Anyone care to actually explain how atheism is illogical to me?

Question

K if you go out into this world with a blank slate and gather information through your life. This would be the logical world. One does not have evidences, even a slight convergence with the supernatural on a day to day basis.

Things like miracles, people walking on water, miraculous cures, these things reportedly happening in the Bible, these do not happen on a day to day basis. Even the Vatican claims that it cannot report any miracles, for hundreds of years now. Are they not the authority here.

If the Vatican itself claims that there are no modern miracles, and they investigate these, by the thousand, and take all the claims seriously. Then what level or irrationality is there to dismiss this as false.

K so miracles are not real, at least in modern times. And nobody can commune with God, he/she/it cannot be seen, measured, found, we have no proof on any level, aside from the human mind, that God has ever existed. Aside from the Bible which has a dodgy history at best, there would be no notion of the Christian God.

Yet some Christians claim that atheism is irrational, yet it exists as a final examination of the world around you, using logic. How does this remain illogical to people here?

And then there is the "common sense" that people love to throw out. That with common sense we instinctually know that there is some deity somewhere, nobody knows where exactally. Maybe in the sky until that was proven false, now maybe it is in some other dimension. That is until we can prove that wrong, who knows, basically somewhere we can't find.

Can somebody explain to me how this is illogical. I really have a hard time understanding the rationale here.

Answer 1

Because their preacher says so.

What other reason do they need?

Answer 2

Digging ones eyes out so that they can say there is no light is illogical

Romans 1: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,

who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God

has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being

understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in

their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,  

Answer 3

I usually don't answer these kinds of questions but, it seems to me, that you are really interested in knowing how a Christian thinks, even if you already disagree.

I look at the world around me.  I see trees that inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen.  I see people that inhale oxygen and exhale c/d.  A perfect match.  I just can't believe that's the result of evolution...an accident for all intended purposes.  

I look at the design of the human body.  Hands and arms designed to carry.  Legs and feet designed to walk and run.  The most important body functions are the most protected...brain by the skull and heart and lungs by the ribs.   The perfect match between male and female.  I could go on and on.  This happened by accident?  No designer, just coincidence?  

I could write a 40 page essay on this but you get my point.  It's simply not within my ability to believe this universe just came into existence by chance...by accident...by evolution.  It's just illogical.  Actually, I think it takes MORE faith to believe evolution could produce this world than a greater Diety.  

Now, why the God of Abraham?  It's a matter of faith.  There's no solid proof, you are right.  But, given the fact that I MUST conclude there is a Creator, God is the (excuse this) logical choice.  Science has found so much evidence that validates the Bible that other religions just don't compare.  But in the end, it's Jesus.  To stand at the foot of the cross and refuse Him isn't possible.  I can say 'No' everywhere else but not at the cross.

Have a good day.

Answer 4

Before I begin, let me state that the only logical stance is agnosticism; both Atheism and Theism are illogical (but that doesn't mean one or the other isn't reasonable).

It is quite simple, actually. Atheists are claiming a definite belief (that they are sure, 100%, that god does not exist). They go out into the world and gather evidence (or, more exactly, observe what they consider to be a lack of evidence). However, at no time has any atheist had the resources to gather all possible evidence. No atheist has fully researched every religion, extant and extinct, every philosophical position, every apologetic work, etc. No atheist has fully research every naturally occurring phenomenon, every action and reaction, etc.

It is illogical to decide on a matter when one is incompletely informed. A scientist doesn't reach a conclusion while the experiment is ongoing; a mathematicion doesn't proclaim an answer while the equation still has unknown variables. Only when every last shred of work has been done can a conclusion be logical.

Theists make the same error of logic.

The only logically sound stance is an undecided one.

Atheism might be reasonable, but it isn’t logical.

Answer 5

i agree with you (i think...) but keep in mind, that there is always a logical explanation for a miracle...  birth was considered a miracle by the church for a long time, but now that science has explained it, suddenly it's more commonplace.  I have a friend that was blind from birth, at age 14 they did surgery on his eyes, and he could see.  It's a 'modern miracle', but not a true miracle... science has explained it.  It's not 'miracle' worthy according to the vatican, but it is to him and his family.  I was clinically dead at age 9 for half an hour during brain and heart surgery.  I'm now 25, and am typing this to you.  Again, not miracle worthy to the vatican, but it's sure boosted the 'wow' rating for God according to my mom.  ;)  I see it as a miracle, but I see the fact that Science has expanded the way it has as the miracle.  But, if 2000 years ago, someone died, and a man brought them back to life, it would be considered a miracle.  Oh, wait, it was.  

Perspective is the big issue here, not faith.  my mom percieves my living past 9 as a miracle, as part of a glorious faith.  I'm not taking it for granted, mind you, i'm very thankful, but I don't see it per se as a miracle, i see it as science, and luck of the draw on the years i've been alive.  10 years earlier, i would'nt have made it past 9.  

good question, dear.  ;)  

BB )O( STB

Answer 6

Christians just use words like "illogical" and "ignorant" because they think it lends credence to their silly rants.

The reason they think this is because those words are used with so much success against them.  It's kind of a cargo-cult behavior.

This is the same reason a lot of these nutters try to say atheism is a religion, heheh.  They have been made to understand why religion is such a bad thing, so they're trying, like always, to shift sides.

Answer 7

Atheism per se is not necessarily irrational. But, in general, most atheists tend to rest their arguments upon irrational premises. A couple of examples relevant here are:

1) The assumption that most atheists hold that if God existed, He would have to be an object is irrational. It is fundamentally irrational to believe that God could be an object (created thing) for -- the short version -- if God were an object, then He would be a THING that existed within existence itself, and therefore existence itself would precede God's existence since God would merely be something that exists. A God that is dependent on something other than itself for its existence cannot be God; God must, therefore by necessity, be existence itself.

Said differently, if God is merely something that can or cannot exist, then He is something that can or cannot be real, which is just to say that He either exists or does not exist within reality, so that reality stands prior to and as the backdrop of God's existence. Since no such medium or backdrop upon which God's existence depends can be posited without God ceasing to be God by definition (the ultimate), God must be reality itself. Reality, not being an object, cannot be proven to exist or not exist. This was demonstrated by St. Thomas Aquinas and others long ago, yet atheists still insist on going about attempting to "disprove" God's existence by showing that there is no evidence for God's existence as an object (created thing). Since the premise is irrational, the subsequent undertaking is also irrational. Any argument that points to lack of scientific evidence, for example, of God's existence as proof or even evidence that God does not exist is irrational.

In short, if you are trying to point to the lack of objective evidence for God's existence, then you aren't talking about God, but rather a straw man of your own making.

2) The idea that "miracles" -- like parting the Red Sea -- provide evidence or proof of God's existence assumes that in the case of the "miracle" God is the direct cause, whereas He is not in the case of a natural event; so that if a miracle occurs, it lends evidence to God's existence since God alone could be the cause. The assumption is that if every causal event can be explained through natural causes and no miracles ever occur -- i.e., no situations that can only be explained by pointing to God -- then this suggests God does not exist. You hear this argument from atheists often.

The problem is that it makes the irrational assumption that if God exists He must exist as a causal agent within existence. But God cannot exist as a causal agent within existence, because then His actions would depend on existence in order to take place (i.e., if there was no existence God could not perform actions). God, by necessity, must be existence itself, otherwise His existence and actions would be dependent on something other than Himself -- and therefore a causal event -- whether it be a miracle or natural event -- must be equally dependent in total for its happening upon God. And since a natural and miraculous event would both be equally dependent on God for their happening in equal degree, there is absolutely no reason one would indicate God's existence and the other would not. Therefore, the belief that miracles indicate God's existence (but natural events do not) is irrational. So likewise, then, is it irrational to argue that the absence of such events indicate God's nonexistence.  

Truly, most atheists arguments build phoney ideas of God and then procede to knock down these false versions of God which couldn't possibly point to God in the first place, like saying horses don't exist because no one has ever found a unicorn. That is irrational.  

The problem with most atheists arguments is that they tend to focus on things that exist, rather than on existence itself. They can explain through causal chains of events why one thing or another exists, but they don't have any explanation for existence itself. And it is only when you go to that root cause, of existence itself, that you are even dealing with the Divine. Most of the time atheists aren't really talking about anything particularly relevant to the issue of whether the Divine exists or not, and patting each other on the back for taking down silly mythologies and hocus pocus beliefs that have nothing to do with anything.  

Answer 8

Without presuppositions, the very reason you exist, are alive, begs a creator.

Answer 9

I don't necessarily agree with your formulation of the situation, but you are correct in principle: that belief in a god(s) is not based on evidence or reason.

Answer 10

Atheism is the most logical world view in existence. Religions rely on Faith and a particular mode of thinking. Atheism is essentially the chance to be your own person, a free thinker.

We're all born Atheists. It is the natural state.

Answer 11

Can I really answer this question with something that you don't know without ignoring common sense and logic?