option, when the premises cannot be shown to be true.

You ask: ". . . what am I missing?" What you're missing is that these premises are not answered. They may or may not be correct - we don't know for sure, (even if it looks that way with the current state of knowledge). But even if they were true, (and I'm not accepting that they are), they do not lead to the conclusion that a god exists. Who knows what the cause was, even if the premises are true?

[Astreja]

Assuming no God can be proven by logic, how can one trust his judgment about religions/existence of god if his mind itself cannot be trusted ?

I hope you realize that that applies equally to believers.  If I can't trust my judgment, how can you trust yours?  Theism and atheism are statements of belief, not logic.

Rather than saying something like "I believe that no gods exist," I merely say "I haven't seen any evidence that convinces me, so I'm inclined to think that gods are fictional and I simply can't be bothered to worship fictional beings."

[vorlon13]

Whatever you think about the prophet of Islam

Trust me on this, mon ami.  You do not want to know what I think of the "prophet of islam."

yet some of us nevertheless have an inkling . . . 

[vorlon13]

might be along the lines of;




still, that might be a common view in these parts . . .

[ignoramus]

OP. Yes, I assume no god exists using logic.
The same logic which tells me that unicorns don't exist.
Which isn't conclusive, but conclusive enough to live our lives assuming they don't exist.
I'm pretty sure you feel the same way about Zeus.

Different stories written by men in different eras.
You have faith in your god ...Is that not enough for you?
To go the extra step and actually prove that he exists is another huge leap of faith.
Many have tried. All have failed. This is why there is no one universal god. God is simply a geopolitical manifestation.
You didn't choose your god, your parents did it for you. Who happen to be Muslims. Coincidence. Nothing more.

Cool bananas.