Is atheism self-contradictory ?

[vorlon13]

same logic Christians use to rule out Hindu pantheon . . .

[Ravenshire]

If that's the case, how can you trust your thinking when it tells you there's a god?

I don't. I need to assume that my brain is the creation of an absolute power, otherwise my judgment about the matter is untrustworthy.


Without this basic assumption i.e. my brain is created by a perfect being, no logical statement can be proved or rejected, at least this is what I think.

For a perfect being, it sure did a shit job of creation. You really gonna trust a brain created by the same thing that put a recreation center in the middle of a waste disposal facility?!?

---

For not trusting your own thinking, you sure are making a lot of assumptions... which come from your own thoughts.

Now who is contradicting themselves?

Oh, but he can trust his thoughts because his brain was designed by a Perfect Designer™.

[Zen Badger]

If that's the case, how can you trust your thinking when it tells you there's a god?

I don't. I need to assume that my brain is the creation of an absolute power, otherwise my judgment about the matter is untrustworthy.


Without this basic assumption i.e. my brain is created by a perfect being, no logical statement can be proved or rejected, at least this is what I think.

So no proof that your god exists, merely an assumption that it does.
Do you understand how silly that sounds?

[downbeatplumb]

Actually atheism just means rejecting the idea of god.
That could be for many reasons.
A: May not care and not be bothered to go into it and don't believe.
B: Replaced gods with some other woo.
C: Looked into and found the arguments compelling but still not totally convincing
D: Found the arguments lack any merit so reject the idea.
E: Find the idea of gods to be the thinking of toddlers who reject all science. They find the idea of god laughably stupid and struggles to understand how people who can form complete sentences fall for the obvious crap-this is my stance by the way, I find religion just dumb.

[Angrboda]

I firmly believe that without assuming that some absolute power created our mind, nothing can be said or done, nothing can be proved or refuted. Therefore the fact that I can demonstrate logical statements and discern between sound and unsound arguments is proof of this power's existence. Where am I mistaken ?

You are mistaken in believing that the only source of a reliable but imperfect mind is a perfect creator. As I'm sure that you are aware, it is postulated that evolution is responsible for the minds we enjoy. You reason that evolution is a random process. This is where you are mistaken. Evolutionary mutations are random. The pressures of natural selection are not. It is plausible that those animals whose minds did not model reality faithfully did not survive as well as those animals whose minds did faithfully model reality. Thus, minds that accurately reflect reality evolved. This is the definition of truth most commonly used, that our statements reflect some fact of existence. The way our minds evolved to reflect reality means they embody truth. That's how you get a reliable mind from the process of evolution.

As a side note, both my argument from evolved rationality and your argument from rationality make one important assumption, that is, that our minds are indeed reliable. That is mere assumption and isn't reasoned towards, for obvious reasons. If you can help yourself to an unjustified assumption, then so can I.

[Pat Mustard]

As a Muslim, I also consider that some aspects of the Qur'an are strong arguments, one of them is the fact that it is inimitable ( no human mind can make a similar literary achievement ).

As an English speaker I can pick any work of Shakespeare and put my hands on a better, more perfect creation than your qu'ran (most of which was blatantly stolen from earlier holy books any way). I could also point to works from authors as diverse as Alfred Bester, Terry Pratchett, Carl Sagan, Baruch Spinoza, Thomas Packenham or thousands, nay millions, of others which are, objectively speaking more perfect than the qu'ran.

---

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.

Repeating what you yourself said cannot be an ad hominen attack. You've discounted your own brain as untrustworthy, thus validating any subsequent rebuke along the same lines.

[The Grand Nudger]

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 ?

Hi, nope, next?

[brewer]

---

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 ?

---

I may agree with your cosmological argument premise until you insert god. god is not necessary in the two premises of the argument. It's lacking the need for a god. As for the actual cause, I'm OK with the position that the cause is still unknown, may never be known. Why do you need to insert a god?

I believe you brought monkey brain into the conversation, not I. 

Your assumption about a "divine brain" is unfounded. Saying it's "essential" does not make it essential. 

Why should I read the quran? It has horrible reviews.  

As for what proof of god I'd accept? Good question, I'm not sure. It's very difficult to prove (provide evidence of) existence of a man made fantasy other than telling the story of the fantasy. That's all I've seen so far. Theists have put forth nothing except a fantasy.

[Cyberman]

Oh, but he can trust his thoughts because his brain was designed by a Perfect Designer™.

Proving that even gods have off days.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's what happens when you lose one third of your workforce over a dispute in middle management.  I'm guessing gods QC department was gutted.