one logical explanation for Materialistic Athiesm?

[Alex K]

Sorry I missed your reply. Ok I'll just put it like this, I would like to know why Materialistic Atheists claim their view is based on logical deduction when there is so much evidence to refute that it is.

Oh, but they rarely or never do claim that! I certainly don't, and the public figures of new atheism don't either. Not from logical deduction alone that is.

To quote meself again:

Bob,

We know the material world exists. There is no evidence for "supernatural" things or deities, and no logical necessity for them. If you want to argue for the existence of anything beyond that which we readily observe, you have to do just that: make a positive case *for* whatever it is you want to claim to exist. Materialist atheists find that all existence claims for deities and such have failed to be compelling. Some theist apologists would like you to believe that "Observable universe+personal creator God exist" ist just as valid a default position as "Observable universe exists". It isn't, the first option introduces an extremely complicated additional assumption which does not solve any problems and only introduces new ones. Therefore, it is out of the window unless you have compelling evidence. Some apologists want to argue that their god is a logical necessity - all these arguments are nonsense.

Yes, I would like to emphasize LastPoet's point. Most of us who identify as atheists don't mean that we have a 100% logically absolute forever fixed belief that deities don't exist. This is just not how we use the word. We simply, given our current knowledge, don't believe that deities exist. You could as well be an atheist in our sense - what is it for you?

The only statements from atheists I've ever heard to that end are arguments that the common concepts of God are logically inconsistent and can therefore be proven to not exist in a strict sense.